PDA

View Full Version : Book of *expletive* deeds?



Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 11:06 AM
A while ago, I acquired the Book of Exalted Deeds, to complement my Book of Vile Darkness. And I must say, I wasn't plleased at all with the massive difference in quality, but most importantly, in the twisted conception of good and evil it had.

First off, some of that blame must go to the writers. It's evident when reading it that they're no Monte Cook(s), who wrote a fine, if cheesy BovD. Two sum up how their work is faulty, one phrase: "The exalted barbarian sounds like an Oxymoron". Even if that sentece is ended in a positive note, it really doesn't bode well.

Second, the whole concept of exalteds. It's tremendously flawed, and was apparently thought for characters who are to be played Holier-than-thou, no surprises PC's, and uncreative DM's who won't pit their PC's against moral dilemmas.

Third, the approach to Exaltedness, which mostly works in the sense of "one flaw, you're down", unless you wanna get atonement cast on you. By exalted, a LG character is screwed if he's offered this kind of choice:


You have been captured by bandits who are terrible enemies of your land. You know that they're looking for a way to enter the capital city of your kingdom, and that they'll stop at nothing to acquire knowledge to enter. The leader of the bandits offers you a choice: Tell him of the truth or die. You know of traps settled to stop invaders, and could tell them a yarn to get them in those traps. Problem is, however, you, by definition of the LG Exalted "Will not lie, cheat, or steal". So, you have a lose-lose situation. Either you lie to save your city (and according to BoED, "a battle was lost, even if a war was won. By doing an evil act, no matter the intentions, you still do evil."), or you tell the truth and doom it. This makes clear flaw in the concept. Evidently, in this situation, you are expected to play Lawful Stupid, since you'll be damned even when you do good by lieing. You can only pick to retain your so-called purity by saying the truth, and keep your feats, or lie, do some REAL good, and lose 'em. How can the rules about good 'n evil have such major oversights? Seriously, ask yourself, as a person, what would you do. Lie, or tell the truth?

Fourth, apparently, a taint in your soul means you're not exalted, and will never be. Which means Good's ideals of redemption, hope, etc. is BS, since it doesn't apply to the characters, and actually the "once damned, forever damned" idea does. Not Good, at all. Here's an example to illustrate:


I've been playing my character, Azerian Kelrain, for a long time. He's level 100 now. He has grown much, and a particularly important incident happened 'round level 67. He had a "sister", Amagada, who was a pirate captain. One day, she was captured by a coalition of old foes, who also held Azerian. Then, the whatever-those-devil/demon'ish-abominations-are-called, proceeded to rape her and eat her, right in front of him, and called one of those time-controlling abominations to make the body thousands of years old. Azerian snapped, and in a hand to hand brawl, killed 'em all. Then, still morally crippled, he raised an army of upper-planers, marched right into the abyss, and took 4 layers of it, also creating a stronghold for reformed succubi, and basically making all of the powers of the abyss worry tons about him. Then, still on a sojourn to find respite, he stomped back into the Material plane and started wandering around, overthrowed a pair of tyrants, and refused to take the crowns. A few months later, he came to terms with his grief, and reunited with his adventuring party.

So, Azerian went back to the good guys. But, reasoning his actions, he let himself be consumed by rage, comitted mass genocide on the demons, and turning everything upside down. So, he's not Exalted, and will not be ever, since he has a taint inside him. That doens't make sense. It means BoED expects us all humans/humanoids to behave like outsiders. It doesn't matter if we do as much as a mortal can do, it's not enough.

Fifth, this rift in the ranks of goodness is not even addressed in the book. Consciously, it takes the DC approach. For those who don't know about it, there are two big comic book publishers who dominate the market: DC and Marvel. While this has become blurred, for a long time DC focused on it's superheroes conflicts only while wearing the heroic outfit (for example, Lois Lane being kidnapped), while Marvel focused on the message that it's not the person with superpowers, but the guy who has fears, phobias, and terrors and overcomes them anyway, is the real hero (as an example, Spiderman's conflict about giving up his superhero alter ego, or not, simply because it's hard on him and his loved ones. In the end, he always makes the "correct" choice, doing the right thing of taking the mantle of spidey again, which makes him a real hero). Both are legitimate approaches, but apparently, D&D only takes the DC route. Which is the reason I homebrewed that, in my campaign, Evil and Good exist, are more or less tangible, and have spells based on them, but they are changing and unfixed. Which means there isn't an "always right, always wrong" answer. It makes it more subjective (but still objective), entertaining, and deep. And it ensures you don't have to play a "stick up the ass" good guy.

Artemician
2007-10-08, 11:19 AM
*Shrug*. If you hate it so much, don't use it. I certainly don't feel the need to use all the material from CPsi, nor some of the cheese from CArc. There's nothing forcing you to use the rules and concepts they talk about in a book.

KIDS
2007-10-08, 11:24 AM
I do agree with what you wrote, however most of fun in D&D comes from good people who use the ideas in those books. I say this book gives a lot of awesome ideas, but also gives Nazi players/DMs plenty of space to whine about others straying off the path of good and all that. With reasonable people, you can find BoED to be as fine and useful supplement as any other.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-08, 11:27 AM
*Shrug*. If you hate it so much, don't use it. I certainly don't feel the need to use all the material from CPsi, nor some of the cheese from CArc. There's nothing forcing you to use the rules and concepts they talk about in a book.

It's a book review. And I thought it was fairly well-written, compared to the expletive-and-flame-riddled rant I'd normally expect from the Internet.

No offense, Internet.

BardicDuelist
2007-10-08, 11:33 AM
I agree that I disagree greatly with the fluff in BoED. It is pretentious and hypocritical. Some of the mechanical options can be very fun however.

I also dislike the fact that to be Exalted you pretty much have to be LG as some of the things a CG person might do (such as lie).

I tend to ignore BoED for most things except VoP (though suboptimal, it is fun and decent at lower levels), and Words of Creation (since it makes bards cheesy).

BoVD had so much interesting fluff that I was also dissapointed with BoED. My solution: Ignore it.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 11:38 AM
Your lose-lose situation is flawed, as the guy could simply stay silent or intentionally misinterpret the question, or even leave things out. None of this is 'lying'. Staying silent isn't even misdirection.


I, personally, hate the Book of Vile Darkness. I think it's sick, immature and gory simply for the shock factor and the marketing value of releasing a "mature" D&D book. I'm also ashamed to share a surname with its author.

But, hey, I don't rant on about it... :smallsmile:

One last thing: Holy Hell, a level 100 character?! What exactly challenges him? Does he conquer planes as a hobby?

bugsysservant
2007-10-08, 11:47 AM
I agree with you on many points, though I also hate the BoVD. I find both to be simplistic and narrow minded, utterly without subtlety and perfect fodder for those who love to play lawful stupid paladins. Luckily, there is a bit of crunch which I do like, so the book isn't utterly without good points.

Edit: Wait, you said he was a LEVEL 100 CHARACTER! Even the Hekatoncheires is only half that. And don't get me started on how pitiful the gods and arch-demons are...

starwoof
2007-10-08, 11:51 AM
It is pretentious and hypocritical.

Welcome to the good alignment. :smallamused:

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 11:59 AM
I, personally, hate the Book of Vile Darkness. I think it's sick, immature and gory simply for the shock factor and the marketing value of releasing a "mature" D&D book. I'm also ashamed to share a surname with its author.



One last thing: Holy Hell, a level 100 character?! What exactly challenges him? Does he conquer planes as a hobby?

On the BoVD:
The greater and more sickening the evil, the better you feel about kicking its ass.

And on the 100 lvl PC, he took 5 layers of the ABYSS. He evidently DOES conquer planes as a hobby.

Keld Denar
2007-10-08, 12:04 PM
The character from the bandit example had a 3rd choice. Martyrdom. A real exalted character would choose death over dishonor (lying) or betrayal (telling the secrets). History (RL and fantasy) is full of examples of people who were tortured to death instead of giving in or lying about it. Its the responsibility you carry for playing the role. If your character isn't comfortable with that decision, he shouldn't be exalted. A good DM shouldn't put a character into this spot every other Thursday, but if the time comes, the character should be willing to unblinkingly make the ultimate sacrifice, or everything he's done up to that point is a lie. THAT is the point of the book and the material. That is the purpose of the disclaimer at the start of the book. Its not for everyone, and generally everyone in the party should be exalted or not.

Then you can roll up a non-exalted character, and if you are lucky, maybe you'll come across a bard who'll be singing a lament about your last character and his noble sacrifice.

Fhaolan
2007-10-08, 12:05 PM
Level 100... must by a typo of some kind, a translation error, or a homebrew leveling system that has a different scale. D&D has troubles scaling into 'Epic' level 20+... 50+ is nonsensical, 100+ is just being silly for the sake of silliness. You might as well have a charcter of Googleplex level. Leveling is meaningless at that point.

Captain van der Decken
2007-10-08, 12:08 PM
Methinks that the 'Will not lie, cheat or steal' is describing the lawful part of exalted LG. Lying itself is not an evil act. So you aren't gonna lose all your exalted feats if you lie to save the city.

Lycurgus
2007-10-08, 12:13 PM
That sort of "lose-lose" situation is exactly what playing an exalted character is about! If I am playing a character that is that focused on being good and honorable I would love the chance to sacrifice myself for the greater good. Or to keep the enemy occupied with torturing me long enough that the city can maybe increase it's traps and fortifications.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 12:16 PM
The character from the bandit example had a 3rd choice. Martyrdom. A real exalted character would choose death over dishonor (lying) or betrayal (telling the secrets). History (RL and fantasy) is full of examples of people who were tortured to death instead of giving in or lying about it. Its the responsibility you carry for playing the role. If your character isn't comfortable with that decision, he shouldn't be exalted.

There's also the point that they can still evidently take the city. If they couldn't, you wouldn't have to lie, just let the traps do their work. Therefore, staying silent and getting killed dooms your city as well, and you've committed an evil act by doing so.

That said, I catagorically reject this sort of situation in D&D. If I'm running or playing in an L5R game (for example) where a major focus of the game is the conflict between honor and duty and there are sometimes NO right choices, that's one thing. I know what I'm getting into there. In D&D? Not so much.

(By the way, the correct L5R response for this is to lie to them, save your city, and them commit seppuku to cleanse your personal honor - which means you go into the next life unblemished.)

DraPrime
2007-10-08, 12:18 PM
What I really hate is how they say committing an evil act to accomplish something good will tip the cosmic balance in the favor of evil no matter what you do. If you fail to foil the plot of an evil villain because you weren't willing to get your hands dirty, then isn't that just as bad? While some of the mechanics in Book of Exalted Deeds are great, the fluff is absolute crap.

Telonius
2007-10-08, 12:20 PM
Both Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness really only work if both the players and DM know what they're getting into. They both take the philosophical assumption that (capital-G) Good and Evil are fixed and unchanging - that there are moral rules in written into the multiverse, and that how people act in relation to those rules determines their goodness or evilness. If you don't agree with that - or at least agree to play a character who lives in such a universe - neither Exalted Deeds nor Vile Darkness are going to be completely satisfying books for you.

Exalted Deeds does tell you that it's not easy to be Exalted. Not even a Paladin who never breaks his code is necessarily Exalted. It's a much stricter standard of conduct - not just small-g good, but as close to perfection as mortals can get. It tells you this explicitly; Exalted Deeds is not for everybody.


You have been captured by bandits who are terrible enemies of your land. You know that they're looking for a way to enter the capital city of your kingdom, and that they'll stop at nothing to acquire knowledge to enter. The leader of the bandits offers you a choice: Tell him of the truth or die. You know of traps settled to stop invaders, and could tell them a yarn to get them in those traps. Problem is, however, you, by definition of the LG Exalted "Will not lie, cheat, or steal". So, you have a lose-lose situation. Either you lie to save your city (and according to BoED, "a battle was lost, even if a war was won. By doing an evil act, no matter the intentions, you still do evil."), or you tell the truth and doom it. This makes clear flaw in the concept. Evidently, in this situation, you are expected to play Lawful Stupid, since you'll be damned even when you do good by lieing. You can only pick to retain your so-called purity by saying the truth, and keep your feats, or lie, do some REAL good, and lose 'em.

...except the Exalted framework doesn't necessarily define "saving the city" as "REAL good." Under that universe's rules, you're responsible only for your own actions; consequences from somebody else's evil deeds are not on your soul. (Again, this is something that the book assumes is philosophically true within the gaming world. It might be correct or incorrect in this world, but it's true in the gaming world if Exalted is part of it). You can try to mitigate suffering, enjoin the evildoer to change; but at when all is said and done, you're not responsible for other people's choices. It's stark and it's harsh, but it's not hypocritical or inconsistent. (Additionally, it only works if you know for certain what the moral rules are. That's one advantage game designers in the game world have over regular humans in determining the correct moral action in this world - they know for sure, because they wrote the rules).

There are other choices there, too. Try to convince the bandit not to attack. Turn the truth on its head. (i.e. "There are no guards down that tunnel," when you know darn well it's trapped with spikes) - which would be an Exalted CG response. I suppose the really LG thing to do would be to say nothing, try to convert him, and die a martyr. Not everybody's cup of tea - and writing up new character sheets is a hassle - but it makes sense conceptually. Maybe you'll even come back as a Risen Martyr.

As for how interesting the character is ... well, that's a matter of personal taste. Even within an Exalted Deeds game world, there's room for both Superman and Spiderman. Exploring the self-doubt of a Superman-like character could be a really fulfulling gaming experience, if you go that route.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-08, 12:21 PM
What I really hate is how they say committing an evil act to accomplish something good will tip the cosmic balance in the favor of evil no matter what you do. If you fail to foil the plot of an evil villain because you weren't willing to get your hands dirty, then isn't that just as bad? While some of the mechanics in Book of Exalted Deeds are great, the fluff is absolute crap.

Do the ends really justify the means, though? I've always felt that Good is only Good because it refuses to stoop to Evil's level. If you're willing to lie, cheat, or steal, even for good ends, you're still using the tactics of the enemy and aren't really all that much better than they are.

(Note, said to inject the opposite opinion: My actual opinion lies somewhere between the two. Please don't flame, folks.)

Solo
2007-10-08, 12:27 PM
One last thing: Holy Hell, a level 100 character?! What exactly challenges him? Does he conquer planes as a hobby?

Arm wrestling Pun Pun? Sparring with Chuck Norris? Grappling with TDPPDC?

DraPrime
2007-10-08, 12:29 PM
Do the ends really justify the means, though? I've always felt that Good is only Good because it refuses to stoop to Evil's level. If you're willing to lie, cheat, or steal, even for good ends, you're still using the tactics of the enemy and aren't really all that much better than they are.

(Note, said to inject the opposite opinion: My actual opinion lies somewhere between the two. Please don't flame, folks.)

I'm thinking that if it's really necessary to do this evil, and that there's no other viable options then you should go with it. But doing it just because "it's easier" when you still have good options is wrong. That's my view.

averagejoe
2007-10-08, 12:38 PM
The BoED rules material was also somewhat unimpressive. Even if you don't like the BoVD fluff, there are some cool poisons and diseases that steal your face, or whatever (it's been awhile since I've actually cracked one.) All I remember the BoED having was that poison LITE, or whatever, so that good people could use poison. Let's face it; it would be easier, less clunky, and generally better in every way just to allow good people to use poison.

I'm still waiting on the Book of Indifferent Neutrality. Of course, they'll probably ruin that by making the book about "balance," so that whenever anyone tells the truth you have to tell a lie to balance it out, or whatever. They'll have feats like de-consecrate spell, so that you can cast good spells and take away the "good" descriptor.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 12:40 PM
Nice responses. I'll try to address things directed to me in order of importance:

1) Half truthing is another way of lying. So no, Lawful won't do that. And the example didn't take martyrdom into account for a reason: the bandits won't torture you. They're not Tanar'ri. They'll kill you outright, so chuck the idea of glorious martyrdom out of the window.

2) Actually, the bad thing about Exalted's Lawful stupid is that breaking the lawful, nonEvil/Good part of your alignment TAKES AWAY THE GOODNESS. So, I do a chaotic act, and suddenly I'm EVIL. Does that make sense? If I was playing an Axiomatic character (let's say that means an equivalent of Exalted, for Law), I would lose Axiomatic benefits, but why lose the Exalted benefits?

3) Artemician, this isn't a whine on how the book does stuff. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of it's statements, and how it contradicts itself on every other page, even forgetting that the DMG says alignments aren't set in stone.


4) The BovD. Don't get me wrong, I dislike it's cheese too, and I agree it's TOO chaotic evil-themed (much like the BoED is LG themed, mostly. It should be NG themed, NG is even stated to be unobstacled by Law and Chaos), but at least it was coherent with itself, and didn't apply a ludicrous "one contrary act, you're out" rule.


5) Yes, my char is level 100, but his multitude of at will powers and those things would make him a CR 120 encounter, likely. And I mostly RP at this level, with the ocassional super-godsbane enemy thrown in for an encounter. And yes, we more or less could level worlds, but we're good for a reason. And if the gods try to intervene, that's what our Protection from Deities amulets and Godsbane weapons are for. We don't like them trying to boss us. If we had wanted, we would have overthrown them, so leaving us to be is okay.

DraPrime
2007-10-08, 12:41 PM
The BoED rules material was also somewhat unimpressive. Even if you don't like the BoVD fluff, there are some cool poisons and diseases that steal your face, or whatever (it's been awhile since I've actually cracked one.) All I remember the BoED having was that poison LITE, or whatever, so that good people could use poison. Let's face it; it would be easier, less clunky, and generally better in every way just to allow good people to use poison.

This was another thing that was ridiculous in BoED. Good people apparently aren't allowed to use poisons and diseases, but they are allowed to use something that behaves likes poisons and diseases, but only with a different name. Changing somethings name doesn't make it different. You can call a devil an angel, but it's still a devil.

SoD
2007-10-08, 12:43 PM
TDPPDC? I'm still a little new to some abreviations...and I'm a little disapointed that you beat me to the Pun Pun...anyway, I digress.

I beleive that the level 100 character may have been purely an example saying that some immensly powerful...wait, he didn't mention a class...anway, I pictured him as a pally. An example of an immensly powerful paladin who, in a rage about seeing his sister, raped, murdered and eaten right in front of him...so he killed them, and their kind, and conquered a section of previously Evil land, creating it a sanctuary...but in the process, the mass murder of the evil creatures was still a mass murder...a single slip up, for a valid reason. But still a slip up. Can you imagine Roy in the same situation?

''OK, everything seems in order...oh wait, it seems you've murdered those who raped and ate your sister in front of you...''

Yeah, I know he's not a paladin, and trying to get into the celestial realm is different from being exalted, but you get the picture.

That's my 2 cp worth.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 12:46 PM
This was another thing that was ridiculous in BoED TOB. Good people Fighters apparently aren't allowed to use poisons and diseases spells, but they are allowed to use something that behaves likes poisons and diseases spells, but only with a different name. Changing somethings name doesn't make it different. You can call a devil mage an angel warblade, but it's still a devil mage.

It's not like WOTC hasn't made a habit of doing this kind of thing before...

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-08, 12:48 PM
It's not like WOTC hasn't made a habit of doing this kind of thing before...

Yes. Hitting something really hard, jumping quickly, and shrugging off mind-affecting things are the domains of mages. Oh, and tactical maneuvering. Fighters shouldn't be able to do anything like that.

*eyeroll*
Geez, the only similarity is that there are nine levels.


ETA: just for the record, the whole "female character gets raped solely to advance the male protagonist's story" thing? Try and do less of it, people.

Telonius
2007-10-08, 12:48 PM
It's been awhile since I had a look at the "poison lite" stuff. As I remember, there were two different classes of poison-ish stuff. One was just special materials that were "good poisons." Uh, no. Stupid idea, get rid of it. That's just using evil means under a different name.

The second group of poison-ish stuff did something much more interesting: turned the target's evil against itself. Like, if it hit somebody who was vain, it would exaggerate the evil's hold on a person, making them eventually just stare into a mirror all day. Makes for some nice poetic justice. I liked those a lot more than the first group.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 12:51 PM
It's not like WOTC hasn't made a habit of doing this kind of thing before...

...What? Book of Exalted Deeds came out several years before Tome of Battle.

DraPrime
2007-10-08, 12:53 PM
It's not like WOTC hasn't made a habit of doing this kind of thing before...

Bull. While yes, some of the maneuvers are magic-like, most of them aren't and are actually pure raw skill. So there.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 12:59 PM
Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

Clearly, the two situations (good characters getting to use something that essentially behave like poisons from a game mechanic standpoint is NOTHING AT ALL like melee characters getting to use something that behaves essentially like spells from a game mechanic standpoint) are not similar at all.

:sigh:

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-08, 01:02 PM
I don't really think that you should get extra powers just for being good anyways. Isn't part of being good fighting at a disadvantage? (Of course those kind of characters are often boring)

Even if I was, I certainly wouldn't use Exalted Deeds as written. Not in small part due to it's usability. Generally, mistakes should be forgiven. Otherwise, its not really "good" and just another side.

Which is also a fun way of doing things. Have gods that claim to be good, and set the rules, but aren't actually good.

enderrocksonall
2007-10-08, 01:04 PM
I believe that if you are going to play a paladin or an exalted character, you need to have read Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. The character of Michael is an example of a truly exalted character who lives his ideals and even in the face of being abandoned by God, he still lives those ideals. Even if it kills him.

The point is that he doesn't live the way he does because he is afraid that he will lose his powers if he does, he does it because that is who he is. And while he will proselytize, he realizes that he is not responsible for the actions of others.

So what if not everyone believes what he believes? His faith is strong and needs no supporters.

For Paladins and Exalteds I would give these basic guidelines, except where the dogma of the religion conflicts with them.

1. Follow both the letter and the spirit of the dogma of your religion, but if push comes to shove you follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

2. A life of faith is hard, and while you are not expected to be suicidal, if necessary, you should not hesitate to give your health, posessions, or life for the furtherance of you cause

3. Find your god's hadiwork in everything and show others. Nothing furthers your cause like more supporters. One man may stand against the forces of evil, but an army will conquer it.

4. The laws of men and the laws of God are not always the same, nor do men understand the ways of the gods. But you cannot harm law-enforcement officers in the pursuit of their duties. After all, they are only trying to do what they know as right given their knowledge. If imprisoned, trust your god and your allies. If you have fulfilled your mission and pleased your god, you will not be abandoned.

By the same token DM's should follow these guidelines too. If your player is captured, there should be an opportunity for escape, or an understanding magistrate. The character who follows the precepts of his god should not be forgotten, and while it may be God's will that they stay in prison, they should know their god is with them.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-08, 01:10 PM
Clearly, the two situations (good characters getting to use something that essentially behave like poisons from a game mechanic standpoint is NOTHING AT ALL like melee characters getting to use something that behaves essentially like spells from a game mechanic standpoint) are not similar at all.

:sigh:

Except... it isn't. Ravages work just like poison and don't make sense. Maneuvers do not work like spells.

You pretty much failed, there.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 01:16 PM
Except... it isn't. Ravages work just like poison and don't make sense. Maneuvers do not work like spells.

You pretty much failed, there.

You know something? Never mind. If you haven't gotten my point by now (which was meant to be slightly funny and a lot sarcastic) then you aren't going to.

Back to the topic:

I can't recall off-hand, how does the atonement spell fit in in all of this "you perform an evil act and you're forever tainted and unable to be exalted?"

Also, what does it say about committing an evil act by mistake or under magical influence? Are you still forbidden from becoming Exalted?

(It's been, like, a year since I've read the book in depth. The last time I even looked at it was to check up on the Pseudonatural Template somebody applied to the Tarresque in the "Can any spell kill it?" thread.)

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 01:22 PM
Concious act of Evil, not enough to turn you to the Dark Side but still damaging: you lose your Exalted status, but stay Good. No amount of Atonement will make you Exalted again. That requires deific intervention (that is, the power of DM Fiat). If you weren't already Exalted, you can never, ever be Exalted. Ever. Unless a deity (DM) intervenes, of course.

Accidental, unconcious or magically coerced act of Evil (even something like eating babies): you lose your Exalted status temporarily until you get a Cleric to set you up with an Atonement. If you weren't already Exalted, you can become Exalted with no problems, even while the blood is still fresh.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 01:28 PM
Concious act of Evil, not enough to turn you to the Dark Side but still damaging: you lose your Exalted status, but stay Good. No amount of Atonement will make you Exalted again. That requires deific intervention (that is, the power of DM Fiat). If you weren't already Exalted, you can never, ever be Exalted. Ever. Unless a deity (DM) intervenes, of course.

Accidental, unconcious or magically coerced act of Evil (even something like eating babies): you lose your Exalted status temporarily until you get a Cleric to set you up with an Atonement. If you weren't already Exalted, you can become Exalted with no problems, even while the blood is still fresh.


And doing something conciously, but without knowing it is evil counts under the accidental category?

I have the distinct impression that there needs to be a "grades of evil" thing. Kind of like Star Wars and Dark Side Points. Lying gets you one. Stealing gets you two. Starting a Miko thread gets you like...eight. (Lose Exalted at about 3 or so.) After all, isn't it part of being mortal to make mistakes and rise above them (being a much better definition for "exalted")?

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 01:32 PM
And doing something conciously, but without knowing it is evil counts under the accidental category?

I have the distinct impression that there needs to be a "grades of evil" thing. Kind of like Star Wars and Dark Side Points. Lying gets you one. Stealing gets you two. Starting a Miko thread gets you like...eight. (Lose Exalted at about 3 or so.) After all, isn't it part of being mortal to make mistakes and rise above them (being a much better definition for "exalted")?

Lying and stealing aren't Evil, they're Chaotic.

What you lie for determines its morality (Good vs. Evil). Stealing is rarely Good, but it can be Neutral just fine.

A Lawful Good character doesn't lie or steal because they're Lawful, not because they're Good. Lawful Good characters are no more Good than Chaotic Good characters.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 01:34 PM
Ironically, my character is a swordsage /later warblade/crusader/MoT9/human paragon/will take levels in a custom, only-for-me PrC named Lord of the Dragonkin.

He's also NG, so he doesn't care an itty bitty penny about Slaads and Modrons. He's just going his way doing good around. If it's necessary, he'll become a king, but not before.


Second, Dresden files sound interesting, but consider my character scoffs at deities. They didn't exactly work 100 levels, certainly, but just got chosen, for starters. Second, he doesn't like them trying to set their codes, and casuing lives to be lost in pointless holy wars. So, he chose not to follow gods, but ideas. Like Goodness, liberty and justice.


Also, that's another reason I dislike exalted, that atonement can more or less patch things up, but geniuine remorse won't. Which is BS.


Oh, and the person who said that Amagada getting raped and dead was a clichè? Leave this thread. This wasn't plot advancement. All of my adventuring party has won and lost loved ones. The wizard's father was consumed by his son in an accident, the rogue's hometown got thrashed because of some minor difference. Don't dare to say an NPC is a plot device. In my group, we actually try to make them humanlike.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 01:36 PM
Lying and stealing aren't Evil, they're Chaotic.

What you lie for determines its morality (Good vs. Evil). Stealing is rarely Good, but it can be Neutral just fine.

A Lawful Good character doesn't lie or steal because they're Lawful, not because they're Good. Lawful Good characters are no more Good than Chaotic Good characters.

Well...point. Replace them with some minor evil acts, though (you can keep starting a Miko thread as the big one) and the point is still valid. I'd like to see a gradiated system, rather than "all evil is equivalent, no matter what you do".

Telonius
2007-10-08, 01:59 PM
Within the standard game mechanics, there's already a difference between intentional and unintentional acts, with regards to the Atonement spell. Atoning for intentional acts costs 500 xp from the caster. Atoning for unintentional acts doesn't cost any xp. No amount of remorse gets rid of that xp requirement. The Exalted rules ups the ante quite a bit, true; but if it's BS, it's BS that's part of the standard ruleset.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 02:32 PM
Y'know, up to now, we have only dealt with the L side of things. We haven't gone to the other side, Chaos.


Chaos strikes me as extraordinarily poorly created. It is spoken of being meant about liberty, freedom, etc.

What happens in real D&D? Let me brandish one example: The sample swordsage, red mask. Red mask is a poor attempt at Robin hood, who will steal from everyone and give to the needy. He won't care if you need that magic sword for saving the world, he'll steal it and sell it. As is presented by the sample CG's everywhere, Chaos is an alignment for misguided fools. Heck, BoED even regards usually chaotic chars, like barbarian, as impossibilities. That doesn't speak highly of the designers concept, since apparently, if I want to play CG, I have to be a misguided idiot, fan of no diplomacy, and an unlikely guy to lend a hand. Which doesn't sound good at all.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-08, 02:40 PM
Heck, BoED even regards usually chaotic chars, like barbarian, as impossibilities.

...and that's why there's a barbarian prestige class in the book?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 02:50 PM
And that's why the exalted Barb's description says they are almost an oxymoron? And maybe that's the reason CG warlocks can't be, EVAH? Or maybe why Beguilers who are exalted are not to exist? That PrC is known as placating the masses. If the barb hadn't received some MINOR love, barbs would have clamored, and that's the reason that PrC is there.

JackMage666
2007-10-08, 03:00 PM
I've been playing my character, Azerian Kelrain, for a long time. He's level 100 now. He has grown much, and a particularly important incident happened 'round level 67. He had a "sister", Amagada, who was a pirate captain. One day, she was captured by a coalition of old foes, who also held Azerian. Then, the whatever-those-devil/demon'ish-abominations-are-called, proceeded to rape her and eat her, right in front of him, and called one of those time-controlling abominations to make the body thousands of years old. Azerian snapped, and in a hand to hand brawl, killed 'em all. Then, still morally crippled, he raised an army of upper-planers, marched right into the abyss, and took 4 layers of it, also creating a stronghold for reformed succubi, and basically making all of the powers of the abyss worry tons about him. Then, still on a sojourn to find respite, he stomped back into the Material plane and started wandering around, overthrowed a pair of tyrants, and refused to take the crowns. A few months later, he came to terms with his grief, and reunited with his adventuring party.

So, Azerian went back to the good guys. But, reasoning his actions, he let himself be consumed by rage, comitted mass genocide on the demons, and turning everything upside down. So, he's not Exalted, and will not be ever, since he has a taint inside him. That doens't make sense. It means BoED expects us all humans/humanoids to behave like outsiders. It doesn't matter if we do as much as a mortal can do, it's not enough.
Wait, you're level 100 Character is all from the Tome of Battle? How did you get him past level 100 in a little over a year? Did you level up once every 3 or 4 days?

Aside from that, I'm not getting your anecdote. What did he do that was evil? He killed naturally evil creatures, he redeemed several planes of existance to the side of good, and he did nothing evil in the process. If he did, then Angels are Evil too.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 03:04 PM
And that's why the exalted Barb's description says they are almost an oxymoron? And maybe that's the reason CG warlocks can't be, EVAH? Or maybe why Beguilers who are exalted are not to exist? That PrC is known as placating the masses. If the barb hadn't received some MINOR love, barbs would have clamored, and that's the reason that PrC is there.

...What the heck are you talking about here?

You do know that the Book of Exalted Deeds was written three or four years before the Warlock and Beguiler ever existed, right?

...Right?

BoVD and BoED were released just on the cusp of the revised third edition... which is why BoVD seems to be about 3.25.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 03:05 PM
The evil thing was, first off, losing the cool. Then, going to the abyss for revenge, dragging innocent creatures with him, creatures who probably would croak it. And creating a tremendous power imbalance, but that might simply be anti neutral. But mostly, stooping low enough to go for revenge. And brutally executing a pair of material plane tyrants.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 03:14 PM
I knew this topic was going to happen after my argument last night, so, let me weigh in on the matter, since I actually like the book -

First - Forgiveness is part of good, and there is no sin too great to be forgiven if the sinner actually repents. The loss of one's exalted feats or paladin levels or whatever can be regained if you truly repent, do what you can to heal the harm caused by your wrong, perform your penance/heroic deed and then snag that Atonement spell.

If you read the "Ends and Means" section, it tells you that an evil act is an evil act no matter how good the cause. This is true - IN D&D. D&D is a world where good and evil are absolutes, ones that do not change according to perspective - though an evil person might not view his or her actions as evil, the actions still are. Does sacrificing one's absolute purity (if you are an exalted character) make you evil? No. But you are no longer exalted.

Furthermore, your statement that it eliminates moral choices is incorrect, and furthermore ignorant. If you actually read the book and paid attention to it, you'll find that the book itself often suggests situations where you can have PCs make those hard choices. An exalted campaign means having to choose between the pure path and the easy one, having to choose between one's vengance and mercy, and hosts of other things. The taking of an exalted feat or prestige class represents both the heavens' faith in you to represent all that Good is and your faith as a player to make those choices according to the dictates of Good.

Further, the example you keep giving - tell a lie and save the world, tell the truth and damn it - is actually reccomended against in the book. Why? Because it backs you into a corner. Instead, what it asks DMs to do is offer a signifigantly harder path - one that the exalted character might take in order to remain pure - versus an easier path, such as the lie.

The BoED specifically states that slaying outsiders with the evil subtype is a good act, as they cannot be redeemed by anything short of a Sanctify the Wicked spell.

You barbarian example - Don't quote simply out of context. It says the Exalted Barbarian may -sound- like an oxymoron, then proceeds to tell you why it isn't. And if you think, it's harder for barbarians to adhere to the tenants of good when in the middle of their fury - hard to show mercy and give quarter (which, by the way, they have a feat for). It also states (to take care of your Beguiler example) that mind-affecting magic is not in and of itself evil, but does carry a tremendous responsiblity. As to Warlocks - their power is a part of them, and they cannot be blamed for the cross they are forced to carry. It is how they use that power that determines who they are.

It is my opinion that your arguments are flawed and using incomplete knowledge/material from the book that you are bashing. I suggest that you re-read it carefully, with an open mind, cover to cover, like I spent today doing, -then- come and argue - with the complete material.

Also, by the way, read the section titled, "Law, Chaos, and Good".

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-08, 03:14 PM
I know that warlock and beguiler came out later. But the example shows that trying to chain many odd classes to BoED is impossible by book. Which is terrible, if I must say it.


And as for how I leveled that quick, I was an epic level 46 fighter before ToB, but since it was much better for my idea of master fighter, I was allowed to exchange it. And it's been the best D&D decision I've made.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 03:18 PM
*Points to huge post above yours*

I come to defend mah book!

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 03:19 PM
I know that warlock and beguiler came out later. But the example shows that trying to chain many odd classes to BoED is impossible by book. Which is terrible, if I must say it.


And as for how I leveled that quick, I was an epic level 46 fighter before ToB, but since it was much better for my idea of master fighter, I was allowed to exchange it. And it's been the best D&D decision I've made.

...How the hell did you manage to get 56 levels in a little over a year?

You you play every single day? Or level up every session?

It takes most players years to reach level 20... unless they play more hours than they work.

Hamilton
2007-10-08, 03:20 PM
I know that warlock and beguiler came out later. But the example shows that trying to chain many odd classes to BoED is impossible by book. Which is terrible, if I must say it.


And as for how I leveled that quick, I was an epic level 46 fighter before ToB, but since it was much better for my idea of master fighter, I was allowed to exchange it. And it's been the best D&D decision I've made.

You know, honestly, I was going to post something about how BoED is perfectly compatible with any of the material released over the years since its publication, but...

I really have to hear more about this level 100 character.

Cheese and rice.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-08, 03:42 PM
It took two years for my Swiftblade to hit 11th...


Anyway; I really dislike both the concept of Ravages and the fact that the rest of the party has to continually go out of their collective way to appease an Exalted character's need to avoid harming anybody. In any way. Ever.





Actually, I suppose Demons, Devils and Undead are all fair game, but only if you can entirely avoid harming anybody. Even indirectly.


It doesn't matter if we do as much as a mortal can do, it's not enough.
I actually sort of like this concept if everybody were to acknowledge that yes, their character will fall and that it's just a matter of delaying it. With feat retraining it might be interesting to try a game like that. Every character would have to be LG/LN/TG, though.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 03:46 PM
Okay, it's not -impossible- to maintain. I'll say it again - READ THE DAMN BOOK AGAIN.

You know how I spend my time in real life? Thinking of savage and brutal ways to kill the people I hate. And that's if I'm just idly bored. And I'm telling you that I've managed to successfully and fuffillingly play an exalted character. You're all taking things out of context and blowing others out of proportion - I urge anyone reading this to read the book and find out the score for yourself.

DraPrime
2007-10-08, 03:46 PM
If you read the "Ends and Means" section, it tells you that an evil act is an evil act no matter how good the cause. This is true - IN D&D. D&D is a world where good and evil are absolutes, ones that do not change according to perspective - though an evil person might not view his or her actions as evil, the actions still are. Does sacrificing one's absolute purity (if you are an exalted character) make you evil? No. But you are no longer exalted.

But if by allowing a greater evil act to occur by not committing a more minor evil tip the cosmic balance towards evil even more? If anything, it wouldn't be exalted to allow this greater evil to occur, simply because you don't like to get your hands dirty.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 03:47 PM
Anyway; I really dislike both the concept of Ravages and the fact that the rest of the party has to continually go out of their collective way to appease an Exalted character's need to avoid harming anybody. In any way. Ever.

"Exalted" is not the same as "Took Sacred Vow, Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace".


But if by allowing a greater evil act to occur by not committing a more minor evil tip the cosmic balance towards evil even more? If anything, it wouldn't be exalted to allow this greater evil to occur, simply because you don't like to get your hands dirty.

Oh, an Exalted character will commit an Evil act if it's the only way to prevent a greater Evil. That doesn't change the fact that it was an Evil act.

It would be worse if he let the greater Evil occur because he was afraid of losing his Exalted status (and he'd lose it anyway), but that doens't change the fact that he commited an Evil act.

This is why the book advises DMs not to put Exalted characters in situations like that, because it's not really very fair and defies the point of the game. That is, fun. Because it's a bloody game.

D&D is built on absolute morality. An Evil act is Evil. A Good act is Good. Why do you think I keep capitalising these words? It's not for my health.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 03:49 PM
But if by allowing a greater evil act to occur by not committing a more minor evil tip the cosmic balance towards evil even more? If anything, it wouldn't be exalted to allow this greater evil to occur, simply because you don't like to get your hands dirty.

Again - that's a relative view of evil. D&D is built on absolutes - doesn't stop one thing from being "more" evil, but the first thing is still evil in the first place. But if your DM -forces- you in a situation where, no matter what, you either lose the game or lose your feats, just punch him in the face - that's not a "hard" choice, it's an impossible one.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-08, 03:54 PM
"Exalted" is not the same as "Took Sacred Vow, Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace".
And there's where the bizarre D&D alignment comes in, trying to balance morality with a gaming system designed to accomidate the killing of things and the horking of their stuff.

I'll back out, though, as I'll admit to not reading the book beyond a five-minute skim. Alignments are close to the worst-designed aspect of D&D so basing class abilities around them never does anybody any good.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 03:58 PM
*Sigh*

"Violence is part of the D&D world, and is perfectly acceptable when used for good means. Usually, this means when it is directed against evil."

That section further goes to detail the uses of violence for good, including the stipulation that violence is to be used in self-defense or to prevent further evil - THAT is when violence can be a good act. Unprovoked violence, or violence for merely personal gain, is not good, though it is not always evil.

Yuki actually has it right, it would seem - welcome to the sane/intelligent section, Yuki, would you like a celestial cookie?

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 04:02 PM
Of course I've got it right. Baiyan, God of Joy and Pleasure, has feats such as Nonlethal Substitution, and has the Saliant Divine Ability "Automatic Metamagic: Nonlethal Substitution" to boot. :smallwink:

*munches on a celestial cookie* Hm. If destroying a Good object is an Evil act, is eating Good food Evil?

...This thread has made me want to play in an Exalted game. Which is probably the direct opposite of what was intended.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 04:06 PM
"This is why the book advises DMs not to put Exalted characters in situations like that, because it's not really very fair and defies the point of the game. That is, fun. Because it's a bloody game.

In other words: DM's don't try to intentionally screw over other players....

.... unless they're into that sort of thing, of course.

Not many people like it when they're put into the "Your paladin is either going to 'A) Fall, B) Have his soul sent to hell or C) Both' depending on his actions" scenario. If you are playing a game with Exalted characters (or even Paladins to a degree) where you intentionally set up a situation where the Player has to Save The Cheerleader, Save The World by committing an evil act... .well I just think that's uncool unless everybody agrees beforehand (or you know would agree) to play that sort of game.

It's just as uncool as stealing a Wizards spellbook in the very first adventure, and making sure he can never get it back, or setting up an adventure where the party Cleric is forced to renounce his gods, and thus lose his powers. Saying "Haha, I've decided that you don't get to play the character you spent days to create" is just about the height of the Jerk DM Scenario.

Strangely enough you don't see the "Screw over the Mage/Cleric/Monk/Druid" scenario nearly as much as you see the "Screw over the Paladin/Exalted" situation. Funny that. :smallamused:

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 04:10 PM
How do you screw over a Monk?

Monk is really the only class you can't screw over to any significant degree... lock them in an Antimagic Field? They still have tons of extraordinary abilities. Take his items? Eh, he can survive long enough to get new items... He'll just suck slightly more than usual, but he's used to sucking.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 04:13 PM
With some Soverign Glue and a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

And Yuki, if you're serious about the exalted campaign thing, I'm interested in one too - the last one I was in was cut short by the rather unfortunate murder of my DM by a Detroit mugger.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-08, 04:14 PM
Two sum up how their work is faulty, one phrase: "The exalted barbarian sounds like an Oxymoron". Even if that sentece is ended in a positive note, it really doesn't bode well.

Third, the approach to Exaltedness, which mostly works in the sense of "one flaw, you're down", unless you wanna get atonement cast on you. By exalted, a LG character is screwed if he's offered this kind of choice:

No, Exalted Does not mean that. Exalted Feats mean that.


You have been captured by bandits who are terrible enemies of your land. You know that they're looking for a way to enter the capital city of your kingdom, and that they'll stop at nothing to acquire knowledge to enter. The leader of the bandits offers you a choice: Tell him of the truth or die. You know of traps settled to stop invaders, and could tell them a yarn to get them in those traps. Problem is, however, you, by definition of the LG Exalted "Will not lie, cheat, or steal". So, you have a lose-lose situation. Either you lie to save your city (and according to BoED, "a battle was lost, even if a war was won. By doing an evil act, no matter the intentions, you still do evil."), or you tell the truth and doom it. This makes clear flaw in the concept. Evidently, in this situation, you are expected to play Lawful Stupid, since you'll be damned even when you do good by lieing. You can only pick to retain your so-called purity by saying the truth, and keep your feats, or lie, do some REAL good, and lose 'em. How can the rules about good 'n evil have such major oversights? Seriously, ask yourself, as a person, what would you do. Lie, or tell the truth?

Yeah, false dilemma.
Choices:
a. Silence: don't say a word. Or at least nothing pertaining to this. Maybe you'll be saved.
b. Die: Not like you'll won't be in paradise. talrs will tell your heroics.
c. Lie: not be exalted.

IN BoED: commiting minor evils (it counts a lie as a monor one, but eh) is not good enough. The ends do not justify the Means. The Means justify the ends.
How you accomplish something justifies what you are striving for.


Fourth, apparently, a taint in your soul means you're not exalted, and will never be. Which means Good's ideals of redemption, hope, etc. is BS, since it doesn't apply to the characters, and actually the "once damned, forever damned" idea does. Not Good, at all. Here's an example to illustrate:

Never? Lies. It just means you have more to make up for.
And redemption means you can be good not exalted good. This is Good +++, way more good than Paladins.


So, Azerian went back to the good guys. But, reasoning his actions, he let himself be consumed by rage, comitted mass genocide on the demons, and turning everything upside down. So, he's not Exalted, and will not be ever, since he has a taint inside him. That doens't make sense. It means BoED expects us all humans/humanoids to behave like outsiders. It doesn't matter if we do as much as a mortal can do, it's not enough.

Killing evil demon/devils is not evil. Enjoying killing things can be evil (did you torture them?).


while Marvel focused on the message that it's not the person with superpowers, but the guy who has fears, phobias, and terrors and overcomes them anyway, is the real hero (as an example, Spiderman's conflict about giving up his superhero alter ego, or not, simply because it's hard on him and his loved ones.
In the end, he always makes the "correct" choice, doing the right thing of taking the mantle of spidey again, which makes him a real hero).
Which means there isn't an "always right, always wrong" answer. It makes it more subjective (but still objective), entertaining, and deep. And it ensures you don't have to play a "stick up the ass" good guy.

So, you don't like D&D's approach. I perfer Spiderman to Superman and so does D&D.

There are tiers of good and tiers of evil:
Exalted
Good
Evil
Vile

There are sub-levels inbetween them that most people exist as. 90% of good people are good not exalted. Same as 90% evil is not vile.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 04:16 PM
How do you screw over a Monk?

Monk is really the only class you can't screw over to any significant degree... lock them in an Antimagic Field? They still have tons of extraordinary abilities. Take his items? Eh, he can survive long enough to get new items... He'll just suck slightly more than usual, but he's used to sucking.

Place him in a situation where he has to violate whatever vows of his order that he is in. Then again, I play games that have a lot of Monks (and their various orders) in them. So not so much crunch-screwage as fluff-screwage. They both still suck, however. Especially if you have a harsh DM where it comes to alignment. :smallwink:

Speaking of Alignment (and classes that have alignment restrictions), there's always the hilarity of "forced alignment change by magical means" in various campaigns. I've been in a few of those... and well, I didn't enjoy it at the time. :smallwink:

And yes, I do like to play Monks, no matter how much the Online Community at large seems to dislike them. :smallwink:

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 04:18 PM
...except the Exalted framework doesn't necessarily define "saving the city" as "REAL good." Under that universe's rules, you're responsible only for your own actions; consequences from somebody else's evil deeds are not on your soul. (Again, this is something that the book assumes is philosophically true within the gaming world. It might be correct or incorrect in this world, but it's true in the gaming world if Exalted is part of it). You can try to mitigate suffering, enjoin the evildoer to change; but at when all is said and done, you're not responsible for other people's choices. It's stark and it's harsh, but it's not hypocritical or inconsistent. (Additionally, it only works if you know for certain what the moral rules are. That's one advantage game designers in the game world have over regular humans in determining the correct moral action in this world - they know for sure, because they wrote the rules).
Thank you for this passage. I never had such a good analysis of why I couldn't stand the BoED before. Maybe it isn't hypocritical, but it does let me say accurately...BoED: Where putting others first makes you neutral.

Incidentally, not being responsible for other people's choices isn't enough. You also aren't responsible for the anticipated results of your own choices. Getting the city burned down isn't your problem, even though you had the option to prevent it, because it's more important not to stain your own hands.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 04:22 PM
Thank you for this passage. I never had such a good analysis of why I couldn't stand the BoED before. Maybe it isn't hypocritical, but it does let me say accurately...BoED: Where putting others first makes you neutral.

Incidentally, not being responsible for other people's choices isn't enough. You also aren't responsible for the anticipated results of your own choices. Getting the city burned down isn't your problem, even though you had the option to prevent it, because it's more important not to stain your own hands.

Again: the book itself specifically says this is not true. Evil by neglegance is bloody Evil. The Exalted guy falls either way, so don't put him in that position, because this is a game, people.

And lying doesn't make him fall anyway, because lying to protect people isn't Evil.


And yes, I was serious about that Exalted game. Not that I can DM anything like that to save my life.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-08, 04:23 PM
Place him in a situation where he has to violate whatever vows of his order that he is in. Then again, I play games that have a lot of Monks (and their various orders) in them. So not so much crunch-screwage as fluff-screwage. They both still suck, however. Especially if you have a harsh DM where it comes to alignment.

And yes, I do like to play Monks, no matter how much the Online Community at large seems to dislike them.

Monks can't really be screwed that way, either. They just get a somewhat forced opportunity to multiclass.

And I haven't heard the online community at large say anything about disliking the Monk, I've only seen comments on its mechanical capabilities.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 04:29 PM
Well Yuki, I could give it a go. Mind you, I'd still have a PC (NOT DMPC), but I would.

And let me expand on my English counterpart's point - the focus of Good is helping others. The whole point is putting others before yourself. However, resorting to Evil to do so is, at best, utterly nuetral - just like using Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends is nuetral. It's your obligation as a Good being to save the city - but it is also your obligation to do so by any non-Evil means you can. If the only way to save that city is to lie, there's a few steps to follow - step one, pick up knife. Step two, stab DM. Step three, repeat step two as often as it takes to make you feel better.

I've seen all kinds of Exalted characters in the past, including some really, really weird ones (ask me sometime about Exalted Character the Rogue (we no longer use his real name) - it's possible to make things work and still play interesting, fun characters. You just need to A. Try and B. Not have a stupid/evil DM.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 04:29 PM
Monks can't really be screwed that way, either. They just get a somewhat forced opportunity to multiclass.

See my edit for a bit of a clarification. And I don't know about you, but being forced to multiclass into a class that I didn't want to play in the first place... Oh, what's the word for it? Oh Yeah: Sucks. :smalltongue:


And I haven't heard the online community at large say anything about disliking the Monk, I've only seen comments on its mechanical capabilities.

Well, I've seen far too many people say that they would never play a Monk because it's too underpowered. I don't really want to get into that debate (there's a reason why I steer clear of all the MonkIsTehSux threads, after all), except to say I have never regretted playing a Monk, nor have the Monks I played ever been "ineffective" (whatever that means). Not once. But I really don't want to get too much into a debate of the worthiness of Monks right now. I enjoy them, and to me at least, that's all that really matters. :smallsmile:

Captain van der Decken
2007-10-08, 04:31 PM
And Yuki, if you're serious about the exalted campaign thing, I'm interested in one too - the last one I was in was cut short by the rather unfortunate murder of my DM by a Detroit mugger.

Good grief. That's has to be one of the most horrible ways a game can end.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 04:34 PM
Well Yuki, I could give it a go. Mind you, I'd still have a PC (NOT DMPC), but I would.

Well then... start a thread, and let's stop spamming up this thread, shall we?

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 04:34 PM
Yeah, we weren't too happy about it, but it didn't stop us from stealing his dice and splatbooks shortly thereafter (only to find out the poor guy had them given to us in his will anyway, that was an awkward moment for everyone).

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 04:43 PM
Indeed? Well, what about:

"Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe the fundamental answer is no..." (BoED, p9)

I agree with telling a lie not being evil. The book you're trying to defend apparently doesn't. In fact, just a couple lines down that page it says that sacrificing your exalted purity to save "a thousand innocent lives" is the wrong choice. If you want to say it's evil either way, OK (though I'm missing where it says that, exactly), but it is explicitly worse to violated your exaltedness than to pass up the chance to prevent any possible catastrophe by doing so.

Fiery Justice
2007-10-08, 04:46 PM
Part of the point of Exalted Deeds is that Good is an absolute. Committing an Evil Act to do good is not good enough, it is not sufficient or good enough. Good hates Evil, it abhors any kind of wrong doing. It survives and thrives because all of creation is built in such a way that good is always an option. Ten thousand peoples lives is not worth one man's soul. This is a fundamental fact. The "starving and stealing bread" moral problem is even fixed by this. Souls exist, therefore, death is not a true evil, its just a facet of life. A sad facet, yes, but only because of the parting with what we love. Like growing up or moving from your home, it may be sad but its just part of life, it is not anymore or less evil then the sun setting, it can't really be condemned for coming.

The person who dies is passed on into a higher, greater justice. Heaven will vindicate or condemn them, bandits cannot truly harm them. Demons perhaps, could, by devouring and tearing at their souls, but any temporary suffering is insufficient justification for any eternal evil, which any sin is. Its a very common misunderstanding the death is evil but this is explicitly not so.

I know what your thinking, "What about earthly suffering, what if someone would otherwise *insert abominably horrible thing to do to someone hear* and then let them live". Again, Temporary suffering. I'm gonna go with the obvious rape situation taken to an extreme degree, "A group of thugs are gonna rape a whole gaggle of teenage girls if you don't *insert evil act that makes sense here (like, I don't know torture their boss)*" Well, I hate to say this but, in a universe where good is good and evil is evil, that statement that goes here is "Sorry girls." Yes its a horrible thing but given the either or scenario, neither your nor the innocent girl's soul are really in danger. But if you torture someone yours is. You might say, "Imminent Repentance" but your not really repenting if you'd do it again. You have to really understand that. Its a hard choice, if that sort of situation comes about, it is probably the hardest choice you will ever make. And if you ever have a tougher one.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 04:47 PM
Again - taking things out of context. You people really must stop doing that. Here's the actual passage (or as close as I remember)

"Many exalted characters view this as a sort of martyrdom ('By sacrificing my purity, I can save all these lives'). This, ultimately, is the wrong choice. Doing so treats your purity like a commodity (much like your exalted feats) that can be spent or thrown away, when in fact it is a concession to evil, a concrete tip in the cosmic scales in evil's favor that has consequences that reach far beyond the character."

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 04:54 PM
Again - taking things out of context. You people really must stop doing that. Here's the actual passage (or as close as I remember)

"Many exalted characters view this as a sort of martyrdom ('By sacrificing my purity, I can save all these lives'). This, ultimately, is the wrong choice. Doing so treats your purity like a commodity (much like your exalted feats) that can be spent or thrown away, when in fact it is a concession to evil, a concrete tip in the cosmic scales in evil's favor that has consequences that reach far beyond the character."

My quote is in fact out of context. But break out your book and tell me how the context changes the meaning? I was word-for-word exact, by the way.

No, really. It does mean that. You don't have to hate it for that, necessarily.

"[stuff about torture and so on I don't care enough to copy] With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil." (BoED, p9)
The next paragraph is the one you reproduced, I believe.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 04:58 PM
My quote is in fact out of context. But break out your book and tell me how the context changes the meaning? I was word-for-word exact, by the way.

No, really. It does mean that. You don't have to hate it for that, necessarily.

Death is not evil.

Thousands of people will suddenly and unexpectadly pass over into the afterlife. Their souls are fine. Performing the Evil act, however, taints your own soul.

Now, if those thousands of people were about to have their souls eaten... perform the Evil act, 'cause one soul is better than a thousand souls. :smalltongue:

Then stab your DM for making the game unwinnable.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 04:59 PM
And Lo, the Lord did say, "Let there be game!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3314427#post3314427)

And like it or not, Yuki happens to be right. Dying just means they go to the afterlife. The afterlife in D&D is a -garuntee-, not a -hope-.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 05:09 PM
Let's call a spade a spade and call these people Saints (putting aside the actual Saint designation in the book). How many Saints do you know of who would harm their Immortal Souls to save someone else's life? I'm not all that familiar with various RL religions (and it's a taboo subject round these parts anyway), but I can't think of too many who would be willing to harm their own souls in that matter.

So it seems to me that BoED is based on the same pattern. Your soul is the most precious thing you have and should never ever be put in jeopardy. If other people choose to do evil, regardless of -or in spite of -your own actions, it is their soul who is in jeopardy, not yours.

Fundamentally, people are in charge of their own destinies. And if someone is going to Blow Up The World, And Can Only Be Stopped By <Insert Hideous Evil Thing Here>, then it is the fault of the person who pulls the trigger NOT the person who chooses not to stop it.

At least in DnD.... Even before BoED came out.

Now, and I say this all the time but it's still true, philosophers have been debating the true nature of Balance, Evil, and Good for millennia. What the heck makes anyone think that a company out of Seattle (no matter how brilliant they are) could possibly come up with a system that would satisfy everyone?

Heck, if they would be able to do that, they should quit writing games and start their own Religion/Political/Social Movement. :smalltongue:

So, yes, there will be disagreement on just what is "Good" and what is "Evil". And absolutely no one should be surprised. So if you don't want to incorporate BoED in your campaign, because you think it doesn't represent what "Good" really is, I for one won't think any less of you. Just accept that some people do get good campaign material out of it, and we should all be (no pun intended) good. :smallsmile:

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 05:10 PM
Again, I'm not saying it isn't consistent (I don't want that argument now). At least, within itself, though its claims are completely unsupported by any game mechanics not actually in that particular book, as far as I know.

I understand what you're saying. And follow it up with:

BoED: Where putting others first makes you neutral.
Anything that can be done to others (with the possible, but not definite, exception of soul destruction or corruption) is less important than the cleanness of your own personal hands. You can agree, or think it's a good game whatever else. It makes me want to re-read the Grey Guard class to feel cleaner, and I think the people who wrote that should be barred from the good alignment forever.

As for "its a game", I couldn't care less. They specify what is 'right' in those situations even if they advise never putting players in them.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 05:17 PM
*Sigh* You're missing something, doofus.

"Good ends may justify evil means, but they don't make the means any less evil."

"may justify"

What is it saying in that passage?

There is a difference between "Good" and "Exalted", and it's the Exalted character who, to keep his purity, lets the thousands die - because to do otherwise shifts the balance to evil. A "Good" character isn't necessarily pure, but that doesn't mean he isn't good.

And if you want their claims to be supported, read the Paladin class again. A paladin who commits an evil act, no matter how good the cause, loses her paladinhood. There are no exceptions. Why? BECAUSE GOOD AND EVIL ARE UNCHANGING ABSOLUTES

Fiery Justice
2007-10-08, 05:21 PM
He simply does not like the philosophy Gareth, if he chooses to deviate his game from cannon DnD that is his choice. And he has now admitted that he has made that choice. So all is well with the world.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 05:27 PM
Actually, the three paragraphs after the ones I copied (including the one you tried to reproduce from memory) do not specify that they are about exalted characters. They use the word 'exalted' three times. Twice referring to exalted feats, and once at the end in the phrase "good alignment and exalted status". They speak of good characters, not only exalted characters.

Presumably if you will commit minor evil for major good you may be good despite this serious misjudgment.

EDIT: I don't grant claims about 'D&D canon' without reference outside the BoED. The PHB alignment material was, if nothing else, vague enough to not strictly imply this stuff.


Fundamentally, people are in charge of their own destinies. And if someone is going to Blow Up The World, And Can Only Be Stopped By <Insert Hideous Evil Thing Here>, then it is the fault of the person who pulls the trigger NOT the person who chooses not to stop it.
I'd say rather that you're confusing 'not your fault' and 'not a fault'. Choosing to sacrifice the world instead of your purity is no fault at all, because you're preserving the more important thing. You're still responsible for the choice, it's just that you can claim it proudly. Apparently.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 05:41 PM
I'd say rather that you're confusing 'not your fault' and 'not a fault'. Choosing to sacrifice the world instead of your purity is no fault at all, because you're preserving the more important thing. You're still responsible for the choice, it's just that you can claim it proudly. Apparently.

Just as a general note, I wasn't speaking of my own personal philosophies, but using a "generic you" in regards to the viewpoint of someone who believed in the philosophy of BoED. :smallsmile:

Personally, I think Survivor Guilt is a real thing, and there's a reason for it. But that's all I'll say on my personal feelings on the matter (including on whether it's a sin/evil act or not). :smallsmile:

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 05:41 PM
You know what, I'm done. If I continue this, I'm going to start making some comments that, while utterly correct, will gain me infractions for flaming and mea culpa.

I'll just part with this - the whole D&D universe works on the alignment system BoED describes part of, just like it also runs off the part the BoVD describes. If you want to change the system that makes the entire D&D cosmos run, good luck with that.

TheElfLord
2007-10-08, 05:42 PM
And the example didn't take martyrdom into account for a reason: the bandits won't torture you. They're not Tanar'ri. They'll kill you outright, so chuck the idea of glorious martyrdom out of the window.


To quote a favorite movie of mine "That word, I don't think it means what you think it means"

Torture is by no means a requirment for martyrdom.


mar·tyr [mahr-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.
3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches.
4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.
–verb (used with object)
5. to make a martyr of, esp. by putting to death.
6.

This is from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/martyr)

So while torture and pain is often a part of martyrdom, the defining feature is death, not torture. So yes, the bandits killing the person outright would still make a martyr.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 05:51 PM
Porthos:
Sorry if I seemed to say otherwise, but I never assumed you were talking about anything other than 'life according to the BoED'. I was also using a "generic you".


I'll just part with this - the whole D&D universe works on the alignment system BoED describes part of, just like it also runs off the part the BoVD describes. If you want to change the system that makes the entire D&D cosmos run, good luck with that.
I don't want to taunt you if you really mean it about dropping the topic, but can you tell me where you get this information? I am not aware of any mechanic outside of those two books (or inside them, actually) by which cosmic evil benefits from the things the BoED claims it does. Or even a point at which it hints that such a gain might exist.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 05:54 PM
There's no technical mechanic, but here's an example off the top of my head (I'm certain there's more) -

Demons and devils are born when mortals commit certain acts of evil (the most common version of this is the Adaru, MM5, one of which is born for every lie or act of betrayal).

Porthos
2007-10-08, 05:59 PM
Porthos:
Sorry if I seemed to say otherwise, but I never assumed you were talking about anything other than 'life according to the BoED'. I was also using a "generic you".

It's all good, no pun intended. :smalltongue:

Personally, I like the BoED because it's a source of good campaign ideas and I like a lot of the crunch in there (especially the feats and the PrCs). And I also really like how they show how to play a Lawful/Chaotic/Neutral Good character as opposed to the all-too familiar Lawful/Chaotic/Neutral Jerk. For that alone, I will respect what BoED did. :smallsmile: As for the rest of the fluff, there's some I love and some I have (mostly minor) issues with. IMC (if I had one), I'd either tweak the things I had issues with, or I'd run with them and see how they played out.

Pretty much like how I treat the fluff from all of the WotC books, really. :smalltongue:

Stormcrow
2007-10-08, 06:00 PM
*Shrug*. If you hate it so much, don't use it.

Amen, shut up.

Prophaniti
2007-10-08, 06:06 PM
And maybe that's the reason CG warlocks can't be, EVAH?

Sorry, I know the thread has moved on, but I just had to speak out for my beloved and misunderstood Warlock.

The warlock can TOTALLY be CG. the class alignment restrictions are 'any chaotic OR any evil' The CG warlock is even one of the 'classic' warlock character backstory ideas in PHB II!!!! Azerian, you really should be more careful about the blanket statements. I'm sure a beguiler or a warlock would make a perfectly viable and fascinating Exhalted character.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 06:07 PM
BTW: Believe me, I understand why some people might have issues with the fluff in BoED. It's not for everyone. And I'm no apologist for WotC, either. After all, I have the big issues with the Fiendish Codex books. I really, really, really dislike the fluff (and some of the crunch) in those books (as well as the smug "you don't like this? Tuff. This is standard DnD from now on." commentary in the book).

I mean really dislike. :smallwink:

So if you want to give commentary about why you think BoED is absurd/wrong/what-have-you, please by all means go ahead. It's always good to debate these things out in the open. And, if I can really dislike the Codex books, then I figure other people can really dislike the books I like. Fair's fair, after all. :smallamused:

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 06:18 PM
There's no technical mechanic, but here's an example off the top of my head (I'm certain there's more) -

Demons and devils are born when mortals commit certain acts of evil (the most common version of this is the Adaru, MM5, one of which is born for every lie or act of betrayal).
A very good example. I haven't delved beyond the first MM. Um, I really hope those things aren't very strong...:smalleek:

I would be really interested to know where they introduced that concept. It wasn't mentioned in the core books unless I'm really, really blind. Or in fiendish codex 1. Any loremasters out there know?

Mike_Lemmer
2007-10-08, 06:31 PM
But if demons & devils are born when mortals commit certain acts of evil, then wouldn't angels & devas be born when mortals commit certain acts of good?

An image comes to mind of a villain losing his Vile status because he fakes a good deed to cover up his evil doings.

"But the only reason I gave money to that orphanage was to make the public think I wasn't actually an evil mastermind bent on world domination!"

"So? You're fired, softy."

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 06:40 PM
A very good example. I haven't delved beyond the first MM. Um, I really hope those things aren't very strong...:smalleek:

I would be really interested to know where they introduced that concept. It wasn't mentioned in the core books unless I'm really, really blind. Or in fiendish codex 1. Any loremasters out there know?

3rd ed threw out a lot of the fluff on monsters - I took that from the Adaru entry in MM5 and from the 2nd ed Monster Manual of the Planes (where I take most of my monster fluff when it is not provided).

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 06:46 PM
But if demons & devils are born when mortals commit certain acts of evil, then wouldn't angels & devas be born when mortals commit certain acts of good?

An image comes to mind of a villain losing his Vile status because he fakes a good deed to cover up his evil doings.

"But the only reason I gave money to that orphanage was to make the public think I wasn't actually an evil mastermind bent on world domination!"

"So? You're fired, softy."

Actually, celestials are created from the souls of the virtous and sometimes simply appear spontaenously (those are usually the freaky ones with the visions and ultimate missions to save the multiverse). And they're also created naturally, when a Throne Archon and a Solar love each other veeery much :P

Foeofthelance
2007-10-08, 07:10 PM
b. Die: Not like you'll won't be in paradise. Tales will tell your heroics.

See, this I object to when it comes to good characters. How does this accept any responsibility for the character? "Oh, I'm dead and in paradise! The whole world just ended, or at least a whole lot of innocent people died because I was unwilling to bend my morals just once, but hey, at least I'm in Paradise!"

That should not be the way a Good character makes their decisions. A Good character should be trying to determine how their choices affects the lives of others. If you are the champion of a city, and you presented with either A) Lie to the attackers, leading them into a trap and losing some ability as a penalty, or B) Choose to die like a Hero, bravely suffering as they torture you to death, thus costing 10,000 people their lives, then as far as I'm concerned, you pick A. Those people are counting on you to protect them, not to have your name sung about in legends because you died bravely. Heroes make sacrifices, its that simple. If your god of Good objects to you doing what it takes to save defenseless innocents, i suggest finding a new god.

Oh, and by the way, they only sing of you if you win. If you die and cost others their lives, their not going to praise your name, their going to curse it.


Part of the point of Exalted Deeds is that Good is an absolute. Committing an Evil Act to do good is not good enough, it is not sufficient or good enough. Good hates Evil, it abhors any kind of wrong doing.

That's not Good. That's Intolerance. Make one mistake, and you're tainted forever? No forgiveness? No mercy? I can actually recall a society like that presented in a D&D world. Istar, if memory serves. If my memory still serves, the Gods smacked it with an asteroid for its attitude as well.


The person who dies is passed on into a higher, greater justice. Heaven will vindicate or condemn them, bandits cannot truly harm them. Demons perhaps, could, by devouring and tearing at their souls, but any temporary suffering is insufficient justification for any eternal evil, which any sin is. Its a very common misunderstanding the death is evil but this is explicitly not so.

Yet the only way to truly judge that person is to look at their life and their actions during it. How does willingly sacrificing others for your own beliefs come across as good? What gives a character the power to decide the fate of the majority in that way? A good character should always seek the best solution and if they can find one where no one loses they should take it. But their one soul does not possibly outweigh the souls of those others. I said it before, and I'll say it again. One gold piece, no matter how shiny and new, does not equal 10,000 tarnished copper.


"Good ends may justify evil means, but they don't make the means any less evil."

"may justify"

What is it saying in that passage?

What the passage is saying is that there are times when the Ends justify the Means. That just means the player needs to know when to make the distinction. (Don't worry folks, I'm not going to reopen the Demon/Baby debate.)

Now, I'm going to stress this: Good characters do not go around killing Orc babies to stop future Orce hordes. What it does mean, is that they need to make sure they have some sort of idea of how to handle the situation. That is really my biggest objection to the way Good is presented in BoED. There is no mention of personal responsibility, none whatsoever. If the character ever faces a tough choice it is either the DM's fault for being an evil jerk for trying to cause the character to deliberately fall, or the character dies. No if, ands, or buts.

This is not how Good should work, in my opinion. Good should have the chance to offer redemption, to allow others to make up for past mistakes. If a man steals a loaf of bread he should be allowed to go to the church and find some sort of penance. He shouldn't have to worry about the fact that the gods are keeping some eternal tally, and that no matter what happens, feeding his children has condemned him to eternal suffering in the ninth circle.

Would I use the mechanics in the BoED? Not a problem. Would I dump the fluff in favor of a houseruled judgement that makes it so Good characters are rewarded for being Good, rather than being forced to walk on eggshells the entire campaign less they be cast out of their alignment and possibly their class? Oh yeah. Players should be allowed to enjoy their choices, not be forced to worry about some Sword of Damocles hanging over their head because the writers at WotC decided to replace the proverbial stick with a full on log.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 07:27 PM
Actually, celestials are created from the souls of the virtous and sometimes simply appear spontaenously (those are usually the freaky ones with the visions and ultimate missions to save the multiverse). And they're also created naturally, when a Throne Archon and a Solar love each other veeery much :P

Only Eladrins and Angels are born. Archons and Guardinals just pop out of nowhere, fully formed.

Serenity
2007-10-08, 07:30 PM
While I certainly disagree with a large amount of BoED's characterizations of good and evil, there is one point its detractors seem to be missing: Exalted means Saint. So, no, D&D has no problem with villains being redeemed, etc. They just aren't accorded special status and powers on account of their unmatched purity and devotion to good.

Anima
2007-10-08, 07:52 PM
I discovered that it helps if you understand alignment not as morality, but as your commitment to one of the basic forces in the multiverse. The powers of good, evil, law and chaos.
I know that this definition is not fully compatible with the definition in the PHB, but I do think that it makes more sense within a world with fixed morals and is more in line with the effects of alignment.
So whenever someone commits a good act, good is strengthened, when someone commits an evil act evil gets more power.
It doesn't really matter if this act was successful, at least not for that actual forces. The only thing of importance is that someone earnestly tried to do something good or evil.
Then there is another side of this struggle. Evil and Good try to convert others to their cause. The mechanic for both are the same. When you do something good to someone he becomes more inclined to do something good to.
When you treat your minions like rubbish you bring them closer to the evil side.
But while people live their alignment has no impact on the struggle of the forces, only their actions. This change dramatically when they die. Since then their souls are judged and send to the proper force to augment it.

So doing evil augments the force of evil, converts others to the side of evil and endangers your very own soul. Doing evil will only aid Evil.

I hope that was understandable, since my English is quite rusty and I am not really adapt at explaining my thoughts, too.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 07:55 PM
Um, yeah...BoED is big on redemption. They have a half-page section on it in the opening chapter (which does support regaining lost exalted status) and suggest redeemed villains as an exalted character archetype. I don't really think you can fault it on that point.


3rd ed threw out a lot of the fluff on monsters - I took that from the Adaru entry in MM5 and from the 2nd ed Monster Manual of the Planes (where I take most of my monster fluff when it is not provided).
Er, so not known to be current D&D canon except for that one monster?

Not that that canon is really that important.

Zincorium
2007-10-08, 08:07 PM
Er, so not known to be current D&D canon except for that one monster?

Not that that canon is really that important.

Considering that what can and can't be considered canon varies wildly within the published settings, nevermind people's homebrews, I have a hard time getting worried about it.


My main problem with the book of exalted deeds is that it holds there is a 'one true way' and violating the precepts of that will end your career as an exalted warrior.

I believe that a fear of losing something, status and power especially, should never hold a good character from helping out people in need. If an exalted character will lose an exalted feat, say by lying or performing a minor evil deed, and it helps people, they should gladly sacrifice their halo and further the overall good.

But then, I wouldn't cause them to become less in the eyes of 'good' for something like that and thus wouldn't take things away from them (as DM).

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-08, 08:10 PM
Um, yeah...BoED is big on redemption. They have a half-page section on it in the opening chapter (which does support regaining lost exalted status) and suggest redeemed villains as an exalted character archetype. I don't really think you can fault it on that point.


Er, so not known to be current D&D canon except for that one monster?

Not that that canon is really that important.

Technically, there is no current canon, so I just substituted old canon.

Oh, and succubi give birth. Forgot that part.

Fiery Justice
2007-10-08, 10:16 PM
See, this I object to when it comes to good characters. How does this accept any responsibility for the character? "Oh, I'm dead and in paradise! The whole world just ended, or at least a whole lot of innocent people died because I was unwilling to bend my morals just once, but hey, at least I'm in Paradise!" Death means Nothing. Nothing. Soul destroying is the thing your thinking of, and that is forgivable, because that is doubtlessly how you see real life. It doesn't matter if the world is ripped completely asunder, so long as all of their souls carry on happily to paradise/neutralville and not to hell (which is completely horrible.


That should not be the way a Good character makes their decisions. A Good character should be trying to determine how their choices affects the lives of others. If you are the champion of a city, and you presented with either A) Lie to the attackers, leading them into a trap and losing some ability as a penalty, or B) Choose to die like a Hero, bravely suffering as they torture you to death, thus costing 10,000 people their lives, then as far as I'm concerned, you pick A. Those people are counting on you to protect them, not to have your name sung about in legends because you died bravely. Heroes make sacrifices, its that simple. If your god of Good objects to you doing what it takes to save defenseless innocents, i suggest finding a new god. Dumb. What it takes to save "defenseless innocents" is do your best to make sure that, after their dead (which will happen, I assure, if it happens that day, the day after, a year from then, a decade from then, a century from then, a millennia, a million years.), the thing that goes on forever is well and happy and in the heights of heaven. Little petty mortal lifespans are not worth considering in comparison to forever.


Oh, and by the way, they only sing of you if you win. If you die and cost others their lives, their not going to praise your name, their going to curse it.Maybe. But who cares what others think? Their idiots. Their mortals. They lack cosmic understanding it only matters what (in DnD) The Heavens Think. They make a short sighted choice demanding that I wound something that will go on forever for something that will not even last .000000000001% as long. Would I do such a thing? NEVER! Life is worth nothing compared to eternity.




That's not Good. That's Intolerance. Make one mistake, and you're tainted forever? No forgiveness? No mercy? I can actually recall a society like that presented in a D&D world. Istar, if memory serves. If my memory still serves, the Gods smacked it with an asteroid for its attitude as well. Forgiveness and mercy are for those who repent, as I've put it in my lifetime, "If someone says their sorry, that patches everything up just fine, and all is well between us. But no amount of time is gonna heal the wound." Badness does not 'decay' away. It must be removed, burned, purged, destroyed.




Yet the only way to truly judge that person is to look at their life and their actions during it. How does willingly sacrificing others for your own beliefs come across as good? What gives a character the power to decide the fate of the majority in that way? A good character should always seek the best solution and if they can find one where no one loses they should take it. But their one soul does not possibly outweigh the souls of those others. I said it before, and I'll say it again. One gold piece, no matter how shiny and new, does not equal 10,000 tarnished copper. Because you... you just... gah! I grew up in a world where all of these rules are baseline assumptions. You really have to try to understand, those other souls are not in danger if they are at all decent or honourable. Hell is for evil people who beat their children, cheat on their wives, steal and blackmail their way into power, kick the neighbourhood dog every morning, its for EVIL people. Maybe not vile, but the kind of people you sit there and go, "Oh you so had it coming", this wears off after a few millenia but hey, who cares. Yes, I don't like how the hells work in DnD (much too much suffering.), but the heavens are certainly worth going to. Life has no value in DnD. Not really. Only afterlife.



What the passage is saying is that there are times when the Ends justify the Means. That just means the player needs to know when to make the distinction. (Don't worry folks, I'm not going to reopen the Demon/Baby debate.)

Now, I'm going to stress this: Good characters do not go around killing Orc babies to stop future Orce hordes. What it does mean, is that they need to make sure they have some sort of idea of how to handle the situation. That is really my biggest objection to the way Good is presented in BoED. There is no mention of personal responsibility, none whatsoever. If the character ever faces a tough choice it is either the DM's fault for being an evil jerk for trying to cause the character to deliberately fall, or the character dies. No if, ands, or buts. What it is saying is sometimes, evil may be nessecary (though not in realistic situations), but its still evil in the same way that merciless baby slaughtering is evil. It just is. Its inherent.


This is not how Good should work, in my opinion. Good should have the chance to offer redemption, to allow others to make up for past mistakes. If a man steals a loaf of bread he should be allowed to go to the church and find some sort of penance. He shouldn't have to worry about the fact that the gods are keeping some eternal tally, and that no matter what happens, feeding his children has condemned him to eternal suffering in the ninth circle. Of course he has a chance to repent of course, and no single evil act condemns you to hell in DnD. But evil, when done in a matter lacking repentance, will still stain your soul. It goes away under true repentance, and you can still be good (in dnd) with a few unrepented evil deeds, but their still evil, and the ramifications of that evil is going to follow you far long than the benefits of the action.

Stormcrow
2007-10-08, 10:56 PM
Oh, and succubi give birth. Forgot that part.

To Alu-fiends as I recall.

Serenity
2007-10-08, 11:15 PM
I'm gonna go with the obvious rape situation taken to an extreme degree, "A group of thugs are gonna rape a whole gaggle of teenage girls if you don't *insert evil act that makes sense here (like, I don't know torture their boss)*" Well, I hate to say this but, in a universe where good is good and evil is evil, that statement that goes here is "Sorry girls."

Uh...what? I'd say the proper response is to do your utmost to smite the sadistic bastards giving you the choice and save the girls, if necessary laying down your life to protect them.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-09, 12:21 AM
I apologize if this has been brought up already, but I thought it unlikely.


You have been captured by bandits who are terrible enemies of your land. You know that they're looking for a way to enter the capital city of your kingdom, and that they'll stop at nothing to acquire knowledge to enter. The leader of the bandits offers you a choice: Tell him of the truth or die. You know of traps settled to stop invaders, and could tell them a yarn to get them in those traps. Problem is, however, you, by definition of the LG Exalted "Will not lie, cheat, or steal". So, you have a lose-lose situation. Either you lie to save your city (and according to BoED, "a battle was lost, even if a war was won. By doing an evil act, no matter the intentions, you still do evil."), or you tell the truth and doom it. This makes clear flaw in the concept. Evidently, in this situation, you are expected to play Lawful Stupid, since you'll be damned even when you do good by lieing. You can only pick to retain your so-called purity by saying the truth, and keep your feats, or lie, do some REAL good, and lose 'em. How can the rules about good 'n evil have such major oversights? Seriously, ask yourself, as a person, what would you do. Lie, or tell the truth?

It is not a flawed concept to have universal principles in an ethical system. You should really read Immanuel Kant's works on the subject of categorical imperatives. If you have to have mechanics to represent alignment (the necessity for which is abhorrent), Kant is one of your better ways to do it.

Kant would see no moral question to the part I bolded. To Lie is an inherent evil, in his mind - one of the few things that is always wrong to do. He went so far as to say that to lie to save another's life is an evil act.

I wish I had the moral fiber to be willing to die for a principle. Not many do. Those people are the kind of people that deserve Exalted status, per BoED.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 12:52 AM
Uh...what? I'd say the proper response is to do your utmost to smite the sadistic bastards giving you the choice and save the girls, if necessary laying down your life to protect them.
Premises of the scenario. You could, perhaps, try to prevent the crime by dealing out simple violence to the deserving, but you know already that that isn't sufficient. Whether or not you are willing to lay down your life, failure is a given unless you take the alternative offered. Arguing that the scenario is ill-designed is missing the point, unless you're claiming that no such scenario could possibly occur.

I wish I had the moral fiber to be willing to die for a principle. Not many do. Those people are the kind of people that deserve Exalted status, per BoED.
Willingness to die for a principle and willingness to sacrifice arbitrarily many others for the same principle are not necessarily the same thing. Did Kant go so far as to say that to lie to save the entire world would be evil? Because the BoED did.

You can have principles like that in theory. Can you tolerate someone with principles like that, though?

Devin
2007-10-09, 01:37 AM
Kant would see no moral question to the part I bolded. To Lie is an inherent evil, in his mind - one of the few things that is always wrong to do. He went so far as to say that to lie to save another's life is an evil act.

I will always disagree with that. I'm not talking about D&D rules, necessarily, I just think that that kind of philosophy requires one to do evil(as in the case of hiding Jews from questioning Nazis). There are few, if any, acts that are always, without exception, wrong.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-09, 01:59 AM
Okay. First of all, I like a lot of the stuff in the book. Subduing Strike, and Holy subdual, for example, as mechanics, are extremely interesting to me. They represent the ability to take the most potent of one's abilities to do lasting harm, and instead prevent someone from doing harm to others. The second feat is especially nice for Paladins if your DM rules that if you convert to subdual, the people targeted don't have to be evil. In one such campaign, I have a paladin that, unless there was evidence that non-lethal wasn't going to be able to take down their foe, will always do non-lethal, thus showing mercy, and reflecting a chance at redemption.

At the same time, this presents the possibility of recurring vengeful villains that my character had the chance to end. I'm considering getting some ranks in handle animal, and a big old jail cart to follow her around.

That being said, I am split when it comes to the fluff in the book of Exaulted deeds.

I come from a religion that, if described in D&D terms, is lawful good (even if the practitioners aren't always... yes, I'm looking at you inquisition), and in that religion, lying is a sin. Have I lied? Yes. Most often it was a slip and had I thought about what I was doing for just an additional moment, I wouldn't have, and it was a statement that, while technically true, still deceived. Honesty is a point of honor with me, and while I sometimes fail in it, I still attempt to emulate this virtue. People around me, including people I respect talk about how being honest "to a fault" is bad. I still have trouble understanding how one can be honest "to a fault."

That being said, lying in D&D is generally not an evil act, it is a chaotic one. That being said, lying can be part of an evil act - betreyal. Some may argue that every lie is a betreyal, since people are trusting you to tell the truth. I very much doubt that your enemy truly trusts you.

On the other hand... who says that lawful good people won't attempt to overthrow a government? If the government is no longer serving it's purpose of protecting and guiding it's people, but rather has become a tryranical despotic place where the upper echelons use their power for nothing but power, and of course it becomes the goal of all paladins in the surrounding area that the evil government no longer exist, and one that will protect it's people is put up in it's place. The big difference here is whether the government is corrupt enough that it no longer counts as a legitimate authority, or not.

I like the emphasis on good and exalted characters attempting redemption, however to attempt to offer redemption, or mercy, one must believe that the one asking for mercy, or redemption, truly means it.

That is to say, if someone yields on the battle field, for it to be required of a paladin or an exalted to yield, they have to have a reasonable belief that the person yielding won't just wait until their sword is lowered to pull out a ray of disintegrate, or the like. Giving someone the benefit of a reasonable doubt, however, is something every exalted or Paladin should do.

As for an evil act always being evil, and shifting the balance to the side of evil... I'd like to use torture as an example. Let's say that a certain country, or group of adventurers is known for doing good. Let's say that they have someone in their clutches that they -know- has information about a plot to activate a dooms day artifact in the middle of the capitol city.

Now, let's say they torture the guy to get that information. Evil ends to save lives, right?

Well, now the whole world sees this good government, or group of adventurers torturing this person "for the ends of good." Torture has just become a whole lot more reasonable in the eyes of the world. There is a decay of the moral prohibition against it. Because "It's okay to do it when things are really on the line." Less moral countries who haven't been using torture may begin using it in less than dire circumstances.

The world, and thus the balance of power in the multiverse... has just shifted towards evil.

If the government refuses to torture the person... those people are in danger. However they already were in danger. You're refusing to take a particular tact in attempting to remove that danger. Of course, in this circumstance, you have other tactics to try... and even if you know the person has the information... torture has never really been the best way of getting that information out of a person. Some of those tactics may leave a sour taste in your mouth, such as granting a lesser villain his freedom in order to gain the information needed to save lives from a greater villian. You may even have to wind up rewarding the person for the information... but in the end, there are other ways to get the information.

By the same token.... someone that the hero loves with all their heart and soul... perhaps their father who is an ornery cuss who drinks heavily, and is absorbed by their work... has their heart cut out in front of you by a man with a distinguishing characteristic. They then redouble their training, and bend all their will against a moment of vengeance. When they finally corner the person who killed their parent they let the person beg for mercy. In fact, the hero encourages it. Finally, when the villain offers the hero "anything you want", the hero says "I want my father back, you son of a bitch" and runs the 6 fingered man through with the masterwork his father made... and then later stories are told of this admittedly epic adventure... vengeance seems not only excusable, but acceptable... perhaps even heroic. And thus... mercy is granted a little bit less often.

The world just took a turn away from mercy, and towards vengeance. The balance of power has shifted, if just a little bit, away from the side of the angels (or archerons if you prefer).

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-09, 02:01 AM
I will always disagree with that. I'm not talking about D&D rules, necessarily, I just think that that kind of philosophy requires one to do evil(as in the case of hiding Jews from questioning Nazis). There are few, if any, acts that are always, without exception, wrong.

This depends entirely upon how one views a hobsons choice. To do one is wrong. To do the other, is also wrong. Does picking the lesser of two evils make it less wrong? Or does it just mean that between two wrong actions, one has made a choice between them?

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-09, 02:29 AM
I will always disagree with that. I'm not talking about D&D rules, necessarily, I just think that that kind of philosophy requires one to do evil(as in the case of hiding Jews from questioning Nazis). There are few, if any, acts that are always, without exception, wrong.

Actually, that kind of philosophy requires that one be empowered. In the case of hiding Jews from Nazis, for example, the morally correct thing to do is to remove the Nazis. This course is generally not possible, and thus the best thing you can do is to lie. This does not change the fact that you are violating your principles in so doing, and if you don't feel the slightest bit guilty about lieing, even in such an extreme situation, then you clearly don't believe that lieing is wrong.

Lieing isn't something that I personally consider to be a sin, but I do believe in moral absolutes, and I do believe that it is possible to be forced into a situation where there are no realistic choices other than sinful ones (re: the sadistic dilemma). In my mind, there are two types of sins- doing something you believe to be wrong, and doing something that is in fact wrong.

Devin
2007-10-09, 02:29 AM
I don't think lying to protect someone is evil(unless you're protecting their capability to do evil). Most acts(I will admit that there are possible exceptions) can be good or evil, depending on the situation. I think that every situation and every act deserves its own individual judging. Lying isn't always right, but neither is total honesty.

Someone who is "honest to a fault" could cause pointless suffering and help others to commit evil acts. They could also say things that need to be said, when no one else is willing, or stand up to corrupt authorities. Lying can cause pointless suffering, but it can also protect people.


If I lied to protect someone from horrible torture and degradation, I wouldn't feel bad at all. I would be proud of myself for helping them even at risk to myself. I don't believe lying is in and of itself wrong. I think that there are conditions that can make it wrong

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-09, 02:44 AM
I don't believe lying is in and of itself wrong

That just means that you aren't a Kantian. I'm not either. There are some people that are, and because morality is not objective, they can be right in that belief at the same time that we are right in believing that lying is not wrong. However, if you belive that lying is wrong, it does not matter what the circumstances are, you cannot lie without sinning. If, on the other hand, you believe in some other principle, such as preserving human life, you won't might not care about lying. You might, however, have strong issues about abortion and physician assisted suicide, and probably also object to military service.

If you have multiple principles that you hold to (most people do), it is likely they will at some point conflict. In that instance, there will be guilt no matter what you do.

Khanderas
2007-10-09, 04:29 AM
The character is powerful enough to take out 5 layers of the abyss in a fit of rage.
How did he get captured ? Or how does he stay captured ?

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 04:43 AM
The character is powerful enough to take out 5 layers of the abyss in a fit of rage.
How did he get captured ? Or how does he stay captured ?

Also, what's his level build?

His ability scores? Skills? Has he finally run out of feats to take? How do you choose your daily maneuvers? What's this homebrew PrC he's going to have levels in? What are the levels/builds of the other members of his adventuring party?

And not just mechanical questions...

How old is he? Can he even relate to mundane humans anymore? How does he interact with normal society? Does he bathe in lava pools to soothe sore muscles? What campaign setting is this, and what could possibly challenge him?

I need to know this, because, damn man. Seriously.

Irreverent Fool
2007-10-09, 05:10 AM
\ETA: just for the record, the whole "female character gets raped solely to advance the male protagonist's story" thing? Try and do less of it, people.

One of our male PCs was raped by trolls in a pocket dimension with slowed time for (to him) 100 years before we could get him out. Is that better?

Starsinger
2007-10-09, 05:17 AM
One of our male PCs was raped by trolls in a pocket dimension with slowed time for (to him) 100 years before we could get him out. Is that better?

Not particularly... Rape is not really something appropriate for a role-playing game, regardless who does it, or who it is done to. Especially since I'm pretty sure (pardon me if I'm wrong) that this wasn't Rape rape so much as typical heterosexual "Exit-only hole!" violation, or since this is a pocket dimension, "prison sex".. I even imagine the DM snickered as he said what was going on.

I mean I could be wrong, and it could've been a traumatic event for the PC, but really... it's not necessary. There are other ways to mentally break someone in D&D without having to resort to rape, and there are other ways to physically break someone... So really, why?

Rape is a tragedy.. not a plot device.

Lord_Gareth
2007-10-09, 05:54 AM
I have to agree that the topic of rape is one to be handled seriously in-game and not used lightly. It's not to be toyed with or joked about (unless one happens to be on the internet, where it is apparantly the joke of choice).

Ignore the 100th level character, okay? We're debating morals in D&D.

Which, by the way, is what I've been doing. My IRL morals are officially Effed Up and include perfectly acceptable murder of certain people (stupid ones). However, when it comes to D&D, I follow the absolutes system - the one I've been defending.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 06:19 AM
Second, the whole concept of exalteds. It's tremendously flawed, and was apparently thought for characters who are to be played Holier-than-thou, no surprises PC's, and uncreative DM's who won't pit their PC's against moral dilemmas.


You have been captured by bandits who are terrible enemies of your land. You know that they're looking for a way to enter the capital city of your kingdom, and that they'll stop at nothing to acquire knowledge to enter. The leader of the bandits offers you a choice: Tell him of the truth or die. You know of traps settled to stop invaders, and could tell them a yarn to get them in those traps. Problem is, however, you, by definition of the LG Exalted "Will not lie, cheat, or steal". So, you have a lose-lose situation. Either you lie to save your city (and according to BoED, "a battle was lost, even if a war was won. By doing an evil act, no matter the intentions, you still do evil."), or you tell the truth and doom it. This makes clear flaw in the concept. Evidently, in this situation, you are expected to play Lawful Stupid, since you'll be damned even when you do good by lieing. You can only pick to retain your so-called purity by saying the truth, and keep your feats, or lie, do some REAL good, and lose 'em.
As inconvient as it may seem to you, the fact remains that morals do indeed limit the options for those who deeply believe in their values. The "REAL GOOD" you speak of is not, in fact, either REAL or GOOD. There are plenty of real-world examples which speak to this:

The devout worshiper of a good god, enraged at presence of the abortion clinic, snipes down the doctor on his way in the door. No amount of "By taking this life I have saved many others" mealy-mouthing on the part of the sniper can alter the fact that he has just violated one of the primary tenets of the faith he professes to hold true to: Thou shalt not kill.

The government agent who has custody of an enemy soldier. This soldier may have information which if learned could save the lifes of friendly soldiers or civilians. And so out come the implements of torture, despite the international treaties the agant has sworn to uphold in the name of his country. After all, it's in the name of "the greater good".

But morals can not be thrown aside in the name of "the greater good". They must be adhered to, even if it hurts. This is not not Lawful Stupid, this is true faith, whether to a diety or a set of ideals or a personal code or ethos, it's all the same in the end. Professing to follow the rules of a diety, or a personal code or ethos can not be something that comes with an on/off switch unless you acknowledge your own (I am not referring to the OP here, to be clear) hypocricy.

As has been pointed out by others above, your assessment of the options available to a character in the position you describe fails to include several options which would allow the character to retain their exalted status. If the player fails to exercise those options due to their failure to understand the role they have chosen to play by choosing to play an exalted, then losing the benefits of being exalted is probably doing them and the campaign a huge favor. If being an exalted means nothing more to the player than a set of advantages without the accompanying disadvantages, some other set of advantages would be a better option for that player.

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 06:35 AM
As inconvient as it may seem to you, the fact remains that morals do indeed limit the options for those who deeply believe in their values. The "REAL GOOD" you speak of is not, in fact, either REAL or GOOD. There are plenty of real-world examples which speak to this:

The devout worshiper of a good god, enraged at presence of the abortion clinic, snipes down the doctor on his way in the door. No amount of "By taking this life I have saved many others" mealy-mouthing on the part of the sniper can alter the fact that he has just violated one of the primary tenets of the faith he professes to hold true to: Thou shalt not kill.

This is D&D, not Bible: d20 edition.

It says right on page nine of BoED that good characters using violence to further good causes is not an evil act.

A paladin comes to and evil character who has been creating undead from innocent civilians. The paladin states plainly, "Stop creating undead and turn yourself in."

The necromancer responds, "No way in the Nine Hells, chief."

And the paladin smiles, because this is why the good lord Pelor gave him two-handed power attack.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 07:03 AM
This is D&D, not Bible: d20 edition.

It says right on page nine of BoED that good characters using violence to further good causes is not an evil act.

A paladin comes to and evil character who has been creating undead from innocent civilians. The paladin states plainly, "Stop creating undead and turn yourself in."

The necromancer responds, "No way in the Nine Hells, chief."

And the paladin smiles, because this is why the good lord Pelor gave him two-handed power attack.

I never said anything about the Bible specifically, I only used a tenet of that faith as a part of an example of how following the rules can seem to be difficult, but only if you lack the fullness of faith in whatever principals you claim to hold as sacred to follow them when it may seem to be inconvenient.

If your D&D deity has certain expectations for the behavior of his/her followers, and your character choses to ignore them in the name of expediency, then I'd expect that deity to be a bit miffed with the character. If that character is exalted, the penalty for this disregarding of the rules as laid down by the deity become more severe, as there are advantages given specifically for following those rules. This should not be a hard thing to understand.

Neither of my examples was anything close to your Paladin vs. Necromancer example. Your example would be clear cut unless the deity specifically requires pacificm from his/her followers (not a very likely deity for a player character). And while violence != evil, there is a significant difference between laying down a righteous smack down and lying, cheating, and stealing (or sniping or torturing) all the while claiming that it is for "the greater good". The deity is perfectly within their rights to take a "Get with the program, or get lost" attitude towards followers who are more interested in seeking loopholes or otherwise failing to live up to their expectations with the fervor expected of those followers who are of exalted status. If the player seeks to find ways around these expectations, this is a strong indication that that player was only interested in playing an exalted due to some of the perks which come with the status. Again, if living (and playing) with the disadvantages that come with the advantages seems like a hard thing to any player, they should seek out another set of advantages which will be easier to roleplay.

Kioran
2007-10-09, 07:10 AM
This is D&D, not Bible: d20 edition.

It says right on page nine of BoED that good characters using violence to further good causes is not an evil act.

A paladin comes to and evil character who has been creating undead from innocent civilians. The paladin states plainly, "Stop creating undead and turn yourself in."

The necromancer responds, "No way in the Nine Hells, chief."

And the paladin smiles, because this is why the good lord Pelor gave him two-handed power attack.

Yes. But still, there is a major difference between an exalted, "firmly entrenched in good" character and Jack Bauer. I´m aware that "effective tactics" for good ends are totally en vogue these days, but what it amounts to is Neutral Evil, just on the right side. "Neutral effective", abbreviated NE, is a repeated in-joke in my group after a player, who is NE IRL as well, went around laying forest fires to delay armies, intimidating Peasants for shelter and brainwashing enemy soldiers IC. He called it effective........

Seriously, Exalted is being so good it hurts. A difficult proposition to some, but then, it isn´t for everyone......

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 08:00 AM
And while violence != evil, there is a significant difference between laying down a righteous smack down and lying, cheating, and stealing (or sniping or torturing) all the while claiming that it is for "the greater good".

I fail to see how sniping could be construed as an inherently non-good (or even non-exalted) act.

Sneak attack isn't non-exalted. Casting Greater Invisibility and sneak attacking the pants of an evil target who has been performing harmful/aggressive evil actions isn't a non-exalted act.

Why should killing an objectively evil person who is carrying out evil actions (for the sake of argument, let's not turn this into an abortion debate) be a non-exalted action, just because a character did it from several hundred feet away?

When playing BoED games, you have to leave real-world morality behind and treat "good" and "evil" as almost self-aware, objective forces of nature, rather than hazy philosophical concepts.

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 08:12 AM
Yes. But still, there is a major difference between an exalted, "firmly entrenched in good" character and Jack Bauer. I´m aware that "effective tactics" for good ends are totally en vogue these days, but what it amounts to is Neutral Evil, just on the right side. "Neutral effective", abbreviated NE, is a repeated in-joke in my group after a player, who is NE IRL as well, went around laying forest fires to delay armies, intimidating Peasants for shelter and brainwashing enemy soldiers IC. He called it effective........

Seriously, Exalted is being so good it hurts. A difficult proposition to some, but then, it isn´t for everyone......

Well, good thing the paladin in my example is only killing an overtly evil person who has committed clearly evil actions, and not doing anything that would be considered non-good in D&D morality.

Killing an evil person quickly and effectively is not synonymous with starting a forest fire, taking away a person's freedom, torture, or any other blatantly evil actions.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-09, 08:41 AM
Many reviews says that the BoED is greatly flawed, because it's fluffy was not based on a big volume of material like BoVD. It's like they were making things up as they went.
BoVD has a lot of background and example characters, while BoED is all about the "holier than thou".
Funny about the "taint" thing, when they have a whole chapter for "redeemed villains". It shows you the kind of consistency they have.
Myself, I just drop the "holier than thou" parts, and use the rest.

About the lose-lose situation, as people pointed out, there is always a 3rd option. In most stories, the hero is faced with a tough choice, and need to think outside of the box.
For example, in that Phoenix Wright game. I read on a walkthrough, that in one of the levels, you are defending a murderer, and even tough you know he is guilty, you can't give up the cause, because his henchmen kidnapped someone, and if you try to reveal him, the hostage will be killed. If you defend his case to the end, he'll be free, and an innocent person will be thrown in jail instead.
To pass that level, you need to trick your "client" into going into contradiction, to cancel the trial, or something.

Serenity
2007-10-09, 08:44 AM
See, I've got no problem saying that the ends don't justify the means. I hold no brief whatsoever for people who decide 'I shall damn myself to save others.' Ozymandias and the Operative are evil villains. But things like lying about your city's defenses to the bandits who want to loot, plunder, and rape is so many light years away from 'the ends justify the means' that its not even funny. Any philosophy that says I should feel guilty for telling a Nazi 'no Jews here' is inherently flawed.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 09:21 AM
I fail to see how sniping could be construed as an inherently non-good (or even non-exalted) act.Then perhaps you are not suited, IRL, to correctly play an exalted character.


Sneak attack isn't non-exalted. Casting Greater Invisibility and sneak attacking the pants of an evil target who has been performing harmful/aggressive evil actions isn't a non-exalted act.

Why should killing an objectively evil person who is carrying out evil actions (for the sake of argument, let's not turn this into an abortion debate) be a non-exalted action, just because a character did it from several hundred feet away?

When playing BoED games, you have to leave real-world morality behind and treat "good" and "evil" as almost self-aware, objective forces of nature, rather than hazy philosophical concepts.Taken in the context given, the sniper is killing someone who is not actively engaging in an evil act (agreeing with keeping the debate other than on abortion). They are engaging in an act which is lawful within the greater society in which they reside, which is itself of a lawful bent and values good for the most part. If the act is objectionable to the exalted's deity, there are still a wealth of other lawful and good actions which could easily be undertaken to try to dissuade or prevent the activity, short of slaying from a distance. Arguably, the identity of the victim is far less able to be certain, as well as other unfortunate possibilities such as the victim being on their way in to tender their resignation rather than actually performing any more of the objectionable activity. Sniping is evil for these reasons, as it precludes the possibility of redemption and short circuits other just and good methods for achieving the desired end. If it hasn't been made adequately clear by now, the ends do not justify the means, to the extent that this is specifically defined as a path which risks/makes certain the loss of the exalted status.

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 09:32 AM
Exalted characters are not beholden to their deities or society to keep their exalted status.

Exalted status is achieved through behavior, not adherence. If a character knows an evil person has repeatedly committed evil actions that directly harm others, and if that evil person will continue to perform those evil actions, killing that evil person is not a non-exalted action. It's preferable that the exalted characters subdue the evil character and turn them over, but it isn't required. And if exalted characters are living in a society where evil actions are legalized and commonplace, it is still not non-exalted to kill those who perpetrate evil actions at the victimization of others: that's just chaotic.

An exalted person should offer a villain a chance to surrender, but it isn't a requirement. They should attempt to redeem evil is because redemption of evil is "more good" than simply halting evil. But stopping evil is still good.

Now, of course, not all exalted characters would or should be going around meting out vigilante justice. They very well could earn the ire of society and their deity by doing so, but deities and civilizations do not decide who is and is not exalted.

Therefore, to me, it seems like sniping the guy who has been perpetrating evil actions at the victimization of others would be an acceptable act for an exalted character, but said sniper would probably lose brownie points at his or her exalted book club.

Keld Denar
2007-10-09, 10:03 AM
Why do you people call it 2 choices? There is no "Do a little evil now, save a lot of evil later." You arn't stuck with just those 2 choices. In life, there are millions of choices. If your character can only see 2, he/she isn't looking broad enough, and don't deserve to be exalted. That's it. Plain and simple. You can escape, fight back, convert, convince, or endure suffering ment for others, or any combination of the above. And thats not even an all inclusive list. If things are really stacked up against you (such as an entire horde of demons wreaking havok on the prime) then with enough faith, the character should be able to do something, something that is the right thing, without giving up his/her ideality. If the DM doesn't allow that, then he/she does not deserve to hold the title of DM for putting your character on a suicidal path to martyrdom (unless its intended plot, and even then...geeze) similar to "rocks fall." The point of being exalted is having the faith and strength of moral fiber to know that there is always the pure choice, one which results in the greatest good without making any moral sacrifices, only personal sacrifices.

Keld Denar
2007-10-09, 10:18 AM
Therefore, to me, it seems like sniping the guy who has been perpetrating evil actions at the victimization of others would be an acceptable act for an exalted character, but said sniper would probably lose brownie points at his or her exalted book club.

READ TEH BOOK!

Violence is AN answer! In self-defense, in the defense of others who can not defend themselves, or to stop evil in progress, violence is an acceptable option. Not all exalted characters take vow of peace or vow of nonviolence.

That said, violence should NEVER be the first option (except vs outsiders). The option to surrender, convert, repent, etc, should ALWAYS be given. That said, if the guy IS truely evil, and plans to continue eating babies/kicking puppies despite your warnings and attempts to help him see his errors, it is perfectly acceptable to "snipe the guy". There is a reason police have guns. And there are reasons why there are rules in place for said police to use their weapons in acceptable circumstances. Evil is evil, and will do evil unless you stop it, and unfortunately, sometimes that requires lethal force for your own protection and the protection of others. Just the facts of life.

Non-lethal force could also be used (which is easier to do in D&D than in RL, you never know when that shot to the leg or whatever might miss) to subdue the evil so it can be brought to mortal judgement and payment of misdeeds. This should almost always be considered an option above lethal force.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 10:23 AM
Exalted characters are not beholden to their deities or society to keep their exalted status.

Exalted status is achieved through behavior, not adherence.

[snippage]

Therefore, to me, it seems like sniping the guy who has been perpetrating evil actions at the victimization of others would be an acceptable act for an exalted character, but said sniper would probably lose brownie points at his or her exalted book club.

Yes, the exalted character has no real requirement to try to retain their exalted status. Retaining it appears to be more to the benefit of the player behind the character, who wants to both enjoy the advantages of being exalted while avoiding any fussy rules following that might come up.

For an Exalted, there should be no difference between behavior and adherence.

At the next exalted book club meeting, the other exalted book club members can offer their condolences that the fallen exalted, although still perhaps Lawful and Good (although probably neither if they committed a sniping murder in violation of both the laws and mores of the culture they live in) is no longer qualified to be a member.

As someone above posted, being exalted means being so good it hurts. This means that sniping is right out. I gave numerous reasons why that act is intolerable. If, while playing your exalted, you are too impatient to seek other solutions to the problems vexing you than that of slaying without warning while hidden in the distance, then you have voluntarily given up your exalted state.

To address some of the other concerns posted above:

If your GM presents your exalted character with these lose-lose situations frequently, you have good cause to ask the GM if they simply object to your maintaining your character's exalted status. Ask if either course is allowed in accordance with your deities rules. If the answer is "no", look for an alternative. The German citizen harboring Jews from the Nazis, if asked if he is harboring Jews, can say without lying "You may search my home for Jews and take any that you find". The SS have the power to search in any event, so nothing is lost. If there seems to be no way out, it should be fair to simply ask if the GM intends that you lose your exalted status, and if so, why this determination has come about.

[quotes approximated from imperfect memory]

If your GM presents you with the "Do some evil act which will remove your exalted status or a gaggle of shoolgirls will be raped", leave the game. The GM has emotional issues which should make their company unpleasant to most persons.

If your GM places a PC in a "pocket dimension which slows time so that they end up being raped by trolls for 100 years before being rescued", see the above advice.

D&D is a social game at its core. There may be ways to play it which are fairly repugnant to the vast majority of mature individuals, but it shouldn't be hard to find a group of people who are capable of spending a few hours role or roll playing without involving the rape of either PCs or NPCs, the slaughter of Orc babies, or facing constant tests designed to force the player ot have their character take actions which hurt them no matter which path they select.

It's all in how you handle things. As a GM, the last time a player walked down the path of seducing an NPC, I simply interrupted at an appropriate point (i.e. early) and asked "Do you want something to happen tonight?" The answer was "Yes", and so I said "Then it does. This is, after all, a fantasy game." There was no need to go into any further detail while the other players had to sit and listen to whatever detail this one player wanted to put into his "roleplay". As Piers Anthony might say, simply cut to ellipsis.

...

Kompera
2007-10-09, 10:37 AM
Nevermind :smallamused:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-09, 10:41 AM
Hoewever, the point of exalted is going to new highs of goodness (IF we assume good an evil are based on a mix of intent, means to an end, and remove the "stick up the ass" for exalted requirement which forces you to be stupid-outsider'ish good, and not paragon-of-mortal-good good). If you aren't presented with the lose-lose-win-in-special-cases-with-creativity situations, you won't show WHY you should be exalted.

In most situations, you present lose-lose choices for a reason: It actually forces you to think more "in character" and less in-metagaming-loss-of feats. Most of you talk about how letting the world be ripped asunder is the good path because "it doesn't harm souls yadda yadda ching ching" (sorry if that was offensive). Point is, you forget most people who reincarnate as outsiders actually end with altered consciences. You effectively end lives, even if you help new ones replace the old ones. In the "lie-or-die" example, you forget the death of thousands, or millions, is PAINFUL. It'll hurt the wounded, cause immense suffering to those who die, and traumatize the survivors. How is that good? Isn't a mortal life as valuable as the later eternal existence as an outsider? Isn't life INFINETELY more valuable that some "holier-than-thou, must restrain myself till I snap" *******'s so called great status? And, if you lie and breach your self imposed laws, shouldn't you be allowed to rise back to your position through simple, honest, genuine remorse, and not some spell that requires a deity who couldn't care less about it?


And, on a second concern. Someone asked if my character was even remotely similar to the normal bloke at all anymore. The answer is, so-so. He is immortal, and eternally young. He still has human emotions, and has gone through pretty rough things (his sister died right in front of him, he had to kill his adoptive father, a prismatic dragon, and drink his blood in a special ritual to honour his last will, and has seen great friends and companions rot and wither. In short, he bears great scars, though he is still optimistic), but he also has a more lucid point of view, and is more detached than the average joe. So yeah, he still has similarities, but his tough life has changed him.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 10:44 AM
In D&D, the default assumption is there is an afterlife. This is a fact. Death is not Evil. Death isn't even traumatic unless it's painful. If you die suddenly... "What the heck just happened? Oh, hey, I'm standing in the middle of a green pasture with tiny motes of light floating around. Hey, look, it's Garl Glittergold."

If someone dies... well, so what? If he goes to Hell, it's his own fault. If he goes to Heaven... super, right? If you need him, you can just raise him.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-09, 10:53 AM
You DO remember we were talking about bandits sneaking in to a capital to kill everybody? Not traumatic? Whoa, I must be mistakin' it for dieing of old age after a fruitful and cool life! Sorry, sarcasm off. But yeah, the result would be traumatic deaths. And as I said, By standard, once yuo die and go to the appropiate plane, you become one of the outsiders (a lv1 LG commoner might become a lantern archon). And, as a new being, your conscience is rewritten. In essence, bye bye commone Steve. So, you have just lost "souls" by allowing the bandits to assault the capital. Which unexalts you, permanently.

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 11:32 AM
Yes, the exalted character has no real requirement to try to retain their exalted status. Retaining it appears to be more to the benefit of the player behind the character, who wants to both enjoy the advantages of being exalted while avoiding any fussy rules following that might come up.

For an Exalted, there should be no difference between behavior and adherence.

At the next exalted book club meeting, the other exalted book club members can offer their condolences that the fallen exalted, although still perhaps Lawful and Good (although probably neither if they committed a sniping murder in violation of both the laws and mores of the culture they live in) is no longer qualified to be a member.

As someone above posted, being exalted means being so good it hurts. This means that sniping is right out. I gave numerous reasons why that act is intolerable. If, while playing your exalted, you are too impatient to seek other solutions to the problems vexing you than that of slaying without warning while hidden in the distance, then you have voluntarily given up your exalted state.

Then this brings up a lot of questions:

What about sneak attack?

What about acting in the surprise round?

What about killing someone in the surprise round?

What about Slayers of Domiel?

What about attacking someone more than one range increment away?

What about attacking someone from a distance so great they couldn't conceivably counter attack?

Forcing someone to give up their exalted status because you consider attacking without warning and while hidden to forfeit exalted status brings up A LOT of mechanical questions, probably more than I could think of in a single sitting.

Now, I had typed up a lot of stuff after this, but I honestly think it's more gameplay philosophy debate than anything, which is a dead-end argument.

Though I still think you shouldn't apply real world morality to exalted games, or staple exalted characters to the laws and morals of their society. There's lots of discussion about this in the first chapter of BoED.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-09, 12:00 PM
For an Exalted, there should be no difference between behavior and adherence.

Yes. Adherence to a God was mentioned. Since nothing exalted seems from that their can be a difference.
Even Gods do bad things in D&D. An exalted Character is above that.


At the next exalted book club meeting, the other exalted book club members can offer their condolences that the fallen exalted, although still perhaps Lawful and Good (although probably neither if they committed a sniping murder in violation of both the laws and mores of the culture they live in) is no longer qualified to be a member.

Nope. The "fallen" exalted questions why they think he is fallen. He still has all his exalted goodness, he followed his code, and stayed the path. He even has mechanical feats still working.

They might think him a criminal, but he shrugs and says humbly: believe what you will. I did what is allowed by Goodness.
He leaves if they call the cops. But is justified by Goodness.

Just because laws say, "Don't do that" Goodness doesn't say: follow the laws.


As someone above posted, being exalted means being so good it hurts. This means that sniping is right out. I gave numerous reasons why that act is intolerable. If, while playing your exalted, you are too impatient to seek other solutions to the problems vexing you than that of slaying without warning while hidden in the distance, then you have voluntarily given up your exalted state.

Sniping is not right out.
Slayers of Domiel have have Death Attack. Sniping is allowed by D&D + BoED.
Just becuse your morals' interpretation of Exalted differs from sniping does not make it non-exalted.

It just means you better tell your players this interpretation.


To address some of the other concerns posted above:

If your GM presents your exalted character with these lose-lose situations frequently, you have good cause to ask the GM if they simply object to your maintaining your character's exalted status. Ask if either course is allowed in accordance with your deities rules. If the answer is "no", look for an alternative. The German citizen harboring Jews from the Nazis, if asked if he is harboring Jews, can say without lying "You may search my home for Jews and take any that you find". The SS have the power to search in any event, so nothing is lost. If there seems to be no way out, it should be fair to simply ask if the GM intends that you lose your exalted status, and if so, why this determination has come about.

Absolutely. I don't find omitting as a lie.



It's all in how you handle things. As a GM, the last time a player walked down the path of seducing an NPC, I simply interrupted at an appropriate point (i.e. early) and asked "Do you want something to happen tonight?" The answer was "Yes", and so I said "Then it does. This is, after all, a fantasy game." There was no need to go into any further detail while the other players had to sit and listen to whatever detail this one player wanted to put into his "roleplay". As Piers Anthony might say, simply cut to ellipsis.

...
Heh. That is one way to go about it.

Kompera
2007-10-09, 12:01 PM
Forcing someone to give up their exalted status because you consider attacking without warning and while hidden to forfeit exalted status brings up A LOT of mechanical questions, probably more than I could think of in a single sitting.It's not only the simple act of attacking without warning which makes the act an evil one, although that remains a strong argument against the deed, it's the uncertainty involved. Was the person going to mend their ways? There's no way to know this when you shoot them dead from 100 yards away. Was it even the right person? Identity is less certain at such a distance. Would a Lawful and Good person take the risk of slaying an innocent in such a case? Even were the identity certain, is sniping an unarmed person who is performing no evil act and who is offering no immediate threat to the sniper a Lawful and Good act?

I know how I would rule in this case, I don't even see it as being a borderline or questionable situation. But I would not allow a character to take this action (were they dead set on doing so out of some fallacy of logic which convinced them that it was the correct course of action to take) without some form of warning. A scriptural quote from their deity's holy book, the memory of a parable learned while in training or while worshiping, whatever. Just so the player doesn't just lose their exalted status and feel shock and dismay at the outcome.

To quote myself: "Sniping is evil for these reasons, [] it precludes the possibility of redemption and short circuits other just and good methods for achieving the desired end. If it hasn't been made adequately clear by now, the ends do not justify the means, to the extent that this is specifically defined as a path which risks/makes certain the loss of the exalted status."

Others of the examples you gave may not invoke the same situation of precluding redemption or mistaking identity as sniping does.

Without wanting to address all of your points, on time more than any other objection, Sneak Attack would be "all fair" in my opinion. It's not usable outside of 30', and with fair warning and an attempt to parlay or otherwise bring about a peaceful resolution a Lawful and Good character could still conceivably end up in combat. After combat begins, Sneak Attack is simply an attempt to "catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack". Duelists commonly attempt to drive their opponent's blades off guard for just such a reason, having it performed by a character called a Rogue does not make the act Evil or Unlawful by any stretch. Lawful Good does not have to be Lawful Stupid, despite the restrictions of this alignment, some classes, or the Exalted status. The Exalted does not have to drop her shield simply because her opponent lost his own, barring any chivalric code which might require such an act.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 12:02 PM
If death is not an evil thing, and allowing a city of people to be tortured and murdered is not, infact, an evil dead per say because suffering is temporary and hey, those souls are going somewhere groovy afterwards anyway, then, well... There's a problem when you apply that argument to anything else.

Basically, if the above is true, then murder, no matter the reason or victim, is not an Evil act. Murder, under the above reasoning, is not Evil. Because there is no real suffering caused, after all. Death doesn't really matter, you're off upstairs to the shiny cloud-place anyway, right? Everything's Shiny.

On the other hand, if Murder IS Evil, because, well, it's fricken Murder, then so is allowing the death of someone else merely to maintain your Cosmically favoured status. Because that scenario is your classical Asimov laws of robotics issue.

ie; A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

By failing to stop the Murder of several thousand people, whatever the means in question, you have effectively murdered them yourself.

Basically, The BoED's example of an Exalted act, protecting your own 'Goodness' above the lives of others, may well be 'Exalted' in the DnD universe, if Good and Evil are active forces rather than abstract ideas.

But even in that Universe, though the act does not empower the Forces of Darkness, or even actually Empowers the forces of Good, it is still, even inside that universe, a selfish, petty and vile act. The Saint who breaks his vow of truth to save the lives of an entire City is still infinitely more the better person than the Saint who holds to his vows and knowingly dooms a hundred thousand to their graves.

Serenity
2007-10-09, 12:06 PM
Tactics, short of using human shields and similar, are not inherently evil. Their moral value comes from their context. Sniping an abortion doctor: evil. It's cold-blooded murder when dozens, even hundreds of other options are open to you. Sniping a Demon Lord you couldn't face in direct combat? That's solidly a good act. Even Exalted status does not mean Lawful Stupid, especially since Chaotic Good characters can be Exalted.

I've got no problem with denying that the ends justify the means. I've got no problem with presenting Exalted characters hard dilemmas, since they are supposed to be the best of the best. But there should always be a third choice, and 'trick the bandits or let your city fall' shouldn't come anywhere near dilemma status.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 12:22 PM
Murdering someone is evil if they don't deserve it. Torture is also evil.

Death, as a concept, is not Evil. If the bandits torture and maim everyone, well, that's on their souls. Letting someone die is not Evil. It's Neutral. It's not the best outcome, but it's a better outcome than performing an Evil act to stop it happening. And lying is not Evil, the BoED is stupid in that regard.

...And it says nowhere in any of the books that when you die you become a 1 HD outsider, I'm sorry. :smallconfused: Raising would not work if that happened, because... how can they agree to come back to life if they don't remember ever being alive?

Starbuck_II
2007-10-09, 12:24 PM
If death is not an evil thing, and allowing a city of people to be tortured and murdered is not, infact, an evil dead per say because suffering is temporary and hey, those souls are going somewhere groovy afterwards anyway, then, well... There's a problem when you apply that argument to anything else.

Basically, if the above is true, then murder, no matter the reason or victim, is not an Evil act. Murder, under the above reasoning, is not Evil. Because there is no real suffering caused, after all. Death doesn't really matter, you're off upstairs to the shiny cloud-place anyway, right? Everything's Shiny.

On the other hand, if Murder IS Evil, because, well, it's fricken Murder, then so is allowing the death of someone else merely to maintain your Cosmically favoured status. Because that scenario is your classical Asimov laws of robotics issue.

Diffference.
If I take your life that is wrong because it was niot mine to take: murder or killing. Evil to take another life (without the right).

But if I don't do evil to not stop someone else: Why am I being punished for their deed? Doesn't matter if I decide to do it or not. Why are you punishing Bob for Richard killing Keith?!

Richard should be punished not Bob!

D&D does not punish someone for inaction.


By failing to stop the Murder of several thousand people, whatever the means in question, you have effectively murdered them yourself.

Does not compute.
In America, not saving someone is legal. In fact, many Doctors do so if the patient is a organ donor. But our laws only punish for actions.

You first must prove not acting is punishable in D&D. Or even real life.
Because all the facts prove otherwise.

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 12:28 PM
Without wanting to address all of your points, on time more than any other objection, Sneak Attack would be "all fair" in my opinion. It's not usable outside of 30', and with fair warning and an attempt to parlay or otherwise bring about a peaceful resolution a Lawful and Good character could still conceivably end up in combat. After combat begins, Sneak Attack is simply an attempt to "catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack". Duelists commonly attempt to drive their opponent's blades off guard for just such a reason, having it performed by a character called a Rogue does not make the act Evil or Unlawful by any stretch. Lawful Good does not have to be Lawful Stupid, despite the restrictions of this alignment, some classes, or the Exalted status. The Exalted does not have to drop her shield simply because her opponent lost his own, barring any chivalric code which might require such an act.

Well, I could see this argument being valid, if there wasn't magic. But in a magical world, it's no stretch of the imagination that a character would be able to acquire magic or magical items that prevent them from erroneously firing on the wrong target.

Next, we come to the whole redemption issue. Yeah, sniping someone would deny them a chance to surrender, and thus work to redeem themselves. But so does a slay living or disintegrate spell. If you make those spells force a loss of exalted status, you might as well require all exalted characters take the vow of non-violence and vow of peace feats ASAP. Or just give them to them as bonus feats at character creation.

You also specifically state that attacking while hidden and without warning is something that would forfeit exalted status. That's a situation that can easily qualify sneak attack requirements.

In an exalted campaign, the last two points are way too restrictive.

I still think you're coloring this with your own earthly morality. You can't do that in an exalted campaign. To add to this, exalted status still does not come from deities. The god a character worships may give them various class features, but if they somehow break the code of conduct required of them by their deity without doing something that would explicitly cost them their exalted status, they wouldn't necessarily lose their exalted status.

An example of this would be a paladin who kills someone trafficking in child slaves when the paladin knows the slaver would receive a fair and just trial if captured and turned in. Fallen paladin, but still exalted.

If you force an exalted character to always take the parlay > subdue > capture > redeem path, you're not letting players really explore what it means to be exalted, you're forcing them to play their characters with a house-ruled code of conduct (or suffer the loss of their characters' feats).

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 12:42 PM
In D&D, the default assumption is there is an afterlife. This is a fact. Death is not Evil. Death isn't even traumatic unless it's painful. If you die suddenly... "What the heck just happened? Oh, hey, I'm standing in the middle of a green pasture with tiny motes of light floating around. Hey, look, it's Garl Glittergold."

If someone dies... well, so what? If he goes to Hell, it's his own fault. If he goes to Heaven... super, right? If you need him, you can just raise him.
Death isn't evil. Or morally evaluateable, since it's something that happens rather than something done. Killing is often evil. Causing or even permitting people to die is often evil. Harming people or by inaction allowing them to come to harm are both, in most cases, below the standards of even non-exalted good.

If you had an option to save the city without lying and knew about it, it would wipe out your exalted status to decide not to take it. Wouldn't it? But as soon as the only way at your disposal to do so breaks another rule, you are required to let it burn.

Your logic strongly suggests that it would be an exalted act to nerve-gas the entire prime material plane. Incidentally.

About the lose-lose situation, as people pointed out, there is always a 3rd option. In most stories, the hero is faced with a tough choice, and need to think outside of the box.
For example, in that Phoenix Wright game. I read on a walkthrough, that in one of the levels, you are defending a murderer, and even tough you know he is guilty, you can't give up the cause, because his henchmen kidnapped someone, and if you try to reveal him, the hostage will be killed. If you defend his case to the end, he'll be free, and an innocent person will be thrown in jail instead.
To pass that level, you need to trick your "client" into going into contradiction, to cancel the trial, or something.
How do you know there's always a third choice? In stories that insist on providing a happy ending, yes. What if in the game case the hostage would, quite reasonably, be killed if you failed to get a not guilty verdict rather than whatever esoteric condition was actually used? In fact, maybe the criminals are jittery and demand not only that your client be found not guilty, but that they be found not guilty on the court date already determined?

If your GM presents you with the "Do some evil act which will remove your exalted status or a gaggle of shoolgirls will be raped", leave the game. The GM has emotional issues which should make their company unpleasant to most persons.
Or, they're not interested in playing an exalted campaign as a feel-good marathon where you can always win by sheer niceness. That isn't a crime. The book, which seems to take itself seriously, essentially suggests that you never face players with a moral decision harder than making personal sacrifices for others. That you can, if appropriate, kill them all for their ideals, but never makelet them actually lose for them. Fine if that's what you want, I guess.:smallyuk:

Yes, your GM can be doing that because they hate you and/or are a person who thinks getting a bunch of imaginary people raped is hilarious. That isn't the only possible reason.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 01:38 PM
Diffference.
If I take your life that is wrong because it was niot mine to take: murder or killing. Evil to take another life (without the right).

But if I don't do evil to not stop someone else: Why am I being punished for their deed? Doesn't matter if I decide to do it or not. Why are you punishing Bob for Richard killing Keith?!

Richard should be punished not Bob!

D&D does not punish someone for inaction.

Does not compute.
In America, not saving someone is legal. In fact, many Doctors do so if the patient is a organ donor. But our laws only punish for actions.

You first must prove not acting is punishable in D&D. Or even real life.
Because all the facts prove otherwise.

I didn't say not-acting is punishable anywhere. My point was, it is wrong.
Not doing a small evil act (say, break a promise or tell a lie,whatever. Something minor.) to prevent a large evil act (Genocide?) may not result in actual Punishment either in the Real-World or DnD. The point is, just because your Deity doesn't take away your shiny toys, or the courts fine you for committing some petty crime(yeah yeah, Law != good, i know. Besides the point), doesn't make Inaction a good, or even neutral act.

If you stand by, and allow an enormously, cosmically evil thing to occur, willingly, with plenty of knowledge beforehand, when it is within your power to do something to prevent it, then inaction is tantamount to endorsement. It is Colluding, Aiding and Abetting. It is an Evil Act.

If Steve travels back in time and tells Bob that he can save the lives of 6 million Jews, but the only possible way to do so without damaging the fabric of spacetime is to murder a currently innocent young Austrian Painter called Adolf, and Bob accepts this to be true, then when Bob refuses to commit murder, because murder is wrong, he has allowed The Holocaust to happen.

Bob just murdered 6 million Jews. Bob did not lose his Exalted status, because he did what the BoED tells him is just and correct to do. The Forces of Good gain in strength as he refuses to 'Taint his Soul' by using the methods of The Forces of Evil'.
6 Million Jews are tortured and killed, WW2 is not averted. Bob has commited an evil act, by refusing to commit an Evil act.


aaaand now I've mentioned the Nazi's, so officially the thread is over. ^_^

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 01:40 PM
You can't be punished for something you didn't do.

Exalted characters are not Isaac Asimov's robots.

Exalted and Good are also not the same. A Good character will perform an Evil act to stop an even greater Evil, no problem. An Exalted character might, too, but he would no longer be Exalted if he did.

Being Exalted means being Good to a fault. Exalted characters are painfully Good. They're more Good than is actually humanly possible. They are not held to the same standards as normal Good mortals. In fact, they're not held to the same standards as most gods are.

Exalted does not mean "Good". It means "Super Good". It means Good++. Most gods aren't Good++, they're just Good (or possibly Good+).

Exalted characters are, in fact, holier than thou.

Starsinger
2007-10-09, 01:42 PM
Or, they're not interested in playing an exalted campaign as a feel-good marathon where you can always win by sheer niceness. That isn't a crime. The book, which seems to take itself seriously, essentially suggests that you never face players with a moral decision harder than making personal sacrifices for others. That you can, if appropriate, kill them all for their ideals, but never makelet them actually lose for them. Fine if that's what you want, I guess.:smallyuk:

I rather think otherwise... Why should the DM put you in such a situation? "Lose your powers or harm these innocents" the latter of which, incidentally, should make them lose their exalted powers, is a terrible situation. "Martyrdom or harm these innocents" is better, although with the revolving door afterlife...

I really like the book of ED in theory. But I think there needs to be some sort of redemption clause, for exalted characters who sacrifice their stuff for the greater good, and so that redeemed villains can actually work. I mean.. to call upon the Bible for an example... Saint Paul, before he became Christian, was a public official who had christians killed, constantly.

Telonius
2007-10-09, 01:50 PM
One premise of the BoED is that the end does not justify the means. You can destroy all evil for all time by kicking a single puppy. If you make that decision, it doesn't matter that you've vanquished all evil. You are still a puppy-kicker, and no amount of remorse or penance will change that fact. Way-out-there extreme example, but that's the logical end of it.

You might not agree with it - and you might (as I do) arrange your real-world morals in a different way - but that's how it works in the game world. It's self-consistent. Not everybody enjoys it, and not every campaign works with it. But that's Exalted Deeds.

EDIT: I think I may have glossed over this previously, but there's a distinction that does have relevance: Moral Evil versus natural evil. Moral Evil is evil that is chosen. Natural evil, or suffering, is something bad that happens to you. (This is often a result of a Moral Evil, but can be because of a natural event like an earthquake, plague, etc). For an Exalted character, suffering is something that sometimes has to be endured; but Moral Evil is something that must be avoided.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 01:54 PM
You can't be punished for something you didn't do.

Exalted characters are not Isaac Asimov's robots.

Exalted and Good are also not the same. A Good character will perform an Evil act to stop an even greater Evil, no problem. An Exalted character might, too, but he would no longer be Exalted if he did.

Being Exalted means being Good to a fault. Exalted characters are painfully Good. They're more Good than is actually humanly possible. They are not held to the same standards as normal Good mortals.

Exalted characters are, in fact, holier than thou.

All well and true. The problem with this, is, basically;
Good characters will prevent the greater evil. Exalted Characters will avoid the Minor Evil instead, to preserve their status and to aid not their fellow man, but abstract extraplanar forces.

The BoED says, basically, that the 'Good Character' is infact choosing WRONGLY. The Exalted Character is a Good Character Held to certain criteria, basically. It's not a separate thing. It's like a big shiny badge. "Congratulations, youre Good! You're Good really good, and have been for a long time!". It's certificate, it's membership to a gentlemans club. It's Status

The problem with BoED is not that if the Exalted Good prevents the larger evil that he must also sacrifice his Gentleman's Club-Card and his Celestial No-claims bonus. That's fine, and probably right, too.
The problem is where it says "It is, infact, more Evil to allow yourself to fall and by doing so, stop the Great Evil, than to allow the Great Evil to occur". Martyring yourself, losing your Exalted, Sainted status to save all of reality from destruction is, according to the BoED, unequivocally the Wrong Thing to Do.
No Matter What.

I just can't agree with that, under any moral structure or cosmological structure.

MartinHarper
2007-10-09, 01:55 PM
I think I would follow this thread better if people didn't use the word "good" on its own quite so much. It seems that some of you use "good" to mean the personal, subjective, morally right thing to do, whilst some of you use "good" to mean the objective, universal, Exalted Lawful Good thing to do. This makes posts hard to understand.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 01:56 PM
One premise of the BoED is that the end does not justify the means. You can destroy all evil for all time by kicking a single puppy. If you make that decision, it doesn't matter that you've vanquished all evil. You are still a puppy-kicker, and no amount of remorse or penance will change that fact. Way-out-there extreme example, but that's the logical end of it.

You might not agree with it - and you might (as I do) arrange your real-world morals in a different way - but that's how it works in the game world. It's self-consistent. Not everybody enjoys it, and not every campaign works with it. But that's Exalted Deeds.

My point is, I guess, that sure. You're still, and always will be, a Puppy Kicker. The Forces of Puppykicking get the last laugh, in a way.

but Kicking the puppy is still The Right Thing To Do. And this is where I disagree with the BoED.

Telonius
2007-10-09, 02:07 PM
I disagree with it, too, in my everyday life. I'd kick that puppy for a fieldgoal if I had the chance. :smallbiggrin: I'm just saying that, given the premises that the book has, it's pretty self-consistent. I personally disagree with the premises, is all. The book is describing a constructed game world, not real life.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 02:08 PM
I think I would follow this thread better if people didn't use the word "good" on its own quite so much. It seems that some of you use "good" to mean the personal, subjective, morally right thing to do, whilst some of you use "good" to mean the objective, universal, Exalted Lawful Good thing to do. This makes posts hard to understand.

When I say "Good", I mean... well, the objective, universal "Good". When I say "good", I just mean the English language word "good".

This is why I use capital letters. :smallsmile:

MartinHarper
2007-10-09, 02:09 PM
For example, let's deconstruct Tiki's post. Here's the first paragraph, which is simple enough to understand:
----
All well and true. The problem with this, is, basically;
Alignment: non-Exalted Good characters will prevent the greater Alignment: Evil. Alignment: Exalted Good characters will avoid the minor Alignment: Evil instead, to preserve their status and to aid not their fellow man, but abstract extraplanar forces.
--

The next sentence could mean two things:

1. The BoED says that the Alignment: non-Exalted Good character is in fact choosing an option that is less Alignment: Good.

2. The BoED says that the Alignment: non-Exalted Good character is in fact choosing an option that is Morality: Wrong according to the personal morality of someone. (but who?)

The first interpretation seems to be stating the obvious. The second interpretation is more interesting, but I'm dieing to know whose personal morality is being used to judge the act as "wrong". The player? The character? The DM? The book-writer? The poster? Asimov?

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 02:16 PM
Well, everyone seems to think that Good characters can't let people die by inaction, so, "Asimov".

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 02:16 PM
Well, what the book actually says about it is that the 'Good' character who does the minor Evil thing to aid the overall good is actually aiding cosmic evil by so doing. It gets very nebulous about it, but claims vast and far-reaching effects in favor of evil will result.


I rather think otherwise... Why should the DM put you in such a situation? "Lose your powers or harm these innocents" the latter of which, incidentally, should make them lose their exalted powers, is a terrible situation. "Martyrdom or harm these innocents" is better, although with the revolving door afterlife...
Perhaps the DM cares more about making the rest of the world behave reasonably than setting up for your 'dramatic' sacrifice. For instance.

I really like the book of ED in theory. But I think there needs to be some sort of redemption clause, for exalted characters who sacrifice their stuff for the greater good, and so that redeemed villains can actually work. I mean.. to call upon the Bible for an example... Saint Paul, before he became Christian, was a public official who had christians killed, constantly.
Look on page 20. They do.

One premise of the BoED is that the end does not justify the means. You can destroy all evil for all time by kicking a single puppy. If you make that decision, it doesn't matter that you've vanquished all evil. You are still a puppy-kicker, and no amount of remorse or penance will change that fact. Way-out-there extreme example, but that's the logical end of it.
Actually, remorse and penance can make you not a puppy kicker anymore (or rather, get you back the grace you lost by it). But you've actually got to be remorseful for destroying all evil by kicking a puppy, not just regretful that kicking the puppy was necessary or something.

Other than that, yep.

Well, everyone seems to think that Good characters can't let people die by inaction, so, "Asimov".
An example I ran in a past thread: You're sitting on a ledge over a huge cliff, beside someone's climbing rope. The rope begins slowly giving way, and will shortly drop them hundreds of feet onto jagged rocks. You just stand there and casually watch this happen.

Not evil at all?

Some utterly deranged terrorist has hostages and is demanding that you tell him your name or he'll shoot them. He says that's all he wants, and no, your name is not some vital secret. You say nothing.

Still not evil at all?

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 02:20 PM
If your DM doesn't like the restrictions being Exalted places on you, he shouldn't have let you be Exalted. It's his fault, not the player's.

Starsinger
2007-10-09, 02:21 PM
Perhaps the DM cares more about making the rest of the world behave reasonably than setting up for your 'dramatic' sacrifice. For instance.


Except, if he cared about the world acting rationally and believably, he wouldn't have okayed Book of ED or Book of VD. These supplements aren't Frostburn which you can just throw in without affecting how the campaign feels. These supplements (especially together) alter the alignment system, and change the game. It's like playing solitaire, if you throw in another deck of Bicycle cards (assuming that's what you're using) you've doubled the content, but the game is relatively the same. If you throw in a pack of Tarot cards, the rules change drastically.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 02:32 PM
Except, if he cared about the world acting rationally and believably, he wouldn't have okayed Book of ED or Book of VD. These supplements aren't Frostburn which you can just throw in without affecting how the campaign feels. These supplements (especially together) alter the alignment system, and change the game. It's like playing solitaire, if you throw in another deck of Bicycle cards (assuming that's what you're using) you've doubled the content, but the game is relatively the same. If you throw in a pack of Tarot cards, the rules change drastically.
The Book of Exalted Deeds does not demand that the Exalted path lead to any sort of material victory. Not in the parts that are talking about the in-character world. The guy refusing to talk, being killed by the bandits, and having the city sacked anyway, is a perfectly valid path for an Exalted character.

The suggestion that you make sure that PCs may die but don't lose as a result of being Exalted is in the metagame section on running Exalted adventures. It's not that Exalted people don't suffer seemingly ignominious defeats for their principles. You're just advised not to let your players do so.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 03:01 PM
For example, let's deconstruct Tiki's post. Here's the first paragraph, which is simple enough to understand:
----
All well and true. The problem with this, is, basically;
Alignment: non-Exalted Good characters will prevent the greater Alignment: Evil. Alignment: Exalted Good characters will avoid the minor Alignment: Evil instead, to preserve their status and to aid not their fellow man, but abstract extraplanar forces.
--

The next sentence could mean two things:

1. The BoED says that the Alignment: non-Exalted Good character is in fact choosing an option that is less Alignment: Good.

2. The BoED says that the Alignment: non-Exalted Good character is in fact choosing an option that is Morality: Wrong according to the personal morality of someone. (but who?)

The first interpretation seems to be stating the obvious. The second interpretation is more interesting, but I'm dieing to know whose personal morality is being used to judge the act as "wrong". The player? The character? The DM? The book-writer? The poster? Asimov?

A- Alignment: Exalted Good character who choses to become Alignment: Non-Exalted Good Character by choosing an option that is less Alignment: Good has, according to the BoED and (by inference the Universe Itself), committed a bigger and more unforgivable evil than;
B- Alignment: Exalted Good character chooses to not take the option that is less alignment: good, instead deliberately allowing GREAT EVIL (ie, the rape and murder of everyone in the city, the destruction of their entire world, etc).

A loses his Exalted Status, and this is fine, because he has committed an Evil act.
B does not lose his Exalted Status (according to BoED) because he did not commit an Evil act.

But A has effectively committed exponentially less evil-without-a-capitol-e. He could doom Millions to a fate more unspeakable than any we could possibly think up, but the BoED tells us that it doesn't matter. It's more important that he doesn't lose his Exalted status.

There is, in the BoED no get-out-clause about death vs destruction of souls or everlasting torture.
That passage says quite flatly; the little Evil is NEVER justified. no matter what possible Evil it would avert. The condemning of a hundred billion souls to the deepest layers of the Abyss? Not justification. The complete and utter destruction of every mortal soul in the entire material plane? It doesn't matter. It's apparently more evil to stop that happening at the cost of your own special status.


Does that help, at all? The Universe/BoED judges B to be the correct, Good choice, and A to be essentially, the Evil choice.

I personally cannot see that this is remotely possible, and hold that the reverse is true, whatever the cosmic forces of good themselves decide, inside that same universe.

Hamilton
2007-10-09, 03:05 PM
An example I ran in a past thread: You're sitting on a ledge over a huge cliff, beside someone's climbing rope. The rope begins slowly giving way, and will shortly drop them hundreds of feet onto jagged rocks. You just stand there and casually watch this happen.

Not evil at all?

Some utterly deranged terrorist has hostages and is demanding that you tell him your name or he'll shoot them. He says that's all he wants, and no, your name is not some vital secret. You say nothing.

Still not evil at all?

Those are, in D&D morality, and especially Exalted Deeds morality, purely neutral.

Of course, that's rules lawyer territory. The exalted character technically wouldn't lose exalted status for not grabbing the rope or saying his name, but he should still do them, because they're "more right" than standing still or staying silent.

If a player made a habit of doing that, they should definitely lose exalted status eventually, not because they're performing actions that would forfeit exalted status, but because they'd be frickin' neutral.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 04:21 PM
Those are, in D&D morality, and especially Exalted Deeds morality, purely neutral.
Hm. I'm not sure. Neutral characters "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others"...but I'm not asking for any sort of sacrifice here. At the least, this is edging on the neutral/evil border. You might be right about which side its on, though.

Of course, that's rules lawyer territory. The exalted character technically wouldn't lose exalted status for not grabbing the rope or saying his name, but he should still do them, because they're "more right" than standing still or staying silent.

If a player made a habit of doing that, they should definitely lose exalted status eventually, not because they're performing actions that would forfeit exalted status, but because they'd be frickin' neutral.
Well, actually the very first subheading of 'Exalted Deeds' is about "a good character's responsibility to offer help to those in need"...

MaxMahem
2007-10-09, 05:51 PM
The evil thing was, first off, losing the cool. Then, going to the abyss for revenge, dragging innocent creatures with him, creatures who probably would croak it. And creating a tremendous power imbalance, but that might simply be anti neutral. But mostly, stooping low enough to go for revenge. And brutally executing a pair of material plane tyrants.

I'm not exactly sure what your gripe with the book is exactly. If your playing a level 100 character you can't be that concerned about the crunch bits of it.

As for the flavorful bits, I think you simply aren't playing an exalted character. Which is fine. You can be a good character, and not have to be exalted. I mean there are plenty of good Catholics in the world, but not all of them are made Saints.

To be exalted means to be called to serve goodness on an ever higher level. Not just a good man, but an almost messianic figure. The character you describe certainly does not fit the bill. Not that there's anything wrong with this, he would probably be welcomed into heaven with open arms (that is if he ever consents to die). He's simply not exalted. I don't think even you would classify him as a shinning example of all that is good and holy. But that is exactly what an exalted character is supposed to be!

Not meaning to bring religion into this, but put another way Jesus would be an example of a Lawful Good Exalted character, while some like say Ghandi might be an example of a Chaotic Good Exalted character.

---

"The last temptation is the greatest treason. To do the right deed, for the wrong reason." -- Thomas A Becket/T.S. Elliot, Murder in the Cathedral

There are lots of examples here with hypothetical situations where a character might have to commit and evil deed to prevent and even worse evil deed from occurring. This is of course a philosophical question who correct answer could probably be argued for all eternity without coming to an appropriate answer. Or rather, I certainly haven't been able to answer the quandary of end justifying the means myself, maybe you guys are wiser then I (though I might consider myself wiser in the Socratic sense).

I feel that in D&D, just like in life, there is no good answer to the question. In a D&D/Exalted campaign the person who answers that the ends could justify the means (ie do one evil act to prevent a worse one) could certainly still be a good person, just not an exalted person. If face with such a moral dilemma an exalted person might choose to give up his exalted status in order to prevent the deed. Or they might not. Either answer could be argued for, and I don't feel that either is really superior to the other.

Put another way, if you are confident enough in your morality that you could condemn a man for failing to commit a vial act (say strangling baby Hitler in his crib) to prevent a greater Evil (the holocausts) or the other way around, you are a wiser man than I. I'll just say this, an Exalted person would not kill baby Hitler. Under his morals Hitler (who supposedly has free-will) is responsible for the Evil deeds he will commit later in life, not him. I make no judgment on the correctness of this. Indeed such a debate might make for entertaining game-play.

Taken to the extreme (which the BoED allows you to do) and Exalted person would go so far as to strain his water to advert injuring flies or other insects. Which is one of the nice things about the BoED, it does allow you and your GM to define the extent to which you want to take these sorts of moral conundrums. Though I agree with the posters that the GM who puts you in one of those no win situations (without your knowledge or consent is a jerk).

PaladinBoy
2007-10-09, 08:14 PM
I really, really wish I'd seen this before it went to 6 pages.

Anyway, I'm not going to deal specifically with any one situation yet. Most of them are presented as a choice: Commit minor evil and prevent greater evil, or avoid minor evil and let greater evil occur. The problem I have with many of them is that a situation where you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that avoiding the minor evil will cause the greater evil to occur and that nothing you can do will stop it is the only situation where the greater evil can easily be blamed on the person who avoided the minor evil. What happens, then, when you avoid the minor evil and act to prevent the greater evil? What if you don't even know that a greater evil will occur? The blame for the greater evil no longer sits very well on the good character's shoulders. Really, the primary problem with these situations is that people blame the exalted character for something that he tried, strenously, to prevent. If he hadn't, then I'd agree with you that he was evil. However, I would like to add that "avoiding minor evil which indirectly causes greater evil" and "doing nothing to stop greater evil" are not nearly the same thing.

Which is not to say that the good character should feel nothing for the evil he inadvertently caused. He should be remorseful.

Another problem is that a situation with only those two doors is unlikely, at best. There are almost certainly going to be more options. Exalted characters avoid little evils because they seek the doors that avert all evil, not just some.

That point has been called idealistic and naive. But consider this: A realist that commits the little evil for a sure chance at stopping a greater one is never going to find out whether or not perfect Good was even possible. You'll only find out if you try. Of course, having a contingency plan is a good idea, given that falling short of perfection is almost guaranteed, but in many cases falling short of perfection leaves you solidly Good and no worse off than the realist who gave up. It's only in these troublesome "no-win" situations that it becomes a problem.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-09, 09:07 PM
Another problem is that a situation with only those two doors is unlikely, at best. There are almost certainly going to be more options. Exalted characters avoid little evils because they seek the doors that avert all evil, not just some.

99% of the time, these choices are analogous to the shell game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html).

If Evil can make you accept that you have to choose, and that those two options are the only choices, Evil has already won.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 10:05 PM
There are two things about that:

First of all, all these scenarios are hypothetical tests of the philosophy. Dodging them (successfully) is all well and good in practice, but fails to satisfy the challenge to the principles. Claiming the scenarios are unfair likewise. If your system of ethics simply fails to have meaning on some choices, this is a problem.

The other is that looking for an all-win outcome has never been criticized. But playing for one that isn't really there, or is too unlikely to succeed, always costs you. It only leaves you no worse off than the realist who 'gave up' if the realist is also simply stupid. Give them credit for doing what they do correctly. You can't have a better expected outcome than the realist, because that's what they optimized.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-09, 10:11 PM
There are two things about that:

First of all, all these scenarios are hypothetical tests of the philosophy. Dodging them (successfully) is all well and good in practice, but fails to satisfy the challenge to the principles. Claiming the scenarios are unfair likewise. If your system of ethics simply fails to have meaning on some choices, this is a problem.

The other is that looking for an all-win outcome has never been criticized. But playing for one that isn't really there, or is too unlikely to succeed, always costs you. It only leaves you no worse off than the realist who 'gave up' if the realist is also simply stupid. Give them credit for doing what they do correctly. You can't have a better expected outcome than the realist, because that's what they optimized.

My only possible response to this is that when I play heroic fantasy, there's always a better option. Unfortunately that doesn't win me any philosophical arguments (and boy don't I know it). I think there is something to be said, however, for attempting the impossible because it's the right thing to do.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-09, 11:29 PM
Here's what I think should happen to the first character metioned by the OP. If he or she is willing to forfit his or her Exalted status by telling a lie to save innocents he or she should retain Exalted status. He or she both causes no harm to innocents and doesn't cause undue suffering, therefore commits no Evil act in my opinion. If they tell the bandits the best course to enter the city and slaughter its residence to retain "moral purity", they should lose their non-Evil status and be eaten by an army of Guardianals, Hound Archons and other monstrous Celestials.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-10, 12:08 AM
The correct answer to the sadistic dilemma is always C: none of the above.

In terms of the OP, the Exalted character should die fighting the bandits, then come back as a Risen Martyr to defend the town against them.

Thats the way Exalted character's roll.

Kompera
2007-10-10, 03:46 AM
Next, we come to the whole redemption issue. Yeah, sniping someone would deny them a chance to surrender, and thus work to redeem themselves. But so does a slay living or disintegrate spell. If you make those spells force a loss of exalted status, you might as well require all exalted characters take the vow of non-violence and vow of peace feats ASAP. Or just give them to them as bonus feats at character creation.Please stop picking and choosing to try to make your points. I enjoy the back and forth, it's kind of fun, but by changing the situation without notice you necessarily change the allowable actions. A slay living or disintegrate spell, cast "with fair warning and an attempt to parlay or otherwise bring about a peaceful resolution" is no different than slaying the evil doer with a sword. Or a sneak attack/dagger, or whatever. Once in combat, I don't see any tactics as being dangerous to the exalted status (ok, someone will no doubt bring up the use of Chaos or Evil Domain spells used by Lawful Good exalted, but I refuse to caveat every statement I make. Use some common sense...). But if that combat is initiated against an unarmed and lawfully acting private citizen, then the player deserves to lose the exalted status of their character for what basically comes down to as acting out of impatience or a lack of imagination.


You also specifically state that attacking while hidden and without warning is something that would forfeit exalted status. That's a situation that can easily qualify sneak attack requirements.Again, the situation referred to as "attacking while hidden and without warning" was "sniping from 100 yards away", not a sneak attack.


I still think you're coloring this with your own earthly morality.Yeah, I'm trying really hard not to do this. When challenged for bringing Christian ethics into the conversation (for "Thou shalt not not kill"), I avoided mentioning that this was an ethos presented first by the Jewish faith (indeed, Moses, like Christ, was a Jew). Christianity has so many more followers than Judaism that it's typical to run across Christians or even non-Christians raised in a predominantly Christian culture who fail to understand the basis of that faith. It's also, in slightly different phrasing (and I perhaps should have used more neutral phrasing to try to avoid bringing in the whole Judeo-Christianity issue) a core ethos in a good many of the "top" modern religions. I've avoided commenting on the references to Saints, for example. A history of Saints will show that a great many of them were martyrs (11 out of 12 of the disciples of Jesus, for example, although the 12th was still subjected to what we today might describe as "police brutality", having been boiled in oil), dying for their faith, typically for acts as innocuous by todays standards as to be covered as protected speech by the 1st Amendment of the USA Constitution. This does not mean that an exalted should necessarily expect to end their playing career by dying for their faith. It's a game, after all. Fun should be the standard, not the hope.


You can't do that in an exalted campaign.Sure you can. The game setting has to have some basis, and nearly all of it comes, in my experience at least, from the misconceived perceptions of what middle ages / ancient life was like, with magic and mythical creatures added in.


If you force an exalted character to always take the parlay > subdue > capture > redeem path, you're not letting players really explore what it means to be exalted, you're forcing them to play their characters with a house-ruled code of conduct (or suffer the loss of their characters' feats).Not true. Again, stick to the situation presented. Unarmed, lawful person entering their place of business. No knowledge of their frame of mind (as given, perhaps they are going to tender their resignation.) Possibly unclear identification of the individual. Sniping this person down is evil, and if not chaotic, at least unlawful.

Sniping down an Arch-Devil (someone else's example) has a whole other connotation. There is no question of redemption, for example (again, I refuse to caveat to appease every possibility). A Devil can not be said to be unarmed and as helpless as a mortal is to a crossbow/spell/whatever fired from afar. It's a whole different situation with an entirely different set of acceptable behaviors to be applied.

Serenity
2007-10-10, 07:30 AM
In other words, it is the context of the sniping that determines its Evil Quotient. If there are circumstances where sniping is not evil, than sniping itself is not evil, unless in a context that is. An Exalted character is not expected to redeem all villains. He is not expected to subdue all enemies. He is simply expected to be the paragon of human virtue, dedicated wholly to helping and defending good people and to the defeat of evil.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-10, 07:51 AM
Here's what I think should happen to the first character metioned by the OP. If he or she is willing to forfit his or her Exalted status by telling a lie to save innocents he or she should retain Exalted status. He or she both causes no harm to innocents and doesn't cause undue suffering, therefore commits no Evil act in my opinion. If they tell the bandits the best course to enter the city and slaughter its residence to retain "moral purity", they should lose their non-Evil status and be eaten by an army of Guardianals, Hound Archons and other monstrous Celestials.

Sure, fine. But if he ever commits an Evil act, he loses his Exalted status. Just like a Paladin always falls from grace if he ever commits even a minor Evil. That's just how it works.

House rules are all fine and good, but we should really stick to the RAW here.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-10, 07:52 AM
Here's what I think should happen to the first character metioned by the OP. If he or she is willing to forfit his or her Exalted status by telling a lie to save innocents he or she should retain Exalted status. He or she both causes no harm to innocents and doesn't cause undue suffering, therefore commits no Evil act in my opinion. If they tell the bandits the best course to enter the city and slaughter its residence to retain "moral purity", they should lose their non-Evil status and be eaten by an army of Guardianals, Hound Archons and other monstrous Celestials.
Well, if they lie they've done the wrong thing. According to the source. They aren't required to say anything, of course...

The correct answer to the sadistic dilemma is always C: none of the above.

In terms of the OP, the Exalted character should die fighting the bandits, then come back as a Risen Martyr to defend the town against them.

Thats the way Exalted character's roll.
There doesn't have to be a C. You can, given sufficient personal power and no morals, build a real-world sadistic dilemma. It's plenty contrived, of course. The key to making a dilemma really a dilemma is to make sure that the outcome only depends on whether or not one specific thing is done.

As for dying and becoming a risen martyr...assuming you can, there's the issue of the usually 1d4+1 days of lag in returning, which leaves plenty of time for the town to be razed. But waive that. You've come back an a Risen Martyr. You replace your hit dice with d12s, lose your con score, and gain some immunities like those of the undead. Not a bad package, but how does deathless you manage to beat the invasion that living you evidently couldn't?

Hamilton
2007-10-10, 08:09 AM
Not true. Again, stick to the situation presented. Unarmed, lawful person entering their place of business. No knowledge of their frame of mind (as given, perhaps they are going to tender their resignation.) Possibly unclear identification of the individual. Sniping this person down is evil, and if not chaotic, at least unlawful.

Alright, here's what it boils down to. Ignoring the law/chaos aspect (that's a complete red herring), and assuming three things:

1) The target has performed evil actions that victimize or otherwise harm innocents.

2) The target has done nothing to show repentance or sorrow for their actions.

3) The target, as far as anyone knows, will continue to perform those evil actions.

Then shooting that target from 100' away is not an evil action. This is as defined by the Violence section of the BoED (pg 9-10).

I'm not going to type up that entire section because everyone in this thread should be able to thumb to the pertinent passage, but here's the summary:

Violence against evil character is acceptable behavior as long as these things are true:

1) The target is justifiably evil.

2) The target has performed evil actions that victimize or otherwise harm innocents (or good characters).

3) It is reasonable to believe the target will continue to perform evil actions in the future.

4) The violence cannot cause undue suffering or be inherently evil (use of poison, torture, spells with the evil descriptor, etc.).

5) The violence is not retributive in nature (revenge is a dish best served cold but exalted characters get ice cream headaches easily).

6) The violence must be a legitimate attempt to stop evil from occurring or to protect innocents (closely related to point 3).

7) The violence must not harm, directly or indirectly, non-combatants. Someone who has intentionally victimized innocents becomes a combatant by said victimization. Being an unarmed combatant does not make you a non-combatant, it makes you just that--an unarmed combatant.

As long as the violent act fulfills these points satisfactorily, there is no loss of exalted status.

There are no qualifiers for mindset of the target, no qualifiers for behaving honorably, no qualifiers for obeying the laws or morality of society, no qualifiers for putting non-combatants at risk, not even qualifiers for following the will and dogma of your god (though if an exalted character doesn't want to lose any deity-granted class features, they should be doing that last part).

So, what about Slayers of Domiel? They're lawful good, exalted assassins.

This may not align with your real world morality, but when running an exalted/vile campaign, even in a world of grey, good and evil (and exalted and vile) need to be black and white objectively. Even if none of the characters in the campaign setting know it.

Which makes me think an exalted Eberron campaign (or other campaign where good and evil are much more hazy than in Greyhawk) would be damn interesting.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-10, 01:59 PM
Sure, fine. But if he ever commits an Evil act, he loses his Exalted status. Just like a Paladin always falls from grace if he ever commits even a minor Evil. That's just how it works.

House rules are all fine and good, but we should really stick to the RAW here.

If I happened to be a great leader of the forces of Good I would rather have the likes of Malcolm Reynolds than these so-called "Exalted" characters as paragons of righteousness. If Exalted means that you would rather allow innocent people to die than to tell a lie how can it be considered "Good"? The man who wrote that line in the BoED was an idiot and should have been fired.

On the otherhand, it makes perfect sense that actions such as rape, murder or torture are always Evil. Infact, losing your Exalted status should be the least of your problems if you commit those acts. Choosing inaction rather than grossly Evil acts (rape, murder, torture, enslavement or defrauding innocents) should expected of Exalted characters. They should keep their Exalted status by refusing to commit such grossly Evil acts. If they commiit grossly Evil acts in the name of Good, see my first post.

Krrth
2007-10-10, 06:09 PM
For an example of this, you might want to check out the Paksnerion (sp) series. The scene in the thieves guild mirrors the exalted debate quite closely. It looks like what the author was trying for.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-10, 10:44 PM
If Exalted means that you would rather allow innocent people to die than to tell a lie how can it be considered "Good"?

Some people have principles. A lie serving a good purpose does not make the lie any less evil than it was. The question is whether lying is, in fact, evil. The answer - Yes, if you believe it to be. If you are a person who believes lying is wrong, then you are sinning if you lie, regardless of what the consequences of telling the truth would have been.

Also worth keeping in mind is that lying or telling the truth are not the only options. You could also keep silent.

Another point- If you are someone that believes lying is wrong, not only will you feel horrible about lying, but you will also be bad at it, which means lying isn't even an option, as your pitiful attempt at lying will be easy to see through.

There is no way to take back a lie. Once you have broken your word or spoken falsely, you lose something of yourself.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-10, 11:07 PM
Some people have principles. A lie serving a good purpose does not make the lie any less evil than it was. The question is whether lying is, in fact, evil. The answer - Yes, if you believe it to be. If you are a person who believes lying is wrong, then you are sinning if you lie, regardless of what the consequences of telling the truth would have been.

Also worth keeping in mind is that lying or telling the truth are not the only options. You could also keep silent.

Another point- If you are someone that believes lying is wrong, not only will you feel horrible about lying, but you will also be bad at it, which means lying isn't even an option, as your pitiful attempt at lying will be easy to see through.

There is no way to take back a lie. Once you have broken your word or spoken falsely, you lose something of yourself.

Then allow those who commit minor Evil acts (most lying and stealing) to eventualy regain Exalted status. Also if you don't tell the bandits something, they might turn on your fellow travelers and either kill or torture them to get you to talk. I can understand allowing your self to be martyed as Good, but I can't imagine forcing others to share your fate as anything but Evil.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-11, 12:26 AM
Then allow those who commit minor Evil acts (most lying and stealing) to eventualy regain Exalted status.

That is what the atonement spell is for.


I can understand allowing your self to be martyed as Good, but I can't imagine forcing others to share your fate as anything but Evil.

Who, exactly, is forcing others to be killed here? Not the exalted person. Lying isn't an option that would even occur to someone that believes lying to be wrong. And you would likely anger the bandits with your failed attempt at deception. Especially in D&D, when you will have 0 ranks in bluff.

Also, especially in D&D, allowing someone to die through your inaction is a precisely nuetral act, unless you know them, as a nuetral person in D&D only cares about his friends. Love my friends and Hate my enemies is a nuetral ethos.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-11, 01:16 AM
Well, if they lie they've done the wrong thing. According to the source. They aren't required to say anything, of course...

I have a question, do you agree with the BoED in that regard or not?

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-11, 07:55 AM
Who, exactly, is forcing others to be killed here? Not the exalted person. Lying isn't an option that would even occur to someone that believes lying to be wrong. And you would likely anger the bandits with your failed attempt at deception. Especially in D&D, when you will have 0 ranks in bluff.
The bandits are already angry... But aside from that, if you're a paladin with solid charisma or some such you probably could lie to a bunch of bandits with no sense motive and base wisdom.
I have a question, do you agree with the BoED in that regard or not?
In that it defines 'exalted', yes. My view of it as a moral system (:smallyuk:) should be clear by now I hope.

To be fair, it claims a pretty strong metaphysical justification (that any good person's evil acts give substantial power to cosmic evil), but so far as I know that justification is unsubstantiated.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-11, 08:03 AM
I have a question, do you agree with the BoED in that regard or not?

How does that matter at all in this conversation?!

What is an is not Exalted is spelled out pretty clearly in the book. You don't have to agree with it to accept that, in a campaign using that supplemental rulebook, that's how it works. If you hate it, ignore the book.

It's a rather simple concept, wouldn't you say?

Starsinger
2007-10-11, 12:59 PM
How does that matter at all in this conversation?!

What is an is not Exalted is spelled out pretty clearly in the book. You don't have to agree with it to accept that, in a campaign using that supllemental rulebook, that's how it works. If you hate it, ignore the book.

It's a rather simple concept, wouldn't you say?

Yuki's right. Since we're discussing the Book of ED in this discussion, we don't really get anywhere discussing whether or not we agree with parts of it.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-11, 03:10 PM
especially when they make nooooo sense.:smallsmile:

PaladinBoy
2007-10-11, 07:50 PM
There are two things about that:

First of all, all these scenarios are hypothetical tests of the philosophy. Dodging them (successfully) is all well and good in practice, but fails to satisfy the challenge to the principles. Claiming the scenarios are unfair likewise. If your system of ethics simply fails to have meaning on some choices, this is a problem.

All I have to say to that is that it seems to me like giving a multivariable calculus test to an English major. Is that test really going to matter to him, or is it really going to matter if his chosen field doesn't help him at all?

Is it really going to matter whether I can't find the all-win solution to a hypothetical contrived scenario that is designed to preclude a all-win solution, so long as I can apply my value system in the real world?


The other is that looking for an all-win outcome has never been criticized. But playing for one that isn't really there, or is too unlikely to succeed, always costs you. It only leaves you no worse off than the realist who 'gave up' if the realist is also simply stupid. Give them credit for doing what they do correctly. You can't have a better expected outcome than the realist, because that's what they optimized.

The key word there is "expected". For one, it's not quite even true. I always expect the best of myself; I just don't make too much noise over little matters. Second, it's still possible to have a better outcome..... that is the point of aiming for the best possible outcome. No matter how unlikely....... who knows? Maybe it can occur after all. My point was that a realist in this situation will never know if perfection was possible, whereas a idealist will at least have tried.

A possible counterargument, of course, is that the realist will have saved lives. However, I question whether the idealist will do so much worse. It is possible, and quite intelligent, to have a backup plan if your main plan has even the slightest chance of failure.

Also, I worry that going into situations like these with the belief that you may have to compromise your ideals opens up the possibility of bias. It doesn't seem too unreasonable to think that a realist may be underestimating the chances of an all-win option or even not seeing it, because the option that confirms his beliefs is staring him in the face.

Of course, a counterargument to that is that I am just as likely to be biased in favor of my viewpoint. Which is true; I like to think that I am not overestimating the chance of an all-win situation, but I'm hardly qualified to judge that.

Finally, I think that, even if my idealistic ideas have blind spots that will cause problems, it isn't worth compromising my ideals in advance. If I do that, I will never have the chance to figure out if I didn't have to compromise them. If I do run into a problematic situation, I will have faith that a good answer can be found....... but keep a backup plan waiting, just in case.

TimeWizard
2007-10-11, 10:45 PM
Nice responses. I'll try to address things directed to me in order of importance:

1) Half truthing is another way of lying. So no, Lawful won't do that. And the example didn't take martyrdom into account for a reason: the bandits won't torture you. They're not Tanar'ri. They'll kill you outright, so chuck the idea of glorious martyrdom out of the window.

2) Actually, the bad thing about Exalted's Lawful stupid is that breaking the lawful, nonEvil/Good part of your alignment TAKES AWAY THE GOODNESS. So, I do a chaotic act, and suddenly I'm EVIL. Does that make sense? If I was playing an Axiomatic character (let's say that means an equivalent of Exalted, for Law), I would lose Axiomatic benefits, but why lose the Exalted benefits?

3) Artemician, this isn't a whine on how the book does stuff. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of it's statements, and how it contradicts itself on every other page, even forgetting that the DMG says alignments aren't set in stone.


4) The BovD. Don't get me wrong, I dislike it's cheese too, and I agree it's TOO chaotic evil-themed (much like the BoED is LG themed, mostly. It should be NG themed, NG is even stated to be unobstacled by Law and Chaos), but at least it was coherent with itself, and didn't apply a ludicrous "one contrary act, you're out" rule.


5) Yes, my char is level 100, but his multitude of at will powers and those things would make him a CR 120 encounter, likely. And I mostly RP at this level, with the ocassional super-godsbane enemy thrown in for an encounter. And yes, we more or less could level worlds, but we're good for a reason. And if the gods try to intervene, that's what our Protection from Deities amulets and Godsbane weapons are for. We don't like them trying to boss us. If we had wanted, we would have overthrown them, so leaving us to be is okay.

What, exactly, do you do at level 100? Because it seems like all thats left is to kill the main pantheons and then your allies and become the one supreme being.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-11, 10:46 PM
Finally, I think that, even if my idealistic ideas have blind spots that will cause problems, it isn't worth compromising my ideals in advance. If I do that, I will never have the chance to figure out if I didn't have to compromise them. If I do run into a problematic situation, I will have faith that a good answer can be found....... but keep a backup plan waiting, just in case.

Actually that makes sense. A good idealist would look for ways to protect the lives of others while not turning back on his or her ideals but would still have a slightly less than idealistic backup plan, just in case.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-11, 11:38 PM
The key word there is "expected". For one, it's not quite even true. I always expect the best of myself; I just don't make too much noise over little matters. Second, it's still possible to have a better outcome..... that is the point of aiming for the best possible outcome. No matter how unlikely....... who knows? Maybe it can occur after all. My point was that a realist in this situation will never know if perfection was possible, whereas a idealist will at least have tried.
Sorry, 'expected outcome' is a technical term in probabilistic analysis of all sorts. It means the likelyhood-weighted average outcome. Believing yourself to behave non-probabilistically just means you plan based on an incorrect understanding of it.

Also, there isn't a question of whether the best can happen. Or at least, not one that's relevant. At the point that you're making the decision, presumably (unless you've gone completely out of sight of rational decisionmaking) the best can happen. But if you pick a 1% chance of saving 100K+1 people over a 99% chance of saving 100K, you really ought to be prosecuted for murder even if you luck out.


Finally, I think that, even if my idealistic ideas have blind spots that will cause problems, it isn't worth compromising my ideals in advance. If I do that, I will never have the chance to figure out if I didn't have to compromise them. If I do run into a problematic situation, I will have faith that a good answer can be found....... but keep a backup plan waiting, just in case.
This thing with backup plans. I can't quite tell what you expect from them. As I see it, your 'backup plan' is almost certainly, from the realist's perspective, a disaster. It has to be worse than the expectation-optimized plan by more than the value of your plan A, by definition. In practice, you probably have to hold something back from your plan A to even have the option of executing a fallback plan.

The other thing is that if the backup plans involve abandoning any principles other than the assumption that million-to-one chances come up every time, according to the BoED you're doing it wrong.

--------------------

Can we do some definition-trading? Here's what I'm getting out of this:
Realist: Makes accurate analysis of probabilities and then acts in such a way as to minimize expected overall harm.
Idealist: Places hard restrictions on own options, then picks remaining course with the best 'best result'.

PaladinBoy
2007-10-12, 06:21 PM
Sorry, 'expected outcome' is a technical term in probabilistic analysis of all sorts. It means the likelyhood-weighted average outcome. Believing yourself to behave non-probabilistically just means you plan based on an incorrect understanding of it.

Also, there isn't a question of whether the best can happen. Or at least, not one that's relevant. At the point that you're making the decision, presumably (unless you've gone completely out of sight of rational decisionmaking) the best can happen. But if you pick a 1% chance of saving 100K+1 people over a 99% chance of saving 100K, you really ought to be prosecuted for murder even if you luck out.

Do you know exactly what the odds are when you make your decisions? Can you really be blamed if it turns out that the odds were worse than you thought?

There's some room for bias on the part of the idealist here, I admit. If it's particularly rampant then the answer to the second question is probably yes. If it's been minimized and didn't affect the odds judgement significantly.... then what?


This thing with backup plans. I can't quite tell what you expect from them. As I see it, your 'backup plan' is almost certainly, from the realist's perspective, a disaster. It has to be worse than the expectation-optimized plan by more than the value of your plan A, by definition. In practice, you probably have to hold something back from your plan A to even have the option of executing a fallback plan.

The other thing is that if the backup plans involve abandoning any principles other than the assumption that million-to-one chances come up every time, according to the BoED you're doing it wrong.

Let me provide an example, using one of the traditional "no-win" scenarios: the nuke in a city. It'll go off in 8 hours, and you have to find and disarm it before then. You have captured one of the BBEG's minions, but he refuses to respond to standard interrogation and has magical defenses. Torture is the only remaining way to get information from him (which I normally don't assume is true but will for the purposes of my example). The choice presented is: Torture him, or search the city yourself.

I would choose to search the city myself, because I believe that torturing the minion is wrong. I will narrow down the search by concentrating on the sections of the city where a bomb could do the most damage, as well as using any personal information I have on the BBEG (which might be none) to attempt to think like him in bomb placement. I will also contact city leaders and certain citizens in the areas where I think the bomb might be placed, asking for reports on any suspicious activity or new people showing up recently (with an emphasis on finding out if anyone has seen the BBEG). I will enlist as much of the city watch as necessary to accomplish all of these duties in a limited timeframe.

Meanwhile, what city watchmen are not helping me will be conducting an orderly evacuation of the city, as well as deputizing some citizens to assist (thus expanding the manpower available to aid the backup plan). It may not get everyone out of the blast radius, but it will serve to minimize the casualty rate if I fail. That is, in general, what the backups are designed to do: remove as much of the consequences of failure as possible. And they generally don't involve compromising principles, although in the heat of the moment it would be easy to designate one that did.


Can we do some definition-trading? Here's what I'm getting out of this:
Realist: Makes accurate analysis of probabilities and then acts in such a way as to minimize expected overall harm.
Idealist: Places hard restrictions on own options, then picks remaining course with the best 'best result'.

Here's the definitions I'm operating under:
Realist - only cares about moral effects in real world, believes that whatever does the most good is the best choice. Often follows Utilitarian morals; the greatest good for the greatest number.
Idealist - believes in a set of abstract moral principles that govern good and evil. Believes that violating these principles is evil, whatever the benefit. May believe that following these principles is good, whatever the cost.

Yours and mine seem similar.

tobian
2007-10-12, 08:24 PM
This is the big problem I had with the book.


A- Alignment: Exalted Good character who choses to become Alignment: Non-Exalted Good Character by choosing an option that is less Alignment: Good has, according to the BoED and (by inference the Universe Itself), committed a bigger and more unforgivable evil than;
B- Alignment: Exalted Good character chooses to not take the option that is less alignment: good, instead deliberately allowing GREAT EVIL (ie, the rape and murder of everyone in the city, the destruction of their entire world, etc).

A loses his Exalted Status, and this is fine, because he has committed an Evil act.
B does not lose his Exalted Status (according to BoED) because he did not commit an Evil act.

But A has effectively committed exponentially less evil-without-a-capitol-e. He could doom Millions to a fate more unspeakable than any we could possibly think up, but the BoED tells us that it doesn't matter. It's more important that he doesn't lose his Exalted status.

There is, in the BoED no get-out-clause about death vs destruction of souls or everlasting torture.
That passage says quite flatly; the little Evil is NEVER justified. no matter what possible Evil it would avert. The condemning of a hundred billion souls to the deepest layers of the Abyss? Not justification. The complete and utter destruction of every mortal soul in the entire material plane? It doesn't matter. It's apparently more evil to stop that happening at the cost of your own special status.


Does that help, at all? The Universe/BoED judges B to be the correct, Good choice, and A to be essentially, the Evil choice.

I personally cannot see that this is remotely possible, and hold that the reverse is true, whatever the cosmic forces of good themselves decide, inside that same universe.

The premise of the book seems unrealistic (to me at least) when it comes to alignment, but then again, it is a game and will never be able to mimic ones moral standings perfectly. I personally like reading the book, but a lot of stuff in it I do not agree with. The thing that bugs me is that you try to play "the ultimate good" who never sins by allowing greater evil to occur if there is no "good" way out. Paladinboy's arguement of which of the two examples he provided can cause people to think the unitarian way (IE the greater good for more people) is the best way to go, and I actually would have to know more about the situation before I would agree or disagree with that (see below). However, if you go by the BoED rules, it is the "bad" solution period to torture the bad guy.

Well, what about little innocent Cindy Lou who is at ground zero for the bomb? If you find the bomb in time, she would have lived. You will not find it in time without torturing the minion. An innocent dies because you could not torture the non-innocent one. They both could have lived had you gotten the information out of him (naturally, the evil one is in jail). I think thats where a lot of people go "wait, this is not right, you should have gone with torture to save poor Cindy Lou and the other innocent people at ground zero"

But then again, (stealing Paladinboy's argument one more time) what if said minion did not know where the bomb was or where to shut it off-then one is torturing for no reason at all. And where does that lay on the scale of good/greater good vs bad?


I think this interpolation of the two ideas of morals of what is good and bad is why a lot of people do not like the BoED-it seems reverse a lot of the time of which is which.


Just my two cents.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-12, 10:04 PM
\
Well, what about little innocent Cindy Lou who is at ground zero for the bomb? If you find the bomb in time, she would have lived. You will not find it in time without torturing the minion. An innocent dies because you could not torture the non-innocent one. They both could have lived had you gotten the information out of him (naturally, the evil one is in jail). I think thats where a lot of people go "wait, this is not right, you should have gone with torture to save poor Cindy Lou and the other innocent people at ground zero"


That is because most of us aren't exalted. Though, I'd say hey Cindy you get to go to Paradise because I don't believe in Torture. No seriously I'd say that. I'm all means justify ends.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-13, 01:07 PM
Alright, I am going to open up the charge of inconsistency. The very beginning of the 'nature of good' chapter covers the core of good, the thing that defines it: helping others.

Then the 'straight and narrow' section declares that to be the one part of the whole list of rules that can, nay, must be cast aside if it conflicts with anything else. Even with things like lying that don't obviously violate any of the points previously laid out.

Do you know exactly what the odds are when you make your decisions? Can you really be blamed if it turns out that the odds were worse than you thought?

There's some room for bias on the part of the idealist here, I admit. If it's particularly rampant then the answer to the second question is probably yes. If it's been minimized and didn't affect the odds judgement significantly.... then what?
Minor miscalculation is one thing. You're estimating around a lot of unknowns in most situations, so you're going to have some error. Knowingly picking the greater expected harm because it offers a chance at a better outcome than the best-expectation action is different.

Major miscalculation indicates you ought to let someone with better mental abilities do the planning. Try to get a wizard so that you aren't at as much risk of being duped into buying an amoral plan as if you asked a rogue or beguiler.

Let me provide an example, using one of the traditional "no-win" scenarios: the nuke in a city. It'll go off in 8 hours, and you have to find and disarm it before then. You have captured one of the BBEG's minions, but he refuses to respond to standard interrogation and has magical defenses. Torture is the only remaining way to get information from him (which I normally don't assume is true but will for the purposes of my example). The choice presented is: Torture him, or search the city yourself.
That's always been a good one for bypassing, since it's so wide open. And a bad one for arguing the 'dark side' in, since you get buried in the question of whether torture does any good anyway. And while we're at it, with the question of whether 8 hours is enough for a solid 'strenuous interrogation'.

Er, and because you can evacuate to reduce it to property damage versus torture.

I would choose to search the city myself, because I believe that torturing the minion is wrong. I will narrow down the search by concentrating on the sections of the city where a bomb could do the most damage, as well as using any personal information I have on the BBEG (which might be none) to attempt to think like him in bomb placement. I will also contact city leaders and certain citizens in the areas where I think the bomb might be placed, asking for reports on any suspicious activity or new people showing up recently (with an emphasis on finding out if anyone has seen the BBEG). I will enlist as much of the city watch as necessary to accomplish all of these duties in a limited timeframe.

Meanwhile, what city watchmen are not helping me will be conducting an orderly evacuation of the city, as well as deputizing some citizens to assist (thus expanding the manpower available to aid the backup plan). It may not get everyone out of the blast radius, but it will serve to minimize the casualty rate if I fail. That is, in general, what the backups are designed to do: remove as much of the consequences of failure as possible. And they generally don't involve compromising principles, although in the heat of the moment it would be easy to designate one that did.
I'm not sure I'd call that a backup plan, myself, but you're neatly covering my point about backup plans costing you. Even if you somehow have more guards than are needed to run an orderly evacuation (even with citizens deputized on zero notice), you're cutting into the guards available for the search. Which is a task that could productively occupy the entire population of the city, let alone the entire guard force.

Also, how do you justify endangering a big chunk of the guard force hunting for the bomb instead of abandoning the place and letting it blow up? Or searching solo, anyway, since you're still obliged to risk yourself.

Here's the definitions I'm operating under:
Realist - only cares about moral effects in real world, believes that whatever does the most good is the best choice. Often follows Utilitarian morals; the greatest good for the greatest number.
Idealist - believes in a set of abstract moral principles that govern good and evil. Believes that violating these principles is evil, whatever the benefit. May believe that following these principles is good, whatever the cost.

Yours and mine seem similar.
The point at which they don't seem to overlap is the part with ignoring the odds. Or is that a misunderstanding on my part? Other than that I pretty much like your definitions, but have to observe that they don't really separate. The realist needs a set of abstract principles by which to evaluate 'best choice', and the idealist encompasses the realist.

Jayabalard
2007-10-13, 01:21 PM
You have been captured by bandits who are terrible enemies of your land. You know that they're looking for a way to enter the capital city of your kingdom, and that they'll stop at nothing to acquire knowledge to enter. The leader of the bandits offers you a choice: Tell him of the truth or die. You know of traps settled to stop invaders, and could tell them a yarn to get them in those traps. Problem is, however, you, by definition of the LG Exalted "Will not lie, cheat, or steal". So, you have a lose-lose situation. Either you lie to save your city (and according to BoED, "a battle was lost, even if a war was won. By doing an evil act, no matter the intentions, you still do evil."), or you tell the truth and doom it. This makes clear flaw in the concept. Evidently, in this situation, you are expected to play Lawful Stupid, since you'll be damned even when you do good by lieing. You can only pick to retain your so-called purity by saying the truth, and keep your feats, or lie, do some REAL good, and lose 'em. How can the rules about good 'n evil have such major oversights? Seriously, ask yourself, as a person, what would you do. Lie, or tell the truth?Actually, you have a 3rd option, which is to refuse to answer. By not answering, you're not lying, nor are you telling the truth. Sure you'll die, but since you've already been defeated by being captured, that's really not relevant.


comitted mass genocide on the demonsGenocide is an incorrect term for what occurred


So, he's not Exalted, and will not be ever, since he has a taint inside him. While I don't have BoED, my general understanding is that destroying Demons/Devils is by definition a good act, so I'm not sure what this taint is that you're talking about.

ChaosDefender24
2007-10-13, 05:20 PM
The fluffy parts of that book annoyed me.

The crunch was really nice, though. A lot of the PrCs are fun, there are some nice items (soulfire enchantment and aurorum metal in particular), and in an awesome twist all of the monsters that could remotely be played as PCs have LA's listed. Coures forever.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-13, 07:10 PM
Not particularly... Rape is not really something appropriate for a role-playing game, regardless who does it, or who it is done to. Especially since I'm pretty sure (pardon me if I'm wrong) that this wasn't Rape rape so much as typical heterosexual "Exit-only hole!" violation, or since this is a pocket dimension, "prison sex".. I even imagine the DM snickered as he said what was going on.

I mean I could be wrong, and it could've been a traumatic event for the PC, but really... it's not necessary. There are other ways to mentally break someone in D&D without having to resort to rape, and there are other ways to physically break someone... So really, why?

Rape is a tragedy.. not a plot device.

If someone does not want to perform a sexual act, and they are forced into it, then that is called Rape, whether their want not to perform the sexual act is based on their sexual preference or not.


How does that matter at all in this conversation?!

What is an is not Exalted is spelled out pretty clearly in the book. You don't have to agree with it to accept that, in a campaign using that supplemental rulebook, that's how it works. If you hate it, ignore the book.

It's a rather simple concept, wouldn't you say?

Actually, in any campaign I ran I'd choose door #3. "A lie is not an evil act unless it counts as a betrayal. It's a chaotic one."

"There. I de-trapped the door as best I can" when you know your comrade is an evil act.

Saying "I'm sorry, I am currently suffering from a wound, and thus cannot partake in the type of company you offer." When you aren't is chaotic.

Kompera
2007-10-14, 06:41 AM
I'm still following this discussion, but I dropped out of discussing the particulars of which actions fall into the category of "makes the player lose their characters exalted status" for a few days because it seemed clear that a good many people are seeming to fail to understand the primary game balance reason that the exalted status can be lost at all:

Were there no action or choice which could not be justified as having served the greater good and therefor be labeled as within the code of conduct of an exalted, then all players would be playing exalted characters. With significant advantages and no real disadvantage as long as you're able to convincingly craft an argument about "greater good", being exalted is just a free set of power-ups for your character.

After this is understood, all hypothetical situations about sniping, torture, seemingly no-win situations, or balancing acts measured as being not-so-evil against demonstrably huge benefits for large numbers of innocents become meaningless.

Your character has received advantages. Your character must abide by a code of conduct which is rigid in the extreme and has the possibility of presenting what appear to be, by real-world people who do not adhere to this rigid code of conduct, as illogical, silly, or stupid choices. The exalted character, were it real, would of course not consider the choices to difficult, or the restrictions of their code of conduct to be forcing them to make illogical, silly, or stupid choices. Follow the code to the letter, despite your own personal valuation of the code, or lose your advantages gained by assigning the code to your character.

An example has occurred to me which may help to illustrate this more clearly.

===

Gordon R. Dickson has written an excellent set of books centered about the Dorsai. In this imagined future, the different peoples of Earth have spread to other planets and have fractured into highly specialized aspects of human culture. One such culture is the Friendlies, who are religious fanatics and who lend out their young men as the mercenaries of the galaxy. (I'll apologize now for any inaccuracies which may follow. They will not change the major point of the tale, but I do not have my books with me and I may make factual errors of details)

In one of Dickson's stories, a non-Friendly reporter is traveling with a Friendly troop commander. The Friendly troops are in a bad spot, and the situation looks grim. A message is sent from the Friendly high command stating that no further troops will be sent to reinforce this Friendly position, and not to tell the Friendly rank and file troops about this fact. The reporter is aghast when he reads this. How horrible it is that the Friendly high command could leave those men to die faced with overwhelming numbers of enemy troops! This gives the lie to the entire Friendly faith, that they would choose to order men to stand and fight to the death all the while not informing them that they are being abandoned to a near certain death.

You do not understand, the Friendly commander says to the reporter. The order to not inform the troops was not to hide an abandonment from the men. Rather, it shows true care for the men. This news is kept from them not out of fear that they would desert were their situation to be fully understood. It is kept from them so that they will not seek to become martyrs on the battlefield, and will fight more effectively and without making rash decisions which will tend to get them killed faster while inflicting fewer casualties on the opposing forces.

===

If one is not a fanatic, it may be very difficult to understand that the choices made by a fanatic may be completely logically consistent, within their belief system, all the while appearing to be logically inconsistent to any given outsider who has a different set of beliefs and values.

Playing an exalted may be the single most challenging role to play for a D&D player, due to the vast differences in core values which the character has to hold and which the player may be in very strong disagreement with.