D&D 5E BBEGs, the Book of Vile Darkness, and Good Acts

[Laurefindel]

I'm planning a campaign whose intended villain is a yuan-ti abomination cleric of Zehir, god of assassins, darkness, and poison. She desires several items to increase her personal power, one of which is the infamous Book of Vile Darkness.

Upon acquiring the Book of Vile Darkness it grants her power; however, it also has several drawbacks. Most significantly, she can never perform a good act again or the Book will leave her.

What constitutes a "good" act? Can she use her divine magic to heal a soldier fighting for her cause, or is the act of healing anyone for any reason "good"? It seems a fair assumption that the Book would rule the same way an absolute bastard of a DM would. Could it be that doing anything that would ultimately benefit her followers in the long run would count as a "good" act? Must she ensure that every single one of her followers will suffer in the end, lest she commit a "good" act? Should she devise a way to ensure that all those who follow her will have their souls consumed by her serpent god upon death in the most agonizing way imaginable, possibly by modifying the cult's rituals to mark her followers' souls as sacrifices to Zehir, as to avoid committing a "good" act?

Opinions?

I’d say that in this case, good act = genuine act of selfless altruism, compassion, or kindness.

As others said, she’s not going to lose the book for accidentally saving a kitten. Minions are tools. You heal them like you keep your blade sharp.

The moment she heals one of her mooks thinking « oh, if he dies, his folks at home will be sad » then she’ll lose the book. Until then everything she does that ultimately benefits her is fair game.

 

[Flamestrike]

Good acts are acts of altruism, mercy, compassion, self sacrifice and charity.

So anything that comes under that umbrella.

 

[dave2008]

@Hexmage-EN, what are you looking for with these responses? It is pretty clear people are suggesting only a strict definition of a "good act" would qualify. And you keep coming back with trivial things that could make the book go. So are you looking for reasons the ignorant NPC might fear the book could go or are you looking to justify why the NPC is so emphatically evil ( or turned so evil). What is your goal? As the DM, the book stays or goes based on what you want. So what exactly are you looking for clarify on? This isn't really player facing information or are your PCs trying to "trick" the NPC into a good act to loose the book?

 

[Coroc]

I'm planning a campaign whose intended villain is a yuan-ti abomination cleric of Zehir, god of assassins, darkness, and poison. She desires several items to increase her personal power, one of which is the infamous Book of Vile Darkness.

Upon acquiring the Book of Vile Darkness it grants her power; however, it also has several drawbacks. Most significantly, she can never perform a good act again or the Book will leave her.

What constitutes a "good" act? Can she use her divine magic to heal a soldier fighting for her cause, or is the act of healing anyone for any reason "good"? It seems a fair assumption that the Book would rule the same way an absolute bastard of a DM would. Could it be that doing anything that would ultimately benefit her followers in the long run would count as a "good" act? Must she ensure that every single one of her followers will suffer in the end, lest she commit a "good" act? Should she devise a way to ensure that all those who follow her will have their souls consumed by her serpent god upon death in the most agonizing way imaginable, possibly by modifying the cult's rituals to mark her followers' souls as sacrifices to Zehir, as to avoid committing a "good" act?

Opinions?

since the book of vile darkness is the culmination of evil, the virtual embodiment of evil, she could not heal her soldier. Her soldier is a tool to her, his purpose is to get injured and, if needed, to die.

 

[Coroc]

I’d say that in this case, good act = genuine act of selfless altruism, compassion, or kindness.

As others said, she’s not going to lose the book for accidentally saving a kitten. Minions are tools. You heal them like you keep your blade sharp.

The moment she heals one of her mooks thinking « oh, if he dies, his folks at home will be sad » then she’ll lose the book. Until then everything she does that ultimately benefits her is fair game.

nope it is not. The book of vile darkness is an artifact and as such it corrupts the owner.
so what could be defined as reasonable, because it serves her goals, is not what the book would judge. It is only what you read into it but you are not utterly evil.

 

[Coroc]

@Hexmage-EN, what are you looking for with these responses? It is pretty clear people are suggesting only a strict definition of a "good act" would qualify. And you keep coming back with trivial things that could make the book go. So are you looking for reasons the ignorant NPC might fear the book could go or are you looking to justify why the NPC is so emphatically evil ( or turned so evil). What is your goal? As the DM, the book stays or goes based on what you want. So what exactly are you looking for clarify on? This isn't really player facing information or are your PCs trying to "trick" the NPC into a good act to loose the book?

and what people are suggesting is wrong, because the book does not differ. No cats saved except for diner, no soldier healed except to last longer under the torture for his failure in battle.

 

[Laurefindel]

nope it is not. The book of vile darkness is an artifact and as such it corrupts the owner.
so what could be defined as reasonable, because it serves her goals, is not what the book would judge. It is only what you read into it but you are not utterly evil.

So it’s the naughty word DM vs 1e Paladin, but in reverse

Still, that makes demon princes and arch devils tame in comparison. Even they will do « good » for the « greater evil », even if unintentionally.

 

[Coroc]

take the archetype of an artifact the one ring for a better understanding of the purpose and reasoning of an artefact.
the ring tempts Frodo to wear it, even in situations he could reasonably solve without it.

the book is the same. Oh theres a kitten to be saved, do it and afterwards bite its head of for the glory of evil

 

[Coroc]

So it’s the naughty word DM vs 1e Paladin, but in reverse

Still, that makes demon princes and arch devils tame in comparison. Even they will do « good » for the « greater evil », even if unintentionally.

yep all true what you wrote, the book is not your nice new +5 item in a game where +3 is the limit

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Yeah, my uncertainty (and the BBEG's) is that the thing judging what is or isn't a good act is an embodiment of Evil with no known greater goals (other than perhaps what its various contributors put into it). It might just oppose anything that could bring good into the world regardless of the greater context.

However, that does make it difficult to adjudicate what the Book would find "good". Providing food for the soldiers in the evil army you intend to have completely decimate a city and kill all it's inhabitants tomorrow might be a "good" act to the Book because you didn't force your troops to bring or scavenge for their own food. Having injured evil soldiers healed might be a "good" act as far as the book is concerned because it believes someone who lets themselves get hurt that badly and can't heal themselves deserves death.

I guess it would be most helpful to see how the Book has been represented in fiction where it is used.