Ways to get both Vile and Exalted feats?

[Crake]

Hellbred was going to be my main suggestion, but it was stated in the first reply. My second suggestion although is Pathfinder, is a mythic ability called Beyond Morality, you have no alignment, you can take any class regardless of alignment restrictions. Can even multiclass monk/bard. As long as you aren't completely going against a class's code, like murdering people for no reason as paladin, you're generally free from all alignment based constraints.

Mythic is roughly the same as epic level in 3.5, but it starts if and when the DM decides to put it in. And progression through it is more or less at the DM's discretion, it's not exp based.

Well, firstly, Beyond Morality isn't a mythic ability, it's an arcane discovery for wizards (apparently it's both ¬.¬ nice paizo, using the same name for two different abilities), but secondly...

It feels like Crake's objection, about characters needing "the highest moral standards" would still be an issue though, since that's not really an alignment restriction.

This. Exalted isn't an alignment restriction, it's an approval process. You need to convince the celestial patrons that you are worthy of their blessings, and saying "Oh, morality, pish posh, that's beneath me" doesn't really work for them.

[ShurikVch]

Well, there may be some possibilities:

The "Aleam Valassar logic": if Paladin/Assassin is OK - then Exalted/Vile may be too?..


Book of Vile Darkness, Variant Rules, Lingering Effects of Evil, Darkness like the world has never seen before "shows its effects in the following ways.

• Creature gains Evil Brand as a bonus feat, whether desired or not.
• Creature is horribly mutated physically, gaining Willing Deformity as a bonus feat.

Symbiotic Creature template (Savage Species):

Feats: A symbiotic creature retains the host’s feats and gains the guest’s feats as bonus feats.

Feats:

Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat.

Fluff it as a "shoulder angel(/devil)" which is trying to save/purify(/corrupt) the "host"

[Silly Name]

Well, there may be some possibilities:

The "Aleam Valassar logic": if Paladin/Assassin is OK - then Exalted/Vile may be too?..

Definitely demands some DM-fiat, but it's a pretty cool idea. I'm doubtful if such an interaction would work with Exalted feats since some state that you can lose their benefit if you break a prohibition they impose even if against your will (yes, I'm aware of messed-up this is, and I agree it doesn't make sense), but as I said we're already in the realm of DM rule zero'ing to allow for a specific concept that wouldn't be workable with the base rules.

[Thurbane]

This concept reminds me of the meme "Yes I'm a vegetarian. Yes I eat meat. We exist!"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

This concept reminds me of the meme "Yes I'm a vegetarian. Yes I eat meat. We exist!"

They only eat people who are brain-dead?

[Thurbane]

Would some kind of possession work? Where the possessing creature has Vile feats, and the possessed has Exalted?

Are there types of possession where you can access the target's feats?

[Jowgen]

I know my earlier idea was packed in a needlessly gratuitous ammount of weeb-fluff, but is really no one else going to try the route of abusing the Subtype rules to cheat the alignment system?

Also, as an aside, any barrier that results from the rules of the feats being "granted" as a "reward" or somesuch seems like something easily fixable by means of using Calling subschool magic to force a suitable agent of the given alignment to grant the feat, followed by killing said agent after to prevent the feat being revoked if nessecary.

[Crake]

I know my earlier idea was packed in a needlessly gratuitous ammount of weeb-fluff, but is really no one else going to try the route of abusing the Subtype rules to cheat the alignment system?

As noted multiple times in the thread, exalted doesn't merely require "good alignment", it requires, specifically, the highest moral standards, simply grabbing the [Good] subtype isn't gonna cut it.

[redking]

If you read The Book of Exalted Deeds it is explained in detail that being good and being exalted are not the same thing. Quite simply, to be exalted is to have much higher and more exacting standards than a creature that is good.

I don't think it can be gamed. Neither by RAW nor RAI.

[Jowgen]

As noted multiple times in the thread, exalted doesn't merely require "good alignment", it requires, specifically, the highest moral standards, simply grabbing the [Good] subtype isn't gonna cut it.

If you read The Book of Exalted Deeds it is explained in detail that being good and being exalted are not the same thing. Quite simply, to be exalted is to have much higher and more exacting standards than a creature that is good.

I don't think it can be gamed. Neither by RAW nor RAI.

Meanwhile one merely needs be an "intelligent characters of an evil alignment" to use vile feats.

Supernatural abilties not based on spells (i.e. vile feats) do not have the Evil tag, so having or using Vile feats in itself is not defined as an evil act; nor is there any text saying it goes against some ill defined "highest" moral standard. Maybe they h

Exalted characters with the Evil subtype are thusly eligible and can use Vile feats no problem.

As mentioned, the only potential barrier is the fluff bit about some Evil patron granting them and not revoking them when it's a decidedly Good character we're dealing with, but that hardly seems like an insurmountable barrier.

Our Evil patron might have all kinds of reasons for wanting our Exalted character to have vile feats. Hoping that having a power that lends itself to being used for Evil will lead to moral corruption down the line would be quite the obvious one. They might even hide the fact that they and the power their granting is Evil in nature. Harvester Devils seems like an ideal candidate in this case.

[Crake]

Meanwhile one merely needs be an "intelligent characters of an evil alignment" to use vile feats.

Supernatural abilties not based on spells (i.e. vile feats) do not have the Evil tag, so having or using Vile feats in itself is not defined as an evil act; nor is there any text saying it goes against some ill defined "highest" moral standard. Maybe they h

Exalted characters with the Evil subtype are thusly eligible and can use Vile feats no problem.

As mentioned, the only potential barrier is the fluff bit about some Evil patron granting them and not revoking them when it's a decidedly Good character we're dealing with, but that hardly seems like an insurmountable barrier.

Our Evil patron might have all kinds of reasons for wanting our Exalted character to have vile feats. Hoping that having a power that lends itself to being used for Evil will lead to moral corruption down the line would be quite the obvious one. They might even hide the fact that they and the power their granting is Evil in nature. Harvester Devils seems like an ideal candidate in this case.

Pretty sure parlaying and using the literally vile powers of an evil patron would constitute the breaking of the requirement for highest moral standards. Just like the paladin/assassin, it would require literal DM fiat for such a thing to work.

[Jowgen]

Pretty sure parlaying and using the literally vile powers of an evil patron would constitute the breaking of the requirement for highest moral standards. Just like the paladin/assassin, it would require literal DM fiat for such a thing to work.

"Parlaying" with en Evil patron probably would be a violation in line with the BoVD p. 8 rule against "consorting" with Fiends, but knowlingly seeking out an Evil patron and bartering for Evil power (presumably with the ill-fated intent of using it for righteous means) is not the only viable scenario here.

An Exalted character may not be aware that the patron offering them the power is Evil, in which case they would be no more morally culpable for accepting it than they would be for buying a run of the mill magic item from a vendor that happens to be a Demon in Disguise.

Unlike Exalted feats, having a vile feat does not give you an aura of evil, nor do the supernatural abilities granted by them detect as Evil, so there is no way for the exalted character to know in most cases.

And while the feat's SU power may have the Vile tag on paper and have Evil as a prerequesite, unlike with Evil spells, their use is never defined as an Evil act. Most don't even take actions to use.

Like, lets take Verminfriend as an example.

It's a passive ability that lets you make a Cha check to prevent a given Vermin from attacking you. If anything, that seems like an extension of the Exalted feat Vow of Nonviolence. How is an exalted character who got offered this ability by the weird but by all accounts harmless old woman living in the woods to know that it's technically an Evil power?

[Crake]

"Parlaying" with en Evil patron probably would be a violation in line with the BoVD p. 8 rule against "consorting" with Fiends, but knowlingly seeking out an Evil patron and bartering for Evil power (presumably with the ill-fated intent of using it for righteous means) is not the only viable scenario here.

An Exalted character may not be aware that the patron offering them the power is Evil, in which case they would be no more morally culpable for accepting it than they would be for buying a run of the mill magic item from a vendor that happens to be a Demon in Disguise.

Unlike Exalted feats, having a vile feat does not give you an aura of evil, nor do the supernatural abilities granted by them detect as Evil, so there is no way for the exalted character to know in most cases.

And while the feat's SU power may have the Vile tag on paper and have Evil as a prerequesite, unlike with Evil spells, their use is never defined as an Evil act. Most don't even take actions to use.

Like, lets take Verminfriend as an example.

It's a passive ability that lets you make a Cha check to prevent a given Vermin from attacking you. If anything, that seems like an extension of the Exalted feat Vow of Nonviolence. How is an exalted character who got offered this ability by the weird but by all accounts harmless old woman living in the woods to know that it's technically an Evil power?

This is all well and good, but the fact that you actually require an evil alignment to get them means that there is a limiting factor, and they aren't simply a tool that an evil patron could use as a disguised blessing.

As an aside, the [Evil] subtype only treats you as evil for the adjudication of effects that are dependant on alignment. Thusly, even if you had the [Evil] subtype while being good, you would not qualify for vile feats anyway, because you aren't actually evil in alignment, you're only treated as such for effects that have outcomes based on different alignments.

[Batcathat]

An Exalted character may not be aware that the patron offering them the power is Evil, in which case they would be no more morally culpable for accepting it than they would be for buying a run of the mill magic item from a vendor that happens to be a Demon in Disguise.

I don't know. We're talking about the highest moral standards here, not just reasonably high standards. I could see being disqualified for not scrutinizing where the power comes from.

[Khedrac]

Like, lets take Verminfriend as an example.

It's a passive ability that lets you make a Cha check to prevent a given Vermin from attacking you. If anything, that seems like an extension of the Exalted feat Vow of Nonviolence. How is an exalted character who got offered this ability by the weird but by all accounts harmless old woman living in the woods to know that it's technically an Evil power?

Exalted feats are very much the area when taking the action through ignorance woud give one the chance of atoning and regaining exalted status.

Trying to work out if there is a way to cheat the system will strip the character of exalted status without any need to carry through on the plan...

[Thurbane]

The short answer is only by DM fiat, it seems.

[Jowgen]

The short answer is only by DM fiat, it seems.

This, because ultimately questions of alignment/morality are firmly DM territory, but I shall continue to play devil's advocate

This is all well and good, but the fact that you actually require an evil alignment to get them means that there is a limiting factor, and they aren't simply a tool that an evil patron could use as a disguised blessing.

As an aside, the [Evil] subtype only treats you as evil for the adjudication of effects that are dependant on alignment. Thusly, even if you had the [Evil] subtype while being good, you would not qualify for vile feats anyway, because you aren't actually evil in alignment, you're only treated as such for effects that have outcomes based on different alignments.

"Any effect" is pretty darn broad in terms of qualifiers as to what you counts as Evil for. In my original musing I posited the use of Dark Chaos shuffling, because that is a spell-effect any way you dice it, so it'll definitely be able to grant feats to you as if you were Evil.

As for it being a disguised blessing, all that is required is one failed save against something like Demonic Blood Infusion to make an Exalted character perfectly eligible. And since Evil alignement isn't technically a prerequesite (i.e. not listed as such), we neatly side-step the whole debate about loosing feat use when loosing prerequesites.

I don't know. We're talking about the highest moral standards here, not just reasonably high standards. I could see being disqualified for not scrutinizing where the power comes from.

Exalted feats are very much the area when taking the action through ignorance woud give one the chance of atoning and regaining exalted status.

If Good patrons started to ban-hammer their Exalted champions for being easily duped idiots, they'd run out of champions. #LawfulStupidIsReal

For real though, the question is ultimately whether whatever entity granted the Exalted feats we start with accepts the concept of plausible deniability. A LG patron might do so because they care about the letter of the Law governing Good, while a CG patron might do so because they care more about end-results than details, but both might shake out different.

In a rules debate, there is no accounting for cosmic powers deciding to be kenders, so for the purpose of this I am running with the rules on being Exalted as written, and they do not stipulate that simply coming into the possession of powers of Vile origin is a violation.

Trying to work out if there is a way to cheat the system will strip the character of exalted status without any need to carry through on the plan...

The D&D alignment system may be deeply flawed from a moral philosopy standpoint, but it is not so bad that is ever endorses the religious concept of thoughts as outright sins.

In D&D, only actions have moral values attributed to them, with the Pact Primeval being the primary frame of reference. The intentions behind actions have in placed been acknowledged as capable of modifiying the moral value of an action (e.g. Atonment requires genuinely wanting to repent), but in no instance does the game ever reward or penalise a creature for simply contemplating moral/amoral actions.

Exalted characters can plot genocide in painstaking detail all they want, so long as they don't act on it.

[Crake]

"Any effect" is pretty darn broad in terms of qualifiers as to what you counts as Evil for. In my original musing I posited the use of Dark Chaos shuffling, because that is a spell-effect any way you dice it, so it'll definitely be able to grant feats to you as if you were Evil.

You could argue DCFS, sure, but then at that point you're consciously taking on a vile feat, an ability that requires you to be evil, hardly sounding like you're adhering to the highest moral standards.

[Eldonauran]

The D&D alignment system may be deeply flawed from a moral philosopy standpoint, but it is not so bad that is ever endorses the religious concept of thoughts as outright sins.

I don't know about that. Highest moral standards are kind of up there in the sense of 'If you commit the sin in your mind, it is just as if you did it in reality'. Highest means highest, pinnacle of heights. Can't really get any better than that. Exalted is like Good++, no evil present sir. Not even Paladins are considered Exalted until they meet those kinds of standards.

So, yeah. I've followed the thread and have to agree with the others about this topic: Nuh-uh. Nope. Exalted and Vile do not mix.

[Jowgen]

You could argue DCFS, sure, but then at that point you're consciously taking on a vile feat, an ability that requires you to be evil, hardly sounding like you're adhering to the highest moral standards.

The simplest solution is the Unconscious = Willing rule. I absolutely believe that there is a Pazuzu worshipping cult that goes around and tries to long-con corrupt champions of good by knocking them out, imposing Vile feats on them, and then just leaving.

That fun aside, DCFS itself is Chaotic rather than Evil, and the choice of feat lies with the caster, so unless we are casting the spells ourselves and/or knowingly request a power of vile origin, pretty sure there is 0 moral accountability to be had.

I don't know about that. Highest moral standards are kind of up there in the sense of 'If you commit the sin in your mind, it is just as if you did it in reality'. Highest means highest, pinnacle of heights. Can't really get any better than that. Exalted is like Good++, no evil present sir. Not even Paladins are considered Exalted until they meet those kinds of standards.

Oddly enough, the best argument I can cite against the idea of thoughts=sins is a Sanders Sides video titled "Dealing with Intrusive thoughts".

That whole argument aside *badumtiss* it remains that there is no rules basis or even isolated precedent for anything other than Actions having moral value.

It would be impractical to introduce as a house-rule as well, since Deities in D&D aren't omniscient enough to know what a creature is thinking without first actively targeting them with some variety of detect thoughts ability. Even The Lady of Pain is limited to being aware of Acts of Worship for her, rather than worshipping thoughts/beliefs held. Unless someone can think of a deity with "Sinful thoughts" in their Portfolio?

[Crake]

The simplest solution is the Unconscious = Willing rule. I absolutely believe that there is a Pazuzu worshipping cult that goes around and tries to long-con corrupt champions of good by knocking them out, imposing Vile feats on them, and then just leaving.

That fun aside, DCFS itself is Chaotic rather than Evil, and the choice of feat lies with the caster, so unless we are casting the spells ourselves and/or knowingly request a power of vile origin, pretty sure there is 0 moral accountability to be had.

Not correct: "The subject chooses both the feat lost and its replacement." If you're unconscious, you can't choose the feat (and so arguably the spell just fails), and if you're conscious, then you're making the choice to take on a vile feat willingly.

[Eldonauran]

Oddly enough, the best argument I can cite against the idea of thoughts=sins is a Sanders Sides video titled "Dealing with Intrusive thoughts".

That whole argument aside *badumtiss* it remains that there is no rules basis or even isolated precedent for anything other than Actions having moral value.

It would be impractical to introduce as a house-rule as well, since Deities in D&D aren't omniscient enough to know what a creature is thinking without first actively targeting them with some variety of detect thoughts ability. Even The Lady of Pain is limited to being aware of Acts of Worship for her, rather than worshipping thoughts/beliefs held. Unless someone can think of a deity with "Sinful thoughts" in their Portfolio?

It is not about 'having the thought', it is about dwelling on the thoughts to the point of giving them serious consideration. That is what is meant by 'committing the sin in your thoughts' or 'dwelling on it'. It would be foolish to claim that no single person never had a 'bad' or immoral thought cross their minds. Having the highest moral standards would imply that those thoughts are disregarded, dismissed and ignored.

It is hard to be specific about this without delving into real world religious beliefs, so I'll skirt the line with a quote: "If one of you has ever looked at a woman with lust in your hearts (thoughts), you have committed the sin of adultery in your mind". To me, THAT is an example of THE HIGHEST moral standards. Quite challenging, yes? Nearly impossible, no? Of course, you'd fail but the standards are still there and striving for them makes you no less exalted. It is where thoughts match your actions, and actions mimic thoughts, where the true Exalted status comes from.

[Silly Name]

It would be impractical to introduce as a house-rule as well, since Deities in D&D aren't omniscient enough to know what a creature is thinking without first actively targeting them with some variety of detect thoughts ability. Even The Lady of Pain is limited to being aware of Acts of Worship for her, rather than worshipping thoughts/beliefs held. Unless someone can think of a deity with "Sinful thoughts" in their Portfolio?

Deities in D&D (and generic, vague "higher powers" granting people divine abilities without having to worship a god) are apparently omniscient enough to know if your alignment changes, possible even before you do, and if you commit an Evil act or break the Paladin Code. Either that, or they have some sort of automated system that does it anyway.

Now, I wouldn't argue for Exalted characters to immediately lose their status simply by having "bad thoughts" or be tempted by some form of less-than-perfect morality once, but if it were a recurring occurrence their status as Exalted heroes would be put in doubt.

Looking at the whole idea that an Exalted character could receive Vile feats unwillingly, I'd then argue that there should be some good reason for why they don't realise this or get a divine warning. The Forces of Good would certainly be interested in making sure their most fervent champions don't get corrupted, after all, and if Evil can interfere then so can Good.

[ShurikVch]

Deities in D&D (and generic, vague "higher powers" granting people divine abilities without having to worship a god) are apparently omniscient enough to know if your alignment changes, possible even before you do, and if you commit an Evil act or break the Paladin Code. Either that, or they have some sort of automated system that does it anyway.

Note: since Clerics and Paladins of ideal are suffering from this effect too - it, apparently, have nothing to do with any deities...

Looking at the whole idea that an Exalted character could receive Vile feats unwillingly, I'd then argue that there should be some good reason for why they don't realise this or get a divine warning. The Forces of Good would certainly be interested in making sure their most fervent champions don't get corrupted, after all, and if Evil can interfere then so can Good.

Book of Vile Darkness, Lingering Effects of Evil, Darkness like the World Has Never Seen Before able to force on character one or two Vile feats - Evil Brand or(/and) Willing Deformity

Generally unique in all the world, such an event scars the nature of reality. Such a scar will probably never heal. The worst of all fell events might include the following:

• An act of genocide.
• The birth of an evil god.
• The murder of a god, demigod, or legendary hero of light.

As we can see from the list, first two entries are already something which forces of Good should actively preventing; gaining some Vile feats from it is a small potatoes comparing to the reason
And the third example - what if the hero was there exactly to prevent such thing, but failed to fulfill the intentions and was murdered in the process?..

[Jowgen]

Not correct: "The subject chooses both the feat lost and its replacement." If you're unconscious, you can't choose the feat (and so arguably the spell just fails), and if you're conscious, then you're making the choice to take on a vile feat willingly.

I checked Embrace tDC and assumed Shun tDC would have the same wording; so that's my b.

I thusly agree that DCS doesn't allow us to skirt the moral repercussions of choosing a Vile feat. A character could still be Compulsion-ed into doing so, but I believe there is mention somewhere that Evil acts committed while under Mental Control still require atonement after, and the same most likely applies to Exalted.

I'll have to look into a different means by which the choice of feat can be taken away from the subject.

Deities in D&D (and generic, vague "higher powers" granting people divine abilities without having to worship a god) are apparently omniscient enough to know if your alignment changes, possible even before you do, and if you commit an Evil act or break the Paladin Code. Either that, or they have some sort of automated system that does it anyway.

Now, I wouldn't argue for Exalted characters to immediately lose their status simply by having "bad thoughts" or be tempted by some form of less-than-perfect morality once, but if it were a recurring occurrence their status as Exalted heroes would be put in doubt.

Alignment changes are one thing, given that every deity has their own alignment in their Portfolio, so changes in a follower's alignment would ping that automatically, but as ShurikVch points out:

Note: since Clerics and Paladins of ideal are suffering from this effect too - it, apparently, have nothing to do with any deities...

Evidently, Codes of Conduct are adjucated by something more fundamental than The Powers. A displeased Deity can ban-hammer their follower from divine powers regardless of whether a Code is broken, and presumably issue a pardon for breaking a Code after the fact, but since the repercussions of breaking a Code affect the Theistically challanged, the Powers seem to just be able to manipulate the system rather than being the system, as it were.

Now since Exalted feats are granted and revoked solely at the discretion of Good aligned Powers (i.e. no special feats for Ideal worshippers), it follows that their Code of Conduct doesn't rely on the same system, i.e. they need to managed manually by the Power in question.

I would thusly argue that the Exalted-status-violation-detection-system is less sensitive than the normal violation detection system, as it is limited by the level of ominiscience of a given Power.

I thus maintain that Exalted characters can plot genocide in painstaking detail all they want, so long as they don't act on it.

However, even if a power or some underlying Morality-Monitoring-System™ were to be perpetually monitoring people's thoughts and judging whether they were Exalted/Vile based on them, the point is moot. The rules on Exalted feats are quite explicit that the condition for loosing the feat is specifically to commit an Evil Act.

A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats.

Even excluding alignment-altering magic, if an Exalted character with an Exalted feat that doesn't list Good alignment as an actual prerequesite, managed to turn Evil without committing any actual Evil acts, said Exalted feat would remain intact.

[Silly Name]

I thus maintain that Exalted characters can plot genocide in painstaking detail all they want, so long as they don't act on it.

I would argue that regularly fantasising about committing horrible crimes against humanity is fundamentally at odds with the character trait of being "of the highest moral standard" and is thus a moot point.

By the way, the Book of Exalted Deeds has some elements judging intention on top of action. The first chapter, under the header of "Personal Sacrifice" talks about how performing altruistic deeds for selfish ends still counts as a Neutral act, not a Good one.

Even excluding alignment-altering magic, if an Exalted character with an Exalted feat that doesn't list Good alignment as an actual prerequesite, managed to turn Evil without committing any actual Evil acts, said Exalted feat would remain intact.

Since having a Good alignment is a blanket prerequisite for Exalted feats in general, this is again a moot point.

How would a character turn Evil without actually committing Evil acts anyways, once we rule out alignment-altering magic?

[Crake]

I would thusly argue that the Exalted-status-violation-detection-system is less sensitive than the normal violation detection system, as it is limited by the level of ominiscience of a given Power.

Or, you know, both systems are enforced by an oath that the character takes as part of gaining said power, that is entirely self governing and doesn't require an outside adjudicator?

[Jowgen]

I would argue that regularly fantasising about committing horrible crimes against humanity is fundamentally at odds with the character trait of being "of the highest moral standard" and is thus a moot point.

Depends what school of moral philosophy you subscribe to, or more importantly the game does, which really could be a thread of its own.

Top of my head, I think Virtue Ethics would arguably deem the character in question more Exalted than someone who didn't have those fantasies.

The character fantasises about committing attorcities on the daily, but yet he does not act on those fantasies. His temperament, nature or whatever you want to call it is consistently priming him to do the worst things, but yet he doesn't, instead he consciously chooses to do the moral things instead of the immoral ones he wants to do.

Evidently, our character pratices virtuous behaviour even though doing so must be significantly more challanging to him than it would be to a normal person.

Now there is also a debate to be had as to whether it matters what the character is motivated by, but that would get us into the whole thing of whether such a thing as genuine altruism exists, and I'd really rather not open that can of moral worms. Let's just for arguments sake assume that whatever the motivation, it is at the very least not in itself Evil (i.e. not pretending to be good to serve some ultimate Evil goal).

Side-note, a consequentialist/utalitarian would only care about the outcome and thus also agree that the character is good, but as established, intention does matter in D&D, so the game definitely doesn't care about those.

By the way, the Book of Exalted Deeds has some elements judging intention on top of action. The first chapter, under the header of "Personal Sacrifice" talks about how performing altruistic deeds for selfish ends still counts as a Neutral act, not a Good one.

There are indeed examples of intention having an impact on the moral value of an action, and there are examples of actions that have a defined moral value regardless of intention (e.g. destorying Drow-Hitler's soul = still Evil), but there at least to my knowledge no instances of intent/thought every having a moral value in isolation.

This I feel suggests that D&D does subscribe to Virtue Ethics.

Since having a Good alignment is a blanket prerequisite for Exalted feats in general, this is again a moot point.

In practice, sure, but techincally no.

For feats, prerequesite is a defined game term that refers specifically to the things listed in their prerequesite section, if any. Exalted and Vile feats do not have their respective alignments listed as such. Instead, the rule requiring alignments is instead attached to the Exalted/Vile feat-category tags, according to which only a character of said alignment can "acquire"/"use" those feats, but it is never described as a prerequesite.

It's simply a matter of a category of feats only being available to certain creatures, regardless of whether they meet the pre-requesite; much the same as with Epic feats.

The special rules for having an Exalted/Vile feat revoked respectively due to an Evil act or displeasing the Evil power that granted it serve the same function as the rules on no longer meeting feat prerequesites in practice, but they are technically distinct from the normal feat pre-requesite rules.

How would a character turn Evil without actually committing Evil acts anyways, once we rule out alignment-altering magic?

I don't know of the top of my head, I'll see if I can find something and also start a thread on the topic, and shall get back to you.

[Jowgen]

Or, you know, both systems are enforced by an oath that the character takes as part of gaining said power, that is entirely self governing and doesn't require an outside adjudicator?

In many cases, a ritual must be performed; often this simply amounts to a character swearing a sacred vow, for example, in the presence of a celestial being.

Some DMs may also want to require a character who seeks a vile feat to perform a special ritual or make an actual bargain with a powerful creature of evil.

While encouraged, doing so is not a hard requirement.

Probably for the best, as the Lawful side of things would be all about it, but the Chaotic one not so much.