And is the problem that the gearless monk is not effective enough for an AP, or not as effective as a geared monk? i.e. must it be as viable as a normal monk, or just viable enough to play an Adventure Path (to use relevant benchmark).
And is the problem that the gearless monk is not effective enough for an AP, or not as effective as a geared monk? i.e. must it be as viable as a normal monk, or just viable enough to play an Adventure Path (to use relevant benchmark).
I think that a gearless monk ( or other character ) should be just as effective as a normal character, as long as his share of loot goes towards charity or some other institution which takes it out of the hands of the rest of the party, without giving them combat benefits.
As an optional rule, that is do-able. If the design team cared to implement it.
|
And is the problem that the gearless monk is not effective enough for an AP, or not as effective as a geared monk? i.e. must it be as viable as a normal monk, or just viable enough to play an Adventure Path (to use relevant benchmark).
I think that a gearless monk ( or other character ) should be just as effective as a normal character, as long as his share of loot goes towards charity or some other institution which takes it out of the hands of the rest of the party, without giving them combat benefits.
As an optional rule, that is do-able. If the design team cared to implement it.
An AP is exactly where this would work, as it is a set amount of loot for a party over the course of the adventure path. Everyone would get more since the monk got less.
I would say not effective enough for an AP. Admittedly I have not looked at your writeups LoreKeeper, which may change my opinion.
I think both write-ups are enough to play an adventure path. The first assumes only a monk's robe up to about level 16 (where the typical AP ends) along with a few +2 tomes/manuals and some friendly spells (mage armor and (greater) magic weapon). I make no statement on how the monk's robe or the tomes/manuals are acquired.
The second is a munchkind VoP monk using 1 level of oracle and 4 levels of paladin to augment the basic monk's abiliies. The write-up assumes no ally aid but gaining a headband of mental superiority (no tomes/manuals). The result is fairly powerful with a large set of out-of-combat uses that make the character relevant to the party. In combat performance varies depending on allies and enemies - the ability to smite twice a day adds a big boost in combat output against two evil targets (and handily bypasses DR).
I'll look into what is possible with absolutely no gear/tomes/manuals/allies. Just a bare bones basic monk.
And is the problem that the gearless monk is not effective enough for an AP, or not as effective as a geared monk? i.e. must it be as viable as a normal monk, or just viable enough to play an Adventure Path (to use relevant benchmark).
I think that a gearless monk ( or other character ) should be just as effective as a normal character, as long as his share of loot goes towards charity or some other institution which takes it out of the hands of the rest of the party, without giving them combat benefits.
As an optional rule, that is do-able. If the design team cared to implement it.
An AP is exactly where this would work, as it is a set amount of loot for a party over the course of the adventure path. Everyone would get more since the monk got less.
Eh? My idea was more akin to the 3.5 VoP, where the excess loot goes towards charity and very explicitly cannot be given to the rest of the party.
Eh? My idea was more akin to the 3.5 VoP, where the excess loot goes towards charity and very explicitly cannot be given to the rest of the party.
Why? The monk embraces a vow of poverty, not an oath of charity.
There is -for most- monks no incentive to take on wealth to be distributed to others he considers worthy. From an in-game perspective my Tien monk really has very little hope of sending his lootshare to a monastry in Minkai while in Korvosa. Suspension of disbelief not withstanding.
But, you're in luck, there is already a VoP like the one you envision where all wealth is siphoned off to an abstract charity and in exchange the monk gets saintly powers of note. 3.5 is compatible after all, just use the BoED VoP.
Eh? My idea was more akin to the 3.5 VoP, where the excess loot goes towards charity and very explicitly cannot be given to the rest of the party.Why? The monk embraces a vow of poverty, not an oath of charity.
There is -for most- monks no incentive to take on wealth to be distributed to others he considers worthy. From an in-game perspective my Tien monk really has very little hope of sending his lootshare to a monastry in Minkai while in Korvosa. Suspension of disbelief not withstanding.
But, you're in luck, there is already a VoP like the one you envision where all wealth is siphoned off to an abstract charity and in exchange the monk gets saintly powers of note. 3.5 is compatible after all, just use the BoED VoP.
Thanks, but your relentless attempts to belittle our position nonwithstanding, there is a segment who wants Pathfinder rules for this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it weird that the concept of a warrior who doesn't use a bunch of super magical gear is being mocked.
You know.
The concept that is every protagonist ever.
I just find it weird that the concept of a warrior who doesn't use a bunch of super magical gear is being mocked.
You know.
The concept that is every protagonist ever.
+1 to this, and if Ultimate Combat comes out and has a way for all PCs of any class to survive without a dozen magic items that will be great. Still, I especially find it puzzling that people are opposed to the monk, which is supposed to be less dependent on items, getting a decent benefit for being played that way.
Isn't it strange that a character that doesn't use magical gear is supposed to get magical powers instead? I think that kind of thing is firmly in the realm and hands of the GM that can (and should) reward players for their actions. This is not something that consumes time or is difficult to do.
I know there are understanding GMs out there that make the effort. For the rest, I can understand that some players would like a framework that is "official" that they can point to and rely on. But such a framework would have to be artificial and stretch immersion to be effective.
|
Isn't it strange that a character that doesn't use magical gear is supposed to get magical powers instead?
Look, I have an idea. Go and play a high-level Fighter without any magic items. Maybe then you will understand the problem.
If I would want to play a game where everything is hand-waved, agreed upon by GMs and players or just made up as I go I would play some indie narrative game, not D&D.
Isn't it strange that a character that doesn't use magical gear is supposed to get magical powers instead?
Look, I have an idea. Go and play a high-level Fighter without any magic items. Maybe then you will understand the problem.
If I would want to play a game where everything is hand-waved, agreed upon by GMs and players or just made up as I go I would play some indie narrative game, not D&D.
The difference is that a monk, unlike a fighter, does a much better job without equipment: good saves, progressive damage and progressive AC along with some neat innate abilities. He's tantalizingly close to being playable just like that. Though not as close as a druid, cleric, sorcerer or oracle that can conceivably work quite well without equipment.
-BUT-
I think this could be approached from a different angle: the vow of poverty shouldn't be made to work other than the way it does in Ultimate Magic; it is fine and is appropriate from a roleplaying perspective. However, I think there is room for a monk archetype that does what you desire.
Perhaps a form of tattooed monk that gives up item slots by occupying them with tattoos. This monk doesn't actually give up wealth, as the tattooing process is expensive and time-consuming but he does gain significant and growing benefits from tattoos.
How does that grab you? Could that work as a compromise to a gearless monk? I would support such an archetype 100% and clamor on Paizo's forums to have it included in (for example) the Jade Regent adventure path.
|
|
I just find it weird that the concept of a warrior who doesn't use a bunch of super magical gear is being mocked.
You know.
The concept that is every protagonist ever.
Except for Rand 'Al Thor, Elric, Bilbo Baggins, Drizzt Do'Urden, Jarlaxle, ad infinitum. (Edit: ninja'd on that part)
It's every protagonist in a martial arts movie ever, though, you're right about that. The problem comes in when you pit Bruce Lee against Drizzt. Bruce Lee gets chopped into little tiny pieces every time. The game reflects that. Also, if you put Bruce Lee against a glabrezu, he gets eaten. Every time. This is why I don't play monks, and have never played them. They're a fairly weak class, I agree. Unfortunately, that makes all kinds of sense to me, given the alternatives within the game world. I have never understood why fists of fury should "cut it".
The problem is that any build that Lorekeeper makes can have a Ring Pro +5, a Amulet of Nat Armor +5, Cloak of Resistance + 5 Belt of Physcial Perfection + 6, Bracers of Armor +8, Boots of Striding and Springing...this list goes on and on. That's potential +21 AC, +5 to all saves (+8 to Fort and Reflex), +3 to hit and damage and +51 HP at level 17.
All those bonuses will stack on the existing stats of the build and all the monk needs to sacrifice is..5 ki-points?
The original concept behind the Vow of Poverty felt as if it were a substitution for needing all the extra gear. It rewarded players for not taking the extra gear with inherent bonuses that represented the hardships endured for taking that vow.
I'm not saying that the every character should be decked out like this but for 340,500 GP this PC is still below the recommended WBL and beating the VoP monk by leaps and bounds. Tho the mental/physical protection items do step out of the recommended maximum 25% value for any one item.
I find that a way of bypassing the equipment problem by concentrating your wealth into one super-expensive item is actually anathema to the whole "Vow of Poverty" idea. Strange that this "solution" involves more flavor cheese than simply making an alternate system to the usual christmas tree paradigm.
"I have taken a Vow of Poverty, only that I really haven't" is a bad solution.
Likewise, there is no reason why the universe should give a hero stuff for not owning anything. A hero that spends all his day exercising and studying deserves more than somebody that chooses not to own anything.
There is one more consideration that I think hasn't been mentioned at this point. A vow of poverty monk is, effectively, a lower level monk - therefore should get (in relation to others) more XP. Consider it this way: the wealth-by-level guidelines are incorporated into the effective level that is a character (and by extension a party). The gearless monk clearly falls short on the WBL guidelines, therefore a level 10 gearless monk is not the same effective level as a level 10 geared monk.
A challenge overcome by a gearless monk is a greater triumph than the challenge overcome by a geared monk - thus the gearless monk deserves more XP and that in turn will balance him with a geared monk. I think at any given level if the gearless monk is 25% higher-leveled then the rest of the party, then he is well balanced. Considering that most APs end at around level 16 (where the theoretical VoP monk would be level 20) that works out pretty well.
How does that strike people as a solution?
The rules already have the universe granting the monk stuff for not owning anything. Extra Ki points.
The monk isn't awarded experience based on his effective level though, he is awarded experience based on the party's APL. So unless the GM is giving the monk extra experience for choosing to be weaker in combat then he should be at the same experience as everyone else in the party. So really the challenge is going to be for the party to carry the gearless monk through his adventures.
So the concept of monks that aren't forced to lean on caster-made items is locked out to almost all monk players in a setting where there is a literal god representing such an approach.
Where does it say that Irori took a vow of poverty? That he never used magic items? That he didn't have any magic items?
Because I don't remember writing that.
The VoP could work if the Monk recieved bonuses for donating his gear / money to charity. He donates "X" amount, he gets a pick from certain bonuses (be it feats, spelllike or supernatural abilities based on amount) etc. Kind of holy pay back for being nice. Like tax breaks for donations to charity :D It would need a lot of work, but it might fit the bill for those wanting this option. Could be used for other PC types who have a vow of poverty as well. Just a thought.
*edit* Clumsy fingers this morning...
@R_Chance: I suggested something similar over here. But in this case I don't like the charity solution: its a vow of poverty not of charity - not every poor monk should get powers by giving stuff away. Some may have sinister plans, or simply don't care about their loot share.
@R_Chance: I suggested something similar over here. But in this case I don't like the charity solution: its a vow of poverty not of charity - not every poor monk should get powers by giving stuff away.
What else are you doing with it? Giving it to other party members or just not taking a cut would be a bit much. Everyone would want a Monk in the party then :) Destroying it? That could earn brownie points too. It doesn't just dissapear. For something like a formal Vow of Poverty bonuses for not taking it / giving it away (charity) / destroying (denial) it seems reasonable.
What else are you doing with it? Giving it to other party members or just not taking a cut would be a bit much. Everyone would want a Monk in the party then :) Destroying it? That could earn brownie points too. It doesn't just dissapear. For something like a formal Vow of Poverty bonuses for not taking it / giving it away (charity) / destroying (denial) it seems reasonable.@R_Chance: I suggested something similar over here. But in this case I don't like the charity solution: its a vow of poverty not of charity - not every poor monk should get powers by giving stuff away.
The link in my quote shows how it works in my version: the monk spends the money (and time) to get elaborate tattoos that occupy item slots.
What else are you doing with it? Giving it to other party members or just not taking a cut would be a bit much. Everyone would want a Monk in the party then :) Destroying it? That could earn brownie points too. It doesn't just dissapear. For something like a formal Vow of Poverty bonuses for not taking it / giving it away (charity) / destroying (denial) it seems reasonable.@R_Chance: I suggested something similar over here. But in this case I don't like the charity solution: its a vow of poverty not of charity - not every poor monk should get powers by giving stuff away.
The link in my quote shows how it works in my version: the monk spends the money (and time) to get elaborate tattoos that occupy item slots.
Interesting. Bloody expensive tatoos, but magic could justify that. Essentially you have an arcane Monk. The charity / donation approach would work with the VoP Monk which is what I was specifically thinking of. The destruction of wealth I mentioned would work with an ascetic Monk (self denial). The nice thing about these approaches (tatoos and all) is that they could apply to any character with this as an archtype / vow. It could be expanded to create "gearless" characters besides Monks.
The VoP could work if the Monk recieved bonuses for donating his gear / money to charity. He donates "X" amount, he gets a pick from certain bonuses (be it feats, spelllike or supernatural abilities based on amount) etc. Kind of holy pay back for being nice.I have a house rule that works just like that. There's an ascetic archetype that can be taken by any class that gives up all magic item slots but then earns karma by sacrificing wealth. The more karma you earn, the better bonuses you get.
None of which helps anyone who isn't playing at my table. The folks who want to pay professional designers to create viable rules for ascetic characters won't be appeased by house rules.
Sounds like a chance for some enterprising 3PP to do a PDF for gearless characters. Or maybe Paizo to do an "Ultimate Options" book loaded with goodies like this.
|
|
So the concept of monks that aren't forced to lean on caster-made items is locked out to almost all monk players in a setting where there is a literal god representing such an approach.Where does it say that Irori took a vow of poverty? That he never used magic items? That he didn't have any magic items?
Because I don't remember writing that.
No, what Irori did do was ascend to godhood through his own via self perfection, without a super magical artifact giving him a leg up.
When I saw Irori, it actually gave me hope that the idea of an ascetic that eschews the Christmas Tree of magical bling that can keep up would actually be given serious consideration somewhere down the line.
Apparently it's looking like the idea is pretty much locked out, and again martials are left depending on caster-made stuff to keep up, including the guy who iconically doesn't depend on a bunch of gear.
The VoP could work if the Monk recieved bonuses for donating his gear / money to charity. He donates "X" amount, he gets a pick from certain bonuses (be it feats, spelllike or supernatural abilities based on amount) etc. Kind of holy pay back for being nice.I have a house rule that works just like that. There's an ascetic archetype that can be taken by any class that gives up all magic item slots but then earns karma by sacrificing wealth. The more karma you earn, the better bonuses you get.
None of which helps anyone who isn't playing at my table. The folks who want to pay professional designers to create viable rules for ascetic characters won't be appeased by house rules.
Yes. I know that I'll be willing to put work into making something like a reworked BoED VoP available to my players and try to adjust on the fly, but that doesn't exactly help me out as a player myself.
Good God please let Ultimate Combat actually be good to the monk.
No, what Irori did do was ascend to godhood through his own via self perfection, without a super magical artifact giving him a leg up.When I saw Irori, it actually gave me hope that the idea of an ascetic that eschews the Christmas Tree of magical bling that can keep up would actually be given serious consideration somewhere down the line.
Apparently it's looking like the idea is pretty much locked out, and again martials are left depending on caster-made stuff to keep up, including the guy who iconically doesn't depend on a bunch of gear.
I think this is getting blown out of proportion here. Irori is a god. What he did is outside the scope of mechanics. In fact it's never written anywhere explaining how he went about it only that he did and it was through his own dedication and hard work.
In the end he's a terrible example as he's a walking GM fiat, not a character you can simply become out of the blue. That's the point that's being made here. Irori didn't become a god because of messing about wiht mechanics he became a god because he went to the GM and said "Hey, I want to achieve perfection and become a god as a character goal is that okay?"
And then he did. Simply put, stop comparing game mechanics to beings that are far and above the simple laws of the universe that pathfinder characters exist by. If you want to become Irori, talk to your GM about his opinion, and what he feels you have to do to achieve perfection or at least be on the right path. That's the only person that matters in that argument.
I don´t think most of the people commenting on this thread are really themselves monks on the path of enlightenment.
So it´s understandable that they don´t understand how such a monk really
thinks about things and goes about his daily enlightmentment mumbo-jumbo.
But I´ll simplify things:
If you´re Mr. Holy(ier than thou) Monk, thinking about how much money you could hock the mystic woo-ha amulet that your master ´lent´ you when you were an acolyte* would disrupt the subtle vibrations you seek to cultivate. Such thoughts... would be beneath you... Only wealth-obsessed common folk think such thoughts.
Feel free to donate to the Holy Monk Monastery...
Now listed on half the known world´s gambling -ahem- speculative investment venues.
A non-specified percentage of takings are donated to the needy. It is beneath us to clarify the exact percentage.
* and periodically returns to ´bless´ as you progress on your path of enlightenment - MAN there are alot of brutalized bodies, of every shape, color, and size, along the sides of that path!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously... Those wacko Kalistrade dudes from Druma have GOT to have some Monk Monastary´s going...
Come on. Everybody knows Irori is a sham.
All hail the glory of glories, 3.5 Vow of Poverty... OMMMM....
All hail the glory of glories, 3.5 Vow of Poverty... OMMMM....
*bangs head on desk repeatedly*
|
|
I think this is getting blown out of proportion here. Irori is a god. What he did is outside the scope of mechanics. In fact it's never written anywhere explaining how he went about it only that he did and it was through his own dedication and hard work.
In the end he's a terrible example as he's a walking GM fiat, not a character you can simply become out of the blue. That's the point that's being made here. Irori didn't become a god because of messing about wiht mechanics he became a god because he went to the GM and said "Hey, I want to achieve perfection and become a god as a character goal is that okay?"
And then he did. Simply put, stop comparing game mechanics to beings that are far and above the simple laws of the universe that pathfinder characters exist by. If you want to become Irori, talk to your GM about his opinion, and what he feels you have to do to achieve perfection or at least be on the right path. That's the only person that matters in that argument.
Irori's being pointed out because he represents a concept that's being locked away from players. NOT becoming a god, as has been pointed out several times by several people already. It's just the concept of being a viable hero via the ascetic path.
Instead we get circular reasoning about how such a concept shouldn't work in Pathfinder because that's not how the game works.
Would an optional set of rules that actually enabled the concept really be so bad a thing for the game? Really?
*bangs head on desk repeatedly*
All hail the glory of glories, 3.5 Vow of Poverty... OMMMM....
Yes! You sense the energy field too! You ARE the energy field!
See children, this one is already one step further on the path of enlightenment!| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it strange that a character that doesn't use magical gear is supposed to get magical powers instead?
Only if you confuse "supernatural" with "magic." They are two different things, and the failure to understand this has been a particular thorn in D&D for awhile.
Beowulf, Cu Chullain, Roland, and Sigurd were all supernatural characters.
None of them used magic.
For protagonists with magical gear check out Elric or any character from Forgotten Realms (or really any D&D world). Heck I'm hard pressed to think of a character who doesn't have some form of magical gear.
Elric had one magic item: his sword. One. He did not have magic boots magic ring other magic ring magic necklace magic belt magic armor magic shield magic gloves magic hat - a g#!!*@n magic hat! Stupid magic hats are supposed to be a wizard staple and now everyone is wearing one! That's not going into his item that gives him flying and his rod to dispel magic and his other slotless items and his other wonderous items and etc, etc, etc.
One. Versus 15+.
Secondly, you cannot use D&D characters to prove things about non-D&D characters. Really? That's your line? "Look plenty of non-D&D protagonists use lots of magic items, look at all these D&D protagonists!"
Except for Rand 'Al Thor, Elric, Bilbo Baggins, Drizzt Do'Urden, Jarlaxle, ad infinitum. (Edit: ninja'd on that part)
See above.
Rand 'Al Thor has a relatively small number of items. Bilbo Baggins has a magic ring and magic weapon and some sweet non-magical armor. Drizzt and Jarlaxle are D&D characters.
See, I don't have a problem with fighters needing their Gram or their Excalibur. But Excalibur is meaningless when you're trading your third +3 flaming shock sword for it. And Excalibur is especially meaningless when it's "just one of a lot of others." Remember the part of the story where King Arthur rode up with his magic armor and magic shield and magic boots and magic ring and other magic ring and magic hat and magic belt and magic gloves? And then when he took Excalibur threw away his other magic sword that he had on-hand and no longer needed? Because I sure don't.
Irori's being pointed out because he represents a concept that's being locked away from players. NOT becoming a god, as has been pointed out several times by several people already. It's just the concept of being a viable hero via the ascetic path.
And you're basically being told that it was unclear on how exactly he pulled it off. Nothing says he was an ascetic. For all we know he was a rich bastard with nothing better to do than work on perfecting himself all day because all his worldly worries were being handled through his ridiculously huge bank account. That's the point. It's left vague so we the players can make the decision on how and why. So in this case of arguing the mechanics it's really a vacant and pointless argument since the same argument for an ascetic can be made by a dude who does his martial arts training on golems made of solid gold encrusted in jewels. He represents self perfection, the heights humanity can achieve, not asceticism.
As to your second bit. No it really wouldn't be bad but it does require a change on aprt of the GM in terms of WBL. You can say things like "oh well the monk can jsut donate adn fight for his bit." Well, you don't know players then.
Paladin Player: Alright Quan Si Lo doesn't get a share because he's a smelly hobo.
Monk Dude: Wait! I need to get a share!
Wizard Player: God, what is it this time?
Monk Dude: I'm going to give it to the local temple of Generic Good God to spread to the poor.
Paladin Player: Really? So basically we're throwing money down into the stomachs of more dirty hobos?
Monk Dude: Well...yeah. That's what my character does.
Paladin Player: Listen, with your money and mine combined I can commission the same temple to craft me a Holy Avenger. HO.LY. AV. ENGE. UR. Considering those dirty hobos will probably be dragon food if we don't kill Generic BBEG dragon tomorrow I think I'd like to increase my chances of success here.
Monk Dude: But....
Wizard Player: He's kind of a jerk but I have to agree the food they get today won't make a difference if we don't increase our chances of beating the dragon tomorrow.
And so on. I think you see the point as to why it doesn't work under a normal system where players are generally rewarded with "phat lewts".
Now I do tend to agree with a system that has the monk turning in gold to recieve blessings in such a way. This can function, and well. But the trick, and the issues I had with the 3.5 vow of poverty is that the trade has to be worth the reward otherwise you don't make the concept viable at all.
No, what Irori did do was ascend to godhood through his own via self perfection, without a super magical artifact giving him a leg up.
Let me rephrase my questions, because you didn't answer them:
Where does it say that Irori didn't have any magic items? Where does it say that Irori was an ascetic?
Because I don't remember writing that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, what Irori did do was ascend to godhood through his own via self perfection, without a super magical artifact giving him a leg up.
Let me rephrase my questions, because you didn't answer them:
Where does it say that Irori didn't have any magic items? Where does it say that Irori was an ascetic?
Because I don't remember writing that.
I did answer.
It's never stated that he did without those. But he DID rise to godhood on his own. That IS stated. He explicitly frowns on the Starstone gods for ascending with the help of a magical artifact. That IS stated.
And the fact that a monk pulled it off just rubs salt in the wound when we can't get the same class to be fantastic in a fantasy game without depending on caster-made stuff.
What about that problem?
What about the desire for ascetic characters that can work this way? Is that going to be dismissed by the developers as badwrongfun and not worth looking into?
Will we have any solutions presented in Ultimate Combat or will pages that could have presented that be used up by the Spell section instead?
Will we be handed options in that book that are purely for flavor and not mechanically sound?
Will we be handed more options that we can't use anyway because they're arbitrarily tagged as [Evil]?
Will we EVER see the desire to have fantastic martial characters that can hold their end up in an AP without the Christmas Tree effect given serious consideration?
Or are we just going to continue to be attacked for playing the game wrong and wanting to have badwrongfun?
Taking a break. Too angry to post productively
...
Would an optional set of rules that actually enabled the concept really be so bad a thing for the game? Really?
Which is exactly what VoP in't meant to be IMO.
At the moment I'd either go with permanent enchantments or inherent bonuses, but this really needs it's own subsystem.
Sean, no where does it outright say that Irori was an ascetic, but it's lines like this that strongly, strongly, imply it:
There is a minor rivalry between his faith and those of Cayden Cailean, Iomedae, and Norgorber, for, unlike them, he became a god without the help of a magical artifact—in effect, he considers their achievements cheating, but is polite enough to not confront them about it unless he feels they have grown too arrogant.
Irori considers the achievement of becoming a god with the help of a magical artifact to be cheating. Logic would follow that Irori would consider the achievement of becoming a hero with the help of dozens of magical objects to be cheating. Because I really don't see Irori saying to his followers: "The use of dozens of magical items is perfectly acceptable. However, using one super magical item is cheating."
Instead, I see Irori saying to his followers: "I became a god through dedication and the perfection of mind, body, and soul- not with the aid of some magical artifact. Likewise, you should strive to perfect your own mind, body, and souls- not rely on some magical item."
That is the kind of impression that I get from reading all the literature about Irori- even though it doesn't come right and say it. Oh, and I can go though and quote plenty more passages if need be.
Sean, no where does it outright say that Irori was an ascetic, but it's lines like this that strongly, strongly, imply it:
There is a minor rivalry between his faith and those of Cayden Cailean, Iomedae, and Norgorber, for, unlike them, he became a god without the help of a magical artifact—in effect, he considers their achievements cheating, but is polite enough to not confront them about it unless he feels they have grown too arrogant.Irori considers the achievement of becoming a god with the help of a magical artifact to be cheating. Logic would follow that Irori would consider the achievement of becoming a hero with the help of dozens of magical objects to be cheating. Because I really don't see Irori saying to his followers: "The use of dozens of magical items is perfectly acceptable. However, using one super magical item is cheating."
Instead, I see Irori saying to his followers: "I became a god through dedication and the perfection of mind, body, and soul- not with the aid of some magical artifact. Likewise, you should strive to perfect your own mind, body, and souls- not rely on some magical item."
That is the kind of impression that I get from reading all the literature about Irori- even though it doesn't come right and say it. Oh, and I can go though and quote plenty more passages if need be.
Not to answer for anyone, but after I read your post this thought popped into my mind. It depends on whether you draw a distinction between "normal magical items" in a game / world where they are, for adventurers anyway, taken for granted and the huge magical impact of an artifact. Kind of like the difference between modern military conventional weapons which are highly destructive and tactical nuclear weapons...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I'm just going to post some more of the stuff about Irori that popped out at me.
Many of Irori’s followers are monks, men and women who have dedicated their lifestyles to simplicity and purity in order to perfect themselves.
Dedication to a lifestyle of simplicity and purity sounds awfully acetic.
His holy text is Unbinding the Fetters, a lengthy tome describing physical exercises, meditation, diet, and other methods to transcend the limitations of the mortal form.
and has an ongoing feud with Asmodeus because the Prince likes to taunt the Master’s followers with shortcuts to perfection that are fraught with pitfalls.
Seriously, I may be alone in this, but I think something like a Belt of Physical Perfection screams "shortcut to perfection" to me. Does Irori want his followers to become strong enough to overcome obstacles by following a strict regiment of physical exercise, meditation, and diet, or is he fine with his followers just dumping gold into magical gear such as a Belt of Physical Perfection +2 to help them overcome their trials? Buying or using looted gear just doesn't seem to really fit with the concept of a follower of Irori in my eyes.
Irori has achieved perfection and sees no need to cloak himself in mystery or augment himself with divine power, so, when he appears, his avatar is a physically fit man, looking exactly as his followers describe him, often sitting or kneeling patiently.
Irori is very rarely depicted in art because his faithful believe that any icon of him cannot hope to live up to his perfect image. Instead, they describe him as a flawless Vudrani man, with no hair save a long braid, simple robes, and wooden sandals.
Their god is portrayed in extremely simple garb. It's not what he wears that is important, it's the person himself. I really can't see his devoutest (and highest level) followers, who do their utmost to emulate their god, being pimped out in hundreds of thousands of gold worth of gear from head to toe.
See, I don't have a problem with fighters needing their Gram or their Excalibur. But Excalibur is meaningless when you're trading your third +3 flaming shock sword for it. And Excalibur is especially meaningless when it's "just one of a lot of others." Remember the part of the story where King Arthur rode up with his magic armor and magic shield and magic boots and magic ring and other magic ring and magic hat and magic belt and magic gloves? And then when he took Excalibur threw away his other magic sword that he had on-hand and no longer needed? Because I sure don't.
Quoted for much, much truth.
No, what Irori did do was ascend to godhood through his own via self perfection, without a super magical artifact giving him a leg up.
Let me rephrase my questions, because you didn't answer them:
Where does it say that Irori didn't have any magic items? Where does it say that Irori was an ascetic?
Because I don't remember writing that.
I did answer.
It's never stated that he did without those. But he DID rise to godhood on his own. That IS stated. He explicitly frowns on the Starstone gods for ascending with the help of a magical artifact. That IS stated.
And the fact that a monk pulled it off just rubs salt in the wound when we can't get the same class to be fantastic in a fantasy game without depending on caster-made stuff.
What about that problem?
What about the desire for ascetic characters that can work this way? Is that going to be dismissed by the developers as badwrongfun and not worth looking into?
Will we have any solutions presented in Ultimate Combat or will pages that could have presented that be used up by the Spell section instead?
Will we be handed options in that book that are purely for flavor and not mechanically sound?
Will we be handed more options that we can't use anyway because they're arbitrarily tagged as [Evil]?
Will we EVER see the desire to have fantastic martial characters that can hold their end up in an AP without the Christmas Tree effect given serious consideration?
Or are we just going to continue to be attacked for playing the game wrong and wanting to have badwrongfun?
Taking a break. Too angry to post productively
And +1000 for this. These dismissive posts by Sean are really something else. How about you give us an insight why having an alternative optional system, where access to magic items is exchanged for some viable personal power, is so bad as you make it out to be? I really am quite stunned that this concept gets dismissed out of hand and false equivalencies are brought up to dismiss the argument out of hand.
Wanting to have power come out of the hero instead of magic items =/= Wanting a PC to be equal to a god.
Their god is portrayed in extremely simple garb. It's not what he wears that is important, it's the person himself. I really can't see his devoutest (and highest level) followers, who do their utmost to emulate their god, being pimped out in hundreds of thousands of gold worth of gear from head to toe.
Most of the god pictures and descriptions I've seen have been pretty much non-dependent on equipment (Shelyn, Lamashtu, Nethys). And even the ones more defined by the equipment that they carry seem to only really focus on one to two pieces in most cases (Gorum, Cayden Cailean). In almost all the cases, the impression that I get is that the depictions don't really show the any of the gods being utterly dependent on their gear.
And +1000 for this. These dismissive posts by Sean are really something else. How about you give us an insight why having an alternative optional system, where access to magic items is exchanged for some viable personal power, is so bad as you make it out to be? I really am quite stunned that this concept gets dismissed out of hand and false equivalencies are brought up to dismiss the argument out of hand.
While I wouldn't say that the posts by Sean haven't brought sunshine and love to this thread, I would say that the responses to them the ones dismissing him out of hand among other things.
I don't recall him saying anything in the thread how an alternative optional system was bad. All I recall (hopefully correctly) were comments that seemed to indicate that it would likely be a major revision to the existing system that couldn't be handled in the space the vow of poverty was allocated. I didn't see anything like what you were talking about.
It's never stated that he did without those. But he DID rise to godhood on his own. That IS stated. He explicitly frowns on the Starstone gods for ascending with the help of a magical artifact. That IS stated.
So you agree that nowhere in any text does it say that Irori was an ascetic, and/or that he never used magic items.
So that means you can't use him as an example of "a monk with no magic items," because I never said anywhere that he was such a thing.
What about the desire for ascetic characters that can work this way? Is that going to be dismissed by the developers as badwrongfun and not worth looking into?
I never said that playing a monk like this is *wrong.* I did say that that sort of change is a major shift in the expected paradigm of the game, and affects more than monks, and hiding that in the small section on monks in UM wasn't the place to put such a thing.
Or are we just going to continue to be attacked for playing the game wrong and wanting to have badwrongfun?
Nobody's telling you you're playing the game wrong. I'm saying the game isn't built to do that.
The game also isn't built so you just talk your way through the actions of a battle and never actually roll dice... but you *can* play it that way... and have a lot of fun... but doing so changes a LOT about the game. And cramming the rules for how to do that into the section on one class is the wrong thing to do.
Sean, no where does it outright say that Irori was an ascetic, but it's lines like this that strongly, strongly, imply it:
A lot of what I write about the gods is deliberately left vague and open to interpretation (cf. Erastil being sexist), just like Earth religions. That way, different GMs can have different interpretations of godly philosophies and develop interesting things for their campaigns (and you can have different countries in the same GM's campaign interpret these things in different ways, which creates interesting conflicts).
So it's fair for you to interpret the Irori writeup as him being an ascetic, and treat him as such in your campaign (or play an ascetic monk PC who believes he's following Irori's footsteps, if you're not the GM). But the text doesn't actually *say* Irori was an ascetic, and it's quite plausible for another person to interpret that text not as strictly. So you can't use that statement as any sort of proof that he was an ascetic. I know what I wrote, and why, and the text deliberately doesn't state "you should be an ascetic to achieve perfection" because that limits choices for people interested in that deity.
How many of them were that way during their mortal lives?In almost all the cases, the impression that I get is that the depictions don't really show the any of the gods being utterly dependent on their gear.
I have absolutely no idea.
I'm not certain that Irori wasn't armed with flaming seeking shurikens and a cloak of displacement or if he wore nothing but the mundane clothing he is pictured as. Similarly I'm not sure how much Cayden Cailean was decked out in life, if he had a ring of protection along with a ring of force shield and a few ioun stones floating around his head.
I'm not certain if that matters though. Some people would find it enjoyable to be able to play characters in Pathfinder without so much gear dependence. I think that is a good enough reason to look into doing it whether or not Irori's sandles were mundane or +1.
From Sean carefully avoiding discussion about if Ultimate Combat will include any help for the Monk in the regards Mikaze was talking about, I fear we have our answer to that, too. Disappointing.