Does stealing things violate Vow of Poverty?

[daremetoidareyo]

Instead of further derailing the defensive attacker thread, I thought that I would start my own. The build in question is in the spoiler below. Assume that this is a CHAOTIC GOOD exalted character.

Never attack. always defend and full defend. VOP gets that AC nice and ridiculous. You don't attack anyone other for tripping. The rest of the time, you just avoid attacks and steer them into other people around you. Technically, this doesn't violate your vow of nonviolence. Ask DM if you can take luck feats instead of exalted feats after you run out of the good ones.



Class
Feat


Martial rogue
sacred vow (1), vow of poverty (b), combat expertise(b), nymphs kiss (b)


cobra strike monk
vow of nonviolence (b), dodge


cobra strike monk
advantageous avoidance (3), mobility (b)


martial rogue
defender of the homeland (CoV) (b), combat reflexes (b)


martial rogue




fighter
deceptive dodge, master cutpurse (CoS), vow of peace


fighter
gnome tunnel acrobatics


marshal rogue
elusive target, servant of the heavens (b)


Fortunes friend
good karma


Fortunes friend
exalted feat, make your own luck


Fortunes friend




Fortunes friend
spring attack, unbelievable luck, exalted feat


Fortunes friend




fighter




fighter
weapon focus, alertness


devoted defender




Jaunter




Jaunter
combat panache


Jaunter




Jaunter







With this build, you redirect attacks against you to attack others. You can force them to reroll attack rolls a few times a day.

good karma allows you to jump in front of others.

advantageous avoidance allows you to force an attack reroll

combat expertise gives you +5 AC.

Deceptive dodge allows you to, when fighting defensively, make a melee attack by your opponent who was targeted by your dodge feat to strike another target of your choice that is both adjacent to you and within the attacker's reach.

Combat panache allows you to make a bluff check vs. an opponent that manages to hit you to force them to attack another dude.

gnome tunnel acrobatics allows you to make a tumble check to make your opponent hit another opponent.

Elusive target allows you force on enemy that flanks you attack another enemy that flanks you. It also allows you make free trip attacks against an opponent who procs and AOO when you tumble out of their square

devoted defender, from sword and fist, has a first level ability that allows you to choose a charge (a person you are responsible for in combat) and switch getting hit with them.

Most of these abilities need you to declare a dodge on a person, which is a free action on any turn.

So, the question is: Can a VOP character steal a magic item from another person and use the item without invalidating the VOP.

The relevant text reads: "A character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate feats, Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, cannot own magic items, but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh the lack of those items."

The feat reads: "You may not use any magic item of anysort, though you can benefit from magic items used on yourbehalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friendgives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or rideon your companion’s ebony fly. You may not, however, “borrow” acloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion foreven a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

Stealing is "taking another person's property without permission or legal right with no intent to return it."

You aren't borrowing it. You are benefitting from magic items used on your own behalf that you have taken from an evil being.

Here are some examples:
1.) VOP and party is in a fight. Cleric uses ability to make opponent panicked. Panicked opponent drops the ebony fly in his hand that he was holding. Can VOP pick up the ebony fly and use it? He doesn't own it, he is just using it. He has not intention of returning it to the bad guy. It wasn't from a companion. After the combat, he will be donating the fly to a local kender orphanage. Has he broken the vow?

2.)VOP uses cutpurse feat to steal a potion of gaseous form as a free action from an evil hobgoblin's belt, a hobgoblin who is attacking him and his friends. VOP then uses his standard action to drink the potion right there in the hobgoblins stupid angry face. Has he broken the vow? He is benefitting not from his companion's use of a magic item in his favor. He obviously doesn't "own" the potion. He is literally benefitting from a potion that his enemy didn't give him. Not covered by raw.

3.) VOP uses cutpurse in combat as a free action to piss off greedy evil dwarves and compel them to attack him overtop of his aura of calm emotions, which apparently is RAW legal way to keep Vow of peace. (He just elusive dodge combat panaching etc. until all the dudes but one are dead from each other's attacks). He steals enchanted ammunition from the enemy. He then steals a spare crossbow hanging from the pack of another dwarf. What if he used the crossbow bolt to shoot the line that is currently hanging his friends? (This is a rescue mission) He is benefitting from a +2 bolt that doesn't belong to him. He isn't, however, borrowing it. He doesn't "own" it. All of the gear is stolen and rightly belongs to the bad guys. He doesn't move on to use that gear in the future, (he just sells it and donates the money to a celestial rust monster training academy).

4.) VOP uses cutpurse to steal magic club back up weapon strapped to the back of an ogre by cutting the strap with a dagger that he stole from the goblin riding the ogre. VOP then tosses the club to the unarmed exalted barbarian to use. Has he broken the vow by utilizing the simple martial weapon that isn't a staff?

5.) Same as example 2, except instead of drinking the potion, VOP smashes it into the ground and laughs in the hobgoblins face while jeering, "That sure could have been useful for someone!"

6.) You sneak into the evil doomlord's castle by sneaking through the sewer. In order to fix the problem of your stinky wet clothes, you strip and leave your clothes behind. You sneak into his sleeping chamber where the doomlord is sleeping. You need a way to take the doomlord hostage, so you take his pajama bottoms from the bottom shelf of his clothing rack and tie him down. Did you violate the vow by using not your own clothes, but someone else's? You didn't go over your limit of one set of clothes.

7.) You steal a spell component pouch from the opposing wizard. You already have your own spell component pouch. Can you use theirs? It says that you may use A spell component pouch. Although you could read that as you may use a spell component pouch, nobigdeal.

What says ya'll. Is this over-extensive rules lawyering? What would and wouldn't fly in your group?

[Keltest]

I think its pretty clear that "you may not use magic items" doesn't care about how you obtained the magic items you cant use.

[daremetoidareyo]

I think its pretty clear that "you may not use magic items" doesn't care about how you obtained the magic items you cant use.

It says you may benefit from magic items used for you. The problem is the definition of "friend" particularly in the potion example.

[Deophaun]

The "own" part isn't the relevant text, mainly because it's not part of the feat. This, however, is:

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:
...and by that part, opening a door or eating off a plate violates VoP (which is why you always need to talk to your DM to figure out a more reasonable set of guidelines). Of course using a magic item is going to trip it, even if you don't own it. That last part is at least RAI, as magic items are specifically called out.

[daremetoidareyo]

The "own" part isn't the relevant text, mainly because it's not part of the feat. This, however, is:

...and by that part, opening a door or eating off a plate violates VoP (which is why you always need to talk to your DM to figure out a more reasonable set of guidelines). Of course using a magic item is going to trip it, even if you don't own it. That last part is at least RAI, as magic items are specifically called out.

good eye. So a VOP character can't even use a fork, unless a fork counts as an improvised simple weapon?

New example to be added (#5).

[Deophaun]

#5 depends on how much of a @#$%@#$ your DM is going to be. If you tossed the potion in the air and hit it with your quarterstaff like a baseball to break it, perfectly fine. If you threw it on the marble floor of a castle, you may have just used a castle to break the potion, and a castle could be considered a material possession.

VoP, as written, is broken. Always, always consult with your DM before taking.

[ManicOppressive]

Yeah, the Vow of Poverty is an absolute mess. Using it RAW or honestly even RAI makes a character borderline unplayable in most campaigns.

RAW/I, you cannot use a magic item, period, ever. There is no qualifier on the clause "You may not use any magic item of anysort," that allows any loophole if you are the one activating the magic item. Even if it's owned by someone else and just happens to be in your hand, you can't use it, regardless of whether that someone else is a friend or enemy, and regardless of whether they let you borrow it or you took it.

The specific exception for potions, I would say, would allow you to drink a potion you took from an enemy in battle. There are no clauses stating that a Vow...er? of Poverty cannot use potions, only that they cannot own them.

As for the examples with stealing other magic items, well, see above. It doesn't matter what you do with it later, using it violates the Vow, by RAW.

Using a dagger to cut off a piece of an opponent's wardrobe (or their weapon, or whatever) definitely violates the vow, RAW or RAI. You may not have used it to inflict damage, but you totally just used a weapon other than a staff in combat. Same goes for the crossbow.

And finally, donating anything to a Kender orphanage in my campaign immediately drops you out of the "Good" Alignment, so that will wreak some havoc with your plans. We can negotiate on whether or not you dip all the way to evil, but you're at least hitting neutral for it. :tongue:

[daremetoidareyo]

Yeah, the Vow of Poverty is an absolute mess. Using it RAW or honestly even RAI makes a character borderline unplayable in most campaigns.

RAW/I, you cannot use a magic item, period, ever. There is no qualifier on the clause "You may not use any magic item of anysort," that allows any loophole if you are the one activating the magic item. Even if it's owned by someone else and just happens to be in your hand, you can't use it, regardless of whether that someone else is a friend or enemy, and regardless of whether they let you borrow it or you took it.

The specific exception for potions, I would say, would allow you to drink a potion you took from an enemy in battle. There are no clauses stating that a Vow...er? of Poverty cannot use potions, only that they cannot own them.

As for the examples with stealing other magic items, well, see above. It doesn't matter what you do with it later, using it violates the Vow, by RAW.

Using a dagger to cut off a piece of an opponent's wardrobe (or their weapon, or whatever) definitely violates the vow, RAW or RAI. You may not have used it to inflict damage, but you totally just used a weapon other than a staff in combat. Same goes for the crossbow.

And finally, donating anything to a Kender orphanage in my campaign immediately drops you out of the "Good" Alignment, so that will wreak some havoc with your plans. We can negotiate on whether or not you dip all the way to evil, but you're at least hitting neutral for it. :tongue:

I agree with everything but the kender hate. This VOP guy is a CG troll, and kender are typically good, and sentient. It's only the arbitrary security offered by respecting property rights that makes people dislike them. But there is a bit of consistent logic applied to it. Kender are just cute little inconvenient communists. They like...don't buy into your whole paradigm, man.

Hmmm. It does look like it excludes all mundane items except for mundane clothes, a day worth of food, and all simple weapons. Gimme a sec to find weird borderline cases to add to the main post.

But daggers and crossbows are simple weapons. And so are instrument blades (CS), poison rings (drgnmcn), and the blowgun (OA).

[Deophaun]

Using a dagger to cut off a piece of an opponent's wardrobe (or their weapon, or whatever) definitely violates the vow, RAW or RAI. You may not have used it to inflict damage, but you totally just used a weapon other than a staff in combat. Same goes for the crossbow.

This actually doesn't. The prohibition limits you to simple weapons, which a dagger and a (nonmagical) crossbow are. The feat says it's "usually just a quarterstaff," but that doesn't limit your character, because you can be a special snowflake. Also, it means someone with VoP could conceivably amass a fortune in crossbows and use them to purchase services. Tell me what wizard wouldn't take two thousand some light crossbows in exchange for a wish?

[ManicOppressive]

My favorite DM ruling was that a Vow of Poverty prevents you from riding on a boat or any other means of transportation, since a boat is definitely a material possession. Enjoy swimming, goody two-shoes.

You can carry a component pouch, but you EXPLICITLY can't carry any spell components that are too expensive for the pouch, so you lose out on about half your spell list unless you want to dump XP every time. (Note: This actually allows for some nasty loopholes with spells limited by their rare components, since the VoP allows you to trade 1 XP for each 5 gp of a spell component. But that doesn't exactly balance everything out.)

Oh, and I don't see an exception for your holy symbol, which is at best a material possession, or any kind of spell focus. So you'd better donate that.

Vow of Poverty really is a mess.

[Deophaun]

Oh, and I don't see an exception for your holy symbol, which is at best a material possession, or any kind of spell focus. So you'd better donate that.
There is precisely one, and that's the allowance of food.

Some species of holly are edible.

[ManicOppressive]

Holly Symbol. Ugh.

One day's worth of food. EAT YOUR HOLLY SYMBOL NOW. :smallbiggrin:

[Deophaun]

Holly Symbol. Ugh.

Well, wasn't meant as a pun. Rangers and druids can use holly sprigs for their focus.

[daremetoidareyo]

And, if you walk around naked, you can use your clothes as an improvised weapon capable of making trip attacks. Looking into it, that and your food are the only things you can use as improvised weapons.

[ManicOppressive]

Nah, the Vow of Poverty explicitly says you can wear simple clothes, not that you can use them otherwise as items.

[daremetoidareyo]

Nah, the Vow of Poverty explicitly says you can wear simple clothes, not that you can use them otherwise as items.

By jove, you're right.

But you can USE a spell component pouch. Can you use it as an improvised weapon? Can you steal someone elses spell component pouch and use all of their most expensive components, as improvised projectiles?

[Deophaun]

As long as their most expensive component is free, then yes. Otherwise, you can't go around trying to use diamond dust as an improvised weapon.

[daremetoidareyo]

As long as their most expensive component is free, then yes. Otherwise, you can't go around trying to use diamond dust as an improvised weapon.

No, but you can eat it right in front of him.

[UrsusArctos]

Vow of Poverty has the [Exalted] tag. To quote the Book of Exalted Deeds:

A character who
willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits
from all his exalted feats

Thievery is an evil act and would cause you to lose both Vow of Poverty and Sacred Vow.

In short, yes, but not because of the reason you would expect it to.

[Deophaun]

Thievery is an evil act...
The Evil person mugs you in an alley.
The Good person shoots you in the alley, then loots your corpse.

[UrsusArctos]

The Evil person mugs you in an alley.
The Good person shoots you in the alley, then loots your corpse.

BoED was really uptight about alignment and would say both of those courses of action are evil.

[Deophaun]

BoED was really uptight about alignment and would say both of those courses of action are evil.
Interesting. OK, I shall amend.

The Evil person mugs you in an alley.
The Good person kills you in an alley.

And don't say BoED says both of those are evil: it's full of Exalted killing.

[ManicOppressive]

Even in BoED, a single evil act is definitely not going to instantly lose you everything. Besides, thievery in D&D has never been considered (by the books) a concretely evil act, it always depends on context. Stealing from a hobgoblin trying to kill you is definitely not an evil act by any reasonable interpretation.

IIRC, nothing in BoED is dependent on being Lawful Good, so thievery in general (a strongly chaotic action, but only a mildly and situationally evil action) is very unlikely to instantly mauve your face off. As a DM I would never consider dropping a character's alignment from Good for stealing from an Evil and hostile character, and as a player I would probably never play again with a DM who dropped my exalted feats for stealing from someone trying to kill me.

Having said that, it would seem very out of character for a PC with Vow of Poverty to have any kind of skill at stealing things.

[Flickerdart]

Vow of Poverty isn't LG, it's Exalted. Stealing is not Exalted. You fall.

[ManicOppressive]

I'm actually very curious where in the book it implies that stealing in a non-evil context would make you lose exalted status. I mean, if you want to contest that there's no such thing as non-evil stealing, that's a separate discussion, but again, we're talking about stealing from someone who is literally in the active process of attempting to kill you. Given that the Book of Exalted Deeds has an entire section devoted to how there are situations where it's okay to kill people, saying that it is then not okay to take something out of their pocket in the process of fighting them is a very strange distinction.

Heck, it even has specific allowances for Exalted Chaotic Good characters. Exalted =/= Super Lawful Good.

[Deophaun]

Other things that are not Exalted:
-Eating breakfast
-Taking a nap
-Maintaining your gear
-Walking
-Breathing
-Blowing your nose
-Scratching

It's really, really tough to avoid doing things that aren't Exalted. The closest any being ever came to becoming Exalted was Saint Rock. Being a rock, he literally did nothing and so never fell. Until he literally fell in a non-Exalted fashion. The moral repercussions for this betrayal of Exalted principles allegedly played a major role in Asmodeus losing faith in the forces of good and turning evil.

[Misery Esquire]

He isn't, however, borrowing it. He doesn't "own" it. All of the gear is stolen and rightly belongs to the bad guys.

Possession is nine tenths of losing your Exalted Vow. The last tenth is the doctor who didn't recommend brushing your teeth.

[ManicOppressive]

Speaking of which, there's no way a character with a Vow of Poverty could brush their teeth.

[Red Fel]

Vow of Poverty isn't LG, it's Exalted. Stealing is not Exalted. You fall.

This. When you're talking Exalted, you're no longer talking Good. You're talking Exalted. A Good character might not fall for a single Evil act. An Exalted character might not become Evil, either, but he by RAW loses the benefit of his Exalted feats. No exceptions. If you're going to nitpick about it, Exalted feats aren't for you. They're highly RP intensive, and require dedication on the part of both the player and the character. A character who is going to look for loopholes and try to get around the spirit of an Exalted Vow is not Exalted; a player who wants the benefit but wants to ignore the explicit and hard-coded requirements shouldn't be fooling around with Exalted feats.


I'm actually very curious where in the book it implies that stealing in a non-evil context would make you lose exalted status. I mean, if you want to contest that there's no such thing as non-evil stealing, that's a separate discussion,

No, that's this very discussion, and there isn't. Stealing - that is, taking something that doesn't belong to you with the intent to keep it from its owner - is Evil, explicitly, by RAW, full stop. Again, Evil acts make you lose Exalted feats.


but again, we're talking about stealing from someone who is literally in the active process of attempting to kill you. Given that the Book of Exalted Deeds has an entire section devoted to how there are situations where it's okay to kill people, saying that it is then not okay to take something out of their pocket in the process of fighting them is a very strange distinction.

There is a difference between disarming and stealing, that I will grant you. In this context - in which you take an object being used against you in order to defend yourself from its user - you are not stealing. In most other contexts, you are, but in that one, you're not.

However, if you use the object, you are then disobeying your Vow, which prohibits you from using it. Around that, there is no way.


Heck, it even has specific allowances for Exalted Chaotic Good characters. Exalted =/= Super Lawful Good.

Exalted is not Super Lawful Good. It is, however, Super Good. The writers, in their naivete, veered towards it being Super Lawful Good, just as Vile veers towards Super Chaotic Evil, but by RAW, it is merely Super Good. A Good character can get away with stretching their alignment; an Exalted character absolutely cannot.

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm actually very curious where in the book it implies that stealing in a non-evil context would make you lose exalted status. I mean, if you want to contest that there's no such thing as non-evil stealing, that's a separate discussion, but again, we're talking about stealing from someone who is literally in the active process of attempting to kill you. Given that the Book of Exalted Deeds has an entire section devoted to how there are situations where it's okay to kill people, saying that it is then not okay to take something out of their pocket in the process of fighting them is a very strange distinction.

Heck, it even has specific allowances for Exalted Chaotic Good characters. Exalted =/= Super Lawful Good.

Glad you got my back here ManicOppressive.


You can totally be a CG thief who is exalted. Maybe you come from a culture that doesn't believe in property rights (kender).


Maybe you see the concept of "ownership" as a tool of controlling the masses. So long as you were consistent, always sharing "your" stuff (hence vow of poverty) there is no reason to believe that stealing is an evil act.


The only trespass that an act of stealing confers is the dashing of the expectation that someone would respect the sanctity of your stuff. When someone attacks you with the express desire to take your life, it is totally an exalted behavior to grab their gear and use it against them in such a way as to reduce the biggest harm possible: the negation of other's sovereign right to live. Especially if you neutralize the threat in such a way that everyone lives. Nonlethal damage still hurts. Hence the fact that you can be exalted and be responsible for smashing an elfs face into the ground repeatedly until he passes out. Respect for your sovereignty over stuff is not a requirement to be good.


Heck, your Exalted CG character could go so far to say that ownership is very much arbitrary. "Do you really own that land? Why? because your ancestor lived there? What about those poor people on the outskirts of the territory? Oh...their ancestors were beaten up by your ancestors and had their land taken and you inherited it. Then you made a bunch of rules and empower a few of them to get rewards by supporting your "established" claim. So...who owns that land, again? You took it through brutality, and now you share unequally. I mean, I have a knife and you are unarmed and I hate you, so how about I kill you, as well as everyone who would contest my ownership of this land. Who owns the land now? Cuz, by your definition, it is me. In 100 years when my fat spoiled great grandson is pulling the same "I own it" card, who is in the right when he meets a reincarnation of me or someone like me?" Roll intimidate...


Plus, RAW, theft is never defined as evil. Deathwatch yes, EVIL. Permenantly borrowing without permission, no.

[Deophaun]

This. When you're talking Exalted, you're no longer talking Good. You're talking Exalted. A Good character might not fall for a single Evil act. An Exalted character might not become Evil, either, but he by RAW loses the benefit of his Exalted feats.
That's not "this." Flickerdart didn't say that you fall for a single Evil act. He said you fall for doing something that wasn't Exalted.

[Flickerdart]

Maybe you come from a culture that doesn't believe in property rights (kender).
Alignment in general, and Exalted status specifically, is objective. It doesn't matter whence you come.

[Red Fel]

That's not "this." Flickerdart didn't say that you fall for a single Evil act. He said you fall for doing something that wasn't Exalted.

Hmm. Fair point. Yeah, that's a bit excessive. You can be Good and not lose Exalted feats.

Of course, some of them do impose a higher standard of Good, such as Vow of Peace. In those cases, there are still things a Good character could and would do that you can't.

But generally, being Very Good is enough; I think it's a bit much to say you fall for not doing The Most Good Thing Ever every time.

Although you really ought to try, at least.

... ugh, I'm arguing in favor of Exalted now. I'm too tired for this.

[ManicOppressive]

Glad you got my back here ManicOppressive.


Maybe you come from a culture that doesn't believe in property rights (kender).


See, you keep bringing up the Kender, and then I feel the spontaneous need to switch sides. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

... ugh, I'm arguing in favor of Exalted now.
Maximum evil achieved.

[Deophaun]

Maybe you come from a culture that doesn't believe in property rights (kender).

It's not that kender don't believe in property rights, it's that the concept is so completely and totally alien to them that they still have no idea why people get upset when they pick up the shiny and walk away with it.

The real point is, theft is not necessarily Evil. It is Chaotic, and so a Paladin who persists in it will fall, but intercepting someone who's about to poison the well and picking the poison out of his pocket is not going to cause angels to weep. Not even the cute chubby ones with heart-shaped arrows. If theft was evil, than any Paladin who took something from the horde of a dragon he slew needs to put it back now and rush out for an atonement; killing the target of your theft does not suddenly make theft not-theft.

[ManicOppressive]

Well, I think the real point is that the BoED is kind of a steaming pile.

[daremetoidareyo]

Alignment in general, and Exalted status specifically, is objective. It doesn't matter whence you come.

If so, where is the concrete prohibition from taking things that don't "belong" to you? As an exalted freedom fighting CG cutpurse.

Re-reading the BOED, I'm not seeing anything but support for the notion that an exalted CG character can take things from people who are oppressing others. The only thing that stands out as possibly supporting the notion that theft is evil is the 3 paragraphs of ends vs. means. And even then, the means here are actually harmless. The section on chaotic good speaks of CG being full of rebels to oppose any form of oppression. If we're splitting hairs about disarming a sword, stealing and smashing a potion of a hostile person is totally within the purview of exalted behavior.

I mean, you can be an exalted character and kill sentient life capable of redemption with no foul. Knicking an evil goblins dagger in order to cut a rope holding the chandelier to block the enemies while your allies destroy the Big bad macguffin and then donating that dagger to a local woodsman is totally exalted. Heck, stealing the only copy of a deed that empowers a LE slaveholder to own slaves is a good act. The ends and means are more just than killing the slaveholder, which is totally another exalted option.

[Keltest]

Personally, im of the opinion that the BoED was created by fiends in a (successful) plot to trick do-gooders into doing their dirty work for them.

[nedz]

Claiming theft is Evil means that Kender (Always CG IIRC) can never be Good, let alone Exalted.

I'm musing over whether Kender can actually take Vow of Poverty — after all it's not like the own the things they take.

This is similar to the Trust Fund concept:
"I've set up a Trust Fund for the Orphanage. No, I don't own this sword, it belongs to the trust fund I administer for the orphans. I'm just looking for a buyer, and when I've sold it I then have to work out what to invest the gold in next — for the orphans."

[Misery Esquire]

Claiming theft is Evil means that Kender (Always CG IIRC) can never be Good, let alone Exalted.

I'm musing over whether Kender can actually take Vow of Poverty — after all it's not like the own the things they take.

This is similar to the Trust Fund concept:
"I've set up a Trust Fund for the Orphanage. No, I don't own this sword, it belongs to the trust fund I administer for the orphans. I'm just looking for a buyer, and when I've sold it I then have to work out what to invest the gold in next — for the orphans."

No. Once you possess an item for more than a short time without the explicit intention, and acting on that intent*, of giving it back to the owner, you are then the owner of that item, and you have lost your Vow of Poverty. And even with that intent, and acting thereon, you still cannot use or benefit from any magical item that is not being used on your behalf.

The exceptions are built into the feat where it states you can donate your share of loot (profit or object) directly, and immediately (as possible, presumably). And the second exception is asking your friends for expensive spell components so you can finish casting spells. (Mundane/martial characters get the stick again?)

Holding gold/expensive (non-magical) items in trust is out because for someone who has forsworn material possessions or the means to gain them, they cannot then, in good faith, have them.

On a side note, the Poverty Charity Trust wherein you hold expensive and deadly magical items, for the Charity of course, has the sound of a Milo Minderbinder plan. :smallbiggrin:


*Goodbye, kender.

[Deophaun]

No. Once you possess an item for more than a short time without the explicit intention, and acting on that intent*, of giving it back to the owner, you are then the owner of that item, and you have lost your Vow of Poverty.
In what rule book is that defined? Where is "short time" defined? Is a "short time" for an Azurin going to be the same as a "short time" for a gold dragon?

And the reason kender are disqualified from Vow of Poverty is because they lack the conceptual space to take it in the first place.

[Necroticplague]

So, the question is: Can a VOP character steal a magic item from another person and use the item without invalidating the VOP. No. He can't use any magic item, period.


The feat reads: "You may not use any magic item of anysort, though you can benefit from magic items used on yourbehalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friendgives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or rideon your companion’s ebony fly. You may not, however, “borrow” acloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion foreven a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

bolded for emphasis. No ambuguity here.


Here are some examples:
1.) VOP and party is in a fight. Cleric uses ability to make opponent panicked. Panicked opponent drops the ebony fly in his hand that he was holding. Can VOP pick up the ebony fly and use it? He doesn't own it, he is just using it. He has not intention of returning it to the bad guy. It wasn't from a companion. After the combat, he will be donating the fly to a local kender orphanage. Has he broken the vow?

2.)VOP uses cutpurse feat to steal a potion of gaseous form as a free action from an evil hobgoblin's belt, a hobgoblin who is attacking him and his friends. VOP then uses his standard action to drink the potion right there in the hobgoblins stupid angry face. Has he broken the vow? He is benefitting not from his companion's use of a magic item in his favor. He obviously doesn't "own" the potion. He is literally benefitting from a potion that his enemy didn't give him. Not covered by raw.

3.) VOP uses cutpurse in combat as a free action to piss off greedy evil dwarves and compel them to attack him overtop of his aura of calm emotions, which apparently is RAW legal way to keep Vow of peace. (He just elusive dodge combat panaching etc. until all the dudes but one are dead from each other's attacks). He steals enchanted ammunition from the enemy. He then steals a spare crossbow hanging from the pack of another dwarf. What if he used the crossbow bolt to shoot the line that is currently hanging his friends? (This is a rescue mission) He is benefitting from a +2 bolt that doesn't belong to him. He isn't, however, borrowing it. He doesn't "own" it. All of the gear is stolen and rightly belongs to the bad guys. He doesn't move on to use that gear in the future, (he just sells it and donates the money to a celestial rust monster training academy).

4.) VOP uses cutpurse to steal magic club back up weapon strapped to the back of an ogre by cutting the strap with a dagger that he stole from the goblin riding the ogre. VOP then tosses the club to the unarmed exalted barbarian to use. Has he broken the vow by utilizing the simple martial weapon that isn't a staff?

5.) Same as example 2, except instead of drinking the potion, VOP smashes it into the ground and laughs in the hobgoblins face while jeering, "That sure could have been useful for someone!"

6.) You sneak into the evil doomlord's castle by sneaking through the sewer. In order to fix the problem of your stinky wet clothes, you strip and leave your clothes behind. You sneak into his sleeping chamber where the doomlord is sleeping. You need a way to take the doomlord hostage, so you take his pajama bottoms from the bottom shelf of his clothing rack and tie him down. Did you violate the vow by using not your own clothes, but someone else's? You didn't go over your limit of one set of clothes.

7.) You steal a spell component pouch from the opposing wizard. You already have your own spell component pouch. Can you use theirs? It says that you may use A spell component pouch. Although you could read that as you may use a spell component pouch, nobigdeal.
[/FONT]

1. Yep. using a magic item.

2.Yep. Using a magic item.

3.Yep. using a magic item (the +2 bolt).

4. Assuming the dagger wasn't magical, no. A dagger is a simple weapon, and he didn't really use the club.

5.Nope. Destroying a potion is not using it.

6.As long as those clothes didn't have any magical abilites, nope.

7. You're allowed to use a spell component pouch. Who's it is is irrelevant. No violation.

[Misery Esquire]

In what rule book is that defined? Where is "short time" defined? Is a "short time" for an Azurin going to be the same as a "short time" for a gold dragon?

And the reason kender are disqualified from Vow of Poverty is because they lack the conceptual space to take it in the first place.

It is not, I was trying to avoid the usual RAW-madness by making allowances for people who pick up their companion's items, when they were disarmed or the like, and return them.

RAW, soon as you pick up something and hold it for a round, it is your's and you've lost your Vow. Per the Vow text including "You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round", and extrapolating to all other objects that you are also not allowed to own or use.

I can't think of anywhere else that it bothers to spell out when something becomes your own, rather than something you happen to be holding.

[Red Fel]

In what rule book is that defined? Where is "short time" defined? Is a "short time" for an Azurin going to be the same as a "short time" for a gold dragon?

If a player tried to nitpick these details with me at my table, I would disqualify him from taking Exalted feats. I'm not being critical of you, Deo, but I personally permit those kinds of fluff-heavy feats only when the player is going to make an effort to adhere to the concept behind the feat, rather than the bare minimum. (And yes, feel free to make a "pieces of flair" reference here.)

These feats are highly demanding. If a player or character is going to try to find loopholes or justifications, they really shouldn't be used.


And the reason kender are disqualified from Vow of Poverty is because they lack the conceptual space to take it in the first place.

I'd say that the reason Kender are disqualified from Vow of Poverty is that they're all dead.

I defy you to find a surviving Kender at my tables. Even in campaigns where they existed, the PCs ended up committing a genocide that no deity would condemn.

[Deophaun]

RAW-madness, soon as you pick up something and hold it for a round, it is your's and you've lost your Vow. Per the Vow text including "You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round", and extrapolating to all other objects that you are also not allowed to own or use.
"Borrow" implies use, not ownership. In fact, if you own something, you are--by definition--not borrowing it. So that passage does not lead to RAW-madness at all. It simply states that you are not allowed to use a magic item owned by another character, even for a single round (with some exceptions). It does not speak at all about carrying someone else's sword.

If a player tried to nitpick these details with me at my table, I would disqualify him from taking Exalted feats.
Then you should disqualify everyone from taking Exalted feats, because these are the things that have to be hammered out ahead of time for VoP to work without it becoming a game of "Gotcha!"

If a player or character is going to try to find loopholes or justifications, they really shouldn't be used.
Asking "can I enter a house or would I then be considered to be using a possession" is not finding a loophole or justification; it's asking if the feat is even useable.

[Misery Esquire]

"Borrow" implies use, not ownership. In fact, if you own something, you are--by definition--not borrowing it. So that passage does not lead to RAW-madness at all. It simply states that you are not allowed to use a magic item owned by another character, even for a single round (with some exceptions). It does not speak at all about carrying someone else's sword.

If you have something in your possession it is your item until turned over to another person, when it becomes their's, even if they are the "owner", as there is no ownership text in the books (Thus my original possession joking comment). If you are using an item that is not your own it is "borrowing" and covered by that text.

You can spend the night at an Inn, because that is someone else having something and allowing it to benefit you as well, covered in the text, but you cannot take the blankets away from the bed, unless you plan on wearing them, as they are not an item that is listed as allowable.

RAW, you can't use, or even hold, stuff other than what is listed in the feat.

[Deophaun]

If you have something in your possession it is your item until turned over to another person, when it becomes their's, even if they are the "owner", as there is no ownership text in the books (Thus my original possession joking comment).
As there is no ownership text in the books, that means we revert to standard English. And in standard English, you are wrong. Don't believe me? Borrow your friend's car, then try to sell it. See how far you get.

You can spend the night at an Inn, because that is someone else having something and allowing it to benefit you as well, covered in the text,
Only if the entire inn is a magic item. Mundane items get no such exception.

RAW, you can't use, or even hold, stuff other than what is listed in the feat.
RAW, you can't use, but you can hold, stuff other than what is listed in the feat.

[Tuvarkz]

1 is definite case for falling into CN at the very least.
An opinion I share about kenders(Warning: Strong language): http://i.imgur.com/1vNppqe.png

[Misery Esquire]

As there is no ownership text in the books, that means we revert to standard English. And in standard English, you are wrong. Don't believe me? Borrow your friend's car, then try to sell it. See how far you get.

Only if the entire inn is a magic item. Mundane items get no such exception.

RAW, you can't use, but you can hold, stuff other than what is listed in the feat.

Possession is nine tenths of ownership ; in terms of English as well as RAW. Legally, just because you are holding something does not make it your own, but if there was no law anything you have is your's, unless you decide to part with it.

There is no penalty for having a mundane item used on your behalf.

It doesn't even matter if you own the objects you are carrying ; you are not allowed to carry anything other than what is listed in the feat. The list of items specifies you can own and carry them.

Need to review this part. Will rewrite, possibly.

[DarkSoul]

So, the question is: Can a VOP character steal a magic item from another person and use the item without invalidating the VOP.

The relevant text reads: "A character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate feats, Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, cannot own magic items, but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh the lack of those items."

The feat reads: "You may not use any magic item of anysort, though you can benefit from magic items used on yourbehalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friendgives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or rideon your companion’s ebony fly. You may not, however, “borrow” acloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion foreven a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

Stealing is "taking another person's property without permission or legal right with no intent to return it."

You aren't borrowing it. You are benefitting from magic items used on your own behalf that you have taken from an evil being.

Here are some examples:
1.) VOP and party is in a fight. Cleric uses ability to make opponent panicked. Panicked opponent drops the ebony fly in his hand that he was holding. Can VOP pick up the ebony fly and use it? He doesn't own it, he is just using it. He has not intention of returning it to the bad guy. It wasn't from a companion. After the combat, he will be donating the fly to a local kender orphanage. Has he broken the vow?

2.)VOP uses cutpurse feat to steal a potion of gaseous form as a free action from an evil hobgoblin's belt, a hobgoblin who is attacking him and his friends. VOP then uses his standard action to drink the potion right there in the hobgoblins stupid angry face. Has he broken the vow? He is benefitting not from his companion's use of a magic item in his favor. He obviously doesn't "own" the potion. He is literally benefitting from a potion that his enemy didn't give him. Not covered by raw.

3.) VOP uses cutpurse in combat as a free action to piss off greedy evil dwarves and compel them to attack him overtop of his aura of calm emotions, which apparently is RAW legal way to keep Vow of peace. (He just elusive dodge combat panaching etc. until all the dudes but one are dead from each other's attacks). He steals enchanted ammunition from the enemy. He then steals a spare crossbow hanging from the pack of another dwarf. What if he used the crossbow bolt to shoot the line that is currently hanging his friends? (This is a rescue mission) He is benefitting from a +2 bolt that doesn't belong to him. He isn't, however, borrowing it. He doesn't "own" it. All of the gear is stolen and rightly belongs to the bad guys. He doesn't move on to use that gear in the future, (he just sells it and donates the money to a celestial rust monster training academy).

4.) VOP uses cutpurse to steal magic club back up weapon strapped to the back of an ogre by cutting the strap with a dagger that he stole from the goblin riding the ogre. VOP then tosses the club to the unarmed exalted barbarian to use. Has he broken the vow by utilizing the simple martial weapon that isn't a staff?

5.) Same as example 2, except instead of drinking the potion, VOP smashes it into the ground and laughs in the hobgoblins face while jeering, "That sure could have been useful for someone!"

6.) You sneak into the evil doomlord's castle by sneaking through the sewer. In order to fix the problem of your stinky wet clothes, you strip and leave your clothes behind. You sneak into his sleeping chamber where the doomlord is sleeping. You need a way to take the doomlord hostage, so you take his pajama bottoms from the bottom shelf of his clothing rack and tie him down. Did you violate the vow by using not your own clothes, but someone else's? You didn't go over your limit of one set of clothes.

7.) You steal a spell component pouch from the opposing wizard. You already have your own spell component pouch. Can you use theirs? It says that you may use A spell component pouch. Although you could read that as you may use a spell component pouch, nobigdeal.

What says ya'll. Is this over-extensive rules lawyering? What would and wouldn't fly in your group?

1: You may not use any magic item of any sort. None. Not your own, not your friend's, not the guy that had an ebony fly. Violates VoP.
2: Yes, it IS covered by RAW. In fact, you even quoted it. Here's the rest of the relevant text: "To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions..." It specifies that even those material possessions you don't own, you still cannot use. Violates VoP.
3: Crossbow, fine. Magical bolt, not fine. He doesn't own it, he's not borrowing it, but he IS using it. Violates VoP. "Butbut... how does he know what's magical and what's not? He doesn't!" No, he doesn't. Maybe he shouldn't be playing a kleptomaniac.
4: Assuming the dagger isn't magical, it's simple, and thus allowed. Immediately tossing the magical club to the barbarian is fine. Taking even ONE action, offensive or defensive, with that club will violate VoP. Even a total defense action with club in hand will violate VoP. The only thing this character could do after acquiring the club is get rid of it, even if it means dropping it.
5: That's fine, no violation here.
6: No violation imo, assuming he doesn't keep the clothes when he's done.
7: No violation. Expensive components might be a problem. I'd rule that any expensive components kept beyond the end of the current combat would be a violation. If you don't use them RIGHT NOW, give them away.

Is this excessive rules-lawyering? Most definitely. The reason why I think it's excessive is because I second Red Fel in this:


If you're going to nitpick about it, Exalted feats aren't for you. They're highly RP intensive, and require dedication on the part of both the player and the character. A character who is going to look for loopholes and try to get around the spirit of an Exalted Vow is not Exalted; a player who wants the benefit but wants to ignore the explicit and hard-coded requirements shouldn't be fooling around with Exalted feats.

Also, regarding spending a night in an inn. That's fine, if someone else bought the room or the owner says you can stay for free. Otherwise, sleep under the stars.

[Red Fel]

Is this excessive rules-lawyering? Most definitely. The reason why I think it's excessive is because I second Red Fel in this:

On the one hand, I am totally smug over the fact that people agree with me, as well they should.

On the other, seriously, why is it that I am being cited as an expert on these things? Ugh, I feel like I need a shower. I blame you. I blame all of you for making me have to talk about Exalted stuff.

I'll be over here with my friends, the Willful Deformity feats. They understand me. Ugh.

[DarkSoul]

It's not that you're being cited as an authority, so much as agreed with. Even the bad guy can sound good once in a while. Monkeys and Shakespeare and what not...

[Keltest]

On the one hand, I am totally smug over the fact that people agree with me, as well they should.

On the other, seriously, why is it that I am being cited as an expert on these things? Ugh, I feel like I need a shower. I blame you. I blame all of you for making me have to talk about Exalted stuff.

I'll be over here with my friends, the Willful Deformity feats. They understand me. Ugh.

The Jig is up Red Fel. We know you wrote the BoED.

[Red Fel]

The Jig is up Red Fel. We know you wrote the BoED.

Only for tax purposes.

I'm not apologizing.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I'll be over here with my friends, the Willful Deformity feats. They understand me. Ugh.

Hate to break it to ya boss, but the feat chain is from Willing Deformity, not Willful.

Made a character out of them once; mechanically he was terrible but the RP/fluff was so good.

[Red Fel]

Hate to break it to ya boss, but the feat chain is from Willing Deformity, not Willful.

Made a character out of them once; mechanically he was terrible but the RP/fluff was so good.

I don't know about you, but my deformities are willful.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I don't know about you, but my deformities are willful.

Does that meant I have immunity to mind-affecting! Finally an upside to being insane!

[Twurps]

The real point is, theft is not necessarily Evil. It is Chaotic, and so a Paladin who persists in it will fall, but intercepting someone who's about to poison the well and picking the poison out of his pocket is not going to cause angels to weep. Not even the cute chubby ones with heart-shaped arrows. If theft was evil, than any Paladin who took something from the horde of a dragon he slew needs to put it back now and rush out for an atonement; killing the target of your theft does not suddenly make theft not-theft.

To me: this example (along with a few others in this thread) is flawed. Taking someone's poison to prevent him/her form using it, is NOT the evil act of stealing. It's also not 'using it'. So i'd allow it. Taking the poison so you yourself can poison the well however: That's stealing, and would be an evil act. Same with the 'I'm just holding this sword' example. That would be fine with me. (how is an exalted VOP character going to donate his wealth to a good cause if he can't pick it up?) It's only when the VOP guy uses the sword he was 'just holding' to slay an enemy and save himself that he would violate his vows.

I have to agree getting loot for monsters you kill doesn't feel right for any good character. It is however an intergral part of the game/rules to an extend that either none of the designers ever thought about that one, or the D&D universe just has a very different set of rules and moral ethics around death and inheritance. (Probably the former, but I like to go with the latter).

[dascarletm]

They are just Necromongers. You keep what you kill.

[Telonius]

The Jig is up Red Fel. We know you wrote the BoED.

This is really giving some ammunition to my theory that Vows of Poverty were originally written by Falxugons. A horrible deal that leaves the signer in worse shape than they were before? That has "Devil" written all over it.

[Red Fel]

I have to agree getting loot for monsters you kill doesn't feel right for any good character. It is however an intergral part of the game/rules to an extend that either none of the designers ever thought about that one, or the D&D universe just has a very different set of rules and moral ethics around death and inheritance. (Probably the former, but I like to go with the latter).


They are just Necromongers. You keep what you kill.

What dascarletm said. Look, if you're killing them specifically for their loot, then yeah, it's pretty dark and messed up; but if you're killing them, say, out of self-defense, or to rescue a kidnapping victim or something, and you loot them after they're dead, that's not technically wrongful. You didn't kill them for the loot and you're not robbing a grave; you're just taking something they no longer need.

Of course, using it or owning it still violates the Vow. But I feel we stepped away from that at some point...

[daremetoidareyo]

Assume that the Player isn't trying to get away with anything. He just wants to know if he can steal stuff off of opponents in combat in order to prevent them from using them. I'm sticking to my guns that theft is moral quandry predominantly for the law/chaos spectrum and not the good/evil one. Particularly for a CG person who eschews all earthly possessions.


Whether or not you agree with that sentiment, just pretend that you at least accept it as the governing paradigm moving forward.

Examples to explore, given the established governing assumptions about midcombat theft being an acceptable exalted CG behavior.

potions
Why is wasting the potion by smashing it against the ground or an evil orc child's face preferable to drinking it?

Especially with the wierd treatment of drinking a buddies potion. Is this a consent based version of ownership/allowance? You need the consent of person who "officially" owns a potion in order to be an exalted potion quaffer? Or is consent a red herring, and what matters is that ownership is immediately transferred upon touching an object?

wands
Can VOP knick a wand off of a drow cleric (he doesn't have many good uses for standard actions anyway, seeing as how he spends most of his time dodging) and break it over his knee?

Can he benefit from the wand by pitching it to his buddy in rear guard?

Assume he doens't have the master pickpocket feat. He knicks the wand as a standard action and then pitches it to a friend as a move action. What if he used his moved action this turn, but pitches it next round?

Cursed
If the thing that the VOP knicks is a trapped magic item. A magic dagger that can't be removed unless remove curse is cast first. Is he in violation of the VOP if he literally cannot make the decision not to use or carry a magic item. Assume his intent was to knick said item and toss it to his anthropomorphic tape worm buddy to use.


What dascarletm said. Look, if you're killing them specifically for their loot, then yeah, it's pretty dark and messed up; but if you're killing them, say, out of self-defense, or to rescue a kidnapping victim or something, and you loot them after they're dead, that's not technically wrongful. You didn't kill them for the loot and you're not robbing a grave; you're just taking something they no longer need.

Of course, using it or owning it still violates the Vow. But I feel we stepped away from that at some point...

What is the actual difference between robbing a dead body and robbing a grave?

They either own things when they are dead or they don't.

If the dead don't own items, (cuz their dead), there is nothing un-exalted by robbing a grave (cuz they don't own anything).

Further down this rabbit hole, is it ok for them to take (steal?) a dead evil killoren's mundane hat if they don't already own one? why or why not?

[Keltest]

What is the actual difference between robbing a dead body and robbing a grave?

They either own things when they are dead or they don't.

If the dead don't own items, (cuz their dead), there is nothing un-exalted by robbing a grave (cuz they don't own anything).

Further down this rabbit hole, is it ok for them to take (steal?) a dead evil killoren's mundane hat if they don't already own one? why or why not?

My understanding is that it wasn't specifically the taking from a dead body that was unethical. After all, spoils of battle and war and whatnot. It was that digging up a grave to take things from it requires you to defile the grave, which was decidedly un-good.

[nedz]

My understanding is that it wasn't specifically the taking from a dead body that was unethical. After all, spoils of battle and war and whatnot. It was that digging up a grave to take things from it requires you to defile the grave, which was decidedly un-good.

What if you take it from them when they're still bleeding out ? After all they might stabilise. Or should you CdG them first - just to make sure you are not stealing ?

[Keltest]

What if you take it from them when they're still bleeding out ? After all they might stabilise. Or should you CdG them first - just to make sure you are not stealing ?

Same deal, I think. They were defeated, so you can take their stuff. Certainly there were cultures that frowned upon that as well, but it wasn't as wide range a taboo as grave robbing.

Of course, I could be pulling this out of my rectum, so feel free to correct me if im mistaken.

[nedz]

Same deal, I think. They were defeated, so you can take their stuff. Certainly there were cultures that frowned upon that as well, but it wasn't as wide range a taboo as grave robbing.

Of course, I could be pulling this out of my rectum, so feel free to correct me if im mistaken.

Well even if they are dead, in this game, they might not stay that way.

[daremetoidareyo]

Same deal, I think. They were defeated, so you can take their stuff. Certainly there were cultures that frowned upon that as well, but it wasn't as wide range a taboo as grave robbing.

Of course, I could be pulling this out of my rectum, so feel free to correct me if im mistaken.

That's stealing. You beat them up until they couldn't resist and took their stuff. If that's ok, one can definitely knick items of bad guys mid battle. The only difference between those two are one has more hp.

[Keltest]

That's stealing. You beat them up until they couldn't resist and took their stuff. If that's ok, one can definitely knick items of bad guys mid battle. The only difference between those two are one has more hp.

I would suggest that someone trying to pickpocket in the middle of combat is not likely to be welcome amongst any group simply due to their poor priorities. Trying to pickpocket means you are not fighting.

[Red Fel]

potions
Why is wasting the potion by smashing it against the ground or an evil orc child's face preferable to drinking it?

Especially with the wierd treatment of drinking a buddies potion. Is this a consent based version of ownership/allowance? You need the consent of person who "officially" owns a potion in order to be an exalted potion quaffer? Or is consent a red herring, and what matters is that ownership is immediately transferred upon touching an object?

Because you can't use it. You swore not to. If your goal is to deprive an enemy of its use, smashing it accomplishes that. Drinking it accomplishes the same thing, but violates your oath.


wands
Can VOP knick a wand off of a drow cleric (he doesn't have many good uses for standard actions anyway, seeing as how he spends most of his time dodging) and break it over his knee?

Certainly. Destroying an object is certainly not using it, and again, there's nothing wrong with depriving an enemy of something he might use against you.


Can he benefit from the wand by pitching it to his buddy in rear guard?

Also yes. Again, you're depriving an enemy of it, which is fine; and you may receive its benefits if used by an ally. Note, however, that if you grab it specifically with the intent of having it used to benefit you, you're skirting the line; it's one thing to allow your friends to help you, another to direct and enable them. It's not a clear-cut no-no, but it's a bit murkier.


Assume he doens't have the master pickpocket feat. He knicks the wand as a standard action and then pitches it to a friend as a move action. What if he used his moved action this turn, but pitches it next round?

That depends. What does "for even a single round" mean to you? To me, it means "even a single round." Now, admittedly, I'd be willing to cut some slack here; if he already used his action, there's nothing he can do with it. As long as his first priority next round is ditching the thing, I'm fine. But if, by the end of his next action, he's still holding it, that says "even a single round."


Cursed
If the thing that the VOP knicks is a trapped magic item. A magic dagger that can't be removed unless remove curse is cast first. Is he in violation of the VOP if he literally cannot make the decision not to use or carry a magic item. Assume his intent was to knick said item and toss it to his anthropomorphic tape worm buddy to use.

Honestly, that one is tricky. I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he can't willingly get rid of the thing, provided that (1) he never, ever, uses the item in question, and (2) his immediate top priority becomes lifting the curse and ditching it. If his reaction is either "I have it, I may as well use it," or "No hurry in getting rid of it," he loses the feat.


What is the actual difference between robbing a dead body and robbing a grave?

Robbing a body is like finding stuff on the ground. It's a bit disrespectful, but if he's dead because he picked a fight with you, he's not exactly entitled to your respect. Some people still draw a line there, which is fine. Robbing a grave is outright desecration. Graves are generally sanctified in the name of some deity or other, or placed on land that has been. They're meant to be undisturbed. A body laying on the floor isn't intended to go undisturbed; a body that has been interred certainly is.

[Misery Esquire]

I'd say that the reason Kender are disqualified from Vow of Poverty is that they're all dead.

I defy you to find a surviving Kender at my tables. Even in campaigns where they existed, the PCs ended up committing a genocide that no deity would condemn.

While I was at work, I finally thought of a use for Kender.

Assuming Intelligent (unbound) Undead maintain any shred of their personality, starting a wight-ocalaypse with a group of (or all of the) Kender would be more effective than starting with humans ; they would not only spread the level drain around, but also collect all the loot into their own pockets. For you to easily collect when you Turn/Rebuke/Command Undead them.

:smalltongue:

[ManicOppressive]

snip

If you've just convinced me of one thing, it's that the Vow of Poverty has literally no merits in a campaign.

Not that I was exactly falling over myself to recommend it to my players anyway.

[Red Fel]

If you've just convinced me of one thing, it's that the Vow of Poverty has literally no merits in a campaign.

Not that I was exactly falling over myself to recommend it to my players anyway.

Then you're in the right place. Vow of Poverty works adequately for roughly two or three class builds, and even then the benefits don't make up for the losses. It's poorly designed and executed; it's an attempt to impose fluff and give a mechanical benefit for it. Same for most of the Vows, particularly the offensive Vow of Peace. You're frankly better off RPing a Vow and saving your feats. You can get plenty of fluff through voluntary actions. Codifying the fluff in feat form just doesn't work well.

[nedz]

Cursed
If the thing that the VOP knicks is a trapped magic item. A magic dagger that can't be removed unless remove curse is cast first. Is he in violation of the VOP if he literally cannot make the decision not to use or carry a magic item. Assume his intent was to knick said item and toss it to his anthropomorphic tape worm buddy to use.
Honestly, that one is tricky. I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he can't willingly get rid of the thing, provided that (1) he never, ever, uses the item in question, and (2) his immediate top priority becomes lifting the curse and ditching it. If his reaction is either "I have it, I may as well use it," or "No hurry in getting rid of it," he loses the feat.

Surely this is selfish, and Exalted is supposed to be altruistic. If he is on a mission to save the world, or even just some orphans, then that should take priority over his own interests — which are obviously to dump the curse and the item.

[Twurps]

many examples

Spot on, and explained better than my attempt.


Surely this is selfish, and Exalted is supposed to be altruistic. If he is on a mission to save the world, or even just some orphans, then that should take priority over his own interests — which are obviously to dump the curse and the item.

This is what being exalted is all about.
'normal' good, and exalted good can very have totally similar goals in life (Save the world/orphans etc). A 'normal' good person then makes a moral cost benefit analysis, like: I steal something to save a life-> net positive effect, thus a good act. Or: I kill 1 person to save many. -> net positive, and thus good.
An exalted person would look upon the examples above and go: "Above and beyond all the evil already present, you've just introduced more theft and murder into the world." and he would therefore not approve. Exalted is sticking to your principles, no matter what. It sounds noble, but the overall world effects don't have to be any better.

So if you're on a mission (to save the world or otherwise). Normal good would probably be more usefull than exalted good. Heck I like my lawfull evil party members even better, as they 'get the job done' much more efficient than you're run of the mill pally.

[Red Fel]

Surely this is selfish, and Exalted is supposed to be altruistic. If he is on a mission to save the world, or even just some orphans, then that should take priority over his own interests — which are obviously to dump the curse and the item.

Yes, in general, Exalted is intended to be extremely altruistic.

But Vow Exalted is a magical and brain-damaged subspecies of Exalted. I remind you there is text in a Vow feat about walking slowly so that you don't accidentally kill bugs, or drinking water through a sieve for the same purpose. The express text of these Vows basically says that obeying the Vow is more important than being able to perform acts of altruism, because frankly, there's virtually no way you can save orphans if you have to stop to let a snail cross the road in front of you.

So when Vow of Poverty says "I have sworn never to keep or use a magical item," and then you have one, your first goal becomes obeying your vow, not saving the world.

And don't call me Shirley.

[Necroticplague]

Honestly, I never got why the Vows are alignment-related. Maybe vow of Peace or Nonviolence, I can get those being alignment related. But a lot of the rest are just about asceticism or cultural taboos that don't really relate to godness. I fail to see anything inherently Good in any sense about giving up material possessions, alcohol, or sex, when none of those are evil in the first place.

[Keltest]

Honestly, I never got why the Vows are alignment-related. Maybe vow of Peace or Nonviolence, I can get those being alignment related. But a lot of the rest are just about asceticism or cultural taboos that don't really relate to godness. I fail to see anything inherently Good in any sense about giving up material possessions, alcohol, or sex, when none of those are evil in the first place.

its all part of Red Fel's plan to cripple the forces of good.

[Red Fel]

its all part of Red Fel's plan to cripple the forces of good.

They hardly need my help.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e3/6e/c0/e36ec0c3937712b01354ea4c2fee5320.jpg

[Keltest]

They hardly need my help.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e3/6e/c0/e36ec0c3937712b01354ea4c2fee5320.jpg

:smalleek:

What happens when he has to use the bathroom?

[Red Fel]

:smalleek:

What happens when he has to use the bathroom?

Entertainment for everyone.1

1 Where "everyone" means "everyone who matters."2
2 Where "everyone who matters" means "me."

[Keltest]

Entertainment for everyone.1

1 Where "everyone" means "everyone who matters."2
2 Where "everyone who matters" means "me."

I guess that answers that then.

[nedz]

Yes, in general, Exalted is intended to be extremely altruistic.

But Vow Exalted is a magical and brain-damaged subspecies of Exalted. I remind you there is text in a Vow feat about walking slowly so that you don't accidentally kill bugs, or drinking water through a sieve for the same purpose. The express text of these Vows basically says that obeying the Vow is more important than being able to perform acts of altruism, because frankly, there's virtually no way you can save orphans if you have to stop to let a snail cross the road in front of you.

So when Vow of Poverty says "I have sworn never to keep or use a magical item," and then you have one, your first goal becomes obeying your vow, not saving the world.

But this contradicts Sacred Vow, the pre-req to VoP, whereby ... well I think it's obvious.

You have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause
So you lose VoP if you prioritise you good cause over your own interests, and lose VoP if you don't.

My only remaining question is why hasn't this been raised in the dysfunctional rule thread ?
Answer: it has now.

[Starbuck_II]

Does that meant I have immunity to mind-affecting! Finally an upside to being insane!

No, you get immunity to Mind-effecting, sadly there are no mind effecting spells or effects. But when there is, you are immune.

[No brains]

I also find the 'even a single round' clause particularly interesting because it specifically excludes drinking potions from the restrictions. If one could cheese the action economy, they could have a friend who carries a lot of use-activated magic items, swipe them, use them, and drop them to get benefits.

Unless the potion restriction meant that the VoP has the potion fed to them by their friend as a standard action. That could be silly on it own though, as the VoP could have people constantly feeding them potions like Hedonism-bot eats grapes.

Also, how could the RAW be interpreted that the Vop could ride on an Ebony Fly if a friend is also riding on it?That's totally using it, but it's somehow exempt. What's up? Does it literally mean use as in "use-activated"?

I guess RAW cheese can be averted depending on the meta-legal definitions of "ownership" in-game. There's always the simple default definition of just possessing something, but if some things are leased to the VoP, then they don't really own them... Oh, and be on the lookout of completely kicking the ass of any constructs or sundering magic items. You are by some definition "owning" them. :smallbiggrin:

(Sorry if I reiterated things that were already said, I got rushed IRL)

[Twurps]

But this contradicts Sacred Vow, the pre-req to VoP, whereby ... well I think it's obvious.

So you lose VoP if you prioritise you good cause over your own interests, and lose VoP if you don't.

My only remaining question is why hasn't this been raised in the dysfunctional rule thread ?
Answer: it has now.

Wel: the orphans are best served with a rescuer actually being able to do some hard-core rescueing. Meaning: an exalted character with his powers (limited as they may be) in tact. Therefore: making sure you lose your cursed items so you can keep VOP is actually altruistic, and doesn't make you lose VOP.

Circular logic to the rescue! :smalltongue:

[GreatWyrmGold]

This actually doesn't. The prohibition limits you to simple weapons, which a dagger and a (nonmagical) crossbow are. The feat says it's "usually just a quarterstaff," but that doesn't limit your character, because you can be a special snowflake. Also, it means someone with VoP could conceivably amass a fortune in crossbows and use them to purchase services. Tell me what wizard wouldn't take two thousand some light crossbows in exchange for a wish?
70,000 and some gold in weapons, for a ninth-level spell (90*17=1530) costing 5,000 XP (5k*5=25k), for 26k and change? In D&Dconomics, that works...although the PHB says that spells with a cost in excess of 3,000 gold are generally not available.
But hey, most castings of miracle world fall in the just-over-1,500-gold range. You could barter that for only ~100 light crossbows.


Speaking of which, there's no way a character with a Vow of Poverty could brush their teeth.
...What, exactly, do you imagine when you think of Greyhawk? Because I think of medieval Europe with gods and wizards.


This. When you're talking Exalted, you're no longer talking Good. You're talking Exalted. A Good character might not fall for a single Evil act. An Exalted character might not become Evil, either, but he by RAW loses the benefit of his Exalted feats. No exceptions. If you're going to nitpick about it, Exalted feats aren't for you. They're highly RP intensive, and require dedication on the part of both the player and the character. A character who is going to look for loopholes and try to get around the spirit of an Exalted Vow is not Exalted; a player who wants the benefit but wants to ignore the explicit and hard-coded requirements shouldn't be fooling around with Exalted feats.
So, Exalted characters can't kill people or loot their corpses. Welp, there goes how the entire rest of the game is designed to function!
No wonder they say BoED is a mess...


And the reason kender are disqualified from Vow of Poverty is because they lack the conceptual space to take it in the first place.
"Hold on, if I take this vow, what can't I do?"
"Own any property."
"Are you speaking Gnoll? Because I only understood a third of what you said there."
"Own. Any. Property."
"I don't speak Gnoll! I speak Goblin, though! See? Grak nob mel—"
"That's not goblin."
"I'm almost sure it is...what's with the vow, again?"


What dascarletm said. Look, if you're killing them specifically for their loot, then yeah, it's pretty dark and messed up; but if you're killing them, say, out of self-defense, or to rescue a kidnapping victim or something, and you loot them after they're dead, that's not technically wrongful. You didn't kill them for the loot and you're not robbing a grave; you're just taking something they no longer need.
Now who's looking for loopholes? "They're not buried, it's okay, I can keep my Exalted feats!"


'normal' good, and exalted good can very have totally similar goals in life (Save the world/orphans etc). A 'normal' good person then makes a moral cost benefit analysis, like: I steal something to save a life-> net positive effect, thus a good act. Or: I kill 1 person to save many. -> net positive, and thus good.
An exalted person would look upon the examples above and go: "Above and beyond all the evil already present, you've just introduced more theft and murder into the world." and he would therefore not approve. Exalted is sticking to your principles, no matter what. It sounds noble, but the overall world effects don't have to be any better.
So, Exalted characters ultimately don't care about doing good so much as not doing evil.
No wonder they say BoED is a mess...

[ManicOppressive]

...What, exactly, do you imagine when you think of Greyhawk? Because I think of medieval Europe with gods and wizards.


Dental hygiene has been a thing since prehistoric times. Chew sticks were used to clean teeth since at least 3000 BC.

Heck, toothbrushes as we would recognize them date back to the 1600s in Europe and the 1000s in China. The former is a little late for D&D timing, but not unrealistically late.

[Necroticplague]

So, Exalted characters ultimately don't care about doing good so much as not doing evil.
No wonder they say BoED is a mess...

Yep, that sums up a good bit of it. You can still be Good if you commit a few minor evil acts, especially if you make up for it with good actls. You lose Exalted status if you ever commit an evil act. It's kinda like "I want to have a paladin code without the crappy class attached." A good person can murder one to save a thousand, an Exalt would fall (unless the one was a demon, in which case, stab away).