PDA

View Full Version : Being Exalted without being stupid [3.5]



Zaq
2009-06-28, 01:56 PM
Okay, so, recently I've been taking another look at the Book of Exalted Deeds. Yeah, groan away. The book's got a lot of problems. The whole "Good is just Evil multiplied by -1" mentality. The whole "If you do anything bad or even neutral, ever, you're not Exalted" mentality. The rampant contradictions in the book. The apparently random assignment of certain convictions to Good (I'm hardly the first person to point out that "Vow of Chastity" really doesn't have ANYTHING to do with being capital-G Good). Complete and utter nonsense like Ravages, Afflictions, and Holy Mindrape (er, "Sanctify the Wicked"). There's a lot to dislike about the book.

That said, there's still some redeeming qualities and some interesting stuff in the book, and I'm futilely hoping against hope to spark a reasoned and level-headed discussion about what parts of the book, if any, are actually workable and interesting. Having a resource for characters who really are capital-G Good is an interesting topic to me, and for all the book's flaws, there's still some stuff in there that isn't utter crap. (Yeah, you have to dig for it, but it's there.)

So I ask you, fellow Playgrounders, what useful material do you take away from the (usually wisely) viewed-with-skepticism BoED? What material in it is an interesting concept wrapped in an awful presentation that just needs a little more reason and maturity to be interesting at the table?

Some topics I'm especially interested in, if you want a starting point:

-What do you think the at-table consequences of a Vow of Nonviolence (NOT a Vow of Peace, that's just asking for trouble) character are? What do you think they SHOULD be, in a well-reasoned and mature group?
-Which of the Vows are nonsensical, and why? Which are reasonable to the point that they are better represented by a feat (and the accompanying benefit) than by simple roleplaying choices?
-What kind of responsibilities does a GM face with an as-written Exalted player in a non-Exalted but non-Evil group? What kind of responsibilities SHOULD a GM face in such a situation?
-Say there's an Exalted character in a party that includes characters who engage in practices that the Exalted character is against (for example, a Vow of Nonviolence character who watches an ally kill someone before the VoN character can react and stop them). Obviously, this should lead to some interesting roleplaying moments at least once. Should this KEEP happening, however? If the Exalted character disapproves but doesn't want to force his (or her) allies to adhere to his strict moral code, how should this be handled at the table? Do we need to roleplay the VoN character tsk-tsking the others after every single fight? If so, how does that actually improve the game? If not, how do you defend against the charge that you're "handwaving away what should be interesting moral dissonance?" Where's the middle ground?
-What kind of moral dilemmas is it fair to throw at an Exalted character, and what kind are just jerkass "YOU FALL!" moments? I believe that Exalted characters should have to make tough decisions, but where's the line between a tough moral decision that's fun for everyone at the table and simply punishing the player for being Exalted?
-How big of a role is it fair to place on conversion of opponents? What's the best way to reconcile a character who believes in redeeming the enemy with a party that's okay with more up-front violence?
-When should a player really not try to play an Exalted character? There's the obvious case (only Exalted character in an otherwise Evil party), but to intentionally use a loaded term that the BoED tends to dislike, there's a lot of gray area between the extremes of an all-Evil (or all-Vile) party and an all-Good (or all-Exalted) party. When does a player's choice to be Exalted cause more problems than it's worth, and why?
-How should we consider the magic in BoED? Some is ridiculous prima facie (Holy Mindrape is just the most obvious example), but is any of it reasonable? What do you think of the Sanctified Spell mechanic? What about the Abstinence component mechanic? Why?
-What's a good reason (in-character and out-of-character) for a character to be Exalted instead of just very strongly Good? What's not a good reason?
-There's a lot of problems in the book, and some of them have relatively simple fixes. What kinds of things would you tweak almost without a second thought, if you had a player in your group who wanted to be Exalted?
-How can a character be Exalted without falling into the "Stupid Good" pit? How should we expand their ability to be Exalted without being stupid?

This is of course not an exhaustive list. It's just me kind of brainstorming the kinds of things I'd like to see discussed in the context of the BoED.

The BoED has some major problems, but even if it handles the concepts in an extraordinarily clumsy way, it's still got some interesting topics to consider. Let's have a mature and level-headed discussion of the interesting parts.

(Please don't just say "The BoED is garbage, ignore it." I'm the first to say it's rife with problems. That's not the point. The point of this thread is to discuss those problems, think about what would make them better, think about what is and isn't salvageable, think about what we would do to make the book less terrible. I know it's probably futile to hope for mature discussion on such a tender subject, but come on, please?)

Yora
2009-06-28, 02:35 PM
Unless the game is actually based on the idea that a bunch of guys who hate each other have to get along for the sake of a greater good (or evil), or it's actually expected they will kill each other at some point, I think it's generally a very bad idea to have a party of characters with strictly opposing views on highly important matters.

Vow of Nonviolence does not have to be a problem and can be a very cool aspect for a campaign, as long as there's at least a general consensus that violence should be restricted to situations where it can not be avoided. I think it's great when the CG rogue and the NG nonviolent cleric have honest and civil arguments about weather or not to kill a dangerous murderer, who is protected by the corrupt government. And when it ends with the rogue leaving with telling the cleric he is sorry that they couldn't agree on this, while the cleric is stying behind to pray for the souls of both the rogue and the murderer, I think that's a huge success!
But if the cleric is shouting all the time "stop fighting! stop fighting!" and the CN barbarian is just replying by "Shut up! I really don't care for your stupid god.", I don't think that's fun for anyone. Of course, it can be, but only if it's a kind of slap-stick comedy campaign.

Regarding the Exalted status: I think the definition of Exalted should be rewritten. It's some time til I last read it, but I think it's far to restrictive for a campaign played by people who want to handle these things in a mature way.
But what is an exalted character then? To me, I would say that a good character is a person who is willing to do what he can reasonably do to help other people. But an exalted character goes beyond that. He will give everything to help other people and will go far beyond what anyone would ever expect them to do. A good character might say "I really have to do something for the poor leepers. I think I'll make some significant donations to the temple and maybe I could made a journey to the forest of the elves to see if their herbalists know any substances that will help the sick." But a character of real exalted status knows that this can be easily be done by other people, even if he had to pay them to do that. But he will put on some gloves and care for the sick for as long as it takes for a cure to arrive. I'd say to be exalted, a character would not shy away from something he could do, but he feels very uncomfortable about.
Everyone will be incredibly greatful to the good character who took some real efforts on him to help the sick and nobody would think any less of him because he kept his distance from them. Even that is a real gesture of generosity. But an exalted character will sacrifice everything he has to help.

I think this is still by far open enough to allow for a very wide range of options how to play an exalted character and does not force him to take a certain action or refrain from it. But I think an exalted character should be really selfless.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-28, 02:36 PM
It's a great book. It just takes actually using your brain to process the material. Just like with any of the Races books, you ignore most of the fluff and use your own version. Most of the mechanical stuff is weak to average in power, and some of it is great flavor; so long as you leave out the starmantle cloak, you're fine.

The sections on what good actually is are pretty much unnecessary. Who doesn't know it already? You don't use violence except as a last resort or against things that shouldn't be anyway (undead, evil outsiders), you're altruistic and selfless and compassionate and all that rot.

Exalted characters in non-Exalted groups face the exact same problems as paladins; generally, the rest of the group has to be Good-aligned or at least Neutral and unwilling to commit Evil actions. If everyone at the table is a team player, there's no significant difficulties there.

Vows are slightly tricky, but easily handled. A character with a Vow of Nonviolence wouldn't be travelling with a violent group anyway: so either the rest of the party has to agree to only use violence as a last resort, or the player ditches the Vow of Nonviolence for something else. If your players are mature, they'll want the conflict, though, and will keep it reasonable.

In most D&D settings, Exalted characters are religious, which makes sense to me; there's both a community (the church, cult, whatever) and a higher power (the deity) holding the character to the higher standard, and providing them with power and assistance for it.

Zincorium
2009-06-28, 02:40 PM
If you're familiar with the sliding scale of idealism vs. realism, a game that contains exalted material but is still fun would have to be situated quite firmly on the idealistic side.

You can be very, very good- but if you're cynical, a 'realist', or just don't trust that people have the very best intentions, you will have trouble being exalted for more than the first five minutes after character creation.

And the game has to support your viewpoint, rather than casting you as a naive airhead who doesn't understand the real world.

Having every bad guy be a sadistic/psychotic waste-of-oxygen that will just come back to kill you if you show any mercy will get very old, very quickly, even without a holy vow saying you can't, because you never should kill someone who could be saved. The DM has to make it clear that redemption is possible. Without the holy mindrape.

Captain Alien
2009-06-28, 03:07 PM
In conclusion, BoED concept of "extremely good character" shows characters like Miko Miyazaki as the paradigm of Good.

When I first read BoED, I had just read BoVD hours before. If the latter scared me, the first left me aghast: It was even darker than BoVD. In the worst sense.

I want to answer this one:


What's a good reason (in-character and out-of-character) for a character to be Exalted instead of just very strongly Good? What's not a good reason?

Some Exalted feats give cool stuff to characters: Poisoning with touching, Xd8 in Sneak Attack instead of Xd6... They worth it. Now, they are useless in campaigns where not every creature you fight is evil, or there are dinosaurs or Neutral monsters.

And, on-rol, they mark your character forever. It is not the same a fighter who saves children as a fighter who shines and smites evil creatures with holy powers. It just makes that character different in that sense. His ethics turn into something physical, tangible. Painful.

Oslecamo
2009-06-28, 03:21 PM
In conclusion, BoED concept of "extremely good character" makes characters like Miko Miyazaki as the paradigm of Good.

In case you didn't notice, the gods themselves considered MM to be the paradigm of good all the way untill she killed her own master at cold blood, by only taking her paladin powers then.

Does this mean that being exalted=/= being cool?

Yes it does. Miko sacrificed everything she had to serve good, and with that she became the greatest paladin of the saphire guard, and at the same time the most hated, untill finally a series of unfortonate events made her mind snap.

Because some people are too busy saving lifes and stuff instead of showing off for the pleasure of the public.

Xefas
2009-06-28, 03:28 PM
I love Sanctify the Wicked for my Archons and other strongly Lawful servants of Good; at least in the Great Wheel cosmology. I can see how they would be more concerned with the fate of a creature's immortal soul, rather than freedom of choice for their fleeting, mortal form.

If you're evil and die, you spend eternity either A) in continuous unspeakably painful agony in the Lower Planes or B) as an Evil Outsider, a creature of pure irredeemable taint who will spend their immortal life committing evil acts.

If you're good and die. It's exactly the opposite. Bliss or Immortal Crusader of Goodness.

Who cares if you have freedom of choice in your scant years of actual life? I don't. If you had to be lead by the nose to the right choice, then you weren't going to make the right choice anyway. The difference between this and real life, is that in this case, the Great Wheel has objective morality, and a creature of unquestionable Good is making the right choice for you. That's how you know it's really the Right Choice, and that you Should Make It. Even if you're mind is too corrupt to know that.

snoopy13a
2009-06-28, 03:36 PM
The sacred vows are meant to signify the belief that personal sacrifice can result in goodness. This is a relatively common belief (any specifics on this would be against the forum rules).

Exalted characters can perform neutral actions without penalties. Otherwise they'd have to resort to begging for survivial as recieving an honest wage for honest work is neutral.

There should not be any party conflicts with exalted characters. If a player wants to play an exalted character, the rest of the party ought to be good aligned and ideally exalted as well. Plus, the DM ought to be on board as well. Everyone should be on the same page An exalted character should not be adventuring with a chaotic neutral barbarian. Instead, they should be adventuring with those of a similiar mindset. Exalted characters and paladins do not cause inter-party troubles if the entire party agrees with them.

Additionally, the book clears up some philosophical issues from a game perspective. It clearly states that the ends do not justify the means. Now, Miko would not be an example of an exalted character. The reason is that she does not possess forgiveness or mercy which exalted characters should have. An exalted character should ideally try to redeem evil instead of killing them as Miko does. "Lawful Stupid" is not exalted because lawful stupid characters tend not to be the forgiving type.

Exalted characters are meant to be goody two-shoes and the book is there for people who want to play idealistic heroes. It is not for people who want the feats but don't want to act exalted in-game.

MickJay
2009-06-28, 03:59 PM
I love Sanctify the Wicked for my Archons and other strongly Lawful servants of Good; at least in the Great Wheel cosmology. I can see how they would be more concerned with the fate of a creature's immortal soul, rather than freedom of choice for their fleeting, mortal form.

If you're evil and die, you spend eternity either A) in continuous unspeakably painful agony in the Lower Planes or B) as an Evil Outsider, a creature of pure irredeemable taint who will spend their immortal life committing evil acts.

If you're good and die. It's exactly the opposite. Bliss or Immortal Crusader of Goodness.

Who cares if you have freedom of choice in your scant years of actual life? I don't. If you had to be lead by the nose to the right choice, then you weren't going to make the right choice anyway. The difference between this and real life, is that in this case, the Great Wheel has objective morality, and a creature of unquestionable Good is making the right choice for you. That's how you know it's really the Right Choice, and that you Should Make It. Even if you're mind is too corrupt to know that.

I have to double that, if D&D was like RL, it would be fair to call StW "holy mindrape", but in a setting where Good is objective, it really is holy, and one of the best (if not the best) things one can do for Evil beings.

Nero24200
2009-06-28, 04:12 PM
While it's the DM's job to make the NPCs, story and modify to account for PC actions, it's the player's job to make a party that at least works together.

Vows like Vow of Peace can actually make for an interesting character if it suits the campaign style and doesn't clash with the party...then again that applies to alot of things in D'n'D. You wouldn't allow Batman Wizards and CoDzilla in a campaign with a newbie playing a straight, unoptimized fighter would you?

Though I have to admit, of al lthe content I do like the sacrifice spells (I.E the "I sacrifice a part of myself to do the greater good" spells). I also like alot of the vows, since they seem so much more interesting than some standard feats.

Though I really disagree with the "They create anal characters" mentallity that seems to be floating about. Poorly played characters are the results of the players, not the rules. I've seen well-played exalted and paladin characters, but I've also seen poorly played ones. And quite frankly the ones that play poor paladins and exalted are also the type to play evil characters as "I'm Evil, therfore it's perfectly acceptable to kill my party and loot them, for no real reason". If you find a player at your table is being a problem with exalted material, it's probably the player more than anything else.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-06-28, 04:17 PM
Hahaha yes we're back on the endless Sanctify the Wicked debate once more.

My money: this spell is great for sanctimonious, holier-than-thou villains who think every antisocial citizen needs to be "corrected," (or "enlightened," or "scrubbed," or whatever your favorite Menacing Doublespeak phrase is). It was really poorly thought out and essentially there because BoED needed to parallel BoVD, so the exalted characters needed an equivalent of Mindrape.... despite the fact there shouldn't be an equivalent of Mindrape any good character would consider.

Wicked people made their own choices, and they get to answer for it when you send them to the next world. Stepping in and forcing them to be good, when the gods don't, is an act of hubris on par with Lucifer adding more bricks to his throne. :p

Josh the Aspie
2009-06-28, 04:42 PM
A vow of chastity, or forbearance from some other earthly desire, is not something that can only be associated with good, or ill. It is, however, something that one chooses to give up, to show their dedication to a cause, or religion. In the case of some organizations, cults, or religions, there is a standard forbearance. In many cases this started out as something that a few people did voluntarily. Then it became sort of the standard, then expected, then no longer optional at all. In the case of the Catholic priesthood, you are expected to give up sexual intercourse. It is expected that Catholics will give up meat on fridays (with fish not counting), especially during lent.

Many Christians fast during lent entirely, having nothing but liquids except on Wednesday.

On the other hand, many people who join PETA, in devotion to their cause, give up eating animal flesh all together (and some give up any animal products such as milk or eggs as well).

While it does not have to be associated with one religion, or alignment, setting aside a worldly hunger often sets one apart from others who have not chosen too.

penbed400
2009-06-28, 04:53 PM
I play an extremely exalted character and I don't seem to find a lot of trouble doing it. My current character is a level 20 druid with Vow of Poverty and Vow of Peace, it's a little difficult especially since almost all of my exalted feats from Vow of Poverty had to make everything I do non-lethal damage, but it certainly makes roleplaying fun for my group. Everybody is Good except for I think Lawful Neutral Warlock. We mainly just walk around and it's gotten to a few points where lethal damage has been done. There have been no deaths on my characters watch though but thats mainly because how the party works out. Everyone's characters in the group are around the 20-30 year old range but my Druid is 72 years old. So I dunno, they take the "we'd better not anger the old guy who walks around in rags and has a walking stick" mentality and it went fine. Of course its always fun when my character gets initiative and he walks forward with his hands out offering peace and friendly greetings to the bad guys at a -10 full round diplomacy check. Anyways I'm going to have to agree with the guy a couple posts ahead of me. If you can run a character to be exalted without being stupid go for it, it's all about how the players can do it rather than anything else.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-28, 04:55 PM
Well, a lot of BoED seems to be about piling restrictions on the PCs. And these restrictions don't necessarily make them more Good. So, specific, mandated standards of behavior, but not necessarily Good... Wait, isn't there a D&D thingy that covers that?

Oh, yeah, that's right! Law! You know, part of the Law/Chaos axis? The one that gets ignored in favor of the Good/Evil axis? A lot of the material in that book is really Lawful, not Good. So, uh... go ahead and say that it's Lawful, maybe? Make Exalted feats and PrCs require Lawful rather than Good alignment, for example.

Some things may require a PC to be Good as well as Lawful. Exalted alignment as described by the book is probably a narrow subset of Law and Good. Take away a few things and it becomes just Lawful, though, I'll bet.

The_Snark
2009-06-28, 05:09 PM
You know, reading over the Sanctify the Wicked spell, I'm not getting the feeling that it's a good version of Mindrape. At all, really. Yes, it has a vaguely similar mechanical effect, forcing a major personality change on the target if they fail a Will save, but the description—that is to say, what's actually happening—is completely different.

With Mindrape, the spell invades the victim's mind and makes whatever changes the caster feels like, removing or adding memories, emotions, or personality features. With Sanctify the Wicked, the spell simply traps the creature's soul and forces it to contemplate for a year (in objective time; for the soul, it could be more). I quote from the description: "The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Not "the soul is irrevocably altered by the magic." The spell isn't meant to be like Mindrape; it doesn't have the mind-affecting descriptor, and in fact isn't even an enchantment. It's meant to initiate a sort of spiritual contemplation, helping the target along by forcing them to look at the unpleasant consequences of their actions, reminding them of whatever good qualities they have or used to have, and showing them where they might end up if they continue as they are. Imagine the same sort of thing Ebenezer Scrooge goes through, only there's a year or more of it rather than a single night. Nowhere is the spell magically compelling the creature to change. In game mechanics, yes, the fact that the creature is always redeemed by a year of contemplation and that it adopts the caster's exact alignment (rather than keeping its law/chaos alignment) is a little awkward, but game mechanics sometimes have to be an abstraction.

You could interpret it as Holy Mindrape, invasively changing the creature's mind to be more like yours. But I'm pretty sure that's not what the writers of the book intended it to be, and it isn't what the (rather sparse) descriptive text seems to be hinting at. Spell descriptions in D&D have always been pretty lacking, possibly because they want to leave the exact interpretation up to individual players and DMs, but that means that you're supposed to come up with an interpretation that you like. If you come up with one you hate... well, try again, refluffing the spell as necessary, or just get rid of it if you don't like the concept.

The explanation I've given for Sanctify the Wicked does rely on the assumption that all evil creatures (except Evil-subtyped ones) will repent if shown the error of their ways for long enough, and while I don't think this is too far-fetched for a game using Book of Exalted Deeds material, it might not be one you like. Maybe you don't want that as an implicit part of your game, or you'd just prefer that your PCs redeem their enemies personally rather than relying on magical vision-quests. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or disallow the spell, but "it's Holy Mindrape" doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-28, 05:41 PM
Either the spell allows a creature not to change its alignment, or the alignment change is forced on it. There doesn't seem to be any real middle ground here.

Furthermore, if the alignment change were just the inevitable result of prolonged contemplation, the adopted alignment wouldn't depend on the caster, now would it?

So... Yeah, it's Holy Mindrape.

Edit: I remember a Paladin variant that someone brewed up in the Homebrew section, and one of the possible abilities was the ability to charm people. The creator defended this as an abstraction of being able to occasionally be really diplomatic.

I'm sorry, but NO. That's a load of crap. Those aren't the same thing. Mind blank protects you from enchantments but not from the Diplomacy skill, for example. It's like giving someone a big boost to Sleight of Hand and saying that it's "just an abstraction of how good he is at requisitioning supplies."

If you're going to run a game where you take morality seriously, that pretty much requires not doing a bunch of B.S. handwaving about how evil things somehow aren't evil when you do them. Really, that crap goes against the "No, you can't. Not even then" spirit of various restrictions in the BoED, and contributes to an overall feeling that its restrictions are arbitrary and stupid. Same deal with ravages.

Frogwarrior
2009-06-28, 06:16 PM
You know, reading over the Sanctify the Wicked spell, I'm not getting the feeling that it's a good version of Mindrape. At all, really. Yes, it has a vaguely similar mechanical effect, forcing a major personality change on the target if they fail a Will save, but the description—that is to say, what's actually happening—is completely different.

With Mindrape, the spell invades the victim's mind and makes whatever changes the caster feels like, removing or adding memories, emotions, or personality features. With Sanctify the Wicked, the spell simply traps the creature's soul and forces it to contemplate for a year (in objective time; for the soul, it could be more). I quote from the description: "The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Not "the soul is irrevocably altered by the magic." The spell isn't meant to be like Mindrape; it doesn't have the mind-affecting descriptor, and in fact isn't even an enchantment. It's meant to initiate a sort of spiritual contemplation, helping the target along by forcing them to look at the unpleasant consequences of their actions, reminding them of whatever good qualities they have or used to have, and showing them where they might end up if they continue as they are. Imagine the same sort of thing Ebenezer Scrooge goes through, only there's a year or more of it rather than a single night. Nowhere is the spell magically compelling the creature to change. In game mechanics, yes, the fact that the creature is always redeemed by a year of contemplation and that it adopts the caster's exact alignment (rather than keeping its law/chaos alignment) is a little awkward, but game mechanics sometimes have to be an abstraction.

You could interpret it as Holy Mindrape, invasively changing the creature's mind to be more like yours. But I'm pretty sure that's not what the writers of the book intended it to be, and it isn't what the (rather sparse) descriptive text seems to be hinting at. Spell descriptions in D&D have always been pretty lacking, possibly because they want to leave the exact interpretation up to individual players and DMs, but that means that you're supposed to come up with an interpretation that you like. If you come up with one you hate... well, try again, refluffing the spell as necessary, or just get rid of it if you don't like the concept.

The explanation I've given for Sanctify the Wicked does rely on the assumption that all evil creatures (except Evil-subtyped ones) will repent if shown the error of their ways for long enough, and while I don't think this is too far-fetched for a game using Book of Exalted Deeds material, it might not be one you like. Maybe you don't want that as an implicit part of your game, or you'd just prefer that your PCs redeem their enemies personally rather than relying on magical vision-quests. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or disallow the spell, but "it's Holy Mindrape" doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

*Applause*

AvatarZero
2009-06-28, 06:48 PM
-Which of the Vows are nonsensical, and why? Which are reasonable to the point that they are better represented by a feat (and the accompanying benefit) than by simple roleplaying choices?

For my money, the Sacred Vow feat that acts as a prerequisite for the others is a bit off. I don't like the idea that a character can only be good if they serve a good deity. I like my characters to make their own decisions, not to take orders.

Also, there's the Vow of Chastity and Vow of Abstinence. I don't drink, but I also don't consider myself morally superior to people that do. The writeup in BoED seems to imply that superiority, or at least that only Good people do it. I'd say never drinking is a better fit with Lawful than Good. Same with other sorts of self-denial. Also, I don't think anyone who does drink would think that abstaining INCREASES your alcohol tolerance.:smallamused:

I reckon you could handle the two of them with roleplaying, or possibly with a circumstance modifier to will saves vs honey traps.

snoopy13a
2009-06-28, 06:55 PM
Well, a lot of BoED seems to be about piling restrictions on the PCs. And these restrictions don't necessarily make them more Good. So, specific, mandated standards of behavior, but not necessarily Good... Wait, isn't there a D&D thingy that covers that?

Oh, yeah, that's right! Law! You know, part of the Law/Chaos axis? The one that gets ignored in favor of the Good/Evil axis? A lot of the material in that book is really Lawful, not Good. So, uh... go ahead and say that it's Lawful, maybe? Make Exalted feats and PrCs require Lawful rather than Good alignment, for example.

Some things may require a PC to be Good as well as Lawful. Exalted alignment as described by the book is probably a narrow subset of Law and Good. Take away a few things and it becomes just Lawful, though, I'll bet.

No, exalted alignment is not a subset of law and good. It is just idealistic good. Exalted characters can be chaotic good. In fact, there are exalted PRCs where you must be chaotic such as the Troubadour of Stars.

Many people are under the assumption that chaotic good is some sort of lesser good and it allows latitude that lawful good does not. It isn't. Instead, it is to promote good with as much personal freedom as possible. Exalted chaotic good characters are free spirits and distrust authority but they are still going to grant their opponents mercy if they surrender and they are not going to commit evil deeds to achieve a percieved greater good. They despise oppression and will actively fight against tyrants.

Now, the only things that impose restrictions that aren't "good" as first glance are the sacred vows. However, the argument for them being good is that personal sacrifice helps one become more good. Personal sacrifice is not a lawful trait as it comes from self-discipline, not following society's laws or customs.

Captain Alien
2009-06-28, 07:06 PM
Now, the only things that impose restrictions that aren't "good" as first glance are the sacred vows. However, the argument for them being good is that personal sacrifice helps one become more good. Personal sacrifice is not a lawful trait as it comes from self-discipline, not following society's laws or customs.

Yes, that's it. Another interesting BoED characteristic concept is this Personal Sacrifice stuff. Personal Sacrifice is something Exalted, because makes one losing something in order to do Good. There is nothing as selfless as Personal Sacrifice, don't you agree?

But then, Vow feats are a contradiction: They give bonuses to the character. So, where is the sacrifice then? They are as selfish as any other feat. That is their purpose.

Callista
2009-06-28, 07:19 PM
What are you using the Vow benefits for, though? You sure aren't going to use them for personal benefit, or for evil. You're giving up stuff so you can be a more effective force for good... I don't see the problem here.

Chaotic Good is definitely every bit as Good as the other two G alignments. It's not my style; I tend towards Law; but I can see how someone with a good sense of intuition and individualism might follow his heart to be every bit as Good as that Lawful paladin over there. Lawful Exalted Good people tend to join or start organizations; to use Law to further Good. Chaotic Exalted Good people will focus on individuals--and are far more likely to lead by example, without even seeking a leadership position.

For example, let's look at a common D&D style problem: Poverty. There's social inequality in the kingdom, so the working class is just barely scraping by enough to feed the kids, and sometimes not even that.

Lawful Good response: Change the system. Find a way to get the wages raised--without hurting anyone else. Maybe you win the war--through diplomacy or battle--that's been dragging out for ages and raising people's taxes so they can't pay good wages. Maybe you work to change the laws so the poor get enough to live on. Maybe you even step into a leadership position yourself, or else find a good leader and support him, to make things better. And, if things are so bad that it's impossible to change the government, you may--regretfully--overthrow it. (Yes, that's right, a chaotic act. Good takes precedence here.) By the end of it, you've probably started a few orphanages--there's no way you can close your heart to the human suffering.

Chaotic Good response: Help the people. At low levels, maybe you start schools so the kids can get a hot lunch every day; or maybe you start a soup kitchen--probably staffed by the poor you're helping, so that they can keep their pride by working for that meal. Maybe you start a business, hire some of those out-of-work guys. (That's right, you're bossing people around--a Lawful act. Good takes precedence here.) Higher levels, maybe you turn Robin Hood and find the really corrupt people who are hoarding their wealth and redistribute a bit of it. Or, maybe you hire yourself out as a servant to those leaders, and change their minds through diplomacy. Or, if it's that long-term war draining the country, you sneak in and take out the enemy leaders. By the end of it, you've probably adopted a few orphans--there's no way you can close your heart to the human suffering.

It's a style thing. Doesn't have much to do wit how Good you are.

Gnaeus
2009-06-28, 07:25 PM
I make exalted characters pick a good deity or deities they follow. I find that it makes life VASTLY easier. Then I can view their alignment through the lens of their deity.

For example, in the typical moral dilemma (we killed these humanoids and now are stuck in the dungeon with their non-combatant goblin children) I don't have to read BoED and a bunch of vague sections in the PHB then have an argument about different interpretations with players before making a decision no one will like. I just read their deity description and think "Would Moradin (or god of choice) approve?" It usually is an easier question, and it feels less abstract and arbitrary to the players.

Talking about the Mindrape, I can see different good deities being all over the map on whether it is desirable, allowable, criminal, or even worth bothering with.

Lamech
2009-06-28, 07:35 PM
I love Sanctify the Wicked for my Archons and other strongly Lawful servants of Good; at least in the Great Wheel cosmology. I can see how they would be more concerned with the fate of a creature's immortal soul, rather than freedom of choice for their fleeting, mortal form.

If you're evil and die, you spend eternity either A) in continuous unspeakably painful agony in the Lower Planes or B) as an Evil Outsider, a creature of pure irredeemable taint who will spend their immortal life committing evil acts.

If you're good and die. It's exactly the opposite. Bliss or Immortal Crusader of Goodness.

Who cares if you have freedom of choice in your scant years of actual life? I don't. If you had to be lead by the nose to the right choice, then you weren't going to make the right choice anyway. The difference between this and real life, is that in this case, the Great Wheel has objective morality, and a creature of unquestionable Good is making the right choice for you. That's how you know it's really the Right Choice, and that you Should Make It. Even if you're mind is too corrupt to know that.

Or you could worship a deity who lives where you want to spend eternity. Also a good way to get out of hell. Anyway whats that one class with the mass alignment switching ability? Save DC tied to a diplo check. (Also know as needing to roll a 20 to save.) Much better than burning a level.



-What kind of moral dilemmas is it fair to throw at an Exalted character, and what kind are just jerkass "YOU FALL!" moments? I believe that Exalted characters should have to make tough decisions, but where's the line between a tough moral decision that's fun for everyone at the table and simply punishing the player for being Exalted?

Also their is this must have feat for exalted characters. Again I forget its name... its basically a phylactery of faithfulness. Take it.
Moral Dilemma: Make your choice!
PC: Is B evil?
Moral Dilemma: *goes in corner and cries*

-How big of a role is it fair to place on conversion of opponents? What's the best way to reconcile a character who believes in redeeming the enemy with a party that's okay with more up-front violence?
If the redemption via diplomancy diplomacy is allowed that should always be used when ever possible. Always. Always. I don't care if your preferred option is violence, suck it up. Making powerful enemies good is awesome. If redemption via diplomacy is not allowed use magic. Helm of oppisite aligment, or the caller of whathisname. Or mindrape ([evil] spells are NOT said to be evil actions) if thats available.


-There's a lot of problems in the book, and some of them have relatively simple fixes. What kinds of things would you tweak almost without a second thought, if you had a player in your group who wanted to be Exalted?Str position to allow capture with out killing is evil? Umm... there are good outsiders with poison. What the hell? Poison =/= evil.

Yuki Akuma
2009-06-28, 07:44 PM
The book says it itself: being Exalted is hard. Most Paladins are not Exalted. It is very difficult for any adventurer to walk the Exalted path.

Exalted feats and prestige classes are meant to be gifts from celestials (and even Exalted gods). Anyone could make a Vow of Poverty, but only a supremely Good person will be rewarded and empowered for his sacrifice. It's as much a reward for actually managing to be Exalted as it is a reward for being selfless (although to be Exalted you have to be really selfless anyway).

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-28, 09:53 PM
they are still going to grant their opponents mercy if they surrender and they are not going to commit evil deeds to achieve a percieved greater good.
Killing is an Evil deed, but an Exalted character can still kill some creatures under some circumstances. Or, rather, they say that killing some creatures under some circumstances isn't really Evil. In fact, they have a whole bunch of rules for when something is Evil and when it isn't. In short, they make ultimate Goodness out to mean following the Official Rules of Goodness.

But it's Law that's at its heart about following rules. Goodness at its heart is supposed to be about helping others, isn't it? The test for where an action falls on the Good/Evil scale should be how much help and how much harm it renders. Or maybe what effects it is foreseen to render or intended to render. Anyway, it should be about ends, not means.


Now, the only things that impose restrictions that aren't "good" as first glance are the sacred vows. However, the argument for them being good is that personal sacrifice helps one become more good.
But asceticism merely can help one to help others. It can also aid someone in isolated introspective self-discovery, for example. It can help one to achieve a variety of ideals, including Evil ideals. It's perfectly suited to someone concerned with ruthless self-advancement and the acquisition of power.

It should be the "helping others" part that's considered Good, not the asceticism. The Vow of Poverty is an example of an actually Good vow, because it requires giving money to charity.

T.G. Oskar
2009-06-28, 11:34 PM
Overthrowing an abusive regime, in the eyes of a Lawful Good person, isn't always a chaotic act. Of course, a LG guy will probably exhaust all methods (diplomacy, for example) before going with revolt, and most of the time, it'll be war between a "righteous" nation and a "tyrannical" nation. Both are placed in quotation marks because most DMs place that notions as subjective; perhaps the "righteous" nation isn't righteous at all. Perhaps the "tyrannical" regime is merely corrupted.

Now, civil disobedience? THAT'S Chaotic Good. All quiet, all with a bizarre notion of order, but in the end, you are still promoting the violation of an unjust law.

Or maybe it IS Lawful...perhaps I should make that a Neutral Good act.

In either case, most of the problems with the book lie in the perception of players and DMs. Using the book mostly requires the player and the DM to collaborate, to speak about it. A character that might wanna use the BoED (or the BoVD) for the classes and whatnot might find itself challenged by the restrictions; the book was made with roleplaying restrictions in mind.

If the DM wills it, you can simply allow the classes and the Exalted feats as usual, and handwave the stringent restrictions if the player at least shows some commitment.

But, at times, the material in the book is taken grossly out of proportion. Most of the people who read it may have an idea that the DM can go on with it's type of game, while the player has to restrict itself. The book, most of the times, recommends the DM (it's a book ALSO written for DMs, mind you) to be fair and to allow people opportunities where to shine.

It's the same as placing a Paladin in a lose-lose situation. That's the DM punishing the player, instead of providing a great opportunity. Not everyone is ready for BoED. A lose-lose situation can be appropriate, but it must be a mature decision. If the DM wants the Paladin, or the Exalted Barbarian/Champion of Gwynharwyf, or the Exalted Bard/Troubadour of Stars to face a situation that may be challenging, it must be for a purpose. If the player is being a jerk, then perhaps it's "karmic retribution". If the player is experienced and enjoys a challenge, it can be a memorable experience. But, if the player is fresh in the game, and it's placed on an abusive situation, then it's an unfair call from the DM who probably wants to punish the player for being a really good guy at the first time.

Certainly, there are things there that are pretty tough (I mean, there's a quite disturbing image right at the first pages, but then again it's meant to be read by Mature people...), and some that are weird (be it either flawed balancing, bizarre flavoring, or just plain controversial fluff on the designer's part), but most of the book is well done, and actually a few of the things in there should have been updated to newer books. I know at least a few spells and items from that place were updated (Regalia of Good, the Sacred Haven spell and a few other spells such as the Light of X spells, the Retributive Amulet, the deathless type), but there are other concepts that could have been actually updated for purposes of balance (Fist of Raziel comes to mind; it actually would make the Paladin more enjoyable; some of the general feats could also be worthwhile)

However, to take the restricting content and quickly resuming into "this book praises Miko's actions" (as an example from this thread, not meant to signal anybody in particular) doesn't seem too mature. Perhaps a quick read of the book may give the idea that the concepts espouse fanaticism, but a deeper read reveals that such mentality is actually frowned upon. They take their time to actually point out what Chaotic Good people do, and most of the time pointing that there's a reason why Atonement is a core spell. It sounds a bit silly that Exalted status means to a few people "one strike and you're permanently down". It's also a bit silly to think "you can do as much evil as you want, get an Atonement and you're safe". It places you to think that falling may be inevitable, but there's no trouble for trying. Though, in the case of the Vows and the Saint template, there's a good reason why they are so restrictive (and it's not because of their properties, as only the Saint template is actually worthy)

I like the book, and not just because of the mechanical aspects it has. I like the fluff it has, the message it gives. I could say it's one of my favorite D&D books. It's a shame that I can't use it unless I were to DM or in very rare cases, but I know myself; I feel it's too much until I can really play an Exalted character, and really make it worthwhile. I also know that, at times, it's better to go with the flow and let others have fun, and try to find a happy medium within the games. I also find important to remind that aside from being a game that espouses teamwork (a reason I find odd that some people see this game as PvP or make characters that are actually disruptive), it's a game between friends, and a story that's built by the DM AND the players (regardless of what most people think); I find it proper to solve the troubles in and out of game.

Fishy
2009-06-28, 11:58 PM
The explanation I've given for Sanctify the Wicked does rely on the assumption that all evil creatures (except Evil-subtyped ones) will repent if shown the error of their ways for long enough, and while I don't think this is too far-fetched for a game using Book of Exalted Deeds material, it might not be one you like. Maybe you don't want that as an implicit part of your game, or you'd just prefer that your PCs redeem their enemies personally rather than relying on magical vision-quests. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or disallow the spell, but "it's Holy Mindrape" doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

Except that this part of the spell, all by itself, has incredibly sinister overtones.

I am right, and you are wrong. The only reason you disagree with me is because you haven't thought about it enough.

Maybe you got distracted, maybe you spent your life caring about things that actually don't matter.

Maybe you're just dumber than I am.

Either way, you are, measurably, a worse human being than I am.

I'm going to fix you.

No, I don't want to talk about it. You wouldn't listen to me, because you're wrong, and I'm not going to listen to you, because I'm right.

Maybe we can have a discussion about this later, when you agree with me.

Now go sit in the corner and think about what you did.

The_Snark
2009-06-29, 12:41 AM
Except that this part of the spell, all by itself, has incredibly sinister overtones.

I am right, and you are wrong. The only reason you disagree with me is because you haven't thought about it enough.

Maybe you got distracted, maybe you spent your life caring about things that actually don't matter.

Maybe you're just dumber than I am.

Either way, you are, measurably, a worse human being than I am.

Let's fix that.

Well, yes. The spell targets an evil individual, not a neutral or good one. We could get into all sorts of debates about what exactly an evil alignment means, but regardless of what you decide, an evil alignment is not just a different but perfectly okay system of belief. It is a system of belief that, at some point, boils down to being too willing to hurt other people.

It isn't necessarily "you're dumber than I am", either; it could be "you weren't thinking clearly", "you were way too intense about your cause", "you were given some really nasty choices and adapted to them", or even the classic "you had a really unpleasant childhood".

What you're objecting to, I think, is the moral absolutism in saying that the one person is Right and the other is Wrong. Which is totally fair, but D&D takes place in a morally objective universe. If that's a part of it you prefer to ignore, the Book of Exalted Deeds is probably not something you want to be using much anyway. :smallsmile:


Either the spell allows a creature not to change its alignment, or the alignment change is forced on it. There doesn't seem to be any real middle ground here.

Furthermore, if the alignment change were just the inevitable result of prolonged contemplation, the adopted alignment wouldn't depend on the caster, now would it?

So... Yeah, it's Holy Mindrape.

As I pointed out, the spell's existence depends on the premise that any creature would—of its own free will—change its alignment to good, if it had to contemplate its sins or whatnot long enough. This is not a premise everyone wants in their game, but it seems to be what the writers of the Book of Exalted Deeds had in mind. If you accept that premise as part of the game, the spell is okay as a Good spell. If you don't, it probably shouldn't exist, at least not as a Good spell.

And I did mention that the fact that the creature adopts the caster's exact alignment was odd and rather out of place, and it really ought to be changed so that the creature can keep its old ethical alignment or change it, as it prefers. Before anyone mentions that fallacy about houserules not making published material balanced or sensible, let me point out that calling it Holy Mindrape requires you to change it also—if it forcibly compels someone, it should have the Mind-Affecting and Compulsion descriptors. The spell just isn't well written, either way.

scsimodem
2009-06-29, 12:51 AM
I like the Book of Exalted Deeds, but I see it misused, so I'll try to sum up my feelings:

The BoED is, in part, a collection of way to allow characters to play certain archetypes which are common religious and historical heroes without gimping their characters. Take, for example, the Vow of Poverty. The amount of equipment a high level character carries around could be sold to feed a small country. Somebody might see this as being hypocrisy if your goal is to help people. Why struggle to help people by fighting when you could just sell of your crap and provide for others? Well, the Vow of Poverty allows you to give up your worldly possessions for others and allows you to keep pace, mechanically, with the rest of the party. As for it benefiting monks more than others, that makes sense. Many ascetics in actual history followed the path of the monk (whether the Eastern Shaolin type or the Western Catholics) because the lifestyle bordered on the ascetic, anyway. It's not a monk who took VoP to min/max, it's an ascetic who becomes a monk because it's a further expression of his/her ascetic nature. As for the vows in general, they represent the idea that by eschewing worldly pleasures and carnal instincts (booze, sex, violence, etc.), one can further concentrate on getting closer to God (or Nirvana, or enlightenment, or whatever). These feats just make that idea a correct one.

As far as how to play an Exalted character in a D&D game, they don't necessarily have to play in an Exalted, or even an all good party. Part of being a character devoted to an ideal is promoting that ideal. Think about examples in real world religions. Jesus traveled with people who really weren't all that good, but he taught them what they needed to know, and they later taught others. Also think of missionaries who will work with some distasteful people in order to convert them. In fact, as a Christian, I consider it my duty to be around those who are not Christian to set an example. I don't pitch a fit and try to force my lifestyle on them, but my friends all know where I stand and what I don't approve of.

Then again, it's flavor of the game. I don't consider str and dex poison to be evil unless you're careless with them (i.e. you don't try hard enough to keep it from spilling over into con). I even let them spend extra on stuff that hits str and dex and won't spill over into con. Some people also consider it a worthwhile pursuit to separate yourself from society to further pursue ideals, which I find counter-productive to the goal of spreading them. You know, whatever.

MickJay
2009-06-29, 05:10 AM
The basic assumption with StW is that being Good is a natural state of beings (at least those that are not embodiments of Evil, but that's what the subtype represents). Sanctified being reflects on their past lives and returns to the natural Goodness. Where Evil is objectively evil and Good is, any spell that increases the amount of Goodness hasto be a Good spell. It's more of a cure than anything else - it's a bit like Socratic wisdom: people are evil only because they are not truly wise, and StW gives them time to contemplate, on their own, and achieve that wisdom which allows them to be truly Good.

In D&D, killing is not inherently evil, it's neutral; it's the circumstances that make it evil (or in extremely rare cases good).

Civil disobedience would definitely be an expression of Lawful behaviour. People go against laws they disagree, but are fully prepared for (and accept) the consequences of their actions, thus showing their respect for the law in general. Chaotic action would end up with the protesters demolishing stuff and running away. [yes, Law and Chaos are not about laws but about attitude and personal values, but in this case, both nicely go together]

Fixer
2009-06-29, 07:42 AM
-What do you think the at-table consequences of a Vow of Nonviolence (NOT a Vow of Peace, that's just asking for trouble) character are? What do you think they SHOULD be, in a well-reasoned and mature group?

Actually, reading over both there is very little at-table consequences for the group, IF they are are cohesive group. The Vow of Non-violence allows the stipulation that living creatures promise not to cause harm if they are granted mercy. If they break the oath, or if they refuse the oath, they are not considered protected by the character with the Vow.

-Which of the Vows are nonsensical, and why? Which are reasonable to the point that they are better represented by a feat (and the accompanying benefit) than by simple roleplaying choices?
Most of the vows, as written, are just plain bad. Only Vow of Peace and Vow of Non-Violence were written well, and they shouldn't be separate feats. If you are taking Non-Violence, you WILL eventually take Peace.

-What kind of responsibilities does a GM face with an as-written Exalted player in a non-Exalted but non-Evil group? What kind of responsibilities SHOULD a GM face in such a situation?
The GM should warn the player when they say their character is going to do something that will cause their character to fall from Exalted status. This is done because of the difference in opinion in what constitutes 'good' between people. Your player may think they are being good and true and virtuous and won't see it as 'the easy way'. It is your responsibility to warn them, and be their virtual conscience, as it were.

-Say there's an Exalted character in a party that includes characters who engage in practices that the Exalted character is against (for example, a Vow of Nonviolence character who watches an ally kill someone before the VoN character can react and stop them). Obviously, this should lead to some interesting roleplaying moments at least once. Should this KEEP happening, however? If the Exalted character disapproves but doesn't want to force his (or her) allies to adhere to his strict moral code, how should this be handled at the table? Do we need to roleplay the VoN character tsk-tsking the others after every single fight? If so, how does that actually improve the game? If not, how do you defend against the charge that you're "handwaving away what should be interesting moral dissonance?" Where's the middle ground?
The VoN player should address the matter with the other players and the GM. If they come to the conclusion that no one wishes to change their behavior, or their characters, then the VoN character would have to try to perform actions that counter the actions of their fellow party members. If the party members perform EVIL acts, however, the VoN character is COMPLETELY expected to put them under control, literally. Try to remember that the right of free choice is NOT the purview of good morals. Freedom of choice is an ethical decision. Good does not mean believing that everyone has the right to choose, it means that everything and everyone has a right to life and peace. Those who make choices that reduce the lives and happiness of others need to either be removed, imprisoned, or redeemed (by force if necessary).

-What kind of moral dilemmas is it fair to throw at an Exalted character, and what kind are just jerkass "YOU FALL!" moments? I believe that Exalted characters should have to make tough decisions, but where's the line between a tough moral decision that's fun for everyone at the table and simply punishing the player for being Exalted?
If there are no good choices to be made, atonement should always be allowed, regardless of what the BoED says. Part of the concept of pure GOOD is that you allow redemption for all but those who refuse it (and for those you aren't strong enough to force it upon). Intentionally placing the Exalted characters into moral quandries is acceptable, but not providing them with enough information to make a GOOD decision is being an @ss-hat. As GM, you have a clear vision of the situation. As a player they only have the details you tell them, and what they understand of what you tell them (which is often less than what you tell them). Make sure they work for it, though. If they don't ask questions, and you give them a single warning, then let them fall.

-How big of a role is it fair to place on conversion of opponents? What's the best way to reconcile a character who believes in redeeming the enemy with a party that's okay with more up-front violence?
This is an inter-party conflict and should be resolved by the PLAYERS, not the CHARACTERS.

-When should a player really not try to play an Exalted character? There's the obvious case (only Exalted character in an otherwise Evil party), but to intentionally use a loaded term that the BoED tends to dislike, there's a lot of gray area between the extremes of an all-Evil (or all-Vile) party and an all-Good (or all-Exalted) party. When does a player's choice to be Exalted cause more problems than it's worth, and why?
When the player of the Exalted character looks more at the benefits than the responsibilities of playing an Exalted character, that player shouldn't play an exalted character. Being Exalted isn't just being Good, it is being GOOD.

-How should we consider the magic in BoED? Some is ridiculous prima facie (Holy Mindrape is just the most obvious example), but is any of it reasonable? What do you think of the Sanctified Spell mechanic? What about the Abstinence component mechanic? Why?
I forget details, but try to remember what I said earlier that Good is not about freedom. Good is about life and peace, not freedom. Good CAN be completely totalitarian and dominating, so long as it is not harmful. You cannot, for example, 'holy mindrape' an evil individual if they aren't performing evil acts. You have no justification for such extreme behavior. You can try to convince someone to change, but you save the 'big guns' for those opponents who refuse to listen.

-What's a good reason (in-character and out-of-character) for a character to be Exalted instead of just very strongly Good? What's not a good reason?
The challenge, seriously. It is *REALLY* hard to be that good. You have to WANT to be that good. If you don't want to be that good, you shouldn't be Exalted.

-There's a lot of problems in the book, and some of them have relatively simple fixes. What kinds of things would you tweak almost without a second thought, if you had a player in your group who wanted to be Exalted?
I would tailor things to the character. Most of the Vows would need revision, but if the player likes them as-is I'd leave them alone.

-How can a character be Exalted without falling into the "Stupid Good" pit? How should we expand their ability to be Exalted without being stupid?
That is a problem of the player's perception of what it means to be 'good'. Unfortuntely, Dudley Doright did much to place the mantle of stupid good upon the alignment.

Moriato
2009-06-29, 11:21 AM
You simply can't apply real world morals to D&D. It's a different universe. It's a universe of blacks and whites. Everything in the D&D universe works the way it does because someone said so. Sancify the Wicked is a good spell because it has the good descriptor. That's all. It has the good descriptor and is therefore a good act. Evil acts are evil even if they have good results, good acts are good even if they have evil results. This isn't, of course, the way it works in the real world, but since when is D&D anything like the real world? If you want that to be different in your game, well you're the DM, and therefore you're the one who gets to decide every detail of your world and you control how each and every rule works, so change it.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-29, 01:35 PM
The basic assumption with StW is that being Good is a natural state of beings (at least those that are not embodiments of Evil, but that's what the subtype represents).
I think that that's the main problem with the spell. It's based on Rousseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight), and as such has no place in a setting based on Balance Between Good and Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalanceBetweenGoodAndEvil). The two just don't gel. To borrow from Frank and K, Evil isn't incorrect in D&D. It's an entirely valid position that is supported by as many gods as Good is. It doesn't require any sort of ignorance whatsoever; it's perfectly consistent for an omniscient being to be Evil.

But "You can't poison people, but you can BRAINWASH THEM FOR JUSTICE!" is also a problem, because those two approaches to Good don't fit together either. You should either be allowed to do horrible things in the name of Good or not. Being allowed to do specific horrible things but not other relatively minor things makes the whole business feel arbitrary. As someone said about hit points in another thread: It knocks you back and makes you realize "Oh, yeah, this is just a silly little game." It's immersion-breaking.


In D&D, killing is not inherently evil, it's neutral; it's the circumstances that make it evil (or in extremely rare cases good).

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Yeah, the alignment section of the PHB doesn't say that killing is always Evil. It doesn't say that anything is always Evil. Still, it's supposed to be the section of the rules for deciding what something's alignment is... isn't it? Or are we to regard the PHB as insufficient for implementing alignment, because Good and Evil are defined in other sourcebooks? (If so, are Law and Chaos actually defined anywhere?)

I think that we can distinguish aligned aspects of an act or a creature from its total alignment. So, killing is an Evil part of something, but that doesn't mean that its net alignment is Evil, because there may be overriding Good parts. Still, it's more Evil / less Good than it would be without the killing, all else being equal. Of course, all else is almost never equal, but it's good to have a baseline.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 01:39 PM
Law isn't defined per se but lawful acts are listed in Fiendish Codex 2.

Exemplars of Evil goes into some depth on common personality traits of Lawful and Chaotic villains.

MickJay
2009-06-29, 03:06 PM
I think that that's the main problem with the spell. It's based on Rousseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight), and as such has no place in a setting based on Balance Between Good and Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalanceBetweenGoodAndEvil). The two just don't gel. To borrow from Frank and K, Evil isn't incorrect in D&D. It's an entirely valid position that is supported by as many gods as Good is. It doesn't require any sort of ignorance whatsoever; it's perfectly consistent for an omniscient being to be Evil.

Evil: supported by a lot of gods - agreed, but these gods are evil. Gods in D&D are about as powerful as those of most traditional religions (e.g. ancient Greek or Roman cults) and share a number of their traits. They are not perfect (and definitely NOT omniscient), therefore it's still possible to argue that those Evil gods are Evil because of their imperfection, or because of the way they ascended to godhood, or because they're just a bunch of very powerful bastards. One major difference between D&D deities and old RL pantheons is that there were no strictly evil gods in myths (either because gods transcended good and evil, or because human categories did not fit them, or because humans could not possibly understand motives of the gods, etc). Calling a god evil was just asking for trouble, usually in the form of punishment from the horrified community that feared the vengeance of the insulted deity.

In any case, Evil remains incorrect from the standpoint of both Neutral and Good. It remains a valid choice, but let's face it, it's appeal is short-term and consequences of being Evil are quite nasty to all but the few most powerful mortals. As for the whole balance thing, is that really desirable? You have two extremely powerful forces of Evil who would wipe out everything else if they stopped fighting with each other (Blood War) and the forces of Good who genuinely care for the mortals (some more, some less, but they do). From this perspective, only a madman would want to bring about destruction of the world and eternal torment to everyone's souls (unless the souls were simply devoured or something). Evil people, knowingly or not, tip the scales of the "balance" in favour of destruction and misery. Making them Good, by any means, helps to prevent end of the world, protecting everyone, including the Evil people, and also prevents all the evil, pain and suffering they would have caused directly.

Fixer
2009-06-29, 03:14 PM
But "You can't poison people, but you can BRAINWASH THEM FOR JUSTICE!" is also a problem, because those two approaches to Good don't fit together either. You should either be allowed to do horrible things in the name of Good or not. Being allowed to do specific horrible things but not other relatively minor things makes the whole business feel arbitrary.Your argument is that accepting that all beings have the right to self-determination is an inherently Good act. That argument is incorrect. Good morality (in D&D) does not subscribe to the belief that all individuals have the right to choice. There, it has been said. Good, as described in D&D, is all about preservation of life, peace, and the nurturing of kindness and compassion. HOW a being does these things is determined by ethics. If you are chaotic good, you believe in personal choice and the idea of casting Sanctify the Wicked would be, to you, Evil. If you believe in order and compliance, Sanctify the Wicked would be, to you, acceptable if not preferred.


Yeah, the alignment section of the PHB doesn't say that killing is always Evil. It doesn't say that anything is always Evil.Actually, I am pretty sure it says that the casting of spells with the Evil descriptor is always evil. I haven't checked but I am pretty sure that's always evil.

The Rose Dragon
2009-06-29, 03:16 PM
Actually, I am pretty sure it says that the casting of spells with the Evil descriptor is always evil. I haven't checked but I am pretty sure that's always evil.

Yes, it does say so.

In Eberron Campaign Setting.

In a single line that has no precedent anywhere else whatsoever.

EDIT: That's not entirely correct. There is a similar line in either BoVD or BoED, but there is no such thing in the core rulebooks.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 03:56 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 has several (which are also mentioned in BoED and BoVD)

and in PHB "even if cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is an evil act"

Which is in some ways odder than half the things in BoED and BoVD.

BoED's heavy focus on "treating evil beings right"- being kind to prisoners and not killing them out of hand, is a refreshing change of pace from "smite the guilty without mercy" in PHB.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-29, 03:57 PM
Good morality (in D&D) does not subscribe to the belief that all individuals have the right to choice.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
:smallsigh: Protecting innocent life from enslavement out of respect and concern for its dignity is Good. Debasing innocent life through oppression is Evil. Whether the same holds true for one's treatment of non-innocent life (and, if so, what constitutes "innocence") is more debatable.


Actually, I am pretty sure it says that the casting of spells with the Evil descriptor is always evil. I haven't checked but I am pretty sure that's always evil.
No, the alignment section of the PHB most certainly does not say that. I don't think that it says that anywhere in the PHB. It does say elsewhere that channeling negative energy is always evil and channeling positive energy is always good, which is ridiculous. (Turning a Good ghost is always a good act? Really, now?)

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 04:07 PM
I liked Champions of Ruin (faerun centric, but basically BoVD 3.5) which went into some depth on how a character can be evil even if they are focussed on destroying evil guys- they are "The Ends Justify The Means" or "Driven to Evil" or similar- as BoED points out, certain acts are evil even if done only to Evil people.

Savage Species also pointed out evil people aren't necessarily evil to everyone- they may confine their evils to an "out-group" who they hate and oppress.

Terry Pratchett's comments on there being no evil practiced by a vile, cackling villain, that cannot be duplicated by a loving family man, are appropiate here.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-29, 04:31 PM
Incidentally, saying that a setting has black-and-white objective morality doesn't actually establish what's black and what's white. Some people will use this as shorthand to mean that slaughtering your way through a goblin village is Good, and others will use it as shorthand to mean that the exact same thing is Evil. In fact, it doesn't intrinsically mean either. It just means that Good and Evil aren't relative to points of view; it doesn't establish what they are.

Further, it's pretty clear that Good and Evil are only objective in-game. Out-of-game, players disagree on how alignment works, and it's hard to see what it would even mean to say that one perspective is objectively right.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 04:33 PM
yes- you have to go into the splatbooks to find clues (Evil, in the case of village massacres, according to BoED)

Yora
2009-06-29, 04:36 PM
Your argument is that accepting that all beings have the right to self-determination is an inherently Good act. That argument is incorrect. Good morality (in D&D) does not subscribe to the belief that all individuals have the right to choice. There, it has been said. Good, as described in D&D, is all about preservation of life, peace, and the nurturing of kindness and compassion. HOW a being does these things is determined by ethics. If you are chaotic good, you believe in personal choice and the idea of casting Sanctify the Wicked would be, to you, Evil. If you believe in order and compliance, Sanctify the Wicked would be, to you, acceptable if not preferred.
Which opens the way for some very interesting characters.
You could easily have a Good slave holder. Depending on how you see it, every feudal lord would be a slave holder, and you wouldn't make it a requirement for Good lords to dissolve their durchy and give away all the family land for free.

CockroachTeaParty
2009-06-29, 04:37 PM
I personally like the Book of Exalted Deeds. I would agree with previous posters that the biggest reason to play an Exalted character is for the challenge. It's *not* easy.

I'm playing my very first exalted character in a friend of mine's game, and I'm going for broke. It's a gestalt game, and I'm playing an azurin good incarnate // healer, eventually heading for Apostle of Peace. I'm level three, have Vow of Poverty, Non-violence, and Peace, and have an AC of 25 (!).

It's a lot of fun. I can't hurt anyone, but we do face a great deal of undead, which I'm free to destroy (or 'return their souls to their rightful rest,' as my character would say). I mostly heal and provide diplomacy, support, and guidance to the rest of the party. The fact that the rest of the party is also good makes things easier, certainly, but there's already been interesting RP and mechanical consequences for the vows I took.

For instance, there's a chance that if everyone fails their will save against my calming aura, we literally cannot attack first in a fight. The enemy has to make the first attack, often preventing us from ending a fight quickly if we rolled well on initiative. Also, once after defeating a nest of fiendish giant centipedes, my cleric friend coup-de-grace'd one of the dying monsters before I could stay his hand. My character described how all life, no matter how seemingly irredeemable, should have the chance at redemption, and thus is deserving of mercy. After suffering a -1 penalty to attacks for two hours, the party knows to not kill helpless opponents.

Still, the penalty they take is pretty small, and if there's a good 'heat of the moment' revenge killing or something, it's not going to be game breaking, and it's not going to grind the game to a halt. It just makes things slightly more interesting. Even my character, who abhors violence, is going to face a troublesome decision when we face off against my necrocarnum-wielding pursuer, an unforgivable monster in the flesh. Can he even be redeemed? At this low a level, our resources and options are limited, yet nevertheless my goodness is already having an impact. Personally, it's all very satisfying.

I might even go out on a limb and claim the Book of Exalted Deeds makes for a more fun game (for the players) than the Book of Vile Darkness. Playing an evil game can often get pretty silly, mindless, or juvenile. Exalted Deeds has introduced a new level of maturity to the game, and I find it quite refreshing from the typical "I burst down the door, kill the goblins, and take their stuff" approach.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 04:39 PM
Except for BoED's "Even if torture, slavery, and discrimination are accepted by society, they remain evil" line.

Which is a little inconsistant with Faerun's mostly LG Mulhorandi culture- Ancient Egyptians transported to Faerun long ago, with their gods, who practice a more "benevolent" form of slavery.

I tend to agree on the BoED being interesting- and BoVD as good resource for knowing what not to do.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-29, 04:51 PM
Heck, children are de facto chattel in our own society. Is this Evil?

Then there's the treatment of various animals, which disturbingly often pretty much unambiguously is Evil.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 04:54 PM
yes- I'd probably go with "causing unnecessary suffering is evil" being applied across the board, not just to sentient beings.

Hard part is defining the "unnecessary" bit- is hunting ok if the hunter's killing methods are swift, relatively low pain?

Is it ok if you can get by without it but it makes a huge difference to quality of life?

Etc.

Yora
2009-06-29, 04:56 PM
I think nobody would dispute that it's practically impossible to define alignment in such detail, that everyone can agree on it in all imaginable situations. That's why more open definitions actually work far better, in my oppinion.

At least Japanese has a word, which may be a buddhist word found in other languages in a similar way, which can be translated as "Evil", but more precicely means "thoughts and actions, which cause suffering".
Which is of course difficult to use with alignment in D&D and is clearly contrary to what D&D say what alignment is, but I think thinking about alignment in such a way is actually more helpful. No creature IS evil. They only DO evil. A creatures alignment becomes just a summary of the creatures dominant behaviour. An evil creature causes suffering a lot and does not try to prevent or ease it, unless it benefits itself. Which works without problems for humanoid creatures, but completely fails regarding outsiders.

But I think it's okay to bring in much more context to determine if an act is inherently and truly evil, or if the specific act just has some traces of evil, while doing much more good at the same time. For example, slavery always is a bit evil for restricting the slaves freedom, but if the lord takes a lot of efforts to see his slaves safe and well and protect them from abuse, all the good he does could easily overshadow the much smaller part of evil in his actions.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 05:01 PM
There is also "hard labour" for criminals, especially the chain gang, which while not exactly slavery is worryingly close.

David Edding's Atan culture in his Tamuli trilogy, seems like an attempt at "good slavery"

As it happens, D&D does focus quite heavily on actions, rather than intentions and personality. An otherwise "good natured" person, whose intent (protecting others" is good, yet makes a career out of "D&D evil" acts such as torture, would be evil according to Champions of Ruin.

It is the preponderance of your actions that matter, not your basic personality or why you do them.

(for some actions, intent and context are important, for some, they aren't)

MickJay
2009-06-29, 05:23 PM
Which opens the way for some very interesting characters.
You could easily have a Good slave holder. Depending on how you see it, every feudal lord would be a slave holder, and you wouldn't make it a requirement for Good lords to dissolve their durchy and give away all the family land for free.

right to choice =/= right to personal freedom.

And what to do with situations when people willingly sold themselves into slavery, seeking a better life? Or with parents who sold one of their children to be able to provide for the rest, and perhaps also to improve chances of survival of the one sold? What about temporary slavery, when the slave is guaranteed freedom after a set period of time? Modern approach to slavery (the one that is presented in D&D material) is very much a result of the events of the last 200 years, and ignores all the nuances that are possible in systems that share the same label, but were completely different from what was happening in, e.g., XVIII and XIX century USA.

As for right to choose, would you let a child put their hand in fire if you could prevent it? Would you save a person's soul from eternity of torment if you had the means to do so? The first example isn't too good for comparison, of course, the hand would heal and the child would have a valuable experience for the rest of their life, while the evil person's soul would be lost forever (and the person in question would keep harming others before they died, too).

Set
2009-06-29, 05:27 PM
The Vow feats bug me.

I don't care for the idea that 'being good' is rewarded with super-powers. It cheapens the whole affair. If living the life of Mother Theresa invested someone with the power to fly and shoot laser beams out of their eyes, I imagine that there would be a heck of a lot more Mother Theresas out there, and it would be hard to tell which of them would have been saintly icons if there weren't free steak knives along with the life of service...

Hearing these vows called 'sacrifices,' when they give super-powers and advantages over people who didn't 'sacrifice' just makes me think of that Princess Bride line, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..."


But "You can't poison people, but you can BRAINWASH THEM FOR JUSTICE!" is also a problem,

And the issue I have with this, is that if the evil dude poisons the good dude, he still goes to heaven (just ahead of schedule). If the good dude 'sanctifies' the bad dude, he's been forever condemned to be denied the afterlife *that he chose for himself.* What if he's a 'Erac's Cousin' sort who has already made arrangements for his disposition in the afterlife? (See also the Abbey of Green Steel, or any of the classes or PrCs that turn you into an Outsider as the endcap.)

On the other side of the argument, the sanctified bad dude is being spared the afterlife *that his deeds earned.* He's getting a free pass! Kill people, start a plague, send a horde of zombie rats into an orphanage to eat up all the succulent babies, kick a puppy, and bam, spell is cast and it's all better! 'Oh, I feel really bad about all of those virgins I sacrificed to Bhaal!'

Meanwhile the dude who made a mistake at some point, and walked out of the church of Lathandar and never came back is going to Hell (or being made into a wailing brick in Kelemvores' wall of faithless souls), while the 'sanctified' Mind Flayer gets away with decades of enslaving people and forcing them to read Ayn Rand to 'fatten up their brains' before he ate them.

A *spell* that can change someone's destiny in such a profound manner just laughs in the face of the whole notion that judgement, alignment and the afterlife mean a darn thing.


Some of the Prestige Class notions might be fun to 'de-Exalt' and make into more traditional PrCs for 'merely' good aligned characters.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-29, 05:37 PM
A *spell* that can change someone's destiny in such a profound manner just laughs in the face of the whole notion that judgement, alignment and the afterlife mean a darn thing.


Have you ever heard of the returning son?
It is a bible story, but the idea is the same.

A Sinner who repents is worth alot in heaven.

The spell makes the person repent.
Repent doesn't mean say sorry, no it is a total adversion to the old ways. Likely that Santified person will do his best to make up for all of his deeds. The guilt and shame of that Mindflayer will be very overwhelming.

Basically, think How Would Angel Feel, from the TV show Angel. He lived as a bum barely surviving because he couldn't percieve killing or eating dead things (because he killed so much before he was Santified).

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-29, 06:22 PM
yes- I'd probably go with "causing unnecessary suffering is evil" being applied across the board, not just to sentient beings.
Only sentients are capable of suffering. You probably mean "sapient".


Hard part is defining the "unnecessary" bit
The necessary amount of suffering is the minimum amount. The hard party is quantifying suffering. Also, by that standard, permanently eliminating sentience from the universe would be a good thing, since that prevents any further suffering. Taking the difference of suffering and happiness would arguably be a better standard.


There is also "hard labour" for criminals, especially the chain gang, which while not exactly slavery is worryingly close.
Hmmm. How is it not slavery? And for that matter, why is that worrying?

Fixer
2009-06-29, 07:56 PM
Which opens the way for some very interesting characters.
You could easily have a Good slave holder. Depending on how you see it, every feudal lord would be a slave holder, and you wouldn't make it a requirement for Good lords to dissolve their durchy and give away all the family land for free.According to D&D Morality, owning a slave isn't an Evil act, nor is it a Good act. ABUSING a slave is an Evil act. FREEING a slave MIGHT be an Evil act, IF that slave is incapable of taking care of themselves. If you free a slave in the knowledge that that slave is likely to be mistreated, enslaved, or will eventually be unable to take care of itself it MAY constitute an Evil act.

The act of ENSLAVING someone is Evil, because it involves actively depriving a free individual of rights they already possess. Doing so diminishes the life of that individual, which is the opposite of Good. If a person sells themselves into slavery, accepting them (and paying) isn't an Evil act, but neither is it a Good act. A Good act, in those circumstances, would be to pay the would-be slave's debts and let them remain free.

Diamondeye
2009-06-29, 09:35 PM
Incidentally, saying that a setting has black-and-white objective morality doesn't actually establish what's black and what's white. Some people will use this as shorthand to mean that slaughtering your way through a goblin village is Good, and others will use it as shorthand to mean that the exact same thing is Evil. In fact, it doesn't intrinsically mean either. It just means that Good and Evil aren't relative to points of view; it doesn't establish what they are.

Further, it's pretty clear that Good and Evil are only objective in-game. Out-of-game, players disagree on how alignment works, and it's hard to see what it would even mean to say that one perspective is objectively right.

Actually, one perspective is objectively right- the DMs. He determines what is objectively good and evil within the game, just like he makes the final decisions on everything else int he game world.

It isn't necessary to determine an objectively right answer to what is or isn't good in D&D in terms of real-world philosophy because it really affects nothing outside of the game. It doesn't even need to be consistent from one game to the next.

Woodsman
2009-07-13, 11:21 AM
I like the BoED, personally.

I had an idea for a modern campaign, where I ended up being a monk//cleric (it's gestalt). I also ended up as LG. I thought about it for a while, thinking, "How can I be like I would be in this situation?" The idea was to base our characters off of ourselves, I should mention.

I'd glanced at BoVD and BoED before this. I'd thought BoED was a bit underpowered. Semi-low on options for my character, I decided to turn to the BoED as to what to do. My purpose (as far as I can tell) is to bring a message of balance, which is odd, as it would seem that requires me to be NG. But looking at myself, I am LG, but I'm incredibly open-minded. I figured this was how I could manage to reconcile two seeming opposites.

Thus I turned to the BoED. And found something that fit me (the idea of the campaign) so much better than anything else I'd encountered in any DnD book.

Enough of me, more about the book and its ideas. The idea of ravages and afflictions was to bypass the common immunity to poison and disease many Evil NPC's/Monsters have. While the ones listed in BoED aren't the best, the idea is very good, in my opinion.

StW is rather contradictory. It reminds of the Catholic view of "We're right, you're all wrong (no offense meant, especially since I'm a confirmed Catholic)," which I thought contradicted what the BoED was trying to say. Good is not the natural state of things, especially in DnD. If you can redeem an Evil creature without resorting to that spell, you deserve to be congratulated for doing something so hard and having such a strong faith.

The Vows are a bit interesting. Again, it's a good idea in concept, but the ones listed don't portray it. Vow of Abstinence isn't too bad, same with Vow of Chastity; alcohol and sex have no in-game benefits (unless you're a drunken master, but that's not the point) anyway. Vow of Nonviolence/Peace is good for Exalted characters, and Vow of Poverty is especially beneficial to monks and druids, who generally don't need weapons or armor. Vow of Obedience is weird (Full submission? WTF?), and Vow of Purity is as well (Seriously, just touching undead can cause you to lose the benefits). The idea behind the Vows is giving up something good and natural, but not necessary (Well, maybe not sex. I mean, we need to procreate), can bring positive spiritual benefits

The BoED is not meant to be the easy way out; it's meant for players (like me, I must say) who want to be truly good. Miko was not exalted, not even close. Any character who doesn't trust people who have given them no good reason not to trust them simply cannot be Exalted.

The BoED has its heart (figuratively) in the right place, but it wasn't the best written. Stupid Good is simply not Exalted, and can never hope to be. The path to Exaltation is through Open-Minded Good. If you can play that well, that is.

Sorry for the seeming lateness of this post. I was searching for something else.

Telonius
2009-07-13, 12:39 PM
Why someone might be Exalted instead of Good: I think it really depends on how motivated you are. Archons, Angels, and the like would probably nearly always be Exalted (though even they can Fall). For a normal character, they would have to have a very special connection to their (Good) god, or some really burning desire to do good in the world. Just being a nice guy isn't good enough; just being a nice guy on a quest to save the world isn't good enough either. We're talking Gandhi, Galahad, and Gandalf.

Regarding the Vows, this is in part a function of how heavily the entire book draws on real world religion. At least three of them (poverty, chastity, obedience) are based on IRL vows that several orders of Roman Catholic monks and nuns take. Taken out of that context, and put into the context of a game that allows for married Clerics and Paladins, the Vows and their bearance on Good vs. Evil don't make as much sense. (I think any further discussion on those lines would probably be against forum rules).

EDIT: Whoah, didn't see the datestamp on that.

Myrmex
2009-07-13, 12:55 PM
Either the spell allows a creature not to change its alignment, or the alignment change is forced on it. There doesn't seem to be any real middle ground here.

Furthermore, if the alignment change were just the inevitable result of prolonged contemplation, the adopted alignment wouldn't depend on the caster, now would it?

So... Yeah, it's Holy Mindrape.

Edit: I remember a Paladin variant that someone brewed up in the Homebrew section, and one of the possible abilities was the ability to charm people. The creator defended this as an abstraction of being able to occasionally be really diplomatic.

I'm sorry, but NO. That's a load of crap. Those aren't the same thing. Mind blank protects you from enchantments but not from the Diplomacy skill, for example. It's like giving someone a big boost to Sleight of Hand and saying that it's "just an abstraction of how good he is at requisitioning supplies."

If you're going to run a game where you take morality seriously, that pretty much requires not doing a bunch of B.S. handwaving about how evil things somehow aren't evil when you do them. Really, that crap goes against the "No, you can't. Not even then" spirit of various restrictions in the BoED, and contributes to an overall feeling that its restrictions are arbitrary and stupid. Same deal with ravages.

Evil and Good are objectively defined in the D&D universe. You may have your own feelings on IRL good & evil, but they are irrelevant to D&D and RAW.