Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 05:08 PM	Just wondering. I see people always protest that VoP is about the roleplaying and being exalted, but I wonder how much it's necessary to the Vow. Would it such a bad thing if roleplaying requirements (beyond giving up gear) were removed? Is there a good reason for it being the way it is And No Other Way, or is it just pointless fluffcruft? tl;dr: why can't I take VoP for power, and why can't my LE Monk have VoP? And on another semi-related topic: is the "sacred vow" feat really necessary?
InkBlot 10-28-07, 05:16 PM	If your players are mature enough, than no - there's no reason not to allow a player to change the flavor and some of the RP requirements. That's why Vow Of Poverty was published in Book Of Exalted Deeds instead of Complete Divine. However, many D&D players simply aren't mature enough to handle it. Also, in a mixed group (where at least one player simply isn't as mature), then it can cause problems. The immature players will complain and ask why they can't have special customized VoP feats. Then if you answer honestly, they'll get insulted. You sometimes have to tread very carefully to maintain harmony in a group of people. Edit: About Sacred Vow: VoP simply replaces your standard wealth for your level with equivalent benefits. You shouldn't need any feats to get your standard wealth. However, these "item equivalents" can't be sundered, disarmed, or blown up when your roll a natural 1 on your save versus a fireball. For that benefit -- always being armed and ready -- you pay two feats. I think two feats is a fair exchange for that.
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 05:24 PM	But that's part of what I'm trying to get at (though my OP may have missed it): why, absent the fluffcruft, does VoP require some sort of "maturity" (at least, any more than the Paladin, Knight, or something else with a code of conduct dues) to begin with?
Jaxgaret 10-28-07, 05:41 PM	SF, have you read the entry in BoED entitled "Voluntary Poverty"? It's all pretty much in there. If you feel like creating an alternate version of Vow of Poverty that a character of any alignment can take, go right ahead. My suggestion would be to name it something completely different, though, because it won't be a "Vow of Poverty"; the character won't be pledging themselves to asceticism.
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 05:47 PM	SF, Have you read the entry in BoED entitled "Voluntary Poverty"? It's all pretty much in there. I have, and I don't remember a compelling reason for it to have to be the only way Vow of Poverty could work. If you feel like creating an alternate version of Vow of Poverty that a character of any alignment can take, go right ahead. My suggestion would be to name it something completely different, though, because it won't be a "Vow of Poverty"; the character won't be pledging themselves to asceticism. Heck, not even VoPpers pledge themselves to asceticism for its own sake, either. They do it as means of using it to serve another purpose, too.
Jaxgaret 10-28-07, 05:55 PM	I have, and I don't remember a compelling reason for it to have to be the only way Vow of Poverty could work. Heck, not even VoPpers pledge themselves to asceticism for its own sake, either. They do it as means of using it to serve another purpose, too. Well... let me quote directly from that entry. "An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial." "While taking upon herself the burden of poverty voluntarily, an ascetic realizes that many people do not have the freedom to choose poverty, but instead have it forced upon them, and seeks to better those unfortunates as much as possible." "In many cultures and belief systems, the height of purity is embodied in an ascetic lifestyle that involves forswearing all material possessions." Doesn't that spell it out? Also, if the character isn't Exalted, where exactly are the bonuses coming from for choosing to be poor? Is that LE Monk gaining powers from Evil deities for being *poor*? I think not... there is no respect for asceticism in an Evil culture. In other words, the gods are giving certain ascetics powers for living an Exalted lifestyle - the character doesn't *choose* to gain those powers, even though the player is choosing the feat for the character; they are granted to her by higher powers for her good deeds. She is simply choosing to be voluntarily poor, that's all. The gods decide the rest - there are voluntary ascetics who gain no supernatural benefit from choosing to be so. However, like I said, if you want to create another feat based off of VoP, feel free to do so. I still recommend that you treat it as a completely separate feat, though, and not just "VoP for non-Exalteds".
bfiggins 10-28-07, 07:49 PM	Well, you're following a strict moral code. That's Lawful. And you're doing it because of your own purity and sense of justice. That's Good. I could see an Evil version where you sacrifice all your material possessions to gain greater power. Same effect, different methodology.
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 07:54 PM	"An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial." What that spells out with rather strong implication is that asceticism and charity are distinct, not two parts of the same. Also, if the character isn't Exalted, where exactly are the bonuses coming from for choosing to be poor? Is that LE Monk gaining powers from Evil deities for being *poor*? I think not... there is no respect for asceticism in an Evil culture. Perhaps from some magical force of will made manifest, perhaps from the same place Godless Clerics get their magic... perhaps from a strange Evil Demigod / Homebrew God / Some Odd Quasi-Heretical Aspect of Hextor. In other words, the gods are giving certain ascetics powers for living an Exalted lifestyle - the character doesn't *choose* to gain those powers, even though the player is choosing the feat for the character; they are granted to her by higher powers for her good deeds. She is simply choosing to be voluntarily poor, that's all. The gods decide the rest - there are voluntary ascetics who gain no supernatural benefit from choosing to be so. Grumble. I dislike this fluff. It seems rather silly, all told, that if they have all that power lying around to distribute, they distribute it to people who can't use it as well for no real good reason and then tie so many strings to it... Well, you're following a strict moral code. That's Lawful. And you're doing it because of your own purity and sense of justice. That's Good. I could see an Evil version where you sacrifice all your material possessions to gain greater power. Same effect, different methodology. It could be Neutral, too.
Jaxgaret 10-28-07, 08:23 PM	What that spells out with rather strong implication is that asceticism and charity are distinct, not two parts of the same. How so? If an ascetic must be charitable, doesn't that mean that being charitable is part of being an ascetic? Perhaps from some magical force of will made manifest, perhaps from the same place Godless Clerics get their magic... perhaps from a strange Evil Demigod / Homebrew God / Some Odd Quasi-Heretical Aspect of Hextor. I'll get back to this later. Just think about why exactly the powers are being granted. Grumble. I dislike this fluff. It seems rather silly, all told, that if they have all that power lying around to distribute, they distribute it to people who can't use it as well They do distribute that power to people who can use it well. Just in a different fashion. They're called Clerics and Paladins, or sundry other divine character choices. for no real good reason and then tie so many strings to it... Why is it no real good reason? They're the gods, they decide what's important. Asceticism and strong charitable actions are highly valued by the Good gods. What do the Evil gods value? Certainly none of those things. Why grant powers to individuals who don't want to possess more power in the form of wealth, who in fact give away their possessions to even weaker beings? Also, the Good gods aren't "tying strings" to it. The Exalted character *chooses* to live in voluntary poverty, and is rewarded for it. Or isn't rewarded for it, if the gods so decree. But they don't go into it thinking "Hey, if I give away all my stuff, I get free powers from the Gods!" That's not how the Good gods want a supposedly Exalted person to think or act. It's about being generous and giving, not about calculated self-serving greed.
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 08:56 PM	How so? If an ascetic must be charitable, doesn't that mean that being charitable is part of being an ascetic? ...No, not at all. Please stop abusing the english language like that. T_T I'll get back to this later. Just think about why exactly the powers are being granted. The Why is pretty much just fluff. Fluff is incredibly mutable. That was what I was getting at - everyone seems to insist that the fluff stay the same, but I question why that must be the case. They do distribute that power to people who can use it well. Just in a different fashion. Far, far less well than people who're Exalted but not giving up their magic items... They're called Clerics and Paladins, or sundry other divine character choices. Why is it no real good reason? They're the gods, they decide what's important. Asceticism and strong charitable actions are highly valued by the Good gods. But why, from the standpoint of flavor, grant such power only to the ascetics, when there's plenty of exalted folk who also have money? ... Well, maybe because they need the leg up lest they suck otherwise, so they're sort of kind of leveling the field. Maybe... hehe. Communist Gods. I guess. What do the Evil gods value? Certainly none of those things. Why grant powers to individuals who don't want to possess more power in the form of wealth, who in fact give away their possessions to even weaker beings? Maybe the evil ones destroy or simply reject the wealth, instead of giving it away. And you seem to be painting all evil gods with the same and rather wide brush, which just seems so... boring.
Werral 10-28-07, 09:13 PM	I was thinking of a whole VOP cult of Nerul. They reject all attachments to life, and wealth and comfort are part of that. They are true ascetics who eat only the coarsed food, wear only the coarsest clothing and sleep on the floor. They must take no joy in life but focus their whole being on the divine embrace of death. They must either give all their wealth to the temple of Nerul, destroy it or inter it with the (un)dead members of the cult (who are the only ones entitled to wealth). Nerul awards these ascetics who are seen as being closer to death and therefore to Nerul's realm. Mechanically they'd be a mix of clerics, cleric/monks, cleric/rogues, rogue/clerics and cleric/rogue/monks - all with VOP.
Lokathor 10-28-07, 09:14 PM	Sacred Vow [General] Vow Of Poverty [General] done.
runestar 10-28-07, 09:21 PM	I see VOP as essentially an alternate means of accessing eq (the sage all but flat out admitted that it was conceived to make playing philanthropic PCs more viable). So long as you adhere to the mechanical restrictions, I see little reason to stick to the roleplaying requirements if it would suit your purpose.:)
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 09:23 PM	I was thinking of a whole VOP cult of Nerul. They reject all attachments to life, and wealth and comfort are part of that. They are true ascetics who eat only the coarsed food, wear only the coarsest clothing and sleep on the floor. They must take no joy in life but focus their whole being on the divine embrace of death. They must either give all their wealth to the temple of Nerul, destroy it or inter it with the (un)dead members of the cult (who are the only ones entitled to wealth). Nerul awards these ascetics who are seen as being closer to death and therefore to Nerul's realm. Mechanically they'd be a mix of clerics, cleric/monks, cleric/rogues, rogue/clerics and cleric/rogue/monks - all with VOP. I love that idea. May I use it?
Jaxgaret 10-28-07, 10:06 PM	...No, not at all. Please stop abusing the english language like that. T_ Please, enlighten me as to my error, o grammar saint. I didn't define the word ascetic in that manner; WotC did. It's right in the quote above. I know, I know, you disagree with the flavor text, but that hardly negates its existence. It's not the same as the dictionary entry for the word ascetic, but as I'm sure you know, words' meanings can be changed. The Why is pretty much just fluff. Fluff is incredibly mutable. That was what I was getting at - everyone seems to insist that the fluff stay the same, but I question why that must be the case. For Vow of Poverty, it should stay the same. If you create your own feat adapted from VoP, that's fine with me. Just don't call it VoP [General]. Far, far less well than people who're Exalted but not giving up their magic items... Then create another Vow to do that - perhaps called Vow of Power. For those who the gods wish to channel their divine energy through against their foes. But that has nothing to do with VoP itself. But why, from the standpoint of flavor, grant such power only to the ascetics, when there's plenty of exalted folk who also have money? Because they need it more? Well, maybe because they need the leg up lest they suck otherwise, so they're sort of kind of leveling the field. Maybe... hehe. Communist Gods. I guess. It's because the gods who grant those powers choose these particular folks as embodying "the height of purity". They are more worthy, so get more in return. Plus, as I stated, obviously they need it more than others do. Again, I didn't write the book. But it's all in there. Maybe the evil ones destroy or simply reject the wealth, instead of giving it away. And you seem to be painting all evil gods with the same and rather wide brush, which just seems so... boring. Destruction or rejection of wealth is not part of the VoP as written in BoED - a character with a VoP uses the wealth they gain to help others. What Evil god would reward those who gave away wealth to the needy? You could create an alternate feat called Pledge of Destruction of Wealth for those who aspire to destroy all property, and thereby gain powers from doing so. Please understand that you're barking up the wrong tree here. I am all for mutable flavor, in fact I endorse it in almost all cases, but VoP is not one of those things that IMO you can just alter the flavor for and *boom* have "neutral VoP" or "evil VoP" or VoP [General]. I recommend to build the alternate feat from the ground up, adapted from VoP. I in fact played a CN character who had a VoP and worked for Evil employers - he started off as CG, and there was a whole long backstory as to how he ended up where he did. My DM and I worked on it to make sure everybody was on the same page. He still followed the Vow to the letter, but his actions were less than Exalted, due to extenuating circumstances. He also happened to be a Forsaker, and he had a deep conflict between his desire to provide wealth to the poor and to destroy all magical items. His final act in the campaign was when he was accidentally sucked into a Mirror of Life Trapping that his employer used to imprison certain persons, and was brought out again by a fellow party member - upon which he instantly shouted "Stupid Mirr-or!" and destroyed the thing, releasing all of his employer's enemies. Oh, did I mention that he was a Feral Minotaur with a 12 Int? :) Needless to say, he ran away and never came back. I kinda miss Kragh.
Lokathor 10-28-07, 11:34 PM	But vow of poverty don't actually have to continually amass and then give away wealth. Maybe a VoP character just wanders around through the woods all the time and tends to trees (Druid/Ranger/etc). They don't lose VoP just because they're not giving wealth away. Good VoP characters might find wealth and give it to others, because that's what "good" does, it helps others. But you're mixing up the vow of poverty section and the good section. Evil can also have a vow of poverty, and just be completely uninterested in wealth. The actual mechanics of the feat say "You can't carry, own, or borrow equipment or possessions with the following exceptions: non-masterwork simple weapons, simple non-magical clothes, enough food to supply you for 1 day at a time in a simple non-magical sack or bag, and a spell component pouch if you need one. You can benefit from magic that others place on you or provide for you." Anything beyond that is fluff. Anything.
StruckingFuggle 10-28-07, 11:49 PM	And the question wasn't "why is VoP exalted?", but rather "is there a reason why the feat be reworked to be general?", which is a rather different question.
Someone 10-29-07, 02:20 AM	It would represent bulletproof nudity pretty well... But there's the whole V in VoP. The character has foresworn before an agent/representative of a higher power to give up all worldly possessions, and to donate any such possessions they come by in the future to the poor/needy. That's the source of power. Maybe you could replace the vow with blue body paint, being hopped up on goofballs, or big eyes and a small mouth, but its going to have to be something really significant if its to be equivalent of a sacred vow.
Lokathor 10-29-07, 03:07 AM	There could definitely be some vestage that grants the magical power power as part of a longer term agreement than a normal binding. Maybe there's a patron saint of being poor who helps folks out. Maybe the fabric of the multiverse recognizes that you're just too weak to live if it doesn't do something about it so it provides you with extra powers.
Jaxgaret 10-29-07, 09:31 AM	The actual mechanics of the feat say "You can't carry, own, or borrow equipment or possessions with the following exceptions: non-masterwork simple weapons, simple non-magical clothes, enough food to supply you for 1 day at a time in a simple non-magical sack or bag, and a spell component pouch if you need one. You can benefit from magic that others place on you or provide for you." Anything beyond that is fluff. Anything. I think this might be a source of the difference of opinion on a lot of issues with VoP. Some, like you, think that the entirety of the feat's Vow is stated in the Feats section, and there are some, like me, who think that the entire section entitled "Voluntary Poverty" is also part of the feat - some of those sections, such as Voluntary Poverty, Waging Peace, Words of Creation, etc., are directly related to the feats in the Feats section, but have been parsed out so that each feat wouldn't be pages long. The feat refers to that section so that it can be so. IMO the Voluntary Poverty section of the BoED absolutely is a part of the feat Vow of Poverty, and it is not just fluff. And the question wasn't "why is VoP exalted?", but rather "is there a reason why the feat be reworked to be general?", which is a rather different question. I already answered this question. Allow me to quote my first post in this thread: If you feel like creating an alternate version of Vow of Poverty that a character of any alignment can take, go right ahead. My suggestion would be to name it something completely different, though, because it won't be a "Vow of Poverty"; the character won't be pledging themselves to asceticism.
runestar 10-29-07, 09:57 AM	IMO the Voluntary Poverty section of the BoED absolutely is a part of the feat Vow of Poverty, and it is not just fluff. Except that the voluntary aspect is not so voluntary. I feel that the purpose of said feat is simply an alternate means of magic eq - you give up all your wealth in exchange for a fixed set of bonuses. Simply put, the feat was conceived to rectify an anomaly in the rules, that it does not advocate the playing of philanthropic PCs. Each gp you give away in the name of "charity" is one gp less you can spend on magic gear. Thus, you are actually weakening yourself by doing charitable deeds, because you have less to spend on eq, and the cr guidelines assume that PCs are appropriately equipped for their wealth limits. And it is not the eternal gratitude of the poor villages you helped 10 miles away which saves you from the red dragon's breath, but your cloak of resistance and ring of evasion. The VOP simply lets you trade one extreme for another. In this aspect, I feel it is just as bad. Instead of not being able to donate without repercussions, you now must donate every single cent you have, or face the consequences. Thus, because VOP replaces your gear, it is not advisable to allow your PC access to additional magic gear (barring a few exceptions which are needed for the class to function). This is clearly a metagame decision, rather than a rp one. Likewise, I do not see what poverty has to do with charity. Why could I not just burn all the treasure I find, instead of donating them? At the end of the day, I am still dirt poor.:P
jaelis 10-29-07, 10:11 AM	I'd say the only actual mechanics reason not to modify the feat is that the RP requirements are there as a balancing aspect. VoP can be very strong in the hands of a good optimizer, but the heavy RP restrictions can be used by a reasonably competent DM to keep a VoP player somewhat in check. (Compare it to the kensai or frenzied berserker PrCs, which have ususually powerful abilities coupled to what are essentially RP restrictions.) But if you have a group where that kind of thing isn't likely to be an issue, then there shouldn't be any problem.
Tordak 10-29-07, 12:29 PM	It's probably been said already, but giving up material possessions in exchange for power isn't exactly exalted according to the rule of the BoED, and should not result in much abilities. The abilities from VoP result from the exaltation of the spirit of the vower through sacrifices. It comes from helping the poors, donating to good causes, sacrificing one's own well being so that others have a chance in life too, dedicating yourself to an ideal. It's not only god given powers to make-up for the vow, else taking it with that in mind kind of defeat the purpose of the feat. It is not enough to merely be poor, and it's not a trade. Of course you are promoting the ideal of a god probably, and in some way the powers come from them. Of course as players this feat is taken with the knowledge that you get something in return, but you should have in mind that the character doesn't take the vow to gain power. Powers are granted because he sticks to the vow. However, I suppose you could make a vow with similar bonuses that requires sacrfices of all material possessions (save a few) to evil causes, deity or church. But it should be done with other sacrifices too, like upholding the evil deity principales (to a higher degree than most regular cleric for example), and the character (not necessarily the player) should give up things because he firmly believe in his cause, not give up something in exchange for power. Altough that is generaly evil, it's also incredibly selfish and most evil diety are petty themself and want their follower to follow them, not usurp their statue if you get my drift. And evil deity will reward you if you actually give them something, but to sacrifice yourself could mean more reward, altough most evil deity will not just grant powers to someone unless that somehow serves the deity's own agenda. Other than roleplaying issues I don't see reasons you couldn't do this. I believe that's the spirit of the feat, it is my interpretation (which I think go along with the different chapters in BoED).
AKA_Bait 10-29-07, 01:23 PM	I'd say the only actual mechanics reason not to modify the feat is that the RP requirements are there as a balancing aspect. QFT The BOED has several aspects that are balanced on the basis of RP and can be very overpowered otherwise. If you want to make it so that an evil character can have access to the same stuff then that's just fine but you need to make sure that all of the RP balance is also maintained in when you tweak it. For this purpose, I'd agree with JaxGaret and suggest that you simply homebrew a new and similar feat. It can be tricky to parse it out with adjustments from the original one. The stuff in BOED is really so linked to the RP requirements in that book that just ripping out the 'don't have stuff' part is insufficent for balance in anything but the most heavily optimized games. Some RP requirements are needed. If you want help homebrewing them I suggest posting a preliminary idea here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15) and folks, including myself, will help you with balance etc. @Jax- We might be able to come up with a side thing for Kragh sometime. :-)
StruckingFuggle 10-29-07, 01:39 PM	The BOED has several aspects that are balanced on the basis of RP and can be very overpowered otherwise. I very much do not believe VoP to be one of these, outside of fringe cases (low-magic, low-wealth games) and to some degree with optimized builds (wildshape-focused druids). In fact, I'm prone to think that in a normal game, it usually makes you weaker.
bfiggins 10-29-07, 01:45 PM	It could be Neutral, too. I don't think so. The Vow of Poverty represents being rewarded for your unflinching devotion to a certain ideal. I don't see that coming from Neutral.
Tordak 10-29-07, 01:47 PM	In fact, I'm prone to think that in a normal game, it usually makes you weaker. You could probably verify that by computing the amount of equivalent treasure you'd need to own to get the power of the VoP (armor, energy resistance, sustenance, regeneration, etc.) and check if it amounts to the total a player of the same character level should have (DMG, there's a table called Wealth by Level, look in the list of table at the end of the book; for a level 20, it's something in the proximity of 780 000 gp).
StruckingFuggle 10-29-07, 01:55 PM	I don't think so. The Vow of Poverty represents being rewarded for your unflinching devotion to a certain ideal. I don't see that coming from Neutral. Neutral people can't be committed to an ideal? How the heck do you figure that? You could probably verify that by computing the amount of equivalent treasure you'd need to own to get the power of the VoP (armor, energy resistance, sustenance, regeneration, etc.) and check if it amounts to the total a player of the same character level should have (DMG, there's a table called Wealth by Level, look in the list of table at the end of the book; for a level 20, it's something in the proximity of 780 000 gp). I haven't run the math myself, but I've seen the numbers and it generally averages ahead of the curve in a few places and behind the curve long enough that that's the average, with some variance there coming from how much or little you value the bonus exalted feats. If you run near, at, or god forbid (heh) above standard wbl; and especially if you're given the option of customizing gear / getting specific items, it's suboptimal to the point of gimp, unless you're regularly being robbed or imprisoned or, say, wildshaping (where the bonuses stack).
darksamuari 10-29-07, 05:34 PM	So, let me test this out on your guys and gals. How about if Kord, god of strength, rewarded those who decided to perfect the strength of their bodies, rejecting the assistance of any tools or magic items? The flavor seems to be there, right? But what do to with the left over treasure you will be carrying around??? Kord also dictates you must give all the treasure you obtain on your pursuit of glorious strength to those who are but the weakest in strength. Vow of Self Sufficiency!
Jaxgaret 10-29-07, 05:57 PM	So, let me test this out on your guys and gals. How about if Kord, god of strength, rewarded those who decided to perfect the strength of their bodies, rejecting the assistance of any tools or magic items? The flavor seems to be there, right? But what do to with the left over treasure you will be carrying around??? Kord also dictates you must give all the treasure you obtain on your pursuit of glorious strength to those who are but the weakest in strength. Vow of Self Sufficiency! Sounds pretty cool to me.
Tordak 10-29-07, 09:45 PM	Besides, to answer your original question, VoP is really all about roleplaying. All you really need to do then is create a good roleplaying gig for your player to take the feat.
Tordak 10-29-07, 09:46 PM	Besides, to answer your original question, VoP is really all about roleplaying. All you really need to do then is creat a good roleplaying gig for your player to take the feat.
Tordak 10-29-07, 09:46 PM	Besides, to answer your original question, VoP is really all about roleplaying. All you really need to do then is creat a good roleplaying gig for your player to take the feat.
Tordak 10-29-07, 09:46 PM	Besides, to answer your original question, VoP is really all about roleplaying. All you really need to do then is creat a good roleplaying gig for your player to take the feat.
Jaxgaret 10-30-07, 12:42 AM	Holy quadruple post, Batman.
shadowforged 10-30-07, 06:30 AM	Lets think about the new names for these General versions of the exalted feats how about: "You have my Word" instead of "Sacred Vow" "the Rewards of Sacrifice" instead of "Vow of Poverty" ? of course most of the effects of the feats stays the same maybe changing sacred bonusses to profane or divine depending on alignment
Tordak 10-30-07, 10:32 AM	Holy quadruple post, Batman. Yeah.. I noticed some people have like 5000 post, so I'm trying to catch up ;)
darksamuari 10-30-07, 06:03 PM	Yeah.. I noticed some people have like 5000 post, so I'm trying to catch up ;) Oh sweet mamas of the Bahamas...
evangelion1010 10-30-07, 07:25 PM	In a word? No. There is no good reason. Worshiping a god which it would make sense for should allow it. I can think of any number of deities which would be chill with this. For example the god of nature may decide that a lack of possessions allows you to be closer and more reliant on nature. Certain pantheons it doesn't make much sense for, but hell even the god of gambling might require a follower to constantly take risks, even ones with very low probabilities of success, until he eventually loses everything he has. For atheistic ideas, one of self-reliant strength works well - the character adopts a mantra of constant training and strict discipline. This works best for non-magic casting classes. For example the deflection bonus to AC is provided by an air of 'humph. I'm too superior for you to hit me, because I don't use magical items.' As for neutral (especially LN and N) I find it hard to believe they couldn't pull it off, seeing as how the cultures which espouse these beliefs most in the real world would tend to be those alignments. For chaotic alignments you may be able to pull it off for some classes, namely those which had innate magical/psionic power, as their power stems from chaos and you could argue a strict discipline wasn't necessary, simply embracing their innate power fully with no crutches.
Werral 10-30-07, 08:37 PM	I love that idea. May I use it? Absolutely! Just let me know how it goes. I also agree though with the point about it being a counter for the fact that the wealth by level rule penalises generous PC's who go around helping peasants for free and donating money to the poor. I'm not really a fan of wealth by level. Still I do like the idea of taking on Vows of various kinds in exchange for abilities.
Jaxgaret 10-30-07, 10:55 PM	Yeah.. I noticed some people have like 5000 post, so I'm trying to catch up ;) Whew! I only have 3,000 posts... so that obviously can't be a referendum on my posting habits... :)
LazyNinja 11-04-07, 03:38 AM	Meh. I've always allowed a Vow of Avarice. Your dedication to mammon for the sake of mammon is such that you neither spend nor use any wealth you obtain, but instead horde it, secreted away from those unworthy to have such riches. Same mechanics as Poverty, except instead of giving treasure away, you pile it up and never touch it. Interesting roleplaying hooks, too, trying to keep all the infidels away from what's rightfully yours. We've been through the whole "Why does this spell/feat/PrC require this alignment" argument before, and I personally think it's pretty obvious that most of the restrictions are in place simply because some designer felt their idea should only be played in one particular way. Lawful monks, anyone? Intuitive Strike is exalted? Because Sith never used the Force to guide their attacks.