[3.5] If using Exalted Deeds- what parts do you think should be cut?

[hamishspence]

I like BoED- but I must admit there are a few things (such as poison use being evil) that don't make sense in the context of Always Good creatures like couatls having poison.

also- the "a lie told to save the world is still an evil act" doesn't make sense in the context of BoVD, which explicitly states that lying is not always an evil act.

So I drop those.

(And possibly Sanctify the Wicked, or at least modify it heavily)

What things do other people drop when playing a BoED-using campaign?

[molten_dragon]

Vow of nonviolence and vow of peace. They are simply too disruptive in a party.

[Snake-Aes]

Vow of nonviolence and vow of peace. They are simply too disruptive in a party.

Actually, I'd suggest the opposite.
Don't cut anything that doesn't fit the things the group can handle.

Of course, if your group just wants to beat stuff, those two wouldn't work.

[Ingus]

Vow of nonviolence and vow of peace. They are simply too disruptive in a party.

Why? Very funny to be forced to have a - say - monk with poverty + nonviolence + peace in the party. I had one level 16 and reached AC 60 without buffs.
Moreover, he was very pissing off for the rest of the party, interposing between enemies "not deserving to die" = everyone except (not sentient) undead and constructs

[Faleldir]

Sacred Vow. Those feats are bad enough without costing two feat slots.

[Jack_Simth]

Why? Very funny to be forced to have a - say - monk with poverty + nonviolence + peace in the party. I had one level 16 and reached AC 60 without buffs.
Moreover, he was very pissing off for the rest of the party, interposing between enemies "not deserving to die" = everyone except (not sentient) undead and constructs
Considering molten_dragon said they were "disruptive", your example only serves to illustrate the point. You've got one character attempting to dictate the actions of other characters. When playing a game, that gets disruptive by a great many definitions.

Of course, if you actually read through the vows, the only actual penalty for the other players at the table occurs when they kill a "helpless or defenseless" opponent. Blasting the guy who's swinging a sword at you with a Scorching Ray? Okay unless you're the actual vow of peace/nonviolence character. Blasting the guy who you have on the ground already with a Sleep spell? You're soaking the penalties of the other character's Vow.

[theos911]

Sacred Vow. Those feats are bad enough without costing two feat slots.

It is a prereq for many other exalted feats. The way I do it is a little bit different, but I like it. If they take that feat, the next time they would be entitled to an exalted feat they may choose 2. One is the one they are taking normally, the other is the "evolution of their devotion paying off". That extra feat does not replace sacred vow, they keep sacred vow and get another. I mean really, +2 on diplomacy? You could take skill focus diplomacy and it would be better. I also use this system for those 3 devotion to the 3 different heavens feats. I think they are servant of the heavens, favored of the companions, and knight of the stars. With this system, someone could take sacred vow and servant of the heavens at level 1. Assuming they act "goodly enough" the next time they would be able to get an exalted feat(most likely lvl 3) they may their normal 1 feat and in addition choose any feat that has sacred vow as prereq to "replace" sacred vow and any feat that has servant of the heavens as a prereq as a "replacement" for servant of the heavens. EDIT- I forgot when I did my example, that I don't think those 3 devotion to the 3 heavens feats are prereqs for anything. In that case let him choose any feat, there aren't really any game-breaking ones that I know of, well sans words of creation IC abuse.

I know that was a lot of text, if you don't understand I can try to clarify. I haven't used BoED extensively, so there might be other really dead feats that this system could apply to. Overall, it gives them a reason to not fall, and also lets them get better feats, for having earlier taking the crap prereq ones.


EDIT-I forgot ranged smite evil. When ever a player of mine makes a pally I just let them choose if they want to smite on melee or want to smite on ranged. I'd not use that feat personally.

[Morph Bark]

also- the "a lie told to save the world is still an evil act" doesn't make sense in the context of BoVD, which explicitly states that lying is not always an evil act.

Wow, so according to BoED, due to all the white lies I've told my teachers over the years, I should be incredibly evil... dang. That hurts!


But yeah, Sacred Vow should be cut, otherwise none of the feats based off it are really worth it (it is debateable whether they are at all though).

[theos911]

But yeah, Sacred Vow should be cut, otherwise none of the feats based off it are really worth it (it is debateable whether they are at all though).

It should be cut, or fixed. OR Use what I presented above that actually makes it a good thing to take those dead feats.

There is also Nimbus of light. RP it is sweet and being your own lamp can be helpful sometimes, but it's mechanics are poor. +2 on diplomacy and sense motive towards other good creatures? Personally, I would just make that a straight up +3 on all charisma based checks with good things and a +1 on all charisma based checks on neutral creatures. Even neutral creatures know you are good, and good things usually don't lie, so they would naturally be more trusting or willing to work with you.

Stigmata is also pretty cool, but very hard to understand. It seems as though it is kinda weak. You are trading 1 con point for one hp per allies lvl. I guess it becomes more efficient as your allies levels, but if anyone has an easier homebrew fix, I'd love to hear it.

[hamishspence]

Wow, so according to BoED, due to all the white lies I've told my teachers over the years, I should be incredibly evil... dang. That hurts!

it doesn't say how evil little white lies are- and if they would ever change someone's alignment, but I do agree (based on BoVD) that it was a mistake to use that as the example.

That said, there are a few BoVD things that should probably be "not evil, just risky- can be good acts if the intentions are good"

Stealing- from "legalized robbers" (or just robbers), to help people in need, can maybe ignore the "stealing is wrong" bit in BoVD.

Betrayal- of an evil boss, in order to protect others from him- should probably not count as evil despite "betrayal" being associated with evil in BoVD.

And so on- though maybe not every BoVD act.

[zugschef]

by all means, the saint template.

[Morph Bark]

by all means, the saint template.

That template should be mainly NPC-only anyway. But if a player has taken the trouble to try and acquire it (it also needs much heavier DM approval than most acquired templates), I'd see if they can keep up to it. Besides, they still get the LA too, so they'd go up in levels much more slowly, allowing others to surpass them (or rather, catch up to them).

That, and I'd love to see many people try to stick to their saintly code of conduct at all times.

[zugschef]

That template should be mainly NPC-only anyway. But if a player has taken the trouble to try and acquire it (it also needs much heavier DM approval than most acquired templates), I'd see if they can keep up to it. Besides, they still get the LA too, so they'd go up in levels much more slowly, allowing others to surpass them (or rather, catch up to them).

That, and I'd love to see many people try to stick to their saintly code of conduct at all times.
it seems to me that you don't think about the consequences.

assume an evil PC-party and you use this template on the BBEGG. fast healing, ac bonus, immunities, ability boosts, special attacks and defense... do you really think that this is all made up by a mere +2 in CR?

or let your party paladin or better, cleric with dmm take this template. yes, he will be restricted in his roleplaying (which is a stupid balancing reason to begin with, because if it were a problem for him, he wouldn't take the template), but he will cause severe damage to the DM's ability to propperly design encounters for the party.

[DragoonWraith]

Ravages, Sacred Vow and all of its derivatives, Exalted status, each and every attempt to explain alignment, Sanctified spells, ...

IMO, just don't use it. It's an awful book.

[hamishspence]

It's a powerful template- but is it really all that powerful in a high optimization game? Especially if given to the melee guy and not the full caster.

Ravages are OK if "poison is evil" is dropped- as a way of minimizing the damage done by friendly fire, or dominated characters.

"Exalted" really just means "Good character with at least one Exalted Feat, that hasn't committed anything Evil since they took it"

If the DM and the players both like the base concepts- of guys who actually have a better reason for violence than "kill monsters and get their stuff to become more powerful"- why not look at the most problematic bits and see what they can agree to cut, rather than dumping the whole thing?

[molten_dragon]

Why? Very funny to be forced to have a - say - monk with poverty + nonviolence + peace in the party. I had one level 16 and reached AC 60 without buffs.
Moreover, he was very pissing off for the rest of the party, interposing between enemies "not deserving to die" = everyone except (not sentient) undead and constructs

This is exactly why I don't allow those feats. They encourage one player to attempt to control what the other players do with their characters. In my experience, that sort of behavior inevitably turns out badly.

[Kaiyanwang]

The only things that REALLY annoys me is the poison = evil.

Oher things, I like, are good or bad basing on the campaing, or just I don't care.

But poioson = evil is just :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

[hamishspence]

It might be a holdover from Gygax era. Still, something that makes sense to drop.

[Dusk Eclipse]

This is exactly why I don't allow those feats. They encourage one player to attempt to control what the other players do with their characters. In my experience, that sort of behavior inevitably turns out badly.

I agree witht his, once someone brought a vow of non violence factotum and it was awful, we had two barbarians on the party and niether could rage due the calm emotion aura.... everyone was chatsided (SP?).. in other words that particular session was awful.

[Optimystik]

I would cut the following:

1) "You can never get X back, ever, not even if you atone." One of the key themes of the book is that no entity is beyond redemption/forgiveness - this completely flies in the face of that ideal.

2) Vow of Peace - Nonviolence fits the same thematic niche and is much less restrictive, though I would use the 4e version.

3) Vow of Chastity - (a) it almost never comes up, and (b) when it does, only reinforces the stereotype that Good creatures don't have hormones.

4) Poison/lying are always evil - hamish covered this, but it bears repeating.

5) Sacred Vow - unnecessary feat tax. Why should I vow that I'm going to take a vow, and then take the vow itself?

Things I would rework:

1) Sanctify the Wicked
2) Vow of Poverty - plenty of fixes on these boards.
3) Truenaming - again, many great fixes here.
4) Exalted Feats - Drop the (Su) tag from many of them. Boost overall power level.
5) Sanctified Magic - Significant reworks needed here, these spells are pretty weak.
6) Apostle of Peace - CL as Ur-Priest. Drop Vow of Poverty.
7) Swanmay - Advance any casting class rather than just Rangers/Druids.
8) Troubadour of Stars - Increase to 9/10 casting.

[The Glyphstone]

I would cut the following:

1) "You can never get X back, ever, not even if you atone." One of the key themes of the book is that no entity is beyond redemption/forgiveness - this completely flies in the face of that ideal.

2) Vow of Peace - Nonviolence fits the same thematic niche and is much less restrictive, though I would use the 4e version.

3) Vow of Chastity - (a) it almost never comes up, and (b) when it does, only reinforces the stereotype that Good creatures don't have hormones.

4) Poison/lying are always evil - hamish covered this, but it bears repeating.

5) Sacred Vow - unnecessary feat tax. Why should I vow that I'm going to take a vow, and the

Things I would rework:

1) Sanctify the Wicked
2) Vow of Poverty - plenty of fixes on these boards.
3) Truenaming - again, many great fixes here.
4) Exalted Feats - Drop the (Su) tag from many of them. Boost overall power level.
5) Sanctified Magic - Significant reworks needed here, these spells are pretty weak.
6) Apostle of Peace - CL as Ur-Priest. Drop Vow of Poverty.
7) Swanmay - Advance any casting class rather than just Rangers/Druids.
8) Troubadour of Stars - Increase to 9/10 casting.

9) Burn the Starmantle Cloak (and maybe the Starmantle spell) in a fire.
10) Make Words of Creation's nonlethal damage for bards scale based on the bonus they output, not a flat bonus based on the Perform ranks...Inspire Courage cheese becomes less cheesy, Inspire [someting other than Courage] becomes less punishing.

[BritishBill]

Sacred Vow. Those feats are bad enough without costing two feat slots.

The feats you can get with them are rather good

[zugschef]

just something that came up to my mind:

the initiate of pistis sophia has extremely weird entry requirements. the sanctify ki strike feat, for instance, has the requirement of ki strike (lawful) (and 15 charisma), which you get as a lvl10 monk. the other requirements (5 all saves and 9 ranks concentration) however, indicate that you should be able to enter the class after 6 levels of monk.

i'm pretty sure the mistake here is that sanctify key strike should have ki strike (magic) as a requirement.

[PId6]

It's a powerful template- but is it really all that powerful in a high optimization game? Especially if given to the melee guy and not the full caster.
It's really not, and it's probably worse on a full caster (just like LA in general). It has some powerful effects, which may overpower low-op tables, but at high optimization an extra spell or maneuver level will likely be far better. It is more competitive than many other types of LA though.


If the DM and the players both like the base concepts- of guys who actually have a better reason for violence than "kill monsters and get their stuff to become more powerful"- why not look at the most problematic bits and see what they can agree to cut, rather than dumping the whole thing?
I lean towards the "find the good bits and cut everything else" side personally. I find alignment as a concept fairly disagreeable, though, so YMMD.

[Devils_Advocate]

What I'd cut from the Book of Exalted Deeds is the treatment of Good alignment as a collection of special cases instead of and/or in addition to a broad general principle.

So, the implied philosophy of the book as a whole. For starters.

The thing is, the treatment that you give to a few specifics in post #10 can be applied to pretty much anything. For example, if executing prisoners is wrong because violence is only acceptable when used to prevent Evil, then that consideration may not apply when the prisoner is still a significant threat. Furthermore, if indeed violence is only acceptable when used to prevent Evil, then that should be the principle given and applied to all relevant cases, at which point there is no need for a special rule for executions in particular.

Also, it would be nice to know, in turn, why it is that only preventing Evil makes violence acceptable, and so on and so forth towards whatever basic moral axioms are going to be used. (I would much prefer just one axiom, ultimately, but maybe that's just me, and perhaps this is an unachievable ideal in practice.)

On the other hand, if there's no moral reason why Good characters can't perform executions, but they're just arbitrarily not allowed to do it anyway... then, well, it's just something that they're arbitrarily not allowed to do. Which sucks. Not because of what they're forbidden from doing, but because it's arbitrary.


I must admit there are a few things (such as poison use being evil) that don't make sense in the context of Always Good creatures like couatls having poison.
I think that the book retconned couatl poison into a ravage, actually. But the restriction still fails to make sense in the broader context of the game.


"a lie told to save the world is still an evil act" doesn't make sense in the context of BoVD, which explicitly states that lying is not always an evil act.
And telling the truth is associated with Law in the PHB, so lying really should be Chaotic, if anything. And certainly it seems ridiculous at best to say that lying is always Evil but violence may not be. But the authors of the alignment-based splatbooks seem to have been intent to put everything important into the Good/Evil axis. Because Law and Chaos are boring. Well of course they are if you pointedly left anything important out of them BLARGH!


If the DM and the players both like the base concepts- of guys who actually have a better reason for violence than "kill monsters and get their stuff to become more powerful"- why not look at the most problematic bits and see what they can agree to cut, rather than dumping the whole thing?
The base concept of the Fighter class may have been "the game's supreme melee warrior", but that doesn't mean that that's what it is, and the class itself, combat feats, and/or other things in the game need(s) to be completely reworked to turn the ideal into a reality. Doing a concept justice doesn't mean tossing out the related rules that really, really suck, it means providing a set of rules for the concept that are, on the whole, pretty darned sweet. Hence, Tome of Battle.

Or, alternately, just play a Druid. Work with what's there. If the DM and the players both like the concept of player characters who actually have a better reason for violence than "kill monsters and get their stuff to become more powerful", then they could always, you know, play a campaign with player characters that are like that, as radical a concept as that might be.

I'm not convinced that the "follow restrictions, get bonuses" principle is inherently flawed, and several whatchamahoozits of that nature from the book might be workable. Many of them could be opened up to non-Good characters. Some (maybe all) of them might make more sense if they instead required Lawful alignment. But were I to DM a D&D 3.5 game, I think that I'd ask that material be presented to me for specific approval and/or modification, instead of banning a list specific things but including everything else. Of course, that would probably be my policy for all books, including core... :smallwink:

[Runestar]

1) "You can never get X back, ever, not even if you atone." One of the key themes of the book is that no entity is beyond redemption/forgiveness - this completely flies in the face of that ideal.

My interpretation is that you can be redeemed, but even then, you can never be exalted ever again (merely good at best). Exalted is supposed to mean gooder than good, which implies you are not even supposed to fall.

[Optimystik]

My interpretation is that you can be redeemed, but even then, you can never be exalted ever again (merely good at best). Exalted is supposed to mean gooder than good, which implies you are not even supposed to fall.

But that's the point. Everyone falls, once in awhile. To not fall is to not be human(oid).

My favorite take (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) on the subject:

"It's the struggle that matters. It's easy for a being of pure Law and Good to live up to these ideals, but you're a mortal. What matters is that when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again."

To expect otherwise, is to expect only Outsiders to be eligible for Exalted feats.

And even if none of that washes with you, at least let the PCs retrain the damn things.

[Runestar]

To expect otherwise, is to expect only Outsiders to be eligible for Exalted feats.

Hey, even outsiders fall. Heck, there seems to be a fair number of devils who used to be fallen angels. :smalltongue:

[Optimystik]

Hey, even outsiders fall. Heck, there seems to be a fair number of devils who used to be fallen angels. :smalltongue:

That fact only strengthens my position. Even angels aren't perfect.

[hamishspence]

I think that the book retconned couatl poison into a ravage, actually. But the restriction still fails to make sense in the broader context of the game.

I don't remember seeing any references to it- or it on the list of ravages. Maybe I missed it?


My interpretation is that you can be redeemed, but even then, you can never be exalted ever again (merely good at best). Exalted is supposed to mean gooder than good, which implies you are not even supposed to fall.

Nope- that's Saints. A fallen Exalted character can regain their Exalted feats. And it specifically states that Saints who fall, and regain their exalted feats, still don't get Sainthood back.

Vows broken on purpose can't be gotten back though- even if breaking the vow wasn't evil. They're the only Exalted feats that work this way though.

[Coidzor]

I like BoED- but I must admit there are a few things (such as poison use being evil) that don't make sense in the context of Always Good creatures like couatls having poison.

also- the "a lie told to save the world is still an evil act" doesn't make sense in the context of BoVD, which explicitly states that lying is not always an evil act.

So I drop those.

(And possibly Sanctify the Wicked, or at least modify it heavily)

What things do other people drop when playing a BoED-using campaign?

Indeed. Tricking demons and devils when they're just about to come out on top is sort of an archetypically Garlish thing to do.

[hamishspence]

On the other hand, if there's no moral reason why Good characters can't perform executions, but they're just arbitrarily not allowed to do it anyway... then, well, it's just something that they're arbitrarily not allowed to do. Which sucks. Not because of what they're forbidden from doing, but because it's arbitrary.

It could be that it's a holdover from older editions- which took the approach that "Good characters don't kill people they've taken prisoner"

Maybe because (by default) PCs are not judge, jury, and executioner in the kingdoms they come from- so why should they think they can act like that when they are attacked, defeat the attacker, and the attacker surrenders?

There is the "Execution does not qualify as evil" bit in BoED- but for a killing to qualify as an execution generally requires that the killers have sanction. Possibly due process, the defendant getting a chance to defend their actions, the accusers having to prove their guilt.

Now one could say "it doesn't matter whether a killing is legal or not- it matters whether it's moral or not"- the existence of the Slayer of Domiel PRC might suggest this. Even then, I'd say slayers don't just get to "execute" anyone they defeat- they can only go after people that their organization has proven to them are "very evil, deserving of death for the protection of others, and untouchable by the law"

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't remember seeing any references to it- or it on the list of ravages. Maybe I missed it?
Hmmm. Looking at it, purified couatl venom is one of the ravages listed, but the qualifier seems to suggest that normally it's a poison. They're both "Injury, Fortitude DC 16, initial damage 2d4 Str, secondary damage 4d4 Str", which I think may have confused me into thinking that the ravage was intended as a replacement.

It would make sense for it to be a ravage naturally, anyway, what with couatls being Good outsiders and all. In fact, I may have independently concluded that that would be a nice modification, and misremembered it as canon. That seems likely enough.


It could be that it's a holdover from older editions- which took the approach that "Good characters don't kill people they've taken prisoner"
Well, if it's a traditional arbitrary restriction, then... it still sucks. When the dumb bits of previous editions get recycled, this is as lamentable as entirely fresh stupidity. If official references to the alignment system have never made sense, that is no reason to keep them nonsensical; this is not a desirable state of affairs to be preserved.


Maybe because (by default) PCs are not judge, jury, and executioner in the kingdoms they come from- so why should they think they can act like that when they are attacked, defeat the attacker, and the attacker surrenders?
"[A] dungeon is, almost by definition, a lawless place where the only law is that of the jungle: Kill or be killed." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#urbanAdventures) In the event that the PCs are fighting off attacking orcs in a kingdom, then... the orcs are likely an invading army rather than a gang of criminals, for starters, and thus appropriately responded to a such, whatever that entails. But it probably also means that the kingdom's detention facilities are relatively accessible; instead of, say, many miles of enemy territory being between the characters and said facilities.

On the other hand, if the PCs are raiding a dungeon, then they're the invaders, which on the one hand may make taking prisoners infeasible. On the other hand, there has to be some sort of difference between the PCs and their opponents in order for them to legitimately have different alignments. It doesn't make much sense to say that goblins are Evil for going into human territory, killing a bunch of humans, and taking their stuff, but humans are Good for for going into goblin territory, killing a bunch of goblins, and taking their stuff.

The basic premise of Dungeons & Dragons, to quote the 3.5 PHB, is that "you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure". And it has always been thus. The prototypical PC wants shiny coins and gems and magic items enough to risk his life to get them, and is prepared to kill the ugly, green, fanged, hostile people he encounters before they can kill him. Not because a mid-level Bard can't become mayor of a town, do an above-average job of running it, and protect and/or better the lives of innocents that way; but because that's not what the game is about. If the Bard has a position as a governor, it was probably granted to him by a king or a lord or something as a reward for helping to kill a bunch of monsters, or one really troublesome monster, and ruling people is something that he does off-screen in between killing monsters, regardless of which activity consumes most of his time.

Because a D&D setting is a superhero setting for a superhero story. Meaning that characters have super strength and laser eye beams and teleportation and mind control and so on in order to use them to fight each other. But the dynamics of personal relationships and society and the government and the economy and so on remain largely as they are in our world, so as to keep things relatable, even when this plainly makes absolutely no sense. The (3.5 again) DMG II explains (starting on page 81) that you're not supposed to try to make your setting realistic or original; you're supposed to throw together a bunch of cliches that the players like, because if they're playing D&D, that's pretty much what they showed up for. That's just the game's paradigm.

Obviously, it's possible to run a completely different sort of setting using, say, the d20 system. But D&D isn't its system. The system changes from edition to edition. So do the settings. But the core premise remains the same: The characters are heroes in an alien world with multiple intelligent alien species and with magic instead of advanced technology, which is nevertheless like reality unless noted (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeRealityUnlessNoted). Oh, and there's probably a generally medieval-ish social structure but with henotheistic to polytheistic religions and gods who grant their clergy magic healing powers and other spells.


There is the "Execution does not qualify as evil" bit in BoED- but for a killing to qualify as an execution generally requires that the killers have sanction. Possibly due process, the defendant getting a chance to defend their actions, the accusers having to prove their guilt.

Now one could say "it doesn't matter whether a killing is legal or not- it matters whether it's moral or not"- the existence of the Slayer of Domiel PRC might suggest this. Even then, I'd say slayers don't just get to "execute" anyone they defeat- they can only go after people that their organization has proven to them are "very evil, deserving of death for the protection of others, and untouchable by the law"
A lone vigilante is simply an organization of one operating under his own sanction. And there may be alignment distinctions to draw there, but this really seems like more of a Law/Chaos thing. Good and Evil would be as situational as is usual. Surely if you see someone murder a dozen people right in front of you, it's not Good to give him the chance to go free because you'd have trouble proving his guilt to others who weren't there. (It might conceivably still be Good for other reasons, but that's something else again.)

This sort of conflation of Law with Good and Chaos with Evil simply confuses matters and defeats the point of having two separate alignment axes in the first place. Good alignment isn't about appropriate behavior; it's about benevolent behavior. Given this, this issue seems simple to me. Is it any more benevolent to kill someone in an official capacity than it would be to kill him illegally? Not hardly! Can either ever be benevolent at all? Possibly under special circumstances -- to take one life may save many others, for example. But as an end in itself, killing is pretty much going to be malevolent.

[hamishspence]

Is it any more benevolent to kill someone in an official capacity than it would be to kill him illegally? Not hardly! Can either ever be benevolent at all? Possibly under special circumstances -- to take one life may save many others, for example. But as an end in itself, killing is pretty much going to be malevolent.

There's an intermediate category between benevolent and malevolent- Neutral.

BoVD argues that "killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil, solely for profit" falls into that category.

Ideally, if someone is killed in an official category (execution) this is because their guilt has already been proven, and the court believes they will offend again, and cannot be stopped save by killing them. So in this sense it is "killing to protect others from future evil acts"- which BoVD calls Not Evil.

However (by BoED) it's generally only justified against those shown to have committed severe evil acts in the past, and likely to do so in the future. The trial exists to prevent the problems that come when people take the law into their own hands- feuding, cycles of revenge, paranoia, and so on.

Even Chaotic Good nations, such as elves- put criminals on trial- an elf who witnesses another elf commit murder, isn't going to think "I now have the moral right to kill the murderer"- he's going to notify the elven authorities.

Even a Chaotic society won't automatically approve of vigilante killers- at least, the way D&D fiction and splatbooks are written suggests this- CG societies exist- and they have law enforcement.

Conversely, even LG characters will take the law into their own hands, and rearrest acquitted murderers- if the law of their own nation appears to be corrupt. BoED points this out- if a murderer's acquittal seems to be due to corruption- the paladin should arrest the murderer again before they commit further crimes, and they should also reveal the existing corruption.

The easydamus alignment system- which summarizes alignment from early editions all the way to 3.5, lists as "dishonorable for this alignment":

"Unjustly slaying a prisoner or unarmed opponent who has yielded"

for all 3 Good alignments:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Which raises the question "What counts as "justly slaying" for CG persons"?

Is witnessing a serious crime committed, all that's needed, for slaying the criminal to be "just"? Or does it take more than that?

[hamishspence]

Ultimately, when it all comes down to it, BoED and PHB alike could, for definitions of Good behaviour, be summarized as:

"cause as little harm as possible- even when dealing with the evil (those who cause large amounts of unnecessary harm)- try and reverse harm done (by active harmers, or just misfortune) as much as possible."

Rules like "don't kill prisoners yourself- try and redeem them if you can" or even "execution of serious criminals isn't evil" can usually be traced back to this principle.

Not least because a redeemed villain is another extra person devoted to reversing harm, and protecting others from harm.

Yes, they might appear unnecessary- but for DMs who don't want to spend ages estimating near and far future consequences, a few general principles for PCs to minimise the harm they do, and maximise the help (often reversals of harm done by others, or misfortune) can be a good starting point.

[Devils_Advocate]

Ideally, if someone is killed in an official category (execution) this is because their guilt has already been proven, and the court believes they will offend again, and cannot be stopped save by killing them. So in this sense it is "killing to protect others from future evil acts"- which BoVD calls Not Evil.
Well, ideals aside, I think that the relevant Venn diagram here is a big circle labeled "The killing of prisoners", with two smaller overlapping circles labeled "to protect innocents" and "by the state" inside. Or something along those lines.


The trial exists to prevent the problems that come when people take the law into their own hands
Again, ideally. And vigilantes exist to prevent the problems that come from state monopolies on violence. Once more, ideally.


Even Chaotic Good nations, such as elves- put criminals on trial- an elf who witnesses another elf commit murder, isn't going to think "I now have the moral right to kill the murderer"- he's going to notify the elven authorities.

Even a Chaotic society won't automatically approve of vigilante killers- at least, the way D&D fiction and splatbooks are written suggests this- CG societies exist- and they have law enforcement.
The majority of elves either have normal (human) respect for authority or they don't. They can't be both non-Chaotic and Chaotic. And if they're Chaotic, well... then they're Chaotic. Maybe that doesn't preclude them having a monarchy instead of, say, a decentralized libertarian confederation, but it certainly precludes them supporting the state over individuals. Sure, violent retribution won't automatically be supported... and it won't be any more automatically supported if it's sanctioned by the state. And vigilantes, of course, are law enforcement, and volunteer law enforcement at that. Which should make them, if anything, more trusted than individuals who attack who their bosses tell them to attack for money.


if a murderer's acquittal seems to be due to corruption- the paladin should arrest the murderer again before they commit further crimes
I think that you mean "abduct" rather than "arrest" at this point, which sort of illustrates the problem here. Capturing someone just freed by the government is gonna tend to be a felony. Committing a felony solely on one's own authority is gonna tend to be Chaotic. Corruption doesn't give a paladin license to ignore legitimate authority; she is obligated to combat corruption through legitimate means.


Is witnessing a serious crime committed, all that's needed, for slaying the criminal to be "just"? Or does it take more than that?
Well, there's an obvious sort of paradox in assuming that anyone who kills someone doesn't have a good reason for it and you should kill them. :smallwink: Witnessing a serious crime may not be enough to establish that it was a serious crime, and eagerness to leap to the conclusion that means it's time to hurt someone hardly seems indicative of Good alignment, at least in most cases. If anything, it seems like that would be more of a Lawful thing, what with Law being more "judgmental".

:miko: - Why would I hesitate to punish Evil?


"cause as little harm as possible- even when dealing with the evil (those who cause large amounts of unnecessary harm)- try and reverse harm done (by active harmers, or just misfortune) as much as possible."
Those are at odds with each other. The first mandates inaction (since anything that one does could conceivably cause harm) and the latter mandates action. This sort of thing kind of illustrates why I find it hard to even imagine a value system that can't ultimately be expressed as a single general principle.

I would suggest that the principle at work above is "Minimize harm", though that's still lacking as a description of Good, and only partly because of how vague "harm" is.


Yes, they might appear unnecessary- but for DMs who don't want to spend ages estimating near and far future consequences, a few general principles for PCs to minimise the harm they do, and maximise the help (often reversals of harm done by others, or misfortune) can be a good starting point.
As I once saw it put, "Are you Evil for killing the murderous quasit glamered to look like an innocent baby, or are you Evil for killing the innocent baby glamered to look like a murderous quasit?" It seems to me that it greatly simplifies matters to use alignment as a description of how a character chooses to interact with others, even if what he chooses to do doesn't wind up being what he actually does. If you see what I mean.

For example: In OotS, Girard decides to misdirect Soon, due to... Well, it's an example of someone acting against an authority that he's convinced is corrupt, as it happens. And he's wrong. Which could conceivably doom the world. But I don't take that to mean that he wasn't Good (though he may not have been), just that he wasn't right.

[zalmatra]

Exalted feats and vile feats are fairly weak in 3.5 and if you bring them to pathfinder they break further

except for poverty peace and noneviolence

i would say that most but not all exalted feats are small bonus's that can be easily awarded to a good char as a boon by her diety rather then taking the actual feat without breaking the game into many pieces make it part of the story part of the trial of being a good char.