No problem although i don't regularly use Fractional BAB so getting mine will take a bit of time (most likely after i am done fixing everything else).
If Id and Seraph could give us an updates on their concepts that would be great, I'll try to cover whatever it is we are lacking so if needed will change concepts.
@DC: I take it Spellcasting Paladins, Clerics and any other divine warrior type character is also barred from use by non-elves correct?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
@DC: I take it Spellcasting Paladins, Clerics and any other divine warrior type character is also barred from use by non-elves correct?
When I said non-Elves, Fae or other races that I deem naturally magical were unable to use magic, This included ALL forms of magic, Divine, Arcane, Psionic, or those I haven't otherwise specified.
Edit: I have decided I am going to use the same rule for Vorpal Weapons as Ain Soph Aur is using in his campaign:
Vorpal weapons do not decapitate enemies but instead double the critical hit multiplier of the weapon (enhancement is worth +3).
Join Planar Chaos, A Colo clan
Generation B1: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
I want to introduce the basic description of a new custom artifact that we will be using specifically for this campaign. This is the lesser version of the artifact. A more potent version does exist, however what that version does exactly will remain a secret for now, as it is a potential plot point.
Noble Blood Stones [Minor Artifact]
These devices are created for the purpose of identifying and recognizing a noble born of a particular noble house. Each of the noble houses has a different design of blood stone. Further each noble houses blood stones do slightly different things. However they all have in common the fact that they identify an individual Noble Born based on that person's magical signature when cross referenced with the magical signature of the individual within the noble house upon whom the device was encoded (usually this is the head of the house).
Due to the fact that the device uses extremely high level magic to run its cross comparisons, it is usually very difficult to trick these devices. It requires a Use Magic Device Check, and the Difficulty will depend on the amount of effort that went into encoding the blood stone, and the purity of the noble house in question as well as the specific spells used to create the stone in question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
Currently focussed on shcool work (2 wks left), I'll see if I have time to make my charecter this weekend
Hey Id no problem, im currently in summer classes so i can relate to the hassles, not pushing you to show a completed sheet just asking that if you have a concept to share it so we can see what bases are being missed.
When I said non-Elves, Fae or other races that I deem naturally magical were unable to use magic, This included ALL forms of magic, Divine, Arcane, Psionic, or those I haven't otherwise specified.
Yeah i was thinking this was the answer, just wanted to make sure to avoid any sudden oops
Edit: I have decided I am going to use the same rule for Vorpal Weapons as Ain Soph Aur is using in his campaign:
Vorpal weapons do not decapitate enemies but instead double the critical hit multiplier of the weapon (enhancement is worth +3).
YAY!!!!!
BTW Just a reminder to whoever plays a Ranger or Paladin, there is a non-spellcasting Variant in Complete Warrior so don't feel you are restricted to being an elf.
Edit: That's a rather nifty Artifact.... Warlock's anyone?
Warlock was not the inspiration for the blood stones by any means. Nor are they particularly benefited by them.
EDIT: Oh you meant World of Warcraft Warlocks? Now I feel stupid.... /facepalm
Yes i was talking about that, however i think you are underestimating D&D Warlocks, Deceive Item means they can Take 10 on the UMD check making them easier to trick a real stone, once tricked a warlock can Hax it like its Hotz (yes i just made a multi layered pun :p), also the Imbue Item Class Feature lets them create a false bloodstone if they so wish... i mean Hax a real stone, try to get info on other parts of the 'database' forge your own, and yay free DLC
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
except yeah that isn't happening.... the difficulty check for all of those save possibly making a false stone would be obscene. additionally there are a few trade secrets that go into the process of making these that make forgeries very easy to detect, not to mention potentially unpleasant to make depending on the method used to make the forgery.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
except yeah that isn't happening.... the difficulty check for all of those save possibly making a false stone would be obscene. additionally there are a few trade secrets that go into the process of making these that make forgeries very easy to detect, not to mention potentially unpleasant to make depending on the method used to make the forgery.
Cue Amadi's long explanation on how he achieves all this with absolutely no ranks in UMD and being a Commoner in 3....2....1....
I kid i kid
Seriously though, it seems ASA is doing blasting/healing, Seraph is doing Ranged Combat so just need to see what Id wants to build so i can be sure we have all bases covered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
and like I said, there are fail safe's in place for all of this
EDIT: Also there are a few epic level spells that Mage of the Arcane Order does NOT get access to automatically at epic level in this campaign, specifically plot device based spells.
EDIT2: I am also now allowing Sorcerer's to gain Bonus feats as per the Wizard Bonus Feat progression.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
I will allow only allow enhancement bonuses (as much as you can afford and that is reasonable given item slots), and inherent bonuses up to a +5 bonus maximum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
I have not found a non-spellcasting Assassin Variant so i will go ahead and substitute those levels with either fighter or straight up Rogue... although the idea of getting Weapon Spec and other seems fun
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Okay so I'm thinking vow of poverty druid/spellthief with the no wildshape variant.
But first a few questions.
1. what stat system are we using?
2. May I use the spell point variant as outlined in UA?
3. Does vow of poverty necisarily require good alingment? I can see reasons for other charecters taking it. For example, an evil charecter may want to sacrifice his treasures to a master, perhaps a dragon, demon, or powerful undead, in exchange for his master giving him power.
My charecter's concept for vow of poverty is that he is giving up his ties to the unnatural world and Gaia (or whatever you would call mother nature) rewards him for it.
4. I played a game a while ago where the DM allowed me to put templates on animal companions simply by subtractiing their CR adjustment from my effective druid level. Would you allow this or some other way of adding templates?
5. Along the lines of vow of poverty: It's supposed to give bonus exalted feats at every even level, but since the rest of the book is banned, it is not possible to get these feats. Is there any compensation for not getting them (mayhaps a real feat every 4th or maybe 6th level)?
As for charecter background/concept, he belives that the snetient beings are falling too far from the natural world, and is attempting to return the world to a more natural state. That being said, he only travels with a party in order to further his goal, though his intent may not be obvious.
Join Planar Chaos, A Colo clan
Generation B1: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
Okay so I'm thinking vow of poverty druid/spellthief with the no wildshape variant.
Just be aware that any weapons you get can only be mundane, you cannot own anything masterwork or better.
1. what stat system are we using?
32-Point Mamelon System
3. Does vow of poverty necisarily require good alingment? I can see reasons for other charecters taking it.
Yes good's a requirement, also note that Vow of Poverty Bonuses are not retroactive, you only gain the bonuses from the point/level you get the Vow, so lets say you take VoP at level 6 you do not gain the bonuses from level's 1-5 only 6 onwards (which means you will get some stat bonuses decreased.) so better build accordingly.
For example, an evil charecter may want to sacrifice his treasures to a master, perhaps a dragon, demon, or powerful undead, in exchange for his master giving him power.
Nope, Vow of Poverty is a willful decision to give the money away to help as many people as possible, completely different from what you are describing.
5. Along the lines of vow of poverty: It's supposed to give bonus exalted feats at every even level, but since the rest of the book is banned, it is not possible to get these feats. Is there any compensation for not getting them (mayhaps a real feat every 4th or maybe 6th level)?
I honestly think that it would be best to allow you access to the Exalted Feats they aren't broken actually, although the alternative of taking regular feats isn't bad either (but perhaps too good... in the end its up to DC to decide)
As for charecter background/concept, he belives that the snetient beings are falling too far from the natural world, and is attempting to return the world to a more natural state. That being said, he only travels with a party in order to further his goal, though his intent may not be obvious.
It sounds like a Neutral Good to me, good intentions, although not necessarily virtuous ones, True Neutral also works.
Is this an acceptable charecter concept?
Looks ok to me, Elves are very likely to feel this way anyways due to their connection to nature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Okay so I'm thinking vow of poverty druid/spellthief with the no wildshape variant.
But first a few questions.
2. May I use the spell point variant as outlined in UA?
If we do, it should apply to all casters.
3. Does vow of poverty necisarily require good alingment? I can see reasons for other charecters taking it. For example, an evil charecter may want to sacrifice his treasures to a master, perhaps a dragon, demon, or powerful undead, in exchange for his master giving him power.
My charecter's concept for vow of poverty is that he is giving up his ties to the unnatural world and Gaia (or whatever you would call mother nature) rewards him for it.
I can imagine a more lawful aligned variant on VoP, but not an evil one. Your example doesn't even really make sense; giving up all your possessions to a demon doesn't make you evil, it makes you a chump. Even if you get powers in return it's not something an evil character would agree to because you're never allowed to gain any new material possessions again. The evil character wouldn't see the point in this restriction; why does it matter to the master whether or not it has material possessions? Wanting those possessions in the first place for itself is even a bit iffy as such a creature probably has means beyond them. Furthermore, while evil characters are motivated by power, they are also selfish and greedy. Giving up their material comforts, their symbols of status and power, just doesn't fit. Evil takes short cuts and puts themselves first. It doesn't sacrifice for the benefit of another. It wants power so that it can benefit itself.
Both in the real world and in fiction, you give up your material possessions either because you want to help people or because you want to attain a spiritual state for yourself. These are good and lawful motivations, respectively.
Note that Vow of Poverty Bonuses are not retroactive, you only gain the bonuses from the point/level you get the Vow, so lets say you take VoP at level 6 you do not gain the bonuses from level's 1-5 only 6 onwards (which means you will get some stat bonuses decreased.) so better build accordingly.
Actually, I am fairly certain that the bonuses from VoP are retroactive, with the exception of the feats.
Quote from Book of Exalted Deeds, Voluntary Poverty »
The level at which the character swears the vow (and takes the appropriate feats) is irrelevant; if he gives up his possessions at 10th level he gains all the benefits of a 10th-level ascetic character, with the exception of bonus exalted feats.
----------
Regarding the alignment restrictions, we have to understand that there are three parts to VoP, and to any other ability as well. Effect, Flavour, and Rules.
The Effect here is simple enough; give up material possessions, get powers. This isn't inherently good. It does have a lawful tendency, considering that by the very nature it is a pact. This is a very low tendency, though, and wouldn't be enough to stop even chaotic creatures from agreeing to the deal.
The Flavour here is a bit different, though. The explanation for voluntary poverty has absolutely nothing that implies a good character. You give up possessions to achieve enlightment. This can be an evil act, motivated by greed, given the subject believes that the powers he is gaining will be greater than the items sacrificed. This can be a good act, if the subject donates his earnings to a charity. It can just be a neutral act, where the subject tries to achieve serenity for himself.
The Rules are the only part that says "this is good". Mostly because the feat requires you to be good, considering it is an exalted feat. It is not even enough that you're good, here. You have to be a paragon of good of the highest moral standards, and you have to gain the feat as a gift from a higher power. Not only this, but if you even do one evil act, you will lose access to the feat. Hell, you even get an effing aura of good by taking one of these feats.
In design, the hierarchy of these three should generally go Flavour > Effect > Rules, where Effect is there to represent the Flavour in in-game terms, and the Rules are there to make Effects possible as long as Flavour is not violated. If this is failed, the design is flawed.
The situation from player-perspective is fairly different, though. One could say it's backwards. First, they must go through the Rules to qualify, followed by gaining benefits of the Effect and then modifying the Flavour of their character to match. This is where the flaw in the original design of the ability becomes clear; If there is a mismatch, the Rules are preventing the character gaining access to a Flavour they feel would be suitable for their character.
Sometimes, this mismatch is due to attempts to balance something. Either the Rules are made specifically restrictive to stop certain interactions from taking place, or the Effects are downplayed from the flavour in order to stop everyone ever taking the ability. Sometimes they are just an oversight on the designers' part.
In the case of VoP, I'd verge on the latter side. The effect isn't strong, and definitely does not need to be restricted for good characters for that reason. To be honest, for most characters the feat is just a cool way of screwing yourself up, unless you are playing in a low-low-magic-game, where your access to item shops would be severely limited. Alternatively, some characters gain great benefits from the feat at lower levels; See monks below level 5.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Actually, I am fairly certain that the bonuses from VoP are retroactive, with the exception of the feats.
----------
Regarding the alignment restrictions, we have to understand that there are three parts to VoP, and to any other ability as well. Effect, Flavour, and Rules.
The Effect here is simple enough; give up material possessions, get powers. This isn't inherently good. It does have a lawful tendency, considering that by the very nature it is a pact. This is a very low tendency, though, and wouldn't be enough to stop even chaotic creatures from agreeing to the deal.
Well, chaotic creatures might accept the deal on a whim, and then break it on a whim. Currently nothing restricts you from being chaotic good with VoP, but of the three allowable alignments it's the most likely one to break the feat. But that's aside from the point. The alignments here stand for ideals when considering whether an effect can be tailored to fit them (rather than an effect merely available to a character of that alignment). That is to say, could you make a version of VoP that emphasized chaotic alignment? I don't think you can, because ideally that's not how chaos works. The closest I can think of would be an anarchist character who disavows material possessions as symbols of the oppression of society, but even then it seems chaotic good.
Evil seems even less plausible.
The Flavour here is a bit different, though. The explanation for voluntary poverty has absolutely nothing that implies a good character. You give up possessions to achieve enlightment. This can be an evil act, motivated by greed, given the subject believes that the powers he is gaining will be greater than the items sacrificed. This can be a good act, if the subject donates his earnings to a charity. It can just be a neutral act, where the subject tries to achieve serenity for himself.
I think there is some incoherency in your definition of motivations.
Consider:
A character decides to take up a paladin's code of honor because he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in the long term be more beneficial to himself. Under your definition, that would be an evil motivation. But if that's true, then it would be pretty much impossible for anything to be good at all, since everyone has some level of self-interest motivating their actions. If that's the only qualifier we have to go by evil becomes ubiquitous and therefore meaningless and not very useful as a descriptive term. Good and evil as qualities have to stand out as being somewhat exceptional. Evil can't just be self-interested, it has to be so self-interested that it does things that are harmful to others. Good can't just be benevolent, it has to be so benevolent that it does things that help others.
The general demarcation between good and evil, if we want these concepts to be useful, is that evil thinks about the short term benefit to itself and ignores others, whereas good considers others as part of a long term motivation in which everyone benefits by cooperative interaction. We can see how this works out in real life in the sense that sociopaths have no sense of restraint; they don't think about the long term. But most ethical theories (which are serious about the pursuit of ethics) are aimed at the notion of how they would apply on the societal level.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in-game characters wouldn't take the vow of poverty because they have some concept of the effect it will have and this motivates them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects at all, being in-game characters and such. They take the vow because it fits their ideals, and those ideals are either good (or lawful) motivations. That is, your ideals of helping others cause you to give up your possessions so that you can dedicate yourself to giving to others. And this is, incidentally, the reason why the effects come into place. A vow of poverty only represents that the character has such incredible goodness that they end up gaining supernatural powers. But such an effect considered in a vacuum isn't obvious. That is, if you disregard alignment ideals there's nothing about giving up material possessions that suggests gaining powers. Furthermore, if we are considering evil alignment in particular, even awareness of the effect doesn't seem like it would appeal for the same reason that living by high moral standards wouldn't appeal: evil characters want to do what they want. Power that is inherently very restrictive to baser desires is not the kind of power that evil finds useful.
The Rules are the only part that says "this is good". Mostly because the feat requires you to be good, considering it is an exalted feat. It is not even enough that you're good, here. You have to be a paragon of good of the highest moral standards, and you have to gain the feat as a gift from a higher power. Not only this, but if you even do one evil act, you will lose access to the feat. Hell, you even get an effing aura of good by taking one of these feats.
In design, the hierarchy of these three should generally go Flavour > Effect > Rules, where Effect is there to represent the Flavour in in-game terms, and the Rules are there to make Effects possible as long as Flavour is not violated. If this is failed, the design is flawed.
The situation from player-perspective is fairly different, though. One could say it's backwards. First, they must go through the Rules to qualify, followed by gaining benefits of the Effect and then modifying the Flavour of their character to match. This is where the flaw in the original design of the ability becomes clear; If there is a mismatch, the Rules are preventing the character gaining access to a Flavour they feel would be suitable for their character.
Sometimes, this mismatch is due to attempts to balance something. Either the Rules are made specifically restrictive to stop certain interactions from taking place, or the Effects are downplayed from the flavour in order to stop everyone ever taking the ability. Sometimes they are just an oversight on the designers' part.
In the case of VoP, I'd verge on the latter side. The effect isn't strong, and definitely does not need to be restricted for good characters for that reason. To be honest, for most characters the feat is just a cool way of screwing yourself up, unless you are playing in a low-low-magic-game, where your access to item shops would be severely limited. Alternatively, some characters gain great benefits from the feat at lower levels; See monks below level 5.
While I don't dispute that rules-wise there's nothing about VoP's strength of effect that necessitates strong alignment restrictions, I do think it is against the flavor. So far the examples I have seen to try to justify an evil flavor for VoP are pretty weak.
Currently nothing restricts you from being chaotic good with VoP, but of the three allowable alignments it's the most likely one to break the feat.
Is it? A neutral good character who'd realize he could do more good by breaking the code and using an artifact to destroy a great evil? A lawful good character who'd realize that forming a good organized religion would do more long-term good than running around being useless gimp? Assuming that ”more power => more good, assuming you are benevolent” is true, the only reason the characters are keeping the vow is either stupidity, them not really being benevolent, or selfishness in order to not get humiliated and losing your face.
But that's aside from the point. The alignments here stand for ideals when considering whether an effect can be tailored to fit them (rather than an effect merely available to a character of that alignment). That is to say, could you make a version of VoP that emphasized chaotic alignment? I don't think you can, because ideally that's not how chaos works. The closest I can think of would be an anarchist character who disavows material possessions as symbols of the oppression of society, but even then it seems chaotic good.
Evil seems even less plausible.
The normal vow can't be tailored to any alignment, other than stupid-stupid.
The inherent flaw is that the characters are assumed to think that they can do more X without power, which is, let's be honest here, absurd. ”Hey guys, I plan to give away my power, so I can be better at helping people. You know, using my now-diminished powers. Which are inferior in every way, but I'll still be able to do this better now. Just trust me guys, I think this is going to work.”
Even giving your items to charity is pretty much absurd, considering that you could almost certainly use that wealth to amass more wealth, and get more wealth, and then you could testament it all to charity once you die, actually giving everyone wildly superior long-term benefits. You'd have to be like, a chaotic-sort-sighted-stupid-good character, who would agree to a lawful-code, in order to really justify VoP as an ideal, unless you actually knew you would be gaining powers from the decision.
I think there is some incoherency in your definition of motivations.
Consider:
A character decides to take up a paladin's code of honor because he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in the long term be more beneficial to himself. Under your definition, that would be an evil motivation. But if that's true, then it would be pretty much impossible for anything to be good at all, since everyone has some level of self-interest motivating their actions.
Are you sure? Perhaps he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in long term be more beneficial to others? You are assuming that this case is impossible, and all human actions would be inherently selfish.
Hell, even if that was true, let's extrapolate.
Consider:
A scientist decides to start kidnapping homeless children from the street so he can further his research regarding cure for cancer. He believes that doing this will, in the long term, be beneficial to himself, as he has cancer and believes that he can cure it. But imagine if this is true, wouldn't his actions eventually bring more good to the world than one vigilante bringing criminals to justice?
Would he, then, be good? His motivation was inherently selfish.
If that's the only qualifier we have to go by evil becomes ubiquitous and therefore meaningless and not very useful as a descriptive term. Good and evil as qualities have to stand out as being somewhat exceptional. Evil can't just be self-interested, it has to be so self-interested that it does things that are harmful to others. Good can't just be benevolent, it has to be so benevolent that it does things that help others.
But it is possible to be so self-interested that you do things that help others. Likewise, it is possible to be so benevolent that you do things that are harmful to others. Isn't the carrying point of anarchism that everyone striving to create good for themselves, I.E: being selfish, end up doing good for everyone. Is anarchism therefore a lawful good view of life, as it gives a moral code to work with under which the world would be a better place?
The general demarcation between good and evil, if we want these concepts to be useful, is that evil thinks about the short term benefit to itself and ignores others, whereas good considers others as part of a long term motivation in which everyone benefits by cooperative interaction. We can see how this works out in real life in the sense that sociopaths have no sense of restraint; they don't think about the long term. But most ethical theories (which are serious about the pursuit of ethics) are aimed at the notion of how they would apply on the societal level.
There are many records of Lawful Evil looking at the long term benefit for himself, as well as others. Many of the books list Hitler as Lawful Evil. All he actually believed was a state, albeit an oppressive and tyrannic one, that would work well as a collective if everyone within it followed the orders of the superiors. Benevolent dictatorship, if you will. Isn't this idea, by your definition, inherently lawful good? Submission to authorities, everyone benefits.
As much as I enjoy you bringing sociopaths into this, it is not very helpful for the situation. It is a clear-cut black/white example, you take an individual with a goal that is arguably evil (Selfish good.), the means of achieving which are evil (Killing others.), and who has sufficient power to achieve his goals. (Removing the potential need for compromise.) Most of the time, multiples of these are not true. All your example proves is that under ideal conditions, an ideally evil character is, surprise surprise, evil.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in-game characters wouldn't take th
e vow of poverty because they have some concept of the effect it will have and this motivates them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects at all, being in-game characters and such. They take the vow because it fits their ideals, and those ideals are either good (or lawful) motivations.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in-game characters wouldn't sell their soul to a devil because they have some concept of the effect it will have, motivating them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects and all, being in-game characters and such.
They just wanted to get rid of their soul. Like duh.
First, you argued that humans are inherently selfish, then you are assuming a completely selfless act comes of them. This is an inconsistency.
That is, your ideals of helping others cause you to give up your possessions so that you can dedicate yourself to giving to others. And this is, incidentally, the reason why the effects come into place. A vow of poverty only represents that the character has such incredible goodness that they end up gaining supernatural powers. But such an effect considered in a vacuum isn't obvious.
So, being good gives you powers. What is it about good that gives you powers, is the universe morally charged towards good, or is it just the strength of your will that grants you the powers when you believe in something enough?
If it is the former, then sure, your argument works. In the latter case, though, an character who would give up his possessions in order to achieve perfection of himself, rather than relying on his gear to help him, would also gain powers. He made a sacrifice to further his own goals, proving that he really believes in his cause, and his will would make him stronger. There is nothing stopping this character from being evil. His act would, under your view of things, be neutral. No damage done to others, no good caused to them. Assume that he just burnt all his stuff. And hey, he took the vow because it fit his ideals: He wanted to be strong enough to survive without material items. Perhaps he just wanted to transcend materia, like is the goal of many religious practices on earth.
That is, if you disregard alignment ideals there's nothing about giving up material possessions that suggests gaining powers.
You seem to be assuming the former, though. Good = power. Good is inherently stronger, and goodness gives you power. Which, of course, makes absolutely no sense. The only possible way you could justify this is the VoP benefits being a gift from a deity to someone demonstrating selflessness. And this is assuming that he really spends his time helping others, and donates his items, none of which is mandated by the feat: For all the feat cares is he could throw an epic party with his wealth, causing twenty people to die to drug overdose. But let's just assume he's a goodie-goody-selfless guy.
But what, then, stops evil gods for conferring the same benefits to someone in return of their followership and sacrifice of their gear? I mean, they have nothing against giving them spells in return for worship. Or even conferring relics or other gifts in return of acts that fulfill their portfolio. Hell, the whole drow society is formed because Lolth likes to give gifts to people who amuse her.
Furthermore, if we are considering evil alignment in particular, even awareness of the effect doesn't seem like it would appeal for the same reason that living by high moral standards wouldn't appeal: evil characters want to do what they want. Power that is inherently very restrictive to baser desires is not the kind of power that evil finds useful.
Wanting to do what you want, living free of moral restrictions and mandates is not an evil line of thought. It is a chaotic one. It's not like this was D&D 4E where you cannot be lawful evil. That, and if a character wanted to become the greatest unarmed martial artist in the world and kick some ass, if he was evil, what'd stop him from taking the vow? Even if he planned on breaking it after he managed to succeed. It is not like he would be thinking ”but then I have lost my feat slot..”, being an in-game character and all.
Your concept of evil seems greatly based on chaotic evil. You'll of course have to realize that there are many, many evil powers that are inherently very restrictive. Let's take Unspeakable Vow for an example. Yes, it is exactly what you would think it is, assuming you're thinking of Evil version of Sacred Vow. Yes, the feat is even Vile. There's like, Vow of the Spider Queen that gives you powers in return of you swearing to never harm any sort of vermin, for example.
And these have even worse penalties for failing, I mean, in case of Sacred Vow, you just lose it. With Unspeakable Vow, you like, turn to drider or something. It is even more of a commitment to a cause than the good vow is, then, isn't it?
So far the examples I have seen to try to justify an evil flavor for VoP are pretty weak.
It is pretty much impossible to rationalize a character of any alignment taking up the vow, if they knew nothing of its' benefits, really. Assuming they know the benefits, it's possible to rationalize character of any alignment taking it up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
What would stop an evil character from taking the VoW up with a plan to break it later, then? Or just a chaotic evil guy trying it?
Nothing would stop them, presumably, from the pretense of taking a vow. But and evil character wouldn't "mean" it if they intended to break it.
Is it? A neutral good character who'd realize he could do more good by breaking the code and using an artifact to destroy a great evil? A lawful good character who'd realize that forming a good organized religion would do more long-term good than running around being useless gimp? Assuming that ”more power => more good, assuming you are benevolent” is true, the only reason the characters are keeping the vow is either stupidity, them not really being benevolent, or selfishness in order to not get humiliated and losing your face.
The existence of counterfactuals doesn't describe probability. The number of situations in which chaotic good would encounter a reason to break the vow outnumber those of the others.
The normal vow can't be tailored to any alignment, other than stupid-stupid.
The inherent flaw is that the characters are assumed to think that they can do more X without power, which is, let's be honest here, absurd. ”Hey guys, I plan to give away my power, so I can be better at helping people. You know, using my now-diminished powers. Which are inferior in every way, but I'll still be able to do this better now. Just trust me guys, I think this is going to work.”
Perhaps that's simply the casualty of trying to adapt ascetic motivations to a game that's largely about acquiring loot.
Are you sure? Perhaps he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in long term be more beneficial to others? You are assuming that this case is impossible, and all human actions would be inherently selfish.
No, actually that is just my point. In the long term it's beneficial to oneself because it's beneficial to others. Altruism as an ideal exists because cooperative social behavior is more adaptive than noncooperative behavior. Things like social contract theory or the categorical imperative highlight that society works best when people behave ethically. That's why good has the values that it does, because they're supposed to be useful. Adhering to moral tenants even if they are bad for society doesn't seem to be very good. And even an evil character is likely to agree with the notion that society is better off if most are good, after all, the reason evil is profitable to them is because they can freeload on the properly functioning system allowed by a sufficient percent of the populace who do otherwise.
Being altruistic doesn't exclude one from having self-interest. Self interest is quite rational, so yes, we all express it unless there is something wrong with us. Selfishness, on the other hand, is self interest without any altruistic leanings.
Hell, even if that was true, let's extrapolate.
Consider:
A scientist decides to start kidnapping homeless children from the street so he can further his research regarding cure for cancer. He believes that doing this will, in the long term, be beneficial to himself, as he has cancer and believes that he can cure it. But imagine if this is true, wouldn't his actions eventually bring more good to the world than one vigilante bringing criminals to justice?
Would he, then, be good? His motivation was inherently selfish.
I don't think D&D alignments are nuanced enough to discuss the ethical implications of your example.
But it is possible to be so self-interested that you do things that help others.
This is not what's important in distinguishing the behavior from neutrality, though. It's the willingness to do harm even if you incidentally happen to be helping people at the moment.
Likewise, it is possible to be so benevolent that you do things that are harmful to others.
Only in ignorance. Knowingly harming people is not really benevolence, by definition...
Isn't the carrying point of anarchism that everyone striving to create good for themselves, I.E: being selfish, end up doing good for everyone. Is anarchism therefore a lawful good view of life, as it gives a moral code to work with under which the world would be a better place?
That might be the carrying point of straw anarchism, anyway.
You might be referring to ethical egoism, on the other hand (e.g., Ayn Rand). Such points of view don't hold up to scrutiny, which is why they aren't taken very far in academia. Again, D&D alignments aren't subtle enough for such distinctions.
There are many records of Lawful Evil looking at the long term benefit for himself, as well as others. Many of the books list Hitler as Lawful Evil. All he actually believed was a state, albeit an oppressive and tyrannic one, that would work well as a collective if everyone within it followed the orders of the superiors. Benevolent dictatorship, if you will. Isn't this idea, by your definition, inherently lawful good? Submission to authorities, everyone benefits.
It's not clear that he can be called lawful evil under your definition, either, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing this up. In the D&D world there are plenty of "always chaotic evil" races so a Hitler analogue probably could easily be thought of as lawful good by in-world characters. Which is to say D&D alignments are not good ethical guidelines for living in real life or evaluating real life examples, duh.
As much as I enjoy you bringing sociopaths into this, it is not very helpful for the situation. It is a clear-cut black/white example, you take an individual with a goal that is arguably evil (
Selfish good.), the means of achieving which are evil (Killing others.), and who has sufficient power to achieve his goals. (Removing the potential need for compromise.) Most of the time, multiples of these are not true. All your example proves is that under ideal conditions, an ideally evil character is, surprise surprise, evil.
That's just the thing, though. Alignments are black-and-white like that. Using sociopaths as an example in such a sense is useful for outlining what virtue ethics calls an "exemplar." The fact that it follows that an ideally evil character is evil is simply analytically true, yes. But we do learn a little bit more than just that tautology. Because now we know what it is that makes an ideally evil character evil.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in-game characters wouldn't sell their soul to a devil because they have some concept of the effect it will have, motivating them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects and all, being in-game characters and such.
They just wanted to get rid of their soul. Like duh.
Not really equivalent. People do sell souls to gain benefits. But they don't take vows of poverty because they want the nifty exalted bonuses. If they did, it wouldn't really have the flavor implications that it does.
First, you argued that humans are inherently selfish, then you are assuming a completely selfless act comes of them. This is an inconsistency.
That is a misinterpretation of my argument. Rational actions always consider self interest (but they do not always prioritize self interest, as in the case of self-sacrifice). But moreover, the person taking the vow of poverty isn't particularly concerned with self-interest in terms of the game bonuses they'll get (that's the province of the player). Rather they think there is a long term personal benefit to being virtuous in this manner (see Plato's Republic). This is in addition to the fact that being so virtuous is also good for other people. The fact that they gain supernatural bonuses for it is really just a mechanical incentive for players to choose such a character concept.
[quote]So, being good gives you powers. What is it about good that gives you powers, is the universe morally charged towards good, or is it just the strength of your will that grants you the powers when you believe in something enough?
If it is the former, then sure, your argument works. In the latter case, though, an character who would give up his possessions in order to achieve perfection of himself, rather than relying on his gear to help him, would also gain powers. He made a sacrifice to further his own goals, proving that he really believes in his cause, and his will would make him stronger. There is nothing stopping this character from being evil. His act would, under your view of things, be neutral. No damage done to others, no good caused to them. Assume that he just burnt all his stuff. And hey, he took the vow because it fit his ideals: He wanted to be strong enough to survive without material items. Perhaps he just wanted to transcend materia, like is the goal of many religious practices on earth. [/quote]
What is it about studying arcane tomes, or worshiping a deity, or disciplining your mind, etc etc that gives people powers? They're supernatural, as in, they don't make rational sense. We're not really discussing the mechanism that makes VoP work, because that's as bound to be fruitless as any other discussion of fantasy metaphysics. I'm merely asserting that there's some kind of flavor to good aligned characters achieving some kind of supernatural enlightenment through asceticism.
You seem to be assuming the former, though. Good = power. Good is inherently stronger, and goodness gives you power. Which, of course, makes absolutely no sense.
Exactly. It's magic, after all.
The only possible way you could justify this is the VoP benefits being a gift from a deity to someone demonstrating selflessness. And this is assuming that he really spends his time helping others, and donates his items, none of which is mandated by the feat: For all the feat cares is he could throw an epic party with his wealth, causing twenty people to die to drug overdose. But let's just assume he's a goodie-goody-selfless guy.
But what, then, stops evil gods for conferring the same benefits to someone in return of their followership and sacrifice of their gear? I mean, they have nothing against giving them spells in return for worship. Or even conferring relics or other gifts in return of acts that fulfill their portfolio. Hell, the whole drow society is formed because Lolth likes to give gifts to people who amuse her.
Nothing would stop evil from doing so. But it doesn't have much flavor. And it seems implausible than an evil character would take the deal when there's so many better options out there for an evil character as we well know. On the other hand it's hard to create game mechanics that exclusively appeal to a good perspective the way VoP does.
Wanting to do what you want, living free of moral restrictions and mandates is not an evil line of thought. It is a chaotic one.
Not necessarily. Even lawful evil characters want to do what they want. It's just that they've internalized a set of rules for themselves. But they don't value the rules for their own sake (lawful neutral) or for their usefulness (lawful good). It just happens to be the case that some of their strictly selfish motivations align with those rules.
It's not like this was D&D 4E where you cannot be lawful evil. That, and if a character wanted to become the greatest unarmed martial artist in the world and kick some ass, if he was evil, what'd stop him from taking the vow? Even if he planned on breaking it after he managed to succeed. It is not like he would be thinking ”but then I have lost my feat slot..”, being an in-game character and all.
I imagine he would be stopped by not seeing its point or usefulness to himself.
Your concept of evil seems greatly based on chaotic evil. You'll of course have to realize that there are many, many evil powers that are inherently very restrictive. Let's take Unspeakable Vow for an example. Yes, it is exactly what you would think it is, assuming you're thinking of Evil version of Sacred Vow. Yes, the feat is even Vile. There's like, Vow of the Spider Queen that gives you powers in return of you swearing to never harm any sort of vermin, for example.
And these have even worse penalties for failing, I mean, in case of Sacred Vow, you just lose it. With Unspeakable Vow, you like, turn to drider or something. It is even more of a commitment to a cause than the good vow is, then, isn't it?
I would suggest that the evil characters who take such vows do so not out of evil motivations (even with them being vile) but because of fanaticism or somesuch. Which maybe is also true for VoP and good characters, given the fairly stupid implications of it that you've outlined. There are, after all, more motivations that exist than the ones that correspond to alignment.
But also, not harming bugs or whatever might be very restrictive in the abstract as a thing associated with evil, but practically speaking it doesn't restrict people from enjoying the base desires that lead them to evil in the first place. Unless of course they take an inordinate amount of pleasure in killing bugs...
It is pretty much impossible to rationalize a character of any alignment taking up the vow, if they knew nothing of its' benefits, really. Assuming they know the benefits, it's possible to rationalize character of any alignment taking it up.
Actually it is possible, given the virtue ethics stance I briefly mentioned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If Id and Seraph could give us an updates on their concepts that would be great, I'll try to cover whatever it is we are lacking so if needed will change concepts.
@DC: I take it Spellcasting Paladins, Clerics and any other divine warrior type character is also barred from use by non-elves correct?
I am in the middle of totally revamping my character. It's a good thing.
When I said non-Elves, Fae or other races that I deem naturally magical were unable to use magic, This included ALL forms of magic, Divine, Arcane, Psionic, or those I haven't otherwise specified.
Edit: I have decided I am going to use the same rule for Vorpal Weapons as Ain Soph Aur is using in his campaign:
Vorpal weapons do not decapitate enemies but instead double the critical hit multiplier of the weapon (enhancement is worth +3).
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Outbreak
Generation B1: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
Noble Blood Stones [Minor Artifact]
These devices are created for the purpose of identifying and recognizing a noble born of a particular noble house. Each of the noble houses has a different design of blood stone. Further each noble houses blood stones do slightly different things. However they all have in common the fact that they identify an individual Noble Born based on that person's magical signature when cross referenced with the magical signature of the individual within the noble house upon whom the device was encoded (usually this is the head of the house).
Due to the fact that the device uses extremely high level magic to run its cross comparisons, it is usually very difficult to trick these devices. It requires a Use Magic Device Check, and the Difficulty will depend on the amount of effort that went into encoding the blood stone, and the purity of the noble house in question as well as the specific spells used to create the stone in question.
Hey Id no problem, im currently in summer classes so i can relate to the hassles, not pushing you to show a completed sheet just asking that if you have a concept to share it so we can see what bases are being missed.
Yeah i was thinking this was the answer, just wanted to make sure to avoid any sudden oops
YAY!!!!!
BTW Just a reminder to whoever plays a Ranger or Paladin, there is a non-spellcasting Variant in Complete Warrior so don't feel you are restricted to being an elf.
Edit: That's a rather nifty Artifact.... Warlock's anyone?
EDIT: Oh you meant World of Warcraft Warlocks? Now I feel stupid.... /facepalm
Yes i was talking about that, however i think you are underestimating D&D Warlocks, Deceive Item means they can Take 10 on the UMD check making them easier to trick a real stone, once tricked a warlock can Hax it like its Hotz (yes i just made a multi layered pun :p), also the Imbue Item Class Feature lets them create a false bloodstone if they so wish... i mean Hax a real stone, try to get info on other parts of the 'database' forge your own, and yay free DLC
Cue Amadi's long explanation on how he achieves all this with absolutely no ranks in UMD and being a Commoner in 3....2....1....
I kid i kid
Seriously though, it seems ASA is doing blasting/healing, Seraph is doing Ranged Combat so just need to see what Id wants to build so i can be sure we have all bases covered.
EDIT: New Custom Deity listed in the Opening Post.
EDIT: Also there are a few epic level spells that Mage of the Arcane Order does NOT get access to automatically at epic level in this campaign, specifically plot device based spells.
EDIT2: I am also now allowing Sorcerer's to gain Bonus feats as per the Wizard Bonus Feat progression.
What's the ruling and pricing on adding non-enhancement bonuses to ability scores?
Now more pondering about items...
But first a few questions.
1. what stat system are we using?
2. May I use the spell point variant as outlined in UA?
3. Does vow of poverty necisarily require good alingment? I can see reasons for other charecters taking it. For example, an evil charecter may want to sacrifice his treasures to a master, perhaps a dragon, demon, or powerful undead, in exchange for his master giving him power.
My charecter's concept for vow of poverty is that he is giving up his ties to the unnatural world and Gaia (or whatever you would call mother nature) rewards him for it.
4. I played a game a while ago where the DM allowed me to put templates on animal companions simply by subtractiing their CR adjustment from my effective druid level. Would you allow this or some other way of adding templates?
5. Along the lines of vow of poverty: It's supposed to give bonus exalted feats at every even level, but since the rest of the book is banned, it is not possible to get these feats. Is there any compensation for not getting them (mayhaps a real feat every 4th or maybe 6th level)?
As for charecter background/concept, he belives that the snetient beings are falling too far from the natural world, and is attempting to return the world to a more natural state. That being said, he only travels with a party in order to further his goal, though his intent may not be obvious.
Is this an acceptable charecter concept?
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Outbreak
Generation B1: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
32-Point Mamelon System
Yes good's a requirement, also note that Vow of Poverty Bonuses are not retroactive, you only gain the bonuses from the point/level you get the Vow, so lets say you take VoP at level 6 you do not gain the bonuses from level's 1-5 only 6 onwards (which means you will get some stat bonuses decreased.) so better build accordingly.
Nope, Vow of Poverty is a willful decision to give the money away to help as many people as possible, completely different from what you are describing.
I honestly think that it would be best to allow you access to the Exalted Feats they aren't broken actually, although the alternative of taking regular feats isn't bad either (but perhaps too good... in the end its up to DC to decide)
It sounds like a Neutral Good to me, good intentions, although not necessarily virtuous ones, True Neutral also works.
Looks ok to me, Elves are very likely to feel this way anyways due to their connection to nature.
If we do, it should apply to all casters.
I can imagine a more lawful aligned variant on VoP, but not an evil one. Your example doesn't even really make sense; giving up all your possessions to a demon doesn't make you evil, it makes you a chump. Even if you get powers in return it's not something an evil character would agree to because you're never allowed to gain any new material possessions again. The evil character wouldn't see the point in this restriction; why does it matter to the master whether or not it has material possessions? Wanting those possessions in the first place for itself is even a bit iffy as such a creature probably has means beyond them. Furthermore, while evil characters are motivated by power, they are also selfish and greedy. Giving up their material comforts, their symbols of status and power, just doesn't fit. Evil takes short cuts and puts themselves first. It doesn't sacrifice for the benefit of another. It wants power so that it can benefit itself.
Both in the real world and in fiction, you give up your material possessions either because you want to help people or because you want to attain a spiritual state for yourself. These are good and lawful motivations, respectively.
Actually, I am fairly certain that the bonuses from VoP are retroactive, with the exception of the feats.
----------
Regarding the alignment restrictions, we have to understand that there are three parts to VoP, and to any other ability as well. Effect, Flavour, and Rules.
The Effect here is simple enough; give up material possessions, get powers. This isn't inherently good. It does have a lawful tendency, considering that by the very nature it is a pact. This is a very low tendency, though, and wouldn't be enough to stop even chaotic creatures from agreeing to the deal.
The Flavour here is a bit different, though. The explanation for voluntary poverty has absolutely nothing that implies a good character. You give up possessions to achieve enlightment. This can be an evil act, motivated by greed, given the subject believes that the powers he is gaining will be greater than the items sacrificed. This can be a good act, if the subject donates his earnings to a charity. It can just be a neutral act, where the subject tries to achieve serenity for himself.
The Rules are the only part that says "this is good". Mostly because the feat requires you to be good, considering it is an exalted feat. It is not even enough that you're good, here. You have to be a paragon of good of the highest moral standards, and you have to gain the feat as a gift from a higher power. Not only this, but if you even do one evil act, you will lose access to the feat. Hell, you even get an effing aura of good by taking one of these feats.
In design, the hierarchy of these three should generally go Flavour > Effect > Rules, where Effect is there to represent the Flavour in in-game terms, and the Rules are there to make Effects possible as long as Flavour is not violated. If this is failed, the design is flawed.
The situation from player-perspective is fairly different, though. One could say it's backwards. First, they must go through the Rules to qualify, followed by gaining benefits of the Effect and then modifying the Flavour of their character to match. This is where the flaw in the original design of the ability becomes clear; If there is a mismatch, the Rules are preventing the character gaining access to a Flavour they feel would be suitable for their character.
Sometimes, this mismatch is due to attempts to balance something. Either the Rules are made specifically restrictive to stop certain interactions from taking place, or the Effects are downplayed from the flavour in order to stop everyone ever taking the ability. Sometimes they are just an oversight on the designers' part.
In the case of VoP, I'd verge on the latter side. The effect isn't strong, and definitely does not need to be restricted for good characters for that reason. To be honest, for most characters the feat is just a cool way of screwing yourself up, unless you are playing in a low-low-magic-game, where your access to item shops would be severely limited. Alternatively, some characters gain great benefits from the feat at lower levels; See monks below level 5.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Well, chaotic creatures might accept the deal on a whim, and then break it on a whim. Currently nothing restricts you from being chaotic good with VoP, but of the three allowable alignments it's the most likely one to break the feat. But that's aside from the point. The alignments here stand for ideals when considering whether an effect can be tailored to fit them (rather than an effect merely available to a character of that alignment). That is to say, could you make a version of VoP that emphasized chaotic alignment? I don't think you can, because ideally that's not how chaos works. The closest I can think of would be an anarchist character who disavows material possessions as symbols of the oppression of society, but even then it seems chaotic good.
Evil seems even less plausible.
I think there is some incoherency in your definition of motivations.
Consider:
A character decides to take up a paladin's code of honor because he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in the long term be more beneficial to himself. Under your definition, that would be an evil motivation. But if that's true, then it would be pretty much impossible for anything to be good at all, since everyone has some level of self-interest motivating their actions. If that's the only qualifier we have to go by evil becomes ubiquitous and therefore meaningless and not very useful as a descriptive term. Good and evil as qualities have to stand out as being somewhat exceptional. Evil can't just be self-interested, it has to be so self-interested that it does things that are harmful to others. Good can't just be benevolent, it has to be so benevolent that it does things that help others.
The general demarcation between good and evil, if we want these concepts to be useful, is that evil thinks about the short term benefit to itself and ignores others, whereas good considers others as part of a long term motivation in which everyone benefits by cooperative interaction. We can see how this works out in real life in the sense that sociopaths have no sense of restraint; they don't think about the long term. But most ethical theories (which are serious about the pursuit of ethics) are aimed at the notion of how they would apply on the societal level.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in-game characters wouldn't take the vow of poverty because they have some concept of the effect it will have and this motivates them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects at all, being in-game characters and such. They take the vow because it fits their ideals, and those ideals are either good (or lawful) motivations. That is, your ideals of helping others cause you to give up your possessions so that you can dedicate yourself to giving to others. And this is, incidentally, the reason why the effects come into place. A vow of poverty only represents that the character has such incredible goodness that they end up gaining supernatural powers. But such an effect considered in a vacuum isn't obvious. That is, if you disregard alignment ideals there's nothing about giving up material possessions that suggests gaining powers. Furthermore, if we are considering evil alignment in particular, even awareness of the effect doesn't seem like it would appeal for the same reason that living by high moral standards wouldn't appeal: evil characters want to do what they want. Power that is inherently very restrictive to baser desires is not the kind of power that evil finds useful.
While I don't dispute that rules-wise there's nothing about VoP's strength of effect that necessitates strong alignment restrictions, I do think it is against the flavor. So far the examples I have seen to try to justify an evil flavor for VoP are pretty weak.
What would stop an evil character from taking the VoW up with a plan to break it later, then? Or just a chaotic evil guy trying it?
Is it? A neutral good character who'd realize he could do more good by breaking the code and using an artifact to destroy a great evil? A lawful good character who'd realize that forming a good organized religion would do more long-term good than running around being useless gimp? Assuming that ”more power => more good, assuming you are benevolent” is true, the only reason the characters are keeping the vow is either stupidity, them not really being benevolent, or selfishness in order to not get humiliated and losing your face.
The normal vow can't be tailored to any alignment, other than stupid-stupid.
The inherent flaw is that the characters are assumed to think that they can do more X without power, which is, let's be honest here, absurd. ”Hey guys, I plan to give away my power, so I can be better at helping people. You know, using my now-diminished powers. Which are inferior in every way, but I'll still be able to do this better now. Just trust me guys, I think this is going to work.”
Even giving your items to charity is pretty much absurd, considering that you could almost certainly use that wealth to amass more wealth, and get more wealth, and then you could testament it all to charity once you die, actually giving everyone wildly superior long-term benefits. You'd have to be like, a chaotic-sort-sighted-stupid-good character, who would agree to a lawful-code, in order to really justify VoP as an ideal, unless you actually knew you would be gaining powers from the decision.
I think there is some incoherency in your definition of motivations.
Consider:
A character decides to take up a paladin's code of honor because he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in the long term be more beneficial to himself. Under your definition, that would be an evil motivation. But if that's true, then it would be pretty much impossible for anything to be good at all, since everyone has some level of self-interest motivating their actions.
Are you sure? Perhaps he or she believes that acting under the restrictions of the code will in long term be more beneficial to others? You are assuming that this case is impossible, and all human actions would be inherently selfish.
Hell, even if that was true, let's extrapolate.
Consider:
A scientist decides to start kidnapping homeless children from the street so he can further his research regarding cure for cancer. He believes that doing this will, in the long term, be beneficial to himself, as he has cancer and believes that he can cure it. But imagine if this is true, wouldn't his actions eventually bring more good to the world than one vigilante bringing criminals to justice?
Would he, then, be good? His motivation was inherently selfish.
If that's the only qualifier we have to go by evil becomes ubiquitous and therefore meaningless and not very useful as a descriptive term. Good and evil as qualities have to stand out as being somewhat exceptional. Evil can't just be self-interested, it has to be so self-interested that it does things that are harmful to others. Good can't just be benevolent, it has to be so benevolent that it does things that help others.
But it is possible to be so self-interested that you do things that help others. Likewise, it is possible to be so benevolent that you do things that are harmful to others. Isn't the carrying point of anarchism that everyone striving to create good for themselves, I.E: being selfish, end up doing good for everyone. Is anarchism therefore a lawful good view of life, as it gives a moral code to work with under which the world would be a better place?
There are many records of Lawful Evil looking at the long term benefit for himself, as well as others. Many of the books list Hitler as Lawful Evil. All he actually believed was a state, albeit an oppressive and tyrannic one, that would work well as a collective if everyone within it followed the orders of the superiors. Benevolent dictatorship, if you will. Isn't this idea, by your definition, inherently lawful good? Submission to authorities, everyone benefits.
As much as I enjoy you bringing sociopaths into this, it is not very helpful for the situation. It is a clear-cut black/white example, you take an individual with a goal that is arguably evil (Selfish good.), the means of achieving which are evil (Killing others.), and who has sufficient power to achieve his goals. (Removing the potential need for compromise.) Most of the time, multiples of these are not true. All your example proves is that under ideal conditions, an ideally evil character is, surprise surprise, evil. e vow of poverty because they have some concept of the effect it will have and this motivates them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects at all, being in-game characters and such. They take the vow because it fits their ideals, and those ideals are either good (or lawful) motivations.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in-game characters wouldn't sell their soul to a devil because they have some concept of the effect it will have, motivating them to do it. I doubt they would anticipate the effects and all, being in-game characters and such.
They just wanted to get rid of their soul. Like duh.
First, you argued that humans are inherently selfish, then you are assuming a completely selfless act comes of them. This is an inconsistency.
So, being good gives you powers. What is it about good that gives you powers, is the universe morally charged towards good, or is it just the strength of your will that grants you the powers when you believe in something enough?
If it is the former, then sure, your argument works. In the latter case, though, an character who would give up his possessions in order to achieve perfection of himself, rather than relying on his gear to help him, would also gain powers. He made a sacrifice to further his own goals, proving that he really believes in his cause, and his will would make him stronger. There is nothing stopping this character from being evil. His act would, under your view of things, be neutral. No damage done to others, no good caused to them. Assume that he just burnt all his stuff. And hey, he took the vow because it fit his ideals: He wanted to be strong enough to survive without material items. Perhaps he just wanted to transcend materia, like is the goal of many religious practices on earth.
You seem to be assuming the former, though. Good = power. Good is inherently stronger, and goodness gives you power. Which, of course, makes absolutely no sense. The only possible way you could justify this is the VoP benefits being a gift from a deity to someone demonstrating selflessness. And this is assuming that he really spends his time helping others, and donates his items, none of which is mandated by the feat: For all the feat cares is he could throw an epic party with his wealth, causing twenty people to die to drug overdose. But let's just assume he's a goodie-goody-selfless guy.
But what, then, stops evil gods for conferring the same benefits to someone in return of their followership and sacrifice of their gear? I mean, they have nothing against giving them spells in return for worship. Or even conferring relics or other gifts in return of acts that fulfill their portfolio. Hell, the whole drow society is formed because Lolth likes to give gifts to people who amuse her.
Wanting to do what you want, living free of moral restrictions and mandates is not an evil line of thought. It is a chaotic one. It's not like this was D&D 4E where you cannot be lawful evil. That, and if a character wanted to become the greatest unarmed martial artist in the world and kick some ass, if he was evil, what'd stop him from taking the vow? Even if he planned on breaking it after he managed to succeed. It is not like he would be thinking ”but then I have lost my feat slot..”, being an in-game character and all.
Your concept of evil seems greatly based on chaotic evil. You'll of course have to realize that there are many, many evil powers that are inherently very restrictive. Let's take Unspeakable Vow for an example. Yes, it is exactly what you would think it is, assuming you're thinking of Evil version of Sacred Vow. Yes, the feat is even Vile. There's like, Vow of the Spider Queen that gives you powers in return of you swearing to never harm any sort of vermin, for example.
And these have even worse penalties for failing, I mean, in case of Sacred Vow, you just lose it. With Unspeakable Vow, you like, turn to drider or something. It is even more of a commitment to a cause than the good vow is, then, isn't it?
So far the examples I have seen to try to justify an evil flavor for VoP are pretty weak.
It is pretty much impossible to rationalize a character of any alignment taking up the vow, if they knew nothing of its' benefits, really. Assuming they know the benefits, it's possible to rationalize character of any alignment taking it up.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Nothing would stop them, presumably, from the pretense of taking a vow. But and evil character wouldn't "mean" it if they intended to break it.
The existence of counterfactuals doesn't describe probability. The number of situations in which chaotic good would encounter a reason to break the vow outnumber those of the others.
Perhaps that's simply the casualty of trying to adapt ascetic motivations to a game that's largely about acquiring loot.
No, actually that is just my point. In the long term it's beneficial to oneself because it's beneficial to others. Altruism as an ideal exists because cooperative social behavior is more adaptive than noncooperative behavior. Things like social contract theory or the categorical imperative highlight that society works best when people behave ethically. That's why good has the values that it does, because they're supposed to be useful. Adhering to moral tenants even if they are bad for society doesn't seem to be very good. And even an evil character is likely to agree with the notion that society is better off if most are good, after all, the reason evil is profitable to them is because they can freeload on the properly functioning system allowed by a sufficient percent of the populace who do otherwise.
Being altruistic doesn't exclude one from having self-interest. Self interest is quite rational, so yes, we all express it unless there is something wrong with us. Selfishness, on the other hand, is self interest without any altruistic leanings.
I don't think D&D alignments are nuanced enough to discuss the ethical implications of your example.
This is not what's important in distinguishing the behavior from neutrality, though. It's the willingness to do harm even if you incidentally happen to be helping people at the moment.
Only in ignorance. Knowingly harming people is not really benevolence, by definition...
That might be the carrying point of straw anarchism, anyway.
You might be referring to ethical egoism, on the other hand (e.g., Ayn Rand). Such points of view don't hold up to scrutiny, which is why they aren't taken very far in academia. Again, D&D alignments aren't subtle enough for such distinctions.
It's not clear that he can be called lawful evil under your definition, either, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing this up. In the D&D world there are plenty of "always chaotic evil" races so a Hitler analogue probably could easily be thought of as lawful good by in-world characters. Which is to say D&D alignments are not good ethical guidelines for living in real life or evaluating real life examples, duh.
Selfish good.), the means of achieving which are evil (Killing others.), and who has sufficient power to achieve his goals. (Removing the potential need for compromise.) Most of the time, multiples of these are not true. All your example proves is that under ideal conditions, an ideally evil character is, surprise surprise, evil.
That's just the thing, though. Alignments are black-and-white like that. Using sociopaths as an example in such a sense is useful for outlining what virtue ethics calls an "exemplar." The fact that it follows that an ideally evil character is evil is simply analytically true, yes. But we do learn a little bit more than just that tautology. Because now we know what it is that makes an ideally evil character evil.
Not really equivalent. People do sell souls to gain benefits. But they don't take vows of poverty because they want the nifty exalted bonuses. If they did, it wouldn't really have the flavor implications that it does.
That is a misinterpretation of my argument. Rational actions always consider self interest (but they do not always prioritize self interest, as in the case of self-sacrifice). But moreover, the person taking the vow of poverty isn't particularly concerned with self-interest in terms of the game bonuses they'll get (that's the province of the player). Rather they think there is a long term personal benefit to being virtuous in this manner (see Plato's Republic). This is in addition to the fact that being so virtuous is also good for other people. The fact that they gain supernatural bonuses for it is really just a mechanical incentive for players to choose such a character concept.
[quote]So, being good gives you powers. What is it about good that gives you powers, is the universe morally charged towards good, or is it just the strength of your will that grants you the powers when you believe in something enough?
If it is the former, then sure, your argument works. In the latter case, though, an character who would give up his possessions in order to achieve perfection of himself, rather than relying on his gear to help him, would also gain powers. He made a sacrifice to further his own goals, proving that he really believes in his cause, and his will would make him stronger. There is nothing stopping this character from being evil. His act would, under your view of things, be neutral. No damage done to others, no good caused to them. Assume that he just burnt all his stuff. And hey, he took the vow because it fit his ideals: He wanted to be strong enough to survive without material items. Perhaps he just wanted to transcend materia, like is the goal of many religious practices on earth. [/quote]
What is it about studying arcane tomes, or worshiping a deity, or disciplining your mind, etc etc that gives people powers? They're supernatural, as in, they don't make rational sense. We're not really discussing the mechanism that makes VoP work, because that's as bound to be fruitless as any other discussion of fantasy metaphysics. I'm merely asserting that there's some kind of flavor to good aligned characters achieving some kind of supernatural enlightenment through asceticism.
Exactly. It's magic, after all.
Nothing would stop evil from doing so. But it doesn't have much flavor. And it seems implausible than an evil character would take the deal when there's so many better options out there for an evil character as we well know. On the other hand it's hard to create game mechanics that exclusively appeal to a good perspective the way VoP does.
Not necessarily. Even lawful evil characters want to do what they want. It's just that they've internalized a set of rules for themselves. But they don't value the rules for their own sake (lawful neutral) or for their usefulness (lawful good). It just happens to be the case that some of their strictly selfish motivations align with those rules.
I imagine he would be stopped by not seeing its point or usefulness to himself.
I would suggest that the evil characters who take such vows do so not out of evil motivations (even with them being vile) but because of fanaticism or somesuch. Which maybe is also true for VoP and good characters, given the fairly stupid implications of it that you've outlined. There are, after all, more motivations that exist than the ones that correspond to alignment.
But also, not harming bugs or whatever might be very restrictive in the abstract as a thing associated with evil, but practically speaking it doesn't restrict people from enjoying the base desires that lead them to evil in the first place. Unless of course they take an inordinate amount of pleasure in killing bugs...
Actually it is possible, given the virtue ethics stance I briefly mentioned.