Vow of Poverty Question: A Thought Execise

[Rater202]

If you were the GM, and one of the players proposed a magic item-a pair of bags, you put something in one, it comes out of the other.

If a character with a Vow of Poverty chose to give one of the bags to an orphanage and carried the other with him, putting his share of the treasure into the bag and thus donating it instantly to that orphanage, would carrying the bag(an expensive magic item) be a violation of his vow?

Basically, I'm asking, in you opinion, is the letter of the ow more important than the spirit?

[Vhaidara]

Spirit. The spirit of things, especially when the player sacrifices a lot of power for flavor (VoP) is the most important. Unless you can think of a reason why the primal forces of Good would object to this, there is no reason to refuse them.

[Necroticplague]

Technically, this would break the vow. While the Vow allows you to carry magic items just fine, as long as you don't use or own them. However, this would definitely count as using it. That being said, there is a loophole to be found. The feat says that you can carry and use a spell component pouch under the Vow. So if this item is an enchanted spell component pouch, you should be good to go.

My personal feeling is that the letter is more important than the spirit. I'm not about to make concessions for one player just to make their own bad decision a bit less crippling. It sets a bad precedence. They know what they were getting into when they took that vow.

[Kelb_Panthera]

More than possibly any other supplement to 3.X, BoED requires a healthy dose of common sense and observation of the spirit of the rules presented rather than the legalistic letter of the same.

That said, it would be okay for the -party- to keep such an item handy but the VoP character shouldn't be in possession or control of it. Control of such a device would be against the spirit of his vow as it would allow him a -massive- convenience in that the people at the orphanage end could feed useful items back through it and/or even bodies could be quickly transported to and from town for healing/ressurection. It's just not kosher.

Incidentally, I think there's already such a device in, I want to say, heroes of battle. I think it's a pair of trunks (?)

[daremetoidareyo]

More than possibly any other supplement to 3.X, BoED requires a healthy dose of common sense and observation of the spirit of the rules presented rather than the legalistic letter of the same.

That said, it would be okay for the -party- to keep such an item handy but the VoP character shouldn't be in possession or control of it. Control of such a device would be against the spirit of his vow as it would allow him a -massive- convenience in that the people at the orphanage end could feed useful items back through it and/or even bodies could be quickly transported to and from town for healing/ressurection. It's just not kosher.

Incidentally, I think there's already such a device in, I want to say, heroes of battle. I think it's a pair of trunks (?)

I think that if the purpose of the bag is for speedy and secure wealth security for the orphanage, then that is fine. No impact on the vow. The problem that I would have, if I were a VOP person, is what happens when an institution gets funding detached from any sort of external checking up. Wealth corrupts. That is why I made this vow. Why would I blindly send cash in exchange for convenience if I have no ability to check up on that it is not squandered. The hard road might be the best road in this case. You want to help the children, but not by jeopardizing the souls of those administrators who are getting oodles of battlewon cashdollahs.

But, if these concerns aren't part of the PCs psychology, then I would, as DM, permit the use of the bag as a money transference device to the orphanage.

If any of these non-kosher uses are used however, then the PC loses the benefits of their vow. OOC, I warn them once about exactly what is and isn't allowed: Money passed one way, and notes passed two ways are ok, anything else, and you lose the benefits your vow.

And I won't tell them that the vow isn't working until they are in combat.

[weckar]

Wouldn't most of the 'non-kosher' uses of the bags be resolved if they were one-direction-only?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wouldn't most of the 'non-kosher' uses of the bags be resolved if they were one-direction-only?

Most of 'em; not all. Still offers a really convenient way to get PC's that would otherwise be unable to continue adventuring, for whatever reason, back to town to be patched up or ressurected in much shorter time than they might otherwise. Not a big deal but it can still change the course of events for the game.

[XionUnborn01]

If you trust your player to use it only for donating his gold and have an agreement in front of everyone that it's only able to be used for such then I really don't see the problem. It just saves on some bookkeeping.

If you think they might try to make a loophole somehow, make it like a portable altar that they sacrifice the gold or whatever into and it moves it to the orphanage. This way it doesn't even have to be a magic bag, just a bag the forces of Good or their God or whatever have recognized as an official altar for monetary sacrifice.

[Inevitability]

Just have a random teammate carry the bag. Every time VoPerson gains money, he immediately gives it to his teammate, who puts it in the bag. Problem solved.

[Vhaidara]

Wealth corrupts. That is why I made this vow.

Not necessarily true. You may have taken the vow because you have seen that some live with nothing, and so you choose to sacrifice your own material wealth for their benefit (as is true in this case). Just because someone takes a vow does not mean they condemn the thing they do not partake in. Vow of Celibacy does not mean that sex is fundamentally wrong. Vow of Silence does not mean that you resent anyone who speaks.

[aleucard]

If the dude with the Vow is part of a religion of some kind, have the bag send the treasure to wherever their patron thinks it's needed the most as long as it's not to the party. Problem solved, and you get brownie points with some very high-up people in the process.

[Rater202]

More than possibly any other supplement to 3.X, BoED requires a healthy dose of common sense and observation of the spirit of the rules presented rather than the legalistic letter of the same.

That said, it would be okay for the -party- to keep such an item handy but the VoP character shouldn't be in possession or control of it. Control of such a device would be against the spirit of his vow as it would allow him a -massive- convenience in that the people at the orphanage end could feed useful items back through it and/or even bodies could be quickly transported to and from town for healing/ressurection. It's just not kosher.

Incidentally, I think there's already such a device in, I want to say, heroes of battle. I think it's a pair of trunks (?)


Most of 'em; not all. Still offers a really convenient way to get PC's that would otherwise be unable to continue adventuring, for whatever reason, back to town to be patched up or ressurected in much shorter time than they might otherwise. Not a big deal but it can still change the course of events for the game.

...I'm assuming the bags are about the size of a coin purse. You'd need to use a ressurection Spell to bring back a party memeber who could fit inside, and if you've got the resources for a resurrection, you've got somebody who can do it on the spot.

The going assumption is that it's a good alined character sending mony they don't want or need to a good alined organization so the orphans can have warm food and warm beds and stuff.

[weckar]

I'd personally send the money directly to the Deity, but that's just me.

Also, how is a VoP character going to PAY for these bags, exactly? The sheer cost to buy them could run an orphanage for a decade!

[supersonic29]

Most of 'em; not all. Still offers a really convenient way to get PC's that would otherwise be unable to continue adventuring, for whatever reason, back to town to be patched up or ressurected in much shorter time than they might otherwise. Not a big deal but it can still change the course of events for the game.

This certainly depends on how big the bags are, worth noting. Also if the "rules text" given to this item says specifically that the bag transfers items, then something like this is not an issue.

Spirit is everything here and with BoED in general, if the spirit changes then the deal changes. That's been said, and that's where my opinion lies as well.

[weckar]

To overcome RAW, the item description itself may contain a clause that specifically allows it to be owned and used by VoP characters.

[Rater202]

To overcome RAW, the item description itself may contain a clause that specifically allows it to be owned and used by VoP characters.

That works.

[supersonic29]

To overcome RAW, the item description itself may contain a clause that specifically allows it to be owned and used by VoP characters.

That's a good, proper way, but the DM also does what he wants. :smallamused:

[Troacctid]

Magical conveniences like this are exactly the sort of thing you're supposed to give up when you take a vow of poverty. It's not allowed by RAW and I wouldn't allow it as a DM.

[Rater202]

Magical conveniences like this are exactly the sort of thing you're supposed to give up when you take a vow of poverty. It's not allowed by RAW and I wouldn't allow it as a DM.

Except it's not a convince for the person using it, its a convenience for everyone else in the party so they don't get fed up of having to travel back to that one vilage after every adventure so the Vow of Poverty Guy can donate his share to the orphanage.

Basically it's an excuse to hand wave that part without breaking immersion.

[Troacctid]

What's so hard about earmarking the money for the orphanage, carrying it around for a while, and dropping it off when you get the chance?

[Rater202]

What's so hard about earmarking the money for the orphanage, carrying it around for a while, and dropping it off when you get the chance?

The fact that some campain styles make it really dificult to settle down.

at higher levels you ten to go from one major thingy to an other with little in the way of downtime, and if your too far away from the place you prmised the money two, you'd have to trusta curior or something to get it there, and would you trust a courier to deliver a crap tone of gold to an orphanage in the middle of "starting town or near by"?

also, you'd have to buy their service, which going by some arguments in this thread would violate the vow.

[supersonic29]

There's pretty solid arguments on either side of this, and you seem to favor enabling this player to do this. I'd just let him do it with the safety rails that were being recommended in earlier posts.

[Troacctid]

The fact that some campain styles make it really dificult to settle down.

at higher levels you ten to go from one major thingy to an other with little in the way of downtime, and if your too far away from the place you prmised the money two, you'd have to trusta curior or something to get it there, and would you trust a courier to deliver a crap tone of gold to an orphanage in the middle of "starting town or near by"?

also, you'd have to buy their service, which going by some arguments in this thread would violate the vow.

So carry the money around with you until you have downtime. There's no penalty for late delivery and it's not that heavy. What are they gonna do, shut down the orphanage? If it's that important, you should be able to spare the time.

[heavyfuel]

Normally I'd agree with Troacctid, but the sheer fact that this speeds up play (eg, the party not having to detour to deliver the goods) is the only reason I'd allow it. I would however make noted that any other use, no matter how small, of the item would result in a loss of the feat.

[Svata]

...I'm assuming the bags are about the size of a coin purse. You'd need to use a ressurection Spell to bring back a party memeber who could fit inside.

Shrink Item says hi.

[Strigon]

Even if you make the argument that he can always go back to the orphanage, that's time he could spend collecting more gold for them. If his main concern in taking the vow was to help others, then the only logical thing to do is let him keep it.
Of course, one needs only to look at alignments to see that RAW is often more legalistic than logical, so a rules-heavy group shouldn't allow it, but if you're in the habit of making logical modifications to rules, go ahead!

[Troacctid]

The rules are pretty clear. It's a magic item. You can't use magic items. You can't own magic items. You can't even borrow magic items.


You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion’s ebony fly. You may not, however, “borrow” a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.

Now, if another party member carried it and used it on your behalf, you wouldn't technically be breaking your vow. But come on, your character chose to make this vow. He voluntarily forswore all material possessions. He shouldn't be looking for loopholes. That completely defeats the purpose.

[Vhaidara]

Clearly they should just be relic bags (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?310471-VoP-doesn-t-suck)

[SinsI]

Obviously such use is perfectly OK - Vow of Poverty requires the player to not benefit from wealth.

More interesting is another question - what if your VoP character, playing solo, comes upon a magic item that provides its benefit just from being in your possession, and there are NO outlets for you to give it away to the poor nearby. Can you pick it up (and thus benefit from it) to give it away at the first opportunity?

[Rater202]

The rules are pretty clear. It's a magic item. You can't use magic items. You can't own magic items. You can't even borrow magic items.



Now, if another party member carried it and used it on your behalf, you wouldn't technically be breaking your vow. But come on, your character chose to make this vow. He voluntarily forswore all material possessions. He shouldn't be looking for loopholes. That completely defeats the purpose.

We aren't talking RAW. I know it violates RAW.

We are talking if it violates the Spirit of the Oath. We are talking about if the Spirit is more important than the letter.

And choosing to make the call that "This lets me give the money I don't want and don't need to a good cause in a way that doesn't irritate my traveling companions" doesn't violate the spirit, especially if the person forswore material wealth because he decided he can go without so others don't have too.

[TheIronGolem]

Now, if another party member carried it and used it on your behalf, you wouldn't technically be breaking your vow. But come on, your character chose to make this vow. He voluntarily forswore all material possessions. He shouldn't be looking for loopholes. That completely defeats the purpose.

It's hardly "defeating the purpose" when the only function of the item in question is to literally keep you from having any nice things. It's perfectly in keeping with the spirit of Vow of Poverty, and respecting the spirit of the rules over the letter is frequently needed to make VoP work at all (not to mention D&D in general).

[aleucard]

It's hardly "defeating the purpose" when the only function of the item in question is to literally keep you from having any nice things. It's perfectly in keeping with the spirit of Vow of Poverty, and respecting the spirit of the rules over the letter is frequently needed to make VoP work at all (not to mention D&D in general).

Agreed. If using such an item is breaking the VoP, then using an Adamantine door isn't all that different. RAW is not the divine mandate you think it is, at least not all the time.

[heavyfuel]

Clearly they should just be relic bags (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?310471-VoP-doesn-t-suck)

It's been a whole year already? Wow...

Anyway, it is as the others described. We are not arguing the RAW, but an explicit exception to it that works to speed up the game and makes sense from an altruistic PoV, where you're giving people in need the money now, not months later, when the BBEG has been vanquished and you finally have downtime.

In the end, it's a DM decision. While I'd allow it, I most certainly wouldn't be angry or even bummed if I played a VoP character at table and my DM vetoed this.

[TypoNinja]

To overcome RAW, the item description itself may contain a clause that specifically allows it to be owned and used by VoP characters.

Whats the Ad Hoc cost for this enchantment? :P



In all seriousness though, the answer to ANY VoP rules lawyering is "No".

VoP is Exalted. Trying to Rules Lawyer at all is probably out of character, but even if it wasn't, this isn't some business deal, or grammatically precise wording on a Wish. You swore an Oath to your God, in exchange for he granted you power. He can and will revoke that power if he thinks you are not holding up your end of the deal.

The Spirit of your agreement is just as important as the Letter.

Devils try to weasel out of a deal using technicalities, you are Exalted Good and will do what you swore to do, no mincing words, no loopholes. It is an insult to your moral fiber to suggest you'd even try.

[aleucard]

Whats the Ad Hoc cost for this enchantment? :P



In all seriousness though, the answer to ANY VoP rules lawyering is "No".

VoP is Exalted. Trying to Rules Lawyer at all is probably out of character, but even if it wasn't, this isn't some business deal, or grammatically precise wording on a Wish. You swore an Oath to your God, in exchange for he granted you power. He can and will revoke that power if he thinks you are not holding up your end of the deal.

The Spirit of your agreement is just as important as the Letter.

Devils try to weasel out of a deal using technicalities, you are Exalted Good and will do what you swore to do, no mincing words, no loopholes. It is an insult to your moral fiber to suggest you'd even try.

In a real game, though, taking the VoP as it's written full stop is a quick and simple way to convince the rest of the party to either burn your book or ban your character. SOME level of modification is necessary, and if such "modification" is based off of the Vow's Spirit if not verbage, then anyone with sense can truthfully say that it's a perfectly valid one. Maybe not one that they'd use, but at least acceptable if they were another player. Sometimes, the person making the Vow just does not have the time or ability to go running all over the place to donate things to. Keep in mind that letting your party have your share is considered going against the Vow.

[Troacctid]

When people say that, they're talking about things like "You aren't allowed to have a spellbook!" or "You can't even use a doorknob!" Those are dysfunctions that violate common sense and RAI. This is not. We're talking about using a magic item for straight-up convenience. That's against both the letter and the spirit of the vow. You can't even argue it's about simplifying logistics to streamline gameplay, because again, no time pressure, you can just hold onto the loot for a while and donate it as soon as you get an available opportunity.

[Rater202]

When people say that, they're talking about things like "You aren't allowed to have a spellbook!" or "You can't even use a doorknob!" Those are dysfunctions that violate common sense and RAI. This is not. We're talking about using a magic item for straight-up convenience. That's against both the letter and the spirit of the vow. You can't even argue it's about simplifying logistics to streamline gameplay, because again, no time pressure, you can just hold onto the loot for a while and donate it as soon as you get an available opportunity.

Umhmm. And haul hundreds of pounds worth of gold coins around 5 different planes of existence for a year and a half, meanwhile the orphans you promised the gold to are starving becuase they can't afford food.

It's not convenience for the Vow Swearer. It's convenience for the literally everyone else involved in the scenario.

And again, if you swor the Vow becuase "I don't need tis, those guys do. I'll give up my wealth so they can eat" then the item isn't violating the spirit of the Vow.

We've established that.

The question is, is the spirit of the vow more or less important than the letter of the vow?

[Troacctid]

That's only the question if you think it doesn't violate the spirit of the vow.

[TypoNinja]

In a real game, though, taking the VoP as it's written full stop is a quick and simple way to convince the rest of the party to either burn your book or ban your character. SOME level of modification is necessary, and if such "modification" is based off of the Vow's Spirit if not verbage, then anyone with sense can truthfully say that it's a perfectly valid one. Maybe not one that they'd use, but at least acceptable if they were another player. Sometimes, the person making the Vow just does not have the time or ability to go running all over the place to donate things to. Keep in mind that letting your party have your share is considered going against the Vow.

There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims here.

I've played a VoP monk in a game. None of the party had any urge to burn the book, no modification was required, I didn't need to ask for exceptions, or grey areas form the DM.

And not only did donating my money not become an issue (without resorting to the "establish your own charity" loophole even), it was a fun bit of RP as I decided who would be a worthy cause, and indeed turned into a major plot point because the scale of wealth a PC throws around is ludicrous to most mundanes. The groups I funded changed drastically with their new found wealth.

[Rater202]

That's only the question if you think it doesn't violate the spirit of the vow.

Which we've already established that it doesn't, at least no in the situation under which this particular person swore his oath.

[P.F.]

There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims here.

I've played a VoP monk in a game. None of the party had any urge to burn the book, no modification was required, I didn't need to ask for exceptions, or grey areas form the DM.

And not only did donating my money not become an issue (without resorting to the "establish your own charity" loophole even), it was a fun bit of RP as I decided who would be a worthy cause, and indeed turned into a major plot point because the scale of wealth a PC throws around is ludicrous to most mundanes. The groups I funded changed drastically with their new found wealth.

I agree. There's no requirement that you donate your share of the treasure to a particular orphanage near your home town. All it says is "to the needy, either directly...or indirectly." So even if you are an atheist monk or a cleric devoted to ideals rather than deities (or temples / shrines of your deities are lacking in the land you are travelling in) you can find someone poor who lacks "the freedom to choose poverty," and "better them" directly.


Whats the Ad Hoc cost for this enchantment? :P

The base item would be Ring Gates at 40K although a one-way set would only be half as useful and so might cost only half as much.

[Deophaun]

We aren't talking RAW. I know it violates RAW.

We are talking if it violates the Spirit of the Oath. We are talking about if the Spirit is more important than the letter.

And choosing to make the call that "This lets me give the money I don't want and don't need to a good cause in a way that doesn't irritate my traveling companions" doesn't violate the spirit, especially if the person forswore material wealth because he decided he can go without so others don't have too.
But it does violate the spirit of the oath, as what you're actually saying here is that you'll foreswear all wealth... except if it's really, really convenient. If you allow this, what justification is there now for not allowing the VoP character to use a scroll of Resurrection? Or a wand of CLW? Right? It's in the spirit of the oath as you're using them to benefit other people, not yourself, just like this bag. Oh, and a magic weapon. That's in the spirit to, now, as you're using that to defend other people, not yourself. And armor. How can you properly defend other people if you get killed by the first kobold with a pointy stick you come across? Not at all, am I right? So magic armor is now in the spirit of the oath.

[Endless Query]

But it does violate the spirit of the oath, as what you're actually saying here is that you'll foreswear all wealth... except if it's really, really convenient. If you allow this, what justification is there now for not allowing the VoP character to use a scroll of Resurrection? Or a wand of CLW? Right? It's in the spirit of the oath as you're using them to benefit other people, not yourself, just like this bag. Oh, and a magic weapon. That's in the spirit to, now, as you're using that to defend other people, not yourself. And armor. How can you properly defend other people if you get killed by the first kobold with a pointy stick you come across? Not at all, am I right? So magic armor is now in the spirit of the oath.

Fallacy: Thy Name is Slippery Slope. An item that exists 70% for the meta reason of making the game flow more easily, but can be reasoned as being acceptable within the vow, is in no way equivalent to any of the things you listed afterwards.

Not that I entirely disagree, I just don't like bad logic =P I feel as though the question here is ultimately, not a spirit one, and not even a "by the rules" legalistic one. As by RAW it's clearly banned, and by spirit... Eh, spirit is wibbly wobbly. I think it's ultimately a question of both setting and the GM's cost/benefit analysis. Allowing this DOES weaken the absolute nature of the Vow, and does permit for some edge case arguing, and the real question is, is that possibility worth the trade off for, basically, party (and possibly story) convenience. And I don't think anyone can answer that for another gaming group, that's entirely too much a question of personal taste for the GM. If the GM tends to like to play a little faster and looser with the rules for character designs, for plots, whatever, I feel that they would be consistent in allowing this, or the aforementioned sacrificial altar. A GM who tends to keep a tighter reign on the rules, especially flavor related rules, such as the tertiary "RPing/Questing" requirements for some PrCs (which I've seen most GMs entirely ignore, and frequently PrCs are re-flavored entirely for character design purposes), obviously wouldn't allow such a flexing of the rules. But, of course, each GM exists somewhere between such extremes, and I feel like that, ultimately, is what decides this question, as it is literally a question about ignoring RAW utilizing Rule 0.

I, personally, don't see the harm in it, unless it has problematic ramifications (For example, if the impoverished monk can get one of these, they very well could be all over the place, high end messenger services use them in place of riders, etc.) for the setting or the GM's preferred rules structure.

[Summerstorm]

Clearly they should just be relic bags (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?310471-VoP-doesn-t-suck)

While it would be weird to deck out a VoP-based character in loads of relics (which in that effect are just thinly veiled magical items), i could think of it that way:

"You see a light shining from the heavens, clearly in front of you. And out of it an Angel (Eladril/ whatever) comes:

"Mortal, you are one of the purest souls walking this earth, and i have seen you have forsworn worldly possessions. And yet you yearn to distribute the riches you and and friends come across. Take this, my "Holy bag of wealth for all".

You can put anything into it which is of worth. And whatever you put into it, will be transported to a good soul who is in dire need of wealth, or food, or arms or protection.

ALSO if you think about someone you you think would need it, it will be transported to him or her... or it..., so as we are not at fault to stiffle your free will.

BUT BE WARNED, to never have a selfish thought while using this sack, as it will betray your mortal soul as not clean enough to hold this most sacred awesome artifact.

See ya, bye"
"

And be done with it. It won't work for anyone but the bestowed one. He can still use it in exchange for blowing his VoP out. And the group can feel good and has more time. So yeah i agree with "just give it to him - but be aware."

[Deophaun]

Fallacy: Thy Name is Slippery Slope.
Slippery Slope is an improperly labeled fallacy, considering it is only fallacious if the premises are not true, which is the case for every logically sound argument. Calling it out as a fallacy without argumentation is the mark of a novice logician.

An item that exists 70% for the meta reason of making the game flow more easily, but can be reasoned as being acceptable within the vow, is in no way equivalent to any of the things you listed afterwards.
First, your Meta reason can be served by simply ignoring encumbrance entirely, which will have a much greater impact on game flow and is routinely done. Second, if you want logical fallacies, look up "begging the question," as that's what you're doing in the later half.

The item is not serving the purpose of the Vow, which is inherently anti-materialistic. In fact, the item serves the opposite, by stating that wealth is so important that its transport merits an exception to the Vow's prohibitions. The fact that any wealth accumulated by the character must be given to charity is incidental to the Vow; a means the game has for ensuring party WBL is maintained. Historically, the point of such vows were not to benefit the poor, but to isolate the individual from the influence of worldly matters so that they may better find enlightenment/God. The fact that such people have to beg for food actually puts them in competition with the needy poor. And by elevating charity above the Vow, you bring about the exact situation I described, where the Vow's purpose is corrupted and turned back to materialism.

In short: you want to help alleviate poverty? Become a rich businessman, not an ascetic.

[georgie_leech]

Slippery Slope is an improperly labeled fallacy, considering it is only fallacious if the premises are not true, which is the case for every logically sound argument. Calling it out as a fallacy without argumentation is the mark of a novice logician.



Quibble, he did explain. His position is that an item for the purpose of transferring wealth to the needy is fundamentally different from one whose purpose is to kill things better or defense against the same. I fail to see how the premises indicate that such an item must necessarily result in the complete abandonment of the Vow as it applies to all other potential wealth.

[Deophaun]

Quibble, he did explain. His position is that an item for the purpose of transferring wealth to the needy is fundamentally different from one whose purpose is to kill things better or defense against the same.
That is his position, but a position is not an argument.

I fail to see how the premises indicate that such an item must necessarily result in the complete abandonment of the Vow as it applies to all other potential wealth.
You obviously have not read the many other VoP threads here, where it is repeatedly described by several playgrounders as stupid and self-defeating that VoP would prevent you from using a healing potion or wand on a dying comrade and, yes, even a weapon, such as this one, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?261049-Vow-of-Poverty-is-a-really-stupid-feat) or this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=7548408&postcount=105).

[georgie_leech]

That is his position, but a position is not an argument.

The bag is for the purpose of disposing of wealth. In other words, the bag helps the PC discard potential power.
Weapons and Armor and other such items are for acquiring power, whatever such power is used for.
Therefore, the bag and other magic items differ fundamentally in purpose.


You obviously have not read the many other VoP threads here, where it is repeatedly described by several playgrounders as stupid and self-defeating that VoP would prevent you from using a healing potion or wand on a dying comrade and, yes, even a weapon, such as this one, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?261049-Vow-of-Poverty-is-a-really-stupid-feat) or this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=7548408&postcount=105).

No, all those show is that some people dislike how the Vow of Poverty prevents using weapons. Of course you'd be better off if you could. That doesn't mean that a DM allowing an exception in order to speed play and allow for easier disposal of wealth to the needy must therefore also allow the VoPer to wield weapons or armor or roll around in piles of money like Scrooge McDuck.

[Baroknik]

Why not give the character an equivalent ability instead of an item? It seems it would avoid the problem. Make it something like an 8 hour cast time that only works on items currently possessed by the ascetic (who is in a trance-like state during it) and at the end completely refreshes his mind/body as if he'd had 8 hours of rest. That avoids any downtime problems and it's not breaking the vow.

[Coidzor]

If you were the GM, and one of the players proposed a magic item-a pair of bags, you put something in one, it comes out of the other.

If a character with a Vow of Poverty chose to give one of the bags to an orphanage and carried the other with him, putting his share of the treasure into the bag and thus donating it instantly to that orphanage, would carrying the bag(an expensive magic item) be a violation of his vow?

Basically, I'm asking, in you opinion, is the letter of the ow more important than the spirit?

I might allow it if I were going to allow VoP in the first place. I don't really see the point in most games with any sort of regular downtime though.

I believe going by the vow itself you'd be forced to have someone else in the party carry the bag and put the VoP character's share of the loot in there.

I'd say that given the fluff surrounding sacred vows the letter of the vow *is* the spirit of the vow, with all of the being a pain in the ass to deal with and "this is a bloody stupid way to go about adventuring" being completely intended except for where it was incidental.


Umhmm. And haul hundreds of pounds worth of gold coins around 5 different planes of existence for a year and a half, meanwhile the orphans you promised the gold to are starving becuase they can't afford food.

That's the DM's fault then for not giving downtime to the party in a game that covers a year and a half in-universe. That's a loooong campaign to not have any downtime. :smallconfused:


And again, if you swor the Vow becuase "I don't need tis, those guys do. I'll give up my wealth so they can eat" then the item isn't violating the spirit of the Vow.

Then you didn't swear Vow of Poverty as it is presented in the book and are in houserule/homebrew vow of poverty territory anyway, so, y'know, do whatever you want and as long as you're saner than the designers you should be good. :smalltongue:


The question is, is the spirit of the vow more or less important than the letter of the vow?

I dunno, depends on who rewrote Vow of Poverty in this case. If you did, then, well, you should know already, I'd hope. If someone else did, then, well, you should probably just ask.

[Sam K]

The way I see it, the whole point with the wov feats is that they don't allow exceptions even when it's clearly for a good cause.

If you take a wov of non-violence, there is no "unless they REALLY deserve it" clause. If you take a wov of silence, you don't get a list of situations when it's actually ok to talk (no, not even if it's to warn the orphanage about an advancing army of orcs). If you take a wov of celibacy, and someone offers to donate a million gold to an orphanage if you do some... err... favors for them, that would still be breaking the wov. Even if you don't enjoy it.

These things are what separates wovs from good intentions. It SHOULD be hard to be exalted. You don't get to go around your wovs for convenience, not even other people's convenience. Doing so violates the spirit of the rules.

[aleucard]

The way I see it, the whole point with the wov feats is that they don't allow exceptions even when it's clearly for a good cause.

If you take a wov of non-violence, there is no "unless they REALLY deserve it" clause. If you take a wov of silence, you don't get a list of situations when it's actually ok to talk (no, not even if it's to warn the orphanage about an advancing army of orcs). If you take a wov of celibacy, and someone offers to donate a million gold to an orphanage if you do some... err... favors for them, that would still be breaking the wov. Even if you don't enjoy it.

These things are what separates wovs from good intentions. It SHOULD be hard to be exalted. You don't get to go around your wovs for convenience, not even other people's convenience. Doing so violates the spirit of the rules.

And if those things are taken too far, then it becomes easy for the rest of the party to declare "Your character is detracting from the fun for the rest of us. Either retire it or leave." Some of us want to use the Vows in actual games. Granted, the only ones worth the feat slot last I checked (even discounting the drawback) was VoP and VoNV, but still.

[supersonic29]

It seems to me that this would be handled a number of different ways about equal to the number of people in this thread. I think the only thing you've got at this point Rater is to take the ideas thrown about and make your call for your players. There's no right or wrong answer for the thread to end on with something as human-mediated as D&D.

[Coidzor]

And if those things are taken too far, then it becomes easy for the rest of the party to declare "Your character is detracting from the fun for the rest of us. Either retire it or leave." Some of us want to use the Vows in actual games. Granted, the only ones worth the feat slot last I checked (even discounting the drawback) was VoP and VoNV, but still.

Yes, that's why you have to have the whole group on board with things like Book of Erotic Fantasy or Book of Exalted Deeds. Or, y'know, alter it sufficiently to be in line with the group. :smalltongue:

Just don't complain that it's considered a feature rather than a bug by the devs when you could just say "this part is stupid, we're not using it."

[TypoNinja]

The bag is for the purpose of disposing of wealth. In other words, the bag helps the PC discard potential power.
Weapons and Armor and other such items are for acquiring power, whatever such power is used for.
Therefore, the bag and other magic items differ fundamentally in purpose.


Except you didn't swear to dispose of your excess wealth by the most expedient means available. (that could be accomplished by leaving it where you found it) The purpose of the bag, and how convenient it is to you personally is irrelevant. You forswore all material possessions (with few extremely limited exceptions).

A magic bag of sending stuff to other places is not on the list. Its not even in shouting distance of the list. In fact it stands directly in opposition to your Vow, which has you granted power by your god for voluntarily assuming hardship upon yourself. Asking for something just because its convenient is entirely counter to the spirit of your Vow.

[Rater202]

Except you didn't swear to dispose of your excess wealth by the most expedient means available. (that could be accomplished by leaving it where you found it) The purpose of the bag, and how convenient it is to you personally is irrelevant. You forswore all material possessions (with few extremely limited exceptions).

A magic bag of sending stuff to other places is not on the list. Its not even in shouting distance of the list. In fact it stands directly in opposition to your Vow, which has you granted power by your god for voluntarily assuming hardship upon yourself. Asking for something just because its convenient is entirely counter to the spirit of your Vow.

For the last fracking time, the bag doesn't exist for your convenience, it exists perhaps so the orphans you promissed to give your money too don't starve to death in the year and a half you spend on the other side of the planet, or so the other PCs don't murder you in your sleep becuase you keep insisting you go back to that one town after every adventure, dragging the game down toa crawl while you get there.

You are getting hung up on the letter of the oath. We are talking about the spirit of the oath, which such an artifact does not violate.

Ifr the letter is broken,but the spirit is not, then does it count as a violation?

To be honest, I'm leaning towards no, because what good deity is going to punish you for doing something good?

[Necroticplague]

For the last fracking time, the bag doesn't exist for your convenience, it exists perhaps so the orphans you promissed to give your money too don't starve to death in the year and a half you spend on the other side of the planet, or so the other PCs don't murder you in your sleep becuase you keep insisting you go back to that one town after every adventure, dragging the game down toa crawl while you get there.Um, that is your own convenience. There's no reason you can't make a stop after every adventure to donate if you want to make sure they have it. Sure, it's annoying, but you knew what you were getting into when you took that oath.


You are getting hung up on the letter of the oath. We are talking about the spirit of the oath, which such an artifact does not violate.
A:Isn't this a bit presumptuous, given how you guys are arguing about if it violates the spirit?
B:How are the letter and the spirit of an oath any different? There are things oaths clearly allow, and clearly disallow. You forswore all magic items, period. There aren't any exceptions for if you think it would do greater good to blatantly break it.


If the letter is broken,but the spirit is not, then does it count as a violation?

To be honest, I'm leaning towards no, because what good deity is going to punish you for doing something good?

Alternatively: What kind of god, good or otherwise, is going to continue providing you with power (in the form of VOP boni, in this case) when you flat-out, knowingly, break a vow that you made with them?

[Coidzor]

For the last fracking time, the bag doesn't exist for your convenience, it exists perhaps so the orphans you promissed to give your money too don't starve to death in the year and a half you spend on the other side of the planet, or so the other PCs don't murder you in your sleep becuase you keep insisting you go back to that one town after every adventure, dragging the game down toa crawl while you get there.

Don't have the orphans that bad off that after their first windfall from the party's largesse they can't survive for a measly year and a half? Don't have a character that insists on going back to one town after every adventure unless the rest of the players can deal with that or it's that kind of homebase-centered game? :smallconfused:

The BoED does state, at least to the best of my recollection, that the rest of the group of players and DM need to be willing to play ball with those players and characters who go Exalted.


You are getting hung up on the letter of the oath. We are talking about the spirit of the oath, which such an artifact does not violate.

Exalted Good is one of those sorts of things where the letter and the spirit are supposed to be one and the same, seeing as how despite being able to be entered into by LG, NG, and CG people, it's very much an LG+++ sort of deal. So I'd encourage you to either keep that and alter the letter of the law to reflect your view of the spirit of the law or make it abundantly clear what the spirit of the law is and just roll with that rather than hard and fast rules as long as the guidelines are clear enough for your players.


Ifr the letter is broken,but the spirit is not, then does it count as a violation?

I can see where you're coming from and for you it might not be, but by the fluff I'm familiar with and everything I know of what they drew upon to make that fluff, then, yes, stepping an inch out of line when it says not to, even if you're saving a kitten is still a violation of the vow, much like how there were allegedly fighting techniques invented in feudal Japan so that one could fight while crouching/kneeling so that one didn't stand up before one's lord, because that was a death sentence, even while defending them from assassins.

But if you want to change that, then change that, just know that you're probably departing from RAW and RAI(I mean, I'm pretty sure you would be, but I'm not exactly an expert RAWgal Scholar). And that's OK, especially in areas such as this, where I agree that the RAW and RAI are overly restrictive. :smallsmile:


To be honest, I'm leaning towards no, because what good deity is going to punish you for doing something good?

If that's how you're playing the sacred vows then, again, you need to decide how you've altered them and what that alteration means for them, because that is not how they're fluffed in BoED to the best of my recollection. IIRC, what they are is a character gaining extra holiness and power from having taken on an entirely onerous burden even in the face of greater good from not abiding by the vow, for obviously any situation where things would be better if you abandoned your vow are but traps placed before you by Pazuzu to cause you to fall.

If they're vows that cause the person who takes them to be empowered by the gods then you'll need to consider whether that deity would care about that kind of vow or not and what their requirements would be, much like how you'd have to go through and actually decide what acts would grossly violate a God's tenets for a cleric or how a Paladin's Code would be altered by making them champions of their patron deities rather than their default state as champions of their alignmental extreme. And you should also probably make the abandoning/atoning process less painful than BoED's default of "lose a feat slot. FOREVER, unless it was against your will, but you still have to go through some arduousness even if you were forced."

[TypoNinja]

For the last fracking time, the bag doesn't exist for your convenience, it exists perhaps so the orphans you promissed to give your money too don't starve to death in the year and a half you spend on the other side of the planet, or so the other PCs don't murder you in your sleep becuase you keep insisting you go back to that one town after every adventure, dragging the game down toa crawl while you get there.



That is by definition for your convenience.

You are finding it burdensome to fulfill your vow.
You are finding it inconvenient that you must go back to town.
You are having problems keeping your word to the orphans you promised to help.*
You are traveling with people so heartless they would murder you for your loot.
You are not happy with taking time out of your busy murder-hobo(With extra hobo, go VoP!) schedule to uphold your Vow.

Seeing a common theme here? Lots of You.

The entire point of your holy Vow was that you are voluntarily assuming hardship upon your self. Sticking to your Vow is supposed to take extra effort. Its supposed to be difficult on you. That's why your God granted you the power, in exchange for your supreme act of faith and dedication, who's standard is so high that there are Paladins who fail to live up to the standard of Good you are swearing to uphold.

Lots of people have trouble with this but the BoED comes with RP requirements. Its not just RAW, you literally have to live up to your Oath or god will take the power back.



You are getting hung up on the letter of the oath. We are talking about the spirit of the oath, which such an artifact does not violate.

You are Exalted Good, and the suggestion that you would even consider standing there and rules lawyering at your god over the terms of a Sacred Vow is both insulting and unthinkable. Even if the loophole did exist (Which it doesn't) You would never consider using it as such deception and trickery is entirely beneath your impeccable moral standards.



Ifr the letter is broken,but the spirit is not, then does it count as a violation?

Yes. The entire point here is, you swore an oath and will do what it says even in the face of certain death.



To be honest, I'm leaning towards no, because what good deity is going to punish you for doing something good?

Wrong question.

Again you didn't swear to do Good, you forswore all material wealth. The question is "What Good deity would punish you for breaking your oath to it?"


*Pro tip, decide to give away loot after you have it, not before, then you can give it to any local worthy cause.

[Talya]

Solution: party member without VOP carries the bag. VOP character gives donations to the party member with the bag for transport to the charity in question. Now you have all the convenience, and a legalistic person has no leg to stand on to complain.

[TypoNinja]

Solution: party member without VOP carries the bag. VOP character gives donations to the party member with the bag for transport to the charity in question. Now you have all the convenience, and a legalistic person has no leg to stand on to complain.

Nope, the vow states you cannot own or use any material possessions, so even using somebody else's ring gates is a breach of your vow. Likewise "Borrowing" is forbidden.


You may not use any magic item of any sort

This is in fact frequently brought up as a serious problem with the oath because it forbids you from taking a healing potion in the possession of an unconscious ally and saving his life with it.

Exalted Feats are Feats in name only, the behave differently from the vast majority of Feats. They are Supernatural, and all require DM approval, as well as in game requiring some ritual and granting of power. You can't treat them like power attack. Its not a mechanics change to be used and abused. Its power granted from on high, and will be revoked if you are unworthy.


Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good—deities, celestials, or similar creatures.

Highest Moral standards. On a scale that Paladins don't always live up to.

Looking for Loopholes in your Sacred Vows is a disqualifying offense.

I don't care if you found one or not, your logic might be good. IC you wouldn't even think about it, and if somebody else told you about it you'd refuse to use it. Or you wouldn't be Exalted.

You cannot nitpick your way out of an Exalted Vow, the act of nitpicking it disqualifies you.

[Soranar]

As a DM I would allow this for the simple reason that lugging the stuff around (and delivering it to the needy) would be a minor quest in an of itself every time you accomplish anything. It would just bog down storytelling.

[eggynack]

For the last fracking time, the bag doesn't exist for your convenience, it exists perhaps so the orphans you promissed to give your money too don't starve to death in the year and a half you spend on the other side of the planet, or so the other PCs don't murder you in your sleep becuase you keep insisting you go back to that one town after every adventure, dragging the game down toa crawl while you get there.
As Deophaun noted, that is a very slippery slope. By your exact same logical line, one can equally conclude that no magic item violates the "spirit" of the oath. After all, your sword is merely ridding the world of an evil that is a threat to orphans, and your magic shield is merely making it easier to live and thus help the orphans, and your apparatus of the crab is merely making you look so damn cool that the opponents give up on the spot letting you help orphans out with greatest possible rapidity. Name me a magic item, and I'll name you an item that my hypothetical VoP character is using, not for his own convenience, but for the aid of orphans.


Ifr the letter is broken,but the spirit is not, then does it count as a violation?
The issue is, you've yet to establish to any meaningful extent what the spirit is. The spirit of vow of poverty is to not have any magic items, or mundane items of most kinds. If the spirit were to help orphans with maximum potency, then you'd be able to use as many items as you like, because items make you better at saving orphans.


To be honest, I'm leaning towards no, because what good deity is going to punish you for doing something good?
When you made a vow to not do the thing you're doing? All of them. This argument falls down the slippery slope even harder than the last. VoP says no items. It doesn't say no items unless you're using them for good.


Nope, the vow states you cannot own or use any material possessions, so even using somebody else's ring gates is a breach of your vow. Likewise "Borrowing" is forbidden.

I don't think you necessarily qualify as the one using the gate. You're giving him a specific purpose for it, and the object to fulfill that purpose, but he's the one doing the actual fulfilling. Seems kinda ambiguous to me.

[weckar]

At this point, it'd be best to just build yourself a Vow of Servitude (Orphans) feat instead, because it feels like that's more what you're going for.

[Rater202]

That is by definition for your convenience.

You are finding it burdensome to fulfill your vow.
You are finding it inconvenient that you must go back to town.
You are having problems keeping your word to the orphans you promised to help.*
You are traveling with people so heartless they would murder you for your loot.
You are not happy with taking time out of your busy murder-hobo(With extra hobo, go VoP!) schedule to uphold your Vow.

Seeing a common theme here? Lots of You.
Fallacious Reasoning. The Character Swearing the Vow wouldn't mind going back to town on foot and delivering the gold in person. There just ins't enough down time to walk back there.

70% of the bags' existence is OOC convenience. It lets you handwave the giving the gold away process without breaking anyone's suspension of disbelief. 20% is making it as compatible with the Spirit of the Oath as Possible, and 10% is "That's what the Parties Artificer came up with"

As a DM I would allow this for the simple reason that lugging the stuff around (and delivering it to the needy) would be a minor quest in an of itself every time you accomplish anything. It would just bog down storytelling.
Exactly! That's the entire OOC justification for the bags existing in the first place.

As Deophaun noted, that is a very slippery slope. By your exact same logical line, one can equally conclude that no magic item violates the "spirit" of the oath. After all, your sword is merely ridding the world of an evil that is a threat to orphans, and your magic shield is merely making it easier to live and thus help the orphans, and your apparatus of the crab is merely making you look so damn cool that the opponents give up on the spot letting you help orphans out with greatest possible rapidity. Name me a magic item, and I'll name you an item that my hypothetical VoP character is using, not for his own convenience, but for the aid of orphans. Fallacious Logic. Slippery Slope. The whole point of the Bags is to make sure the money you've forsworn can go to a good cause. That doesn't mean he's going to go off and grab anything he can useif he grabs a MAgic Shield, it's so he can sell it and give the money to charity.



The issue is, you've yet to establish to any meaningful extent what the spirit is. The spirit of vow of poverty is to not have any magic items, or mundane items of most kinds. If the spirit were to help orphans with maximum potency, then you'd be able to use as many items as you like, because items make you better at saving orphans. The Spirit of the Vow is to proof your righteousness by forswearing the things you do not need, and to send those things where the do the most good. Otherwise you'd be required to destroy your acquired wealth instead of giving it away, or letting the party have your share wouldn't be a violation of the Oath.

I don't think you necessarily qualify as the one using the gate. You're giving him a specific purpose for it, and the object to fulfill that purpose, but he's the one doing the actual fulfilling. Seems kinda ambiguous to me.[/QUOTE]


At this point, it'd be best to just build yourself a Vow of Servitude (Orphans) feat instead, because it feels like that's more what you're going for.

Problem! The Player and Character in question promised to give acquired wealth to the Orphans After swearing the Vow of Poverty. The characters motivation boils down to "In my home country, there is a city with little money and many orphans. They are in desperate need of funding, but having sworn a vow of poverty I have no money to give. Thus, I use my skills in the life of an adventurer, to liberate gold from those who would use it for evil and send it to where it can do good." To be honest, he didn't even know there was a Vow of Poverty Feat until someone asked him about it.

Look, my group hass already decided what we're doing. I posted this as a thought exercise.

...Which is now reflected in the thread's more accurate title.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Spirit of the Vow is to proof your righteousness by forswearing the things you do not need, and to send those things where the do the most good.

This is false.

You swear to forgoe all material possessions. The paragraph that implies that you should donate your share of the treasure is prefaced by the emphatic declaration that "... the other PC's shouldn't get a bigger share of treasure!" The whole point of the paragraph is that WBL should be observed for the rest of the party. This can be achieved by simply awarding the party 3/4 of the normal treasure, at which point the ascetic character doesn't have to donate anything at all.

Asceticism is about the self denial of material goods for one's spiritual benefit. Charity is in no way directly related to ascetisim. They were only linked as a thematic way to maintain WBL.

[Rater202]

"... the other PC's shouldn't get a bigger share of treasure!"

If the treasure is 3/4 the size of the norm, then everyone gets 3/4 a share, meaning if the ascetic takes nothing he's violating his oath, by RAW, becuase the rest of the party is getting a bigger share of the treasure.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the treasure is 3/4 the size of the norm, then everyone gets 3/4 a share, meaning if the ascetic takes nothing he's violating his oath, by RAW, becuase the rest of the party is getting a bigger share of the treasure.

No, they're getting the same size shares they would get if they were receiving the normal amount of treasure and the ascetic hadn't taken a vow of property.

Much, much more importantly; the line that says the rest of the party shouldn't get extra treasure isn't part of the vow. It's part of the section on adjudicating a game with a VoP character. The actual vow is as described in the feat description and only includes the bits on foreswearing material possessions. No magic items, no non-magic items other than the listed exceptions; that's it. That's the whole vow.

[Necroticplague]

Um, can someone tell me where it says one has to give their stuff to charity? Re-looking over VoP, it doesn't seem to be in the feat.

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff. If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.

Not seeing anything about donating anything here. So if a normal vow says nothing about charity even being necessary, how can easing the action of such charity bee in the spirit of the vow?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Um, can someone tell me where it says one has to give their stuff to charity? Re-looking over VoP, it doesn't seem to be in the feat.


Not seeing anything about donating anything here. So if a normal vow says nothing about charity even being necessary, how can easing the action of such charity bee in the spirit of the vow?

It doesn't. It suggests it as a means to maintain proper game balance (I know but they thought they new what they were doing) in the section on voluntary poverty on or around page 27 or so in BoED.

[Renen]

So heres a question:
You loot a dungeon.
You find loot
You now either breat the vow by carrcarrying it to an orphanage, or be a **** to your teammates by making THEM lug it there.
Man... exalted charactera are *****

[Renen]

So heres a question:
You loot a dungeon.
You find loot
You now either breat the vow by carrcarrying it to an orphanage, or be a **** to your teammates by making THEM lug it there.
Man... exalted characters are *****

[Necroticplague]

So heres a question:
You loot a dungeon.
You find loot
You now either breat the vow by carrcarrying it to an orphanage, or be a **** to your teammates by making THEM lug it there.
Man... exalted charactera are *****

If you think that's bad, look at vow of nonviolence.

[Troacctid]

Vow of Nonviolence isn't too bad. It's Vow of Peace that's the real bugger.

[Jack_Simth]

So heres a question:
You loot a dungeon.
You find loot
You now either breat the vow by carrcarrying it to an orphanage, or be a **** to your teammates by making THEM lug it there.
Man... exalted characters are *****

You're not allowed to own or use the stuff. Nothing stops you from carrying it to where it's needed. So you can roll up that +1 Cloak of Resistance and toss it in your bag to be dropped off at the next feasible charity... but it's not *yours* anymore (even if the new owner doesn't know it yet) and you can't wear it.

[Renen]

Vow of Nonviolence isn't too bad. It's Vow of Peace that's the real bugger.

Nope. The reason they talk about nonviolence is because it makes the rest of the party pacifists too.

Btw heres a question: if my party is dying on the ground and theres no one around, can I pour a healing potion down their throat? Or are the powers that be gonna condemn me?

[Jack_Simth]

Nope. The reason they talk about nonviolence is because it makes the rest of the party pacifists too.

Btw heres a question: if my party is dying on the ground and theres no one around, can I pour a healing potion down their throat? Or are the powers that be gonna condemn me?
By RAW, you've got a problem. I will freely admit VoP has some bad quirks.

As to Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence:
Vow of Nonviolence doesn't actually stop your party from doing things. It causes penalties if they like to use CdG's (slay "helpless or defenseless foes"), but that's it.
Vow of Peace: Lots of ways around it's limitations. If someone passes the save, they're unaffected until they leave and re-enter... so the party can just do the hokey-pokey every morning until they save, and then stay nearby. It's a mind-affecting Compulsion, and there's several ways to be immune to those.

[Renen]

Well, if u have vow of peace you are quite likely a caster anuways. And as such can just stand away from allies during combat.

[aleucard]

Ah, but according to the rules-lawyers that are railing against the Portable Donation Bag (well, it's a logical conclusion, anyway), if you were to do that, then you'd lose the feat because that breaks the vow. The vows MUST be used in the most tortuous way for the players possible, to punish them for their hubris to dare to make a character that swears on things! Fall those Paladins, too, their entire class is based on such a thing!

If I need to put down a [/sarcasm] for this, then civilization has failed.

[Pearstriker]

Were I DM, I would absolutely say it was okay to keep the bag, provided that it is used solely for donating.
But the rules provide a means for the ascetic to use it.

From the description of the Vow of Poverty feat :

You may not use any magic item of any
sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your
behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend
gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride
on your companion’s ebony fly.You may not, however, “borrow” a
cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for
even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a
scroll, wand, or staff

So you could absolutely give the bag to an ally and ask them to put your share of the loot in it. (You might have to provide motivation for nongood characters)
Much like the Vow intended, you have to rely on help from your party members to use things - an example suggested that to cast a spell with expensive components, an ascetic could beg to use his ally's components.
So yes, by the book you could get the benefit if handled properly.

[Troacctid]

Ah, but according to the rules-lawyers that are railing against the Portable Donation Bag (well, it's a logical conclusion, anyway), if you were to do that, then you'd lose the feat because that breaks the vow. The vows MUST be used in the most tortuous way for the players possible, to punish them for their hubris to dare to make a character that swears on things! Fall those Paladins, too, their entire class is based on such a thing!

If I need to put down a [/sarcasm] for this, then civilization has failed.

The vow specifically prohibits using nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken enemies so that allies can kill them. It also prohibits causing direct harm. It does, however, explicitly allow you to deal nonlethal damage, and it lets you do whatever you want if your enemy is undead or a construct. So as long as you work within those limitations, I'd have no problem with you standing back to get your allies out of the radius of your Calm Emotions.

[aleucard]

The vow specifically prohibits using nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken enemies so that allies can kill them. It also prohibits causing direct harm. It does, however, explicitly allow you to deal nonlethal damage, and it lets you do whatever you want if your enemy is undead or a construct. So as long as you work within those limitations, I'd have no problem with you standing back to get your allies out of the radius of your Calm Emotions.

But your character knows and actually sees their allies doing lethal damage, and NOT preventing that goes against the intent of the vow! If you AREN'T being as obnoxious a little snot about it as you possibly can while you remain conscious, then you are going against the vow! The entire existence of the vows is to be obstructions to the very concept of the game, after all! Any attempts to make them more party-friendly break the vows!

Ditto my previous comment on [/sarcasm].

[Necroticplague]

Ah, but according to the rules-lawyers that are railing against the Portable Donation Bag (well, it's a logical conclusion, anyway), if you were to do that, then you'd lose the feat because that breaks the vow. The vows MUST be used in the most tortuous way for the players possible, to punish them for their hubris to dare to make a character that swears on things!

Actually, simply staying away from a fight with your allies in it doesn't violate your vow of peace in any way.Heck, even being nearby and buffing your allies so they can kill things is fine, as long as you don't K.O. them yourself for the CDG. The reading that the Donation bag breaks the vow isn't a hostile one, its a very plain one (can't use magic items, period).

[Troacctid]

But your character knows and actually sees their allies doing lethal damage, and NOT preventing that goes against the intent of the vow! If you AREN'T being as obnoxious a little snot about it as you possibly can while you remain conscious, then you are going against the vow! The entire existence of the vows is to be obstructions to the very concept of the game, after all! Any attempts to make them more party-friendly break the vows!

Ditto my previous comment on [/sarcasm].

If you take a Vow of Silence, you're not expected to keep your party members from holding a conversation. You just can't participate if they do. It is much the same with Vow of Peace.

[TypoNinja]

Fallacious Reasoning. The Character Swearing the Vow wouldn't mind going back to town on foot and delivering the gold in person. There just ins't enough down time to walk back there.

70% of the bags' existence is OOC convenience. It lets you handwave the giving the gold away process without breaking anyone's suspension of disbelief. 20% is making it as compatible with the Spirit of the Oath as Possible, and 10% is "That's what the Parties Artificer came up with"


I see you've ignored half my post to focus on the convenience again. if you as a group have OOC problems with the oath (which by the way has nothing to do with giving away your wealth, I suggest you go read your BoED again, since you seem to be operating under false assumptions.) then by all means house rule a fix if your group desires that. Just don't ask us for RAW on this board if you want house rules instead.

Rather than repeating my self on the bit you ignored I'll simply point out again that the BoED comes with RP requirements as well as the RAW, and you don't seem prepared to deal with those.

[eggynack]

Fallacious Reasoning. The Character Swearing the Vow wouldn't mind going back to town on foot and delivering the gold in person. There just ins't enough down time to walk back there.
Not fallacious, given that the third line covers this situation.


70% of the bags' existence is OOC convenience. It lets you handwave the giving the gold away process without breaking anyone's suspension of disbelief. 20% is making it as compatible with the Spirit of the Oath as Possible, and 10% is "That's what the Parties Artificer came up with"
If 20% is trying to fulfill the spirit, then 20% of your goal was met with failure, I think.

Fallacious Logic. Slippery Slope. The whole point of the Bags is to make sure the money you've forsworn can go to a good cause. That doesn't mean he's going to go off and grab anything he can useif he grabs a MAgic Shield, it's so he can sell it and give the money to charity.
As Deophaun noted, slippery slope isn't necessarily a fallacy, and it is not one in this case. In particular, I assert that the logic that supports your desired outcome would equally support purchasing any magic item. Given that you're arguing not for a particular action, but for the underlying spirit behind said action, that is very much valid reasoning.


The Spirit of the Vow is to proof your righteousness by forswearing the things you do not need, and to send those things where the do the most good. Otherwise you'd be required to destroy your acquired wealth instead of giving it away, or letting the party have your share wouldn't be a violation of the Oath.

But the spirit isn't just forswearing the things you don't need. It's also about forswearing the things you do need, if you need them. Whether charity is a part of the feat is irrelevant, because giving up everything is equally as important, if not more so.


Problem! The Player and Character in question promised to give acquired wealth to the Orphans After swearing the Vow of Poverty. The characters motivation boils down to "In my home country, there is a city with little money and many orphans. They are in desperate need of funding, but having sworn a vow of poverty I have no money to give. Thus, I use my skills in the life of an adventurer, to liberate gold from those who would use it for evil and send it to where it can do good." To be honest, he didn't even know there was a Vow of Poverty Feat until someone asked him about it.
So, he made a promise that he couldn't fulfill given the vow. I don't see why you necessarily have to support that by letting him break it. He could always just fail to do this.

[Coidzor]

Honestly it sounds like Rater's group needs to just tweak the feat into Vow of Charity.

[eggynack]

Honestly it sounds like Rater's group needs to just tweak the feat into Vow of Charity.
True, though I'm not entirely sure what that would look like. Just vow of poverty, except your sole driving force is to give your stuff to folks in as expedient a fashion as possible? Seems hard to determine a line. Are you required by the gods to optimize for donations? Like, when you get a personal teleportation item, do you have to math out whether it'd help the orphans more to keep it or donate it? Also, would you be allowed to use said item for non-charity? It's kinda weird. Maybe the best way is to heavily cut the benefits of vow of poverty, and then let the user keep 1/4th gold, using it to best gather and distribute the remaining 3/4th's, partially through the items being discussed, and also through things that make the user better at killing bad-folk and taking their items.

[Rater202]

So, he made a promise that he couldn't fulfill given the vow. I don't see why you necessarily have to support that by letting him break it. He could always just fail to do this.
Becuase punishing the player for sometihng from their backstory is a d*** move? Becuase they weren't eve n going to take the vow of povery feat untill someone looked and said "Hey, you've got that vow of Poverty, you gonna take the feat?"

Honestly it sounds like Rater's group needs to just tweak the feat into Vow of Charity.

We've already made our ruling and moved on. This is basically just a thought exercise now.

[Sliver]

then by all means house rule a fix if your group desires that. Just don't ask us for RAW on this board if you want house rules instead.

Rather than repeating my self on the bit you ignored I'll simply point out again that the BoED comes with RP requirements as well as the RAW, and you don't seem prepared to deal with those.

I'm wondering... At what point did RAW enter this discussion? When the homebrewed magic item was brought up, or when the question arose whether the magic item is breaking the spirit of the feat or not?

I don't think anyone said that it's RAW to own the item...

Not all game groups want to change the pace of the game/story just for one character with a repeating side-quest, but it doesn't mean that the DM has to say no to the feat or "tough luck" to the party just because of that. IMO, ruling that giving away the treasure through a magical pack is a legit alternative to lugging sacks of gold until you have a chance to throw it at a church or w/e.

Of course, I'm assuming that you are playing with a group of adults that agree that this is a better solution and nobody will decide to be a jerk by trying to use it to justify some further exploits. Not always a given...

[Rater202]

How we handled it? GM said it was fine, then we worked out how he got it IC: The Party Artificer suggested making the item, the Vow Sweaerer(a Cleric) was hesitant and prayed on it, and his God said it was fine.

At no point did anyone in the party even bring up the potential exploits mentioned in this thread.

[Necroticplague]

I'm wondering... At what point did RAW enter this discussion? When the homebrewed magic item was brought up, or when the question arose whether the magic item is breaking the spirit of the feat or not? When he asked if it would violate the oath to have and use the item. There are several ways to interpret that question, including "would it be within to rules to allow this to occur?"




Not all game groups want to change the pace of the game/story just for one character with a repeating side-quest, but it doesn't mean that the DM has to say no to the feat or "tough luck" to the party just because of that. IMO, ruling that giving away the treasure through a magical pack is a legit alternative to lugging sacks of gold until you have a chance to throw it at a church or w/e. I don't see why traveling to give the gold is such a pace breaker anyway. Sure, it might take great IC effort, but you can easily pass over with a mere sentence OOC.

[atemu1234]

I don't see why traveling to give the gold is such a pace breaker anyway. Sure, it might take great IC effort, but you can easily pass over with a mere sentence OOC.

Because we're talking in character here. In-Character, orphans die from starvation while you trek back with gold. This item stops that.

[Rater202]

Because we're talking in character here. In-Character, orphans die from starvation while you trek back with gold. This item stops that.

partially this, and partially because it's a pain in the ass to treck when you get a night of downtime between adventures, at most.

[TypoNinja]

Becuase punishing the player for sometihng from their backstory is a d*** move?

God forbid the DM actually works with you on making your backstory relevant to the game. Yep, such a **** move.

Oh wait, you mean the DM should never make you work for pieces of your back story? You made a promise and are upset it might take actual effort to keep it. Oh no what ever shall you do.

The entire point of a Vow is that its not easy to uphold. God wouldn't reward you with mystical powers for it if it was easy.

[Necroticplague]

Because we're talking in character here. In-Character, orphans die from starvation while you trek back with gold. This item stops that.

How is anyone dying of starvation? Starvation only deals nonlethal damage.

[atemu1234]

How is anyone dying of starvation? Starvation only deals nonlethal damage.

Because we're porting VoP for Pathfinder, obviously.

[Rater202]

God forbid the DM actually works with you on making your backstory relevant to the game. Yep, such a **** move.
No. Taking a thing from the players backstory that has no reason to be a detriment and making it so is a d*** move. God forbid we don't find a way to not piss off all the other PCs and the GM.

How is anyone dying of starvation? Starvation only deals nonlethal damage.

1. That's one of those stupid violation of common sense rules that everyone ignores, like the commoner railgun and Drown Healing.

2. Even if you don't ignore that stupid rule, the PCs don't know that, now do they?

[facelessminion]

While it would be weird to deck out a VoP-based character in loads of relics (which in that effect are just thinly veiled magical items), i could think of it that way:

"You see a light shining from the heavens, clearly in front of you. And out of it an Angel (Eladril/ whatever) comes:

"Mortal, you are one of the purest souls walking this earth, and i have seen you have forsworn worldly possessions. And yet you yearn to distribute the riches you and and friends come across. Take this, my "Holy bag of wealth for all".

You can put anything into it which is of worth. And whatever you put into it, will be transported to a good soul who is in dire need of wealth, or food, or arms or protection.

ALSO if you think about someone you you think would need it, it will be transported to him or her... or it..., so as we are not at fault to stiffle your free will.

BUT BE WARNED, to never have a selfish thought while using this sack, as it will betray your mortal soul as not clean enough to hold this most sacred awesome artifact.

See ya, bye"
"

And be done with it. It won't work for anyone but the bestowed one. He can still use it in exchange for blowing his VoP out. And the group can feel good and has more time. So yeah i agree with "just give it to him - but be aware."


I really love the description you have here.

Personally, I don't feel it remotely violates the spirit of the vow, and is actually a really neat idea. And even if someone DOES want to complain about a person with VoP using magic items, that's easily enough solved by having someone else hold the bag.

(But I feel having someone else hold the bag would be silly.)

[Necroticplague]

1. That's one of those stupid violation of common sense rules that everyone ignores, like the commoner railgun and Drown Healing.

2. Even if you don't ignore that stupid rule, the PCs don't know that, now do they?

1. I certainly don't ignore it. Sure, it doesn't make sense if you think it's supposed to simulate real life, but it isn't trying to do such. It's fantasy set in a world with laws of physics entirely different from our own.

2.Why wouldn't they? They may not know it by the name "nonlethal damage", but its a basic rule of the reality they live in that starvation can only knock someone out. Not knowing starvation only k.o. you in that world would be as inexhusable as not knowing it can kill you in this one.

[eggynack]

Becuase punishing the player for sometihng from their backstory is a d*** move? Becuase they weren't eve n going to take the vow of povery feat untill someone looked and said "Hey, you've got that vow of Poverty, you gonna take the feat?"

You're not punishing him for something in his backstory. You're punishing him for a feat he took, which has explicit rewards and punishments. It's a mechanical object, rather than a strictly backstory one. Moreover, it's a very heavily weighted mechanical object within those terms, heavy risks and heavy rewards (though perhaps not as heavy as is needed to compensate). If he just decided to arbitrarily pick up the feat without really considering the consequences, that was probably the mistake, rather than the idea that this one consequence is outside the spirit of the feat.

Because, in the end, there are consequences that are outside the spirit of the feat. Things like not being able to open doors, or appreciate paintings, or really exist in any form, because "use" is such a general term. These are things that should be house ruled, or interpreted differently, because they likely exist outside authorial intent. You, however, are asking whether using a magic item is outside the spirit of a feat that reads, "You can't use magic items." It is. You can do it the other way, if you'd like, but know that it doesn't actually fit the spirit of the feat.

Edit: On the topic of dying of starvation, I like to think that starvation death is an urban legend, a thing that some believe to be existent despite a lack of any real evidence.

[Coidzor]

Because we're talking in character here. In-Character, orphans die from starvation while you trek back with gold. This item stops that.

They really shouldn't be, though, given where the orphans would be and where the first source of income for the PC would be. It's stretching suspension of disbelief for the DM to have it be otherwise.


You're not punishing him for something in his backstory. You're punishing him for a feat he took, which has explicit rewards and punishments.

Edit: On the topic of dying of starvation, I like to think that starvation death is an urban legend, a thing that some believe to be existent despite a lack of any real evidence.

And the DM having orphans starve because the PC didn't have a custom item the DM invented just so that the DM wouldn't make orphans starve is just... weird.

[Kelb_Panthera]

They really shouldn't be, though, given where the orphans would be and where the first source of income for the PC would be. It's stretching suspension of disbelief for the DM to have it be otherwise.



And the DM having orphans starve because the PC didn't have a custom item the DM invented just so that the DM wouldn't make orphans starve is just... weird.

This. Very much this.

People seem to forget that PC spending money is two orders of magnitude higher than regular people's spending money. People can eat for less than a silver piece a week. PC's generate hundreds of gold pieces in a single adventure; a matter of days. 60~ish gp could feed a dozen orphans for a year. One good haul on an adventure should have them more than set for a -long- time.

Seriously, PC's throw around utterly fantastic amounts of money even at low levels.

Frankly, sending -all- of your money to one orphanage is going to make it a target for those who would steal those absurd riches. Following through with this plan will do more harm than good. Quite a bit more harm than good. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

[Renen]

But you can just donate it to the church. You know, the church that can then buy a bazillion mercenaries and keep the land safe for the rest of eternity?

[Kelb_Panthera]

But you can just donate it to the church. You know, the church that can then buy a bazillion mercenaries and keep the land safe for the rest of eternity?

And that is part of a continent, if not worldspanning organization with branches you can stop by virtually anywhere that good morality is revered? That church?

[Renen]

Yeh thats the one. They also worship pelor the burning ha... wait a second!

[TypoNinja]

This. Very much this.

People seem to forget that PC spending money is two orders of magnitude higher than regular people's spending money. People can eat for less than a silver piece a week. PC's generate hundreds of gold pieces in a single adventure; a matter of days. 60~ish gp could feed a dozen orphans for a year. One good haul on an adventure should have them more than set for a -long- time.

Seriously, PC's throw around utterly fantastic amounts of money even at low levels.

Frankly, sending -all- of your money to one orphanage is going to make it a target for those who would steal those absurd riches. Following through with this plan will do more harm than good. Quite a bit more harm than good. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

I actually mathed it out at one point, consider a whole live chicken is 2cp.

For a single measly GP you can hook up your orphans with 50 goddamn chickens for egg laying. Just one GP! They pretty much are set there indefinitely in terms of eggs and even the occasional chicken dinner.

For a wopping 10GP they can get a whole damn cow. And we've still spent less than the price of the fighters longsword. Milk, and Cheese provided.

By 5th level you've solved the hungry orphan problem for your nation never mind the town you've started in.

Wheat is 1cp a LB, for 100GP turns into 10,000lbs of wheat. You can literally bury your hungry orphans in food for a hair over 2nd level WBL.

Adventurers are disgustingly, absurdly, ludicrously wealthy by the standards of the mundanes.

[eggynack]

And that is part of a continent, if not worldspanning organization with branches you can stop by virtually anywhere that good morality is revered? That church?
Yeah, not entirely sure what that one was directed at. Might've been making the point you're making, but it seemed to be in opposition to it somehow, which is odd. I guess the implication is that the church can afford to put massive armies in place to defend orphan money, but then why do the orphans need you so urgently? This situation just isn't all that internally consistent, is the point, either as applies to the OP's original issue, or to Renen's thingamabob.

Really, don't see why the OP can't just have a different party member handle the magic item, and take that cost out of that party member's WBL or something. It's a method that seems consistent with the rules of VoP, given that the rules say you can have others use items on your behalf. It's been suggested, and it seems like a really elegant solution. This orphan death versus item use dichotomy is a false one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nevermind the other guy's WBL. What party doesn't keep a reserve of cash for whoever needs healing or raising and/or a few communal wands and such? What I'm saying is that this is a team game. If it's for the team's convenience (which I'm less and less sure I'm buying) why shouldn't it come out of the team fund?

[eggynack]

Nevermind the other guy's WBL. What party doesn't keep a reserve of cash for whoever needs healing or raising and/or a few communal wands and such? What I'm saying is that this is a team game. If it's for the team's convenience (which I'm less and less sure I'm buying) why shouldn't it come out of the team fund?
Sure, whatever. Exact mechanics aren't the most relevant thing, and depend at least a bit on individual party dynamics. Point is, solving this particular problem in a way that doesn't interact negatively with VoP is pretty trivial.

[Rater202]

This. Very much this.

People seem to forget that PC spending money is two orders of magnitude higher than regular people's spending money. People can eat for less than a silver piece a week. PC's generate hundreds of gold pieces in a single adventure; a matter of days. 60~ish gp could feed a dozen orphans for a year. One good haul on an adventure should have them more than set for a -long- time.

Seriously, PC's throw around utterly fantastic amounts of money even at low levels.

Frankly, sending -all- of your money to one orphanage is going to make it a target for those who would steal those absurd riches. Following through with this plan will do more harm than good. Quite a bit more harm than good. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

Precisous metals are incredibly common in this setting. think cp=penny, sp=dime, gp=dollar, with prices adjusted occordingly, and all the illogical prices in the PHB fixed.

Otherwise giving the gold to any old good aligned temple would be a viable option, but PC gold in to the coffers of a Church is a drop in a bucket compared to Pc gold for the orphanage.

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that, but I didn't think we needed it for the purposes of the discussion.

I'd also like to reiterate something: The Player who took the Vow of Poverty did not even know about the Vow of Poverty feat untill someone asked about it. He was originally going to be penalizing himself for no benefit.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Precisous metals are incredibly common in this setting. think cp=penny, sp=dime, gp=dollar, with prices adjusted occordingly, and all the illogical prices in the PHB fixed.

Unless he also fixed the prices of food, this is irrelevant. All he's done is made magic cheaper. The oprhans don't need magic, they need food.


Otherwise giving the gold to any old good aligned temple would be a viable option, but PC gold in to the coffers of a Church is a drop in a bucket compared to Pc gold for the orphanage.

If the church is so very wealthy, why not spend a bit of effort convincing the church to support the orphanage? Promising your treasure to the church should make it more than worth their while to do something they ought to be doing anyway.


I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that, but I didn't think we needed it for the purposes of the discussion.

:smallconfused:


I'd also like to reiterate something: The Player who took the Vow of Poverty did not even know about the Vow of Poverty feat untill someone asked about it. He was originally going to be penalizing himself for no benefit

If this would have been remotely viable, then he doesn't need VoP.

[eggynack]

Precisous metals are incredibly common in this setting. think cp=penny, sp=dime, gp=dollar, with prices adjusted occordingly, and all the illogical prices in the PHB fixed.
Aren't you also getting commensurately more money? If you aren't, that seems like it'd screw stuff up a lot.


Otherwise giving the gold to any old good aligned temple would be a viable option, but PC gold in to the coffers of a Church is a drop in a bucket compared to Pc gold for the orphanage.
Yeah, but it's a very big drop in the bucket, because PC's accumulate lots of wealth, and for the orphans, you run the risk of that quantity of gold crushing the bucket into nothingness.


I'd also like to reiterate something: The Player who took the Vow of Poverty did not even know about the Vow of Poverty feat untill someone asked about it. He was originally going to be penalizing himself for no benefit.
I don't see how that's particularly relevant. Whether he had or did not have the feat originally, he has the feat now, by his own choice. The feat has bonuses, and the feat has penalties. You're not penalizing him for a backstory. You're penalizing him for a feat which penalizes folk. VoP is stricter than just some guy who wants to donate his money.

[Talya]

Nope, the vow states you cannot own or use any material possessions, so even using somebody else's ring gates is a breach of your vow. Likewise "Borrowing" is forbidden.

Wrong...I said your party member carries and uses the bag. You never even touch it...you don't use it. You don't borrow it. You don't interact. With it. At all. Your party member handles your donations for you.

[TypoNinja]

Wrong...I said your party member carries and uses the bag. You never even touch it...you don't use it. You don't borrow it. You don't interact. With it. At all. Your party member handles your donations for you.

So your Charity of choice when being extreme in your works of generosity is a fellow party member? Yea, that doesn't really fly.

You can't dance around it, either you are giving money to an unworthy cause, or you have giving money to another person who can cause magic items for you with the express purpose of circumventing your Vows.

Either way, no.

[Renen]

So your Charity of choice when being extreme in your works of generosity is a fellow party member? Yea, that doesn't really fly.

You can't dance around it, either you are giving money to an unworthy cause, or you have giving money to another person who can cause magic items for you with the express purpose of circumventing your Vows.

Either way, no.

Ahem. I am pretty sure it goes like this.
"Dear party member, please hold open your magic bag that teleports all things put into it to a local charity. I shall drop my share of material goods into it, and we shall continue our journey."

[Talya]

Ahem. I am pretty sure it goes like this.
"Dear party member, please hold open your magic bag that teleports all things put into it to a local charity. I shall drop my share of material goods into it, and we shall continue our journey."


Sure.


There's no difference between having your party member deliver the goods to your charity of choice, and doing it yourself. Nothing in VOP says you have to be the one to carry and deliver your share of the loot. You just have to claim and donate it. You've already donated the bag of delivery to the church in question. Your party member is carrying the other end of it on the church's behalf, basically becoming the church's agent for you to donate things.

[Necroticplague]

So your Charity of choice when being extreme in your works of generosity is a fellow party member? Yea, that doesn't really fly.

You can't dance around it, either you are giving money to an unworthy cause, or you have giving money to another person who can cause magic items for you with the express purpose of circumventing your Vows.

Either way, no.

Huh? The vow doesn't require you to give to charity at all, much less a worthy one. As long as you don't use the magic items yourself, you satisfy your Oath to never use magic items. He uses it on your behalf, which is pretty explicitly allowed in the vow itself.

[Ninane]

Some of us want to use the Vows in actual games.

I think that's a reasonable desire provided that you don't expect your table mates to have to put up with it. If the DM doesn't like what the reality of the Vow will do to the session's story, or the party absolutely won't abide by it, such compromises seem smart, even necessary. But only if those first two things are established, not before. (As they should be, D&D being a group game and all.)

Without that, you're just homebrewing a feat for snickers and giggles because the rule doesn't match what you envisioned.

So basically a 4 page long debate on the Spirit of the Vow(TM, RT, ETC) virtually ends with "It depends on the table and the DM's goals, go talk with them and see what works best for your session so you don't aggravate your group to the point of teamkilling, good lord." Not particularly surprising there.

[eggynack]

So basically a 4 page long debate on the Spirit of the Vow(TM, RT, ETC) virtually ends with "It depends on the table and the DM's goals, go talk with them and see what works best for your session so you don't aggravate your group to the point of teamkilling, good lord." Not particularly surprising there.
I don't think that's how it went in this case. Here, it ended up more like, "No, it absolutely doesn't match the spirit, because you're using frigging magic items, but if you want to break the spirit, that's your prerogative." There's lots of fiddly little chunks of stupidity that a table has to muddle through using RAI and common sense if they want to run things akin to this. Things like how one defines use, and how strict the block against borrowing is, and how things that you purchase which become an inherent part of your being work. This isn't one of those cases. This is a case where things are just straight black and white, because the very point of the feat is that you can't use stuff, and the character in question is using stuff.

[TypoNinja]

Huh? The vow doesn't require you to give to charity at all, much less a worthy one. As long as you don't use the magic items yourself, you satisfy your Oath to never use magic items. He uses it on your behalf, which is pretty explicitly allowed in the vow itself.

Your right, the vow doesn't require you to be charitable, but you are almost required to be by your Exalted status. What else is a paragon of Good going to do with material wealth he's forsworn except help the less fortunate?

My issue here isn't the giving away, its the violating the spirit of your vow. You have forsworn the use of nearly everything, having somebody else carry something around for you is a clear violation of the spirit of your oath, if I was going to do that I'd just hire somebody to follow me around with a pile of wands and scrolls to cast things for me. Described that way its a clear violation of my vow, so why should the first option, a magic bag mule, fly either?

[eggynack]

My issue here isn't the giving away, its the violating the spirit of your vow. You have forsworn the use of nearly everything, having somebody else carry something around for you is a clear violation of the spirit of your oath, if I was going to do that I'd just hire somebody to follow me around with a pile of wands and scrolls to cast things for me. Described that way its a clear violation of my vow, so why should the first option, a magic bag mule, fly either?
You're allowed to have people use things on your behalf. That's explicitly allowed. As long as the hireling and the hireling's scroll/wand money isn't coming from your charity money, it seems fine to me. If a party member wants to spend his money buffing you, that's his prerogative, and if he wants to pull from his share to use this cash teleportation device, that's his prerogative too.

[Rater202]

Your right, the vow doesn't require you to be charitable, but you are almost required to be by your Exalted status. What else is a paragon of Good going to do with material wealth he's forsworn except help the less fortunate?

My issue here isn't the giving away, its the violating the spirit of your vow. You have forsworn the use of nearly everything, having somebody else carry something around for you is a clear violation of the spirit of your oath, if I was going to do that I'd just hire somebody to follow me around with a pile of wands and scrolls to cast things for me. Described that way its a clear violation of my vow, so why should the first option, a magic bag mule, fly either?

Well, for one, the fact that the feat explicitly says its okay for your friends to use magic items on your behalf?

for two, the scenario you describe-how are ypu going to hire those people-you can't buy their survaces without violating the spirit and letter of your vow.

The use of the bag is not to your benefit, it's for the benefit of others. it violates the letter for you to use it, but not the spirit, and really I figure only the strictest "Lawful over Good" Lawful Good deities are going to stick you on a technical violation

[eggynack]

The use of the bag is not to your benefit, it's for the benefit of others. it violates the letter for you to use it, but not the spirit, and really I figure only the strictest "Lawful over Good" Lawful Good deities are going to stick you on a technical violation
As I've said, you're mistaken on this. The spirit of the vow isn't to help people as much as possible. The spirit is to give up worldly goods, particularly magic items. As I've also said, you can justify the use of just about any magic item with the idea that you're using it to help people, because hey, you pretty much are. This isn't a technical violation. It's a direct and literal violation. The fact that you can't use magic items, either for yourself or others, isn't in the fine print. It's the print in its entirety. Basically, I want you to tell me the following: should a character with VoP be allowed to use a +5 vorpal sword (or some other similar magic weapon)? If not, why not?

[Rater202]

As I've said, you're mistaken on this. The spirit of the vow isn't to help people as much as possible. The spirit is to give up worldly goods, particularly magic items. As I've also said, you can justify the use of just about any magic item with the idea that you're using it to help people, because hey, you pretty much are. This isn't a technical violation. It's a direct and literal violation. The fact that you can't use magic items, either for yourself or others, isn't in the fine print. It's the print in its entirety. Basically, I want you to tell me the following: should a character with VoP be allowed to use a +5 vorpal sword (or some other similar magic weapon)? If not, why not?
Okay, you are conflating the letter of the Vow with the Spirit.

The "can't use magic items ever" is only RAW. The Spirit of the Vow is to forswear all but the basic necessities-nothing that benifits you, unless it is a friend using it on your behalf offered of their won free will.. Using the Bag does not benefit you in anyway, it in fact benifits everyone in the scenario but you. You get no benefits, therefor you are only violating the letter of the Oath, not the Spirit. Since Spirit is usually considered more important than Letter when it comes to Oaths to Good Beings, and you are breaking the letter only for a good reason, you should only be punished if you are Lawful Good and Swore the Oath to a Lawful Good Deity who prioritizes Law over Good. In the scenario that came up with my group, neither of those were the case.

One would not be permitted to take up a Vorpal Sword, because that does benifit you directly, violatng the letter and the spirit of the Vow.

An other thing that comes to mind. Those who take Sacred Vow and the feats derived from it are Exalted Good. May Saints and Angels look upon thy acts and weep for they art not as virtuous as thou art. If you're not the sort of person who would try to do the most good possible, like say "getting this gold to feed the starving orphans as soon as possible" then you are not sufficiently good to qualify as Exalted Good, now are you?

[eggynack]

Okay, you are conflating the letter of the Vow with the Spirit.

The "can't use magic items ever" is only RAW. The Spirit of the Vow is to forswear all but the basic necessities-nothing that benifits you, unless it is a friend using it on your behalf offered of their won free will.. Using the Bag does not benefit you in anyway, it in fact benifits everyone in the scenario but you. You get no benefits, therefor you are only violating the letter of the Oath, not the Spirit. Since Spirit is usually considered more important than Letter when it comes to Oaths to Good Beings, and you are breaking the letter only for a good reason, you should only be punished if you are Lawful Good and Swore the Oath to a Lawful Good Deity who prioritizes Law over Good. In the scenario that came up with my group, neither of those were the case.
But you've provided no evidence that that's the spirit of the vow. The vow doesn't say, "You can't use magic items that benefit you," and to get to RAI, I can't even see anything that comes close to implying that. You're inventing a spirit of this feat that does not exist. That you can't use items ever isn't just the RAW, but the entire point. It is the letter and spirit alike.


One would not be permitted to take up a Vorpal Sword, because that does benifit you directly, violatng the letter and the spirit of the Vow.
I disagree. Assuming we're going the self-benefit angle, it's trivial to turn the sword into something that benefits only others. Let's maintain the orphans, seeking naught but protection from hunger and cold. The situation that shares the most parity with yours is the idea that you can provide those orphans money, so you go out fighting stuff to make money for them. The sword helps you fight the enemies that give you money, and it ensures your survival, thus meaning that you can donate that money, taken from the hands of defeated villains, over the long term.

We can make this even better for VoP guy though. Our noble VoP adventurer is living in town A, a town living in peace. He hears the news from the nearby town B, that a dragon is threatening their lands, which consists entirely of orphanages, as far as the eye can see. So many orphans. The adventurer leaves his home clad in no items, for he owns none, having given his past items to charity, but on the road to town B, he sees a +5 vorpal sword. It practically calls out to him to slay the dragon, and he'd have a higher chance of saving the many many orphans, the infinite orphans, if he picked it up. He'd put it back down after saving the orphans, definitely. So, can he use it? Can he pick up the sword in defense of the uncountably many orphans, despite is vow?


An other thing that comes to mind. Those who take Sacred Vow and the feats derived from it are Exalted Good. May Saints and Angels look upon thy acts and weep for they art not as virtuous as thou art. If you're not the sort of person who would try to do the most good possible, like say "getting this gold to feed the starving orphans as soon as possible" then you are not sufficiently good to qualify as Exalted Good, now are you?
Yes, you are. The whole point of being exalted good is that you're super good, but the whole point of taking vow of poverty is that you don't use items. They're different things, even if you need one to get the other. If you want to save as many people as possible, VoP isn't the best way to do it, and the lack of dragon slaying items is the cost, to the reward of all of these feats, as well as some arbitrary spiritual satisfaction. And, as I noted, by your logic, one could use VoP and be simultaneously clad in full WBL, which is clearly in opposition to the feat. After all, you'd be most effective at being good were you so clad, would you not be?

[AvatarVecna]

In answer to the OP's question:

Under normal circumstances, a VoP can't carry, use, or own costly equipment/magic items. It is expected (but not required) that a VoP character will be sending their cut of the loot to a charity or organization in need; the RAW says that the VoP can't carry his cut back from the dungeon without losing his VoP, so another PC or a cohort would have to agree to carry it for him. Seeing as this hypothetical party has tolerated having a VoP character on the team without killing them, I'd surmise to say they're likely to be more agreeable to assist in acts of Good.

Now, that's just what RAW says. Would I allow RAI to interpret this feat slightly differently? Sure, depending on the circumstances. Ultimately, I think for me, it would come down to the individual character in question. My general feeling about the VoP feat is that it's an (unsuccessful) attempt to give a mechanical benefit to an otherwise mechanically-unsound roleplaying option. Generally, I disallow the BoED unless the player is willing to play their exalted role to the hilt; if they're willing to do so, I'm willing to make the letter of the rule more flexible...providing they're not trying to bypass the spirit of the rule.

It is suggested by the "Voluntary Poverty" section of the BoED that a character who has taken a vow of poverty should be "as extreme in works of charity as [they are] in self-denial"; note that this is not a direct requirement of the Vow of Poverty feat, but is merely one way of meeting the Exalted Good prerequisite the feat has. Furthermore, nothing in the description of the feat suggests charity is the end all be all for VoP characters.

The only reason charity is brought up at all is to make sure that the other PCs aren't profiting from their ally's vow; without a DM watching WBL carefully, the other players could gain more loot than they're supposed to have. I ran the numbers a while back, and found that the VoP benefits are steadily ahead of the standard 3.5 WBL, sacrificing financial utility for a relatively small advantage of direct combatants. Needless to say, if the other players are getting more than the standard WBL, they're getting more abilities than they should, effectively reducing the benefits of the VoP by comparison. Incidentally, this is one of the faults of the VoP: no matter how your group handles money and magic items, the effects of that feat are set in stone (barring DM fiat, of course, but that hardly bears mentioning).

A while back, for the Dwarven Defender Iron Chef Optimization challenge, I built a VoP Dwarf Monk/Fist of the Forest/Dwarven Defender. The idea of the character was that he was a dedicated warrior of his clan, but felt he couldn't really mesh with his society as his clanmates seemed to. In an attempt to find peace with his place in life, he left for the surface, to find a place where he could find answers to his questions. He found a human monastery, and became a monk, performing acts of service for the local community when he could and learning of philosophy, religion, and morality. And still, he couldn't find any particular fault in his kind's ways.

After a few incidents, and a few conversations with some Guardians of the Green, he realized why he'd never felt at peace with his people's ways: their people's general lust for monetary wealth had poisoned their race; with the desperation of a junkie seeking their next fix, the dwarven race was spending all of it's time and energy digging deeper and deeper into earth, carving scars into the face of mother earth as they steadily dug their own graves. And for what? Shiny rocks. "Precious" metals and stones. Gold. With his mind suddenly clear after decades of doubt and confusion, he quickly got his affairs in order: before he retreated to a nearby mountain to become one with Mother Earth, the last thing he spent money on was to have someone deliver his ancestral arms and armor back to his family, with a note explaining the reason for their arrival; the rest of his money, he distributed to the parts of the local community that needed it, rather than those who simply wanted it. And with that, he retreated into the wilderness.

Years later, when he received word from home of a coming war, he returned as he'd promised to do under such circumstances and, when his greatly increased talent for melee combat became apparent, he was transferred to the elite training reserved for Dwarven Defenders. Despite everything in him screaming that this place was a bastion of greed, he returned to help defend it. Why? Because he knew that he wasn't going to convince anybody through words. What they needed was to see that you didn't need weapons and armor and magic and money to defend your friends, clan, and city. As is often the case for the enlightened, it was about showing others, through your actions, what it meant to be enlightened, to be Exalted.

Why mention this character? Because he's a Vow of Poverty character who is convinced that money is the root of all evil (which, in many ways, is kind of correct), and refuses to tempt himself or others. He might give to a charity, but only if he knew for sure that it would ensure the money helped someone to get what they needed, instead of what they merely wanted.

There are VoP characters who give up material wealth because their earthly attachments are holding them back from true enlightenment, there are VoP characters dedicated to stealing from the rich and redistributing their stolen wealth to the city's poor, there are VoP characters who see greed as the ultimate sin, and there are VoP characters that believe that a particular organization/church/charity can better use that money to do good than they ever could, inspiring them to donate all of their stuff. In all of these cases, the VoP is either uncharitable, or would have to go through shenanigans to avoid accidentally losing their feat.

To summarize: If I were DMing for a VoP character, I would work with the player to make sure that...

1) ...the player couldn't cheese their way past the feat's intended drawbacks, and...

2) the player stayed true to the character concept and the characterization that resulted in the character taking the VoP feat.

My decision wouldn't be based on the RAW or the RAI, it would be based on how those things interact with the character concept in question.

[Sliver]

This is a case where things are just straight black and white, because the very point of the feat is that you can't use stuff, and the character in question is using stuff.

So you are saying that everybody that isn't agreeing with you is wrong because your interpretation is right, and the point of this thread is... To tell them that they are wrong?

[eggynack]

So you are saying that everybody that isn't agreeing with you is wrong because your interpretation is right, and the point of this thread is... To tell them that they are wrong?
I think that anyone who thinks that this is keeping in the spirit of VoP, the feat as written, is wrong, yes. One could work out a new feat, or give the old one a new ethos, or just allow this exception, but the feat we have is very much in opposition to this, no two ways about it. You're putting the argument for the incorrectness of folks on the opposing side in a somewhat poor manner, but as long as you don't think my argument is actually, "You are right because I am wrong," things seem fine as they are.

As for the point of the thread, well, me telling the OP he's wrong is certainly amongst those points. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the entire thing hinges on my existence though, as other folks have been making arguments also, and the OP and others are well within their rights to provide arguments for my wrongness, and those on my side. That's pretty close to the point of the thread, I think, though there likely are those who take more of a middle position on the spectrum of opinions on this issue.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, you are conflating the letter of the Vow with the Spirit.

The "can't use magic items ever" is only RAW. The Spirit of the Vow is to forswear all but the basic necessities-nothing that benifits you, unless it is a friend using it on your behalf offered of their won free will.. Using the Bag does not benefit you in anyway, it in fact benifits everyone in the scenario but you. You get no benefits, therefor you are only violating the letter of the Oath, not the Spirit. Since Spirit is usually considered more important than Letter when it comes to Oaths to Good Beings, and you are breaking the letter only for a good reason, you should only be punished if you are Lawful Good and Swore the Oath to a Lawful Good Deity who prioritizes Law over Good. In the scenario that came up with my group, neither of those were the case.

One would not be permitted to take up a Vorpal Sword, because that does benifit you directly, violatng the letter and the spirit of the Vow.

An other thing that comes to mind. Those who take Sacred Vow and the feats derived from it are Exalted Good. May Saints and Angels look upon thy acts and weep for they art not as virtuous as thou art. If you're not the sort of person who would try to do the most good possible, like say "getting this gold to feed the starving orphans as soon as possible" then you are not sufficiently good to qualify as Exalted Good, now are you?

The "can't use <any items not explicitly exempted>" is not just RAW. It's the explicit definition of the vow itself. The charity thing, not part of the vow. Remaining exalted good, necessary but still not part of the vow. It's not even a matter of law over good. If you take a sacred vow, you have made a promise to some celestial patron* (deity, celestial paragon, or agent therof), without qualification, to do or not do whatever the vow explicitly demands or forbids. To do otherwise, for any reason, is breaking that promise; an act of betrayal against the forces that granted you the power in the first place.

Even if that weren't the case, the underlined is categorically untrue. It benefits you in that you don't have to choose between going back to that particular orphanage and being abandoned by your party for being more trouble than you're worth or continuing on with the party and hoping the kiddies can hold out until you get back. If the party's willing to go back, the bag is completely unnecessary.\

Finally, charity is only one of several virtues that being exalted -may- entail. A character that spreads hope by song and deed and smites evil is just as exalted as any character devoted to spreading charity wherever he goes.

*As someone upthread already copypasta'd, exalted feats, including all of the sacred vows, are granted by some celestial patron. You didn't just make a promise to yourself or to the unanswering sky, you actually had a member or agent of the celestial host witness you making your vow and grant you power in the name of cosmic good.

[Necroticplague]

So you are saying that everybody that isn't agreeing with you is wrong because your interpretation is right, and the point of this thread is... To tell them that they are wrong?

What 'interpretation'? This is a pretty black-and-white thing here. Its not as if this is some wierd loophole in the vow that disallows this, its pretty plainly written right there:

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff. If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.

Thus, its very clear: the person with the Vow cannot use the bag of donation (as it would appear some are calling it) themselves, but they're perfectly allowed to have their friends use it to make whatever donations the one with the Vow wants.

[Rater202]

...I'd like to mention or the fourth time that the GM in our Group let the guy use it.

Seriously, the item didn't even have stats. It exists to hand wave things so the priest did't have to choose between "fulfill the promise he made to that orphanage" and "help stop the invasion of demons about to destroy all of existence on this plane"

The Letter of the Oath is "Never use magic items ever, even if it would lead to the most good not being done"

The Spirit of the Oath is that you've forsworn all material luxuries, to live with the bare minimum. Nothing that benefits you directly. The Spirit of the Oath also requires you to remain good enough to be an Exalted Good.

The item has no direct benefit to you. It literally exists so that the Oath Swearer can do the most good they can do.

And Exalted Good must do the most good they can do, otherwise they are insufficiently good.

You're arguing that the guy should be punished for making a violation of the letter of the Oath. He is not violating the spirit of the oath. Again, you are conflating the letter with the Spirit of the oath.

Screwing People over over the letter of the Oath is a devil thing. Not a being of good thing.

Let's discuss an other Hypothetical Scenario: The Party is trapped in a room, ith a ring of Three wishes with a spell on it that prevents it from being used by anyone but the most virtuous person in the room. The ring has one wish, and the doors out of the room untill it's used.

If the most virtuous person in the party has a Vow of Poverty, and he(haas to be him, an other can't use it on his behalf) uses it to Wish that a lot of perfectly fine, non counterfeited money to appear by legal means in the coffers of a good charity, does that break his vow?

[Necroticplague]

...I'd like to mention or the fourth time that the GM in our Group let the guy use it. Which means only that the DM allowed it. Thanks to the wonders of rule 0, he can do that. That means exactly jack to me, since I don't play with him.


Seriously, the item didn't even have stats. It exists to hand wave things so the priest didn't have to choose between "fulfill the promise he made to that orphanage" and "help stop the invasion of demons about to destroy all of existence on this plane" But what is relevant is that its still a magic item. Nothing beyond that is needed for it to be a violation. Eating from an Everlasting Ration or drinking from a Decanter of endless water is also a violation, even though that exists pretty much purely to hand wave starvation and thirst for the character.


The Letter of the Oath is "Never use magic items ever, even if it would lead to the most good not being done"

The Spirit of the Oath is that you've forsworn all material luxuries, to live with the bare minimum. Nothing that benefits you directly. The Spirit of the Oath also requires you to remain good enough to be an Exalted Good.
Where are you deriving that spirit from? It seems to radically differ from the letter. Yes, you need to stay exalted, but being exalted is a continuum composed of many different things, so need not include charity.


The item has no direct benefit to you. It literally exists so that the Oath Swearer can do the most good they can do. Well, saving you a whole bunch of time traveling is a pretty big benefit. You say earlier that it makes you not have to make a tough decision, so it is benefiting you. As for the 'doing the most good', that's so vague you could say it for almost everything, since all magic items are supposed to make you better/more capable of doing whatever you do.


And Exalted Good must do the most good they can do, otherwise they are insufficiently good. If that was true, anybody that took VoP would instantly become non-exalted, since they've limited their ability to do good by placing a restriction on their actions that does not intrinsically do good (after all, money and items aren't intrinsically evil).


You're arguing that the guy should be punished for making a violation of the letter of the Oath. He is not violating the spirit of the oath. Again, you are conflating the letter with the Spirit of the oath.I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that if he doesn't keep his end of the bargain, he looses the benefits of a bargain.


Screwing People over over the letter of the Oath is a devil thing. Not a being of good thing. And blatantly breaking an oath that you made because it becomes inconvenient is a demon thing, not a being of good thing.


Let's discuss an other Hypothetical Scenario: The Party is trapped in a room, with a ring of Three wishes with a spell on it that prevents it from being used by anyone but the most virtuous person in the room. The ring has one wish, and the doors out of the room until it's used.

If the most virtuous person in the party has a Vow of Poverty, and he(has to be him, an other can't use it on his behalf) uses it to Wish that a lot of perfectly fine, non counterfeited money to appear by legal means in the coffers of a good charity, does that break his vow?

Yes.He used a magic item, he violates his vow. That was easy.

[Rater202]

...but he had no choice but to break it. He was forced into it, becuase it is literally the only way to leave the room, strong armed. Even so he does so in a way that does not benefit him at all, but does benefit a vry good cuase Does he get punished for it?

Unless his god or celestial paragon is an asshat, the answer should be "no."

[Kelb_Panthera]

...I'd like to mention or the fourth time that the GM in our Group let the guy use it.

Huzzah for him? This is completely irrelevant.


Seriously, the item didn't even have stats. It exists to hand wave things so the priest did't have to choose between "fulfill the promise he made to that orphanage" and "help stop the invasion of demons about to destroy all of existence on this plane"

False dichotomy. Nothing stops the VoP character from bringing the treasure to the orphanage later unless he gets himself killed. Even then he can make it known that his share is to go to the orphanage if he doesn't survive.


The Letter of the Oath is "Never use magic items ever, even if it would lead to the most good not being done"

Nope. The letter of the vow is to forgo all material wealth, period, end of sentence.


The Spirit of the Oath is that you've forsworn all material luxuries, to live with the bare minimum. Nothing that benefits you directly. The Spirit of the Oath also requires you to remain good enough to be an Exalted Good.

There, fixed it. You're attaching extra stuff to support your position. You must remain exalted good because it's an exalted feat. That has nothing to do with the vow itself. Not a darn thing. The bit about nothing to benefit you is erroneous too. If that was the case you'd be forbidden from benefiting from magic items used on your behalf which you're explicitly not.


The item has no direct benefit to you. It literally exists so that the Oath Swearer can do the most good they can do.

That's simply not true. You even acknowledge a little further down that it gives you the direct benefit of allowing you to continue your journey unburdened by treasure or guilt.


And Exalted Good must do the most good they can do, otherwise they are insufficiently good.

Not true. This is a standard even celestials can't live up to. An exalted character must do his utmost to serve the ideas espoused by cosmic good. As long as he's trying his best, he's good. Breaking his vows is something he -can't- do. It's as much a betrayal of his ideas as kicking puppies and eating babies*


You're arguing that the guy should be punished for making a violation of the letter of the Oath. He is not violating the spirit of the oath. Again, you are conflating the letter with the Spirit of the oath.

You're insisting that the spirit and letter of the vow don't match up and highlighting everything about the exalted character's ideas except for his vow as evidence of such. That's not how it works. There may, eventually, come a time when his other ideas that make him exalted and his vow come into conflict and he has to break the vow. This is not one of them. Not even close.


Screwing People over over the letter of the Oath is a devil thing. Not a being of good thing.

You've got this much right at least. Then again, devils don't invest anywhere close to this kind of power in those they make deals with. A vow isn't a deal. It's an oath based in faith. The powers granted by the celestial patron are a reward for his devotion, not his end of a deal negotiated beforehand.


Let's discuss an other Hypothetical Scenario: The Party is trapped in a room, ith a ring of Three wishes with a spell on it that prevents it from being used by anyone but the most virtuous person in the room. The ring has one wish, and the doors out of the room untill it's used.

If the most virtuous person in the party has a Vow of Poverty, and he(haas to be him, an other can't use it on his behalf) uses it to Wish that a lot of perfectly fine, non counterfeited money to appear by legal means in the coffers of a good charity, does that break his vow?

Hah. Good one. The number of presumptions here is staggering.

Other than direct DM fiat, what's to stop some member of the party from breaking down the door? How about destroying the ring? If the trap is keyed off of the ring then its destruction should disable the trap. How about teleportation magic? Destroying or digging through the walls or floor?

Then there's the trap itself. That is one of the most mightily contrived traps ever. The magical means to determine "virtuousness" is detect good. This would leave the VoP character indistinguishable from an equal level cleric or celestial creature. Either, if present, could foul up this "screw the VoP guy" trap easily.

Then there's the motivation of the trap maker. He can't be good. If he was he'd just donate the ~25k worth of gold and/or treasure to some charity himself. If he's evil then playing into the trap is easily the dumbest thing you could do. Maybe the ring was crafted with liquid pain and mortal souls and the resultant treasure will be horribly cursed and of course the door that opensleads the wrong way. I suppose it could be a test of faith kind of deal in a temple of the VoP guy's faith but then making the wish is failing the test. Simply declining would be the correct solution, although the door might stay closed for a few days first. Though, of course, we -know- who actually made the trap and why; the DM is being a douche.

Care to try again?


*Mild hyperbole

[Rater202]

You have just as many presumptions. Who says it's a trap? Perhaps it's test of virtue? How do you know the room isn't desinged to prevent teleportation? That the Doors can be broken Down?

That it is using the detect good spell to determine virtue? That there are clerics or Paladins in the party, beyond the guy with the Vow?

That declining the wish will let them out? It won't, because making the Wish is the only way out.

In the orignal question: Haven't we already determined that orphans are starving to death while the Party is off fighting Devils? And that they know that? Letting them die when you have the methods to save them right there, just becuase you made an oath is an Evil act, meaning you stop being good, meaning you lose the feat.

The Spirit of All Exalted Feats is "Stay Exalted Good" and "Never Use Magic Items Ever" is not the same as "Live Without Luxury". The Bag is not a Luxury, it's a utility, used to insure that you aren't knowingly letting children starve to death while you go off and fight someone else..

[Necroticplague]

...but he had no choice but to break it. He was forced into it, becuase it is literally the only way to leave the room, strong armed. Even so he does so in a way that does not benefit him at all, but does benefit a vry good cuase Does he get punished for it?

At no point is he ever punished. Punishment would be inflicting some penalty on him. Instead, he simply looses the benefits.A Vow is a simple 'you do X, you are rewarded with Y. If you don't do X, you don't get Y.'

As for the the point where that was his only option, so? If you notice, the other vows actually state you can lose the benefits (temporarily) for ACCIDENTALLY breaking them (person with Vow of Chasity being raped, for instance), so why would they be any less restrictive for people who do intentionally break them of their own volition simply because they didn't see any other choice?


The Spirit of All Exalted Feats is "Stay Exalted Good" and "Never Use Magic Items Ever" is not the same as "Live Without Luxury". The Bag is not a Luxury, it's a utility, used to insure that you aren't knowingly letting children starve to death while you go off and fight someone else..

So? Pretty much all magic items are utility. A magic sword is only desirable because it more capable of harming others. That's strict utility. This decanter of endless water means I don't have to worry about dying of thirst, so I can live to collect more donation. That's also pure utility that helps you do more good.

As for the 'live without luxury', the Vow never mentions anything about that. It just talks about swearing off material possessions altogether, while the body mentions a few exceptions. (Simple weapon, clothes, 1 day of food in a nonmagical bag, spell component pouch).

[Kelb_Panthera]

You have just as many presumptions. Who says it's a trap? Perhaps it's test of virtue? How do you know the room isn't desinged to prevent teleportation? That the Doors can be broken Down?

Not presumptions, possibilities that were implicitly denied by the statement that making the wish was the only way out of the room. Btw, I -did- mention the test of faith bit. Strange test of faith that pits your survival -against- your beliefs and -kills you- if you stick to that faith.


That it is using the detect good spell to determine virtue? That there are clerics or Paladins in the party, beyond the guy with the Vow?

I acknowledged that a cleric or celestial (forgot paladin oddly enough) may -not- be in the party but that detect good wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they were.

If not detect good, then how? DM fiat power? that's just the DM being a jerkwad again.


That declining the wish will let them out? It won't, because making the Wish is the only way out.

Then we default to, "it's either a death trap or the wish will be twisted because the trap-maker is evil." It's a logical assumption unless it -is- a test of faith but if that's the case, see my previous point. In a real game, only a fool would take this at face value.

My point was this: there's never just two options. It can be made to appear as though there are only two options but the circumstances in which there genuinely are just the two are vanishingly rare.

[Rater202]

The bit about a Vow of Chastity Swearer losing benefits is they're raped reeks of Victim Blaming, everyone I've run with has ignored that and every other, similar "or you were forced to break your promise, you get punished even though you were forced into it" BS, because that is a d*** move and anything good aligned isn't going to punish you for things outside your control unless they're stick up the butt lawful anal retentive.

That's what I'm going for. I honestly do not think that the so Called Ultimate Pure Goods that you swear these Oaths with are going to screw you over over a letter to the oath if you're still living up to the Spirit and break the letter only by force, or when the most good could come from breaking the letter but not the Spirit.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The bit about a Vow of Chastity Swearer losing benefits is they're raped reeks of Victim Blaming, everyone I've run with has ignored that and every other, similar "or you were forced to break your promise, you get punished even though you were forced into it" BS, because that is a d*** move and anything good aligned isn't going to punish you for things outside your control unless they're stick up the butt lawful anal retentive.

That one is definitely a bit of an oversight on the part of the designers. I strongly suspect copypasta is to blame there.


That's what I'm going for. I honestly do not think that the so Called Ultimate Pure Goods that you swear these Oaths with are going to screw you over over a letter to the oath if you're still living up to the Spirit and break the letter only by force, or when the most good could come from breaking the letter but not the Spirit.

I don't necessarily disagree in principle but there is no circumstance under which you can be -forced- to break a vow of poverty short of being subjected to a domination effect.

Circumstance may dictate that failing to break the vow -could- result in a TPK and the end of the world, in theory, but anything less is the PC making a choice to deliberately break his vow. In this particular vow's case the spirit and the letter are one and the same. There's virtually no room for exception here. Your first example that prompted the thread isn't even close. Your more recent example needs to be better defined and absolutely -reeks- of the DM being a butt-head even before that just from the logic of why the trap exists.

I wasn't just being snarky by the way. The invitation to refine the trap scenario or to present some other was genuine. Could be fun.

[Rater202]

I still think "Break the Letter of your Vow or let orphans starve to death" is one of those situiations where the bieng of ulitmate good you Swore too would punish you if you don't break the vow.

Okay, let's redefine the trap scenario.

This isn't from the Campaign that poised the situation, but lets pretend it is. Party are Fighting Devils lets say they need holy weaponry to defeat the Archdevil behind the invasion, and a normal +1 Holy Silver Longsword ain't gonna cut it.

At one point, a Priest and his companions did battle with evil and ascended to Godhead, Joining the Pantheon of Ultimate Good. At one Point a group of Priests gathered The Relics the left behind and fashioned them into Weapons fr use against evil, and then hid them in a temple filled with dangers desined to see if you're worthy of possessing those items.(Lets assume at least one weapon is like a Relic Club of Quarter Staff or something using those "relic are not magic items and have no monetary value" rules mentioned earlier, so that the Vow Swearer gets one too.) Like, to even get into the Tmple you have to be good people who need the weapons to vanquish some evil(Zone of Truth on a Contruct Door?)

Like, a Test of Valor, a Test of Virtue, a Test of skill, and a Test of Might(If you're not strong wenough to defeat me, how will you possible defeat the beings you need this sacred weapons to defeat?)

The Test of Virtue is the Ring Room. In addition to the wish only working if the most virtuous person uses it, using it selfishly also traps you forever(they don't know this part), and refusing to wish because you swore an oath traps you forever(Is that Oath you swore so important that you'd let this great evil destroy the world?)

They need to move on to get the weapons, they can't move back, and if they don't get the weapons, everyone dies.

There is a good chance that the being who VoP guy swore his Oath to used to own one of the Relic Weapons.

He reluctantly uses the Wish for Charity(given above)

He's broken the letter of his Vow, but does he deserve to be punished?

[Troacctid]

If the story is intentionally pessimistic in its tone, you can write it so that the character breaks his vow. If the story is optimistic, it will be written so that he does not have to. The DM can always create a negative outcome for the player if he or she wants to do so; however, it is generally considered rude to deliberately screw players over.

The VoP character would most likely refuse to use the ring, instead having faith that there is a better way to solve the puzzle. If it is an optimistic game, something fortuitous will happen and their faith will be confirmed. If it is a pessimistic game, the chamber will immediately collapse, killing everyone inside, and it sucks to be you.

Edit: However, the more likely scenario is that it's not a ring, it's a piece of fixed architecture like a statue or a shrine. In which case it should be treated as someone else, i.e. whoever is running the test, using an item on the character's behalf, which doesn't jeopardize the vow. Or the ring is a relic and doesn't count for the same reason the legendary weapon doesn't count.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I still think "Break the Letter of your Vow or let orphans starve to death" is one of those situiations where the bieng of ulitmate good you Swore too would punish you if you don't break the vow.

Noone's saying, "screw 'em, let 'em starve" you're either coming back eventually or your will is seeing to it that they get your share post mortem. The item exists for expedience and nothing more.


Okay, let's redefine the trap scenario.

This isn't from the Campaign that poised the situation, but lets pretend it is. Party are Fighting Devils lets say they need holy weaponry to defeat the Archdevil behind the invasion, and a normal +1 Holy Silver Longsword ain't gonna cut it.

At one point, a Priest and his companions did battle with evil and ascended to Godhead, Joining the Pantheon of Ultimate Good. At one Point a group of Priests gathered The Relics the left behind and fashioned them into Weapons fr use against evil, and then hid them in a temple filled with dangers desined to see if you're worthy of possessing those items.(Lets assume at least one weapon is like a Relic Club of Quarter Staff or something using those "relic are not magic items and have no monetary value" rules mentioned earlier, so that the Vow Swearer gets one too.) Like, to even get into the Tmple you have to be good people who need the weapons to vanquish some evil(Zone of Truth on a Contruct Door?)

Well now we're getting somewhere but we have a problem already. Any weapon wielded by a VoP character of sufficient level is treated as magic and holy. The other issue is that the relic thing isn't necessarily kosher. I remember the discussion that prompted the idea and I do believe the concensus was that it didn't work.


Like, a Test of Valor, a Test of Virtue, a Test of skill, and a Test of Might(If you're not strong wenough to defeat me, how will you possible defeat the beings you need this sacred weapons to defeat?)

Good deal.


The Test of Virtue is the Ring Room. In addition to the wish only working if the most virtuous person uses it, using it selfishly also traps you forever(they don't know this part), and refusing to wish because you swore an oath traps you forever(Is that Oath you swore so important that you'd let this great evil destroy the world?)

Now we run into the big issue. No matter how you set it up, the wish can remove them from the room. That can be mitigated by making the ring intelligent but even if that weren't the case you still have the issue of how virtue is determined.

Detect good is the obvious solution but there are ways around that and it can be confused by multiple creatures with auras of the same strength,not that that's a problem if this is legit and not a screw VoP trap. Less obvious but much more accurate is an intelligent trap defending the ring but then it can be reasoned with unless it's absolutely mindless in its assessment and lawfulness which is a problem in that intelligent items share their creator's alignment.

There is no way short of DM fiat or an inexplicably lawful neutral contractor for the trap to be as you say.


They need to move on to get the weapons, they can't move back, and if they don't get the weapons, everyone dies.

This has two issues. First, it's bad campaign design. There should never be just one way to solve a problem. Much more importantly you still haven't accounted for summoning or calling effects. It's trivial to bring forth a creature more virtuous than any member of the party. There's the possibility that there is no caster in the party but that seems unlikely. That can be blocked too but only until and unless the party disables the device/spell that blocks dimensional travel.


There is a good chance that the being who VoP guy swore his Oath to used to own one of the Relic Weapons.

Like I said above but this is a very minor thing since he could've owned it before he took the vow or it could've become a relic by virtue of his ownership of it.


He reluctantly uses the Wish for Charity(given above)

He's broken the letter of his Vow, but does he deserve to be punished?

Unfortunately, yes. Given the circumstances it would be entirely reasonable, if not RAW legal, to allow an atonement to restore his vow's benefits (odd how this is the only one lacking the accidental breach clause). No matter how you look at it he broke the vow. It was certainly a worthy cause, thus atonement, but it's a clear cut breach. He swore never to own or use any item beyond a simple weapon and the meager clothes on his back and he failed to hold that oath. He betrayed his word. He betrayed the faith of his celestial patron. He deserves to loose the abilities granted by the feat until such time as he atones. Only the extremely extraordinary circumstances involved even warrant the possibility of atonement.




:smallconfused: just occured to me; if the device setting up the test of virtue is capable of determining virtue before the wish, why is the wish necessary?

[Necroticplague]

I still think "Break the Letter of your Vow or let orphans starve to death" is one of those situiations where the bieng of ulitmate good you Swore too would punish you if you don't break the vow.

Okay, let's redefine the trap scenario.

This isn't from the Campaign that poised the situation, but lets pretend it is. Party are Fighting Devils lets say they need holy weaponry to defeat the Archdevil behind the invasion, and a normal +1 Holy Silver Longsword ain't gonna cut it.

At one point, a Priest and his companions did battle with evil and ascended to Godhead, Joining the Pantheon of Ultimate Good. At one Point a group of Priests gathered The Relics the left behind and fashioned them into Weapons fr use against evil, and then hid them in a temple filled with dangers desined to see if you're worthy of possessing those items.(Lets assume at least one weapon is like a Relic Club of Quarter Staff or something using those "relic are not magic items and have no monetary value" rules mentioned earlier, so that the Vow Swearer gets one too.) Like, to even get into the Tmple you have to be good people who need the weapons to vanquish some evil(Zone of Truth on a Contruct Door?)

Like, a Test of Valor, a Test of Virtue, a Test of skill, and a Test of Might(If you're not strong wenough to defeat me, how will you possible defeat the beings you need this sacred weapons to defeat?)

The Test of Virtue is the Ring Room. In addition to the wish only working if the most virtuous person uses it, using it selfishly also traps you forever(they don't know this part), and refusing to wish because you swore an oath traps you forever(Is that Oath you swore so important that you'd let this great evil destroy the world?)

They need to move on to get the weapons, they can't move back, and if they don't get the weapons, everyone dies.

There is a good chance that the being who VoP guy swore his Oath to used to own one of the Relic Weapons.

He reluctantly uses the Wish for Charity(given above)

He's broken the letter of his Vow, but does he deserve to be punished?

No, he doesn't deserve to be punished. He does, however, deserve having the benefits of his oath revoked.

As for the 'choosing between violating an oath or letting bad things happen', BOED mentions a similar scenario (I think it was killing one defenceless person to save a thousand, or something), and basically says that if you let bad things happen, that doesn't fall upon your soul.

There are others ways around this scenario, anyway. Teleport Through Time, leave a message for self warning him of this scenario, don't pick up a quarterstaff for him and him take up a supporting role in the combat against the devils. Or Antimagic Ray self/party, followed by Invoke Magic+Plane Shift out of here.

Of course, all the above is rather irrelevant, because you mentioned it within your own campaign, where your DM has already shown a willingness to disregard the rules at the whims of the imaginary pixie of 'spirit of the oath'. An oath where the letter is unimportant is not much of an oath.

[eggynack]

He's broken the letter of his Vow, but does he deserve to be punished?
That's a ridiculously contrived scenario right there, but yeah, he'd lose the benefits of his vow. That's just how the vow works, and it doesn't matter at all how virtuous you're being with your magic item use. Incidentally, that relic thing from before was a joke, referencing the utter ridiculousness of that thread, so you shouldn't use it in game under the assumption that it's rules legal.

[Rater202]

Noone's saying, "screw 'em, let 'em starve" you're either coming back eventually or your will is seeing to it that they get your share post mortem. The item exists for expedience and nothing more. But they're starving to death right now, and the party knows that every second they take to not send the Vow Swearer's Gold is a second that an other kid is potentially starving to death



Well now we're getting somewhere but we have a problem already. Any weapon wielded by a VoP character of sufficient level is treated as magic and holy. The other issue is that the relic thing isn't necessarily kosher. I remember the discussion that prompted the idea and I do believe the concensus was that it didn't work. Lets say it has to be a specific kind of Holy to work against this Arch Devil? Or maybe we can drop the relic loop hole and say that the rest of the party needs Relic Weapons. Whateves.


This has two issues. First, it's bad campaign design. There should never be just one way to solve a problem. Much more importantly you still haven't accounted for summoning or calling effects. It's trivial to bring forth a creature more virtuous than any member of the party. There's the possibility that there is no caster in the party but that seems unlikely. That can be blocked too but only until and unless the party disables the device/spell that blocks dimensional travel.

Disabling the thing sounds like a loop hole, and if the Relic Loophole won't work for a VoP character, that loop hole wont' work for the Ring.


Like I said above but this is a very minor thing since he could've owned it before he took the vow or it could've become a relic by virtue of his ownership of it.

"Hey look at those Mortals, they're taking the test of Virtue for those weapons w used back when we were mortal."
"Oh, who's the one the ring wants?"
"That Priest... Wait a minute, didn't that guy promise Bob he wasn't ever gonna use magic items?"
"...s***!"



:smallconfused: just occured to me; if the device setting up the test of virtue is capable of determining virtue before the wish, why is the wish necessary?
I was thinking it was less a "Detect Good, who in this room has the strongest Aura" but rather something like a divinations speel that answers a Question-"Which Person in this room is the most Virtuous?"

If the Person who is most virtuous uses the Wish Selfishly, then obviously none of them are virtuous enough for the holy relics.

No, he doesn't deserve to be punished. He does, however, deserve having the benefits of his oath revoked. Which is still a punishment. Either he deserves to be punished or he doens't. Which is it?


As for the 'choosing between violating an oath or letting bad things happen', BOED mentions a similar scenario (I think it was killing one defenceless person to save a thousand, or something), and basically says that if you let bad things happen, that doesn't fall upon your soul.[quote] If you let evil bbefall others when you can stop it, then you are evil. in this case the book is wrong. Coupled with the Victim Blaiming written into the Vows, I'm starting to think that the writers of BOED has a very strange definition of moral good.

[quote]There are others ways around this scenario, anyway. Teleport Through Time, leave a message for self warning him of this scenario, don't pick up a quarterstaff for him and him take up a supporting role in the combat against the devils. Or Antimagic Ray self/party, followed by Invoke Magic+Plane Shift out of here.

If he doens't Wish, they can't leave the room at all. If they don't leave the room, nobody gets a relic weapon.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But they're starving to death right now, and the party knows that every second they take to not send the Vow Swearer's Gold is a second that an other kid is potentially starving to death.

Then they're dead anyway. Unless the dungeon's so close that the bag is unnecessary they're gonna starve before you secure the treasure. You'd be better off getting a job (read; rolling profession for a day and spending the results on food). Incidentally, this is exactly why "most good or not good enough" doesn't work.



Lets say it has to be a specific kind of Holy to work against this Arch Devil? Or maybe we can drop the relic loop hole and say that the rest of the party needs Relic Weapons. Whateves.

Except it doesn't. The archfiends, the princes of the abyss and the archdukes of hell, are described in BoVD and none of them require anything too out there. They -are- however too much for a non-epic party. We're squarely in DM fiat screwing the player territory again.




Disabling the thing sounds like a loop hole, and if the Relic Loophole won't work for a VoP character, that loop hole wont' work for the Ring.

Huge difference. The relic thing is a rules loophole (that doesn't work), whereas disabling an obstacle so as to more easily bypass it is par-for-the-course dungeoneering. The obstacle in question is a door. Getting past it is the goal. It's not really cool for a DM to force the players to use the one and only solution that he cooked up if they think of something quicker, easier, or otherwise just better. They can't interact meaningfully with the trap since it screws the only guy that can operate it so they need to find another way around it. Whoever built the place probably wouldn't approve but he's dead so screw him.


"Hey look at those Mortals, they're taking the test of Virtue for those weapons w used back when we were mortal."
"Oh, who's the one the ring wants?"
"That Priest... Wait a minute, didn't that guy promise Bob he wasn't ever gonna use magic items?"
"...s***!"

If they can see what's happening then why aren't they doing anything to help? Like popping in to let them through this particular obstacle or at least sending him a message that he'll be fine after an atonement.


I was thinking it was less a "Detect Good, who in this room has the strongest Aura" but rather something like a divinations speel that answers a Question-"Which Person in this room is the most Virtuous?"

For it to answer "which is most virtuous?" Virtuous has to be quantifiable. If it's quantifiable then why bother with a test instead of just setting it to, "you must be <this> virtuous to bypass." If the test is to determine virtue then it shouldn't be able to tell which is most virtuous beforehand except by which is most good or by being intelligent enough to make an educated guess and in all cases it can be decieved by a number of effects. Also, just remembered that an ascetic is protected from some mind and alignment reading effects past level 8. He can voluntarily lower that if he's forewarned that such is necessary for the test.


If the Person who is most virtuous uses the Wish Selfishly, then obviously none of them are virtuous enough for the holy relics.

As I said, if it can tell who is most virtuous, it can tell if any of them are virtuous enough without the test being necessary.


Which is still a punishment. Either he deserves to be punished or he doens't. Which is it?

He does. I explained why in my last post.


As for the 'choosing between violating an oath or letting bad things happen', BOED mentions a similar scenario (I think it was killing one defenceless person to save a thousand, or something), and basically says that if you let bad things happen, that doesn't fall upon your soul.

This is directed at Rater's response to this quote. I accidentally deleted it because I'm working on my phone here.

Their point was that choosing a lesser evil is still evil and that you're only responsible for your own actions not the villains'. There's a difference between knowing evil will happen and saying, "not my problem" and saying, "I can't commit an evil act because it's utterly reprehensible to even consider. I must find another way." Since apparent 'no win' situations rarely have only the two presented options the latter is the correct attitude regardless of whether you fail or not.

The -only- instance of victim blaming is a rather obvious copypasta error. WotC's editing staff isn't exactly stellar.


"If he doens't Wish, they can't leave the room at all. If they don't leave the room, nobody gets a relic weapon.

Only if the DM is hell bent on screwing the VoP character.

If the room is made of riverine, it has dimension locking magic architecture, and an intelligent steward/trap under the effect of a mindblank built into it at a retarded high caster level then it's -nearly- impossible to bypass any other way than playing along -if- the ascetic drops his mind shielding when he feels the device probing him and the party spellcaster, if there is one, doesn't know any spells that would allow them to deceive the guardian, and noone's carrying a rod of cancellation or any device that can generate a disintegration effect.

That's a -lot- of ifs. Enough that a player would certainly feel railroaded to hell and back even if it was entirely coincidental.

[Necroticplague]

But they're starving to death right now, and the party knows that every second they take to not send the Vow Swearer's Gold is a second that an other kid is potentially starving to death Except for starvation not dealing lethal damage, and 4 cp of bread feeding a kid for 3 days, and the 1 silver a day an unskilled person (presumably, orphans included) can earn. When the earning of 1 kid can feed 25 for 3 days, starvation isn't a very likely occurrence.



Which is still a punishment. Either he deserves to be punished or he doens't. Which is it? No, it's not a punishment. Them deciding to not keep giving you something is not the same as taking away something. Is it a punishment if you don't get a paycheck when you don't have a job?


If you let evil befall others when you can stop it, then you are evil. in this case the book is wrong. Coupled with the Victim Blaming written into the Vows, I'm starting to think that the writers of BOED has a very strange definition of moral good. That's preposterous.If that was true, there would be no good or neutral people. You can always do more to help people. However, after a point, diminishing returns hits, and you stop. Sure, you could go without sleeping to keep helping, but that would have a deleterous effect on your own health. You don't think you're evil for sleeping, do you?


If he doens't Wish, they can't leave the room at all. If they don't leave the room, nobody gets a relic weapon.
Why does he have to enter? Time traveling would let him just not enter the room, leaving the title of 'the most virtuous person in the room' to someone else. Or what stops the teleporting out via the method i indicated? Or heck, dig your way out. Unless the whole thing is made of solid DMfiatium, the same thing as railroad tracks, in which case the fault lies with the DM being an asshat out to get you. It's the same as the equally unambiguous either-way-paladin-falls scenarios that do exist.

[TypoNinja]

-snippity-

you still persist in treating the BoED like its only a rules text, something to be examined for loopholes to be taken advantage of.

The Book opens with an explanation about it containing RP requirements, that you are consistently overlooking. You and/or your group seem to be unwilling or unready to deal with the morality issues that come inherent to Exalted play.

The saint template (same book) is a great example you should examine. It is an absolutely ridiculous set of powers for only an LA+2. The balancing factor is that you must act like a Saint.

Similarly all Exalted feats also come with RP requirements. They are granted to you at request by a higher power in exchange for an Oath of some variety, and will be revoked if you are unworthy.

Being worthy involves remaining Exalted. Something your position has completely overlooked/ignored.

Almost none of your reasoning works. You are a devils best friend. You have entirely corruptible motivations and standards. You are willing compromise your moral standards in the name of a greater good instead of being the greater good. If you'll look for ways to weasel out of a Vow without even any prompting just so you don't have to walk as far, what would it take to get you to just break it? What if I offer to feed all the needy in an entire nation? Is that worth it to you? End war, saving millions of lives? How much would I have to promise to get you to fall?

[Kelb_Panthera]

you still persist in treating the BoED like its only a rules text, something to be examined for loopholes to be taken advantage of.

The Book opens with an explanation about it containing RP requirements, that you are consistently overlooking. You and/or your group seem to be unwilling or unready to deal with the morality issues that come inherent to Exalted play.

The saint template (same book) is a great example you should examine. It is an absolutely ridiculous set of powers for only an LA+2. The balancing factor is that you must act like a Saint.

Similarly all Exalted feats also come with RP requirements. They are granted to you at request by a higher power in exchange for an Oath of some variety, and will be revoked if you are unworthy.

Being worthy involves remaining Exalted. Something your position has completely overlooked/ignored.

Almost none of your reasoning works. You are a devils best friend. You have entirely corruptible motivations and standards. You are willing compromise your moral standards in the name of a greater good instead of being the greater good. If you'll look for ways to weasel out of a Vow without even any prompting just so you don't have to walk as far, what would it take to get you to just break it? What if I offer to feed all the needy in an entire nation? Is that worth it to you? End war, saving millions of lives? How much would I have to promise to get you to fall?

See now I got a different impression.

I got the distinct impression he was having difficulty separating the RP requirements of being exalted vs the requirements of VoP. They're separate things that he's conflating.

The devil comment was certainly unwarranted. His conflation is putting good above all else, if anything he's pushing toward chaotic good, hard. His would be a real badge on the sleeve of any devil that could claim his soul but that infernal bastard would have to really work for it.

[Rater202]

...Yeah, you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1. It's not my character that prompted me to make this thread. 2. I've actually insisted that an "Exalted Good" must act the part to qualify for these Exalted Good Feats. Letting Orphans die when they might be starving to death for the month it'd take you to walk back their from the other side of the country when that magic dealy over their can send the mone they need for food an stuff is a far more evil act than breaking a vow-if you're not willing to compromise your, when it comes down to it, completely arbitrary Oath, in order to preform a good action, than you are insufficiently good to qualify for a good aligned being to invest you with that power.

As for the Devil thingy... "If you wish for my Soul, Fiend, then you must grant but one wish-Complete, Total, and permanent eradication of all creatures of evil, including yourself and the very gods of Evil, as well as the evil in the hearts of all mortals."

Either it refuses, it tries and fails, potentially destroying other evils, or it succeeds and you don't actually have to trade your soul to it because it killed itself along with every other Fiend.

[torrasque666]

Good doesn't compromise in their ethics and morals. That's why they are capital-G Good. Exalted even more so. If they compromised they'd be neutral at best.

This discussion is going in circles because you can't accept the damn book. The book outlines what you must do, what must be done. Exalted Good characters do not twist the words of the vows they swear. Those who do are not Exalted.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm sorry, you have no legs left to stand on with those orphans. They're already dead and simply still moving. 2 weeks is longer than a child could be reasonably expected to live without food, ignoring the nonsense of starvation not doing lethal damage.

Have you ever heard the expression "give me the strength to change the things I can, the will to put up with the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference,"?

There are starving orphans everywhere. They were a thing before your character was born and they'll be a thing long after he's dust. Promising the orphanage your (ridiculously, fantastic) share of the loot is a good thing to do. Breaking a sacred vow for the sake of expedience toward that vow is not. Some of them will almost certainly starve before you even get there, much less complete the adventure.

You promised to provide wealth, you didn't guarantee you'd save them -all- from starvation because doing so is making a promise you can't possibly keep.

Devil's are -way- more subtle than you seem to think. It won't even appear to you in its natural form much less simply offer to buy your soul. At least not right away.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Good doesn't compromise in their ethics and morals. That's why they are capital-G Good. Exalted even more so. If they compromised they'd be neutral at best.

This discussion is going in circles because you can't accept the damn book. The book outlines what you must do, what must be done. Exalted Good characters do not twist the words of the vows they swear. Those who do are not Exalted.

Exalted characters don't mince with their morality but ethics is a much more flexible thing, potentially, because that's the law-chaos axis.

[eggynack]

...Yeah, you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1. It's not my character that prompted me to make this thread.
I don't think anyone's ignoring that, and if they are, who cares? Doesn't change the feat.


2. I've actually insisted that an "Exalted Good" must act the part to qualify for these Exalted Good Feats. Letting Orphans die when they might be starving to death for the month it'd take you to walk back their from the other side of the country when that magic dealy over their can send the mone they need for food an stuff is a far more evil act than breaking a vow-if you're not willing to compromise your, when it comes down to it, completely arbitrary Oath, in order to preform a good action, than you are insufficiently good to qualify for a good aligned being to invest you with that power.
It's not an arbitrary oath. It's an incredibly important oath that you made to divine beings for great power. If a person thinks it's an arbitrary oath, then they shouldn't take it. Ever. As for the orphans starving to death thing, I want what I've always wanted. Explain to me, in the context of that argument, how one wouldn't be able to justify any magic item. Actually do that.

[Rater202]

If the oaths weren't arbitrary, then you'd have to swear all of them to get one feat.

You can Swear to Nonviolence without Swearing to Chastity, for example.

[torrasque666]

If the oaths weren't arbitrary, then you'd have to swear all of them to get one feat.

You can Swear to Nonviolence without Swearing to Chastity, for example.

Ok, better way to explain it. The choice to swear the oath is arbitrary, and which oath to swear is arbitrary(as in, decided by the swearer because they want to) but the importance of the oath is not.

[eggynack]

If the oaths weren't arbitrary, then you'd have to swear all of them to get one feat.

You can Swear to Nonviolence without Swearing to Chastity, for example.
What? How's that even make sense? The vows aren't even a tool of pure good. How does it really increase the good in the universe to not touch dead bodies, after all? Vows are all about giving up stuff to increase your connection with the spiritual. You give up certain things, not all things, and you get certain things. If you give up wealth, it's because you believe deeply in doing so, that the intrinsic pursuit of asceticism will give you a deeper connection with the divine. If you stop giving up wealth, by using a teleportation item or by lifting a vorpal sword, then you're severing that connection. If you think the rules of that vow are pointless or arbitrary, or more to the point, if your character thinks that, then you shouldn't have the character take it.

[TypoNinja]

See now I got a different impression.

I got the distinct impression he was having difficulty separating the RP requirements of being exalted vs the requirements of VoP. They're separate things that he's conflating.

The devil comment was certainly unwarranted. His conflation is putting good above all else, if anything he's pushing toward chaotic good, hard. His would be a real badge on the sleeve of any devil that could claim his soul but that infernal bastard would have to really work for it.

The book actually warns you about that though, its specifically called out as being a trap for exalted characters, the willingness to compromise in the face of extraordinary circumstances, even sacrificing their Vows in the name of a greater good. This is the classic devils temptation. The idea that doing good is more important than being [Good].

This is something a lot of people over look, because they forget there is a difference between a [Good] person and a good person. The BoED even explains this.



Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, prudish, self-righteous, or naïve, though good-aligned characters might be some of those things. Good is the awesome holy energy that radiates from the celestial planes and crushes evil. Good is selfless, just, hopeful, benevolent, and righteous.

There are traits we assoicate with good people, because we are people, but these things are not necessarily [Good]. Exalted Characters are. We care about the orphans because we're good people, but [Good] cares a lot less. Those orphans are not worth risking your oath over. Helping them if possible is fine, desirable even as an example to encourage others down the right path, but they could just as easily be "acceptable losses" if the right circumstances arise.

[Good] is not nice. [Good] is a primal force at war with [Evil], and as an Exalted character you are on the front lines of that war. Getting you to stray from that path even the slightest (Say using your desire to be a good person to undermine your [Good]ness) is a victory for [Evil], lowering the absolute amount of [Good] in the multiverse.

Being willing to look for loopholes in a holy Vow to a Paragon of [Good] or their agents shows a willingness to compromise in the face of adversity, a lack of strength of character to resist temptation by the forces of [Evil] and the inability to maintain the heavenly standards of moral conduct required by the Champions of [Good]. You would not be granted an Exalted feat with these character flaws, or if you were it would quickly be revoked.

Feeding the orphans over your personal vows is not the greater good, this is the beginning of an Exalted characters fall from grace. Exalted plays on an entirely different field than hungry children. The greater good is preserving the purity of your soul and continuing the fight agaisnt [Evil] on a cosmic scale. Your vow does not just represent you, its a part of the cosmic balance of power, that could be thrown into the favor of evil if you forsake your Vows.

The introduction to the book explains this, the purity of your soul is not a commodity to be traded away, its a weight on a cosmic scale and even the step down from Exalted to merely good is still a loss, still an advantage for the forces of [Evil]. They don't have to corrupt you to evil to win, they gain just by you slipping away from Exalted.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Typoninja'a previous post is a -PRIME- example of an exalted character that has lost his sense of compassion. Still exalted but a bit jaded.

He's not entirely wrong but neither is Rater.

Compassion -is- listed in BoED as one of the pillars of good. It is not, however, the primary one anymore than any of the others.

Typo -is- correct about -why- choosing a lesser evil is unacceptable but choosing to -delay- feeding the orphans when the fate of the world is on the line is -not- an evil act. Yes, some of them may not make it, but that's not the vow takers fault. It's beyond his control. He cannot be held responsible for not being able to save everyone because that's an impossible standard for even gods.

[eggynack]

Typoninja'a previous post is a -PRIME- example of an exalted character that has lost his sense of compassion. Still exalted but a bit jaded.

He's not entirely wrong but neither is Rater.

Compassion -is- listed in BoED as one of the pillars of good. It is not, however, the primary one anymore than any of the others.

Typo -is- correct about -why- choosing a lesser evil is unacceptable but choosing to -delay- feeding the orphans when the fate of the world is on the line is -not- an evil act. Yes, some of them may not make it, but that's not the vow takers fault. It's beyond his control. He cannot be held responsible for not being able to save everyone because that's an impossible standard for even gods.
Way I see it, there are indeed multiple ways to view exalted, and multiple ways to view good in general, but there aren't multiple ways to view this particular issue. The question at the heart of this thread is, "Can someone with vow of poverty prize something else above poverty, and compromise his poverty for the purpose of that other thing without losing the benefit of the vow?" My answer is an unequivocal no. Vows are all about sacrifice, and whether that sacrifice is your own happiness or your ability to help others is irrelevant.

[TypoNinja]

Way I say it, there are indeed multiple ways to view exalted, and multiple ways to view good in general, but there aren't multiple ways to view this particular issue. The question at the heart of this thread is, "Can someone with vow of poverty prize something else above poverty, and compromise his poverty for the purpose of that other thing without losing the benefit of the vow?" My answer is an unequivocal no. Vows are all about sacrifice, and whether that sacrifice is your own happiness or your ability to help others is irrelevant.

Exactly!

The vow isn't supposed to be easy to maintain. There are supposed to be hardships. There are supposed to be situations where your vow hurts to uphold. Its not easy, that's the whole point. That's why you are being reward for sticking to it, proving you have strength of character to stick to your sworn word, even if the face of temptations and adversity.

[aleucard]

There are traits we assoicate with good people, because we are people, but these things are not necessarily [Good]. Exalted Characters are. We care about the orphans because we're good people, but [Good] cares a lot less. Those orphans are not worth risking your oath over. Helping them if possible is fine, desirable even as an example to encourage others down the right path, but they could just as easily be "acceptable losses" if the right circumstances arise.

[Good] is not nice. [Good] is a primal force at war with [Evil], and as an Exalted character you are on the front lines of that war. Getting you to stray from that path even the slightest (Say using your desire to be a good person to undermine your [Good]ness) is a victory for [Evil], lowering the absolute amount of [Good] in the multiverse.

Being willing to look for loopholes in a holy Vow to a Paragon of [Good] or their agents shows a willingness to compromise in the face of adversity, a lack of strength of character to resist temptation by the forces of [Evil] and the inability to maintain the heavenly standards of moral conduct required by the Champions of [Good]. You would not be granted an Exalted feat with these character flaws, or if you were it would quickly be revoked.

Feeding the orphans over your personal vows is not the greater good, this is the beginning of an Exalted characters fall from grace. Exalted plays on an entirely different field than hungry children. The greater good is preserving the purity of your soul and continuing the fight agaisnt [Evil] on a cosmic scale. Your vow does not just represent you, its a part of the cosmic balance of power, that could be thrown into the favor of evil if you forsake your Vows.

The introduction to the book explains this, the purity of your soul is not a commodity to be traded away, its a weight on a cosmic scale and even the step down from Exalted to merely good is still a loss, still an advantage for the forces of [Evil]. They don't have to corrupt you to evil to win, they gain just by you slipping away from Exalted.

If this is the definition of Exalted, then I think I can see why Paladins aren't it automatically. I can also see why the spell Sanctify the Wicked is Exalted. It is because being Exalted means being a Templar. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) To clarify my viewpoint on this subject, were I the DM in this campaign, an Exalted Paladin's "Detect Evil" would become "Detect anyone who doesn't agree with me" without their knowing, and every other Paladin's Smite ability, including other Exalted Paladins, would be able to hit them. I'd rather not have to deal with this from a party-member, so my definition of Exalted is somewhat different. Namely, in order to be Exalted Good (notice the difference in naming), your character has to be the kind that barely registers personal sacrifice as an inconvenience when it comes to helping others. If anything attempts to force you to choose between arguably Evil choices, a Vow-stickler included, then it's likely too Evil in too high a position to allow to live. Chopping your own arm off to save some kids would be instinctive if necessary, though.

[atemu1234]

If this is the definition of Exalted, then I think I can see why Paladins aren't it automatically. I can also see why the spell Sanctify the Wicked is Exalted. It is because being Exalted means being a Templar. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) To clarify my viewpoint on this subject, were I the DM in this campaign, an Exalted Paladin's "Detect Evil" would become "Detect anyone who doesn't agree with me" without their knowing, and every other Paladin's Smite ability, including other Exalted Paladins, would be able to hit them. I'd rather not have to deal with this from a party-member, so my definition of Exalted is somewhat different. Namely, in order to be Exalted Good (notice the difference in naming), your character has to be the kind that barely registers personal sacrifice as an inconvenience when it comes to helping others. If anything attempts to force you to choose between arguably Evil choices, a Vow-stickler included, then it's likely too Evil in too high a position to allow to live. Chopping your own arm off to save some kids would be instinctive if necessary, though.

Ok, for starters, all of these things are explicitly called out as not being exalted. You aren't self-righteous, you aren't willing to commit evil for good reasons, and quite frankly are usually more good than the deities of good who haven't taken the feat (ironically :smallamused:).

[aleucard]

Ok, for starters, all of these things are explicitly called out as not being exalted. You aren't self-righteous, you aren't willing to commit evil for good reasons, and quite frankly are usually more good than the deities of good who haven't taken the feat (ironically :smallamused:).

The thing is, that definition of Exalted Good is incompatible with the definition of Exalted that TypoNinja just described in my eyes. If you're so focused on "Greater Good (tm)" that you can legitimately forget about the "little people" in your pursuance of it, then you have not only missed the point, but nosedived off the deep end in a way that even the worst Demons and Devils have not. At least they aren't delusional about their stance.

[atemu1234]

The thing is, that definition of Exalted Good is incompatible with the definition of Exalted that TypoNinja just described in my eyes. If you're so focused on "Greater Good (tm)" that you can legitimately forget about the "little people" in your pursuance of it, then you have not only missed the point, but nosedived off the deep end in a way that even the worst Demons and Devils have not. At least they aren't delusional about their stance.

I'm sorry that the actual definition given by the book doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The thing is, that definition of Exalted Good is incompatible with the definition of Exalted that TypoNinja just described in my eyes. If you're so focused on "Greater Good (tm)" that you can legitimately forget about the "little people" in your pursuance of it, then you have not only missed the point, but nosedived off the deep end in a way that even the worst Demons and Devils have not. At least they aren't delusional about their stance.

Unfortunately, your eyes don't really matter. What he's described -does- fall in line with what BoED, the definitive guidelines for good alignment in D&D, says on the subject with the sole exception of the phrase "acceptable losses" being inappropriate..... probably. The loss of "the little people" is unfortunate but, sometimes, unavoidable.

Cosmic alignment and actual morality and ethics are only loosely related. The Good that grants power to mortals in the form of exalted feats is in a state of cosmic, eternal war with Evil. Note the capitals on Good and Evil. Morality and ethics, on the other hand, are subjective to the culture in which a creature is brought up.

[aleucard]

And in that case, the logical conclusion for all Exalted people is the Templar. I'd rather not play a game with a character that is objectively delusional on what the end result of their antics is, thanks. However, I'd also like a game where it's possible to have Vows based on things comparable to a Paladin's Oath, so I would say that any game I play in where Exalted is on the table, I make sure that the source for these Vows' power comes from Exalted Good, not just Exalted. If you're of the kind that performs "Greater Good" actions as a first option, then you've fallen off the Alignment map right into complete insanity. This is just one of those things where DnD Alignment should not be regarded the same as Real Alignment. I like having things like the Paladin's abilities ultimately track on the latter, thus an Exalted character is vulnerable to things like Smite.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And in that case, the logical conclusion for all Exalted people is the Templar. I'd rather not play a game with a character that is objectively delusional on what the end result of their antics is, thanks. However, I'd also like a game where it's possible to have Vows based on things comparable to a Paladin's Oath, so I would say that any game I play in where Exalted is on the table, I make sure that the source for these Vows' power comes from Exalted Good, not just Exalted. If you're of the kind that performs "Greater Good" actions as a first option, then you've fallen off the Alignment map right into complete insanity. This is just one of those things where DnD Alignment should not be regarded the same as Real Alignment. I like having things like the Paladin's abilities ultimately track on the latter, thus an Exalted character is vulnerable to things like Smite.

Yeah, the Templar isn't even close to right. The tenets of exalted good are, in the order they're presented in the book, Helping Others, Charity, Healing, Personal Sacrifice, Worshiping Good Deities, Casting Good Spells, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, and Redeeming Evil. While fighting the war against evil sometimes requires letting some of these slide and some characters aren't even capable of some of them, they can't -all- be tossed by the wayside for a character to even be good, let alone exalted good.

Typo's tirade depicts a character who has chosen to focus on personal sacrifice and, probably, worship of good deities. He may also be engaging in healing, casting of good spells, and the bringing of hope as he is able to do so without sacrificing his greater mission, though I'll grant you that his comment about "acceptable losses" is a bit disconcerting. Being a hard-liner doesn't necessarily mean that you're completely uncaring, just driven.

[aleucard]

Yeah, the Templar isn't even close to right. The tenets of exalted good are, in the order they're presented in the book, Helping Others, Charity, Healing, Personal Sacrifice, Worshiping Good Deities, Casting Good Spells, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, and Redeeming Evil. While fighting the war against evil sometimes requires letting some of these slide and some characters aren't even capable of some of them, they can't -all- be tossed by the wayside for a character to even be good, let alone exalted good.

Typo's tirade depicts a character who has chosen to focus on personal sacrifice and, probably, worship of good deities. He may also be engaging in healing, casting of good spells, and the bringing of hope as he is able to do so without sacrificing his greater mission, though I'll grant you that his comment about "acceptable losses" is a bit disconcerting. Being a hard-liner doesn't necessarily mean that you're completely uncaring, just driven.

I posit that if a Vow (one given to a Good patron and for the explicit purpose of doing Good, no less) is more important than any of those to either the patron in question or the Vow-giver (especially since the patron's the one giving the benefits of the vow, basically Cleric-lite), then they should lose the Good descriptor, nullifying the Vow anyway. If that's too flexible for you, then you should either suck it up or quit beating around the bush and ban Vows for PC's.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I posit that if a Vow (one given to a Good patron and for the explicit purpose of doing Good, no less) is more important than any of those to either the patron in question or the Vow-giver (especially since the patron's the one giving the benefits of the vow, basically Cleric-lite), then they should lose the Good descriptor, nullifying the Vow anyway. If that's too flexible for you, then you should either suck it up or quit beating around the bush and ban Vows for PC's.

That's a bit myopic. No single action, much less a non-action like rating individual portions of your belief system, is enough to change your alignment on the spot, with extremely rare exception. Also, that's very inflexible. You're saying that your view on what defines good is the only correct one.

It's a vary rare, and almost certainly contrived, situation that pits a vow taker directly against his vow. Breaking a vow may make things more expedient in any of a number of situations but that's not acceptable. I've gone over the absurdity of the false dichotomy of the OP's original situation and I daresay that I could do the same for virtually any situation that's not obviously and utterly contrived. Hell, only the vows of poverty, peace, and non-violence are even possible to make an apparent no-win situation like this. The starving orphans -are- going to starve if the DM says they starve. Even if that's too metagamey for your taste, you can't reasonably promise to get through an adventure fast enough to have -no- chance of failing to save them unless the adventure site is so absurdly close that you certainly don't need a dimensional magic based item to get it to them on time. The dungeon chamber trap situation is only an apparent no-win situation, unless DM douchery forces the issue, because there's an easily discernable third option, nevermind fourth through seventh, and that's completely ignoring that it's not well designed to begin with (no offense).

[TypoNinja]

Yeah, the Templar isn't even close to right. The tenets of exalted good are, in the order they're presented in the book, Helping Others, Charity, Healing, Personal Sacrifice, Worshiping Good Deities, Casting Good Spells, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, and Redeeming Evil. While fighting the war against evil sometimes requires letting some of these slide and some characters aren't even capable of some of them, they can't -all- be tossed by the wayside for a character to even be good, let alone exalted good.

Typo's tirade depicts a character who has chosen to focus on personal sacrifice and, probably, worship of good deities. He may also be engaging in healing, casting of good spells, and the bringing of hope as he is able to do so without sacrificing his greater mission, though I'll grant you that his comment about "acceptable losses" is a bit disconcerting. Being a hard-liner doesn't necessarily mean that you're completely uncaring, just driven.

Maybe "acceptable losses" gives the wrong impression given the typical use of the phrase.

As an exalted good character you will care about our theoretical orphans, will desire to help them if you can, will even take personal risk to help them. But if you are forced to choose between the orphans and the cosmic battlefield of [Good] vs [Evil], a conflict between your Scared Vows and the orphans leaves the orphans with the short end of the stick. You are likely quite unhappy about this as an Exalted character, in fact this kind of moral conflict is central to why not all good characters can make the step to Exalted. There are hard choices to be made while still holding onto your faith that basic goodness (and Goodness) can prevail in a frequently uncaring world.

A good person might see helping the orphans as an ends to it self, that is their Greater Good. An Exalted character plays for entirely different stakes. Their Greater Good involves cosmic scale conflicts, Demon Lords and Archons, battling corruptions so foul that even Gods my be at risk.

An Exalted character is also a good person, they will engage in mundane works of charity because that's who they are. But because they are Exalted if forced to choose between their mundane works of charity and the cosmic scale of [Good], the mundane works of charity lose out. Making sure [Evil] doesn't get the upper hand is just more important.

[Coidzor]

...Yeah, you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1. It's not my character that prompted me to make this thread. 2. I've actually insisted that an "Exalted Good" must act the part to qualify for these Exalted Good Feats. Letting Orphans die when they might be starving to death for the month it'd take you to walk back their from the other side of the country when that magic dealy over their can send the mone they need for food an stuff is a far more evil act than breaking a vow-if you're not willing to compromise your, when it comes down to it, completely arbitrary Oath, in order to preform a good action, than you are insufficiently good to qualify for a good aligned being to invest you with that power.

I still say there's something wrong with the timescale and the lack of teleportation access here as well as something profoundly *weird* about the priorities of the imagination of either yourself if this is all you or your DM if they've really altered the game just to create that orphan-starving catch-22.

You shouldn't prioritize finding ways to make helping orphans even more of a pain in the ass than it already would be. :smallconfused:


If the most virtuous person in the party has a Vow of Poverty, and he(haas to be him, an other can't use it on his behalf) uses it to Wish that a lot of perfectly fine, non counterfeited money to appear by legal means in the coffers of a good charity, does that break his vow?

Yes and the DM should feel some level of shame for going to such lengths to have a Paladin falls moment for his VoP player.

Otherwise the DM should feel really silly for going to such lengths to showcase how they've altered the rules to make VoP work better with their game.


...but he had no choice but to break it. He was forced into it, becuase it is literally the only way to leave the room, strong armed. Even so he does so in a way that does not benefit him at all, but does benefit a vry good cuase Does he get punished for it?

Unless his god or celestial paragon is an asshat, the answer should be "no."

You do realize that Paladins still fall even when they're forced to fall by the DM, right? :smallconfused:

Also, ask Afroakuma sometime, the Powers are pretty much all asshats or of questionable reality in basically all of D&D.


The Spirit of All Exalted Feats is "Stay Exalted Good" and "Never Use Magic Items Ever" is not the same as "Live Without Luxury". The Bag is not a Luxury, it's a utility, used to insure that you aren't knowingly letting children starve to death while you go off and fight someone else..

So are they like aurovores, where they each eat their bodyweight or more in gold every day or something? How are they eating so much food that the intiial investment in feeding them is gone so quickly? How is there such a huge pandemic of orphan starvation that the good-aligned churches of deities, that you are seemingly ironclad in your belief that they aren't asshats, aren't doing anything about it despite having such huge sums of money at their disposal that even the contributions of a character's WBL that would be equivalent to the GDP of a small country would be insignificant in comparison to their filthy lucre?

[13_CBS]

...but he had no choice but to break it. He was forced into it, becuase it is literally the only way to leave the room, strong armed. Even so he does so in a way that does not benefit him at all, but does benefit a vry good cuase Does he get punished for it?

Unless his god or celestial paragon is an asshat, the answer should be "no."

As an aside, this sort of dilemma happens not too infrequently in myths and tales from religions. For example, one of the reasons why the Irish hero Cuchulainn died in his last battle was because he was spiritually weakened right before it. Cuchulainn had sworn several "geis", which in Irish myth are oaths or taboos that work remarkably similar to Vows in BoED--abstain or uphold something to your detriment, and in turn receive [some sort of unspecified but still desirable] power. He had sworn at least two geis: 1) Never refuse hospitality from a woman, i.e. if a woman gives him something to eat he MUST eat it. 2) Never consume dog meat. So what happens when his enemies devise a plan where they get some old woman to offer Cuchulainn some dog meat? He's forced to pick one (he ate the dog meat), ends up breaking his other geis, and is doomed for it. No third options, no clever ways to get around the dilemma, just BAM, he suffers the consequences.

Likewise, the warrior Karna in the Mahabharata suffers a similar fate. Karna, being a literal demigod, was born with a set of golden armor and earrings grafted onto his flesh that rendered him invincible, Achilles style, except that Karna's armor had no weaknesses. As long as he had that armor and earrings, he simply could not be beaten. However, Karna also swore an oath where, if someone comes up to him during midday while he's in prayer and asks him for a favor, he will grant it if it's in his power to do so. This results in one of his enemies going up to him and asking him to give away his god-mode armor and earrings, with which Karna complies without hesitation (indeed, his enemy is so moved by his unflinching upholding of his oath that he grants him a one-use-only insta-kill weapon in exchange). Not surprisingly, this contributes to Karna's death later in the story.

Both of these stories, as far as I know, were derived from cultures where sworn oaths were EXTREMELY important, and trying to negate their inconvenience in ANY way whatsoever was frowned upon. I get the impression that the Vows in BoED were drawn from stories and heroes like Karna and Cuchulainn, so I can see why a lot of folks on this thread argue that even a bag of convenience breaks both the spirit and the letter of the Vow of Poverty.

[aleucard]

As an aside, this sort of dilemma happens not too infrequently in myths and tales from religions. For example, one of the reasons why the Irish hero Cuchulainn died in his last battle was because he was spiritually weakened right before it. Cuchulainn had sworn several "geis", which in Irish myth are oaths or taboos that work remarkably similar to Vows in BoED--abstain or uphold something to your detriment, and in turn receive [some sort of unspecified but still desirable] power. He had sworn at least two geis: 1) Never refuse hospitality from a woman, i.e. if a woman gives him something to eat he MUST eat it. 2) Never consume dog meat. So what happens when his enemies devise a plan where they get some old woman to offer Cuchulainn some dog meat? He's forced to pick one (he ate the dog meat), ends up breaking his other geis, and is doomed for it. No third options, no clever ways to get around the dilemma, just BAM, he suffers the consequences.

Likewise, the warrior Karna in the Mahabharata suffers a similar fate. Karna, being a literal demigod, was born with a set of golden armor and earrings grafted onto his flesh that rendered him invincible, Achilles style, except that Karna's armor had no weaknesses. As long as he had that armor and earrings, he simply could not be beaten. However, Karna also swore an oath where, if someone comes up to him during midday while he's in prayer and asks him for a favor, he will grant it if it's in his power to do so. This results in one of his enemies going up to him and asking him to give away his god-mode armor and earrings, with which Karna complies without hesitation (indeed, his enemy is so moved by his unflinching upholding of his oath that he grants him a one-use-only insta-kill weapon in exchange). Not surprisingly, this contributes to Karna's death later in the story.

Both of these stories, as far as I know, were derived from cultures where sworn oaths were EXTREMELY important, and trying to negate their inconvenience in ANY way whatsoever was frowned upon. I get the impression that the Vows in BoED were drawn from stories and heroes like Karna and Cuchulainn, so I can see why a lot of folks on this thread argue that even a bag of convenience breaks both the spirit and the letter of the Vow of Poverty.

Okay, if THAT is the way these are being played, and it is agreed upon that it is before anyone so much as requests to take one of the Vow feats, then I'll be willing to accept that. It should NOT be the default, though. Not every game is about that sort of thing, and crowbarring it in any time someone wants to try something odd makes me want to give the perpetrator a crowbar enema. There's a fine line between respecting the RAW and worshipping it.

EDIT: Just two things, though. First, Vows should not take up feat slots. The costs of the Vow should be enough, one does not need to add burning at least two feat slots on top of it. Second, the rewards need to be good enough to be worth it, albeit with as much relevance to the feat as possible (VoP is an obvious contender for this for most applications, but basically every other but VoNV and VoPeace is almost completely ignorable). A wider variety of Vows (or even better, a system of making Vows of our own) would be appreciated.

[Rater202]

A couple of Vows that aren't so god damned strict would be nice.

The book seems to be written as though Lawful Good is the only good.

Or maybe a feat that modifies the Vow

Flexible Vow
The God or Celestial you swore your Vows to is far more flexible and tolerant of screw ups than most.
Prerequisites: Must be any Non-Lawful Good. Sacred Vow, one or more Vows of X
Benefit: The Spirit of the Vow and the acts of doing good are far more important than the letter. In this, the character may make minor breaches of their Vow, at GM's discretion, and not lose the Vows benifets, as long as those breaches are made form good reasons and are still within the spirit of the Vow-One who has sworn a vow of poverty may cary an Item desined to facilitate the donations of is other wealth, while one who has sworn a vow of Non Violence may be permitted to inflict harm an an Archfiend or other creature of pure irredeemable evil, if i;s a choice between doing so or letting it harm someone else. Furthermore, a character that possesses this feat will never lose the benefits of their Vow feats if they are forced to violate their vows, such as a character who has sworn a Vow of Chasity/Celibacy being raped.

[eggynack]

Okay, if THAT is the way these are being played, and it is agreed upon that it is before anyone so much as requests to take one of the Vow feats, then I'll be willing to accept that. It should NOT be the default, though. Not every game is about that sort of thing, and crowbarring it in any time someone wants to try something odd makes me want to give the perpetrator a crowbar enema. There's a fine line between respecting the RAW and worshipping it.
I don't feel this is an issue of respecting the RAW. This is an issue of theoretical DM being a butt. If the DM put the player in a weird dilemma situation like that, then it was fully with the intent of the dilemma in question being a thing. It's the classic paladin falling situation, where the situation is almost more a slave to RAW than RAW is a slave to the situation.

I mean, seriously, you think that, in game, the theory DM placed a ridiculous dog food or lady refusal situation with the intent of the player not falling? The only way the DM isn't a butt is if he has an intended third path, and even then that's kinda butt-like. The same applies to the weird wish room scenario. The thing was clearly set up with the intent of VoP guy falling, and that contrived scenario is supposed to inform our view of RAW somehow, or even RAI? Because the DM's manipulating stuff?

I think we have our answer to the wish-room situation, as a result. If your VoP character finds himself in a room where he needs to use an item or die, should he lose or not lose VoP? Neither. You should leave the game and find someone who's not passive aggressively pursuing the removal of your feats.

Edit: @Rater: You should really stop arbitrarily insisting that your cited scenario is within the spirit of the vow, given that folks seem to generally disagree with that assertion. Really, here, and also in your original post, what I think you really want is the allowance of things within the spirit of the character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As an aside, this sort of dilemma happens not too infrequently in myths and tales from religions. For example, one of the reasons why the Irish hero Cuchulainn died in his last battle was because he was spiritually weakened right before it. Cuchulainn had sworn several "geis", which in Irish myth are oaths or taboos that work remarkably similar to Vows in BoED--abstain or uphold something to your detriment, and in turn receive [some sort of unspecified but still desirable] power. He had sworn at least two geis: 1) Never refuse hospitality from a woman, i.e. if a woman gives him something to eat he MUST eat it. 2) Never consume dog meat. So what happens when his enemies devise a plan where they get some old woman to offer Cuchulainn some dog meat? He's forced to pick one (he ate the dog meat), ends up breaking his other geis, and is doomed for it. No third options, no clever ways to get around the dilemma, just BAM, he suffers the consequences.

Likewise, the warrior Karna in the Mahabharata suffers a similar fate. Karna, being a literal demigod, was born with a set of golden armor and earrings grafted onto his flesh that rendered him invincible, Achilles style, except that Karna's armor had no weaknesses. As long as he had that armor and earrings, he simply could not be beaten. However, Karna also swore an oath where, if someone comes up to him during midday while he's in prayer and asks him for a favor, he will grant it if it's in his power to do so. This results in one of his enemies going up to him and asking him to give away his god-mode armor and earrings, with which Karna complies without hesitation (indeed, his enemy is so moved by his unflinching upholding of his oath that he grants him a one-use-only insta-kill weapon in exchange). Not surprisingly, this contributes to Karna's death later in the story.

Both of these stories, as far as I know, were derived from cultures where sworn oaths were EXTREMELY important, and trying to negate their inconvenience in ANY way whatsoever was frowned upon. I get the impression that the Vows in BoED were drawn from stories and heroes like Karna and Cuchulainn, so I can see why a lot of folks on this thread argue that even a bag of convenience breaks both the spirit and the letter of the Vow of Poverty.

While this is certainly an interesting aside, I don't see the relevance. None of the sacred vows in BoED require you to do anything. They're all prohibitive in nature; voluntarily giving up the pleasures and conveniences of a mortal life so as to better attune oneself to the spirit.

The circumstances under which one -must- break a vow are so rare that they're difficult to even imagine without making them so contrived as to be meaningless.

A classic example brought up in the past; VoP character's ally is downed and the only way to save him is for the VoP character to use a healing item on his behalf. This is an -apparent- no win situation for the VoP character, righ? Except it's not. A dying character can be stabalized by a completely non-magical heal check; something that can be done even untrained, IIRC.

Besides, what healing item could he even use? Certainly not a wand, he'd either have to be capable of casting a healing spell, negating the need for an item, or making a dc 20 umd check, which begs the question of why he even has ranks if he's taken a VoP. Perhaps the magic bandages from MIC? No, that's no better than a heal check. Perhaps a potion? Who even caries those? But even then it'd have to be something more powerful than CLW to have a decent chance of doing any better than simply stabalizing.

In all the previous cases there's the question of what the enemy is doing for the round or two it takes before the vow taker finishes: move to fallen comrade (move action)-> pick up or remove item from stowage (move or standard) -> enemy acts -> downed ally loses 1 hp (unless he spontaneously stabalizes or the enemy kills him) -> apply healing item.

It's just nonsensical really.


Hmm..... thinking of making a forum game of this. Link to come if I do.

[Rater202]

When the book is talking about what to do with the excess wealth from one party member having forsworn material wealth, it suggests giving it away to charity.

That isn't in the feat, but it's still in the book.

Charity is also, in the book, listed as being part of being exalted good.

staying an exalted good individual is in the spirit of the vows.

Thus, charitable actions are in the spirit of the vow, thus things that facilitate the passing of your excess wealth into the coffers of a charity while providing no other benefit is in the Spirit of the Vow of Poverty.

[eggynack]

When the book is talking about what to do with the excess wealth from one party member having forsworn material wealth, it suggests giving it away to charity.

That isn't in the feat, but it's still in the book.

Charity is also, in the book, listed as being part of being exalted good.

staying an exalted good individual is in the spirit of the vows.

Thus, charitable actions are in the spirit of the vow, thus things that facilitate the passing of your excess wealth into the coffers of a charity while providing no other benefit is in the Spirit of the Vow of Poverty.
Charitable actions are not outside the spirit of the vow. This much is certain. You can donate as much as you like with vow of poverty, and it is, in fact, encouraged. That part of things is not in dispute. However, using magic items, the thing specifically and explicitly denied by vow of poverty, as a mode of conveyance for your charity, is outside the spirit of the vow. However much other actions might be within the spirit of the vow, as long as those actions are compounded with magic item use, the total action is not within the spirit. Similarly, the slaying of demons is within the "spirit of the vow", by your argument, as it's part of being exalted good, but if you use a magic sword to do it, you're outside the spirit. Such is the nature of things.

[Rater202]

Charitable actions are not outside the spirit of the vow. This much is certain. You can donate as much as you like with vow of poverty, and it is, in fact, encouraged. That part of things is not in dispute. However, using magic items, the thing specifically and explicitly denied by vow of poverty, as a mode of conveyance for your charity, is outside the spirit of the vow. However much other actions might be within the spirit of the vow, as long as those actions are compounded with magic item use, the total action is not within the spirit. Similarly, the slaying of demons is within the "spirit of the vow", by your argument, as it's part of being exalted good, but if you use a magic sword to do it, you're outside the spirit. Such is the nature of things.

The point is that the item to facilitate the charitable action does not make your life any easier-it just saves time getting the gold to the charity. That's what it means to swear a Vow of Poverty-to forgo all material wealth and the Luxury it brings. Magic items are the letter-might not even be the lketter, it might just be the RAW.

The magic sword definitely makes your life easier.

Thus, with the proposed feat, the bag being within the spirit of the vow and used for a good reason qualifies as a forgivable breach, while the use of the sword would not.

Even then, if you take up the sword shortly before the fight, and then permanently relinquish the blade immediately after, with the intent to do so from the moment you take it, I would be inclined to place that as a permissible breach as well.

[eggynack]

The point is that the item to facilitate the charitable action does not make your life any easier-it just saves time getting the gold to the charity. That's what it means to swear a Vow of Poverty-to forgo all material wealth and the Luxury it brings. Magic items are the letter-might not even be the lketter, it might just be the RAW.
Tell me where the feat says... no, tell me where the feat, or the general ability, even implies that you're specifically to only lose items that make life easier. You're deriving this "spirit" of yours from something completely divorced from the text, or any interpretation of the text. Instead, your "spirit" is solely connected with how this player wants to play their character, and that could serve as justification for literally anything.


The magic sword definitely makes your life easier.

Thus, with the proposed feat, the bag being within the spirit of the vow and used for a good reason qualifies as a forgivable breach, while the use of the sword would not.
How's that now? It fundamentally only makes your life easier as applies to doing good, just as the bag does. If you really wanted to feed the orphans, then you could just stick with adventures close to the orphans and keep giving them money regularly in that fashion. Just as the sword makes it easier to stab evil in the face, so too does the bag make it easier to distribute those profits.

Even then, if you take up the sword shortly before the fight, and then permanently relinquish the blade immediately after, with the intent to do so from the moment you take it, I would be inclined to place that as a permissible breach as well.
That doesn't really make much sense in and of itself, but looking at the bigger picture, why should you relinquish the blade? What joy, what luxury, does the blade bring you? What if you only ever use the blade, only ever even take it out, against evil enemies? What if you only use the thing in pursuit of the greater good? Now let's look at the even bigger picture. What if you do the same, but with full wealth by level? By your claim, can one not be fully equipped with vow of poverty, as long as they only use their items against evil, or in the pursuit of good? Finally, is a character who only uses their tools in the pursuit of good basically just an exalted character, meaning that the restriction of VoP is a completely empty restriction from a mechanical standpoint? You're basically just losing fancy food, clothing, and shelter, and you only lose that stuff if you can't justify it within this vast framework.

[Kelb_Panthera]

When the book is talking about what to do with the excess wealth from one party member having forsworn material wealth, it suggests giving it away to charity.

Yes.


That isn't in the feat, but it's still in the book.

Yes.


Charity is also, in the book, listed as being part of being exalted good.

Yes.


staying an exalted good individual is in the spirit of the vows.

No. Here's your point of disconnect.

Being exalted is a different requirement entirely. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the vow. Ceasing to be exalted will strip you of the power granted by the vow, certainly, but not because you broke the vow and, in fact, if you atone for whatever misdeeds cost you your exalted status and become exalted once more the vow's power will be restored, provided you haven't broken it in the interim.

Actually, a certain twisting of RAW could read that you -can- ignore the strictures of the vow so long as you resume abiding by them before you actually receive the atonement effect.


Thus, charitable actions are in the spirit of the vow, thus things that facilitate the passing of your excess wealth into the coffers of a charity while providing no other benefit is in the Spirit of the Vow of Poverty.

Charitable actions are in the spirit of good and being an exalted character. They're not strictly required for either and have nothing at all to do with any of the sacred vows.

[Rater202]

Tell me where the feat says... no, tell me where the feat, or the general ability, even implies that you're specifically to only lose items that make life easier. You're deriving this "spirit" of yours from something completely divorced from the text, or any interpretation of the text. Instead, your "spirit" is solely connected with how this player wants to play their character, and that could serve as justification for literally anything.

It doesn't say anywhere in the feat, because the feat only give the mechanical effects of Swaering the vow, and may give the letter of the vow.

The spirit of any vow of poverty s to forswear material wealth and the luxury it brings upon you, because you A. Find living in wealth or luxury to be sinful. B. Because you do not wish to be above those you would tend too, C. To remove distractions that would tempt you off of the path of righteousness, or D. Because you don't think you need or deserve wealth and wish to see it given to those who do.

The letter of the vow of poverty feat is that you lose all items. The spirit of the actual vow is that you forswear material wealth.

The item which facilitates charitable actions is not money, and it's only value is in the one way transfer of material wealth to what is considered to be a good charity. Since charity, as per the description of a character who has forsworn wealth provided within the book, is in the spirit of forswearing wealth and thus in the spirit of Vow of Poverty, and because that is literally he only value of the item, then the item isin the pirit of the vow, and thus only violates the letter of the vow.

In the case of the feat I just proposed, only the spirit and the good intentions of the vow swearer matter.

[eggynack]

It doesn't say anywhere in the feat, because the feat only give the mechanical effects of Swaering the vow, and may give the letter of the vow.
Not entirely the case. The voluntary poverty section goes into some detail about the ethos of the feat, and said ethos doesn't connect with what you're saying. In particular, you're doing this to reach the height of purity, for spiritual reasons, and necessarily for some higher good.


The spirit of any vow of poverty s to forswear material wealth and the luxury it brings upon you, because you A. Find living in wealth or luxury to be sinful. B. Because you do not wish to be above those you would tend too, C. To remove distractions that would tempt you off of the path of righteousness, or D. Because you don't think you need or deserve wealth and wish to see it given to those who do.
Not at all. As the voluntary poverty section itself states, vow of poverty is about the intrinsic spiritual benefits of asceticism, rather than some necessary second thing. There doesn't have to be sin, or being above others, or distractions, or deserving. There can be, if you want, but it's not a necessary component.


The letter of the vow of poverty feat is that you lose all items. The spirit of the actual vow is that you forswear material wealth.
If that's the case, prove it. Do anything to show it. This feels like a waste of time to ask, because you've already shown that you can not.


The item which facilitates charitable actions is not money, and it's only value is in the one way transfer of material wealth to what is considered to be a good charity. Since charity, as per the description of a character who has forsworn wealth provided within the book, is in the spirit of forswearing wealth and thus in the spirit of Vow of Poverty, and because that is literally he only value of the item, then the item isin the pirit of the vow, and thus only violates the letter of the vow.
If it's a magic item at all, then it goes against the spirit of the vow, because the spirit of the vow is just no magic items in big flashing letters. You're adding on all of this extra stuff, and saying this fits in with that, but really, the word and spirit in this case are one in the same.


In the case of the feat I just proposed, only the spirit and the good intentions of the vow swearer matter.
So it is, in fact, completely arbitrary, and one can actually justify anything. That's what I'm taking from this, and I think it's a valid thing to take.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It doesn't say anywhere in the feat, because the feat only give the mechanical effects of Swaering the vow, and may give the letter of the vow.

There's no "may" about it. Like all of the vows, VoP's text describes the letter of the vow itself. The only reason VoP get's a separate section later in the book is because it has far more profound effects on the metagame that needed to be addressed somewhere. That and the necessity of it's own table and ability descriptions.


The spirit of any vow of poverty is to forswear material wealth and the luxury it brings upon you, because you A. Find living in wealth or luxury to be sinful. B. Because you do not wish to be above those you would tend too, C. To remove distractions that would tempt you off of the path of righteousness, or D. Because you don't think you need or deserve wealth and wish to see it given to those who do.

You missed one. E) Because material concerns distract from the pursuit of perfection of the self.

Note that this possibility is most likely the stance of the RL traditions from which the vow's inspiration was drawn and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with helping others in any way.


The letter of the vow of poverty feat is that you lose all items. The spirit of the actual vow is that you forswear material wealth.

Yup.


The item which facilitates charitable actions is not money, and it's only value is in the one way transfer of material wealth to what is considered to be a good charity. Since charity, as per the description of a character who has forsworn wealth provided within the book, is in the spirit of forswearing wealth and thus in the spirit of Vow of Poverty, and because that is literally he only value of the item, then the item is in the spirit of the vow, and thus only violates the letter of the vow.

Why do you insist on ignoring the very real value and benefit of the proposed item just because it's not tangible or liquid? Just because it's not a +X to Y bonus benefit doesn't make it any less real. As I and others have said (several times) it is an unnecessary convenience; something that flies directly in the face of the spirit of the vow. If some other member of the party is willing to foot the bill or of the whole party is willing to take it out of the party fund, that's fine. If the VoP character -insists- that they -need- this item then he's already violating the spirit of his vow and will have broken it in fact the moment he so much as touches it.


In the case of the feat I just proposed, only the spirit and the good intentions of the vow swearer matter.

Good intentions do matter. Just not in the cases where it directly violates a sacred vow. Honestly, the only feats your bit of homebrew could even apply to are VoP and -maybe- vow of non-violence though I seriously don't see it for VoP and even less so for non-violence.

[Necroticplague]

It doesn't say anywhere in the feat, because the feat only give the mechanical effects of Swaering the vow, and may give the letter of the vow. So where are YOU deriving the spirit from? If it doesn't say it anywhere the book, you appear to be pulling this entirely out of your rear end.


The spirit of any vow of poverty s to forswear material wealth and the luxury it brings upon you, because you A. Find living in wealth or luxury to be sinful. B. Because you do not wish to be above those you would tend too, C. To remove distractions that would tempt you off of the path of righteousness, or D. Because you don't think you need or deserve wealth and wish to see it given to those who do.No, the spirit is that you forsake almost all items. Not just magic ones, but a good chunk of mundane ones as well. And the book, in the section about poverty, it only mentions ascetitism, maintaining spiritual purity. So any magic item would be a violation of both the letter and any spirit because it taints you spiritually.


The letter of the vow of poverty feat is that you lose all items. The spirit of the actual vow is that you forswear material wealth.
And magic items are not wealth.........how? They may not be liquid assets, but the are definitely wealth.


The item which facilitates charitable actions is not money, and it's only value is in the one way transfer of material wealth to what is considered to be a good charity. Since charity, as per the description of a character who has forsworn wealth provided within the book, is in the spirit of forswearing wealth and thus in the spirit of Vow of Poverty, and because that is literally he only value of the item, then the item isin the pirit of the vow, and thus only violates the letter of the vow. To respond: they may not be money, but they sure have value. An item of this type would be at least in the low few thousands. You'd need an incredible feat of mental acrobatics to say that intentionally keeping an incredibly expensive object on your person, when you're not even allowed masterwork equipment, is "forsaking material possessions". To put prices in perspectives, even a conservative estimate of 2k price point is 'the wages of an unskilled laborer for almost 548 years, assuming they work every single day during that time period', or "5000000 pounds of bread (enough to keep a medium creature fed for almost 41096 years)"


In the case of the feat I just proposed, only the spirit and the good intentions of the vow swearer matter.
And the problem with that is that the spirit is vague at best, if ever given (which they aren't), while good intentions are so vague as to be useless as any kind of measuring stick. You think the normal vows give too much leeway for DM screw? Well for this, you can be doing something you think is perfectly safe, and merely the DM disagreeing with means BAM:insta-fall, simply because you two think the line for where good intentions get you is in different places.

[aleucard]

I am beginning to wonder if this thread should be locked, since the hostility and condescension doesn't seem to be going down for either side of this debate. It may be high time that we just agree to disagree.

[eggynack]

I am beginning to wonder if this thread should be locked, since the hostility and condescension doesn't seem to be going down for either side of this debate. It may be high time that we just agree to disagree.
I don't think I've done anything that especially breaks forum rules, and I don't think that anyone else particularly has either. Things've been surprisingly on topic too, given the fact that this is a VoP/falling paladin thread. As is, I still seek answers to the two core questions that have been posed. In particular, what the basis is for this claimed spirit of the feat, and how said claimed spirit can be stopped from containing nearly all items in existence within itself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I am beginning to wonder if this thread should be locked, since the hostility and condescension doesn't seem to be going down for either side of this debate. It may be high time that we just agree to disagree.

I haven't picked up any hostility or condescension from anyone and I certainly hope I haven't come off that way to anyone.

So far as I can tell it's just the usual spirited discussion that comes with the territory of alignment discussions.


That said, I did start that thread I mentioned before. Therefore I now present stump the exalted paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386362-Stump-the-exalted-paladin&p=18475695#post18475695).

[TypoNinja]

When the book is talking about what to do with the excess wealth from one party member having forsworn material wealth, it suggests giving it away to charity.


Yes, what else is somebody who has forsworn all material possessions going to do with money? Why help others naturally!



That isn't in the feat, but it's still in the book.

It is merely a suggestion, though a pretty good one. I honestly can't think of much else a VoP character can do with money other than promptly give it away, and as a Good character you'd want to help the less fortunate with it.


Charity is also, in the book, listed as being part of being exalted good.


Yes, though its important to note that there are different levels of charity. For example, I just got back from visiting a friend, on my way over I grabbed some pop, and some junk food, cause I'm a nice guy. I'm not paying his rent for him though. Its a matter of scale, an exalted character who hasn't given up material possessions is by no means required to be generous till it hurts. Your "Generosity" may be as simple as not asking to be paid by the locals for solving whatever problem the latest plot hook represents.


staying an exalted good individual is in the spirit of the vows.

No, its not. Your Vows will be revoked if you aren't Exalted, because you are unworthy at that point, but nothing about the vows as themselves require that. You must be Exalted to quaify for a Vow, but Exalted status and the requirements/terms of your Vows are two different things.



Thus, charitable actions are in the spirit of the vow, thus things that facilitate the passing of your excess wealth into the coffers of a charity while providing no other benefit is in the Spirit of the Vow of Poverty.

Nope, Vow of Poverty requires you to give up all material wealth, it says nothing at all about what you should do with your share of loot from adventuring. the Vow only says


To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions

The spirit of this vow is the same as the letter. You must not use or own any material possessions or wealth. Keyword, ANY.

You want a magic item (Material possession) that helps you give away your money. You want an item for convenience. This item does not help you with your Vow in any way. It in fact exists in direct opposition to your Vow of not using any material possessions.

Exalted characters like the idea of being charitable, and a VoP character has a lot of wealth to be charitable with, but your Vow has nothing to do with that. All your Vow is about is not owning or using anything beyond a very short and strict list. There isn't even an exception for a Clerics holy symbol in there.

[SangoProduction]

Not necessarily true. You may have taken the vow because you have seen that some live with nothing, and so you choose to sacrifice your own material wealth for their benefit (as is true in this case). Just because someone takes a vow does not mean they condemn the thing they do not partake in. Vow of Celibacy does not mean that sex is fundamentally wrong. Vow of Silence does not mean that you resent anyone who speaks.

Quite. Indeed, I was able to convince my DM to let me use a only slightly modified version of VoP in his evil campaign when I used a warrior monk devoted to Tiamat.
His motivation for the feat was two-fold. First off, the pride and security he felt he was without the need for "crutches", and that his faith alone would bring what he needed - something quite thematic for monks, i feel. Second, what he earned was donated/sacrificed to Tiamat.

Perhaps that isn't the best example in the world because it's a minor rule swap. But, you could imagine a naive adventurer who thinks money could solve the poor's problems, or one that, while well meaning is simply careless. Both of those characters could take the vow of poverty, and not hate money.