a knights tale

[navycake]

im making a knight level 4 and i need a second opinion, i wanna take a vow of peace mostly because of the knights code of conduct and not being able to kill
an enemy, soo why not get some thing else out of this.

" This sacred vow grants significant supernatural benefits, but its cost is high. First, you are constantly surrounded by a calming aura to a radius of 20 feet. Creatures within the aura must make a successful Will save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your Cha modifier) or be affected as by the calm emotions spell. Creatures who leave the aura and reenter it receive new saving throws. A creature that makes a successful saving throw and remains in the aura is unaffected until it leaves the aura and reenters. The aura is a mind-affecting, supernatural compulsion. Second, you gain a +2 natural armor bonus to your AC, a +2 deflection bonus to your AC, and a +2 exalted bonus to your AC. This exalted bonus does not apply to touch attacks and does not hinder incorporeal touch attacks. Brilliant energy weapons, however, do not ignore it. It does not stack with an armor bonus. If you also have the Vow of Poverty feat, the natural armor, deflection, and exalted Armor Class bonuses granted by that feat all increase by +2. If a creature strikes you with a manufactured weapon, the weapon must immediately make a successful Fortitude save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your Con modifier) or shatter against your skin, leaving you unharmed. Finally, you gain a +4 exalted bonus on all Diplomacy checks." so yeah i get alot

[Phelix-Mu]

The general consensus about Vow of Peace is to always check with the DM and the rest of the party members before even thinking of doing it, since it's a kind of role play shtick that has concrete, mechanical impact on the way the other players play their characters.

Also, from a campaign perspective, Waging Peace isn't always feasible (or at least, it's not always desirable from an out-of-game perspective).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Congratulations, you've found the one option in 3.5 that carries more RP weight than any other, bar none.

Seriously, you cannot use Vow of Peace without having a sit-down with your group about the ramifications this will have on -their- characters and an even longer discussion with your DM about the nature of Good in general (note the capital G) and exalted status in particular. To do any less would be, at the very least, discourteous or, perhaps, even lead to a massive disruption of the game when it inevitably leads to a suprise disagreement that sparks off an argument about what's what.

More importantly though, where are you getting this absurd notion that anything in the Knight's CoC says you can't kill?

[BowStreetRunner]

More importantly though, where are you getting this absurd notion that anything in the Knight's CoC says you can't kill?

That's the part that has me stumped as well. Let's look at the Knight's Code for a moment, shall we?

You must forgo the +2 bonus you gain from flanking an opponent.
You must not strike an opponent who is flat-footed.
You must not deal lethal damage against a helpless foe.

That's pretty much it. So as long as your opponent is neither flat-footed nor helpless and you don't take advantage of the flanking bonus, you are pretty much free to kill them. The whole point is that you are just giving them a fair chance.

[Gwendol]

Coupled with ToM he's drawing weak-willed enemies to him, and when they attack risk sundering their weapons against him.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's the part that has me stumped as well. Let's look at the Knight's Code for a moment, shall we?

You must forgo the +2 bonus you gain from flanking an opponent.
You must not strike an opponent who is flat-footed.
You must not deal lethal damage against a helpless foe.

That's pretty much it. So as long as your opponent is neither flat-footed nor helpless and you don't take advantage of the flanking bonus, you are pretty much free to kill them. The whole point is that you are just giving them a fair chance.

I figure the underlined for the source of this confusion.

The thing of it is this: it's 95% certain that this is referring to the helpless condition; a specific bit of game rules with clearly defined parameters, as opposed to opponents that are effectively helpless in that they stand no real chance of defeating the knight in combat.

In that case, there are only 2 scenarios in which the enemy will likely be helpless with any frequency.

1) He's below zero HP and dying. The knight is forbidden from delivering a coup-de-gras (which, honestly, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but w/e) but the odds that the opponent will recover are vanishingly slim so it's kind of a non-issue.

2) One of the other members of the party has somehow debuffed the enemy into helplessness, in which case -they- are perfectly capable of delivering a coup-de-gras themselves. Even a str 8 wizard delivering a coup-de-gras with a quarterstaff is putting up a dc 15 fort save Vs death on average. Anyone else is basically making it a "roll a 20 or die" scenario for the enemy.

It's really not a problem.

[Galvin]

Nowhere does it state that a knight may not kill. They may not coup-de-grace a hopeless foe and they also must fight fair without dirty tactics. I see nothing about not killing.