RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
One character in my game is a VoP druid and worshipper of Shaundakul (Realms campaign). So far I'm quite happy to let him give up all his treasure and have the powers of the Vow instead (He's only 3rd level now) and my only worry is how much I should push the 'exalted' angle.
I know the way the campaign will be going (Enemy of my enemy etc) and don't want to make it impossible for him to assist the party - similar to the paladin problems, I think.
My own idea was that the VoP path would be a sort of Agent of Shaundakul type career path, where he is a wandering agent of the god, relying only on his divine gifts and a trusty favourite walking stick. As long as he takes his share of the stuff and uses it to promote the ideals of his god, I don't see it becoming too unbalanced. I don't see a classic Exalted character fitting in the campaign the way I intend to run it, but the Ascetic style druid in itself is great.
So basically I'm asking if it's begging for trouble to let him follow the ablity path of the VoP without being overly strict on the RP requirements - or changing them to require him to act according to the desires of his God. For the sake of argument, say that Shaundakul had a divine premonition that a certain someone should be in Sasserine at the right time and that they could eventually help prevent an ecological disaster.
I know - it's my game, it's up to me, but I've no experience with the VoP at higher levels and am not sure what I'm letting myself in for.
might be headed for the saintly shifter ;)
As for the exaltedness, id recommend just looking at the individual promises.. and demand some nice behavior if going for saint. As in fact, ask about it... and then plan a rise to that height together.
This could get disgustingly powerful tho... "goodstrikes"*5+ each at +1d6 damage vs evil iirc
Immunities and fast healing of the saint, all vop abilities... and being shifted into some monsterform!!! :D
Now there is a even more difficult option, apostle of peace...
Uberpowers like above anyone can handle, but refusal to fight. Ouch..
Redeeming the demonlords? The player might just try it...
aehh, run that past me again.
A druid in the service of Shandakuhl (CN deity), hence with an alignment of either neutral or chaotic neutral (within one step of teh diety's alignment, and with CG and CE being unavialable alignments to druids ) ?
Prerequisites vor Vow of Poverty (exalted) = Sacred Vow (exalted) (BoED)
"you have willingly given yourself to the service of a _good_ diety"...
Seems like the prerequisites are fairly.... bent, to say the least. Also, "exalted" feats, according to the BoED are meant for those who are shining paragorns of "Good" - which a (chaotic) neutral druid is most certainly not, or not a druid for very much longer. This means, massively "good" roleplaying (think "as holy as they come" )... Any major infraction = loss of "Exalted" feats, no reimbursement, no chance for a regain through "atonement"
This is above and beyond the simple fact that nothing in the portfolio of Shandakuhl makes "poverty in the service of others" anything the diety expects or even seeks in his worshippers (unlike say, Ilmater or Lathander, to name some FR entities). Plus, a chaotic neutral diety rewarding one of his servants for binding himself with a strict vow - something that for Shaundakuhl would be rather an anathema ?
Shaundakuhl is about new experiences, travelling, broadening one's horizons, basically freedom epitomized - not about community service, sharing one's gains for the benefit of all and finding fullfillment by serving others. Not about being a better, kinder, more generous and forgiving person than the average commoner...
Now, a "saint", a religious exemplar of the diety and his "message" is in _not_ a "bound to poverty" druid roaming the world, where he saves as an example to very few, and inspires noone at all.... And unlikely to be a shining example of "goodness", which is required for "exalted" feats
Sorry, that entire character-setup smacks intensely of "min-maxing" against all the roleplaying background for the feats used , the Forgotten Realms setup (and canon, for all that it's worth ) and even against several core rules.
that much needs to be said for the legality of the background
As for "balance".....
Once the druid starts to use wild-shaping (or the shapechanging druid-ption from PHB-II ) this feat gets totally out of balance, since those powers are balanced against the fact that usually they derive a normal druid of the benefits of his/her equipment, and replace it with a more or less well calibrated set of abilities and features...
Since a VoP Druid has no equipment to begin with , he sacrifices nothing - but retains his massive boni even in wildshape or shapechanged forms.
Very very much broken .... basically, what you have on your hands is not a can of worms, but a gasometer of maggots.....
My only recommendation - jank the chain, let the player rebuild the character before he starts trashing your campaign.
It's your campaign....
PS - I don't think the VoP Shaundakuhlian druid fits the spirit of the STAP very much, and will most certainly be in exceedingly hot water ethically from "Wells of Darkness" onwards ----> because what holds true for the problems faced by paladins, holds twice as true for characters of Exalted status.
|
My take on the exalted feats is that they actually put you beyond the paladin in what is and isn't good behavior. Thus the more you take, the more "good" you need to be. With the VoP and all of the extra exalted feats that come with that, I'd say there'd have to come a point where one says "the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily any more palatable."
Evil is evil. If they can be redeemed, that's grand, and an admirable goal for an exalted character, but if they can't, then they need handled. Until they see the error of their evil ways, working wtih them should be a real problem, especially if they're going to use their standard evil bag of tricks during the course of things.
At least, that's the way I'm playing my exalted monk.
I wouldn't be keen on playing an exalted character in the STAP. Demon lords are, by nature, not redeemable. They're bad through and through, and no exalted character worth his vow should be seen with one, if he's not trying to alter the balance between good and evil (by ending the big evil.)
Just MHO, but there it is.
|
|
And, as Uzagi pointed out, there's a whole lot of RP requirements for the feat to even work. Giving up your stuff for superpowers is just the tip of the iceberg.
Must admit, I was looking at it entirely from the Vow, and missed the CN deity (not a big FR fan), and the druid follower of that deity that can't really be good aligned at all.
So, if you're going to allow all that, then you can pretty much do whatever you want with the rest. You've lost he falvor of the exalted feats already.
...well, there is the heresy feat, allowing two jumps from the deitys alignment.
(like a ilmater -> LE, everyone must be saved, and its thru whipping and suffering)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Hmmmmm. Thanks uzagi!
It's my first time DM-ing since AD&D in the 90s and it's with a new group in a new country too - hence many mistakes have been and continue to be made. To be honest, I may not have given this quite enough thought - after reading your points I'm starting to wake up ;)
He wanted a wandering druid with a vow of poverty and that sounded good. Shaundakul was my mistake, I suggested it after thinking that the idea of seeking out new places fitted perfectly with the Isle of Dread (which the player didn't know about). I was thinking of having an old shrine to him there which the player could help find - possibly in the neighbourhood of Farshore. And then there was the fact that Lavinia's parents worshipped Shaundakul (including her druid mother) which made me want to slip the god in as a suggestion to the player. I'm sure I read somewhere that it was odd but not forbidden - maybe because the one-step rule is only for clerics? Okay - so he'd have to be a NG druid who admires Shaundakul's wanderlust and outlook, but basically wants to do more good than Shaundakul would normally require of his priests.
I'll probably have to have a serious chat with the player next week. Better now than in a few months when he's more attached to the character.
I guess I got overexcited about 'pleasing' this new group (who've played together for about 20 years).
I'll start this by noting that I agree that VoP is seriously broken but if your still want to run with it I'll make some notes on that.
VoP can be, more or less, translated into a GP value by simply looking up what it would cost to purchase items that give the same benefits. Its been done on another thread and the gist is that a VoP character rapidly passes the other characters who are following the wealth by level guidelines. This just keeps increasing until around 10th level when the VoP character has powers that far exceed what characters of 10th level could afford. After that things start to head in the other direction. Wealth by level skyrockets for players from around 12th and just shoots into the stratosphere from 16th on. In the last few levels - from about 18th level on the other characters will equal and then surpass the VoP player. This is especially true considering that they can choose their magic items - however a Druid is really a very good class for this as the VoP powers are generally considered to carry over when the druid turns himself into a dragon which is not usually the case with a normal druids stuff so the class might not really fall behind at 20th.
If you do run with this feat make sure to throw out a lot of the treasure or seriously increase the strength of the opposition. If the druid ain't taking treasure the rest of the players will be snagging the swag and they'll be a lot more powerful as a result.
In terms of running this with Enemies of my Enemies and such - I think this is possible with exalted characters and even with Paladins.
Essentially stage some kind of an intervention with a representative of the God in question and put a leash on the PC.
Representative of PCs God: [in a high pitched squeaky voice] "You are to go forth and kill Demigorgon. Those are your marching orders, Do whatever it takes even if it means you have to sacrifice your soul. In that case consider yourself well sacrificed to [Insert Gods name]'s greater glory, now don't let yourself get distracted by your own wants and desires - these are irrelevant ... what are you still here? I said to snap to it - mush already....hup, hup, hup.'
This gives the players a clear set of instructions and conveniently puts this PC on railroad tracks keeping the player focused on the mission at hand and not all the other cool stuff that one might want to get while plane hopping.
The main problem for a paladin, and even more so an 'exalted' character is WoD ....
And the deal concerning the sacrifice of a ( likely unwilling ) sentient being to a demonlord (Ahazu), plus the release of a major demeoness (Shari Amourae) intop the planes, free again to cause havoc, evil and miscontent.
.. which will really be major stumbling stones on the harsh road of paladinhood, even more so for a saintly character.
A number of scenes in EomE will likely become problematic too, especially around Miss "M"
aka Malcanteth, since druids are rather notroiously "low charisma" folks, which really calls for him/her receiving the "Queen's Kiss". Especially given the monstrous havoc such a kiss would wreck on a paragon of saintlyness - a temptation me thinks Malcanteth could not resist even if... . nopes, nothing to really keep her from it if she is played as major demoness of seduction... I mean, to corrupt a "saint", tarnishing him forever through the necessities of the crisis ? PRICELESS !
but are more "survivable" then those in WoD.
As for the "heresy" feat - does it strike anybody else but me as a sort of contradiction to have a devoted religious exemplar of his religion actually be a heretic deviant from the established faith and tenets ? I have a nagging suspicions these two feats are mutually exclusive, if not by the rules, at least by common sense
Just my 2 cents...
|
|
If you do run with this feat make sure to throw out a lot of the treasure or seriously increase the strength of the opposition. If the druid ain't taking treasure the rest of the players will be snagging the swag and they'll be a lot more powerful as a result.
Oh no... it doesn't work that way. The druid's cut is still taken out. It goes toward good works. Feeding widows and orphans... big donations to good churches... that kind of thing. The rules are pretty clear that the party doesn't get to split up the VoP character's share.
In terms of running this with Enemies of my Enemies and such - I think this is possible with exalted characters and even with Paladins.Essentially stage some kind of an intervention with a representative of the God in question and put a leash on the PC.
Representative of PCs God: [in a high pitched squeaky voice] "You are to go forth and kill Demigorgon. Those are your marching orders, Do whatever it takes even if it means you have to sacrifice your soul. In that case consider yourself well sacrificed to [Insert Gods name]'s greater glory, now don't let...
"Do whatever it takes to get the mission done, even if you have to sacrifice your soul" also goes against the whole "exalted character" concept. Look at "Exalted Deeds" Book of Exalted Deeds pp.5-8, and "The Straight and Narrow" BoED pp. 9-11 (especially the section on ends and means.)
The problem is that your not just stuck with the VoP rules. You're playing an exalted character, and are stuck with all of those rules too. That roleplaying straightjacket is important - I think it's supposed to be part of what balances the VoP to begin with.
"I don't own anything." - easy
"I don't own anything, give my share to charity, don't have peaceful interaction with evil, don't throw away my soul, do good deeds, admonish my companions for not doing good deeds, and generally walk an incredibly straight and narrow path where if I fall off, even for a moment, I lose everything that makes me me." - not so easy
Yeah... the VoP as just mechanics is kind of broken. It's a roleplay monster, and that's where the cost really lies.
Additionally, and maybe it's just my players, but they hate nothing more than having the DM put them on a straight rail with no other options. They can put themselves on all the straight rails they want, but they HATE being forced to go a certain way, and nothing says "force" more than a minion of your god dropping by to tell you to go against everything you believe.
One character in my game is a VoP druid and worshipper of Shaundakul (Realms campaign). So far I'm quite happy to let him give up all his treasure and have the powers of the Vow instead (He's only 3rd level now) and my only worry is how much I should push the 'exalted' angle.
I know the way the campaign will be going (Enemy of my enemy etc) and don't want to make it impossible for him to assist the party - similar to the paladin problems, I think.
My own idea was that the VoP path would be a sort of Agent of Shaundakul type career path, where he is a wandering agent of the god, relying only on his divine gifts and a trusty favourite walking stick. As long as he takes his share of the stuff and uses it to promote the ideals of his god, I don't see it becoming too unbalanced. I don't see a classic Exalted character fitting in the campaign the way I intend to run it, but the Ascetic style druid in itself is great.
So basically I'm asking if it's begging for trouble to let him follow the ablity path of the VoP without being overly strict on the RP requirements - or changing them to require him to act according to the desires of his God. For the sake of argument, say that Shaundakul had a divine premonition that a certain someone should be in Sasserine at the right time and that they could eventually help prevent an ecological disaster.
I know - it's my game, it's up to me, but I've no experience with the VoP at higher levels and am not sure what I'm letting myself in for.
As the several other posters have eloquently pointed out, Vow of Poverty really, really does not mix well with most games, even moreso in the Savage Tide, as while an Exalted character can 'deal with Ebil' per se, it is not well looked upon at all. It's all about the RP elements, and are quite tasking to deal with. [In the AoW, I have a VoP radiant servant and am royally chomping at the bit to get the character made into critterkibble - it is really not worth the hassle imo.]
I do like the idea of a "get rid of almost all your stuff to get a nifty package o' goodies as you level up" enormously. Sadly, the only thing done on this line thusfar is the VoP, while I would dearly love to see alternative versions of the same basic concept [cashier your 2 starting feats at 1st level, get this pile of goodies if you survive, adhere to these RP principles in character], although I've not yet heard of such.
As things presently stand, your characters' gear gives you far, far more flexibility in dealing with the many and varied situations you will find yourself in during play than even the most 'well rounded' prepared spells selections can accomplish. Not to mention the big important repairing spells all cost money, lots of it, which the VoP completely annihilates from being directly accessible to the impoverished character. Now, if the VoP overwrote the material components required for 'repair' spells (restoration, greater restore especially) then it wouldn't be so harsh. It pretty much relegates the toting of pounds of gemdust to the others, which is rather unfair tbh.
Mah 2 coppers.
Oh no... it doesn't work that way. The druid's cut is still taken out. It goes toward good works. Feeding widows and orphans... big donations to good churches... that kind of thing. The rules are pretty clear that the party doesn't get to split up the VoP character's share.
That works to - just make sure that the other players don't get their grubby hands on the treasure is really the point. Donate to good churches should not mean that other players get free spell casting from said clerics.
"Do whatever it takes to get the mission done, even if you have to sacrifice your soul" also goes against the whole "exalted character" concept. Look at "Exalted Deeds" Book of Exalted Deeds pp.5-8, and "The Straight and Narrow" BoED pp. 9-11 (especially the section on ends and means.)The problem is that your not just stuck with the VoP rules. You're playing an exalted character, and are stuck with all of those rules too. That roleplaying straight jacket is important - I think it's supposed to be part of what balances the VoP to begin with.
Sure and all those rules apply until one gets to a higher level where they are going to get in the way of the campaign. At that point stage an intervention. A Paladin or Exalted character is not just an ideal of good - he or she is also a pawn of his or her God. At low levels what the pawn does - so long as its really good does not particularly concern the God in question. At high level when taking on the most powerful members of evil what the pawn does is of great interest to the God in question.
The God grants the powers and can take them away on a whim - but the God also sets the rules and can change them should that be desired. In this particular case we have a player whose straight jacket is making life difficult for the DM - at that point its time for the DM to change the straight jacket to one more suitable for the final chapters of this campaign. If the player does not like straight jackets they should play characters that don't have them.
Now I'm not saying that changing the 'rules' by intervention of a Gods minions is the best possible outcome in all campaigns. What I am saying that it is the most viable of the possible alternatives in STAP.
As it stands the DM has four choices.
#1 Run this by the book. The adventures quickly fall apart and probably the players all die when the Paladin foolishly attacks some big baddie that they where meant to parley with not try and kill. In fact the PCs can't Parley with anyone really they probably never get that far because they never think to do anythin but kill the evil standing in front of them. End result the campaign falls apart and the DM as well as the players come away with a sour taste in their mouth over this whole little affair - page XXX of the BOED should not be allowed to destroy the entertainment value of a game for everyone involved. If a DM allows that to happen well thats just bad DMing.
#2 pretend that the Paladin can break the rules at whim. This is better then option #1 but goes against the spirit of everything that Exalted CHaracters and Paladins represent. Its way to lenient as well - but at least the campaign won't fall apart.
#3 Disallow Paladins and Exalted Characters in this campaign. Not a bad option. Closes some doors and does require a lot of DM foresight but it will work.
#4 Change the rules (i.e. swap the straight jacket for a different flavoured one) in the end game. This allows the adventure to continue with exalted or Paladin characters without just allowing them to do whatever they please. On the downside it will chafe the player who has it imposed on him/her but thats what they get for choosing an exalted or Paladin character. As a side benefit it will keep the players focused on the adventure at hand. One final benefit, the transition from helping Lavina out to working against the BBEG is a tad weak. Its not necessarily clear to the players that they should be gunning for the BBEG in question. An intervention makes the goals of the players in the final chapters clear and gives them some idea of how to proceed.
Interesting take - but I would disagree.
A paladin or an exalted character achieves and maintains his status by being exemplary - a living incarnation of what his diety stands for and encompasses. On his _own_ free will, despite any obstacles and challenges life cares to throw his way.
To persist in one's believes even in the way of impossibility, martyring or sacrificing oneself for one's faith and principles. To not choose the easier road, even if given excemption to do so, because it would be against one's strongly held, iron-clad believes.
Saints are ready to die for the message/faith their embody, demonstrating that keeping the faith is more important than pragmatism and self-preservation. Perhaps their deiific patron will intervene and save them, but an exalted character who follows the requirements of exalted status will not _ask_ or dare to hope for his patron to intervene on his behalf.
Of course this is a heroic and idealized (as espoused by the BoED) take on sainthood, and looking at historic reality one will be hard pressed to match saintliness and actual events for many saintly and blessed souls, but this is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
Exalted Feats are above-par throughout, and hence should be played with massive roleplaying strictures attached. If a player should not want these, well, he is free not to take those feats.
And if a GM allows them into the camapaign, that is His/her responsibility. GMing, I see it as my (cherished and beloved, make no mistake ) duty to rpovde a fun, gripping and entertaining game. For everyone. If a player's personal choice of character will likely ruin or impede the other players' fun, and the GM can foresee it, than it is his job to nib this thread in the bud.
Because - this way you may have one player grumbling ( for a short time ) but the other way round, you will likely have a broken camapign on your hands... with an entire set of miffed players, too, in all likelihood.
And if a GM allows them into the camapaign, that is His/her responsibility. GMing, I see it as my (cherished and beloved, make no mistake ) duty to rpovde a fun, gripping and entertaining game. For everyone. If a player's personal choice of character will likely ruin or impede the other players' fun, and the GM can foresee it, than it is his job to nib this thread in the bud.
Because - this way you may have one player grumbling ( for a short time ) but the other way round, you will likely have a broken camapign on your hands... with an entire set of miffed players, too, in all likelihood.
And if the DM has no reasonable way of foreseeing it? In this case the problem is that STAP came out over the course of a year. A campaign could be well underway and include a Paladin or Exalted player before the problems inherent in allowing them in the campaign became apparent.
Balance is a game to game issue; there is no right or wrong way; just play test it; tell the player you are going to try some modifications and explain them and how they will affect the game in your view and tell the player if it doesnt work out, you will change it back. Make it a play test thing and go for it, you seem to realize it could be problematic, but unless you try it you won't really know how it works out.
I too am a bit curious what is exaltedly good about this druid; but it is your game so as long as you understand it.
In this case the problem is that STAP came out over the course of a year.
The only thing I will say to this is there was a preview that outlined the basic plot of each adventure. It says clearly for the WoD "and when the PCs finally do reach her [Shami-Amourae] they may be forced to make some difficult decisions."
Also the brief on the final adventure clearly states that the party may "secure the aid of demon lords"
If I had had a player wanting to play a paladin or other uber-good player in this adventure, I would have told them there might be some difficulties at the end of the adventure.
That being said though, I will offer the same advice I've offered elsewhere when this type of issue comes up...change the adventure to fit your party and have fun (since that's the whole point of all of this).
|
|
I've really got to stand firmly on uzagi's side, here.
It's not a matter of permission, or orders, it's a matter of what my character believes.
First, I'm morally against the whole "your god sends someone to tell you to do it, so do it, even if you know (and you god knows) that it's wrong.
If my deity were to tell me "I know I stand for good, and that you've served me well for a long time, doing all the things my scriptures have espoused, including the unrelenting smiting of evil. Now, however, well... it's okay for you to make deals with the BBEGs for a greater good. Don't smite them. Really," I'd start to wonder if maybe I chose the wrong deity to follow, or at least why he chose me to go on this particular quest when he knew down the line I'd have to compromise my beliefs. In a solid RP environment, the act of ordering the compromise breaks the character just as surely as the compromise itself would. Either way, you've ruined something I worked hard on, and likely really p*%&ed me off.
Disallow paladins and exalted characters, that's fine. I'm certainly okay with chapping the behind of one player for the sake if the campaign. But plan ahead. If something gets allowed in a situation where there's plenty of warning (and there was plenty in the STAP) then it's a poor DM who changes rules because they become "inconvenient."
i dont think there is anything in those wows that disallow working with tanari.. just to be good and to not own stuff. Even afaik the paladins wows dont go that far, and neither do the saints expectations... well, some might have all kinds of expectations, but in reality?
Sure, working with that ahazu slimeball will likely be impossible, but to recruit demonlords to fight eachother? Bah.. thats the kind of thing heroes do all the time, getting two evil organisations to bash eachother up!
Especially if they are making sure evil wont get any stronger, by seizing the maw... perhaps with that eladrin assistance, kicking out their "allies"..
Well, since the druid in question is about 3rd level, I suppose that particular STAP was not started until well after at least WoD was out. Besides the "general outline aka sneak preview" of the STAP having been out for almost 16 moinths now...
And easing up on the restrictions faced by a paladin or even an exalted characters for pragmatisms sake simply invites the abuse of these pretty powerful, if not outright broken, feats, now and in future campaigns.
of course, people's expereince may vary
Not talking about easing up.. there is no demand anywhere on charging up and killing everything that registers as evil...
Because if there was such a demand, then all you need is a one way portal to the lower planes... and soon enough the world will have no paladins left alive..
Just as evil doesn't mean stupid, neither should exhalted or paladin..
i dont think there is anything in those wows that disallow working with tanari.. just to be good and to not own stuff. Even afaik the paladins wows dont go that far, and neither do the saints expectations... well, some might have all kinds of expectations, but in reality?
Sure, working with that ahazu slimeball will likely be impossible, but to recruit demonlords to fight eachother? Bah.. thats the kind of thing heroes do all the time, getting two evil organisations to bash eachother up!
Especially if they are making sure evil wont get any stronger, by seizing the maw... perhaps with that eladrin assistance, kicking out their "allies"..
I would sincerly recommend reading page 9 of the "Book of Exalted Deeds". It depicts the nature of Exalted status as envisioned by the designers of the entire concept (including the feats, e.g. Vow of Poverty ), and the things unscionable for such a being.
Your view might differ, which is certainly your privilegem but this is the PoV of the designers who drew up the rules, meaning to counterbalance the vast gains from these feats. Hence, I guess they should be heeded and strongly taken into account.And while anglo-saxon common law tends to - if in doubt - interpret things by the (mere) letter of the written rules (instead of the intent and spirit of the agreement ), that is widely considered an abusive way of bending the spirit of the rules and laws governing a system....
And as for evil weaking each other - if the PCs win ( as I guess they plan to ) Iggwilv, Orcus and several others will (vastly) profit from the groups efforts against Demogorgon...
I just fail to see where they end up profiting, they wont get the layer and its resources, yes... they might be one enemy poorer, but im sure the chaotic elements of the abyss will quickly see to that.
Okie, ill read up on BoED.
ps. not anglo, saxon or anglo-saxon. Finn and a viking if anything ;)
With no roman background, legal tradition can be quite different.. Emphasis on fairness and maintaining harmony, rather than laws as written. But yeah, that poison of A-S law is spreading here too... :(
Well, since the druid in question is about 3rd level, I suppose that particular STAP was not started until well after at least WoD was out. Besides the "general outline aka sneak preview" of the STAP having been out for almost 16 moinths now...
And easing up on the restrictions faced by a paladin or even an exalted characters for pragmatisms sake simply invites the abuse of these pretty powerful, if not outright broken, feats, now and in future campaigns.
of course, people's expereince may vary
Yep, I'm definitely on the other end of the spectrum. I'm of the mind that if the VoP makes sense for the druid, and the player wants it, let him have it even if it has to be tweaked to fit the current campaign. But of course I've been lucky and have had very few min/maxers in my games trying to abuse the rules (and those who did show up didn't stay long).
So, it's really up to that DM and the player. Wildshaping and VoP is unbalanced, but simply house rule that the benefits of VoP are suspended when wildshaping. Come up with some in-game reason ("all animals are poor, so there's no need for the gods to give you extra benefits") and it's fine. Wildshaping/VoP problem solved.
If the players don't seem to be the kind that will abuse house rules, then it's not a problem at all. I've played with a VoP monk before, and it wasn't a problem. We just had an understanding to keep it fun for everyone. So my vote is - if he wants to play a VoP druid and is willing to forego the benefits while wildshaping, and isn't an abuse monkey just trying to jack the rules to outshine everyone else, then there's no reason not to allow it. It's not "easing restrictions for pragmatism sake" in my mind, it's not letting the rules get in the way of the character someone wants to play. If the mechanics need tweaking in a particular case, tweak them. If the fluff needs tweaking in a particular case, tweak them.
FR canon, explanations of Exalted feats, all that stuff doesn't matter. That's just some WotC people writing how they think most people will play, but your game is your game. Even events late in the adventure path shouldn't prevent someone from playing the character they want to play. Yeah, there should be tension between the Exalted-ness and the events, but I'd hate to tell a player "That character you want to play, well 10 adventures from now you'll have to do some stuff according to the books you shouldn't do. So sorry, you can't play that character." As a player I'd think that sucks.
Personally, a VoP druid doesn't sound like a min/maxer dream (especially after the simple house rule of no benefits while wildshaping). To me it sounds like an interesting character concept that someone could really get into.
|
|
Not talking about easing up.. there is no demand anywhere on charging up and killing everything that registers as evil...
Because if there was such a demand, then all you need is a one way portal to the lower planes... and soon enough the world will have no paladins left alive..
Just as evil doesn't mean stupid, neither should exhalted or paladin..
I'm not saying the rules say "kill all evil, all the time"
I am saying that the rules (if you take them all together) pretty much say, "have as little to do with evil as possible."Making deals with demonlords goes against that.
Yes, setting one evil group against another is something heroes do all the time. It's not something exalted heroes do.
I'll probably have to have a serious chat with the player next week. Better now than in a few months when he's more attached to the character.
I guess I got overexcited about 'pleasing' this new group (who've played together for about 20 years).
No, go ahead and please them. The point of the game is to be pleased and have fun. The point isn't to make sure you fit every rule as written. Talk it over with the whole group, and if the person isn't an abuse monkey looking for an edge, then don't let the rules get in the way of fun.
If they are an abuse monkey, then definitely say no. Because that will get in the way of the fun. But if they have been playing together for 20 years, I'm guessing they get along pretty well and aren't trying to abuse the rules because there's been plenty to abuse before VoP came along.
|
|
Yep, I'm definitely on the other end of the spectrum. I'm of the mind that if the VoP makes sense for the druid, and the player wants it, let him have it even if it has to be tweaked to fit the current campaign. But of course I've been lucky and have had very few min/maxers in my games trying to abuse the rules (and those who did show up didn't stay long).
So, it's really up to that DM and the player. Wildshaping and VoP is unbalanced, but simply house rule that the benefits of VoP are suspended when wildshaping. Come up with some in-game reason ("all animals are poor, so there's no need for the gods to give you extra benefits") and it's fine. Wildshaping/VoP problem solved.
If the players don't seem to be the kind that will abuse house rules, then it's not a problem at all. I've played with a VoP monk before, and it wasn't a problem. We just had an understanding to keep it fun for everyone. So my vote is - if he wants to play a VoP druid and is willing to forego the benefits while wildshaping, and isn't an abuse monkey just trying to jack the rules to outshine everyone else, then there's no reason not to allow it. It's not "easing restrictions for pragmatism sake" in my mind, it's not letting the rules get in the way of the character someone wants to play. If the mechanics need tweaking in a particular case, tweak them. If the fluff needs tweaking in a particular case, tweak them.
FR canon, explanations of Exalted feats, all that stuff doesn't matter. That's just some WotC people...
But see... those WOTC people are the ones who designed the feats. They put the limiters in (and the RP stuff, rather than being "fluff," is part of the limiters on exalted feats) for very good reasons.
When you start taking them out, "tweaking" them to suit yourself, you run a very real risk of unbalancing the whole shebang. Min/maxing notwithstanding, it smacks of taking the good stuff and just ignoring the rest. It's all part of the package.My recommendation would be to disallow the BoED rather than start mucking around with what makes it cool.
|
Are Eladrins NOT paragons of good?
Is there not an Army of Eladrins fighting in concert with Orcus's minions?
I think if you are worried about Player paragons of good, perhaps patronage with the Eladrins is a good idea. The STAP has the Church of the Whirling Fury and this is probably the best patron for PCs.
I think you can easily overthink the "good paladin" or the "Paragon of Good" thing.
VoP is certainly a "broken" rule, but its not unfixable. A Chaotic Neutral Druid of the Whirling Fury (I forget the gods name) is certainly feasible.
A Vow of Poverty doesn't need to be with a deity of poverty. The angle with the eladrins could be: Material possessions are shackles that enslave people to them. You are only truly liberated when you are free of possessions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
VoP is certainly a "broken" rule, but its not unfixable. A Chaotic Neutral Druid of the Whirling Fury (I forget the gods name) is certainly feasible.
A Vow of Poverty doesn't need to be with a deity of poverty. The angle with the eladrins could be: Material possessions are shackles that enslave people to them. You are only truly liberated when you are free of possessions.
Crikey - that's a nice concept! If I throw in no VoP benefits while wildshaped - (you already get all the nice wildshape stats etc) I can't see him being too disappointed. He's not really a min/maxer - he just bought BoED and thought a wandering "Monkey Magic" character would be cool. Then he read somewhere that at high level a druid is cooler cos you can wildshape to fly and don't need to depend on a friendly wizard to catch up with the party - voila VoP druid please?
I was hoping I could tweak it the way many DMs tweak Paladins to make non-LG paladins as the martial arm of their Gods will (and then more so than clerics). I was overoptimistic, I reckon - but it's early days in the campaign. He's been away a few sessions (baby just born) so no-one really knows what kind of character he has except that he gave his share of the profits to some orphanage. He also asked the orphans to keep their eyes open for Vanthus - which was nice. So - would it be immensely unfair to other players if he gives away/ destroys/ eats his share of the loot in return for VoP type powers which don't work in wildshape? I'd prefer to work something out with him instead of banning it because it could cause (admittedly major) problems later. Assuming the character survives, that is.
I'm really glad for all the help you guys are giving me - thanks a lot!
When you start taking them out, "tweaking" them to suit yourself, you run a very real risk of unbalancing the whole shebang. Min/maxing notwithstanding, it smacks of taking the good stuff and just ignoring the rest. It's all part of the package.
For some groups, obeying ALL of the rules is the only way to avoid problems. I've played with groups like that, and it's an odd dynamic, but it definitely happens. With other groups you can relax a bit and no one will mind.
So I'd say that as long as all the other players are still having fun, there's no harm at all to having a VoP druid with full powers in the STAP, maybe even in wild shape. In that case, I wouldn't enforce the "package deal" mentality. (Like, why do I have to support prayer in schools if I want lower taxes? But in Texas, those two are inextricably intertwined in the Republican platform.) Anyway, not meaning to start a political debate; just wanted to provide an example.
If the other players will feel overshadowed, then restricting or outright banning the VoP is more likely to be necessary.
if you limit the VoPs applicable "window of use", your call as the GM . It's still very much against the rules as drawn up by the game's designers (who may have their more or less excellent reasons ), and I could still think up some fairly abusive druid + VoP combinations even without the use of wildshape thrown in, but it is your campaign.
You asked for advice - you have to apply it yourself for the way it fits your style of gaming. Obviously you (plan to ) do.
Personally I would blanch, since allowing this rule bending on VoP once means setting a precedent for the entire group, besides allowing that deeply broken feat into a running camapaign, and the roleplaying paradoxons it does create because it really doesn't fit the normal religious style of the chosing characters patron diety, Shaundakuhl.
And - another ( more min-maxing) player may want to do something similar in the future (say upon his own character's death ) - are you really going to tell him "no Matt, not for you, only Bob may do this because he is such a reasonable player.." ? I don't think so, so bear this in mind....
And heavens fend, I know some pretty good, intense and dedicated role-players who'd still play something as abusive as they could get away with... one does not preclude the other.
And "roleplaying" is no safety-net against it not ruining your campaign through overshadowing, others, rendering encounters moot or insignificant or simply leading to ridiculous situations - far less a "fun" thing than redesigning one character, even it it may displease that player momentarily.
And... be careful about other players loaning him equipment, or the group chugging of the "junk-loot" on him... her take the hundred barrels of rum, each 50gp each... we take the magic armour and the ring of whack...
In a totally different vein (it got mentioned in an another thread sometime back ), be aware that it will be pretty difficult (through circumstances ) for the character to actually donate his wealth to an outside, independent charity or organisation (as the VoP requires ) which the character draws no immediate benefit from or by (such as founding a local temple, which does give him influence etc. ) in a long stretch of the STAP - from SWW until SoS to be precise, unless the group employs teleport magics to return to civilisation from time to time.
Roleplaying this and having the character haul around loot from like 3-6 adventures stacked up for later "donation" may just cause abuse potential in and of itself.
Good Luck and an enjoyable campaign
just wondering, is this group we are talking about ? The one you call
"The thing is, I'm not 100% about how to run it. The group are all top strategists and used to playing tactically with minis while I've always been more of a loose, story and action over how many squares you can move kind of DM." ?
Because, given that knowledge, my "Spider Sense" that someone is trying to pull a really fast one on you as the GM kicks into HIGH ALERT mode....
Good Luck
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
And - another ( more min-maxing) player may want to do something similar in the future (say upon his own character's death ) - are you really going to tell him "no Matt, not for you, only Bob may do this because he is such a reasonable player.." ? I don't think so, so bear this in mind....
is this group we are talking about ?
Not only is it the same group, but ther is indeed a "Bob" who is indeed a reasonable player! There are three top-strategy rules-geniusses (genii??)who are scary to behold but think of great plans and are great fun to DM - plenty of improv!. Then there is one guy who's in it for the fun of it and has jolly characters (elven babes who moon dragons etc) and Bob who's characters are visualises the character as an RP concept then dies all the time. He thought of the wandering monk then switched it to druid. I really don't believe he has scary ulterior motives and when I asked him if he was more about the good druid or about the VoP powers he said he was more for the sweet, kindly druid halfling girly.
I see what you mean about precedents though and instead of creating a new class that's basically VoP without half exalted feats it would probably be easier to let her have a heroic and dramatic death ASAP. Unfortunately he's the one player who's making sketches of his character etc.
Oh stoopid me, I can't decide to draw a line or risk it but I really appreciate your seriously well thought-out advice.
So - would it be immensely unfair to other players if he gives away/ destroys/ eats his share of the loot in return for VoP type powers which don't work in wildshape? I'd prefer to work something out with him instead of banning it because it could cause (admittedly major) problems later. Assuming the character survives, that is.
Nope, that's expected of him. Make sure everyone is cool with that. It doesn't mean he needs to snag the awesome sword rather than the fighter getting it, but for balance purposes, the party should make sure that the druid gets an equal portion for him to donate. As a DM I would consider allowing a VoP character to carry something like a bag of holding or portable hole for carrying items for future donation. But it would have to be a hard rule that anything that goes in, only comes out for charity - and that doesn't mean the party rogue while the druid is sleeping. Anything is removed from the bag/hole and used for something other than donation, then it's loss of VoP and Exalted benefits until the druid atones. The donation of loot is an important mechanical balance especially for a pre-written adventure that assumes a certain level of party wealth.
And I'll continue to be the anti-Uzagi here and say if the player is drawing sketches of his character and actually thinks to tell the orphans to keep an eye out for Vanthus, my abuser alarm is not going off. As long as everyone in the group understands the potential problems and is fine and open about it, I'd vote to let him play the VoP druid. It's about the fun! :) Besides, if the player has a new baby, then he's getting only a couple hours of sleep a night for the next several months, so cut him some slack. ;)
lol, sorry to all "Mats" out there for calling you "irresponsible", and the same goes to all the unknown "Bobs" whom I inadvertendly praised, hehe. I meant them as abstractions, but.....
I was about to type a line in that post to the effect that I simply picked two generic american names, but thought that...superfluous ?
.. ouch... Tymora is not with me today, I guess !
And - another ( more min-maxing) player may want to do something similar in the future (say upon his own character's death ) - are you really going to tell him "no Matt, not for you, only Bob may do this because he is such a reasonable player.." ? I don't think so, so bear this in mind....is this group we are talking about ?Not only is it the same group, but ther is indeed a "Bob" who is indeed a reasonable player! There are three top-strategy rules-geniusses (genii??)who are scary to behold but think of great plans and are great fun to DM - plenty of improv!. Then there is one guy who's in it for the fun of it and has jolly characters (elven babes who moon dragons etc) and Bob who's characters are visualises the character as an RP concept then dies all the time. He thought of the wandering monk then switched it to druid. I really don't believe he has scary ulterior motives and when I asked him if he was more about the good druid or about the VoP powers he said he was more for the sweet, kindly druid halfling girly.
I see what you mean about precedents though and instead of creating a new class that's basically VoP without half exalted feats it would probably be easier to let her have a heroic and dramatic death ASAP. Unfortunately he's the one player who's making sketches of his character etc.
Oh stoopid me, I can't decide to draw a line or risk it but I really appreciate your seriously well thought-out advice.
You can also simply rule that the feat is out of bounds for all subsequent players as its to powerful - but since you don't want to seriously wreck a character thats already in play your just going to tweak it a little and allow it to stand. Its not about the min-maxers ... really, honest! Would I lie to you? (Don't answer that). My experience has been that things get into the game from time to time that really should not be there or should be modified but around which a player as made a character which it would be unfair to totally wreck. Its not unreasonable to say "from now on rule X applies but I'll make an exception for Bob as he already has a character".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Right - we had a chat last night and came up with a plan.
I told him that I basically wanted him to have fun but that his character (as Exalted Good lassie) would be seriously limited in her options later in the campaign and (like straight-laced paladins) might end up sitting sections out or that he might just have her leave the party since his character wouldn't agree with their chosen route. I told him I wanted to get rid of the BoED later but she was okay as she was for the first bit of the campaign.
My secret plan is to have her seriously tortured by Olangru (she already had premonitions about the entrance to that dungeon) and go a bit mental. She will then switch from NG to CN, lose exalted status, choose something like whirling fury, and follow a similar Poverty path without Exalted feats and on a path for revenge. I'll let him pick replacement feats and follow the ascetic concept in another way from then on.
What do you think?
He's also happy to kill her off at any stage and try something else, but I think this could be fun. He's going to play up the Good part until then so the look on the other players faces when she 'goes bad' will be priceless.
On a slightly different but related topic.
We know the Church of the Whirling Fury is connected to Gwenwharwyf, an eladrin paragon, and she in turn becomes involved in the fight against Demogorgon. The Champion of Gwen'wyf PrC listed in the BoED seems like a reasonable path for a Barbarian character follow. Of course, this PrC reqiures 2 exalted feats (IIRC Righteous fury and Knight of the Stars) which begs the already asked questions above. To my mind, releasing one demon and imprisoning an even more powerful one doesn't really present all that big an issue. In "Enemy..." it would be hypocritical after all to penalize this exalted character for dealing with these demons seeing as how the direct patron of the champion character is making the same deals and agrees to working with the same Evils.
In the same vein, you wouldn't say that Orcus was doing 'good' by siding with the PC's against Demogorgon and lose those Vile feats and abilities.
Just a couple more coppers.
Not talking about easing up.. there is no demand anywhere on charging up and killing everything that registers as evil...
Because if there was such a demand, then all you need is a one way portal to the lower planes... and soon enough the world will have no paladins left alive..
Just as evil doesn't mean stupid, neither should exhalted or paladin..
I'm not saying the rules say "kill all evil, all the time"
I am saying that the rules (if you take them all together) pretty much say, "have as little to do with evil as possible."
Making deals with demonlords goes against that.
Yes, setting one evil group against another is something heroes do all the time. It's not something exalted heroes do.
Anyway, i finally read thru that text.
What it does say is that you are allowed to make deals with evil -rival drow faction-, but mustn't tolerate any evil acts from them DURING your alliance.This in the game would mean, don't torture D's minions.. or otherwise kill prisoners whatnot during the battle or soon after... or the alliance will be over! (and fighting starts)
But the alliance and cooperation as such would be allowed, even turning over the maw and titles to one of those demonlords.
Also negotiate beforehand what to do with all the assets, and then enforce the agreement... no sliding allowed! Also, no backstabbing by players AS LONG AS said demons stick to their part.
My secret plan is to have her seriously tortured by Olangru (she already had premonitions about the entrance to that dungeon) and go a bit mental. She will then switch from NG to CN, lose exalted status, choose something like whirling fury, and follow a similar Poverty path without Exalted feats and on a path for revenge. I'll let him pick replacement feats and follow the ascetic concept in another way from then on.
What do you think?
Railroading.. don't do it..
You might however do temptation.Ie torture, and then they end up capturing Olarangu... and some npc wants to use some cold iron torture equipment.. forcing the just tortured player to use force if necessary to stop it!
Okie, she might be weak and easily knocked over after the episode, but thats no excuse in being punished by loss of exaltedness, important part is to try as hard as ever possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
It's more because I don't want an exalted character feel they have to "sit on the ship" for entire adventures because there is a lot of dealing with evil parties to stop the big D.
Instead of banning the exalted stuff from the game and letting the player start a new character, I've basically said that later in the campaign it may become a bit too much of a constraint, and left it at that.
I'll then throw in enough chances for the player to let his character drift (or explode) away from exaltedness. If it all makes for fun and drama then some other means of retaining a great deal of his characters power will manifest itself. There are enough interested parties for one to step up as patron - the party id right in the thick of the savage tide - everyone will want eyes and ears there.
So - yes, railroading, but also no - it's more of a plot between me and one player to get more drama in and get rid of the overbalanced exalted stuff at the same time.
(hopefully)