Vow Of Poverty and Improved Familiars

[Gamereaper]

Does having a familiar or improved familiar affect Vow of Poverty?

Is it possible that I can tell an improved familiar of sufficient size that "you can keep that magic item" or "I don't want my share of gold, keep it for yourself"?

[Gamereaper]

Is it possible that I can tell a familiar "I don't want my share of gold, you can keep it" or "You can have that Ring of Spell Storing" without it affecting Vow of Poverty?

[Ruethgar]

In most cases, no. However if you believe your familiar to be the avatar of your god(cat being the avatar for Bast for example) then it might be ok. But your intelligence and wisdom should have to be pretty low to A. not realize that the power of your cat is derived from you and arcane forces and B. that your cat is not divine. Your sense motive would probably also have to be horrible and the cat would have to have good bluff to keep up the rouse.

[Menzath]

what if your "cat" is really a tibbit psion/thrall herd that forces you to believe that it is your familiar?

[Fouredged Sword]

Nope, donation is mandatory.

[AstralFire]

Given VoP's exaltedness, I think any DM would be well within their rights to go "no" to any attempt to cheese-fu it through a violation of the spirit of the feat.

[Ruethgar]

Of course the DM may say that even unwittingly giving to a false charity may be grounds enough to void the vow just like being mind crontroled to use an item would break the vow and require atonement.

[Tulya]

As I recall, you're obliged to take the majority (edited) of what you're entitled to from the party's treasure and donate it to a good cause.

Edit: Though, there's no reason you can't loan out what loot you salvage from your adventuring in the exercise of Good up until you could reasonably donate it. There's nothing in the rules of voluntary poverty that suggest you're compelled to drop everything you're doing the moment treasure falls into your lap to go find a way to donate it to a just cause. Since there's no such thing as depreciation for permanent magical goods, they remain as valuable having been used by your companions to combat the forces of evil as they would unused.

[Emperor Tippy]

As I recall, you're obliged to take all of what you're entitled to from the party's treasure and donate it to a good cause.

Which may or may not be the non profit "Saving the World by Murdering Evil" charity set up by your party that has as its mission equipping and supporting adventurers who go and save the world by murdering evil.

And thus did all of the Vow of Poverty characters wealth end up being effectively party funds.

[Gamereaper]

Of course the DM may say that even unwittingly giving to a false charity may be grounds enough to void the vow just like being mind crontroled to use an item would break the vow and require atonement.

I'm not giving to a charity, I'm giving it to another sentient being.

[Crake]

Which may or may not be the non profit "Saving the World by Murdering Evil" charity set up by your party that has as its mission equipping and supporting adventurers who go and save the world by murdering evil.

And thus did all of the Vow of Poverty characters wealth end up being effectively party funds.

And this is why nobody plays with tippy, because he purposefully reads the words, but disregards the meaning.

[Crake]

why is it that you have two threads open about the exact same topic?

[gorfnab]

Which may or may not be the non profit "Saving the World by Murdering Evil" charity set up by your party that has as its mission equipping and supporting adventurers who go and save the world by murdering evil.

And thus did all of the Vow of Poverty characters wealth end up being effectively party funds.
Go a step futher and make it a 501(c)(3) so that you would not have to pay any taxes :smalltongue:

[Talya]

You guys can't have it both ways.

You either abide by the spirit of VOP (in which case, people can use spellbooks and holy symbols and such), or the letter, in which case familiars/cohorts/animal companions can use gear/amass wealth despite the PC they are attached to not having any. People are so caught up in the technicalities of what you're not allowed to do with VOP, but the moment someone brings up a technicality of what you are allowed to do, the same people immediately say "Oh, if I were DMing I'd put my foot down there." No, it's either technicalities, or spirit, not both. (And if you do use both, then you should generally use whichever favors the PC, not whichever works against them.)

We're generally concerned with RAW here. RAW, nothing prevents your familiar from picking up every shiny that isn't nailed down. Familiars are their own "person," they aren't an extension of your character.

[Adverb]

{{scrubbed}}

[Drachasor]

Imho, the DM should let the familiar/companion use items, or give them the VoP benefits too.

[Zanos]

{{scrubbed}}:
Seems like a TO question to me. I ask questions on here all the time here because RAW is a fun thought exercise, not because I want to spring shenanigans on my DM.

But yes, RAW you can load up your familiar with tons of magic items and ride off into the sunset with all of your level 9 scrolls because you picked something that could speak and maxed out UMD.

[cakellene]

Seems like a TO question to me. I ask questions on here all the time here because RAW is a fun thought exercise, not because I want to spring shenanigans on my DM.

But yes, RAW you can load up your familiar with tons of magic items and ride off into the sunset with all of your level 9 scrolls because you picked something that could speak and maxed out UMD.

How would you be getting around requirement to donate virtually your entire share of spoils to those needy? BoED specifically mentions a VoP character doesn't mean other party members can get bigger shares.

[Spore]

I'm not giving to a charity, I'm giving it to another sentient being.

That is under your control. Please do not try this rule mongering at your table. If you try to rear-end your DM he will do the same to you.


You guys can't have it both ways.

You either abide by the spirit of VOP (in which case, people can use spellbooks and holy symbols and such), or the letter, in which case familiars/cohorts/animal companions can use gear/amass wealth despite the PC they are attached to not having any. People are so caught up in the technicalities of what you're not allowed to do with VOP, but the moment someone brings up a technicality of what you are allowed to do, the same people immediately say "Oh, if I were DMing I'd put my foot down there." No, it's either technicalities, or spirit, not both. (And if you do use both, then you should generally use whichever favors the PC, not whichever works against them.)

We're generally concerned with RAW here. RAW, nothing prevents your familiar from picking up every shiny that isn't nailed down. Familiars are their own "person," they aren't an extension of your character.


Not everything that benefits a character is helping the immersion and roleplaying.

And while familiars are creatures, they also are the extension of your mind (higher Int than average) and a class feature. They are under your control and connect to your character.

[Emperor Tippy]

Go a step futher and make it a 501(c)(3) so that you would not have to pay any taxes :smalltongue:

Who pay's taxes as an adventurer?

The last time I had a government try to tax PC's the PC's went totally off the rails and took over the entire continent spanning Empire; solely because it had the audacity to try and tax them.

It's hard for the tax man to get his due when the party is more than capable of killing the army that enforces the will of the tax man's boss.

[Fouredged Sword]

See, you just need to follow historic president and have the tax man a person who buys the right to obtain taxes from the government. Historically, the death of a tax collector was rarely looked into very hard. The government already had it's money and the populous didn't like taxes.

It allows you to wave the "You need to pay taxes" flag under the party's nose while letting them kill the tax man without too much fallout.

[Dalebert]

Since there's no such thing as depreciation for permanent magical goods, they remain as valuable having been used by your companions to combat the forces of evil as they would unused.

This isn't really an issue for vow of poverty. You don't have to take magic items. You just have to take your fair share which can be all in the form of cash treasure. In fact, it's more practical for donating that way because you'd just have to sell the magic items for cash anyway to donate. So having a person with the vow in the group still means less people to fight over what choices of magic items they have even though they don't end up with a larger share of treasure than they otherwise would have. Typically members have to give up a portion of the cash equal to half the value of the magic item anyway to equalize everything out.

[Red Fel]

I've made the point before - it's not just that adventurers can kill the crap out of tax collectors, it's that they're not subject to taxes. Here's why.

In a high fantasy setting, there are primarily three groups getting taxed.

First, the serfs. They pay dues and labor to their landlords in exchange for the right of tenancy. Doesn't apply to adventurers, because they don't live in one place and work off of a noble's land. (Unless they're paying on behalf of their serf families.) This may also apply to generic villagers, who don't live on a noble's land but nonetheless pay taxes to the local kingdom under the same principle.

Second, the nobles. In exchange for their noble title, they pledge their service and a portion of their income to the crown. Doesn't apply to adventurers unless they become landed nobles. If they do, it won't apply once they become an independent kingdom - you don't have to pay taxes to yourself.

Third, the faithful. Followers of an organized church pay a tithe to their faith. This will probably only apply to Clerics, Paladins, possibly some Monks, and those with VoP. Most adventurers could care less.

Anybody trying to claim taxes from an adventurer who does not fall into one of these categories is basically committing extortion, and deserves exactly what he gets - the wrath of a rampaging, sociopathic, kleptomaniac murderhobo.

(Note that tolls are separate from taxes. Pay the tolls. Bridgekeepers have to eat too.)

Back on the point, I would argue that a familiar is considered an extension of the self (hence why you can share spells), and could not therefore take your share of the loot. Further, allowing your familiar to take and use loot on your behalf violates the spirit of VoP - yes, you can benefit from items used on your behalf, but if they're used by your familiar at your direction, it's cheating. Similarly, it violates the letter of VoP, which requires that you take your share and donate the majority of it. If you're giving your share to your familiar, you're not donating any of it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Red Fel
...I would argue that a familiar is considered an extension of the self (hence why you can share spells), and could not therefore take your share of the loot. Further, allowing your familiar to take and use loot on your behalf violates the spirit of VoP - yes, you can benefit from items used on your behalf, but if they're used by your familiar at your direction, it's cheating. Similarly, it violates the letter of VoP, which requires that you take your share and donate the majority of it. If you're giving your share to your familiar, you're not donating any of it.

Absolutely so, and very well presented. It violates both the spirit and the letter of the vow--and trying to get around VoP restrictions with tricks like this misses the entire point of playing a holy ascetic.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Just merged a couple threads; likely happened when I moved one from General. After this, double posting is on your head.

[Drachasor]

The Mod Wonder: Just merged a couple threads; likely happened when I moved one from General. After this, double posting is on your head.

:eek: Oh god, I thought that was hair this whole time!

[Talya]

This isn't really an issue for vow of poverty. You don't have to take magic items. You just have to take your fair share which can be all in the form of cash treasure. In fact, it's more practical for donating that way because you'd just have to sell the magic items for cash anyway to donate. So having a person with the vow in the group still means less people to fight over what choices of magic items they have even though they don't end up with a larger share of treasure than they otherwise would have. Typically members have to give up a portion of the cash equal to half the value of the magic item anyway to equalize everything out.

I highly disagree, for several reasons.

If, like in most games I've seen, the loot is organicly rolled on the treasure tables, what the VOP character wants to take is the magic treasure nobody in the party wants to use. The rest of the party can make good use of the gold and gems. Take your value in the crappy +2 bastard swords. A +2 bastard sword as your share is the equivalent of taking 8335gp. You'd need to get 8335gp to equal a bastard sword as your share, whereas your party would only get half that value for selling them.

Then do not sell the bastard swords. Donate them as is.

The thing is, you get goodwill credit for the amount you donate to various organizations/churches. You would get credit for the full value of the things donated, not the crappy half-price resale value. BoED says that that "credit" can be exchanged for services. So by upper levels, there's no reason a VoP character shouldn't have Inherent Bonuses when they've been donating to their church for 17 levels. So your church's wizard that's kept on retainer? Or the cleric with domain spontenaity and the wish spell in their domain? You can cash in those intangibles the church owes you for equivalent value in services.

[Fouredged Sword]

I will have to remember that clause and donate to an organisation that has a wizard with the permanency spell.

Then you can stack on permanency castings to get gear equivalent stuff.

[Emperor Tippy]

I will have to remember that clause and donate to an organisation that has a wizard with the permanency spell.

Then you can stack on permanency castings to get gear equivalent stuff.

You actually want one that can call on Solar's with Tenacious Spell: Permanency. No more having your Permanent buffs get ripped away by dispel magic or disjunction, and its actually cheaper GP wise and the Permanency is XP free.

[Spuddles]

Which may or may not be the non profit "Saving the World by Murdering Evil" charity set up by your party that has as its mission equipping and supporting adventurers who go and save the world by murdering evil.

And thus did all of the Vow of Poverty characters wealth end up being effectively party funds.

That's exactly what my party did :)

[Talya]

That's exactly what my party did :)

That's fine as long as your party tracks goodwill and makes sure you get your inherent bonuses and permancied spells with your share of the loot.

[Spuddles]

I've made the point before - it's not just that adventurers can kill the crap out of tax collectors, it's that they're not subject to taxes. Here's why.

In a high fantasy setting, there are primarily three groups getting taxed.

First, the serfs. They pay dues and labor to their landlords in exchange for the right of tenancy. Doesn't apply to adventurers, because they don't live in one place and work off of a noble's land. (Unless they're paying on behalf of their serf families.) This may also apply to generic villagers, who don't live on a noble's land but nonetheless pay taxes to the local kingdom under the same principle.

Second, the nobles. In exchange for their noble title, they pledge their service and a portion of their income to the crown. Doesn't apply to adventurers unless they become landed nobles. If they do, it won't apply once they become an independent kingdom - you don't have to pay taxes to yourself.

Third, the faithful. Followers of an organized church pay a tithe to their faith. This will probably only apply to Clerics, Paladins, possibly some Monks, and those with VoP. Most adventurers could care less.

Anybody trying to claim taxes from an adventurer who does not fall into one of these categories is basically committing extortion, and deserves exactly what he gets - the wrath of a rampaging, sociopathic, kleptomaniac murderhobo.

(Note that tolls are separate from taxes. Pay the tolls. Bridgekeepers have to eat too.)

Back on the point, I would argue that a familiar is considered an extension of the self (hence why you can share spells), and could not therefore take your share of the loot. Further, allowing your familiar to take and use loot on your behalf violates the spirit of VoP - yes, you can benefit from items used on your behalf, but if they're used by your familiar at your direction, it's cheating. Similarly, it violates the letter of VoP, which requires that you take your share and donate the majority of it. If you're giving your share to your familiar, you're not donating any of it.

Hasnt England had a longtime law that any ancient buried treasure you dig up in England belongs to the crown?

[Red Fel]

Hasnt England had a longtime law that any ancient buried treasure you dig up in England belongs to the crown?

Since when do adventurers use shovels, except as improvised weapons? :smallcool:

[cakellene]

Since when do adventurers use shovels, except as improvised weapons? :smallcool:

Anytime they hear about a long dead or not so long dead king buried with an immense treasure hoard.

[Red Fel]

Anytime they hear about a long dead or not so long dead king buried with an immense treasure hoard.

True. But at that point, they're not digging up treasures, they're prying them from that long-dead king's inevitably not-so-dead grasp.

[Talya]

Further, allowing your familiar to take and use loot on your behalf violates the spirit of VoP - yes, you can benefit from items used on your behalf, but if they're used by your familiar at your direction, it's cheating.


I'd agree if your familiar received VOP benefits, but they don't.

[cakellene]

I'd agree if your familiar received VOP benefits, but they don't.

Except they're violating both letter and spirit of rule by not only not donating properly, but actually using said items.

[Talya]

Except they're violating both letter and spirit of rule by not only not donating properly, but actually using said items.

You're still donating to charity, i'm not suggesting that you give your share to the familiar. I'm just talking about your familiar picking up a wand and using it, or similar. I don't believe that violates either spirit or letter. Your familiar is an independant intelligent being (and the "improved" versions were intelligent even before becoming your familiar) that is not morally bound by your vows.

[Drachasor]

You're still donating to charity, i'm not suggesting that you give your share to the familiar. I'm just talking about your familiar picking up a wand and using it, or similar. I don't believe that violates either spirit or letter. Your familiar is an independant intelligent being (and the "improved" versions were intelligent even before becoming your familiar) that is not morally bound by your vows.

And like I said before, if it is bound by them, then it should get some benefit. By for thematic reasons and for the same balance reasons you get bonuses for VoP.

[cakellene]

You're still donating to charity, i'm not suggesting that you give your share to the familiar. I'm just talking about your familiar picking up a wand and using it, or similar. I don't believe that violates either spirit or letter. Your familiar is an independant intelligent being (and the "improved" versions were intelligent even before becoming your familiar) that is not morally bound by your vows.

I find it a very large stretch to call a familiar an independant creature and not an extension of yourself. And unless said wand belongs to another party member, you're familiar just reduced value of goods that were to be donated too.

[Talya]

I find it a very large stretch to call a familiar an independant creature and not an extension of yourself. And unless said wand belongs to another party member, you're familiar just reduced value of goods that were to be donated too.

If your familiar is an extension of yourself, it will get the same benefits that VOP is giving you. If that's what you're arguing, then hey, I actually have no problem with that, except for the implications that your familiar doesn't have free will, which it's clear that they do.

If they don't get those VOP benefits, then they are not enough of an extension of yourself to be bound by your vows. Your familiar is their own person. They are free-willed. They think what they want. They act independantly. They are not an extension of your will. As an exalted good character, you actually don't have the right to tyrannically make that decision for them. For a vow to mean anything, the free-willed being must choose it for themselves.

This doesn't just apply to familiars, either.

If an intelligent animal companion (using the Exalted Companion feat, which you likely have if you've got an animal companion and VOP) doesn't take the VOP feats themselves, then they can use gear, even if the ranger/druid cannot.

Cohorts/Followers are also not bound by your vow. They can take VOP themselves, but your vow doesn't apply to them.

[Pickford]

You guys can't have it both ways.

You either abide by the spirit of VOP (in which case, people can use spellbooks and holy symbols and such), or the letter, in which case familiars/cohorts/animal companions can use gear/amass wealth despite the PC they are attached to not having any. People are so caught up in the technicalities of what you're not allowed to do with VOP, but the moment someone brings up a technicality of what you are allowed to do, the same people immediately say "Oh, if I were DMing I'd put my foot down there." No, it's either technicalities, or spirit, not both. (And if you do use both, then you should generally use whichever favors the PC, not whichever works against them.)

We're generally concerned with RAW here. RAW, nothing prevents your familiar from picking up every shiny that isn't nailed down. Familiars are their own "person," they aren't an extension of your character.

Disagree. The ability does what is says and nothing else.

There are plenty of ways to get around not having a spellbook, spellbook tattoos for example. And material components may be begged from other party members (per the BoED pg 30) or substituted with XP in place of expensive components. Furthermore, the Divine Focus is not necessarily anything more than:


an item of spiritual significance.

So it is more than fair for an ascetic to carve the symbol of his deity onto his staff and the staff to count as his divine focus. There, all taken care of, rules legal.

[AstralFire]

Any attempt to give your items to other people with the purpose of having them use the items to your specific benefit, familiar or otherwise, violates the intent of VoP.

[Talya]

Any attempt to give your items to other people with the purpose of having them use the items to your specific benefit, familiar or otherwise, violates the intent of VoP.

I have nowhere suggested you are not giving your full share to charity.

With that said, you're wrong. When you gift charity to churches or other powerful charitable organizations, you are definitely aware of the goodwill that that gives you, and are fully within both the spirit and the letter of VOP to ask for services back on occasion.

[Red Fel]

If your familiar is an extension of yourself, it will get the same benefits that VOP is giving you. If that's what you're arguing, then hey, I actually have no problem with that.

If they don't get those VOP benefits, then they are not enough of an extension of yourself to be bound by your vows.

This doesn't just apply to familiars, either.

If an intelligent animal companion (using the Exalted Companion feat, which you likely have if you've got an animal companion and VOP) doesn't take the VOP feats themselves, then they can use gear, even if the ranger/druid cannot.

Cohorts/Followers are also not bound by your vow. They can take VOP themselves, but your vow doesn't apply to them.

Even if I accept that they're not bound by the Vow, they are at your command. Your party members are not. If your party members use a magic item or such for your benefit, fine; you can be grateful for their generosity. But when something at your command does so, you should chastise them - you have chosen voluntarily to walk this path; they serve you and should know better.

If you regularly permit those who serve beneath you to subvert your Vow, you should be held culpable of breaking it. The Vow isn't simply not to have these things, but not to actively use them for your own benefit. Others may do so of their volition, but those who serve you act on your will, not their own. You are responsible for their actions, and should discourage this behavior.

[Talya]

If you regularly permit those who serve beneath you to subvert your Vow, you should be held culpable of breaking it. The Vow isn't simply not to have these things, but not to actively use them for your own benefit. Others may do so of their volition, but those who serve you act on your will, not their own. You are responsible for their actions, and should discourage this behavior.



Your familiar is an NPC. They are free willed. If you do not give them commands, they will act of their own volition. A familiar can use any item it chooses to use and it does not impact you. You are not obligated to tell your familiar not to use items, since it's not bound by your vow, so if it chooses to pick up the wand of fireball and blast the enemy, they're welcome to do so.

[Sam K]

I've made the point before - it's not just that adventurers can kill the crap out of tax collectors, it's that they're not subject to taxes. Here's why.

In a high fantasy setting, there are primarily three groups getting taxed.

First, the serfs. They pay dues and labor to their landlords in exchange for the right of tenancy. Doesn't apply to adventurers, because they don't live in one place and work off of a noble's land. (Unless they're paying on behalf of their serf families.) This may also apply to generic villagers, who don't live on a noble's land but nonetheless pay taxes to the local kingdom under the same principle.

Second, the nobles. In exchange for their noble title, they pledge their service and a portion of their income to the crown. Doesn't apply to adventurers unless they become landed nobles. If they do, it won't apply once they become an independent kingdom - you don't have to pay taxes to yourself.

Third, the faithful. Followers of an organized church pay a tithe to their faith. This will probably only apply to Clerics, Paladins, possibly some Monks, and those with VoP. Most adventurers could care less.

Anybody trying to claim taxes from an adventurer who does not fall into one of these categories is basically committing extortion, and deserves exactly what he gets - the wrath of a rampaging, sociopathic, kleptomaniac murderhobo.

(Note that tolls are separate from taxes. Pay the tolls. Bridgekeepers have to eat too.)

Back on the point, I would argue that a familiar is considered an extension of the self (hence why you can share spells), and could not therefore take your share of the loot. Further, allowing your familiar to take and use loot on your behalf violates the spirit of VoP - yes, you can benefit from items used on your behalf, but if they're used by your familiar at your direction, it's cheating. Similarly, it violates the letter of VoP, which requires that you take your share and donate the majority of it. If you're giving your share to your familiar, you're not donating any of it.

I think who is subject for taxation can be debated. High fantasy rarely looks like the dark ages feudalism where everyone is a serf, a craftsman, a priest (of the one accepted religion) or a noble. High fantasy settings have multiple religions (many who will be tolerated minorities), powerful guilds, universities and far more travelers than your average 10th century kingdom would have. They are closer to renaissance kingdoms (with a hint of Victorian era due to the presence of magic). Rulers will have to deal with these institutions, they aren't all going to be ignored because they don't fit into the stereotype.

Of course, taxing these institutions can be hard. How does one assign the value of being able to cast spells? A surveyor can't go through a mages spell book to determine how powerful the mage is and assign an appropriate tax rate (after all, it's hard to assign tax rate when you're polymorphed into a newt!)

Most of these institutions or individuals would likely be taxed in ways similar to how nobles were taxed: by expected service. Just like nobles were expected to be available as knights in exchange for their title, a wizards academy may left alone as long as they assist the ruler with any supernatural issues. A minor church may be allowed to operate in an area at the will of the ruler (who recognizes the use of having more than one source of divine magic handy).

High level adventurers who frequent or reside in an area are likely to be treated the same way, assuming their power is known. They may enjoy some attention from the local ruler and invitations to social events (assuming they're not known for murderhoboing everyone who snubs them), in exchange for some expected assistance in their area of expertise. After all, it's not what you know, it's WHO you know.

Low level adventurers can be taxed like everyone else (it's essentially extortion, but taxes often are), although clever adventurers will make sure that any job they take from a authority figure will include freedom from taxation as part of the payment.

As for the original question, does VoP allow you to donate your wealth to a party member? If your familiari adventures with you, and it's NOT considered an extension of your character, then it would likely count as a member of a party (self-aware, free willed creature who adventures with the rest of you). If you can't donate to the party, you can't let your familiari keep it either.

[AstralFire]

I have nowhere suggested you are not giving your full share to charity.

With that said, you're wrong. When you gift charity to churches or other powerful charitable organizations, you are definitely aware of the goodwill that that gives you, and are fully within both the spirit and the letter of VOP to ask for services back on occasion.

Familiars don't get their own share. Find me a group that wouldn't revolt over the notion of the familiar getting a right to just as much of the spoils as any party member.

I am not wrong. I chose my wording for a reason.


Any attempt to give your items to other people with the purpose of having them use the items to your specific benefit, familiar or otherwise, violates the intent of VoP.

That is not using the items.

[AlltheBooks]

Improved Familiar is a resource the player spent to acquire a buddy. A buddy who is usually sentient. I would raise an eyebrow if no one in the party, especially the exalted character, acknowledged the familiar as a thinking, feeling, risking their neck individual. I'd assign him an NPC share of the loot, VoP or not.

I wouldn't force the party to accept that, but it's never been a problem in the past and I'm sure I'll see it again in the future. Never seen a decked out familiar with a VoP character but as long as the chump...*cough* sorry VoP character donated their share of the wealth meh. Wouldn't care. Would care more if the Imp. Familiar was treated like a chair.

VoP and Exalted bring up strong contention on many levels so I'd never expect every group to see eye to eye.

[Red Fel]

Your familiar is an NPC. They are free willed. If you do not give them commands, they will act of their own volition. A familiar can use any item it chooses to use and it does not impact you. You are not obligated to tell your familiar not to use items, since it's not bound by your vow, so if it chooses to pick up the wand of fireball and blast the enemy, they're welcome to do so.

They are free-willed, you are correct. But they also serve you. There is a doctrine of responsibility that dictates that a person may be held accountable for the actions of those who serve them. This is especially true when the familiar knows just how serious your oath is, yet seeks to subvert it anyway.

You are not obligated to tell your familiar not to use items. However, if it repeatedly uses them for your benefit, your failure to advise it otherwise is tacit agreement. Your silence has become consent. In doing so, you are in violation of your Vow.


Familiars don't get their own share. Find me a group that wouldn't revolt over the notion of the familiar getting a right to just as much of the spoils as any party member.

This as well. If I hand my share to my familiar, my party will scoff. But more importantly, why am I giving a wand to my familiar? Why does my familiar need a wand? If my motivation is "Because he can use it for my benefit," I am in violation of my Vow.

[AstralFire]

Improved Familiar is a resource the player spent to acquire a buddy. A buddy who is usually sentient. I would raise an eyebrow if no one in the party, especially the exalted character, acknowledged the familiar as a thinking, feeling, risking their neck individual. I'd assign him an NPC share of the loot, VoP or not.

I wouldn't force the party to accept that, but it's never been a problem in the past and I'm sure I'll see it again in the future. Never seen a decked out familiar with a VoP character but as long as the chump...*cough* sorry VoP character donated their share of the wealth meh. Wouldn't care. Would care more if the Imp. Familiar was treated like a chair.

VoP and Exalted bring up strong contention on many levels so I'd never expect every group to see eye to eye.

Remove VoP from the equation, and that makes every player in the party who has a Familiar, Animal Companion, or Cohort have the right to double loot out of the party's spoils. I can hardly think that that's intended, implied or required by the rules, or makes for a well-run game.

[Talya]

Familiars don't get their own share. Find me a group that wouldn't revolt over the notion of the familiar getting a right to just as much of the spoils as any party member.

I am not wrong. I chose my wording for a reason.



I have not suggested giving the familiars a share.

I'm saying that the familiar can use a magic item as they see fit without violating your vow. Nowhere have I suggested that the VOP person can give them items. I haven't suggested where they're going to get the items. Maybe they pickpocketed the villain. Maybe the picked the wand off a corpse on the battlefield. Maybe the party cleric handed your familiar a healing wand to assist with healing in a fight. I don't know, don't care. Maybe it's an eternal wand you're gifting to charity when you reach town and your familiar has chosen to carry it. I'm merely saying that your familiar using an item does not violate the spirit or letter of VOP.

[AstralFire]

I can agree with that, but situations where a familiar has access to a magic item and it's not part of what should be considered 'party loot' and the magic item is likely to be of use to you are not abundant. In other words, it's not very abusable, and should become suspect if the familiar's magic item usage is regularly to your direct benefit.

[Lightlawbliss]

I dare say more then one issue is being argued.

1. can a familiar of a VOP char use magic items (I say yes)

2. can a VOP char give magic items to their familiar (I say it involves cheese and dm permission)

[Talya]

I dare say more then one issue is being argued.

1. can a familiar of a VOP char use magic items (I say yes)

2. can a VOP char give magic items to their familiar (I say it involves cheese and dm permission)

As a DM, I'd say:
1) Yes.
2) No. Shut up and sit down.

[AlltheBooks]

Remove VoP from the equation, and that makes every player in the party who has a Familiar, Animal Companion, or Cohort have the right to double loot out of the party's spoils. I can hardly think that that's intended, implied or required by the rules, or makes for a well-run game.

I am well aware that many groups play with full control over Imp.Familiars with them being silent automatons that obey every order. We do not. Why would AC's or normal familiars get a share? They aren't people. You also missed the part where my players do this with no urging from me.

In addition, I haven't had a group in over 8 years that gave a rats behind about WBL. They can create anything they want faster than they could order it. Most of the "loot" goes to expanding their infrastructure over the prime they came from. For fun.

Funny how that ties with the above. When greed and lust for power no longer rules you start treating those you saw as slaves now as equals, neat.

So for your group giving a familiar loot could be a bone of contention. Not for all. Any ways I would lean more to the VoP bonuses affect the familiar and the familiar is also bound by the oath.

I get that others disagree but meh. I can't even say I will do X always because my campaigns change drastically depending on group mood and who is playing.