Is Vow Of Peace And Vow Of Nonviolence Feats Useful?

[Bartmanhomer]

I know Vow Of Peace and Vow Of Nonviolence feats lived up to their name but I just wanted to know are these feats useful maybe to NPC? :confused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not sure how the benefits of the feats will come up with an NPC. The PCs aren't likely to come into conflict with such a character outside of very rare circumstances. Maybe an escort mission but you're gonna want to be -really- careful with that, given that keeping his vow means asking the PCs to let foes live that they otherwise likely wouldn't in a typical game.

Anyway, the benefits of the feats are actually pretty powerful. +4 to most save DCs for non-violence is gonna make it a -lot- less likely that your foes will resist your abilities as you try to subdue them. Peace's ac boosting is nothing to write home about but the calming aura is pretty solid for ending a fight with most foes and the fort vs destruction for nonmagical weapons (functional immunity to nonmagical arrows and the like) makes humanoid mooks basically a non-issue.

The RP requirement is pretty stiff but if the other players at the table are okay with rolling along with it then it can be pretty solid. Go ahead and grab poverty and make an apostle of peace while you're at it. :smalltongue:

[16bearswutIdo]

For extremely specific character builds, yeah. I've used them a few times, once as a PC and a few as an NPC. If you do them as a PC, you should see if your DM will waive the whole bit about your allies being penalized if they kill a helpless enemy. I got mine to drop that bit on the condition that I don't encourage them to do so.

My PC was El Vengador Santo, the half-orc Cleric of Pelor with two tower shields and something like a 30 AC at level 2.

If you're making an NPC, I suggest looking up the Apostle of Peace prestige class. Loads of flavor

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Make a Beguiler and those feats are perfect. They don’t really hinder anything you would be doing. The part about not killing defeated foes can be fixed by having a party member, cohort, or npc with the authority to give a trial, conviction, and execution on the spot.

[Kelb_Panthera]

People talk a lot about the penalty in vow of non-violence that applies to your allies if they kill a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of the character that's taken the vow. While I understand how few of us are inclined to it, is it really such an onerous requirement? If the target is defenseless or helpless, they're not an obstacle and you can strip them of their gear just the same as if you'd killed them.

Peace demanding you take them prisoner is a very minor issue too. Nobody said you have to -keep- them as prisoners. Extract the non-interference pact from them if they're still conscious, stuff them in a closet or under a tree if they're not (knockout doesn't usually last even an hour), strip them of their stuff like you usually do then release them.

The whole point of both vows is to avoid needless death and suffering. They don't make you a cop that you have to cart prisoners back to civilization to face a proper trial. There's even a provision in non-violence that lifts the restriction from your allies if the enemy comes at you a second time.

[Bartmanhomer]

Oh wow it's that good huh? I thought those feats will be very useless at first. I could probably be able to use this for future character builds. :biggrin:

[White Blade]

Vow of Peace fits well on a lot of monsters, actually. For instance, at CR 4, an advanced Unicorn with Vow of Poverty into Vow of Peace is very hard to hit and, when hit, the weapons break most of the time (DC 21 is harsh at ECL 4!). You obviously wouldn't use such a character for beating the players to near-death, but if you wanted to have something like a traditional unicorn hunt or a sacred guardian who the players have to actually deal with and persuade, it's quite effective. Plenty of actual mythical quests require dealing with monsters you can't hit directly.

[Psyren]

Nonviolence is much easier in play for a few reasons:

1) Unlike Vow of Peace, NV only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids - Peace meanwhile requires you to avoid harming any living creature at all, including vermin, oozes, beasts, plants, chromatic dragons, and even fiends and aberrations. Peace only grants clemency for harming/destroying undead and constructs, since they aren't technically alive. The calming aura Peace gives you helps here (e.g. you can get a hungry or scared animal or even an angry mob to back down without needing to use force) but against mindless creatures or those with a good will save you'll find yourself at a severe disadvantage.

2) Vow of Peace is also much stricter in terms of how you're allowed to handle enemies. Nonviolence only prohibits rendering enemies helpless to be killed by your allies; Peace meanwhile forbids weakening them for any reason at all, which is broad enough that almost any debuff or CC you could think of using (and presumably you're trying to use those, because otherwise the save DC increase wouldn't matter) forces you to take them prisoner. This effectively means you have to choose between not fighting at all, or nagging your party to imprison every enemy you participate in taking down, regardless of how practical such incarceration is for the foe in question. Combined with the first bullet, you could find yourself begging the party to take creatures like demons, mindflayers, gelatinous cubes and red dragons prisoner or else risk breaking your vow. Needless to say, that can get annoying fast, and in some cases can feel immersion-breakingly ridiculous.

3) Nonviolence includes an escape clause whereby you can ask a foe to swear an oath of surrender to you and your allies - if that foe later breaks that oath, your allies can harm or kill that creature without any negative repercussions for you. Vow of Peace meanwhile doesn't care - if you harm a foe in any way, or weaken it so it can be harmed by an ally, you've broken the vow no matter the circumstances of the Vow.

4) The ridiculous "drink water through a strainer so you don't accidentally swallow a bug" example in Vow of Peace is just begging for GM screw. Checking for insects, animals, and invisible people before I take even innocuous actions seems like it would get old fast.

Peace has more benefits (especially for noncasters) but I personally don't think the increased drawbacks are worth it; Vow of Nonviolence has enough mechanical benefits for me to play a satisfying "pacifist" character.

NPCs of course are another matter - since they don't have some of the same concerns as adventurers, you could stick Vow of Peace on a magical creature just fine and that would make for an interesting encounter for the PCs, either as a direct antagonist or someone they need to interact with in another way.

[TheCount]

*chuckle*
For some reason I always think about slavers when vow of peace is involved.
I mean, you can't kill them, and you need to ensl- *ahem* imprison them.
Sure, you can't weaken them but your buddies can, and there are ALWAYS someone looking for a (few) spare bodies.....

[Kelb_Panthera]

2) Vow of Peace is also much stricter in terms of how you're allowed to handle enemies. Nonviolence only prohibits rendering enemies helpless to be killed by your allies; Peace meanwhile forbids weakening them for any reason at all, which is broad enough that almost any debuff or CC you could think of using (and presumably you're trying to use those, because otherwise the save DC increase wouldn't matter) forces you to take them prisoner. This effectively means you have to choose between not fighting at all, or nagging your party to imprison every enemy you participate in taking down, regardless of how practical such incarceration is for the foe in question. Combined with the first bullet, you could find yourself begging the party to take creatures like demons, mindflayers, gelatinous cubes and red dragons prisoner or else risk breaking your vow. Needless to say, that can get annoying fast, and in some cases can feel immersion-breakingly ridiculous.

Just double-checked the text of the feat to be sure. I'm not seeing where you're getting this. It's almost word for word the same restrictions as non-violence without the clause about your allies being affected.


3) Nonviolence includes an escape clause whereby you can ask a foe to swear an oath of surrender to you and your allies - if that foe later breaks that oath, your allies can harm or kill that creature without any negative repercussions for you. Vow of Peace meanwhile doesn't care - if you harm a foe in any way, or weaken it so it can be harmed by an ally, you've broken the vow no matter the circumstances of the Vow.

As I said above, not killing helpless enemies or defenseless creatures is -not- a huge thing to ask of your allies. As long as you do -some- nonlethal damage or otherwise have the capacity to incapacitate them wihout breaking the tennets of your vow, they don't even need to change their tactics. It basically amounts to "don't setup coup-de-gras situatlons for your allies unless you're confident they won't take that action." As long as you don't debuff them into helplessness, they're still fighting back and your feat doesn't care about your allies killing them even if your character is distressed by it.

Even then, I don't see any good reason the exit clause for non-violence shouldn't be applied to peace as well, at least for creatures capable of swearing such an oath.

[Psyren]

Just double-checked the text of the feat to be sure. I'm not seeing where you're getting this. It's almost word for word the same restrictions as non-violence without the clause about your allies being affected.

You're correct that it's almost word-for-word - but not quite. I'll bold the key clause from Peace that isn't present in Nonviolence, BoED pg. 48:


Vow of Peace
...
Special: To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them—if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner.

The direct damage parts are identical between both. The nondamaging difference summarized is:

Nonviolence: you break your vow if you render a foe helpless and your ally kills them.
Peace: you break your vow if you weaken a foe in any way and your ally kills them. This is much broader, because nearly any debuff or CC can count as "weakening" even if it doesn't render them helpless.



Even then, I don't see any good reason the exit clause for non-violence shouldn't be applied to peace as well, at least for creatures capable of swearing such an oath.

I get your reasoning, but applying that to Peace is a houserule, because Peace doesn't include the oath clause at all.

Nonviolence: Make an enemy swear to surrender, if they break it, the party can kill them without you getting in trouble.
Peace: No swear clause - no matter how many times an enemy promises to surrender and breaks that promise, you're still liable if they are directly harmed by you, or weakened by you and subsequently killed by your allies.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nonviolence: you break your vow if you render a foe helpless and your ally kills them.
Peace: you break your vow if you weaken a foe in any way and your ally kills them. This is much broader, because nearly any debuff or CC can count as "weakening" even if it doesn't render them helpless.

There's more than a little room for argument on the phrase "so that your allies can kill them."

That's a question not of consequence but of motivation, IMO. I'd argue that it's solidly requires the pacifist to stay out of the fight as much as he can should it be the second round of battle with foes that have already been defeated and are breaking their oath of non-interference but not that it screws him if one of his allies get an inopportune crit. As long as he has a reasonable belief that his allies don't -intend- to kill the enemies, he's not incapacitating them "so his allies can kill them" but "so they don't kill his allies."


I get your reasoning, but applying that to Peace is a houserule, because Peace doesn't include the oath clause at all.

Nonviolence: Make an enemy swear to surrender, if they break it, the party can kill them without you getting in trouble.
Peace: No swear clause - no matter how many times an enemy promises to surrender and breaks that promise, you're still liable if they are directly harmed by you, or weakened by you and subsequently killed by your allies.

Yeah, it is. It's a reasonable one, I think, though. The whole of BoED and BoVD require the GM to interpret things more than most other supplements.

Even beyond that, peace is plainly a progression of non-violence. The bit about taking prisoners being a reference back to the handling of them in non-violence may be a slight stretch but, again, not an unreasonable one IMO.

[Aotrs Commander]

Those are also a very quick way to make the other players annoyed faster than a steriotypical badly-played lawful-stupid paladin zealot, so is explictly something you should not consider taking unless both your DM and the other players agree to it, because it - especially peace - is effectively forcing them to adjust to your character1.



(Personally, as DM? Hard disallow.)



1See also frenzied berserker, and exalted characters and paladin in general sometimes. For example, the last time a player wanted an exalted feat, and I pointed out that is fine, but it meant being a step-above-paladin good That's the tax for being allowed to use stuff which is from the good-alignment-gated parts of the book of exalted cheese2), he abandoned the idea, as he pointed out - rightly, actually - that would mean he would have to (attempt to) stop the CN dwarf barbarian (who is, like, charisn'tma incarnate) being himself.)

2Elation doesn't have an alignment descriptor, so everyone can and will use it with abandon.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
The PCs aren't likely to come into conflict with such a character outside of very rare circumstances.

Unless they’re getting paid.

Or if he bothers them, or if there’s a woman. But mostly if they’re getting paid. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, I designed an encounter around just such a character a few weeks ago, so there are ways it could happen.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
People talk a lot about the penalty in vow of non-violence that applies to your allies if they kill a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of the character that's taken the vow. While I understand how few of us are inclined to it, is it really such an onerous requirement? If the target is defenseless or helpless, they're not an obstacle and you can strip them of their gear just the same as if you'd killed them.

And yes to this shot of common sense. People definitely get hung up on this “penalty,” but as Kelb points out you can simply render them naked and shivering, which is effectively the same as naked and not shivering.

You still get the loot and the experience, and in-game it can have additional benefits, such as providing witnesses to your mercy, spreading your name, etc. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.


Originally Posted by Psyren
The ridiculous "drink water through a strainer so you don't accidentally swallow a bug" example in Vow of Peace is just begging for GM screw. Checking for insects, animals, and invisible people before I take even innocuous actions seems like it would get old fast.

This is the sort of thing that can be covered with a few words—“I follow my usual precautions” or something similar. The morning hour for spell prep, which is a baked-in requirement for prepared casters, is usually covered the same way, at least in the games I’ve been in.

As for “GM screw,” I think any GM who forces a fall through bug-swallowing probably won’t have a table for long. It’s been a long while since I’ve played with anyone that immature.

.

[DarkSoul]

On a PC, I can say from experience as a player in a party with an Apostle of Peace, it does change the combat dynamic. Make sure all the players are alright with a PC having those vows.

[Psyren]

There's more than a little room for argument on the phrase "so that your allies can kill them."

That's a question not of consequence but of motivation, IMO. I'd argue that it's solidly requires the pacifist to stay out of the fight as much as he can should it be the second round of battle with foes that have already been defeated and are breaking their oath of non-interference but not that it screws him if one of his allies get an inopportune crit. As long as he has a reasonable belief that his allies don't -intend- to kill the enemies, he's not incapacitating them "so his allies can kill them" but "so they don't kill his allies."

But that's exactly my point about the difference - Nonviolence characters don't have to "stay out of the fight" at all, they only have to worry about not rendering foes helpless. It's intentionally lighter than the restrictions in Peace.



Yeah, it is. It's a reasonable one, I think, though. The whole of BoED and BoVD require the GM to interpret things more than most other supplements.
...
Even beyond that, peace is plainly a progression of non-violence.

Nothing is forcing you to take that progression though, especially when the actions of the party can cause you to break your vow. I'm not saying you shouldn't take Vow of Peace if that fits your concept - I'm saying I personally wouldn't, because Nonviolence gets me there conceptually with much less mechanical drawback.



This is the sort of thing that can be covered with a few words—“I follow my usual precautions” or something similar. The morning hour for spell prep, which is a baked-in requirement for prepared casters, is usually covered the same way, at least in the games I’ve been in.

That covers routine activities like drinking water - but what about accidentally harming/weakening an invisible creature, or one that was behind a door or something? You also have to be careful with area effects in places that might have wildlife.



As for “GM screw,” I think any GM who forces a fall through bug-swallowing probably won’t have a table for long. It’s been a long while since I’ve played with anyone that immature.

When there is clearly a more reasonable option that covers the same concept, once again, nobody is forcing you to go for the pacifist platinum medal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Unless they’re getting paid.

Or if he bothers them, or if there’s a woman. But mostly if they’re getting paid. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, I designed an encounter around just such a character a few weeks ago, so there are ways it could happen.

1) I did say it's unlikely, not impossible.

2) Unless it's just a straight-up hit, finding yourself in a position to be fighting a pacifist is gonna be a little contrived. It should also prompt at least -some- consideration of who you're taking jobs from.

I'll admit I'm a little curious how you worked it out. Care to share?



And yes to this shot of common sense. People definitely get hung up on this “penalty,” but as Kelb points out you can simply render them naked and shivering, which is effectively the same as naked and not shivering.

You still get the loot and the experience, and in-game it can have additional benefits, such as providing witnesses to your mercy, spreading your name, etc. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

Indeed. There's no functional difference between dead, unconscious, or surrendered in the encounter itself. Leaving humanoid enemies alive can have consequences down the road but so can forgetting to coup-de-gras downed enemies if the GM wills it. All of the consequences of such can be approximated if there's an organization in play as well.


This is the sort of thing that can be covered with a few words—“I follow my usual precautions” or something similar. The morning hour for spell prep, which is a baked-in requirement for prepared casters, is usually covered the same way, at least in the games I’ve been in.

As for “GM screw,” I think any GM who forces a fall through bug-swallowing probably won’t have a table for long. It’s been a long while since I’ve played with anyone that immature.

Yeah, a that little fluff bit at the end of the description could've been left off. A GM determined to screw you doesn't really need an excuse in the rules text so I honestly don't give it much thought.



But that's exactly my point about the difference - Nonviolence characters don't have to "stay out of the fight" at all, they only have to worry about not rendering foes helpless. It's intentionally lighter than the restrictions in Peace.

Again, stay out of the second fight with the same foes. He doesn't have to stay out of the initial fight at all unless he reasonably believes his allies will kill their foes. Even powerful outsiders can be captured and banished, albeit with some difficulty. Non-violence doesn't restrict you from making enemies helpless either. Both restrictions are conditional on the pacifist's allies intending to kill the enemy. The phrasing is "so that his allies can kill" not "and that his allies kill." A GM should -not- be looking for the strictest possible interpretation of an RP based rule.


Nothing is forcing you to take that progression though, especially when the actions of the party can cause you to break your vow. I'm not saying you shouldn't take Vow of Peace if that fits your concept - I'm saying I personally wouldn't, because Nonviolence gets me there conceptually with much less mechanical drawback.

I think you're seriously overestimating how much drawback peace has by taking the consequentialist position. If you're LG and you turn over prisoners to a rightfully appointed law enforcement organization that you work for and they're eventually executed by someone who is very distantly allied with you through the organization, did you break your vow then? Even though you've never even properly met the executioner? That doesn't strike me as a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
Unless it's just a straight-up hit, finding yourself in a position to be fighting a pacifist is gonna be a little contrived. It should also prompt at least -some- consideration of who you're taking jobs from.

True, although many gaming situations are more than a little contrived.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
I'll admit I'm a little curious how you worked it out. Care to share?

I’d be glad to, but I’ll need to chase down those notes, so it may be a minute.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
A GM determined to screw you doesn't really need an excuse in the rules text….

So true, and I’ve seen this much too close.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
If you're LG and you turn over prisoners to a rightfully appointed law enforcement organization that you work for and they're eventually executed by someone who is very distantly allied with you through the organization, did you break your vow then?

I think this situation is legitimately debatable, and I can see arguments both ways.

If I were playing the character, I would probably hesitate before working with an organization that conducts executions. Even if circumstances required that cooperation, I would try to work out an exception or an alternative.

But it may not always be that easy, both in-game and out-of-game. I really like the RP aspect of gaming, and I enjoy working through moral dilemmas from an in-character perspective; but I’ve played with people who get really upset if you spend any time talking to NPCs instead of just killing them. The inter-player dynamics can get awkward in situations like this.

[Psyren]

Again, stay out of the second fight with the same foes. He doesn't have to stay out of the initial fight at all unless he reasonably believes his allies will kill their foes. Even powerful outsiders can be captured and banished, albeit with some difficulty. Non-violence doesn't restrict you from making enemies helpless either. Both restrictions are conditional on the pacifist's allies intending to kill the enemy. The phrasing is "so that his allies can kill" not "and that his allies kill." A GM should -not- be looking for the strictest possible interpretation of an RP based rule.

...You realize this is even stricter? "Can kill" means they don't even have to do it in order to trigger it.
I fully meant actually killing them - which again, you usually have to do with enemies like oozes, vermin, aberrations and fiends - and who are restricted targets under Peace but not Nonviolence.



I think you're seriously overestimating how much drawback peace has by taking the consequentialist position. If you're LG and you turn over prisoners to a rightfully appointed law enforcement organization that you work for and they're eventually executed by someone who is very distantly allied with you through the organization, did you break your vow then?

Well, I'd tell you how I don't consider law enforcement to be "allies", but I suspect that would be getting off-topic. Suffice to say that this non sequitur isn't my position, and that I think an Exalted character being beholden to such an organization is just asking for trouble.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
...I think an Exalted character being beholden to such an organization is just asking for trouble.

I might phrase it differently, but I tend to agree with this. I see an Exalted character as being something very different from ordinary lawful good, and I think such a character would hold himself to very different standards when it comes to those parts of society claiming to dispense justice.

[Kelb_Panthera]

True, although many gaming situations are more than a little contrived.

They certainly can be. I know I try to avoid it as a GM but sometimes you gotta force things to line up a little. It's like railroading; you don't want to give the players no choice but you've got to guide things at least a little so they don't just wander around town not doing anything.


I’d be glad to, but I’ll need to chase down those notes, so it may be a minute.

I'll look forward to it.



I think this situation is legitimately debatable, and I can see arguments both ways.

If I were playing the character, I would probably hesitate before working with an organization that conducts executions. Even if circumstances required that cooperation, I would try to work out an exception or an alternative.

But it may not always be that easy, both in-game and out-of-game. I really like the RP aspect of gaming, and I enjoy working through moral dilemmas from an in-character perspective; but I’ve played with people who get really upset if you spend any time talking to NPCs instead of just killing them. The inter-player dynamics can get awkward in situations like this.

With the interpretation of the feat that I'm taking, the answer is a fairly clear "no." The pacifist didn't defeat the enemy and hand them over for the purpose of them being executed. They did it so that the foe would face justice under a legitimate legal authority. Execution being a possiblity doesn't make it a certainty and the pacifist has no influence on the final decision. He may regret that things turned out that way but the alternative is that a pacifist can't be part of -any- organization that has much of anything to do with adventuring. Even getting too close to the local butcher would put his vow at risk.


...You realize this is even stricter? "Can kill" means they don't even have to do it in order to trigger it.
I fully meant actually killing them - which again, you usually have to do with enemies like oozes, vermin, aberrations and fiends - and who are restricted targets under Peace but not Nonviolence.

You're still only looking at consequences of his actions when I'm saying you should be looking at motivation of his actions. The key word in the phrase "so his allies can kill" isn't "kill" or "can," it's "so."




Well, I'd tell you how I don't consider law enforcement to be "allies", but I suspect that would be getting off-topic. Suffice to say that this non sequitur isn't my position, and that I think an Exalted character being beholden to such an organization is just asking for trouble.

I never mentioned law enforcement. Suppose it's part of a rebel group fighting against an evil, illegitimate ruler or a crusading arm of a church and the prisoner in question is an infernal cultist (pick your archduke). The point remains that the pacifist and the executioner are at least ostensibly allied with each other. If you insist that the consequence of the pacifist's actions are the only thing that matters then either this -is- what you're arguing for or you need to at least explicate how the two charactes are not allies.

[Psyren]

I never mentioned law enforcement.


If you're LG and you turn over prisoners to a rightfully appointed law enforcement organization that you work for and they're eventually executed by someone who is very distantly allied with you through the organization, did you break your vow then?

:smallconfused::smallconfused:


Suppose it's part of a rebel group fighting against an evil, illegitimate ruler or a crusading arm of a church and the prisoner in question is an infernal cultist (pick your archduke). The point remains that the pacifist and the executioner are at least ostensibly allied with each other.

Nonviolence has a clause for that: "Swear you'll turn over a new leaf and we'll spare your life." "I swear." *prisoner breaks promise.* "You may execute him." Peace does not.

[bean illus]

I'm in agreement that motivation is the crucial question. If the VoP is trying to demoralize the enemy so they flee, or defending allies/etc then it's all good.

Under the interpretation that if you had earlier benefited someone who later is entangled with hurting someone else, you wouldn't even be able to buy a biscuit from anyone who paid taxes