Vile Darkness: is it valid for alignment discussions of OOTS?

[hamishspence]

A common argument I have read both here and on D20 forum is that Vile darkness is not a valid source because:

1:Its 3rd ed not 3.5
2:Its old, not well thought out.
3:Its a supplement, not core
4:Its for Rich to choose, he can choose not to use some supplements
5:Its not a Player Resource in Living Greyhawk, and Living Greyhawk is the only official rules.

Here is a quote direct from Clarifications section of Living Greyhawk section of WOTC website:

Q: Is casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor an evil act? If so, can I cast these spells?

A: The Players Handbook is unclear on this issue, and it has led to much debate. Fortunately, the Book of Vile Darkness, the authoritative source on evil deeds, provides insight into this topic. Page 8 of this source lists casting evil spells as an evil act while page 77 indicates that spells with the evil descriptor are evil spells. While the Book of Vile Darkness is not an a player resource in the Living Greyhawk campaign, these statements provide a fairly definitive statement that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act.

That said, the Book of Vile Darkness goes on to say “[s]ometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.” Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC.

so, yes, Vile Darkness is considered an authorative source for what defines evil in Living Greyhawk, even if players cannot use stuff from it.

So one should not automatically invalidate BoVD just cos it is a 3rd ed supplement.

[factotum]

Well, if nothing else, the fact that Rich has referred to BoVD in the strip (it was one of the references used by Redcloak to create a free-willed undead in #431) kind of implies it's a valid reference in the OotSverse...

[SPoD]

I have no idea what Living Greyhawk has to do with OOTS. OOTS clearly ignores whatever rules it wishes, regardless of what Living Greyhawk uses.

Is it "valid" for discussion? It's as valid as any other rules source, insofar as you can quote it as much as you want, and the person you are debating with can say, "Yeah, but Rich doesn't necessarily obey every rule printed on paper." And he'd be right.

There is no discernable pattern to what rules Rich follows and what he doesn't; trying to match them up with an official ruling is a waste of time.

[FujinAkari]

There is no discernable pattern to what rules Rich follows and what he doesn't; trying to match them up with an official ruling is a waste of time.

I disagree. OOTS, being based on D&D 3.5, is automatically assumed to follow the rulings therein. While, yes, Rich can houserule whatever he wants, to claim that the official rules are "a waste of time" is to miss out on a sizeable portion of the humor inherent to the comic strip.

[hamishspence]

Is more aimed at the guy who insists Living Greyhawk way is only way to play alignment and everyone else is doing it wrong.

Even if he was RIGHT, this sample from Living Greyhawk section of WOTC site shows that Living Greyhawk accepts BoVD as an authority on alignment.

Rich, from what I can tell, uses a system with some traits of this: Lawful Good guys cannot just kill beings for a crime, there has to be an assessment of threat posed, due process, etc. Rule of Law.

Rich also seems to follow a fairly tight rule on alignment, this fits with these books: FCII, BoED, BoVD: Bureaucratic Deva makes it clear 1 act of abandoning a friend is enough to pull Roy all the way from LG to True Neutral if act was completed. Roy changed his mind and went back, proving he had realised before it was too late.

Now Rich might not own these books. it could be that he has his own ideas on alignment which are stricter than Players Handbook, but occasionally diverge slightly from BoED. And that is fine, but often his complaints in SoD are based on the game as PH players play it, not BoED players.

He says "Bad things are done to bad people by good people acting bad"
This sounds awfully like a complaint about Paladins killing Goblins without fair reasons. No other acts in SoD fit the bill.
BoED actually says Paladins May NOT kill non-combatant evil beings without trial. So it is more likely to agree with Rich than 2nd ed, and 3.5 ed with no supplements.

Whenever Rich seems to favor an Exalted Deeds style view of Good over a plain PH style view, I see it as evidence that Rich does not like the more common "Its always OK to kill evil beings" that 2nd ed players and 3rd ed players who avoid supplements seem to favour.

Similar things are said in Origin of PCs:

Roy objects to the assumption it is OK to kill Orcs always, seeing their aim (waiting for a concert) as not harmful, and the accusation that they were terrorising the town as unfair (the shopkeeper panicked at the sight of them and ran, they left the money for the food they needed)

See what I mean? Rich might not use other supplements Ido not know for sure, but like them, he has a more nuanced view of Good and Evil in a D&D type universe.

[SPoD]

I disagree. OOTS, being based on D&D 3.5, is automatically assumed to follow the rulings therein. While, yes, Rich can houserule whatever he wants, to claim that the official rules are "a waste of time" is to miss out on a sizeable portion of the humor inherent to the comic strip.

Rich breaks the rules at will and indiscriminantly. That's not houseruling, that's ignoring them and writing the story the way he thinks it should unfold. YOU can assume it follows the rules of D&D 3.5 all the time, but it doesn't.

Look at this last strip: When did Flame Strike gain the ability to knock a target prone and disarm them? Never, that's when. Rich draws what looks good, the rules be damned. And I'm glad that he does.

[hamishspence]

Is more aimed at the guy who insists Living Greyhawk way is only way to play alignment and everyone else is doing it wrong.

Even if he was RIGHT, this sample from Living Greyhawk section of WOTC site shows that Living Greyhawk accepts BoVD as an authority on alignment.

Rich, from what I can tell, uses a system with some traits of this: Lawful Good guys cannot just kill beings for a crime, there has to be an assessment of threat posed, due process, etc. Rule of Law.

Rich also seems to follow a fairly tight rule on alignment, this fits with these books: FCII, BoED, BoVD: Bureaucratic Deva makes it clear 1 act of abandoning a friend is enough to pull Roy all the way from LG to True Neutral if act was completed. Roy changed his mind and went back, proving he had realised before it was too late.

Now Rich might not own these books. it could be that he has his own ideas on alignment which are stricter than Players Handbook, but occasionally diverge slightly from BoED. And that is fine, but often his complaints in SoD are based on the game as PH players play it, not BoED players.

Spoilers below:
He says "Bad things are done to bad people by good people acting bad"
This sounds awfully like a complaint about Paladins killing Goblins without fair reasons. No other acts in SoD fit the bill.
BoED actually says Paladins May NOT kill non-combatant evil beings without trial. So it is more likely to agree with Rich than 2nd ed, and 3.5 ed with no supplements.

Whenever Rich seems to favor an Exalted Deeds style view of Good over a plain PH style view, I see it as evidence that Rich does not like the more common "Its always OK to kill evil beings" that 2nd ed players and 3rd ed players who avoid supplements seem to favour.

Similar things are said in Origin of PCs:

Roy objects to the assumption it is OK to kill Orcs always, seeing their aim (waiting for a concert) as not harmful, and the accusation that they were terrorising the town as unfair (the shopkeeper panicked at the sight of them and ran, they left the money for the food they needed)

See what I mean? Rich might not use other supplements Ido not know for sure, but like them, he has a more nuanced view of Good and Evil in a D&D type universe.

[brilliantlight]

Most importantly this is Rich's Comic and he determines what is and what is not valid!! Even considering him as a DM this is true. When I run a game I use a ton of non-core books including BOVD, BOED, Unearthed Arcana and most of the complete series and no one I know of says it's invalid.