I think this is a typical problem of "power offset by roleplaying constraints". The stuff in BoED is potentially overpowering, if you just hand it out without thinking about what the "exalted" part is supposed to mean. My interpretation (and I'm playing a character with the Vow of Poverty feat right now) is that it's like the code of ethics a Paladin is required to follow, only up a notch and slightly different. Unlike a paladin, my character can work together with evil characters for a long period of time without any problems. But if she lets those evil characters actually perform evil acts without trying to stop them, that's no good. Likewise, if her non-evil companions try to do something evil (like, say, slaughter a whole town of "evil" humanoids, down to the women and children) she has to stop that, too.
And, in my opinion, she has to constantly be weighing each action on the scale. Like last week: we had a problem with giants having fortified a position between Irongate and a mithril mine that we recently reclaimed from the Scarlet Brotherhood. Based on our sources, we were pretty sure that the brotherhood was supporting this group of giants as well as a forward base--and that there may very well be some nasty demons there. But my character could *not* simply attack without making some attempt at talking the giants out. Once the battle was joined, she didn't need to hold back, but if any had surrendered, she would have been bound to keep them safe.
And, again in my opinion as a player, if my character ever fails in her commitment to good, all of her exalted feats and benefits are gone. Poof. Forever. No atonement, no replacing them with normal feats, just gone.
Of course, I also adjusted the power of the Vow of Poverty feat downwards slightly before asking my DM if I could take this route, because it's sort of poorly specified. My suggestion is to change it so that the player may either take the special AC as listed, but lose abilities as if they are wearing light armor or may take the AC as listed -4 and act as if they are wearing no armor. Otherwise, monks just get too damned silly.
So: My take on Exalted: I think the things listed in the book are okay, although a few need to be tweaked. And the DM should require a *very* stringent code of ethics, at least as good as the Paladin code, although it doesn't have to be quite so rigid--this code is not so much to "balance out" the abilities, because that kind of balancing doesn't work, but rather to show the players how special and important those abilities are. This isn't just a case of "Oh, I want to be able to use d8s instead of d6s for sneak attacks against evil, so I will take the Sacred Strike feat", it's a case of "I am so enlightened in my actions that the archons have blessed me with the ability to fight better against evil--but should I ever turn from my path, they will turn their eyes from me forever" or "I am so enlightened in my actions that my pure force of goodness inspires my blows against evil, but should I ever turn towards corruption, that purity will be lost forever."
You don't *need* that extra requirement to make it work okay--as long as the DM is doing his job, anyway. But you *do* need it to make it feel like something important is going on. (Which is one reason I don't really like the Paladin class... It's too easy!)
