Apostle of Peace Calm Emotion Aura [Archive] - Wizards Community

Apostle of Peace Calm Emotion Aura [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Eddarklighter
07-03-04, 09:35 AM The calm emotion aura of an apostle of peace extends 20'.

You have to make a will saving throw or else you are affected as if by the calm emotion spell.

Is this effect only applicable whilst within 20' of the AoP or can he/she wander off and leave you under the effect?

Just curious, and I hope you understand the question.

:confused: :embarrass :confused:
UndeadPenguin
07-03-04, 12:47 PM it would have the duration of the spell, calm emotions. Unless it states only while under the auras effect in which case it would vanish immediatly.
Slagger the Chuul
07-05-04, 07:16 AM The tricky part is that you recieve another saving throw if you leave the aura and reenter. It seems like the person with Vow of Peace and their enemies are supposed to engage in some form of barn dance where they go back and forth trying to get the most favourable effect in their turn.

It's a righteous pain in the neck. Technically speaking, you're under the effect of the calm emotions aura even after you leave the area of effect, but you can reenter the aura to receive another saving throw.

On the other hand, the effect of supressing fear, morale, and so forth only seem to be intended while within the area of effect, and seem like they're intended to work separate from other effects. Go figure.
Elrana
07-06-04, 08:44 AM Don't do it!

It's a stupid idea, it wrecks games, destroys group dynamics and pis*es everybody you play with off.

However it saved my monk from a sleepless itchy night when the DM (who had the pathetic bastard peace loving cretin character) told me I had developed a flea infestation following a search through gobbo and hobgobbo bedding.

DM: You wake up fatigued after a restless night due to the fleas.
Me: I'm sleeping next to PBPLCC right?
DM: Yeah.
Me: Can you make will saves for the fleas to overcome the aura of calm or they can't attack me and I remain unbitten and wake up feeling refreshed and happy after a splendid night's sleep under the stars. ([i]And left unsaid: And shove that up your arse and smoke it you goddam pain in the neck son of a gangrenous mangey she-dingo.)

I was possibly the least pis*ed off with having a character with that aura in the group. Imagine how the rest felt. In the end we forced him to lose his vow and exalted status by attacking enemies who had become unable to attack back due to his aura with ranged weapons! That undid the <insert highly offensive and imaginitive insult of choice>!

:)
Slagger the Chuul
07-07-04, 01:37 AM The group will hate it until it proves to be useful. When you run into something that sends your companions running in panic, and your aura catches them, they look on it a lot more favourably.

It's not much of a hinderance in combat if you remember that any aggressive action against creatures within the area of calm emotions ends the effect for all affected creatures, so if someone overcomes it, the affected creatures aren't helpless to fight back. The aura itself could have been more clearly expressed; as written it's a mess to handle, even if it's not actually contradictory.

Just make sure your group remembers to keep the bloodshed a bit separate from their sensitive friend.
Slippery Mind II
07-07-04, 04:18 AM Hmmm, I have a peace loving piece of something or other, Elrana, and it seems there is only one person in the group that hates her. Of course, it helps that everyone in the group wants that one character (that hates mine) to get the axe. I honestly don't know what you mean by it wrecking games either. Of course the level of maturity on your post leads me to question some things.

There are things that can be worked out with the DM. I asked my DM about the aura from the VoPeace and he concluded that it could be supressed. Since my character doesn't want everyone around her that is actually happy to become unhappy, she usually has it supressed (if you read calm emotion, it supresses all emotion, even a good mood.) The really handy thing about the AoP PrC is the pacifying touch. No save and only bad emotions are supressed.
Elrana
07-07-04, 09:10 AM Originally posted by Slippery Mind II
Hmmm, I have a peace loving piece of something or other, Elrana, and it seems there is only one person in the group that hates her. Of course, it helps that everyone in the group wants that one character (that hates mine) to get the axe. I honestly don't know what you mean by it wrecking games either. Of course the level of maturity on your post leads me to question some things.

There are things that can be worked out with the DM. I asked my DM about the aura from the VoPeace and he concluded that it could be supressed. Since my character doesn't want everyone around her that is actually happy to become unhappy, she usually has it supressed (if you read calm emotion, it supresses all emotion, even a good mood.) The really handy thing about the AoP PrC is the pacifying touch. No save and only bad emotions are supressed.

So you have made a house rule that makes the feat playable. Without that house rule, playing by the book, it is nothing but a pain in the arse. As you say it quashes all emotion, a night in the pub becomes a dull and lifeless evening, good news becomes so-so, travelling with a VoPeace PC is like living through a terminal prozac overdose.

The very fact that you have had to make a house rule to overcome this issue surely provides a concrete concurrence with my apparently immature post. Which you could have, via the judicial application of a sense of humour, recognised as being humourous in nature and thus tie it to deliberate intent rather than representation of psychological developmental progression.

The VoPeace is not a vow that an adventuring PC can truly uphold as far as I am concerned. So long as he travels in the company of the violent he is breaking his vow. Someone who has taken this vow and takes it seriously should be determined to prevent all violence against the living, not just that directed against his allies but also that directed against his foes. If necessary by direct intervention, risking his well-being and possibly even his life if need be.

I can understand a high level retired adventurer who has reached the understanding that violence is not a solution to a problem taking this vow. Equally I could see why a non-combatant battlefield medic would take it to protect himself as he ministers to the wounded in a war which he understands that he can not stop. I can even understand a diplomatic ambassadiorial 'trouble-shooter' type character having such a feat so as to remove emotion from the arena of important political discussion and so better allow rational compromise to be met across a table before the war begins.

But to travel with the violent on a typical D&D quest is not within the spirit of the feat or the nature of ascetic pacifism. It is specifically stated that to weaken enemies so that your allies can take advantage of their state and so launch an unopposed first attack is against the feat. It also fails to state that the aura can be suppressed, this is more than just an agreement between you and a god, it is a way of life.

You don't just wake up one day and decide to take this vow, it is the result of a long spiritual journey that finally develops within you an understanding of the futility of violence. The aura is a result of absolute adherence to this state of being, it is not simply a side-benefit that you can turn on and off at will. The very nature of the aura suggests that the VoPeace refers not only to non-violence but also to inner peace, i.e. freedom from the interference of emotion and irrationality upon the choices and decisions that you make as well as a deep and profound respect for all life.

Short of running a completely non-violent campaign I could not see a PC maintaining this vow, and probably on the back of that their exalted status within one of my games for longer than one or two sessions.

The first time his party attacks he could tell them afterwards that he can not abide such behaviour and they must trust him to assist them in dealing with their adversaries through non-violent means should the need arise again.

The second time he has to walk away in the knowledge that he can not travel with these people. If he stayed with them and a third occasion arose without him directly intervening to prevent yet another violent encounter to the very utmost extent of his abilities, including the use of non-damaging spells on his allies if need be then that's it. Vow broken, to break a vow is an evil act so exalted status lost.

To take the vow just so that your AC goes up, you can no longer be harmed by manufactured weapons and you can laugh at all ranged attacks while you wander about dealing out subdual damage is a crock. The feat may state that you may dole out subdual but the instant you raise a weapon against someone I would take the vow away from you. Such a deed should be absolutely, completely and in all other ways abhorrent to you and against the very fabric and fibre of your being.

Characters with this feat may even drink water through a seive so as to prevent themselves from accidentally swallowing and thus killing an insect. That fact does not sit alongside smacking people around the head with a big stick, no matter how much you pull your punches.

This is the kind of reasoning and understanding that is required in order to use a mature accessory of this type. To allow the suppression of the aura displays an inability to fully extrapolate from the rules and thus understand the inherent nature of a true pacifist. That being said I am at an advantage with regard this as I have studied religious philosophy to a high level and understand (in as much as I can) the nature of the actively spiritual as a result of this.

I hope that this more seriously written post explains more fully my dislike of this feat and why I believe it is inappropriate in a group taking part in a regular D&D game.

:)
Slippery Mind II
07-07-04, 12:39 PM Elrana, I must confess to having stopping reading your post long before it was finished. Let me just say, it really isn't a house rule that you can supress a power that is in constant use, it has been used before, though I don't have the time or energy to go looking for the example or ruling, but IF it takes a house rule to make it playable, where is the problem with that?

As far as me having a sense of humor is irrelevant. The "I was only joking" excuse is irrelevant too. Also, my adventuring with a "violent" group is NOT breaking my character's vow in any shape or form. They aren't the ones who took the vow, my character did, so there s no breaking of vows if MY character chooses not to react violently where others do. You make it sound like it is breaking a vow simply by living in a violent world.

You don't have to kike the BoED, but it seems to me the group you are playing with, the person who has the AoP PrC or the VoPeace is looking for an edge in power rather than looking for a role to play. If that is the cae, you are justified in not cutting the player any slack.
Elrana
07-07-04, 01:04 PM Ah, tolerance and taking the time to come to understand the opinions of others. Such admirable traits.

There is nothing wrong with house ruling something, however, you can not blindly defend something you have had to alter in order to make it playable. Let's look at the contradictory nature of your argument:

"I honestly don't know what you mean by it wrecking games either."

"...but IF it takes a house rule to make it playable, where is the problem with that?"

By having to house rule it you are accepting the fact that it doesn't work. Where are we in disagreement?

I was not only joking. The presentation was not serious, the content was. And yes, you are right, by living in a violent world, or more accurately by actively involving yourself in it you are breaking the vow. You should be doing your best to prevent violence. Simply choosing not to react violently doesn't cut the cake, a vow of this type goes beyond that.

I do like the BoED, I even like this feat, but I do not think it is appropriate for a character in a travelling kick arse group.

Anyway, we agree that the feat as it stands does not work, we also agree that a player who takes the feat just to gain the advantages need be cut no slack. The interpretation different people apply to the feat (house ruled or otherwise) probably comes down to a style of play thing and thus is too subjective to allow reasoned debate, short of being in the area of effect of a calming aura anyway!

:)
Artoomis
07-07-04, 02:48 PM I think this vow does work in a violent group, in the same way that medics work for various armies. In many cases, folks opposed to violence in any form will still be medics, providing support to those hurt. These folks may see the overall good that is being done, but refuse to help directly with the killing.

A cleric with the Vow of Peace can work very well.

It's a severe challenge though - as the BoED correctly points out.
Slagger the Chuul
07-08-04, 03:31 AM In my group, the cleric with a Vow of Peace is the voice of reason that stops the party from needlessly slaughtering anything that seems vaguely dangerous (sometimes including important NPCs).

Only the really dangerous things unavoidably attack, and there are a number of creatures that only survived attacking the party because of the cleric's intervention. One other PC has even promised to avoid slaughtering the helpless (as per Vow of Nonviolence), so there's some headway being made.

By the way, regular fleas are probably immune to a calm emotions effect, which is mind-affecting, but you can skip telling your DM unless it becomes an important game point. :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eddarklighter 07-03-04, 09:35 AM	The calm emotion aura of an apostle of peace extends 20'. You have to make a will saving throw or else you are affected as if by the calm emotion spell. Is this effect only applicable whilst within 20' of the AoP or can he/she wander off and leave you under the effect? Just curious, and I hope you understand the question. :confused: :embarrass :confused:
UndeadPenguin 07-03-04, 12:47 PM	it would have the duration of the spell, calm emotions. Unless it states only while under the auras effect in which case it would vanish immediatly.
Slagger the Chuul 07-05-04, 07:16 AM	The tricky part is that you recieve another saving throw if you leave the aura and reenter. It seems like the person with Vow of Peace and their enemies are supposed to engage in some form of barn dance where they go back and forth trying to get the most favourable effect in their turn. It's a righteous pain in the neck. Technically speaking, you're under the effect of the calm emotions aura even after you leave the area of effect, but you can reenter the aura to receive another saving throw. On the other hand, the effect of supressing fear, morale, and so forth only seem to be intended while within the area of effect, and seem like they're intended to work separate from other effects. Go figure.
Elrana 07-06-04, 08:44 AM	Don't do it! It's a stupid idea, it wrecks games, destroys group dynamics and pises everybody you play with off. However it saved my monk from a sleepless itchy night when the DM (who had the pathetic bastard peace loving cretin character) told me I had developed a flea infestation following a search through gobbo and hobgobbo bedding. DM: You wake up fatigued after a restless night due to the fleas. Me: I'm sleeping next to PBPLCC right? DM: Yeah. Me: Can you make will saves for the fleas to overcome the aura of calm or they can't attack me and I remain unbitten and wake up feeling refreshed and happy after a splendid night's sleep under the stars. ([i]And left unsaid: And shove that up your arse and smoke it you goddam pain in the neck son of a gangrenous mangey she-dingo.) I was possibly the least pised off with having a character with that aura in the group. Imagine how the rest felt. In the end we forced him to lose his vow and exalted status by attacking enemies who had become unable to attack back due to his aura with ranged weapons! That undid the <insert highly offensive and imaginitive insult of choice>! :)
Slagger the Chuul 07-07-04, 01:37 AM	The group will hate it until it proves to be useful. When you run into something that sends your companions running in panic, and your aura catches them, they look on it a lot more favourably. It's not much of a hinderance in combat if you remember that any aggressive action against creatures within the area of calm emotions ends the effect for all affected creatures, so if someone overcomes it, the affected creatures aren't helpless to fight back. The aura itself could have been more clearly expressed; as written it's a mess to handle, even if it's not actually contradictory. Just make sure your group remembers to keep the bloodshed a bit separate from their sensitive friend.
Slippery Mind II 07-07-04, 04:18 AM	Hmmm, I have a peace loving piece of something or other, Elrana, and it seems there is only one person in the group that hates her. Of course, it helps that everyone in the group wants that one character (that hates mine) to get the axe. I honestly don't know what you mean by it wrecking games either. Of course the level of maturity on your post leads me to question some things. There are things that can be worked out with the DM. I asked my DM about the aura from the VoPeace and he concluded that it could be supressed. Since my character doesn't want everyone around her that is actually happy to become unhappy, she usually has it supressed (if you read calm emotion, it supresses all emotion, even a good mood.) The really handy thing about the AoP PrC is the pacifying touch. No save and only bad emotions are supressed.
Elrana 07-07-04, 09:10 AM	Originally posted by Slippery Mind II Hmmm, I have a peace loving piece of something or other, Elrana, and it seems there is only one person in the group that hates her. Of course, it helps that everyone in the group wants that one character (that hates mine) to get the axe. I honestly don't know what you mean by it wrecking games either. Of course the level of maturity on your post leads me to question some things. There are things that can be worked out with the DM. I asked my DM about the aura from the VoPeace and he concluded that it could be supressed. Since my character doesn't want everyone around her that is actually happy to become unhappy, she usually has it supressed (if you read calm emotion, it supresses all emotion, even a good mood.) The really handy thing about the AoP PrC is the pacifying touch. No save and only bad emotions are supressed. So you have made a house rule that makes the feat playable. Without that house rule, playing by the book, it is nothing but a pain in the arse. As you say it quashes all emotion, a night in the pub becomes a dull and lifeless evening, good news becomes so-so, travelling with a VoPeace PC is like living through a terminal prozac overdose. The very fact that you have had to make a house rule to overcome this issue surely provides a concrete concurrence with my apparently immature post. Which you could have, via the judicial application of a sense of humour, recognised as being humourous in nature and thus tie it to deliberate intent rather than representation of psychological developmental progression. The VoPeace is not a vow that an adventuring PC can truly uphold as far as I am concerned. So long as he travels in the company of the violent he is breaking his vow. Someone who has taken this vow and takes it seriously should be determined to prevent all violence against the living, not just that directed against his allies but also that directed against his foes. If necessary by direct intervention, risking his well-being and possibly even his life if need be. I can understand a high level retired adventurer who has reached the understanding that violence is not a solution to a problem taking this vow. Equally I could see why a non-combatant battlefield medic would take it to protect himself as he ministers to the wounded in a war which he understands that he can not stop. I can even understand a diplomatic ambassadiorial 'trouble-shooter' type character having such a feat so as to remove emotion from the arena of important political discussion and so better allow rational compromise to be met across a table before the war begins. But to travel with the violent on a typical D&D quest is not within the spirit of the feat or the nature of ascetic pacifism. It is specifically stated that to weaken enemies so that your allies can take advantage of their state and so launch an unopposed first attack is against the feat. It also fails to state that the aura can be suppressed, this is more than just an agreement between you and a god, it is a way of life. You don't just wake up one day and decide to take this vow, it is the result of a long spiritual journey that finally develops within you an understanding of the futility of violence. The aura is a result of absolute adherence to this state of being, it is not simply a side-benefit that you can turn on and off at will. The very nature of the aura suggests that the VoPeace refers not only to non-violence but also to inner peace, i.e. freedom from the interference of emotion and irrationality upon the choices and decisions that you make as well as a deep and profound respect for all life. Short of running a completely non-violent campaign I could not see a PC maintaining this vow, and probably on the back of that their exalted status within one of my games for longer than one or two sessions. The first time his party attacks he could tell them afterwards that he can not abide such behaviour and they must trust him to assist them in dealing with their adversaries through non-violent means should the need arise again. The second time he has to walk away in the knowledge that he can not travel with these people. If he stayed with them and a third occasion arose without him directly intervening to prevent yet another violent encounter to the very utmost extent of his abilities, including the use of non-damaging spells on his allies if need be then that's it. Vow broken, to break a vow is an evil act so exalted status lost. To take the vow just so that your AC goes up, you can no longer be harmed by manufactured weapons and you can laugh at all ranged attacks while you wander about dealing out subdual damage is a crock. The feat may state that you may dole out subdual but the instant you raise a weapon against someone I would take the vow away from you. Such a deed should be absolutely, completely and in all other ways abhorrent to you and against the very fabric and fibre of your being. Characters with this feat may even drink water through a seive so as to prevent themselves from accidentally swallowing and thus killing an insect. That fact does not sit alongside smacking people around the head with a big stick, no matter how much you pull your punches. This is the kind of reasoning and understanding that is required in order to use a mature accessory of this type. To allow the suppression of the aura displays an inability to fully extrapolate from the rules and thus understand the inherent nature of a true pacifist. That being said I am at an advantage with regard this as I have studied religious philosophy to a high level and understand (in as much as I can) the nature of the actively spiritual as a result of this. I hope that this more seriously written post explains more fully my dislike of this feat and why I believe it is inappropriate in a group taking part in a regular D&D game. :)
Slippery Mind II 07-07-04, 12:39 PM	Elrana, I must confess to having stopping reading your post long before it was finished. Let me just say, it really isn't a house rule that you can supress a power that is in constant use, it has been used before, though I don't have the time or energy to go looking for the example or ruling, but IF it takes a house rule to make it playable, where is the problem with that? As far as me having a sense of humor is irrelevant. The "I was only joking" excuse is irrelevant too. Also, my adventuring with a "violent" group is NOT breaking my character's vow in any shape or form. They aren't the ones who took the vow, my character did, so there s no breaking of vows if MY character chooses not to react violently where others do. You make it sound like it is breaking a vow simply by living in a violent world. You don't have to kike the BoED, but it seems to me the group you are playing with, the person who has the AoP PrC or the VoPeace is looking for an edge in power rather than looking for a role to play. If that is the cae, you are justified in not cutting the player any slack.
Elrana 07-07-04, 01:04 PM	Ah, tolerance and taking the time to come to understand the opinions of others. Such admirable traits. There is nothing wrong with house ruling something, however, you can not blindly defend something you have had to alter in order to make it playable. Let's look at the contradictory nature of your argument: "I honestly don't know what you mean by it wrecking games either." "...but IF it takes a house rule to make it playable, where is the problem with that?" By having to house rule it you are accepting the fact that it doesn't work. Where are we in disagreement? I was not only joking. The presentation was not serious, the content was. And yes, you are right, by living in a violent world, or more accurately by actively involving yourself in it you are breaking the vow. You should be doing your best to prevent violence. Simply choosing not to react violently doesn't cut the cake, a vow of this type goes beyond that. I do like the BoED, I even like this feat, but I do not think it is appropriate for a character in a travelling kick arse group. Anyway, we agree that the feat as it stands does not work, we also agree that a player who takes the feat just to gain the advantages need be cut no slack. The interpretation different people apply to the feat (house ruled or otherwise) probably comes down to a style of play thing and thus is too subjective to allow reasoned debate, short of being in the area of effect of a calming aura anyway! :)
Artoomis 07-07-04, 02:48 PM	I think this vow does work in a violent group, in the same way that medics work for various armies. In many cases, folks opposed to violence in any form will still be medics, providing support to those hurt. These folks may see the overall good that is being done, but refuse to help directly with the killing. A cleric with the Vow of Peace can work very well. It's a severe challenge though - as the BoED correctly points out.
Slagger the Chuul 07-08-04, 03:31 AM	In my group, the cleric with a Vow of Peace is the voice of reason that stops the party from needlessly slaughtering anything that seems vaguely dangerous (sometimes including important NPCs). Only the really dangerous things unavoidably attack, and there are a number of creatures that only survived attacking the party because of the cleric's intervention. One other PC has even promised to avoid slaughtering the helpless (as per Vow of Nonviolence), so there's some headway being made. By the way, regular fleas are probably immune to a calm emotions effect, which is mind-affecting, but you can skip telling your DM unless it becomes an important game point. :)