About how bad is the Book of Exalted Deeds 3.5e supplement book

[Billy Baggins]

On the Cover of the Book of Exalted Deeds 3.5e supplement book, it says intended for mature audiences. About how bad is it

[BowStreetRunner]

Book of Exalted Deeds (BoED) and Book of Vile Darkness (BoVD) get that label primarily because of their discussions of the conflict between Good and Evil goes into some fairly dark corners. But while BoVD touches on things like torture, human sacrifice, and a few other pretty dark concepts, I don't feel that BoED goes nearly so far. Themes of Sin and Atonement might be a bit much for some parents to want their children to be reading (as it aligns less with any real world religion and more with fantasy concepts), but for the most part BoED is pretty tame. It's counterpart is the one that really earned the label, of the two.

[PunBlake]

The one thing that most likely made BoED have the MA label is the feat Vow of Chastity, which mentions the phrase "sexual intercourse" a few times. The gamifying of religion argument also exists, but it's maybe a bit more shaky compared to this. BoVD is much worse.

[BowStreetRunner]

I just noticed the author's note:


Author’s Note: I didn’t expect this book to require a disclaimer
like the one Monte put in front of the Book of Vile Darkness.
I like to think I am a good person, and I strongly
encourage others to be good people as well. Nevertheless, I feel
the need to point out that this book attempts to define the
morality of goodness in the context of the D&D® world, not the
real world. While I’ve tried to explore some shades of gray in
this book, the D&D universe is still much more black-andwhite
than the real world. I don’t advocate anyone killing someone
they think is evil, to give just one example.
—James Wyatt

[Deadline]

On the Cover of the Book of Exalted Deeds 3.5e supplement book, it says intended for mature audiences. About how bad is it

I find the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness to be awful, but that's because I think they are hamfisted attempts to explore morality in the most puerile ways imaginable. The rules are generally a mess as well. There are a couple of hidden gems in both, but they are mostly forgettable.

With respect to the "only intended for mature audiences", the BoVD has some provocative artwork and suggestive themes. The BoED is kinda like a judgemental relative in book form. Both explore themes that, quite frankly, aren't wise topics for polite conversation.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I find the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness to be awful, but that's because I think they are hamfisted attempts to explore morality in the most puerile ways imaginable. The rules are generally a mess as well. There are a couple of hidden gems in both, but they are mostly forgettable.

With respect to the "only intended for mature audiences", the BoVD has some provocative artwork and suggestive themes. The BoED is kinda like a judgemental relative in book form. Both explore themes that, quite frankly, aren't wise topics for polite conversation.

5 posts before the hate started. Took longer than I might've guessed.

As far as how warranted the MA rating was, the themes of BoED and BoVD are things that are beyond the capacity of children and even many young teens to handle with any kind of real understanding. I've known some people in their 40s that have a tough time with the ideas. BoVD also has some stuff that's a bit squicky in the more traditional "this stuff gets you a MA rating" vein.

That said, the pair get a -lot- of hate from people that examine them pretty shallowly and who insist on trying to pin their own sense of morality on it. If I were asked to say just one thing about them, it would be "set your own ideas aside and read -very- carefully and think about what you're reading in the context it's being given." These books are game rules, first and foremost, and not a philosophy text.

[Cosi]

The standards the Book of Exalted Deeds sets for "being good" are stupid and do not produce actions that are recognizable as "good". It's rehashed psuedo-Christian stuff that doesn't make sense in or out of world. It is apparently Evil to take the power of the god of murder and use it to oppose his ends. That does not make sense. The god of murder is evil. Opposing him is good. Your best course of action is to ignore the books entirely, not because they are offensive, but because they add nothing of value to the game.

[Fizban]

Others have covered how themes of good an evil aren't considered appropriate for children (though I would question when they are appropriate, and why religions and cartoons get away with moralizing from the get-go), and the occasional mention of sexuality, but I will point out that BoED also has like, one picture with a female nipple in it (one of the paragons). Which shouldn't be a big deal but hey, USA.

[Dimers]

BoED also has like, one picture with a female nipple in it (one of the paragons). Which shouldn't be a big deal but hey, USA.

Several, actually. Er, several pictures, not several nipples in one. That's what I came here to say.

A more positive view on the "mature" label: People that aren't mature aren't going to be interested in most of the book's text. (I'm not implying the opposite. You can be disinterested and still mature.)


About how bad is it

I'm no paragon of maturity myself, so here's your grain of salt ---> .

The philosophical and moral parts of the book get into stuff like what's "good" in a no-win dilemma, the differences between CG/NG/LG, how an Exalted character fits into a both the game and the gameworld when so much D&D is murderhobo, the nature of self-sacrifice and self-restriction ... It's okay stuff, I'd say well written given the ridiculous limitations it has to work with. But it's not life-changing. I rarely use standard monsters/deities, so I can't comment on the worth of the large chunk of the book dealing with those. The other mechanics are no more "mature" than an ogre's statblock, they're just numbers and qualifications.

[BowStreetRunner]

...intended for mature audiences...By comparison, note that the Giant in the Playground forums do not have such a warning label, so we get to be as immature as we want!

[Mike Miller]

On the Cover of the Book of Exalted Deeds 3.5e supplement book, it says intended for mature audiences. About how bad is it

It is worse than the Book of Erotic Fantasy!

[Troacctid]

The standards the Book of Exalted Deeds sets for "being good" are stupid and do not produce actions that are recognizable as "good". It's rehashed psuedo-Christian stuff that doesn't make sense in or out of world. It is apparently Evil to take the power of the god of murder and use it to oppose his ends. That does not make sense. The god of murder is evil. Opposing him is good. Your best course of action is to ignore the books entirely, not because they are offensive, but because they add nothing of value to the game.
I don't see how that's BoED's fault. It comes straight out of the mechanics in the PHB.

[Cosi]

The philosophical and moral parts of the book get into stuff like what's "good" in a no-win dilemma, the differences between CG/NG/LG, how an Exalted character fits into a both the game and the gameworld when so much D&D is murderhobo, the nature of self-sacrifice and self-restriction ... It's okay stuff, I'd say well written given the ridiculous limitations it has to work with. But it's not life-changing. I rarely use standard monsters/deities, so I can't comment on the worth of the large chunk of the book dealing with those. The other mechanics are no more "mature" than an ogre's statblock, they're just numbers and qualifications.

I don't think it's good given what it had to work with. This review (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54030) is a good summary of the problems. However, I do agree that D&D alignment is not workable. Declaring some people to be "good" is not helpful, because people do not have a shared definition of "good". You can either mandate one, which is at best only offensive to some of your playerbase, or you can have constant intractable arguments. The superior solution is to give people philosophical systems. Either use real ones, or use the color wheel from MtG, which is better than D&D alignment in basically every way and owned by the same company.

The only advantage that alignment has is that when people make 3x3 charts with different Batman images for each alignment it marginally raised brand awareness.


I don't see how that's BoED's fault. It comes straight out of the mechanics in the PHB.

Not really. There are codes of behavior, but those are class specific. Also, an entire book's worth of incoherent ranting about morality is necessarily worse than the couple of paragraphs in the PHB. If you've locked yourself into writing a book that takes a bad stance on what Good is, either retcon stuff or write a different book. It's not like the mechanics needed to be in the Book of Exalted Deeds rather than a book about the wilderness or summoners.

[ManicOppressive]

but because they add nothing of value to the game.

Soulfire Armor.

I'd add something else but that's literally the only thing I could think of.

[One Step Two]

Soulfire Armor.

I'd add something else but that's literally the only thing I could think of.

Nymphs Kiss is a great feat too, that's a nice addition to the game.

[Dimers]

The idea of Deathless is good; world mythology includes not-dead not-alive not-NegativePlanePowered not-construct creatures. Touch of Golden Ice feat is nice on the right build. Twilight armor enchantment appeared in BoED before the MIC. Luminous armor spell is great. Mustevals fill the lower niches of their category. Serren wood is horribly overlooked. Ancestral Relic feat is worth its ink. Intuitive Attack would be great if it weren't Exalted. Champion of Gwynharwyf gives nice things to barbarians. Blinding beauty and unearthly beauty are cool; energetic healing is delightfully party-friendly in an unoptimized game. Starmantle lets people giggle about claws and fists being destroyed. Redeeming evil magic items is a great quest.

C'mon, people, it's not belle lettres but it's not completely devoid of value.

[Troacctid]

I don't think it's good given what it had to work with. This review (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54030) is a good summary of the problems. However, I do agree that D&D alignment is not workable. Declaring some people to be "good" is not helpful, because people do not have a shared definition of "good". You can either mandate one, which is at best only offensive to some of your playerbase, or you can have constant intractable arguments. The superior solution is to give people philosophical systems. Either use real ones, or use the color wheel from MtG, which is better than D&D alignment in basically every way and owned by the same company.

The only advantage that alignment has is that when people make 3x3 charts with different Batman images for each alignment it marginally raised brand awareness.

Not really. There are codes of behavior, but those are class specific. Also, an entire book's worth of incoherent ranting about morality is necessarily worse than the couple of paragraphs in the PHB. If you've locked yourself into writing a book that takes a bad stance on what Good is, either retcon stuff or write a different book. It's not like the mechanics needed to be in the Book of Exalted Deeds rather than a book about the wilderness or summoners.
BoED is consistent with the rest of the D&D multiverse and with the alignment system in general.


Soulfire Armor.

I'd add something else but that's literally the only thing I could think of.
There are some excellent prestige classes and monsters, and some useful info for the DM about the celestial equivalents of archdevils and demon lords. Oh, and a fair number of powerful spells for players, and some cool feats, and some nifty items (both magical and mundane). It's actually a very high-value book from a player standpoint.

[Goaty14]

Soulfire Armor.

Starmantel Cloak + Ring of Evasion.

Should we keep going?

[Cosi]

BoED is consistent with the rest of the D&D multiverse and with the alignment system in general.

That does not make it less stupid, or less intrusive. I don't really care if the game is consistent in the position that both opposing the god of murder and the god of healing are evil. That is a stupid position based on monotheistic morality that does not make sense in a polytheistic world.


There are some excellent prestige classes and monsters, and some useful info for the DM about the celestial equivalents of archdevils and demon lords. Oh, and a fair number of powerful spells for players, and some cool feats, and some nifty items (both magical and mundane). It's actually a very high-value book from a player standpoint.

I was speaking mostly in terms of the stuff covered by the mature content disclaimers. Yes, there are mechanical things in the book you might care about. But even then, it's not like this is a book with a big ratio of usable content. It adds PrCs for character concepts that literally could not exist before the book was published (those characters being champions of gods introduced in the book). Yes, you can now be a Champion of Gwynharwyf or an Emissary of Barachiel. But those are not things people wanted to be before the Book of Exalted Deeds was published! This isn't "I want to be a Rogue and also a Monk". It's "I want to be a member of a specific class that worships a god from the Book of Exalted Deeds". Emissary of Barachiel does not make the game bigger. It makes the game smaller. Because it is now missing PrCs for Wizards, Ninjas, and Incarnates who worship Barachiel.

[Troacctid]

That does not make it less stupid, or less intrusive. I don't really care if the game is consistent in the position that both opposing the god of murder and the god of healing are evil. That is a stupid position based on monotheistic morality that does not make sense in a polytheistic world.
But, again, if you don't like the alignment system in general, that's not really BoED's problem.

Also, "Opposing any given god, regardless of alignment" is not evil, and I'm not sure how you got that idea from BoED.


I was speaking mostly in terms of the stuff covered by the mature content disclaimers. Yes, there are mechanical things in the book you might care about. But even then, it's not like this is a book with a big ratio of usable content. It adds PrCs for character concepts that literally could not exist before the book was published (those characters being champions of gods introduced in the book). Yes, you can now be a Champion of Gwynharwyf or an Emissary of Barachiel. But those are not things people wanted to be before the Book of Exalted Deeds was published! This isn't "I want to be a Rogue and also a Monk". It's "I want to be a member of a specific class that worships a god from the Book of Exalted Deeds". Emissary of Barachiel does not make the game bigger. It makes the game smaller. Because it is now missing PrCs for Wizards, Ninjas, and Incarnates who worship Barachiel.
I don't think anyone plays a Sentinel of Bharrai because they want to be super devoted to Bharrai. I'm pretty sure it's to be a bear wizard. Likewise, Champion of Gwynharwyf elegantly combines Barbarian with Paladin, Beloved of Valarian has a cool unicorn theme, Fist of Raziel is an awesome divine warrior prestige class for people who like smiting, etc.

[rigsmal]

I'm doubtful D&D ethics is self-consistent anyways, since I don't think a game designer would succeed where professional philosophers have failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism), so I don't find arguments that the BoED is bad because of its discussion of alignment convincing—it can hardly have a good one, given its source material.

[Talanic]

The standards the Book of Exalted Deeds sets for "being good" are stupid and do not produce actions that are recognizable as "good". It's rehashed psuedo-Christian stuff that doesn't make sense in or out of world. It is apparently Evil to take the power of the god of murder and use it to oppose his ends. That does not make sense. The god of murder is evil. Opposing him is good. Your best course of action is to ignore the books entirely, not because they are offensive, but because they add nothing of value to the game.

Now, I don't remember that specific example from BoED. It's been years since I did more than glance at a prestige class from it.

But wouldn't the bigger problem with trying to use the god of murder's power and turning it against him be:

A. In order to acquire this power, you'd have to do terrible, terrible things,

and

B. The moment you try to turn it against him, he would withdraw his power and leave you with nothing? Deities are immediately aware of anything impacting their domain. If this was a long-term, planned betrayal, odds are good he knew of it before you cast your first spell in his name, and he's been waiting to pull the rug out from under you all this time.

I mean, if you're trying to use Baldur's Gate as an example, using Bhaal's power but changing its domain was a valid, good-aligned option for the climactic decision, but if you're up against a living, active D&D deity, you'd be hard-pressed to actually succeed in that goal.

[Eldan]

I mainly liked it for bringing in stats for the Eladrin, who are my favourite outsider race.

[Fizban]

Having more options for Good in Improved Familiars is also nice. Ancestral Relic is a handy feat that doesn't actually require being exalted. I quite like the goddess Lastai, who's one of those you could put on the "mature audiences" list, simply because she's a god of love that mentions sex without specifically being harvest+fertility or lol evil seduction murder bwahaha parody. Barely a couple paragraphs of mention, but it's nice to have.

[peacenlove]

Nemesis + Favorite enemy (evil, from stalker of kharash, same book) is absurdly powerful, trading the range, added variety and additional information that Mindsight gives, for the ability to sense through any barrier and punch through Darkstalker and most Abjurations (including Mind Blank) without any rules dispute. You can also detect evil mindless creatures too.

The Bestiary was also cool, giving us the Coure Eladrin amongst other critters. other rules were generally what you expect from a medium quality D&D rulebook, from a crazy feat that you give almost all of your possessions for some benefits that you would have anyway and another feat that punishes you when your immune system systematically and intentionally kills bacterial life by existing, to the aforementioned powerhouse Nemesis feat, and from a "prestige class" with no benefits whatsoever from levels 2-10 to good written classes such as Celestial Mystic.

As per the content, it introduces the term "exalted" in terms of alignment and very stingent RP requirements on many sub par feats. It then proceeds to give no explanation whatsoever why not drinking alcohol helps the forces of good, especially when you are immune to poison and its intoxicating effects.
I personally hate the term because it is very open to intepretation, and the author tries to straightjacket the term to each class to fill padding, instead of giving some 10 commandments or simple guidelines.
On the other hand it explores eladrin courts and other good organizations quite competently.

[Astralia123]

Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

I can continue to laugh at this paragraph for another decade.

"I know there is this point but I tell you this is wrong. Although I cannot provide a logical explanation, what I can say is THIS IS REALLY HARMFUL in a METAPHYSICAL sense."

[MeimuHakurei]

I can continue to laugh at this paragraph for another decade.

"I know there is this point but I tell you this is wrong. Although I cannot provide a logical explanation, what I can say is THIS IS REALLY HARMFUL in a METAPHYSICAL sense."

The point is that if you're willing to commit an evil act for the greater good, you're less hesitant to do this again. And you might even be more and more willing to err on the side of the "greater good" when commiting this sacrifice. Soon enough, if you let your ends justify the means time and time again, you'll end up like the Punisher at best and like Doctor Doom at worst.

[Efrate]

It also has sanctify the wicked, the goodest good spell ever!

See the bold as blue, cant easily do that on mobile.

[peacenlove]

The point is that if you're willing to commit an evil act for the greater good, you're less hesitant to do this again. And you might even be more and more willing to err on the side of the "greater good" when commiting this sacrifice. Soon enough, if you let your ends justify the means time and time again, you'll end up like the Punisher at best and like Doctor Doom at worst.

I have never, to this point, seen as an argument that saving 1000 innocent souls is an EVIL action.

Even if you somehow become a Daemon Lord, there are now 1000 guys/gals alive, that they can be good, aware of the threat of EVIL and willing to follow a righteous cause.

This is Warhammer logic and unsuitable to most D&D games that do not follow a similar dark setting.

[Pleh]

Side note


See the bold as blue, cant easily do that on mobile.

If you use the forum Gui to select colors, it will make a hexidecimal representation of the color.

However, the site also understands english color names. I just type [color="blue"] and it works just fine. It's a few extra characters, but doesn't requires memorizing colors by their hex number.

This post was also made in mobile.

Back to the topic.

---

I'm on the side that the book is fine because

1) the mechanics are what I'm after and fluff can be rewritten or ignored.
2) the morality is messed up because it's trying to marry D&D morality with Dante's Infero and romanticized mythos surrounding Templars from the Crusades.

I've never been a stickler for books getting the fluff right. When it's bad, I just change it and sometimes when it's good, I change it to add variety or add my own personal touch.

It's whatever. Just skip the parts you don't like and/or don't fit your playstyle.

Just as you would any other book.

[Astralia123]

The point is that if you're willing to commit an evil act for the greater good, you're less hesitant to do this again. And you might even be more and more willing to err on the side of the "greater good" when commiting this sacrifice. Soon enough, if you let your ends justify the means time and time again, you'll end up like the Punisher at best and like Doctor Doom at worst.

The point is that the author did not actually answer the question itself, just evaded it with some metaphysical nonsense. Which is absolutely not useful , neither in real life nor in the game.


After so many years since I first read this book, now I would conclude the main focus of BoED like this. "The champions of goodness and evil need to be so much mightier and awesomer in their looks (and backgrounds) than those mundane champions, but not necessarily so much in their actual fighting prowess."

[Eldan]

The point is that if you're willing to commit an evil act for the greater good, you're less hesitant to do this again. And you might even be more and more willing to err on the side of the "greater good" when commiting this sacrifice. Soon enough, if you let your ends justify the means time and time again, you'll end up like the Punisher at best and like Doctor Doom at worst.

Sorry, but if Good claims that self-sacrifice in the name of the (confirmed) Greater Good is not good, sign me up for Team Hell.

[BowStreetRunner]

So to address the question of why the BoED got the warning label...read through the last dozen posts on this thread and then imagine a soccer mom walking in on her child and a bunch of neighbor kids having this exact discussion!

And there ya go!

[Hawkstar]

I can continue to laugh at this paragraph for another decade.

"I know there is this point but I tell you this is wrong. Although I cannot provide a logical explanation, what I can say is THIS IS REALLY HARMFUL in a METAPHYSICAL sense."

Metaphysics are a very real part of D&D cosmology. Good and Evil are actual forces. What is so hard about understanding that doing Evil for Good Ends keeps you Good, but breaks your connection to Cosmic Good?

The ramifications of certain actions can be BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION! But memes aside... mortal characters cannot and do not see all the moves in the conflict between Good and Evil. Some of the things mortals think are all important (Such as actual, individual lives themselves) are not important at all in the grand scheme of things.

Sanctify the Wicked is a Good spell, powered by Goodness. Free Will is a Chaotic, not Good, concept.

[Nifft]

Sorry, but if Good claims that self-sacrifice in the name of the (confirmed) Greater Good is not good, sign me up for Team Hell.

I think the claim is more like:

- Self-sacrifice can be good; but

- Committing evil isn't "sacrificing your morality for goodness", it's just a concession to evil.


The functional game effect of using that text would be that NPCs can't threaten innocent hostages to get the PCs to commit evil "for the greater good", since the PCs are wise to that trick.

[Telonius]

There are a couple of bare butts and boobs in the artwork. Otherwise, it's more the themes being discussed that require a bit of maturity.

Honestly, I think it's mainly the fact that the books were explicitly dealing with things pertaining to angels and devils that made them a lot more cautious than they would today. Jack Chick, the "D&D murders" of the 80s, and all that nonsense were a lot closer in the cultural memory.

[daremetoidareyo]

What the book is really missing is differentiating chaotic good from lawful good in the context of being exalted. The book treats all good alignments basically as lawful good alignment. That means that a pure of heart Robin Hood character can't have the blessings of chaotic good Paragons.

[Troacctid]

What the book is really missing is differentiating chaotic good from lawful good in the context of being exalted. The book treats all good alignments basically as lawful good alignment. That means that a pure of heart Robin Hood character can't have the blessings of chaotic good Paragons.
But there is a section on exactly that, yeah?

[Deadline]

5 posts before the hate started. Took longer than I might've guessed.

I wasn't trying to hide my distaste for the sourcebooks. In fact, I was trying to be as up front as possible. I was also doing my best to indicate that such a viewpoint was my own opinion.

Is there a reason I'm unaware of that criticism of these books in a thread specifically asking about them is unwelcome?


That said, the pair get a -lot- of hate from people that examine them pretty shallowly and who insist on trying to pin their own sense of morality on it. If I were asked to say just one thing about them, it would be "set your own ideas aside and read -very- carefully and think about what you're reading in the context it's being given." These books are game rules, first and foremost, and not a philosophy text.

I've given both of these books a pretty thorough examination. Multiple times in fact, as I do with most of the sourcebooks out there (the ones I have access to anyway). How else are we to mine gold from the rough ore of thought?

And the particular moralization of D&D in the BoED is pretty clearly (at least to me) based in the same pool my own morality formed from. I stand by my statements that it is hamfisted and puerile. If you feel I have missed some important bit of wisdom in the text, please share it (PM it if you'd prefer). I'm perfectly willing to change my stance on just about anything when presented with a solid argument or new evidence.

And for reference, I keep going back to these books hoping they aren't as bad as I remember them. I want to like these books, because they cover two very important aspects of the game. But they miss the mark. The Fiendish codices were far better, for example, than the BoVD. It's truly a shame that we never got the FC3, nor any equivalent books on the [Good] side of things.

But even just looking at these two books as game rules, they aren't very good. The crud/decent rules ratio is really bad. (Not as bad as a couple of other first party books, but these two are definitely in the running).