Being Exalted without being stupid [3.5]

[Zaq]

Okay, so, recently I've been taking another look at the Book of Exalted Deeds. Yeah, groan away. The book's got a lot of problems. The whole "Good is just Evil multiplied by -1" mentality. The whole "If you do anything bad or even neutral, ever, you're not Exalted" mentality. The rampant contradictions in the book. The apparently random assignment of certain convictions to Good (I'm hardly the first person to point out that "Vow of Chastity" really doesn't have ANYTHING to do with being capital-G Good). Complete and utter nonsense like Ravages, Afflictions, and Holy Mindrape (er, "Sanctify the Wicked"). There's a lot to dislike about the book.

That said, there's still some redeeming qualities and some interesting stuff in the book, and I'm futilely hoping against hope to spark a reasoned and level-headed discussion about what parts of the book, if any, are actually workable and interesting. Having a resource for characters who really are capital-G Good is an interesting topic to me, and for all the book's flaws, there's still some stuff in there that isn't utter crap. (Yeah, you have to dig for it, but it's there.)

So I ask you, fellow Playgrounders, what useful material do you take away from the (usually wisely) viewed-with-skepticism BoED? What material in it is an interesting concept wrapped in an awful presentation that just needs a little more reason and maturity to be interesting at the table?

Some topics I'm especially interested in, if you want a starting point:

-What do you think the at-table consequences of a Vow of Nonviolence (NOT a Vow of Peace, that's just asking for trouble) character are? What do you think they SHOULD be, in a well-reasoned and mature group?
-Which of the Vows are nonsensical, and why? Which are reasonable to the point that they are better represented by a feat (and the accompanying benefit) than by simple roleplaying choices?
-What kind of responsibilities does a GM face with an as-written Exalted player in a non-Exalted but non-Evil group? What kind of responsibilities SHOULD a GM face in such a situation?
-Say there's an Exalted character in a party that includes characters who engage in practices that the Exalted character is against (for example, a Vow of Nonviolence character who watches an ally kill someone before the VoN character can react and stop them). Obviously, this should lead to some interesting roleplaying moments at least once. Should this KEEP happening, however? If the Exalted character disapproves but doesn't want to force his (or her) allies to adhere to his strict moral code, how should this be handled at the table? Do we need to roleplay the VoN character tsk-tsking the others after every single fight? If so, how does that actually improve the game? If not, how do you defend against the charge that you're "handwaving away what should be interesting moral dissonance?" Where's the middle ground?
-What kind of moral dilemmas is it fair to throw at an Exalted character, and what kind are just jerkass "YOU FALL!" moments? I believe that Exalted characters should have to make tough decisions, but where's the line between a tough moral decision that's fun for everyone at the table and simply punishing the player for being Exalted?
-How big of a role is it fair to place on conversion of opponents? What's the best way to reconcile a character who believes in redeeming the enemy with a party that's okay with more up-front violence?
-When should a player really not try to play an Exalted character? There's the obvious case (only Exalted character in an otherwise Evil party), but to intentionally use a loaded term that the BoED tends to dislike, there's a lot of gray area between the extremes of an all-Evil (or all-Vile) party and an all-Good (or all-Exalted) party. When does a player's choice to be Exalted cause more problems than it's worth, and why?
-How should we consider the magic in BoED? Some is ridiculous prima facie (Holy Mindrape is just the most obvious example), but is any of it reasonable? What do you think of the Sanctified Spell mechanic? What about the Abstinence component mechanic? Why?
-What's a good reason (in-character and out-of-character) for a character to be Exalted instead of just very strongly Good? What's not a good reason?
-There's a lot of problems in the book, and some of them have relatively simple fixes. What kinds of things would you tweak almost without a second thought, if you had a player in your group who wanted to be Exalted?
-How can a character be Exalted without falling into the "Stupid Good" pit? How should we expand their ability to be Exalted without being stupid?

This is of course not an exhaustive list. It's just me kind of brainstorming the kinds of things I'd like to see discussed in the context of the BoED.

The BoED has some major problems, but even if it handles the concepts in an extraordinarily clumsy way, it's still got some interesting topics to consider. Let's have a mature and level-headed discussion of the interesting parts.

(Please don't just say "The BoED is garbage, ignore it." I'm the first to say it's rife with problems. That's not the point. The point of this thread is to discuss those problems, think about what would make them better, think about what is and isn't salvageable, think about what we would do to make the book less terrible. I know it's probably futile to hope for mature discussion on such a tender subject, but come on, please?)

[Yora]

Unless the game is actually based on the idea that a bunch of guys who hate each other have to get along for the sake of a greater good (or evil), or it's actually expected they will kill each other at some point, I think it's generally a very bad idea to have a party of characters with strictly opposing views on highly important matters.

Vow of Nonviolence does not have to be a problem and can be a very cool aspect for a campaign, as long as there's at least a general consensus that violence should be restricted to situations where it can not be avoided. I think it's great when the CG rogue and the NG nonviolent cleric have honest and civil arguments about weather or not to kill a dangerous murderer, who is protected by the corrupt government. And when it ends with the rogue leaving with telling the cleric he is sorry that they couldn't agree on this, while the cleric is stying behind to pray for the souls of both the rogue and the murderer, I think that's a huge success!
But if the cleric is shouting all the time "stop fighting! stop fighting!" and the CN barbarian is just replying by "Shut up! I really don't care for your stupid god.", I don't think that's fun for anyone. Of course, it can be, but only if it's a kind of slap-stick comedy campaign.

Regarding the Exalted status: I think the definition of Exalted should be rewritten. It's some time til I last read it, but I think it's far to restrictive for a campaign played by people who want to handle these things in a mature way.
But what is an exalted character then? To me, I would say that a good character is a person who is willing to do what he can reasonably do to help other people. But an exalted character goes beyond that. He will give everything to help other people and will go far beyond what anyone would ever expect them to do. A good character might say "I really have to do something for the poor leepers. I think I'll make some significant donations to the temple and maybe I could made a journey to the forest of the elves to see if their herbalists know any substances that will help the sick." But a character of real exalted status knows that this can be easily be done by other people, even if he had to pay them to do that. But he will put on some gloves and care for the sick for as long as it takes for a cure to arrive. I'd say to be exalted, a character would not shy away from something he could do, but he feels very uncomfortable about.
Everyone will be incredibly greatful to the good character who took some real efforts on him to help the sick and nobody would think any less of him because he kept his distance from them. Even that is a real gesture of generosity. But an exalted character will sacrifice everything he has to help.

I think this is still by far open enough to allow for a very wide range of options how to play an exalted character and does not force him to take a certain action or refrain from it. But I think an exalted character should be really selfless.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It's a great book. It just takes actually using your brain to process the material. Just like with any of the Races books, you ignore most of the fluff and use your own version. Most of the mechanical stuff is weak to average in power, and some of it is great flavor; so long as you leave out the starmantle cloak, you're fine.

The sections on what good actually is are pretty much unnecessary. Who doesn't know it already? You don't use violence except as a last resort or against things that shouldn't be anyway (undead, evil outsiders), you're altruistic and selfless and compassionate and all that rot.

Exalted characters in non-Exalted groups face the exact same problems as paladins; generally, the rest of the group has to be Good-aligned or at least Neutral and unwilling to commit Evil actions. If everyone at the table is a team player, there's no significant difficulties there.

Vows are slightly tricky, but easily handled. A character with a Vow of Nonviolence wouldn't be travelling with a violent group anyway: so either the rest of the party has to agree to only use violence as a last resort, or the player ditches the Vow of Nonviolence for something else. If your players are mature, they'll want the conflict, though, and will keep it reasonable.

In most D&D settings, Exalted characters are religious, which makes sense to me; there's both a community (the church, cult, whatever) and a higher power (the deity) holding the character to the higher standard, and providing them with power and assistance for it.

[Zincorium]

If you're familiar with the sliding scale of idealism vs. realism, a game that contains exalted material but is still fun would have to be situated quite firmly on the idealistic side.

You can be very, very good- but if you're cynical, a 'realist', or just don't trust that people have the very best intentions, you will have trouble being exalted for more than the first five minutes after character creation.

And the game has to support your viewpoint, rather than casting you as a naive airhead who doesn't understand the real world.

Having every bad guy be a sadistic/psychotic waste-of-oxygen that will just come back to kill you if you show any mercy will get very old, very quickly, even without a holy vow saying you can't, because you never should kill someone who could be saved. The DM has to make it clear that redemption is possible. Without the holy mindrape.

[Captain Alien]

In conclusion, BoED concept of "extremely good character" shows characters like Miko Miyazaki as the paradigm of Good.

When I first read BoED, I had just read BoVD hours before. If the latter scared me, the first left me aghast: It was even darker than BoVD. In the worst sense.

I want to answer this one:

What's a good reason (in-character and out-of-character) for a character to be Exalted instead of just very strongly Good? What's not a good reason?

Some Exalted feats give cool stuff to characters: Poisoning with touching, Xd8 in Sneak Attack instead of Xd6... They worth it. Now, they are useless in campaigns where not every creature you fight is evil, or there are dinosaurs or Neutral monsters.

And, on-rol, they mark your character forever. It is not the same a fighter who saves children as a fighter who shines and smites evil creatures with holy powers. It just makes that character different in that sense. His ethics turn into something physical, tangible. Painful.

[Oslecamo]

In conclusion, BoED concept of "extremely good character" makes characters like Miko Miyazaki as the paradigm of Good.

In case you didn't notice, the gods themselves considered MM to be the paradigm of good all the way untill she killed her own master at cold blood, by only taking her paladin powers then.

Does this mean that being exalted=/= being cool?

Yes it does. Miko sacrificed everything she had to serve good, and with that she became the greatest paladin of the saphire guard, and at the same time the most hated, untill finally a series of unfortonate events made her mind snap.

Because some people are too busy saving lifes and stuff instead of showing off for the pleasure of the public.

[Xefas]

I love Sanctify the Wicked for my Archons and other strongly Lawful servants of Good; at least in the Great Wheel cosmology. I can see how they would be more concerned with the fate of a creature's immortal soul, rather than freedom of choice for their fleeting, mortal form.

If you're evil and die, you spend eternity either A) in continuous unspeakably painful agony in the Lower Planes or B) as an Evil Outsider, a creature of pure irredeemable taint who will spend their immortal life committing evil acts.

If you're good and die. It's exactly the opposite. Bliss or Immortal Crusader of Goodness.

Who cares if you have freedom of choice in your scant years of actual life? I don't. If you had to be lead by the nose to the right choice, then you weren't going to make the right choice anyway. The difference between this and real life, is that in this case, the Great Wheel has objective morality, and a creature of unquestionable Good is making the right choice for you. That's how you know it's really the Right Choice, and that you Should Make It. Even if you're mind is too corrupt to know that.

[snoopy13a]

The sacred vows are meant to signify the belief that personal sacrifice can result in goodness. This is a relatively common belief (any specifics on this would be against the forum rules).

Exalted characters can perform neutral actions without penalties. Otherwise they'd have to resort to begging for survivial as recieving an honest wage for honest work is neutral.

There should not be any party conflicts with exalted characters. If a player wants to play an exalted character, the rest of the party ought to be good aligned and ideally exalted as well. Plus, the DM ought to be on board as well. Everyone should be on the same page An exalted character should not be adventuring with a chaotic neutral barbarian. Instead, they should be adventuring with those of a similiar mindset. Exalted characters and paladins do not cause inter-party troubles if the entire party agrees with them.

Additionally, the book clears up some philosophical issues from a game perspective. It clearly states that the ends do not justify the means. Now, Miko would not be an example of an exalted character. The reason is that she does not possess forgiveness or mercy which exalted characters should have. An exalted character should ideally try to redeem evil instead of killing them as Miko does. "Lawful Stupid" is not exalted because lawful stupid characters tend not to be the forgiving type.

Exalted characters are meant to be goody two-shoes and the book is there for people who want to play idealistic heroes. It is not for people who want the feats but don't want to act exalted in-game.

[MickJay]

I love Sanctify the Wicked for my Archons and other strongly Lawful servants of Good; at least in the Great Wheel cosmology. I can see how they would be more concerned with the fate of a creature's immortal soul, rather than freedom of choice for their fleeting, mortal form.

If you're evil and die, you spend eternity either A) in continuous unspeakably painful agony in the Lower Planes or B) as an Evil Outsider, a creature of pure irredeemable taint who will spend their immortal life committing evil acts.

If you're good and die. It's exactly the opposite. Bliss or Immortal Crusader of Goodness.

Who cares if you have freedom of choice in your scant years of actual life? I don't. If you had to be lead by the nose to the right choice, then you weren't going to make the right choice anyway. The difference between this and real life, is that in this case, the Great Wheel has objective morality, and a creature of unquestionable Good is making the right choice for you. That's how you know it's really the Right Choice, and that you Should Make It. Even if you're mind is too corrupt to know that.

I have to double that, if D&D was like RL, it would be fair to call StW "holy mindrape", but in a setting where Good is objective, it really is holy, and one of the best (if not the best) things one can do for Evil beings.

[Nero24200]

While it's the DM's job to make the NPCs, story and modify to account for PC actions, it's the player's job to make a party that at least works together.

Vows like Vow of Peace can actually make for an interesting character if it suits the campaign style and doesn't clash with the party...then again that applies to alot of things in D'n'D. You wouldn't allow Batman Wizards and CoDzilla in a campaign with a newbie playing a straight, unoptimized fighter would you?

Though I have to admit, of al lthe content I do like the sacrifice spells (I.E the "I sacrifice a part of myself to do the greater good" spells). I also like alot of the vows, since they seem so much more interesting than some standard feats.

Though I really disagree with the "They create anal characters" mentallity that seems to be floating about. Poorly played characters are the results of the players, not the rules. I've seen well-played exalted and paladin characters, but I've also seen poorly played ones. And quite frankly the ones that play poor paladins and exalted are also the type to play evil characters as "I'm Evil, therfore it's perfectly acceptable to kill my party and loot them, for no real reason". If you find a player at your table is being a problem with exalted material, it's probably the player more than anything else.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Hahaha yes we're back on the endless Sanctify the Wicked debate once more.

My money: this spell is great for sanctimonious, holier-than-thou villains who think every antisocial citizen needs to be "corrected," (or "enlightened," or "scrubbed," or whatever your favorite Menacing Doublespeak phrase is). It was really poorly thought out and essentially there because BoED needed to parallel BoVD, so the exalted characters needed an equivalent of Mindrape.... despite the fact there shouldn't be an equivalent of Mindrape any good character would consider.

Wicked people made their own choices, and they get to answer for it when you send them to the next world. Stepping in and forcing them to be good, when the gods don't, is an act of hubris on par with Lucifer adding more bricks to his throne. :p

[Josh the Aspie]

A vow of chastity, or forbearance from some other earthly desire, is not something that can only be associated with good, or ill. It is, however, something that one chooses to give up, to show their dedication to a cause, or religion. In the case of some organizations, cults, or religions, there is a standard forbearance. In many cases this started out as something that a few people did voluntarily. Then it became sort of the standard, then expected, then no longer optional at all. In the case of the Catholic priesthood, you are expected to give up sexual intercourse. It is expected that Catholics will give up meat on fridays (with fish not counting), especially during lent.

Many Christians fast during lent entirely, having nothing but liquids except on Wednesday.

On the other hand, many people who join PETA, in devotion to their cause, give up eating animal flesh all together (and some give up any animal products such as milk or eggs as well).

While it does not have to be associated with one religion, or alignment, setting aside a worldly hunger often sets one apart from others who have not chosen too.

[penbed400]

I play an extremely exalted character and I don't seem to find a lot of trouble doing it. My current character is a level 20 druid with Vow of Poverty and Vow of Peace, it's a little difficult especially since almost all of my exalted feats from Vow of Poverty had to make everything I do non-lethal damage, but it certainly makes roleplaying fun for my group. Everybody is Good except for I think Lawful Neutral Warlock. We mainly just walk around and it's gotten to a few points where lethal damage has been done. There have been no deaths on my characters watch though but thats mainly because how the party works out. Everyone's characters in the group are around the 20-30 year old range but my Druid is 72 years old. So I dunno, they take the "we'd better not anger the old guy who walks around in rags and has a walking stick" mentality and it went fine. Of course its always fun when my character gets initiative and he walks forward with his hands out offering peace and friendly greetings to the bad guys at a -10 full round diplomacy check. Anyways I'm going to have to agree with the guy a couple posts ahead of me. If you can run a character to be exalted without being stupid go for it, it's all about how the players can do it rather than anything else.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, a lot of BoED seems to be about piling restrictions on the PCs. And these restrictions don't necessarily make them more Good. So, specific, mandated standards of behavior, but not necessarily Good... Wait, isn't there a D&D thingy that covers that?

Oh, yeah, that's right! Law! You know, part of the Law/Chaos axis? The one that gets ignored in favor of the Good/Evil axis? A lot of the material in that book is really Lawful, not Good. So, uh... go ahead and say that it's Lawful, maybe? Make Exalted feats and PrCs require Lawful rather than Good alignment, for example.

Some things may require a PC to be Good as well as Lawful. Exalted alignment as described by the book is probably a narrow subset of Law and Good. Take away a few things and it becomes just Lawful, though, I'll bet.

[The_Snark]

You know, reading over the Sanctify the Wicked spell, I'm not getting the feeling that it's a good version of Mindrape. At all, really. Yes, it has a vaguely similar mechanical effect, forcing a major personality change on the target if they fail a Will save, but the description—that is to say, what's actually happening—is completely different.

With Mindrape, the spell invades the victim's mind and makes whatever changes the caster feels like, removing or adding memories, emotions, or personality features. With Sanctify the Wicked, the spell simply traps the creature's soul and forces it to contemplate for a year (in objective time; for the soul, it could be more). I quote from the description: "The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Not "the soul is irrevocably altered by the magic." The spell isn't meant to be like Mindrape; it doesn't have the mind-affecting descriptor, and in fact isn't even an enchantment. It's meant to initiate a sort of spiritual contemplation, helping the target along by forcing them to look at the unpleasant consequences of their actions, reminding them of whatever good qualities they have or used to have, and showing them where they might end up if they continue as they are. Imagine the same sort of thing Ebenezer Scrooge goes through, only there's a year or more of it rather than a single night. Nowhere is the spell magically compelling the creature to change. In game mechanics, yes, the fact that the creature is always redeemed by a year of contemplation and that it adopts the caster's exact alignment (rather than keeping its law/chaos alignment) is a little awkward, but game mechanics sometimes have to be an abstraction.

You could interpret it as Holy Mindrape, invasively changing the creature's mind to be more like yours. But I'm pretty sure that's not what the writers of the book intended it to be, and it isn't what the (rather sparse) descriptive text seems to be hinting at. Spell descriptions in D&D have always been pretty lacking, possibly because they want to leave the exact interpretation up to individual players and DMs, but that means that you're supposed to come up with an interpretation that you like. If you come up with one you hate... well, try again, refluffing the spell as necessary, or just get rid of it if you don't like the concept.

The explanation I've given for Sanctify the Wicked does rely on the assumption that all evil creatures (except Evil-subtyped ones) will repent if shown the error of their ways for long enough, and while I don't think this is too far-fetched for a game using Book of Exalted Deeds material, it might not be one you like. Maybe you don't want that as an implicit part of your game, or you'd just prefer that your PCs redeem their enemies personally rather than relying on magical vision-quests. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or disallow the spell, but "it's Holy Mindrape" doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

[Devils_Advocate]

Either the spell allows a creature not to change its alignment, or the alignment change is forced on it. There doesn't seem to be any real middle ground here.

Furthermore, if the alignment change were just the inevitable result of prolonged contemplation, the adopted alignment wouldn't depend on the caster, now would it?

So... Yeah, it's Holy Mindrape.

Edit: I remember a Paladin variant that someone brewed up in the Homebrew section, and one of the possible abilities was the ability to charm people. The creator defended this as an abstraction of being able to occasionally be really diplomatic.

I'm sorry, but NO. That's a load of crap. Those aren't the same thing. Mind blank protects you from enchantments but not from the Diplomacy skill, for example. It's like giving someone a big boost to Sleight of Hand and saying that it's "just an abstraction of how good he is at requisitioning supplies."

If you're going to run a game where you take morality seriously, that pretty much requires not doing a bunch of B.S. handwaving about how evil things somehow aren't evil when you do them. Really, that crap goes against the "No, you can't. Not even then" spirit of various restrictions in the BoED, and contributes to an overall feeling that its restrictions are arbitrary and stupid. Same deal with ravages.

[Frogwarrior]

You know, reading over the Sanctify the Wicked spell, I'm not getting the feeling that it's a good version of Mindrape. At all, really. Yes, it has a vaguely similar mechanical effect, forcing a major personality change on the target if they fail a Will save, but the description—that is to say, what's actually happening—is completely different.

With Mindrape, the spell invades the victim's mind and makes whatever changes the caster feels like, removing or adding memories, emotions, or personality features. With Sanctify the Wicked, the spell simply traps the creature's soul and forces it to contemplate for a year (in objective time; for the soul, it could be more). I quote from the description: "The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Not "the soul is irrevocably altered by the magic." The spell isn't meant to be like Mindrape; it doesn't have the mind-affecting descriptor, and in fact isn't even an enchantment. It's meant to initiate a sort of spiritual contemplation, helping the target along by forcing them to look at the unpleasant consequences of their actions, reminding them of whatever good qualities they have or used to have, and showing them where they might end up if they continue as they are. Imagine the same sort of thing Ebenezer Scrooge goes through, only there's a year or more of it rather than a single night. Nowhere is the spell magically compelling the creature to change. In game mechanics, yes, the fact that the creature is always redeemed by a year of contemplation and that it adopts the caster's exact alignment (rather than keeping its law/chaos alignment) is a little awkward, but game mechanics sometimes have to be an abstraction.

You could interpret it as Holy Mindrape, invasively changing the creature's mind to be more like yours. But I'm pretty sure that's not what the writers of the book intended it to be, and it isn't what the (rather sparse) descriptive text seems to be hinting at. Spell descriptions in D&D have always been pretty lacking, possibly because they want to leave the exact interpretation up to individual players and DMs, but that means that you're supposed to come up with an interpretation that you like. If you come up with one you hate... well, try again, refluffing the spell as necessary, or just get rid of it if you don't like the concept.

The explanation I've given for Sanctify the Wicked does rely on the assumption that all evil creatures (except Evil-subtyped ones) will repent if shown the error of their ways for long enough, and while I don't think this is too far-fetched for a game using Book of Exalted Deeds material, it might not be one you like. Maybe you don't want that as an implicit part of your game, or you'd just prefer that your PCs redeem their enemies personally rather than relying on magical vision-quests. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or disallow the spell, but "it's Holy Mindrape" doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

*Applause*

[AvatarZero]

-Which of the Vows are nonsensical, and why? Which are reasonable to the point that they are better represented by a feat (and the accompanying benefit) than by simple roleplaying choices?

For my money, the Sacred Vow feat that acts as a prerequisite for the others is a bit off. I don't like the idea that a character can only be good if they serve a good deity. I like my characters to make their own decisions, not to take orders.

Also, there's the Vow of Chastity and Vow of Abstinence. I don't drink, but I also don't consider myself morally superior to people that do. The writeup in BoED seems to imply that superiority, or at least that only Good people do it. I'd say never drinking is a better fit with Lawful than Good. Same with other sorts of self-denial. Also, I don't think anyone who does drink would think that abstaining INCREASES your alcohol tolerance.

I reckon you could handle the two of them with roleplaying, or possibly with a circumstance modifier to will saves vs honey traps.

[snoopy13a]

Well, a lot of BoED seems to be about piling restrictions on the PCs. And these restrictions don't necessarily make them more Good. So, specific, mandated standards of behavior, but not necessarily Good... Wait, isn't there a D&D thingy that covers that?

Oh, yeah, that's right! Law! You know, part of the Law/Chaos axis? The one that gets ignored in favor of the Good/Evil axis? A lot of the material in that book is really Lawful, not Good. So, uh... go ahead and say that it's Lawful, maybe? Make Exalted feats and PrCs require Lawful rather than Good alignment, for example.

Some things may require a PC to be Good as well as Lawful. Exalted alignment as described by the book is probably a narrow subset of Law and Good. Take away a few things and it becomes just Lawful, though, I'll bet.

No, exalted alignment is not a subset of law and good. It is just idealistic good. Exalted characters can be chaotic good. In fact, there are exalted PRCs where you must be chaotic such as the Troubadour of Stars.

Many people are under the assumption that chaotic good is some sort of lesser good and it allows latitude that lawful good does not. It isn't. Instead, it is to promote good with as much personal freedom as possible. Exalted chaotic good characters are free spirits and distrust authority but they are still going to grant their opponents mercy if they surrender and they are not going to commit evil deeds to achieve a percieved greater good. They despise oppression and will actively fight against tyrants.

Now, the only things that impose restrictions that aren't "good" as first glance are the sacred vows. However, the argument for them being good is that personal sacrifice helps one become more good. Personal sacrifice is not a lawful trait as it comes from self-discipline, not following society's laws or customs.

[Captain Alien]

Now, the only things that impose restrictions that aren't "good" as first glance are the sacred vows. However, the argument for them being good is that personal sacrifice helps one become more good. Personal sacrifice is not a lawful trait as it comes from self-discipline, not following society's laws or customs.

Yes, that's it. Another interesting BoED characteristic concept is this Personal Sacrifice stuff. Personal Sacrifice is something Exalted, because makes one losing something in order to do Good. There is nothing as selfless as Personal Sacrifice, don't you agree?

But then, Vow feats are a contradiction: They give bonuses to the character. So, where is the sacrifice then? They are as selfish as any other feat. That is their purpose.

[Callista]

What are you using the Vow benefits for, though? You sure aren't going to use them for personal benefit, or for evil. You're giving up stuff so you can be a more effective force for good... I don't see the problem here.

Chaotic Good is definitely every bit as Good as the other two G alignments. It's not my style; I tend towards Law; but I can see how someone with a good sense of intuition and individualism might follow his heart to be every bit as Good as that Lawful paladin over there. Lawful Exalted Good people tend to join or start organizations; to use Law to further Good. Chaotic Exalted Good people will focus on individuals--and are far more likely to lead by example, without even seeking a leadership position.

For example, let's look at a common D&D style problem: Poverty. There's social inequality in the kingdom, so the working class is just barely scraping by enough to feed the kids, and sometimes not even that.

Lawful Good response: Change the system. Find a way to get the wages raised--without hurting anyone else. Maybe you win the war--through diplomacy or battle--that's been dragging out for ages and raising people's taxes so they can't pay good wages. Maybe you work to change the laws so the poor get enough to live on. Maybe you even step into a leadership position yourself, or else find a good leader and support him, to make things better. And, if things are so bad that it's impossible to change the government, you may--regretfully--overthrow it. (Yes, that's right, a chaotic act. Good takes precedence here.) By the end of it, you've probably started a few orphanages--there's no way you can close your heart to the human suffering.

Chaotic Good response: Help the people. At low levels, maybe you start schools so the kids can get a hot lunch every day; or maybe you start a soup kitchen--probably staffed by the poor you're helping, so that they can keep their pride by working for that meal. Maybe you start a business, hire some of those out-of-work guys. (That's right, you're bossing people around--a Lawful act. Good takes precedence here.) Higher levels, maybe you turn Robin Hood and find the really corrupt people who are hoarding their wealth and redistribute a bit of it. Or, maybe you hire yourself out as a servant to those leaders, and change their minds through diplomacy. Or, if it's that long-term war draining the country, you sneak in and take out the enemy leaders. By the end of it, you've probably adopted a few orphans--there's no way you can close your heart to the human suffering.

It's a style thing. Doesn't have much to do wit how Good you are.

[Gnaeus]

I make exalted characters pick a good deity or deities they follow. I find that it makes life VASTLY easier. Then I can view their alignment through the lens of their deity.

For example, in the typical moral dilemma (we killed these humanoids and now are stuck in the dungeon with their non-combatant goblin children) I don't have to read BoED and a bunch of vague sections in the PHB then have an argument about different interpretations with players before making a decision no one will like. I just read their deity description and think "Would Moradin (or god of choice) approve?" It usually is an easier question, and it feels less abstract and arbitrary to the players.

Talking about the Mindrape, I can see different good deities being all over the map on whether it is desirable, allowable, criminal, or even worth bothering with.

[Lamech]

I love Sanctify the Wicked for my Archons and other strongly Lawful servants of Good; at least in the Great Wheel cosmology. I can see how they would be more concerned with the fate of a creature's immortal soul, rather than freedom of choice for their fleeting, mortal form.

If you're evil and die, you spend eternity either A) in continuous unspeakably painful agony in the Lower Planes or B) as an Evil Outsider, a creature of pure irredeemable taint who will spend their immortal life committing evil acts.

If you're good and die. It's exactly the opposite. Bliss or Immortal Crusader of Goodness.

Who cares if you have freedom of choice in your scant years of actual life? I don't. If you had to be lead by the nose to the right choice, then you weren't going to make the right choice anyway. The difference between this and real life, is that in this case, the Great Wheel has objective morality, and a creature of unquestionable Good is making the right choice for you. That's how you know it's really the Right Choice, and that you Should Make It. Even if you're mind is too corrupt to know that.

Or you could worship a deity who lives where you want to spend eternity. Also a good way to get out of hell. Anyway whats that one class with the mass alignment switching ability? Save DC tied to a diplo check. (Also know as needing to roll a 20 to save.) Much better than burning a level.

-What kind of moral dilemmas is it fair to throw at an Exalted character, and what kind are just jerkass "YOU FALL!" moments? I believe that Exalted characters should have to make tough decisions, but where's the line between a tough moral decision that's fun for everyone at the table and simply punishing the player for being Exalted?

Also their is this must have feat for exalted characters. Again I forget its name... its basically a phylactery of faithfulness. Take it.
Moral Dilemma: Make your choice!
PC: Is B evil?
Moral Dilemma: *goes in corner and cries*

-How big of a role is it fair to place on conversion of opponents? What's the best way to reconcile a character who believes in redeeming the enemy with a party that's okay with more up-front violence?

If the redemption via diplomancy diplomacy is allowed that should always be used when ever possible. Always. Always. I don't care if your preferred option is violence, suck it up. Making powerful enemies good is awesome. If redemption via diplomacy is not allowed use magic. Helm of oppisite aligment, or the caller of whathisname. Or mindrape ([evil] spells are NOT said to be evil actions) if thats available.

-There's a lot of problems in the book, and some of them have relatively simple fixes. What kinds of things would you tweak almost without a second thought, if you had a player in your group who wanted to be Exalted?

Str position to allow capture with out killing is evil? Umm... there are good outsiders with poison. What the hell? Poison =/= evil.

[Yuki Akuma]

The book says it itself: being Exalted is hard. Most Paladins are not Exalted. It is very difficult for any adventurer to walk the Exalted path.

Exalted feats and prestige classes are meant to be gifts from celestials (and even Exalted gods). Anyone could make a Vow of Poverty, but only a supremely Good person will be rewarded and empowered for his sacrifice. It's as much a reward for actually managing to be Exalted as it is a reward for being selfless (although to be Exalted you have to be really selfless anyway).

[Devils_Advocate]

they are still going to grant their opponents mercy if they surrender and they are not going to commit evil deeds to achieve a percieved greater good.

Killing is an Evil deed, but an Exalted character can still kill some creatures under some circumstances. Or, rather, they say that killing some creatures under some circumstances isn't really Evil. In fact, they have a whole bunch of rules for when something is Evil and when it isn't. In short, they make ultimate Goodness out to mean following the Official Rules of Goodness.

But it's Law that's at its heart about following rules. Goodness at its heart is supposed to be about helping others, isn't it? The test for where an action falls on the Good/Evil scale should be how much help and how much harm it renders. Or maybe what effects it is foreseen to render or intended to render. Anyway, it should be about ends, not means.

Now, the only things that impose restrictions that aren't "good" as first glance are the sacred vows. However, the argument for them being good is that personal sacrifice helps one become more good.

But asceticism merely can help one to help others. It can also aid someone in isolated introspective self-discovery, for example. It can help one to achieve a variety of ideals, including Evil ideals. It's perfectly suited to someone concerned with ruthless self-advancement and the acquisition of power.

It should be the "helping others" part that's considered Good, not the asceticism. The Vow of Poverty is an example of an actually Good vow, because it requires giving money to charity.

[T.G. Oskar]

Overthrowing an abusive regime, in the eyes of a Lawful Good person, isn't always a chaotic act. Of course, a LG guy will probably exhaust all methods (diplomacy, for example) before going with revolt, and most of the time, it'll be war between a "righteous" nation and a "tyrannical" nation. Both are placed in quotation marks because most DMs place that notions as subjective; perhaps the "righteous" nation isn't righteous at all. Perhaps the "tyrannical" regime is merely corrupted.

Now, civil disobedience? THAT'S Chaotic Good. All quiet, all with a bizarre notion of order, but in the end, you are still promoting the violation of an unjust law.

Or maybe it IS Lawful...perhaps I should make that a Neutral Good act.

In either case, most of the problems with the book lie in the perception of players and DMs. Using the book mostly requires the player and the DM to collaborate, to speak about it. A character that might wanna use the BoED (or the BoVD) for the classes and whatnot might find itself challenged by the restrictions; the book was made with roleplaying restrictions in mind.

If the DM wills it, you can simply allow the classes and the Exalted feats as usual, and handwave the stringent restrictions if the player at least shows some commitment.

But, at times, the material in the book is taken grossly out of proportion. Most of the people who read it may have an idea that the DM can go on with it's type of game, while the player has to restrict itself. The book, most of the times, recommends the DM (it's a book ALSO written for DMs, mind you) to be fair and to allow people opportunities where to shine.

It's the same as placing a Paladin in a lose-lose situation. That's the DM punishing the player, instead of providing a great opportunity. Not everyone is ready for BoED. A lose-lose situation can be appropriate, but it must be a mature decision. If the DM wants the Paladin, or the Exalted Barbarian/Champion of Gwynharwyf, or the Exalted Bard/Troubadour of Stars to face a situation that may be challenging, it must be for a purpose. If the player is being a jerk, then perhaps it's "karmic retribution". If the player is experienced and enjoys a challenge, it can be a memorable experience. But, if the player is fresh in the game, and it's placed on an abusive situation, then it's an unfair call from the DM who probably wants to punish the player for being a really good guy at the first time.

Certainly, there are things there that are pretty tough (I mean, there's a quite disturbing image right at the first pages, but then again it's meant to be read by Mature people...), and some that are weird (be it either flawed balancing, bizarre flavoring, or just plain controversial fluff on the designer's part), but most of the book is well done, and actually a few of the things in there should have been updated to newer books. I know at least a few spells and items from that place were updated (Regalia of Good, the Sacred Haven spell and a few other spells such as the Light of X spells, the Retributive Amulet, the deathless type), but there are other concepts that could have been actually updated for purposes of balance (Fist of Raziel comes to mind; it actually would make the Paladin more enjoyable; some of the general feats could also be worthwhile)

However, to take the restricting content and quickly resuming into "this book praises Miko's actions" (as an example from this thread, not meant to signal anybody in particular) doesn't seem too mature. Perhaps a quick read of the book may give the idea that the concepts espouse fanaticism, but a deeper read reveals that such mentality is actually frowned upon. They take their time to actually point out what Chaotic Good people do, and most of the time pointing that there's a reason why Atonement is a core spell. It sounds a bit silly that Exalted status means to a few people "one strike and you're permanently down". It's also a bit silly to think "you can do as much evil as you want, get an Atonement and you're safe". It places you to think that falling may be inevitable, but there's no trouble for trying. Though, in the case of the Vows and the Saint template, there's a good reason why they are so restrictive (and it's not because of their properties, as only the Saint template is actually worthy)

I like the book, and not just because of the mechanical aspects it has. I like the fluff it has, the message it gives. I could say it's one of my favorite D&D books. It's a shame that I can't use it unless I were to DM or in very rare cases, but I know myself; I feel it's too much until I can really play an Exalted character, and really make it worthwhile. I also know that, at times, it's better to go with the flow and let others have fun, and try to find a happy medium within the games. I also find important to remind that aside from being a game that espouses teamwork (a reason I find odd that some people see this game as PvP or make characters that are actually disruptive), it's a game between friends, and a story that's built by the DM AND the players (regardless of what most people think); I find it proper to solve the troubles in and out of game.

[Fishy]

The explanation I've given for Sanctify the Wicked does rely on the assumption that all evil creatures (except Evil-subtyped ones) will repent if shown the error of their ways for long enough, and while I don't think this is too far-fetched for a game using Book of Exalted Deeds material, it might not be one you like. Maybe you don't want that as an implicit part of your game, or you'd just prefer that your PCs redeem their enemies personally rather than relying on magical vision-quests. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or disallow the spell, but "it's Holy Mindrape" doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

Except that this part of the spell, all by itself, has incredibly sinister overtones.

I am right, and you are wrong. The only reason you disagree with me is because you haven't thought about it enough.

Maybe you got distracted, maybe you spent your life caring about things that actually don't matter.

Maybe you're just dumber than I am.

Either way, you are, measurably, a worse human being than I am.

I'm going to fix you.

No, I don't want to talk about it. You wouldn't listen to me, because you're wrong, and I'm not going to listen to you, because I'm right.

Maybe we can have a discussion about this later, when you agree with me.

Now go sit in the corner and think about what you did.

[The_Snark]

Except that this part of the spell, all by itself, has incredibly sinister overtones.

I am right, and you are wrong. The only reason you disagree with me is because you haven't thought about it enough.

Maybe you got distracted, maybe you spent your life caring about things that actually don't matter.

Maybe you're just dumber than I am.

Either way, you are, measurably, a worse human being than I am.

Let's fix that.

Well, yes. The spell targets an evil individual, not a neutral or good one. We could get into all sorts of debates about what exactly an evil alignment means, but regardless of what you decide, an evil alignment is not just a different but perfectly okay system of belief. It is a system of belief that, at some point, boils down to being too willing to hurt other people.

It isn't necessarily "you're dumber than I am", either; it could be "you weren't thinking clearly", "you were way too intense about your cause", "you were given some really nasty choices and adapted to them", or even the classic "you had a really unpleasant childhood".

What you're objecting to, I think, is the moral absolutism in saying that the one person is Right and the other is Wrong. Which is totally fair, but D&D takes place in a morally objective universe. If that's a part of it you prefer to ignore, the Book of Exalted Deeds is probably not something you want to be using much anyway.

Either the spell allows a creature not to change its alignment, or the alignment change is forced on it. There doesn't seem to be any real middle ground here.

Furthermore, if the alignment change were just the inevitable result of prolonged contemplation, the adopted alignment wouldn't depend on the caster, now would it?

So... Yeah, it's Holy Mindrape.

As I pointed out, the spell's existence depends on the premise that any creature would—of its own free will—change its alignment to good, if it had to contemplate its sins or whatnot long enough. This is not a premise everyone wants in their game, but it seems to be what the writers of the Book of Exalted Deeds had in mind. If you accept that premise as part of the game, the spell is okay as a Good spell. If you don't, it probably shouldn't exist, at least not as a Good spell.

And I did mention that the fact that the creature adopts the caster's exact alignment was odd and rather out of place, and it really ought to be changed so that the creature can keep its old ethical alignment or change it, as it prefers. Before anyone mentions that fallacy about houserules not making published material balanced or sensible, let me point out that calling it Holy Mindrape requires you to change it also—if it forcibly compels someone, it should have the Mind-Affecting and Compulsion descriptors. The spell just isn't well written, either way.

[scsimodem]

I like the Book of Exalted Deeds, but I see it misused, so I'll try to sum up my feelings:

The BoED is, in part, a collection of way to allow characters to play certain archetypes which are common religious and historical heroes without gimping their characters. Take, for example, the Vow of Poverty. The amount of equipment a high level character carries around could be sold to feed a small country. Somebody might see this as being hypocrisy if your goal is to help people. Why struggle to help people by fighting when you could just sell of your crap and provide for others? Well, the Vow of Poverty allows you to give up your worldly possessions for others and allows you to keep pace, mechanically, with the rest of the party. As for it benefiting monks more than others, that makes sense. Many ascetics in actual history followed the path of the monk (whether the Eastern Shaolin type or the Western Catholics) because the lifestyle bordered on the ascetic, anyway. It's not a monk who took VoP to min/max, it's an ascetic who becomes a monk because it's a further expression of his/her ascetic nature. As for the vows in general, they represent the idea that by eschewing worldly pleasures and carnal instincts (booze, sex, violence, etc.), one can further concentrate on getting closer to God (or Nirvana, or enlightenment, or whatever). These feats just make that idea a correct one.

As far as how to play an Exalted character in a D&D game, they don't necessarily have to play in an Exalted, or even an all good party. Part of being a character devoted to an ideal is promoting that ideal. Think about examples in real world religions. Jesus traveled with people who really weren't all that good, but he taught them what they needed to know, and they later taught others. Also think of missionaries who will work with some distasteful people in order to convert them. In fact, as a Christian, I consider it my duty to be around those who are not Christian to set an example. I don't pitch a fit and try to force my lifestyle on them, but my friends all know where I stand and what I don't approve of.

Then again, it's flavor of the game. I don't consider str and dex poison to be evil unless you're careless with them (i.e. you don't try hard enough to keep it from spilling over into con). I even let them spend extra on stuff that hits str and dex and won't spill over into con. Some people also consider it a worthwhile pursuit to separate yourself from society to further pursue ideals, which I find counter-productive to the goal of spreading them. You know, whatever.

[MickJay]

The basic assumption with StW is that being Good is a natural state of beings (at least those that are not embodiments of Evil, but that's what the subtype represents). Sanctified being reflects on their past lives and returns to the natural Goodness. Where Evil is objectively evil and Good is, any spell that increases the amount of Goodness hasto be a Good spell. It's more of a cure than anything else - it's a bit like Socratic wisdom: people are evil only because they are not truly wise, and StW gives them time to contemplate, on their own, and achieve that wisdom which allows them to be truly Good.

In D&D, killing is not inherently evil, it's neutral; it's the circumstances that make it evil (or in extremely rare cases good).

Civil disobedience would definitely be an expression of Lawful behaviour. People go against laws they disagree, but are fully prepared for (and accept) the consequences of their actions, thus showing their respect for the law in general. Chaotic action would end up with the protesters demolishing stuff and running away. [yes, Law and Chaos are not about laws but about attitude and personal values, but in this case, both nicely go together]