The Book of Exalted Deeds - For Mature Players

[MerricB]

One of the more common complaints I see about the "balance" in the Book of Exalted Deeds is that it balances game bonuses with role-playing penalties.

However, I believe that the complainers have missed the point. The BoED is a book about a role-playing penalty: playing a Good character. How then do you reward someone who acts in such a fashion?

The designers of the BoED decided that something tangible must be given: game bonuses. If you think this was the wrong thing to do, I'd be very interested in hearing your alternatives.

Certainly, there are a couple of cases where the bonuses seem to outweigh even the role-playing penalties. (Vow of Poverty for a Monk comes to mind) However, I'm mainly interested in the bulk of the book, not in a mere one or two corner cases, though if you wish to point out those cases, it'd be enlightening.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

Oy. I have had a problem with this approach from 1e UA.

AFAIAC, there are plenty of good characters (or more in the context of 1e UA, characters with attitude problems) who are not rewarded for merely being good (or a jerk.) So there is no reason to create special bennies if you take the right feat/class/whatever. It's just gimme's, power escalation, and I think the game is better off without it.

 

[Voadam]

What unbalanced game detriment do you see to being good in general?

My eldritch knight likes wearing his white robes of the archmagi and having LG churches as allies.

 

[tzor]

I have never seen balance issues with the BoED. People tend to forget that many of the options given in the BoED are things that the DM gives to the players because of in game considerations.

Because of this they can be controlled somewhat by the DM, thus balancing them.

I do have some problems with the BoED, but nothing that can't be addressed by the DM in a calm manner. In trying to make an inverse of the BoVD, I think they went overboard in some spots. For example, after trying to explain that any poison which causes an ability drain is "evil" because it causes pain and suffering to an opponent, they then create a series of "exaulted" poisons and diseases which are ok because they only work on evil. Pain is pain whether the foe is good, neutrual or evil.

 

[MerricB]

What unbalanced game detriment do you see to being good in general?

My eldritch knight likes wearing his white robes of the archmagi and having LG churches as allies.

Hehe.

Conversely, a LE eldritch knight gains the same bonuses (for LE, of course!) There's no distinction in that regard.

However, it should be said that the BoED doesn't say you just have to be "good" in alignment; it lays down some pretty hefty requirements on the role-playing front. Although I've seen some express that this makes such characters into "good = stupid" mode, I'm not entirely convinced. There are lots of "stupid" things that people do for their ideals, and in a fantasy world where such ideals are backed by real divine beings, then such apparent stupidity may not be so.

To quote Blackadder: 'Well, it is so often the way, sir, too late one thinks of what one *should* have said. Sir Thomas Moore, for instance: Burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, "I recant my Catholicism."'

Obviously to Blackadder such devotion to faith is "stupid", but within the dictates of a fantasy universe, such is not the case!

However, in a role-playing game, such devotion and idealism (stupidity) must be tempered with the desire to seeing the campaign continue! It's the overwhelming reason that I believe the Mature label on the BoED to be warranted.

I don't think the player's section in the BoED is for everyone, and I quite understand Psion's complaints about it; but there is an appeal to having an 'exalted' campaign where the players are actively trying to act in such a manner. Having rewards for that play may not be for everyone, but it can help reinforce the game style and keep it from lapsing.

Cheers!

 

[Silveras]

Much of the balance with the BoED comes from the nature of the campaign; if elements of the BoED are wrong for the campaign's tone, both the Players and DM must be "mature" enough to recognize it and not use it.

Likewise, I must say I agree with Tzor on both of his points. Much of the "overpowering" stuff is in the hands of the DM to give out, not just for the players to choose or demand.

And, again, the Ravages and Afflictions are just a silly re-definition of terms that should have been left out of the book.

 

[MerricB]

I can see where the Ravages come from (very Old Testament style!), and I understand the concept... and I agree that they are contrary to what has been achieved by the discussion of Exalted characters! There must be some meaningful sacrifice to acting in an exalted fashion, and the ravages and afflictions work against that.

Cheers!

 

[Lela]

Well, I'm not sure I agree with the complaint about RP penalties. Really, almost all bonuses in D&D don't have penalties attached. You just get better at X. Done. Adding them in only makes the feat weaker.

As to the book as a whole, I generally like it. There is some confusion in places (Sanctified Creature) and those tend to drive me nuts. I wish they'd done a little more editing and a tad more playtesting. A lot of this conflicts with that and that conflicts with this stuff all over the place.

To be fair to the book though, it's a lot better than some of the splats in that regard. Oi.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that people are referring to stuff like the 'saint' template which is said (I don't own the book, so I don't know) to be deliberately more powerful than it's ECL, the reason being given is that "it's supposed to be a reward".

Which still doesn't excuse basically corrupting the entire system of ECL and balance.

 

[Lela]

I think that people are referring to stuff like the 'saint' template which is said (I don't own the book, so I don't know) to be deliberately more powerful than it's ECL, the reason being given is that "it's supposed to be a reward".

Which still doesn't excuse basically corrupting the entire system of ECL and balance.

Paladinhood is a reward too. For that matter, a Cleric gets spells from his god because he follows, and advances, his teachings.

But I doubt it was deliberate. It's just not something game designers do. If they expect to remain game designers anway.

Guess I'll be rereading the template tonight though.