The Book of Exalted Deeds - For Mature Players

[Lela]

The idea that the character type of "I want to be a person who holds himself to a higher standard than most people could only aspire to obtain." somehow necessitates being more powerful is flawed in my opinion.

It doesn't. This is just one option you can take that happens to be restricted to those kinds of characters. You have to live those standards to take gain these benifits. You don't have to have the benifits to live the standards.

If you don't like it that way, make it a personal, binding, agreement between the character and a Celestial.

The idea that somehow an ideaology is somehow subpar is a disturbing one that reminds me sickeningly so of CRPGs. This is in reference mostly to most of the Exalted Feats and not specifically the Vows. . ..

How do the feats make one ideaology better or worse than another? D&D is filled with ideaologies granting power to their minions. Clerics, Blackguards, Druids, Paladins, even Wizards gain some form of power from their choice of idealogical focus. This is just one example of one power trying to give power over another.

Not all Exalted characters are going to take every feat either. For example, no Exalted Paladin of Sune would take Vow of Chastity. It's unlikely that an Exalted Cleric of Lethander would take Vow of Poverty. And certainly no Exalted Fighter of Tyr (or Heironeous) would take Vow of Peace or Non-Violence. It wouldn't surprise me to have the Druid of Non-Violence inadvertantly insult the Paladin of Heironeous over that very issue.

I do tend to agree with you about the Vows. If you're slipped something, that's when you need your Vow of Abstinance. But it goes away. Problem. And all your enimies need to do to screw you over is lace an arrow or two with something and peg you with it.

And yes, the ECL variance for Sainthood was intentional... It reads as such in the text explaining how one can achieve Sainthood unforunately .

Hmmmm,

The character sacrifices her next two levels of advancement in order to "catch up" with the (artificially low) level adjustment of the template.

I can see that. It really is an odd thing to say if they don't mean that.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Though I don't have the book, I think that the point some people are missing is that:

1. The feats seem to offer mechanical bonusses that make certain role-playing concepts functional within the D&D world. Whatever its flaws are, the much debated vow of poverty certainly makes the classic mendicant friar into a playable character. IMO, that's a good thing as long as the concepts are good things to begin with.

2. The feats, templates, and abilities also model the intervention of deities, etc on behalf of people who are exceptionally good. If the supposedly good gods didn't favor good people more than evil people, that would leave plenty of questions wouldn't it? This falls into the same category as BoVD feats like Thrall of a demon, etc.

The default D&D universe is full of spiritual powers who imbue moral acts with a physical significance. Why on earth it would be surprising or disturbing for some such powers to reward good is beyond me.

 

[hong]

Good Alignment = Exalted Character?

Wrong, wrong and wrong!!!

Exalted characters in my opinion must follow the tenets of good set down in the 1st chapter of the book. They must live by these principles and not sway from them. To do so would seem to mean instant loss of exalted status and all the feats associated with this.

I play an exalted Paladin and while he is not played lawful stupid, his hands are tied on most issues. In fact, he has many difficulties in some respects in staying lawful on all issues - tending towards actions that could be perceived as more Neutral Good.

So what, exactly, is the difference between an exalted paladin and a regular joe paladin?

I don't mean in terms of numbers. I mean what is the difference in their character concepts, their schticks, their behaviours, that makes one character qualify for extra goodies that the other doesn't? Personally, I can't see it.

That said, I do use the BoED crunch IMC. But that's because the campaign world had a strong "virtue and enlightenment" theme built into it from the start, which made for a natural fit to the mechanics.

 

[Li Shenron]

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!

IMHO the Book of Exalted Deeds is perfectly fine as it is. It's for "mature players only", which among other things - I know I say it with high risk of being largely disagreed - are players who don't delight in powergaming and rules-lawyering, and are the first not having fun in overpowering the whole group.

On the other hand, I have seen before players who wanted to play basically a non-violent character (or any kind of really Good PC), but the core D&D game really doesn't support this option much, since the whole game is combat-based. To roleplay a really Good PC (who doesn't for instant react with violence at every little threat, just as you don't -kill- someone IRL only because he's stolen your wallet) is a very tough thing in D&D, which usually brings you more situational disadvantages than andvantages. That could also be the reason why most of the Paladins are roleplayed badly as killing machines. The BoED tries to compensate for those players who really don't want to play a Good character in a superficial way.

 

[Bauglir]

Evil is an enabling alignment, compared to good; not in terms of items and effects, but in terms of options.

For example, take the situation of a captive with information. A good character's options for getting this information are asking nicely, offering a deal, attempting to intimidate/bluff. An evil character however can do all of these things, as well as torture, threats on those things the captive values (which unlike with the good character are actually carried out. For example, hand the captive the head of a family member each day until he tells what he knows..)

An evil character may choose to act with mercy and kindness in order to appear outwardly good if it suits their purpose, without violating their alignment. The same is not true of the good character attempting to appear evil (think of the movie schtick where the undercover good guy has to prove his loyalty by killing someone the bad guys captured).

So by choosing to be a good character you are inherently limiting your options. By choosing to be ultra-good (ie Exalted) you are severely limiting your options. Therein lies the balance with the powerful exalted abilities. Of course this relies on the DM enforcing your alignment restrictions with an appropriately iron fist.

YMMV, of course

 

[Li Shenron]

...or in other simple words, Evil is easy and Good is difficult.

BTW, what does "YMMV" means, I havent' figured it out yet...

 

[Bauglir]

"Your Mileage May Vary"

or

"This is how it's worked for me. I appreciate that things might not work the same for you"

 

[Psion]

Feats like Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence do more than RP penalties.

Oh, I definitely agree with that one.

My dislike of Vow of Poverty stems of how it is written/the extreme manner in which it is handled. I much prefer the BoHM version of same.

 

[Li Shenron]

"Your Mileage May Vary"

Thanks. That was tough