[3.5] Are BoED and BoVD Considered "Canon"?

[babus]

While the various books in the 3.5 library don't tend to agree on everything, I've noticed a lot of groups consider The Book of Vile Darkness and The Book of Exalted Deeds to be more optional than other sources. Do the books present themselves as being "include or leave out what you want" or are they just controversial enough in their lack of moral ambiguity that many people just refuse to use them?

[OldTrees1]

Their moral intuition is flawed enough that I throw out all moral statements in those books. I do allow the rest of it.

[ryu]

Their moral intuition is flawed enough that I throw out all moral statements in those books. I do allow the rest of it.

Same here. The silly moralistic inconsistencies suck. Ambrosia farming and apocalypse from the sky though? You can take them from my boney, lifeless hands.

[Zweisteine]

They are technically full official sourcebooks, but many people dislike some of the content (though other parts of those books are respected).

For example, I believe the BoED says that you can turn an evil person to good by locking them in a dungeon and talking to them every day (i.e. diplomacy checks). It says nothing about them having a choice in the matter, or going into the moral ambiguity of forcing a change onto someone's alignment.

Even worse, there is a spell that locks up an evil creature's soul, and effectively forces it to completely rework itself to be good rather than evil, applying a template in the process. This is the height of the BoED's moral ambiguity.

The BoVD is sometimes banned for the lack of morals that are its essence; it is banned because it contains spells like mindrape, addiction, and sadism. The book was made to go against everyone's moral fibers, and it is sometimes banned for precisely that reason.

But yes, they are official WoTC products, and as such are official D&D "canon."

[Urpriest]

Since they're "for mature audiences only" they're presumably non-canon for the under-18 demographic, if that even still exists in 3.5 outside of people being DMed by their parents.

[OldTrees1]

I throw the moral claims of BoVD out because those claims range from obvious to misguided oppression. I honestly expected to find racist or sexist moral claims in BoVD to match the rest of the misguided oppression.

[Psyren]

I don't throw out all of it. It's one of the first, if not the first, 3.5 books to say that maybe going around being an unrepentant murderhobo isn't the nicest thing for players to be doing, even to aberrations, chromatic dragons, and yes, even fiends.

But officially, they have to be specifically adopted into a campaign - they both hold a standard for good (and evil) acts that can bog down simpler stories.


Like the Book of Vile Darkness, the Book of Exalted Deeds is intended for mature players. That’s not because it’s filled with lurid depictions of depravity and torture. The material isn’t meant to shock or offend (though some topics may). Rather, this book deals with tough questions of ethics and morality in a serious manner. It’s intended to help players and Dungeon Masters wrestle with hard in-game issues: Is it okay to slaughter every drow I see and sell their goods on the open market? How do I wrest information from enemy prisoners without compromising my alignment? Is there any hope for the orc whelps in the stronghold, or should we slaughter them, too?

Many players would just as soon overlook these questions, believing they detract from the fun of the game. There’s nothing wrong with that. For groups that want to address these issues, however, the Book of Exalted Deeds opens the way.

[FMArthur]

Same here. The silly moralistic inconsistencies suck. Ambrosia farming and apocalypse from the sky though? You can take them from my boney, lifeless hands.

Just make sure Elder Evils is also 'canon' in games that include Apocalypse from the Sky. That way if your players ever think the spell fails to deliver on its name, the real effect can help ease their doubts some time later. :smallwink:

[Cikomyr]

I don't throw out all of it. It's one of the first, if not the first, 3.5 books to say that maybe going around being an unrepentant murderhobo isn't the nicest thing for players to be doing, even to aberrations, chromatic dragons, and yes, even fiends.

But officially, they have to be specifically adopted into a campaign - they both hold a standard for good (and evil) acts that can bog down simpler stories.

I gotta ask. where does the expression Murderhobo comes from?!?!

[Cikomyr]

Just make sure Elder Evils is also 'canon' in games that include Apocalypse from the Sky. That way if your players ever think the spell fails to deliver on its name, the real effect can help ease their doubts some time later. :smallwink:

If your players think they can scoff off AftS, just make up the rules regarding Rift-like leylines that has to channel all the souls of the dead at the same time, and cause a chain catastrophic reaction that destroys the world :smallcool:

[saxavarius]

From PCs that wander around (hobo) killing things for gold, treasure, experience, etc. (murder)

[Vhaidara]

I gotta ask. where does the expression Murderhobo comes from?!?!

The fact that most adventurers are technically homeless people (hobos) who spend most of their time going around murdering things (goblins, orcs, hydras, dragons, villages, kings, paladins, demons, angles, etc).

And thus we have murderhobos.

Unless you wanted this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323556). Which came after the term, but lives it to the hilt.

[Zetapup]

Since they're "for mature audiences only" they're presumably non-canon for the under-18 demographic, if that even still exists in 3.5 outside of people being DMed by their parents.

Yup, there are still under 18 3.5ers who aren't just dmed by their parents. From what I've seen at cons and whatnot, they've mostly switched to pathfinder, but 3.5 and pathfinder are pretty close so I'm counting it.

As for BoED and BoVD, the ethical/alignment ideas are... pretty silly, for the most part. Of course, d&d alignment is kinda odd in the first place. I still use the books on occasion for feats/items/classes/etc, but ignore most of the sketchy alignment stuff.

[Coidzor]

Some of the stuff is nifty, though the implementation of both is flawed on the whole.

It's one of those places where, sure, it's canonical if you're using the books, but you really need to be taking what is written with two heaping tablespoons of salt.

[Phelix-Mu]

People always complain about sanctify the wicked. I see where it rubs some people the wrong way, but it is probably intended to be used on something the party was otherwise going to kill. "Repent or die" is obviously not a particularly charitable viewpoint, but if one is out to cleanse the world of evil, and those evil people staunchly resist efforts to redeem them, then it's back to putting them to the sword.

The precise wording of the spell and its mechanic rather badly botch what I see as a basic principle of goodness, preferring life over death, even when it involves sacrifice to help an evil person find their way back to the light. And, of course, this is going to bother just as many people as mindrape is going to bother.

[Sith_Happens]

For example, I believe the BoED says that you can turn an evil person to good by locking them in a dungeon and talking to them every day (i.e. diplomacy checks). It says nothing about them having a choice in the matter, or going into the moral ambiguity of forcing a change onto someone's alignment.

I think people who say this are drawing way too much into the fact that there's a saving throw involved. It's obviously supposed to represent honestly persuading them to change, with the Will save representing how set in their ways they are (hence why they add their level to it; a higher level tends to mean that they've been at this "Evil" thing for longer and/or have been getting results from it). Note the lack of a (Sp), (Su), or [Mind-affecting] tag.


Even worse, there is a spell that locks up an evil creature's soul, and effectively forces it to completely rework itself to be good rather than evil, applying a template in the process. This is the height of the BoED's moral ambiguity.

Sanctify the Wicked is definitely messed up, though.

[Psyren]

Sanctify the Wicked, like pretty much the rest of the book, draws very heavily from Rousseau philosophy. How you feel about it generally will derive from how you feel about Rousseau's views - things like good being the default state and evil a perversion of that to be cleansed.

[Vhaidara]

Oh, and there's also the Emissary of Barachiel, with its legendary power to Diplomance you out of your alignment.

[Darrin]

I gotta ask. where does the expression Murderhobo comes from?!?!

I thought it was 4chan? Also shows up on TVTropes, I think.

[NotAnAardvark]

I don't see how Sanctify the Wicked is so horrible in a world where we have spells and potions that can change your alignment too.

[babus]

A look through Ravages and Afflictions showed the existence of "Raging Desire" (page 35) and helps better explain why Exalted Deeds is 18+ only. I can only imagine how awkward that would be in-game.

[Sith_Happens]

Oh, and there's also the Emissary of Barachiel, with its legendary power to Diplomance you out of your alignment.

The "-mance" part being literal, what with being (Su) (Compulsion) [Mind-affecting].

[Phelix-Mu]

The real takeaway here is that BoED and BoVD are both sets of "optional rules" that should be carefully considered for their ability to change the atmosphere and tenor of a campaign. As much as we here like to take Willing Deformity(tall) and use it as an optimizing tool, descriptions of self-mutilation, torture, human sacrifice and/or the horrors of conversion by the sword, VoP, VoPe (beware), and bunches of poorly balanced fluff-stuff can all seriously change the vibe a campaign generates. Often to the extent of squicking players out for one reason or another.

If your group is into the grimdark or likes their Lovecraft set to 11, then that might work for you. Likewise, if your group wants to have a campaign that challenges the characters to be virtuous, go for it. Otherwise, it's probably best to leave those books closed (or accept that the material is available for refluffing/toning down).

[Slipperychicken]

A lot of gamers don't like the default alignment fluff, so they chuck it.


I consider both books to be RAW for 3.5 alignments (it also clarifies a lot of stuff about alignment, which is useful), but would prefer to remove alignment from the system entirely.

[Ravens_cry]

What's canon in one world or campaign may not be in another. Nothing forces you to use everything or even anything whole cloth.

[Sir Chuckles]

Off-topic a bit here, but...
I've always needed to ask this:
Is it bad that I read "BoED" as "Book of Erotic Deeds"?

[The Glyphstone]

Off-topic a bit here, but...
I've always needed to ask this:
Is it bad that I read "BoED" as "Book of Erotic Deeds"?

No, that's the Book of Erotic Fantasy, BoEF. Different sourcebook.:smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

If your group is into the grimdark or likes their Lovecraft set to 11, then that might work for you. Likewise, if your group wants to have a campaign that challenges the characters to be virtuous, go for it. Otherwise, it's probably best to leave those books closed (or accept that the material is available for refluffing/toning down).

Even if one wants Grimdark or to challenge the characters to be virtuous, they'd still want to refluff and adjust things to accommodate the individual group and to compensate for the hit-or-miss competence of the writers/editors. :smalltongue:

[Phelix-Mu]

Even if one wants Grimdark or to challenge the characters to be virtuous, they'd still want to refluff and adjust things to accommodate the individual group and to compensate for the hit-or-miss competence of the writers/editors. :smalltongue:

Agreed. I only mentioned the refluffing because stripping out the alignment stuff is terribly popular round these parts.

Personally, I like to chase the edges of my campaigns in the crystallized tears of the innocent, but I hardly need BoVD to help me with that (though some of the spells and feats are pretty...and kythons, yay!). And BoED is perennially popular with a couple of my players, and I do like the info in there on the Upper Planes.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The fact that most adventurers are technically homeless people (hobos) who spend most of their time going around murdering things (goblins, orcs, hydras, dragons, villages, kings, paladins, demons, angles, etc).

DIE EUCLIDEAN SWINE! :smallbiggrin:

On topic, yea, they are as canon as any DnD book can be said to be.

[Vhaidara]

And that's what typing on my phone gets me. Bloody angles.

[Slipperychicken]

DIE EUCLIDEAN SWINE! :smallbiggrin:


I think we now know how R'lyeh came to be so strange: some PCs ran in during a strange aeon, killed death, then killed all the angles too :smallbiggrin:

[NotAnAardvark]

They're as canon as anything, which is to say any DM can use or not use whatever they want.

Personally I use both but tend to ignore the fluff of them. Though to be fair I basically ignore the fluff of everything.

[The Viscount]

Sanctify the Wicked, like pretty much the rest of the book, draws very heavily from Rousseau philosophy. How you feel about it generally will derive from how you feel about Rousseau's views - things like good being the default state and evil a perversion of that to be cleansed.

That's rather a of twisting of Rousseau's words. He did believe that man was good, but he stated that evil began with private property, and thus with civilization as a whole. Furthermore, while he did believe that you could change people for the better, it was rather heavily implied that this would be done by altering society, not individual minds. The idea that you as mighty figures can stop the wickedness of the world seems to more parallel Hobbes.


I don't see how Sanctify the Wicked is so horrible in a world where we have spells and potions that can change your alignment too.

For many people the problem is not simply that Sanctify the Wicked exists alongside these other alignment changers, but that it is presented as if it is a purely good act.

[Venger]

That's rather a of twisting of Rousseau's words. He did believe that man was good, but he stated that evil began with private property, and thus with civilization as a whole. Furthermore, while he did believe that you could change people for the better, it was rather heavily implied that this would be done by altering society, not individual minds. The idea that you as mighty figures can stop the wickedness of the world seems to more parallel Hobbes.
It could also have parallels drawn to burgess's "clockwork orange" where he basically says the luclidovo technique (which works pretty much the same way) doesn't really count because the person it's done to doesn't do good acts by choice, but just to avoid physical pain


For many people the problem is not simply that Sanctify the Wicked exists alongside these other alignment changers, but that it is presented as if it is a purely good act.
absolutely. I always distinguish between good and Good (Good being alignment stuff and good being the word used in its normal context) there's also the fact that no matter what you do with mindrape, it can't actually physically hurt or kill the target, which sanctify the wicked has the chance to.

[NotAnAardvark]

For many people the problem is not simply that Sanctify the Wicked exists alongside these other alignment changers, but that it is presented as if it is a purely good act.

Purely good? Maybe not, but it definitely fits along the spectrum of goodness. Sort of an "ends justify the means" approach to goodness where the fact that you're replacing an evil entity with a benevolent one is more important than anything else. It's perfectly valid, if a bit weird and might bring up questions of morality (which the ED/VD books are supposed to do!).


The only problem I see is if you take the fluff literally insofar as the soul "discovering" a spark of goodness. That just seems weird to me. Though I suppose it's equally weird that I find a euphemism for mindrape to be more palatable thematically.


It reminds me a bit of the death penalty replacement from Babylon 5.

[babus]

I always distinguish between good and Good (Good being alignment stuff and good being the word used in its normal contextI've always liked this take on D&D morality. Good and Evil as scientifically measurable elements, with the true questions of right and wrong being secretly more complex. If a person casts a spell with the Evil descriptor, for instance, it is an act of "Evil" because they just got "Evil" on themselves (possibly because it draws power from an evil source), even if they use the spell to save an orphanage. There are times when doing the right thing in-game means doing the elementally evil thing.

[Phelix-Mu]

Purely good? Maybe not, but it definitely fits along the spectrum of goodness. Sort of an "ends justify the means" approach to goodness where the fact that you're replacing an evil entity with a benevolent one is more important than anything else. It's perfectly valid, if a bit weird and might bring up questions of morality (which the ED/VD books are supposed to do!).


The only problem I see is if you take the fluff literally insofar as the soul "discovering" a spark of goodness. That just seems weird to me. Though I suppose it's equally weird that I find a euphemism for mindrape to be more palatable thematically.


It reminds me a bit of the death penalty replacement from Babylon 5.

The only thing more bizarre than the actual implementation of morality in BoVD and BoED is the interpretation thereof. Converting evil into good is pretty much a mainstay of being good, and generally leaves good playing catchup when compared to the manifold and self-perpetuating ways of corruption. It is, indeed, very weird.

Anyway, the really bizarre aspect of sanctify the wicked is how hard it is to pull off. Who has all that time to waste? And how did an exalted caster ever make it to such high level without being more murderhobo? And how is anyone that wants to use that spell on a regular basis able to afford the level cost? AND WHY IS MINDRAPE BETTER AT MAKING EVIL PEOPLE GOOD?

[rmnimoc]

The only thing more bizarre than the actual implementation of morality in BoVD and BoED is the interpretation thereof. Converting evil into good is pretty much a mainstay of being good, and generally leaves good playing catchup when compared to the manifold and self-perpetuating ways of corruption.

Anyway, the really bizarre aspect of sanctify the wicked is how hard it is to pull off. Who has all that time to waste? And how did an exalted caster ever make it to such high level without being more murderhobo? And how is anyone that wants to use that spell on a regular basis able to afford the level cost? AND WHY IS MINDRAPE BETTER AT MAKING EVIL PEOPLE GOOD?

Because it is a whole lot easier to completely delete someone's mind and remake them in your image than it is to jail someone until all the horrible things they have done finally click and they are guilted to good.

Cause that is kind of what sanctify the wicked does iirc. That's the one that puts them in time-out till they stop misbehaving right (locks them in a crystal where they are forced to confront their evil deeds)?

If that is the one I don't see how that isn't good. It's jail, just more effective/magic-y.

[MadGreenSon]

If that is the one I don't see how that isn't good. It's jail, just more effective/magic-y.

It's not jail, you aren't forced to change in jail. Your body isn't destroyed when you go to jail and re-created when you get out. (Though the idea of that is so cool it gives me a new sci-fi game idea...)
Once you're you in the gem, YOU WILL BE GOOD. No other option.
It basically is Mindrape, except it takes a year and makes you suffer soul searing guilt during that year.
So it's Mindrape that hurts more. And gives you a template that allows you to shoot lasers from your eyes.

The evil, evil creators of the Mindrape spell must be standing abashed at how very awful goodness is. :biggrin:

I, as a DM have used Sanctify the Wicked three times in a game. Each time it was used by an NPC that the players are sure is crazy as all hell and each time it creeped them the **** out.:smallbiggrin:

[rmnimoc]

It's not jail, you aren't forced to change in jail. Your body isn't destroyed when you go to jail and re-created when you get out. (Though the idea of that is so cool it gives me a new sci-fi game idea...)
Once you're you in the gem, YOU WILL BE GOOD. No other option.
It basically is Mindrape, except it takes a year and makes you suffer soul searing guilt during that year.
So it's Mindrape that hurts more. And gives you a template that allows you to shoot lasers from your eyes.

The evil, evil creators of the Mindrape spell must be standing abashed at how very awful goodness is. :biggrin:

I, as a DM have used Sanctify the Wicked three times in a game. Each time it was used by an NPC that the players are sure is crazy as all hell and each time it creeped them the **** out.:smallbiggrin:

The fact your body is destroyed and recreated doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is like jail. In D&D people switch bodies more often than underwear. So that's* like saying that one jail is totally different because it makes you change your underwear when you get in.

Well, it would appear as though I have a different view of it than most people. You see it as being like "No, you will be good and I will delete everything you are to make it so!" I see it as more of a "Life sentence in jail. Oh, by the way, we fixed your non-existant conscience and sense of morality. Please try not to lose it on the way out. Also, as a thank you gift for now being a good person, Eye-Lasers. Have a pleasant day."

Though I suppose I might just unknowingly be a total knight templar and just not realize it.

I've used StW and other like spells/abilities (I like playing silverhair knights) many times. Since good people tend to be disgusted/horrified of what they did back when they were infected with Evil, they tended to be happy that I helped them, and add on that the world as a whole was a better place for it, I'll admit I have a bit of trouble seeing the problem. I'm not destroying who they are, I'm just making them open their eyes and see what they have done.

*Almost kinda sort of

[MadGreenSon]

The fact your body is destroyed and recreated doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is like jail. In D&D people switch bodies more often than underwear. So that's* like saying that one jail is totally different because it makes you change your underwear when you get in.

I concede that point. I'm also totally writing up a sci fi campaign right now about shenanigans with bureaucracy and getting the wrong body back after being in Brain Jail. :biggrin:



Well, it would appear as though I have a different view of it than most people. You see it as being like "No, you will be good and I will delete everything you are to make it so!"


Actually its more like "You're going to be Good now, you are also going to suffer agonizing emotional pain for a year, because that's how Good rolls"



I see it as more of a "Life sentence in jail. Oh, by the way, we fixed your non-existant conscience and sense of morality. Please try not to lose it on the way out. Also, as a thank you gift for now being a good person, Eye-Lasers. Have a pleasant day."


I will admit, as thank you gifts go, Eye Lasers are surely top shelf. :smallbiggrin:



Though I suppose I might just unknowingly be a total knight templar and just not realize it.


It's cool. Having these little "quirks" makes us well rounded people. :smallwink:



I've used StW and other like spells/abilities (I like playing silverhair knights) many times. Since good people tend to be disgusted/horrified of what they did back when they were infected with Evil, they tended to be happy that I helped them, and add on that the world as a whole was a better place for it, I'll admit I have a bit of trouble seeing the problem. I'm not destroying who they are, I'm just making them open their eyes and see what they have done.


Yes. Very happy. So very happy. And they'll never be not happy about your choice to do that to them either.

Oh wow, I just had a profound insight about alignment being a circle and all great good and great evil being in parallel and then I lost it.
Make up something more profound and put it here, ok? :smallsmile:

Personally, I feel if you go to either extreme of alignment you get either cartoonish or just weird.

It actually seems fitting that the greatest extremes of good and evil get strangely blurred once you reach a certain point. It harkens back to Planescape when Law/Chaos was just as, if not more, important than Good/Evil and things could get strange in the Blood War because of that.

I've used both books here and there, and players and NPCs alike have been both Vile and Exalted.

I honestly like both.

[Sith_Happens]

And that's what typing on my phone gets me. Bloody angles.

Of course, more parties than not will only ever find themselves fighting the rouge angles of Satin.

EDIT:

I'm not destroying who they are, I'm just making them open their eyes and see what they have done.

Sudden realization: Sanctify the Wicked = Mind Crush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSM8DCRWnfQ).

This explains everything, and I've completely changed my mind about the spell because of it.:smallbiggrin:

[BrokenChord]

Of course, more parties than not will only ever find themselves fighting the rouge angles of Satin.

EDIT:


Sudden realization: Sanctify the Wicked = Mind Crush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSM8DCRWnfQ).

This explains everything, and I've completely changed my mind about the spell because of it.:smallbiggrin:

The mental image that conjured was simply beautiful. Thank you.

[georgie_leech]

If I told you about a spell that imprisoned a creature's soul for a year, sought out the tiniest scrap of conscience/soul that agrees with your world view, and forced them to discard everything in opposition to that with the purpose of converting that soul into your world view, what alignment does it seem like it would be?

[rmnimoc]

1. I concede that point. I'm also totally writing up a sci fi campaign right now about shenanigans with bureaucracy and getting the wrong body back after being in Brain Jail. :biggrin:



Actually its more like "You're going to be Good now, you are also going to suffer agonizing emotional pain for a year, because that's how Good rolls"



2. I will admit, as thank you gifts go, Eye Lasers are surely top shelf. :smallbiggrin:



It's cool. Having these little "quirks" makes us well rounded people. :smallwink:



3. Yes. Very happy. So very happy. And they'll never be not happy about your choice to do that to them either.

4. Every generations Evil started off good, doing what they could to make the world a better place, only to lose their perspective and fall to darkness to try to force the world to be a better place! :smallsmile:

5. Personally, I feel if you go to either extreme of alignment you get either cartoonish or just weird.

It actually seems fitting that the greatest extremes of good and evil get strangely blurred once you reach a certain point. It harkens back to Planescape when Law/Chaos was just as, if not more, important than Good/Evil and things could get strange in the Blood War because of that.

I've used both books here and there, and players and NPCs alike have been both Vile and Exalted.

I honestly like both.

1. That is hilarious.

2. We were going to give them "Ocular Spell" and eyes that were literal gateways to the Positive Energy Plane, but the Lawful Good Department of Finance told us that it was wasteful spending and we could either give them one or the other. I'm glad you think we made the right choice.

3. That sounds a bit silly to me, whether it is because the attempt at Armor Piercing Words or the Orwellian implications I'm not sure. I can't really argue it.

4. Pretty sure my attempt at profoundness fell flat there. I've got a headache and I'm no poet, but I tried.

5. Total one-dimensional extreme alignment is weird, I've got a habit of being the "Lawful Good" player, though my LG tends to be the "Good is not soft, Law is not stupid" kind.


If I told you about a spell that imprisoned a creature's soul for a year, sought out the tiniest scrap of conscience/soul that agrees with your world view, and forced them to discard everything in opposition to that with the purpose of converting that soul into your world view, what alignment does it seem like it would be?


Lawful, hands down.

On that note, I'd like to remind everyone that freedom isn't [Good]. It is [Chaos]. So spells that influence your personal freedom, and your free will are neither inherently [Good] or [Evil], and so the reason StW is [Good] is because you are literally creating more goodness at a personal cost, which is altruistic (which is [Good]) and respect for life (also [Good]). When I DM, I tend to houserule that StW is both a [Good] spell and a [Law] spell.

On that note, BoED and BoVD are both considered RAW with several optional rules, just like the Complete series usually is (in my head they are the Complete Good and Complete Evil books). The RAW is RAW and the optional rules are as Unearthed Arcana.

[NotAnAardvark]

If I told you about a spell that imprisoned a creature's soul for a year, sought out the tiniest scrap of conscience/soul that agrees with your world view, and forced them to discard everything in opposition to that with the purpose of converting that soul into your world view, what alignment does it seem like it would be?

The problem here seems to be a disconnect in crunch and fluff. If we take the fluff at face value, it simply says the villain is forced to confront their own misdeeds and sees the error of their ways.

The crunch however seems far too absolutist for that. A single will save and the most debased creatures you could possibly find are guaranteed to be broken and made to repent in a single year.

A paladin traps The Chained God in there and in a year he's ready to do charity and commit himself to a code of honor? That no longer sounds like "sees the error of his ways" stuff.


Yes. Very happy. So very happy. And they'll never be not happy about your choice to do that to them either.
To be fair, the text doesn't actually say the victim has to like you or that the alignment is permanent.

Also the guy above me explains it better.

[Sith_Happens]

The mental image that conjured was simply beautiful. Thank you.

Which one, an adventuring party waging a crusade against the rouge angles of Satin, or Yami Yugi trapping someone in a diamond for a year?


Lawful, hands down.

Seconding this.

[MadGreenSon]

1. That is hilarious.


It very likely will be. I've got some great players, I once pregenerated some of the nastiest combat monster characters possible, made them all middle aged with retirement/kids/kids-moved-out backstories and then sent the retirees on a "kids moved out! Let's Party!" spree across Faerun. In 20-odd game sessions of about 3-4 hours each, I think we spent maybe an hour, total, on actual combat. The humor, roleplaying and general fun OTOH was off the charts. I gave bonuses if anyone managed to leave more than half the group breathless with laughter, and I ended up giving out lots of bonuses.
I still laugh out loud when thinking of the "Drizz't Do'Urden ass-smack" delivered by the Mrs. Robinson CoDzilla of Mystra.:smallbiggrin:



5. Total one-dimensional extreme alignment is weird, I've got a habit of being the "Lawful Good" player, though my LG tends to be the "Good is not soft, Law is not stupid" kind.


Those are the best kind of Paladins. The kind that could be played by Clint Eastwood, Liam Neeson, or Ron Perleman.



Lawful, hands down.


That nails it! All the noise thrown up by the [Good] and [Evil], Exalted/Vile descriptors is drowning out the Law/Chaos axis of alignment entirely!
Law and Chaos are extremely important. A Chaotic Good or Neutral Good character would never cast Sanctify the Wicked, it might not even occur to them as an option, a Lawful Good character would, if the situation warranted it and redemption of the evil in question would be more beneficial than it's destruction.
Law can be harsh and sometimes weird (lookin' at you Modrons:smallbiggrin:) and Sanctify the Wicked is a very Lawful spell.

Truthfully, BoED tended to have a lot of Chaotic and Lawful elements all over with not much pointing out the differences while BoVD often came down on the CE spoke of the Great Wheel.

[TuggyNE]

A paladin traps The Chained God in there and in a year he's ready to do charity and commit himself to a code of honor? That no longer sounds like "sees the error of his ways" stuff.

*ahem* SEE THE TRUTH!

*flees*

[rmnimoc]

*ahem* SEE THE TRUTH!

*flees*

"You want the truth? You can't handle the Truth" :smallcool:


Ow....That was physically painful. Remind me to never do that again.

[georgie_leech]

I love this site: ask a loaded question intended to demonstrate my viewpoint, get answers that give me a different one than when I started.

[Sith_Happens]

*ahem* SEE THE TRUTH!

*flees*

*rolls 1 on Spot check to see the reference*

[deuxhero]

BoED had the best implementation of scaling items in the entire system family: sacrifice treasure to add its full value to a magic item's power. It was clean, simple and effective. Only real problem is you can't start with a masterwork item at level 1...

[CrazyYanmega]

*ahem* SEE THE TRUTH!

*flees*

Or, alternatively: DETECT EVIL!

Stop oppressing my culture, you ethnocentric bitch!

[TuggyNE]

*rolls 1 on Spot check to see the reference*

It's Dominic Deegan's signature move.

*runs away again*

[ZamielVanWeber]

BoED had the best implementation of scaling items in the entire system family: sacrifice treasure to add its full value to a magic item's power. It was clean, simple and effective. Only real problem is you can't start with a masterwork item at level 1...

OA Samurai begs to differ.

[Psyren]

If I told you about a spell that imprisoned a creature's soul for a year, sought out the tiniest scrap of conscience/soul that agrees with your world view, and forced them to discard everything in opposition to that with the purpose of converting that soul into your world view, what alignment does it seem like it would be?

Again, under Rousseau philosophy, you're not "converting" them - you're "restoring" them.

In other words, "everybody is good (underneath)" - according to BoED.

[Vhaidara]

OA Samurai begs to differ.

Actually, CW samurai begs to differ. Best value for money at level 1: 2 masterwork weapons.

[Cikomyr]

If I may dip my toe in the proverbial pool of debate..

I always saw the difference between Mindrape and the Redeem-Good equivalent to be about preserving the essential core person.

Mindrape, you basically kill someone's personality and graft a new one. It's no different than murder. It may even be worse, when you start considering how it will affect someone's core soul in the afterlife.

The Redeem-Good spell takes the bad guy as is, and force them to come to an epiphany regarding the evils of their way. It's just as much oppressive, but it's not destroying the base personality. A jerkass will still be a jerkass. He will remember his past, but see it in a different light.

Can't say I think Purge the Wicked to be a very nice thing to do. But it might be the best solution for, let's say, a horrible king who tyrannise his subjects, but who also happens to be the only hope for their safeguard against an incoming orc invasion.

[Shining Wrath]

Very narrowly, since your title says 3.5, BoVD is 3.0 and not re-released, while BoED is a 3.5 release, so:
BoED: canon.
BoVD: not-canon.

In every campaign I've ever seen the DM houserules both as "Ask me first before you use this stuff". And in general no DM wants MindRape coming within 500 nautical miles of his campaign. That spell goes beyond winning encounters to altering major NPCs into tools of the PCs with no more autonomy than an animal companion.

[MadGreenSon]

And in general no DM wants MindRape coming within 500 nautical miles of his campaign. That spell goes beyond winning encounters to altering major NPCs into tools of the PCs with no more autonomy than an animal companion.

As someone who's been DMing for... oh god above 23 years I can say with certainty that I would fully allow PCs to use Mindrape or Sanctify the Wicked as long as they're willing to deal with enemies who will do the same.

I have no problems taking the gloves off. Those two books are full of interesting tools, I am not afraid to use them.
It's just some of the fluff is so cheesy, I mean c'mon the Humans with Evil Hats and their counterparts the Halflings with Evil Hats? Gimme a break...
Also, The Dread Emperor has gotta be the most flamboyantly EVUL!!! NPC I have ever seen a write up for. He walks around with children chained to his armor fergodsakes...

On the Shiny Side, the Beloved of Valarian seems to take the whole Unicorn-Virgin Girl-Purity thing to a silly extreme and the Apostle of Peace needs to get his hippie self a job.

I really like the expansion of the character options and the exploration of the Upper and Lower Planes as well as the idea of the Celestial Paragons to be counterparts/opposition to the Arch-Demons and Devils.

There's a lot of good to be had once you scrape off the cheese.

(Also? Ravages? Really? Just let the good guys use friggin' poison and call it poison if yer gonna do that!)

[The Viscount]

I always saw the difference between Mindrape and the Redeem-Good equivalent to be about preserving the essential core person.

Mindrape, you basically kill someone's personality and graft a new one. It's no different than murder. It may even be worse, when you start considering how it will affect someone's core soul in the afterlife.

The Redeem-Good spell takes the bad guy as is, and force them to come to an epiphany regarding the evils of their way. It's just as much oppressive, but it's not destroying the base personality. A jerkass will still be a jerkass. He will remember his past, but see it in a different light.

I would be willing to agree with this except for 2 important things.

First: The spell changes the target's alignment to match yours, even along the law/chaos alignment, which means you are changing very fundamental aspects of the target of the spell. If the spell were just about goodness, it wouldn't change the law/chaos, but it does, which makes the spell all the more uncomfortable.

Second: The spell can be used on evil outsiders, though they do not receive the sanctified template due to irritating inconsistencies, they still change to good. Beings like the obyrith are ancient evils that embody and manifest from evil itself. To say that these creatures have a spark of goodness is to disagree with most of what is said about them.

[georgie_leech]

Incidentally, on the evidence that Sanctify the Wicked is more about magic than a real epiphany, the text says that if the diamond is destroyed before the year is up, the creature is restored to their original condition. Strictly speaking, if you break the diamond 11 months, 29 days and 14399 rounds after casting the spell, the captured soul doesn't change at all (minus whatever being stuck in a gem for year would do), while doing so one round later drastically changes the creature's alignment.

[Phelix-Mu]

Evil souls typically suffer horrifically after death (assuming they actually ever die). Maybe sanctify the wicked just gives them a taste of the future, and allows them to turn back. The spell concept is good, but its implementation is pretty terrible.

It still strikes me as nicer than just axing bad guys. Unfortunately, due to the cost and time involved, it's ultimately not an effective strategy unless used on some really powerful enemies (that are fairly likely to have a way to make that save). StW on the village Lothario is not a useful investment of resources.

And, frankly, the whole point of mindrape is that ultimate power over another person, to the extent of turning the target's free will into a mockery, is the epitome of corruption. "To make someone into something that they are not" is a great power for evil, and perverting the lives of others is at least as evil as not valuing them at all (a la murder).

[Cikomyr]

Incidentally, on the evidence that Sanctify the Wicked is more about magic than a real epiphany, the text says that if the diamond is destroyed before the year is up, the creature is restored to their original condition. Strictly speaking, if you break the diamond 11 months, 29 days and 14399 rounds after casting the spell, the captured soul doesn't change at all (minus whatever being stuck in a gem for year would do), while doing so one round later drastically changes the creature's alignment.

Can you reverse Purge the Wicked with Break Enchantment/dispel magic?

[Coidzor]

Because it is a whole lot easier to completely delete someone's mind and remake them in your image than it is to jail someone until all the horrible things they have done finally click and they are guilted to good.

Eh, Mindrape only does that if you want it to. It certainly can delete their mind, it could just alter them slightly, or it could be done without any actual change, as nothing more than a fact-finding mission.

[georgie_leech]

Can you reverse Purge the Wicked with Break Enchantment/dispel magic?

Break Enchantment, no; it's a Necromancy spell. Dispel/Disjunction et al, maybe? The Duration says "see text" and then never elaborates. It suggests that it's a non-magical effect due to an epiphany, but as I pointed out, apparently the epiphany occurs in the last six seconds of the duration. I'm going to say probably not; best guess is that it's an instantaneous effect rather than a permanent one.

[Psyren]

Incidentally, on the evidence that Sanctify the Wicked is more about magic than a real epiphany, the text says that if the diamond is destroyed before the year is up, the creature is restored to their original condition. Strictly speaking, if you break the diamond 11 months, 29 days and 14399 rounds after casting the spell, the captured soul doesn't change at all (minus whatever being stuck in a gem for year would do), while doing so one round later drastically changes the creature's alignment.

Again, you're looking at the spell in the wrong way. The designer likely thought of it more like a Restoration spell - which, incidentally, is another spell whose casting time is longer than the time units used by the game, and another spell whose magic all happens in last 6 seconds of casting. If you are casting Restoration for 2 rounds, or Greater Restoration for 9 minutes and 54 seconds, then get interrupted, nothing will happen - but that doesn't mean that being level-drained, ability-damaged, fatigued etc. are your natural state just because the spell failed to remove them.

I'm not saying I fully agree with Sanctify (I don't fully agree with Rousseau either, after all), but the spell is at least consistent with the moral premise on which the book is based.

[Zaydos]

On the subject of Sanctify the Wicked and alignment the Harmonium in 2e had a secret operation on the 2nd layer of Arcadia where they forcibly converted people to Lawful Good (exact way not described except that it involved magic). It resulted in the entire 2nd layer of Arcadia sliding into Mechanus because it was too Lawful and not enough good for the plane that was Lawful Goodish. So Sanctify the Wicked being Lawful over Good fits with the 2e presentation of such things where they actually explored Law v Chaos.

[hamishspence]

I don't throw out all of it. It's one of the first, if not the first, 3.5 books to say that maybe going around being an unrepentant murderhobo isn't the nicest thing for players to be doing, even to aberrations, chromatic dragons, and yes, even fiends.

Indeed. That's probably one of its biggest selling points for me at least.

[georgie_leech]

Again, you're looking at the spell in the wrong way. The designer likely thought of it more like a Restoration spell - which, incidentally, is another spell whose casting time is longer than the time units used by the game, and another spell whose magic all happens in last 6 seconds of casting. If you are casting Restoration for 2 rounds, or Greater Restoration for 9 minutes and 54 seconds, then get interrupted, nothing will happen - but that doesn't mean that being level-drained, ability-damaged, fatigued etc. are your natural state just because the spell failed to remove them.

I'm not saying I fully agree with Sanctify (I don't fully agree with Rousseau either, after all), but the spell is at least consistent with the moral premise on which the book is based.

Is the spell found here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/) the same as that found in the book itself? If so, it's just a standard action to set up, rather than needing a casting time of a year. Casting spells that have long casting times don't have an effect until finished because, presumably, the caster is shaping the magical energy to get the effect in the first place, while Sanctify the Wicked is supposedly working for the entire time. In other words, if the spell actually works over time, why is that last six seconds the difference from being "none of that matters in the slightest and I shall continue to be Evil" and "I've been a terrible person/fiend/whatever and have seen the error of my ways and now thoroughly agree with the caster (even if I hate his guts personally)"? Fluff-wise it acts over a year; mechanics-wise, it's a year long imprisonment with a sudden alignment shift in the last six seconds of the duration.

If the text is different, consider my objection withdrawn.

[Psyren]

Is the spell found here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/) the same as that found in the book itself? If so, it's just a standard action to set up, rather than needing a casting time of a year. Casting spells that have long casting times don't have an effect until finished because, presumably, the caster is shaping the magical energy to get the effect in the first place, while Sanctify the Wicked is supposedly working for the entire time. In other words, if the spell actually works over time, why is that last six seconds the difference from being "none of that matters in the slightest and I shall continue to be Evil" and "I've been a terrible person/fiend/whatever and have seen the error of my ways and now thoroughly agree with the caster (even if I hate his guts personally)"? Fluff-wise it acts over a year; mechanics-wise, it's a year long imprisonment with a sudden alignment shift in the last six seconds of the duration.

If the text is different, consider my objection withdrawn.

The casting time you have there is correct - however, your disconnect seems to be from a game terminology perspective. Basically, the listed casting time of 1 standard action followed by 1 year of "therapy" is necessary for game flow, because even though a true casting time of 1 year would probably be more accurate in terms of how the spell actually functions, it would also be unnecessarily restrictive on the player. Remember that spells with multiple days of cast time, like Legend Lore (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm), keep you from doing basically anything else other than casting, eating, sleeping, and waking up to cast some more. Imposing an entire year of that inactivity on the player wouldn't just be boring or derail a campaign, it would also prevent the caster from defending their ward or even themselves during the redemption process. This is particularly problematic if you consider the issue of reprisal; for example, if you have an high-ranking Drow or Mindflayer soul inside your gem, or an evil dragon, you're going to be a magnet for assaults from their fellows who seek to either recover or slay your charge before it can be redeemed. Worse still would be fiendish interference, as devils/demons would want to smash the gem and claim the wicked soul for themselves before it can be taken from their grasp by the forces of good. At those levels, you can't even hide very effectively - everything you do, especially something of this magnitude, resonates through the universe and can be detected.

By wording it this way instead, the spell allows the magic to keep working on the target without so thoroughly limiting the caster's response to external threats.

[Phelix-Mu]

Plus, over the year of time, the piece of the caster's soul used to fuel the spell is probably giving the evil soul some individual therapy or something. The price of the spell is huge, and it's slow enough that there is no even mid-term benefit to saving Mr. Big Bad. And, as Psyren notes, you have to babysit it, lest that spent level go to waste.

While it may seem unfair to the evil being to StW it, the universe ultimately chews up most evil souls and spits them out. Saving another from an eternity of perdition is generally seen as noble among good people (even if it's possible for a soul to willingly choose damnation/Lower Planes, it's fairly hard for most good people to comprehend such a choice).

[rmnimoc]

Is the spell found here the same as that found in the book itself? If so, it's just a standard action to set up, rather than needing a casting time of a year. Casting spells that have long casting times don't have an effect until finished because, presumably, the caster is shaping the magical energy to get the effect in the first place, while Sanctify the Wicked is supposedly working for the entire time. In other words, if the spell actually works over time, why is that last six seconds the difference from being "none of that matters in the slightest and I shall continue to be Evil" and "I've been a terrible person/fiend/whatever and have seen the error of my ways and now thoroughly agree with the caster (even if I hate his guts personally)"? Fluff-wise it acts over a year; mechanics-wise, it's a year long imprisonment with a sudden alignment shift in the last six seconds of the duration.

If the text is different, consider my objection withdrawn.

Think of evil like a chemical dependency. For this example, Evil is cocaine.
When you go to rehab(STW is cast), you are there so that you can exist in a cocaine(Evil) free enviroment. You are held there for however long it takes to break the chemical dependency(1 year). After you are done with that time, you are no longer chemically dependent and can go about your way, though with a chance of relapse(falling back to evil). If you are let out of rehab before that time is up, be it by a month or by an hour, you are still chemically dependent on the substance, and you have a very high chance of using again.

That is how that works in my head. You spend a year being relieved of your spiritual dependence on Evil. It hurts, withdrawl isn't fun, and then after it passes you are a new man. You have become a better person because of it. You get out too early, and your soul is still screaming for evil, unable to get the relief it was so close to.

Yeah, I feel like that is actually a WAY better parallel than the prison one I made earlier.



Sanctify the Wicked is forced rehab for your soul.

[HunterOfJello]

Both books have plenty of fluff that are generally not considered canon and both books have content that most groups will consider to be optional based on a DM ruling rather than available by default.


The majority of their crunch content is considered "canon"/available by default for groups, if that is what your question was.



I personally like both books and think that both present amazing options for characters. I am very glad that WotC produced each of the books.

[Telok]

Generally I don't like BoVD because I quickly figured out level 3 cleric feats/spells/item combo that would slap out a +36 to religion checks and let you roll 2d20 and take the highest die.

Honestly I sort of view the two books like I view the Trunamer. A nice idea/attempt but there's too much in them that just doesn't play nice with the rest of the game for me to use them without several pages of house rules.

Oh, that build is:
Cleric 3.
Items: Masterwork Kn:Religion book, Crystal Mask of Knowledge (Religion)[XPH]
Feats: Skill Focus (Religion), Sacrifical Mastery [BoVD]
Spells: Divine Insight [SpC], Insight of Good Fotrune [PHBII], Sacrificial Skill [BoVD]

[Augmental]

Think of evil like a chemical dependency. For this example, Evil is cocaine.
When you go to rehab(STW is cast), you are there so that you can exist in a cocaine(Evil) free enviroment. You are held there for however long it takes to break the chemical dependency(1 year). After you are done with that time, you are no longer chemically dependent and can go about your way, though with a chance of relapse(falling back to evil). If you are let out of rehab before that time is up, be it by a month or by an hour, you are still chemically dependent on the substance, and you have a very high chance of using again.

Rehab is a gradual process, not something where it has no effect if you get out even six seconds early.

[TuggyNE]

Rehab is a gradual process, not something where it has no effect if you get out even six seconds early.

True to an extent, but it is still possible to relapse, and within the level of abstraction the game uses, I'm not sure it's practical to model this more precisely.