The Book of Exalted Deeds - It's Here! (merged - full ToC posted)

[Razz]

I got the book just yesterday in the mail myself.

I simply have one problem...there are some horrible mistakes in the book.

Here's a couple:

1)The sunfly swarm says they can detect evil at will TWICE, as in it says "Can detect evil and detect evil at will". I am assuming it meant to say detect magic also.

2)Another typo is the fact that there are a few of them. It seems one of the authors do not seem to realize he was writiign a 3.5 product, not a 3.0 There were a few areas where a 3.0 rule was in use instead of a 3.5 one.

Other than that, the book is great. I really wish they would have put out more celestial monsters, but there's a enough to sate everyone's tastes.

 

[Olive]

The nudity violates the spirit of the book. It is supposed to be a book about the Good alignment in D&D, while nudity is clearly CE. If you do not believe me, imagine an Illithid nude.

You are joking right? I mean, it's hard to tell from some of the stuff you've read, but this has got to be a joke.

 

[John Crichton]

The nudity violates the spirit of the book. It is supposed to be a book about the Good alignment in D&D, while nudity is clearly CE. If you do not believe me, imagine an Illithid nude.

I can't believe I'm even responding to this with a little "D&D rationale" but here goes: An illithid is an abomination, therefore not human. The human body can be considered a work of art and a beautiful thing. Not to mention that the concept itself probably has no D&D alignment. And considering that alignment is a fairly abstract concept anyway...

Oh jeeze, I'll just stop there.

 

[Gez]

The human body can be considered a work of art and a beautiful thing.

This depends heavily on the human involved... When in a crowded street, try to imagine the people naked. There's bound to be at least some that will make you want to turn your heads away in awkward disgust.


Back to the topic, someone knows when the art gallery will be set up at Wizards? I'm eager to see the hot succubi action people have talked about...

 

[John Crichton]

This depends heavily on the human involved... When in a crowded street, try to imagine the people naked. There's bound to be at least some that will make you want to turn your heads away in awkward disgust.

I am well aware of this. Hence, the "can be considered a work of art" comment.

Yes, back on topic with us.

 

[Brian Chalian]

Baraendur, I have a few questions for you.

1. Everyone involved in the BXD *did* realize that every sentence they wrote would be scrutinized like the Talmud from now till 4th edition, didn't they? Did it affect your work in any way?

2. Does the book explain why "attacking [evil beings] on sight" (3.0 MM 127) is acceptably lawful good behavior?

Ray Silver, I hope you and Mike have been well.

 

[Mercule]

I am well aware of this. Hence, the "can be considered a work of art" comment.

Quite. The problem is that, like cubist or abstract art, sometimes the human body is rather icky.

My $.02 is that I'd rather see an Illithid naked any day of the week than say... Rosie O'Donnell. YMMV.

 

[ssampier]

Quite. The problem is that, like cubist or abstract art, sometimes the human body is rather icky.

My $.02 is that I'd rather see an Illithid naked any day of the week than say... Rosie O'Donnell. YMMV.

Very true. I'm sure seeing the naked illithid is not as bad as getting eaten by one. Although, I'm sure the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[John Crichton]

Quite. The problem is that, like cubist or abstract art, sometimes the human body is rather icky.

My $.02 is that I'd rather see an Illithid naked any day of the week than say... Rosie O'Donnell. YMMV.

That is exactly was I meant when I said "can." Ugly is still ugly. But ugly doesn't mean evil. Which is where my original post was going.

 

[Darrin Drader]

1. Everyone involved in the BXD *did* realize that every sentence they wrote would be scrutinized like the Talmud from now till 4th edition, didn't they? Did it affect your work in any way?

Naturally That was part of the reason I wanted to be involved with this project in the first place. Chris and James are core RPG R&D folks, so they write quite a bit that gets heavily scrutinized. I, on the other hand, was interested in breaking as much new ground as possible rather than revisiting old 2nd edition material.

2. Does the book explain why "attacking [evil beings] on sight" (3.0 MM 127) is acceptably lawful good behavior?

Yes. Chapter 1 talks at length about good in a game that lends itself to violence.