My party killed off my Apostle of Peace...

[Desiani]

So... I took the time to convert about half of the Book of Exalted Deeds for my pathfinder group because all of them wanted to play the typical Heroes against the entire Demonic plane.

For myself I converted Apostle of Peace keeping most things unchanged. The only thing that I did was tweak a few numbers like HD the skills and skillpoints after my few few drafts that my GM found acceptable. I also gave the PrC an arcane variant that allows my Celestial Sorcerer to gain limited ups to her Spell Casting level. (My gm ruled that 3.5 AoP was a divine only PrC).

I am fine with doing all of the above as I enjoy doing the conversions. What gets my goat riled though is my Table killed off my AoP. Not with monsters or demons, but the players themselves and I cant wrap my head around why.

I get that the aura of nonviolence can be a tricky thing to play around but does it warrant enough Ire for Exalted Good characters to just outright murder me? @.@

[huttj509]

So... I took the time to convert about half of the Book of Exalted Deeds for my pathfinder group because all of them wanted to play the typical Heroes against the entire Demonic plane.

For myself I converted Apostle of Peace keeping most things unchanged. The only thing that I did was tweak a few numbers like HD the skills and skillpoints after my few few drafts that my GM found acceptable. I also gave the PrC an arcane variant that allows my Celestial Sorcerer to gain limited ups to her Spell Casting level. (My gm ruled that 3.5 AoP was a divine only PrC).

I am fine with doing all of the above as I enjoy doing the conversions. What gets my goat riled though is my Table killed off my AoP. Not with monsters or demons, but the players themselves and I cant wrap my head around why.

I get that the aura of nonviolence can be a tricky thing to play around but does it warrant enough Ire for Exalted Good characters to just outright murder me? @.@


Well, for one thing they'd no longer be Exalted, probably.

[Bronk]

I think that's a great jumping off point to find a better group. I'd say that pretty much any group you find will at least be better than your current one.

[Kazudo]

So... I took the time to convert about half of the Book of Exalted Deeds for my pathfinder group because all of them wanted to play the typical Heroes against the entire Demonic plane.

For myself I converted Apostle of Peace keeping most things unchanged. The only thing that I did was tweak a few numbers like HD the skills and skillpoints after my few few drafts that my GM found acceptable. I also gave the PrC an arcane variant that allows my Celestial Sorcerer to gain limited ups to her Spell Casting level. (My gm ruled that 3.5 AoP was a divine only PrC).

I am fine with doing all of the above as I enjoy doing the conversions. What gets my goat riled though is my Table killed off my AoP. Not with monsters or demons, but the players themselves and I cant wrap my head around why.

I get that the aura of nonviolence can be a tricky thing to play around but does it warrant enough Ire for Exalted Good characters to just outright murder me? @.@

Well, Exalted Good characters should never really just completely and totally kill off your character (I'd like to know how they did it, personally), especially an Apostle of Peace.

However, Vow of Nonviolence is a really, really tough thing for frontline fighters to deal with. Playing one was probably not a good idea if it's gonna be all out war against the outsiders.

[Cyanide]

What gets my goat riled though is my Table killed off my AoP. Not with monsters or demons, but the players themselves and I cant wrap my head around why.

Can you be a little more specific about the circumstances under which this f*ckery happened? Because barring a ridiculously good and well-presented reason (and I mean well-presented on a "Diplomacy check with DC 100" level), as a DM myself I think I would set a new record for both the quickest appearance of a Divine Emissar of the Seven Heavens and the shortest interval of time between appearance of said Emissar and the complete and utter obliteration of the rest of the group.
With no possibility of resurrection, of course, the souls of these dolts have a judgement to undergo.

[Yogibear41]

Well, for one thing they'd no longer be Exalted, probably. More like they are evil now. To kill of an Apostle of Peace that was apart of your group for no reason, would bump anyone from good to an evil alignment instantly in my book.

[Desiani]

I think that's a great jumping off point to find a better group. I'd say that pretty much any group you find will at least be better than your current one.

I would heartily agree in most cases. But In this particular one, I used feats to increase my Aura DCs to a point where at our current level it requires a Nat 20 just to pass for the at my table, mostly for my own characters defense against Demons and other evil doers. Most of the party are Martial characters who dumped Wisdom in favor of other stats... so they did It to themselves...

Until I can find another group to game with I am just going to roll another Celestial Sorcerer AoP. My old chars twin sister. Same exact build, JUST to pester them. Since they all just lost 2-3 feats for comitting murder i will preach peace for all demonkind! XD

[Shining Wrath]

There are circumstances where a Good party can murder one of themselves; possession with death of the host being the only way to stop Very Big Evil comes to mind.

Inconvenience is not one of them.

Most likely, whoever your Apostle of Peace directed his sacred vows to now hates every member of your party. This OUGHT to be extraordinarily inconvenient, but depends upon DM. The means of punishment might be non-violent, such as all treasure simply vanishing, leaving behind a note saying it can be claimed by appearing at the nearest temple and atoning.

[Desiani]

Can you be a little more specific about the circumstances under which this f*ckery happened? Because barring a ridiculously good and well-presented reason (and I mean well-presented on a "Diplomacy check with DC 100" level), as a DM myself I think I would set a new record for both the quickest appearance of a Divine Emissar of the Seven Heavens and the shortest interval of time between appearance of said Emissar and the complete and utter obliteration of the rest of the group.
With no possibility of resurrection, of course, the souls of these dolts have a judgement to undergo.

They neglected to make their will saves positive on their own and they relied on my buff spells to increase it for them.


However, Vow of Nonviolence is a really, really tough thing for frontline fighters to deal with. Playing one was probably not a good idea if it's gonna be all out war against the outsiders.

It may not be a good idea from a gameplay wise, but my character concept was to build a character that could force peace by using her Natural love of peace upon the Outsiders. It's a weird idea that was working up until my murder xD

[Kazudo]

I'd imagine. So really though how did they kill you specifically?

Also, I can see Apostle of Peace going that route, but the moment that any of the Paladins, for example, were to kill a fiend (which is often an outright good thing, while leaving a fiend alive might be construed as an evil thing, depending on dat code of conduct) when it was helpless, they'd incur negatives which, for any combat-related class, is a problem. All it takes is for the group to murderhobo a group of lesser devils, then have to deal with a Pit Fiend with all of those negatives to see what a difference it makes.

Another problem though, from an existential standpoint I guess I have to ask: Was the mission dire enough that upon receiving penalties of this nature, they could have possibly decided that the hindrance to the mission was more of a concern than killing a lawful good peacebunny could be?

[Psyren]

Did they just up and do it, or did they try and talk to you and the DM first about how bloody annoying the aura and Vows can be to play around if you're not an exalted character?

As a general rule, BoED is the kind of book where either the whole party is trying to be exalted good or you're better off just not doing that at all.

[Vedhin]

What gets my goat riled though is my Table killed off my AoP... and I cant wrap my head around why.

I get that the aura of nonviolence can be a tricky thing to play around but does it warrant enough Ire for Exalted Good characters to just outright murder me? @.@


I used feats to increase my Aura DCs to a point where at our current level it requires a Nat 20 just to pass for the at my table... Most of the party are Martial characters who dumped Wisdom in favor of other stats... so they did It to themselves...


They neglected to make their will saves positive on their own and they relied on my buff spells to increase it for them.

Seriously? You expect the rest of the party to build around you when you take something that actively penalizes them?
If you want to play an Apostle of Peace, it's something you have to coordinate closely with the party. Pumping the DCs while the others dump Will is just going to lead to the others seeing you as a weight dragging them down.

I do agree that this was a jerk move by them though. I would have just forbidden Apostle of Peace and those Vows outright.

[TaiLiu]

As everyone else said, you'd probably want to coordinate your character making with the rest of the party - maybe make sure every gets save-boosting items, or something...

[Desiani]

They never talked to me about it. They made the occasional '**** this aura' snide but never tried to talk to me or the dm. I suggested to pad their Saves so as to have a better time to not fail, but none of them wanted to.

They made a deal with a Devil of some Rank worth note in the current region we were in. They had to kill me to shore their end of the bargain. We were ALL exalted good... they fell from it to kill me using the setting. :(

They just murdered me while I slept.

Edit: I informed them at char creation I'm going into the PrC and about the sura... they didnt care untill I went into it and got the aura...

[Gildedragon]

a) they should lose their exalted status, big time, all access to their exalted abilities etc...

b) foul move, should have been solved OOC. tell them that you're not cool with that sort of stuff, talk it our with them.

also how did they manage? weapons break against you (assuming the DCs are high) and you radiate calm quite thoroughly.

Note that you still radiate the aura in your sleep. So... yeah, I'd say talk with the DM and players. Not sure how to fix this but... ya know.

[Psyren]

Edit: I informed them at char creation I'm going into the PrC and about the sura... they didnt care untill I went into it and got the aura...

They probably didn't realize the ramifications of it until you actually got it. Not necessarily fair but still understandable.


They never talked to me about it. They made the occasional '**** this aura' snide but never tried to talk to me or the dm. I suggested to pad their Saves so as to have a better time to not fail, but none of them wanted to.

To be blunt, I don't agree with how any of you handled the situation. Nobody should have to "pad their saves" to avoid being interfered with by a fellow party member.

[Kazudo]

In the games that an Apostle of Peace was requested, I've houseruled Vow of Nonviolence to not work on party members unless they are of the same deity and alignment as the person with it if it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

And actually, I've more quickly houseruled that Ur-Priest doesn't have to be evil, and that good Ur-Priests don't STEAL power from gods but have it granted from the general goodness of the world itself than changing Vow of Nonviolence. It hasn't come up all that often, however.

[Snowbluff]

As a general rule, BoED is the kind of book where either the whole party is trying to be exalted good or you're better off just not doing that at all.

Sanctified spells!

[Bloodgruve]

It may not be a good idea from a gameplay wise, but my character concept was to build a character that could force peace by using her Natural love of peace upon the Outsiders. It's a weird idea that was working up until my murder xD

So you created a character that penalized the rest of your group for playing the game they way they wanted to? If they didn't agree on character creation to honor your vows then you kinda brought it on yourself. I sure as heck wouldn't take kindly to getting negatives from my group member because I wanted to kill a demon. Granted, murdering a party member isn't the best solution but I'd be pretty annoyed playing in your group. DnD is a game of cooperation between the party usually, these vows are terrible unless the whole group wants to play them.

IMHO,

Blood~

[infomatic]

Granted, murdering a party member isn't the best solution ....

IMHO,

Blood~

It's not a solution at all; all it's done is made things worse.

This entire group handled it badly, both IC and OOC. The OP should've discussed what the Vow meant for their group, the DM should've raised an alert, the other PCs should've:


Discussed it with you
Complained to the DM
Asked, in campaign, your character to get lost
Anything else


Do you people know each other at all? Because this stuff has to get sorted out between you, or you should just go your separate ways.

[Bloodgruve]

It's not a solution at all; all it's done is made things worse.

I agree, I was just softening the comment.

Really though, playing a build like this is asking the whole party to play by your rules. It's asking quite a lot.


They probably didn't realize the ramifications of it until you actually got it. Not necessarily fair but still understandable.

[nedz]

Until I can find another group to game with I am just going to roll another Celestial Sorcerer AoP. My old chars twin sister. Same exact build, JUST to pester them. Since they all just lost 2-3 feats for comitting murder i will preach peace for all demonkind! XD

Hmm, since they didn't like your last AoP: how do you think this idea is going to pan out ?
In other words: what is your third character in this game going to be ?
I think you might need to have that worked out before the next session.

[Desiani]

So you created a character that penalized the rest of your group for playing the game they way they wanted to? If they didn't agree on character creation to honor your vows then you kinda brought it on yourself. I sure as heck wouldn't take kindly to getting negatives from my group member because I wanted to kill a demon. Granted, murdering a party member isn't the best solution but I'd be pretty annoyed playing in your group. DnD is a game of cooperation between the party usually, these vows are terrible unless the whole group wants to play them.

IMHO,

Blood~

But that's the thing, the Fighter took Vow of Chastity. The paladin and the ranger both used vows as well... It's not like I was the only one using them. I even showed them the damned rules on the aura to them to let them know what was going on.

[prufock]

Exalted characters made a deal with the devil that involved murdering an innocent member of their team?

They fall, and HARD.

See if your DM will give you permission to return as a Risen Martyr with the Saint (+2 LA) template. Technically I don't think that combo works by RAW, but ask your DM nicely. Retrain your feats; heck, grab vow of poverty for laughs.

Now try to save them from themselves.

[Kesnit]

I used feats to increase my Aura DCs to a point where at our current level it requires a Nat 20 just to pass for the at my table, mostly for my own characters defense against Demons and other evil doers. Most of the party are Martial characters who dumped Wisdom in favor of other stats... so they did It to themselves...

Until I can find another group to game with I am just going to roll another Celestial Sorcerer AoP. My old chars twin sister. Same exact build, JUST to pester them. Since they all just lost 2-3 feats for comitting murder i will preach peace for all demonkind! XD


They neglected to make their will saves positive on their own and they relied on my buff spells to increase it for them.


They never talked to me about it. They made the occasional '**** this aura' snide but never tried to talk to me or the dm. I suggested to pad their Saves so as to have a better time to not fail, but none of them wanted to.

So let's see...

1) You built a PC designed to hurt the other PCs.
2) You knew there was a problem, but ignored the other players in order to build your "special snowflake."
3) You ignored hints from other players that you were causing problems for them.

And now you're confused as to why the rest of the PCs killed off your PC? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Go ahead and build a duplicate of your last PC. See how long it takes before the party kills her off as well.


Seriously? You expect the rest of the party to build around you when you take something that actively penalizes them?
If you want to play an Apostle of Peace, it's something you have to coordinate closely with the party. Pumping the DCs while the others dump Will is just going to lead to the others seeing you as a weight dragging them down.

I do agree that this was a jerk move by them though. I would have just forbidden Apostle of Peace and those Vows outright.

IMO, the jerk move was intentionally building a PC that does not play well with the others. And then doing it again.

[Desiani]

Hmm, since they didn't like your last AoP: how do you think this idea is going to pan out ?
In other words: what is your third character in this game going to be ?
I think you might need to have that worked out before the next session.

My Dm has the policy of making us make 3 characters in total at level 1. So whrn we level up we update out current character plus the 2 back ups. My 2 backs ups were a 2nd AoP and a Witch o.o

[Toliudar]

Hmm, since they didn't like your last AoP: how do you think this idea is going to pan out ?
In other words: what is your third character in this game going to be ?
I think you might need to have that worked out before the next session.

+1 to this, with exclamation marks. If your last character pissed off the other players so much that they completely changed their own character concepts (falling from exalted status, making a literal deal with a devil) to get rid of the character, why in the world would you repeat the error?

[Kazudo]

The difference between any other vow and the Vow of Nonviolence/Peace combo is that the other flaws only affect YOUR character. The Vow of Nonviolence/Peace combo required for AoP affects EVERYONE and specifically puts a damper on the usual Sanctified Murderhobo setup that a war against Demons would cause.

I think that you should REALLY just run a Cleric with Sanctified Spells. Use Complete Champion for all it's worth, and it'll grant you the same general feel but WITHOUT the books-to-the-head that rolling up another AoP might cause considering how poorly your last one went.

Maybe even talk with the DM about gimping Vow of Nonviolence a little to make it NOT affect the rest of the party.

[Bloodgruve]

But that's the thing, the Fighter took Vow of Chastity. The paladin and the ranger both used vows as well... It's not like I was the only one using them. I even showed them the damned rules on the aura to them to let them know what was going on.

Thats a bit of a different story then, were you the only one using Nonviolence though? Sometimes just looking at the rules isn't enough, gotta play um to get a full understanding. I'd really suggest not taking anything that would hinder any others in the group as a general rule. Sometimes even Paladins are hard to swallow if they're played correctly ;)

[Elderand]

There is a significant difference between characters taking a vow that only affect them and making a character that not only has vows that hinder everyone and also penalize everyone not interested in following said vow.

Reading the rules and clearly understanding what they entails are two different things.

And finaly, doing a carbon copy of the previous character just to piss everyone off is petty.

Did the other people in the group mishandled things ? yes absolutly.

But you're no better.

[Kantolin]

Realistically, while I don't at all like Apostle of Peace (Nor, while on that subject, Frenzied Berserker)... 'lol we kill his character' is not a good response for an array of reasons.

One of which is that, in addition to all the bad blood, it doesn't actually work: All it really asks for is 'Okay next time I'll make my character harder to kill'. I mean, from the sounds of it it doesn't even sound like they killed this Apostle of Peace because of the vow of nonviolence - more 'because a demon asked them to' and 'lol'.

My suggestion, before you make another character, is to just talk to the other players first. Ask, 'so what the heck, guys?' and try to talk out what made them so irate. As, while it's frustrating to even partially enable that sort of behavior, if the problem is indeed, 'Eh I don't feel like dealing with this I kill his character' then making another mostly means the game will boil down to a series of optimization PvP-offs. Which uh... I... I guess is alright if that's your goal, but it doesn't sound like that's the goal of the game.

[Psyren]

There is a significant difference between characters taking a vow that only affect them and making a character that not only has vows that hinder everyone and also penalize everyone not interested in following said vow.

Reading the rules and clearly understanding what they entails are two different things.

And finaly, doing a carbon copy of the previous character just to piss everyone off is petty.

Did the other people in the group mishandled things ? yes absolutly.

But you're no better.

I nearly broke my keyboard agreeing with this post.

[icefractal]

AoP is one of those things that should not be used unless the whole group agrees to playing that way. It's actually worse than Frenzied Berserker, I think. So - playing one despite people's complaints about the aura, and telling them to suck it up - pretty bad move. Your character was going to be leaving the campaign one way or another.

The way they handled it - dumb. Even if you're one of those "anything goes, deal with it IC" groups (I don't recommend this), then they could simply say (IC) "You follow one path of righteousness, but we follow another. I wish you luck but we'll not travel with you any longer." Problem solved, no deals with demons required.

Unless - does your group have one of those stupid "All PCs must be kept in the party, no matter how undesirable" policies? The fact that you think they would even accept teaming up with your replacement AoP after falling from exalted makes me think it does. Those kind of policies are a bad idea, for exactly this reason. If the characters have no reason to work together they should just - not work together! And some/all of the players should make different characters that can work together.

[WarKitty]

My suggestion, before you make another character, is to just talk to the other players first. Ask, 'so what the heck, guys?' and try to talk out what made them so irate. As, while it's frustrating to even partially enable that sort of behavior, if the problem is indeed, 'Eh I don't feel like dealing with this I kill his character' then making another mostly means the game will boil down to a series of optimization PvP-offs. Which uh... I... I guess is alright if that's your goal, but it doesn't sound like that's the goal of the game.

This. The problem here is that this whole issue should have been handled OOC. It could have been managed. Maybe you could have made a rule so that the party could attack evil outsiders without triggering the aura. But whatever you do, everyone needs to sit down and talk about how the group is going to run.

[Captnq]

I'm thinking I would have simply fired you, honestly.

"Uhh... Yes. Well. You see... We've been looking over the budget and we've had to make some cut backs. We simply cannot afford you in the party any more. Since you have that vow of nonviolence we know you won't do anything about it, so we're firing you, keeping your stuff, and we're going to go murder a whole bunch of people and take their stuff as well. Not much you can do about it, since you suck, and all. So... well. As far as exit interviews go, this has gone nicely. Please don't use us as a reference."

[Segev]

I disagree with everybody saying the OP is "no better" than his party.

Did the OP make some missteps? Yes. Could he have taken more pro-active steps to ask, "Hey, guys, you seem to be bothered by my major feature. Can we discuss OOC how to make this work?" Sure.

I'm not going to say he should have, though; gamers are not mind-readers. He probably should have paid a bit more attention if they were obviously getting irritated at the table, but he took what he thought were reasonable steps to keep the party informed, in good faith.

Now, bringing in the same character to spite them is probably a bad idea. I do not recommend it without thoroughly discussing it with the other players and the DM, first.

Talk to the whole group, OOC, about this. Find out what they wanted out of it, why they think this was a good idea, and whether there's bad blood on their side, still, or not. Obviously, you're peeved, so that's already a bad situation. Are these guys friends of yours, or just a group with whom you're gaming?

If their sole problem is that they wanted your aura gone, discuss with them the possibility of bringing back the character, absent her Vow. Discuss with the DM the possibility of a Succubus or Erinyes having snagged your dead PC's soul and dragged it off to her master for corruption. She's come back in your old character's guise to try to further corrupt or simply sacrifice the party.

Plan an arc where the party should slowly realize something is wrong, or maybe be led to discover clues that will lead them to confront the fiendish master who has your character's soul. He's been torturing her, trying to break her and make her fall so he can create a new, powerful fiend from her broken Vow. The party has a choice between rescuing her (and probably offing the fiend that's been impersonating her) and maybe accepting her back into the party, vow and all, or letting her suffer and maybe fall. (Whether the latter case has them keep the succubus or erinyes around is a matter for them to decide, now that they know of the deception.)

[Svata]

There is a significant difference between characters taking a vow that only affect them and making a character that not only has vows that hinder everyone and also penalize everyone not interested in following said vow.

Reading the rules and clearly understanding what they entails are two different things.

And finaly, doing a carbon copy of the previous character just to piss everyone off is petty.

Did the other people in the group mishandled things ? yes absolutly.

But you're no better.

[/thread] Next question!

[Bloodgruve]

OP, are you friends with the rest of the group or merely game shop acquaintances? Are you fighting a vested group of friends (clique) feeling that your character was a hindrance? If this is the case and you want to continue on with the game then you may want to swing the other way and roll a bard or marshal or something that makes everyone else better, the atmosphere will turn from hatered to love quickly. Whatever the situation may be you'll be better off asking the rest of the group what they think you should run, they'll prolly just say 'Anything without Nonviolence'.

Blood~

[Zanos]

Realistically, while I don't at all like Apostle of Peace (Nor, while on that subject, Frenzied Berserker)... 'lol we kill his character' is not a good response for an array of reasons.
Meh, FB isn't that bad. Grease handles them nicely. They also usually don't complain when their incredibly annoying class feature gets them rightfully killed off by the party.

[Starchild7309]

This whole situation baffles me. AoP is one of those classes I looked at and thought, why would I ever want to play that....much like many other classes that didn't seem interesting of fun to me because they didn't contribute or hindered others. That is neither here or there though in this conversation.

Did the other members handle it badly, yes. We are all in agreement of that.
Did you do everything you could to make the situation better prior to death, probably not.
Should you march your 2nd AoP out who is a carbon copy of the guy they just murdered? Most definitely not!

Go with your Witch or roll up something new. I saw the suggestion for a character that buffs the party. That seems like something everyone would like. Leave it to your DM to punish the other players for breaking their vows in game. Antagonizing the other players is just sour grapes.

We had a guy in group who used to roll up CE "I can do anything I want cause I am CE" Barbarians and get us into complete and total messes that waylaid sessions and made the game no fun. So after his last Barbarian died and he rolled up the same one, in game we just refused to bring him along. The player was at a loss for what to do other than follow us and the DM was surprised we wouldn't let him join us, but after a session of him following us around like a lost puppy, we told him straight up, if you do anything like you have with the previous 4 characters we will:
1. Disown you from the group
2. Apprehend and turn in your character to be put to death
3. Not invite you back to reroll another character.

Sometimes an ultimatum works well and if you break out the 2nd AoP I would be breaking out ultimatums cause you ruin the fun for everyone else. Its not your game, its everyone's game.

[Kantolin]

Meh, FB isn't that bad. (...) They also usually don't complain when their incredibly annoying class feature gets them rightfully killed off by the party.

Good lord, you must know different FB players than I do. Sitting around and carefully planning on 'what will we do to avoid a random TPK from our own teammate today!' got annoying quick, and all four of them got pretty irate when we wouldn't bring them with us into the orphanage or whatever. In one case his character, upon feeling insulted... flew into a frenzy and attacked us, which resulted in us waiting out his frenzy and then /putting down the rabid dog/, in which he was in fact quite upset with getting killed off by the party.

(It /actually/ resulted in us having a surprisingly civil OOC chat first, informing him that we're willing to go through this pvp session now, but after tonight all characters need to /not attack the party/ as a mandate. Said player was later thrown out of the group after being apathetic about not putting allies in the middle of cones of cold)

Remember, 'I take penalties on my ability to act' can /lead/ to 'I am dead', but isn't as bad as starting with 'I am dead' :P


We had a guy in group who used to roll up CE "I can do anything I want cause I am CE" Barbarians and get us into complete and total messes that waylaid sessions and made the game no fun. (...) we told him straight up, if you do anything like you have with the previous 4 characters we will:
1. Disown you from the group
2. Apprehend and turn in your character to be put to death
3. Not invite you back to reroll another character.

That! Do that. Talk!

Although I also agree that, with the admittedly limited knowledge we have here, I wouldn't put the blame on the OP nearly as much as the others. It's like if the CG rogue in the party says, "I slit the paladin's throat when he sleeps because I don't like there being a paladin in the party' out of nowhere or something - there actually may be a reason he doesn't want a paladin around, but the response is more 'talk about it' than 'kill his character' - the latter just results in him making a new character!

I dunno, the paladin might make a frenzied berserker and carefully make sure he's /immediately/ next to the rogue and only fails frenzy saves just before his turn, or something else that's obnoxious and passive-aggressive.

Anyway, you /probably/ don't want to make a new character if you're sure that's the problem. Talk first.

[Vaz]

As a member of a group in a game you have the responsibility to ensure they have as much fun as you.

Normally i say that in threads where Monks or BSF are getting outclassed by CoDzillas or Wizard summons etc. But in this respect, you are actively hindering the party in as much as effectively randomly casting hold person on your party or whatever.

The apostle of peace is fairly NPC by nature.

[Madara]

This kinda sounds like it could be epic.

The forces of good, fed up with Good's restrictions hindering their ability to combat evil, start to fight fire with fire, bringing the wrath of the Light upon the fiends.

And yeah, the Apostle of Peace was a bad idea.

[John Longarrow]

Desiani,

Before your next game, I'd suggest talking to the other players AND the DM. Find out the following:
1) What happened to the rest of the party (i.e. did they go evil?)
2) Explain that they could have talked to you about switching out characters rather than killing yours off.
3) See what would work well with the party. Having a 2nd character with all of the same flaws (from a party composition point of view) will not be fun for anyone.
4) Reiterate that arbitrarily killing your character off during a session is a poor option. Explain it would be better for them to bring problems to your attention rather than going to an extreme.

Please note, this has very little to do with your character being an Apostle of Peace. It has to do with group dynamics and cooperation. You could have been playing a BFC wizard and had the same problems if you were not keeping your party in mind when throwing spells.

[Emperor Tippy]

I would have just say by and let you experience the full consequences of your vows.

In other words I would have sat there non violently and peacefully while demons and devils ripped your head off your body and violated your corpse. Why? Because you were the special little snowflake who decided to play an Apostle of Peace without the full understanding and explicit approval of the rest of the party.

In addition to that little issue, why is an Apostle of Peace hanging out with a group of exalted warriors that are on the bleeding edge of a war against hostile outsiders?

[Turion]

I would have just say by and let you experience the full consequences of your vows.

In other words I would have sat there non violently and peacefully while demons and devils ripped your head off your body and violated your corpse. Why? Because you were the special little snowflake who decided to play an Apostle of Peace without the full understanding and explicit approval of the rest of the party.



But that's the thing, the Fighter took Vow of Chastity. The paladin and the ranger both used vows as well... It's not like I was the only one using them. I even showed them the damned rules on the aura to them to let them know what was going on.

:smallsigh:

Seriously, I'm not getting these reactions. Yeah, AoP is generally a Bad Idea. Springing one on an unsuspecting party is a **** move. That's not what they did. The entire party was using exalted vows, knew what was coming and was informed on the rules. Given what the OP has said about the situation, stuff like this is coming off pretty harsh.

...that said, if/when you do go back, bring the Witch, not the other AoP. It's less trouble all around.

[Psyren]

The entire party was using exalted vows, knew what was coming and was informed on the rules.

Those last two statements do not necessarily follow from the first one. VoNV and VoPe force you to be party nanny in ways that the other vows do not.

[Turion]

Those last two statements do not necessarily follow from the first one. VoNV and VoPe force you to be party nanny in ways that the other vows do not.

Correct. They do necessarily follow from the OP flat-out saying that they showed the party the rules for the Apostle of Peace. I'd quoted that bit; it's in bold.

[Psyren]

Correct. They do necessarily follow from the OP flat-out saying that they showed the party the rules for the Apostle of Peace. I'd quoted that bit; it's in bold.

And as I said before, just because he showed them some words on a page does not mean they truly appreciated what that aura would do to them in actual play. And an attitude of "tough ****, you all agreed to it so I'm not changing my character" surely isn't going to help the situation.

[Kantolin]

And as I said before, just because he showed them some words on a page does not mean they truly appreciated what that aura would do to them in actual play. And an attitude of "tough ****, you all agreed to it so I'm not changing my character" surely isn't going to help the situation.

Well yes. However, he pointed out 'this is what the aura does', and noted, 'And I will be using this aura', and presumably the rest of the party made exalted good characters who sure sounded like they'd go for it.

They then, upon having a problem with it, opted to have step 1 be 'murder his character'.

I mean had there been, "Okay look - this isn't fun at all. We totally underestimated what your aura meant" then sure, but like... man. As it is, it's not even necessarily clear that they killed his character due to the aura at all - that's what most of us are assuming (including I think the OP!) but this kind of sounds like a 'for the lolz'. But if this is OK'd, step 1 should be to at least 'Un OK it'.

I mean... the OP did quite a bit to try to ensure that people were aware of his schtick. The only irresponsible thing he did was play the class in the first place.... which he then made sure was 'in an exalted party of exalted vow-having other people', which is the best possible scenario to do so. Unless the party was /actually/ chaotic evil rogues or something and just didn't tell anyone?

[Turion]

And as I said before, just because he showed them some words on a page does not mean they truly appreciated what that aura would do to them in actual play. And an attitude of "tough ****, you all agreed to it so I'm not changing my character" surely isn't going to help the situation.

But they didn't ask him to change. From what was said, they grumbled about it under their breaths, and then just straight-up murderated the character out of nowhere. If they'd asked for the character to be changed, and got told "tough ****," that would be one thing. From everything we've been told, though, they didn't ask. That's why responses like Tippy's are frustrating/confusing me; they seem to be about a completely different situation.

edit: And of course I get ninja'd. :smallsigh::smalltongue:

[Cyanide]

They neglected to make their will saves positive on their own and they relied on my buff spells to increase it for them. [...] Until I can find another group to game with I am just going to roll another Celestial Sorcerer AoP. My old chars twin sister. Same exact build, JUST to pester them. [...]


And you said you're going to roll another characters just like this one just to pester them?

The way you put it in the beginning of the thread sounded like "these people made me adapt the whole book so that they could play the characters they wanted and then killed mine because they didn't like the one I was playing", but the more you explain it the more it seems to me, and I'm sorry if I'm being rude, like everyone in this group seriously needs to buy an amulet of maturity +5.
The players need one each for having the nerve to play exalted characters and strike a deal with a fiend, childishly murdering a team member and giving green light to a potentially game-halting character without checking out the fine lines first.
You need one because you're being as childish as these people, dismissively not making any effort in cooperation, to the point where the rest of the party needs to pad their own saves despite you being quite obviously in charge of buffing and protection, and finally for choosing a build that either you knew would have been a flat-out hindrance, which makes you even more of an uncooperative player, or that you didn't know would have been such a thing, which would just make for a regrettable case of uninformed character creation.

I'm disagreeing with the notion that having the DM rule that Vow of Nonviolence doesn't affect the rest of the party would be a good step. Plain and clear, if you have Vow of Nonviolence and A) weaken or subdue your enemy and allow the rest of your party to kill them or B) just buff your party or even not take part at all in the fight in any way but still stand by while your party kills the enemies, you plain and simply break the vow and lose the feat, therefore losing access to the prestige class itself and to Vow of Peace.

The only way in which you could still be a member of that crusading group would be to have everyone deal only non-lethal damage, bind every single fiend you meet in a way that doesn't let them teleport away as soon as their fast healing brings them back into business, having them swear an oath of surrender and then, if they break that vow, your party can kill them.

It's a tiresome, poorly-working and incredibly tedious process, from which no good can come for anyone's enjoyment.

The way I see it, Apostle of Peace is so against the essence of this kind of campaign that all the parties involved should've seein it coming.

[Trundlebug]

OP makes a character that is difficult to deal with. Then comes crying to the boards. What his party did is not cool. So are his subsequent actions.

[Faily]

Observations:

1. Dumping Will saves? What foolishness is this?! (only Save that is allowed to be "dumped" is Reflex... barely)

2. Amulet of Maturity +5. *snrks* I like that and must remember it for future use.


On to actual comment now:

You showed them the PrC and the Aura-rules and told them how it worked. Ok, so some fault do fall on them, but I would also point out that Apostle of Peace is not really a Prestige Class that works with all campaigns and groups. If the DM said he wanted to run a campaign on "epic battle against hordes of devils", I wouldn't roll an AoP, simply because it doesn't really fit with the DM's vision. I will say that it was horribly immature to gank an AoP, as that is not how Exalted characters act, and carrying out OOC grievances IC is unacceptable. However, bringing in a carbon-copy of your first character is not a solution to anything, and you are incredibly immature if you think that is a good idea.

Be an adult, talk to the other players about why this happened and why they didn't ask you to switch characters, so this unpleasant situation could've been avoided. In the end, you sit down to play a game to have fun, no?


PS: I hope them PCs fell so hard it left cracks in the floor. That will be quite a story there... maybe you should bring in your next character with Book of Vile Darkness material instead, considering that epic fall from grace. :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, for one thing they'd no longer be Exalted, probably.

Yeah I'd put murdering an Apostle of Peace on the short list for forced alignment change.


Did they just up and do it, or did they try and talk to you and the DM first about how bloody annoying the aura and Vows can be to play around if you're not an exalted character?

I wouldn't exactly go that far, it only has a penalty if they slay a helpless or defenseless foe. That should happen virtually never if the other characters aren't evil. Indeed, for exalted characters there's no restriction at all, because they're already required to not be evil.

[Psyren]

I mean had there been, "Okay look - this isn't fun at all. We totally underestimated what your aura meant" then sure, but like... man.

While I agree they went to drastic measures far too quickly, he does say they were openly griping about the aura before the murder happened. I would have had a round-table/powwow at that point, rather than throwing out silly suggestions like "buff your saves."

TL;DR there is fault on both sides here, even if there is less of it on the OP there is still some.

[Elderand]

TL;DR there is fault on both sides here, even if there is less of it on the OP there is still some.

There is less fault to the OP right up until the moment s/he decided to use a carbon copy of the first character just to piss other people in the group.

That exact moment is when any sympathy there might have been is lost.

[facelessminion]

First off, the repercussions for the party are pretty simple. All Exalted benefits stripped, the party likely downshifted to neutral alignments unless they seek atonement: true Atonement, not just the spell.

But honestly? I do not understand how YOU cannot understand why the apostle died. An apostle of peace goes against everything that is at the mechanical core of dungeons and dragons. It doesn't even allow for a greater breadth of roleplaying, as it snips a portion of roleplaying away. An apostle, in a party that is not well aware and welcoming of the concept, is every bit as destructive and infuriating to a party as a frenzied berserker.

[Kalmageddon]

All I can say is that this is a textbook example of how you shouldn't play.


Making a character that will bother the entire party just because you feel entitled to it since you worked on the conversion? Check.
Preparing a backup character that is exactly identical to the annoying one? Check.
Expecting people to put up with your **** instead of talking about it OOC when it became obvious that people were getting annoyed? Check.
Killing off another PC, in his sleep? Check.
Acting completly out of character or alignment just for the sake of having an excuse to kill said character? Check.


There's no way around it and I'm going to say it bluntly: you are bad. Your gaming group is bad. Everyone involved is bad.
This is the exact opposite of how a gaming group should behave. Remember this thread and let it be a memento for those that will come.

[Torben Raibeart]

I would heartily agree in most cases. But In this particular one, I used feats to increase my Aura DCs to a point where at our current level it requires a Nat 20 just to pass for the at my table, (...)

I'm still waiting for an explanation on HOW they managed to kill your character. Sure, he was asleep at the time, but you aura is constant, and by your own words they could only make it on a 20. So how did they manage to do you in, unless holding your head under water doesn't count as a violent action or something like that?

[Bronk]

The more I hear about this the weirder it sounds. Am I missing something here? The Vow of Nonviolence only affects the one who took the vow, and the aura from the Vow of Peace only has a radius of 20 feet!

There is wording in the Vow of Nonviolence that says that you can get others to pledge an oath to uphold your end of the vow (by not harming those you incapacitated and such) but not only is it completely voluntary, there is no listed downside to breaking that oath later.

Was it really that hard for them to stay twenty feet away... during combat? As a noncombatant, this Apostle of Peace should be staying out of the way anyway, at most casting spells from a distance, but probably not even that. As long as she doesn't interact directly with whatever fiend the other characters were trying to kill at the moment, and they stay out of the aura, there is no interaction with the vows at all.

In fact, the other characters could have used it like a roving sanctuary spell... if they got too hurt and needed to get away from a melee attack, they could just retreat into the aura! They could be healed and buffed by the Apostle while they were at it.

This whole thing (as currently described) just seems completely malicious on the part of the other players. The DM should not sugarcoat their actions either... The murder of a good person, exalted even, and the deal with the devil... they should all be full on evil now, and whatever exalted benefits they had from their various vows and feats and classes are now completely wasted.

I wouldn't feel right playing with them again, but if you really want to, I agree with the peeps who suggested you not play another Apostle of Peace. I realize that you aren't rolling up a new one on purpose, since it was one of the three you made at the start, but they are probably just going to kill that one too. I hope your DM will allow you to redo that one!

I suppose there's also a chance that you could call shenanigans on what they did... something along the lines of 'I would have woken up', or 'the peace aura was still in effect, did they roll for that', but I'd be careful, because it might seem petty (not that they deserve to feel slighted) and start an argument (or an additional one, anyway). Plus, I suppose it might have been part of that fiendish deal.

What a mess!

[Elderand]

The more I hear about this the weirder it sounds. Am I missing something here? The Vow of Nonviolence only affects the one who took the vow

No it doesn't, it affect everyone in the party. The rest of the party swearing a vow to you just ensure they get affected even if the apostle of peace is not present.

If you let your ally kill an enemy you break your vow. Everyone has to tiptoe around you to ensure you don't lose your vow.

[Segev]

Honestly, guys, the vitriol is over-the-top, and more what I expect from less-mature gaming boards than this one. Get off your self-righteous soap boxes; you don't get a +1 height bonus to rhetoric. (Though, now that I think about it, that'd be a decent source for a 2-die stunt in Exalted.)

Yes, bringing in the same character when he suspects his was killed to get rid of said character is a bad idea. I would certainly not put that in the "bigger **** move than the party sudden-murdering the old character." In fact, if the OP didn't have reason to believe it was the mechanics, rather than story, he'd be perfectly justified in bringing in this identical character. He certainly, at the time he made his backups, was within his rights to build the same build on a different person; he had no reason to assume the character's death would be the other PLAYERS' OOC means of getting rid of the build.

While you could argue his efforts to inform the other players of what he intended to do were insufficient, it is a bit much to do so. He made good faith effort to show them. Yes, it's possible they didn't "get it" until it was hampering their play experience, but going from "grumbling about it" to "murder the PC counter to all RP-based expectations set up to this point" without bothering to even say, "Hey, OP, your character is making this unfun for the rest of us. Would you consider changing builds/characters?" is one of the biggest **** moves and utterly immature behaviors possible.

Nothing the OP has admitted to doing nor even indicated intention to do is on par, and trying to shout "a pox on both your houses" just because YOU would be annoyed by the class in question is childish. Unless you're an immature prick, you probably would react to seeing that it was worse than you initially thought by trying to talk to the player and DM about fixing the problem, first.

[Psyren]

There is less fault to the OP right up until the moment s/he decided to use a carbon copy of the first character just to piss other people in the group.

That exact moment is when any sympathy there might have been is lost.

Yeah I agree with this.

[Zanos]

No it doesn't, it affect everyone in the party. The rest of the party swearing a vow to you just ensure they get affected even if the apostle of peace is not present.

If you let your ally kill an enemy you break your vow. Everyone has to tiptoe around you to ensure you don't lose your vow.
That's only if you let them kill a helpless foe, I thought. If they go straight from positive to -10 there's no penalty, yeah?

[Psyren]

That's only if you let them kill a helpless foe, I thought. If they go straight from positive to -10 there's no penalty, yeah?

That depends on your definition of "helpless." Someone you could one-shot like that would indeed be helpless against you, like a child facing a raging barbarian.

[Turion]

That depends on your definition of "helpless." Someone you could one-shot like that would indeed be helpless against you, like a child facing a raging barbarian.

"Helpless" is reserved game terminology, and refers to a specific condition. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless)

[Psyren]

"Helpless" is reserved game terminology, and refers to a specific condition. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless)

All right, fine - but the actual requirement in Vow of Nonviolence is "helpless or defenseless." The latter is not a game condition and therefore must be interpreted based on the situation. Again, a child is functionally defenseless against a raging barbarian.

[Segev]

All right, fine - but the actual requirement in Vow of Nonviolence is "helpless or defenseless." The latter is not a game condition and therefore must be interpreted based on the situation. Again, a child is functionally defenseless against a raging barbarian.

I suspect a fiend that is in the midst of battle with a party of Exalted heroes is not considered "defenseless," particularly if said fiend is still attacking. Even if it's down to single-digit hp and the barbarian has 30+ damage on average.

[DarkWhisper]

I'm still waiting for an explanation on HOW they managed to kill your character.

Easily, I'd guess...

PC A (rogue or high STR character with two-handed, high critical multiplier weapon) walks into the aura.



(...) Creatures within the aura must make a will save (...) or be affected as by the calm emotions spell.

PC A fails his save (and is affected as by a Calm Emotions spell). PC B deals 1+ damage to PC A from outside the aura, ending the aura's effect.


(...)Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures. (...)

PC A performs a Coup de Grâce for massive damage and fort save or die.

AoP with d4 HD vs. large amount of damage...

[Psyren]

I suspect a fiend that is in the midst of battle with a party of Exalted heroes is not considered "defenseless," particularly if said fiend is still attacking. Even if it's down to single-digit hp and the barbarian has 30+ damage on average.

The question is whether it can defend itself or not. If its attacks do nothing of consequence, then the fact that it is physically capable of attacking is irrelevant. Even a child can unarmed strike or wield a kitchen knife after all.

I'm not saying whether it was defenseless or not in this specific scenario as I don't have all the facts - just that it could be.

[torrasque666]

Easily, I'd guess...

PC A (rogue or high STR character with two-handed, high critical multiplier weapon) walks into the aura.



PC A fails his save (and is affected as by a Calm Emotions spell). PC B deals 1+ damage to PC A from outside the aura, ending the aura's effect.


PC A performs a Coup de Grâce for massive damage and fort save or die.

AoP with d4 HD vs. large amount of damage...

Or used something immune to mine-affecting spells.

Oh ****. Just realized an easy way to deal with an AoP. Roll up a Juggernaut. Disregard all Calm Emotions​ effects.

[Elderand]

The fact remains that once someone goes apostle of peace the rest of the group has to plan around and play by the rules of the apostle.

[rexx1888]

your DM is straight up bad :\

this is one of the only times i could advocate a dm interfering in PC actions and pointing out they simply cannot do a thing. Exalted good isnt just some random word you strap on your character to get good feats. It literally means characters are as good as they can get. They are the nicest of the nice. AND it has in game mechanical ramifications. It CLEARLY STATES YOUR CHARACTER IS SO NICE THEY WOULD NOT MAKE DEALS WITH DEVILS OR MURDER SLEEPING PEOPLE. There is no scenario where you can justify this decision as a roleplay decision, which means its an OOC problem, the players were being dumb ****s, and a dm would have stepped in and told them to stop being prats and to just stop adventuring with the AoP. Thats a thing they could have done, and it wouldnt have been a **** move. But runnin around with Exalted in their title pretty much precludes folks from murdering people in there sleep because it implies they were so good in order to get that title. One begets the other. You cant be capable of murdering sleeping folks an still qualify for Exalted, an since they had the feats and were exalted, they shouldnt have been able to do it.

An this is coming from a dm that spent two years actively providing his players with reasons to kill each other and then having the final end of the game be a straight up half of the party murdering the other half. This whole OP problem is because the dm is terrible :\

[Shining Wrath]

There is less fault to the OP right up until the moment s/he decided to use a carbon copy of the first character just to piss other people in the group.

That exact moment is when any sympathy there might have been is lost.

Note: DM's house rule is create 3 characters at start of campaign, and when one is lost, bring in one of the other two.

So OP has 2 choices, a Witch, and a second AoP. It's not quite as "here I come to piss you off" as it sounds.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't intervene - rather, they would all just suffer the consequences of their actions. After all, you can't force the players to be Exalted Good - if they get fed up with that standard, they'll throw it away no matter what you say or what punishments you levy.

Having said that, I would think twice before reintroducing BoED to such a group as an allowed source.

[kellbyb]

Note: DM's house rule is create 3 characters at start of campaign, and when one is lost, bring in one of the other two.

So OP has 2 choices, a Witch, and a second AoP. It's not quite as "here I come to piss you off" as it sounds.


Until I can find another group to game with I am just going to roll another Celestial Sorcerer AoP. My old chars twin sister. Same exact build, JUST to pester them. Since they all just lost 2-3 feats for comitting murder i will preach peace for all demonkind! XD

Actually, it is.

[Kazudo]

It's at this point I'd actually probably, knowing the game setting and general opinions thereof, throw together an LG-bordering-on-LN Paladin and, should I hear about the murder of the Apostle of Peace, judge the other characters so hard even so far as to begin lecturing them on how their deities would be ashamed of them.

[Kalmageddon]

Actually, it is.

Yeah, it's basically going into straight up troll mode.
Makes me wonder just how young the OP is, this sort of stuff (the trolling AND the PvP) shouldn't happen to an adult gaming group, unless everybody was treating it like a joke just for laughs, which isn't the case here.

[Eric Tolle]

This is about the point where the GM says "So, would you like to play a nice game of Monopoly?" Because I know they're is no way I'd run for any of the players described here.

[Bronk]

Oooh, plus, the vow of nonviolence only applies to 'humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes', so killing fiends wouldn't trigger it in the first place. Or Angels, for that matter. Weird.

It's basically a feat that forces your character (and nearby characters, if they want) into a very thin slice of superhero morality.

[Psyren]

Oooh, plus, the vow of nonviolence only applies to 'humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes', so killing fiends wouldn't trigger it in the first place. Or Angels, for that matter. Weird.

It's basically a feat that forces your character (and nearby characters, if they want) into a very thin slice of superhero morality.

Vow of Peace is the one that keeps you from killing fiends - AoPs have both of them.

[Kazudo]

I could see AoP being used as its own campaign. Four AoPs of a deity having to deal with all kinds of kneejerk violent situations with passive talk which ends up with everyone taken care of and happy. It would DEFINITELY be interesting, since they would get no reward other than XP and the love and adoration of people, and maybe converts to their cause, but I could definitely see it work. But that's really one of the only ways that AoP could work without editing Vow of Nonviolence.

[Bronk]

Vow of Peace is the one that keeps you from killing fiends - AoPs have both of them.

Oh, right. That one doesn't seem to extend to allies though.

So, it looks like the AoP character, if they were going by the correct rules, only would have affected the other characters if she had interfered in combat by getting within 20 feet of them (Vow of Peace), or by casting spells that made their opponents (humanoid or monstrous humanoids only) helpless, then either not allowing the other PCs to finish off helpless foes (that that they had generated) or having them finish them off within 120' thus incurring penalties (Vow of Nonviolence).

As long as the AoP didn't cast any offensive spells, and stayed at least 20' away from the others during combat, then walked 120' away so the others could finish off any helpless foes (that they generated themselves) that were laying around, nothing bad would have happened at all.

That all would have been up to the AoP to remember, and it sounds like instead they took all the penalties all the time. That would be annoying, but easily fixed (by reading through the rules).

As for killing her in her sleep, I'm starting to see how they could have done it pretty easily. Under cover of a 'silence' spell, they could sneak into the 20' aura of peace, check if they made their save, and if not, go back out and in to try again, and repeat that until they succeeded. Then they would attack the AoP, and each time the weapon would have a chance to shatter, dealing no damage. The DM might say that the AoP didn't feel it, so they could just try again and again until they either succeeded or ran out of weapons.

Still seems like mean spirited overkill to me though.

[Larkas]

Wait, there's something wrong here. A campaign against evil outsiders located on the lower planes is actually one of the few campaigns where an Apostle of Peace won't be disruptive at all. Vow of Nonviolence says the following:


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

As long as your party mates are attacking outsiders (or fey, oozes, constructs, undead... i.e.: any campaign not centered on humanoids), and as long as they're always at least 20ft. away from the AoP (so they won't be affected by the Vow of Peace's aura), they won't be affected by the AoP's drawback at all! I mean, the Cosmic Forces of Good will never consider a non-helpless outsider defenseless! They know exactly what those fiends are capable of, up to and including teleporting away to escape judgment! (A diligent DM would actually interpret the "foe" referenced in the feat to only be humanoid or monstrous humanoid, as that's consistent with the rest of the feat, but it doesn't even need to be interpreted this way to not affect the other characters much!)


I suspect a fiend that is in the midst of battle with a party of Exalted heroes is not considered "defenseless," particularly if said fiend is still attacking. Even if it's down to single-digit hp and the barbarian has 30+ damage on average.

It could be with 1 hp as far as the game's concerned. The rules for both systems are phrased identically, and go like so:


Injury and Death
Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.

It doesn't matter if a hit will kill the opponent outright, if it still has 1 hp or more, it's not defenseless. And if it's at 0, well, tough luck. If the fiend tries, say, to teleport (a standard action), it will go down to -1, and hence it will begin dying because of its own actions. If he just moves, he will be ripe for capturing. That's game, set and match right there!


I disagree with everybody saying the OP is "no better" than his party.

Did the OP make some missteps? Yes. Could he have taken more pro-active steps to ask, "Hey, guys, you seem to be bothered by my major feature. Can we discuss OOC how to make this work?" Sure.

I'm not going to say he should have, though; gamers are not mind-readers. He probably should have paid a bit more attention if they were obviously getting irritated at the table, but he took what he thought were reasonable steps to keep the party informed, in good faith.

Now, bringing in the same character to spite them is probably a bad idea. I do not recommend it without thoroughly discussing it with the other players and the DM, first.

Talk to the whole group, OOC, about this. Find out what they wanted out of it, why they think this was a good idea, and whether there's bad blood on their side, still, or not. Obviously, you're peeved, so that's already a bad situation. Are these guys friends of yours, or just a group with whom you're gaming?

If their sole problem is that they wanted your aura gone, discuss with them the possibility of bringing back the character, absent her Vow. Discuss with the DM the possibility of a Succubus or Erinyes having snagged your dead PC's soul and dragged it off to her master for corruption. She's come back in your old character's guise to try to further corrupt or simply sacrifice the party.

Plan an arc where the party should slowly realize something is wrong, or maybe be led to discover clues that will lead them to confront the fiendish master who has your character's soul. He's been torturing her, trying to break her and make her fall so he can create a new, powerful fiend from her broken Vow. The party has a choice between rescuing her (and probably offing the fiend that's been impersonating her) and maybe accepting her back into the party, vow and all, or letting her suffer and maybe fall. (Whether the latter case has them keep the succubus or erinyes around is a matter for them to decide, now that they know of the deception.)


:smallsigh:

Seriously, I'm not getting these reactions. Yeah, AoP is generally a Bad Idea. Springing one on an unsuspecting party is a **** move. That's not what they did. The entire party was using exalted vows, knew what was coming and was informed on the rules. Given what the OP has said about the situation, stuff like this is coming off pretty harsh.

...that said, if/when you do go back, bring the Witch, not the other AoP. It's less trouble all around.


Well yes. However, he pointed out 'this is what the aura does', and noted, 'And I will be using this aura', and presumably the rest of the party made exalted good characters who sure sounded like they'd go for it.

They then, upon having a problem with it, opted to have step 1 be 'murder his character'.

I mean had there been, "Okay look - this isn't fun at all. We totally underestimated what your aura meant" then sure, but like... man. As it is, it's not even necessarily clear that they killed his character due to the aura at all - that's what most of us are assuming (including I think the OP!) but this kind of sounds like a 'for the lolz'. But if this is OK'd, step 1 should be to at least 'Un OK it'.

I mean... the OP did quite a bit to try to ensure that people were aware of his schtick. The only irresponsible thing he did was play the class in the first place.... which he then made sure was 'in an exalted party of exalted vow-having other people', which is the best possible scenario to do so. Unless the party was /actually/ chaotic evil rogues or something and just didn't tell anyone?

There be wisdom in them thar hills!

[illyahr]

Actually, only Vow of Nonviolence (http://dndtools.eu/feats/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/vow-of-nonviolence--3078/) affects your allies, and there are stipulations written in to get around it. If the creature is Helpless or "defenseless" (open to interpretation), you just ask them to surrender peacefully. If they don't, allies are free to kill them.

Vow of Peace (http://dndtools.eu/feats/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/vow-of-peace--3080/)doesn't affect your allies at all.

[Psyren]

Well the tricky part here is that you arguably can't participate in the battle at all, save as a buff/healbot.

"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."

No blasting, no summoning, no debuffing, no control - if your allies have hit it or are planning to hit it, you can't get involved.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I don't really see how this build is as big a hindrance as it's being put as. Honestly, the AoP just has to buff/heal or try to end combat in means besides dealing damage, and the only issues arise if your group kills an unconscious foe. Which if you're all Exalted, this doesn't seem like a huge stretch at all.

[Psyren]

I don't really see how this build is as big a hindrance as it's being put as. Honestly, the AoP just has to buff/heal or try to end combat in means besides dealing damage, and the only issues arise if your group kills an unconscious foe. Which if you're all Exalted, this doesn't seem like a huge stretch at all.

Again, "defenseless" is not a term defined in the rules so it can apply to foes who are conscious and even actively attacking (or fleeing.)

[The Insanity]

Considering the whole group, if I understand it correctly, is exalted, they should already at least try to uphold the same values as the Apostle, meaning no killing, 'cause you know, exalted. Killing a fellow exalted character, just because he insists a bit more on them being, you know, actually exalted like they're supposed to, is not only completely stupid in-character, but also very douchey OOC.

[Starchild7309]

As long as the AoP didn't cast any offensive spells, and stayed at least 20' away from the others during combat, then walked 120' away so the others could finish off any helpless foes (that they generated themselves) that were laying around, nothing bad would have happened at all.

While technically it works as per the rules, the fact that the AoP would have to do so with premeditation would be a breaking of their vows in my eyes as a DM.

Its different if the AoP doesn't know the helpless foes are there, but to be like, "Hold up guys I gotta go in the other room for a moment, just remember don't kill those helpless guys until I am far enough away." seems like it doesn't follow the flavor and then intention of the class.

[Larkas]

I don't really see how this build is as big a hindrance as it's being put as. Honestly, the AoP just has to buff/heal or try to end combat in means besides dealing damage, and the only issues arise if your group kills an unconscious foe. Which if you're all Exalted, this doesn't seem like a huge stretch at all.

Agreed.


Again, "defenseless" is not a term defined in the rules so it can apply to foes who are conscious and even actively attacking (or fleeing.)

Only if the DM aims at being a douchebag. Logically, a foe who's actively attacking can never be defenseless. If you overpower it so thoroughly that it practically cannot defend itself, I'm sure you have a way to capture it, and it's not a real threat to the party. A foe who's fleeing may not be defending itself, but it may not be defenseless. Still, you can capture it just fine. And don't forget: a foe who pretends to have yielded only to try and backstab its captors later is fair game, as per the feats' wording. This is all a lot more true if you're talking about godsforsaken fiends. Good (capital G), when well played, isn't stupid. It won't let one of the greatest threats to innocents just walk away!

Seriously, a DM saying that "defenseless" is an open word and using it to mess up with the Apostle of Peace is very much the same as a DM who'll inanely exploit a Paladin's Code to make it fall. An AoP may have to be played in a very specific way to not mess around with its party members, and may not be for every campaign. But going out of your way to screw the character, and hence the player, is just being a prick.

[Psyren]

Only if the DM aims at being a douchebag. Logically, a foe who's actively attacking can never be defenseless. If you overpower it so thoroughly that it practically cannot defend itself, I'm sure you have a way to capture it, and it's not a real threat to the party.

So if a child "actively attacks you" with a stick, and you're in full plate armor with a greatsword, he is defending himself against you?

Also, you're proving my point with your second sentence. Yes, such a weak opponent would logically be able to be captured by you. That's why the Vow doesn't want you killing them, because they're not a true threat. You are the one attempting to cleave to the letter of the law by relying on the actual "helpless" condition in the PHB while ignoring its spirit - "ha, that child/puppy/bee just attacked me, *lethal force authorized!*"

In point of fact, the vow explicitly tells you to take them prisoner, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that capturing such a foe is forbidden from.

[Larkas]

So if a child "actively attacks you" with a stick, and you're in full plate armor with a greatsword, he is defending himself against you?

Also, you're proving my point with your second sentence. Yes, such a weak opponent would logically be able to be captured by you. That's why the Vow doesn't want you killing them, because they're not a true threat. You are the one attempting to cleave to the letter of the law by relying on the actual "helpless" condition in the PHB while ignoring its spirit - "ha, that child/puppy/bee just attacked me, *lethal force authorized!*"

In point of fact, the vow explicitly tells you to take them prisoner, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that capturing such a foe is forbidden from.

I'm sorry, but I said exactly the opposite of what you understood. You can't take a phrase that depends on another to have a full meaning and expect it to hold that meaning alone. I said that, logically, an attacking creature isn't defenseless (because it's attacking), but it can be practically defenseless (because it can't hurt you). I'm not saying that defenseless = helpless anywhere. I also didn't advocate for the group to not take prisoners; I've actually said the opposite of that. In case it's still not obvious, I'm saying that "defenseless" can't have a fixed meaning (i.e.: it has to be interpreted for every single concrete case), and that assigning to it a fixed (or event to broad a) meaning is screwing with that AoP intentionally. Say, is a cowering creature defenseless? Would your response be the same for a puppy and a balor?

Regardless (and this is nitpicking), you can never attack the child you spoke of. Remember? That's the one hard limitation of the vow. But yes, you may arrest him/her, if the story asks for it. And don't bother asking "can you kill him/her later?", an AoP is obviously playing an Exalted campaign, and must act accordingly. No true humanoid is made of primordial Evil, an AoP WILL try to redeem it. Or, if necessary, die trying.

Actually, I think I understand why we're in disagreement. You seem to think I said that nothing can be defenseless, and I thought you meant to say that a DM will pull the defenseless stunt all the time to screw with the AoP.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the "defenseless" bit will, more often than not when it truly matters and in the right campaigns, be a non-issue, unless the DM is being a prick.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Basically, what I'm saying is that the "defenseless" bit will, more often than not when it truly matters and in the right campaigns, be a non-issue, unless the DM is being a prick.

Playing the "defenseless" card sounds pretty... fiendish.

[Larkas]

Playing the "defenseless" card sounds pretty... fiendish.

Precisely. :smallamused:

[Jacob.Tyr]

Precisely. :smallamused:

I'm now imagining a party of exalted heroes wandering through the Abyss, a far-from-small train of snickering and plotting fiends following behind them. They encounter another evil creature that throws its hands up and "surrenders", joining the ever growing train of fiends bound by make-shift bindings.

"You know they're going to kill us, right?"

"No no, they surrendered, we must show them the light".

"They're laughing harder, now. I don't think most of them are even inconvenienced by the ropes..."

[iceman10058]

after reading half of the replies and seeing no one mention it, i have this to say....

none of you should be using rules out of a book you do not fully understand. period. end of topic.

vow of nonviolence only keeps you from harming humanoids and monstrous humanoids

vow of peace keeps you from attacking all except undead, constructs, and those that are irredeemably evil.

and this restriction is only for you, other party members pretty much have to vow to you not to kill anything thats helpless that is not on this list.

now go make a regular character with your now screwed party members, cause they did lose their exalted feats, and learn to read the rules.