PDA

View Full Version : Book of Exalted Deeds (4e)



Onmi
2009-03-08, 04:46 AM
I'm going to be involved in a 4e campaign and as usual i'm going to be running a Paladin.

While i'm no stranger to playing the Paladin, will the lessons learned in the BoED help me in4e (I mean I don't see why they wouldn't but just checking)

Optimystik
2009-03-08, 04:58 AM
That would depend on what lessons you mean; BoED contradicts itself in several places.

Dhavaer
2009-03-08, 05:03 AM
If it helped you in 3.5 and you're playing a good aligned paladin, I don't see why it wouldn't still be helpful.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 05:11 AM
I'd personally say it wouldn't be that useful (admittedly, I really hate the book due to how the fluff seems geared towards encouraging people to play stupid good characters).

Onmi
2009-03-08, 05:12 AM
now by 'Stupid Good' do you mean stupidly good (which I have never done) or 'Stupid' Good as in you hate the alignment.

Dhavaer
2009-03-08, 05:14 AM
As in following the BoED's bizarre rules for treatment of surrendering prisoners.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 05:17 AM
I meant "stupid" in the sense that the book seems to put often impractical ethics above actually helping people (eg: the bit on taking hostages claims that it's not good to kill evil people if they surrender, even though they would probably be executed if you took them back to the town guards anyway (according to DMG 2), and it encourages you to put yourself at risk by not even knocking them out. Then there's the bit which claims that evil acts are always evil even when you're doing them because it would help more people overall. Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.)

Totally Guy
2009-03-08, 05:23 AM
Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.)

They don't? Where the hell did I get that idea? I've been living my life all wrong!:smallfrown: :smalltongue:

Onmi
2009-03-08, 05:30 AM
I meant "stupid" in the sense that the book seems to put often impractical ethics above actually helping people (eg: the bit on taking hostages claims that it's not good to kill evil people if they surrender, even though they would probably be executed if you took them back to the town guards anyway (according to DMG 2), and it encourages you to put yourself at risk by not even knocking them out. Then there's the bit which claims that evil acts are always evil even when you're doing them because it would help more people overall. Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.)

for the 'Surrendering Bad Guy' I've always used my best judgment on that, I've seen to many stories where the bad guy surrenders then stabs you in the back, If I do take him back it would be for a reward and if the rest of the party didn't mind, and I would still disarm the crap out of him.

For the Evil acts are allways Evil, again depends on what act, I'm not going to make a deal with a Daemon/Devil to save people, nor will I do something that goes against my morals. I may do something like choose to owe a favor to a bad guy, but I would make him regret it.

I thought the Vow/Abstinence was related to Deity honestly.

But yeah, I used it as a reference in 3.5 but not a blind guide book.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 05:40 AM
I agree exactly about being back-stabbed, Omni. The "evil" acts which the book was refering to seemed to include things like casting Doom or animating zombies to protect a town from invaders. I don't remember those Vows being associated with any particular dieties (ironically, I can think of several dieties who would have issues with those:smalltongue:). I'm sorry to hear that, Glug.:smallfrown:

Onmi
2009-03-08, 05:56 AM
I agree exactly about being back-stabbed, Omni. The "evil" acts which the book was refering to seemed to include things like casting Doom or animating zombies to protect a town from invaders. I don't remember those Vows being associated with any particular dieties (ironically, I can think of several dieties who would have issues with those:smalltongue:). I'm sorry to hear that, Glug.:smallfrown:

Then there's the chance that the bad guy could get OFF and go back to doing evil, no I'll be the judge over whether we kill him, make him completely harmless and drag him back to the village, or a combination. Preferably the rest of the party would cast the vote to.

Seeing as a Paladin I can't cast doom OR Animate a zombie to protect a town thats not my problem. If it was something like using a cursed blade and my own sword wasn't sufficient, I would do so. My justification being that I trust my will power enough to fight it off,and that if it displeases my God so badly I shall simply repent to him, I made the decision based on what I felt I needed to do.

A situation came up one campaign a long time ago when the BBEG took the party (sans Paladin) hostage and ordered him to go out and slaughter a village to save his friends. The Pally responded that the party had signed a contract to go through them to get to the BBEG and that he would kill them himself before the BBEG got the chance to.

While slaughtering a variety of characters (some good, some neutral, one evil prisoner) would definitely be seen as horrible, the fact they had all agreed before hand AND He was serious about doing it justified it.

of course the BBEG let the party go because he got scared of what the Paladin would do AFTER killing the rest of the party. Point being is that I would do some evil things for good. however I would repent for them afterward.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 06:09 AM
That was an interresting way of solving the problem. The drawback would have been if he called your bluff about killing your friends. Apart from spells which are designed to target specific alignments (excluding Detect Alignment), I tend to ignore alignment descriptors while basing the decision about whether they are evil entirely on why they are being used. (Eg: using Contagion to weaken a perverted killing maniac who you're tying to apprehend would be good rather then evil to me).

Onmi
2009-03-08, 06:16 AM
That's the thing, it WASN'T a bluff, he was telling the truth the entire time,I'll kill them before you do, then I'll make you wish you had never existed.

Sort of an example, the Neverwinter Nights chapter 2 module had a sidequest where 5 people (or 6) had escaped from Jail, you could either let them go free or kill them.

Two cases stick out for me, one is a Elf Ranger (IIRC) who had gone on a murderous rampage upon men, there families and there animals who had killed his father who had been trying to negotiate peacefully with them and raped and murder his mother.

I judged that he just wanted to live in peace in the forest, that he was acting under emotions and was unlikely to ever do that again, I took his ear (you can either take the ear with their brand as proof there dead, or kill them and take it) and let him go.

Then we have a Gnome who confessed he was a baby killer and intended to re offend. I killed him instantly.

That was my train of thought, I don't know if in a D&D Campaign I would Fall or take a loss for not killing them all, but I did what I thought was right.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 06:38 AM
I'm the same with basing these desicions on the situation. I can see why you made that desicion with the Ranger.

RebelRogue
2009-03-08, 08:35 AM
As in following the BoED's bizarre rules for treatment of surrendering prisoners.
The Clockwork Orange part?

I can't see why so many people insist on using Evil to fight Evil is still not Evil! That's part of the general idea, that being Good should be harder than being Evil, you know!

As for advicing the OP: I think there's some fluffy bits you can use, yes. However, for more crunchy stuff, Divine Power will probably have a lot of goodies for you when it comes out.

Onmi
2009-03-08, 08:56 AM
I compare it to this.

Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action, yet sometimes you HAVE to kill a person for the greater good,We have done so, I'm not talking about the people who got called into the army and thought they were fighting for a just reason.

I'm talking about the men behind them.

In the same way killing a BBEG is still killing, an inherently evil action.But done for right reason.

Hence I would use a cursed sword and maybe evil spells to defend a town. But would never do something like raise undead, deal with a Devil/Daemon, or anything avoidable/to severe.

I call it justified evil.

Also do you know when Divine Powers comes out in Australia?

Ether
2009-03-08, 09:40 AM
I compare it to this.

Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action,

Really? I would say the evilness of killing depends entirely on who you kill.

Roderick_BR
2009-03-08, 09:52 AM
(...)Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.
Well, technically, the Willing Deformity feats (BoVD), doesn't have much to do with being evil either (I'm so skinny you can see my bones. I'm eeeebil)

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 09:57 AM
I'd forgotten about those, Roderick (this is why I ban BoED and VD from my games). It wouldn't be as bad if the stat changes from obesity and extreme skinniness were realistic. I think Atreyu The Masked Llama was more evil during the last good/evil itP contest then any of the deformity feats are, which is worrying. :smalleek:

Little_Rudo
2009-03-08, 01:49 PM
One thing you might want to keep in mind is that the concept of a Paladin has changed slightly between editions. In 3E, a Paladin was a warrior who followed the principles of (and was empowered by) the forces of Law and Good; although they often worked within a church, they were not beholden to a deity as much as to Law and Good itself. In 4E, a Paladin is instead a holy warrior, empowered by their deity and able to be of any alignment. If you want the Lawful Good, Book of Exalted Deeds-style Paladin, I'd suggest being a Paladin of Bahamut, or possibly Moradin or Pelor.

Evil DM Mark3
2009-03-08, 01:58 PM
Really? I would say the evilness of killing depends entirely on who you kill.This is one of the big problems with an alignment system, or rather with its implamentation in many games. In order to be able to have abilites based on good and evil those things need rules, but good and evil are not hard and fast things. To take a topical example, there is much debate as to which side of that line Ozymandias and Rorchach lie (and in fact there is meant to be). The reason why these two books cause so much trouble is that the rules thy put forth are rather stricter than most people would prefer.

For reference I hold that killing is always evil, but sometimes not killing can also be evil. It is inherent in the imperfect nature of this world that there can, at times, be not "right" choice. But the lesser of two evils is still evil.

hamishspence
2009-03-09, 01:27 PM
Maybe my biases toward law are the reason, but I see the main reason you can't kill bad guys who surrender as "you don't have the authority" You aren't a judge, jury, or executioner, and choosing to kill a helpless being without that kind of authority, is dubious.

This only applies when being is imprisoned, helpless, etc. Self-defense or defense of another- not evil, when the threat is direct and clear.

Sanctify the Wicked and the "ability-damaging poison is evil" bit are probably my biggest issues with BoED, fluff-wise.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-09, 01:33 PM
The biggest joke about the ability damage part is that Ravages are only poisons which only affect evil people. I agree that not executing evil people who surrender is Lawful rather then Good.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 01:35 PM
The BoED is about being an idealist...and kantian ethics.

You can't cause suffering to a sapient creature, unless it's a true Force of Darkness TM, without a soul or any type of conscience. Sanctify the Wicked is not evil, because no harm is involved. It's not forced alignment change, either. The target of the spell simply reflects on his past actions and decides to become good.

Now, ravages ("good" poisons) are just stupid.

hamishspence
2009-03-09, 01:40 PM
i figure Ravages as like Improved Holy water- works on ordinary people, not just fiends/undead- on Evil alignment, not just evil subtype.

Actually, executing guilty beings is definitively Lawful- Fiendish Codex 2 calls out carrying out an execution as a very lawful act.

But if you're not authorized to do it, its not an execution.
(which is why the term "gangland execution" grates on my ears)

Even Chaotic jurisdictions grant people caught in act of crime a hearing- elves of Evereska, in book 1 of Return of the Archwizard trilogy by Troy Denning

Unless the adventurers actually have that authority (paladins of Tyr, rangers of the Sword Coast North, for example, according to Faiths & Pantheons, and Power of Faerun) they should be wary of killing prisoners.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-09, 01:42 PM
I'd expect that the creatures would be attacking the PCs or someone else first. If not, then the PCs launching an unprovoked attack would be evil in my view. Sanctify the Wicked still sounds doubious to me unless it's entirely up to the evil creature whether their alignment changes (I've not seen the book for ages).

Blackfang108
2009-03-09, 01:46 PM
Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action...

No. It's not.

Killing is a Neutral action. Are wild predators evil? NO. And yet, they MUST kill to survive.

is Steak Evil? NO. (Preachy Vegetarians are wrong, in this regard.)

Is the lawful execution of a killer evil? No.

Murder, however IS evil. Murder is defined as (noun)"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. "
Also(verb): "To kill (another human) unlawfully."

Killing, in contrast: "To cause death or extinction; be fatal. "

Note that I am only using the first definiton for all word parts, to bring the "true" meaning of the words to bear. Killing CAN be synonomus with Murder, but at its basic definition, it is not.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 01:46 PM
I'd expect that the creatures would be attacking the PCs or someone else first. If not, then the PCs launching an unprovoked attack would be evil in my view. Sanctify the Wicked still sounds doubious to me unless it's entirely up to the evil creature whether their alignment changes (I've not seen the book for ages).

I think that the targets of the spell aren't freed of the gem unless they actually become good (they can't fake it or anything). If they don't, well, they just stay imprisoned forever.

Anyway, I liked the book, personally. It's a great challenge to play a VoP character, for example. I simply didn't use ravages and things of that nature.

GoC
2009-03-09, 01:56 PM
But would never do something like raise undead
What's wrong with rasing undead?
The only thing I can see is that some annoying gods don't like it.

What's wrong with forced evil->good alignment changes?
Seems like that is (by definition) good. iow: It makes a net improvement on the world.

hamishspence: True chaotics ignore the entire concept of authority but they removed the entire chaotic good alignment from 4e...:smallfrown:
Something I greatly dislike, as the best authority normaly isn't some king who got into power by being nastier than everyone else, but the good aligned party members.

Juhn
2009-03-09, 02:01 PM
People in this forum have a tendency to take that book way out of context. For one thing, there's a significant difference between playing Good and playing Exalted. Exalted characters aren't just good, they're practically saints. They don't perform evil actions unless forced to, and even when they do they acknowledge that the action was still evil and atone. It's possible to be Good without taking it to the level of Exalted, and if someone wants to play an Exalted character he should be willing to be thoroughly serious about being not just Good, but full-out Exalted, even when there are consequences. Being Exalted is supposed to be hard.

Sanctify the Wicked, IIRC, results in a voluntary change.

Raising Undead, I believe, is considered evil because it's desecration of a body by bringing it to life against its owner's will and forcing it to do your bidding. Deathless, I believe, make a voluntary commitment, which is why using them is not evil.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 02:08 PM
In short, people who wish to play Good characters simply need to read the chapter on the basic principles of Good. Understanding that Good is objective in the D&D world is essential.

People who wish to play an Exalted character must be willing to make difficult decisions, sometimes based on impractical but morally just ideas.

Juhn
2009-03-09, 02:10 PM
Essentially, yeah. I never have been particularly concise.

Neon Knight
2009-03-09, 02:12 PM
The BoED is about being an idealist...and kantian ethics.


Really? Howso? I didn't see anything that I regard as particularly Kantian in my read through, although it has been ages since I've read it. And there are several things aobut DnD alignment in general that disqualify it from being Kantian.


Being Exalted is supposed to be hard.





I can't see why so many people insist on using Evil to fight Evil is still not Evil! That's part of the general idea, that being Good should be harder than being Evil, you know!


And why is this so? Why should it be difficult?

Juhn
2009-03-09, 02:16 PM
Why should it be hard to be Exalted? If it's not hard, then why doesn't the majority of the world consist of saints?

Being Exalted requires you to make far more sacrifices for the good of others than simply being Good does. It requires you to live a thoroughly moral life, and to forgo more direct though morally questionable actions. That in itself makes it harder.

hamishspence
2009-03-09, 02:17 PM
"True Chaotic" is very rare- a Chaotic Neutral on the borderline of Chaotic evil. Chaotic Good types, like elves- recognize the value of authority, but limit it pretty strictly. But nearly all D&D civilizations, chaotic and lawful, have Authorities of some sort- you can't really have civilization without some rules, taboos, traditions, etc.

"a citizen may do anything which is not forbidden, a government may do nothing that is not permitted" sounds like a CN to CG view. "do what you will but harm none"

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-09, 02:18 PM
Regarding forced alignment changes (which StW pretty much is): I tend to class messing about with people's free will is doubious. I'd say it's not evil if you're doing it to help people, but it still seems sinister. I agree about undead in an emergency, shuch as a town being overrun by invaders due to being more concerned about keeping people alive then respecting corpses (which is ironic considering my views on negative energy :smalltongue:).

Neon Knight
2009-03-09, 02:25 PM
Why should it be hard to be Exalted? If it's not hard, then why doesn't the majority of the world consist of saints?

Perhaps because, both IC and OOC, sainthood is not innately desirable?



Being Exalted requires you to make far more sacrifices for the good of others than simply being Good does. It requires you to live a thoroughly moral life, and to forgo more direct though morally questionable actions. That in itself makes it harder.

Why are morally questionable actions automatically more direct? Why is a thoroughly moral life automatically more difficult than any another? Is is truly sacrifice, or are the benefits of being Good and Exalted sufficient that it ceases to be altruistic?

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 02:30 PM
Really? Howso? I didn't see anything that I regard as particularly Kantian in my read through, although it has been ages since I've read it. And there are several things aobut DnD alignment in general that disqualify it from being Kantian.





And why is this so? Why should it be difficult?

First, being Exalted is more difficult than being Vile because that's how it is, really. In the D&D world, being evil is basically being selfish, which is pretty self-explanatory. Exalted characters must not only uphold the highest ideals, they may never (or almost never) make compromises, because they understand that even a "small evil" is destructive and can tip the balance of Good and Evil in the world. They must also face the incomprehension of those they seek to help and protect, since their methods are very alien. Exalted characters are even more Good than some celestials!

Now, I don't understand why you can't find kantian ethics in D&D. Objective moral? Check. Moral Imperative? Check.
A few quotes:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

Of course, it's strongly lawful. But there is also the idea of a "pure intention". The way I see it, in D&D, Exalted characters have a duty to be Good, because they serve a higher power. After all, ideals have shape in the Upper Planes...



Why are morally questionable actions automatically more direct? Why is a thoroughly moral life automatically more difficult than any another? Is is truly sacrifice, or are the benefits of being Good and Exalted sufficient that it ceases to be altruistic?

From experience, Exalted characters end up dead, and not because of stupidity. Sacrifice is part of their nature.

Is being exalted not being altruistic because you gain better means to fight evil? :smallconfused:

Yakk
2009-03-09, 02:32 PM
I'm going to be involved in a 4e campaign and as usual i'm going to be running a Paladin.

While i'm no stranger to playing the Paladin, will the lessons learned in the BoED help me in4e (I mean I don't see why they wouldn't but just checking)
So 4e paladins aren't bound by an oath in the same way that 3e paladins are.

I'll give you a model that has more details than the RAW, but is consistent with the raw, so you can get how it works. Clear it with your DM.

4e Paladins in Story Form
The Church of a Diety has a source of Divine Power. This power is not, for the most part, directly from the Diety itself -- the Diety gives out fragments of her power to her servants, who then distribute it.

A Paladin is a mortal being that the Chruch has judged worthy. Maybe they where raised from birth and tested and educated at each step -- maybe they where a soldier who acted bravely in protecting the Church -- maybe they where selected from the congrigation via divinations of fate and purpose.

But they where judged to be Worthy of the Divine Gift. This Gift is a fragment, a shard, a grain of Divine Power. It powers and fuels the Paladin's ability to smite down opponents and bless their allies.

Once this power has been given, it cannot be taken back. A Paladin, once granted this grain of Divine power, has that power. So Gods tend to be very careful about who they invest with such Divine power, as do their Church in this mortal Realm who hands out these sparks.

A 4e Paladin is someone who, at the least, once embodied the virtues that the Diety and Church wanted. They are someone who swore an Oath to uphold everything the Diety and Church holds dear about this realm, and all Divinations indicated that the Oath was one that was truely believed.

But the Paladin is now alone. While the Paladin's heart is warmed by the Divine Spark, only the Paladin can determine what is the best path to follow. There is no guarantee that your acts are just and good, other than your own wisdom, intelligence and desire. If you fail, it will be your failure, and you will disappoint that which you once held dear and dedicated your life to.

Your powers will not be stripped from you. If you fail and fall from the true path, you will still be responsible for the power you have been granted. There is no easy escape of "what I did was just, because the diety hasn't taken my powers back". There is no easy escape of "the church must be just, because it contains a paladin who still has his powers". The Mortal Church could be corrupt -- your very instructor could be corrupt. Or you could be corrupt. Your only guide in the darkness of mortal life is your own soul and conscience.

Well, and the occasional Angel who shows up and gives orders. But do you have the magic to know if the Angel is telling the truth?

You are a Blessed Warrior, a Chosen of your Church. But your choices are your own. If you leave the path, it may lead to temporal punishment and emperil your own soul. It will, however, be your choice to stay on the path.

Juhn
2009-03-09, 02:43 PM
Regarding forced alignment changes (which StW pretty much is): I tend to class messing about with people's free will is doubious.

It's not a forced alignment change, though. It works on the principle of trying to reform evil people/beings/whathaveyou. It's effectively the magical equivalent of penal rehabilitation. There's no torture involved, no mistreatment involved - simply a long and convincing conversation. The BoED has long rules about proper treatment of prisoners, especially with regard to trying to convince them to become Good. The spell works no differently. If the spell works, then the subject has, of his/her/its own free will, decided to become good. He has seen the reasoning behind the caster's arguments and, over time, come to agree with it. It's not brainwashing - there is no tampering involved. There is no "messing about with people's free will".

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 02:46 PM
It's not a forced alignment change, though. It works on the principle of trying to reform evil people/beings/whathaveyou. It's effectively the magical equivalent of penal rehabilitation. There's no torture involved, no mistreatment involved - simply a long and convincing conversation. The BoED has long rules about proper treatment of prisoners, especially with regard to trying to convince them to become Good. The spell works no differently. If the spell works, then the subject has, of his/her/its own free will, decided to become good. He has seen the reasoning behind the caster's arguments and, over time, come to agree with it. It's not brainwashing - there is no tampering involved. There is no "messing about with people's free will".

I completely agree with the above. People, remember that this spell is meant to be used on evil npcs by exalted characters or exalted npcs. If the DM or another player casts StW on your character, it's probably because you really deserved it. :smallbiggrin:

Neon Knight
2009-03-09, 02:46 PM
First, being Exalted is more difficult than being Vile because that's how it is, really. In the D&D world, being evil is basically being selfish, which is pretty self-explanatory. Exalted characters must not only uphold the highest ideals, they may never (or almost never) make compromises, because they understand that even a "small evil" is destructive and can tip the balance of Good and Evil in the world. They must also face the incomprehension of those they seek to help and protect, since their methods are very alien. Exalted characters are even more Good than some celestials!


"Because that's how it is, really?" What kind of answer is that?

By being Vile, you make an enemy of not only most beings that you harm, but also any Good or Exalted being that exists. An evil doer in DnD must surely know that deities whose entire purpose is to find and end him have their minions and forces arrayed to oppose him as soon as he makes his move.

Secondly, I contest that evil is inherently selfish in DnD. It is possible to be selfless in DnD while still causing incredible harm to other people.



Now, I don't understand why you can't find kantian ethics in D&D. Objective moral? Check. Moral Imperative? Check.
A few quotes:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."


Kant entails so much more than those two quotes and concepts. Sooooooooo much more. for instance, in order to be truly Good by Kantian measure, good characters in DnD would not be able to derive any benefit intentionally form their good actions. Not even positive emotions. The only way for an action to be good by Kant's reckoning is for it to be done from a motive of pure duty; any other motive robs that action of moral worth.

I could go on, but it is apparent that DnD morality isn't Kantian. There are other moral philosophies and formulations that have a moral imperative and objective morality, you know. I see nothing about DnD morality of BoED that is specifically Kantian; i.e. draws from one of Kant's unique ideas.



From experience, Exalted characters end up dead, and not because of stupidity. Sacrifice is part of their nature.



Everyone tends to end up dead. To live is to die, after all. And Evil and Vile characters die regularly.



Is being exalted not being altruistic because you gain better means to fight evil? :smallconfused:

Plus a cushy afterlife, moral self-satisfaction, the love and adoration of many other beings, etc. There are benefits to being Good and exalted and being perceived as such. Positive PR is never a bad thing.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 02:56 PM
Plus a cushy afterlife, moral self-satisfaction, the love and adoration of many other beings, etc. There are benefits to being Good and exalted and being perceived as such. Positive PR is never a bad thing.

Sorry, I can't argue with you. We can't argue over this since you clearly believe that no one can really be altruistic, even in a GAME. Your very definition of the term is strange, anyway.

Exalted characters are supposed to be altruistic. That's how they are written, for god's sake! If you don't believe it is possible, then this book is definitely not for you.

hamishspence
2009-03-09, 02:57 PM
Agreed on the selfless + good bit. but then, BOED does point out that there is no justification for evil acts. I figure that to mean "no matter how selfless the motivation" as well.

Person discovers village with deadly disease outbreak. It hasn't spread beyond village- yet. Person detonates powerful fireball, killing themselves, and everyone else in village, to save rest of country. Selfless, but also a mass-murder: Evil.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 03:01 PM
Agreed on the selfless + good bit. but then, BOED does point out that there is no justification for evil acts. I figure that to mean "no matter how selfless the motivation" as well.

Person discovers village with deadly disease outbreak. It hasn't spread beyond village- yet. Person detonates powerful fireball, killing themselves, and everyone else in village, to save rest of country. Selfless, but also a mass-murder: Evil.

Right. If you are in an exalted campaign and your DM makes sure that you have to kill all the innocents, that there is no other way to save the country, than he is doing something wrong.

Neon Knight
2009-03-09, 03:03 PM
Sorry, I can't argue with you. We can't argue over this since you clearly believe that no one can really be altruistic, even in a GAME. Your very definition of the term is strange, anyway.

Exalted characters are supposed to be altruistic. That's how they are written, for god's sake! If you don't believe it is possible, then this book is definitely not for you.

I didn't say that they couldn't be altruistic; I just said they they weren't automatically altruistic. Trying to paint Exalted characters as automatically poor, suffering fellows just doesn't jive with me, seeing as how it is possible for a character to be exalted, and to even legitimately make sacrifices for others, but not end up all that worse off after said sacrifices.

It is possible for Evil and Vile characters to make great sacrifices as well, perhaps even necessary. I simply don't buy that being Exalted has some supreme innate cost that makes all other paths the easy road, so to speak.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-09, 03:06 PM
I...I always like the Book of Exalted Deeds for the pictures. :smallredface:

hamishspence
2009-03-09, 03:06 PM
yes- it can be a problem when DM insists on offering only Evil choices, and defining "do nothing" as an evil act (BoVD "standing by and watching a mass poisoning is far more evil than preventing the poisoning")

That said, killing in defense of others is usually OK, but it must be direct defense: "he'll do evil deeds sometime in the future" is not the same as "he's about to murder somebody"

EDIT: BoED says its compulsary- you can't be Good (or at least, exalted Good) and not be at least somewhat altruistic. Note that risking yourself counts- even if you never lose anything by it, you are still putting life on the line.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-09, 03:15 PM
I didn't say that they couldn't be altruistic; I just said they they weren't automatically altruistic. Trying to paint Exalted characters as automatically poor, suffering fellows just doesn't jive with me, seeing as how it is possible for a character to be exalted, and to even legitimately make sacrifices for others, but not end up all that worse off after said sacrifices.

It is possible for Evil and Vile characters to make great sacrifices as well, perhaps even necessary. I simply don't buy that being Exalted has some supreme innate cost that makes all other paths the easy road, so to speak.

Being exalted is in the intention. An Exalted character makes a sacrifice for his cause; since his cause is the Greater Good, he is doing it for everyone (except demons and other true Forces of DarknessTM, obviously). He may be rewarded in his life or in the afterlife, but by definition, that's not why he acts that way.

Vile characters aren't simply devout followers of evil gods, they are horrible people who commit atrocities for the fun of it, without thinking of their consequence on others. Vile characters don't make sacrifices; they make gambles, i.e. sacrificing one of his or her arms to get a demonic graft. They hope to gain something more. Of course, being Vile isn't that simple, either. You have to hide, protect yourself from everyone else, etc. (which some exalted characters may also have to do, in some cases). But basically doing anything you want, no matter horrible it is, within the limit of reason (meaning not endangering yourself too much) is not as hard as upholding an impractical ideal.

Neon Knight
2009-03-09, 03:35 PM
Being exalted is in the intention. An Exalted character makes a sacrifice for his cause; since his cause is the Greater Good, he is doing it for everyone (except demons and other true Forces of DarknessTM, obviously). He may be rewarded in his life or in the afterlife, but by definition, that's not why he acts that way.

Fair enough. But my main point was that living requires sacrifice, whether you lives as Good, Evil, or Neutral. And that it is possible for Good, Evil, and Neutral people to make sacrifices in Good, Evil, and Neutral means for Good, Evil, and Neutral ends.



Vile characters aren't simply devout followers of evil gods, they are horrible people who commit atrocities for the fun of it, without thinking of their consequence on others. Vile characters don't make sacrifices; they make gambles, i.e. sacrificing one of his or her arms to get a demonic graft. They hope to gain something more. Of course, being Vile isn't that simple, either. You have to hide, protect yourself from everyone else, etc. (which some exalted characters may also have to do, in some cases). But basically doing anything you want, no matter horrible it is, within the limit of reason (meaning not endangering yourself too much) is not as hard as upholding an impractical ideal.

Who says that doing anything you want, no matter how horrible it is, is not an impractical ideal? Who says that this is the only way for Vile characters to behave?

hamishspence
2009-03-09, 03:41 PM
I think its a case of "anyone Can be self-sacrificing, but Exalted Good must be strongly self-sacrificing"

Similarly, Vile characters can fit in with society, especially if they are Lawful. They are Evil, but unlike Exalted, there is no "Doing Good deeds jeapodises your Vile feats"

Onmi
2009-03-09, 05:55 PM
Well this topic definitly turned into something different.

I'm in no way trying to play an exalted character as it conflicts with some of the Parties characters.

I also don't intend to fall for some of the stupidest mistakes to befall heroes in decades of stories.

I'm playing a Lawful Good Paladin of Bahamut, with my characters backstory being that he had been a scholar before he became a Paladin, had always found an intrest in Bahamut. He devoted 10 years to the order while training to become a Paladin (Age: 31, a record high for my characters) he then decided the best way to help the world would be hands on. So he took a job guarding a transport that was taking food and jewels to another city.

And thats how our miscreant party wound up meeting.

Were allready off to a flying start with the TN Elf Rouge having only tried to stab me in the back twice, so she's more receptive of me than most parties are.


Now to convince my DM to make my mount a Dragon... Somehow >.>

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-10, 02:19 AM
Regarding self-sacrifice, something I was told when I learnt Reiki is that suffering on the behalf of others is counterproductive due to it stopping you from being as able to help people as efficiently as you could. As far as the art goes, Moon Dogs and Mustevals are adorable, but I wasn't that bothered by the rest of ir.

Optimystik
2009-03-10, 03:13 AM
I...I always like the Book of Exalted Deeds for the pictures. :smallredface:

Me too! I especially enjoyed the Sanctified Illithid Monk on page 17, and a few of the prestige classes like the Apostle of Peace and Skylord. :smallbiggrin:

Charity
2009-03-10, 03:53 AM
No. It's not.

Killing is a Neutral action. Are wild predators evil? NO. And yet, they MUST kill to survive.

is Steak Evil? NO. (Preachy Vegetarians are wrong, in this regard.).

I don't think that is your call to make, their opinion is as valid as yours... and possibly better thought out.


Is the lawful execution of a killer evil? No.
Not a black and white issue, many folk would take issue with this, myself among them, this debate however has no place here.


Murder, however IS evil. Murder is defined as (noun)"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. "
Also(verb): "To kill (another human) unlawfully."

Killing, in contrast: "To cause death or extinction; be fatal. "

Note that I am only using the first definiton for all word parts, to bring the "true" meaning of the words to bear. Killing CAN be synonomus with Murder, but at its basic definition, it is not.

This greyscale moral quagmire cannot be resolved by a simple bit of somantics, your black and white definitions are too simplistic.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-10, 08:41 AM
Me too! I especially enjoyed the Sanctified Illithid Monk on page 17, and a few of the prestige classes like the Apostle of Peace and Skylord. :smallbiggrin:

I always liked the Annointed Knight best, as well as the paladin of Heironeous riding the red dragon.

Blackfang108
2009-03-10, 08:53 AM
I don't think that is your call to make, their opinion is as valid as yours... and possibly better thought out.
How so? Wait, nevermind. There are better places to get into that debat, as well.

Let me put it this way: if killing is evil, we need to (proactively) punish wild Lupines, Vulpines, Ursines, and Felines, as well as every other predatory animal on the planet. Because they kill to obtain food to survive. And that makes them evil, mental capacity for morality or not.

But Because killing is not inherently evil, we don't. We let the predators live.

And, a better thought out arguement doesn't make them right.

{Scrubbed}

This greyscale moral quagmire cannot be resolved by a simple bit of somantics, your black and white definitions are too simplistic.

Minor nitpick: semantics. (Sorry.)

And, yes, it can, because every moral debate is a debate over the semantics of the terms involved. (Not certanties, but debates. Rape IS evil, and I don't think anyone of sound mind will refute that, ex.)

Fixer
2009-03-10, 12:07 PM
I compare it to this.

Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action, yet sometimes you HAVE to kill a person for the greater good,We have done so, I'm not talking about the people who got called into the army and thought they were fighting for a just reason.I disagree with your definition, which I believe is the entire basis for these discussions on 'stupid good'.

Killing, as an action, is not inherently evil. You kill a cow to eat it. You kill a plant to eat it. You kill an attacking beast or person to save yourself or someone you care about. These acts are not inherently evil.

Murder is inherently evil. Murder is when you kill for reasons other than the sake of your survival. Killing a cow for fun is murder (within its context). Torching a forest to watch it burn is murder (again, in its own context). Hunting down and killing someone who said they wish you were dead is murder (again, contextual).

If a BBEG has surrendered:
If they are still a threat to your survival WHILE surrendered, they are still a threat and could be killed. In cases where the individuals mere existence is a danger this can be the case.
If they are not a threat WHILE surrendered, then their death would be murder.

(Sure, they might get away/be set free later, but that is the chance you must be willing to take by being good.) If they are later murdered by a court of law, then it is because they were deemed a threat to public order. If they are later murdered by a lynch mob, it is because they were a threat to freedom. In all of these cases, however, their death would be a matter of threat to person, ideal, or way of life, not desire or pragmatism.

Pragmatism is neutral morals, hope is good, despair is evil. 'Greater good' is lawful, freedom is chaotic, indifference is neutral ethics.

Very straightforward concepts.

Person discovers village with deadly disease outbreak. It hasn't spread beyond village- yet. Person detonates powerful fireball, killing themselves, and everyone else in village, to save rest of country. Selfless, but also a mass-murder: Evil.
Agreed. A more benevolent approach would be to surround the village with walls (wall of stone, elementals to build the walls, whatever) and keep the disease within while trying to work towards a cure and reduce the suffering of the inhabitants. If people attempt to break this blockade, their deaths would not be murder, because their existence (as a disease carrier / sufferer) is a threat to those not infected with the disease.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-10, 12:22 PM
Sanctify the Wicked, IIRC, results in a voluntary change.

Raising Undead, I believe, is considered evil because it's desecration of a body by bringing it to life against its owner's will and forcing it to do your bidding. Deathless, I believe, make a voluntary commitment, which is why using them is not evil.

Yes, we could say that is a matter of dignity. See a Zombie, or a Vampire, cool but with an unescapable thirst for blood.

And now, think about the Undying Court in Eberron.

MartinHarper
2009-03-10, 04:33 PM
Let me put it this way: if killing is evil, we need to (proactively) punish wild Lupines, Vulpines, Ursines, and Felines, as well as every other predatory animal on the planet.

Some people believe that we do not need to punish those who commit evil deeds. Thus they can consider killing to be evil without seeing a need to punish animals (or humans) that kill. Other people believe that only the actions of humans can be judged good or evil. They would not consider predatory animals to be evil.


Rape IS evil, and I don't think anyone of sound mind will refute that, ex.)

Like killing, rape is also very popular in the animal kingdom, and in some species it is universal. Following your earlier logic, should we (proactively) punish those animals?

Blackfang108
2009-03-11, 09:39 AM
Some people believe that we do not need to punish those who commit evil deeds.
Why? Why wouldn't you punish Evil in SOME way? I'm not saying punish in kind, but surely some form of punishment is merited. A fine, imprisonment, etc.

Thus they can consider killing to be evil without seeing a need to punish animals (or humans) that kill. Other people believe that only the actions of humans can be judged good or evil. They would not consider predatory animals to be evil.
But, if killing is inherently evil, then it is the ACTION that is evil, regardless of the killer's capacity for morality.

Ergo, those people need to make up their bloody minds. If an action is inherently evil, it's evil no matter who/what is doing it. Otherwise, it is NOT inherently evil.

(Still pondering my response to the second part of your post. I may merely ammend my phrasing.)

horseboy
2009-03-11, 04:07 PM
Ergo, those people need to make up their bloody minds. If an action is inherently evil, it's evil no matter who/what is doing it. Otherwise, it is NOT inherently evil.
Because of such things a "necessary evils". It's evil, but necessary. Killing often falls under this category in belief structures. Yes, it's wrong to kill, but sometimes it's necessary and absolution is automatic. So killing can be evil, but not something held against you. (Stuff like this just drives the alignment system bonkers.)

Blackfang108
2009-03-11, 04:30 PM
Because of such things a "necessary evils". It's evil, but necessary. Killing often falls under this category in belief structures. Yes, it's wrong to kill, but sometimes it's necessary and absolution is automatic. So killing can be evil, but not something held against you. (Stuff like this just drives the alignment system bonkers.)

I still prefer the original translation of the commandment: Thou Shalt not Murder.

I forget if it was changed by the King James version or shortly before, but it never should have been.

MartinHarper
2009-03-11, 05:01 PM
Why? Why wouldn't you punish Evil in SOME way? I'm not saying punish in kind, but surely some form of punishment is merited. A fine, imprisonment, etc.

A common reason is that acts are punished by other means, so that humans need not intervene, and perhaps should not intervene. You can see that in the Christian proverb "judge not, lest ye be judged", for example.

A 4e paladin might well believe that all killing is evil, but she can still co-exist in a larger party provided that she sees no need to attempt to punish other party members who do kill. There might need to be some negotiation regarding dealing with unconscious enemies, though.