Post/Author/DateTime	Post
e7way 12-08-06, 04:38 PM	Couple a months ago we finished the Mines of Bloodstone in it you will find a single bloodstone worth a ridiculous amount of gold cant remember off hand something 800k or 1mil i have monk in the group that has taken a VoP so at the end of each adventure we always slice up the gold and the monk takes his share and distributes among the poor keeping nothing for himself naturally. The problem lies herein since the Barony owns the bloodstone technically the GROUP wished to buy it back from the barony for some sort of group item down the line, where they could use it for some bartering situation that may or may not present it self in the future. So the group decided to use their shares of the loot to buy back the stone, all except for the Monk of course, each character contributing something like 85k a piece. Now the group became upset and ch alleged the monk because they conclude they would use this for the greater good down the line and said the monk was acting selfishly because he didn't contribute his share of the loot. One of the fellas in the group (who's in law school calls it a free rider problem) that the monk doesn't want to contribute to the good of the group. but he will receive all the benefits from the other player characters more extensive monetary sacrifice. As i understand it. The monk with the VoP would never contribute his share of the monies that would go directly to the poor, because he's sworn off material possessions but on the other hand is he acting selfishly by not wanting to help the group for his own idealisms. (he is a LG monk/paladin with VoP) who is right the monk or the others? How do you deal with this issue of VoP and group item from which all group members can receive benefit
Ichor Spellka 12-08-06, 04:52 PM	I'd argue that the monk is playing his character correctly. I really don't see what's selfish there. Everyone in the group is chipping in what they have for the group's benefit, and hence their own benefits. The monk has sworn off such ideals. The money will mean a lot more being used to help the poor. It would be selfish for him to keep the money for himself, which is very much the opposite of what he is doing. Really, he should argue that they're the selfish ones, hoarding all that wealth. An exalted character doesn't buy into arguments of the "greater good." They know what is good, and right, and just, and they do that. After all, wouldn't it be for the greater good for him to give all his share of the treasure to the group, so that they could equip themselves even better to fight the good fight? If the monk allowed his share to be used for a group item, this means that he effectively bought something that the group, and himself, will benefit from. This would cost him his abilities. As for the free-rider thing, that's just silly. Ok, he's not going to pitch in on an expense. Do they expect him to help pay for meals or inn rooms, even though he doesn't eat or sleep indoors? His contribution may not be in money, but they knew this beforehand.
High Octane 12-08-06, 05:27 PM	Now you see, the real mistake here is you allowed a Vow of Poverty monk. Giving the treasure to his friends, or more in reality, deciding to abstain from his share, would be in character for the monk, but thats a sort of slippery slope. After all, then the other characters get 1/3 more loot and the party balance is screwed. The monk also taking his share and giving it to poverty is also in character, if he believes that since he would profit from the exchange he shouldnt give it to his friends. Your player sounds like he is somehow playing the VoP monk correctly. Sadly its STILL tearing the game apart, which is why I hate those damned vows.
alecthemad 12-08-06, 05:31 PM	Yea I think I have to say the monk acted properly. If he is to have no possessions then a share in a very valuable item breaks that. They are essentially asking him to violate his vow of poverty (please know that I do not know the VoP rule).
e7way 12-08-06, 05:47 PM	[QUOTE=High Octane;10860280] After all, then the other characters get 1/3 more loot and the party balance is screwed.QUOTE] it is a 6 party group and it happends to be my charater (Monk) we run a co-op Dming system where each take turns DMing different advetures but keep same characters weve all been gaming 20+ years
High Octane 12-08-06, 05:59 PM	it is a 6 party group and it happends to be my charater (Monk) we run a co-op Dming system where each take turns DMing different advetures but keep same characters weve all been gaming 20+ years 1/5 more loot still CAN screw up game balance a bit. I do believe you are good intelligent roleplayers, so that shouldnt be an issue. I do SINCERELY believe the Vow system is screwed even is a mature roleplayers world. You did not break alignment and if your co-players are mad, they should remember you are just acting how you think your character would. They shouldnt have expected you to do anything else with your money except what you did. Had you reached an agreement to take the money out of GROUP loot instead before it was decided, you might be able to get away with it, but your character cannot profit from his wealth gains. Thats the idea of the vow and sadly your friends have to live with it.
Toloran 12-08-06, 06:02 PM	I think the real issue is that the players sold the gem and now want it back. If they had thought about it ahead of time (and decided not to sell it in the first place) they wouldn't have the problem they do now. In all, the Monk did what his character would do. The group also knew exactly what the monk was going to do with the money they gave him. As such, its the rest of the parties fault and not his.
e7way 12-08-06, 06:11 PM	I think the real issue is that the players sold the gem and now want it back. If they had thought about it ahead of time (and decided not to sell it in the first place) they wouldn't have the problem they do now. In all, the Monk did what his character would do. The group also knew exactly what the monk was going to do with the money they gave him. As such, its the rest of the parties fault and not his. It wasnt that we sold it we worked for the Baron and the Barony. The bloodstones and the mine belong to the Barony the bloodstone was not ours to take even though our rogue and war hulk were P.O.ed that we didnt keep the thing for ourselves. but the 2 lawful goods and 2 Lawful neutrals followed the baron instruction. it was only after we gave the thing back did the darn Gnome and the Elf decide we needed the thing back for the "greater good" I personally think they were just being selfish LOL
starfire311 12-08-06, 06:22 PM	seems to me that the monk is being played properly, "greater good" can be debated to no end, the Monk is doing what is good right now and unquestionably good and he is adhering to his Vow while doing it. The party should know him by now and not expect him to chip in, if they don't like him and don't feel he fits well wiht the group the other 5 members are more than free to boot the character. What would ahppen if this monk was incredibly selfish and just didnt want to chip in the money for the gem anyway. Personally I dont see how buying this gem cna help the greater good at all in the future, unless you guys are just looking at exploiting the system. You said the Gem was worth 800k to 1 mil and each person contributed 85k times 6 this is 510k, why is the group getting it so cheap, do they plan to just buy it and then sell it for the 300k-500k profit? If this is the case then they dont need the monk to go along with it anyway, but he wouldnt get a share of the sale either.
Radijs 12-08-06, 06:26 PM	There's always the middle path that can be taken. The monk agrees to use his share of the treasure now to buy the gem but insists that everyone later gives up a share of his wealth or treasure to charity equal to 1/5th of the gems value thus restoring the balance. If the party(players and/or characters) can take it he might ask for a sum a slight bit greater or that the other party members preform some other task of charity. Volunteers at the orphanage anyone?
Toloran 12-08-06, 06:30 PM	It wasnt that we sold it we worked for the Baron and the Barony. The bloodstones and the mine belong to the Barony the bloodstone was not ours to take even though our rogue and war hulk were P.O.ed that we didnt keep the thing for ourselves. but the 2 lawful goods and 2 Lawful neutrals followed the baron instruction. it was only after we gave the thing back did the darn Gnome and the Elf decide we needed the thing back for the "greater good" I personally think they were just being selfish LOL Oh ok, i misread your original post. Then I really don't see the issue. Since the VoP monk doesn't have any money (can't without violating their vow), they can't really demand that he help pay for the item they want to get.
Neoatomic 12-08-06, 06:33 PM	ummm well by the Monks belief system his share of the money really wasnt his it belonged to the poor, therefore the monk doesent have the money to put toward the item. so in this situation the monk is totally in the right here.
High Octane 12-08-06, 06:57 PM	ummm well by the Monks belief system his share of the money really wasnt his it belonged to the poor, therefore the monk doesent have the money to put toward the item. so in this situation the monk is totally in the right here. Right. So the PARTY can explain to the poor orphan who just got his first meal in weeks and is dying from lack of nutrition and shelter who never harmed a soul in his life about how taking away his loaf of bread is okay since will help bring an absolutely AWESOME +5 sword to the "good guys".
Radijs 12-08-06, 09:48 PM	Right. So the PARTY can explain to the poor orphan who just got his first meal in weeks and is dying from lack of nutrition and shelter who never harmed a soul in his life about how taking away his loaf of bread is okay since will help bring an absolutely AWESOME +5 sword to the "good guys". Quoted for truth.
FeceMan 12-09-06, 01:17 AM	Right. So the PARTY can explain to the poor orphan who just got his first meal in weeks and is dying from lack of nutrition and shelter who never harmed a soul in his life about how taking away his loaf of bread is okay since will help bring an absolutely AWESOME +5 sword to the "good guys". Well, the thread is pretty much over now. Now, if only the OP's monk were a blind VoP monk...
Xaktsaroth 12-09-06, 02:05 AM	Monk was completely in the right here, and please, please! pass on 2 messages from me to him/her. 1) Congratulations on being one of the very few people who can play a VoP(hell, exalted character in general) correctly. Let no one tell you otherwise. 2) The next time someone throws that 'greater good' crap in your face, smack them upside the head(unless you took the Vow Of Peace. :P), and explain to them that your purity is not some sort of betting chip that can be played. By violating your vows for ANY reason, you are shifting the fundamental energies of the universe from Law and Good to Chaos and Evil. The BoED supports that answer. Taking a not good act for good means is still not good. I applaud you for not giving in.