The Gaming Den

I cant find the rule for carrying capacity while flying in Pathfinder. Can I cast Ant Haul on my Bralani summons and have him carry the whole party?

Does anyone know?

Flight is under no restrictions for encumbrance. Now, *mounts* are restricted from flying with medium encumbrance/armor; so the Bralani should do fine so long as nobody asks for a piggy back ride while he holds the rope.

Okay

So Party A contains Exalted Druid B, who has taken a Vow of Peace (Among Others) and likes to say that "Nature Provides."

Party A is ambushed by Bad Guy C, they defeat him but at great effort. Becuase the Druid has a Vow of Peace he insists that the defeated bad guy be tied up and taken prisoner. Unfortunately, the party has neither the time nor the capability to babysit him and has things to do that are more important they taking him to the nearest authorities (who aren't exactly near) starting a big argument between the slit his throat faction and the we're not going to murder him faction.

In the midst of all of this, the Druid casts Speak With Animals and yells "Dinner" at the top of his lungs. And as a bunch of wild bears eat the helpless Bad Guy C, the Druid Sagely explains that "Nature Provides."


Some people argue that this violates the Vow of Peace, as it is essentially murder.

The Druid argues while he did inform the bears of Bad Guy C's location and edibility, he did not compel them to eat him and thus is not responsible for their actions. And further, since Animals are not moral actors, he was not compelled to prevent them from killing, as is their nature. Indeed, to prevent them from eating might lead to their own deaths, and thus the vow required him to stand back while they chowed down. So he did not in any way violate the Vow.

Which side is right?

The druid is on safer ground than he realizes. Both the Vow of Peace and Nonviolence (the prereq for Peace) specify that

- You cannot target a helpless enemy with spells that cause direct or indirect damage. (Speak With Animals targets "You", the caster.)
- Your "allies" suffer all sorts of penalties for breaking your vow while you stand by, and you would break your vows by allowing them to do so. (The bears are not your "allies" by nearly any definition of the word. They're not even friendly to you without some Wild Empathy checks to render them otherwise, just hoping you don't chase them off from their meal.)

By the letter of the feats, the Druid is in the clear. By the spirit, what he SHOULD have done is tie up the Bad Guy, and offer him a chance to swear an oath to not be a Bad Guy anymore. That's all the party can afford right now. Regardless of whether he takes the Druid up or refuses, the party is free to abandon the Bad Guy STILL TIED UP in the wilderness. If he gets eaten by bears, so be it. Nature Provides. If he survives, and then comes back and starts stabbing dudes again, the Druid is free to wild shape into a bear himself and tear him limb from limb.

Whomever said: "fuck you, nobody takes the VoP" to the druid.

The vow feats are stupid and I have no idea what the RAW legalese is (pretty sure there's a blanket prohibition against causing harm, which is super vague and unworkable), but "I tied a dude up and and lead hungry bears to him" is not a moral gray area by any stretch of the imagination.

DSMatticus wrote:The vow feats are stupid and I have no idea what the RAW legalese is (pretty sure there's a blanket prohibition against causing harm, which is super vague and unworkable), but "I tied a dude up and and lead hungry bears to him" is not a moral gray area by any stretch of the imagination.

We've had this argument on the boards several times before. But it boils down to:
Vow of Peace:
-You are not allowed to do lethal or ability damage to living creatures. Nonlethal is OK.
-No death spells on living things. Even ones that don't have the [Death] tag. No Finger of Death, no Disintegrate.
-No casting harmful spells on living things your allies are ultimately going to kill.
Vow of Nonviolence:
-The first two prohibitions as Vow of Peace, but for humanoids/monstrous humanoids only. Even non-living ones.
-No killing helpless humanoids/monstrous humanoids or allowing your allies to do the same, UNLESS they have previously sworn an oath of surrender to you and broken it.

The requirement the druid is maybe breaking is the second requirement on Vow of Nonviolence (And possibly the third on Vow of Peace, depending on if the Druid cast harmful spells at the enemy during that fight). What matters is whether the bears are "allies" of the Druid and therefore someone that the Druid is required to stop.

For me, the biggest point is that the druid knowingly, willingly, and artificially contrived a situation where a helpless and defenseless individual was tied the fuck down for the expressed intent of necessarily being slaughtered. That's not "the way of nature" .... "the way of nature" would be to strip the guy down naked and sent off to fend for himself; then maybe I'd buy the whole "come for dinner" bit.

To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition).

The VoP mentions a bunch of specific things you can and cannot do, but this sentence is also there and you can't just ignore it. I would be the first to agree that the notion of causing harm is both too prohibitive and too vague, but it's still what the feat says and those are problems you'd have to take up with its author. Fuzzy boundaries of "causing harm" aside, I don't think anyone is really confused about whether or not tying people up and feeding them to hungry bears qualifies.

Though, if you're willing to accept that the druid can commit murder by bear proxy because the bears aren't his allies, then it's worth noting that lakes, volcanos, and the ground are also not his allies, and he can just tie people up and throw them in a lake/in a volcano/off a cliff.

A man and his wife go skydiving and the man shreds his wife's parachute. On trial for murder, the judge asks him how he pleads, to which he responds: "not guilty, your honor. I didn't kill her - the ground did."

ugh proximate cause.

The Druid player is wrong because he took those feats, and everyone else is wrong for allowing it.

Doesn't the Book of Exalted Furries mention somewhere that you have to obey the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, that if it's moral grey area, you're already being bad, there should never be a debate about it, and if you found a loophole, fuck you?

That said, pretty much agreed on "You opened that book, this is all on your head you idiot."

Zaranthan wrote:(The bears are not your "allies" by nearly any definition of the word.

Let's not bring up the argument about what constitutes an ally. (And if one of the bears was Wojtek/Voytek, then technically it was an Ally, as it fought on the side of Poland in WWII)

Am I the only one who wants the Druid's 'loophole' to work? Nature Provides is a kinda flavorful workaround to a stupid rule.

Sure, he shouldn't've gone VoP in the first place. Honestly VoP shouldn't even exist. But the workaround is good enough for me.

((And letting people fall to their deaths is different because the bears have agency. I don't care how bad this argument is, see above.))

BearsAreBrown wrote:Am I the only one who wants the Druid's 'loophole' to work? Nature Provides is a kinda flavorful workaround to a stupid rule.

Sure, he shouldn't've gone VoP in the first place. Honestly VoP shouldn't even exist. But the workaround is good enough for me.

((And letting people fall to their deaths is different because the bears have agency. I don't care how bad this argument is, see above.))

If you want to give someone an +4 bonus to save DCs for no penalty, then fuck it, just do that. Don't demand they come up with a work around for a stupid feat that does it.

I mean, are fighters better if they claim they can cast as Sorcerers of their level? Yes. Are Fighters shit without that blatant cheating? Yes. Are they too OP with that blatant cheating? No.

Does it follow that you should let a player get away with that? No. You should punch him in the jaw and tell him to make a Sorcerer.

The Book of Exalted Furries is actually quite explicit that putting your captives in situations where you know that they are going to die (including simply leaving them without food and water) counts as killing them for the purpose of those stupid vows. The Druid is wrong.

That being said, the Book of ED is a terrible book and those vows are fucked and the moral behavior described in those pages is incoherent and shitty.

-Username17

Koumei wrote:Doesn't the Book of Exalted Furries mention somewhere that you have to obey the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, that if it's moral grey area, you're already being bad, there should never be a debate about it, and if you found a loophole, fuck you?

Swearing a sacred vow in the name of goodness should be about obeying the spirit of the vow, not trying to find a bunch of technicalities to exploit it.

That being said Vow of Peace is a terrible idea. Being nonviolent works if the entire group is that way, but typically it entails Batman trying to work with Rambo, Conan and the Terminator.

Kaelik wrote:

BearsAreBrown wrote:Am I the only one who wants the Druid's 'loophole' to work? Nature Provides is a kinda flavorful workaround to a stupid rule.

Sure, he shouldn't've gone VoP in the first place. Honestly VoP shouldn't even exist. But the workaround is good enough for me.

((And letting people fall to their deaths is different because the bears have agency. I don't care how bad this argument is, see above.))

If you want to give someone an +4 bonus to save DCs for no penalty, then fuck it, just do that.... You should punch him in the jaw and tell him to make a Sorcerer.

Surely there is middle ground between no penalty and not killing it particular ways. Whatever though, it's retarded and the only reason I suggest it work is to not force a character rewrite.

Cyberzombie wrote: Swearing a sacred vow in the name of goodness should be about obeying the spirit of the vow, not trying to find a bunch of technicalities to exploit it.

I disagree. Swearing a sacred vow in the name of Lawfulness should be about obeying the spirit of the vow.

Swearing a sacred vow in the name of Goodness should be able maximizing positive utility.

Nothing about being Good stops you from being a lying duplicitous manipulative dickweed.

hyzmarca wrote:
Nothing about being Good stops you from being a lying duplicitous manipulative dickweed.

While alignment is pretty stupid, I find this statement hard to reconcile. It would be unusual for me to consider a lying duplicitous manipulative dickweed a 'good' person.

Well, the dickweed part is a little iffy. But hiding people in your attic in Nazi Germany would make you a liar, duplicitous, and likely qualify as manipulative depending how you want to define it. Those words have bad connotations, but it's not hard to construct examples where they are clearly the right thing to do.

Now, maintaining a certain amount of honesty as part of standard social conduct arguably has utility in and of itself, so big lies made lightly are harmful all on their own and should be avoided.

BearsAreBrown wrote:Am I the only one who wants the Druid's 'loophole' to work? Nature Provides is a kinda flavorful workaround to a stupid rule.

Sure, he shouldn't've gone VoP in the first place. Honestly VoP shouldn't even exist. But the workaround is good enough for me.

((And letting people fall to their deaths is different because the bears have agency. I don't care how bad this argument is, see above.))

Probably, because if you allow that to work, than the only ones really suffering from that Vow are the other players.

Dickweed falls under Good is Not Nice.

There are plenty of good guys who are annoying to be around unless shit has seriously gotten real, then they're lifesavers.

hyzmarca wrote:Because the Druid has a Vow of Peace he insists that the defeated bad guy be tied up and taken prisoner.

There's your problem. You've been ambushed by a murderously Evil miscreant of great power while on peaceable duties, so obviously you need to let someone dispense some justice on the motherfucker. Get yourselves some warrants. You didn't attack shit, your friends didn't attack anyone. You all got attacked, you defended yourselves, that's increasing the net peace in the world.

Now, the Druid might say the only real justice is bears, suits the character and all; but that's just being a spotlight-hogging ass, so no.

In which books can I find the stats for the various elfblades?
Which one is most appropriate for an Elf Samurai?

Koumei wrote: Which one is most appropriate for an Elf Samurai?

The two-bladed sword. Two of them.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Im ... &type=card

Koumei wrote:In which books can I find the stats for the various elfblades?
Which one is most appropriate for an Elf Samurai?

Races of the Wild, naturally.