PDA

View Full Version : Book of Exalted Deeds?



Endon the White
2010-12-29, 11:52 PM
My DM is going to start us a new campaign that focuses on a huge battle between good and evil, with celestials, fiends, and deities thrown into the mix. We're thinking of pooling cash to get the BoED, but I've heard some major hate towards it. Is it any good? Does it have anything useful?

Waker
2010-12-29, 11:55 PM
The Book can bring a lot of very interesting character concepts to the table, it's one that I rarely use, but I still like.
I imagine the reason most people dislike it is due to the harsh roleplaying requirements and some of the very powerful abilities that can be used. Certain features such as the Vow of Poverty can be used to make insanely powerful characters with a bit of preparation.

Morithias
2010-12-29, 11:56 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Halae
2010-12-29, 11:58 PM
Properly applied, it has some pretty broken stuff. Then again, this is true for very nearly ever splatbook out there.

My suggestion is to get it. If you're running this kind of campaign is has invaluable information that, while your players might not make explicit use of it, you as a DM certainly will. Otherwise, you'll never know who the lords of the seven layers of celestia are, will you?

As far as the campaign itself goes, you should also probably throw something else into the mix. Good vs. Evil is a bit cliche, but Good vs. Law. vs. Evil vs. Chaos is something I've never heard of anybody actually doing, and it has a lot of potential, especially for things like chaotic good creatures or lawful evil

Toliudar
2010-12-29, 11:59 PM
Opinion only:

Book of Exalted Deeds does a terrible job of actually defining good and evil, and is only sort-of 3.5, but once you move past that, there are some useful elements. The new set of Sanctified spells (usable by any exalted prepared spellcaster) has some good buffs. The Saint template is broken-good. There are a few feats and abilities that provide a useful focus for very holy characters battling the forces of evil. There are a couple very good (if very expensive) magic items.

The prestige classes are all of questionable value. If you might be open to a style of campaign that involves little to no killing, the book provides some mechanics to make that more playable.

Chilingsworth
2010-12-30, 12:02 AM
I personally think the BoED is a great book. Also, if you can, get the Book of Vile Darkness for use by the evils. If you have both, they balance eachother abit. If you can't get the two Books consider champions of Valor (good) and Champions of Ruin (evil). They're both Forgotten Realms 3.5 books.

ToySoldierCPlus
2010-12-30, 12:14 AM
It is worth noting that the Book of Exalted Deeds is also known as the Book of Exalted Cheese, and with good reason, as others have pointed out. I don't know, I have a copy, I haven't read all the way through, but a lot of the stuff seems like the authors were attempting to create a more arbitrary distinction between good and evil. Poison, for example, is evil according to BoED, but they tossed in new toys called ravages, which are poisons-by-another-name. They function identically to poisons, except they are supernatural. And they aren't the only thing like that in the book. It's beyond very one-sided in its view on good and evil, it's redefining both as something they're not. Not that the Book of Vile Deeds is a whole lot better about that.

Overall, I'd say go for it if you can find a used copy somewhere for real cheap. Maybe see if somebody else outside of the group has a copy for you to borrow. Same with BoVD. But don't go out and hunt for an overpriced copy of either. Just not worth it.

TalonDemonKing
2010-12-30, 12:29 AM
Regardless of feats, game mechanics, or whatever, I actually highly enjoy the 'fluff' of it. They talk about things like Mercy, Personal sacrifice, and even down to stuff like Casting good spells.

It goes into alot of detail, too, like about Chasity, Being lawful, Working with evil, etc. Even though I never use any of the feats out of the book, I do use the concepts and stuff I picked up there in all of my good characters (And some evil ones!)

As far as the mechanics go.... Let someone else tell you about those:smallbiggrin:

Dusk Eclipse
2010-12-30, 01:24 AM
The Book can bring a lot of very interesting character concepts to the table, it's one that I rarely use, but I still like.
I imagine the reason most people dislike it is due to the harsh roleplaying requirements and some of the very powerful abilities that can be used. Certain features such as the Vow of Poverty can be used to make insanely powerful characters with a bit of preparation.

:smallconfused: Not really, true the vow gets you some pretty nice stuff, but most of it comes late (compared to the levels where you would find it more useful), almost (if not all; I don't remember exactly) all abilities have the (Su) tag, which means they "turn off" if you enter an anti-magic field or such; most abilities are defence oriented and none of them works for utility (for example it is almost impossible to gain flight for a non-casting class without items).

In short, while some abilities are nice, the power of magic items is much more useful and powerful in the long run; I would not recommend VoP for any character unless you are playing on a NO magic campaign.

[/tangent]


OP:
As for the book itself, mechanic-wise I don't like it very much, some things are extremely overpowered (starmantle cloak for example) and some traps (the already mentioned VoP) and while this is true for almost any splat (and not even splats, the PHB has the monk AND the wizard) I feel the power difference here is much more marked.

But fluff-wise, save for a few things I really like it, and if you are like me and started playing 3.5 late in it' life and are trying to get as most books as you can; well then I recommend you to get it

sonofzeal
2010-12-30, 01:43 AM
Re: VoP - It only works on spellcasters who can cover all the "useful" little things without magic items, and even then the lack of flexibility is a major hinderance. Monks, who most people immediately think of, enjoy a nice AC boost in the lvl 1-5 range, but suffer beyond that compared to one with magic items. Sorcerers and Druids do much better. Basically, the build has to be tailored for maximum benefit and minimum cost (ie Monk1/Druid19), OR the campaign is going to have terrible access to shops and/or money to spend in them. Except then it would be rather cheesy and I'd probably shy away from it just for that reason.




I feel the power difference here is much more marked.
I did some statistical analysis a while back (you can try googlemining for it if you want), with the eventual conclusion that, no, the power difference here is quite within the standard range, and there's any number of other books that I found to have a greater range of unbalanced content. It's just more famous for its excesses, for whatever reason.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-30, 01:47 AM
Get the book. It's worth it. It's true it contains a few questionable parts. Its attitude toward poisons and its substitution of ravages as "good" poisons that only work against evil creatures--inexplicably often provoking evil thoughts or behavior in their targets (???)--is bunk. A few of the spells are dubious. And much of the book does a better job of portraying good from a lawful or neutral perspective than from a chaotic perspective (and I say that as someone with strong lawful tendencies).

However, there are some very clear explanations of what behavior is expected from a good person (a few of which should be required reading for players of supposedly good PCs), some good feats, some great spells (the concept alone of sanctified spells is very nice), some pretty nice magic items, and some PrCs ranging from meh to great (most of the great ones are LG, unfortunately for those who'd like to play CG superheroes).

Incidentally, the saint template referenced earlier isn't exactly open to the average player character and has stringent RP requirements in addition to the hard feat and level requirements. Plus it gives the character a +2 Level Adjustment that has to be paid off before further advancement is possible. I see the template as more of a nice toy for the GM to play with than a real possibility for most characters.

Vow of Poverty is called broken by a lot of people. I don't believe it is. It's still not even worth taking the feat for characters of most classes (as it gives fixed bonuses and abilities that can usually be overmatched by someone with exactly the right equipment), but it would probably allow a monk to jump up a couple of tiers. Some people don't like the thought of an effective monk, even one sworn to perpetual poverty. Edit: I disagree that monks only benefit at low levels. A 12th level monk with VoP would get a +7 sacred bonus to regular (not touch) AC, a +2 deflection bonus to AC, a +1 natural armor bonus, and would have a +4 enhancement bonus to one stat and a +2 bonus to another, which might work to boost AC even higher. This monk would also have DR 5/magic. That's just on the defense side, not even counting all the other buffs and the potential benefits of up to 7 extra exalted feats.

If you do get BoXD, you should pick up BoVD as well. It is also questionable in spots, but has plenty of useful stuff and the two works complement each other.

Coidzor
2010-12-30, 01:57 AM
BoED and BoVD are two books which you and your group will want to use your critical thinking while reading rather than simply accepting and implementing all of their ideas in your games.

They're useful food for thought, and there are diamonds there, but they're in the rough, decidedly so.

Of course, I might be biased because they took the bad idea of alignment as a roleplaying strait-jacket and decided to release an entire book devoted to it, so that not only are there class levels that you can lose all benefit from if your ethics vary slightly from the DM's, but feats too that vanish forever and take the feat slot with it.

Oh, yeah, and it buys into that tired old myth that Lawful Good is more gooder than NG or CG.

Most interesting mechanics in it to me were the rules for conversion and interrogation and the weapons it added, especially the lasso.

Derjuin
2010-12-30, 02:03 AM
I like the BoED, what I see in it is examples for how some things work (like Sin and Atonement, Mercy and such) and interesting options for characters that want to do more than kill monsters to show how Good they are (like alignment conversion and forging peace pacts and such). It also has some interesting prestige classes in it...a holy barbarian, an exalted arcane caster, a healer whose pre-requisites make other people moan and groan...one of them lets you summon a Unicorn as a permanent pet (it's my favorite class ever but I've never been able to play one :smallannoyed:)

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-12-30, 02:03 AM
BoED has one of the better Bard feats out there, Words of Creation, which allows some nice Inspire Courage benefits. It also has the notorious trap of the Vow of Poverty. And then there's the Saint template, which is widely considered to be the best +2 LA template.

All in all, there are some hits, some misses, and a lot of nonsense fluff.

sonofzeal
2010-12-30, 02:05 AM
I like the BoED, what I see in it is examples for how some things work (like Sin and Atonement, Mercy and such) and interesting options for characters that want to do more than kill monsters to show how Good they are (like alignment conversion and forging peace pacts and such). It also has some interesting prestige classes in it...a holy barbarian, an exalted arcane caster, a healer whose pre-requisites make other people moan and groan...one of them lets you summon a Unicorn as a permanent pet (it's my favorite class ever but I've never been able to play one :smallannoyed:)
The base class "Healer" from Miniatures Handbook also gets a permanent Unicorn companion, although be forewarned that it's a very weak class, struggling even within its specialty, unless you homebrew extensively. If you want recommendations, I can send the rules I used when I played one, along with a full expanded spell list.

Waker
2010-12-30, 02:05 AM
Obviously the lack of magical items can hinder a character with the VoP, but there are a number of bonuses which can't be replicated with items. If you take the feat at level 1 (as a human) you get an additional 10 bonus feats over the course of 20 levels. 10 feats on top of what you could get due to your class and every three levels! And of course they can temporarily lose the Supernatural powers from anti-magic fields or dispel magic, but unlike other players, you don't have to worry about gear being stolen or destroyed. Exalted Strike means that any natural/unarmed attack or any random item you pick up is magical and good aligned while you use it. Between AC Bonus,Deflection and Natural Armor a character has a +16 to their AC (by 20th level). And then of course the ton of other random abilities that come with the feat, not needing to eat/breathe, energy resistance, DR, Regeneration, Mind Shielding, True Seeing, Freedom of Movement...

Not really, true the vow gets you some pretty nice stuff, but most of it comes late (compared to the levels where you would find it more useful), almost (if not all; I don't remember exactly) all abilities have the (Su) tag, which means they "turn off" if you enter an anti-magic field or such; most abilities are defence oriented and none of them works for utility (for example it is almost impossible to gain flight for a non-casting class without items).
Any magic items carried by another character would be subject to the same anti-magic situation. As for the Flight issue, yeah it is tricky for that character. But that is also assuming that you are in a situation where you are separated from the party and suddenly need to fly. Not to mention that duplicating True Seeing, Freedom of Movement and Regeneration are expensive as hell to buy (not sure of any True Seeing items, but rings of FoM and Reg are 40kgp and 90kgp respectively.)

Bleh, ranted too long.

Bang!
2010-12-30, 02:46 AM
BoED has lots of celestials. Those sound like the most useful part for you.

The contents are pretty dry though. The morality discussions are droll, the feats/classes/etc. are mostly pretty boring (though Champion of Gwyxlplx and Sentinal of Bearthing are kind of neat).

And it has the Sacred Vow feats, which will spark more arguments than you'd believe.
[Fun fun fun.]

If you have to buy the book, I wouldn't recommend it.
If you can borrow it or check it out of a library or something, it might be interesting.

It's definitely not among my top 20 picks from D&D 3e.

Gralamin
2010-12-30, 03:50 AM
Obviously the lack of magical items can hinder a character with the VoP, but there are a number of bonuses which can't be replicated with items. If you take the feat at level 1 (as a human) you get an additional 10 bonus feats over the course of 20 levels. 10 feats on top of what you could get due to your class and every three levels! And of course they can temporarily lose the Supernatural powers from anti-magic fields or dispel magic, but unlike other players, you don't have to worry about gear being stolen or destroyed. Exalted Strike means that any natural/unarmed attack or any random item you pick up is magical and good aligned while you use it. Between AC Bonus,Deflection and Natural Armor a character has a +16 to their AC (by 20th level). And then of course the ton of other random abilities that come with the feat, not needing to eat/breathe, energy resistance, DR, Regeneration, Mind Shielding, True Seeing, Freedom of Movement...
Of course, but Flight, which is a rather basic ability starting at about level 3 (Via Alter Self) is something that a VoP has no ability to beat, which is a glaring weakness. (Some use of Incarnum can avoid this, but it is just the top of the iceberg)

JBento
2010-12-30, 06:01 AM
Meh. The most (only) useful part for you would be the Celestials in the monster section. However, if you're playing the good guys, I assume stats for oponents would be more useful, in which case I suggest you get one of the Fiendish Codices instead, which are much more reduced in moronic content.

And yes, VoP is a trap - like monkey grip, it LOOKS interesting, until you do some math. Namely, that you get more money out of WBL than if you converted the VoP's benefits into cash. And of course, you can tailor the cash of WBL to get the stuff you need, instead of the fixed stuff you get from WBL.

Also, you don't get 10 bonus feats - you get 8 (because you already burnt two on Sacred Vow and VoP), and only if you're taking VoP at 1st level, since the feats are reimbursed if you take it later. In addition, they have to be EXALTED feats, which are... mostly underwhelming.

As an aside, you don't get regeneration with VoP, just like you don't get it with a ring of regeneration - you get an ability that is CALLED regeneration, but it's a far cry from the real deal.

Thespianus
2010-12-30, 06:15 AM
And yes, VoP is a trap - like monkey grip, it LOOKS interesting, until you do some math. Namely, that you get more money out of WBL than if you converted the VoP's benefits into cash. And of course, you can tailor the cash of WBL to get the stuff you need, instead of the fixed stuff you get from WBL.
But in a long running campaign, you don't necessarily get a WBL-stack of cash. You get stuff you find along the way that add up to WBL, but once you start selling them for half price to buy what you really want, you're at WBL/2 cash-wise, unless the DM is kind enough to give you the exact loot you want.

VoP might be a trap still (fly is one such example) but the WBL-argument seems flawed in my eye.

olentu
2010-12-30, 06:27 AM
But in a long running campaign, you don't necessarily get a WBL-stack of cash. You get stuff you find along the way that add up to WBL, but once you start selling them for half price to buy what you really want, you're at WBL/2 cash-wise, unless the DM is kind enough to give you the exact loot you want.

VoP might be a trap still (fly is one such example) but the WBL-argument seems flawed in my eye.

Conversely in a long running campaign players can come up with schemes that would increase them above the guideline. Even in short running campaigns I have seen many schemes to generate excess wealth. If one is not going to boost them to the wealth they should have presumably one would not cut them down to the wealth they should have.

So it really does depend in the circumstances and can go both ways.

Ernir
2010-12-30, 06:31 AM
My DM is going to start us a new campaign that focuses on a huge battle between good and evil, with celestials, fiends, and deities thrown into the mix. We're thinking of pooling cash to get the BoED, but I've heard some major hate towards it. Is it any good? Does it have anything useful?

For what it's worth, I tend to make extensive use of its crunch when making Good characters.

And there's one way to find out whether you hate the fluff.

Thespianus
2010-12-30, 07:20 AM
So it really does depend in the circumstances and can go both ways.
This is absolutely true, I just opposed the view that WBL is an absolute amount of cash the players should have access to. I may have misinterpreted the post and in that case I apologize for the strawman argument.

JBento
2010-12-30, 08:10 AM
Technically, I think WBL is considered the gp value of the character's gear (as in, the gear it's actually going to use - i.e., no counting WBL of the wand of mage armour if, gods forbid, it's an all-Fighter party).

Still, most stuff in the VoP is useless anyway - it's generally stuff that you could get a LOT sooner with either cheap stuff or low-lvl spells.

Telonius
2010-12-30, 10:00 AM
I've said this many times on the forums - Vow of Poverty is not about making a very powerful character. It's about turning a concept (a character who has foresworn all material possessions) that would otherwise be totally unplayable, into something that's at least within shouting distance of playable.

There aren't very many things in the book that are optimization-fodder. The Saint template is one of them, being one of the more powerful templates for its level adjustment. There are significant problems with the definition of good and evil, as has been mentioned. And the "good poisons" and "good diseases" are all kinds of silly. But some of the information on celestial politics and temperament of the paragons could be very useful to a DM willing to work them into his setting.

On the whole, it isn't a waste of money. I'd pick Complete Divine or Complete Champion over BoED, but if you already have those available you might find some tidbits to help your character.

Endon the White
2010-12-30, 10:08 AM
Wow guys, thanks for all the feedback! We're probably gonna pitch in and get it, then choose which parts to exclude. That seems to be the general advise.
And our group is pretty RP heavy, so the fluff should come in handy.


As far as the campaign itself goes, you should also probably throw something else into the mix. Good vs. Evil is a bit cliche, but Good vs. Law. vs. Evil vs. Chaos is something I've never heard of anybody actually doing, and it has a lot of potential, especially for things like chaotic good creatures or lawful evil


You might be right, but my DM hasn't let us down yet. He hasn't told us much about our campaign, only that the Blood War has stopped, and Demons Daemons, and Devils are uniting under one banner and preparing for war. We're gonna be helping Celestia and the other planes hold the line.

Shenanigans
2010-12-30, 11:38 AM
I think it will be a good pickup. Like many above have mentioned, the manner in which the BoED discusses "good" is a bit off, and has always seemed like an introductory college ethics paper, and not a particularly well-written one at that. :) My buddies and I back off that stuff a bit.

It does have some good fluff, though, and I enjoy/utilize a lot of the mechanics in games I play/run. In the epic campaign I play in, for example, my character is a VoP monk with the Saint template. The "no flight" is sometimes a problem, but is generally covered by his cohort or another caster in the group, otherwise, like Grelna mentioned, it allows the monk to jump up a couple tiers. It also worked out nicely fluff-wise; the DM and I fleshed out where my character donated all his items and the Dm later used those for plot hooks.

I've also taken plenty of stuff out of this book for DMing. I once pulled a reversal of expectations by having the group encounter an exalted half-ogre fighting off a group of evil dwarves. The group assisted the half-ogre (eventually) and gained an ally and contact, who later actually took Vow of Poverty and gave away his items, many of them to the party.

Rumpus
2010-12-30, 11:49 AM
I always tell anyone who wants to play a Paladin (or DM a game with one in it) that they need to have a serious (and extensive) discussion about morality before play starts to avoid game-stopping arguments regarding what constitutes "Good" behavior. The same rule applies to anything involving the BoED. You've seen all the stupid threads about, "Does a paladin fall if he...?" BoED has this issue, raised multiple orders of magnitude.

The BoED has a VERY juvenile, un-nuanced, starry-eyed-moonbat view on what constitutes "Good", and it could very easily derail a gaming session if the DM has decided that it is an evil act if you don't attempt to raise every last goblin and teach them the error of their ways. If PC's powers and abilities are on the line, these arguments could really screw up your game session.

Of course, the DM has final say, but it's important that the players understand EXACTLY what they have to do to remain on the side of the angels in his world. Characters can be plenty-Good without being "Good-enough" for BoED material.

Telonius
2010-12-30, 12:19 PM
The BoED has a VERY juvenile, un-nuanced, starry-eyed-moonbat view on what constitutes "Good", and it could very easily derail a gaming session if the DM has decided that it is an evil act if you don't attempt to raise every last goblin and teach them the error of their ways.

Agree with the second part of that 100%, not so much on the first part. It's not that it's juvenile, un-nuanced, and starry-eyed-moonbat. It's that it's trying to graft Kantian ethics onto a game that just wasn't designed with that in mind. It's a hard thing to try, especially when you consider Moorcock was one of the big inspirations for the D&D universe. One of the primary characteristics of Kant and his categorical imperative is that they are so inflexible and absolute, and consider law and good to be pretty much indistinguishable (for several convincing reasons, though I don't happen to agree with them). Any attempt to design fluff around that in a gaming system that differentiates between law and good is going to lead to trouble. They skirt the issue a bit with the Eladrins and the Guardinals, but the Celestials really are the heart of the book.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-30, 01:34 PM
Agree with the second part of that 100%, not so much on the first part. It's not that it's juvenile, un-nuanced, and starry-eyed-moonbat. It's that it's trying to graft Kantian ethics onto a game that just wasn't designed with that in mind. It's a hard thing to try, especially when you consider Moorcock was one of the big inspirations for the D&D universe. One of the primary characteristics of Kant and his categorical imperative is that they are so inflexible and absolute, and consider law and good to be pretty much indistinguishable (for several convincing reasons, though I don't happen to agree with them). Any attempt to design fluff around that in a gaming system that differentiates between law and good is going to lead to trouble. They skirt the issue a bit with the Eladrins and the Guardinals, but the Celestials really are the heart of the book.

I believe I'm closer to being a Kantian than to being a subscriber to any other of the most well known systems of moral philosophy, but Kant's entire system has a fatal flaw in that Kant presents a logical argument on how to be good once one has determined that goodness is a goal, but IIRC doesn't present an even half-way convincing logical argument as to why someone should want to be good in the first place. This book doesn't address that issue either.

As far as the "starry-eyed moonbat view on what constitutes Good," I agree with you. I am fairly positive there is nothing in the BoED that would suggest that raising a tribe of goblins from the dead for the purpose of conversion to a good point of view was a reasonable idea. With no disrespect intended to the aforementioned poster, I believe that was textbook strawman.

hamishspence
2010-12-30, 01:42 PM
I am fairly positive there is nothing in the BoED that would suggest that raising a tribe of goblins from the dead for the purpose of conversion to a good point of view was a reasonable idea.

Yup- it's worth noting that BoED does state that:

"Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil."

Avoiding unnecessary violence- even toward those that are evil aligned- plays a part in it- but that doesn't mean killing is forbidden- just that PCs should think about whether it is necessary or not.

It does have rather strict rules on "not killing prisoners"- but that might be more for "without some kind of fair hearing and evidence of guilt".

The poison issue can be resolved by looking at the base principle- "not causing undue suffering".

Given that real poisons vary a great deal in the amount of suffering they cause, the DM could choose to drop the idea of it being automatically Evil for this reason.

Executing someone with a fast-acting, fairly painless poison, for these DMs- might count as not evil- whereas more torturous forms of execution, might be evil- for this same reason- they cause undue suffering.

gourdcaptain
2010-12-30, 02:57 PM
BoED really bugs me from a flavor perspective. Mostly the aformentioned "Lawful Good is Super Good" and a very strict view on the definition of Lawful Good. Admittedly, this is from someone whose main character in a tabletop campaign is a Chaotic Good (verging on Neutral) Changeling Paladin of the Trickster god (it's 4e, that's allowed).

Plus the "not poison" really is kinda hilarious.

hamishspence
2010-12-30, 03:05 PM
It does allow for CG- but most of those will be rather similar to LG.

The biggest difference is that they don't tolerate oppression- even oppression that has "the common good" used as a justification. They're more likely to outright overthrow a regime that has evil practices, rather than try and change it from within.

The best reason for "ravages" is when you know you're going up against an opponent that is likely to set you up for "friendly fire"- a mind-controlling opponent, or one that uses illusions to disguise innocents as part of his group.

In which case- since they only work on Evil beings, not Good or Neutral ones, there will be less damage inflicted by them if a villain tricks or compels you into attacking the wrong people.


Admittedly, this is from someone whose main character in a tabletop campaign is a Chaotic Good (verging on Neutral) Changeling Paladin of the Trickster god (it's 4e, that's allowed).

4E drops "Falling" mechanics completely- you can start out a Good paladin, become Evil- and still all your powers would work.

BoED used for a 4E game- would primarily be the fluff- descriptions of Good and "not-good" behaviour, personalities of celestials, and so on.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 04:21 PM
The fluff is great. A lot of the mechanics need work. The prestige classes are really only good if you are starting at a higher level or have cheap retraining available, otherwise you end up wasting a lot of feats on useless stuff before getting to the goodies. The idea of good/evil...ignoring the poison bit, it works best if you're in a very idealistic world. If you're in a world where good always triumphs and stopping to save the village instead of letting it burn to kill the dragon always comes out right in the end, then it's great. If you're in a more gritty realistic game, you need a flexible DM.

hamishspence
2010-12-30, 04:32 PM
If you're in a world where good always triumphs and stopping to save the village instead of letting it burn to kill the dragon always comes out right in the end, then it's great. If you're in a more gritty realistic game, you need a flexible DM.

yes- the "responsibility to help people in need" combined with a limited timeframe and several needy groups- does mean that DMs need to decide when a character can "not help" and still retain their exalted powers, and when they can't.

BoED does say characters are entitled to be cautious, investigate- find out just how serious the problem is, and so on.

As TV Tropes put it:

It does not ding your alignment, when you respond to "we need you to kill a dragon" with "How big, and does it have friends?"

EDIT: Rather- it did say that once, on the Lawful Stupid page- but since then the page has been edited. The closest thing to it is in the header:


In fact, it's so common that the Dungeons And Dragons Sourcebook Book of Exalted Deeds spends a good number of pages explaining how to be Lawful Good without being a total dimwit.

And the Stupid Good page also mentions it in the header:


Suffice to say, this isn't really the intended way to play a paladin either (though the Book of Exalted Deeds did provide vows of non-violence for those who wanted to play a pacifist character).

The Book of Exalted Deeds didn't provide so much advice for these players (indeed, they left a paladin to choose between "destroying evil and honoring love" when said love was between two Always Chaotic Evil succubi), but they did indicate a good character could ask "How big is that dragon, and does it have any friends?" with an eye towards knowing if they stand a chance at all.

Guess Wizards of the Coast thought it was more important to avoid being Miko Miyazaki than it was to avoid being Piffany.

Amiel
2010-12-31, 03:40 AM
This book may need retitling as the the Book of Axiomatic Deeds; the supposed benevolent and beneficent actions expounded within the book aren't so much goodly as they are lawful.

Runestar
2010-12-31, 03:51 AM
What were the designers smoking when they assigned the LAs to the various monsters? Quite a few look like they would make viable PCs, but are hobbled by debilitating ECLs (even moreso than SS). ECL20 for a sword archon? I would give it no more than a ECL14 tops. :smalleek:

Halae
2010-12-31, 03:55 AM
What were the designers smoking when they assigned the LAs to the various monsters? Quite a few look like they would make viable PCs, but are hobbled by debilitating ECLs (even moreso than SS). ECL20 for a sword archon? I would give it no more than a ECL14 tops. :smalleek:

which is very much why I like pathfinder. they changed LA to be equal to CR, to a minimum of the creature's HD. thus, a troll (CR 5, HD 6) would be an ECL 6 character, while the half-dragon template (+2 CR) is +2 LA. that, and it balances everything a bit better (though the loss of effective power attack was a pisser) makes it completely worth the purchase

sonofzeal
2010-12-31, 05:11 AM
What were the designers smoking when they assigned the LAs to the various monsters? Quite a few look like they would make viable PCs, but are hobbled by debilitating ECLs (even moreso than SS). ECL20 for a sword archon? I would give it no more than a ECL14 tops. :smalleek:
One of the ideas was to almost explicitly punish "cool". Things that people would naturally gravitate towards, like Vampires and Dragons, have even more prohibitive LA. They didn't want to encourage such "munchkinry", but to their partial credit they also didn't choose to ban it completely, and they could have. There are far, far more theoretically-playable races than there needs to be, or than ever gets used. And I kind of like that. There's a bunch that's flat out banned (you can't play a Kolyarut, however much you want to), and for good reason. But there's a bunch that are just fine (generally low-LA humanoids). And when in doubt, the creative team generally seems to have gone "well... okay fine, but give it a high LA". And that's not a bad call. Better than every third monster race being utterly overpowered in PC hands, which is likely what would have happened otherwise. High LAs across the board means there isn't an arms race among players to find progressively more and more overpowered races. There's a few, yes, but they're quite rare. And in the mean time, the basic options work just fine and the expanded options are at least there for those who really wanted to try them anyway.

Rumpus
2010-12-31, 05:29 AM
Yes, my example was meant to be an over-the-top hyperbole, but one of my friends once had his Paladin fall during the first encounter of a campaign for continuing his mission instead of attempting life-saving measures on a group of defeated evil cultists.

The point I was trying to make is: it can lead to great role-playing if players (and their characters) disagree about what constitutes "Good". It is NOT cool if the players don't understand what constitutes "Good Enough" vs "Not Good Enough" to retain their abilities in the campaign world. Once you know what "Good Enough" is, you may not want to play a paladin or BoED character with that DM. It's better to figure that out ahead of time than halfway through the first play session.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-31, 11:48 AM
Yes, my example was meant to be an over-the-top hyperbole, but one of my friends once had his Paladin fall during the first encounter of a campaign for continuing his mission instead of attempting life-saving measures on a group of defeated evil cultists.

The point I was trying to make is: it can lead to great role-playing if players (and their characters) disagree about what constitutes "Good". It is NOT cool if the players don't understand what constitutes "Good Enough" vs "Not Good Enough" to retain their abilities in the campaign world. Once you know what "Good Enough" is, you may not want to play a paladin or BoED character with that DM. It's better to figure that out ahead of time than halfway through the first play session.

I agree with you on that. Also, aside from the pre-entry talk, players playing paladins should be given guidance from the GM as if their character were wearing a Phylactery of Faithfulness, at least for the first couple of levels.

The incident you reference is difficult to fairly evaluate at a distance, but it sounds as if the paladin may have been acting insufficiently good, not actually evil. It could have been the first step of many on the road to an alignment change, but as paladins are supposed to fall only when they willfully commit an Evil act or when their alignment actually does change or when they "grossly violate" the paladin's code of conduct, I would say it's likely that the situation could have been handled better. If that was a "gross violation", the player should have been warned of the fact.

LuckOfTheIrish
2014-06-08, 02:09 AM
The BoD is pretty overpowered and I can see why many DM's would want to exclude it from their campaigns. Like if a human monk were to combine Vow of Poverty feat with the Saint Template then you could have upwards of 35 AC by level 8! But most of the other ideas and feats/spells seem pretty harmless for a campaign that focuses more on roleplaying.

Angelalex242
2014-06-08, 02:18 AM
I am a firm believer in Clr1/Pal 6/Fist of Raziel 10/Clr 4 in that order.

Now my Paladin has the spellcasting of a 13th level cleric. That's significantly better then getting by with 4th level Paladin spells. BAB of +19 on that build, too.

But if you really want to redeem everything in sight, Emissary of Barachiel is your man. You can convert just about anything to Lawful Good, given sufficient time.

Hyena
2014-06-08, 04:13 AM
Like if a human monk were to combine Vow of Poverty feat with the Saint Template then you could have upwards of 35 AC by level 8! But most of the other ideas and feats/spells seem pretty harmless for a campaign that focuses more on roleplaying.
Please tell me you're joking.

WarKitty
2014-06-08, 05:17 AM
The BoD is pretty overpowered and I can see why many DM's would want to exclude it from their campaigns. Like if a human monk were to combine Vow of Poverty feat with the Saint Template then you could have upwards of 35 AC by level 8! But most of the other ideas and feats/spells seem pretty harmless for a campaign that focuses more on roleplaying.

Unfortunately that would be about the only thing you had. You can't hit anything and you've got no spells and your saves aren't that wonderful. Which means you're still going to die pretty soon.

Seto
2014-06-08, 06:08 AM
Yes, my example was meant to be an over-the-top hyperbole, but one of my friends once had his Paladin fall during the first encounter of a campaign for continuing his mission instead of attempting life-saving measures on a group of defeated evil cultists.

The point I was trying to make is: it can lead to great role-playing if players (and their characters) disagree about what constitutes "Good". It is NOT cool if the players don't understand what constitutes "Good Enough" vs "Not Good Enough" to retain their abilities in the campaign world. Once you know what "Good Enough" is, you may not want to play a paladin or BoED character with that DM. It's better to figure that out ahead of time than halfway through the first play session.

Well, "Exalted" isn't the same thing as "Good". It's Celestial-Good, top-notch Good, just like "Vile" is top-notch Evil. No Paladin should fall for not being Exalted, unless there was an agreement beforehand between the player and the DM and the Paladin had Exalted powers as well.

As for the cultists... Made me think of Angel the Series, when Angel lets Darla and Drusilla slaughter the lawyers from W&H, saying "And yet somehow I just can't seem to care". That's probably more serious than your paladin, as Angel willingly and knowingly let death come to humans from vampires (killing humans is the line you can't really cross in the Buffyverse and get away with being Good). Anyway, it's given as the first great event (after)that makes his "fight fire with fire"-time more concrete. But, deeper than that, it isn't so important because it's an evil act (I'd say neutral), but rather because it unequivocally shows that he now fights without reason and has given up on his Good ideals.

He fights the Good fight while having lost sight of what Goodness is. Therefore he's probably not Good, and certainly not Exalted. Goodness is not just a word, and I think that's the perspective BoED can give you, if you're wise enough to take the good parts of it.
But IMO it fails at that, because the whole alignment system hesitates between a subjective approach to alignments, and an objective one, and different books (all too often the same book) contradict each other about this point. So, if I were the DM in this kind of game, I'd clarify which is my take on it. Namely, alignments are objective forces, which means that consistently performing Good actions without performing Evil actions makes you Good. Even if you do not care about the dignity of sentient beings. But performing Good actions while having Good ideals and morality makes you Exalted, a different brand of Good.
(I understand this approach is questionable. For example, there's the problem of the Evil overlord who does Good things as part of his Evil masterplan. But I'd advocate that, just as regularly doing Evil, even without your consent, can corrupt you, consistently doing Good has a redeeming effect).

P.S. My first paragraph and my last offer two different definitions of "Exalted" (i.e. 1- top-notch Good, 2- Good actions and believes in goodness). In the first, a Paladin doesn't have to be Exalted, and according to the second they should be. To clarify, the first definition is RAW and the second is my take on it.

Callos_DeTerran
2014-06-08, 04:39 PM
Of course, the DM has final say, but it's important that the players understand EXACTLY what they have to do to remain on the side of the angels in his world. Characters can be plenty-Good without being "Good-enough" for BoED material.

This is the crux of it right here, as has been mentioned a few other times, the BoED takes a very stringent view on what constitutes good and, in a game of black-and-white good vs. evil this could be sufficient. Heck, could even be what you're looking for! However, to get the most enjoyment out of the book, you have to have a common understanding of what it means to be Good and what it means to be Exalted with your DM and group in how it relates to your character. Otherwise there will probably be un-fun debates on what stuff means, so if your group gets it...definitely have everyone read it over, but then talk it over before the game itself starts so there's a common ground.

Angelalex242
2014-06-08, 04:58 PM
Rule #1 of the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Every Party Member has a phylactery of faithfulness. No exceptions. All of them. Preferably in tattoo form.

Then the shock collar prevents the arguments because the GM can't gotcha anymore.

nedz
2014-06-08, 05:54 PM
Rule #1 of the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Every Party Member has a phylactery of faithfulness. No exceptions. All of them. Preferably in tattoo form.

Then the shock collar prevents the arguments because the GM can't gotcha anymore.

That depends upon the DM, also you guys have spotted the 3 1/2 year thread necromancy going on here ?

Hiro Protagonest
2014-06-08, 09:40 PM
Thread necromancy by a guy saying VoP Monk is good.

Must be new here.

großelfimpört
2016-10-29, 02:45 PM
I played a LG cleric of Horus Re in the FR setting, specifically Mulhorand. I had a pretty strong character and worked my way up to the Saint Template and was amazed. There was another character in the party, a wizard follower of Thoth with VoP, and I think we used a couple more things out of that book. There's some decent background stuff for RP, but the feats and things are just as broken as any other 3.5 splat. Too much power, a little restrictive and ultimately makes the DM's job of challenging the players a little tough. Enemies are either way too powerful and hopeless to defeat or a cake walk. I had a lot of fun with my character and so did the others playing. The DM still made things tough in a good way, but he had to think way outside the box and use things specifically targeted toward our weaknesses to even challenge us. (My Greater Turning attempts were like a nuke!). Anyway, either make sure everyone has an equally unbalanced and powerful character using splat or just use the base three (MM, PHB, DMG). And for the love of Mike, don't make Gestalt characters...just...don't do it. Good luck!

Dragonexx
2016-10-29, 09:31 PM
The important thing to remember about morality systems is that they have to work with the kind of gameplay the game is designed for. D&D is a game fundamentally about breaking into people's homes, killing them, and taking their stuff exploring dungeons, fighting monsters, and gaining treasure. Any morality system that gets in the way of this, or worse, punishes you for this, is a bad system.