|
So, what we're saying here is basically, if you take a "Vow of Peace", you can actively go out and find critters, engage them in combat, rob their stuff and basically act in a completely non-peaceful manner as long as you don't kill them. But, while doing so, you can adventure with a bunch of characters who have no such limitation, watching them slaughter indiscriminately. You know, as long as the "Vow of Peace" character doesn't kill anyone. And you get mechanical benefits for this.No. I'm saying a Vow of Peace character is allowed to fight, and is allowed to deal damage so long as it's nonlethal damage, even if that Vow of Peace character inflicts that nonlethal damage via melee combat. The rest, you added. "You're allowed to fight," is distinct from, "You're allowed to beat people up and take their lunch money." The context is important.
The bugbears attacked Kung Fu Jesus, mind. That's very real justification for self-defense. And all Kung Fu Jesus did was a nonlethal take down of two out of five enemies who were actively trying to kill him.
Also, Vow of Peace has provisions about supporting others knowing your support is going towards the end of killing someone. Plus, Vow of Peace is an exalted feat, which has requirements all its own, mostly to the effect of, "You are good beyond good, and are held to higher moral standards." Going around beating people up nonlethally in order to knick their stuff is a violation of exalted status, meaning you lose it and all other exalted feats without even getting to the specific terms of the vow.
Yeah, my whole point is, I see something like "Vow of Peace" and I think Caine. Dude doesn't go looking for trouble (i.e. he isn't "adventuring"), he's just going through life, doing his thing, and happens to run into a bunch of a#!~*#&s who don't listen when he drops some non-violent wisdom on them. They continually antagonize him until he is forced to bring down the whoopass, in a non-lethal manner, they...
Ok, now I need context.
Were the bugbears in a dungeon? In their lair perhaps? Or guarding something they were hired to guard?
OR were they at the farm, making poor Mary Jane give them milk and eggs against her will?
If they were part of what constitutes a "normal" D&D experience (as found in most published adventures), the character was, in fact, "looking for trouble". "Self Defense" is hardly the phrase I'd use if the character went to where the bugbears were. Caine was reactive. He wasn't TRYING to right the world's wrongs, he just wanted to work for his keep and kept getting into situations.
If it were the second case, I have to ask, were the other party members pacifists, or just dudes following the guy who was going from town to town looking for menial work and being all philosophical about stuff?
My problem is this: "Vow of Peace" is antithetical to 99% of how I've seen D&D played. It provides a benefit with little to limit it other than the "non-lethal damage" restriction. If it actually prevented a character from actively seeking out conflict (i.e. adventuring), it would be cool. But, no, it's just another feat that does cool stuff. Whoop-de-doo.
|
My problem is this: "Vow of Peace" is antithetical to 99% of how I've seen D&D played.
Exactly. It's an NPC ability. As is Vow of Poverty, and all the transcendent powers that come with it, like no longer needing to eat.
It's there, so the DM can create a Dalai Lama figure, an Oracle of the Wild Waste, or the Lonely Hermit of the Desert, without having to worry about how he hasn't died of exposure, been eaten by bears, or been killed for his belongings (as indicated on the oh-so-compulsory Wealth-By-Level Table).
It's to fend off questions like, 'Where does he take a dump?' (He doesn't, he has no need of mortal concerns).
It's to discourage the PCs from slapping him around to tell them where the treasure is.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Am I the only one who loves the tome of combat and doesn't have a problem with it? As far as it gos its a good book and its like any other book if some one has a engulf time they can break it. With the person going up levels a head of the party that is your fault as a DM as for the PC being overpowered I would like to think that you can talk it out or worst comes to worst kill the pc and say no vows and and TOB maneuvers have to be used with a weapon like sword or axe ect. If that doesn't work change the date you meet to a day he cant make it.
No, I enjoy it too. The only real wuixa abilities I saw were the desert school and the shadow school, and most of their abilities were called out as (SU) anyways.
Heck, Diamond Mind and Setting Sun fall under the badassed normal school of thought. Batman does that kind of stuff all the time and Storm (who has weather powers, not psionic) fought off a warskrull channelling Oracle, Psylocke, and Professor X through sheer willpower.
Stone Mountain or whatever, could also be called Archemdies (sp?) style as could Setting Sun.
And the beastial one (can't remember that name either) fits Wolverine, Sabertooth, or any berserker type.
White Raven or whatever I never wrapped my head around, but part of that is the 'I hit you, bob feels better' thing. I didn't like it in Bo9S, I didn't like it in 4e, and I'd not like it in Pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sure, the DM can say no to a spell. But every time a DM is forced to say 'No, that obviously wasn't playtested', or 'No, that makes no sense to be better than similar spells of higher level', or (a favourite of ours in the old days) 'I bet that came from a Forgotten Realms book, didn't it? Yeah, thought so...', he uses up one of his 'nine lives', in the eyes of his players, who tar him with the reputation for being a killjoy, a harsh DM, a dictator, etc, when in most cases, he's actually trying to keep the PCs alive, by removing broken, campaign-ending abilities from the hands of NPC villains.
Ah, from where I've sat this is why D&D is a co-operative game. Players should know when to say when to a broken spell/feat/combo. If the DM comes out of game and says, "Ok, the vow of peace is breaking the game and hampering other players' fun, can we swap it out for another feat and you just play kung fu jesus? If he says "No, I want the cool abilities" then I, as a DM, have no problems with putting him in the no win situation. ("Take one step closer and the child dies!" He can't close to use his aura of zoloft, his friends likely can't do non-lethal at range, and if he does get the child hurt, by his actions, he loses the oath and the problem is solved anyway).
Likewise, I had a battle sorcerer built around the abjurant cheesewhore PrC and improved familiar feats. I picked up Shivering Touch and put it down later when I realzied that my imbuing the pseudodragon with it, quick casting shield (which made his AC 30 something) and having him zip forward to do 3d6 dex (cold) damage was ruining the DM's fun.
"Quick cast shield on Keth, cast freezing touch, Keth takes a double move, (roll dice) stings it for 1d4 + poison plus (rolls dice) 12 points of dex damage. Wait, you said it's a red dragon chimera? Fire type, double damage from cold, it takes 24 dex damage."
*DM looks at his dex 11 Chimera, rolls 30 points of falling damage.* "Ok, it's paralyzed and hurt, I assume the fighter wants to coup de grace it?"
"Wait, Keth wants to dance on its heads. I took ranks in Perform (dance) just so my familiar could do a victory dance."
Say...what ever happened to the DM who started this thread and the player he was having an issue with? Did any of this help them? Did we scare them off?
*Shrug.* He left early, it seems. Wasn't much of a conversationalist. I think he only ever even made two posts.
Ok, now I need context.
We weren't given any specific context, therefore it is inappropriate to assume Kung Fu Jesus was beating people up to take their lunch money. However, considering everyone else in the party was in a coma, I don't think Kung Fu Jesus was the aggressor here.
My problem is this: "Vow of Peace" is antithetical to 99% of how I've seen D&D played. It provides a benefit with little to limit it other than the "non-lethal damage" restriction. If it actually prevented a character from actively seeking out conflict (i.e. adventuring), it would be cool. But, no, it's just another feat that does cool stuff. Whoop-de-doo.
There's a lot more to it than limiting you to nonlethal damage. There are entire sections in the book that explain precisely what baggage exalted feats entail (even before getting to the vows), and how to wage peace, and the implications of the vows.
And yes, it runs wildly contrary to the traditional, "Kill things, take their stuff," kind of game. That's why it's such a big deal to take it. It changes the fabric of how the game is run. Book of Exalted Deeds has an entire section on how it changes the fabric of how the game is run, on how to wage peach and handle pacifist characters and so on.
You're making a lot of assumptions and leaps of judgment that have no basis within presented fact.
White Raven or whatever I never wrapped my head around, but part of that is the 'I hit you, bob feels better' thing. I didn't like it in Bo9S, I didn't like it in 4e, and I'd not like it in Pathfinder.
I don't believe White Raven has any healing powers. It's the command ability school. It does things like leave enemies flatfooted for your allies, or gives allies bonuses on charging, or gives 'em another save against fear.
Devoted Spirit is the hit-things-feel-better school, and it's explicitly stated as supernatural and divine inspired.
Ah, from where I've sat this is why D&D is a co-operative game. Players should know when to say when to a broken spell/feat/combo.
That's not what's being discussed. What I'm taking issue with is not banning obviously broken or inappropriate or simply overcomplicated abilities, but with regulating ALL of the mages' normal spell selection, broken or non, by fiat rather than any sort of pre-made rules.
Vow of Peace should have been banned, though in this case, not because it's overpowered. It should have been banned because it's very complicated, neither the DM nor the players seem to understand how it even works, and it seems like it could well play against the fundamental premises of the game.
("Take one step closer and the child dies!" He can't close to use his aura of zoloft, his friends likely can't do non-lethal at range, and if he does get the child hurt, by his actions, he loses the oath and the problem is solved anyway).
Digressing, that's nonsense. Kung Fu Jesus isn't allowed to kill people. That doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to kill people. Hostage Taker Bob will either kill the child, or he won't. That's Bob's choice, not Kung Fu Jesus', and holding Kung Fu Jesus responsible for Bob's actions in that case would just be plain cheating.
Digressing, that's nonsense. Kung Fu Jesus isn't allowed to kill people. That doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to kill people. Hostage Taker Bob will either kill the child, or he won't. That's Bob's choice, not Kung Fu Jesus', and holding Kung Fu Jesus responsible for Bob's actions in that case would just be plain cheating.
("Take one step closer and the child dies!" He can't close to use his aura of zoloft, his friends likely can't do non-lethal at range, and if he does get the child hurt, by his actions, he loses the oath and the problem is solved anyway).
Taken straight from the classic b.s. to try and make the paladin fall files.
If you really wanted Vow of Peace a pain, instead have foes continuously surrender to him. According to the vow, he must take them alive and not allow his allies to harm them. Only if the prisoners break their oaths can the allies harm them. Pretty soon after having around 400 1st level kobold warriors being dragged around with them, having to pay for their food and keep and having to protect them from harm, people will begin to see how bothersome the feat is.
But yeah, keep the b.s. paladin traps out of the picture.
PC2: Look, I'm done playing for now. When we start getting xp again, call me.
|
|
("Take one step closer and the child dies!" He can't close to use his aura of zoloft, his friends likely can't do non-lethal at range, and if he does get the child hurt, by his actions, he loses the oath and the problem is solved anyway).
Digressing, that's nonsense. Kung Fu Jesus isn't allowed to kill people. That doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to kill people. Hostage Taker Bob will either kill the child, or he won't. That's Bob's choice, not Kung Fu Jesus', and holding Kung Fu Jesus responsible for Bob's actions in that case would just be plain cheating.
Totally agree with you there, Viletta. (And pres man)
It's up there with 'If you calmly and legally execute a criminal, for despicable crimes that prove he has no wish to belong to the sentient races, then you become as bad as he is.'.
Paladins, and other Lawful Good citizens are supposed to put an end (maybe reluctantly) to those sociopaths who voluntarily choose to forfeit their own right to life.
This line of 'thinking' spoilt Batman: Knights End for me. Azrael was deemed to have soiled the Batcape, because a kidnap victim died. He didn't beat the kidnapper to death, and forget to ask where the hostage was; the kidnapper fled, and slipped on a wet rail into a boiling vat.
The subsequent outpouring of hypocritical BS from Bruce and friends was particularly nauseating, when you consider that the villain dies in exactly the same way, and they all have a good chuckle about it, in the Bat-Man's first ever, defining appearance.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Digressing, that's nonsense. Kung Fu Jesus isn't allowed to kill people. That doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to kill people. Hostage Taker Bob will either kill the child, or he won't. That's Bob's choice, not Kung Fu Jesus', and holding Kung Fu Jesus responsible for Bob's actions in that case would just be plain cheating.
("Take one step closer and the child dies!" He can't close to use his aura of zoloft, his friends likely can't do non-lethal at range, and if he does get the child hurt, by his actions, he loses the oath and the problem is solved anyway).Taken straight from the classic b.s. to try and make the paladin fall files.
If you really wanted Vow of Peace a pain, instead have foes continuously surrender to him. According to the vow, he must take them alive and not allow his allies to harm them. Only if the prisoners break their oaths can the allies harm them. Pretty soon after having around 400 1st level kobold warriors being dragged around with them, having to pay for their food and keep and having to protect them from harm, people will begin to see how bothersome the feat is.
But yeah, keep the b.s. paladin traps out of the picture.
Actually pres, it's taken from the BoED. It points out that one of the perils of Exalted Good is that you are going to be prone to the moral catch 22. If vow of peace man just stands there and does nothing, he's not exalted good, if he takes that step, his actions are just as damaging as if he'd driven in the knife itself. If he tries to talk the villian down and the villian jumps off the cliff/slices the baby's throat, what have you, then he's 'fine' in that he didn't break the oath.
Heck, with VoP he has feats coming out his ears. If he doesn't have diplomacy maxed out, something's wrong.
Also, Villeta's selective edit ignores that the catch 22 was used specifically after the DM came to the character and said "This is causing a problem, can we work around it?" and the player said no. If a player has no qualms about being disruptive/ruining my fun as a DM, why should I run a game for him? If he's also ruining the other players fun, then yes, the catch 22 demands to be used.
If the player is really interested in playing a VoPeace type, then losing the powers shouldn't change the concept.
Aside: My next character will be a noble who does the 'surrender, I really don't want to fight' W/o oaths and BoED stuff. He's also going to be an Arcane Legionary, a Duelist or a Rogue depending on what the DM allows.
There is never a moral catch 22. There are hard decisions, but never one where no matter what happens, you fall. For the DM to pull something like that is cheating. Period.
Bob is not Kung Fu Jesus. Bob is the one with the knife, not Kung Fu Jesus.
No matter what the player was doing before, nothing justifies throwing out the moral catch 22, just like no matter what the player was doing before, nothing justifies falling rocks. You don't punish out-of-character behavior in-game.
And it doesn't matter how lost powers affect the roleplay, the fact would still remain that the DM cheated in a huge way and gave the player one big, fat, middle finger by throwing out all the rules that are supposed to allow for fair play.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There's always a moral catch 22.
The ticking bomb is another good example. You've captured the wizard who planted the delayed blast fireballs around the city. He has a mind blank effect you can't dispel. If you don't get the answer from him, hundreds of people will go fwoom.
What does exalted boy do? Does he go Jack Bauer on the guy to get the info? You've broke your vow but saved hundreds of lives. Does he try to talk the guy down knowing he's not going to break? Congratulations, you've cost hundreds of lives, but hey you didn't hurt anyone, so you have a clear conscience. Does he waterboard the wizard, knowing that it does non-lethal damage*? You caused pain and discomfort, but he didn't take any 'real' damage did he?
I can't search well (bloody firewalls) so I'll refrain from posting anymore until I am home and have the Book of Exhaulted Cheese in front of me.
*
There's always a moral catch 22.
They are only catch 22's because the DM defines them as such. The character that tries to grab the guy with the hostage is not commiting an evil act if the villian kills the hostage, that is unless the DM decides to define it as such.
The guy who tries his best to convince the evil (immune to anything useful) mage to reveal the doomsday device, while the hero's allies search for it, without beating it from him, is not doing an evil act if the device goes off, that is unless the DM decides to define it as such.
There is difference between allowing evil to occur and promoting it yourself, otherwise every single good deity would be evil (since they allow evil to occur). Frankly, in most catch 22 my advice to player is this:
Again, there is no such thing as a moral catch 22. It is possible for a genuinely moral person to exist. It is possible for a moral person to face a difficult choice. The fact that the choice is difficult does not make the person any less moral.
If you put Jesus or the Buddha or Gandhi or Mother Teresa or any other generally accepted good figure in front of the wizard about to make the town go boom, they still have a decision to make. The fact that it doesn't end well doesn't make them any less good. "What Would Jesus Do?" (here used as a theoretical moral tool rather than anything specifically religious) always has an answer. "Curl up in the corner and cry," is not the answer. If, in the end, a tragedy happens, then a tragedy happens. That doesn't mean it's Generic Good Person's fault, or that it's because of an evil act on their part. Even if they feel guilty over it.
And calling it the Book of Exalted Cheese adds nothing to your premises and makes no logical contribution to the conversation.
|
|
Keeping the guy talking while someone else more qualified sets up a rescue attempt is a perfectly viable tactic. If that fails, would you demonise them for that, too?
Hostage negotiators are often in this situation. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. While they may feel guilt or lose confidence in their abilities ('Maybe I could have done something different?'), this in now way proves that guilt is justified, or that they 'fell to evil', by failing to secure a rescue.
I would always ask, 'Given the same behaviour, would I force a change, or even a drift, of alignment, on a secular PC, or one whose abilities are not dependent on alignment?'. If not, that's a big clue that there's a double-standard in play.
I experienced this, as a paladin PC, during Fate of Istus. Slaves had been found, mining for the derro. We'd unshackled them, but reinforcements were pounding their way in. The only exits were deeper underground (no thank you!), or across a wide cavern, guarded by a barricade manned by derro crossbowmen. We believed:
If we stay where we are, the slaves all die.
If we go deeper, the slaves all die.
If we charge for the surface, some of the slaves will die, but some may escape, and they can bring reinforcements while we hold off the derro.
It was a total no-brainer to me. I handed out all my spare weapons to anyone who looked competent, made sure the others had picks or shovels, gave the a speech about being better to die on your feet than on your knees, and rolled a stupid-high Diplomacy check. The DM seemed reluctant, when he said they all agreed, and we charged the barricades.
Yes, lots of the slaves got shot, but we broke through. The DM gave me this wierd look, and asked if I was happy with what I'd done.
We ended up having this same conversation, in which he told me he'd expected the PCs to charge on our own, while the slaves held off the siege of their quarters.
I told him that:
Splitting one volley of bolts between a large group was less lethal than taking two volleys on two small groups,
We didn't know if we could take the barricade. Attacking it with everyone we had meant higher chance of victory.
Getting even one guy past the barricade meant possibly alerting the townsfolk on the surface.
He'd misrepresented the number of guards trying to break into the slave-quarters. Turns out there were about six, but he'd bigged it up, as sounding like 'dozens'. Is it any wonder we thought the room undefendable?
He conceded we had acted in good faith, based on the limited information and tools we had, and I asked him, if I had been a Lawful Good Fighter, would I be getting the same grief? And he said, no, if that had been the case, he wouldn't have even questioned our actions.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, broughtthe book of exhalded deeds to work with me, memory was a little spotty.
Pg 9.
"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom... Unfortunately this view is ultimately midguided." So I guess keeping one's exalted feats is worth any sacrifice of innocents.
Pg. 28 Good characters can't use the threat of torture, but intimidate(?!) and mind control are fine.
So I guess you're right, letting the villian slit the baby's throat is worth it if it means getting him in your aura of prosac.
That said, I still have no qualms about putting characters in the ticking bomb scenario.
And pres man, you may not like my style of DMing, but the fact that you indicate you'd not curb a character's power, even after talking to him out of game, even if he is ruining the fun of everyone else at the table makes it pretty clear that I'd not want to be within 100' of your table either.
|
|
Okay, so you've got a character using feats from the Book of Hallowed Might and is way overpowered. Simple way to deal with this, really. Actually the Book of Hallowed Might provides the answer itself.
Hit him with an Aleax and let him talk to his god for a bit. If he doesn't see the benefit of playing with others, his god can do a smackdown and take away any Exalted Feats. :)
Ok, broughtthe book of exhalded deeds to work with me, memory was a little spotty.
Pg 9.
"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom... Unfortunately this view is ultimately midguided." So I guess keeping one's exalted feats is worth any sacrifice of innocents.
Pg. 28 Good characters can't use the threat of torture, but intimidate(?!) and mind control are fine.
So I guess you're right, letting the villian slit the baby's throat is worth it if it means getting him in your aura of prosac.
Ironicly, I think you are missing the point here. Your comments about "keeping ... exalted feats is worth ..." and "slit the baby's throat is worth ..." seem to indicate it. It isn't about "keeping" the powers given, well it might be to the player, but to the character it is a matter of not being able to accept that doing an act that sacrifices one's goodness can possibly have good outcomes. The act taints the results. Thus if you do an evil act for a good outcome, you'll actually have an evil outcome not a good one. I realize how this thinking can be too fanciful for some people.
That said, I still have no qualms about putting characters in the ticking bomb scenario.
Hey, I have no problem with that type of set up, but that doesn't make it a catch 22. In situations where there are no right answers, that means unless the characters do something drastically wrong, they probably should be given some leeway.
Consider the situation where two innocents are about to die, a switch can be thrown that will make it so only one dies, the PC's choice which one. The PC only has a moment to decide to throw the switch and save one while killing the other or do nothing and both die. No matter what is done, the PC really shouldn't be punished because the situation was ultimately out of their control. Even if they did nothing allowing both to die and instead dropped to their knees and prayed, it still wouldn't ultimately be their fault for being put in a no-win situation. I point out in the paladin's code it says, "who willfully commits an evil act", to this is an acknowledgement that paladins and others with tricky codes may be forced into no-win situations, but those aren't willful choices and thus should not held against them.
And pres man, you may not like my style of DMing, but the fact that you indicate you'd not curb a character's power, even after talking to him out of game, even if he is ruining the fun of everyone else at the table makes it pretty clear that I'd not want to be within 100' of your table either.
I don't think I've indicated anything of the kind. Though, if you do force characters into no-win situations and then punish them no matter what the choice made is, even choices made under good faith (see snorter's example), then yeah, I'd not want to be in that type of game.
"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom... Unfortunately this view is ultimately midguided." So I guess keeping one's exalted feats is worth any sacrifice of innocents.
<snip>
So I guess you're right, letting the villian slit the baby's throat is worth it if it means getting him in your aura of prosac.
GAH!
You're. Not. Getting. It.
It has nothing to do with maintaining feats. The character has a moral code, and they hold to it. Period. Feats are not a consideration. An exalted character does not torture because they believe torture is wrong. Period. Power is a non-consideration, and they hold very strongly to, "The ends do not justify the means."
If Exalted Alice doesn't have an option to stop Villain Bob from slitting the baby's throat, how can you hold her responsible for not stopping him? If she steps forward, it's Bob who slits the baby's throat, not Alice. Bob is an independent sentient being capable of making his own decisions. He is capable of choosing to slit the baby's throat. He is capable of choosing not to. Alice is not Bob. Bob's choices are not Alice's. Alice cannot be held responsible for Bob's actions.
Alice can give an impassioned speech, try to talk Bob down, then take that one step forward and pray Bob will see the light or at least hesitate, yet he doesn't and he slits the baby's throat. That's not Alice's fault.
Alice can distract Bob until her friend Carmen sneaks up around him to try and stop him with a sap sneak attack, but Bob sees her and slits the baby's throat. That's not Alice's fault either.
Alice can stand there obediently when a stiff breeze knocks down a pile of boxes, Bob freaks out, and slits the baby's throat. Again, that's not Alice's fault.
That said, I still have no qualms about putting characters in the ticking bomb scenario.
There is nothing wrong with the situation, but if you then say that no matter what happens, the Paladin/exalted character falls, ha ha ha, then that's 1) just plain wrong, 2) blatant cheating, and 3) on the same order as saying rocks fall, everyone dies.
And pres man, you may not like my style of DMing, but the fact that you indicate you'd not curb a character's power, even after talking to him out of game, even if he is ruining the fun of everyone else at the table makes it pretty clear that I'd not want to be within 100' of your table either.
I see no record of Kung Fu Jesus ruining the group's fun. Kung Fu Jesus single-handedly beat a level 7/9 encounter that happened to play to every one of his strengths like it was a checklist. That is awesome. It's a really cool and spectacular scene, and high fives should have been involved. Jabsco, one of Kung Fu Jesus' co-players, seems perfectly fine with his friend's ability to be awesome.
And yet, the DM seems angry that Kung Fu Jesus was actually able to win. The implication here being that Kung Fu Jesus wasn't supposed to be able to win. Which is a DM issue. "You weren't supposed to fight, you were supposed to run and abandon your team mates in the coma!" is a sign of poor DMing, as the characters belong to the players, not the DM, and they are free to do as their characters would do. If that decision is to fight, then it's to fight. If the character then wins fair and square, that's perfectly legitimate.
The DM's the one who threw out the encounter, who designed the encounter, who allowed the player to get enough XP to reach level 5. And, in fact, there were no reports of douchebaggery on the part of Kung Fu Jesus' player at all. Only complaints by the DM that he was actually able to win the fight.
|
|
Ok, now I need context.We weren't given any specific context, therefore it is inappropriate to assume Kung Fu Jesus was beating people up to take their lunch money. However, considering everyone else in the party was in a coma, I don't think Kung Fu Jesus was the aggressor here.
This is why I need context. If the DM wasn't running the game according to the BoED "paradigm shift" gaming style, and, say, it was a published adventure or a homebrew built around the "let's go adventuring" paradigm, then why was the Vow of Peace character even there? And, if it were a "typical" D&D game, the party more likely were the aggressors. If, say, committed to evil bugbears were terrorizing the countryside and a group was enlisted to end said problem, you don't send Kung Fu Jesus, you send Billy Badass.
Again, without context from the OP, you make the same assumptions and leaps of judgment that have no basis within presented fact. The fact is, there is NO CONTEXT for where the encounter took place, why the party was there in the first place, or any of the other clues that would lend credence to either of our assumptions.
And, frankly, given the trouble the OP is having with the character doing what he does, I think the game may have been more "typically" D&D than you assume it was.
The game is neither more nor less typical than I assume, as I know we don't have the information or the context to judge how typical it is, and therefore I do not make any assumptions on the matter. The only context we have is that the rest of the party was in a coma when the bugbears attacked. That's about it, and that is not enough information to conclude that the Vow of Peace character was acting in any way inappropriately for one who has such a vow, or even divine odds to that effect.
However, if the bugbears are terrorizing the countryside, there are many, many perfectly legitimate reasons why the Vow of Peace/Poverty character would be sent on the quest or would choose to go on the quest. There are also many reasons they would not be sent and would not choose to go. Both sets are so numerous that going through the list would be a rather pointless exercise.
This is why I need context. If the DM wasn't running the game according to the BoED "paradigm shift" gaming style, and, say, it was a published adventure or a homebrew built around the "let's go adventuring" paradigm, then why was the Vow of Peace character even there? And, if it were a "typical" D&D game, the party more likely were the aggressors. If, say, committed to evil bugbears were terrorizing the countryside and a group was enlisted to end said problem, you don't send Kung Fu Jesus, you send Billy Badass.
Why would a Kung Fu Jesus be inappropriate. If you could come to the same end (stop the bugbears from terrorizing) and do it without lose of life on either side, I fail to see how that would be an inappropriate option.
If, say, committed to evil bugbears were terrorizing the countryside and a group was enlisted to end said problem, you don't send Kung Fu Jesus, you send Billy Badass.
"Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred bug-bear scalps. And I WANT my scalps!"
|
|
Why would a Kung Fu Jesus be inappropriate. If you could come to the same end (stop the bugbears from terrorizing) and do it without lose of life on either side, I fail to see how that would be an inappropriate option.This is why I need context. If the DM wasn't running the game according to the BoED "paradigm shift" gaming style, and, say, it was a published adventure or a homebrew built around the "let's go adventuring" paradigm, then why was the Vow of Peace character even there? And, if it were a "typical" D&D game, the party more likely were the aggressors. If, say, committed to evil bugbears were terrorizing the countryside and a group was enlisted to end said problem, you don't send Kung Fu Jesus, you send Billy Badass.
Yeah, I know, bugbears just need a stern talking to.
If, say, committed to evil bugbears were terrorizing the countryside and a group was enlisted to end said problem, you don't send Kung Fu Jesus, you send Billy Badass."Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred bug-bear scalps. And I WANT my scalps!"
Is that a bug-bear?
No, that is the Bear Half-Orc. He loves killing gobeeeez
Yeah, I know, bugbears just need a stern talking to.
Pacifism and ineptitude are two completely different things. There are more options than just talking at the enemy until they go away. After all, "I challenge the orc king to single combat to earn his respect," is a valid path for Kung Fu Jesus. "I slaughter every orc from here to the Sword Coast," is not the only option.
Perhaps the bugbears are being driven into human territory by something else. Perhaps the bugbears have been robbed of a vital treasure and were thus incited to violence. Perhaps there is a more reasonable member of the bugbear tribe whom Kung Fu Jesus could somehow help ascend to leadership. Perhaps Kung Fu Jesus believes he can minimize bloodshed by coming along, even if that bloodshed is inevitable.
:)
You finally get out and see that, then?
Yeah, I know, bugbears just need a stern talking to.Pacifism and ineptitude are two completely different things. There are more options than just talking at the enemy until they go away. After all, "I challenge the orc king to single combat to earn his respect," is a valid path for Kung Fu Jesus. "I slaughter every orc from here to the Sword Coast," is not the only option.
Perhaps the bugbears are being driven into human territory by something else. Perhaps the bugbears have been robbed of a vital treasure and were thus incited to violence. Perhaps there is a more reasonable member of the bugbear tribe whom Kung Fu Jesus could somehow help ascend to leadership. Perhaps Kung Fu Jesus believes he can minimize bloodshed by coming along, even if that bloodshed is inevitable.
Indeed. I don't remember Caine doing alot of passive talking and then running away when he wasn't listened to and allowing Kato from the Green Hornet to come and save the day.
|
|
Indeed. I don't remember Caine doing alot of passive talking and then running away when he wasn't listened to and allowing Kato from the Green Hornet to come and save the day.Yeah, I know, bugbears just need a stern talking to.Pacifism and ineptitude are two completely different things. There are more options than just talking at the enemy until they go away. After all, "I challenge the orc king to single combat to earn his respect," is a valid path for Kung Fu Jesus. "I slaughter every orc from here to the Sword Coast," is not the only option.
Perhaps the bugbears are being driven into human territory by something else. Perhaps the bugbears have been robbed of a vital treasure and were thus incited to violence. Perhaps there is a more reasonable member of the bugbear tribe whom Kung Fu Jesus could somehow help ascend to leadership. Perhaps Kung Fu Jesus believes he can minimize bloodshed by coming along, even if that bloodshed is inevitable.
I also don't remember Caine traveling with Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson LOOKING for bad guys.
Except Kung Fu Jesus isn't Caine. He's Kung Fu Jesus. And considering how we don't even have any details, you're being nitpicky about nits that have never even been presented, and that you've invented yourself, which have no bearing on the topic at hand.
Well, no bearing except in terms of advice to DMs who are thinking about introducing those vows. Like, Derek's comment would be useful for a hypothetical DM looking at these boards who's got a party of one assassin out for pay, one psychotic warlock who wants to blast people, and an apostle of peace. Reminding that DM that abetting the "armageddon brothers" is hardly a peaceful endeavor certainly has some value, even if it doens't relate at all to the case in point regarding Kung Fu Jesus and the Bugbears. Yeah, the claim could be made that the assassin and warlock are doing all the killing, but that's a pretty specious argument, even in legal terms -- driving a getaway car still gets you a sentence, after all, and the requirements for keeping such an impressive package of celestial benefits should certainly be more stringent than for just not going to jail.
At which point, I suggest any DM facing that problem actually read the Vow of Peace feat, as it's pretty pointed on the whole accomplice to murder thing.
At which point, I suggest actually reading the Vow of Peace feat, as it's pretty pointed on the whole accomplice to murder thing.
Yes, it is. And that goes back to the overwhelming importance of thinking about the impact of these vows on the game, and understanding the rules regarding their use, BEFORE getting into a situation that seems pretty shaky. Like, we don't know if Kung Fu Jesus was taking kids' lunch money or giving them swirlies -- it's nice to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume he wasn't, especially because we DO know that the rules prohibit that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, we also have more than ample evidence that a lot of people don't read those rules as carefully as maybe they should. Certainly a reminder like Derek's isn't totally out of order -- for those people, even if it turns out not to apply to the example at hand.
|
|
t has nothing to do with maintaining feats. The character has a moral code, and they hold to it. Period. Feats are not a consideration. An exalted character does not torture because they believe torture is wrong. Period. Power is a non-consideration, and they hold very strongly to, "The ends do not justify the means."
If Exalted Alice doesn't have an option to stop Villain Bob from slitting the baby's throat, how can you hold her responsible for not stopping him? If she steps forward, it's Bob who slits the baby's throat, not Alice. Bob is an independent sentient being capable of making his own decisions. He is capable of choosing to slit the baby's throat. He is capable of choosing not to. Alice is not Bob. Bob's choices are not Alice's. Alice cannot be held responsible for Bob's actions.
Alice can give an impassioned speech, try to talk Bob down, then take that one step forward and pray Bob will see the light or at least hesitate, yet he doesn't and he slits the baby's throat. That's not Alice's fault.
Alice can distract Bob until her friend Carmen sneaks up around him to try and stop him with a sap sneak attack, but Bob sees her and slits the baby's throat. That's not Alice's fault either.
Alice can stand there obediently when a stiff breeze knocks down a pile of boxes, Bob freaks out, and slits the baby's throat. Again, that's not Alice's fault.
We've had some debates recently, but this is one time that I very, very, strongly agree with you. You have excellently summed up moral dilemnas. I'll take your point a step further: Failing to stop evil isn't bad, or failing to stop evil from being done isn't wrong. Good characters make the attempt knowing they may very well fail.
He wasn't exactly active in the conversation to begin with. It seems he didn't come for advice or discussion, but more to vent.
Okay so you have a supposedly "Nonviolent" character going for a PrC called "Fist of the Forest?" Sounds almost like a Paladin qualifying for Blackguard. At some point push has to go to shove and he's essentially going to lose that Vow of Peace (with no refund for the lost feat)
Fist of the Forest has already been commented on. It does pretty much violate the code, and is part of the rules review that needs to be done to make sure the character in question is applying the rules properly.
A Fist of the Forest has to belong to an organization of rather explicit killers, and to support their cause basically violates the vow.
It does seem to indicate that the person who took the Vow then was really just another of that all too common type of player... the Cheese Weasel. Case closed.
Except you don't know that. There is also extensive evidence of misapplication and misinterpretation of various rules; this can be another such failing.
Also, we have evidence of killer DM behavior. Jabsco did state that the party tends to die brutally at low levels, and that they feel they have to create these very powerful characters just to survive. What happens when you combine desperation, a killer DM, and poor knowledge of the rules?
I'm using the label as a counter-possibility, precisely because we don't have enough information. However, for a true killer DM, players won't die brutally at high levels because they won't last long enough to reach high levels.
we stopped coming here because the game fell apart. This topic became null and void. you all just managed to keep it alive, also i had no intent of staying here, longer then the to make peace with my DM, i Find BG is a much better source of information.
Thanks for your time.
Jabsco
|
|
2x CR2= 1200xp, reduced to zero, because the PC has more feats than are legal, having somehow conned the DM that super-powers are flaws.
If we're handing out free feats, then doubling them, I'll have the Exotic Weapon Spiked Chain Trip Build Tree as my first level flaws, please. With a side order of Improved Crit.
Where on Earth do people keep getting this idea? Vow of Poverty wasn't taken as a flaw. It was taken through a flaw. Which is perfectly legal and the DM approved, and required no deception.
I've gone back through the tread, and I have to hang my head on that one.
I was responding to info from wraithstrike (post 95), who I assumed was playing in that game, and speaking from experience. That'll teach me.We still don't know what flaws were taken, despite asking, and that's part of the reason so many are willing to believe the worst.
The whole 'Flaws for Feats' option is a huge can of worms, due to DMs not realising what they're letting themselves in for, or believing they will be able to offset any overpowered feat combos using the flaws, when in fact, players (if allowed) will simply pick flaws that have little to no meaningful effect on their PC.
A disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage the character isn't a disadvantage, and shouldn't be worth compensating.
A disadvantage that exacerbates an existing disadvantage is not as much of a disadvantage (if at all), since it only reduces the effectiveness of an action you weren't going to choose anyway.
("I have a penalty to all social skills! I have to always speak the truth! And I'm a mute!")
A disadvantage that only affects you at the beginning of your career, but then becomes irrelevant, whether by your own abilities or equipment, or those of a team-mate, is no longer a disadvantage, and should be treated as a debt, that must be bought off at the earliest opportunity (forfeiting ones next feat/build points, or being unable to access one of your advantages, until the debt is clear).
These issues are well-documented in games with a tradition of using build-points to create custom PCs (I know it's explicitly called out in GURPS, maybe Courtfool can confirm it's the case in Hero?). But it seems to be tucked away in the small print of D&D, with obvious results. D&D 2.5 (aka Skills and Powers) saw an epidemic of colourblindness sweep every setting.
Knights of the Dinner Table spoofs this trend regularly, with Bob Herzog creating a gunslinger, paying for his quick-draw skillz with Trick Knee, and Amputee. On the same leg!
Brian creates a sci-fi PC who's a quadraplegic, all physical stats at zero, so he can max his mental stats, pump his inventing skills and live permanently inside a thought-activated battle-suit (with awesome physical stats, naturally).