Originally Posted by Jane_Smith
Nymph's kiss gave you the human skill racial essentially for a single feat - 1-20 skill points is a bit potent in my opinion on top of +2 to all cha-skills. But if you think otherwise, more power to you.
Vow of Poverty is broken for 3 reasons. VoP Druid/Shaper, VoP Monk/Kensai, and VoP Monsters. Nobody said monsters could not take this feat. I think someone once found a loophole that allows a wizards familiar to gain VoP, though that was not to op, in fact I found that kinda funny. Behold, the exalted weasel!!!
Touch of Golden Ice can be effected by feats like ability focus, etc. Which does not help it at late-game (DC 17), but that makes enemy's all the way up to level 10ish vulnerable to be effected, and any mooks you ever encounter usually even at pre-epic levels.
But the biggest issue I had with the series was ravages/afflictions being "good poison" yet causing unjust suffering/pain/etc, which, for years, was the reason poisons were considered evil, the "holy assassin" that uses them essentially to slay evil beings, and the eternal hypocrisy of it all. Personally I find complete divine a far better book then even boed AND bovd was combined. But that's just me.
Anyway, back on track for this thread - well, not fully - but what about unique cases of undeath being evil/neutral/good? D&D has several of them, undead plants, undead animals, even undead CHILDREN in one book. I forgot the name, but effectively they were stillborns or something who just want to play/companionship, but end up draining the life from there accidental victims, but they were listed as evil despite the fact they did not even have the intelligence to do it intentionally. There was also a form of frozen undead spirit from... i forgot the full name, the frost book, that would HIDE in fire places, etc, and drain the heat from nearby living creatures. They would just assume it was getting colder outside/etc until it was to late to fight back. But the creature needed the warmth of the living to survive itself and, again, had no real intelligence, it was mostly just acting instinctively like a undead fire elemental.
I've done a whole thing on poisons and ravages, here
. In the end, BoVD and BoED agree that preemptive, though not provocatory, strikes against evil are acceptable, and that's what ravages and afflictions are supposed to be used for; softening up a target for kill or capture with minimal harm to the good agents taking action. In the case of capture, it's assumed that the prisoner will be treated with dignity and care, and it's RAW that the ravage or affliction will cease to function if the prisoner has a change of alignment, becoming an ivalid target for the ravage or affliction.
Assassination was never called out as evil. Only the assassin class, which was ultimately a combination of mistake in maintaining internal inconsistency and a legacy hold-over; the assassin class from an earlier edition being tied to a particular evil organization. The only thing evil about the assassin class is a few spells on his list, which aren't necessary for him to fill his designated niche, and the class' alignment restriction. Any Lawful or Any evil, or even Any non-good would've been a more appropriate alignment restriction without either more abilities or more fluff to tie the class to dark forces.
As for those undead you mentioned; if they're the ones I think they are, none of them are actually mindless or of animal intelligence. In anycase, no undead ever -has- to feed. It's right there in libris mortis that an undead will never deanimate for lack of feeding, though they may be rendered completely immobile. Whether you agree with it as a moral point or not, causing harm to living creatures for your own benefit is evil unless it's necessary to sustain your own life. Since undead never need to feed to sustain their unlife it's evil for them to feed unless they have the "victim's" express permission and even with permission it becomes evil if they drain the victim/volunteer to death.