Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sargon 05-05-07, 12:59 AM	Lets Say You have character (or an NPC for that matter) That has the Vow of Peace. Now let us Assume This Character Is wielding an Intelligent Sword. Now Let Let us Further Assume that This Sword is accually Possed By the Archangel (or atleast The D&D equivalent) Micheal. Would the Wielder be held responsble for wielding an instrument of divine wrath (literally?)
SkippyDawg 05-05-07, 01:11 AM	Note: I have only 1 years experience in DnD. I would think that if the sword floated about and acted on it's own accord, the owner would not be responsible...but the owner would probably be responsible to negotiate a way out of fighting.
chava 05-05-07, 01:24 AM	If the player has Vow of Peace and commits an act of violence through no choice of his own (ie being dominated, charmed etc.) he loses the benefits of the feats until his atones (cannot replace the feat with another). If a player willing violates his oath he loses all of benefits of his feat permanently - he cannot replace the feat with another. If the sword acts against the will of wielder and 'forces' him to kill it is covered under statement one. However, once the character realizes that the sword is able to take him over and commit violence - and he does not prevent that (by getting rid of the sword, etc.) then the next time the sword 'forces' him to violence he has willingly violated his oath - and that is covered under statement two. Questions? Comments?
SkippyDawg 05-05-07, 01:30 AM	*clapping* Somebody has done their homework! I give you a round of applause!
Sargon 05-05-07, 01:47 AM	Questioin! Jah's Sword is an intelligent Item Possessed By a Lawful Good intrument of wrath ( or in other words laying waste to evil villans.) Because The item is an intrument of the Deitiy who grants the benifit of the Vow of Peace, Does the Wield become Responsible for its actions. Though the feat script specificly says Humans and Montrous Humans so i sappose agaisnt those to non lethal damage could be dealt. I'm working on This Intelligent Item and also its wielder So i was just wondering. Thanks.
KillerGM 05-05-07, 02:02 AM	If the player has Vow of Peace and commits an act of violence through no choice of his own (ie being dominated, charmed etc.) he loses the benefits of the feats until his atones (cannot replace the feat with another). If a player willing violates his oath he loses all of benefits of his feat permanently - he cannot replace the feat with another. If the sword acts against the will of wielder and 'forces' him to kill it is covered under statement one. However, once the character realizes that the sword is able to take him over and commit violence - and he does not prevent that (by getting rid of the sword, etc.) then the next time the sword 'forces' him to violence he has willingly violated his oath - and that is covered under statement two. I quoted this again, because it answers your questions. YES, even though it's from the same deity. The deity wouldn't likely look too kindly on anyone breaking his vow, especially using an item that the deity has favored. And I don't think the deity would give the item to the PC with the vow. I think he'd give it to someone with more martial intent. It'd be akin to the deity asking the character to kill someone - not cool, and would cause the PC to lose the feat. I just don't see the deity doing such. Unless he's a real jerk.
chava 05-05-07, 02:05 AM	*clapping* Somebody has done their homework! I give you a round of applause! Hoping it was directed at me, I take a little bow, sing a little song. (And be very happy that I have a munchkin who likes playing a vow of poverty monk, else I wouldn't have been able to answer from me head. Question! Jah's Sword is an intelligent Item Possessed By a Lawful Good instrument of wrath ( or in other words laying waste to evil villains.) Because The item is an instrument of the Deity who grants the benefit of the Vow of Peace, Does the Wielder become Responsible for its actions. Though the feat script specifically says Humans and Monstrous Humans so i suppose against those to non lethal damage could be dealt. I'm working on This Intelligent Item and also its wielder. So i was just wondering. Thanks. A) Question - suggestion from someone who sucks at spelling, upgrade to Mozilla Firefox, it has a spell check built in. B) Did you even read my previous post? It doesn't matter why the sword does what it does (ie. the sword can be chaotic evil or lawful good). It makes him break his oath, at least if he can't bargain it down to non-lethal damage, and once he realizes that if he chooses not to rid himself of the weapon - HE has violated his oath. *This fits perfectly not only with the crunch of the feat but also the fluff - The vow of nonviolence has fluff about trying to convince companions to search of a peaceful means of dealing with humanoids and monstrous humanoids. Edit: Of course, there is this Hammer of DM Fiat - so if you want your player to gain the benefit of having a vow of nonviolence but give him the means to smite and kill with no in-game penalties, it's your game. By this point my players would know better than to think I would do such a thing - but it takes all types. And thank you Killer DM for saying it faster than me.
kelvinaw273 05-05-07, 07:40 AM	Lets Say You have character (or an NPC for that matter) That has the Vow of Peace. Now let us Assume This Character Is wielding an Intelligent Sword. Now Let Let us Further Assume that This Sword is accually Possed By the Archangel (or atleast The D&D equivalent) Micheal. Would the Wielder be held responsble for wielding an instrument of divine wrath (literally?) I would presume that although a spirit of wrath, the sword (still LG after all) would recognize the VoPeace holder as one that it was dedicated to protecting, and urge them to find an appropriate wielder rather than violate their oath. This is presumably how weapons of awesomeness can end up in the hands of commoners ...
temparus2000 05-05-07, 09:42 AM	I would presume that although a spirit of wrath, the sword (still LG after all) would recognize the VoPeace holder as one that it was dedicated to protecting, and urge them to find an appropriate wielder rather than violate their oath. This is presumably how weapons of awesomeness can end up in the hands of commoners ... Yes, I agree with this. The sword is good, and therefore wouldn't knowingly force the owner into an unfavorable position to see it's goals done. However, it is lawful, so it might if it judged that the owner truly deserved the unfavorable position. That is, if "michael" didn't think the PC was doing the most good by having vow of peace, then the sword might force him to lose it.