Carrying gear with "Vow of Poverty"

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.

The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's not
using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the poor.

The DM is undecided.


Beyond the description in the book, is there any other official
Sage/WOTC clarifications on this?
79 answers Last reply
More about carrying gear poverty
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mouse wrote:
    > I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >
    > The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's not
    > using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the poor.
    >
    > The DM is undecided.
    >
    > Beyond the description in the book, is there any other official
    > Sage/WOTC clarifications on this?

    Not that I know of... but I think the DM should consider looking into
    the "don't be a dick" house rule. I've found it really enhances the
    game.

    Also, I have this great mental image of a poor little orphan flower
    girl, walking along aimlessly, dirty and destitute... when the great
    hero rides up, smiles kindly, and hands her fourteen banded mails.

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mouse" <elricod@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1119632494.556776.286780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.

    > The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's not
    > using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the poor.

    > The DM is undecided.

    > Beyond the description in the book, is there any other official
    > Sage/WOTC clarifications on this?

    Not that I know of, no.

    However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying it to
    donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the poor), then I
    find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The character should demand a
    fair share of any treasure the group acquires, and disburse it according to
    his beliefs.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus wrote:
    > "Mouse" <elricod@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:1119632494.556776.286780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > >I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >
    > > The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's not
    > > using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the poor.
    >
    > > The DM is undecided.
    >
    > > Beyond the description in the book, is there any other official
    > > Sage/WOTC clarifications on this?
    >
    > Not that I know of, no.
    >
    > However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying it to
    > donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the poor), then I
    > find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The character should demand a
    > fair share of any treasure the group acquires, and disburse it according to
    > his beliefs.
    >

    Having not actually read the feat... I would agree, it would be stupid
    to just leave some treasure when you are poor because you are giving
    your all to the needy.

    - Justisaur
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 24 Jun 2005 10:01:34 -0700, "Mouse" <elricod@comcast.net> wrote:

    >I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >
    >The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's not
    >using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the poor.
    >
    >The DM is undecided.
    >
    >
    >Beyond the description in the book, is there any other official
    >Sage/WOTC clarifications on this?

    Of course you can carry it back to town to donate. You're not
    required to leave the loot lying on the ground, after all!

    There's a difference between carry, own and use. The only
    restrictions on what you can carry are things which are inherently
    used by carrying and thus violate the using restriction.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I believe that it is the intent which matters. Simply carrying things
    in order to get them to a place where you can donate them (provided
    that, unlike with a Pearl of Power, you gain nothing by carrying them)
    would not violate the spirit of VoP.

    However, if the character uses the items, he has broken his vow;
    depending on the circumstances, either a permanent loss of the vow or
    an atonement should be necessary.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Iridia" <s1416348@cedarville.edu> wrote in message
    news:1119644248.796053.249810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >I believe that it is the intent which matters. Simply carrying things
    > in order to get them to a place where you can donate them (provided
    > that, unlike with a Pearl of Power, you gain nothing by carrying them)

    You gain nothing with a Pearl of Power unless you actually use it. A
    Luckstone, on the other hand, is exactly as you describe.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mouse wrote:

    > I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >
    > The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's not
    > using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the poor.
    >
    > The DM is undecided.
    >
    >
    > Beyond the description in the book, is there any other official
    > Sage/WOTC clarifications on this?
    >

    This feat is written to prevent, "Give the item to me. I'll "lend" it
    back to you."

    "Yeah, thanks! I can use it and I don't own it!!! Score!"

    To be on the safe side, the authors just wrote the feat to exclude just
    about everything.

    I can see both sides of this coin. The feat can be read both ways. The
    intent is that the monk should never be burdened by any worldly goods,
    unless those worldly goods have a over-ridingly necessary and practical
    use (such as clothing or a torch). Yet, in all practicality, they do
    have a voice in their share the treasure, and they do have to handle the
    money long-enough to get it to donate it. The question posed, then, "Is
    carrying the treasure out of the dungeon part of practical necessity
    (the game is just written this way), or is it a violation of oath?"

    CH
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mouse" <elricod@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:1119632494.556776.286780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >
    > The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's
    > not using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the
    > poor.
    >
    > The DM is undecided.

    Hmm... is the character carrying his fair share? i.e. are all the
    other characters similarly burdened?
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Quentin Stephens wrote:
    > "Mouse" <elricod@comcast.net> wrote in
    >>I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >>The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since he's
    >>not using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate to the
    >>poor.
    >>The DM is undecided.
    > Hmm... is the character carrying his fair share? i.e. are all the
    > other characters similarly burdened?

    The humble penitent man should b carrying more of the load, not getting a lighter load! :)
    --
    "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
    shall do what needs to be done."
    --till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>I believe that it is the intent which matters. Simply carrying things
    >> in order to get them to a place where you can donate them (provided
    >> that, unlike with a Pearl of Power, you gain nothing by carrying them)
    >
    >You gain nothing with a Pearl of Power unless you actually use it. A
    >Luckstone, on the other hand, is exactly as you describe.

    IIRC, you don't need to take the PoP out in order to activate it. So
    just carrying it might be enough to violate your vow. As another example,
    simply "carrying" a metal shield (by the RAW) is enough for a druid to
    lose his/her spellcasting, et al...

    Quoting the SRD 3.5:

    "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield
    is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or
    spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours
    thereafter."

    I would *guess* that "carrying" in this context is supposed to
    mean "using as to provide a Shield Bonus to AC"...

    --
    Donald
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang wrote:
    > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>You gain nothing with a Pearl of Power unless you actually use it. A
    >>Luckstone, on the other hand, is exactly as you describe.
    > IIRC, you don't need to take the PoP out in order to activate it. So
    > just carrying it might be enough to violate your vow. As another example,
    > simply "carrying" a metal shield (by the RAW) is enough for a druid to
    > lose his/her spellcasting, et al...
    > Quoting the SRD 3.5:
    > "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield
    > is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or
    > spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours
    > thereafter."
    > I would *guess* that "carrying" in this context is supposed to
    > mean "using as to provide a Shield Bonus to AC"...

    Carrying as on the arm or hand, or carrying in the backpack. I would have thought that the
    second case would be fine.
    --
    "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
    shall do what needs to be done."
    --till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:d9hrp6$13da$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>I believe that it is the intent which matters. Simply carrying things
    >>> in order to get them to a place where you can donate them (provided
    >>> that, unlike with a Pearl of Power, you gain nothing by carrying them)
    >>
    >>You gain nothing with a Pearl of Power unless you actually use it. A
    >>Luckstone, on the other hand, is exactly as you describe.
    >
    > IIRC, you don't need to take the PoP out in order to activate it.

    Yes, but you need to take an action to activate it.

    > So just carrying it might be enough to violate your vow.

    I strongly disagree. If it is being carried only to be donated or cashed in
    and donated, and it is never used, the Vow is not violated.

    > I would *guess* that "carrying" in this context is supposed to
    > mean "using as to provide a Shield Bonus to AC"...

    Yes.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1119639722.558369.20810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >Malachias Invictus wrote:
    >> However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying it to
    >> donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the poor), then I
    >> find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The character should demand a
    >> fair share of any treasure the group acquires, and disburse it according to
    >> his beliefs.
    >>
    >
    >Having not actually read the feat... I would agree, it would be stupid
    >to just leave some treasure when you are poor because you are giving
    >your all to the needy.

    The feat says a VoP PC should get a normal share of treasure, and donate it
    all to worthy causes. So I'd be inclined to allow "carrying" but not
    "carrying by wearing".
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:hdidnSB5b9-a0yHfRVn-2g@comcast.com:

    > However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying
    > it to donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the
    > poor), then I find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The
    > character should demand a fair share of any treasure the group
    > acquires, and disburse it according to his beliefs.
    >

    I find myself agreeing with this, with one caveat, all donations
    should be annoymous. Here's my reasoning, which could be wrong. As
    far as I can tell VoP means you cannot profit from these things,
    including, to me, the "profit" from making a donation.

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967FC80A92119mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:hdidnSB5b9-a0yHfRVn-2g@comcast.com:
    >
    >> However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying
    >> it to donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the
    >> poor), then I find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The
    >> character should demand a fair share of any treasure the group
    >> acquires, and disburse it according to his beliefs.
    >>
    >
    > I find myself agreeing with this, with one caveat, all donations
    > should be annoymous. Here's my reasoning, which could be wrong. As
    > far as I can tell VoP means you cannot profit from these things,
    > including, to me, the "profit" from making a donation.

    Nonsense. This is a Vow of Poverty, not a Vow of Obscurity.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
    news:d9i3cv$jj1$1@knot.queensu.ca:

    > The feat says a VoP PC should get a normal share of treasure, and
    > donate it all to worthy causes. So I'd be inclined to allow
    > "carrying" but not "carrying by wearing".
    >

    I agree, but I would add, "Cannot carry for the use of other
    members of his party." to that.

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ~consul <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
    news:d9i6c8$c7i$1@gist.usc.edu:

    > Quentin Stephens wrote:
    >> "Mouse" <elricod@comcast.net> wrote in
    >>>I say you can only carry what's listed in the Feat description.
    >>>The player with VoP says it's OK if he carries armor, since
    >>>he's not using it, he's just taking it back to town to donate
    >>>to the poor.
    >>>The DM is undecided.
    >> Hmm... is the character carrying his fair share? i.e. are all
    >> the other characters similarly burdened?
    >
    > The humble penitent man should b carrying more of the load, not
    > getting a lighter load! :)

    Very true.

    OK, should the PCs make an effort to determine magical items
    before this - just in case there's a verbally-activated item in
    his load? I'm thinking particularly of Wish-granting items.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Thanks to all for your input. My vote has changed to be in favor of
    carry-not-using now.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 24 Jun 2005 13:17:28 -0700, "Iridia" <s1416348@cedarville.edu>
    wrote:

    >I believe that it is the intent which matters. Simply carrying things
    >in order to get them to a place where you can donate them (provided
    >that, unlike with a Pearl of Power, you gain nothing by carrying them)
    >would not violate the spirit of VoP.

    A pearl of power gives you nothing unless you explicitly use it.

    The sort of items that are problematical are things like luckstones.

    Personally, I would say that if there's no other way to transport it
    then it's not a violation of the vow for a VoP character to carry one
    for as short a time as is reasonable.

    My test on the reasonableness of some VoP restrictions: You have a
    party consisting of entirely VoP characters. Does this cause some
    sort of unreasonable situation to arise? If so then the rules need a
    bit of tweaking. Apply this to the luckstone: They find a luckstone.
    Are they required to leave it on the ground where it won't do anyone
    any good rather than take it somewhere where it can benefit someone?
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:51:50 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
    (Donald Tsang) wrote:

    >>You gain nothing with a Pearl of Power unless you actually use it. A
    >>Luckstone, on the other hand, is exactly as you describe.
    >
    >IIRC, you don't need to take the PoP out in order to activate it. So
    >just carrying it might be enough to violate your vow. As another example,
    >simply "carrying" a metal shield (by the RAW) is enough for a druid to
    >lose his/her spellcasting, et al...

    But you must explicitly activate the PoP. Just because it doesn't
    need to be out doesn't change this.

    >Quoting the SRD 3.5:
    >
    > "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield
    > is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or
    > spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours
    > thereafter."
    >
    >I would *guess* that "carrying" in this context is supposed to
    >mean "using as to provide a Shield Bonus to AC"...

    I would treat it as "carry" in the sense of being in a readied
    position, not in the sense of being in the backpack.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:mMKdndgPYowLQyHfRVn-vw@comcast.com:

    > Nonsense. This is a Vow of Poverty, not a Vow of Obscurity.
    >

    The poit of VoP is that you cannot BENEFIT from the stuff, if
    you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    having had the stuff.

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:
    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:mMKdndgPYowLQyHfRVn-vw@comcast.com:
    >
    >
    >>Nonsense. This is a Vow of Poverty, not a Vow of Obscurity.
    >>
    >
    >
    > The poit of VoP is that you cannot BENEFIT from the stuff, if
    > you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    > having had the stuff.
    >

    I would think that the vow of poverty MEANT that you cannot gain
    material benefit from treasure. I do not think it meant that as a
    result of your actions and donations that you cannot gain popularity
    and/or acknowledgement as a generious and pious individual. After all,
    if you're trying to be a living example of your virtue or faith, people
    are going to have to know about you in order for your example to be spread.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns968053DA149F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:mMKdndgPYowLQyHfRVn-vw@comcast.com:
    >
    >> Nonsense. This is a Vow of Poverty, not a Vow of Obscurity.
    >>
    >
    > The poit of VoP is that you cannot BENEFIT from the stuff,

    Yes. *Material* benefit.

    > if you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    > having had the stuff.

    No, you benefit from being generous. You provide an example that hopefully
    others will follow. There is absolutely nothing that requires or implies
    the need for obscurity, or even modesty about one's generosity. Read the
    description.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:

    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:hdidnSB5b9-a0yHfRVn-2g@comcast.com:
    >
    >
    >>However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying
    >>it to donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the
    >>poor), then I find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The
    >>character should demand a fair share of any treasure the group
    >>acquires, and disburse it according to his beliefs.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I find myself agreeing with this, with one caveat, all donations
    > should be annoymous. Here's my reasoning, which could be wrong. As
    > far as I can tell VoP means you cannot profit from these things,
    > including, to me, the "profit" from making a donation.

    I've often thought of this myself. What temple isn't going to offer
    perks to the guy who dumps boatloads of cash and magic items on its
    doorstep every few weeks?

    - Ron ^*^
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:Xns968053DA149F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...

    >> if you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    >> having had the stuff.

    >No, you benefit from being generous. You provide an example that hopefully
    >others will follow. There is absolutely nothing that requires or implies
    >the need for obscurity, or even modesty about one's generosity. Read the
    >description.

    I don't know the feat, but would the "no benefit of any kind"
    reading also apply to actions? I mean, not only could you not
    charge for helping people or accept rewards after the fact, you
    would have to disguise yourself so no one knows who it was and
    started thinking better of you? Seems a bit off to me.

    Pete
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Peter Meilinger wrote:

    > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:Xns968053DA149F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    >
    >
    >>>if you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    >>>having had the stuff.
    >
    >
    >>No, you benefit from being generous. You provide an example that hopefully
    >>others will follow. There is absolutely nothing that requires or implies
    >>the need for obscurity, or even modesty about one's generosity. Read the
    >>description.
    >
    >
    > I don't know the feat, but would the "no benefit of any kind"
    > reading also apply to actions? I mean, not only could you not
    > charge for helping people or accept rewards after the fact, you
    > would have to disguise yourself so no one knows who it was and
    > started thinking better of you? Seems a bit off to me.

    Maybe you are just required to refuse any perks that seem to clearly be
    the result of your donations. "I know you offered to remove my curse
    for free, pontiff, but I feel obligated to pay you for your trouble."

    Then again, pay the pontiff with WHAT? Hmm.

    - Ron ^*^
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:d9k4af$1e5$3@news3.bu.edu...
    > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:Xns968053DA149F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    >
    >>> if you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    >>> having had the stuff.
    >
    >>No, you benefit from being generous. You provide an example that
    >>hopefully
    >>others will follow. There is absolutely nothing that requires or implies
    >>the need for obscurity, or even modesty about one's generosity. Read the
    >>description.
    >
    > I don't know the feat, but would the "no benefit of any kind"
    > reading also apply to actions?

    There is no such reading; Marc pulled it directly from his ass. The actual
    feat prevents you from owning or using any material possessions, with a few
    specific exceptions. It also (under Other Ramifications of Poverty)
    specifies that you must be "as extreme in works of charity as [you are] in
    self-denial."

    > I mean, not only could you not charge for helping people

    In fact, you *could* do so, as long as the "charge" did not go to you, but
    rather to a charitable cause. You are free to charge the Duke 5K gp to
    rescue his daughter, to be distributed to the duchy's poor and needy under
    your supervision.

    > or accept rewards after the fact,

    Likewise. You can accept spells to be cast on your behalf, and can even
    drink healing potions given to you while you are in need of healing.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:7Dhve.141259$sy6.121333@lakeread04...
    >
    >
    > Marc L. wrote:
    >
    >> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >> news:hdidnSB5b9-a0yHfRVn-2g@comcast.com:
    >>>However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying
    >>>it to donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the
    >>>poor), then I find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The
    >>>character should demand a fair share of any treasure the group
    >>>acquires, and disburse it according to his beliefs.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I find myself agreeing with this, with one caveat, all donations
    >> should be annoymous. Here's my reasoning, which could be wrong. As far as
    >> I can tell VoP means you cannot profit from these things, including, to
    >> me, the "profit" from making a donation.
    >
    > I've often thought of this myself. What temple isn't going to offer perks
    > to the guy who dumps boatloads of cash and magic items on its doorstep
    > every few weeks?

    VoP does not forbid perks, either. It only forbids material possessions.
    If a VoP guy walked into the door of his church cursed, or injured, there is
    nothing wrong with them curing/healing him.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:14:30 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >news:mMKdndgPYowLQyHfRVn-vw@comcast.com:
    >
    >> Nonsense. This is a Vow of Poverty, not a Vow of Obscurity.
    >>
    >
    > The poit of VoP is that you cannot BENEFIT from the stuff, if
    >you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    >having had the stuff.

    That seems like an overly fine hair to split. I mean, you can gain a lot of
    popularity by vanquishing evil and helping the helpless...should VoP owners
    not do that either?
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:58:35 -0400, Werebat wrote:

    >
    >
    > Loren Pechtel wrote:
    >
    >> To me the vows involve intent.
    >
    > Tell that to Oedipus.

    He was clearly warned about that, he then went ahead and married a widow
    anyway.

    --
    Phoenix
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Raphael Russell <aod1@cox.net> wrote in news:Eqeve.6371$up5.6229
    @lakeread02:

    > I would think that the vow of poverty MEANT that you cannot gain
    > material benefit from treasure.

    Well, I guess this one's one of those open to interpretation.

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:ssednaIcWetwFCDfRVn-jw@comcast.com:

    >> The poit of VoP is that you cannot BENEFIT from the stuff,
    >
    > Yes. *Material* benefit.
    >

    Does it actually state this? What book contains this?

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in news:d9k4af$1e5$3
    @news3.bu.edu:

    > I don't know the feat, but would the "no benefit of any kind"
    > reading also apply to actions? I mean, not only could you not
    > charge for helping people or accept rewards after the fact, you
    > would have to disguise yourself so no one knows who it was and
    > started thinking better of you? Seems a bit off to me.
    >
    >

    Something to think about. However, to paraphrase someone else, a
    truly penitent man would not only carry more than his share of the
    burden, but probably make annonymous donations, question of humility,
    don't you know?

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9680B0111A551mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...

    > Something to think about. However, to paraphrase someone else, a
    > truly penitent man would not only carry more than his share of the
    > burden, but probably make annonymous donations, question of humility,
    > don't you know?

    Vow of Poverty does not require humility, either. You are free to be a
    charitable, arrogant, holier-than-thou pain in everyone's ass, in fact.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
    news:dghrb1da05ckp2p5vst1ukfb48v20tl1do@4ax.com:

    > That seems like an overly fine hair to split. I mean, you can gain
    > a lot of popularity by vanquishing evil and helping the
    > helpless...should VoP owners not do that either?
    >

    I don't think the hair splitted was that fine. But yes, all
    VoPers need to wear masks while doing their work. Just kidding,
    but...

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:fm7rb1too98rro2mf0vr00bdn63qhvqq60@4ax.com:

    > My test on the reasonableness of some VoP restrictions: You have
    > a party consisting of entirely VoP characters. Does this cause
    > some sort of unreasonable situation to arise? If so then the
    > rules need a bit of tweaking. Apply this to the luckstone: They
    > find a luckstone. Are they required to leave it on the ground
    > where it won't do anyone any good rather than take it somewhere
    > where it can benefit someone?

    Yes, why would this seem wrong? Well, I would allow them to
    carry it, I guess, if the intent REALLY was to give it up ASAP, but a
    whole party of VoP? That I would not allow.

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9680B093B5328mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    > Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:fm7rb1too98rro2mf0vr00bdn63qhvqq60@4ax.com:
    >
    >> My test on the reasonableness of some VoP restrictions: You have
    >> a party consisting of entirely VoP characters. Does this cause
    >> some sort of unreasonable situation to arise? If so then the
    >> rules need a bit of tweaking. Apply this to the luckstone: They
    >> find a luckstone. Are they required to leave it on the ground
    >> where it won't do anyone any good rather than take it somewhere
    >> where it can benefit someone?
    >
    > Yes, why would this seem wrong? Well, I would allow them to
    > carry it, I guess, if the intent REALLY was to give it up ASAP, but a
    > whole party of VoP? That I would not allow.

    Why not? It would seem likely that their goals are similar, and together
    they do not have to worry about conflicts of interest. In fact, a party
    such as that would be fun to run for.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <_NydnddP8Z17jCPfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
    Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:Xns9680B093B5328mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    >> Yes, why would this seem wrong? Well, I would allow them to
    >> carry it, I guess, if the intent REALLY was to give it up ASAP, but a
    >> whole party of VoP? That I would not allow.
    >
    >Why not? It would seem likely that their goals are similar, and together
    >they do not have to worry about conflicts of interest. In fact, a party
    >such as that would be fun to run for.

    Hmm. VoP monk works out, and some suggested druid. Maybe sorceror, but
    certainly not wizard (can't own spellbooks). The others seem to me to require
    much in the way of gear.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
    news:d9l79j$cmv$1@knot.queensu.ca...
    > In article <_NydnddP8Z17jCPfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
    > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:Xns9680B093B5328mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    >>> Yes, why would this seem wrong? Well, I would allow them to
    >>> carry it, I guess, if the intent REALLY was to give it up ASAP, but a
    >>> whole party of VoP? That I would not allow.
    >>
    >>Why not? It would seem likely that their goals are similar, and together
    >>they do not have to worry about conflicts of interest. In fact, a party
    >>such as that would be fun to run for.
    >
    > Hmm. VoP monk works out, and some suggested druid. Maybe sorceror, but
    > certainly not wizard (can't own spellbooks). The others seem to me to
    > require
    > much in the way of gear.

    Clerics are an easy one, as are Warmages, Warlocks, and Rogues. Remember
    that you can use simple weapons. That *does* include crossbows, maces (both
    heavy and light), spears of various flavors, and daggers. The Fighter-types
    are throwing a few things away; on the other hand, a two-weapon style Ranger
    or Fighter using the Lightning Mace style (from Complete Warrior) with a
    pair of light maces could work, as could (with more difficulty) a Paladin
    with same. I think it definitely could be done.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96814F8D0BBC0mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
    > dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
    > news:d9l75r$cim$1@knot.queensu.ca:
    >
    >> It couldn't have hurt to point out it's from the Book of Exalted
    >> Deeds.
    >>
    >
    > Thank you, I have read most of the books, but don't necessarily
    > remember from which book I read a rule.

    Yeah; you don't remember the rule itself, either.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Peter Meilinger wrote:
    >
    > > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >>"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > >>news:Xns968053DA149F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    > >
    > >
    > >>>if you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit from
    > >>>having had the stuff.
    > >
    > >
    > >>No, you benefit from being generous. You provide an example that hopefully
    > >>others will follow. There is absolutely nothing that requires or implies
    > >>the need for obscurity, or even modesty about one's generosity. Read the
    > >>description.
    > >
    > >
    > > I don't know the feat, but would the "no benefit of any kind"
    > > reading also apply to actions? I mean, not only could you not
    > > charge for helping people or accept rewards after the fact, you
    > > would have to disguise yourself so no one knows who it was and
    > > started thinking better of you? Seems a bit off to me.
    >
    > Maybe you are just required to refuse any perks that seem to clearly be
    > the result of your donations. "I know you offered to remove my curse
    > for free, pontiff, but I feel obligated to pay you for your trouble."
    >
    > Then again, pay the pontiff with WHAT? Hmm.
    >

    I don't think there's any reason you would need to refuse payment, you
    just donate it to the "cause". Of course one could also say something
    along the lines of "well if you really want to pay me, you could build
    a new shelter for orphans over here" or some such.

    - Justisaur.

    P.S. I really like the idea behind VoP, I just don't like the game
    effects...
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1119809887.776120.62260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    > Werebat wrote:
    >> Peter Meilinger wrote:
    >>
    >> > Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> >>news:Xns968053DA149F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>>if you get popularity bonus from making the donations, you benefit
    >> >>>from
    >> >>>having had the stuff.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>No, you benefit from being generous. You provide an example that
    >> >>hopefully
    >> >>others will follow. There is absolutely nothing that requires or
    >> >>implies
    >> >>the need for obscurity, or even modesty about one's generosity. Read
    >> >>the
    >> >>description.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > I don't know the feat, but would the "no benefit of any kind"
    >> > reading also apply to actions? I mean, not only could you not
    >> > charge for helping people or accept rewards after the fact, you
    >> > would have to disguise yourself so no one knows who it was and
    >> > started thinking better of you? Seems a bit off to me.
    >>
    >> Maybe you are just required to refuse any perks that seem to clearly be
    >> the result of your donations. "I know you offered to remove my curse
    >> for free, pontiff, but I feel obligated to pay you for your trouble."
    >>
    >> Then again, pay the pontiff with WHAT? Hmm.
    >>
    >
    > I don't think there's any reason you would need to refuse payment, you
    > just donate it to the "cause". Of course one could also say something
    > along the lines of "well if you really want to pay me, you could build
    > a new shelter for orphans over here" or some such.
    >
    > - Justisaur.
    >
    > P.S. I really like the idea behind VoP, I just don't like the game
    > effects...

    I believe Monte Cook's _Book of Hallowed Might_ has a more reasonable
    version of it.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus wrote:
    > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:7Dhve.141259$sy6.121333@lakeread04...
    > >
    > >
    > > Marc L. wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > >> news:hdidnSB5b9-a0yHfRVn-2g@comcast.com:
    > >>>However, if he really is not using it, and really is only carrying
    > >>>it to donate to the poor (or cash it in to donate the cash to the
    > >>>poor), then I find it perfectly in keeping with the feat. The
    > >>>character should demand a fair share of any treasure the group
    > >>>acquires, and disburse it according to his beliefs.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I find myself agreeing with this, with one caveat, all donations
    > >> should be annoymous. Here's my reasoning, which could be wrong. As far as
    > >> I can tell VoP means you cannot profit from these things, including, to
    > >> me, the "profit" from making a donation.
    > >
    > > I've often thought of this myself. What temple isn't going to offer perks
    > > to the guy who dumps boatloads of cash and magic items on its doorstep
    > > every few weeks?
    >
    > VoP does not forbid perks, either. It only forbids material possessions.
    > If a VoP guy walked into the door of his church cursed, or injured, there is
    > nothing wrong with them curing/healing him.
    >

    Hmm. That opens some rather scary doors, I mean what if you just found
    all this money "slaying a dragon" or whatever, what's to say you can't
    just donate it to local house of ill repute, fine restaurant, etc. and
    basically live like a king?

    - Justisaur
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Loren Pechtel wrote:
    > On 24 Jun 2005 13:17:28 -0700, "Iridia" <s1416348@cedarville.edu>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I believe that it is the intent which matters. Simply carrying things
    > >in order to get them to a place where you can donate them (provided
    > >that, unlike with a Pearl of Power, you gain nothing by carrying them)
    > >would not violate the spirit of VoP.
    >
    > A pearl of power gives you nothing unless you explicitly use it.
    >
    > The sort of items that are problematical are things like luckstones.
    >
    > Personally, I would say that if there's no other way to transport it
    > then it's not a violation of the vow for a VoP character to carry one
    > for as short a time as is reasonable.
    >
    > My test on the reasonableness of some VoP restrictions: You have a
    > party consisting of entirely VoP characters. Does this cause some
    > sort of unreasonable situation to arise? If so then the rules need a
    > bit of tweaking. Apply this to the luckstone: They find a luckstone.
    > Are they required to leave it on the ground where it won't do anyone
    > any good rather than take it somewhere where it can benefit someone?

    Hmm, you get benifit from wearing and using clothes, you don't die of
    exposure. Many magic items look ordinary, and don't really have any
    distinguising characteristics. What if a non-spellcaster was given a
    cloak to keep the cold out, and it just happened to be a cloak of
    elvenkind or something? How would he know he was even violating his
    vow?

    Maybe characters taking this should be prevented from wearing clothes
    as well, or caryying anything? Change the name of the feat to Nekkid
    Homeless Loony too...

    - Justisaur.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:UrKdnZIA29sMjSPfRVn-uQ@comcast.com:

    > It also (under Other Ramifications of Poverty)
    > specifies that you must be "as extreme in works of charity as [you
    > are] in self-denial."
    >

    And to ME, that includes doing annoymous donations.

    --
    Marc

    Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
    Doyle : What was that ?
    Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96814F3F1AC55mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:UrKdnZIA29sMjSPfRVn-uQ@comcast.com:
    >
    >> It also (under Other Ramifications of Poverty)
    >> specifies that you must be "as extreme in works of charity as [you
    >> are] in self-denial."
    >>
    >
    > And to ME, that includes doing annoymous donations.

    ....and *YOU* are pulling that out of your ass, because that is not implied
    at all by the text. This is not a discussion of your house rules.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus wrote:
    > "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96814F3F1AC55mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
    >
    >>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >>news:UrKdnZIA29sMjSPfRVn-uQ@comcast.com:
    >>
    >>
    >>> It also (under Other Ramifications of Poverty)
    >>>specifies that you must be "as extreme in works of charity as [you
    >>>are] in self-denial."
    >>>
    >>
    >> And to ME, that includes doing annoymous donations.
    >
    >
    > ...and *YOU* are pulling that out of your ass, because that is not implied
    > at all by the text. This is not a discussion of your house rules.
    >

    Would one of you two please say the 'national socialist' word so that we
    can go ahead and godwin this thread already?
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:

    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:UrKdnZIA29sMjSPfRVn-uQ@comcast.com:
    >
    >
    >> It also (under Other Ramifications of Poverty)
    >>specifies that you must be "as extreme in works of charity as [you
    >>are] in self-denial."
    >>
    >
    >
    > And to ME, that includes doing annoymous donations.

    What's an annoymous donation? Is that like where you draw dirty
    insulting stick figures on the check, and write one of the check numbers
    in disappearing ink so as to screw up everyone's records, and then
    pretend to be REALLY STUPID and ask where the lav is like five times
    (until someone gets frustrated enough to physically bring you there, and
    then you say you don't have to "go" anymore)?

    Sounds like fun!

    - Ron ^*^
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:

    >"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >news:UrKdnZIA29sMjSPfRVn-uQ@comcast.com:
    >
    >
    >
    >> It also (under Other Ramifications of Poverty)
    >>specifies that you must be "as extreme in works of charity as [you
    >>are] in self-denial."
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > And to ME, that includes doing annoymous donations.
    >
    >
    >
    I think you've brought up one of the great philosophy questions. Is
    it better to do good works in secret OR do them publicly and be an
    example to others?

    --
    Tetsubo
    My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
    --------------------------------------
    If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
    -- Anatole France
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games