Curious about Book of Exalted Deeds

[The Neoclassic]

I saw a thread entitled "Curious about Exalted" and I thought "Well, I rather am curious about BoED too!" Come to find out, they were referring to some other roleplaying system, not the 3.5 splatbook...

Anyway, I have a friend who is selling his old 3.5 books, and I'm curious if BoED or BoVD would be worth buying. Thoughts?

[RTGoodman]

Well, I can't comment on BoVD since I don't have any experience with it beyond a quick skimming-over in the bookstore once or twice, but I do have BoED.

Overall, it has some broken stuff, some really terrible stuff, and a LOT of rather mediocre stuff. That said, it does have some good stuff in it too, and if you take the whole thing with a grain of salt, it's a decent sourcebook. Definitely not my first pick if given a choice between several, but if you can get it for cheap, you might as well pick it up. Assuming any DMs you know allow it - a LOT out there don't, for one reason or another.

[Prak]

I would say it's not worth buying. It tries it's best to have a meaningful discussion about good, and falls flat on it's face, your face and every fac in a ten mile radius. It tries to create ultimate good by taking ultimate evil and multiplying by -1. It has a handful of useful things in it, and I got those things through other channels.

[arguskos]

BoVD and BoED are both decent enough source books. I like them, though they have massive amounts of broken things in them and lots of "uh, wtf is this?" moments. However, taken with an open mind and a grain of salt (or should I say, a saltshaker of salt) they are quite fun reads, if not the best books. Get em for $10 or less, and you'll find your money was well spent.

[RebelRogue]

Overall, the BoVD is a better write IMO. There's some mechanical 3.0 stuff that doesn't translate so well, but it's minor. Its more philosophical ideas are interesting, if short, and some of the villains, items and schemes are just, well, vile! The BoED is not horrible, but as noted its philosophical section is not as well-written. Mechanically there's some questionable things, too. Still, an interesting read, IMO.

[Woodsman]

Both are interesting reads, but the BoVD isn't really meant for PC's, I don't think. Unless someone's running an evil campaign, that is.

BoED is better for PC's (IMO), simply because more people go with good than evil. Though it really seems a bit too good for my tastes.

[Talya]

BoED = absolutely essential for any D&D game that takes the good-evil alignment axis remotely seriously.

[AmberVael]

Honestly, I find BoED to a pretty terrible book overall. I have big issues with its morality system (which I won't go into lest it cause a debate), and many of the mechanics introduced are flat out annoying.

Vows and Exalted status are the prime example of this- they dictate not only what the character can or cannot do, but the entire party. It puts a character directly in conflict with anyone who wants to play/work things out differently, and is extremely unforgiving of any type of failure, however small or even if it wasn't your fault at all (IE, domination or someone else's act).

It is not worth the buy- I got it from a friend for free and I've only ever used it once, and even then I completely changed around the mechanics and fluff to the mechanic I used (Vow of Poverty became more interesting when it was about sacrificing possessions to an evil demon who would allow me to keep certain plot necessary items, but would demand that I not only give it everything I got, but go out and seek more stuff to give it).

BoVD is much more interesting- it has some broken-ish stuff in it, and some stuff only really viable for DMs, but it can help create very intriguing villains/evil characters, and doesn't really get into all the moral crap that BoED does.

[Kurald Galain]

Anyway, I have a friend who is selling his old 3.5 books, and I'm curious if BoED or BoVD would be worth buying. Thoughts?

In a word, no.

The mechanical options range from the terrible (several of the oaths and deformities) to the cheesy (it's commonly called the book of exalted cheese for a reason) to the ridiculous (yes, this is good-aligned poison, because we say so!) and if you are unable to figure out that you that you can be a paladin without being a moron, and that you can be evil without being an omnicidal psychopath, then you'll need more help than a mere book can give you.

[arguskos]

I mean, I like some of the spells, prestige classes, and feats, and frankly, I dig the flavor on the Vows. Just refluff them if needed, and it's all good.

Also, to anyone and everyone who says that taking a Vow of XYorZ screws the party too... um... no, it doesn't HAVE to. The Vow character isn't required to push his views on the others, just that HE upholds them. Really, a Vow of Chasity monk doesn't need the other characters to be celibate just cause he is.

[AmberVael]

What I would term as the "significant" vows have restrictions on them that prevent the party from doing things as well. Vows of Nonviolence and Peace penalize and make it difficult for a party to work around them.

[RTGoodman]

The mechanical options range from the terrible (several of the oaths and deformities) to the cheesy (it's commonly called the book of exalted cheese for a reason) to the ridiculous (yes, this is good-aligned poison, because we say so!) and if you are unable to figure out that you that you can be a paladin without being a moron, and that you can be evil without being an omnicidal psychopath, then you'll need more help than a mere book can give you.

I don't disagree with you, but I think there are certainly a FEW things in it (crunch-wise, at least) worth having. That Wis-to-attacks feat (which, IIRC, isn't even an [Exalted] feat) is a good one for Monks that want a high Wis, some of the PrCs are pretty cool and at least decent, and I think there might even be a couple of fun monsters in it. Like I said, it's not GREAT, but it's worth getting if you can get a good deal.

[Prak]

To the OP, what you should do is page through it, maybe ask your friend if you can sit down and take a look at it for 15 minutes or so. If you like it, buy it, if you don't, apologize and don't buy it.

[TaintedLight]

If you can only get one, take BoVD. There are some really nasty monsters to torment your players with, some great new feats and spells, a section on torture, drugs, etc. BoED has a few mildly interesting things that you could take advantage of, but I much prefer the other one.

[JonestheSpy]

Like most folks, I'd say mixed review. If it were me, I'd grab them - lots of interesting stuff to pick and choose from, especially if you're the DM. I especially like the expanded list of the generally-underrepresented good outsiders, and a lot of the evil spells are balanced enough to use against unsuspecting players without being a killer-DM. But, yeah, a lot of it is fairly ridiculous.

One problem I have about both books is that they just mirror-image stuff from each other - similar spells, even a couple of almost identical PrC's, just one labeled "good" and one "evil". That being said, a lot of the philosophical exploration of 'good' and 'evil' in a game universe makes interesting reading, though it's obviously written by game designers who haven't read all that much philosophy...

[Prak]

Like most folks, I'd say mixed review. If it were me, I'd grab them - lots of interesting stuff to pick and choose from, especially if you're the DM. I especially like the expanded list of the generally-underrepresented good outsiders, and a lot of the evil spells are balanced enough to use against unsuspecting players without being a killer-DM. But, yeah, a lot of it is fairly ridiculous.

One problem I have about both books is that they just mirror-image stuff from each other - similar spells, even a couple of almost identical PrC's, just one labeled "good" and one "evil". That being said, a lot of the philosophical exploration of 'good' and 'evil' in a game universe makes interesting reading, though it's obviously written by game designers who haven't read all that much philosophy...

I feel I should point out that, IIRC, the BoED was written by an ex-reverend.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I feel I should point out that, IIRC, the BoED was written by an ex-reverend.

Which explains far more than it doesn't.

[Prak]

you mean like why we're expected to believe that inflicting horrible pain and suffering on a sentient creature is a good act so long as the target is evil? yeah. yeah it explains a lot.

[Innis Cabal]

BoED is good for the monster section. BoVD is good for everything but that for a DM, not so good for the player save for some of the magical items and spells.

Over all, BoED is completly skippable, BoVD only slightly less so unless you feel like you ABSOLUTLY have to have them for some reason and can't come up with your own GOOD/EVIL yourself.

[Alleine]

If you want one, go with BoVD. I find it far more interesting and useful. If nothing else half the prestige classes look like tons of fun. In general I think players and DM's would get more use out of BoVD. It will make villains much more evil, and evil PC's will have more options.

BoED... meh. I read through it and wasn't terribly impressed. The rules are extremely strict and easy to accidentally break unless the entire party is good and the DM is careful not to throw you into a situation where you'll lose all your abilities for whatever godawful reason. BoED makes less sense in my opinion, and restricts the players more than it helps. If you don't mind tweaking though, then it could be a lot better.
I can't really figure out why people call it the Book of Exalted Cheese though, I've discovered more ways to break a game with the BoVD than with the BoED. Then again, I have a hard time focusing when I try to read the BoED.

[Grail]

I actually like the BoED and the BoVD. They have a place in a game, just like any source material. The whole group doesn't have to be exalted to make use of the BoED, but like Paladins, it's hard to explain an Exalted character hanging around with an evil character.

I've used BoED in a campaign I'm running, and used it well IMO. The characters were not eligible to make use of it until they got to a certain point in the game, and had been exalted by actions. BoVD is the same, and is good for arch-villains, and I've used this as well.

[Optimystik]

I found them both exceedingly interesting reads, but then I dug them up in a library and thus didn't have to pay.

Gamewise they don't offer a campaign anything you can't live without. As someone else said earlier in this thread, the monsters are really the best thing about BoED, especially the Sanctified template that lets you play a good-aligned Mindflayer or something.

BoVD is better - because it has so many different ways to be bad, it can result in quite a varied campaign or series of campaigns. But you don't need it to do that.

To summarize: Nice game mechanics from both books:
Cleric Domains
Cleric Spells
SOME Sor/Wiz spells

Nice mechanics from BoVD:
Souls as Power (pay xp costs with bound souls)
Pain as Power (pay xp costs by inflicting torture)
Ur-Priest

Nice mechanics from BoED
Vow of Poverty
Sanctified Creature Template
Monsters (for running Evil campaigns)
Pacifist PrCs (e.g. Apostle of Peace) for characters that want a challenge.

[Temp.]

The balance of the book is wonky, the morality discussions are absurd and the mechanics are inelegant.

The only players who I can imagine being interested in the BoED are min-maxers who would be willing to play a character with a strict, inorganic farce of a moral code if it meant a couple extra numbers on their character sheets.

Just my two cents.

[skywalker]

I like the Book of Exalted Deeds. I was playing a paladin in my first campaign, and when I walked by the book rack, it caught my eye. I took it home and spent an evening with it. I didn't find a thing I found broken. I recently (about 2 years later) looked at it. Oh. My. God. It's full of cheese.

I think what the book says philosophically is fairly sound, but that most of us just don't want to hear it because, in reality, being good is just as hard as they say it is. Especially for people who role-play to escape, I think this can be, at best, inconvenient to think about. So, if you're like most roleplayers, skip the philosophical sections.

Some of the vows, yes, will screw the party. But anybody reading it ought to realize that. Do I fault Wizards, then, for creating the vows? No. I think the book already had plenty of good feats (seriously, I bought that book and expected there to be that large a number of feats in all the books I bought... ) and that in specific situations, the vows can be a good thing (solo campaigns, groups where everyone takes the vow, etc.)

A word on the cheese and the vows. If you approach the book from a perspective other than "Let's distill the number of ways I can screw my DM," or "Oh, he took the vow of non-violence feat! Beautiful! Now I can force him to be violent and make him lose his feat! Ha! 1 player down, 5 to go..."

So many people forget (or never learned) manners when it comes to roleplaying. And that's where most of the conflict comes from. If you (and the people you game with) are going to be mature about it, I personally consider it a fabulous book, and a lot of fun.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I think what the book says philosophically is fairly sound, but that most of us just don't want to hear it because, in reality, being good is just as hard as they say it is. Especially for people who role-play to escape, I think this can be, at best, inconvenient to think about. So, if you're like most roleplayers, skip the philosophical sections.

Half the issue is that it seem to be based around only the most strictly upright holier-than-thou hypocritical good. It's like they decided that since poison was Evil, good characters were weakened, so they inserted poisons that only work on evil people. That's right, rather than making poisons neutral(like they should be) they created poisons "but it's okay, they only work on bad people". Great morality there.

Edit: does it say anywhere that you have to be good to be Exalted? I have a great idea for an evil Vow of Peace Beguiler who goes around Dominating (and Mindraping, once I'm 18th) any enemies to obey him. Hey, according to BoED, violating mental sanctity to force someone to your way of thinking is even good. We need a devil horns smilie.

[RebelRogue]

Edit: does it say anywhere that you have to be good to be Exalted?

Page 39: "Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire Exalted Feats"

[RTGoodman]

Edit: does it say anywhere that you have to be good to be Exalted?

Yep, it does.

This book introduces a new type of feat: the exalted feat. Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good - deities, celestials, or similar creatures.

EDIT: Curses! Ninja'd again!

[AslanCross]

I think both are pretty good for the monsters, at least (though yeah, it's doubtful that a good-aligned party would ever fight the cuddly Warden Archon). The PrCs in BoED are pretty cool IMO (at least when it comes to Fist of Raziel and a couple of others). Unfortunately some of the feats are weird, and the justifications it gives for Ravages and Afflictions as being "good" as opposed to poison are among the silliest aspects of BoED.

I might also add that some of the art in BoVD is rather disturbing. The gory Kython illustration is one, and there's also Belial's tight leather underwear.

[Tempest Fennac]

I hate BoED due to how it's pretty much encouraging you to play a stupig good character rather then being realistic about it (eg: it claims that animating 1 undead is so evil that lettting the entire universe get destroyed is better), and BoVD is over-the-top. I think the only thing I liked about BoED were Moondogs and another incredibly cute Outsider which was detailed in it.

[sonofzeal]

What I would term as the "significant" vows have restrictions on them that prevent the party from doing things as well. Vows of Nonviolence and Peace penalize and make it difficult for a party to work around them.

Having recently played a VoPeace character, and going over the rules with a fine tooth comb, I don't believe this to be true. In some ways it's actually less restrictive than, say, the Paladin - there's no text anywhere I've found that punishes you for the actions of allies, or prevents you from associating with evil characters. The only thing that affects party dynamic is the Calm Emotions aura (which you can't aim around them, unfortunately), and the guilt thing... but really, how often do players really need to kill incapacitated enemies? And in return, you get the aforementioned Calm Emotions, a powerful defensive shatter effect, and +4 to all nonviolent DCs... such as the Calm Emotions and the Shatter.

In our campaign, the VoPeace Healer ended up being the tank, healbot, and party face. Her ability to not take damage (or to not take damage noticably; she did lose some hp to a swarm once) was almost legendary, and half the party was convinced she was immune to fire even though she had no such thing. Calm Emotions + a huge Diplo check meant that she could rapidly turn ravening monsters into downright amicable NPCs. And that's in addition to a 6-hp Cure Minor or 1d8+12 Cure Light.

The same party had a trigger-happy Bodger and a dedicated-to-spreading-evil Sorcerer. The result was... well, dysfunctional, but not openly hostile. Everyone understood everyone else to some degree, and managed to not stab each other in their sleep. The worst that happened regularly was a race to see if the violent-types could end the encounter in blood before the VoPeace Healer ended it in tea and crumpets.