Is there any reason why Ur-Priests are Evil?

[KarlMarx]

Is there any reason why the Ur-Priest prestige class has to be Evil?

I think that there is plenty of reason for a Good character to siphon away the power of Evil gods, instead of vice versa. It might also be interesting to see an Ur-Priest specializing in channeling the magic of dead deities.

However, I also know that Ur-Priest can be pretty OP. Is there some combo that isn't possible with the alignment restriction that makes it more dangerous?

[ngilop]

Is there any reason why the Ur-Priest prestige class has to be Evil?

I think that there is plenty of reason for a Good character to siphon away the power of Evil gods, instead of vice versa. It might also be interesting to see an Ur-Priest specializing in channeling the magic of dead deities.

However, I also know that Ur-Priest can be pretty OP. Is there some combo that isn't possible with the alignment restriction that makes it more dangerous?

I am away from my books right now. But, I do believe you are looking at this from the incorrect angle. You should not be looking at what they do (siphon spells) but the Why and How they do it.

if memory serves me correctly, they Ur-priests hate dieties and are actually stealing the divine energies from the gods give to their servants. It is that is why they are evil.

There is a good class that does the same thing mechanically. By that I mean; gives you 9th level casting in 10 levels of a PrC. If that is all you are looking for fast progression 9s. I think there are actually 3 or 4 that do that it is just Ur-priest I think is the easiest one to qualify for/ ahs the most potential for abuse.

[daremetoidareyo]

I just love that karlMarx is questioning whether it is truly evil to siphon the power of belief labor away from the divine upper class to empower the mortal underclass. Of course seizing the means of divine production is categorized as evil by the divine oligarchy of neutral, good and evil deities!

It's an existential threat to the power structure.

[Goaty14]

I mean, the designers probably meant for stealing from a divine entity to be an evil act, but I suppose you could try going the route of the malconvoker.


There is a good class that does the same thing mechanically. By that I mean; gives you 9th level casting in 10 levels of a PrC. If that is all you are looking for fast progression 9s. I think there are actually 3 or 4 that do that it is just Ur-priest I think is the easiest one to qualify for/ ahs the most potential for abuse.

Divine Crusader & Apostle of Peace OTOH. IIRC, AoP draws from a small list and (maybe?) Divine Crusader draws from a domain. Would have to check myself though.

EDIT: Checked myself and, I forgot to say that AoP has some very obvious restrictions that explain why it isn't used, and Divine Crusader draws her spells from a single domain, hence why Ur-Priest is considered the better choice.

[Mehangel]

It probably doesn't help that MCU's Doctor Strange has the Ancient One who siphon's power from Dormammu (an evil god) so to be there to protect the mortal world from evil. Now I am not saying that the Ancient One is actually Good (I see her more as being of Neutral alignment), but I would never classify her as evil.

[KarlMarx]

I am away from my books right now. But, I do believe you are looking at this from the incorrect angle. You should not be looking at what they do (siphon spells) but the Why and How they do it.

if memory serves me correctly, they Ur-priests hate dieties and are actually stealing the divine energies from the gods give to their servants. It is that is why they are evil.

There is a good class that does the same thing mechanically. By that I mean; gives you 9th level casting in 10 levels of a PrC. If that is all you are looking for fast progression 9s. I think there are actually 3 or 4 that do that it is just Ur-priest I think is the easiest one to qualify for/ ahs the most potential for abuse.

So? "Hating the gods" isn't an Evil trait. Unless you're in FR, which I never am.

In my current homebrew campaign setting, religion is almost entirely dominated by a monotheistic church devoted to a LN deity, who's a bit of a control freak. The church is loosely based off of the Inquisition and the less positive aspects of the medieval church, and divine magic is specifically vested by the deity in the church. So an Ur-Priest would be the perfect chassis, with a lot of the fluff intact, for heretic casters who steal that power from the church.

[Karl Aegis]

It's an artifact of 3.0 edition. Printed in Book of Vile Darkness, only the vashar knew how to become Ur-Priests and could teach others. They were so evil they didn't understand how hostages work because they couldn't see how anyone could possibly see value in another person. Also, they tried to beat the deities to death with an animal bone as their second act in existence. It was pretty hardcore.

[Friv]

I just love that karlMarx is questioning whether it is truly evil to siphon the power of belief labor away from the divine upper class to empower the mortal underclass. Of course seizing the means of divine production is categorized as evil by the divine oligarchy of neutral, good and evil deities!

It's an existential threat to the power structure.

*slow clap*

[Telonius]

Is there any reason why the Ur-Priest prestige class has to be Evil?

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/1/1b/Ur-Priest.jpg

The goatee is clearly visible.

Slightly more seriously, the "Rebuke Undead" that it gets at 2nd would mostly fit in with excluding Good; only Neutral or Evil Clerics would get that normally.

[jdizzlean]

I just love that karlMarx is questioning whether it is truly evil to siphon the power of belief labor away from the divine upper class to empower the mortal underclass. Of course seizing the means of divine production is categorized as evil by the divine oligarchy of neutral, good and evil deities!

It's an existential threat to the power structure.

You win sir!


https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/1/1b/Ur-Priest.jpg

The goatee is clearly visible.

Isn't that Ming the Merciless?

[Telonius]

Isn't that Ming the Merciless?

Nah, it's his cousin Malsaern the Enlightened.

[exelsisxax]

Stealing is bad, mmmmmkay?

[Friv]

It does really look like someone wanted to try to draw Ming the Merciless, but as not a racist stereotype, now that you mention it.

Anyway, it is a cruel lie that goatees are evil. On a bald man, they can simply mean "very cool". See also: Benjamin Sisko, Bruce Willis, and Tenzin.

[Quertus]

Stealing from - and, ultimately, killing - the gods is the only good act in D&D. Everything else simple perpetuates the broken system.


Stealing is bad, mmmmmkay?

Actually, it's chaotic. But Pick Pockets doesn't require the Evil assignment to take it.

[hamishspence]

Actually, it's chaotic .

Which book says that?

BoVD (and Champions of Ruin) are the sources that say it's (normally) an evil act.

[daremetoidareyo]

Which book says that?

BoVD (and Champions of Ruin) are the sources that say it's (normally) an evil act.

That's just lawful bias creeping into the rulesbooks.

Kender can be good aligned and steal all day long: they have a cultural inability to observe property rights. Does this mean that no kender can be exalted? I'm thinking not.

Property rights themselves are a form of violence (no-one can use this land/item without my permission, even if I'm not around to protect that claim, even if you're starving/dying) that if not applied the EVIL descriptor, absolutely has the lawful descriptor.

[hamishspence]

Even Chaotic people can be touchy about their property. Elves tend to confront at arrow point anyone who trespasses in "their territory".

[TiaC]

Because D&D often conflates godly with good despite that making no sense in a world with evil gods. It’s an artifact of real world religion where gods are assumed to be good.

[torrasque666]

Because much like why Animate Dead and the like are Evil spells, they create a twisted mockery of life, Ur-Priests go against the nature of the divine connection. Gods get prayers, Gods grant power to Clerics, Cleric inspire more prayers. An Ur-Priest disrupts this. Thematically, every spell that an Ur-Priest prepares (read: steals) is a spell that a cleric of some deity didn't receive that day and is thus causing a twisted mockery of the divine connection.

[JNAProductions]

Because much like why Animate Dead and the like are Evil spells, they create a twisted mockery of life, Ur-Priests go against the nature of the divine connection. Gods get prayers, Gods grant power to Clerics, Cleric inspire more prayers. An Ur-Priest disrupts this. Thematically, every spell that an Ur-Priest prepares (read: steals) is a spell that a cleric of some deity didn't receive that day and is thus causing a twisted mockery of the divine connection.

Yes, but if they're stealing from Evil Gods, they're preventing a bad guy from getting Harm or Power Word Kill or something.

[Nifft]

I mean, at the fundamental level of gaming, it's evil because it's from the Book of Vile Darkness, and the prerequisite is Spell Focus (evil), and the alignment requirement is "any evil".

Maybe godless Paladins and Clerics of an idea are doing exactly the same thing, but in a less-evil way.

[Falontani]

Not going to get into the big debate again about how book of vile darkness and book of exalted deeds are wrong on what is good and what is evil.

[Nifft]

Not going to get into the big debate again about how book of vile darkness and book of exalted deeds are wrong on what is good and what is evil.

... and yet that debate would tend to answer the OP's question.

Why is this PrC from the BoVD evil? Because the authors weren't particularly good at evil.

[Celestia]

Yes, but if they're stealing from Evil Gods, they're preventing a bad guy from getting Harm or Power Word Kill or something.
Stealing from evil does not make you good. That said, stealing from good also does not make you evil. Ur-Priests, bring defined by their opposition to the gods, should, logically, have their alignment opposite of the gods. Since most D&D settings have gods of every alignment (even if chaotic gods make no sense), then Ur-Priests can be of any alignment, contingent on which gods, specifically, they primarily oppose.

[KarlMarx]

Property rights themselves are a form of violence (no-one can use this land/item without my permission, even if I'm not around to protect that claim, even if you're starving/dying) that if not applied the EVIL descriptor, absolutely has the lawful descriptor.

I love what I hath spawned, albeit by accident.



Because much like why Animate Dead and the like are Evil spells, they create a twisted mockery of life, Ur-Priests go against the nature of the divine connection.


However, the creation of undead results in the emergence of a being that, barring any control, will cause evil. That's a fundamental distinction between what Ur-Priests do and Animate Dead & the like. If Gods are the ultimate & only source of magic, arcanists are no better. If Gods are the source of divine magic, clerics etc. of forces and philosophy are no better. Nonetheless, there exist good philosophies, and arcanists can be exalted. And, since there's no limit on how many clerics a god can give spells to at once, it follows that there is no limit on how much power a god can give to clerics, so an Ur-Priest isn't actually depriving another cleric of their connection to the deity.

And Ur-Priest has also been published outside of the BoVD, so it isn't a Vile class.

[Esquire]

Personally, I think that if malconvokers can be good, ur-priests ought to be able to be good as well.

[Zombulian]

Because D&D often conflates godly with good despite that making no sense in a world with evil gods. It’s an artifact of real world religion where gods are assumed to be good.

This, really. Remember that the people developing D&D were mid-western Christians.

[Falontani]

However, the creation of undead results in the emergence of a being that, barring any control, will cause evil. That's a fundamental distinction between what Ur-Priests do and Animate Dead & the like.

I will not dispute the fact that the majority of the base alignment on created undead is indeed evil; however:

A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple... A skeleton may in fact be Neutral Evil (their statblock says as much) however they will take no action unless given an order. I would assume that means that unless ordered to move by their master they would stay in place for eternity.

[Feantar]

If you wish to have good Ur-Priests, then make a feat or class ability that allows them to choose from who they steal. Pick a deity like, for example, Llolth and you're set. That would also have the drawback of being targeted by that deity's followers, but oh well.

Really, the only reason I can think of that Ur Priests are evil is that they steal indiscriminately, and what they steal can be vital. And since, in general, good deeds don't cancel out evil ones (I can't intentionally burn an orphanage and torture someone, then save a city and be called neutral without seeking redemption) this makes them evil.

[Venger]

Is there any reason why the Ur-Priest prestige class has to be Evil?

I think that there is plenty of reason for a Good character to siphon away the power of Evil gods, instead of vice versa. It might also be interesting to see an Ur-Priest specializing in channeling the magic of dead deities.

However, I also know that Ur-Priest can be pretty OP. Is there some combo that isn't possible with the alignment restriction that makes it more dangerous?

No.

You are correct.

This is one of the listed ways to actually be an ur-priest. Your character can:
A) despise the gods, because they are demonstrably terrible people
B) worship a deity who has Faded

You could well worship a Good-aligned god who stopped existing because they became too obscure or had their portfolio and divine essence absorbed when they were killed and eaten by a bigger, meaner god if you wanted to, the class description supports this.


So? "Hating the gods" isn't an Evil trait. Unless you're in FR, which I never am.

In my current homebrew campaign setting, religion is almost entirely dominated by a monotheistic church devoted to a LN deity, who's a bit of a control freak. The church is loosely based off of the Inquisition and the less positive aspects of the medieval church, and divine magic is specifically vested by the deity in the church. So an Ur-Priest would be the perfect chassis, with a lot of the fluff intact, for heretic casters who steal that power from the church.

That's a good call, FR is terrible.

In FR, hating the gods isn't an Evil act, but they will nail your ass to a wall forever in the afterlife if you don't arbitrarily worship someone.


If you wish to have good Ur-Priests, then make a feat or class ability that allows them to choose from who they steal. Pick a deity like, for example, Llolth and you're set. That would also have the drawback of being targeted by that deity's followers, but oh well.

Really, the only reason I can think of that Ur Priests are evil is that they steal indiscriminately, and what they steal can be vital. And since, in general, good deeds don't cancel out evil ones (I can't intentionally burn an orphanage and torture someone, then save a city and be called neutral without seeking redemption) this makes them evil.

Or just... let them do it like they already can and ignore the alignment req and have them take a different feat as a tax

[skunk3]

Stealing from evil does not make you good. That said, stealing from good also does not make you evil. Ur-Priests, bring defined by their opposition to the gods, should, logically, have their alignment opposite of the gods. Since most D&D settings have gods of every alignment (even if chaotic gods make no sense), then Ur-Priests can be of any alignment, contingent on which gods, specifically, they primarily oppose.

I agree with this. If you are siphoning power from an evil god, then why couldn't you fluff a character into being good or even neutral.

[Zanos]

It's Evil because the contract between the mortals and the divine is what keeps the entire world turning. Ur-Priest's are quite literally screwing with the metaphysical underpinnings of reality, which is extremely dangerous to everyone. This covenant is so important that Ao will even smack down or outright destroy gods who disrespect their responsibility to their followers; see the Time of Troubles.

[Ramza00]

It's Evil because the contract between the mortals and the divine is what keeps the entire world turning. Ur-Priest's are quite literally screwing with the metaphysical underpinnings of reality, which is extremely dangerous to everyone. This covenant is so important that Ao will even smack down or outright destroy gods who disrespect their responsibility to their followers; see the Time of Troubles.

Keep your FR lore away from the other planes and put it back in the plane where it belongs, literally back in the Forgotten Realms.

[KarlMarx]

It's Evil because the contract between the mortals and the divine is what keeps the entire world turning. Ur-Priest's are quite literally screwing with the metaphysical underpinnings of reality, which is extremely dangerous to everyone. This covenant is so important that Ao will even smack down or outright destroy gods who disrespect their responsibility to their followers; see the Time of Troubles.


But...we're not talking about FR.

[flare'90]

It's Evil because the contract between the mortals and the divine is what keeps the entire world turning. Ur-Priest's are quite literally screwing with the metaphysical underpinnings of reality, which is extremely dangerous to everyone. This covenant is so important that Ao will even smack down or outright destroy gods who disrespect their responsibility to their followers; see the Time of Troubles.

Ok, cool. Now tell me: why are Ur-priests Evil in Eberron?

[Segev]

Ur-Priests are evil because they take Spell Focus: Evil. Geeze!

...okay, yeah, more seriously, I don't really "get" it. If anything, it should be a Chaotic PrC, not an Evil one. I mean, unless there's an unspoken fluff requirement that the Ur Priest somehow capture a child of a god and torture them to death before incorporating them into an altar to use as a divine channel to steal the energy. Then, yeah, that'd be pretty evil. But we're entering fluff that isn't even presented as a possibility in the text territory, here.

[InterstellarPro]

Ok, cool. Now tell me: why are Ur-priests Evil in Eberron?

Eberron breaks a lot of alignment restrictions. Eberron has Bone Knights where you have a lawful good paladin rebuking and commanding undead. It is the one setting where non-evil Ur-Priests should be a no-brainer.

Moreover, Eberron gives me the impression that it is all about beliefs. The gods don't really exist, but clerics believe in them strongly enough and get powers. Clerics lose their powers when their church rejects them. Perhaps this is because enough people believe that the cleric does not have powers anymore that makes it so. The power of mass belief seems to power the setting. So, if enough people in the setting believe that a particular Ur-Priest is good, I would think that would be a pretty strong case to allow for a good-aligned Ur-priest.

[Telonius]

Mechanically, I think it's down to Rebuke Undead excluding Good alignment, and the feat requirement. Whether or not those should be there is another question.

Though fluff-wise, that would put a weird spin on it. If our hypothetical Good Ur-Priest is stealing divine energy from Evil deities, it would make sense that he gets Rebuke Undead. But an Ur-Priest would have to steal from Good deities to get Turn Undead.

[Bavarian itP]

Ok, cool. Now tell me: why are Ur-priests Evil in Eberron?

There is no such thing as a setting-independent prestige class, so if Ur-Priests are evil in your Eberron campaign, it's because your DM decided so.

[Kish]

I just love that karlMarx is questioning whether it is truly evil to siphon the power of belief labor away from the divine upper class to empower the mortal underclass. Of course seizing the means of divine production is categorized as evil by the divine oligarchy of neutral, good and evil deities!

It's an existential threat to the power structure.
This, yes. The default assumption is that gods deserve worship, tautologically, because they're gods, and robbing them of their power instead is evil because, tautologically, it's robbing the gods of their power instead of serving them for it.

If you don't see it that way, it's logical to house rule away the alignment requirement, but take into account the balance aspect as well--

--i.e., campaigns expect non-evil PCs by default, which means ur-priests are designed to be NPC-only by default.

I would think they would make more sense being evil, or simply not existing, in Eberron, a place where gods are more conceptual than anthropomorphized. You're not siphoning away power from this jerk who calls himself the God of Justice, and if you wanted to oppose the Mockery the logical approach would be to become a cleric of Dol Arrah--instead you're siphoning power indiscriminately away from all of the fundamental concepts that underlie the universe. And if you want to be something like a cleric while being devoted to a philosophy that states the gods don't exist or don't deserve worship--there's the Blood of Vol for that (and you can be any alignment and worship the Blood of Vol, because Eberron).

[tomandtish]

Kender can be good aligned and steal all day long: they have a cultural inability to observe property rights. Does this mean that no kender can be exalted? I'm thinking not.


In fairness, Kender probably lack the Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) to actually be committing the crime of theft (although others won't see it that way). A Kender doesn't "steal" item X. The picked it up to look at it, got distracted by something else, and put the item in their pocket instead of back where they got it. In the books, 90% of the things in Tasselhoff's pouches? he had no idea where they came from .

it's actually why they are so badly misplayed. When I DM'd them, the player never got to say what they took. At the beginning of each day I'd make a few rolls to decide what ended up in their pouches, when, and if anyone noticed. So it was never the Kender telling me he was taking the fighter's dagger, it was me telling the fighter "Hmm, looks like your dagger sticking out of the Kender's waistband" and letting them decide what to do about it.

[Thurbane]

This is one of the listed ways to actually be an ur-priest. Your character can:
A) despise the gods, because they are demonstrably terrible people
B) worship a deity who has Faded

Indeed. The Adaptation section on CD p.70 spells this out.

It wouldn't be a stretch for a DM to use this as a basis to hand-wave a non-evil Ur-Priest.

Interestingly, this adaptation was added in the CD update of the class; BoVD included no such notes.

[torrasque666]

Interestingly, this adaptation was added in the CD update of the class; BoVD included no such notes.
Of course not. The whole point of the book is to be evil. They wouldn't care about making a way to play a class as Good.

[Ramza00]

We need an Ur Priest version of this Gru Meme

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/025/648/template.jpg

[MaxiDuRaritry]

However, the creation of undead results in the emergence of a being that, barring any control, will cause evil.Oh no! That mindless skeleton that does nothing when not being controlled is standing there, doing nothing! Evilly!

So evil.

[Zanos]

This, yes. The default assumption is that gods deserve worship, tautologically, because they're gods, and robbing them of their power instead is evil because, tautologically, it's robbing the gods of their power instead of serving them for it.

If you don't see it that way, it's logical to house rule away the alignment requirement, but take into account the balance aspect as well--

--i.e., campaigns expect non-evil PCs by default, which means ur-priests are designed to be NPC-only by default.

I would think they would make more sense being evil, or simply not existing, in Eberron, a place where gods are more conceptual than anthropomorphized. You're not siphoning away power from this jerk who calls himself the God of Justice, and if you wanted to oppose the Mockery the logical approach would be to become a cleric of Dol Arrah--instead you're siphoning power indiscriminately away from all of the fundamental concepts that underlie the universe. And if you want to be something like a cleric while being devoted to a philosophy that states the gods don't exist or don't deserve worship--there's the Blood of Vol for that (and you can be any alignment and worship the Blood of Vol, because Eberron).
Most settings where deities exist have some kind of covenant between mortals and deities, where mortals worship and deities maintain aspects of reality. FR is pretty extreme with it, but it's a common conceit of many fantasy settings.

The real question isn't whether or not Ur-Priests exist in Eberron, it's whether or not they can exist at all. Last I checked you don't need to worship anything to gain divine power in Eberron.

[Zombulian]

Oh no! That mindless skeleton that does nothing when not being controlled is standing there, doing nothing! Evilly!

So evil.

He's just standing there... menacingly! (https://youtu.be/LPmzRa-sXQs)

[Jack_Simth]

take into account the balance aspect as well--

--i.e., campaigns expect non-evil PCs by default, which means ur-priests are designed to be NPC-only by default.
Interestingly, if you prevent the addition of other PrC's until it's complete, there's really only one problematic class feature and a small number of levels where in an Ur-Priest is better than a normal priest. Take a basic entry build:

Savage Bard-5/Ur-Priest-X

At character level 6th, Ur-Priest 1, you've got a 6th level character that can cast... 1st level divine spells. A Cleric would be on 3rds.
At 7th, Ur-Priest 2, you've got 2nd level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 4ths.
At 8th, Ur-Priest 3, you've got 3rd level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 4ths.
At 9th, Ur-Priest 4, you've got 4th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 5ths.
At 10th, Ur-Priest 5, you've got 5th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 5ths (Break even point here, in terms of spell level)
At 11th, Ur-Priest 6, you've got 6th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 6th's.
At 12th, Ur-Priest 7, you've got 7th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 6ths (first level where the Ur-Priest is ahead)
At 13th, Ur-Priest 8, you've got 8th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 7ths.
At 14th, Ur-Priest 9, you've got 9th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 7ths (This is the peak in terms of spell level).
At 15th, Ur-Priest 10, you've got 9th level spells vs. a pure Cleric casting 8ths. (Cleric is starting to catch up).
At 16th, Ur-Priest 10 / something else 1, you've got 9th level spells vs. a Pure Cleric casting 8ths.
At 17th, Ur-Priest 10 / something else 2, you've got 9th level spells vs. a Pure Cleric casting 9ths (Cleric has caught up).

So really, in terms of spell access, a standard entry, pure Ur-Priest is ahead from character level 12 to 16. 5 levels. At all levels, the dedicated Cleric will have more spells per day. The pure Ur-Priest's caster level will, additionally, be a bit gimped; SR and endurance will both be issues. I'd mostly call it a wash in an "expected" campaign, really.

So for balance, I see three things to watch out for:
1) Early entry tricks. If you finangle a way to meet all the requirements at 2nd level, and start taking Ur-Priest at 3rd, then the Ur-Priest is tied at about character level 4 (2nd level spells for both), gets ahead at character level 6 (4th for Ur-Priest, 3rd for CLeric), and stays ahead until character level 17 (when the Cleric finally gets 9ths). But that's more of a problem with the Early Entry tricks than with the Ur-Priest class.
2) Ur-Theurge. Because of the swift advancement, the Ur-Priest shows up in a lot of double-nine builds. There, the problem becomes one of "cast anything, and get 9ths on both sides".
3) Capstone. Stealing - actually, copying - a spell-like ability wouldn't be too bad, if it didn't stay a spell-like ability. If an Ur-Priest-10 encounters an Efreeti (which is available via Planar Binding or Planar Ally) and has tea with it, the Ur-Priest can then grant three wishes at no cost. As the Ur-Priest will not generally be a genie, the Ur-Priest can use this wishes personally, at no XP cost. Including magic item creation, theoretically.

[Zaq]

I mean, if we want to be selective with our interpretation, one could make an argument that since the first line in the entry is "Ur-priests despise gods," their power source is basically hatred. Which can be argued to be Evil; under this line of reasoning, Good should resist Evil and confront Evil and correct Evil when possible, but Good should not hate Evil. Yada yada yada,* anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. Or something.

Look, I didn't say that this is a particularly strong argument. It's very clearly justifying after the fact. But, you know, I guess it's something.

*Yoda Yoda Yoda?

[Venger]

I mean, if we want to be selective with our interpretation, one could make an argument that since the first line in the entry is "Ur-priests despise gods," their power source is basically hatred. Which can be argued to be Evil; under this line of reasoning, Good should resist Evil and confront Evil and correct Evil when possible, but Good should not hate Evil. Yada yada yada,* anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. Or something.

Look, I didn't say that this is a particularly strong argument. It's very clearly justifying after the fact. But, you know, I guess it's something.

*Yoda Yoda Yoda?

Again, you can be an ur-priest by just worshipping a god who's Faded or is so obscure that kids these days never heard of them.

I read your whitetext in a slightly different way.

Maybe it's using anastrophe and saying that the gods despise ur-priests for stealing their bandwidth.

[Rebel7284]

Can't you use the evil subtype to qualify for anything that requires you to actually be evil?

You can be a demon turned exalted and dedicated to overthrowing evil gods and enter Ur Priest!

There is also a ritual in Savage Species that gives you an alignment subtype for something like 50,000 gp.

[Mordaedil]

What exactly is wrong with the way BoVD and BoED portrays morality? Because it says to use a modern point of view for it, even if it doesn't fit the middle-age setting?

Or because people just have really bad experiences with it and it often devolves into even more arguments than normal?

[Venger]

What exactly is wrong with the way BoVD and BoED portrays morality? Because it says to use a modern point of view for it, even if it doesn't fit the middle-age setting?

Or because people just have really bad experiences with it and it often devolves into even more arguments than normal?

The problems with it are pretty much the same as any given alignment thread. The long and short of it is that many innocuous things, such as smoking or living in a city with monstrous races are labeled as Evil, and a bunch of gross stuff like reprogramming your enemies' minds to turn them into your slaves is Good by the respective books.

[Aquillion]

I agree with this. If you are siphoning power from an evil god, then why couldn't you fluff a character into being good or even neutral.I don't even buy that stealing from a Good god ultimately makes you evil. I mean, at the end of the day, the Ur-Priest is doing what Rogues do every day. You could be a robin-hood Chaotic Good Ur-Priest who steals from the complacent stuffy overpowered deities in order to help those less fortunate than them - especially if your character doesn't believe in divine "rightness" and views the gods, even the good ones, as basically unworthy of the power they hold. Nothing in that mindset is incompatible with Chaotic Good.


The problems with it are pretty much the same as any given alignment thread. The long and short of it is that many innocuous things, such as smoking or living in a city with monstrous races are labeled as Evil, and a bunch of gross stuff like reprogramming your enemies' minds to turn them into your slaves is Good by the respective books.
My favorite example:

Mindrape, which allows you to totally redefine someone's mind and memories, is an [evil] spell. Fair enough.

Programmed Amnesia, which does the exact same thing but with a longer casting time, is not evil. Gah?

I guess you can argue that the longer casting time and difference in names implies that Mindrape is a destructive, horrifying process for the victim, whereas Programmed Amnesia is more clinical and therefore could theoretically be used to eg. erase trauma from consenting subjects. But it's still amusing.

Then there's Deathwatch, an [evil] spell that uses magic to perform the horrific, sinful act of... determining who is alive or dead. It's even offered by the Repose domain, which only good-aligned deities offer...

[Selene Sparks]

What exactly is wrong with the way BoVD and BoED portrays morality? Because it says to use a modern point of view for it, even if it doesn't fit the middle-age setting?

Or because people just have really bad experiences with it and it often devolves into even more arguments than normal?The primary problem in my view is that alignment, as written, simply doesn't work. It is literally impossible to avoid committing evil acts almost constantly and without any say in the matter if you interact with other beings in any way.

For example, according to BoED, evil acts are evil, regardless of the intent behind them. The problem therein is that, among other things, BoVD gives the fact that tempting others into committing evil acts is, itself, evil. So are things like cheating, lying, and so on. This means that, if your actions, regardless of whatever you mean to do, cause someone to consider cheating, stealing, lying, betraying someone, or so on, you've committed an evil act. Win at poker? Someone might want to cheat to beat you, so it's evil. Wear your pretty magic items? Someone might idly consider jacking them because they're pretty, so evil. Not just that, "bringing despair" is an evil act. So you, indirectly, cause someone, anyone, to fall into despair, or to get them angry enough to consider causing harm in such a way as to bring despair onto someone else, you've committed an evil act. Beyond even that, "allowing fiends to exist" is an evil act. This means that, as soon as someone has Plane Shift, if they're not in the Nine Hells or the Abyss killing fiends, they're committing an evil act.

Even beyond that, there's the innate hypocrisy in good and evil, as they're written, because BoVD was popular and so BoED was simply aping it, but with a lot of the writer's own personal baggage brought it. So, poison that causes ability damage is suddenly evil for no reason(it causes suffering or whatever, but this means that nonlethal incapacitation is more evil than just stabbing people), but you can get these Goodtm brand poisons made from bits of good creatures, and since they only harm evil beings, they're suddenly okay. Mind Rape is an evil spell, but it's okay, because BoED gave us a Goodtm brand Mind Rape. Not just that, allowing evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image" is evil, but, in addition to the Goodtm brand Mind Rape, BoED has this weird, bordering on fetishistic bit of "redeeming" prisoners via Stockholm Syndrome and gaslighting.

Then there's a bunch of weird bits, like abstinence, poverty, and martyrdom, all being presented as things that are inherently good, in addition to the weird ideas of how gods=good, despite the Great Wheel meaning that is objectively and completely untrue, as divinity, and the universe as a whole, is every bit as evil as it is good, and in fact good winning out over evil in a cosmic sense would be a Bad Thing.

[Mordaedil]

The problems with it are pretty much the same as any given alignment thread. The long and short of it is that many innocuous things, such as smoking or living in a city with monstrous races are labeled as Evil, and a bunch of gross stuff like reprogramming your enemies' minds to turn them into your slaves is Good by the respective books.

Thanks for these posts, this explains... a lot. :smalleek:

I thought the blurb at the beginning of the books made sense, but it's a bit tricky if the rest of the book doesn't follow what the beginning puts forth.

[Thurbane]

The primary problem in my view is that alignment, as written, simply doesn't work. It is literally impossible to avoid committing evil acts almost constantly and without any say in the matter if you interact with other beings in any way.

For example, according to BoED, evil acts are evil, regardless of the intent behind them. The problem therein is that, among other things, BoVD gives the fact that tempting others into committing evil acts is, itself, evil. So are things like cheating, lying, and so on. This means that, if your actions, regardless of whatever you mean to do, cause someone to consider cheating, stealing, lying, betraying someone, or so on, you've committed an evil act. Win at poker? Someone might want to cheat to beat you, so it's evil. Wear your pretty magic items? Someone might idly consider jacking them because they're pretty, so evil. Not just that, "bringing despair" is an evil act. So you, indirectly, cause someone, anyone, to fall into despair, or to get them angry enough to consider causing harm in such a way as to bring despair onto someone else, you've committed an evil act. Beyond even that, "allowing fiends to exist" is an evil act. This means that, as soon as someone has Plane Shift, if they're not in the Nine Hells or the Abyss killing fiends, they're committing an evil act.

Even beyond that, there's the innate hypocrisy in good and evil, as they're written, because BoVD was popular and so BoED was simply aping it, but with a lot of the writer's own personal baggage brought it. So, poison that causes ability damage is suddenly evil for no reason(it causes suffering or whatever, but this means that nonlethal incapacitation is more evil than just stabbing people), but you can get these Goodtm brand poisons made from bits of good creatures, and since they only harm evil beings, they're suddenly okay. Mind Rape is an evil spell, but it's okay, because BoED gave us a Goodtm brand Mind Rape. Not just that, allowing evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image" is evil, but, in addition to the Goodtm brand Mind Rape, BoED has this weird, bordering on fetishistic bit of "redeeming" prisoners via Stockholm Syndrome and gaslighting.

Then there's a bunch of weird bits, like abstinence, poverty, and martyrdom, all being presented as things that are inherently good, in addition to the weird ideas of how gods=good, despite the Great Wheel meaning that is objectively and completely untrue, as divinity, and the universe as a whole, is every bit as evil as it is good, and in fact good winning out over evil in a cosmic sense would be a Bad Thing.

I've rarely seen a better written commentary on the issues with BoED (and by extension BoVD).

Thank you.

[Telonius]

What's worst for me is that I see what they were trying to do with Sanctify the Wicked. There were a few philosophers and social reformers who genuinely believed that the only real sin is ignorance, and that with enough time to reflect, any criminal would come to see the error of their ways. This makes a whole lot of assumptions and is a vast over-simplification, but that's the gist.

That's how we get words like "corrective institution" and "penitentiary." The people in them weren't there to be punished for punishment's sake, they were there for correction and improvement. They were supposed to be penitents - people who are on their way to repenting what they'd done wrong. The fluff of the spell (pretty much a divine Time Out) reflects that, even using words like penitence.

What makes this a problem is that the spell (and the moral theory behind it) would take the element of free will out of it entirely. For many people, this isn't just Lawful, it's Lawful Evil, as it has implications on the dignity of sapient creatures. It treats morality like gravity - completely objective, obvious to everybody, always works, and always the same - and doesn't allow for the possibility of different people coming to different conclusions. The hypocrisy of it being "Holy Mind Rape" is just the icing on the cake.

[Segev]

it's actually why they are so badly misplayed. When I DM'd them, the player never got to say what they took. At the beginning of each day I'd make a few rolls to decide what ended up in their pouches, when, and if anyone noticed. So it was never the Kender telling me he was taking the fighter's dagger, it was me telling the fighter "Hmm, looks like your dagger sticking out of the Kender's waistband" and letting them decide what to do about it.

Thank you! This is how Kender should be played, and I don't get why so few people see that. I understand munchkins wanting to have somebody else's cake and eat it, too, but the fact that people just accept that that's the right way to play them and thus blame the race, rather than the munchkins who are so badly misinterpreting it, is immensely frustrating to me.


But using their racial kleptomania as a fluff explanation for a Kender Ur-Priest would be hillarious.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The only good kender is one rendered down into material components.