why is the apostle of peace great?

[RedDragons]

Seems decent defense spells, and great utility magic, but overall what does it bring to the table that so many suggest it?

[Coidzor]

9th level spells pretty quickly is one reason for it, since it's the Exalted theist equivalent of ur-priest.

It's also really disruptive to the game unless everyone wanted to play a game in line with an apostle of peace from the get go, which is why I normally don't see it being recommended all that often.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Beaten to the punch, ya 9's in nine levels. Works best if you dip more PrC's to add more spells to it's list.

[Venger]

in addition to 9ths, it also has the horrific vow of nonviolence, which makes enemies' weapons break against your skin and the bad touch ability, which essentially lets you mindrape everyone around you into being docile. no save, no sr, just calm emotions and do what the apostle of peace says.

without getting into an alignment debate, I don't really think the apostle of peace's abilities are conducive to being a nice person.

as mentioned, that's to say nothing of the out of game issues invoked when a group of people who got together for a primarily combat oriented game suddenly have a nanny with them who can tell them to behave without a save or SR

[Answerer]

The Apostle of Peace is the worst class in the game, hands-down.

I would seriously consider booting any player who showed up at a table with one that he had not personally cleared, as in gotten express written permission from, each and every player in the game as well as the DM. That he would need to create a new character goes without saying. And I would almost certainly leave any game where a DM allowed a player to do so.

The PrC massively changes how the other players in your group are allowed to play. It enforces numerous massive penalties if they misbehave. This is on top of a hideously-overpowered class to begin with.

[Yogibear41]

Beaten to the punch, ya 9's in nine levels. Works best if you dip more PrC's to add more spells to it's list.

Its really 15 levels since you have to have a base will save of +5 which you can't get til level 6 to enter the class. A wizard has 8th level spells by time it reaches 9th level.


Edit: 16 levels even have to have a base concentration of 10 so that bumps up the base requirements up to level 7

[Jack_Simth]

It's also really disruptive to the game unless everyone wanted to play a game in line with an apostle of peace from the get go, which is why I normally don't see it being recommended all that often.
The PrC massively changes how the other players in your group are allowed to play. It enforces numerous massive penalties if they misbehave. This is on top of a hideously-overpowered class to begin with.
... huh?

The closest I can find in forcing your party to change their playstyle is the "helpless or defenseless" clause in the Vow of Nonviolence that's required to enter the class. That... doesn't stop the party wizard from casting Finger of Death, the Cleric from casting Slay Living, or the party Fighter from using his greatsword. OK, it does mean they'll have some repercussions if they deal a coup de grace. But... that's pretty much it. What are you two talking about?

[Yogibear41]

I think the whole point of the class is to not kill anything thats not a demon or an undead, so the person playing that class would have to actively oppose his party memebers from killing anything that doesnt fit into those 2 types.

[TaiLiu]

I think the whole point of the class is to not kill anything thats not a demon or an undead, so the person playing that class would have to actively oppose his party memebers from killing anything that doesnt fit into those 2 types.

They can't kill demons either. Anything that's not of the undead or construct type are off limits.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Its really 15 levels since you have to have a base will save of +5 which you can't get til level 6 to enter the class. A wizard has 8th level spells by time it reaches 9th level.


Edit: 16 levels even have to have a base concentration of 10 so that bumps up the base requirements up to level 7

The point isn't early spells, it's fast spells. You can take something strong that isn't divine casting in your early levels then PrC into a theurge or another hybrid class after you get Pacifying touch at level 2.

[RedDragons]

you don't kill them, they get sent back to home plane once defeated, therefore keeping the vows.

[sonofzeal]

I think the whole point of the class is to not kill anything thats not a demon or an undead, so the person playing that class would have to actively oppose his party memebers from killing anything that doesnt fit into those 2 types.
...No.

Does nobody actually read the vows? There's two sets of limitations - strict ones for you with fairly severe penalties (permanent loss of the feat), and lax ones for people around you with mild penalties (temporary -1 to attack rolls). As has already been mentioned, pretty much the only time the latter comes up is CDGing beaten enemies... while you're within a certain radius. Given that most groups I've been in don't even bother with CDGing most of the time, and those that do can work around the radius fairly easily, I really don't see what the deal is.

Even the limitations for yourself aren't that onerous. Let's put it this way. Party roles are usually something like this....

- Social
- Sneak
- Healbot
- Utility
- DPR
- Buff
- Debuff/SoD/SoL
- Battlefield Control


...and viable party rolls for a VoPeace character are....

- Social
- Sneak
- Healbot
- Utility
- DPR (nonlethal; can use lethal vs Constructs and Undead)
- Buff
- Debuff/SoL (some limitations)
- Battlefield Control

[Venger]

The point isn't early spells, it's fast spells. You can take something strong that isn't divine casting in your early levels then PrC into a theurge or another hybrid class after you get Pacifying touch at level 2.

most popular choice is beguiler, since only one of its spells (legion of sentinels) deals lethal damage.

[Answerer]

How about the huge aura of "you have no emotions" thing? Screws Barbarians hard, not to mention that it screws with, ya know, roleplaying.

[TaiLiu]

you don't kill them, they get sent back to home plane once defeated, therefore keeping the vows.

You are still harming them.


To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition).

[sonofzeal]

How about the huge aura of "you have no emotions" thing? Screws Barbarians hard, not to mention that it screws with, ya know, roleplaying.
I'm AFB so I can't check the exact wording, but every DM I know allows it to run on a toggle, so it generally only gets turned on in special circumstances. Also, no, it's not "you have no emotions", just "you aren't agitated". It dampens, not removes. You can still be happy, or sad, or irked.


You are still harming them.
...which is why you use nonlethal. Or Diplomancy. Or buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, or any of the other dozen approaches still available to you.

If you can't figure out a way to contribute without breaking VoPe, you're either misreading the feat or haven't stopped to consider the vast array of alternatives to "I attack/evoke again".

[Starbuck_II]

Its really 15 levels since you have to have a base will save of +5 which you can't get til level 6 to enter the class. A wizard has 8th level spells by time it reaches 9th level.


Edit: 16 levels even have to have a base concentration of 10 so that bumps up the base requirements up to level 7

You might want to rethink that:

Yep, if the +5 will was an issue you'd had been wrong. I can make that in 3 levels.
Wizard 2/Cleric 1 =Will +5
Wiz 2/Monk 1
Wiz 2/Sorc 1
Wiz 2/Druid 1

But Concentration is an issue you can't get it raised other than Bard's Inspire Greatness (raising your Max HD), but that doesn't last long enough.

[Big Fau]

Do remember that, unlike the Ur-Priest, the Apostle of Peace does not get access to the full Cleric spell list.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

How about the huge aura of "you have no emotions" thing? Screws Barbarians hard, not to mention that it screws with, ya know, roleplaying.

The one from Vow of Peace? It makes immune to mind effecting a slightly higher priority than normal. Until then you start your day (and anytime the group returns to a marching order) by walking in and out of the aura until you pass your save. Sure it's silly, so the DM should probably just handwave it. I see the same process performed with fear aura's and stench.

[Answerer]

The point is that the PrC is 1. overpowered, and 2. incredibly bad form. It is outright rude to show up at a table with one unless you've cleared it ahead of time.

[Ellrin]

But Concentration is an issue you can't get it raised other than Bard's Inspire Greatness (raising your Max HD), but that doesn't last long enough.

There's always bloodline shenanigans and that one cityscape feat. A major or intermediate bloodline can get you 10 ranks in concentration by level 6, and the cityscape feat can do the same if you can find/homebrew an organization with concentration as a favored skill.

[sonofzeal]

The point is that the PrC is 1. overpowered, and 2. incredibly bad form. It is outright rude to show up at a table with one unless you've cleared it ahead of time.
I think you're overstating both... with caveats.

1) AoP is poorly worded. There's an implication, though it's not outright stated, that they can wear defensive magic items despite Vow of Poverty. If you follow this logic, along with the defensive boosts of Vow of Peace and Vow of Poverty themselves, they become incredibly tough nuts to crack. Without that... eh. Fast casting off a limited and not all that useful list does not make them overpowered. I'd expect most AoP's to be one trick ponies, although admittedly strong within their niche. They'll only break games insofar as any Diplomancer could; if you're prepared for the one, you can generally prepare for the other.

2) The time I played a VoPe character, I made sure and cleared it with the other players first. However, I still think you're misinterpreting how much impact they have on everyone else. It pretty much only mechanically affects them if they choose to CDG someone within a limited radius of the AoP, which is easily avoided most of the time, and a temporary -1 on attack rolls is hardly onerous in the few exceptions. Everything else is RP, and can simply be covered by "don't be a jerk", which applies to everyone else too. Or you can ban Paladins, CN Rogues, Batman Wizards, and everything else that can be played to annoy the other players in the group... which pretty much includes everything.

[Jack_Simth]

It is outright rude to show up at a table with one unless you've cleared it ahead of time.
... do you have any specific examples as to why? Instances where the rules built into the class actually stop other PC's from doing things? Is a Coup de Grace really so common at your table?


How about the huge aura of "you have no emotions" thing? Screws Barbarians hard, not to mention that it screws with, ya know, roleplaying.As noted, that's really, really easy to get around.

[Answerer]

I don't really care if it's easy to get around or doesn't come up. If you show up with a character that is that is telling me how to play, and you didn't mention, ask, or clear this with me first, you are rude. Paladins are bad enough.

[Amnestic]

Paladins are bad enough.

This is a good point. The Playground generally seems to not be fond of Paladins enforcing their moral codes on the party, I don't think Apostle of Peace should get an exception to that. In fact it's actively worse than a Paladin since it mechanically hinders their allies directly for breaking the Apostle's morality code - something the Paladin actually lacks.

[Flickerdart]

It seems to be a massive trend with Good options in D&D in general - instead of encouraging a particular activity, they discourage the reverse with threatening to take away your stuff. If the Apostle's abilities rewarded his allies for nonlethal conflict resolution, then nobody would resent him quite so much.

[Starbuck_II]

It seems to be a massive trend with Good options in D&D in general - instead of encouraging a particular activity, they discourage the reverse with threatening to take away your stuff. If the Apostle's abilities rewarded his allies for nonlethal conflict resolution, then nobody would resent him quite so much.

What, like instead of its current thing, it buffed nonlethal damage?
Like you and everyone in aura deal 2 more Damage nonlethal per Apostle of Peace level. Also lethal damage is 2 less per Apstle of peace aura.

So everyone deals less killing and more nonlethal. Thus encourages nonlethal because it becomes better bang for the buck for DPRs. And no one's stuff is taken away just reduced.

[Big Fau]

and a temporary -1 on attack rolls is hardly onerous in the few exceptions. Everything else is RP, and can simply be covered by "don't be a jerk", which applies to everyone else too.

The penalty your allies take for breaching the Vow of Non-Violence is cumulative, to a maximum of the VoNV character's character level.

Furthermore, there's this part:


If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow.

So everyone has to be on-board or they could cause you to lose your powers by accident.

[Matticussama]

I think everyone is making Vow of Nonviolence a much bigger deal than it actually is. Your character just doesn't attack, and your parties can't kill a helpless opponent. Killing someone in fair combat is not killing a helpless opponent; as has been said over and over again, pretty much only a coup de grace counts for this. Your party can still kill enemies without penalty in regular combat scenarios.

Also, lets say that somehow an enemy is left helpless but not dead from an attack. Why is it a big deal for the Nonviolent character to ask "Hey guys, rather than just killing this helpless guy like a psychopath why don't we just contain them and hand them over to the proper authorities?" By the time you're looking at many of these Vows coming into serious play in combination with Apostle of Peace, you can generally easily detain enemies. Use a quick Wind Walk/Teleport and quickly drop them off at the nearest jail. Hell, even at low levels it is simple; leave them unconscious but stabilized and lock them up with a pair of manacles, then take them off to the nearest legitimate source of authority/justice after you're finished. For seriously strong enemies, take further containment methods.

The only time I can see someone seriously objecting to this is if they're some sort of chaotic evil character with total bloodlust. Unless you're playing a seriously evil character, demanding that every single antagonist be slaughtered seems... a bit much. I get that most characters are murder-hobos, but they don't have to kill every opponent forever.

[Flickerdart]

Also, lets say that somehow an enemy is left helpless but not dead from an attack. Why is it a big deal for the Nonviolent character to ask "Hey guys, rather than just killing this helpless guy like a psychopath why don't we just contain them and hand them over to the proper authorities?"
The Tyrant Lord falls to the ground, knocked unconscious by the warrior's mighty blow. As he is posed to strike the final blow that will rid the world of this menace, the apostle stops him. Next week, the Tyrant Lord escapes from whatever prison he was thrown into and burns down three more continents.

With great power comes great responsibility, and the heroes are almost by definition one of the greatest powers in the land. They should be responsible for their own fights, instead of handing off equally powerful enemies to a bunch of people who are not necessarily prepared to deal with a threat of that magnitude, or simply don't want to. Leaving a villain alive just because you can't be arsed to finish him off is incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.

[Amnestic]

By the time you're looking at many of these Vows coming into serious play in combination with Apostle of Peace, you can generally easily detain enemies.

Vow of Nonviolence has no pre-reqs beyond Sacred Vow and is thus available at 1st level (3rd if no bonus feats). Making foes 'Helpless' in combat is similarly available early on - the infamous Sleep being perhaps the most notable method.

Say you're in your first real dungeon, Wizard Sleeps the...3-4 Kobolds you're facing. You're miles away from civilisation and you're level 1. What do you do without breaking your vow, negatively impacting your companions or abandoning your entire dungeon crawl just to take 3-4 Kobolds (who'll probably be executed regardless, I might add) back to civilisation? If you tie them up, there's a very real chance they'll get freed by their comrades and come back to fight you a second time, which most adventurers aren't okay with.

[Starbuck_II]

I think everyone is making Vow of Nonviolence a much bigger deal than it actually is. Your character just doesn't attack, and your parties can't kill a helpless opponent. Killing someone in fair combat is not killing a helpless opponent; as has been said over and over again, pretty much only a coup de grace counts for this. Your party can still kill enemies without penalty in regular combat scenarios..

What if you healed the Tyrant King to above helpless so your allies could kill it: Is that allowed?

[Amnestic]

What if you healed the Tyrant King to above helpless so your allies could kill it: Is that allowed?

If they'd just been healed from negatives, wouldn't they count as 'defenseless'?

[Flickerdart]

What if you healed the Tyrant King to above helpless so your allies could kill it: Is that allowed?
I think the rest of the party would probably lynch anyone who spent party resources to put their enemies back into fighting shape.

[Xenogears]

So everyone has to be on-board or they could cause you to lose your powers by accident.

I'm pretty sure that is meant to prevent the VoPe character from just closing his eyes every time the party wants to kill someone. It doesn't apply if you don't know about it and is only meant in the sense that you can't willingly abandon someone to your murder hobo friends.


The Tyrant Lord falls to the ground, knocked unconscious by the warrior's mighty blow. As he is posed to strike the final blow that will rid the world of this menace, the apostle stops him. Next week, the Tyrant Lord escapes from whatever prison he was thrown into and burns down three more continents.

With great power comes great responsibility, and the heroes are almost by definition one of the greatest powers in the land. They should be responsible for their own fights, instead of handing off equally powerful enemies to a bunch of people who are not necessarily prepared to deal with a threat of that magnitude, or simply don't want to. Leaving a villain alive just because you can't be arsed to finish him off is incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.

That's why rogues exist. So when the VoPe guy is off doing something else the Tyrant can have an "accident."

[Syrinth]

and quite frankly, that should really go immediately counter to the intent of the class.

If you're going to be playing an Apostle of Peace, you really should have to be playing it in intent and deed instead of just trying to find technically rules legal ways of bypassing it.

"Drat, we beat him into unconsciousness so we can't kill him. I'll just heal him up and give him his sword back, you make sure you kill him in one shot this time, k?"

Really should not be a valid response to the situation.

Also, I know you may just be talking theoretically what is rules legal here as opposed to advocating it but anyway...

[Kazyan]

I don't really care if it's easy to get around or doesn't come up. If you show up with a character that is that is telling me how to play, and you didn't mention, ask, or clear this with me first, you are rude. Paladins are bad enough.

Hey, guys, everyone has to be the same Tier +/-1.

Hey, guys, isn't ToB great for invalidating much of rich set of existing melee options? Because they're the more important half of the problem, after all.

Hey, guys, isn't it great that we're so nice as to play partial-casters or Beguilers to invalidate the entire skillmonkey archetype, instead of Wizards?

Hey, guys. Guys. People shouldn't play with rolled stats, or without Complete Champion+ToB, or with a DM who's conservative on rules interactions, or low-wealth/low-magic. Or any [Exalted] character concept, because of shaky moral arguments. Or Paladins. Or any character concept that's not optimized enough. Or in a setting with any restrictiveness of fluff. Or fumble rules.

[/sarcasm]

Everyone's telling everyone else how to play already, if not in-character, and if you hate having your character's actions be influenced by someone else in the party, D&D 3.5 is not the game for you. The Apostle of Peace isn't a special case.

[Starbuck_II]

and quite frankly, that should really go immediately counter to the intent of the class.

If you're going to be playing an Apostle of Peace, you really should have to be playing it in intent and deed instead of just trying to find technically rules legal ways of bypassing it.

"Drat, we beat him into unconsciousness so we can't kill him. I'll just heal him up and give him his sword back, you make sure you kill him in one shot this time, k?"

Really should not be a valid response to the situation.

Also, I know you may just be talking theoretically what is rules legal here as opposed to advocating it but anyway...

No, you don't need to give him back his sword, unarmed enemies can be killed. They aren't allowed to be helpless, but they can be unarmed.

[Flickerdart]

Everyone's telling everyone else how to play already, if not in-character, and if you hate having your character's actions be influenced by someone else in the party, D&D 3.5 is not the game for you. The Apostle of Peace isn't a special case.
There's a massive difference between playing a certain way because of metagame concerns and playing a certain way because one of your party members decided that you should be forced to service his character concept.

[Kazyan]

There's a massive difference between playing a certain way because of metagame concerns and playing a certain way because one of your party members decided that you should be forced to service his character concept.

It's a spectrum, really, and they overlap. If someone's character concept is a Wizard, and your character concept involves an incarnum-fueled avatar of tyranny, then you do not get to play your Soulborn. The mechanics of restriction are similar to how the Apostle of Peace restricts character concepts as well.

[Rubik]

The answer to the problem is simple. If a player is rude enough to force his morality on the party then he has no right to complain if you kill the helpless but evil and insanely dangerous tyrant warlord and force him to permanently lose his vow, thereby freeing the rest of the party from HIS tyranny.

[babus]

if you hate having your character's actions be influenced by someone else in the party, D&D 3.5 is not the game for you.

I've had bad experiences with Paladin players and I still agree with this. Granted, I'd say that one should be extra careful if joining a game already in progress, as there tends to be a pre-established party dynamic, and things like expectations regarding CDG might be relevant.

There's nothing especially wrong with the notion of the feat itself, it's just something that should probably be discussed early so the possibility of a penalty can be accounted for. The effectiveness of any character is a group effort, and the potent benefits of the feat in question are likely going to pay off for the many fairly quickly.

Edit:
@Rubik
The killing of the hypothetical Tyrant amounts to a temporary -1 to attack rolls, not the permanent loss of the feat.

[Answerer]

Hey, guys, everyone has to be the same Tier +/-1.
Group rule, or at worst DM rule, not something one player decides on his own.


Hey, guys, isn't ToB great for invalidating much of rich set of existing melee options? Because they're the more important half of the problem, after all.
Inaccurate description of both Tome of Battle and most existing melee options; those melee options that could actually be described as "rich" can play alongside Tome of Battle just fine, and Tome of Battle improves Fighters quite a bit too. Moreover, someone else playing a Tome of Battle character only matters if the former rule you mentioned is in force (either as a group rule, or personally because you don't want to be useless).

Finally, Tome of Battle does not invalidate any character concepts, only metagame bundles of mechanics the go by class names. There is no character that works in a game without Tome of Battle that cannot be made to work in a game with Tome of Battle. Apostle of Peace dictates fluff and roleplaying, not just mechanics.


Hey, guys, isn't it great that we're so nice as to play partial-casters or Beguilers to invalidate the entire skillmonkey archetype, instead of Wizards?
The skillmonkey archetype was largely invalidated by the very-poor skill system to begin with; this is a similar complaint to the Tome of Battle one. Besides, most partial casters don't really deal with the traditional trapmonkey roles (certainly not nearly as much as Wizards and the like can if they choose to). These are systemic problems, not problems with the individual choices that people make.


Guys. People shouldn't play with rolled stats, or without Complete Champion+ToB, or with a DM who's conservative on rules interactions, or low-wealth/low-magic. Or any [Exalted] character concept, because of shaky moral arguments. Or Paladins. Or any character concept that's not optimized enough. Or in a setting with any restrictiveness of fluff. Or fumble rules.
Yawn. Group rules decided upon ahead of time, every one. Very different from showing up at the table and saying, "Oh yeah, by the way: you guys aren't allowed to have characters who get too worked up about stuff, or who are unwilling to bend over backwards to spare their enemies' lives, or get any kind of enjoyment out of combat. Elsewise I'm going to hit you with penalties and if you do it too much, I'm going to fall and then you'll have to carry me around.


Everyone's telling everyone else how to play already, if not in-character, and if you hate having your character's actions be influenced by someone else in the party, D&D 3.5 is not the game for you. The Apostle of Peace isn't a special case.
Almost all of your examples are agreed-upon ahead of time by the entire group. Building your own character, on the other hand, frequently occurs in a vacuum. Your examples are different, and Apostle of Peace is a special case.

[JBento]

Actually, the killing of the helpless tyrant implies a -1 to the killer and the loss of the feat to the Apostle.

Besides sleep, a more worrisome problem lies with Hold Person - held enemies are helpless, just as if they'd been sleep'd, but get a save every round to not be held anymore. This means that NOT cdg'ing them right then and there is likely to pose a threat to the party as early as the very next round.

[Telonius]

Person_Man came up with an awe-inspiring build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109429) for it awhile back: Saint Bertold. Basically, take Knight, stack on Apostle of Peace. Wade into a fight, use Test of Mettle, and watch as every weapon on the battlefield shatters harmlessly on you, until everybody calms down and sings kum-bah-yah.

[babus]

Almost all of your examples are agreed-upon ahead of time by the entire group. Building your own character, on the other hand, frequently occurs in a vacuum. Your examples are different, and Apostle of Peace is a special case.

I think it depends on the group. The concept itself occurs in a vacuum, often, but in my experience players tend to meet at least halfway to try and find good synergy for roles and battle strategy. The temp -1 to attack rolls if a helpless enemy is finished off can certainly be detrimental, but it's far less detrimental than say, a bad character.


Actually, the killing of the helpless tyrant implies a -1 to the killer and the loss of the feat to the Apostle.
As far as I understand it, the Apostle need merely try stop you if he's aware of it, with his success or failure in the matter being irrelevant.

[Answerer]

Person_Man came up with an awe-inspiring build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109429)
Except Test of Mettle will have a low save DC, and lots of things are immune to it, and you can only use it on one enemy per round, and not everything cares if you break their weapons, and... awe-inspiring is an overstatement, methinks. It's quite synergistic for two classes you wouldn't expect to be, and I don't doubt it's effective, but it's not that amazing.

[Psyren]

Vow of Nonviolence isn't bad; Vow of Peace is the one that makes you party nanny and obliges you to browbeat the others into following your moral code, because if your spells hinder a living enemy in any way you must get the others to take him prisoner. (Amusingly, fiends, chromatic dragons and aberrations are not included in your exemptions.)

Their Vow of Poverty is worded weirdly too. Protective magic items seem to be allowed, which can result in some powerful benefits if you pick ones that stack with your exalted bonuses, but expect quite a bit of wrangling with your DM over what counts as "a magic item that protect you." (For example, do Wings of Flying count?)

[nedz]

In medieval morality CdG was seen as an act of mercy.

Just saying.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The misericorde had several uses, including threatening knights with it so they would surrender and you would show mercy.

Also it seems irrelevent in a universe where it's impossible to die in a slow and painful manner from battle wounds.

[Amnestic]

Vow of Nonviolence isn't bad; Vow of Peace is the one that makes you party nanny and obliges you to browbeat the others into following your moral code, because if your spells hinder a living enemy in any way you must get the others to take him prisoner. (Amusingly, fiends, chromatic dragons and aberrations are not included in your exemptions.)


I find Vow of Peace extremely squicky for a 'Good' character. It's essentially a form of soft mind control. Yeah, things like Charm Person aren't 'evil', but they're generally not 'good' either. I'm not sure magically enforcing emotions upon people fits my concept of 'Good', nevermind Exalted Good.

[Venger]

I find Vow of Peace extremely squicky for a 'Good' character. It's essentially a form of soft mind control. Yeah, things like Charm Person aren't 'evil', but they're generally not 'good' either. I'm not sure magically enforcing emotions upon people fits my concept of 'Good', nevermind Exalted Good.

I agree with you. It's the textbook villainous enchanter thing to turn everyone around you into stepford wives.

[Psyren]

In medieval morality CdG was seen as an act of mercy.

Just saying.

D&D isn't purely medieval though. Well, it may have started out that way in Gygaxian days, but they kinda did away with that with BoED, the 3.5 DMG etc.


I find Vow of Peace extremely squicky for a 'Good' character. It's essentially a form of soft mind control. Yeah, things like Charm Person aren't 'evil', but they're generally not 'good' either. I'm not sure magically enforcing emotions upon people fits my concept of 'Good', nevermind Exalted Good.

I'm not sure I see Calm Emotions that way though. It can be argued that being calm is a person's natural state, as evidenced by things like sleep, or daydreaming. Under this philosophy, more extreme emotions like rage, euphoria or terror would be the aberrant conditions, which the power merely suppresses. And the person returns to normal once they are more than 20' away from the Apostle anyway.

[JBento]

I find Vow of Peace extremely squicky for a 'Good' character. It's essentially a form of soft mind control. Yeah, things like Charm Person aren't 'evil', but they're generally not 'good' either. I'm not sure magically enforcing emotions upon people fits my concept of 'Good', nevermind Exalted Good.

Unfortunately, the writers of the BoED disagree with you, (the book is, in general, utterly stupid, and the fact that it was co-penned with SKR should therefore come as no surprise) to such a degree that it contains Good Mindrape. :smallsigh:

[Amnestic]

I'm not sure I see Calm Emotions that way though. It can be argued that being calm is a person's natural state, as evidenced by things like sleep, or daydreaming. Under this philosophy, more extreme emotions like rage, euphoria or terror would be the aberrant conditions, which the power merely suppresses. And the person returns to normal once they are more than 20' away from the Apostle anyway.



This spell calms agitated creatures. You have no control over the affected creatures, but calm emotions can stop raging creatures from fighting or joyous ones from reveling. Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive. Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.

My emphasis. It stops you from enjoying your own happiness? That's pretty...perverse. It also stops Good Hope and Inspire Courage, both of which are positive aspects I think, with no exceptions for friendly creatures. Courageousness and Hope aren't 'aberrant' - not for good creatures, I would hope?

[Venger]

Unfortunately, the writers of the BoED disagree with you, (the book is, in general, utterly stupid, and the fact that it was co-penned with SKR should therefore come as no surprise) to such a degree that it contains Good Mindrape. :smallsigh:

which, as is the trend with good vs evil in D&D, much more horrifying than the capital E Evil Mindrape. mindrape, unlike sanctify the wicked, actually has no power to kill the target.

[Psyren]

My emphasis. It stops you from enjoying your own happiness? That's pretty...perverse. It also stops Good Hope and Inspire Courage, both of which are positive aspects I think, with no exceptions for friendly creatures. Courageousness and Hope aren't 'aberrant' - not for good creatures, I would hope?

I covered euphoria, so not sure what the bolding was in aid of. Nor does it say it erases happiness, it merely stops you from "reveling" - which could be useful if, for example, the villagers are too busy partying and getting hammered to listen to you about the drow raiding party that's coming in behind your group.

Also - like healing spells, Good Hope and Inspire Courage can be used by enemy casters just as much as allied ones, so suppressing that can be helpful. I see nothing in either effect that says they only work on good creatures.

[Phelix-Mu]

Wow, quite the energetic discussion. Lemme add my tuppence.

BoED is a book full of optional rules for campaigns that want to explore the ways of the super-good, alignment-focused and such. If a DM just chucks this and BoVD/Heroes of Horror into the stack of allowed books without a little asterisk asking players to discuss it beforehand, then the DM is setting things up for a problem. Not that everything here can be blamed on the DM, but the DM makes the books allowed list, including the ability to houserule certain options in certain books off-limits.

The only campaigns where AoP can be used as intended is one that focuses on exalted behavior, a campaign where everyone is good and everyone is on board with the kind of role play restrictions that come with that kind of thing.

As to the point about character creation happening in a vacuum: that doesn't sound like a particularly efficient way for players to prep for a campaign. Although it is metagame, it's pretty standard op in games I'm a party to for people to discuss what party role/build/concept they are working on, if only to make sure that someone has access to magic, healing, and possibly trapfinding.

Personally, I find a similar issue with certain builds that directly imply consorting with evil/benefiting from evil, and these are numerous. Good characters that frequently benefit from the acts of evil characters should be given pause to consider if they really can approve of such association. This isn't to say that cooperation is impossible, just that good people usually prefer to do things the enlightened (READ: difficult) way, as opposed to the quick and dirty way (Tainted Scholar, etc).

I will agree with previous posts that questioned the methods that the game used to incentivize certain behaviors; not only are these methods inconsistent, but often involve negative reinforcement instead of positive reinforcement, which can make exalted people feel like a bunch of stuck-up, party poopers. While having principles can be onerous at times, the game poorly models the rewards that one can derive from enlightened, principled behavior (generally giving nothing or handing out +2 bonus to Diplomacy, often only with good creatures, as if that is a big benefit).

[nedz]

D&D isn't purely medieval though. Well, it may have started out that way in Gygaxian days, but they kinda did away with that with BoED, the 3.5 DMG etc.

Well yes, but even in the early days it was only ever a pastiche of medieval.

The trouble with all of the alignment based stuff is that it always depends what you mean by good/evil. I try not to worry about it too much because there is no hard answer; the BoED approaches this otherwise however.



...
lots of good stuff
...
While having principles can be onerous at times, the game poorly models the rewards that one can derive from enlightened, principled behavior (generally giving nothing or handing out +2 bonus to Diplomacy, often only with good creatures, as if that is a big benefit).

This belies a more general problem with the system. The old +2 circumstance bonus just doesn't scale. It's fine at low level, but quickly becomes irrelevant.

[Coidzor]

I think everyone is making Vow of Nonviolence a much bigger deal than it actually is. Your character just doesn't attack, and your parties can't kill a helpless opponent. Killing someone in fair combat is not killing a helpless opponent; as has been said over and over again, pretty much only a coup de grace counts for this. Your party can still kill enemies without penalty in regular combat scenarios.

Also, lets say that somehow an enemy is left helpless but not dead from an attack. Why is it a big deal for the Nonviolent character to ask "Hey guys, rather than just killing this helpless guy like a psychopath why don't we just contain them and hand them over to the proper authorities?" By the time you're looking at many of these Vows coming into serious play in combination with Apostle of Peace, you can generally easily detain enemies. Use a quick Wind Walk/Teleport and quickly drop them off at the nearest jail. Hell, even at low levels it is simple; leave them unconscious but stabilized and lock them up with a pair of manacles, then take them off to the nearest legitimate source of authority/justice after you're finished. For seriously strong enemies, take further containment methods.

It's still disruptive to have to take session time up sealing away every evil in a can that can't be dealt with by the mundane mooks of "proper authorities."

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Or, worse, and you're going around inflicting fates worse than death because it'd be wrong to kill them. Like the old flesh to stone, rock to mud, create water, purify water trick.


It's a spectrum, really, and they overlap. If someone's character concept is a Wizard, and your character concept involves an incarnum-fueled avatar of tyranny, then you do not get to play your Soulborn. The mechanics of restriction are similar to how the Apostle of Peace restricts character concepts as well.

:smallconfused: Regardless of whether someone else is playing a wizard or paladin or cleric or totemist or incarnate or psion or bugbear, Soulborns can't deliver anything to match that character concept.

[sonofzeal]

I find Vow of Peace extremely squicky for a 'Good' character. It's essentially a form of soft mind control. Yeah, things like Charm Person aren't 'evil', but they're generally not 'good' either. I'm not sure magically enforcing emotions upon people fits my concept of 'Good', nevermind Exalted Good.
The one time I played a VoPe character, they used their Calm Emotions Aura a fair amount at first... and eventually came to the same conclusion you did and stopped using it except for emergencies.

But you're still overstating what it does. Someone under Calm Emotions can still be happy, sad, angry, or worried, just not exhuberant, overwrought, furious, or terrified. It ratchets things down a couple of notches rather than remove them entirely, and imposes a couple limits on violent action. That's not nearly as squicky as total mind control. Still not something many Exalted characters would be fully comfortable with, but that's their own call to make.

[babus]

I actually like the notion of good and evil merely being elemental forces that need only superficially resemble our modern understanding of the ideas, and can be quite unfair or arbitrary depending on the gods that make them up. If you view Calm Emotions as soft mind control, an AoP might make a great villain for a campaign where good is just what the gods say it is, with the PCs acting in hopes of changing the framework of moral reality.

Granted, I'm actually cool with the notion of an ability that amounts to "Alright, everyone calm the heck down", and whether it's creepy depends on how you portray it.

[Coidzor]

I actually like the notion of good and evil merely being elemental forces that need only superficially resemble our modern understanding of the ideas, and can be quite unfair or arbitrary depending on the gods that make them up. If you view Calm Emotions as soft mind control, an AoP might make a great villain for a campaign where good is just what the gods say it is, with the PCs acting in hopes of changing the framework of moral reality.

Granted, I'm actually cool with the notion of an ability that amounts to "Alright, everyone calm the heck down", and whether it's creepy depends on how you portray it.

Well, the problem here is that you run into the Euthyrphro dilemma of where good comes from if you leave it up to divine fiat when the divine doesn't agree in the slightest and is capricious. Doesn't really jive with the alignment based mechanics of D&D to have to check astrological charts to see if X is good or evil or neutral today.

And if you're just playing vanilla D&D then the gods have nothing to do with what is Good or Evil, certainly not in regards to the cosmic forces.

[Soranar]

Personally, after playing such a character, I came to the following conclusion:

-enemies aren't that much of a threat with an optimized build
-allies, however, are not so harmless (I was killed in my sleep by my fellow party members, though it was roleplayed well)

Afterwards we came to the conclusion that those guys make great villains (hard nut to crack, no loot, very frustrating encounters)

[babus]

Well, the problem here is that you run into the Euthyrphro dilemma of where good comes from if you leave it up to divine fiat when the divine doesn't agree in the slightest and is capricious. Doesn't really jive with the alignment based mechanics of D&D to have to check astrological charts to see if X is good or evil or neutral today.

Well, a daily change would be problematic, yes, but warring ideologies that compete for control of the mechanics behind good and evil could be interesting if it was handled well. Moreso if there were mechanical consequences to consider, though this would of course depend on the player's willingness to have a bit of a variable present in how they play their character.

Heck, I'd love to play a character that was fighting for Animate Dead being taken off the Naughty list (and subsequently rendering undead nonevil), possibly as a Cleric of Wee Jas.

[Mirakk]

The Tyrant Lord falls to the ground, knocked unconscious by the warrior's mighty blow. As he is posed to strike the final blow that will rid the world of this menace, the apostle stops him. Next week, the Tyrant Lord escapes from whatever prison he was thrown into and burns down three more continents.


Except that in the passage it specifically states that when you spare them you can make an agreement that if they continue this sort of behavior you won't be responsible for the actions of your allies. The demon would of course take you up on it with no intention of upholding his end of the bargain. The last laugh is on him though, because then it's well within your party's rights to kill him next week and you just hold your hands up like "Hey, I told you man".

Honestly though, this rarely comes up in higher level play. Most enemies go from conscious and alive to straight up dead without falling into that 0 through -9 gap. You just have to avoid using Bands of Steel or Hold Person in potential combat situations and you're good to go.

[ArcturusV]

Plus your DM probably appreciates having a way to get the supposedly plot dependent recurring villain a Get Out of Loss Free card like that. And making the DM happy tends to pay dividends sooner or later. Nothing sucks quite as much as having your players completely luck out and smite a guy they weren't supposed to be able to take on for 3 more levels and was going to be their driving plot.

[NotScaryBats]

Hi guys: "You may ask a defeated creature to give you an oath of surrender or noninterference in exchange for its life. If the creature breaks this oath to you, you can allow your allies to deal with the creature as they see fit without breaking their oaths or your vow of nonviolence"

This doesn't seem to have been addressed in the rampant complaints by people.

[babus]

@Mirakk
@NotScaryBats

It occurs that one could also Zone of Truth the enemy for the swearing of the oath or even grant it supernatural power to strike them down if they violate it. And if they refuse, compelled as they are to tell the truth, you let the party tear their head off.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Honestly though, this rarely comes up in higher level play. Most enemies go from conscious and alive to straight up dead without falling into that 0 through -9 gap. You just have to avoid using Bands of Steel or Hold Person in potential combat situations and you're good to go.

For better or worse, one nonlethal substitution AOE brings this number up significantly. I know AoP doesn't have any by default, but other Vow of Peace casters could and you could get some via Contemplative since there's no need to go past AoP 2.

[Psyren]

The Tyrant Lord falls to the ground, knocked unconscious by the warrior's mighty blow. As he is posed to strike the final blow that will rid the world of this menace, the apostle stops him. Next week, the Tyrant Lord escapes from whatever prison he was thrown into and burns down three more continents.

It's worth noting that BoED specifically tells the DM not to be a **** like this if the book is being used.


Hi guys: "You may ask a defeated creature to give you an oath of surrender or noninterference in exchange for its life. If the creature breaks this oath to you, you can allow your allies to deal with the creature as they see fit without breaking their oaths or your vow of nonviolence"

This doesn't seem to have been addressed in the rampant complaints by people.

That clause is only part of VoN (which is why I consider it more reasonable.) Vow of Peace does not care how vile or unrepentant your villain is - if they are not undead or a construct, you must not harm them, period.

[ArcturusV]

True, though the feat itself also suggests "Your DM may be a ****" by mentioning offhandedly things like drinking water through a strainer so you don't accidentally cause harm to some diminutive bug who landed on your water...

[Gotterdammerung]

I think the hate for the vows is blown out of proportion, personally. Especially when it takes just a tiny modicum of player cooperation to resolve the friction caused.

But if it really just rubs your @&& hairs the wrong way, then just fight fire with fire.

Step 1. Expose the Vow party member to death knell. Just cast it on him when he is asleep. It won't do anything to him. But he will be exposed to it. And you haven't broken any promises about hurting any helpless people, cuz you didn't hurt him.

Step 2. Dominate said party member directly before his next level up.

Step 3. Command him to take the feat, Life Leech.

Result- Now any creature within 30 feet who is @ -1 or lower HP will automatically and uncontrollably be drained for 1 hp per round by the Vow character. This effectively makes him lose the benefits of his Vow of Peace. He can try to atone but the moment something else falls to negatives around him he will break the vow again. Effectively resulting in a functional loss of the benefit of the feat.

[babus]

That clause is only part of VoN (which is why I consider it more reasonable.) Vow of Peace does not care how vile or unrepentant your villain is - if they are not undead or a construct, you must not harm them, period.

It says that you must not hurt them, which is reasonable, depending, as your party member can probably hold you down while they do the deed. Your party member gets a penalty to attacks for doing so, but it goes away.

[SaintRidley]

The Tyrant Lord falls to the ground, knocked unconscious by the warrior's mighty blow. As he is posed to strike the final blow that will rid the world of this menace, the apostle stops him. Next week, the Tyrant Lord escapes from whatever prison he was thrown into and burns down three more continents.

With great power comes great responsibility, and the heroes are almost by definition one of the greatest powers in the land. They should be responsible for their own fights, instead of handing off equally powerful enemies to a bunch of people who are not necessarily prepared to deal with a threat of that magnitude, or simply don't want to. Leaving a villain alive just because you can't be arsed to finish him off is incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.

A smart Apostle of Peace gets its hands on Sanctify the Wicked and mindrapes all BBEGs into Exalted goodness, carrying around the diamonds housing their souls as trophies for the year it will take to reform them.


Not that that behavior should qualify as Good, of course. But I'm imagining the Xykon of Exalted characters here.

[babus]

A smart Apostle of Peace gets its hands on Sanctify the Wicked and mindrapes all BBEGs into Exalted goodness, carrying around the diamonds housing their souls as trophies for the year it will take to reform them.

Points if he carves the diamonds into the shape of skulls, strings them and wears them as a necklace. Also maybe if he got their dark souls to harmlessly burn red in the eye sockets of the diamond skulls? Just a thought.

[SaintRidley]

Points if he carves the diamonds into the shape of skulls, strings them and wears them as a necklace. Also maybe if he got their dark souls to harmlessly burn red in the eye sockets of the diamond skulls? Just a thought.

Bonus points for rigging an enchantment wherein each diamond recounts the evil deeds of the soul inside for the benefit of anybody who handles them.

[Psyren]

True, though the feat itself also suggests "Your DM may be a ****" by mentioning offhandedly things like drinking water through a strainer so you don't accidentally cause harm to some diminutive bug who landed on your water...

Indeed, one more reason why Vow of Peace blows chunks.

If you want mechanical benefits for roleplaying that concept, stick with Nonviolence and burn the page containing Peace.

(Except the part with Words of Creation - save that!)


It says that you must not hurt them, which is reasonable, depending, as your party member can probably hold you down while they do the deed. Your party member gets a penalty to attacks for doing so, but it goes away.

That gets into "what counts as harm" territory. If you know your party members are in the other room roughing up an old woman, and you have the power to stop them but don't, aren't you just as guilty of harming her? It gets even muddier if they have your buffs on them while they do it, or if she fights back and then you heal their wounds afterwards.


A smart Apostle of Peace gets its hands on Sanctify the Wicked and mindrapes all BBEGs into Exalted goodness, carrying around the diamonds

Ironically, this would make you fall, as diamonds are valuable and they have Vow of Poverty.

[SaintRidley]

Ironically, this would make you fall, as diamonds are valuable and they have Vow of Poverty.

Apostles of Peace have a tendency to break their Vows of Poverty without losing the feat, what with the having magic items. Plus, they double as necessary components for Resurrection. So triple points if you burn your soul-containing diamonds to resurrect a party member.

[babus]

That gets into "what counts as harm" territory. If you know your party members are in the other room roughing up an old woman, and you have the power to stop them but don't, aren't you just as guilty of harming her? It gets even muddier if they have your buffs on them while they do it, or if she fights back and then you heal their wounds afterwards.

Well, yes, but the key point here is that the person in question would be trying to help, but fail to help after being overpowered by the other party members. The AoP would be able to justify their continued presence there as them trying to stop what bloodshed they can, and the other party members would tolerate the occasional Hold Person cast on them because you're a pretty potent combat asset.

[Psyren]

Apostles of Peace have a tendency to break their Vows of Poverty without losing the feat, what with the having magic items.

That's a specifically called-out exception though. Diamonds aren't magic items and thus don't qualify, but they aren't given an exemption either.


Well, yes, but the key point here is that the person in question would be trying to help, but fail to help after being overpowered by the other party members. The AoP would be able to justify their continued presence there as them trying to stop what bloodshed they can, and the other party members would tolerate the occasional Hold Person cast on them because you're a pretty potent combat asset.

That would work exactly once. Upon discovering that her party members are the sort that would tie her up so they could flout her vows, a VoPe character who chooses to stay with them anyway becomes complicit.

[babus]

That would work exactly once. Upon discovering that her party members are the sort that would tie her up so they could flout her vows, a VoPe character who chooses to stay with them anyway becomes complicit.

That, unlike the old lady scenario, is at least arguable. For a Paladin, there is specific text that indicates that they cannot suffer the companionship of an evil doer, but that isn't present for the AoP. I don't think of it as an abuse of RAW to have the AoP consider themselves damage control, saving who they can when they can from the party's wrath. It's the Roy/Belkar dynamic, except Roy in this case tries to keep Belkar from killing anyone tied up and Belkar isn't an insane hobbit that kills with the barest discrimination.

Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't necessarily complicity, just that it's a moral gray area that probably depends more on the character's sincerity in being the one between all the evil doers the AoP thinks might be worth saving and the party that so often seems to encounter such evil beings. I could see the AoP being someone who accepts it as a daily struggle and counts the ones who they managed to get captured and jailed as being successes, even against the failures that were slain.

[sonofzeal]

That would work exactly once. Upon discovering that her party members are the sort that would tie her up so they could flout her vows, a VoPe character who chooses to stay with them anyway becomes complicit.
Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the adventuring party, and the VoPe-er's relationship with them. Remember, they aren't Paladins, they're not forbidden from associating with Evil characters. They may keep company they disagree with (as do many other characters, if you think about it), either for unrelated reasons, or in the hopes of reforming them or at least of personally mitigating their harm. Which, really, is the same dichotomy any Good character should be in under the same circumstances. As long as the VoPe-er states their objection, and doesn't specifically contribute to the process, they should be okay.

Really, it sounds like your problem is less with VoPe and more with DMs (and occasionally players) who use overly-strict interpretations of it to bludgeon their players over the heads the moment anything not squeaky clean happens. If the DM shows a modicum of common sense and permits non-party-destroying interpretations, everything's workable.

[SaintRidley]

That's a specifically called-out exception though. Diamonds aren't magic items and thus don't qualify, but they aren't given an exemption either.


I'm really just kind of musing over here on ways to make the AoP a sinister character, nothing terribly serious. The diamonds are components to spells on the AoP spell list, though, so if they were set aside for only that purpose I could see that working.

Besides, contemplating this is giving me fun ideas for an AoP as antagonist.

[Psyren]

Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the adventuring party, and the VoPe-er's relationship with them. Remember, they aren't Paladins, they're not forbidden from associating with Evil characters.


That, unlike the old lady scenario, is at least arguable. For a Paladin, there is specific text that indicates that they cannot suffer the companionship of an evil doer, but that isn't present for the AoP. I don't think of it as an abuse of RAW to have the AoP consider themselves damage control, saving who they can when they can from the party's wrath. It's the Roy/Belkar dynamic, except Roy in this case tries to keep Belkar from killing anyone tied up and Belkar isn't an insane hobbit that kills with the barest discrimination.

Roy is Good, but he's not EXALTED Good. The deva says so herself - "your record is full of grey spots."

The "guilty by association" standard that applies to paladins does also apply to exalted characters. "Paladins, of course, are prohibited from associating with evil characters, but other exalted PCs should also steer clear of evil companions, unless the evil character is attempting to reform herself and making progress toward neutrality at least."

This is not to say that cooperating with evildoers - for a limited time and specific purpose - is totally forbidden, even in BoED. However, "Good characters must not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such acts." "Must not tolerate" means more than simply rolling your eyes while your allies beat up the shopkeeper in the basement or torture the bad guy's hideout out of his gnoll minions. It means forcing them to find another way, or if you can't stop them, not putting up with their behavior.

[ArcturusV]

Well, it's one of those moving targets to me. Just like what "Harm" really means. I mean I could see "harm" saying I could shackle someone's arms while I KOed them with a Non-Lethal spell and leave them out in the woods to depend on the charity of whoever comes across them or what not. Or you can say I'm "Harming" them because I've gimped their ability to survive by shackling their arms.

Tolerate is a similar moving target to me. This could, strictly, be played like a lot of Paladins (Asshats mostly), who say things like "Well I can no longer adventure with HIM... it's him or me!"... routinely the Party usually chooses "him". I'd expect an Apostle of Peace would get similar treatment.

Or it can be a situation where the Apostle just says, "You know what... not cool. Not cool. Someday your evil deeds may come back to bite you in the ass. I might even be the instrument of that moment of justice. These things have a way of coming back to haunt you..." and leave it as a warning. I mean you didn't turn a blind eye. You didn't "accept" what they did or even suggest it was right. You might even point out things like "You know, instead of beating up an old helpless lady, we could probably just ask her? Or search her home for relevant clues?"

Which can also fit the target. Depending on interpretation. And DM screw admittedly.

[sonofzeal]

Roy is Good, but he's not EXALTED Good. The deva says so herself - "your record is full of grey spots."

The "guilty by association" standard that applies to paladins does also apply to exalted characters. "Paladins, of course, are prohibited from associating with evil characters, but other exalted PCs should also steer clear of evil companions, unless the evil character is attempting to reform herself and making progress toward neutrality at least."

This is not to say that cooperating with evildoers - for a limited time and specific purpose - is totally forbidden, even in BoED. However, "Good characters must not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such acts." "Must not tolerate" means more than simply rolling your eyes while your allies beat up the shopkeeper in the basement or torture the bad guy's hideout out of his gnoll minions. It means forcing them to find another way, or if you can't stop them, not putting up with their behavior.
A valid point - but there's still a lot of leeway there. For a Cuthbertine, "not tolerate" might mean mace-to-the-face. But for a Pelorian, especially a VoPe one, "not tolerate" might mean voicing disagreement and praying for their soul. I recommend the short story "Blue Cross", by G. K. Chesterton, for a sterling example of how an Exalted character - and something of an AoP himself - can socialize with a master criminal while neither being at all unpleasant nor compromising himself.

In the end, all of this is under the purview of the DM. If the DM decides to enforce a very strict interpretation of what "tolerate" can entail, they have nobody but themselves to blame. But a flexible DM, and a player who's aware that playing Mr Holier-Than-Thou is a bad thing, can still make it work within RAW.

[Psyren]

But for a Pelorian, especially a VoPe one, "not tolerate" might mean voicing disagreement and praying for their soul.

That's all fine, but doing that and then continuing to stay on (and worse, benefit - even indirectly - from the fruits of the evil character's extortions/oppressions) is where BoED draws the line.



Or it can be a situation where the Apostle just says, "You know what... not cool. Not cool. Someday your evil deeds may come back to bite you in the ass. I might even be the instrument of that moment of justice. These things have a way of coming back to haunt you..." and leave it as a warning. I mean you didn't turn a blind eye. You didn't "accept" what they did or even suggest it was right. You might even point out things like "You know, instead of beating up an old helpless lady, we could probably just ask her? Or search her home for relevant clues?"

From BoED's point of view, this sort of thing is what differentiates regular Good from Exalted Good. The idea being that, being so Good as to get supernatural benefits from your Goodness means being more inflexible and less blasé in your virtue.

Now, where they fell down is that the benefits you get really aren't worth all the hassle. This is what leads so many people to question the book's message. (i.e. if this is all I get for ramming a stick up my you-know-what, maybe that isn't what they intended me to do?)

But BoED's exalted feats were meant to go with nearly intractable good, just like BoVD's vile feats are meant to go with over-the-top, baby-eating evil. The idea is that being as reasonable as a mortal - even a good mortal - should only bring mortal benefits, whereas emulating fiends (or in this case, angels) should allow one to access corresponding powers.

The book hammers this theme over and over - telling you how hard it is to walk the Exalted path, how it's possible to simply be good without going to these levels, how many Exalted characters actually swear these oaths in front of a celestial or other authoritative being. To me it would be like expecting a Planetar in the party to say "yo man, not cool" and leave it at that. That's the level of strictness being asked for here.

[ArcturusV]

Oddly though other than Dark Speech, none of the Vile Feats really struck me as "Baby Eating Evil" other than the lame +1 Luck Bonus while doing something Evil, once a day ones.

But I can see the point. I mean I consider the more "reasonable" approach being Exalted. I don't like (And as a DM have never enforced) the "Other People" clauses to things like that. The "merely good" approach would be just stifling and not saying anything about it. Kinda what Roy does... just sigh, lament that you don't have a better option, and make due. Whereas the Exalted confronts in a way. But I mean you're Good, not Tyrannical, so throwing down threats and enforcing behavior don't really fit the vision of Exalted that I got either.

But it's all so much personal interpretation.

Makes me say I rather just take Disciple of Aalarun as a spellcasting PrC instead. Easier to get into, full spellcasting progression on top of bonuses.

[Coidzor]

Whereas the Exalted confronts in a way.

Barely nagging and then leaving it at that is hardly a confrontation.


But I mean you're Good, not Tyrannical, so throwing down threats and enforcing behavior don't really fit the vision of Exalted that I got either.

But traveling along with someone who gleefully tortures people when it's unnecessary and who does so to further the party's goals does? :smallconfused: How is that internally consistent?

[ArcturusV]

Redemption is a process, and one of the highest of Exalted Ideals as I recall. Traveling with them doesn't mean either "It's Him or ME!" ultimatums or completely ignoring it. It can be a process of constantly trying to "Heal" and redeem the character through your actions, examples, and lessons.

Just... always the problem for me. People think Lawful Good in particular (But oftentimes any good) means it's always Tyrannical Good. That they can throw ultimatums, demand other players do as they say, etc. They never go subtle about it, or even not being subtle at all but using patience.

Basically how most people practice Lawful Good (And what I'm getting from replies about Exalted, though not my experience as I'm the only one I know stupid enough to run Exalted), is actually kinda book standard Lawful Evil. Using your system and code to bend others to your will, etc.

[Psyren]

Travelling with them to redeem them is noble, but also puts an enormous responsibility on your shoulders. You can't simply let it be business as usual with them in the interim just because you hope they'll change their ways later. You have to put your foot down, even be willing to sacrifice yourself instead of the victim (even if they are a "lesser" creature such as a gnoll minion) or restrain your colleague, if for no other reason than to impress upon that party member how serious your ideals are. To do less is to not convince them that your convictions are worth holding at all.

So no, allowing them to torture and murder and pillage as normal with you mutely towing along, just because "you're redeeming them" is woefully insufficient for Exalted behavior.

[Coidzor]

Redemption is a process, and one of the highest of Exalted Ideals as I recall. Traveling with them doesn't mean either "It's Him or ME!" ultimatums or completely ignoring it.

But what you've been advocating has been essentially sweeping it under the rug and ignoring it as a way to avoid it counting as disruptive or problematic due to naturally splitting the party or having a constant strife that should escalate to party conflict more than nagging. :smallconfused:


Just... always the problem for me. People think Lawful Good in particular (But oftentimes any good) means it's always Tyrannical Good. That they can throw ultimatums, demand other players do as they say, etc. They never go subtle about it, or even not being subtle at all but using patience.

Basically how most people practice Lawful Good (And what I'm getting from replies about Exalted, though not my experience as I'm the only one I know stupid enough to run Exalted), is actually kinda book standard Lawful Evil. Using your system and code to bend others to your will, etc.

Whereas yours seems to compromise the entire point of being so good it hurts into being a do-nothing, passive person rather than having the group actually agree that, yeah, we do want to play in X way rather than Y way.

The side you're arguing against is that the thing does what you're railing against here by default and that it requires ignorance to think otherwise. You can houserule it but that's not an argument against it being a problem, that's an argument for it being a problem, and claiming otherwise is paging Dr. Oberoni.

...Something seems like it's gotten muddled along the way here. :smallconfused:

[ArcturusV]

I wasn't thinking mutely just letting it pass. I was thinking of drawing a line between ultimatums or throwing down against your party however. Asking, warning, bribing, etc. All perfectly acceptable ideals. Cut deals, appeal to higher ideals, give them alternatives, etc.

But throwing yourself on their sword doesn't accomplish anything. You lose your life, and chances are if they really were so unredeemable that was the only option, they still gut the Gnoll. It's kinda like the Paladin thing I commented on in another topic. Paladins don't have to automatically death challenge every Evil they see. Particularly if they know they don't stand a chance against say, a powerful demon and they are a level 2 Paladin. And they know they're outclassed due to Detect Evil auras and such. Having a Paladin throw away his life isn't "Good"... it's futile. You have done "evil" because you have wasted your chance to do more good, even.

Similarly throwing yourself on another PC's blade isn't Exalted (Again to my mindset). Throwing away your life for something that may not have any real effect is... just wasteful.

Similarly removing yourself from the influence of the PCs (Leave the Party), just means that they have one less voice of reason and good, and will be that much more evil.

And your Vow of Peace would be kinda kaput if you went around using spells and violence to compel them (The usual PvP approach). Not really a peaceful ideal to make people do what you want by virtue of Might. That's more Bane/Asmodeus territory.

So what are you left with? You can't even say that leaving them is appropriate because it's allowing Evil to take root unchallenged, which doesn't exactly sound Exalted. You have to try something to confront and redeem them. You can't be throwing your life away. You can't "Force" someone to be good either by paralyzing them or the like.

I mean I guess you "Could"... but it doesn't strike me as really Exalted.

Eh. It's a hard line as I've said. And so much depends on what the DM is willing to rule with.

[Psyren]

I wasn't thinking mutely just letting it pass. I was thinking of drawing a line between ultimatums or throwing down against your party however. Asking, warning, bribing, etc. All perfectly acceptable ideals. Cut deals, appeal to higher ideals, give them alternatives, etc.

And if they refuse to listen after all that? What then? Do nothing? Shrug and say "Well, I tried, torture away"?



But throwing yourself on their sword doesn't accomplish anything. You lose your life, and chances are if they really were so unredeemable that was the only option, they still gut the Gnoll. It's kinda like the Paladin thing I commented on in another topic. Paladins don't have to automatically death challenge every Evil they see. Particularly if they know they don't stand a chance against say, a powerful demon and they are a level 2 Paladin. And they know they're outclassed due to Detect Evil auras and such. Having a Paladin throw away his life isn't "Good"... it's futile. You have done "evil" because you have wasted your chance to do more good, even.

No one is saying "throw yourself on their sword." (One wonders, if the evil characters are so much stronger than you, why they haven't murdered or coerced YOU instead by now themselves.) The typical assumption is that, while party members need to join up to handle a greater threat, they are at least equal to each other. If Belkar significantly outleveled the rest of the Order, the story in the comic would have taken a very different turn, starting with his attempt to gank Elan for XP and many incidents since then.


Similarly removing yourself from the influence of the PCs (Leave the Party), just means that they have one less voice of reason and good, and will be that much more evil.

That's one way of looking at it. But if your voice has no effect even when it's there and you're unwilling or unable to do more, staying to become corrupted yourself doesn't seem to be that much more virtuous even so.



And your Vow of Peace would be kinda kaput if you went around using spells and violence to compel them (The usual PvP approach). Not really a peaceful ideal to make people do what you want by virtue of Might. That's more Bane/Asmodeus territory.

Spells to compel evildoers in the party to act a certain way are evil? Why then is this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) a Paladin spell? And again I point to OotS, where it was used in precisely that way.



So what are you left with? You can't even say that leaving them is appropriate because it's allowing Evil to take root unchallenged, which doesn't exactly sound Exalted. You have to try something to confront and redeem them. You can't be throwing your life away. You can't "Force" someone to be good either by paralyzing them or the like.

I don't accept the premise that challenging them with more than words means throwing your life away. If you're in the same party, they shouldn't be that much stronger than you; but if they are, it's extremely irresponsible on your part to forge the alliance in the first place, or to continue it once you realize how far things are out of your control.

[sonofzeal]

The last few times I've played Exalted-ish characters in mixed parties....

Kale
Kale had his priorities and abided by them. This meant he occasionally missed out on action because he was off by himself doing something otherwise-trivial to connect with his god's domain, but that was rare. Mostly, he did what he felt needed doing, and since most of the other PCs had reasons to be in the same places doing the same things. they generally followed him around. He was "Party Leader" I guess, but mostly by default. And, since everyone was following him around and mostly doing what he said, there was never any real problems. The only evil characters lacked the initiative to get up to much real trouble, and everything worked out.

Valin
Valin was distant most of the time. He thought of himself more as an observer than a party member for more of the earlier sessions, helping out in fights and whatnot but not really active and engaged in policy discussions. However, whenever the plot touched on areas he was associated with, he'd take charge. Not stand back and protest like a wet blanket, but start organizing people and giving instructions and getting things MOVING. And it worked, partially because he didn't do it often, and because he didn't try to coerce the others beyond "I'm going to do XYZ, and if you want to help you can do ABC, but I'm XYZing either way".

Lina
Lina (a VoPe-er), again, knew her place. She was a healer, belonging to an organization of healers (think "MSF") that was her primary loyalty, hired to serve the party in her professional capacity as a field medic. She was not leading the party, and never made any pretense of it. Thus, she felt (and had) no responsibility for their actions, and contented herself with discharging the obligations she did have as well as she could. And, because she made her ethical stance clear right from the beginning, the rest of the party could work around her. One character tortured someone in the first adventure, but nobody else in the party ever knew. Even more evil stuff happened later in the campaign, and again there was never the slightest issue except for once when a PC deliberately CDG'd a beaten enemy in front of her. No long debate or wet-blanket whining; the other person just went ahead and did it, and from thence-forth Lina was on frosty terms with them. But, since she still had her obligations and loyalties clear in her head, even that was never a real issue. I think she applied to the head agency for a transfer, but that's as far as tensions went.

[babus]

The "guilty by association" standard that applies to paladins does also apply to exalted characters. "Paladins, of course, are prohibited from associating with evil characters, but other exalted PCs should also steer clear of evil companions, unless the evil character is attempting to reform herself and making progress toward neutrality at least."

This is not to say that cooperating with evildoers - for a limited time and specific purpose - is totally forbidden, even in BoED. However, "Good characters must not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such acts." "Must not tolerate" means more than simply rolling your eyes while your allies beat up the shopkeeper in the basement or torture the bad guy's hideout out of his gnoll minions. It means forcing them to find another way, or if you can't stop them, not putting up with their behavior.

Ah, I hadn't known that bit, which is interesting. Still, one could argue that finishing off a downed opponent is not itself an evil act, but merely not an Exalted one. The AoP is, as you said, held to a higher standard of morality than is normal, and it may only apply here if the party member in question is committing explicitly evil acts, not acts which are less good than the AoP.

Granted, this is the territory of murk, but the text itself is specific about Evil being the thing not to be tolerated, not the AoP's personal moral code, even if the AoP must also do what they can to prevent the other PCs from acting in violation of that code. One could infer that the AoP should treat the less good act as being Evil, but that's between the player and DM, given that Paladins do not fall for CDGing an enemy under the effects of, say, Hold Person.

[Xenogears]

That clause is only part of VoN (which is why I consider it more reasonable.) Vow of Peace does not care how vile or unrepentant your villain is - if they are not undead or a construct, you must not harm them, period.

Just re-read the Vows n BoED to check something and found this:

The clause about policing your teammates also only appears as part of VoN. VoPe says that you can't harm any living creature or incapacitate them for your allies to kill but doesn't say anything about your allies. So really IMO VoPe would be easier to deal with (only restricts your own actions) but VoN is the pre-req...

Although it does make for an interesting thought. Since the part about not allowing party members to kill helpless foes only applies to VoN and VoN only applies to Humanoids/Monsterous Humanoids (random racism) then you could argue that there is nothing RAW against a VoPe character standing by and twiddling his thumbs while the party members CDGed every non-(monsterous or regular) humanoid.

[Gwendol]

Except Test of Mettle will have a low save DC, and lots of things are immune to it, and you can only use it on one enemy per round, and not everything cares if you break their weapons, and... awe-inspiring is an overstatement, methinks. It's quite synergistic for two classes you wouldn't expect to be, and I don't doubt it's effective, but it's not that amazing.

Huh? Since when is Test of Mettle single target? I think you mistake it for goad or something else. Test of Mettle affects all targets within 100' provided their CR isn't too low, or they are immune to mind affecting abilities.

[Venger]

Since the part about not allowing party members to kill helpless foes only applies to VoN and VoN only applies to Humanoids/Monsterous Humanoids (random racism) then you could argue that there is nothing RAW against a VoPe character standing by and twiddling his thumbs while the party members CDGed every non-(monsterous or regular) humanoid.

you couldn't "argue" it, that's just straight up stated by the rules. if a DM tried to slap you with a penalty for CDGing someone other than a monstrous
or nonmonstrous humanoid, he's house-ruling plain and simple. genocide of things that don't adhere to a specific set of criteria is what (the book says) Exalted characters are all about (sanctify the wicked having already been mentioned) I'm well-aware that people don't usually play them this way, and I don't think that if you want to roll exalted such and such that you agree with the book's pov, but stuff like this is very hard to ignore

not "random" at all. capital G Good is tantamount with racism and intolerance in D&D, just as capital E Evil is associated with diversity and understanding, lending further credence to support the theory that Good is evil and Evil is good. take this quote from page 30 of savage species:


Many monstrous beings are
not tolerated by the surrounding community and must keep
their existence secret. Evil communities may tolerate the presence
of monsters that other communities would not, but
neutral and good communities are liable to drive away
monsters and those who would associate with them.

[JBento]

Unfortunately, VoPe excludes only Undead and Constructs (by virtue of not being alive). You can't do actual damage to anything living. This includes yourself, which mean that even the Monk is better off than you are, since he can kill himself and reroll something useful. Someone with VoPe? Not even that.

For bonus uselessness, VoPe also states "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." That Ray of Enfeeblement you just cast? Now the target has to be taken alive, or you break your vow.

[Psyren]

Ah, I hadn't known that bit, which is interesting. Still, one could argue that finishing off a downed opponent is not itself an evil act, but merely not an Exalted one. The AoP is, as you said, held to a higher standard of morality than is normal, and it may only apply here if the party member in question is committing explicitly evil acts, not acts which are less good than the AoP.

Granted, this is the territory of murk, but the text itself is specific about Evil being the thing not to be tolerated, not the AoP's personal moral code, even if the AoP must also do what they can to prevent the other PCs from acting in violation of that code. One could infer that the AoP should treat the less good act as being Evil, but that's between the player and DM, given that Paladins do not fall for CDGing an enemy under the effects of, say, Hold Person.

I haven't actually touched on CdG'ing a helpless opponent (who was rendered helpless during the course of combat) yet, but since you mention it - I don't see BoED as considering that a problem in general. BoED is more concerned with giving quarter when it is asked, and so long as the good character has conveyed the possibility of surrender at least once, they are meeting the Exalted standard.

"MERCY

For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme—respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy."

"If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible."

The Vows however are another matter, in this case VoN and VoPe. These hold you to an even higher standard in exchange for their supernatural benefits, namely forcing you to take prisoners if you are involved with incapacitating a target, whether they surrender or not.


Just re-read the Vows n BoED to check something and found this:

The clause about policing your teammates also only appears as part of VoN. VoPe says that you can't harm any living creature or incapacitate them for your allies to kill but doesn't say anything about your allies. So really IMO VoPe would be easier to deal with (only restricts your own actions) but VoN is the pre-req...

Even without VoN as a prereq, there is still the matter of causing harm by inaction.


*snip*

I see no problem with any of these. Though I would be interested in Lina's reaction had the CdG'er made a habit of it.

[Phelix-Mu]

Unfortunately, VoPe excludes only Undead and Constructs (by virtue of not being alive). You can't do actual damage to anything living. This includes yourself, which mean that even the Monk is better off than you are, since he can kill himself and reroll something useful. Someone with VoPe? Not even that.


Couldn't the VoPe person become undead and then destroy himself/herself? Don't make silly suggestions without considering all the silly possibilities....

Honestly, trying to fit AoP or even just VoPe into a normal campaign as some kind of role play exercise or so that you can get some mileage out of weapon breaking is totally missing the point. Unless the DM is going to run a BoED-centric campaign with "Waging Peace" as a legitimate way to accomplish certain things (and it is a legitimate way, because the book says so and because nonviolent resistance is a thing). In a similar manner, Disciple of Dispater is pretty fun for melee, but you probably shouldn't try to shoehorn it into the average campaign just because it looks cool.

[Jigokuro]

Unfortunately, VoPe excludes only Undead and Constructs (by virtue of not being alive). You can't do actual damage to anything living. This includes yourself, which mean that even the Monk is better off than you are, since he can kill himself and reroll something useful. Someone with VoPe? Not even that.

Can I sig this? :smallbiggrin:

I'm totally going to run a campaign with a low epic 'BBEG' that is a AoP that has gone completely off the deep end of forcing everyone to be 'Good'. Various mindraped sanctified high power minions using items of sanctify the wicked to basically kill those that oppose him, but worse because they lose free will and become 'Good' as well. A really interesting point here is that, by definition of exalted, the 'Good' gods approve of this behavior despite the obvious human reaction of it being deplorable. Which means if the PCs fighting his tyranny think themselves good they may become conflicted...
Also lets the party be evil classes mixed with non without breaking down; 'common foe' and all that. Which is a nice change.

[SaintRidley]

Can I sig this? :smallbiggrin:

I'm totally going to run a campaign with a low epic 'BBEG' that is a AoP that has gone completely off the deep end of forcing everyone to be 'Good'. Various mindraped sanctified high power minions using items of sanctify the wicked to basically kill those that oppose him, but worse because they lose free will and become 'Good' as well. A really interesting point here is that, by definition of exalted, the 'Good' gods approve of this behavior despite the obvious human reaction of it being deplorable. Which means if the PCs fighting his tyranny think themselves good they may become conflicted...
Also lets the party be evil classes mixed with non without breaking down; 'common foe' and all that. Which is a nice change.

I'm thinking the exact same thing. High five.

[Flickerdart]

Can I sig this? :smallbiggrin:

I'm totally going to run a campaign with a low epic 'BBEG' that is a AoP that has gone completely off the deep end of forcing everyone to be 'Good'. Various mindraped sanctified high power minions using items of sanctify the wicked to basically kill those that oppose him, but worse because they lose free will and become 'Good' as well. A really interesting point here is that, by definition of exalted, the 'Good' gods approve of this behavior despite the obvious human reaction of it being deplorable. Which means if the PCs fighting his tyranny think themselves good they may become conflicted...
Also lets the party be evil classes mixed with non without breaking down; 'common foe' and all that. Which is a nice change.
There's a book called Villains By Necessity that has a similar premise - Good has "won" through sealing the evil in a can and then mind-raping bad people, but it turns out that this imbalance is going to destroy the world (by basically turning it into a Positive Energy Plane) and the last villains have to band together to ruin things for the greater good.

[Psyren]

I'm compelled to point out that BoED in general, and Sanctify the Wicked in particular, is based on Rousseau philosophy; namely, the spell is predicated on the assumption that good is the natural state of being for the universe. This may or may not be the case in the real world, but there is a strong argument for it in D&D given what we know of where souls come from and how they are treated in the game.

By that philosophy, Sanctify is more a matter of cleansing detritus from a soul that doesn't belong there, than it is a form of coercion or "rape."

[JBento]

@Sigokuro - sig away :smallredface:

@Phelix-Mu

If you want to go around brekaing weapons, there's a thing for that: it's called Sunder, and nobody does it anyway because, frankly, that's just loot loss.

It MAY be a legitimate way to attain certain things, but if it is, it certainly isn't because the book says so - if what the books said were true, the Fighter would be a master of melee, instead of being outshone at the only thing it can actually do by every druid and (literally) their dog, and we wouldn't have to deal with Monkday.

Nonviolent resistance isn't something you can actually pull off effectively in 3.5 - at least, not unless you severely outrank whatever it is you're trying to resist in terms of power and you don't care about other people. As it stands, if you want to get something done in 3.5, SOMEONE is going to have to get violent - maybe not you, but someone in the party has to be willing to lop off that Mindflayer's head lest it feed in the orphans' brains.

I also sincerely don't get your problem with Disciple of Dispater. :smallconfused: It certainly seems to be less of a party problem than a Paladin, let alone an Exalted character.

EDIT: @Psyren: can't recall reading anything about the origin of souls. Where DO they come from, 3.5 wise?

[Starbuck_II]

EDIT: @Psyren: can't recall reading anything about the origin of souls. Where DO they come from, 3.5 wise?

From the Bastion of Unborn Souls, some Incarnum energy comes from there too.

There is even an Adventure Path from WotC 3.5 involving it.

All Dieties agreed never to speak of it. So Commune doesn't help. (technically Bardic knowledge would but with a high DC)