how exalted are the exalt feats?

[CyberThread]

Do you think all exalted feats, mean someone is a goody two shoes, or some of them just starting to dip into it, and can allow a neutral aligned character in a party?

[animewatcha]

Exalted means that you gotta be more good than the base paladin. Also, it is supernatural so they go bye-bye in AMF.

[Waker]

Exalted means that you are good with a capital G. You aren't allowed to do anything that is remotely evil or morally questionable. So that means showing mercy to surrendering foes, paying all your taxes on time and helping with the dishes after a meal.

[buttcyst]

exalted feats are supernatural in nature and are granted by deities or celestials, or the like. you do have to be good aligned to gain any benefit from one, and once you have one, you have an aura of good with a strength of the feat taker's ecl

[Divide by Zero]

Do you think all exalted feats, mean someone is a goody two shoes, or some of them just starting to dip into it, and can allow a neutral aligned character in a party?

Nothing in the Exalted description prohibits working with Neutral characters. As long as they don't do anything bad while you're around, and they're helping you work toward a Good cause, I don't see any problem with it.

[Lateral]

It means, basically, that rather than just generally behaving like a good person, you have to behave like a Good outsider- a complete paragon of Good. It's an incredibly restrictive standard, actually, which is one of the complaints that people often levy against those feats.

[qwertyu63]

Exalted means that you are good with a capital G. You aren't allowed to do anything that is remotely evil or morally questionable. So that means showing mercy to surrendering foes, paying all your taxes on time and helping with the dishes after a meal.

This is right, but small nitpick: "paying all your taxes on time" would be Lawful, not Good. (It's still a good idea, just not alignment Good)

[Chronos]

Yeah, it's about as restrictive as the paladin code morally, but there are no restrictions on the ethical axis. Elan, for instance, would probably qualify as Exalted, even though he's quite chaotic.

[Lightlawbliss]

The only things more good then an exalted character are saints and good alined intelligent items. everything else is less good. exalted is so good that someone is rewarding you for how good aline you are.

[cerin616]

I find an exalted character to be extremely fun to play however, because of the moral restriction challenge. You need to be a paragon of good, putting others before yourself, never lying, showing mercy to those who ask it, and always trying to bring neutral or evil characters to good.

By breaking this code, you lose your exalted status and any exalted feats or the like.

It is questionable if you can ever atone for your mistake, the book is never really clear on that. It says that you must follow this code or lose your exalted status, but there are example character types in the book that are ex-evil characters.

[Talya]

never lying

Lying is not an evil act at all. It might be considered chaotic, but even that's debatable. Doesn't matter, though. Chaotic Good is no more good than Lawful Good. (Personally, I find the chaotic alignment spectrum more virtuous, on a personal level, than the lawful one.)

Exalted characters are the same as other good characters, except with the same restriction paladins have that they cannot perform an evil act. They are not held to "stupid good" like paladins, restricted by a silly lawful code in addition to their goodness.

[cerin616]

Lying is not an evil act at all. It might be considered chaotic, but even that's debatable.

Exalted characters are the same as other good characters, except with the same restriction paladins have that they cannot perform an evil act. They are not held to "stupid good" like paladins, restricted by a silly lawful code in addition to their goodness.

In the "what is good" section, it explicitly states an exalted good character will not lie. not even a little white lie to save lives.

EDIT: bottom of the first paragraph and top of the second of "Ends and Means" which is in subsection "The Straight and Narrow" under "The Nature of Good"

"Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to stop... ...In the D&D universe the fundamental answer is No. An Evil act is an Evil act."

[hamishspence]

I figured that was because the writer hadn't read BoVD closely.

[cerin616]

I figured that was because the writer hadn't read BoVD closely.

Im not sure what you mean. I read both books, but the only reason I know BoED is because I read it several times when I wanted to make an Exalted character.

[Talya]

In the "what is good" section, it explicitly states an exalted good character will not lie. not even a little white lie to save lives.

EDIT: bottom of the first paragraph and top of the second of "Ends and Means" which is in subsection "The Straight and Narrow" under "The Nature of Good"

"Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to stop... ...In the D&D universe the fundamental answer is No. An Evil act is an Evil act."

Yeah. That actually contradicts everything else. They're talking about "is it acceptable to do a small evil to prevent a big one?" The answer is obviously no. The problem with the example given is they picked a completely nonevil act as one of their examples. There is nothing remotely evil or good about honesty or dishonesty in the D&D universe. That is the writer bringing in irrelevant real-world religio-moral systems which shall not be discussed here.

[cerin616]

So the real question is, how do we decide what exactly is an evil act and what is not when it comes to a moral ground? how is betrayal evil but lying is not? betrayal is even stated as a more complex lie, but in reality, any lie involves convincing someone to trust your statement. Betrayal is the violation of that trust.

[hamishspence]

Im not sure what you mean.

That the writer of BoED, had not read BoVD closely enough.
There is nothing remotely evil or good about honesty or dishonesty in the D&D universe.
Depends on the type. "Cheating" for example, is characterized as Evil in BoVD, unlike lying.

[cerin616]

So how do we decide which of the writers is correct though? the two books state that either lying is evil or it is grey.

And without modern religo-moral arguments, who is to say that something is evil or not?

[Talya]

Common sense.

BBEG: "Do you know where I can find this world destroying artifact?"

ExaltedHero: "Yes, it's over there under that rock."

ExaltedHero immediately falls for the evil act of telling the truth to someone whom he shouldn't have.

[Emperor Tippy]

Common sense.

BBEG: "Do you know where I can find this world destroying artifact?"

ExaltedHero: "Yes, it's over there under that rock."

ExaltedHero immediately falls for the evil act of telling the truth to someone whom he shouldn't have.

"Possibly, but I'm not going to tell you even if you torture me to death and then torture my soul for eternity. And while you are doing that I am keeping you from doing evil to the rest of the world and buying time for others to stop your plans. So, chop chop, get with the torturing."

The proper Exalted Hero course of action.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, the Exalted Path isn't all that hard to stick to unless you got a DM who wants to Lawyer and Legalese everything that you do and is looking for an excuse to take away your status. Which is kinda silly because it's not like being Exalted is a huge, huge boost in power (exception maybe for Sainthood).

By the way, point above by Cerin: Yes, if you fail to uphold the Exalted Standards, you can get Atonement to return the benefit of your Exalted Status. It does say that Atonement will allow you to regain Exalted status (And feat benefits), see the section on page 20 about Sin and Atonement.

[Raineh Daze]

"Possibly, but I'm not going to tell you even if you torture me to death and then torture my soul for eternity. And while you are doing that I am keeping you from doing evil to the rest of the world and buying time for others to stop your plans. So, chop chop, get with the torturing."

The proper Exalted Hero course of action.

"Yes, it's [location of ambush]."

The actual intelligent response. This is, hilariously, also Good.

'Telling someone something false' is not an evil act. Otherwise it is apparently Good to keep sending people to pointless deaths because you just told them there's something they want in this hellhole dungeon thing.

[cerin616]

"Yes, it's [location of ambush]."

The actual intelligent response. This is, hilariously, also Good.

'Telling someone something false' is not an evil act. Otherwise it is apparently Good to keep sending people to pointless deaths because you just told them there's something they want in this hellhole dungeon thing.

But that's exactly the thing. BoVD says its not an evil act. BoED uses lying as an example of an evil act.



By the way, point above by Cerin: Yes, if you fail to uphold the Exalted Standards, you can get Atonement to return the benefit of your Exalted Status. It does say that Atonement will allow you to regain Exalted status (And feat benefits), see the section on page 20 about Sin and Atonement.

Thanks, I missed that before. It is still a bit unclear to what extent you need to go, but there are always things where DM digression is necessary to decide whether or not a player is really trying, or just wants his stuff back.

[Lord Vukodlak]

They are not held to "stupid good" like paladins, restricted by a silly lawful code in addition to their goodness.
Neither are paladins. A Paladin needs to be good 100% of the time but is not penalized for being unlawful unless it causes an alignment change. Stupid X Alignment are the fault of the players not the classes or the alignments themselves. (Exception the alternate paladins from unearthed arcana, paladin of slaughter and tyranny they can be nothing but stupid evil).


Common sense.

BBEG: "Do you know where I can find this world destroying artifact?"

ExaltedHero: "Yes, it's over there under that rock."

ExaltedHero immediately falls for the evil act of telling the truth to someone whom he shouldn't have.
Or
ExaltedHero: "I'll tell you nothing."

[ArcturusV]

Always the problem Cerin. Usually if someone "Falls" in a game, it's basically due to DM interpretation. And DM interpretation is where the answer to falling lies. In my own games? I've made atonement fairly easy to get. Go out, do a quest, make some reparations of your own choosing, call it good to go. I'd just pick some off day between sessions, run a solo Atonement quest, no muss, no fuss.

Then again I also had the paladin who fell 7 times because the player seemed to be morally twisted, and couldn't really figure out things like "... killing innocent hostages just because it was convenient to do so is pretty evil." before the Powers of Good just said "No, no atonement for you anymore. 7 strikes, you're out!"

[cerin616]

Neither are paladins. A Paladin needs to be good 100% of the time but is not penalized for being unlawful unless it causes an alignment change. Stupid X Alignment are the fault of the players not the classes or the alignments themselves. (Exception the alternate paladins from unearthed arcana, paladin of slaughter and tyranny they can be nothing but stupid evil).


Or
ExaltedHero: "I'll tell you nothing."

I like your statement on stupid good. TVtropes has a bunch of archetype thigns that I use to explain how that works. Being a paladin doesnt mean "derp derp good deed"

Lawful means you believe that having a code or a legal system is the best way of maintaining your goals. in other words "we need to follow laws because laws help people understand what is good"

good means you show mercy and help others etc.

combined, you have a person that will always show mercy in combat, and will follow the course of the law in bringing their enemies to justice. someone who will try and use the law to stop evil. someone who will formally fight/try to change the law they feel is wrong (rather than a chaotic character who ignores it)

EDIT:

7 strikes, you're out!"

We have a good cleric in our campaign now that wanted to kill our tied up unconscious prisoner. I had to explain to her why that might impact her alignment.

[Hecuba]

BBEG: "Do you know where I can find this world destroying artifact?"

ExaltedHero: "Yes."

BBEG: "Can you tell me where it is?"

ExaltedHero: "Yes."

BBEG: "Will you tell me where it is?"

ExaltedHero: "No."

Always telling the truth only gives information to evil if combined with a compulsion to always answer. And if a BBEG can induce a compulsion to answer, they can probably introduce a compulsion to answer truthfully as well.

Which is not to say that there is not a legitimate contradiction in the rules as to whether lying and/or deception is evil. Merely, that holding that it is does not inherently cause an issue.

Many people will find the speaker of this quote to be not-particularly-Exalted (largely because it's problematic to write a character that's smarter than both yourself and your audience), but the position relative to the truth is one that fits well for an Exalted character (should lying held to be evil).


The truth. [...] It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution. However, I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie.

[Talya]

I have personal distaste for the lawful alignment in general. I generally consider the grid to be Good vs. Evil, Chaos vs. Stupid. :smallbiggrin:

[ArcturusV]

Heh. Well, I think of Vulcans myself when I think of Lying in terms of Good and such.

"Vulcans do not lie."

They say that all the time.

They are also caught not exactly telling the truth all the time. Even making statements directly contradictory to the truth.

That sort of thing pops up a lot in various fictions. Enough that I don't think most people would really consider the use of a Lie (Particularly against a Vile enemy) an evil act.

By that logic, an Ambush is an Evil Act, not merely a tactic. As it is predicated on the lie of safety, etc, etc, etc.

It's less of a headache to let them just lie to an enemy, but not to anyone else.

[Talya]

All combat is based on deception (Feinting, not the mechanical combat action, just the normal means of trying to catch your opponent off balance so his defenses are not where you are attacking...that's the only way a fight is ever decided.) It's not just rogues and such, but even a battle between two noble knights or samurai standing toe-to-toe in a storm of blades, it's all based on deception. So are any games that involve anything more than random chance.

[cerin616]

That is most certainly a grey area at best. And combat is not just about deceit, its also about quickness and strength. Using deceit to create an opening in the enemy is a feint, which is deceit. stepping out of the way to avoid a blow while hitting the enemy before they can recover is not deceit, its simply out maneuvering.

[ArcturusV]

Except to be able to make them miss like that you have to feign weakness, lying about your strength, so that they take a bad swing so you can step out of the way and tag them.

[cerin616]

That's not true at all. So lets say i pull out my weapon and decide to fight with someone. he feints, and i fall for it. I go to hit him and now he is at an advantage. Luckily, I am a fast guy and quick to react. As he tries to take that advantage i manage to twist out of the way. this leaves him open and i manage to get a hit.

or better yet, I have been in a fist fight with someone who was just over aggressive. He came to punch me and i stepped out of the way. did i plan to have him be aggressive? no. Did i trick him into being aggressive? no.

I reacted, and had the upper hand.

[Talya]

Again, all combat is based on deceit. "Quickness" and strength in combat is still using deceit. You are reacting fast enough that your opponent doesn't realize in time to block it. You are swinging through the block that they believe will stop you because you know you can force your way through it. This is true at all levels, from one-on-one duels, to the tactics and strategies used by entire armies.

Sun Tzu was not wrong.

[cerin616]

Again, all combat is based on deceit. "Quickness" and strength in combat is still using deceit. You are reacting fast enough that your opponent doesn't realize in time to block it. You are swinging through the block that they believe will stop you because you know you can force your way through it. This is true at all levels, from one-on-one duels, to the tactics and strategies used by entire armies.

Sun Tzu was not wrong.

Sun Tzu is not wrong. but his point was not "no matter what happens in fighting, you are being deceitful. the point is, if you don't use any form of deceit, you WILL lose.

And no, being quick is not deceitful. If i don't intend for you to try and hit me, and take advantage of you making a foolish decision, that's not deceit.

In addition, not all deception is lying. not mentioning the truth is not a lie. Not showing my strength is not a lie. not showing my speed is not a lie. not correction your false assumptions is not a lie. And lies is what this conversation was about.

[ArcturusV]

That's entirely a personal view. "Lies of Omission" are a thing, common enough to be a commonly known phrase.

Which is one of the reasons I say it's just easier to let people lie to enemies. Less headaches.

[cerin616]

well, a lie of omission is where i create a statement insinuating one thing, but leaving out important details. Which is the same as making a false statement.

Having someone come up to me and say "gravity doesnt exist", im not lying if i walk away or say something like "i do not want to take part of this conversation" is not a lie.

now if i say "I agree" then i am lying. (unless i actually believe it...)

[Talderas]

I shorthand descript exalted like this.

If you're good you may sometimes commit evil acts for the greater good.
If you're exaled you may sometimes commit neutral acts for the greater good.

[cerin616]

Its like me arguing right now. I might be saying that "this is what lying is" but its not the same thing as saying you are wrong. I think its a grey area, and I feel this is what one thing is and another is, and im explaining why i think that my beliefs are better than yours.

your opinion on lies are also completely valid.

And none of our thoughts change that lies being evil is open to interpretation in D&D, as its used as an example of an evil act in one book and listed as not an evil act in another.

[Clistenes]

They're talking about "is it acceptable to do a small evil to prevent a big one?" The answer is obviously no.

I disagree. Killing is an Evil act, so every character who gets levels of an Exalted PrC that enhances his/her combat ability is choosing a Lesser Evil (the Lesser Evil of hurting or killing an evil creature) over a Greater Evil (allowing said evil creature to hurt or kill more creatures).

Paladins and Exalted characters (with a few pacifist-themed exceptions) are all about choosing a Lesser Evil. So yes, I think a Paladin or Exalted character can lie in order to stop/avoid a Greater Evil. That said, Paladins can go very far to avoid lying, since their flawless reputation is a tool for Good in itself.

[hamishspence]

I shorthand descript exalted like this.

If you're good you may sometimes commit evil acts for the greater good.
If you're exaled you may sometimes commit neutral acts for the greater good.

Aren't most acts neutral anyway? So, person will be committing them not so much "for the greater good" as "part of the daily routine".


I disagree. Killing is an Evil act, so every character who gets levels of an Exalted PrC that enhances his/her combat ability is choosing a Lesser Evil (the Lesser Evil of hurting or killing an evil creature) over a Greater Evil (allowing said evil creature to hurt or kill more creatures).

That's not how the book puts it.

[cerin616]

I disagree. Killing is an Evil act, so every character who gets levels of an Exalted PrC that enhances his/her combat ability is choosing a Lesser Evil (the Lesser Evil of hurting or killing an evil creature) over a Greater Evil (allowing said evil creature to hurt or kill more creatures).

Paladins and Exalted characters (with a few pacifist-themed exceptions) are all about choosing a Lesser Evil. So yes, I think a Paladin or Exalted character can lie in order to stop/avoid a Greater Evil. That said, Paladins can go very far to avoid lying, since their flawless reputation is a tool for Good in itself.

Except that killing is not an evil act in dnd terms. And that the BoED clearly states that an exalted character will fall if they commit any evil act, even for the greater good. infact, the exact line "Can an exalted character commit an evil act for the greater good? the answer is no" is in the book.

Killing indiscriminatly is evil.
Killing the helpless is evil.
Killing someone who begs for mercy might be evil.
but killing alone, is not.

[hamishspence]

Except that killing is not an evil act in dnd terms.

What it is, however, is an act that is circumscribed by certain limitations- in order for it to be Not Evil- it generally requires just cause, good intentions, and it needs to be somewhat discriminating.

[Clistenes]

Except that killing is not an evil act in dnd terms. And that the BoED clearly states that an exalted character will fall if they commit any evil act, even for the greater good. infact, the exact line "Can an exalted character commit an evil act for the greater good? the answer is no" is in the book.

I can't take seriously a moral system that says that any little lie is evil, even when told to an evil creature in order to save lives, but killing is OK so long as it tingles your evildar. I would rather change a bit what the book says than use a completely absurd, senseless moral system like that.

[dascarletm]

I'd like to see a character with vile feats forced to follow the same restrictions.

Sorry village I can't save you, even though I would have a large personal gain, saving people is still a good act, regardless of intention.:smallfrown:

EDIT:


I can't take seriously a moral system that says that any little lie is evil, even when told to an evil creature in order to save lives, but killing is OK so long as it tingles your evildar. I would rather change a bit what the book says than use a completely absurd, senseless moral system like that.


Yes, this.

[hamishspence]

I can't take seriously a moral system that says that any little lie is evil, even when told to an evil creature in order to save lives, but killing is OK so long as it tingles your evildar.

"Tingling the evildar" is mentioned as not just cause for war on it's own.

[cerin616]

I can't take seriously a moral system that says that any little lie is evil, even when told to an evil creature in order to save lives, but killing is OK so long as it tingles your evildar. I would rather change a bit what the book says than use a completely absurd, senseless moral system like that.

Hey, I didn't say it makes sense...

But its true. I would bet it has something to do with that whole "being an example" kind of thing. Never lying, killing only if you need to, that kind of thing.

True story, I would want to add in a vow of honesty or something, where you get benefits for not bending the truth. Simple exalted means never outright lying, but sometimes edging around the truth (wheel of time fans might see that as "Talking like an Aes Sedai") and then plain good can outright lie to evil, and even good if they find it necessary to commit good. (such as maintaining a false identity)

[cerin616]

I'd like to see a character with vile feats forced to follow the same restrictions.

Sorry village I can't save you, even though I would have a large personal gain, saving people is still a good act, regardless of intention.:smallfrown:


Well, yea, thats the luxary of evil.

commit evil to do good is evil.
Commiting good to do evil is also evil.

their philosophys are:

evil:

the ends justify the means

Good

The ends don't justify the means

This is also why i find it a lot easier to roleplay exalted rather than vile.
exalted just means you need to be honest and true and stuff, which can be challenging.

to be truly vile, you don't just kill everyone or something stupid like that, you need to be crafty to really inspire fear in people. Otherwise your just "that guy who does bad things and is udderly predictable.

[ArcturusV]

Also note that the other split on Good/Evil is: For the Collective! For myself!

Thus if you go and kill an evil guy (Normally a good act) in order to take his treasure and power for yourself, it's an Evil Act, self serving.

If you go and kill a neutral guy (Normally an evil act) in order to prevent him from preying upon the helpless villagers of Dirtfarmersburg, it's a Good act.

Good/Evil tends to be more about Intention than Hard Facts. The fact that they tried to codify Hard Acts as "Always _____" in Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds is actually contrary to the rest of what they've written. The fact that the two sources go even further to contradict one another while also contradicting Core on alignments just muddies it even further.

But when they do define the "Hard acts" that are always evil, always good, etc. Note that the terms they use for WHY this act is Always, is because of the Intentions behind the act. Lying being evil because it's about deception and taking advantage of someone's ignorance. Mercy being Good because it's about possible redemption and the sanctity of the lives of others.

[Clistenes]

Hey, I didn't say it makes sense...

But its true. I would bet it has something to do with that whole "being an example" kind of thing. Never lying, killing only if you need to, that kind of thing.

True story, I would want to add in a vow of honesty or something, where you get benefits for not bending the truth. Simple exalted means never outright lying, but sometimes edging around the truth (wheel of time fans might see that as "Talking like an Aes Sedai") and then plain good can outright lie to evil, and even good if they find it necessary to commit good. (such as maintaining a false identity)

My point is, if Grendel is an ogre with an IQ of 30 who is just going to eat a baby, an Exalted character can kill it without trouble, but he/she can't tell Grendel that babies are poisonous and convince him to eat cake instead.

If you lie to Grendel, you save the baby and can give yourself an opportunity to redeem Grendel or at least avoid his most evil acts, but that's considered an evil act on itself.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's stupid.

[cerin616]

Thats actually not what they did. and thats not how it is. you have certain acts that are never justifiably good, which is realistic.

The tenant "For myself" is not necessarily evil, its neutral. its the willingness to commit evil to gain things that makes it evil.

And it IS about intentions. good just doesn't have that simple way out. nor does committing an evil act with good intentions automatically make you evil. And no number of good acts commited to make yourself trustable to pilfer all a nations wealth makes you any less evil.

Doing good for good is good
doing good for profit is neutral
avoiding evil is neutral
doing good for evil is evil
doing evil for evil is evil.

notice that Evil is the easiest to be, neutral is the second easiest, good is the hardest.

[cerin616]

My point is, if Grendel is an ogre with an IQ of 30 who is just going to eat a baby, an Exalted character can kill it without trouble, but he/she can't tell Grendel that babies are poisonous and convince him to eat cake instead.

If you lie to Grendel, you save the baby and can give yourself an opportunity to redeem Grendel or at least avoid his most evil acts, but that's considered an evil act on itself.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's stupid.


Well you see, thats the thing. you can't lie to grendel. You can tell grendel "You shouldn't eat that baby, here is some cake instead" and then kill grendel if they still insist on eating the baby.

Or better yet, you can take back the baby, and imprison grendel.

[Clistenes]

Thats actually not what they did. and thats not how it is. you have certain acts that are never justifiably good, which is realistic.

But you said that, if you follow the RAW, lying is always an evil act, but killing is not. So, by the book, the right thing to do is killing the ogre, rather than lying to him.

I gave an example in which lying can't be considered an evil act.


Well you see, thats the thing. you can't lie to grendel. You can tell grendel "You shouldn't eat that baby, here is some cake instead" and then kill grendel if they still insist on eating the baby.

Or better yet, you can take back the baby, and imprison grendel.

But saving the baby without killing Grendel isn't always an option. If you fight stuff, you are going to get some criticals and one-shot them now and then.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I can't take seriously a moral system that says that any little lie is evil, even when told to an evil creature in order to save lives, but killing is OK so long as it tingles your evildar. I would rather change a bit what the book says than use a completely absurd, senseless moral system like that.

Welcome to D&D. Try really hard to enjoy your stay.

[cerin616]

But you said that, if you follow the RAW, lying is always an evil act, but killing is not. So, by the book, the right thing to do is killing the ogre, rather than lying to him.

I gave an example in which lying can't be considered an evil act.

Killing is not ALWAYS an evil act. if you need to kill you can kill. But always jumping to the kill button is evil, even if killing evil enemies.

The key to being good isn't AVOIDING evil, its DOING good.

And besides, part of being exalted is not killing everything that's evil, but instead trying to bring them to good. and thus indiscriminately killing evil in the name of good questionably loses you as exalted.

[hamishspence]

I think it was the philosopher Immanuel Kant who was one of the most overt about painting lies as never justifiable no matter what- maybe the writer of BoED (but not the writer of BoVD) had been reading something of his?

[danzibr]

Common sense.

BBEG: "Do you know where I can find this world destroying artifact?"

ExaltedHero: "Yes, it's over there under that rock."

ExaltedHero immediately falls for the evil act of telling the truth to someone whom he shouldn't have.


"Possibly, but I'm not going to tell you even if you torture me to death and then torture my soul for eternity. And while you are doing that I am keeping you from doing evil to the rest of the world and buying time for others to stop your plans. So, chop chop, get with the torturing."

The proper Exalted Hero course of action.
Yeah. Exalted good isn't exalted stupid. Not lying doesn't mean revealing everything you know. Makes me think Aes Sedai.

[Talderas]

Aren't most acts neutral anyway? So, person will be committing them not so much "for the greater good" as "part of the daily routine".

That's more or less what I'm trying to illustrate. A good character is permitted to commit evil acts and will commit neutral acts on a regular basis. The exalted character is supposed to be a paragon of goodness and as such should only pursue outcomes via good acts and avoid evil/neutral.

[ShriekingDrake]

As flawed as multiple rule books, written by multiple authors, applying to a broad panoply of moral trajectories can be, it is nice that at least two authors (Baker and Wyatt) contemplated this problem to some degree.

I am a big fan of taking Gift of Discernment (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-guide-to-faerun--22/gift-of-discernment--1218/). It is a feat designed to address meta aspects of the game. All my exalted characters take this feat by 3rd level. It allows the DM to say, "Whoa there Johnson, your deity may not like it if you micturate in Keldred's shampoo." At the cost of a feat--and one of my DM's throws this feat in for free with exalted characters--you buy some comfort that you will not inadvertently breach your moral code.

I think this is one of the most clever mechanics in the game because it avoids unnecessary (and disruptive) surprises, but fosters communication about interesting role-playing.

[danzibr]

Yeah, DnD is wack. Saying lying is never justified but killing can be. It should be both or neither. That this is the case is probably due to DnD being primarily a combat game.

[Scow2]

Yeah... when it comes to Good and Lying - most Good characters don't lie because most Lies tend to be a subset of an actually evil act: Betrayal. A lie that is not also a betrayal is not a lie (Exhibit A: That priest from Les Miserables, or O-chul's last-ditch attempt at BSing Redcloak.

[cerin616]

Like i said, probably goes with that whole knightly "I will never tell a lie and only kill when I must" thing.

Think Sir Galahad.

[hamishspence]

Yeah... when it comes to Good and Lying - most Good characters don't lie because most Lies tend to be a subset of an actually evil act: Betrayal.

Arguably, an evil character might betray their master for Good reasons, and it not count as Evil, but positively redeeming.

Vader in RoTJ springs to mind.

[Forum Explorer]

The lying thing is stupid but it can be worked around but you'd be using lies of omission

like "If you eat that baby you will die."

Without saying "because I will kill you."


Actually it's just plain stupid.

[cerin616]

Well, is it a betrayal? technically vader was betrayed by palpatine when he was promised that he could keep those he loved alive if he joined the sith.
Yet here palpatine is killing his son, whom vader, you could argue, loved. He offered Luke the position as his apprentice so that they might rule the universe together. In the other movies he always had strong ties to his family.

And last but not least, the reason i would say its not a betrayal at all is this:

An apprentice is always expected to kill his master. Is it a betrayal when it is the code of the order?

[cerin616]

The lying thing is stupid but it can be worked around but you'd be using lies of omission

like "If you eat that baby you will die."

Without saying "because I will kill you."


Actually it's just plain stupid.

Well, what about the simple "Put down the baby or i will slay you"

It seems so much more simple, and you aren't lying. If the creature isn't evil, it may hesitate and want to know why you care about the baby, thus giving you the ability to try and correct its wrongs.

I guess we just lost the ability to be direct with monsters.

[Talya]

Exalted characters are completely allowed to kill. The reasons behind the killing and who is being killed combined determine whether it is evil.

Killing is not a "lesser evil."

Don't confuse the Vow of Peace/Vow of Nonviolence with how all exalted characters must behave.

[Raineh Daze]

Like i said, probably goes with that whole knightly "I will never tell a lie and only kill when I must" thing.

Think Sir Galahad.

Galahad! :smallmad:

... please excuse me.

If you're going to use a knight as an example, please don't use that one. Gawain would be a better choice, seeing as a lie once nearly got his head cut off.

[cerin616]

Galahad! :smallmad:

... please excuse me.

If you're going to use a knight as an example, please don't use that one. Gawain would be a better choice, seeing as a lie once nearly got his head cut off.

except that Galahad was the pure one...?

EDIT: I mean it depends on how you look at it, but the character Galahad was supposed to depict was launcelots son, with all his virtues but none of his vices.

[Raineh Daze]

except that Galahad was the pure one...?

EDIT: I mean it depends on how you look at it, but the character Galahad was supposed to depict was launcelots son, with all his virtues but none of his vices.

Lancelot's child by rape. Can't remember which woman, it happened to the guy twice. :smallsigh:

Also added into the story incredibly late, usurped Sir Percival's role in the Grail Quest (he was the one to originally get it the most), and an outrageous Mary Sue.

Honestly, Lancelot and Gawain are good examples of Falling from Exalted. Lancelot for everything with Guinevere, Gawain... well, best I remember, for going overboard with trying to get vengeance on Lancelot. Which got him killed, because seriously, picking a fight with someone known for being an incredibly good fighter... :smallsigh:

[cerin616]

Thats why i didn't want to use them as an example. The point here is "what is an exalted character" not "what is an exalted character that then falls"

Percival would be a good example as well. I just went for the guy labeled as "the pure"

granted he is also chaste, and as an exalted character, you are allowed to sex anything up as long as its ok with that too.

[Lightlawbliss]

...

granted he is also chaste, and as an exalted character, you are allowed to sex anything up as long as its ok with that too.

unless you take the feat saying otherwise (or want to use spells that can't be used in a certain period of time after sex)