What's your opinion on BoVD?

[atemu1234]

Content-wise, I've found it a useful resource for creating villains, but what's your opinion?

[Extra Anchovies]

The sacrifice rules are nice; the more ways for my characters of questionable morality to get craft XP, the better! :smallbiggrin:

Sacrifice rules are also really nice for villains, too, because it lets you give them a planar ally or some such without making them a high-level spellcaster.

[Threadnaught]

It has a load of nice villainous material, some stuff has been updated and won't fly in some games, but even in those games there may be special cases where stuff gets a free pass. Because a villain may need to be extra villainous or something, I dunno, so much awesome evilness to turn a bad guy into a villain.



Unrelated, I really like that Bone Knight.

[malonkey1]

To be honest, as far as fluffing out villains is concerned, Exemplars of Evil has always been more useful to me, but as far as crunch, BoVD has some decent villainous stuff. I'm fond of using Dark Speech (and Words of Creation to a lesser extent), giving it to all fiends for free, and negating the downsides for sufficiently powerful villains.

[Phelix-Mu]

An eclectic mix of cool, broke, and useless.

Magic: How is it worse than sanctified spells? Aside from one or two gems and TO use of apocalypse from the sky, there is a whole lot of chaff in there. I believe touch of jubilex is my personal favorite, but not particularly good (except for the visual, hehe, wow, now that is an awesome death scene). Lahm's finger darts are great. But nothing quite as cool or useful as luminous armour or celestial brilliance.

Drugs: Pure win. A mostly mundane way to break WBL, brainwash people, and otherwise spread vice and suffering on a scale normally only available through spellcasting or allying with extraplanars. Couple with extract drug spell and watch campaign balance explode, as even low-level casters have the resources to become regional drug lords through this method.

PrCs: Soul Eater, Disciple of Dispater, and one or two others are good. Most of the rest are pretty forgettable.

Monsters: Aside from kythons and some of the humanoid races, mostly not great. The stats for the demon princes and archdukes are particularly lackluster, and probably much weaker than they should be. I use them as fodder for designing avatar-ish stats, and use a half-strength dicefreaks-grade for the real deal.

Those are most of the highlights that come to mind, off the top of my head.

[Divide by Zero]

Most of the classes are cool. Most of the optional mechanics are cool (or broken, but that can still be fun in the hands of a trustworthy player). The morality fluff is 90% garbage.

[Brookshw]

Good stuff, fun content to flesh out villians. Three stars, would use it to build a bbeg again.

[aleucard]

Too much evil-tasting gorn for my tastes. Aside from that, though, pretty standard general-purpose book for both sides of the DM screen, though some will be restricted to one side or the other depending on the campaign. I remember there being mention in one of the 'God's Tools' segment of the relevant handbook about a spell that would be VERY useful for basically everybody and the only way making it Vile or whatever its descriptor was makes sense is because there was some sort of rule that ALL spells of the book had to have that.

[...]

Honestly, I like the Demon Princes/Archdevils, some of the monsters, and some of the classes, but I think it fails in 2 areas:

1. Souls are about as valuable as a +1 longsword.

2. Most of the religions of various creatures are really bad. I mean, I know that they weren't that far into some of the creatures' societies, but that doesn't excuse Aboleths serving Demon Princes.

EDIT: Oh yeah, one of the races is a direct downgrade to humans too, so that's not very helpful.

[Extra Anchovies]

Most of the classes are cool. Most of the optional mechanics are cool (or broken, but that can still be fun in the hands of a trustworthy player). The morality fluff is 90% garbage.

Very true on that last point. It's almost as bad as BoED's morality garbage :smalltongue:


Unrelated, I really like that Bone Knight.

Thanks! Chd did a great job with it, IMO.

[sonofzeal]

It's... pretty unbalanced. More so than average, at least. Not as bad as Complete Champion, but that's not saying a lot. I tend not to use it much, since it's really for "BLAAARG LOOK HOW EEEEEVIL I AM" sorts of villains, and I tend towards the more nuanced ones.

[Aethir]

1. Souls are about as valuable as a +1 longsword.


Actually if you go and check the spell components section, they're less valuable (in either larval or stored form) than a simple masterwork longsword. :smallbiggrin:

[...]

Actually if you go and check the spell components section, they're less valuable (in either larval or stored form) than a simple masterwork longsword. :smallbiggrin:

You know you have a problem with a book when what you intended to be hyperbole turned out to be an understatement. :smallannoyed:

[Shalist]

Regarding the worth of a soul:


Soul Prisms
(http://www.mimir.net/barmy/coins.html#lower)
Also from the Lower Planes, and especially Carceri, these prisms superficially resemble the Rainbows of the Upper Planes. However, a berk carrying one of these feels she's being watched constantly. That's probably because she is. If you look closely at a Soul Prism, also called a Cage, you can see a tiny face inside; it even seems to scream. It's the trapped soul of an unlucky petitioner. The value of a Cage depends on the power of the soul trapped inside, and can vary from one gold to a thousand or more. Fiends seem to be able to tell a Cage's value on close inspection, though how remains dark - as does the method of their creation.So instead of buying a masterwork longsword, perhaps you'd be interested in 315 lower quality souls?

[afroakuma]

While it touches on a lot of ideas that you'd want for Capital E Evil, the book doesn't do most of them well at all. For instance, souls. Souls have limited uses as described in the book, limited uses for which they are very expensive indeed. Yet procuring a soul is far more expensive a proposition than the purchase price would dictate. Strike one.

Sacrifice rules are good, but there are some real limitations to how practical sacrifice is for some applications. They seem to have been paranoid about balance-breaking at the oddest times. Strike two.

The archfiends are fairly uninspiring and drab considering their facemelting status, and the book doesn't come with a heck of a lot of new ideas in the monster department. Strike three.

That said, it's inspired a few sinister ideas here and there, but most of the material I find terribly lacking or surprisingly lackluster in its straightforwardness. If I want evil, I'll continue to conjure it up myself.

[Forrestfire]

Most of the fluff about Evil is pretty bad, but there are a few gems in there. Four of my favorite spells (Love's Pain, Grim Revenge, Bestow Greater Curse Blank Check for Being an Ass, and Crushing Fist of Spite) are from this book, and the archfiend writeups were neat.

[Curmudgeon]

It's really all over the place, as others have commented on. Other than the drugs, I mostly don't use anything from the book. It's 3.0, and it's not worth the time/arguments about necessary DM adjustments in a 3.5 campaign.

[afroakuma]

Most of the fluff about Evil is pretty bad, but there are a few gems in there. Four of my favorite spells (Love's Pain, Grim Revenge, Bestow Greater Curse Blank Check for Being an Ass, and Crushing Fist of Spite) are from this book, and the archfiend writeups were neat.

Aren't you supposed to be avoiding distractions right now? Because I'm quite certain this qualifies. :smalltongue:

Anyway, yes, there are a lot of spells I like either for their concept or for the idea of what would happen if you dumped them into a magic item. One of my favorite ideas was a gauntlet that combined Lahm's finger darts with regenerate. Another was an assassin's dagger with a forbidden speech effect that prevented witnesses from talking about your kills. And of course seething eyebane is just the best nasty surprise to hit people with. :smallcool:

[Psyren]

I'm surprised Hive Minds haven't been mentioned yet. They are so broken as to be unplayable.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm surprised Hive Minds haven't been mentioned yet. They are so broken as to be unplayable.

I'm surprised Mindrape hasn't been mentioned yet. It's one of the best spells ever.

[Mato]

Content-wise, I've found it a useful resource for creating villains, but what's your opinion?It's not bad for a neutrally aligned book but I'm still waiting on an evil-aligned expansion ;)

[malonkey1]

It's not bad for a neutrally aligned book but I'm still waiting on an evil-aligned expansion ;)

http://emotibot.net/pix/5262.jpg

I really don't have anything to add there.

[Shining Wrath]

Usually banned. Far too much stuff that lends itself to abuse of the "Limburger left out in the sun" variety.

[Vogonjeltz]

One of my favorite ideas was a gauntlet that combined Lahm's finger darts with regenerate.

Wouldn't that require bracers rather than gauntlets? The gauntlets (or even gloves) would prevent your fingers from flying off anywhere.

I like the fluff from BoVD, especially some of the monsters.

[ace rooster]

Some really fun stuff. Demonologist is a particular favorite to make wands of greater curse, and get access to SM8 at level 14. It is also just cool, while not overpowered. Persistant power leech coupled with a wand of restoration can give you an ability score in the thousands :smallcool:. It doesn't last long, but for a scry and die prep it is hilarious. It is just broken. The sacrifice rules are quite nice for crafting magic items, if you have a supply of victims.

I don't really have a problem with the value of souls. Every commoner has one, and there are very few actual uses for them. Procuring a soul on the material plane is tricky, but on the outer planes they just appear.

In general I mostly like it. Not a huge amount for PCs, (other than ur priest. Reprinted, but this it where it started) but some great stuff for 'colourful' NPCs.

[Darrin]

Most of the fluff about Evil is pretty bad, but there are a few gems in there. Four of my favorite spells (Love's Pain, Grim Revenge, Bestow Greater Curse Blank Check for Being an Ass, and Crushing Fist of Spite) are from this book, and the archfiend writeups were neat.

My favorite BoVD spells: Lahm's finger darts, spider hand and wall of chains.

[Fax Celestis]

I hate mechanical alignment and by extension hate this book and its good-aligned counterpart.

[Darrin]

I hate mechanical alignment and by extension hate this book and its good-aligned counterpart.

"But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln... how was the play?"

[...]

"But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln... how was the play?"

I was about to ask the exact same question, if in a less sarcastic way.

[Forrestfire]

Aren't you supposed to be avoiding distractions right now? Because I'm quite certain this qualifies. :smalltongue:

Anyway, yes, there are a lot of spells I like either for their concept or for the idea of what would happen if you dumped them into a magic item. One of my favorite ideas was a gauntlet that combined Lahm's finger darts with regenerate. Another was an assassin's dagger with a forbidden speech effect that prevented witnesses from talking about your kills. And of course seething eyebane is just the best nasty surprise to hit people with. :smallcool:

Oh neat, I had forgotten about seething eyebane. That spell's a jerk. Always thought it was hilarious that it hit you, too, unless you had reach.

(And yes, totally trying to avoid distractions right now. An astonishing amount of homework has been completely without you guys' influence :smalltongue: )

[atemu1234]

(And yes, totally trying to avoid distractions right now. An astonishing amount of homework has been completely without you guys' influence :smalltongue: )

Come to the dark side, we have cookies :smalltongue:.

[Ruethgar]

Come to the dark side, we have cookies :smalltongue:.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tshirt-lied-dark-side-no-have-cookies-2.jpg

As to the book, I like the Bone and Corpse templates in the back and the land corruption is fun. The princes were too weak for my taste. I would have to agree with the above that the drugs are awesome, I always thought the sacrifice rules were cool but never used them. All-in-all I rarely use the book. It has a few gems that I like, but for too many ideas were executed poorly.

[Fax Celestis]

"But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln... how was the play?"

I'm not sure I'm getting what your asking. What do I like about the travesty of the book? It has some good concepts (Dark Speech, the thrall PrCs, souls as component/currency), but poor execution. The thrall stuff should've been templates, not classes; soul currency is crap per the previous mentioned issues. I especially don't like how sexual deviance is eeeeevil, especially when we have Lathander the Masochist over there.

The book feels like evil for evil's sake. That's not interesting. I want reasons for the evils, and having things like a lawful good villain could have been explicitly covered in the book but was pretty much ignored: just because it doesn't say "evil" on their stat block doesn't mean they can't do evil, misguided things.

[atemu1234]

I'm not sure I'm getting what your asking. What do I like about the travesty of the book? It has some good concepts (Dark Speech, the thrall PrCs, souls as component/currency), but poor execution. The thrall stuff should've been templates, not classes; soul currency is crap per the previous mentioned issues. I especially don't like how sexual deviance is eeeeevil, especially when we have Lathander the Masochist over there.

The book feels like evil for evil's sake. That's not interesting. I want reasons for the evils, and having things like a lawful good villain could have been explicitly covered in the book but was pretty much ignored: just because it doesn't say "evil" on their stat block doesn't mean they can't do evil, misguided things.

To be fair, in hollywood we still have to deal with the go-to show for someone being evil is them being into chains and whips. It's stupid and vaguely offensive, but thems the cards.

Sadism/Masochism (the spells) I enjoy, simply because they are easily breakable.

[Extra Anchovies]

To be fair, in hollywood we still have to deal with the go-to show for someone being evil is them being into chains and whips. It's stupid and vaguely offensive, but thems the cards.

Couldn't agree with you more. I've never understood why BDSM is still usually vilified in popular culture even while a large number of other "alternative" sexualities (such as the LGBTQA+ community) are now being accepted (by most) and celebrated (by many). But that's an off-topic rabbit hole so I'll avoid going into a rant.
Back on topic:

The book feels like evil for evil's sake. That's not interesting. I want reasons for the evils, and having things like a lawful good villain could have been explicitly covered in the book but was pretty much ignored: just because it doesn't say "evil" on their stat block doesn't mean they can't do evil, misguided things.

Definitely seconded. I can't stand D&D's good/evil alignment system; I'm still a fan of Law/Chaos, though so most of the time the alignment on my character's sheet is LN or CN (with the occasional LE or CG if I feel like playing a "bad guy"/"good guy"). LG/NG is much more "good for good's sake" and CE/NE more "evil for evil's sake" than I can possibly stomach.

[Shining Wrath]

Couldn't agree with you more. I've never understood why BDSM is still usually vilified in popular culture even while a large number of other "alternative" sexualities (such as the LGBTQA+ community) are now being accepted (by most) and celebrated (by many). But that's an off-topic rabbit hole so I'll avoid going into a rant.
Back on topic:


Definitely seconded. I can't stand D&D's good/evil alignment system; I'm still a fan of Law/Chaos, though so most of the time the alignment on my character's sheet is LN or CN (with the occasional LE or CG if I feel like playing a "bad guy"/"good guy"). LG/NG is much more "good for good's sake" and CE/NE more "evil for evil's sake" than I can possibly stomach.

Harvey Korman in "High Anxiety": "More bondage. Less discipline."

[Psyren]

and having things like a lawful good villain could have been explicitly covered in the book but was pretty much ignored: just because it doesn't say "evil" on their stat block doesn't mean they can't do evil, misguided things.

BoED does address this actually. The issue is that a Good villain does not stay Good for long unless the PCs are explicitly evil/unjust. If they oppose each other long enough (through deeds, not words) then eventually one or both will cross that moral event horizon.

[Fax Celestis]

BoED does address this actually. The issue is that a Good villain does not stay Good for long unless the PCs are explicitly evil/unjust. If they oppose each other long enough (through deeds, not words) then eventually one or both will cross that moral event horizon.

I disagree. I think that a lawful good villain versus a chaotic good party can both be trying to accomplish the same goal but through different means. And if the lawful good character continues to for the party through legislative action and legal acumen, I don't see any reason why they would ever fall.

[Oko and Qailee]

I disagree. I think that a lawful good villain versus a chaotic good party can both be trying to accomplish the same goal but through different means. And if the lawful good character continues to for the party through legislative action and legal acumen, I don't see any reason why they would ever fall.

TBH If feel like a LG and a CG fighting requires both to be more L/C than G.

I currently have a LG vs CG thing going on in my campaign, but the only way any actual conflict between the two groups arises when the LG/CG thinks their L or C is way more important than their G. Otherwise they tend to work together anyway, because even with differing means they both want the same positive goal.

[Fax Celestis]

TBH If feel like a LG and a CG fighting requires both to be more L/C than G.

I currently have a LG vs CG thing going on in my campaign, but the only way any actual conflict between the two groups arises when the LG/CG thinks their L or C is way more important than their G. Otherwise they tend to work together anyway, because even with differing means they both want the same positive goal.

Classical example: Robin Hood does good things in bad ways, and is consistently attempted to be brought to justice by the law. Now, while the Sheriff of Nottingham is not exactly a nice guy, it still would have worked if he were a shining paragon of legal justice.

Perhaps another example: Batman does good things in bad ways, and is consistently attempted to be brought to justice by the law, up to and including by pre-metamorphosis Harvey Dent.

Basically, "vigilantism is a crime, and crime is for criminals, and criminals are bad people, so criminals go to jail" is a completely lawful good concept that can be diametrically opposed to a chaotic or even neutral good outlook.

[jedipilot24]

Content-wise, I've found it a useful resource for creating villains, but what's your opinion?

Mortalbane is a great feat for warlocks and it doesn't even have an alignment restriction.
There's a lot of interesting flavor, especially in the prestige classes, but also a lot of mediocre mechanics. So a lot of it isn't worth it for players, but if you're creating interesting villains who--once battle begins--will only have a lifespan measured in rounds anyway, its worth looking into.

[Psyren]

I disagree. I think that a lawful good villain versus a chaotic good party can both be trying to accomplish the same goal but through different means. And if the lawful good character continues to for the party through legislative action and legal acumen, I don't see any reason why they would ever fall.

If he does so to the point that the goal is actually inhibited (e.g. innocents get harmed, the bad guy ascends to godhood etc.) then he absolutely will. It'd be an accident, certainly, but atonement covers accidents too.


Classical example: Robin Hood does good things in bad ways, and is consistently attempted to be brought to justice by the law. Now, while the Sheriff of Nottingham is not exactly a nice guy, it still would have worked if he were a shining paragon of legal justice.

But the Sheriff supports the evil government without attempting to oppose it in any way. Thus he is not LG and therefore irrelevant to this topic.

[Fax Celestis]

That again depends on whether you think alignment is objective or subjective.

[Psyren]

That again depends on whether you think alignment is objective or subjective.

It is objective in Dungeons & Dragons. Whether it should be is certainly a matter of debate, but not whether it is.

[Fax Celestis]

It is objective in Dungeons & Dragons. Whether it should be is certainly a matter of debate, but not whether it is.

Hence my seething undying burning hatred for mechanical alignment.

[PraxisVetli]

The stats for the demon princes and archdukes are particularly lackluster, and probably much weaker than they should be. I use them as fodder for designing avatar-ish stats, and use a half-strength dicefreaks-grade for the real deal.

Ahaha, ORCUS
Ok, had to get that in, if only once.

But seriously, this.

[WhamBamSam]

Hence my seething undying burning hatred for mechanical alignment.Do you houserule stuff in MoI then? Just asking, as you seem to love that book and it's got tons of mechanical alignment to wade through.

Anyway, I like some stuff in BoVD, though I'll agree with other posters here that there's a lot of dumb to wade through. And a big percentage of things I like are objectively bad design that happens to work out in a way I like rather than anything that the writers should be applauded for.

[Curmudgeon]

To be fair, in hollywood we still have to deal with the go-to show for someone being evil is them being into chains and whips. It's stupid and vaguely offensive, but thems the cards.
That's actually the second option for depicting Evil nature. The first, much more offensive, go-to show is simply being physically unattractive. Witches with warts on their noses, you know. :smallsigh: