Book of Exalted Deeds (4e)

[Onmi]

I'm going to be involved in a 4e campaign and as usual i'm going to be running a Paladin.

While i'm no stranger to playing the Paladin, will the lessons learned in the BoED help me in4e (I mean I don't see why they wouldn't but just checking)

[Optimystik]

That would depend on what lessons you mean; BoED contradicts itself in several places.

[Dhavaer]

If it helped you in 3.5 and you're playing a good aligned paladin, I don't see why it wouldn't still be helpful.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd personally say it wouldn't be that useful (admittedly, I really hate the book due to how the fluff seems geared towards encouraging people to play stupid good characters).

[Onmi]

now by 'Stupid Good' do you mean stupidly good (which I have never done) or 'Stupid' Good as in you hate the alignment.

[Dhavaer]

As in following the BoED's bizarre rules for treatment of surrendering prisoners.

[Tempest Fennac]

I meant "stupid" in the sense that the book seems to put often impractical ethics above actually helping people (eg: the bit on taking hostages claims that it's not good to kill evil people if they surrender, even though they would probably be executed if you took them back to the town guards anyway (according to DMG 2), and it encourages you to put yourself at risk by not even knocking them out. Then there's the bit which claims that evil acts are always evil even when you're doing them because it would help more people overall. Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.)

[Totally Guy]

Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.)

They don't? Where the hell did I get that idea? I've been living my life all wrong!

[Onmi]

I meant "stupid" in the sense that the book seems to put often impractical ethics above actually helping people (eg: the bit on taking hostages claims that it's not good to kill evil people if they surrender, even though they would probably be executed if you took them back to the town guards anyway (according to DMG 2), and it encourages you to put yourself at risk by not even knocking them out. Then there's the bit which claims that evil acts are always evil even when you're doing them because it would help more people overall. Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.)

for the 'Surrendering Bad Guy' I've always used my best judgment on that, I've seen to many stories where the bad guy surrenders then stabs you in the back, If I do take him back it would be for a reward and if the rest of the party didn't mind, and I would still disarm the crap out of him.

For the Evil acts are allways Evil, again depends on what act, I'm not going to make a deal with a Daemon/Devil to save people, nor will I do something that goes against my morals. I may do something like choose to owe a favor to a bad guy, but I would make him regret it.

I thought the Vow/Abstinence was related to Deity honestly.

But yeah, I used it as a reference in 3.5 but not a blind guide book.

[Tempest Fennac]

I agree exactly about being back-stabbed, Omni. The "evil" acts which the book was refering to seemed to include things like casting Doom or animating zombies to protect a town from invaders. I don't remember those Vows being associated with any particular dieties (ironically, I can think of several dieties who would have issues with those). I'm sorry to hear that, Glug.

[Onmi]

I agree exactly about being back-stabbed, Omni. The "evil" acts which the book was refering to seemed to include things like casting Doom or animating zombies to protect a town from invaders. I don't remember those Vows being associated with any particular dieties (ironically, I can think of several dieties who would have issues with those). I'm sorry to hear that, Glug.

Then there's the chance that the bad guy could get OFF and go back to doing evil, no I'll be the judge over whether we kill him, make him completely harmless and drag him back to the village, or a combination. Preferably the rest of the party would cast the vote to.

Seeing as a Paladin I can't cast doom OR Animate a zombie to protect a town thats not my problem. If it was something like using a cursed blade and my own sword wasn't sufficient, I would do so. My justification being that I trust my will power enough to fight it off,and that if it displeases my God so badly I shall simply repent to him, I made the decision based on what I felt I needed to do.

A situation came up one campaign a long time ago when the BBEG took the party (sans Paladin) hostage and ordered him to go out and slaughter a village to save his friends. The Pally responded that the party had signed a contract to go through them to get to the BBEG and that he would kill them himself before the BBEG got the chance to.

While slaughtering a variety of characters (some good, some neutral, one evil prisoner) would definitely be seen as horrible, the fact they had all agreed before hand AND He was serious about doing it justified it.

of course the BBEG let the party go because he got scared of what the Paladin would do AFTER killing the rest of the party. Point being is that I would do some evil things for good. however I would repent for them afterward.

[Tempest Fennac]

That was an interresting way of solving the problem. The drawback would have been if he called your bluff about killing your friends. Apart from spells which are designed to target specific alignments (excluding Detect Alignment), I tend to ignore alignment descriptors while basing the decision about whether they are evil entirely on why they are being used. (Eg: using Contagion to weaken a perverted killing maniac who you're tying to apprehend would be good rather then evil to me).

[Onmi]

That's the thing, it WASN'T a bluff, he was telling the truth the entire time,I'll kill them before you do, then I'll make you wish you had never existed.

Sort of an example, the Neverwinter Nights chapter 2 module had a sidequest where 5 people (or 6) had escaped from Jail, you could either let them go free or kill them.

Two cases stick out for me, one is a Elf Ranger (IIRC) who had gone on a murderous rampage upon men, there families and there animals who had killed his father who had been trying to negotiate peacefully with them and raped and murder his mother.

I judged that he just wanted to live in peace in the forest, that he was acting under emotions and was unlikely to ever do that again, I took his ear (you can either take the ear with their brand as proof there dead, or kill them and take it) and let him go.

Then we have a Gnome who confessed he was a baby killer and intended to re offend. I killed him instantly.

That was my train of thought, I don't know if in a D&D Campaign I would Fall or take a loss for not killing them all, but I did what I thought was right.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm the same with basing these desicions on the situation. I can see why you made that desicion with the Ranger.

[RebelRogue]

As in following the BoED's bizarre rules for treatment of surrendering prisoners.

The Clockwork Orange part?

I can't see why so many people insist on using Evil to fight Evil is still not Evil! That's part of the general idea, that being Good should be harder than being Evil, you know!

As for advicing the OP: I think there's some fluffy bits you can use, yes. However, for more crunchy stuff, Divine Power will probably have a lot of goodies for you when it comes out.

[Onmi]

I compare it to this.

Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action, yet sometimes you HAVE to kill a person for the greater good,We have done so, I'm not talking about the people who got called into the army and thought they were fighting for a just reason.

I'm talking about the men behind them.

In the same way killing a BBEG is still killing, an inherently evil action.But done for right reason.

Hence I would use a cursed sword and maybe evil spells to defend a town. But would never do something like raise undead, deal with a Devil/Daemon, or anything avoidable/to severe.

I call it justified evil.

Also do you know when Divine Powers comes out in Australia?

[Ether]

I compare it to this.

Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action,

Really? I would say the evilness of killing depends entirely on who you kill.

[Roderick_BR]

(...)Then there's the favt that the Vows of chastity and abstainance have no connection to being good at all.

Well, technically, the Willing Deformity feats (BoVD), doesn't have much to do with being evil either (I'm so skinny you can see my bones. I'm eeeebil)

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd forgotten about those, Roderick (this is why I ban BoED and VD from my games). It wouldn't be as bad if the stat changes from obesity and extreme skinniness were realistic. I think Atreyu The Masked Llama was more evil during the last good/evil itP contest then any of the deformity feats are, which is worrying.

[Little_Rudo]

One thing you might want to keep in mind is that the concept of a Paladin has changed slightly between editions. In 3E, a Paladin was a warrior who followed the principles of (and was empowered by) the forces of Law and Good; although they often worked within a church, they were not beholden to a deity as much as to Law and Good itself. In 4E, a Paladin is instead a holy warrior, empowered by their deity and able to be of any alignment. If you want the Lawful Good, Book of Exalted Deeds-style Paladin, I'd suggest being a Paladin of Bahamut, or possibly Moradin or Pelor.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Really? I would say the evilness of killing depends entirely on who you kill.

This is one of the big problems with an alignment system, or rather with its implamentation in many games. In order to be able to have abilites based on good and evil those things need rules, but good and evil are not hard and fast things. To take a topical example, there is much debate as to which side of that line Ozymandias and Rorchach lie (and in fact there is meant to be). The reason why these two books cause so much trouble is that the rules thy put forth are rather stricter than most people would prefer.

For reference I hold that killing is always evil, but sometimes not killing can also be evil. It is inherent in the imperfect nature of this world that there can, at times, be not "right" choice. But the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[hamishspence]

Maybe my biases toward law are the reason, but I see the main reason you can't kill bad guys who surrender as "you don't have the authority" You aren't a judge, jury, or executioner, and choosing to kill a helpless being without that kind of authority, is dubious.

This only applies when being is imprisoned, helpless, etc. Self-defense or defense of another- not evil, when the threat is direct and clear.

Sanctify the Wicked and the "ability-damaging poison is evil" bit are probably my biggest issues with BoED, fluff-wise.

[Tempest Fennac]

The biggest joke about the ability damage part is that Ravages are only poisons which only affect evil people. I agree that not executing evil people who surrender is Lawful rather then Good.

[Kaiser Omnik]

The BoED is about being an idealist...and kantian ethics.

You can't cause suffering to a sapient creature, unless it's a true Force of Darkness TM, without a soul or any type of conscience. Sanctify the Wicked is not evil, because no harm is involved. It's not forced alignment change, either. The target of the spell simply reflects on his past actions and decides to become good.

Now, ravages ("good" poisons) are just stupid.

[hamishspence]

i figure Ravages as like Improved Holy water- works on ordinary people, not just fiends/undead- on Evil alignment, not just evil subtype.

Actually, executing guilty beings is definitively Lawful- Fiendish Codex 2 calls out carrying out an execution as a very lawful act.

But if you're not authorized to do it, its not an execution.
(which is why the term "gangland execution" grates on my ears)

Even Chaotic jurisdictions grant people caught in act of crime a hearing- elves of Evereska, in book 1 of Return of the Archwizard trilogy by Troy Denning

Unless the adventurers actually have that authority (paladins of Tyr, rangers of the Sword Coast North, for example, according to Faiths & Pantheons, and Power of Faerun) they should be wary of killing prisoners.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd expect that the creatures would be attacking the PCs or someone else first. If not, then the PCs launching an unprovoked attack would be evil in my view. Sanctify the Wicked still sounds doubious to me unless it's entirely up to the evil creature whether their alignment changes (I've not seen the book for ages).

[Blackfang108]

Killing is (by real life standards) and inherently evil action...

No. It's not.

Killing is a Neutral action. Are wild predators evil? NO. And yet, they MUST kill to survive.

is Steak Evil? NO. (Preachy Vegetarians are wrong, in this regard.)

Is the lawful execution of a killer evil? No.

Murder, however IS evil. Murder is defined as (noun)"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. "
Also(verb): "To kill (another human) unlawfully."

Killing, in contrast: "To cause death or extinction; be fatal. "

Note that I am only using the first definiton for all word parts, to bring the "true" meaning of the words to bear. Killing CAN be synonomus with Murder, but at its basic definition, it is not.

[Kaiser Omnik]

I'd expect that the creatures would be attacking the PCs or someone else first. If not, then the PCs launching an unprovoked attack would be evil in my view. Sanctify the Wicked still sounds doubious to me unless it's entirely up to the evil creature whether their alignment changes (I've not seen the book for ages).

I think that the targets of the spell aren't freed of the gem unless they actually become good (they can't fake it or anything). If they don't, well, they just stay imprisoned forever.

Anyway, I liked the book, personally. It's a great challenge to play a VoP character, for example. I simply didn't use ravages and things of that nature.

[GoC]

But would never do something like raise undead

What's wrong with rasing undead?
The only thing I can see is that some annoying gods don't like it.

What's wrong with forced evil->good alignment changes?
Seems like that is (by definition) good. iow: It makes a net improvement on the world.

hamishspence: True chaotics ignore the entire concept of authority but they removed the entire chaotic good alignment from 4e...
Something I greatly dislike, as the best authority normaly isn't some king who got into power by being nastier than everyone else, but the good aligned party members.

[Juhn]

People in this forum have a tendency to take that book way out of context. For one thing, there's a significant difference between playing Good and playing Exalted. Exalted characters aren't just good, they're practically saints. They don't perform evil actions unless forced to, and even when they do they acknowledge that the action was still evil and atone. It's possible to be Good without taking it to the level of Exalted, and if someone wants to play an Exalted character he should be willing to be thoroughly serious about being not just Good, but full-out Exalted, even when there are consequences. Being Exalted is supposed to be hard.

Sanctify the Wicked, IIRC, results in a voluntary change.

Raising Undead, I believe, is considered evil because it's desecration of a body by bringing it to life against its owner's will and forcing it to do your bidding. Deathless, I believe, make a voluntary commitment, which is why using them is not evil.