Book of *expletive* deeds?

[Azerian Kelimon]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

[Artemician]

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

[KIDS]

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

[Mewtarthio]

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

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

No offense, Internet.

[BardicDuelist]

I agree that I disagree greatly with the fluff in BoED. It is pretentious and hypocritical. Some of the mechanical options can be very fun however.

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

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

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

[Yuki Akuma]

Your lose-lose situation is flawed, as the guy could simply stay silent or intentionally misinterpret the question, or even leave things out. None of this is 'lying'. Staying silent isn't even misdirection.


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

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

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

[bugsysservant]

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

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

[starwoof]

It is pretentious and hypocritical.

Welcome to the good alignment.

[Swordguy]

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



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

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

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

[Keld Denar]

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

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

[Fhaolan]

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

[Captain van der Decken]

Methinks that the 'Will not lie, cheat or steal' is describing the lawful part of exalted LG. Lying itself is not an evil act. So you aren't gonna lose all your exalted feats if you lie to save the city.

[Lycurgus]

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

[Swordguy]

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

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

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

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

[DraPrime]

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

[Telonius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[psychoticbarber]

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

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

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

[Solo]

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

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

[DraPrime]

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

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

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

[averagejoe]

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

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

[Azerian Kelimon]

Nice responses. I'll try to address things directed to me in order of importance:

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

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

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


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


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

[DraPrime]

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

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

[SoD]

TDPPDC? I'm still a little new to some abreviations...and I'm a little disapointed that you beat me to the Pun Pun...anyway, I digress.

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

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

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

That's my 2 cp worth.

[Swordguy]

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

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

[Rachel Lorelei]

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

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

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


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

[Telonius]

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

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

[Yuki Akuma]

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

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

[DraPrime]

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

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

[Swordguy]

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

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

[Xuincherguixe]

I don't really think that you should get extra powers just for being good anyways. Isn't part of being good fighting at a disadvantage? (Of course those kind of characters are often boring)

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

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