PDA

View Full Version : Curious about Book of Exalted Deeds



The Neoclassic
2009-02-08, 06:03 PM
I saw a thread entitled "Curious about Exalted" and I thought "Well, I rather am curious about BoED too!" Come to find out, they were referring to some other roleplaying system, not the 3.5 splatbook...

Anyway, I have a friend who is selling his old 3.5 books, and I'm curious if BoED or BoVD would be worth buying. Thoughts?

RTGoodman
2009-02-08, 06:23 PM
Well, I can't comment on BoVD since I don't have any experience with it beyond a quick skimming-over in the bookstore once or twice, but I do have BoED.

Overall, it has some broken stuff, some really terrible stuff, and a LOT of rather mediocre stuff. That said, it does have some good stuff in it too, and if you take the whole thing with a grain of salt, it's a decent sourcebook. Definitely not my first pick if given a choice between several, but if you can get it for cheap, you might as well pick it up. Assuming any DMs you know allow it - a LOT out there don't, for one reason or another.

Prak
2009-02-08, 06:30 PM
I would say it's not worth buying. It tries it's best to have a meaningful discussion about good, and falls flat on it's face, your face and every fac in a ten mile radius. It tries to create ultimate good by taking ultimate evil and multiplying by -1. It has a handful of useful things in it, and I got those things through other channels.

arguskos
2009-02-08, 06:30 PM
BoVD and BoED are both decent enough source books. I like them, though they have massive amounts of broken things in them and lots of "uh, wtf is this?" moments. However, taken with an open mind and a grain of salt (or should I say, a saltshaker of salt) they are quite fun reads, if not the best books. Get em for $10 or less, and you'll find your money was well spent.

RebelRogue
2009-02-08, 06:41 PM
Overall, the BoVD is a better write IMO. There's some mechanical 3.0 stuff that doesn't translate so well, but it's minor. Its more philosophical ideas are interesting, if short, and some of the villains, items and schemes are just, well, vile! The BoED is not horrible, but as noted its philosophical section is not as well-written. Mechanically there's some questionable things, too. Still, an interesting read, IMO.

Woodsman
2009-02-08, 06:44 PM
Both are interesting reads, but the BoVD isn't really meant for PC's, I don't think. Unless someone's running an evil campaign, that is.

BoED is better for PC's (IMO), simply because more people go with good than evil. Though it really seems a bit too good for my tastes.

Talya
2009-02-08, 07:01 PM
BoED = absolutely essential for any D&D game that takes the good-evil alignment axis remotely seriously.

AmberVael
2009-02-08, 07:06 PM
Honestly, I find BoED to a pretty terrible book overall. I have big issues with its morality system (which I won't go into lest it cause a debate), and many of the mechanics introduced are flat out annoying.

Vows and Exalted status are the prime example of this- they dictate not only what the character can or cannot do, but the entire party. It puts a character directly in conflict with anyone who wants to play/work things out differently, and is extremely unforgiving of any type of failure, however small or even if it wasn't your fault at all (IE, domination or someone else's act).

It is not worth the buy- I got it from a friend for free and I've only ever used it once, and even then I completely changed around the mechanics and fluff to the mechanic I used (Vow of Poverty became more interesting when it was about sacrificing possessions to an evil demon who would allow me to keep certain plot necessary items, but would demand that I not only give it everything I got, but go out and seek more stuff to give it).

BoVD is much more interesting- it has some broken-ish stuff in it, and some stuff only really viable for DMs, but it can help create very intriguing villains/evil characters, and doesn't really get into all the moral crap that BoED does.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-08, 07:28 PM
Anyway, I have a friend who is selling his old 3.5 books, and I'm curious if BoED or BoVD would be worth buying. Thoughts?
In a word, no.

The mechanical options range from the terrible (several of the oaths and deformities) to the cheesy (it's commonly called the book of exalted cheese for a reason) to the ridiculous (yes, this is good-aligned poison, because we say so!) and if you are unable to figure out that you that you can be a paladin without being a moron, and that you can be evil without being an omnicidal psychopath, then you'll need more help than a mere book can give you.

arguskos
2009-02-08, 07:35 PM
I mean, I like some of the spells, prestige classes, and feats, and frankly, I dig the flavor on the Vows. Just refluff them if needed, and it's all good.

Also, to anyone and everyone who says that taking a Vow of XYorZ screws the party too... um... no, it doesn't HAVE to. The Vow character isn't required to push his views on the others, just that HE upholds them. Really, a Vow of Chasity monk doesn't need the other characters to be celibate just cause he is. :smalltongue:

AmberVael
2009-02-08, 07:42 PM
What I would term as the "significant" vows have restrictions on them that prevent the party from doing things as well. Vows of Nonviolence and Peace penalize and make it difficult for a party to work around them.

RTGoodman
2009-02-08, 08:38 PM
The mechanical options range from the terrible (several of the oaths and deformities) to the cheesy (it's commonly called the book of exalted cheese for a reason) to the ridiculous (yes, this is good-aligned poison, because we say so!) and if you are unable to figure out that you that you can be a paladin without being a moron, and that you can be evil without being an omnicidal psychopath, then you'll need more help than a mere book can give you.

I don't disagree with you, but I think there are certainly a FEW things in it (crunch-wise, at least) worth having. That Wis-to-attacks feat (which, IIRC, isn't even an [Exalted] feat) is a good one for Monks that want a high Wis, some of the PrCs are pretty cool and at least decent, and I think there might even be a couple of fun monsters in it. Like I said, it's not GREAT, but it's worth getting if you can get a good deal.

Prak
2009-02-08, 08:46 PM
To the OP, what you should do is page through it, maybe ask your friend if you can sit down and take a look at it for 15 minutes or so. If you like it, buy it, if you don't, apologize and don't buy it.

TaintedLight
2009-02-08, 08:48 PM
If you can only get one, take BoVD. There are some really nasty monsters to torment your players with, some great new feats and spells, a section on torture, drugs, etc. BoED has a few mildly interesting things that you could take advantage of, but I much prefer the other one.

JonestheSpy
2009-02-08, 09:27 PM
Like most folks, I'd say mixed review. If it were me, I'd grab them - lots of interesting stuff to pick and choose from, especially if you're the DM. I especially like the expanded list of the generally-underrepresented good outsiders, and a lot of the evil spells are balanced enough to use against unsuspecting players without being a killer-DM. But, yeah, a lot of it is fairly ridiculous.

One problem I have about both books is that they just mirror-image stuff from each other - similar spells, even a couple of almost identical PrC's, just one labeled "good" and one "evil". That being said, a lot of the philosophical exploration of 'good' and 'evil' in a game universe makes interesting reading, though it's obviously written by game designers who haven't read all that much philosophy...

Prak
2009-02-08, 10:31 PM
Like most folks, I'd say mixed review. If it were me, I'd grab them - lots of interesting stuff to pick and choose from, especially if you're the DM. I especially like the expanded list of the generally-underrepresented good outsiders, and a lot of the evil spells are balanced enough to use against unsuspecting players without being a killer-DM. But, yeah, a lot of it is fairly ridiculous.

One problem I have about both books is that they just mirror-image stuff from each other - similar spells, even a couple of almost identical PrC's, just one labeled "good" and one "evil". That being said, a lot of the philosophical exploration of 'good' and 'evil' in a game universe makes interesting reading, though it's obviously written by game designers who haven't read all that much philosophy...
I feel I should point out that, IIRC, the BoED was written by an ex-reverend.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-08, 10:36 PM
I feel I should point out that, IIRC, the BoED was written by an ex-reverend.Which explains far more than it doesn't.

Prak
2009-02-08, 10:51 PM
you mean like why we're expected to believe that inflicting horrible pain and suffering on a sentient creature is a good act so long as the target is evil? yeah. yeah it explains a lot.

Innis Cabal
2009-02-08, 10:53 PM
BoED is good for the monster section. BoVD is good for everything but that for a DM, not so good for the player save for some of the magical items and spells.

Over all, BoED is completly skippable, BoVD only slightly less so unless you feel like you ABSOLUTLY have to have them for some reason and can't come up with your own GOOD/EVIL yourself.

Alleine
2009-02-08, 11:00 PM
If you want one, go with BoVD. I find it far more interesting and useful. If nothing else half the prestige classes look like tons of fun. In general I think players and DM's would get more use out of BoVD. It will make villains much more evil, and evil PC's will have more options.

BoED... meh. I read through it and wasn't terribly impressed. The rules are extremely strict and easy to accidentally break unless the entire party is good and the DM is careful not to throw you into a situation where you'll lose all your abilities for whatever godawful reason. BoED makes less sense in my opinion, and restricts the players more than it helps. If you don't mind tweaking though, then it could be a lot better.
I can't really figure out why people call it the Book of Exalted Cheese though, I've discovered more ways to break a game with the BoVD than with the BoED. Then again, I have a hard time focusing when I try to read the BoED.

Grail
2009-02-08, 11:07 PM
I actually like the BoED and the BoVD. They have a place in a game, just like any source material. The whole group doesn't have to be exalted to make use of the BoED, but like Paladins, it's hard to explain an Exalted character hanging around with an evil character.

I've used BoED in a campaign I'm running, and used it well IMO. The characters were not eligible to make use of it until they got to a certain point in the game, and had been exalted by actions. BoVD is the same, and is good for arch-villains, and I've used this as well.

Optimystik
2009-02-08, 11:28 PM
I found them both exceedingly interesting reads, but then I dug them up in a library and thus didn't have to pay. :smallwink:

Gamewise they don't offer a campaign anything you can't live without. As someone else said earlier in this thread, the monsters are really the best thing about BoED, especially the Sanctified template that lets you play a good-aligned Mindflayer or something.

BoVD is better - because it has so many different ways to be bad, it can result in quite a varied campaign or series of campaigns. But you don't need it to do that.

To summarize: Nice game mechanics from both books:
Cleric Domains
Cleric Spells
SOME Sor/Wiz spells

Nice mechanics from BoVD:
Souls as Power (pay xp costs with bound souls)
Pain as Power (pay xp costs by inflicting torture)
Ur-Priest

Nice mechanics from BoED
Vow of Poverty
Sanctified Creature Template
Monsters (for running Evil campaigns)
Pacifist PrCs (e.g. Apostle of Peace) for characters that want a challenge.

Temp.
2009-02-08, 11:31 PM
The balance of the book is wonky, the morality discussions are absurd and the mechanics are inelegant.

The only players who I can imagine being interested in the BoED are min-maxers who would be willing to play a character with a strict, inorganic farce of a moral code if it meant a couple extra numbers on their character sheets.

Just my two cents.

skywalker
2009-02-08, 11:36 PM
I like the Book of Exalted Deeds. I was playing a paladin in my first campaign, and when I walked by the book rack, it caught my eye. I took it home and spent an evening with it. I didn't find a thing I found broken. I recently (about 2 years later) looked at it. Oh. My. God. It's full of cheese.

I think what the book says philosophically is fairly sound, but that most of us just don't want to hear it because, in reality, being good is just as hard as they say it is. Especially for people who role-play to escape, I think this can be, at best, inconvenient to think about. So, if you're like most roleplayers, skip the philosophical sections.

Some of the vows, yes, will screw the party. But anybody reading it ought to realize that. Do I fault Wizards, then, for creating the vows? No. I think the book already had plenty of good feats (seriously, I bought that book and expected there to be that large a number of feats in all the books I bought... :smallfrown:) and that in specific situations, the vows can be a good thing (solo campaigns, groups where everyone takes the vow, etc.)

A word on the cheese and the vows. If you approach the book from a perspective other than "Let's distill the number of ways I can screw my DM," or "Oh, he took the vow of non-violence feat! Beautiful! Now I can force him to be violent and make him lose his feat! Ha! 1 player down, 5 to go..."

So many people forget (or never learned) manners when it comes to roleplaying. And that's where most of the conflict comes from. If you (and the people you game with) are going to be mature about it, I personally consider it a fabulous book, and a lot of fun.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-08, 11:41 PM
I think what the book says philosophically is fairly sound, but that most of us just don't want to hear it because, in reality, being good is just as hard as they say it is. Especially for people who role-play to escape, I think this can be, at best, inconvenient to think about. So, if you're like most roleplayers, skip the philosophical sections.Half the issue is that it seem to be based around only the most strictly upright holier-than-thou hypocritical good. It's like they decided that since poison was Evil, good characters were weakened, so they inserted poisons that only work on evil people. That's right, rather than making poisons neutral(like they should be) they created poisons "but it's okay, they only work on bad people". Great morality there. :smallannoyed:

Edit: does it say anywhere that you have to be good to be Exalted? I have a great idea for an evil Vow of Peace Beguiler who goes around Dominating (and Mindraping, once I'm 18th) any enemies to obey him. Hey, according to BoED, violating mental sanctity to force someone to your way of thinking is even good. We need a devil horns smilie.

RebelRogue
2009-02-08, 11:57 PM
Edit: does it say anywhere that you have to be good to be Exalted?
Page 39: "Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire Exalted Feats"

RTGoodman
2009-02-08, 11:58 PM
Edit: does it say anywhere that you have to be good to be Exalted?

Yep, it does.


This book introduces a new type of feat: the exalted feat. Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good - deities, celestials, or similar creatures.

EDIT: Curses! Ninja'd again!

AslanCross
2009-02-09, 01:50 AM
I think both are pretty good for the monsters, at least (though yeah, it's doubtful that a good-aligned party would ever fight the cuddly Warden Archon). The PrCs in BoED are pretty cool IMO (at least when it comes to Fist of Raziel and a couple of others). Unfortunately some of the feats are weird, and the justifications it gives for Ravages and Afflictions as being "good" as opposed to poison are among the silliest aspects of BoED.

I might also add that some of the art in BoVD is rather disturbing. The gory Kython illustration is one, and there's also Belial's tight leather underwear.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-09, 02:13 AM
I hate BoED due to how it's pretty much encouraging you to play a stupig good character rather then being realistic about it (eg: it claims that animating 1 undead is so evil that lettting the entire universe get destroyed is better), and BoVD is over-the-top. I think the only thing I liked about BoED were Moondogs and another incredibly cute Outsider which was detailed in it.

sonofzeal
2009-02-09, 02:16 AM
What I would term as the "significant" vows have restrictions on them that prevent the party from doing things as well. Vows of Nonviolence and Peace penalize and make it difficult for a party to work around them.
Having recently played a VoPeace character, and going over the rules with a fine tooth comb, I don't believe this to be true. In some ways it's actually less restrictive than, say, the Paladin - there's no text anywhere I've found that punishes you for the actions of allies, or prevents you from associating with evil characters. The only thing that affects party dynamic is the Calm Emotions aura (which you can't aim around them, unfortunately), and the guilt thing... but really, how often do players really need to kill incapacitated enemies? And in return, you get the aforementioned Calm Emotions, a powerful defensive shatter effect, and +4 to all nonviolent DCs... such as the Calm Emotions and the Shatter.

In our campaign, the VoPeace Healer ended up being the tank, healbot, and party face. Her ability to not take damage (or to not take damage noticably; she did lose some hp to a swarm once) was almost legendary, and half the party was convinced she was immune to fire even though she had no such thing. Calm Emotions + a huge Diplo check meant that she could rapidly turn ravening monsters into downright amicable NPCs. And that's in addition to a 6-hp Cure Minor or 1d8+12 Cure Light.

The same party had a trigger-happy Bodger and a dedicated-to-spreading-evil Sorcerer. The result was... well, dysfunctional, but not openly hostile. Everyone understood everyone else to some degree, and managed to not stab each other in their sleep. The worst that happened regularly was a race to see if the violent-types could end the encounter in blood before the VoPeace Healer ended it in tea and crumpets.

Icewalker
2009-02-09, 02:17 AM
I know nothing about BoED, but I have BoVD and it has some handy stuff in it. The drugs section is cool, there are some fun diseases, there are some cool monsters.

Oh god, the Kythons. Those things are awesome.

The 'sacrifices' section is pretty awful, but it's a good concept, just badly executed. All in all, it is a quite handy tool for a DM, just for being able to provide some extra material.

...I could make an adventure based on Kythons. I probably will, at some point.

xanaphia
2009-02-09, 02:17 AM
I agree with the above.

It would be fun if someone wrote an entirely fluff D&D philosophy book. I'd buy it.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-09, 02:24 AM
Vow of Peace would be a problem for me (I always kill KOed enemies on the grounds that they could always recover and cause more problems for me in the future)

sonofzeal
2009-02-09, 02:31 AM
Vow of Peace would be a problem for me (I always kill KOed enemies on the grounds that they could always recover and cause more problems for me in the future)
Our general strategy was to tie them up and loot them (if intelligent), or leave them there (if not). Mindless monsters are generally not so good on the hunting-you-down-for-vengeance front, and VoPeace lets you make surrendered enemies swear to noninterference.

That, or just make sure they got from positives to dead with none of this negatives-but-not-dead-yet tomfoolery.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-09, 02:40 AM
I know what you mean about non-intelligent things (admittedly, animals have Int and Cha stats of 10 in my games, but they would probably avoid the PCs if they got defeated once). As far as intelligent enemies goes, I still think it's too risky to keep them alive based on how they could always escape, and possibly get friends to help them get revenge. On the other hand, if they are dead, it will be much harder for them to go after you due to the cost of Raise Dead spells (just decapitating them would put them out of reach for anything less then a Resurrection as well, which is even better).

horseboy
2009-02-09, 04:25 AM
but really, how often do players really need to kill incapacitated enemies?
Depends on if they're Gygaxian players. If they are, you kill them, loot them, burn their bodies, mix the ashes with holy water, mold it into an effigy then disintegrate the effigy.
But no, you NEVER leave a live enemy at your back. That's not good, that's Stupid Good.

Oslecamo
2009-02-09, 07:01 AM
But no, you NEVER leave a non-mindcontroled enemy at your back. That's not good, that's Stupid Good.

Fixed that for you. Why kill when you can get a new pet?:D

Anyway, to the OP, I say buy it if you can get it cheap. Yes, it has some broken stuff and many questionable stuff, but it also has plenty of cool stuff and ideas for both DMs and players.

Did you know that there's indeed a good goddess of pleasure and sex?

Piedmon_Sama
2009-02-09, 02:14 PM
Book of Exalted Deeds is a great resource for.... *dramatic drumroll* villains.

Well, alright, antagonists.

Has anyone else here read the classic run (Jamie Delano/Garth Ennis, mostly Ennis) of Hellblazer? Back when Heaven and Hell were two equally bad sides of a rotten coin... and poor mankind, like a red-headed bastard step-child, was stuck between the two? Sure, on the one hand, the forces of hell (Fiends, Devils/Demons/Whatever) were all about running roughshod over earth, tempting mortals, delighting in destruction and bloodshed and all that good stuff... but then, on the other end, you have a sanctimonious pack of wet blankets with absolutely no sense of humor, who if allowed to establish a Kingdom on Earth, would be like the ultimate Big Brother. The hero, John Constantine, doesn't want either of these groups setting up shop in his neighborhood. Mankind needs to be protected from the forces of Hell, yes, but they also deserve their right to get drunk, laugh at dirty jokes, have casual sex, and maybe flip people off for merging ahead in traffic.

That's the role I'd give Exalted heroes in my game. They're too good. They're so goody-goody-good, it's utterly removed them from the realm of the human. They've forgotten, if they ever knew, what it was like to have doubts, foibles, to be imperfect. And they see absolutely nothing wrong with holding everyone else up to their own standard--after all, thou shalt not tolerate evil, however slight, wheresoever thou findest it, ay? For any mortals not the picture of the humble, sheep-like flock, it's a trip to the magic crystal and a thorough brain scrubbing (well, actually that spell costs XP. So just the high-level ones, then). You can't deny its effectiveness--and it undeniably furthers the Greater Good. So, in the words of some rat bastard of an Exalted Paladin: "what's the problem, friends? Once you're perfected, you'll see it was all for the best... yes, you'll thank us for this."

hamishspence
2009-02-09, 02:19 PM
Said spell doesn't work on Neutrals or Goods.


Still, an Exalted-ish villain is mentioned (but not statted) in Exemplars of Evil- a person who believes all killing is evil and all prison is torture, and keeps breaking prisoners out of jail (who end up going straight back to crime)

sonofzeal
2009-02-09, 02:32 PM
But no, you NEVER leave a non-mindcontroled enemy at your back. That's not good, that's Stupid Good.
There's no text that I've seen that would interfere with a VoPeace character collaborating with a mind controller. As long as they don't kill an incapacitated enemy, there's no problem - and even if they do, it's only some IC guilt and -1 attack rolls for an hour, hardly a show-stopper for most characters. And, heck, a sufficiently high Diplomacy check is basically mindcontrol for the ethically picky. Never caused a problem for us.

At some point, I want to play a VoPeace Beguiler. You could even use all the "whelm" spells, as the only things that are banned are lethal damage and ability score damage. And +4 to DCs is sweet.

FatR
2009-02-09, 03:14 PM
BoED is OK as far as DnD 3.X books go. Not the greatest supplement out there and not without stupid ideas, but within average DnD book percentage of stupid ideas. It gets lots of flak from people who prefer to play adventurers as amoral thugs, and is also strawmanned alot by the same people, but what else can you expect? Its focus on mercy and redemption is a welcome change of pace from more traditional "smite first" approach. Also it manages to give a decent guidance on reconciling moral values of a good character with realities of adventuring life.
As about its mechanical quality, it is also typical - there are some super-good stuff, some trash and some average. It is not really overpowered.

hamishspence
2009-02-09, 03:22 PM
thats a pretty fair summary. Some of the more dubious ideas get retconned away in later sources anyway- poison as evil, contradicted in Complete Scoundrel.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-09, 03:42 PM
I don't play as amoral thugs. :smallfrown: I prefer to negotiate ingame, but personal experience has just taught me that giving people 2nd chances is always a bad idea. In D&D, it's an even worse idea then in real life to me due to it being easier for certain people to harm other people.

Zaq
2009-02-09, 03:47 PM
Another big problem with the BoVD and BoED is that the spells listed therein have alignment descriptors for no apparent reason. Half of the spells in BoVD, in particular, are no more evil than Fireball and certainly less evil than Suggestion or Dominate Person, but have the Evil tag nonetheless. BoED is slightly better in that regard, but not much. (I mean yes, this is painfully simple to houserule away, but I feel you shouldn't have to in the first place.)

I like BoVD a lot more, especially the prestige class section. They're absolutely right in saying that every one of them is basically a plot hook in a can. Not terribly useful for PCs, because I can actually see why a lot of them are considered paragons of evil (evil PCs are another story, but usually I'm pretty lax about alignment restrictions, other than for paladins and incarnates. You can too be a neutral monk, a good dread necro, or a lawful wu jen. You'd have a hard time convincing me to let you be a good or neutral Disciple of Mammon or Cancer Mage.) I don't care much for the prestige classes in BoED, though. They seem like they either require really restrictive fluff, or are just not playing the same game as everyone else. They also seem to be a lot harder to adapt than other classes, which I like doing. There are exceptions, but that's my overall impression.

The other complaints I have with BoED are pretty much what everyone has been saying. The major Vow feats encourage intraparty conflict, the morality system is pretty much at odds with the rest of D&D, and the section on "inherently good poisons" doesn't even deserve discussion.

olentu
2009-02-09, 03:47 PM
poison as evil, contradicted in Complete Scoundrel.

Where does the book says this, since I have not looked through it in detail and as such can not call this statement to mind.

hamishspence
2009-02-09, 04:10 PM
Sorry, have checked. Scoundrel page 111 "you don't have to be an unscrupulous murderer to use poison"- Dragon Mag July 2006 (issue 345) Sage Advice "Poison is not described as evil" and:

DMG2: page 94 Poison is legal (if a special licence is purchased) whereas in DMG 1 it said The Purchase of poison is always illegal.

So, if you take the Sage Advice entry literally (and remember that Ninjas in Complete Adventurer can be LG and always have poison use as a special ability), then there is support for poison use not being an evil act

(remember that its still against paladin code, even if not evil)

Kurald Galain
2009-02-09, 04:16 PM
there is support for poison use not being an evil act

Sure there is. However, a poison that's explicitly defined as good (as per the BOED) is quite silly.

olentu
2009-02-09, 04:42 PM
Sorry, have checked. Scoundrel page 111 "you don't have to be an unscrupulous murderer to use poison"- Dragon Mag July 2006 (issue 345) Sage Advice "Poison is not described as evil" and:

DMG2: page 94 Poison is legal (if a special licence is purchased) whereas in DMG 1 it said The Purchase of poison is always illegal.

So, if you take the Sage Advice entry literally (and remember that Ninjas in Complete Adventurer can be LG and always have poison use as a special ability), then there is support for poison use not being an evil act

(remember that its still against paladin code, even if not evil)

Oh well. I was hoping for something that actually contradicted the statement in the BoED that says using poisons that deal ability damage is evil since I find it somewhat silly. But it appears that none of these contradict the BoED since even the BoED says that some poisons are not inherently evil (and I would count sage advice as only one persons interpretation and thus fallible).

hamishspence
2009-02-09, 04:46 PM
a little bit. I'd be ruling it may work only on Evil creatures, but whether its use is Good or Evil is still situational.

Mildly tyrannical guy worried about Evil in his town invites the merchants to dinner, and loads the food courses with doses of the constitution-damaging one. Or pumps dose after dose of it into the air, or some similar rapidly multi-dosing method. Several people keel over dead. The lord says- its ok, they were evil.

Nada. Since he had no evidence of specific crime, that was murder.

Blackfang108
2009-02-09, 05:24 PM
Oh well. I was hoping for something that actually contradicted the statement in the BoED that says using poisons that deal ability damage is evil since I find it somewhat silly. But it appears that none of these contradict the BoED since even the BoED says that some poisons are not inherently evil (and I would count sage advice as only one persons interpretation and thus fallible).

AFB, so I can't give a page number or exact quote, but I'm pretty sure BoVD(not a typo) says something along the lines of poison use not being inherently evil.

I think. It's been awhile since I've read the book.