Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Avulsion 09-11-07, 01:30 PM	It seems too easy to break your vow. I understand that your allies can slay anything that is not defenseless or helpless. They can do lethal damage to a defenseless or helpless foe, but just can't kill them. If you let your party slay a d-less or h-less foe, you lose the feat. That means you can't incapacitate a foe for your party to kill. So, what constitutes a helpless or defenseless foe? (correct me if I'm wrong) 1. Sleeping foe. 2. Foe without weapons or armor (I understand the foe may be a monk or spellcaster, but you can't just assume that every time. You'd have to question them). 3. Defeated foe. Holding your rapier to their throat, they are helpless. So you ask them to make an oath of surrender. This leads to two things: a. They make an oath of peace. Then you can imprison them. This means you need a handy way of sending foes to prison. Maybe an item that teleports them into a prison cell. This also means you have to have a secure place to put them. Sometimes the government prisons are corrupt themselves. Prisons are therefore tricky and expensive. b. They don't make an oath, or they break their oath. The Vows say that you can leave the foe for your allies to deal with. I assume they can slay the foe. 4. Surprised foe. If they are caught offguard, in their office doing paperwork, etc, aren't they d-less/h-less? I figure one way the DM can make things simple is to have the party fight constructs or undead. Since they are nonliving, you can bust them up, free game. But what about everything else? Is a prison required? Does the party have to go behind the Pacifist's back and slay their foes? If the Pacifist finds out about helpless/defenseless slayings, how does he react? Does he lose the feat until an atonement is made (no XP required since it was unwittingly)? Does the pacifist have to carefully ask each helpless/defenseless enemy to surrender and give an oath? Here are a couple examples, and how I would rule them (again, please correct me if I'm wrong.): #1. The party is walking through a dungeon and they turn a corner. Three orcs are sitting by a small campfire, cooking their dinner. Their swords are sprawled on the ground. The party gets a surprise round on them. I would rule that the party can freely slay the orcs. They have swords and could have been better prepared to use them. The only instance when they should be asked to surrender is if they happen to live past the surprise round and they beg for mercy (doubtful). #2. The corrupt, oppresive king is sitting on his throne, sipping a goblet of wine, thinking to himself. The throne room is otherwise empty. The party, on the roof, peers down through some open windows and gets a good view of the evil king. The party rogue has murder in his eyes has he carefully loads his hand crossbow with a poisoned bolt. They have been trying to take out the king in some fashion for months. This was their only chance. The pacifist should try to talk the rogue out of cold murder. The king, after all, is defenseless. If the rogue goes on with the murder, the pacifist should probably be upset and do something about it (not sure exactly what...) This is a problem because the party is now split and working in opposite directions. So, the big question is, how can a pacifist really fit into an adventuring party?
Tedronai 09-12-07, 12:46 AM	In most cases, the party will have to work with the Vow of Peace character (or the they will be best advised to go their seperate ways, as such disagreeing individuals would in the real world.) While I admit that the opposite may occassionally be true, I have yet to witness it, or hear of it happening. If an individual has been shown to be an enemy, and has not been seen carrying weapons, you should assume that they are competent in combat without the use of weapons (and the same goes for armour). If they choose to pose a physical threat to you without the use of weapons, the only assumption you can make is that they are capable of doing so. A formal prison would not be required. Any form of restricted freedom supervised by the character and/or cooperating party members would fit the requirements (short of forced labour etc., they're a prisoner, not a slave). If that amounts to simply confiscating their weapons and kept under watch, then so be it. Their oath of surrender should cover attempted escape as much as murder and other acts of evil, so that even trying to escape will result in a breath of that oath and the accompanying open season for the party. It is generally a good idea to think of any act carried out at the orders of a leader to be an act committed by that leader personally (if they're ordering murders, they can be considered to be murderers themselves). It is highly probable that a king is not simply sitting in their throne daydreaming. More likely, an evil king is planning the future invasion of a neighboring kingdom, or the further subjugation of their own people. And frankly, if I see a king sitting in an apparently empty room, I'm just going to assume that his guards are more skilled than I would have thought at first. Likely hiding in the shadows, or behind a secret door. I would never assume that an individual in a position of such power would be 'helpless' unless I had personally witnessed the removal/neutralization of their defenses.
dman11235 09-12-07, 01:48 AM	This is one of those topics that might be better off on the Mature boards (not the immature one), if anything for the level of discussion needed. But since there is no such board... The first thing I say when someone asks a question about the Vows and exalted deeds in general is the fact that there is a mature warning on the cover, and its not for nudity or violence or anything. It's the level of play required. That said, my thoughts on the matter are that the VoPeace character must have talked to the DM and the other players in order to bring this into the game. The thing about VoPeace is that you can no longer go adventuring in the normal sense. To hurt anything breaks the vow, and D&D is built primarily on the premise of battle. The BoED gives some alternative campaign styles for a party with a VoPeace/VoPoverty/etc character (they assume you to have any and all vows), but you may not want that. To bring a VoPeace character into a party or adventures that go around killing things and taking their stuff, including the orc example goes against what the VoP character believes, and he will try to talk the others into not killing anything. This is not always true. An enemy to a VoP character is someone to be non-lethaly taken out, or talked into submission, by the whole party. It's tough to incorporate that into the standard party. I have not yet gotten a party yet that works, and I will not try until I get a purely exalted party. With the king example, the VoP person will try to get the rogue to not do it. The rogue is his own person, and will kill the king unless the VoP gets a nice diplomacy roll. If the rogue goes through with it, he will feel sad thanks to that aura. The specifics are up to you. A good guide that I think works: if a paladin or an angel (solars especially) won't do it, a VoPeace won't.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 01:50 AM	Thank you for the response. It is very much appreciated. I agree with what Tedronai wrote. I just came upon this entry from the SRD: A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy. Therefore number 4 from my first post is not correct. They would be flat-footed, not helpless. Also, I think Tedronai cleared up number 2. Just because they don't have armor/weapons, doesn't mean they're defenseless. As far as the prison goes, it is difficult to keep track of multiple prisoners, especially in a city-based campaign. The prison idea is just a means of simplifying (?) the duty of keeping prisoners.
dman11235 09-12-07, 01:59 AM	Something a VoP character would try is the redeeming of evil (rules found in the BoED, not sure the page number). That would help the prisoner thing, allowing the prisoners some freedom (not too much) gives you a bonus on the save DC.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:01 AM	Must the VoPeace character try talking others out of violence? It says that you may ask allies to give an oath that a helpless foe will not be slain. However, it's not required. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my idea is that my character is a pacifist because he has made his own vow of peace. That doesn't mean he wants/needs everyone else to be peaceful too. For example, I have a real life friend that is a vegetarian. But he has no desire to stop anyone else from eating meat, nor does he bring up that subject. I think it's a choice one brings upon one's self.
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:17 AM	No, it's not required, it's just what most do. That's the (very small) difference between C and L VoPeace characters. C won't, L will. Or maybe it's C will and L won't? Anyway, it's a task just to have these feats, the VoPoverty section and the saint section cover this, as well as the waging peace and a couple more. There's nothing set in stone to form an argument from here, it's totally opinion. Something that they will try to do (almost invariably, IMO), is say creatures from evil. But even that's opinion, so don't bother with a rebuttal, just an opinion.
Keladelros 09-12-07, 02:19 AM	Here is the deal. If you aid in combat in any way you're technically violating your oath. Healing your comrades (or the other side), buffing, adjusting the field, etc. You are a part of the events that lead to the death of another character because though you might not be physically attacking someone you are making it so that others can more easily or tipping the odds in your comrades (and most importantly yours) in your favor. It doesn't SAY that in the book. Nor does it say that one must try and convince others to not fight as well, but I think this is kind of common sense.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:25 AM	If you aid in combat in any way you're technically violating your oath. Healing your comrades (or the other side), buffing, adjusting the field, etc. You are a part of the events that lead to the death of another character because though you might not be physically attacking someone you are making it so that others can more easily or tipping the odds in your comrades (and most importantly yours) in your favor. It doesn't SAY that in the book. Nor does it say that one must try and convince others to not fight as well, but I think this is kind of common sense. This is true only if they are defenseless or helpless, which would constitute about 5% (my off-hand estimation) of encounters. Edit: Well, I should clarify. You can't use spells to incapacitate or weaken any foes, unless you're planning on taking them prisoner. However, allies can kill any whoever they want, so long as they aren't defenseless/helpless.
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:29 AM	Here is the deal. If you aid in combat in any way you're technically violating your oath. Healing your comrades (or the other side), buffing, adjusting the field, etc. You are a part of the events that lead to the death of another character because though you might not be physically attacking someone you are making it so that others can more easily or tipping the odds in your comrades (and most importantly yours) in your favor. It doesn't SAY that in the book. Nor does it say that one must try and convince others to not fight as well, but I think this is kind of common sense. Sorry, but I'm disagreeing with you there. I think it's wrong to do that stuff with the exception of trying to help the opponents. If you try to help them, or talk through things before hand, and they attack you and harm your friends, then you have every right to heal them. And buff them. And heal the enemy. And whatever else promotes peace. Like casting End to Strife.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:33 AM	Sorry, but I'm disagreeing with you there. I think it's wrong to do that stuff with the exception of trying to help the opponents. If you try to help them, or talk through things before hand, and they attack you and harm your friends, then you have every right to heal them. And buff them. And heal the enemy. And whatever else promotes peace. Like casting End to Strife. Or heal your allies and watch them slaughter the enemy for not being peaceful? :confused: :D
Keladelros 09-12-07, 02:35 AM	I'm also accounting in Vow of Non-violence for some reason. In any case, INCLUDING Vow of Non-violence I stand by my last statement. If you participate in combat in any way, you are participating in violent acts (even if healing and especially while buffing).
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:38 AM	Yeah, it's messed up. Note the casting of end to strife. That's peaceful, right? Dealing 20d6 to anyone who makes an attack, right? You shouldn't be in a possition to watch your allies slaughter "innocent" evil guys if you're playing a VoPeace character. You should end encounters via talking. Not saying it's perfect, but that's where non-lethal damage comes in to play. This is why it's so much easier if every one in the party is at least exalted.
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:44 AM	Vow of Von-Violence is a watered down version of VoPeace. How does that limit you more?
Keladelros 09-12-07, 02:44 AM	Multi Alignment parties can be hard enough. Deling with Exalted and non-exalted characters in 1 group is just as odd.
Keladelros 09-12-07, 02:46 AM	Vow of Von-Violence is a watered down version of VoPeace. How does that limit you more? Perhaps I'm thinking of something different. Toss me some help here in finding out what I mean. (please read my mind...)
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:50 AM	Reading both feats, it looks like as long as you don't participate in incapacitating the enemy, and they are neither defenseless nor helpless, than the party has full right to slay the enemy. And by the way, Vow of Peace requires Vow of Nonviolence.
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:51 AM	VoP limits you to hurting nothing. No lethal damage to anything. Only non-lethal. Non-Violence limits you to non-lethal against humanoid and monsterous humanoid. Another interesting thing: if you have these feats, you probably obeyed them before you got them.
Keladelros 09-12-07, 02:51 AM	Thats what it is... I always get confused with these 3.25 rulebooks and supplements.
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:53 AM	Well, I could be wrong. My mind is kind of ditching out on me. I need to sleep. Not about the feats though, just the stuff before my post before this.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:54 AM	BoED is 3.5, or so I was told. Also, in VoPeace, you can't even use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken enemies.
dman11235 09-12-07, 01:19 PM	No, you can, as long as it doesn't hurt them. In fact, hold monster would be a great tool, you hold, and the antimagic manacle.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:20 PM	No, you can, as long as it doesn't hurt them. In fact, hold monster would be a great tool, you hold, and the antimagic manacle. No, you can't: "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." (Am I allowed to make direct quotes?) Unless you mean to only capture them. No slayings. :)
dman11235 09-12-07, 02:25 PM	Well, yeah, but what you said was that you can't use them at all. The vow only limits you to not using them to allow your allies to harm them.
Avulsion 09-12-07, 02:28 PM	ah ok I think I understand better now. Also, with the king example, I don't know if I could use a diplomacy check on the party rogue. I thought those didn't work on PCs. That would be a tricky situation, wouldn't it? I wonder what is the best course of action.
dman11235 09-12-07, 03:19 PM	Of course they do. I use Rich Burlew's rules (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) as well. Think about it, would an NPC who want's you to do something not get a diplomacy check.