OSSR: Book of Exalted Deeds

[Kaelik]

The Forsaker, on the other hand, is required to destroy magic items, refuse to be healed with magic, refuse to have Waterbreathing cast on him before going on the underwater adventure, to resist having raise dead cast on them and in general act like the very worst kind of hoorah, magic-is-for-wussies sundertard in the world. In exchange, he gets full BAB, like 5 DR/magic and spell resistance.

The Vow of Peace dude could theoretically go on the adventure and not be shit. The Forsaker cannot. Everything he does is shit. Now, admittedly, most people who take Vow of Peace are going to actively strive to be shit, but it's not a strict requirement like it is for a Forsaker.

I think you are overstating the Forsaker thing too much. He destroys magic items, so what, how is that any different than anyone else taking a share of the treasure and not letting you use it?

And yeah, he has to resist aid, so what, that just means you ignore him, and if he can't follow you, then you are fine.

Vow of Nonviolence basically says that if my character wants to not have enemies get back up after every fight and fight them all over again, I have to literally kill the character who took Vow of Nonviolence, because they explicitly are told that it breaks the vow to not attack me to prevent me from killing anyone who is "helpless" including anyone they have cast a spell on.

[hyzmarca]

Vow of nonviolence isn't that bad when you stack it with as many Charisma and Diplomacy bonuses as you can get and the DM uses the rules as written, so that you can turn any emeny from hostile to friendly in a single action.

[Grek]

Vow of Nonviolence basically says that if my character wants to not have enemies get back up after every fight and fight them all over again, I have to literally kill the character who took Vow of Nonviolence, because they explicitly are told that it breaks the vow to not attack me to prevent me from killing anyone who is "helpless" including anyone they have cast a spell on.

Helpless means helpless. It's a defined term in D&D, it means what it means in the glossary. If the person you're playing with argues otherwise, they are wrong. With that being the case, you have options: Take the enemy prisoner. Maroon them on a deserted island. Make them swear an oath to stop interfering with your plans*. Kill the enemy the first time with things that don't make them helpless first. . Or, if all else fails, do what you suggested to do with the Forsaker: ignore him and walk away. The Vow of Nonviolence's guilt effect only applies to his allies, so you can just denounce him and declare that you are not his ally any more.

*If they break that oath, you're allowed to kill them and the Vow of Peace guy doesn't have to stop you. It's in the feat rules.

Vow of nonviolence isn't that bad when you stack it with as many Charisma and Diplomacy bonuses as you can get and the DM uses the rules as written, so that you can turn any enemy from hostile to friendly in a single action.

No, this is the case where it is bad. Breaking the game with diplomacy is bad. This is because the diplomacy rules as written are bad. You should strive not to use them where possible

[Kaelik]

Helpless means helpless. It's a defined term in D&D, it means what it means in the glossary. If the person you're playing with argues otherwise, they are wrong. With that being the case, you have options: Take the enemy prisoner. Maroon them on a deserted island. Make them swear an oath to stop interfering with your plans*. Kill the enemy the first time with things that don't make them helpless first.

Yes, and what I am saying is that I cannot always guarantee that my enemies will go from the "conscious" stage to the "dead" stage without entering helpless. Like for example, any time HP damage has them end up between -1 and -9. So straight up a good chunk of the time, I am just going to have to let them keep fucking living.

And yes, you can take them prisoner, which is fucking hard as shit to do most of the time, like any time you don't speak the same language, and any time you need to do it to someone of even moderate level, and anytime you need to do it several times before taking a trip back to a stronghold.

And again, marooning is fucking harder than prisoning. And yes, you only have to beat every enemy that lives twice, because the second time you are allowed to kill them, but fuck that.

And finally, you are failing to remember that Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence are two different things.

Vow of Nonviolence only says helpless, but Vow of Peace says "You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them."

Which means that if you are fighting a whole host of low level bandits, and the Vow of Peace character casts Glitterdust on them, he has to fight you to submission if you ever try to kill any of them.

So Yeah, Vow of Peace forces me to kill my own goddam party member.

[Grek]

If casting a spell as a Vow of Peace character means that the party has to fight the enemy without killing them, that does not mean that you cast the spell and then try to incapacitate the enemy. It means that you don't cast that spell, you cast something else. If you go ahead and cast Glitterdust when you know it means that doing so will make the fight harder for the party, you are being a disruptive jackass. Exactly like if you decided to cast Fireball on the party instead. But that doesn't mean you should ban all AoE effects. It just means you should not play with people who are disruptive jackasses.

[Username17]

If casting a spell as a Vow of Peace character means that the party has to fight the enemy without killing them, that does not mean that you cast the spell and then try to incapacitate the enemy. It means that you don't cast that spell, you cast something else. If you go ahead and cast Glitterdust when you know it means that doing so will make the fight harder for the party, you are being a disruptive jackass. Exactly like if you decided to cast Fireball on the party instead. But that doesn't mean you should ban all AoE effects. It just means you should not play with people who are disruptive jackasses.

But that's every spell that the Apostle of Peace casts. Literally everything they can do in combat involves being a disruptive jackass. Nothing they are capable of doing, including simply standing within 120 feet of their nominal allies is anything other than disruptive asshattery. If the entire rest of the party doesn't spec themselves entirely to non-lethal captures followed by diplomancy, the Apostle of Peace hands out morale penalties and mandatory intra-party conflict to their own side.

It's not just that they are only allowed to throw around disabling strikes and have to use diplomancy on literally every single enemy they defeat ever. It's that if anyone on their team uses the sharp end of their sword ever, they are required to go after the other players. It is without a doubt, the worst thing ever written for D&D.

-Username17

[Grek]

Unless the Apostle of Peace has some additional requirements I can't see, then no. That is not the case. You can totally play an Apostle of Peace without being a disruptive dick sandwich in the process. The requirements to do so are:

-You can't personally kill, debuff or deal lethal direct damage any living creature. Allies doing so is fine.
-If an enemy is rendered helpless as per the D&D mechanical definition of the word, you have to tie them up instead of letting the party coup de grace them.
-You have to still contribute to the party in a meaningful way. This means healing, buffs, providing the Scry part of Scry & Die and Save-or-Surrender spells like Charm and Dominate Person which take an enemy out of the fight without actually killing them.

That's all. You don't have to attack party members who don't want to do nonlethal damage. It isn't a requirement, and if you go the extra mile to do so, it's because you've misunderstood the rules or because you think the prestige class gives you license to be a dick.

[OgreBattle]

Does the A-Team qualify for following that vow's non-lethal requirements? They always incapacitate their enemies.

[Kaelik]

If casting a spell as a Vow of Peace character means that the party has to fight the enemy without killing them, that does not mean that you cast the spell and then try to incapacitate the enemy. It means that you don't cast that spell, you cast something else. If you go ahead and cast Glitterdust when you know it means that doing so will make the fight harder for the party, you are being a disruptive jackass. Exactly like if you decided to cast Fireball on the party instead. But that doesn't mean you should ban all AoE effects. It just means you should not play with people who are disruptive jackasses.

You are an idiot.

A character casting Glitterdust does in fact make the fight easier than them not casting it. Therefore, a character with Vow of Peace will cast debuffs, because that is the best way for them to aid the party, and they have no disadvantages doing so. The only thing they are doing is saving more lives. It makes the after fight much harder, but only because after every fight there is a conflict between the VoP character and everyone else.

Exactly like a Vow of Peace character will not refuse to use non-lethal damage on enemies, even though doing so drastically increases the chance that enemies will go unconscious, thus burdening the party. Because it is not a burden unless your actual goal is to murder people, and the VoP character is not okay with that goal.

You keep insisting that the VoP character should just literally light their own goals on fire by deferring 200% to everyone else's goals, more so than any other character ever, including not taking actions that are demonstrably helpful to defeat enemies, because they might save more lives, and saving lives is bad.

The VoP character is not an disruptive jackass for helping the party win battles in the most effective way that in absolutely no way disadvantages the party except that it saves enemy lives. It is the Vow of Peace, taking it at all forces allies to let enemies live sometimes, therefore taking an action that increases the number is already presumptivly okay because you okayed taking the feat.

Casting glitterdust isn't any different than taking the feat in the first place in it's results. If casting glitterdust is disruptive jackassery, then taking the goddam feat is too.

[PoliteNewb]

The requirements to do so are:

-You can't personally kill, debuff or deal lethal direct damage any living creature. Allies doing so is fine.
-If an enemy is rendered helpless as per the D&D mechanical definition of the word, you have to tie them up instead of letting the party coup de grace them.
-You have to still contribute to the party in a meaningful way. This means healing, buffs, providing the Scry part of Scry & Die and Save-or-Surrender spells like Charm and Dominate Person which take an enemy out of the fight without actually killing them.

Well, you left out a few things...

a.) If your allies are within 120' of you and they kill people, they take penalties. But as long as you stay away from them, you're fine.
b.) The bit focused on "helpless" is from Vow of Nonviolence. Vow of Peace involves this line:

You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them.

Depending on your interpretation of "incapacitate or weaken", this can include casting glitterdust. But by no means does it prevent you from buffing or healing your allies, as long as you don't personally contribute to killing fools.

That's all. You don't have to attack party members who don't want to do nonlethal damage. It isn't a requirement, and if you go the extra mile to do so, it's because you've misunderstood the rules or because you think the prestige class gives you license to be a dick.

I also don't know where the hell Frank is getting the requirement to attack your allies...it doesn't say that anywhere that I can see.

[Username17]

But as long as you stay away from them, you're fine.

Actually no. If you leave with the knowledge that they have people in their custody, you're supposed to get them to promise to play nice. If they break their word, they get the penalty as if you were there. The only way to keep this shit from happening is to spend the entire combat and the entire post-battle period more than 120 feet from all enemies and allies.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I also don't know where the hell Frank is getting the requirement to attack your allies...it doesn't say that anywhere that I can see.

Technically, they don't have to, but since it breaks their vow to not prevent you, it seems very likely that they will do everything short of break their vow to prevent you from killing anyone they have done anything to, or anyone who is helpless.

Yeah, they could not glitterdust you to prevent you from coup de gracing someone, but then, when you successfully coup de grace, they lose their vow and its "benefits." So why were they playing a Vow character anyway?

[fectin]

Pretty sure most eastern religions have a much stronger focus on abstaining from [damn near everything] and asceticism than Christianity. I mean, right up front the backstory of the Ramayana starts out with a guy starving for three years to disguise himself as good.

Too, it's a little hard to cleanly blame Christianity specifically for asceticism, since it was already part of western culture (see: Diogenes), though it admittedly played a smaller role.

[Grek]

a.) If your allies are within 120' of you and they kill people, they take penalties. But as long as you stay away from them, you're fine.

That's straight up not true. The two prohibitions against killing for a Apostle of Peace are:

To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes. You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such foes through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, pain effects, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death, suffering, or great harm. Your purity is so great that any ally of yours who slays a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of you feels great remorse.

and

To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them

They require that the Apostle not hurt anyone personally. And they require that the Apostle not cast incapacitating spells on enemies who the party will try to kill. And they require that the Apostle try to stop allies from killing 'a helpless or defenseless foe'. But that's all. If your allies kill people who are neither helpless nor defenseless at the time of their death, nothing happens. No penalty, no loss of feat powers, nothing. It's perfectly acceptable by the letter of the vow.

The thing where you always take morale penalties for all killing is a straight up myth. The rules do not say that. They do not even imply that. They go out of their way to flag the conditions where killing people is perfectly acceptable for the Apostle's party members. And they are:
-Any nonliving creature.
-Any living creatures which the Apostle has not cast spells on and which are neither humanoids nor monstrous humanoids .
-Any humanoids/monstrous humanoids which the Apostle has not cast spells on and which are not currently helpless as per the D&D definition of the word.
-Any helpless humanoids/monstrous humanoids which the Apostle has not cast spells on and who have broken an oath of noninterference to the Apostle.
-No living creatures the Apostle has cast spells on.
-No humanoids (monstrous or otherwise) which are helpless but have not broken their oath of noninterference.

[Orion]

Damn, that disable or weaken clause is vague. But we already know the authors believe in double effect, so it doesn't seem that bad. You're not allowed to blind enemies with glitterdust in an attempt to help your party kill them. So, your party members need to refrain from doing something obviously fatal, like casting Slay Living. But according to double effect, your allies can probably get away with stabbing enemies with swords as long as their intent is to stab them to -5 and then stabilize them. If they should happen to get critted down to -10, so be it.

Your allies can stuff all the unconscious enemies in a bag, then wake them up and have a mass execution later.

[Grek]

So, your party members need to refrain from doing something obviously fatal, like casting Slay Living.

As long as the Apostle doesn't cast Glitterdust before the wizard casts Slay Living, then Slay Living is perfectly acceptable by the letter of the vow. Which is the reason why Glitterdust is such a terrible spell for the Apostle to be casting, since it means Slay Living is no longer acceptable on all the enemies it hits.

[name_here]

Those restrictions don't seem unreasonable for the party. I mean, it comes down to not being allowed to murder incapacitated people (and only people, demons and dragons and animals are just fine), which isn't a serious problem unless you're depending on short-duration sleep or hold effects to win fights. Now, the person playing it is stuck being a buff/heal bot when fighting living enemies, which sucks, but the party just needs to carry around rope when fighting humanoids. I don't even see a requirement that you prevent people from bleeding out in there.

[Kaelik]

So, your party members need to refrain from doing something obviously fatal, like casting Slay Living.

As long as the Apostle doesn't cast Glitterdust before the wizard casts Slay Living, then Slay Living is perfectly acceptable by the letter of the vow. Which is the reason why Glitterdust is such a terrible spell for the Apostle to be casting, since it means Slay Living is no longer acceptable on all the enemies it hits.

Grek, you keep maintaining that the Vow of Peace character's goal in each fight should be to minimize the number of living enemies and maximize the number of dead enemies with all of his actions.

This is literally the exact opposite of the characters who would actually take Vow of Peace. I mean if you are some kind of Illusionist who took it with the intention of using Illusions, it is because you believe that using your illusions will allow you to peacefully end fights while keeping lots of enemies alive and getting them to not be a problem anymore. It is not because you really want to murder as many people as possible and you just have other people around to do it.

[Kaelik]

(and only people, demons and dragons and animals are just fine)

Point of fact, Grek is totally just lying his fucking ass off about demons and dragons and his humanoid/monstrous humanoid v. everything else distinction.

The restrictions apply to any "living foes" or "helpless foe." Which, since Living creature is defined as "Not constructs or undead" means that not only can you not allow your party to kill helpless dragons or demons, or ones you have incapacitated, they also can't do it to animals or even vermin.

[hyzmarca]

Also, instead of merely tying him up or whatever and leaving him for his allies to find, you could probably dismember him, remove his tongue, and blind him, and leave him for his allies or some hungry animals to find.

While the wording specifically prohibits dealing ability damage, it doesn't prohibit outright dismembering the helpless enemy and then leaving the now armless and legless man out to slowly and horribly die of exposure.
Teleport has a verbal component, so tongue removal will prevent a magic user from casting it. Someone with those injuries could call for help using a pre-existing telepathic bond, but not much else. If they have spell-like abilities, they can use those, but if they got teleportation or communication spell-likes then they're probably not humanoid.

[Username17]

Those restrictions don't seem unreasonable for the party. I mean, it comes down to not being allowed to murder incapacitated people (and only people, demons and dragons and animals are just fine)

This is completely wrong. Undead and Constructs are OK (even intelligent Undead and Constructs), but Dragons, Demons and even Dire Bears count as "living creatures". The restrictions are vague and bullshit enough without you making up horse shit to make it sound less onerous.

Also remember the important part Grek is cutting out:

You may ask your allies to give you an oath that a helpless foe will not be slain. If the oath is sworn, an ally who later breaks the oath takes the penalty for doing so as if you were present. If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow.

There is no escape. If you leave, you're boned. If you leave after getting your allies to promise to not slay the fallen enemies, then you're OK but they are boned. There is absolutely no way to avoid bonage. Everyone is required to use nonlethal takedowns and then diplomance the captured enemies. Really. There is no option 2.

Your allies can stuff all the unconscious enemies in a bag, then wake them up and have a mass execution later.

The penalty stacks with itself up to your character level, I don't know how you think a mass execution is going to help anything.

-Username17

[Grek]

The restrictions apply to any "living foes" or "helpless foe." Which, since Living creature is defined as "Not constructs or undead" means that not only can you not allow your party to kill helpless dragons or demons, or ones you have incapacitated, they also can't do it to animals or even vermin.

Vow of Nonviolence specifically only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids. So restrictions found in Vow of Nonviolence but not in Vow of Peace are only applicable to humanoids and monstrous humanoids. And since the stuff about allies killing helpless enemies is only in Vow of Nonviolence, your allies can kill all the helpless demons and dragons they want. Vow of Nonviolence does not say you have to stop them from killing helpless dragons and the Vow of Peace says nothing about allies killing helpless enemies at all.

[quote="FrankTrollman]There is no escape. If you leave, you're boned. If you leave after getting your allies to promise to not slay the fallen enemies, then you're OK but they are boned. There is absolutely no way to avoid bonage. Everyone is required to use nonlethal takedowns and then diplomance the captured enemies. Really. There is no option 2. [/quote]
Notice the word "helpless" in the thing you quoted? Yeah. It only applies to helpless stuff. And since it's in Vow of Nonviolence under the "you must not kill humanoid and monstrous humanoid foes" heading, it only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids.

[Username17]

Notice the word "helpless" in the thing you quoted? Yeah. It only applies to helpless stuff. And since it's in Vow of Nonviolence under the "you must not kill humanoid and monstrous humanoid foes" heading, it only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids.

You're living in a fantasy world. Which given the subject matter is ironic. The restriction on you is to "such foes", but the restriction on your party members is just "foes". No qualifier for them.

Yes, technically if your allies bring an opponent from full to dead with no help from you and without having them pass through any helpless state on the way down, that would narrowly not fall under either the restriction of not being able to abide by incapacitating or weakening a living foe that your allies then kill or the restriction of your allies not being allowed to kill helpless foes under any circumstances. But that is a very narrow niche case and it is laughably absurd to assume that it is going to be particularly plausible for that to happen in every fight.

And it does have to be every single fight, because failing the vow requirements is absolutely one way. Meaning that no Apostle of Peace is ever going to flirt the edges, because there are no take backsies. They are required by law to be absolute and total [EDITED] to the rest of the party.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

You may ask your allies to give you an oath that a helpless foe will not be slain. If the oath is sworn, an ally who later breaks the oath takes the penalty for doing so as if you were present. If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow.

There is no escape. If you leave, you're boned. If you leave after getting your allies to promise to not slay the fallen enemies, then you're OK but they are boned. There is absolutely no way to avoid bonage. Everyone is required to use nonlethal takedowns and then diplomance the captured enemies. Really. There is no option 2.

It does specific that you can't leave them to be killed by your allies. It says nothing about leaving them to be killed by enemies or neutral third parties. So it's perfectly reasonable to just slather them with honey and ring the dinner bell, knowing that the woods are full of bears. You can even stand there and watch the bears eat him without penalty, because the bears aren't you're allies. They're merely animals doing what comes naturally to them.

Likewise, you could probably throw him in a river and let him drown, or push him off a high cliff, or into a volcano. In those cases, the death is caused by environmental damage, and the environment isn't your ally, either (unless it's a sentient environment that's explicitly your ally, of course). It would violate the spirit of the vows, I'm sure, but it doesn't seem to violate the letter of them.

[Grek]

The restriction on you is to "such foes", but the restriction on your party members is just "foes". No qualifier for them.

It goes from "such foes" to "foes" because continuing to write 'such' in front of every use of the word 'foes' after it's been established what the word 'foes' is supposed to mean goes against proper English grammar and usage and makes the wording sound weird. Not because the requirement is supposed to go away. It's just a dropped qualifier.