Can any Lawful good person take [Exalted] feats? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can any Lawful good person take [Exalted] feats? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Paladin2004
07-11-05, 03:57 PM Can any Lawful good person take [Exalted] feats?

thank you for replys in advance :D
Rulebook
07-11-05, 04:01 PM no. only those who are EXCEPTIONALLY good (any good) can take Exalted feats.
Paladin2004
07-11-05, 04:05 PM aha, so one slip up and they loose them?
Draco Light
07-11-05, 04:06 PM Pretty much. Some can be gotten back with atonement, but some can't.

In general, they're not worth it.
Rulebook
07-11-05, 04:25 PM yeah. if you want to run a game of true virtue and shining examples, go ahead.

if you want to do anything FUN, dont bother with em.
Dunelord
07-11-05, 04:36 PM And it should be noted being lawful doesn't help you be exhaulted.
TyraaloftheFist
07-11-05, 04:46 PM Pretty much, any good character can take the feats as long as they always act good. Unfortunately, if you punch the irritating drunken fool who seems to be pretty much asking to be fed knuckles, you lose the feats. Evil acts+Exalted feats=...brain-hurty and no feat anymore.
Lord Schpungus
07-11-05, 04:56 PM ACtually, exalted feats seem often more Lawful than good. They're all about submitting your entire will to celestials. Definitely more lawful than good.
Armoracia Rusticana
07-11-05, 04:59 PM In any case DM may forbid use these feats... They are hard to follow. I mean exalted way.
TyraaloftheFist
07-11-05, 06:36 PM ACtually, exalted feats seem often more Lawful than good. They're all about submitting your entire will to celestials. Definitely more lawful than good.

Only some of them, as far as I can tell. Most of them strike me as, "Oy, let's go fight evil!" Or..."Hey, look...a wounded birdie! Let's heal the bugger!" Take your pick of, usually, happy, energetic phrases related to doing good for good's sake. Of course, then there's Stigmata, which is probably one of the most unhappy feats in that book.
CelestialBarbarian
07-11-05, 07:03 PM Pretty much. Some can be gotten back with atonement, but some can't.

In general, they're not worth it.

Yeah, it's funny--when Book of Exalted Deeds premiered, so many anti-good players ranted and raved about how horribly unbalanced all its material was, yet I had a party of entirely good characters and the only feat anyone has taken from the book is Purify Spell, and it's not even an exalted feat! The only one who uses any spells out of the book is an NPC cleric I run, who occasionally casts a sanctified spell spontaneously. He can't even use some of them because he doesn't qualify for some of the abstinence components. :-D
CelestialBarbarian
07-11-05, 07:05 PM yeah. if you want to run a game of true virtue and shining examples, go ahead.

if you want to do anything FUN, dont bother with em.

It's funny that so many players, who don't act with virtue in their real lives, can't enjoy pretending to act with virtue by playing a virtuous D&D character--but only by playing a character who's even more ethically-challenged then they are in real life. :(
avatar123
07-11-05, 07:07 PM Some of the feats are rather powerful, such as words of creation.
CelestialBarbarian
07-11-05, 07:17 PM Some of the feats are rather powerful, such as words of creation.

If the benefits of a feat outweighed the various costs by noticeably more than the benefits of other feats outweigh the costs of those feats, we would expect people to rush to take the feat. I have seen no evidence of a rush to take Words of Creation, or indeed any exalted feat.
Dark_beebles
07-12-05, 11:15 AM I think the feats are nice if you can roleplay a char, and know how to use them. I have a slayer of domiel with many exalted feats and the only person who did more dmg then i did was the Cleric/Fist of raziel and thats because of 3e persistant with like 15 buffs =p.

Overall it depends on the flavor of the char you want just like any other feat. At leat thats my opinion
jameswilliamogle
07-12-05, 11:31 AM hi, i was just wondering what you guys thought about this: vow of poverty is an exalted feat, and requires sacred vow, but other than sacred vow being a good-flavored feat, why couldn't vow of poverty be a more general feat, as far as flavor is concerned??? i immediately thought of 1st ed. adnd monks when i first read this, and they had similiar restrictions as to possesions (to a lesser extent, so did paladins and clerics); i used to imagine LEvil monks from 1st ed. being kind of like communists (or how i imagined communists), and i see no reason why that couldnt work in a normal campaign, too (just like the barbarian with no concept of ownership or possession), although the bonus exalted feats might be less of a benefit (maybe an evil character could take some feats from vile darkness??). anyways, i was opening it up for debate: what do you guys think?
DeadEye19
07-12-05, 04:45 PM hi, i was just wondering what you guys thought about this: vow of poverty is an exalted feat, and requires sacred vow, but other than sacred vow being a good-flavored feat, why couldn't vow of poverty be a more general feat, as far as flavor is concerned???
The thing with this vow is that you don't just cast away all possesions.What actually makes it very good is that you give anything you have\ find to those in need. You may give your share of the party's gold to the poor(or to a temple activly helping the poor, such as Illmatar in the FR campaign), give the magical sword you had before taking this feat to the young paladin who is about to leave to his first quest, and you share your meal with the hungry.

In general, if role play is what you are looking for, not just exploiting thing, you can make great use of this book. It's got useful feats and spells(though like every sourcebook it may need a little abjasments to be a bit more balanced). A player of mine plays an exalted wizard, and he is a dedicated role player, and he is enjoying this kind of gameplay-the devosion to commit good deeds and helping others. Exalted role player might be restricting, and that's probably some will find it "not fun", but that depends on the character and the level of roleplay.
oshmir sargon
07-12-05, 05:16 PM I like some of the exalted feats. A player of mine has the words of creation feat (though he hasn't put it into much use yet :tongue: )
But what about this vow of peace (or wtvr)? You can't hurt ANYONE? Not even the blood thirsty demon who's charging at you? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, it should be quite a roleplay experience.
Drachasor
07-12-05, 06:38 PM It's funny that so many players, who don't act with virtue in their real lives, can't enjoy pretending to act with virtue by playing a virtuous D&D character--but only by playing a character who's even more ethically-challenged then they are in real life. :(

You might have something there. I for one love playing truly good characters and doing the right thing (because it's right). It's fun making the make-believe world a better place. I admit, however, that I also try hard in real life to do the right thing, so maybe the two go together. It is often easier in D&D to do the right thing than in real life (and it is, of course, far, far, far, easier to do the wrong thing in D&D than in real life).

-Drachasor
TyraaloftheFist
07-12-05, 08:44 PM I often find myself playing characters with a bit of a lean towards Chaotic or Evil. Like Kenny Klueles, the elven thief in second edition...I acted like an idiot when not near orcs, and then I'd go off and slit some orc throats. But that was the Elven thing. The stupidity was all me, sucka. :P Nyaheh...yeah. His first act in the game, really, was first to peg some rube with a crossbow in the gut with a shortbow with a critical hit, and then, as soon as the fight was over, ran over, put on the dead guy's armor and belted on his new black sword. Thank the gods my DM wasn't mean. If he was, it would've been cursed armor.

But anyway...Sacred Vow is definitely a good-flavored feat, and deserves to be Exalted. Vow of Poverty, though...that could be gained by an evil dude with an evil version of Sacred Vow(at least, in a campaign I would run) or a neutral guy with whatever the vow would be for a neutral guy. The villain's excuse for having no magical items? "Hey, if I don't have them on me...then I can't lose them. Also, those pesky adventuring types aren't going to get their hands on them by looting my corpse...and it'll keep them shiny and undamaged!" The Neutral guy, of course, would most likely say: "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time..." Or maybe, "Hey, it makes life more of a challenge."
CelestialBarbarian
07-13-05, 03:01 AM I think the feats are nice if you can roleplay a char, and know how to use them. I have a slayer of domiel with many exalted feats and the only person who did more dmg then i did was the Cleric/Fist of raziel and thats because of 3e persistant with like 15 buffs =p.

Overall it depends on the flavor of the char you want just like any other feat. At leat thats my opinion

singing
He's got feats
And he knows how t' use 'em!

:D
CelestialBarbarian
07-13-05, 03:03 AM You might have something there. I for one love playing truly good characters and doing the right thing (because it's right). It's fun making the make-believe world a better place. I admit, however, that I also try hard in real life to do the right thing, so maybe the two go together. It is often easier in D&D to do the right thing than in real life (and it is, of course, far, far, far, easier to do the wrong thing in D&D than in real life).

-Drachasor

Yes, I try always to do the right thing in real life too. I think there's a heavy element of people playing characters who do what the people wish they could do in real life. :)
CelestialBarbarian
07-13-05, 03:24 AM hi, i was just wondering what you guys thought about this: vow of poverty is an exalted feat, and requires sacred vow, but other than sacred vow being a good-flavored feat, why couldn't vow of poverty be a more general feat, as far as flavor is concerned??? i immediately thought of 1st ed. adnd monks when i first read this, and they had similiar restrictions as to possesions (to a lesser extent, so did paladins and clerics); i used to imagine LEvil monks from 1st ed. being kind of like communists (or how i imagined communists), and i see no reason why that couldnt work in a normal campaign, too (just like the barbarian with no concept of ownership or possession), although the bonus exalted feats might be less of a benefit (maybe an evil character could take some feats from vile darkness??). anyways, i was opening it up for debate: what do you guys think?

In the Soviet Union, the communist party members has better access to goods and services than did the average Soviet, and the higher the rank in the party, the better the access (and the goods and services). In the real world evil people have an even tougher time denying themselves material comforts, even in the name of ideology, for significant periods of time.

What makes you think that barbarians have no concept of possessions or personal ownership? 19th century European social scientists held the conceit that only advanced civilizations have private property, but in fact private property goes back at least as far as we have written records (say 6,000 years+). A neutral good or chaotic good barbarian will almost certainly recognize the individual's right of private property. Even the lawful good character will recognize it--even if he does often end up trampling it "for the good of society." The lawful neutral character will recognize it only in so far as the laws say it exists.

I don't see anything in the feat that specifically requires the character to donate items to charity or to help the poor, so I could see certain non-good people taking that sort of a wow. They'd have to be motivated by some sort of strong zeal, like extreme evil or extreme discipline, wherein they believe that material posessions come between themselves and a connection with their god, or the physical purity of their bodies, or some such. I'd be extremely careful about letting anyone take it as a non-exalted feat. I'd either make it a Vile feat or evil characters, or a feat requiring the strictest discipline (probably a strict lawful alignment), and have the character lose all its benefits if he voluntarily strays even once.
DeadEye19
07-13-05, 09:56 AM I don't see anything in the feat that specifically requires the character to donate items to charity or to help the poor
Under voluntary poverty->other remifications of poverty, it's says you should. I think thats 50% of the idea of the feat.
Need_A_Life
07-13-05, 10:09 AM The neutral version of the feat would simply cut the charity part. The vile version would be up to the DM.

A non-good person who relies on their own abilities instead of items shouldn't be worse than their good counterpart.
CelestialBarbarian
07-13-05, 10:11 AM Under voluntary poverty->other remifications of poverty, it's says you should. I think thats 50% of the idea of the feat.

Good catch, DeadEye (and an excellent archery feat from Dragon, I might add). Ah yes, I see the discussion of charity on pages 30-31. To have some sort of Vile or lawful equivalent then would require equivalent behavior. I could see something like having to donate all the wealth you discover to your order, in the case of some evil organization. Still I can see it getting a bit dicey; how does a lone chaotic evil fanatic donate wealth to an organization that doesn't exist? Or what of the lawful neutral order that itself eschews the accumulation of material posessions? Perhaps someone can come up with some other equivalent behavior for the evil or lawful variant of this feat. Otherwise it's probably left simply as an exalted feat. In no case would I allow it as just a general feat.
CelestialBarbarian
07-13-05, 10:16 AM The neutral version of the feat would simply cut the charity part. The vile version would be up to the DM.

A non-good person who relies on their own abilities instead of items shouldn't be worse than their good counterpart.

A vow of poverty isn't consistent with a neutral alignment; the vow of poverty is an extreme choice, and neturality by definition exists between the extremes.
WizO_Cat
07-13-05, 09:54 PM Actually, this thread belongs on the Mature boards. I'll move it there.
getgoldcardsoul
07-15-05, 04:52 PM yeah. if you want to run a game of true virtue and shining examples, go ahead.

if you want to do anything FUN, dont bother with em.

Idunno. Even though I'm by no means the ultimate nirvana reaching, small animal befriending, altrusitic do-gooder in real life, I think it's fun to see if I can act as such, to see if I'm good enough of an actor and player. It's a challenge I'd like to try one day. And hey, if not, well, oh well, one or two less feats for my character. Maybe its an interesting turn in my players story. Maybe he'll atone. Maybe he can't. Oh well, it's just a feat or two. It's just a sheet of paper with numbers on it.

Or is saying such a thing sacrilege here? :D
Dunelord
07-15-05, 06:24 PM A vow of poverty isn't consistent with a neutral alignment; the vow of poverty is an extreme choice, and neturality by definition exists between the extremes.

Not really true. True Neutral characters might not be, but if NPCs and PCs are divided up evenly then MOST characters are some type of neutral. Hell Neutral Good characters can already take the feat.

Lawful Neutral characters might be attracted to such a life style in order to better themself.
CelestialBarbarian
07-16-05, 05:23 AM Not really true. True Neutral characters might not be, but if NPCs and PCs are divided up evenly then MOST characters are some type of neutral. Hell Neutral Good characters can already take the feat.

Lawful Neutral characters might be attracted to such a life style in order to better themself.

I refer to characters of only neutral alignment as unsuitable for the extreme nature of the Vow of Poverty.
Kyuketsukiouji
07-16-05, 11:32 AM The vile version of vow of poverty is called "killing people and stealing their loot".

It's not a feat, obviously. :P

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Paladin2004 07-11-05, 03:57 PM	Can any Lawful good person take [Exalted] feats? thank you for replys in advance :D
Rulebook 07-11-05, 04:01 PM	no. only those who are EXCEPTIONALLY good (any good) can take Exalted feats.
Paladin2004 07-11-05, 04:05 PM	aha, so one slip up and they loose them?
Draco Light 07-11-05, 04:06 PM	Pretty much. Some can be gotten back with atonement, but some can't. In general, they're not worth it.
Rulebook 07-11-05, 04:25 PM	yeah. if you want to run a game of true virtue and shining examples, go ahead. if you want to do anything FUN, dont bother with em.
Dunelord 07-11-05, 04:36 PM	And it should be noted being lawful doesn't help you be exhaulted.
TyraaloftheFist 07-11-05, 04:46 PM	Pretty much, any good character can take the feats as long as they always act good. Unfortunately, if you punch the irritating drunken fool who seems to be pretty much asking to be fed knuckles, you lose the feats. Evil acts+Exalted feats=...brain-hurty and no feat anymore.
Lord Schpungus 07-11-05, 04:56 PM	ACtually, exalted feats seem often more Lawful than good. They're all about submitting your entire will to celestials. Definitely more lawful than good.
Armoracia Rusticana 07-11-05, 04:59 PM	In any case DM may forbid use these feats... They are hard to follow. I mean exalted way.
TyraaloftheFist 07-11-05, 06:36 PM	ACtually, exalted feats seem often more Lawful than good. They're all about submitting your entire will to celestials. Definitely more lawful than good. Only some of them, as far as I can tell. Most of them strike me as, "Oy, let's go fight evil!" Or..."Hey, look...a wounded birdie! Let's heal the bugger!" Take your pick of, usually, happy, energetic phrases related to doing good for good's sake. Of course, then there's Stigmata, which is probably one of the most unhappy feats in that book.
CelestialBarbarian 07-11-05, 07:03 PM	Pretty much. Some can be gotten back with atonement, but some can't. In general, they're not worth it. Yeah, it's funny--when Book of Exalted Deeds premiered, so many anti-good players ranted and raved about how horribly unbalanced all its material was, yet I had a party of entirely good characters and the only feat anyone has taken from the book is Purify Spell, and it's not even an exalted feat! The only one who uses any spells out of the book is an NPC cleric I run, who occasionally casts a sanctified spell spontaneously. He can't even use some of them because he doesn't qualify for some of the abstinence components. :-D
CelestialBarbarian 07-11-05, 07:05 PM	yeah. if you want to run a game of true virtue and shining examples, go ahead. if you want to do anything FUN, dont bother with em. It's funny that so many players, who don't act with virtue in their real lives, can't enjoy pretending to act with virtue by playing a virtuous D&D character--but only by playing a character who's even more ethically-challenged then they are in real life. :(
avatar123 07-11-05, 07:07 PM	Some of the feats are rather powerful, such as words of creation.
CelestialBarbarian 07-11-05, 07:17 PM	Some of the feats are rather powerful, such as words of creation. If the benefits of a feat outweighed the various costs by noticeably more than the benefits of other feats outweigh the costs of those feats, we would expect people to rush to take the feat. I have seen no evidence of a rush to take Words of Creation, or indeed any exalted feat.
Dark_beebles 07-12-05, 11:15 AM	I think the feats are nice if you can roleplay a char, and know how to use them. I have a slayer of domiel with many exalted feats and the only person who did more dmg then i did was the Cleric/Fist of raziel and thats because of 3e persistant with like 15 buffs =p. Overall it depends on the flavor of the char you want just like any other feat. At leat thats my opinion
jameswilliamogle 07-12-05, 11:31 AM	hi, i was just wondering what you guys thought about this: vow of poverty is an exalted feat, and requires sacred vow, but other than sacred vow being a good-flavored feat, why couldn't vow of poverty be a more general feat, as far as flavor is concerned??? i immediately thought of 1st ed. adnd monks when i first read this, and they had similiar restrictions as to possesions (to a lesser extent, so did paladins and clerics); i used to imagine LEvil monks from 1st ed. being kind of like communists (or how i imagined communists), and i see no reason why that couldnt work in a normal campaign, too (just like the barbarian with no concept of ownership or possession), although the bonus exalted feats might be less of a benefit (maybe an evil character could take some feats from vile darkness??). anyways, i was opening it up for debate: what do you guys think?
DeadEye19 07-12-05, 04:45 PM	hi, i was just wondering what you guys thought about this: vow of poverty is an exalted feat, and requires sacred vow, but other than sacred vow being a good-flavored feat, why couldn't vow of poverty be a more general feat, as far as flavor is concerned??? The thing with this vow is that you don't just cast away all possesions.What actually makes it very good is that you give anything you have\ find to those in need. You may give your share of the party's gold to the poor(or to a temple activly helping the poor, such as Illmatar in the FR campaign), give the magical sword you had before taking this feat to the young paladin who is about to leave to his first quest, and you share your meal with the hungry. In general, if role play is what you are looking for, not just exploiting thing, you can make great use of this book. It's got useful feats and spells(though like every sourcebook it may need a little abjasments to be a bit more balanced). A player of mine plays an exalted wizard, and he is a dedicated role player, and he is enjoying this kind of gameplay-the devosion to commit good deeds and helping others. Exalted role player might be restricting, and that's probably some will find it "not fun", but that depends on the character and the level of roleplay.
oshmir sargon 07-12-05, 05:16 PM	I like some of the exalted feats. A player of mine has the words of creation feat (though he hasn't put it into much use yet :tongue: ) But what about this vow of peace (or wtvr)? You can't hurt ANYONE? Not even the blood thirsty demon who's charging at you? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, it should be quite a roleplay experience.
Drachasor 07-12-05, 06:38 PM	It's funny that so many players, who don't act with virtue in their real lives, can't enjoy pretending to act with virtue by playing a virtuous D&D character--but only by playing a character who's even more ethically-challenged then they are in real life. :( You might have something there. I for one love playing truly good characters and doing the right thing (because it's right). It's fun making the make-believe world a better place. I admit, however, that I also try hard in real life to do the right thing, so maybe the two go together. It is often easier in D&D to do the right thing than in real life (and it is, of course, far, far, far, easier to do the wrong thing in D&D than in real life). -Drachasor
TyraaloftheFist 07-12-05, 08:44 PM	I often find myself playing characters with a bit of a lean towards Chaotic or Evil. Like Kenny Klueles, the elven thief in second edition...I acted like an idiot when not near orcs, and then I'd go off and slit some orc throats. But that was the Elven thing. The stupidity was all me, sucka. :P Nyaheh...yeah. His first act in the game, really, was first to peg some rube with a crossbow in the gut with a shortbow with a critical hit, and then, as soon as the fight was over, ran over, put on the dead guy's armor and belted on his new black sword. Thank the gods my DM wasn't mean. If he was, it would've been cursed armor. But anyway...Sacred Vow is definitely a good-flavored feat, and deserves to be Exalted. Vow of Poverty, though...that could be gained by an evil dude with an evil version of Sacred Vow(at least, in a campaign I would run) or a neutral guy with whatever the vow would be for a neutral guy. The villain's excuse for having no magical items? "Hey, if I don't have them on me...then I can't lose them. Also, those pesky adventuring types aren't going to get their hands on them by looting my corpse...and it'll keep them shiny and undamaged!" The Neutral guy, of course, would most likely say: "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time..." Or maybe, "Hey, it makes life more of a challenge."
CelestialBarbarian 07-13-05, 03:01 AM	I think the feats are nice if you can roleplay a char, and know how to use them. I have a slayer of domiel with many exalted feats and the only person who did more dmg then i did was the Cleric/Fist of raziel and thats because of 3e persistant with like 15 buffs =p. Overall it depends on the flavor of the char you want just like any other feat. At leat thats my opinion singing He's got feats And he knows how t' use 'em! :D
CelestialBarbarian 07-13-05, 03:03 AM	You might have something there. I for one love playing truly good characters and doing the right thing (because it's right). It's fun making the make-believe world a better place. I admit, however, that I also try hard in real life to do the right thing, so maybe the two go together. It is often easier in D&D to do the right thing than in real life (and it is, of course, far, far, far, easier to do the wrong thing in D&D than in real life). -Drachasor Yes, I try always to do the right thing in real life too. I think there's a heavy element of people playing characters who do what the people wish they could do in real life. :)
CelestialBarbarian 07-13-05, 03:24 AM	hi, i was just wondering what you guys thought about this: vow of poverty is an exalted feat, and requires sacred vow, but other than sacred vow being a good-flavored feat, why couldn't vow of poverty be a more general feat, as far as flavor is concerned??? i immediately thought of 1st ed. adnd monks when i first read this, and they had similiar restrictions as to possesions (to a lesser extent, so did paladins and clerics); i used to imagine LEvil monks from 1st ed. being kind of like communists (or how i imagined communists), and i see no reason why that couldnt work in a normal campaign, too (just like the barbarian with no concept of ownership or possession), although the bonus exalted feats might be less of a benefit (maybe an evil character could take some feats from vile darkness??). anyways, i was opening it up for debate: what do you guys think? In the Soviet Union, the communist party members has better access to goods and services than did the average Soviet, and the higher the rank in the party, the better the access (and the goods and services). In the real world evil people have an even tougher time denying themselves material comforts, even in the name of ideology, for significant periods of time. What makes you think that barbarians have no concept of possessions or personal ownership? 19th century European social scientists held the conceit that only advanced civilizations have private property, but in fact private property goes back at least as far as we have written records (say 6,000 years+). A neutral good or chaotic good barbarian will almost certainly recognize the individual's right of private property. Even the lawful good character will recognize it--even if he does often end up trampling it "for the good of society." The lawful neutral character will recognize it only in so far as the laws say it exists. I don't see anything in the feat that specifically requires the character to donate items to charity or to help the poor, so I could see certain non-good people taking that sort of a wow. They'd have to be motivated by some sort of strong zeal, like extreme evil or extreme discipline, wherein they believe that material posessions come between themselves and a connection with their god, or the physical purity of their bodies, or some such. I'd be extremely careful about letting anyone take it as a non-exalted feat. I'd either make it a Vile feat or evil characters, or a feat requiring the strictest discipline (probably a strict lawful alignment), and have the character lose all its benefits if he voluntarily strays even once.
DeadEye19 07-13-05, 09:56 AM	I don't see anything in the feat that specifically requires the character to donate items to charity or to help the poor Under voluntary poverty->other remifications of poverty, it's says you should. I think thats 50% of the idea of the feat.
Need_A_Life 07-13-05, 10:09 AM	The neutral version of the feat would simply cut the charity part. The vile version would be up to the DM. A non-good person who relies on their own abilities instead of items shouldn't be worse than their good counterpart.
CelestialBarbarian 07-13-05, 10:11 AM	Under voluntary poverty->other remifications of poverty, it's says you should. I think thats 50% of the idea of the feat. Good catch, DeadEye (and an excellent archery feat from Dragon, I might add). Ah yes, I see the discussion of charity on pages 30-31. To have some sort of Vile or lawful equivalent then would require equivalent behavior. I could see something like having to donate all the wealth you discover to your order, in the case of some evil organization. Still I can see it getting a bit dicey; how does a lone chaotic evil fanatic donate wealth to an organization that doesn't exist? Or what of the lawful neutral order that itself eschews the accumulation of material posessions? Perhaps someone can come up with some other equivalent behavior for the evil or lawful variant of this feat. Otherwise it's probably left simply as an exalted feat. In no case would I allow it as just a general feat.
CelestialBarbarian 07-13-05, 10:16 AM	The neutral version of the feat would simply cut the charity part. The vile version would be up to the DM. A non-good person who relies on their own abilities instead of items shouldn't be worse than their good counterpart. A vow of poverty isn't consistent with a neutral alignment; the vow of poverty is an extreme choice, and neturality by definition exists between the extremes.
WizO_Cat 07-13-05, 09:54 PM	Actually, this thread belongs on the Mature boards. I'll move it there.
getgoldcardsoul 07-15-05, 04:52 PM	yeah. if you want to run a game of true virtue and shining examples, go ahead. if you want to do anything FUN, dont bother with em. Idunno. Even though I'm by no means the ultimate nirvana reaching, small animal befriending, altrusitic do-gooder in real life, I think it's fun to see if I can act as such, to see if I'm good enough of an actor and player. It's a challenge I'd like to try one day. And hey, if not, well, oh well, one or two less feats for my character. Maybe its an interesting turn in my players story. Maybe he'll atone. Maybe he can't. Oh well, it's just a feat or two. It's just a sheet of paper with numbers on it. Or is saying such a thing sacrilege here? :D
Dunelord 07-15-05, 06:24 PM	A vow of poverty isn't consistent with a neutral alignment; the vow of poverty is an extreme choice, and neturality by definition exists between the extremes. Not really true. True Neutral characters might not be, but if NPCs and PCs are divided up evenly then MOST characters are some type of neutral. Hell Neutral Good characters can already take the feat. Lawful Neutral characters might be attracted to such a life style in order to better themself.
CelestialBarbarian 07-16-05, 05:23 AM	Not really true. True Neutral characters might not be, but if NPCs and PCs are divided up evenly then MOST characters are some type of neutral. Hell Neutral Good characters can already take the feat. Lawful Neutral characters might be attracted to such a life style in order to better themself. I refer to characters of only neutral alignment as unsuitable for the extreme nature of the Vow of Poverty.
Kyuketsukiouji 07-16-05, 11:32 AM	The vile version of vow of poverty is called "killing people and stealing their loot". It's not a feat, obviously. :P