Recent Posts
It's not metagaming. If my job were to kill monsters with swords and I lived in a world with werewolves, you can bet I'd invest in at least some cheap silver dagger. That's as sensible and grounded in the game world as the swordsman who carries a crossbow as a side arm.
And just because things happen one way in your game does not mean that it's tactically sound.
Maybe you misunderstood my point on that, to clarify I only count it as metagaming when a pc gets all off the various weapon types asap, with no regards to his pcs knowledge and breaks out the appropriate weapon when he sees the monster needed "ooh a skeleton, need bludgeoning, naw thats an XYZ get the adamantite". I don't find it strange or unusual or metagamey when a pc finds he has a problem with werewolves or where werewolves are well known in the setting, to have a silver weapon just in case. But I think here were just interested in two different aspects of the game.
As for it being tactically sound, I never disagreed with that because, well frankly it is. If the players are playing a heavy DR filled game and the DM gave them a heads up or they know about the various DR in game (an Archivist in the group or a wizard/bard with lots of knowledges, etc) then by all means feel free to get one of anything needed. All I meant was I never see these situations in games I've ran or played, even with players who know what DR a monster has, they "forget" until such a time the characters learn what needs to be done. Then they start the collection. Frankly I don't see many monks to be honest and again I haven't seen those use anything more than unarmed usually. But as I said the monk, good or bad, is best left to another thread.
In the end VoP is like all of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, feats and flavor that alter the game world assumptions, and for no other reason than this I find it best to examined and thought about before inclusion in a game. But that's just me.
Dragonborn, from what I have read of your character and intention with the feat, I would certainly applaud and encourage your use of the Vow of Poverty. I feel confident that the other problems that may or may not arise from the feat could be easily dealt with as the game progresses.
Thank you. I'll have his background posted later to day. I tried to explain how he got a draconic name(without revealing outright a dragon gave it to him), and his skills.
Dragonborn, from what I have read of your character and intention with the feat, I would certainly applaud and encourage your use of the Vow of Poverty. I feel confident that the other problems that may or may not arise from the feat could be easily dealt with as the game progresses.Thank you. I'll have his background posted later to day. I tried to explain how he got a draconic name(without revealing outright a dragon gave it to him), and his skills.
Um am i seeing this right, you're going to have a vow of piece but then still be fighting using non-lethal weapons? So you aren't really going vow of peace at all?
Um am i seeing this right, you're going to have a vow of piece but then still be fighting using non-lethal weapons? So you aren't really going vow of peace at all?Dragonborn, from what I have read of your character and intention with the feat, I would certainly applaud and encourage your use of the Vow of Poverty. I feel confident that the other problems that may or may not arise from the feat could be easily dealt with as the game progresses.Thank you. I'll have his background posted later to day. I tried to explain how he got a draconic name(without revealing outright a dragon gave it to him), and his skills.
Vow of Peace sya I cannot kill. Which works for a character who wants to redeem evil doers(he is really good at Diplomacy). While he doesn't kill, it would be foolish to expect the people attacking him to let him live. He also would try to talk his way out of a fight if he can.
Being a pacifist does not mean you can't defend yourself and your comrades. It means you do not like/want to fight.
Okay, here's the background I came up with. I know there are somethings missing, but I tried.
One night, just before the sun's last rays disappeared , a mysterious man came to a temple of Erastil. In his arms, sleeping peacefully, was a human babe. All he told the elderly cleric who met with him was that the boy's parents had been killed trying to save him from highwaymen. Since he had no way of caring for the child, he had sought out followers of Erastil, who told him where to find this place. He said one more thing before leaving.
“I have no idea what his parents named him, so I've been calling him Ethric Lesit.” Then the man walked away.”
Years passed without incident for Ethric and the other orphans, until hard times fell upon the temple. Food was rationed to the extreme and the children were taught how to care for their scrapes and cuts in order to save magic, medicine, and bandages.
One night, with the younger children crying with hunger and his own stomach growling, 9-year old Ethric snuck out of the temple and into a bakery not far away. While he managed to not wake the baker who slept upstairs, there was no way of hiding his stomach's growls from the large dog that guarded the house.
The next morning, as the half-elven baker came downstairs to start the cook fires, he found Ethric trapped under his sleeping dog. Asking why he had broken in, the half-elf's answer came in the form of a stomach rumble. Laughing, he asked Ethric if he would like to work for the food instead of trying to get past the dog. At first, Ethric was reluctant, but he remembered the other orphans and accepted the kind offer.
He soon became an excellent baker, and became skilled at mixing the medicines the temple needed. He learned how to haggle for the best prices, and found he could tell if others were lying. He even found out what his name meant, and, because he liked his name, he decided to stay at the temple and flat-out refused to be adopted.
The money and food he earned helped the temple greatly, and now that he's older, he has taken on od jobs around town. He still works at the bakery whenever he can.
Recently, he has been looking for work as an adventurer, in the hopes of making even more money for the orphanage/temple of Erastil that has been the only home he has ever known.
And if Book of Exalted Deeds is in, then Savage Species is in, meaning the most basic item Monks need to even function at all comes in; the Amulet of Natural Attacks, which can hold weapon properties like flaming or corrosive.
I presumed Dungeon Masters Guide and the Magic Item Compendium only as once Magic Item Compendium came out as if an item was not copied to the Magic Item Compendium there was likely a good reason why it did not make the cut.
Being a pacifist does not mean you can't defend yourself and your comrades. It means you do not like/want to fight.
Not meaning to be a dick but...
Pacifist - a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
Additionally I thought I would bring this up:
Vow of Peace, loosely translated, means you can only do subdual damage to living thing. Nonliving things (undead and contructs) you can do regular damage.So, being only able to inflict subdual damage, someone with that vow is completely powerless against plants.
Being opposed to something does not mean you can't do, you just do not like/want to.
It means you do not like/want to fight.Pacifist - a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
Remember to play your character however you would like but a true pacifist would not know how to fight.
Pacifism is about not doing violence at all. This includes defending themselves.
It may not make sense to most of us but it is a moral philosophy. Even if someone does violence to you (which is their choice to soil themselves) you (as a pacifist) must not do violence in return. Which also means they don't travel to 'uncivilized' regions without understanding that they may die. They are likely to be beaten/killed since a pacifist is not supposed to fight back. Even if they tried to fight back they would suck at it because training for violence is the same as admitting violence is necessary (which would void the whole philosophy of pacifism).
... Argh. Does the feat really work that way?
I have a player wanting to run a VoPeace character. I need to reread that and might need to have a talk about it, I might end up vetoing it. VoPoverty I have no real problems with, but VoPeace sounds like it could be really... what's the word... obstructing.
I think the very notion of allowing people to take vow of peace and run around clubbing things with a sap is in direct violation of a vow of peace. I think the greatest literary example of the Vow of Peace is the way of the leaf from Robert Jordan's wheel of time, these weren't people who ran around training in fist fights and attacking people with fists. The second a character with a vow of peace hit something they would loose their powers from the vow, I don't care if the RAW allows for a dual sap wielding lameness. I'm sorry but taking a Vow of Peace and then fighting with non-lethal damage is the exact same as getting Vow of Poverty but having a nest egg and house because you need that to survive, but beyond that I'm a poor man.
And I can see Martin Luther's protests now "My people we will be involved in peaceful protest, do not lift a hand against your brother man, but if they attack you club the s+@+ out of them"
I do agree that a vow of peace character can have combat training and be a former warrior, I also agree that they can travel with a voilent group advocating peace, to try and lead by example and show there is always another way, hell if combat broke out around him I would expect him to be healing his allies and stabilizing his enemies and treating their wounds and admonishing the use of lethal force, but if he actually hit someone, well there goes your vow, no you can't retrain the feat, I will allow you to take it again at a higher level starting from scratch, but if you break it again you loose it.
And I actually don't have a problem with those feats Per Se if they are roleplayed well. But don't you dare try to add warforged, monk, and VoP around me lest you face my wrath of cheesy lameness.
A character that does nothing to restrain the use of violence and death by his comrades has broken his Vow of Peace. A character who continues to associate with wilfully violent comrades also has broken his Vow. The Vow offers some very powerful benefits, those benefits come at a price of a set of restrictions intended to be more of a constraint than even a Paladin's code.
He roleplayed it brilliantly quite frankly and there was a LOT of tension with other party members over their use of violence. However, when someone has a Vow of Peace their companions dealing lethal damage does not (or at least in my opinion) should not break that players vow. There should certainly be a great deal of roleplaying generated from other party members that do use lethal damage around the character with Vow of Peace though.
Argh yeah. There's a Barb/Druid, a Lurk, and a Ninja in the party already. That's not going to work.
Secondly I honestly have never seen a monk played using the fighter golf bag of weapons trick. I know that alot of us plan for these things and resort to that, but most people just don't.
The "golf bag of weapons" is overstated, in my experience. No character needs to carry around more than 4 (5 for two-weapon fighting types): 1 missile weapon (with 50% normal, 25% alchemical silver, and 25% cold iron ammunition), 1 primary melee weapon (2 in the case of two-weapon fighting types) made of adamantine (if blunt) or cold iron (if piercing or slashing), 1 back-up weapon (usually an alchemical silver dagger), and possibly 1 secondary melee weapon (either blunt adamantine or slashing cold iron; whichever the primary isn't). With a few vials of silversheen and a handy cleric to cast align weapon (if the weapon isn't already holy, etc.) the character can penetrate pretty much any DR.
I must say that just because Book of ED is in, does NOT automatically say that Savage Species to be in. Most groups use what they have. While I may have access to a Savage Species doesn't mean every game group does. If a member of my group picked it up then it is available, with specific approval. My point is, just because there is a "counterbalance" in some other book doesn't make a feat not broken or not a problem or what have you.Nitpicking doesn't alter the fundamental point that Monks are strongly gear-dependent, even though they don't typically use weapons or armor. Vow of Poverty removes a vast array of magic items that they depend on to get by.
Really what it does is make the monk less self-reliant for most enchantments that are not straight bonuses (although the tatooed monk PrC can help mitigate that to some extent). Pair the monk with a friendly spellcaster who can cast fly and other utility spells and they can still operate well enough. Increased teamwork among the party isn't a bad thing.
What you need to watch out for is the Vow of Poverty monk who takes the Leadership feat for a cohort that exists simply to cast various buffs and utility spells on the monk.
All I meant was I never see these situations in games I've ran or played, even with players who know what DR a monster has, they "forget" until such a time the characters learn what needs to be done.
That's, in part, what the various Knowledge skills are for "in game" (at least in 3.5):
Arcana - constructs, dragons, magical beasts
Dungeoneering - aberrations, oozes
Nature - fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin
Religion - undead
The Planes - elementals, outsiders
A check against a DC (10 + monster's HD) reveals a useful fact ("special powers or vulnerabilities"), even if the character is personally unfamiliar with the creature/thing. By the time the game moves into high level play, the characters should be familiar enough with general classes (constructs, demons, devils, fey, lycanthropes, skeletal vs. fleshed undead, etc.) to plan ahead. See my post above: a bludgeoning adamantine weapon for constructs and skeletal undead, a cold iron slashing weapon for fey, demons, and fleshed undead, silversheen and an alchemical silver dagger for devils and lycanthropes, etc. will cover almost all of the bases. Specific cases (silver for some types of undead, align weapon, etc.) can still be an issue, but aren't that difficult to adjust for.
A character that does nothing to restrain the use of violence and death by his comrades has broken his Vow of Peace. A character who continues to associate with wilfully violent comrades also has broken his Vow. The Vow offers some very powerful benefits, those benefits come at a price of a set of restrictions intended to be more of a constraint than even a Paladin's code.
He roleplayed it brilliantly quite frankly and there was a LOT of tension with other party members over their use of violence. However, when someone has a Vow of Peace their companions dealing lethal damage does not (or at least in my opinion) should not break that players vow. There should certainly be a great deal of roleplaying generated from other party members that do use lethal damage around the character with Vow of Peace though.
Please read the descriptions of the Vow of Nonviolence (Book of Exalted Deeds, pg. 47) and Vow of Peace (pg. 48). The person with the vow is prohibited from "[causing] harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition)." Also, "you may ask your allies to give you an oath that a helpless foe will not be slain... If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow. You may ask a defeated creature to give you an oath of surrender or noninterference in exchange for its life. If the creature breaks this oath to you, you can allow your allies to deal with the creature as they see fit without breaking their oaths or your vow..."
Please read the section Waging Peace (pg. 31), as well.
The part of VoN/VoPeace that got me was the "if anyone kills a helpless target within 120 feet of you they take -1 morale penalty to attack for 1 hour per each level the Vow's holder has as they are wracked with remorse, no save, which stacks with itself and resets its duration to the beginning if they do it again". Somehow I can't see the NE bounty-hunter ninja or the LN Whisper Gnome with "Profession: Assassin" ranks as being wracked with remorse over much of anything, much less doing so with no save.
The part of VoN/VoPeace that got me was the "if anyone kills a helpless target within 120 feet of you they take -1 morale penalty to attack for 1 hour per each level the Vow's holder has as they are wracked with remorse, no save, which stacks with itself and resets its duration to the beginning if they do it again". Somehow I can't see the NE bounty-hunter ninja or the LN Whisper Gnome with "Profession: Assassin" ranks as being wracked with remorse over much of anything, much less doing so with no save.
Not a fan of Steven Brust, I take it? I highly recommend his "Vlad Taltos" series.
Just because someone is NE or an assassin, doesn't mean they lack emotions or even compassion/love (possibly limited to a small group or a single individual). People are much more complex than that.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
This is the only major problem with VoP, IMO. I always thought that a simpler I'm Just a Poor Sod feat would be great for players who just don't want to deal with magical items, for whatever reason. No prereqs--the player just has to stick to the spirit of the deal: you get these bonuses and abilities in exchange for not being a bling-tree and not trying to milk it by shape shifting.
How about a feat called 'I Blew All My Gold on Ale and Whores'?
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
It is mentioned in the Book of Exalted Deeds that the donations may pay for or reduce the cost of much needed healing from the temple.
If you're doing this, then you're abusing the spirit of the vow.
It's either a donation, or it's not.It's either a gift, that you never expect to see a return on, or it's not.
If a five-man party makes 25K, one member gives 5K to the temple, then in their next mission, someone dies, they can't pitch up on the temple steps, with a corpse in a sack, and demand a Raise Dead, because "You owe us!", even if the dead guy is the VoP PC, and the others couldn't care less about the terms of the vow.
Doing so is the same as if they'd never given the cash away, but stuck it in the bank for later.
The "golf bag of weapons" is overstated, in my experience. No character needs to carry around more than 4 (5 for two-weapon fighting types): 1 missile weapon (with 50% normal, 25% alchemical silver, and 25% cold iron ammunition), 1 primary melee weapon (2 in the case of two-weapon fighting types) made of adamantine (if blunt) or cold iron (if piercing or slashing), 1 back-up weapon (usually an alchemical silver dagger), and possibly 1 secondary melee weapon (either blunt adamantine or slashing cold iron; whichever the primary isn't). With a few vials of silversheen and a handy cleric to cast align weapon (if the weapon isn't already holy, etc.) the character can penetrate pretty much any DR.
Don't forget the adamantine ammo, or a normal club or two in case you run into rust monsters or other weapon-eaters.
The part of VoN/VoPeace that got me was the "if anyone kills a helpless target within 120 feet of you they take -1 morale penalty to attack for 1 hour per each level the Vow's holder has as they are wracked with remorse, no save, which stacks with itself and resets its duration to the beginning if they do it again". Somehow I can't see the NE bounty-hunter ninja or the LN Whisper Gnome with "Profession: Assassin" ranks as being wracked with remorse over much of anything, much less doing so with no save.
We're talking about a supernatural paragon of peace and virtue who literally radiates goodness from every orifice. What you're saying is on the same order as saying kender should be immune to the Crushing Despair spell.
If you're doing this, then you're abusing the spirit of the vow.
It's either a donation, or it's not.
It's either a gift, that you never expect to see a return on, or it's not.If a five-man party makes 25K, one member gives 5K to the temple, then in their next mission, someone dies, they can't pitch up on the temple steps, with a corpse in a sack, and demand a Raise Dead, because "You owe us!", even if the dead guy is the VoP PC, and the others couldn't care less about the terms of the vow.
Doing so is the same as if they'd never given the cash away, but stuck it in the bank for later.
No one's saying, "You owe us." The temple is saying, "You are our friend." The gift is not given with any expectation of return. The money is donated, no strings attached, and the temples independently choose to be friendlier to you, offer better prices, et cetera, out of gratitude. The gratitude was not an objective. It was a natural result of independent choices.
When you show up on the steps with a corpse in a sack, it's not, "You owe us," it's, "Please help us." Because you are such a dear friend, instead of saying the normal, "5450 gold, paid in advance, please," he may say, "By Pelor, Brother Joshua! Hurry, hurry, we will begin the ritual immediately." This is not a violation of the spirit of the vow. This is making friends. And then when the ritual is done, the priest may mention the expenses inherent in the ritual, which you may be expected to pay, at least in part, on the grounds of friendship rather than contractual obligation, or the VoP character may insist on paying what they can, which may be more or less than the resurrection cost.
Living off of the kindness and generosity of others, on the ability of people to come together and help each other, is very much in line with a vow of poverty.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
So, that means it not a Vow of Poverty, is it?
It's a Vow of Trust Fund.
Or a Vow of Private Healthcare Insurance Plan.
Donating to a local temple, with a nod and a wink, and the secret handshake that means "We'll be back to collect on that loan later.".
Which is just as much a cynical exploit as 'donating' all your worldly wealth to the party cleric. Or 'donating' it into a locked box under the floorboards of the church, that only the PCs know about.
As long as the party is constantly dipping into the VoP donations as though they were the party's own personal 'Healing and Raise Dead fund', then the party isn't out of pocket by a single copper.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
No one's saying, "You owe us." The temple is saying, "You are our friend." The gift is not given with any expectation of return. The money is donated, no strings attached, and the temples independently choose to be friendlier to you, offer better prices, et cetera, out of gratitude. The gratitude was not an objective. It was a natural result of independent choices.
Do you work in politics?
Because that's pretty much the party line, every week, when one of our government is caught taking a bribe.
"Why, yes, actually, Mr Ecclestone did donate one million pounds to our campaign fund. But the fact that the very next day, Formula One was exempted from the universal ban on tobacco advertising, is nothing more than a coincidence."
"How did I do, Alistair? How long do you think that'll fool'em?"
We're talking about a supernatural paragon of peace and virtue who literally radiates goodness from every orifice. What you're saying is on the same order as saying kender should be immune to the Crushing Despair spell.
Crushing Despair has a save.
Not a fan of Steven Brust, I take it? I highly recommend his "Vlad Taltos" series.
Never heard of him.
Just because someone is NE or an assassin, doesn't mean they lack emotions or even compassion/love (possibly limited to a small group or a single individual). People are much more complex than that.
All well and good. But one would think to do those sorts of jobs they would be skilled at killing or at least suppressing those sorts of emotions, and to have them forced on them with no save to resist irks me.
It's one thing to be supernaturally overwhelmed with X emotion because you were incapable of resisting the spell (IE, you failed your save). It's very much another to have the same overwhelming result with no ability to resist whatsoever.
No one's saying, "You owe us." The temple is saying, "You are our friend." The gift is not given with any expectation of return. The money is donated, no strings attached, and the temples independently choose to be friendlier to you, offer better prices, et cetera, out of gratitude. The gratitude was not an objective. It was a natural result of independent choices.Do you work in politics?
Because that's pretty much the party line, every week, when one of our government is caught taking a bribe.
"Why, yes, actually, Mr Ecclestone did donate one million pounds to our campaign fund. But the fact that the very next day, Formula One was exempted from the universal ban on tobacco advertising, is nothing more than a coincidence."
"How did I do, Alistair? How long do you think that'll fool'em?"
Glad to know I'm not the only one who caught that. I despise politics for that very reason and there's no way I'd let my players get away with that sort of thing in an honest temple. Some of the more larcenous or less moral temples? Yeah maybe. But not the ones a VoP character would be donating to.
Except that's not the intent. Oi. And the players aren't even doing anything. It's not a matter of letting them get away with stuff, or expecting compensation.
If the heroes selflessly save the city, and then the evil chancellor takes over and the heroes have to run from the authorities, and some random grateful peasant hides them in their own home, that's not bribery. That's gratitude.
If some random dude is starving on the street and you feed him, and he makes a very nice chair for you before he leaves, that's gratitude, not corruption. You weren't feeding him because you wanted a chair; you fed him because you were being charitable. He isn't making the chair because you wanted it or because you asked for it, but because he wanted to show his gratitude and repay your kindness.
Likewise, if the heroes make donations to the temple with no expectation of repayment, and the high priest chooses (without any coercion or suggestion) to give them a discount or a service because he's grateful, he's no different than the random peasant giving shelter, or you feeding the starving man in the street. That's not corruption. That's independently and voluntarily meeting kindness with kindness. And that's very much in line with the Vow of Poverty.
Likewise, if the heroes make donations to the temple with no expectation of repayment, and the high priest chooses (without any coercion or suggestion) to give them a discount or a service because he's grateful, he's no different than the random peasant giving shelter, or you feeding the starving man in the street. That's not corruption. That's independently and voluntarily meeting kindness with kindness. And that's very much in line with the Vow of Poverty.
Yes, the characters may well be role-played as doing that with no expectation of reward, but are the players thinking the same thing? Hopefully, yes. But probably only approximately. It is extremely rare for a normal person/player to be completely altruistic - some element of game theory will come in.
But hey, we're all human - sometimes 'enlightened self-interest' is enough... even for VoP.
But if the players roleplay it as their characters showing up expecting to pay for healing, and never roleplay an expectation of 'being owed' something, while the players themselves expect to get free service, have the characters broken the vow?
I see what you're saying here, I think. If the illusion is maintained in-game, what does it matter if the players are thinking something else around the table? To answer your question specifically:
No, the characters have not broken the vow. But the players may well get very disappointed when their characters are charged as normal. Then they may change their characters actions based on this disappointment.
This may or may not be a problem. But I don't think it can be ignored though...
But this is an issue larger than VoP to be honest. Thinking again I probably shouldn't have brought this idea up - Pandora's Box, Can of Worms and all that...
Oh well.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
Wel, here's my question about this temple business: What do the healers do when sick, poor peasants come a-calling? Do they charge for their services then?
"Maria fell down the well and drowned. Oh no! Quickly: get her to the priests in the city!" Do the holy clerics of the goddess of mercy and healing then demand thousands of gold coins for their services?
If so, then I would imagine the would charge the same rate for our intrepid, stinking-rich adventurers who, on a separate occasion, followed a sacred vow and gave the church a share of their unorthodox loot.
Wel, here's my question about this temple business: What do the healers do when sick, poor peasants come a-calling? Do they charge for their services then?
"Maria fell down the well and drowned. Oh no! Quickly: get her to the priests in the city!" Do the holy clerics of the goddess of mercy and healing then demand thousands of gold coins for their services?
If so, then I would imagine the would charge the same rate for our intrepid, stinking-rich adventurers who, on a separate occasion, followed a sacred vow and gave the church a share of their unorthodox loot.
At that point I'd volunteer to work off the debt in some way.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
But if the players roleplay it as their characters showing up expecting to pay for healing, and never roleplay an expectation of 'being owed' something, while the players themselves expect to get free service, have the characters broken the vow?
Just to be clear, I've no blanket problem with friendly churches offering their services for free or at a discount. I do this myself, when I run a game.
Two PCs in my game got a message of thanks from the local Dwarf Hold, a medal, and an invitation to a feast in their honour, with the implication that their requests for aid would be viewed favourably in future. This was after retrieving a clan heirloom, and unmasking the thief.
When one of those PCs died a few sessions later, I (ooc) tipped the players the wink, that this might be a great time to have the others call in that favour on her behalf.
So, even though the heirloom was only worth @2000gp by the book, I ruled that its sentimental and cultural value, and the ability to cross the theft out of their Big Book of Grudges, was enough for the clan to raise her at their own expense.
She had also expressed an interest in the Stonelord PrC, which required a ritual of burial and rebirth, and knew that she'd not qualify for this until the party were hundreds of miles away.
So, I rolled the Raise Dead, and the PrClass induction into one ceremony, and made a day of it. The intelligent, but uncharismatic Dwarf cleric wrote a eulogy, and gave it to the dumb but charismatic paladin to perform. She comes back, a level lower, still 2 levels away from officially taking the PrC, but I no longer have to break off for training if she levels up in an inconvenient time.
In this case, I believe the player had no ulterior motive.
Other players had suggested she sell the heirloom to the dwarves, since they'd get more for it, but she ended up giving it back as the right thing to do. She didn't want it appraised, saying she didn't want to know how much she was giving up, in case she kicked herself.
I see what you're saying here, I think. If the illusion is maintained in-game, what does it matter if the players are thinking something else around the table? To answer your question specifically:
No, the characters have not broken the vow. But the players may well get very disappointed when their characters are charged as normal. Then they may change their characters actions based on this disappointment.
This may or may not be a problem. But I don't think it can be ignored though...
Nowhere did I say it should be ignored. But if the players are disappointed, but do not show even a hint of that in the roleplaying of their characters, there are no grounds to penalize them on.
Now if the characters suddenlt act indignant at the charge, or cast the VoP character in the ditch as some suggested, THEN there are grounds for revoking of the powers.
This is a case of punishing metagaming when it intrudes into the game, and not punishing when it doesn't.
Wel, here's my question about this temple business: What do the healers do when sick, poor peasants come a-calling? Do they charge for their services then?
"Maria fell down the well and drowned. Oh no! Quickly: get her to the priests in the city!" Do the holy clerics of the goddess of mercy and healing then demand thousands of gold coins for their services?
Unless all they want to do is heal peasants 24/7, that's exactly what they do.
Unless all they want to do is heal peasants 24/7, that's exactly what they do.Wel, here's my question about this temple business: What do the healers do when sick, poor peasants come a-calling? Do they charge for their services then?
"Maria fell down the well and drowned. Oh no! Quickly: get her to the priests in the city!" Do the holy clerics of the goddess of mercy and healing then demand thousands of gold coins for their services?
I'm still waiting to hear someone died in a healing spring...
Wel, here's my question about this temple business: What do the healers do when sick, poor peasants come a-calling? Do they charge for their services then?
"Maria fell down the well and drowned. Oh no! Quickly: get her to the priests in the city!" Do the holy clerics of the goddess of mercy and healing then demand thousands of gold coins for their services?
Priests have to make a living too. And Raise/Rez spells are expensive and difficult to cast. They might give minor healing for free especially on certain special/holy days, but more often than not charge a fee (which is, I presume, equivalent to the "cost to hire someone to cast a spell" chart in the PHB) and you almost never hear of commoners being raised/resurrected so I can pretty much assure you that they don't do that for free.
And that's presuming they even CAN cast Raise. Most NPC priests aren't high enough level. More than likely they'll bring her in, the priest will try whatever his best healing spell is, and if that doesn't do it after an examination he'll say something like "I'm afraid it's too late, she's beyond our ability to heal, there's nothing we can do." The subject of Raise probably won't even come up, both parties knowing the priest can't cast it and/or the family can't afford it.
Now, in an emergency they may cast healing spells without up-front charge but I can assure you that either someone (probably the person being healed) is going to be working for the temple for a while, or the family's going to get a bill/a visit from the priests later that month for due recompense. In the case of "dead girl, nothing we can do" the church might be nice and waive the fee of that first attempted healing, but if she is saved they'll be wanting their due. Like I said, they need to make a living too.
True enough. I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. I just found it amusing in your proposition that it seemed to be punishing the characters for the players actions.
Oh, right. No, I'm not proposing characters being punished for a player grumbling under his breath or whatever - that's harsh!
I suppose we're agreeing then. Cool.
No, the characters have not broken the vow. But the players may well get very disappointed when their characters are charged as normal. Then they may change their characters actions based on this disappointment.
And the guy playing the Assassin might decide that he's bored and start murdering NPCs at random. So what? That someone might do something out of line is irrelevant.
If so, then I would imagine the would charge the same rate for our intrepid, stinking-rich adventurers who, on a separate occasion, followed a sacred vow and gave the church a share of their unorthodox loot.
That is one valid interpretation for a temple. But not the only one. The priests could just as well say, "This man has done many great services for our church. This world still desperately needs his presence, therefore we shall bring him back, costs be damned, for it is worth it." Which is equally as valid.
What could happen is distinct from what must happen. That kindness and generosity on the part of others is a possibility that may be extremely useful does not mean that it's a requirement.
Now if the characters suddenlt act indignant at the charge, or cast the VoP character in the ditch as some suggested, THEN there are grounds for revoking of the powers.
Er... If thiefy Alice throws VoP Bob in a ditch, why are you revoking VoP Bob's powers?