Now if the characters suddenly 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?

I was thinking more of the case where the VoP PC was one of the petitioners doing the complaining, and only if the basis for that complaining was that "I've paid good money to this temple! You OWE us!"

There's nothing wrong with the temple healing or raising them, based on their past good deeds, or as part of their current, temple-sponsored mission.
But the DM must constantly ask themself 'Would I be doing this for any other party, who keep 100% of their loot, or am I allowing the actions of the temple staff to be swayed by the existence of the groaning coffers of gold, gained from the PCs?".

I mentioned politicians and bribes before, as a joke, but this is actually very relevant to the issue. Lobbyists are allowed to petition politicians to change their policies, on behalf of their clients, and those same clients are allowed to make donations to party funds.
It's been that way in every country for centuries, yet the politicians act with puzzlement, alarm, and indignity, when, the moment their party's policies change in favour of those donors, we scream 'Bribery!' and 'Corruption!'.
No matter how pure the motives of the party, no matter how many times they claim 'We were going to make that decision regardless', the public will never buy it, and the mud will stick.

So, when does a donation become a bribe?
The best legal minds find it difficult to judge these morally grey issues, and that's why many DMs just don't want the grief.
Hence, why BoED (and BoVD) get a reputation as something you allow in your game with care, and why they have Mature tags, because they raise some serious issues about right and wrong, that may require weighing against real-life hot-button topics, not because you may catch a peep of a succubus' tit.

The VoP PC, or his/her player may not be at fault, may never expect any return on his gift, but if the DM is having the clerics hand out uncharacteristically generous, rare, and valuable favours, out of gratitude for those gifts, then he treads a dangerous path. He needs to make it clear to them that his gifts are NOT to be used for his own benefit, unless the temple could have already afforded it without his help (and if they are so rich, why do they need his help? Aren't there more deperate causes out there?).

"I did NOT give you these gifts, just for you to give them straight back! That is not what I intended them for! Take this money, and feed the poor, pay for wells to be dug, pay for sanitation, pay healers to tend the sick, care for the old and infirm, teach the young! I DO NOT WANT this money to be spent on healing me, or my friends, any more than I want it to be spent on golden statues in our honour. It would taint me to profit from it in any way."

The best way to avoid any accusations of impropriety is to avoid any situation which even looks like impropriety, and in the case of VoP-PCs, this means NOT making your charitable donations to the same organisations that you frequent for healing/buffing/crafting/raising.
That way, you can rest easy that any benefits you gain are truly, freely given.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

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?

-everything-

Viletta Vadim wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

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?

I think he meant VoP Bob tossed VoP Bob in the ditch. At least that's the way I read it.

<.<

>.>

Matt Devney wrote:

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.

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.

Folks can always act out. Folks can always do something out of line. That there's potential for someone to act out and do something out of line doesn't matter, as there's literally always that potential. If your players have a character at all, there's the potential of them playing that character "wrong." To the point where that potential is completely irrelevant

This may or may not be a problem. But I don't think it can be ignored though...

The best way to avoid any accusations of impropriety is to avoid any situation which even looks like impropriety,...

If you make regular visits to The Home for Reformed Prostitutes, you probably want to take a chaperone.
If you work with drug addicts, you probably should volunteer for regular drug testing.
If you make deposits into the huge bank vault of Abadar, you might want to empty your pockets, before you enter and after you exit.
Etc.

This should be done, voluntarily, and with good grace, not with huffing and puffing, and rolling of the eyes, and making a scene. "What? My word not good enough for you?"

I know someone's going to come back with the line 'The Gods know you haven't done anything wrong.', but that doesn't prevent you being dragged into a scandal, and forced to answer to people who don't have divine omniescence to call on.
A lot of people are very willing to believe that no-one can be as saintly as they look, and it's hard to prove a negative.
Zone of Truth isn't infallible, all it proves is that you might have a good Will save.
Being still able to cast divine spells is no guarantee, all it proves is that you're a cleric. But a cleric of WHO?! (dun-dun-DUUH!)
Being able to prove your innocence isn't even the end of it, since there's plenty of folk still out there willing to make frivolous accusations, and the public know 'There's no smoke without fire...'.

Constantly being dragged to the courts, or the town square, to answer baseless accusations, damages the causes you sponsor, and prevents you personally doing good works.

Hence, the need for 'Mature' players, who have the life experience to spot potential conflicts of interest before they occur, and voluntarily alter their actions and associations further than the minimum requirements set out in feat/alignment/religion descriptions.

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.

But if that's the temple's motivation --get this man healed up so he can do some more good deeds-- then (1) they should be doing that whether or not he's given them a ton of valuable loot, and (2) they might consider themselves in a position, then, to recommend such good deeds.

But if a temple:

• refuses to heal poor people who can't pay the enormous sums for spells such as cure disease or cure moderate wounds, which cost the temple nothing.
  
• happily succor the man who donates money, without asking him to do anything else for them in return
  
• don't happily succor the adventuring party that doesn't donate money

Then it certainly looks like he's making advance payments on temple services. Whether that's in violation of the Vow of Poverty is up to the DM.

Snorter: That's all well and good, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Neither the temple nor the VoP character did anything wrong. Whether other NPCs think anything is up is irrelevant to the vow. That some NPCs might begin to resent the VoP character is merely another aspect of the story, not a problem with the vow, nor a violation of it. And taking the Vow of Poverty doesn't require your character to give a flying flip about politics.

Chris: Again, what it looks like is irrelevant to the vow itself. Though I should think people would react differently if they found some random bum lying beaten and battered in the streets than they would if they found Superman beaten and battered in the streets.

Though I should think people would react differently if they found some random bum lying beaten and battered in the streets than they would if they found Superman beaten and battered in the streets.

Viletta Vadim wrote:

Though I should think people would react differently if they found some random bum lying beaten and battered in the streets than they would if they found Superman beaten and battered in the streets.

Yeah, the bulk of them would take him to Luthercorp in hopes of a reward.