Vow of poverty character : Giving gold to party members? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Vow of poverty character : Giving gold to party members? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Abbacabba
08-20-07, 06:38 PM ALright,

I'm running a game and need some community consensus :

A monk has taken vow of poverty, he never really kept his share of money previously, always giving it to the rest of the group.

The group still wants to keep his share for themselfs, the monk claims his share is and has alwasys been %0 so theres nothing for him to take to donate elsewhere.

Seems to break both the written words and intent.

Anyone see it his way?
Mindolin
08-20-07, 08:10 PM It was explicitly stated in the rules, either in that section or in another, that simply not taking any treasure does not fulfill the vow. Not only does he not get to keep any treasure, he does take it and must donate it to a worthy cause, such as buying room and board for the homeless for a time, or to a temple to provide aid for the poor. He keeps his treasure, but while others go through shopping lists as to what magic item they buy now, he/she goes through a shopping list of what charities to give the money to.
Kyuketsukiouji
08-20-07, 08:52 PM Mindolin has it right. It's a vow of poverty, not a vow of making your buddies rich.
Rulebook
08-20-07, 09:01 PM yeah. exalted characters are a pain in the behind to begin with, then you have to add the vow of "aggrivate the other players by being both annoying and weak" to the mix... ugh.

and a vow monk... seriously, what was the monk's player thinking? by levels 13+ he'll be completely useless unless your dm is either incompetent or way too nice.
Abbacabba
08-20-07, 10:34 PM Mindolin has it right. It's a vow of poverty, not a vow of making your buddies rich.

The whole issue is with the word "Share".

I'm saying *his share* is 1/6 of all gold/treasure, as we have six PC's.

Hes saying, I always gave my share away before, making a historical trend of "my share is 0 gold".
Tsuul
08-21-07, 01:53 AM His share is 1/6th. If he has no use for that gold before picking up VoP, I commend his RP. But being exalted is about thinking about others and not just "not thinking of yourself".
What he does with that share is entirely up to him. He just may no longer be exalted. He can do a lot of good with that gold; he may also choose not to [do all that extra good].
LazyNinja
08-21-07, 01:40 PM His share is 1/6th. If he has no use for that gold before picking up VoP, I commend his RP. But being exalted is about thinking about others and not just "not thinking of yourself".

I agree, in part. He needs to take a share. But if the rest of the party is good, I wouldn't have a problem with him giving them his share so they can buy better gear to protect the innocent or hunt down evil. If, in your game, exalted characters are more pragmatic than dogmatic (which I prefer) then it may do much more good to outfit adventures who can stop an entire horde of rampaging orcs than to give the money to an orphanage that's about to be overrun or use the funds to rebuild after an attack. As long as the party uses the funds to directly combat evil.

But then, I like my good characters to be more utilitarian than doctrinaire.
Abbacabba
08-21-07, 02:00 PM I've told them that if there is a "Party Fund" situation hes ok to put into that, as long as hes not the main one funding it.
Kalai_Eljahn
08-21-07, 02:24 PM It seems like if the intent is to donate money, he should pursue that; even if he has no interest in treasure for himself, he can still talk with his party about what he'd like done with what they acquire. He doesn't need a 'share' to persuade them to part with a sixth of their gold.
JulesCARV
08-21-07, 02:33 PM The monk previously never took a share of the money and donated it. He also previously never got bonuses to AC, enhancements to ability scores, the ability to survive without food or water, and all the other supernatural benefits that the Vow of Poverty grants. If he wants to get the latter, he must also do the former.
TiwazTyrsfist
08-21-07, 03:10 PM As part of the mechanics of VoP he is required to take an equal share, monitarily, of the treasure the group gets, and donate to a worthy cause.

So, he doesn't have to take any magic items, but if you have six guys, and the total value of all the treasure is 12000gp, including the cost of the magic items, etc, he has to take 2000 gp worth of goods or money that he can donate to a worthy cause.

Not taking his share is equivalent to donating his share to the group. NOW, if the group is, for example, composed entirely of Good aligned clerics and paladins who accept quests on the basis of 'It's for the greater good!', then you could say that giving his share to the rest of the party constitued donating to a worthy cause.

However, if it's a standard gaming group, it probably breaks his vow...
Shiftkitty
08-21-07, 03:17 PM All the monk seems to be doing is reinvesting in his company. Not exactly charitable. Executives do this all the time to help increase profits. The party gets the money, buys better gear and stuff, has a better chance of survival, which benefits the monk. He needs to give it to something that doesn't pay him back in any way, shape or form.

If he insists on giving money to the party to help their chances of survival, he should give a portion of it to them, like 10 or 15% (after all, they're making their own money), and give the rest to orphanages, the poor, etc.
Spikes01k
08-21-07, 04:43 PM I see an exception in this rule if your in a fight to save the world. Those poor places are not going to well off if everyone is turned into an undead.
tarkin
08-21-07, 05:35 PM As a DM I would rule that donating to other party members is a form of purchasing their services.

They save your life right? They fight your battles right?

It is a violation of the spirit of the vow.

Give to real charity, not fake ones set up to dodge taxes.
ravenshrike
08-22-07, 12:32 PM Is he in a contract to take 1/6th of the earnings? No? Well then, he has no obligation to take any of the money or items that they find.
Tedronai
08-22-07, 02:33 PM He's also not in any 'contract to gain the benefits of VoP'

If he can reasonably argue that the party is a charitable cause, then you MIGHT allow it, if you're inclined to be incredibly lenient. If he can't, or you aren't, then he either donates to a charitable cause as defined by you, or loses the benefit of the feat.
Patinho_Amarelo
08-22-07, 03:17 PM and a vow monk... seriously, what was the monk's player thinking? by levels 13+ he'll be completely useless unless your dm is either incompetent or way too nice.

Another one wich don´t know to play with Monk...

About the vow... well... He CAN´T have any money, but, he can get money to donate, etc... I´m wrong?

If the group kill a dragon, the dragon has 10.000 GP, The monk with vow will ask nothing for him. Only if the Monk has a destination wich no include himself. (Sorry for the english, isn´t my first language)
Kaladon7779
08-22-07, 03:37 PM No, the monks share must be donated to a charity like a community church or something. Just by saying that you donate to your group your share is not enough, I'd take the benefits of Poverty away from him until he can full fill all its needs.

The monk can also donate to a poor family or a family that is in direly need. I would test him on this, have his share of the treasure and interduce him to a very poor family that's struggling, if he chooses not to donate his share of wealth? then strip him of the poverty benefits until he can full fill them. One way you can look at Poverty is abilities given by there god.

Also, I do believe Path of Poverty is 3.0 so you might want to reconsider that next time somebody wants to make a character.
ShanxAlot
08-22-07, 03:50 PM Gotta say I agree with tarkin. Per page 31 of the Book of Exalted Deeds,

The majority of her share of party treasure(or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the NEEDY, either directly(equipping rescued captives with gear from their fallen captors) or indirectly(making a large donation to a temple noted for it's work among the poor). While taking upon themselves the burden of poverty voluntarily, an ascetic recognizes 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.

NOTHING in there suggests they can forgo the gold to line their companions pockets.
Kaladon7779
08-22-07, 03:55 PM Gotta say I agree with tarkin. Per page 31 of the Book of Exalted Deeds,
NOTHING in there suggests they can forgo the gold to line their companions pockets.

Yes Tarkin was right on. Giving your share to your adventuring party is not giving to the unfortunate. As I said, if the player continues to abuse this, well first off its 3.0, so you should be even more strict on this. But if the player continues to abuse this then strip him of the abilites until he can make up for it.
Patinho_Amarelo
08-22-07, 03:59 PM No, the monks share must be donated to a charity like a community church or something. Just by saying that you donate to your group your share is not enough, I'd take the benefits of Poverty away from him until he can full fill all its needs.

The monk can also donate to a poor family or a family that is in direly need. I would test him on this, have his share of the treasure and interduce him to a very poor family that's struggling, if he chooses not to donate his share of wealth? then strip him of the poverty benefits until he can full fill them. One way you can look at Poverty is abilities given by there god.

Also, I do believe Path of Poverty is 3.0 so you might want to reconsider that next time somebody wants to make a character.

I couldn´t agreed more :).

I only say about this situation - A group kill a dragon, the dragon have 100.000GP, the group have 5 people (20.000 for each) but, the monk (i think) will only ask for him the enough to fulfill his donation, wich may be less than 20.000 gp.

But, i agreed with yous, donate to the poor, isn´t donate to Adventurers (Wich, by the way, usually is very Rich :p)
ShanxAlot
08-22-07, 04:00 PM Yes Tarkin was right on. Giving your share to your adventuring party is not giving to the unfortunate. As I said, if the player continues to abuse this, well first off its 3.0, so you should be even more strict on this. But if the player continues to abuse this then strip him of the abilites until he can make up for it.

I was actually still typing my reply when you posted so again I'd have to agree with your post as well, though I wouldn't introduce "him" to a poor family as much as I'd bring the entire party to a ram shackle town where everyone lives out of the same house barely getting by. (Testing an individual player would be to much of a tip off and suspicions could arrise. Also if the others having been getting what should've been given to the poor they should also have some guilt issues regarding the citizens quality of life. At the very least anyone claiming to be of the good alignment.)
tarkin
08-22-07, 04:37 PM One more point:

Roleplaying.

No one takes a Vow of Poverty to be poor.

Instead you do things like take a Vow of Poverty to SUPPORT SOMETHING.

Religious people take a Vow of Poverty to support their religion.

Humanitarians take a Vow of Poverty to support the Needy.

The subject of your charity is an integral part of the Vow, not something you tack on later.

Your are trying to roleplay someone that is so touched by the plight of the Adventuring Party that he has taken a vow of poverty to support the Party?????

The same party that is sharing their gold with you?

Cue laughter now.
FrotzMe
08-22-07, 07:24 PM Also, I do believe Path of Poverty is 3.0

No, actually it's 3.5; BoED was one of the first (the first?) publications to come out after the release of 3.5 core material.
AtsuiShoto
08-23-07, 02:08 AM Once again, Tarkin nails it.
Spikes01k
08-23-07, 08:22 AM I think it is really up to the situation. Lets say your town was besieged by dragons and undead, such as in the Age of Worms campaign, your part good aligned adventures grouped together to fight off the undead swarm and chromatic dragons. Your a humanitarian VoP, and this party didn't just save the poor you have been trying to support but saved the entire town. Their humanitarian effort is great than yours because if it wasn't for them all those poor you were trying to help ans save would be dead. So if you don't give this group all the support you can, in every way possible this could mean the fall of the world to the masses of undead and faul beings of Tiamat.

I would as a GM see this as a valid point for a VoP to give their share back to the party. However if a number of the party is evil, or maybe even neutral in alignment this would get sticky where he would give money to only the good people in the party secretly or not give any to the party at all.
Kaladon7779
08-23-07, 08:46 AM One more point:

Roleplaying.

No one takes a Vow of Poverty to be poor.

Instead you do things like take a Vow of Poverty to SUPPORT SOMETHING.

Religious people take a Vow of Poverty to support their religion.

Humanitarians take a Vow of Poverty to support the Needy.

The subject of your charity is an integral part of the Vow, not something you tack on later.

Your are trying to roleplay someone that is so touched by the plight of the Adventuring Party that he has taken a vow of poverty to support the Party?????

The same party that is sharing their gold with you?

Cue laughter now.

Yes this is correct, you take the poverty towards some higher cause, or greater deity, or for the beter of a religion. Adventuring parties are not poor by any means. Also some players will pull the typical, well I donate it to a friend of that religion and he lends it to me so therefore technically its not mine so it doesn't count towards my wealth. Don't be fulled by that, wealth is described as whatever is on that characters possessions, doesn't matter if borrowed, stolen, or aquired, if its on him its considered wealth.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Abbacabba 08-20-07, 06:38 PM	ALright, I'm running a game and need some community consensus : A monk has taken vow of poverty, he never really kept his share of money previously, always giving it to the rest of the group. The group still wants to keep his share for themselfs, the monk claims his share is and has alwasys been %0 so theres nothing for him to take to donate elsewhere. Seems to break both the written words and intent. Anyone see it his way?
Mindolin 08-20-07, 08:10 PM	It was explicitly stated in the rules, either in that section or in another, that simply not taking any treasure does not fulfill the vow. Not only does he not get to keep any treasure, he does take it and must donate it to a worthy cause, such as buying room and board for the homeless for a time, or to a temple to provide aid for the poor. He keeps his treasure, but while others go through shopping lists as to what magic item they buy now, he/she goes through a shopping list of what charities to give the money to.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-20-07, 08:52 PM	Mindolin has it right. It's a vow of poverty, not a vow of making your buddies rich.
Rulebook 08-20-07, 09:01 PM	yeah. exalted characters are a pain in the behind to begin with, then you have to add the vow of "aggrivate the other players by being both annoying and weak" to the mix... ugh. and a vow monk... seriously, what was the monk's player thinking? by levels 13+ he'll be completely useless unless your dm is either incompetent or way too nice.
Abbacabba 08-20-07, 10:34 PM	Mindolin has it right. It's a vow of poverty, not a vow of making your buddies rich. The whole issue is with the word "Share". I'm saying his share is 1/6 of all gold/treasure, as we have six PC's. Hes saying, I always gave my share away before, making a historical trend of "my share is 0 gold".
Tsuul 08-21-07, 01:53 AM	His share is 1/6th. If he has no use for that gold before picking up VoP, I commend his RP. But being exalted is about thinking about others and not just "not thinking of yourself". What he does with that share is entirely up to him. He just may no longer be exalted. He can do a lot of good with that gold; he may also choose not to [do all that extra good].
LazyNinja 08-21-07, 01:40 PM	His share is 1/6th. If he has no use for that gold before picking up VoP, I commend his RP. But being exalted is about thinking about others and not just "not thinking of yourself". I agree, in part. He needs to take a share. But if the rest of the party is good, I wouldn't have a problem with him giving them his share so they can buy better gear to protect the innocent or hunt down evil. If, in your game, exalted characters are more pragmatic than dogmatic (which I prefer) then it may do much more good to outfit adventures who can stop an entire horde of rampaging orcs than to give the money to an orphanage that's about to be overrun or use the funds to rebuild after an attack. As long as the party uses the funds to directly combat evil. But then, I like my good characters to be more utilitarian than doctrinaire.
Abbacabba 08-21-07, 02:00 PM	I've told them that if there is a "Party Fund" situation hes ok to put into that, as long as hes not the main one funding it.
Kalai_Eljahn 08-21-07, 02:24 PM	It seems like if the intent is to donate money, he should pursue that; even if he has no interest in treasure for himself, he can still talk with his party about what he'd like done with what they acquire. He doesn't need a 'share' to persuade them to part with a sixth of their gold.
JulesCARV 08-21-07, 02:33 PM	The monk previously never took a share of the money and donated it. He also previously never got bonuses to AC, enhancements to ability scores, the ability to survive without food or water, and all the other supernatural benefits that the Vow of Poverty grants. If he wants to get the latter, he must also do the former.
TiwazTyrsfist 08-21-07, 03:10 PM	As part of the mechanics of VoP he is required to take an equal share, monitarily, of the treasure the group gets, and donate to a worthy cause. So, he doesn't have to take any magic items, but if you have six guys, and the total value of all the treasure is 12000gp, including the cost of the magic items, etc, he has to take 2000 gp worth of goods or money that he can donate to a worthy cause. Not taking his share is equivalent to donating his share to the group. NOW, if the group is, for example, composed entirely of Good aligned clerics and paladins who accept quests on the basis of 'It's for the greater good!', then you could say that giving his share to the rest of the party constitued donating to a worthy cause. However, if it's a standard gaming group, it probably breaks his vow...
Shiftkitty 08-21-07, 03:17 PM	All the monk seems to be doing is reinvesting in his company. Not exactly charitable. Executives do this all the time to help increase profits. The party gets the money, buys better gear and stuff, has a better chance of survival, which benefits the monk. He needs to give it to something that doesn't pay him back in any way, shape or form. If he insists on giving money to the party to help their chances of survival, he should give a portion of it to them, like 10 or 15% (after all, they're making their own money), and give the rest to orphanages, the poor, etc.
Spikes01k 08-21-07, 04:43 PM	I see an exception in this rule if your in a fight to save the world. Those poor places are not going to well off if everyone is turned into an undead.
tarkin 08-21-07, 05:35 PM	As a DM I would rule that donating to other party members is a form of purchasing their services. They save your life right? They fight your battles right? It is a violation of the spirit of the vow. Give to real charity, not fake ones set up to dodge taxes.
ravenshrike 08-22-07, 12:32 PM	Is he in a contract to take 1/6th of the earnings? No? Well then, he has no obligation to take any of the money or items that they find.
Tedronai 08-22-07, 02:33 PM	He's also not in any 'contract to gain the benefits of VoP' If he can reasonably argue that the party is a charitable cause, then you MIGHT allow it, if you're inclined to be incredibly lenient. If he can't, or you aren't, then he either donates to a charitable cause as defined by you, or loses the benefit of the feat.
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 03:17 PM	and a vow monk... seriously, what was the monk's player thinking? by levels 13+ he'll be completely useless unless your dm is either incompetent or way too nice. Another one wich don´t know to play with Monk... About the vow... well... He CAN´T have any money, but, he can get money to donate, etc... I´m wrong? If the group kill a dragon, the dragon has 10.000 GP, The monk with vow will ask nothing for him. Only if the Monk has a destination wich no include himself. (Sorry for the english, isn´t my first language)
Kaladon7779 08-22-07, 03:37 PM	No, the monks share must be donated to a charity like a community church or something. Just by saying that you donate to your group your share is not enough, I'd take the benefits of Poverty away from him until he can full fill all its needs. The monk can also donate to a poor family or a family that is in direly need. I would test him on this, have his share of the treasure and interduce him to a very poor family that's struggling, if he chooses not to donate his share of wealth? then strip him of the poverty benefits until he can full fill them. One way you can look at Poverty is abilities given by there god. Also, I do believe Path of Poverty is 3.0 so you might want to reconsider that next time somebody wants to make a character.
ShanxAlot 08-22-07, 03:50 PM	Gotta say I agree with tarkin. Per page 31 of the Book of Exalted Deeds, The majority of her share of party treasure(or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the NEEDY, either directly(equipping rescued captives with gear from their fallen captors) or indirectly(making a large donation to a temple noted for it's work among the poor). While taking upon themselves the burden of poverty voluntarily, an ascetic recognizes 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. NOTHING in there suggests they can forgo the gold to line their companions pockets.
Kaladon7779 08-22-07, 03:55 PM	Gotta say I agree with tarkin. Per page 31 of the Book of Exalted Deeds, NOTHING in there suggests they can forgo the gold to line their companions pockets. Yes Tarkin was right on. Giving your share to your adventuring party is not giving to the unfortunate. As I said, if the player continues to abuse this, well first off its 3.0, so you should be even more strict on this. But if the player continues to abuse this then strip him of the abilites until he can make up for it.
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 03:59 PM	No, the monks share must be donated to a charity like a community church or something. Just by saying that you donate to your group your share is not enough, I'd take the benefits of Poverty away from him until he can full fill all its needs. The monk can also donate to a poor family or a family that is in direly need. I would test him on this, have his share of the treasure and interduce him to a very poor family that's struggling, if he chooses not to donate his share of wealth? then strip him of the poverty benefits until he can full fill them. One way you can look at Poverty is abilities given by there god. Also, I do believe Path of Poverty is 3.0 so you might want to reconsider that next time somebody wants to make a character. I couldn´t agreed more :). I only say about this situation - A group kill a dragon, the dragon have 100.000GP, the group have 5 people (20.000 for each) but, the monk (i think) will only ask for him the enough to fulfill his donation, wich may be less than 20.000 gp. But, i agreed with yous, donate to the poor, isn´t donate to Adventurers (Wich, by the way, usually is very Rich :p)
ShanxAlot 08-22-07, 04:00 PM	Yes Tarkin was right on. Giving your share to your adventuring party is not giving to the unfortunate. As I said, if the player continues to abuse this, well first off its 3.0, so you should be even more strict on this. But if the player continues to abuse this then strip him of the abilites until he can make up for it. I was actually still typing my reply when you posted so again I'd have to agree with your post as well, though I wouldn't introduce "him" to a poor family as much as I'd bring the entire party to a ram shackle town where everyone lives out of the same house barely getting by. (Testing an individual player would be to much of a tip off and suspicions could arrise. Also if the others having been getting what should've been given to the poor they should also have some guilt issues regarding the citizens quality of life. At the very least anyone claiming to be of the good alignment.)
tarkin 08-22-07, 04:37 PM	One more point: Roleplaying. No one takes a Vow of Poverty to be poor. Instead you do things like take a Vow of Poverty to SUPPORT SOMETHING. Religious people take a Vow of Poverty to support their religion. Humanitarians take a Vow of Poverty to support the Needy. The subject of your charity is an integral part of the Vow, not something you tack on later. Your are trying to roleplay someone that is so touched by the plight of the Adventuring Party that he has taken a vow of poverty to support the Party????? The same party that is sharing their gold with you? Cue laughter now.
FrotzMe 08-22-07, 07:24 PM	Also, I do believe Path of Poverty is 3.0 No, actually it's 3.5; BoED was one of the first (the first?) publications to come out after the release of 3.5 core material.
AtsuiShoto 08-23-07, 02:08 AM	Once again, Tarkin nails it.
Spikes01k 08-23-07, 08:22 AM	I think it is really up to the situation. Lets say your town was besieged by dragons and undead, such as in the Age of Worms campaign, your part good aligned adventures grouped together to fight off the undead swarm and chromatic dragons. Your a humanitarian VoP, and this party didn't just save the poor you have been trying to support but saved the entire town. Their humanitarian effort is great than yours because if it wasn't for them all those poor you were trying to help ans save would be dead. So if you don't give this group all the support you can, in every way possible this could mean the fall of the world to the masses of undead and faul beings of Tiamat. I would as a GM see this as a valid point for a VoP to give their share back to the party. However if a number of the party is evil, or maybe even neutral in alignment this would get sticky where he would give money to only the good people in the party secretly or not give any to the party at all.
Kaladon7779 08-23-07, 08:46 AM	One more point: Roleplaying. No one takes a Vow of Poverty to be poor. Instead you do things like take a Vow of Poverty to SUPPORT SOMETHING. Religious people take a Vow of Poverty to support their religion. Humanitarians take a Vow of Poverty to support the Needy. The subject of your charity is an integral part of the Vow, not something you tack on later. Your are trying to roleplay someone that is so touched by the plight of the Adventuring Party that he has taken a vow of poverty to support the Party????? The same party that is sharing their gold with you? Cue laughter now. Yes this is correct, you take the poverty towards some higher cause, or greater deity, or for the beter of a religion. Adventuring parties are not poor by any means. Also some players will pull the typical, well I donate it to a friend of that religion and he lends it to me so therefore technically its not mine so it doesn't count towards my wealth. Don't be fulled by that, wealth is described as whatever is on that characters possessions, doesn't matter if borrowed, stolen, or aquired, if its on him its considered wealth.