Book of Exalted Deeds - I don't get it...

[BVB]

I hear they're dedicating an entire chapter to the question of whether a paladin is justified in slaughtering helpless kobold children.

And then there's another chapter on methods of self-flagellation and its benefits. ("The character will expunge his evil thoughts of lustful carnality by striking himself over his right shoulder at a rate of once every two seconds, whereas sinful intentions of gluttony and greed are best dealt with over the left shoulder at a slightly slower pace....")

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

I like it. I'm a crazy moral traditionalist, so I'm happy to see the word mature refer to something other than pornography for once.

My money's still on porn - it's not like Vile had anything to do with actual mature discussions of evil.

- Ma'at

 

[Psiblade]

I was not a fan of the BOVD, but I am looking forward to the BOED. I would like to see a mature discussion of morality.


-Psiblade

 

[DonAdam]

My money's still on porn - it's not like Vile had anything to do with actual mature discussions of evil.

Very true. I think the BOVD definitely fell into the "not really mature but parents will be pissed so let's call it 'mature'" camp.

I don't find fault with Wizards for labelling it mature; the word has come to mean "not for kids" in its popular commercial usage. I do find fault with Wizards for engaging in blatant sensationalism with its advertising, just as the Valar project is doing with BOEF. That kind of advertising with potentially offensive subect matter is the least mature thing going on for either product.

However, I think this one will be different. It will be nice to get a systematic treatment of "good" in D&D.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

The two definitions of "mature" is part of what's amusing. BOVD is supposed to be the first book in the series and uses the "this product has graphic violence, blood, sex, and lots of boobies to gawk over" version of "mature," and the Exalted book, supposedly being the second in the series, apparantly uses a whole different meaning for the word "mature." Makes me wonder what definition of "mature" the third book in the series will use.

 

[DonAdam]

Makes me wonder what definition of "mature" the third book in the series will use.

The third book will clearly be about geriatric adventuring, where your characters will quest for Boccob's Blessed Hip Replacement +5.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

However, I think this one will be different. It will be nice to get a systematic treatment of "good" in D&D.

Which still leaves us with the problem that in D&D there is absolutely zero serious discussion of evil, meaning we are back at square one with regards to a black and white simplistic morality.

I also have some lingering problems with the overuse of sex in the evil book, essentially equating overt sexuality with evil. But that's sort of rolled up into the larger problem with the BOVD.

 

[DonAdam]

Which still leaves us with the problem that in D&D there is absolutely zero serious discussion of evil, meaning we are back at square one with regards to a black and white simplistic morality.

I wouldn't rush to that conclusion until we see the book.

As long as we have good and evil as cosmological concepts in D&D (ie, detect evil) it will always be black and white to a degree. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for argument between two positions which would both be considered good. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to how it will treat it until I see it.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

I wouldn't rush to that conclusion until we see the book.

Um, Vile has been out for a long time. And unless the ink moves on the pages, there is no seriosu discussion of evil in that book, unless you define evil purely in terms of deviant sex and drug use.

Deeds could have an excellent discussion of 'good' but that's only half the argument. It's like having a right/left political discussion with only one side represented - you get a very thourough grounding in one argument, with biased superficial (at best) summary of the other.

On an unfair personal level I do doubt the extend to which 'good' will be discussed also. D&D writers seem to get really squicked when they have to actually deal with specific discussion of alignments.

As long as we have good and evil as cosmological concepts in D&D (ie, detect evil) it will always be black and white to a degree.

That's great - but what's evil? Murder, stealing, self-gratification at the expense of others? Fine, but that is what the average adventurer does when they rob the dungeon. Is it serving demons - fine, but why do people serve them when Celestials are 'better' (mechanically speaking)? Make things too black and white and certain classes (cough*paladin*cough) become unplayable because their morality restrictions reduce them to the level of a very poor AI, running of basic IF-Then scripts.

However, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for argument between two positions which would both be considered good. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to how it will treat it until I see it.

I'm keeping a hopeful open mind about it, but my opinion is influenced by their past products and positions on arguments about alignments. They flip flop far more than they should.

 

[Aaron L]

Heh heh, he said squick.