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



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 17, 2003)

*The Book of Exalted Deeds - It's Here!*

Ok, I now am the proud owner of the Book of Exalted Deeds.  While I'm barely on the third chapter, I'm going to try to at least skim through everything so I can answer people's questions.  Ask away, I'll try to get to them after class, or failing that, later this evening.  

First impressions - An exalted character would be difficult to play, but would bring great rewards from doing so.  Playing a campaign with these kinds of characters would require those really into roleplaying, as the decisions required are hard if one is to remain true to one's principles.  But this book gives good characters lots of tools to struggle against evil.  Strangest thing I've seen so far - Good poisons and diseases.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 17, 2003)

Why does it have the mature label on it?


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 17, 2003)

Reasons given for the mature label were as follows:  This book deals with ethics and morality in a serious manner.  Another one is that several of the abilities, feats, monsters, or other things are drawn from aspects of real-world religion, which is a touchy subject to some people.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

What are the examples of difficult moral situations given in the book, and what are the solutions?  Just a small excerpt would be appreciated.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 17, 2003)

Do the ends justify the means?  Is killing orc babies right?  Is it ok to torture prisoners to save other innocents?  Does cause of great good justify a small act of evil to acheive it?  And then there's one specific one, with an interesting picture.  It shows what appears to be an orc or half-orc paladin pointing her sword at two succubi who seem to be holding on to each other.  The caption:  _A paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love. _


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 17, 2003)

I'm curious about the artwork.

Is it as risque as some have led us to believe?


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

Thank you, Ray Silver.  I was quite close to buying this book, but from what you just described, I am certain it is not for me.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Thank you, Ray Silver. I was quite close to buying this book, but from what you just described, I am certain it is not for me.



What's wrong with what he described?


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 17, 2003)

Risque?  Not really.  Most people are properly clothed.  However, the aforementioned succubi are not clothed and thus are showing off an unclothed bottom, and a picture of Sathia (a celestial paragon) shows a naked pair of breasts.  But I consider most of the art to be tasteful and well-done.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih, those were only some of what was described.  There were many others, I just posted what came to mind the fastest.  I'm going to write a more thorough review once I get a chance to read all of it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 17, 2003)

Hi there!

Can someone please list the Monsters and the Lords of Good.

Thanks.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 17, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> Reasons given for the mature label were as follows:  This book deals with ethics and morality in a serious manner.  Another one is that several of the abilities, feats, monsters, or other things are drawn from aspects of real-world religion, which is a touchy subject to some people.




that's about what i figured.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

Because the situation described is so utterly ridiculous and hackneyed as to be irrelevant.  Two beings of utter evil incarnate stand before the Paladin, no doubt guilty of endless depravity and wickedness throughout their existences.  But they "love" each other, so it constitutes a moral crisis as to the proper course of action?  Please.  

Evil BBEG:  Behold, I shall soon massacre the entire village below with my amazingly painful spell of doom.  

Paladin:  Nay, you shall not do so.  Today you face the justice of the righteous, evil one.

Evil BBEG:  Ha!  You cannot harm me!  I am in love with that Succubus over there!  It will no doubt take you days of prayer and contemplation to come to a decision as to what your course of action should be, and by that time, it will be too late!  BAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Paladin:  NOOOOOOO.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 17, 2003)

I think that the point is that even evil people do some decent stuff from time to time. Hitler did some nice water colors, and even while he was out slaughtering 13 million of his own people he was with the other hand feeding the poor and clothing the sick.

If you're a paladin you should be thinking about that sort of thing.  That doesn't mean that you don't kill Hitler - but it does mean that you have to come up with a new mechanism to feed the poor and clothe the sick after you whack his head off and release everyone from the Death Camps.

I think that it's a great thing that he BoED apparently brings up stuff like that.

-Frank


----------



## JPL (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Because the situation described is so utterly ridiculous and hackneyed as to be irrelevant.  Two beings of utter evil incarnate stand before the Paladin, no doubt guilty of endless depravity and wickedness throughout their existences.  But they "love" each other, so it constitutes a moral crisis as to the proper course of action?  Please.
> 
> Evil BBEG:  Behold, I shall soon massacre the entire village below with my amazingly painful spell of doom.
> 
> ...




I'm thinkin' this book questions the idea of "evil incarnate."  

It's perfectly OK to play a game where orcs are somehow evil on a genetic level...that's always the feeling I got from Tolkein.  

But once your world has one lawful good orc...killing orc babies ceases to be extermination and turns into murder.

If "evil" always means beyond redemption, without any redeeming qualities whatsoever...then fine, go kill stuff and sleep soundly at night.

But what if that succubus or mind flayer genuinely loves its mate?  To kill the evil, you have to kill the love, too.

What if that wizard you mention has children?  What if they are watching?  What if he loves them --- really loves them, as much as a wicked man can love anything?

What if you are fighting a character like Magneto --- ruthless and vicious, but on some level honorable, whose turned against humanity after his experiences in the Holocaust?


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

As soon as Hitler and the Holocaust are mentioned in any Internet-based discussion... well... *pfft*

To attempt to drag this thread back on track, I will mention that I also just bought the BoED and will try to answer those questions I can while hiding the book under my work papers.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

Upper Krust said:
			
		

> Can someone please list the Monsters and the Lords of Good.



Monsters
The Deathless Type
Aleax
Archon (Owl, Sword, Throne, Warden)
Asura
Bariaur
Crypt Warden
Eladrin (Coure, Firre, Shiradi, Tulani)
Guardinal (Equinal, Musteval, Ursinal)
Hollyphant
Leskylor
Moon Dog
Quesar
Rhek
Sacred Watcher
Saint
Sanctified Creature
Swarm, Divine Wrath (Apocalypse Frog, Bronze Locust, Deathraven, Sunfly)

Exalted Gods
Ayailla, goddess of light
Chaav, god of joy
Estanna, goddess of hearth and home
Lastai, goddess of pleasure, love, and passion
Phieran, god of suffering, endurance, and perseverance
Valarian, god of the forests

Edit: spacing.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 17, 2003)

I too would be interested in what they do with celestial hierarchies and powers.

Are there saint rules?


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

Except that the creatures described *are* always Evil.  They are physical manifestations of Evil itself, brought into existence in realms of pure wickedness.  To say that the Paladin should even consider sparing them because of one _possibly_ redeeming characteristic is patently ludicrous.  

I was looking forward to this book because I thought it might create a standard response for tough moral situations, by D&D rules.  Instead, it seems that it is going to do nothing more than add to the problem already present.  

On an unrelated note, I seriously tire of the female-female pairings seen in so many RPG products nowadays.  It is blatant pandering, and does not really fit within the framework of most fantasy worlds.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> On an unrelated note, I seriously tire of the female-female pairings seen in so many RPG products nowadays.  It is blatant pandering, and does not really fit within the framework of most fantasy worlds.




Psssstttt....Ray Silver is female.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 17, 2003)

Al Capone had children, a wife he loved and a legit position in business before he became what he was.  There can be no doubt that he loved his son.  Hitler is overused in moral debates.  I think we should use Al.

Aaron.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

No temple or religious organization needs to give its formal approval for a character to become a saint. Rather, sainthood is a gift bestowed by the deities of good and the mightiest celestials to those exalted heroes who deserve it....

* Must be of good alignment.
* Must have at least three exalted feats.
* Must never have lost the benefit of exalted feats or class abilities because of committing an evil act, even if the character properly attoned.
* Must at all times behave in a way the DM considers to be exemplary of the exalted path described in this book.
* Must be at least 6th level.
* Must make an extraordinary sacrifice (not necessarily his life) for the good of another.
* [Plus whatever other requirements the DM sets.]

A character who meets these criteria... can acquire the saint template.

[You have to "buy back" your next two character levels in XP after becoming a saint, because the saint template is so frontloaded.]

"Saint" is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature that is not an outsider or an elemental.

* Type -> Outsider (native)
* insight bonus to AC equal to Wis modifier
* Holy Power (Su): save DCs for spells, Sp, Su, Ex increase by +2
* Holy Touch (Su): +1d6 holy damage with weapons (+1d8 against evil undead/outsiders)
* Spell-Like Abilities: At will--guidance, resistance, virtue, bless.
* DR based on HD, up to 10/evil at 12+
* Fast Healing (HD/2, max 10)
* immune to acid, cold, electricity, petrification; resist fire 10; +4 Fort saves against poison
* low-light vision, 60-ft. darkvision
* Protective Aura (Su) = double-strength magic circle against evil + lesser globe of invulnerability
* Tongues (Su) always active
* Con +2, Wis +2, Cha +4
CR +2
LA +2


----------



## Murrdox (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> I was looking forward to this book because I thought it might create a standard response for tough moral situations, by D&D rules.  Instead, it seems that it is going to do nothing more than add to the problem already present.




Eh??  You expected the book to describe all the "Rules" to morality?  Percentile tables to determine whether a Paladin feels bad about killing a murderer, but at the same time widowing his innocent wife?

Half the fun of D&D is ROLEPLAYING.

God, it'd be pathetic as a DM if I ever had to say to a player, "okay, roll the dice to see if you feel bad about what you just did."


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

I expected this book to fully flesh out what is Good and what is not in regards to difficult moral situations.  Just look at the alignment threads in the past week alone in this forum.  The alignment rules are so undeveloped and undetailed that many DMs propose throwing them out of the game altogether to avoid potential headaches.  Having a clear definition of what the Good alignment in D&D really means would have been quite welcome.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> To say that the Paladin should even consider sparing them because of one _possibly_ redeeming characteristic is patently ludicrous.



With that attitude we would never have had Sepulchrave II's brilliant story hour - the whole thing started with a paladin PC attempting to redeem a succubus.



> On an unrelated note, I seriously tire of the female-female pairings seen in so many RPG products nowadays. It is blatant pandering



Now that I heartily agree with. However, it's just *one* cheesy painting in the book. Not worth getting your knickers in a twist about.


----------



## PowerWordDumb (Oct 17, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Why does it have the mature label on it?




Nipple clamps of exquisite pleasure?

*ducks*

Not really much call for the mature label in my estimation, apart from the obvious "let's not offend anyone who may read into what we've written and derive insults from it" motivation.  It's pretty tame.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

Sepulchrave has a markedly different cosmology than standard D&D, and even given that, she was the first ever known to be redeemed.  Furthermore, she surrendered herself to the Paladins judgement, and admitted her entire scheme, as well as the previous sins she had committed.  When a sentient creature shows an honest desire to redeem itself, than a Paladin is justified in attempting to help guide it along, but until then, that is not the case.  Paladins are holy warriors combating evil, not social workers.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> No temple or religious organization needs to give its formal approval for a character to become a saint. Rather, sainthood is a gift bestowed by the deities of good and the mightiest celestials to those exalted heroes who deserve it....
> 
> * Must be of good alignment.
> * Must have at least three exalted feats.
> ...




Cool, a template for a living saint as opposed to a patron saint.

Interesting choice on the DR, saints are protected from everybody except supernatural evil as opposed to the devil not being able to touch those of pure hearts. Of course this allows their attacks to be treated as good aligned.


----------



## gfunk (Oct 17, 2003)

Thanks for sharing the contents of the BoED you guys!  Actually, I wasn't too interested in purchasing it but after hearing more about it, my interest is piqued.

I am playing a LG celestial in our current campaign and I was wondering if you could tell me if there are "crunchy bits" for me, such as new feats.

Also, could you please list the CRs of the new Archons?

Many thanks!


----------



## Voadam (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Sepulchrave has a markedly different cosmology than standard D&D, and even given that, she was the first ever known to be redeemed.  Furthermore, she surrendered herself to the Paladins judgement, and admitted her entire scheme, as well as the previous sins she had committed.  When a sentient creature shows an honest desire to redeem itself, than a Paladin is justified in attempting to help guide it along, but until then, that is not the case.  Paladins are holy warriors combating evil, not social workers.





A paladin is not justified in attempting to help guide along a sentient creature unless it surrenders itself for judgment, admits its entire scheme, as well as previous sins?


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

There are 30+ new feats - an entire chapter of the book. Here's a neat one for combat lovers:

*Resounding Blow*
Your mightiest attacks cause your foes to tremble before you.
*Prereq*: Str 13, Power Attack, Intimidate 7 ranks.
*Benefit*: When you deal a critical hit... your opponent must succeed on a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 char lvl + Cha bonus) or _cower_ for 1 round.


A nifty appendix lists all celestial creatures in official D&D books, by CR. So:

Warden Archon, CR 8
Owl Archon, CR 11
Sword Archon, CR 11
Throne Archon, CR 15


----------



## drnuncheon (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> The alignment rules are so undeveloped and undetailed that many DMs propose throwing them out of the game altogether to avoid potential headaches.  Having a clear definition of what the Good alignment in D&D really means would have been quite welcome.




On the other hand, such a "clear definition" of Good in D&D terms would probably be what would *cause* me to throw out the alignment system...because it would cause more headaches than it solved.

J


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 17, 2003)

> Paladins are holy warriors combating evil, not social workers.



Says who?  I would think that paladins more than anyone else would have a vested interest in helping better people's lives.


----------



## gtJormungand (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> *Resounding Blow*
> Your mightiest attacks cause your foes to tremble before you.
> *Prereq*: Str 13, Power Attack, Intimidate 7 ranks.
> *Benefit*: When you deal a critical hit... your opponent must succeed on a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 char lvl + Cha bonus) or _cower_ for 1 round.




That feat sounds very promising.

Can we also get a list of the prestige classes in the book?


----------



## Voadam (Oct 17, 2003)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> Says who?  I would think that paladins more than anyone else would have a vested interest in helping better people's lives.



Well I'd agree with the definition that paladins are holy warriors.


----------



## gfunk (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> There are 30+ new feats - an entire chapter of the book. Here's a neat one for combat lovers:




Thanks, Josh!


----------



## Wraithdrit (Oct 17, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> On the other hand, such a "clear definition" of Good in D&D terms would probably be what would *cause* me to throw out the alignment system...because it would cause more headaches than it solved.
> 
> J




Can I get an Amen?

As we have seen in the past day, Lu and I differ dramatically on alignment issues and paladin issues. I think the book sounds intrigueing for the exact reasons Lu doesn't like it, and I think if it had what Lu desires I would be all about giving it a pass.

As it is, between the four boosters of minis and Underdark I just bought, I can't afford this one yet! But soon. This, Book of Vile Darkness and the Miniature Handbook will be mine!

Lots of crunchy bits in them all, or so I hear.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 17, 2003)

I'm not sure I like Resounding Blow.

If a Paladin is running around with a Keen Scimitar, he'll get people to make a save with 30% of his hits. The same Paladin with a Keen Pick would only force a save with 10% of his hits.

Those two weapons do equivalent average damage per hit and are supposed to be the same in virtually all ways - the Pick at the very least should force three saves or make people cower for three rounds on a failed save or something.

-Frank


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

*BoED - Prestige Classes*

As requested, the PrCs from the _Book of Exalted Deeds_.

Anointed Knight - gains ancestral weapon benefits (cf. OA samurai)
Apostle of Peace - forswears violence
Beloved of Valarian - women dedicated to the unicorn deity Valarian
Celestial Mystic - spellcaster dedicated to the Seven Heavens
Champion of Gwynharwyf - exalted barbarian
Defender of Sealtiel - exalted dwarven defender (thematically)
Emissary of Barachiel - diplomat and peacemaker
Exalted Arcanist - 5 level PrC for sorcerers
Fist of Raziel - a knightly order dedicated to holy warfare against evil
Initiate of Pistis Sophia - exalted monk
Lion of Talisid - exalted druid/ranger-type
Prophet of Erathaol - seer and visionary 
Risen Martyr - an exalted character who returns from the dead
Sentinel of Bharrai - spellcasters who venerate "The Great Bear of Elysium"
Skylord - an elf* crusader with a flying mount
Slayer of Domiel - exalted assassin (!)
Stalker of Kharash - use stealth to track and hunt evildoers
Swanmay - a secretive order that protects the wilderness from evil
Sword of Righteousness - exalted warrior (3 level PrC, grants exalted feats)
Troubadour of Stars - exalted bard
Vassal of Bahamut - a devout, nondraconic champion of the Dragon King
Wonderworker - exalted spellcaster (3 level PrC, grants exalted feats)

* By law, all WotC products must contain at least one twinky elf PrC or subrace.


----------



## Gez (Oct 17, 2003)

Musteval: That's a new one. What is it, a holy weasel? Ermin, maybe?

"Choosing between fighting evil and honoring love": If, at least, the loved one of the evil lover wasn't _also_ an incarnation of wickedness and depravity...

Skylord: :roll:

Swanmay: Cool, they're back!

Overall, I give it a yawn, although I may get it for the celestials that are still missing from the cosmology otherwise. There's an impressive choice of _planar allies_ and _planar bond_ when you're into evil outsiders, but the choices are more limited for good spellcasters.


----------



## Pants (Oct 17, 2003)

> *
> * By law, all WotC products must contain at least one twinky elf PrC or subrace.*



*
 
rofl



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		


			Slayer of Domiel - exalted assassin (!)
		
Click to expand...


* 
w00t!
I must have this book.  Damn my being poor!


----------



## Gallo22 (Oct 17, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Because the situation described is so utterly ridiculous and hackneyed as to be irrelevant.  Two beings of utter evil incarnate stand before the Paladin, no doubt guilty of endless depravity and wickedness throughout their existences.  But they "love" each other, so it constitutes a moral crisis as to the proper course of action?  Please.
> 
> Evil BBEG:  Behold, I shall soon massacre the entire village below with my amazingly painful spell of doom.
> 
> ...




A perfect example is Gollum from LoTR! Think about it! If he would have been killed just because he was evil and had evil intent, the whole ending of the story would have been different.  It was goodness that knew he had a bigger part to plan...no?

I know this has nothing to do with the love issue, but it still have the same idea of what the book is trying to say.  Atleast from my stand put.

Gallo22


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 17, 2003)

Ah, so no equivilants to the Fiend Lords/Dukes/whatever? Interesting. Not a big loss, but it might have been cool to have a high-level party face off against an anti-villian with some name-recognition...


----------



## Gallo22 (Oct 17, 2003)

I'd be interested to know how many of the pro, Book of Vile Darkness, fans are nay-saying this book?  Interesting thought?  Its funny how when the BoVD came out all the supporters it had, now a book that supports strong morals comes out and people are turning a nose up to it.  Another interesting thought?

Gallo22


----------



## Shadeus (Oct 17, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I like Resounding Blow.
> 
> If a Paladin is running around with a Keen Scimitar, he'll get people to make a save with 30% of his hits. The same Paladin with a Keen Pick would only force a save with 10% of his hits.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't worry too much about paladins.  A pure paladin needs to be level 11 before he can get 7 ranks.  But your argument still holds.  I hope there is another requirement or you are going to have barbarians running around with falchions all over the place.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

I appreciate the idea of Mercy Vs. Justice.  That is a valid moral quandary, requiring both temperance and wisdom to be dealt with appropiately.  It is also an issue that will vary from encounter to encounter.  What I would have liked to see are examples of such quandaries, and an explanation of how the D&D alignment system works in such situations.  Is it Good to forgive a serial killer who has changed his ways, or is it Good to bring him to justice for those crimes?  But instead of addressing said questions, this book apparenty does nothing but add more difficult situations for DMs and players to argue over.  Which holds no interest for me.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 17, 2003)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know how many of the pro, Book of Vile Darkness, fans are nay-saying this book? Interesting thought? Its funny how when the BoVD came out all the supporters it had, now a book that supports strong morals comes out and people are turning a nose up to it. Another interesting thought?
> 
> Gallo22



I've seen exactly one person turn up his nose to this book so far.  I loved the BoVD, and it looks like this book will be quite good too.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

The BoVD was a superior product, written by perhaps the most well known and well respected author amongst the D&D community.  The BoED does not share that distinction, so it is only natural people view it with more skepticism.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 17, 2003)

In regards to defining good:  As the Book of Vile Darkness explained how various acts are evil, so the Book of Exalted Deeds describes how certain acts are good.


----------



## Gallo22 (Oct 17, 2003)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> I've seen exactly one person turn up his nose to this book so far.  I loved the BoVD, and it looks like this book will be quite good too.




I'm just playing the devil's advocate Meepo, that's all!

Gallo22


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> With that attitude we would never have had Sepulchrave II's brilliant story hour - the whole thing started with a paladin PC attempting to redeem a succubus.




Actually that's not at all true. There's a spell called sanctify the wicked, which goes along with the sanctified creature template. The purpose of these is to provide a way to redeem a creature that is normally inherently evil. This means that you can now have good red dragons, good demons, and good devils. Orcs and goblins can likewise be turned to good in this way also, if someone wanted to waste all those resources to making it happen. The creature must be willing, which is the catch, but it does allow for exactly this type of thing. Of all the things I contributed to this book, I think sanctify the wicked is the most important because it defines a resolution to an issue that had previously only been guessed at and wrestled with by numerous DMs.

_Edit:_ When you look at the TOC, you'll notice that good is defined (to the extent that it was decided it should be defined) in chapter 1, which is all of 15 pages. It answers a lot of moral questions that arise, but it still leaves the DM room to make their own judgment calls on some issues.


----------



## Gez (Oct 17, 2003)

Actually, the details of what is moral and what is immoral in the BoVD is the part I will never use.

I took the book for the fiends, archfiends, and more especially, all the various little options and suggestions like dark speech, vile damage, etc.

The things that allow to shape the world and flesh out the villains.

If the BoED does the same thing for the good guys, I'm OK with it.

If it's just a moral guide, sheesh, that's not the purpose of a RPG sourcebook.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

_The archons, guardinals, and eladrins have their rulers, leaders, and exemplars on the celestial planes where good holds sway. These *celestial paragons* share much in common with each other and also bear certain similarities to their archfiend counterparts on the Lower Planes._

The Celestial Hebdomad (Archons)
Barachiel, The Messenger (CR 22)
Domiel, The Mercy-Bringer (CR 24)
Erathaol, The Seer (CR 25)
Pistis Sophia, The Ascetic (CR 26)
Raziel, The Crusader (CR 28)
Sealtiel, The Defender (CR 29)
Zaphkiel, The Watcher (CR 32)

Talisid and the Five Companions (Guardinals)
Talisid, The Celestial Lion (CR 30)
Sathia, The Sky Duchess (CR 26)
Manath, The Horned Duke (CR 20)
Whara, Duchess of the Fields (CR 24)
Kharash, The Stalker (CR 22)
Bharrai, The Great Bear (CR 28)

The Court of Stars (Eladrin)
Morwel, Queen of Stars (CR 31)
Faerinaal, The Queen's Consort (CR 29)
Gwynharwyf, The Whirling Fury (CR 26)


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 17, 2003)

I still think ToH Orcus could kick a few of these guys around. 

Sorry random thought:

Any ideas on how to include stuff in other campaign settings? Or is it like BoVD they expect you to use it in GH type world?


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> Actually that's not at all true. There's a spell called sanctify the wicked, which goes along with the sanctified creature template. The purpose of these is to provide a way to redeem a creature that is normally inherently evil.



There are also rules under Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption for convincing an evil person to become more good. You spend an hour each day encouraging the evil person to talk about his sins and describing the rewards of being good. You make a special Diplomacy check that sets the DC for the target's Will save (with his level as a bonus on the save). If the target fails his save for seven consecutive days, he moves from evil to neutral. Another seven consecutive days moves him from neutral to good.

Pretty cool, eh? Finally a use for your paladin's huge Diplomacy modifier.


----------



## Trainz (Oct 17, 2003)

Oh this is brilliant.

Now, the question that many lurkers might want know (but are afraid to ask)...

How does this book makes the Paladin more powerful ?



_eidt: slipelng_


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Any ideas on how to include stuff in other campaign settings? Or is it like BoVD they expect you to use it in GH type world?



Well, the book uses the D&D cosmology - e.g., Zaphkiel the Watcher _presides over the seventh layer of Celestia, the Illuminated Heaven of Chronias_. However, the D&D cosmology is fairly generic so you should easily be able to adapt the celestial paragons to your campaign world. As long as you have (a) heavenly-type plane(s), you're set.

I run my main campaign in Magnamund, the world of Lone Wolf, and I am already thinking of ways to adapt the BoED to that setting.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Well, the book uses the D&D cosmology - e.g., Zaphkiel the Watcher _presides over the seventh layer of Celestia, the Illuminated Heaven of Chronias_. However, the D&D cosmology is fairly generic so you should easily be able to adapt the celestial paragons to your campaign world. As long as you have (a) heavenly-type plane(s), you're set.
> 
> I run my main campaign in Magnamund, the world of Lone Wolf, and I am already thinking of ways to adapt the BoED to that setting.



Considering this is the Scarred Lands I'm talking about, I guess it shouldn't be THAT hard...just not sure I'd have room for celestials taking over for the gods.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

Trainz said:
			
		

> How does this book makes the Paladin more powerful ?



Well, let's see:

* Many of the exalted feats can be taken by a paladin.
* The Sword of Righteousness PrC requires two exalted feats to get into, good alignment, and +6 BAB; it gives you back Good BAB, Good Fort/Will saves, and 3 bonus exalted feats. You can also freely multiclass it with the paladin class.
* There are new spells for everyone, including paladins. Check out _call mount_, which lets you call your mount even if you've already done so for the day. Or _smite heretic_, a +2 sacred bonus to attack and extra damage against evil spellcasters. Or _glory of the martyr_, basically _mass shield other_.

Psst... WotC's marketing department... I'll expect that check any day now.


----------



## Pseudonym (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> There are also rules under Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption for convincing an evil person to become more good. You spend an hour each day encouraging the evil person to talk about his sins and describing the rewards of being good. You make a special Diplomacy check that sets the DC for the target's Will save (with his level as a bonus on the save). If the target fails his save for seven consecutive days, he moves from evil to neutral. Another seven consecutive days moves him from neutral to good.
> 
> Pretty cool, eh? Finally a use for your paladin's huge Diplomacy modifier.



That sounds a bit like the real world recruitment tactics of a few cultist ex-coworkers, or maybe the Movementarians from that one Simpsons episode.  I'm not sure I like the new "Moonie mechanic".


----------



## Ruvion (Oct 17, 2003)

Uh oh...I sense wicked flames of righteous fury directed at thee. 



			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> On an unrelated note, I seriously tire of the female-female pairings seen in so many RPG products nowadays.  It is blatant pandering, and does not really fit within the framework of most fantasy worlds.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 17, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> _The archons, guardinals, and eladrins have their rulers, leaders, and exemplars on the celestial planes where good holds sway. These *celestial paragons* share much in common with each other and also bear certain similarities to their archfiend counterparts on the Lower Planes._




hmm... when this book comes out, i might just have to start up my celestial lords threads again.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2003)

*BoED Table of Contents*

My last gift to y'all before I have to go...


*Introduction*
*Chapter 1: The Nature of Good*
Exalted Deeds
The Straight and Narrow
Law, Chaos, and Good
Playing a Hero
Exalted Characters
Sin and Atonement
Exalted Adventures
*Chapter 2: Variant Rules*
Channeling
Exalted Cohorts
Exalted Gods
Exorcism
Heroes of the Heavens
Heroic Sacrific
Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption
Sainthood
Tithes and Offerings
Voluntary Poverty
Waging Peace
Words of Creation  [extremely cool]
*Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment*
Sanctified Weapons
Nonlethal Damage
Ravages and Afflictions  [exalted poisons!]
Relics
Optional Material Components
Special Materials
*Chapter 4: Feats*
*Chapter 5: Prestige Classes*
[see list previous in thread]
*Chapter 6: Magic*
Good Spells
Spell Lists
Cleric Domains
Spell Descriptions
Magic Items
Redeeming Evil Magic Items  [also extremely cool]
Irredeemable Evil Items
*Chapter 7: Celestial Paragons*
Celestial Paragons in Your Game
Celestial Paragons and Clerics
The Upper Planes
Law and Chaos in the Heavens
The Celestial Hebdomad
Talisid and the Five Companions
The Court of Stars
Celestial Planar Allies
*Chapter 8: Monsters*
[see list previous in thread]
*Appendix: Index of Celestials*


Enjoy.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 17, 2003)

No questions for one of the authors of the book now that I am free to talk about it? I guess I'll go do something else.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 17, 2003)

The book looks quite nice to me so far.  There's a lot of 
stuff about redeeming evil characters and evil magic items.
What does a paladin do with an evil magic item that they find? 
They can't use it...  They can't sell it unless they want some other
evil creature to put their hands on it.  Interesting stuff.

The book also deals with holy vows.  Vows of poverty, of non-violence,
of abstinence, etc.  They actually look to make new ideas for characters
viable concepts.  Yes, you could actually play a paladin who refuses
any equipment, and gives away EVERYTHING.  And I don't think you'd
do so badly in the game.

In the paladin meets the two succubi example, I thought it was
dumb at first too.  But then I thought about it.  The real question 
is: if such creatures were evil incarnate, could they truly experience 
love?  If their love was real, then that would indicate that they 
might not be as evil as they seem.  Perhaps, if they could feel true 
love for each other, they might be redeemed.  If an angel can fall, 
who's to say a devil can't rise.

As for whether the picture is "pandering", the fact that the paladin is 
a rather unattractive female half-orc makes that argument a little
more difficult to make.


----------



## Gez (Oct 17, 2003)

Can you describe a bit all that Joshua has dubbed [extremely cool] ?

Also, what's the rational between "exalted" poisons and diseases?

What animal is the Musteval based on?

Are those _solar_ exalted or _lunar_ exalteds?


----------



## Creamsteak (Oct 17, 2003)

I must have this friggen book.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 17, 2003)

you missed the agathion and light angels, as well as the noviere guardinal and tome archons.  

also, i noticed that the guardinal paragons were altered a bit... (can't remember the original names at the moment)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 17, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> Can you describe a bit all that Joshua has dubbed [extremely cool] ?




If you're referring to the bit on redeeming evil, he did a pretty good defining it. It is different than the spell _sanctify the wicked_ since even the text on redeeming evil says that creatures described as _always evil _ are best slain when given the chance. _sanctify the wicked_ is there specifically so that you can set up situations where either evil is not clear based on species, or on complex redemption issues.

One of my reasons for puting this in was that every oncein a while in my campaigns I'll have a creature that is supposed to be truly wicked help the party. In one case it was a barbed devil, in another case a lich with a number of undead followers. The explanation was always that the creature was evil and helping the party to further its own purposes. But then I started wondering how it might be possible for such creatures to convert to good. Even more interesting, what would a creature that has converted to good be like? How would a converted devil behave?

The answer that I came up with is that (1) These would probably be extremely rare because its much easier to fall into wickedness than it is to climb to righteousness, (2) The creatures would likely be hunted by their former compatriots. Do you really think Asmodeus is just going to let a wayward devil out of service because of a change of heart? Probably not. (3) Such creatures, in order to make an effort to fit in with good aligned societies would likely change their appearance and use anti-scrying spells or magic items to keep from being detected by those hunting them.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> Also, what's the rational between "exalted" poisons and diseases?




The main idea is that it gives good creatures some options to use substances against their foes. It also gives the Slayer of Domiel some tools to use since the prestige class is essentially a good-aligned assassin class. The catch, of course, is that you can't use these indescriminently like evil creatures can with poisons. You can only use them against evil. What's nice about this is that it opens up the possibility of playing an assassin-type character to players or groups who don't feel comfortable alowing an evil character. When I was working on my part of the book, I was actually kind of bummed that James had already done this since I wanted to design something exactly along these lines myself. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> What animal is the Musteval based on?




I didn't design it, but I'm fairly certain its based on the ferret.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> Are those _solar_ exalted or _lunar_ exalteds?




Huh? :shakes head confusedly:

Another point that I'm very happy with is that this book doesn't just apply to paladins and clerics. Every character class an most prestige classes can become exalted characters. An exalted wizard puts a completely different spin on a well-known archtype.


----------



## Gez (Oct 17, 2003)

So, _words of creation_ is the good twin of _dark speech_ ? And it can be used to help redeem evil ?

It's funny you mention the "evil helper" situation, since I have that IMC, sorta. They had to ask something to a lich (who itself is more amoral than immoral, being concerned only in arcane studies, and not wanting to give them up because of something so trivial as death), in exchange for a favor (to find and slay his shadow, that has left him, and is using _his_ power to wreak havoc somewhere).


PS: Solar and lunar exalted was, of course, a reference to White Wolf's _Exalted Game_


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 18, 2003)

I'm pretty sure that the Tome Archons were replaced with Owl Archons as Tome Archons look like winged humanoids with bird heads.  And the seven named Tome Archons were changed to the Celestial Hebdomad.

So they have have Queen Morwel and her husband, but who's the third named member, Gwynharwyf of the Court of Stars?

I'm wondering though if the Shiradi Eladrin are just the Shierre Eladrin renamed?  Are they described as the knights or defenders of the Eladrins who ride flying horses or anything like that?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that the Tome Archons were replaced with Owl Archons as Tome Archons look like winged humanoids with bird heads.




Actually no. Owl archons are new, and one of my contributions to the book. Tome archons are different and have just not been dealt with yet.


----------



## Gez (Oct 18, 2003)

How many new spells (not reprinted from another book like DotF) are there in the book?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

Most spells are original. I personally didn't pull anything from DotF. That isn't to say that James or Chris didn't do a few. The only ones that I did rework were from the 2nd edition book Warriors of Heaven, by Chris Perkins. It was actually very cool to be re-doing another author's previously released material when that author was also working on this same book; he did give me the approval to do it. Also, quite a few spells were designed specifically to counter the spells from the BoVD.

Some other stuff that I designed that I'm particularly happy with are the Skylord, the Vassal of Bahamut; spells: armageddon, the various _rain_ spells, luminous armor and winged mount. In fact, I was just looking at luminous armor again and it really in that sweet spot between too powerful for a standard 2nd level spell and not quite a 3rd level spell. Between the +5 armor bonus you get to AC, the radiant light it emits that causes enemies to suffer a -4 to hit with no armor check penalties or chance of spell failure, and a duration that lasts 1 hour per caster level, this is an excellent spell to cast on monks, wizards, and sorcerers, provided that they don't mind looking like walking lanterns.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 18, 2003)

I'm curious what the ECL (HD and LA) of some of the monsters are, which ones do they recommend for players.  Bariaur are a given based on the fact they were a PC race in Planescape.  Some of the monsters were given monster class progression in Dragon, despite the inaccuracies in that article (such as lack of natural armour progression for all but the Asuras, or the insistence that Quesars get no skills or feats as constructs when they in fact do).  I could see Coure getting an LA as they're the weakest variety of Eladrin and are essentially a more powerful version of a Pixie, and all of the others except for the Tulani are weaker than a Ghaele.  Equinals probably fall in the range of being less than ECL 20, and probably most of the other varieties given that they're supposed to be weaker than the Leonal.


----------



## Olive (Oct 18, 2003)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know how many of the pro, Book of Vile Darkness, fans are nay-saying this book?  Interesting thought?  Its funny how when the BoVD came out all the supporters it had, now a book that supports strong morals comes out and people are turning a nose up to it.  Another interesting thought?




Well count me in as another fanactically pro-BoVD person saying yes yes please to this book.



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> _The archons, guardinals, and eladrins have their rulers, leaders, and exemplars on the celestial planes where good holds sway. These *celestial paragons* share much in common with each other and also bear certain similarities to their archfiend counterparts on the Lower Planes._




How much detail is given about them in terms of beliefs and aims etc. I guess in comparison to the BoVD's write ups of the archfiends.

Two questions:
1) Can anyone describe the Vassel of Bahamut in greater detail?
2) Is there any particular reason that the bariaur has been redone in comparison to the original 3e version in MotP as a +3 ECL race?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> Two questions:
> 1) Can anyone describe the Vassel of Bahamut in greater detail?




This was one of my babies. To be honest, Chris and I were sitting in a meeting room trying to come up with an idea for one more prestige class when this erupted from our overworked and sleep deprived brains, surprising both of us with both its usefulness and quirkiness. Among other features, they get: spells, platinum armor (improved scale mail made from the scales of slain red dragon), shared trove (a lump sum of platinum pieces as a reward from Bahaumut for their service at levels 2, 5, and 8), and dragonwrack (additional damage against evil dragons).



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> 2) Is there any particular reason that the bariaur has been redone in comparison to the original 3e version in MotP as a +3 ECL race?




I don't know. I wasn't the one who did it, but I would assume that it has something to do with compatibility issues between 3.0 and 3.5.


----------



## Olive (Oct 18, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> This was one of my babies. To be honest, Chris and I were sitting in a meeting room trying to come up with an idea for one more prestige class when this erupted from our overworked and sleep deprived brains, surprising both of us with both its usefulness and quirkiness. Among other features, they get: spells, platinum armor (improved scale mail made from the scales of slain red dragon), shared trove (a lump sum of platinum pieces as a reward from Bahaumut for their service at levels 2, 5, and 8), and dragonwrack (additional damage against evil dragons).




Sounds cool... Bahamut is a important god for one particular group of humans in my campaign, and so this might get some use.


----------



## Moulin Rogue (Oct 18, 2003)

What new cleric domains are there?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

Moulin Rogue said:
			
		

> What new cleric domains are there?




The new cleric domains are celestial, community, endurance, fey, glory, herald, joy, pleasure, and wrath.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 18, 2003)

*The ToC of the Book of Exalted Deeds*

Here's the gist of it... I didn't see a post for this anywhere, so I decided to post it... any questions, feel free.

*Introduction*

*Chapter 1: The Nature of Good*
Exalted Deeds
The Straight and Narrow
Law, Chaos, and Good
Playing a Hero
Exalted Characters
Sin and Atonement
Exalted Adventures

*Chapter 2: Variant Rules*
Channeling
Exalted Cohorts
Exalted Gods
Exorcism
Heroes of the Heavens
Heroic Sacrifice and Martyrdom
Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption
Sainthood
Tithes and Offerings
Voluntary Poverty
Waging Peace
Words of Creation

*Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment*
Sanctified Weapons
Nonlethal Weapons
Ravages and Afflictions
Relics
Optional Material Components
Special Materials

*Chapter 4: Feats*
Exalted Feats
Feat Descriptions

*Chapter 5: Prestige Classes*
Anointed Knight
Apostle of Peace
Beloved of Valarian
Celestial Mystic
Champion of Gwynharwyf
Defender of Sealtiel
Emissary of Barachiel
Exalted Arcanist
Fist of Raziel
Initiate of Pistis Sophia
Lion of Talisid
Prophet of Erathaol
Risen Martyr
Sentinel of Bharrai
Skylord
Slayer of Domiel
Stalker of Kharash
Swanmay
Sword of Righteousness
Troubadour of Stars
Vassal of Bahamut
Wonderworker

*Chapter 6: Magic*
Good Spells
Spell Lists
Cleric Domains
Spell Descriptions
Magic Items
Redeeming Evil Magic Items
Irredeemable Evil Items

*Chapter 6: Celestial Paragons*
Celestial Paragons on Your Game
Celestial Paragons and Clerics
The Upper Planes
Law and Chaos in the Heavens
The Celestial Hebdomad
Talisid and the Five Companions
The Court of Stars
Celestial Planar Allies

*Chapter 8: Monsters*
The Deathless Type
Aleax
Archon
Owl Archon​Sword Archon​Throne Archon​Warden Archon​Asura
Bariaur
Crypt Warden
Eladrin
Coure​Firre​Shiradi​Tulani​Guardinal
Equinal​Musteval​Ursinal​Hollyphant
Leskylor
Moon Dog
Quesar
Rhek
Sacred Watcher
Saint
Sanctified Creature
Swarm, Divine Wrath
Apocalypse Frog Swarm​Bronze Locust Swarm​Deathraven Swarm​Sunfly Swarm​
*Appendix: Index of Celestials*
Celestial Creatures
Celestial-Related Templates
Celestials by Challenge Rating

*Sidebars*
Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness
Exalted Versus Epic
Celestial Monster Classes
Skylord's Mounts
Sample Skylord's Mounts
Expanded Summoning Tables


----------



## Gez (Oct 18, 2003)

An example of reprinted spell: Bolt of Glory is also in Defenders of the Faith and in Deities & Demigods.

(By the way, there's a layout error in the excerpt because the _axiomatic creature_ and _bolt of glory_ tables got switched. I hope it's a goof from the webteam, not a layout error from the printed book itself.)

There is a Celestial domain for shaman in Oriental Adventures, but I suppose the one in this book is not the same (and themed on celestials rather than on spirits).

The community and glory domains are definitely reprints, though.


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 18, 2003)

Baraendur,

In the 1st edition DMG, E. Gary Gygax stated that it is possible for two lawful good nations to be at war with each other.  Does the Book of Exalted Deeds explore how good aligned characters may come into conflict? For example, members of two rival faiths may work at cross purposes. Or two good kingdoms may go to war over any number of issues.

Are there any rules discussing experience point awards for non-violent tasks?  Such awards seem appropriate for characters that rely on diplomacy and cunning, or follow deities of peace. There have been a few people on these boards and elsewhere who claim that D&D is based on combat alone.  (I would argue that role playing has been around since the game's origins, and that most players I know have more than one way to have their characters approach a problem.) Is there any reward, besides saving a soul from evil, of converting a creature from an evil alignment to good.  (In the case of Sepulchrave II's story hour, the redemption of a succubus has wrought many changes in a campaign world.) Is there any discussion of what a redeemed devil or demon might mean to a society or a faith?

Also, does the book have any suggestions on how DMs and players can resolve moral dilemmas for characters?  I don't expect the book to have all the answers, but does it have advice for how DMs can go beyond the book.


----------



## Psion (Oct 18, 2003)

I forgot to look when checking it out in the FLGS today: how do the "vow" feats herein compare to Monte's in BoHM? Or for those who own both books, how do they compare in general?


----------



## Gez (Oct 18, 2003)

> Are there any rules discussing experience point awards for non-violent tasks? Such awards seem appropriate for characters that rely on diplomacy and cunning, or follow deities of peace.




Wouldn't a restatement that XPs are awarded for _overcoming challenges_, and that overcoming a challenge is not necessarily bashing people upside the head, be sufficient?

If you talk your way past the guards, you get as much XP as if you slit their throats, or incinerate them from afar with a _fireball_.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

William Ronald said:
			
		

> Baraendur,
> 
> In the 1st edition DMG, E. Gary Gygax stated that it is possible for two lawful good nations to be at war with each other.  Does the Book of Exalted Deeds explore how good aligned characters may come into conflict? For example, members of two rival faiths may work at cross purposes. Or two good kingdoms may go to war over any number of issues.




It gives general guidelines for DMs to follow that basically say that the DM shouldn't throw things at the characters that are too morally ambiguous. My personal take is that there are many situations where good characters may find themselves at odds. A lack of common enemies, rare resources, racial or cultural tensions can all play into this. What the book definitely discusses is how good characters should interract with one another. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and there is no way to anticipate every situation, but one thing that is made abundantly clear is that for an exalted character, the ends do not justify the means. The section on divided loyalties in chapter 1 addresses many of these issues.



> Are there any rules discussing experience point awards for non-violent tasks?  Such awards seem appropriate for characters that rely on diplomacy and cunning, or follow deities of peace. There have been a few people on these boards and elsewhere who claim that D&D is based on combat alone.  (I would argue that role playing has been around since the game's origins, and that most players I know have more than one way to have their characters approach a problem.) Is there any reward, besides saving a soul from evil, of converting a creature from an evil alignment to good.  (In the case of Sepulchrave II's story hour, the redemption of a succubus has wrought many changes in a campaign world.) Is there any discussion of what a redeemed devil or demon might mean to a society or a faith?




The section on Waging Peace gives an alternate rewards system that definitely has the potential to de-emphasize combat in a campaign. Personally, in my games, I've always cut the XP rewards for killing mosters by about 1/3 and allowed the characters to gain that 1/3 or more through good roleplaying or peacefully resolving situations.

The sections on redeeming evil and forgiveness talk about how the good character should deal with the wicked (or formerly wicked). I don't think the book goes into how societies as a whole should behave, except to say that they are made up of individuals, and individuals will behave differently regardless of the overall society's alignment,



> Also, does the book have any suggestions on how DMs and players can resolve moral dilemmas for characters?  I don't expect the book to have all the answers, but does it have advice for how DMs can go beyond the book.




Yes. Chapter 1 is really little more than an in-depth discussion of moral dilemmas.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I forgot to look when checking it out in the FLGS today: how do the "vow" feats herein compare to Monte's in BoHM? Or for those who own both books, how do they compare in general?




I haven't read the BoHM.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 18, 2003)

Well there's a similar feats in both BoED and BoHM, but the base feats (Swear an Oath and Devout Faith from BoHM vs. Sacred Vow from BoED) quite different mechanically.  Monte's base feats reflects his philosophy of giving power back to the DM, as it only kicks in when the DM says it does (usually when promoting the ideals of the faith or fulfilling the vow).  

But the Vow feats themselves are comperable.  There's a Vow of Poverty in each book, but the one in Monte's book is a great deal less harsh.  The one in BoED is a lot harder to follow, but the benefits are greater.  I suppose a character taking the one from BoED would be considered "holier than thou."  I think the VoP from Monte's book is less about total poverty and more about simply living on the basics of what most adventurers use. The VoP from BoED is for the true ascetic (and the slightly crazy).  

But overall I think the feats are compatible and would even work well together (though each has a Vow of Chastity with different game effects).


----------



## Psion (Oct 18, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> Well there's a similar feats in both BoED and BoHM, but the base feats (Swear an Oath and Devout Faith from BoHM vs. Sacred Vow from BoED) quite different mechanically.  Monte's base feats reflects his philosophy of giving power back to the DM, as it only kicks in when the DM says it does (usually when promoting the ideals of the faith or fulfilling the vow).
> 
> But the Vow feats themselves are comperable.  There's a Vow of Poverty in each book, but the one in Monte's book is a great deal less harsh.  The one in BoED is a lot harder to follow, but the benefits are greater.  I suppose a character taking the one from BoED would be considered "holier than thou."  I think the VoP from Monte's book is less about total poverty and more about simply living on the basics of what most adventurers use. The VoP from BoED is for the true ascetic (and the slightly crazy).
> 
> But overall I think the feats are compatible and would even work well together (though each has a Vow of Chastity with different game effects).




Cool... thanks for the detailed response.


----------



## deadboydex (Oct 18, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> Risque?  Not really.  Most people are properly clothed.  However, the aforementioned succubi are not clothed and thus are showing off an unclothed bottom, and a picture of Sathia (a celestial paragon) shows a naked pair of breasts.  But I consider most of the art to be tasteful and well-done.




Mmm. Succu-butt.


----------



## Olive (Oct 18, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *Chapter 6: Celestial Paragons*
> Celestial Paragons on Your Game
> Celestial Paragons and Clerics
> The Upper Planes
> ...




So, how much detail does it go into here. Stats? Stats for servants of these? Goals/ideologies?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 18, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> So, how much detail does it go into here. Stats? Stats for servants of these? Goals/ideologies?




You get stats for each paragon, along with a servant for each of them. It goes in about as indepth as the BoVD did for the archfiends.


----------



## Kershek (Oct 18, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> Risque?  Not really.  Most people are properly clothed.  However, the aforementioned succubi are not clothed and thus are showing off an unclothed bottom, and a picture of Sathia (a celestial paragon) shows a naked pair of breasts.  But I consider most of the art to be tasteful and well-done.



 So one of the first books published after their revised d20 license breaks their rule of decency?  Nice way to lead by example.


----------



## Melmoth (Oct 18, 2003)

Is there any info on what FR gods get the new cleric Domains?


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 18, 2003)

Kershek said:
			
		

> So one of the first books published after their revised d20 license breaks their rule of decency? Nice way to lead by example.



If it is not done in a lewd way, as it seems to be the case here, then it is still within their own guidelines.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 18, 2003)

Hi Joshua! 

Thanks so much...



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Monsters
> The Deathless Type
> Aleax
> Archon (Owl, Sword, Throne, Warden)
> ...




...though by Lords of Good I meant these dudes...



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> _The archons, guardinals, and eladrins have their rulers, leaders, and exemplars on the celestial planes where good holds sway. These *celestial paragons* share much in common with each other and also bear certain similarities to their archfiend counterparts on the Lower Planes._
> 
> The Celestial Hebdomad (Archons)
> Barachiel, The Messenger (CR 22)
> ...




Thanks again.


----------



## Ferret (Oct 18, 2003)

Is there any more info on the Musteval and the poisons? Like: Do the good poisons o ability damage or hinder the abilty to do evil?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 18, 2003)

*Value....?*

May I ask, what value does both books of Evil and Good bring to the roleplaying experience.

I am curious to hear, so far, I see that define of both aspects are the interperation of someone's else view.

In truth, both isssues are much more complex to be written in a simple 101 text to give some meaning to the concept.

Thus...what is given, is it a correct defintive description of what *good* and *evil* is...and it is coming from a mere human concept.

I am not a pesstimist...just like for the Book of Sex, Book of Vile Darkness and now the Book of Exalted Deeds...interpertaions they are...from someone's brain...and the funny thing is, the questions of the light, dark and the perverse has been going on for hundreds of years....and no one has a proper answer to these things as of yet.

In truth...I don't see that they ever will...


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 18, 2003)

Melmoth said:
			
		

> Is there any info on what FR gods get the new cleric Domains?



  Nope.  They only list which of the new exalted gods listed in the book have them.  But it wouldn't be too hard to figure out I think. 

*Celestial* - You could conceivibly give this to almost any good deity, but I'd limit it to the really good players, as this gives a smiting ability as the granted power.  Probably just the major good deities, Torm, Tyr, Illmater, Moradin, Corellon Larethian, Lathander (probably), possbily Osiris, Berronar Truesilver, Clangeddin Silverbeard, possibly Gaerdal Ironhand, possibly Arvoreen.

*Community* - I'd give this to all the deities with the Family domain, so that's Berronar Truesilver, Cyrrollalee, Eldath, Hathor, Isis, Lliira, Luthic, and Yondalla.

*Endurance* - Talos, Tempus, most of the orc pantheon, most of the dwarf pantheon, Illmater.

*Fey* - Elven pantheon (most of them), Shiallia, possibly Mielikki, Lurue.

*Glory* - Torm, possibly Lathander, Berronar Truesilver, probably Illmater, Tyr, Osiris, Corellon Larethian, possibly Yondalla.

*Herald* - I'd give this to the ones with the Nobility domain already, so that's Horus-Re, Lathander, Milil, Nobanion, Red Knight, and Siamorphe.

*Joy* - Liira (obviously), Sune, Sheela Peryroyl, Hanali Celanil.

*Pleasure* - Sharess (of course), Sune, Shiallia.

*Wrath* - I'd probably give this to the gods with the Retribution domain already (it's very similar to it).  Hoar, Horus-Re, Kiaransalee, Loviatar, Osiris, Sevarash, Tyr, Uthgar.



			
				Ferret said:
			
		

> Is there any more info on the Musteval and the poisons? Like: Do the good poisons o ability damage or hinder the abilty to do evil?



  The Musteval are Tiny celestials (guardinals) that are based off of ferrets.  "They often serve as spies, and aid humanoid heros by giving them information about powerful evil foes."  They have a lot of at-will spell like abilities, including some disguise spells they use to conceal their unusual appearance.  

The poisons, called ravages, only work against evil creatures and work the exact same way other poisons do, by dealing ability damage.  Some of them are quite deadly.  The ravages are as follows:  Golden ice, celestial lightsblood, jade water, purified couatl venom, and unicorn blood.


----------



## hong (Oct 18, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> I was looking forward to this book because I thought it might create a standard response for tough moral situations, by D&D rules.  Instead, it seems that it is going to do nothing more than add to the problem already present.




You really are new to alignment wars, aren't you?


----------



## Voadam (Oct 18, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> If it is not done in a lewd way, as it seems to be the case here, then it is still within their own guidelines.




Except that bare breasts, even tastefully done, would imply a nipple, which explicitly violates the d20 license. Of course, WotC is not bound as a licensee of that license.

It is also possible, however they did comply by the artful arrangement of long hair or crossed arms, etc.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 18, 2003)

but does he speak the right alignment language?  hmm?


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 18, 2003)

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.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 18, 2003)

LuYangShih - I just took 2d4 mental trauma...


----------



## Filby (Oct 18, 2003)

BOZ said:
			
		

> you missed the agathion and light angels, as well as the noviere guardinal and tome archons.
> 
> also, i noticed that the guardinal paragons were altered a bit... (can't remember the original names at the moment)




I believe I can be of some help here.  Named in 2E 'Planes of Conflict' and 3E 'Manual of the Planes', the original Companions of Talisid were:

Prince Talisid of the Leonals
Duchess Callisto of the Ursinals
Lord Hwyn of the Equinals
Duke Lucan of the Lupinals
Lord Rhanok of the Cervidals
Duke Windheir of the Avorals

None of them were ever given any real personality before BoED, just like the Tome Archons/Celestial Hebdomad (as a side note, 'the Hebdomiad' was noted as the yearly meeting of the Tome Archons in 'Planes of Law', so they didn't just pull a new name out of thin air or anything...).

In 2E's 'Warriors of Heaven' (which MotP disregarded in its list of the Companions), it's noted that Windheir retired from his post and named Lady Zwestra as his successor, and in BoED it says that Rhanok likewise retired and was succeeded by Manath. Apparently, Hwyn has been likewise replaced by Whara. As for the other new ones... I'd say that Lucan and Kharash, Callisto and Bharrai, and Zwestra and Sathia are all just different names for the same beings.

Also, about the Court of Stars... oddly enough, in 'Warriors of Heaven', 'Faerinall' is the surname of Morwel's consort Vaeros: Vaeros Faerinall. Now BoED says that Vaeros is dead and that Faerinall is someone else. Go figure. 'WoH' (or if not that, then probably 'Planes of Chaos'... not sure) also said that Gwynarwhyf was Morwel's _daughter_ rather than her consort. Either they've just totally changed the character's character...

...or, as Principal Edward R. Rooney of Shermer High School once said, "So _that's_ how it is in their family..."


----------



## Shazman (Oct 18, 2003)

Would it be possible to post the requirements and abilities of the Lawful Good "Asassain" prestige classe. I briefly perused the book at my FLGS yesterday, and this one caught my eye.  I can't remember the name of it, but it looked intriguing.  I've always thought that the asassain prestige class was the coolest one around, but the evil alignment requirement pretty much relegates it to NPC only status.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 18, 2003)

Unfortuntely that would be illegal, being against the copyright and all.  Sorry Shazman!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 18, 2003)

Yeah I was wondering what was with the changes to some of the celestial paragons, especially the guardinal ones.  Do the designers have anything to say about that?


----------



## Gez (Oct 18, 2003)

Posting merely the rough prerequisites would be considered "fair use". (Posting the whole class wouldn't.)


----------



## Shadeus (Oct 18, 2003)

Does it have a "mature themed" sticker on the book?  If so, please tell me its easier to get off than the BoVD one....


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

Shadeus said:
			
		

> Does it have a "mature themed" sticker on the book?  If so, please tell me its easier to get off than the BoVD one....




Yes and yes.


----------



## Razz (Oct 18, 2003)

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 (Oct 18, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

*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 (Oct 19, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 19, 2003)

Brian Chalian said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Brian Chalian said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 19, 2003)

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1178174#post1178174


----------



## Gez (Oct 19, 2003)

> But ugly doesn't mean evil.




Well, it depends...


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 19, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> Well, it depends...





Sure, it made me black out for a few minutes and I am now forever scarred *twitch twitch* but it doesn't make it evil.  Just fugly.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 19, 2003)

Razz said:
			
		

> I got the book just yesterday in the mail myself.
> 
> I simply have one problem...there are some horrible mistakes in the book.
> 
> ...




The Initiate of Pistis Sophia has Improved Evasion twice.  Unfortunately, it appears that was just doubled.  The exalted feat Holy Ki Strike has, as one of its prerequisites Ki Strike (Holy)...which doesn't exist, at least, not yet.  I *think* that was meant to be Ki Strike (Lawful), but I'm not sure.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> 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.




I LIKE this one.  It's cool, and much more player-friendly than BoVD.  It makes me wish my tiefling rogue was LG instead of NG, so he could take Slayer of Domiel.  Then again, I want to put him into Skullclan Hunter from Miniatures Handbook so he can sneak attack undead, dammit.

Brad


----------



## Felon (Oct 19, 2003)

EDIT--Deleted


----------



## Brian Chalian (Oct 19, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

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



That's reassuring.  I've been looking forward to this book since it was announced, but was afraid it would just be a list of more things paladins can't do, like smite evil dragons, or attack evil priests, or glare at hobgoblin teenagers... you've seen the posts before.  :/

I've been in quite a few alignment debates, and the three core books don't appear to be in agreement on what alignment is, how you become a certain alignment, or even what actions are proscribed by alignment.

Er, are paladins _explicitly_ given permission to use Good poisons?  Because I've seen people argue with a straight face that a pal/rog using Sneak Attack has violated the code and should lose her magic.


----------



## megamania (Oct 19, 2003)

I saw it.  I bought it.  I question if it was worth it.  But then again, that is how I felt with the Vile Book also.  Too much of the content is a specific DM/player decision.  Some groups can handle it, some can't.  Otherwise, it is too intrusive to the standard fantasy game.


----------



## Shoon (Oct 19, 2003)

> nudity is clearly CE.




This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read today, and I browsed Jack Chick's tracts today.

You don't get out much, do you?


----------



## GroverCleaveland (Oct 19, 2003)

The new Book of the Righteous includes all the missing archons, guardinals, and eladrins, although shiere eladrins have been replaced with an entirely new kind of eladrin called shiradi.

Differences:

The tome archons now have individual appearances and descriptions, and they more explicitly parallel the Lords of the Nine. None of them have bird heads.

Owl archons are a new caste; though they look pretty much like noctrals they have no sage abilities. It's possible that they're young noctrals, still in training.

Sword archons now have arms, and the ability to transform them into fiery swords.

Throne archons have a very interesting power called the Penitentiary Gaze which affects characters differently depending on how chaotic or evil they are. They've lost some of their other spell-like abilities, and their swords are somewhat less powerful, but they fill the same role.

A new kind of guardinal, the musteval, is a race of ferret-like spies. Talisid and all five of his Companions are fully described and statted.

Morwel and her two consorts (she's explicitly bisexual) are fully described and statted.

Sunflies appear as swarm creatures, along with swarms of magic frogs, locusts, and ravens that can be sent as divine plagues.

Hollyphants can now transform into a mammoth-sized winged mammoth, as well as their traditional appearance.

Leskylors are winged cats from Elysium, I guess so cat lovers don't feel left out because of all the canine entities there (moon dogs and lupinals).

Rheks are explicitly tied to the Harmonium, which outside the celestials from Planes of Law and the 2nd PS monstrous appendix are the only explicit Planescape reference. This book seems to contradict the Manual of the Planes' assertion that the loss of Arcadia's third layer was caused by the formians thousands of years ago.

They do a pretty good job with the asuras, though their status as fallen archons isn't mentioned. They don't go overboard on the eladrins' elfiness, which is good -- the shiradi are hardly elfy at all.

Bariaurs are Large now. The book gives them a level adjustment of +2, though the bariaur class in the last issue of Dragon had five levels.

The only 2nd edition celestials that aren't in 3rd edition now are the buseni, balaena, noveri, agathinon, light aasimon, and good incarnates. Oh, plus opinici and foo creatures, I guess. And baku. Okay, there are still a lot to go.

The Deathless are a new creature type, the positive-energy equivalent of undead. They're souls that are enabled to interact with the living world through positive energy. The unborn soul things from the Book of Hallowed Might should be revised to be considered Deathless.

An error: The Book of Exalted Might claims lillends are native to Arborea instead of Ysgard. Well, maybe it's not an error -- it makes sense if you ignore the Gates of the Moon and the Infinite Staircase.

Each celestial ruler (they're usually called paragons or exemplars) has a proxy statted for us. Many of them have associated prestige classes, although they supposedly aren't worshipped.

They say Pistis Sophia "wants for nothing" when what they mean is that she desires nothing. I wonder if that was the author's fault or the editor's.

A lot of what's in this book is the opposite of the Book of Vile Darkness. Instead of vile feats we have exalted feats. Instead of Dark Speech we have the Words of Creation. Instead of human sacrifice we have self-sacrifice. Instead of evil poisons and diseases we have good poisons and diseases, or at least non-evil.

There's a feat where you can get a coure as a familiar.

I really like the idea of redeemed evil items.

The new gods of good are nothing special, but they do the job. There aren't any as interesting as some of the evil gods in the Book of Vile Darkness. There's a "mature audiences only" goddess.

There's a slight contradiction in the description of the sanctified template -- you aren't supposed to allow evil outsiders to be sanctified, but there are rules for doing so anyway. It would make a decent "risen" fiend template, but it's pretty weird for its intended purpose: giving celestial qualities to reformed mortal creatures of evil. Why? I liked the similar, but more varied, templates in Green Ronin's _Avatar's Handbook_ better.

I like Baxa's art, but he may have been the wrong choice for drawing angels. The deva Evansheer is particularly unangelic looking.

The illustration of the half-orc paladin having to choose between slaying two evil succubi or honoring their true and noble love for one another has gained some notoriety, but it really has nothing to do with the rest of the book, which generally dismisses the possibility of fiends ever finding any form of redemption. This is a shame, in my opinion. The illustration is probably just something the editors inserted. Note that all the art directors and editors are female. For what it's worth.

There are some particularly fascinating celestial minerals, like Moonblood, Storm Tears, Frystalline and Ysgardian Heartwire.

The book overuses unicorns and half-orcs. It seems like every exalted character is a half-orc riding a unicorn. This impression is false, but that's how it seems to me.


----------



## GroverCleaveland (Oct 19, 2003)

Filby said:
			
		

> Go figure. 'WoH' (or if not that, then probably 'Planes of Chaos'... not sure) also said that Gwynarwhyf was Morwel's _daughter_ rather than her consort.




Can't be Planes of Chaos. When that box came out, eladrins hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 19, 2003)

Hi all! 

Is there any discussion of the hierarchies within the rank and file Archons; Eladrin or Guardinals?

Archon (Owl, Sword, Throne, Warden)
Eladrin (Coure, Firre, Shiradi, Tulani)
Guardinal (Equinal, Musteval, Ursinal)

Alternatively, what are the CRs of the above?

I mean would the Sword Archon be the Archon equivalent of the Balor or Pit Fiend?


----------



## Bihor (Oct 19, 2003)

Shoon said:
			
		

> This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read today, and I browsed Jack Chick's tracts today.
> 
> You don't get out much, do you?




Nudity IS the work of the Devil.
if God wanted us to be naked, he'd made us be born that way.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Oct 19, 2003)

Darren -- how can I convince my GM that the Vow of Poverty is balanced? It's perfect for my monk, and I figure at 12th level, when he can actually take it, he'll have AC 32, so any verbal ammo would be welcome ...


----------



## Pants (Oct 19, 2003)

Bihor said:
			
		

> if God wanted us to be naked, he'd made us be born that way.



Yeah, especially since we are all born wearing Abercrombie and fitch T-Shirts and a pair of Gap jeans. Oh, that means that God supports sensationalistic advertising!  Damn you God!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 19, 2003)

How Shiradi are different from the Shiere?

And out of the celestial index do they even mention any of the Lung Dragons from OA (or anything else from that book)?  Even though they're mainly of a neutral alignment except with "usually" rather than "always".  Because I always thought of those dragons actually being good examples of other types of celestial creatures despite the alignment issues.  But I guess you could always give them a celestial template or something like that to ensure that they are celestials.

Last time I checked Throne Archon and Tulani were respectively the Archon and Eladrin equivalents of Balors and Pit Fiends.  I'm guessing their around CR 20 as I remember both creatures to be obscenely powerful with one casting as a 20th level clerics and the other wielding a glowing holy vorpal sword, the Leonal is sort of disappointing because they're the most powerful Guardinal subrace and not as powerful as a Balor, but class levels can always fix that.

Before someone else asks this question, are there Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pleasure?

Do Sword Archons still have a ridiculously powerful bite, which I never figured out how it could be that strong based on their size and lack of fangs in 2e?


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Oct 19, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Yeah, especially since we are all born wearing Abercrombie and fitch




Nooooooooooo!!!!!!.............


----------



## Filby (Oct 19, 2003)

GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> Can't be Planes of Chaos. When that box came out, eladrins hadn't been invented yet.




Mm... that's right. Must have been 'Warriors of Heaven', then. Thanks.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 19, 2003)

GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> Can't be Planes of Chaos. When that box came out, eladrins hadn't been invented yet.




true, but i think they might have been in the Blood Wars card game, which is what inspired the idea of putting them in the PS game in the first place.  in fact, all of the guardinal lords were in BW long before PS.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 19, 2003)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> Darren -- how can I convince my GM that the Vow of Poverty is balanced? It's perfect for my monk, and I figure at 12th level, when he can actually take it, he'll have AC 32, so any verbal ammo would be welcome ...




Wow. I'm amazed you'd have to convince anyone. The abilities granted by Vow of Poverty are substantial, but they don't equal out to the magic items you're losing. _Assuming a standard/default level of magic in your campaign_, someone with the Vow of Silence will be equal to or slightly weaker than someone with appropriate magic for his class and level.

Of course, if your campaign is lower-magic than the baseline, the feat is no longer balanced. But that's a game-by-game decision, really.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 19, 2003)

Well, I read through much of this book last night, and I have to say I really liked it. It's not all applicable to all my games, since I use a much more relative alignment system in many of my campaigns. (That is, good and evil are _not_ active powers or absolutes, but simple definitions of action, and spells like _detect *alignment*_ don't function.) However, for those games I run/play where I do use the alignment system as written, the book gives a lot of interesting insight into how to portray "uber-good" characters. And good chunks of it--including most of the mechanics--are viable even for more relative-alignment campaigns.

In fact, my only real objection--and it's one that's easily ignored--is that it gives mechanical systems for converting evil creatures to good. One is a spell, one is a long, drawn-out series of rolls and saves made when a good character has many days to converse with an evil prisoner. I'm not a fan of any effect that forces alignment conversion or similar _permanent_ changes in personality. I feel the conversion of an evil creature really needs to fall into the realm of roleplaying and DM fiat, with the dice taking no part whatsoever. That said, that's a very minor gripe, since it's maybe four total paragraphs out of the book.

All in all, I think I'll actually get substantially more use out of this one than I did the BoVD. And it's actually more mature in some ways, in the true sense of the word--discussing potentially sensitive issues in a calm and rational manner. If this represents the direction WotC wants to take its "Mature Line," more power to them. I'll be there, credit card in hand. 

I also really wouldn't mind seeing a book of this sort for neutrality--an idea I'd utterly dismissed until recently. I think it'd probably have to be shorter, maybe a softback, but it would be interesting to see.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 19, 2003)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> Darren -- how can I convince my GM that the Vow of Poverty is balanced? It's perfect for my monk, and I figure at 12th level, when he can actually take it, he'll have AC 32, so any verbal ammo would be welcome ...




I would agree with Mouseferatu.

Aside from that, as a designer, and as a rules Rep, it is not my job to help you overrule your DM. If your DM thinks something is unbalanced for their game then they are probably right - it probably is unbalanced for their game. I personally don't allow Spring Attack into my game since I feel its unbalanced, and that's in the PHB, but that's another subject entirely.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Oct 20, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> I would agree with Mouseferatu.
> 
> Aside from that, as a designer, and as a rules Rep, it is not my job to help you overrule your DM. If your DM thinks something is unbalanced for their game then they are probably right - it probably is unbalanced for their game. I personally don't allow Spring Attack into my game since I feel its unbalanced, and that's in the PHB, but that's another subject entirely.




Thanks. Personally, for two feats and losing all my items, I agree, but there wasn't a consensus at the table, and the guy who makes the group rules decisions wasn't there, and he's tight ...

Oh, FWIW, the book is nice, better than the BoVD (and plus you have the good fortune to be coming out at the same time as the Minatures Handbook, which will make you look really good). And I didn't expect to like it, either.


----------



## allenw (Oct 20, 2003)

Baraendur,
  The BoED looks pretty interesting so far.  
  However, there are a couple of problems with the "Sanctified Creature" template, which I'm hoping you can resolve.

  1: It says it can't be added to Outsiders (evil), though the "Sanctify the Wicked" spell mentions no such restriction.  Then the template goes on to say that recipients lose their baatezu, tanar'ri, and yugoloth subtypes (if any), which they couldn't have had in the first place if the original prohibition is accurate.

  2: It says that the sanctified creature loses all its pre-existing supernatural and spell-like abilities, but the example creature, a Sanctified Young Red Dragon, retains its Breath Weapon (Su).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 20, 2003)

1. Clearly the line that states that it can't be applied to outsiders with the evil subtype is in error since it goes on to say that baatezu, tanari'ri, and yuguloths gain the good subtype. I wrote the sanctified creature template and it was never my intention that it couldn't be applied to evil outsiders. The spell was created specifically for that purpose, actually.

2. The sample creature for this template was done by someone else. I originally converted a different evil creature, so I can't say why the red dragon retains its breath weapon. Personally, I don't think any template should take away a dragon's breath weapon, including this one, since it is part of what makes a dragon unique. Yes, it requires the designer to bend the rules, but no rule should ever be so rigid that it can't be bent in the interest of a better game. I would make the same argument if this template were applied to a beholder or a mind flayer.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 20, 2003)

Should the CR of a sanctified Pit Fiend really be one higher than a normal Pit Fiend?  

The loss of all supernatural and spell-like abilities is really harsh, and Aura of Menace doesn't go very far to make up for it.

Perhaps only [evil] spell-like and supernatural abilities should be lost?


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

If you think vow of poverty doesn't match magic items, try building a human monk with a vow of poverty. 

Human Monk
Feats 
level 1: Sacred Vow, Vow of Poverty, Nymph’s Kiss, Stunning Fist
level 2: Intuitive Attack, Deflect Arrows
level 3: Improved Grapple 
level 4: Touch of Golden Ice
level 6: Servant of the Heavens, Improved Trip, Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike
level 8: Gift of Faith
level 9: Power Attack
level 10: Sanctify Ki Strike
level 12: Holy Ki Strike, Improved Critical Unarmed Strike
level 14: Exalted Spell Resistance
level 15: Cleave
level 16: Fist of the Heavens
level 18: Nimbus of Light,
level 20: 

This leaves one Exalted Feat not taken yet (20) and one general feat not selected (18).

The vow of poverty also grants:
1)	endure elements
2)	no need for food or drink or breathing
3)	enhancement bonus to hit and damage
4)	deflection bonus to ac
5)	exalted bonus to ac
6)	natural armor bonus to ac
7)	DR
8)	Energy resistance (acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic)
9)	Continuous freedom of movement and mind shielding
10)	Regeneration
11)	True seeing
12)	Enhancement bonuses to ability scores
13)         Resistance bonus on saving throws

Dream come true for a monk.


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

William Ronald said:
			
		

> In the 1st edition DMG, E. Gary Gygax stated that it is possible for two lawful good nations to be at war with each other.  Does the Book of Exalted Deeds explore how good aligned characters may come into conflict? For example, members of two rival faiths may work at cross purposes. Or two good kingdoms may go to war over any number of issues.




Yes, the book states that good aligned creatures should never kill other good aligned creatures even if they are at war.  i.e. negotiate, maybe take prisoner, but do not kill.  



			
				William Ronald said:
			
		

> Are there any rules discussing experience point awards for non-violent tasks?  Such awards seem appropriate for characters that rely on diplomacy and cunning, or follow deities of peace. There have been a few people on these boards and elsewhere who claim that D&D is based on combat alone.  (I would argue that role playing has been around since the game's origins, and that most players I know have more than one way to have their characters approach a problem.) Is there any reward, besides saving a soul from evil, of converting a creature from an evil alignment to good.  (In the case of Sepulchrave II's story hour, the redemption of a succubus has wrought many changes in a campaign world.) Is there any discussion of what a redeemed devil or demon might mean to a society or a faith?




Yes, there are rules for giving out exp for other things than body count.



			
				William Ronald said:
			
		

> Also, does the book have any suggestions on how DMs and players can resolve moral dilemmas for characters?  I don't expect the book to have all the answers, but does it have advice for how DMs can go beyond the book.




Some suggestions.  But not as many as you would prefer.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 20, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> If you think vow of poverty doesn't match magic items, try building a human monk with a vow of poverty.
> This leaves 3 Exalted Feats not taken yet (8, 18, 20) and one general feat not selected (18).
> Dream come true for a monk.



I'm actually not sure if it's balanced or not.  I'll need to give it some serious thought.  The main worry for me is that someone like, say, a Wizard could get an insanely high boost to abilities and whatnot using spells.  Mage Armor + Shield + Exalted equals 22 AC at 1st level - And naturally, it'll get worse.
I'm not sure how to test, but I'm going to give it some thought.


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

It would have to be a sorceror, not a wizard.  A wizard wouldn't be able to own spellbooks and maintain the vow of poverty.





			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> I'm actually not sure if it's balanced or not.  I'll need to give it some serious thought.  The main worry for me is that someone like, say, a Wizard could get an insanely high boost to abilities and whatnot using spells.  Mage Armor + Shield + Exalted equals 22 AC at 1st level - And naturally, it'll get worse.
> I'm not sure how to test, but I'm going to give it some thought.


----------



## GroverCleaveland (Oct 20, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> 
> Is there any discussion of the hierarchies within the rank and file Archons; Eladrin or Guardinals?




Only the archons have a hierarchy as such. There's some discussion - as in who reports to which member of the Hebdomad. The other two races have a much more loosely structured society, although the eladrins have a ruling court.



> Alternatively, what are the CRs of the above?
> 
> I mean would the Sword Archon be the Archon equivalent of the Balor or Pit Fiend?




I think it would be a mistake to try to draw direct parallels between two unlike types of plane-born, and the book doesn't try to do that. They (tanar'ri, baatezu, yugoloths, rilmani, formians, slaadi, guardinals, eladrins, and archons) aren't the same race with nine different aspects, they're nine different races who manifest their respective alignments in nine entirely different ways. Some of them aren't even the original natives of their planes - there was another race that dominated the Nine Hells before the baatezu, the formians come originally from Arcadia, and the rilmani displaced a race called the kamarel. So the parallels aren't exact.

But to answer your question, the closest equivalent to a balor or pit fiend among the archons would be the throne archon, which has a CR of 15. The equivalent among the eladrins would be the tulani, which has a CR of 18. See what I mean about inexactness? The maintainance of the cosmic balance doesn't depend on an ultraloth and a leonal arm wrestling every fifty years, so they don't have to be exactly matched in combat prowess. The celestials just have to be able to keep the fiends fighting one another and the Devil weighted down in his hole. And they have the angels on their side.

(Incidently, it looks like the leonal would win that arm wrestling match).


----------



## GroverCleaveland (Oct 20, 2003)

*power pasties*



			
				Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> How Shiradi are different from the Shiere?




They have wings, and instead of turning into balls of faerie light they turn into clouds of glowing shards that can rend flesh and hurt incorporeal creatures. They're Large, and not slender like the shiere. They don't have the ability to disguise themselves. They battle for freedom across the planes instead of defending the eladrin courts. Instead of riding war-horses, they fly. In other words, they have virtually nothing in common except the first three letters of their name. And that they're both eladrins.

The other eladrin breeds are pretty much the same as always, though the tulani have more hit dice and some new abilities. 



> And out of the celestial index do they even mention any of the Lung Dragons from OA (or anything else from that book)?




They mention the shirokinukatsukami. Nothing else.



> Before someone else asks this question, are there Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pleasure?




Yes. On page 36.



> Do Sword Archons still have a ridiculously powerful bite, which I never figured out how it could be that strong based on their size and lack of fangs in 2e?




Shockingly, they changed it so that instead of biting people sword archons use swords.

The origin of the bite attack was that in the 1e Manual of the Planes and in the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix sword archons had cats' heads. In Planes of Law, Tony DiTerlizzi drew them with human heads and beaklike noses for some reason, but their feline bite remained for some other reason.

No bite, now, or beak. They have arms that turn into holy flaming longswords. I think it's better this way.


----------



## Olive (Oct 20, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> It would have to be a sorceror, not a wizard.  A wizard wouldn't be able to own spellbooks and maintain the vow of poverty.




Sorry, I don't have the book yet (stupid Wizards Australia), but what is the condition for the Vow of Poverty?


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 20, 2003)

GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> See what I mean about inexactness? The maintainance of the cosmic balance doesn't depend on an ultraloth and a leonal arm wrestling every fifty years, so they don't have to be exactly matched in combat prowess. The celestials just have to be able to keep the fiends fighting one another and the Devil weighted down in his hole. And they have the angels on their side.




I don't think you have to tell UK this. He does have some knowledge about the relationships between extraplanar creatures. 


The book seems to be quite interesting, and I'll try to get my hands on it as soon as possible.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 20, 2003)

I have no idea how previous D&D editions handled celestial hierarchies, but is there anything in BoED taken from the Bible for example? The Throne Archons immediately sound like the Thrones, but I guess they might be the only example. I thought it would have been nice to have celestial hierarchies and creatures in general designed around real religions legends (obviously, not only the Bible), at least partially, and I thought about this when I read that the book was mature audiences-oriented because of inspiration drawn from real myths. What exactly has been taken from real myths?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 20, 2003)

I know that Guardinals and Eladrins (and Rilmani) first came from the Blood Wars Card game, but did anyone actually buy that card game?  It's not like I bought Spellfire at any point, even when I did bother with collectable card games (and only magic) during the initial craze.

The BoED still hasn't arrived to my part of Canada yet...

It's sounds like Vow of Poverty is too unbalanced for my campaign when every class gets a Class Defense Progression (the numbers being +7, +9, and +11 for different classes at 20th level).  Monks may have been replaced with the more versatile martial artist (who can be any alignment), but they're one of the classes with that +11 bonus.  I've limited non-epic AC bonuses from magic items to being +3, because of my house rules.  So it sounds like I'll really have to limit any AC bonus that feat gives.

If that feat is that powerful, do the other feats in the book put Vile feats to shame?

I'm guessing that all Swanmays are female just like they previously were.

Does the Troubadour of the Stars get anything like Divine Grace?  Because I've been waiting for any Bard Prestige Class that gives out such an ability.

Do they mention anything about the Eladrin and the Fey?  Eladrin always resembled to me what Faeries should have actually been like in D&D, rather than what we got for most Fey creatures.


----------



## Gez (Oct 20, 2003)

Have I badly understood, or has someone implied that you may take exalted feats in addition to normal feats?


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 20, 2003)

Gez: no, they're just like normal feats except as follows.

_Only intelligent creatures of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a give from powerful agents of good--deities, celestials, or similar creatures. These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are)._

You need the DM's permission to take an exalted feat, and if you commit an evil act you lose all the benefits of it until you atone. In a neat touch, anyone with an exalted feat also radiates an aura of good, just like a good cleric.

Here is a list of the exalted feats:

Animal Friend
Celestial Familiar
Celestial Mount
Consecreate Spell Trigger
Exalted Companion
Exalted Smite
Exalted Spell Resistance
Exalted Turning
Exalted Wild Shpae
Favored of the Companions
Fist of the Heavens
Gift of Faith
Gift of Grace
Hands of a Healer
Holy _Ki_ Strike
Holy Radiance
Holy Subdual
Intuitive Attack
Knight of Stars
Nemesis
Nimbus of Light
Nymph's Kiss
Purify Spell Trigger
Quell the Profane
Ranged Smite Evil
Righteous Wrath
Sacred Strike
Sacred Vow
Sanctify _Ki_ strike
Sanctify Martial Strike
Sanctify Natural Attack
Sanctify Weapon
Servant of the Heavens
Stigmata
Touch of Golden Ice
Vow of Abstinence
Vow of Chastity
Vow of Nonviolence
Vow of Obedience
Vow of Peace
Vow of Poverty
Vow of Purity
Words of Creation

And no, I'm not going to tell you the pre-reqs for them or what they do. Buy the book!


----------



## Gez (Oct 20, 2003)

Then could someone explain me that ?



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> If you think vow of poverty doesn't match magic items, try building a human monk with a vow of poverty.
> 
> Human Monk
> Feats
> ...


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 20, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> Then could someone explain me that ?




The Vow of Poverty feat gives you bonus Exalted feats.  It's crazy powerful.


----------



## Vecna (Oct 20, 2003)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> The Vow of Poverty feat gives you bonus Exalted feats.  It's crazy powerful.




One Exalted feat every two levels?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 20, 2003)

Hi there Grover, thanks for the reply! 

(thanks also to Kobold Avenger earlier who also toughed upon this point) 



			
				GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> Only the archons have a hierarchy as such. There's some discussion - as in who reports to which member of the Hebdomad. The other two races have a much more loosely structured society, although the eladrins have a ruling court.




Perhaps hierarchy is too specific a word, I think 'pecking order' may have been more akin to what I was after.



			
				GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> I think it would be a mistake to try to draw direct parallels between two unlike types of plane-born, and the book doesn't try to do that. They (tanar'ri, baatezu, yugoloths, rilmani, formians, slaadi, guardinals, eladrins, and archons) aren't the same race with nine different aspects, they're nine different races who manifest their respective alignments in nine entirely different ways.




I think you could make a case that they were all different aspects of the same race (but thats perhaps a discussion for another day); however, I do agree that power wise that does not necessitate any sort of direct parallels. 

Though personally I would have thought rough parallels would be common, with numbers vs. organisation; and also sin vs. virtue governing a rudimentary cosmic disposition of such forces.



			
				GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> Some of them aren't even the original natives of their planes - there was another race that dominated the Nine Hells before the baatezu, the formians come originally from Arcadia, and the rilmani displaced a race called the kamarel. So the parallels aren't exact.




The origins of the Baatezu depends on which sourcebook you are reading at the time. I don't think being originally native to a plane is as fundamental as sharing that planes intrinsic ethos. As such the exodus of a race (or sub-race) that evolves/devolves would be an obvious occurance.

I think the adoption of the Formian race as the Lawful Neutral archetype (supplanting the Modrons) was a WotC political decision rather than for the ideas own sake.

The Rilmani have always seemed something of a non-entity of a race in my opinion, but maybe thats just a byproduct of their ambiguous identity?



			
				GroverCleaveland said:
			
		

> But to answer your question, the closest equivalent to a balor or pit fiend among the archons would be the throne archon, which has a CR of 15. The equivalent among the eladrins would be the tulani, which has a CR of 18. See what I mean about inexactness? The maintainance of the cosmic balance doesn't depend on an ultraloth and a leonal arm wrestling every fifty years, so they don't have to be exactly matched in combat prowess. The celestials just have to be able to keep the fiends fighting one another and the Devil weighted down in his hole. And they have the angels on their side.
> 
> (Incidently, it looks like the leonal would win that arm wrestling match).




Ultroloths (and indeed Yugoloths in general) have been treated rather half-heartedly within 3rd Ed.

Whereas the 'poster boys' (Balors and Pit Fiends) have seemingly been given the red carpet treatment, notably so with the most recent (3.5) incarnations.

If anything the Yugoloths should comprise, pound for pound, the most powerful individuals. They don't have the numbers of chaos and they don't have the organisation of law, but they do have an inherant selfish streak unburdened by either (as per the outline of 'Neutral Evil' in the PHB).


----------



## heirodule (Oct 20, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Yes, the book states that good aligned creatures should never kill other good aligned creatures even if they are at war.  i.e. negotiate, maybe take prisoner, but do not kill.




DUH!

"Surrender that I may take you prisoner!"

"Why, will you kill me otherwise?"

"um, no"

-------

"Ok, stay in my jail"

"Why, will you kill me if I try to escape?"

"um, no"

-------

"Pay these lawful taxes"

"Why, will you put me in jail?"

"YES!"

"And if I try to escape you'll kill me?"

"um, no..."

-----------
Obviouly Lawful Good societies get by with alot of enchantments, charms, and Geases. (Which actually isn't a bad roleplaying hook...)


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Oct 20, 2003)

And the above example, boys and girls, is probably why most societies are Lawful Neutral.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 20, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> And the above example, boys and girls, is probably why most societies are Lawful Neutral.




I'd rather that be because the G alignment was *hard* not logically incoherent. "Taking prisoner" implies a threat of death. If the LG character won't actually kill anyone, there is nothing to threaten the prisoner with.

Of course, since we're stipulating that Good won't kill other good, then I guess refsuing to surrender implies a continued willingness to use deadly force, which means the other side is not actually good any more, which means you can kill them.

Problem solved


----------



## allenw (Oct 20, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Human Monk
> Feats
> level 1: Sacred Vow, Vow of Poverty, Nymph’s Kiss, Stunning Fist




How do you get 3 non-monk feats at 1st level?


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

2 Exalted feats (Sacred Vow, Vow of Poverty) as 1st level human.

Vow of Poverty gives you bonus Exalted Feats at the Fighter progression.  i.e. one bonus feat at 1st level, etc.



			
				allenw said:
			
		

> How do you get 3 non-monk feats at 1st level?


----------



## allenw (Oct 20, 2003)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> I'm actually not sure if it's balanced or not.  I'll need to give it some serious thought.  The main worry for me is that someone like, say, a Wizard could get an insanely high boost to abilities and whatnot using spells.  Mage Armor + Shield + Exalted equals 22 AC at 1st level - And naturally, it'll get worse.




  Fear not.  "Perfection" bonuses to AC (which are most of the ones you get from Vow of Poverty, including the +4 at 1st level) don't stack with Armor bonuses, which would include Mage Armor.  As far as I can tell, a "Perfection" bonus equals an Armor bonus that also works vs. Brilliant Energy weapons.


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

Fighter progression for bonus feats.  1st, 2nd, every 2 levels



			
				Vecna said:
			
		

> One Exalted feat every two levels?


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

2 exalted feats and you can't own anything other than peasant items, and you can't borrow anything.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't have the book yet (stupid Wizards Australia), but what is the condition for the Vow of Poverty?


----------



## allenw (Oct 20, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Fighter progression for bonus feats.  1st, 2nd, every 2 levels




  Are you sure about 1st level?  I don't have the book with me, but I recall it being only even-numbered levels.  In fact, it would have to be, since you only get the Exalted feats if you already had the Vow before you earned the level, which could never happen at 1st.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 20, 2003)

A human who takes Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty at 1st level will get the 1st level bonus feat.  Pre-requisites for feats may be achieved at the level the feat is gained.

***
Some other questions about the book:

1.  Again, is a sanctified pit fiend really tougher than a normal one (+1 CR)?  The loss of all spell-like and supernatural abilities really hurts.

2.  The sanctified mind flayer monk on page 17; what does she eat, and how does she reconcile that with the vow of non-violence?

3.  The vow of purity on page 48 prohibits contact with dead flesh, including meat cooked for food.  Does it also prohibit contact with leather?  Fur?  Bone?  Ivory?


----------



## Gez (Oct 20, 2003)

> 3. The vow of purity on page 48 prohibits contact with dead flesh, including meat cooked for food.




What about unarmed strikes from or on a zombie ?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Oct 20, 2003)

Three words for those of you concerned about Vow of Poverty:

*No Magic Items.*

The benefits of the VoP feat are hardly enough to balance the fact that a character who takes this feat can never use or own a magic item. I mean, we all know that the forsaker, which appears to be a decent or even overpowered PrC on paper, sucks on ice because other characters will be able to easily surpass the class's abilities using magic. True, VoP doesn't have as bad a downside (character can still receive the benefits of spells), but especially for a monk or fighter-type character (the types who benefit most from the feat's abilities), it's pretty OK.


----------



## BOZ (Oct 20, 2003)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I know that Guardinals and Eladrins (and Rilmani) first came from the Blood Wars Card game, but did anyone actually buy that card game?




haven't been noticing my posts?    i never really played it much, just bought it for the art on the cards.  there was a bunch of new stuff in that game - some got used later in planescape, some didn't.  and i don't remember rilmani being in it.



> I'm guessing that all Swanmays are female just like they previously were.




god, i hope so!


----------



## ST (Oct 20, 2003)

If I've read the posts on the last page correctly, then Vow of Poverty is an exalted feat, requiring DM permission. I can't see many DM's saying "So your character concept is that before you even entered play, you were gifted with an exalted feat from a celestial? Sure!" 

Maybe it'd be okay if your campaign concept is that *all* the PCs were visited by creatures from the heavens at a young age... hey, there's an interesting idea.

And as for this feat being overpowered in conjunction with house rules... well, unfortunately, once you start changing the rules in significant fashions, that's always a risk.


----------



## allenw (Oct 20, 2003)

ST said:
			
		

> I can't see many DM's saying "So your character concept is that before you even entered play, you were gifted with an exalted feat from a celestial? Sure!"




  I'd be dubious about it, but not *that* much more dubious than I'd be about a Paladin.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 20, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> What about unarmed strikes from or on a zombie ?




If they fight undead, or accidentally touch dead flesh, they have to undergo a ritual involving a flask of holy water.


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

I have to sit down and run the numbers, but I think the special abilities are worth about the same amount in gold that a non-poor Monk would have at the same level.  

If that is true and I'm not sure, then the extra Exalted feats are what makes all the difference.  You are basically getting ten extra feats for free.  



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Three words for those of you concerned about Vow of Poverty:
> 
> *No Magic Items.*
> 
> The benefits of the VoP feat are hardly enough to balance the fact that a character who takes this feat can never use or own a magic item. I mean, we all know that the forsaker, which appears to be a decent or even overpowered PrC on paper, sucks on ice because other characters will be able to easily surpass the class's abilities using magic. True, VoP doesn't have as bad a downside (character can still receive the benefits of spells), but especially for a monk or fighter-type character (the types who benefit most from the feat's abilities), it's pretty OK.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 20, 2003)

Being female is indeed a pre-req for becoming a Swanmay.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 20, 2003)

The interesting thing about the Vow of Poverty is that it thematically hearkens back to the 1st edition paladin, who was restricted in terms of what possessions he could own. The Vow of Poverty is much, much harsher than the 1e paladin's restrictions, however.

As for the feats granted by Vow of Poverty, there is a discrepancy between the description (BoED p. 30) and the table (p. 31). The description of Bonus Exalted Feats says "At 1st level, an ascetic gains a bonus exalted feat, and another bonus feat at 2nd level and ever 2 levels thereafter." But the table for Voluntary Poverty does not list Bonus exalted feat as a 1st-level benefit. (It only lists AC bonus +4.)

Further elements of description strongly imply that it is correct and the table is wrong, but we'll have to hear what the authors of BoED have to say about that.


----------



## Ferret (Oct 20, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> The Musteval are Tiny celestials (guardinals) that are based off of ferrets.  "They often serve as spies, and aid humanoid heros by giving them information about powerful evil foes."  They have a lot of at-will spell like abilities, including some disguise spells they use to conceal their unusual appearance.
> 
> The poisons, called ravages, only work against evil creatures and work the exact same way other poisons do, by dealing ability damage.  Some of them are quite deadly.  The ravages are as follows:  Golden ice, celestial lightsblood, jade water, purified couatl venom, and unicorn blood.




Cheers


----------



## Endur (Oct 20, 2003)

I very much like the idea of a vow of poverty.  I'm just a wee bit worried that it is out of balance.  Currently, I can only see playing two character classes with a vow of poverty, Monk and Sorceror.  And those two character classes don't lose anything.

Other character classes, Fighter, Paladin, etc.  lose a ton if they take the vow of poverty.  Would you want to play a Paladin who could only wield a quarter staff and couldn't wear armor and couldn't even buy armor for his steed?

I would have preferred half a dozen different vow versions.  A version for monks, a version for sorcerors, a version for Paladins, etc.

So that a Paladin could have armor and a horse even though he takes a Vow of Charity and gives all excess wealth to a religious cause.



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about the Vow of Poverty is that it thematically hearkens back to the 1st edition paladin, who was restricted in terms of what possessions he could own. The Vow of Poverty is much, much harsher than the 1e paladin's restrictions, however.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 20, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> I have to sit down and run the numbers, but I think the special abilities are worth about the same amount in gold that a non-poor Monk would have at the same level.
> 
> If that is true and I'm not sure, then the extra Exalted feats are what makes all the difference.  You are basically getting ten extra feats for free.




Now, I haven't seen this, but how are they getting something for free? They are giving up the use of all magic items for 10 extra feats. 

And while a sorcerer might not give up as much in taking a Vow of Poverty, they aren't really gaining much either if my reading of the feat list gives any accurate impression. Martial exalted feats will not see much use by a dedicated spellcaster...


----------



## BOZ (Oct 20, 2003)

Ferret said:
			
		

> Cheers




ferrets, representin', yo!


----------



## Gez (Oct 20, 2003)

> Other character classes, Fighter, Paladin, etc. lose a ton if they take the vow of poverty.




Less sure for Paladins. Especially those that I use (from Monte's Book of Hallowed Might), as they get a free sacred sword, just like they get a free sacred mount. Granted, it's not much, but with horse and weapon, they have their primary tools. (They'll lack armor, though, but this may be made up for.)


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 20, 2003)

Also note that you do not have to take Vow of Poverty at character creation. You can take it at a later level and get the lower-level benefits retroactively (except the 1st level bonus exalted feat, per the description). So you could create a character with normal equipment at the lower levels when it's more essential to survival, and then take a Vow of Poverty at mid levels when you are more robust.

I am intrigued by the idea of a staff-wielding paladin with no material possessions. He may look innocuous, but if you mess with him he'll smite you silly with his walking stick, or call his mount to trample you. Booyah!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 20, 2003)

> Would you want to play a Paladin who could only wield a quarter staff and couldn't wear armor and couldn't even buy armor for his steed?




Yes.

One of the very first characters I ever created, playing around with the character creator that came with the PHB, was a paladin who lived as a monk (in the historical, Western European religious sense, like Brother Cadfael, not in the martial artist sense). He still owned his old armor and sword from his warrior days, but he only ever carried/used/wore a quarterstaff and leather armor beneath his robes. And I didn't even want to give him the armor, but I was trying to balance between character concept and character playability.

When I read the Vow of Poverty feat, my _very first_ thought was "Cool! Now I can actually play Brother Darryn!


----------



## Coik (Oct 20, 2003)

I honestly don't know what WotC hopes to accomplish with these alignment books.  The system is so poorly defined as to be almost useless, and in essence is really just an archaic holdover from previous editions of the game, which I have to presume was kept mostly so they wouldn't have to bother with retooling the magic system.  If nothing else, Monte Cook's excellent _Arcana Unearthed_ proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the system is no longer necessary.

I mean, honestly, half the things they define as quote unquote "good" or "evil" don't pass their own test for it.  Look at _animate dead_, one of the classic "evil" spells.  According to their own definition, evil is "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (PHB p. 104).  How does _animate dead_ do any of those?  You obviously don't kill the body.  There's nothing to hurt.  And you can't oppress the spirit, because as we know from _speak with dead_ it departs as soon as the body dies.  So, in essence, the quintessential "evil" spell isn't even evil by the games' own standards!

Hopefully, when 4e comes along, this grevious error will finally be corrected.


----------



## Gez (Oct 20, 2003)

Well, it's been often theorized that souls are harmed when animating undead from their former body, maybe entrapped or used as fuel to create the negative energy that powers the undead.

After all, even true resurrection can't work on someone who's been turned into an undead, as long as said undead hasn't been destroyed. (Lesser spells can't even work on destroyed undead, as the soul has been too tainted with negative energy, just like for people killed by death effects.)

But yes, the alignment system is clunky. They could easily give it up, at least for mortals (retaining it for outsiders would be OK IMHO).


----------



## Gez (Oct 20, 2003)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> When I read the Vow of Poverty feat, my _very first_ thought was "Cool! Now I can actually play Brother Darryn!




I'm sure this was one of the top priority of Brother Darrin.


----------



## Olive (Oct 20, 2003)

Coik said:
			
		

> I honestly don't know what WotC hopes to accomplish with these alignment books.




Cool crunch? That's why I buy them. And given they were Monte's idea, I'm not sure that his other work proves that the alignment system is uusable, even if it isn't strictly necessary.

Regardless, evil has a wider definition than the ione you gave, and _animate dead_ falls into the using evil power (in the evil as a actual force sense) for ones own gain. Creating undead without asking the owner of the body is just wrong.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 20, 2003)

Just wanted to chime in that so far I love the book, I loved the BoVD and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with alignment in my game, it's not a issue, we can figure out what is good and what is evil. I like the ideas presented and if I want to make a truely vile evil or a extremely exalted hero these books do help a lot. The big thing I have gotten from both these books is a lot of really good ways to dress my setting up and a lot of ideas for adding flavor to my game. The BoVD has added flavor to many of my adventures and the BoED answered some pressing questions my characters had in the last session, my next adventure will be based around information in the book (the characters found some truly evil weapons, some of them intelligent and very powerful and they were unsure how to dispose of them, the BoED gave me some very good ideas). The books are very good companions to each other and I am very impressed with the Book of Exalted Deeds. Somebody mentioned a book for Neutral stuff and I think that is a good idea too (you listening Darrin  ).


----------



## Gez (Oct 21, 2003)

Rather than neutral as in neutrality, one for chaos and law. These two alignments are much harder to assess than good and evil.

What are law and chaos? Rigidity and flexibility? Conservatism and progressism? Civilization and anarchy? Community and individualism? Crystalline stasis and unstable mutations? Fascism and social darwinism?

None of these seem to fit.


Besides, that would make a fine echo for Planescape's books Planes of Law, Chaos, and between both, Conflict.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 21, 2003)

So the vow of poverty gives off the trade off of not being able to own any magic items or much at all (I guess using my hybrid D&D/D20M system wealth would be capped at +1).  And I wouldn't even allow such a character to take Prestige Races (and lose them all if they had any before) not to mention any types of alterations spread through out the different D20 books, should they take that feat.


----------



## Trainz (Oct 21, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> (Vow of Poverty) Now, I haven't seen this, but how are they getting something for free? They are giving up the use of all magic items for 10 extra feats.



You haven't indeed seen it.

You give up use of ALL ITEMS, not just magic (you're allowed some rags and a staff, more or less, and food for ONE DAY).

Your fellow PC's can buy you food and support you however, but must never give you something, even temporarily i.e. they can cure you with a wand of cure, but they cannot lend you a cloak of resistance for a few rounds. They can pay for your lodging, your food, and cast all the spells they want on you.

In exchange you gain 10 exalted feats (many of which are very super-nifty) AND a S-Load of powers that more or less put you on par with the other PCs. You get all sorts of enhancements on AC, saves, ability scores, your weapon functions just like a magical plushthree-whatever, and much more, all improving with character level.

The two best classes for the Vow of Poverty IMO are sorceror and monk. 

A poor monk would K.I.C.K. A.R.S.E.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> Cool crunch? That's why I buy them.




I dig cool crunch, but I am not so sure I dig the namesake alignment discussions.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 21, 2003)

Brian Chalian said:
			
		

> That's reassuring.  I've been looking forward to this book since it was announced, but was afraid it would just be a list of more things paladins can't do, like smite evil dragons, or attack evil priests, or glare at hobgoblin teenagers... you've seen the posts before.  :/




Don't forget giving Orcus mercy


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 21, 2003)

Well, the food isn't much of a problem, given that you don't have to EAT OR DRINK.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 21, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> What are law and chaos? ....Crystalline stasis and unstable mutations?




Taken to thier final extreams that is more or less what you get. 

With the unstable mutations applying to phyics, matter, energy, space and time.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Don't forget giving Orcus mercy



Yes but will Orcus return the favor? I doubt it.


----------



## Olive (Oct 21, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> I dig cool crunch, but I am not so sure I dig the namesake alignment discussions.




I tend to agree here. I basically ignored the intro to the BoVD and I'll probably ignore the intro to this too once the blessed thing gets to these shores.

But I do think the crunch works well within an alignment context, and I'm not sure it would work as well without some kind of alignment system. Plus I enjoy the fact that the game has this built in assumption of good and evil as being real things that exist in a definite and soklid way through outsiders, and i think that kind of evil/good incarnate idea would suffer without an alignment system.


----------



## Trainz (Oct 21, 2003)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> _Don't forget giving Orcus mercy _





			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yes but will Orcus return the favor? I doubt it.



That's the whole premise of the nature of good in BoED. Good creatures know for a fact that evil doesn't show mercy, which is why showing mercy to an evil creature is ultimately good.

I really like this book. It will have a big impact (role-playing wise and crunch wise) on how I play my 2nd level Paladin.

I am VERY tempted by the Fist of Raziel prestige class. Very.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

Yes, but evil KNOWS that good knows that they give mercy to evil to be ultimately good and therefore will CRUSH good guys when they aren't look. 

Thus evil triumphs cause good is stupid.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Oct 21, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> I have to sit down and run the numbers, but I think the special abilities are worth about the same amount in gold that a non-poor Monk would have at the same level.
> 
> If that is true and I'm not sure, then the extra Exalted feats are what makes all the difference.  You are basically getting ten extra feats for free.



If that is true, I concede the point, Endur. A knee-jerk reaction didn't find it that bad, but I guess it's actually quite possible that the benefits by level are equal to a full complement of magic items. It didn't look like it to me at first glance.


> very much like the idea of a vow of poverty. I'm just a wee bit worried that it is out of balance. Currently, I can only see playing two character classes with a vow of poverty, Monk and Sorceror. And those two character classes don't lose anything.



This point I do agree with. VoP is awful for fighters, paladins, and rogues, basically unusable as written for wizards, and VERY good for sorcerers (IMHO, much less so for monks; for sorcs, it's a free power boost!). In fact, I think there's a great cleric PrC there, since I think that VoP is spot on for a cleric; maybe a PrC that replicates the first 10 levels of VoP benefits and bonus feats plus full divine spellcasting progression, at the expense of all wealth?


----------



## gfunk (Oct 21, 2003)

DELETED


----------



## Trainz (Oct 21, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yes, but evil KNOWS that good knows that they give mercy to evil to be ultimately good and therefore will CRUSH good guys when they aren't look.
> 
> Thus evil triumphs cause good is stupid.



In the BoED mechanics, if a good creature uphold the values of mercy, self-sacrifice, generosity, protection, poverty, you get access to a very quite powerful and abundent set of abilities. Evil might be able to trick you, backstabb you, double-cross you, but because of their impurity, they turn their back on very powerful abilities.

If you take a 15th level evil fighter and apply all you can from the BoVD, and face him with a 15th level good fighter and apply all you can from the BoED (feats, abilities, etc.), the good fighter will literally kick the arse of the evil fighter.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

Trainz said:
			
		

> In the BoED mechanics, if a good creature uphold the values of mercy, self-sacrifice, generosity, protection, poverty, you get access to a very quite powerful and abundent set of abilities. Evil might be able to trick you, backstabb you, double-cross you, but because of their impurity, they turn their back on very powerful abilities.
> 
> If you take a 15th level evil fighter and apply all you can from the BoVD, and face him with a 15th level good fighter and apply all you can from the BoED (feats, abilities, etc.), the good fighter will literally kick the arse of the evil fighter.



Perhaps. But I think if they do Dark Speech, there will be some heavy kick ass stuff. Besides Corrupt spells kick butt!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 21, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Thus evil triumphs cause good is stupid.




Urge...to stat out...Dark Helmet...rising...


----------



## nopantsyet (Oct 21, 2003)

Just wanted to thank the authors for commenting in this thread.  I wasn't really interested in this book when I first heard about it.  After reading this thread, I'm definitely picking it up.  (Which is to say I stopped by my FLGS the other day and they didn't have it yet.  :-(


----------



## Gez (Oct 21, 2003)

Evil is ultimately self-destructing, indulging to much in its greed/depravity/anger/vanity/etc. to pay attention to what really matters, and thus, is stupider than good.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Urge...to stat out...Dark Helmet...rising...



Don't worry about it AMG. Giving into urges is what it's all about.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> Evil is ultimately self-destructing, indulging to much in its greed/depravity/anger/vanity/etc. to pay attention to what really matters, and thus, is stupider than good.



Only if it's Bane. Then it has to die and come back.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 21, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Don't worry about it AMG. Giving into urges is what it's all about.



 But there's no "Moronic Evil Villian #1" Class!! How can I stat him out without that?!


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But there's no "Moronic Evil Villian #1" Class!! How can I stat him out without that?!



Do what everyone else does. Make one up.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 21, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Do what everyone else does. Make one up.



 But I'm lazy!...wait...a solution!

*puts Spaceballs in DVD player and watches*


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

That works for me.


----------



## Vecna (Oct 21, 2003)

Can a sorcerer with Vow of Poverty carry valuable material components? And Foci?

If not, VoP seems viable for monks only...


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 21, 2003)

So, uh, anyone want to know anything else about the book? Or is it time to min/max some Vow of Poverty'd characters?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 21, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> So, uh, anyone want to know anything else about the book? Or is it time to min/max some Vow of Poverty'd characters?




I don't remember if this has been given already or not, but if it has, then ignore.  List of feats?  

Also, if you had to pick either this book or the Miniatures Handbook for general D&D play (as opposed to a miniatures game), which would you pick?


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 21, 2003)

As requested, the feats. (I may have inadvertently missed a few; if so, my apologies.)

General Feats
Ancestral Relic
Consecrate Spell-Like Ability
Purify Spell-Like Ability
Resounding Blow
Spell Focus (Good)
Subduing Strike

Exalted Feats
Animal Friend
Celestial Familiar
Celestial Mount
Consecreate Spell Trigger
Exalted Companion
Exalted Smite
Exalted Spell Resistance
Exalted Turning
Exalted Wild Shpae
Favored of the Companions
Fist of the Heavens
Gift of Faith
Gift of Grace
Hands of a Healer
Holy _Ki_ Strike
Holy Radiance
Holy Subdual
Intuitive Attack
Knight of Stars
Nemesis
Nimbus of Light
Nymph's Kiss
Purify Spell Trigger
Quell the Profane
Ranged Smite Evil
Righteous Wrath
Sacred Strike
Sacred Vow
Sanctify _Ki_ strike
Sanctify Martial Strike
Sanctify Natural Attack
Sanctify Weapon
Servant of the Heavens
Stigmata
Touch of Golden Ice
Vow of Abstinence
Vow of Chastity
Vow of Nonviolence
Vow of Obedience
Vow of Peace
Vow of Poverty
Vow of Purity
Words of Creation

Metamagic Feats
Consecrate Spell
Nonlethal Substitution
Purity Spell


_Notes_: Consecrate = spell gains good descriptor, half the total damage is divine. Purify = spell gains good descriptor, and if it deals damage, neutral creatures take 1/2 (or 1/4 with successful save) while good creatures take none. So if you and all your friends are good, you could drop a Purified Fireball at ground zero and only hurt your evil foes. Nice!


----------



## allenw (Oct 21, 2003)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Can a sorcerer with Vow of Poverty carry valuable material components? And Foci?
> 
> If not, VoP seems viable for monks only...




  Vow of Poverty allows you to carry and use a spell component pouch, but not to own expensive material components or foci.  If you need to use such things (and many casters get by fine without using spells that require them), you have two options per "Other Ramifications of Poverty," BoED p. 30:
  1: "Beg components from other party members, who are probably gaining as much benefit from having the spell cast as the caster is."  Personally I think allowing this is cheesy, but that's what the book says.  It also says you can drink a friend's potion, for example, but not "borrow" an item.
  2: "An ascetic spellcaster can sacrifice experience points in place of expensive components, with 1 XP equivalent to 5 gp value of components."  

  Note that it *doesn't* say that you can own or use a Holy Symbol, even a wooden one.  I think that's probably an oversight.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Oct 21, 2003)

I noticed that the Apostle of Peace can use protective magic items like bracers and rings, but one of the requirements is the Vow of Poverty Feat.  So are the requirments an error or is the text saying protective items are allowed?


----------



## Vecna (Oct 21, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> So, uh, anyone want to know anything else about the book? Or is it time to min/max some Vow of Poverty'd characters?




You are right, as usual this kind type of thread get too "specialized" quite soon...

What about the Slayer of Domiel PrC?
And the Stigmata feat?

Thanks!


----------



## allenw (Oct 21, 2003)

kilamanjaro said:
			
		

> I noticed that the Apostle of Peace can use protective magic items like bracers and rings, but one of the requirements is the Vow of Poverty Feat.  So are the requirments an error or is the text saying protective items are allowed?




  Given the errors and contradictions already discovered, I wouldn't be surprised if allowing the AoP to use protective items is a typo (or a think-o).  If not, I'd say that the ability to use protective items is a special class feature of the AoP, not available to "regular" VoP folks.


----------



## JoeBlank (Oct 21, 2003)

Just wanted to echo a word of thanks to the creators and early-purchasers for sharing info with us. 

This book was pretty low on my list a week ago, but after reading this thread I just added it to an order I am placing today.

I find myself wondering why I am more excited about BoED than I was about BoVD. Evil is so fun and cool. Maybe it is because BoED has a lot more info, both crunch and fluff, that a player can put to use, whereas BoVD is primarily a DM resource. Of course, others may play in evil campaigns, and therefore find more use for BoVD.

BoED satisfies my player and DM resource needs, all in one handy package.


----------



## JPL (Oct 21, 2003)

Picked it up Sunday.  Which is kinda appropriate.

I'm somewhat concerned about the Vow of Poverty.  That's some pretty serious mojo there...if I were playing a monk, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I also don't know if I like having Sacred Vow as a prereq for the other vows.  Just seems strange that you would need to take a vow in order to take a vow, y'know?  

But all in all, it's interesting to see some attempt to make poverty, chastity, nonviolence, and other strange ideas into viable options for PCs.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 21, 2003)

Vecna said:
			
		

> What about the Slayer of Domiel PrC?



The Slayer of Domiel PrC is similar to the Assassin PrC. The Slayer pre-reqs are Lawful Good (!), Hide & Move Silently 8 ranks, Sanctify Martial Strike, Servant of the Heavens, sneak attack +3d6, and evasion class ability. Slayers gain sneak attack progression, a death touch progressing to 4/day at 10th level, _detect evil_ at 1st level, and spell progression like the Assassin (although a Slayer's spells are divine, based on Wisdom, and prepared like a cleric's).

I think the Slayer is a weaker PrC than the Assassin. Death touch is substantially worse than an Assassin's death attack. Not only must you touch the victim, you roll 1d6 per Slayer level to see if you kill him - meaning that Slayers are extremely unlikely to kill anyone with more HD/levels than they have Slayer levels. And of course the Slayer will always have fewer PrC levels than an opponent of equal CR, so... pfft!

There's also an issue of multi-ability dependency (MAD), because Sanctify Martial Strike requires Cha 15; Hide & Move Silently require good Dex; and casting Slayer spells requires good Wis. Oof.



> And the Stigmata feat?



This is a weird one. You take 2 points of temporary Con damage (or more) to heal 1 hp/level by touching someone. If you touch multiple people they each get healed at the 1 hp/lvl per 2 Con damage rate. Those you touch also get new saves versus disease with a sacred bonus equal to the amount of Con damage you took. (Oh yeah - as a pre-req for this feat you need Nimbus of Light, another exalted feat.)


----------



## Shazman (Oct 21, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> The Slayer of Domiel PrC is similar to the Assassin PrC. The Slayer pre-reqs are Lawful Good (!), Hide & Move Silently 8 ranks, Sanctify Martial Strike, Servant of the Heavens, sneak attack +3d6, and evasion class ability. Slayers gain sneak attack progression, a death touch progressing to 4/day at 10th level, _detect evil_ at 1st level, and spell progression like the Assassin (although a Slayer's spells are divine, based on Wisdom, and prepared like a cleric's).
> 
> I think the Slayer is a weaker PrC than the Assassin. Death touch is substantially worse than an Assassin's death attack. Not only must you touch the victim, you roll 1d6 per Slayer level to see if you kill him - meaning that Slayers are extremely unlikely to kill anyone with more HD/levels than they have Slayer levels. And of course the Slayer will always have fewer PrC levels than an opponent of equal CR, so... pfft!
> 
> ...




The slayer PrC was the main reason I was thinking about getting this book, now I'm definitely not getting it.  Why is WotC so against an 'assassain-like' PrC that non-evil characters can qualify for without having to jump through a bunch of hoops and giving up valuable feat slots? The assassain is ridiculously easy to qualify for and it's spells get better with every supplement.  It's so frustrating.  I'm dying for a non-evil assassain class.  Aaarrrrrggghhhh!!!!


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 21, 2003)

If you believe that assassination is not inherently evil, then just remove the evil requirement from the core Assassin PrC, and you're all set.

If you're looking for a PrC that might fill a similar role, check out the Stalker of Kharash - it's tailor-made for rangers, pumping their ranger spells/day while adding Scent of Evil, Favored Enemy-Evil, Hide in Plain Sight, Track Evil, and Smite Evil. d8 HD, Good BAB, Good Ref, 6 skill points. Reqs are NG, Hide/MvSilent 8 ranks, Alertness, Favored of the Companions, Track.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 21, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Would you want to play a Paladin who could only wield a quarter staff and couldn't wear armor and couldn't even buy armor for his steed?



Well, for the first couple of years that I played (1E), that's pretty much how I read it.  I was pretty opposed to the idea of a Paladin in full plate.

I totally buy the "knight in shining armor" concept for Paladin, now.  Still, every now and then, it does seem odd.


----------



## Shazman (Oct 21, 2003)

Well, if you've got a DM that's lenient about that sort of thing, that's fine.  Unfortunately, that's not hte case with me.  Is the Stalekr of Kharash from S&S's player's guide series?  I haven't heard of it before now.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 21, 2003)

Naturally, the Stalker of Kharash is from the _Book of Exalted Deeds_.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 21, 2003)

Coincidentally enough, my entire player group swore an oath of service to a goddess on our Saturday game day, so they've met the prerequisite for taking exalted feats and such in my mind. The BoED has segued nicely in that way into campaign availability. Still, I've warned my players that if any of them go the exalted route, they will be held to a higher standard. Although they are all good-aligned, they've acted like quite the mercenary company on a couple of occasions (enough to make me wince inwardly), so it could be rough for a couple of them to make such a commitment.

As for the book itself, I love it. My favorite quote so far:



> “A good character doesn’t just help others or fight evil when it’s convenient for him to do so. Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one’s own self-interest, is neutral at best. A character committed to the cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk or cost.”



I'd be thrilled if my players took that to heart.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 21, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The origins of the Baatezu depends on which sourcebook you are reading at the time. I don't think being originally native to a plane is as fundamental as sharing that planes intrinsic ethos. As such the exodus of a race (or sub-race) that evolves/devolves would be an obvious occurance.




Well, kind of... that race that preceeded the Baatezu still springs immature examples of itself from the very essence of Baator. The Nupperibos. If left to develop, they grow freakishly powerful over 1000's of years of slow growth and change. However the Baatezu kill Nupperibo on sight, demoting their essence to lemure status which then can proceed to develop within the Baatezu heirarchy.




> I think the adoption of the Formian race as the Lawful Neutral archetype (supplanting the Modrons) was a WotC political decision rather than for the ideas own sake.




I think the same, but the also seem to be backtracking on that a bit. The BoED constradicts the MotP when it details the slide of the lower layer of Arcadia into Mechanus (bringing along the Formians) as recent, and due to the actions of the Harmonium. The MotP made it sound like it was ancient and established, with the Formians utterly dominating the plane.

Hardly. Of course the Formains are there, and inevitably they'll clash with the Modrons. It isn't going to be pretty when it happens unless something wierd occurs. Thats the feeling over at Planewalker anyways.   




> The Rilmani have always seemed something of a non-entity of a race in my opinion, but maybe thats just a byproduct of their ambiguous identity?




*snort* Pesky Rilmani. I just think you don't usually see them. They could be right under your nose manipulating events to keep that wretched 'balance' of theirs and you might not even know it.




> Ultroloths (and indeed Yugoloths in general) have been treated rather half-heartedly within 3rd Ed.




Oh tell me about it! The 'loths should be, as you said, pound to pound the most powerful of the fiends. And when I say powerful, I don't just mean in a fight physically. If not physical, then magical. And if not magical, then we Arcanaloths do what we do best. We kill them on paper... Just sign right here... The Blood War is dictated not from the Abyssal Lords of the Abyss, or the Lords of the 9 or the dark eight of Baator, but by the flick and twitch of pens upon the contracts signed and bound within the Tower of the Arcanaloths...

*pompous, self rightious cackle*


----------



## Olive (Oct 21, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> So, uh, anyone want to know anything else about the book? Or is it time to min/max some Vow of Poverty'd characters?




I think the problem is that I more or else know everything I need to know, now I just need to be able to buy the book so I can participate in the discussion.


----------



## reiella (Oct 22, 2003)

On the book itself, after skimming it, I saw little of use for myself.

I liked the BoVD, and found use for it.  BoED just didn't provide much for me.  I don't plan to have the minions of Good duke it out with the minions of Evil battle royale style, so I have little need of most of the monsters.  I don't need a book to give me different ideas of how to be good (Hero Builder's Guide does that already, thanks).  The PrCs, were lackluster in my skim, and many (the Exalted) just ran contrary to how I try to reward Stellar 'Goodness'.  Some of the spells that I noticed just seem way to powerful or otherwise harmful for my taste (Sanctify the Wicked for one, the telepathy block for another).

Anycase, just doesn't look useful for me .


----------



## BOZ (Oct 22, 2003)

just for the heck of it, some discussion on modrons (may or may not be related to the topic, you decide!)


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 22, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I think the Slayer is a weaker PrC than the Assassin. Death touch is substantially worse than an Assassin's death attack. Not only must you touch the victim, you roll 1d6 per Slayer level to see if you kill him - meaning that Slayers are extremely unlikely to kill anyone with more HD/levels than they have Slayer levels. And of course the Slayer will always have fewer PrC levels than an opponent of equal CR, so... pfft!




Think of it as a finishing move.  "Ah, tottering, eh?  Eat holy judgement, evildoer!"

Better than a death attack, depending on how you do it.  At the very least, the target doesn't get a save and gets to ignore crit immunities and uncanny dodge, which is always useful.  Touching is almost always easier than trying to actually hit the target, anyway.

Brad


----------



## Wycen (Oct 23, 2003)

Took a somewhat extensive look at this today.  I had previously checked it out and basically just looked at the art and asked myself why it got a Mature sticker.  I really thought it was tame compared to the BoVD.

Taking a closer look at the spells, prestige classes and feats, I still believe it doesn't need a warning label but that's for another debate.  My conclusion was I would only buy it to use the freakin' awesome spells, at least for being a good aligned or neutral cleric who can cast good spells.

A few of the prestige classes look particularly unbalanced in the powerful side of things, like the Celestial Mystic.  Whoa.  

As for the feats, I would have to read them closer, but Sacred Vow seemed underpowered.  If not for the fact it is a prereq feat I don't think it would be ever taken.

I do think I want a Book of Concordant Opposition now.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 23, 2003)

I think the whole point of Sacred Vow is that in order to get to the good Vow of X feats, you have to take Sacred Vow as a pre-req. So your character has to make a serious investment of feats if he wants to be exalted.


----------



## Shazman (Oct 23, 2003)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Think of it as a finishing move.  "Ah, tottering, eh?  Eat holy judgement, evildoer!"
> 
> Better than a death attack, depending on how you do it.  At the very least, the target doesn't get a save and gets to ignore crit immunities and uncanny dodge, which is always useful.  Touching is almost always easier than trying to actually hit the target, anyway.
> 
> Brad



 It still seems  a whole lot weaker than the assassain.  You just don't get enough back for your investment of three feats plus putting a high score into CHA.  Plus your pigeon-holed into having a bunch of rogue levels.


----------



## JPL (Oct 23, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I think the whole point of Sacred Vow is that in order to get to the good Vow of X feats, you have to take Sacred Vow as a pre-req. So your character has to make a serious investment of feats if he wants to be exalted.




Sure, but there's something strange with having the first "Sacred Vow" be a vow to do...nothing in particular?  To be good in general?

I looked at that Vow of Poverty again...damn, that's strong stuff.  From a game balance standpoint, I guess it needs to be if poverty is to be a viable option.  I guess I'd rather incorporate such big advantages into some prestige classes that rely upon a vow of poverty...


----------



## Psion (Oct 23, 2003)

BOZ said:
			
		

> just for the heck of it, some discussion on modrons (may or may not be related to the topic, you decide!)




Been there, done that.


----------



## JPL (Oct 23, 2003)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Think of it as a finishing move.  "Ah, tottering, eh?  Eat holy judgement, evildoer!"
> 
> Better than a death attack, depending on how you do it.  At the very least, the target doesn't get a save and gets to ignore crit immunities and uncanny dodge, which is always useful.  Touching is almost always easier than trying to actually hit the target, anyway.
> 
> Brad




I'd be tempted to knock that Charisma requirement down to 13 or thereabouts...but whatever the questionable mechanics, I love the idea of a Lawful Good assassin.  He won't lie to you, he won't torture a prisoner...but he might kill you.  

This would work great with the open multiclassing for paladins of Torm in FR...you could have a rogue/paladin/"slayer of Torm."


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 23, 2003)

Hi all! (oh and thanks for the comments Shemeska) 

I picked up the book yesterday, I've given it a quick read through once and I am about a third of the way through on the second more detailed run...

Overall I like the book, but is it just me or are most of the Paragons of Good pretty bland (notably so the Guardinals)!? Also the lack of any tangible discussion of Archon; Eladrin or Guardinal hierarchies rankled a bit. One last gripe was that there was no new Wayne Reynolds art. 

However, other than that I think the book is excellent. James Wyatt (& Co) certainly knows his stuff (thats not the first time I have been impressed with Mr Wyatts work*) and raises some interesting points. I was also surprised by how engaging they made some of the mechanics (I know many of you are already deep in discussion about things like 'Vows'). I would have thought the Book of Exalted Deeds would have been easier to write philosphically but not mechanically, than its Vile Darkness counterpart; which would be the opposite. But both the philosophy and mechanics have been well developed. I'm glad I picked it up. Thus far 4/5. 

*Oriental Adventures was superb.


----------



## Olive (Oct 24, 2003)

I also got the book yesterday. I like it a whole lot, although I probably won't use it as much as I use the BoVD. I thought most of the art kinda sucked to be honest, especially the chapter openers which were great in the BoVD, and I think the picture of the half-orc paladin and the succubi is moronic. That being said, the text around the picture is actually good, and it's made me realise that no one in the party bar the paladin is actually good, and he's far more lawful than good. The discussion of good is well considered, appropriate and generally will make my game better. And that surprised me.

The variant rules are cool too, but I preferred the ones in the BoVD. I would have liked to have seen a good version of the sacrifice rules using Knowledge religion.

PrCs are fine, tho nothing amazing, and that kinda goes for the rest of the book too. I really like some of the stuff in there - the apostle of peace, the expansion of the celestials generally, and unlike UK I liked the celestial paragons. I liked the saint rules and in particular I liked the rules for relics - something I've always wanted in my game but never sat down to try to nut out.

I like the way they're tying the other books together, but there's some problems. The appendix of celestials and the expanded summon monster lists are much appreciated, but they list cervidals twice, Ghaels not at all, mention lupinals as a creature in the BoED when it's not and a few really frustrating mistakes like that.

Over all, 4/5 but if the mistakes hadn't been there it would have been a 5/5


----------



## Gez (Oct 24, 2003)

JPL said:
			
		

> Sure, but there's something strange with having the first "Sacred Vow" be a vow to do...nothing in particular?  To be good in general?




Interestingly enough, Monte Cook had made the exact same decision in the Book of Hallowed Might. First, you take Swear an Oath, which by itself is useless, and then you may take oath feats.
And to take vow feat, you have to take Devout Faith, which is only slightly useful by itself (_bless_ on yourself once per day).


----------



## Psiblade (Oct 24, 2003)

I picked up the book last weekend. I am definitely liking the BoED more than the BoVD. It will be a lot easier to incorporate into the campaign I run. Count me as a fan of James Wyatts' work. I also really enjoyed Oriental Adventures. I would give the BoED a 9/10.

-Psiblade


----------



## Silveras (Oct 24, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> I like the way they're tying the other books together, but there's some problems. The appendix of celestials and the expanded summon monster lists are much appreciated, but they list cervidals twice, Ghaels not at all, mention lupinals as a creature in the BoED when it's not and a few really frustrating mistakes like that.
> 
> Over all, 4/5 but if the mistakes hadn't been there it would have been a 5/5




I dunno, Olive. My copy indicates Lupinals as being in the MMII. The Cervidals being listed twice, I see as well. Oh, and the Bralani are also missing from the list of Celestials.


----------



## gfunk (Oct 24, 2003)

The builds in this book are out of control!!

How about a Sorcerer 9/Apostle of Peace 2/Mystic Theurge 9?

Arcane Caster Level = 18
Divine Caster Level = 20

Boo-yah!!


----------



## Olive (Oct 24, 2003)

Silveras said:
			
		

> I dunno, Olive. My copy indicates Lupinals as being in the MMII. The Cervidals being listed twice, I see as well. Oh, and the Bralani are also missing from the list of Celestials.




On that page it is listed as being in MM2, but on the opposite page it lists lupinals in the list of creatures from this book that can be summoned. And they are, as in the appendix, from MM2. See what I mean?

While I'm posting, I thought I'd mention my love for OA as well... I like Wyatt.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 24, 2003)

gfunk said:
			
		

> The builds in this book are out of control!!
> 
> How about a Sorcerer 9/Apostle of Peace 2/Mystic Theurge 9?
> 
> ...




Which is why no prc-centric spell list should go through 9 spell levels in 10 character levels....I hated that one prc in the BoVD for the same reason...


----------



## Mercule (Oct 24, 2003)

gfunk said:
			
		

> How about a Sorcerer 9/Apostle of Peace 2/Mystic Theurge 9?
> 
> Arcane Caster Level = 18
> Divine Caster Level = 20



Wait.  Does that mean that the AoP gains caster levels at double pace?  I guess it makes sense, but it's obscene.


----------



## ruemere (Oct 24, 2003)

*Ogl*

Is any part of this book declared OGC?
If yes, I'm getting it. If not... well...

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Olive (Oct 24, 2003)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Is any part of this book declared OGC?
> If yes, I'm getting it. If not... well...
> 
> Regards,
> Ruemere




At what point have any of the WotC books other than the core been declared OGC? But in answer to your question, no.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 24, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> At what point have any of the WotC books other than the core been declared OGC? But in answer to your question, no.



The MMII had a few portions of OGC.  And the core _books_ are not OGC, that is what the SRD is there for. 

Enough stupid nit-picking. Ruemere, why is it important for you that the book is OGC?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 24, 2003)

Hi Olive mate! 



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> and unlike UK I liked the celestial paragons.




Can I ask why?   

Here is virtually every Tome Archon:

Base Solar: add 2d10 HD, change its weaponry and make it the colour of the plane it rules.

...and its not like any of the weapons were that unique either +5 holy flaming greatclub; holy avenger; +5 holy flaming quarterstaff; +5 holy flaming greatsword; one attacks like a monk; one attacks with slams + rays; one can electrify any weapon it wields for +2d6 electrical damage.

Here is virtually every Guardinal Companion:

Base Legendary Animal: double HD, add Damage Reduction; Spell Resistance and a few spell-like abilities.

I mean did any thought go into any of the above?

To be fair the Eladrin trio have one or two interesting abilities but even these are pretty obvious (eg. Unearthly Beauty for Morwel).

I must admit to being totally disillusioned with all the above. Unlike the rest of the book (which I liked) that chapter seemed to have no thought go into it at all - it was simply 'painting by numbers'. Very disappointing. The base idea of the Hebdomad; the Companions and the Court of Stars is interesting but they just didn't go anywhere with it in my opinion.


----------



## Olive (Oct 24, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Can I ask why?




Of course you can. Basically, it's because my expectations aren't as high, or perhaps more developed, as yours.

They're there, and that's hat is important to me. In my game the PCs are never likely to encounter them and less likely to actually fight or fight alongside them (unlike yours i'd imagine) so the actual abilities aren't really improtant.


----------



## JPL (Oct 24, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, Monte Cook had made the exact same decision in the Book of Hallowed Might. First, you take Swear an Oath, which by itself is useless, and then you may take oath feats.
> And to take vow feat, you have to take Devout Faith, which is only slightly useful by itself (_bless_ on yourself once per day).




"Sometimes I feel so good, I gotta jump back and bless myself!"


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 24, 2003)

Hi Olive mate! 



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> Of course you can.








			
				Olive said:
			
		

> Basically, it's because my expectations aren't as high, or perhaps more developed, as yours.




Perhaps it was because I was breast fed on the likes of Asmodeus; Demogorgon; Graz'zt; Orcus & Co.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> They're there, and that's hat is important to me.




I just think its a wasted opportunity. 



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> In my game the PCs are never likely to encounter them and less likely to actually fight or fight alongside them (unlike yours i'd imagine)




Thats true; I'll probably take Zaphkiel as a cohort. 



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> so the actual abilities aren't really improtant.




It wasn't so much the lack of abilities _per se_ as much as the lack of any originality. I think you can get away without one or the other when designing such beings, but not both.


----------



## Olive (Oct 24, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Thats true; I'll probably take Zaphkiel as a cohort.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Oct 24, 2003)

Hi Olive mate! 



			
				Olive said:
			
		

>




...well he is only a quasi-deity after all.


----------



## gfunk (Oct 24, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Does that mean that the AoP gains caster levels at double pace?



Yes.


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2003)

> Interestingly enough, Monte Cook had made the exact same decision in the Book of Hallowed Might. First, you take Swear an Oath, which by itself is useless, and then you may take oath feats.




Huh? Swear and Oath certainly is not useless. It gives you a +1 luck bonus towards saves and checks in pursuit of fullfilling the oath.


----------



## Gez (Oct 24, 2003)

Well, I read it as "in pursuit of fullfilling an oath taken with another oath feat".


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2003)

> Well, I read it as "in pursuit of fullfilling an oath taken with another oath feat".




 

They even include an example in the feat writeup which doesn't mention any other feats. It's just the oath you take.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 24, 2003)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> As for the book itself, I love it. My favorite quote so far:“A good character doesn’t just help others or fight evil when it’s convenient for him to do so. Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one’s own self-interest, is neutral at best. A character committed to the cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk or cost.”
> 
> 
> I'd be thrilled if my players took that to heart.




Bah! 

If you like doing good, you are not good, because only martyring is good. If you make your neighborhood a better place to live you are not good because you will benefit from it. Doing good acts without sacrifice is not good. 

Bah! Rubbish!


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 24, 2003)

Welcome to a philosophical debate that has been taking place for thousands of years. (And the D&D debate has been taking place for, what, 30 years?) I guess this is (partly) why BoED is a product for mature audiences.


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> If you like doing good, you are not good, because only martyring is good. If you make your neighborhood a better place to live you are not good because you will benefit from it. Doing good acts without sacrifice is not good.







> Welcome to a philosophical debate that has been taking place for thousands of years.




Yup. Isn't "Voadam's" take above essentially Deontology?

Interesting ethical model, but not one I'd use to define the D&D alginments.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 25, 2003)

Shazman said:
			
		

> It still seems  a whole lot weaker than the assassain.  You just don't get enough back for your investment of three feats plus putting a high score into CHA.  Plus your pigeon-holed into having a bunch of rogue levels.




Divine Grace at 2nd level means there's a reason for the high Cha requirement.  That's a minimum +2 bonus to saves across the board, unless you have Divine Grace already.  Of course, I suspect that might have been put in towards the end of development to power the class up a bit.

True, the easiest way in is with Rogue-5, but, dernit, I *like* rogues.  It's a pity that SoD doesn't advance Uncanny Dodge, but hey.  Plus, with all the skill points at your disposal, you can have lots of nice social skills and be the nice erudite conversationalist who'll then take you down HARD if he has to, rather than the standard B&E guy.

And, yes, the feats do hurt; a non-human non-fighter can't get in until 6th level, and a human rogue-5 has to spend all three of his feats to get into the class.  However, Weapon Focus gives you a +1 to attack, which is useful, and Sanctify Martial Strike is nifty as well.  "Oh, look, I don't have to put Holy on my weapon any more.  Being a bagman for Domiel is KEWL!!!  Yay!"  

Brad


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 25, 2003)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> [Stigmata]
> This is a weird one. You take 2 points of temporary Con damage (or more) to heal 1 hp/level by touching someone. If you touch multiple people they each get healed at the 1 hp/lvl per 2 Con damage rate. Those you touch also get new saves versus disease with a sacred bonus equal to the amount of Con damage you took. (Oh yeah - as a pre-req for this feat you need Nimbus of Light, another exalted feat.)




Note: it's 1 hp per the recipients level, not the user.
Basically, you give your constitution to those around you, so if you  lose 2 points of con, they act like that had an extra 2 points of con. Except it's not temporary.


----------



## Singing Smurf (Oct 25, 2003)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Think of it as a finishing move.  "Ah, tottering, eh?  Eat holy judgement, evildoer!"
> 
> Better than a death attack, depending on how you do it.  At the very least, the target doesn't get a save and gets to ignore crit immunities and uncanny dodge, which is always useful.  Touching is almost always easier than trying to actually hit the target, anyway.
> 
> Brad




The Slayer's death touch ability is also, IMHO, a shrewd design choice because it means that they play better with others than the Assassin PrC.  Said touch works best after the target has been bludgeoned down into low-ish hit points, which anyone can help with.  The Assassin's death attack derives no benefit from the presence of others, except perhaps as distractions.

This is consistent with both the OOC need to have a PrC that will likely be taken by players integrate well into the party and the IC lawful good ethos of banding together to stomp some evil behind.

Good stuff.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 25, 2003)

gfunk said:
			
		

> The builds in this book are out of control!!
> 
> How about a Sorcerer 9/Apostle of Peace 2/Mystic Theurge 9?
> 
> ...





heh, with Vow's of Peace, Nonviolence and Poverty.
You would be the best healer around!


----------



## reiella (Oct 25, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yup. Isn't "Voadam's" take above essentially Deontology?
> 
> Interesting ethical model, but not one I'd use to define the D&D alginments.




Actually, that's something I do myself specifically.

I do not apply specific philosophical/ethical models to alignments (no, that's far too encompassing), although I do apply one specific model to one class.  Paladins are Kantian.  They read as Kantian, and given the nature of their Code, it makes for the easiest resolution to "Can I do this?" .

One thing I try to do with every significant npc is develop their own ethical theory and approach  (and of course a small sample of 'exceptions' to their theory in general).


----------



## Olive (Oct 26, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Bah!
> 
> If you like doing good, you are not good, because only martyring is good. If you make your neighborhood a better place to live you are not good because you will benefit from it. Doing good acts without sacrifice is not good.
> 
> Bah! Rubbish!




I think it's more if you do good when it's convenient, but don't when it's not, then you're not truly good. And I think that's fair enough.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 27, 2003)

gfunk said:
			
		

> The builds in this book are out of control!!
> 
> How about a Sorcerer 9/Apostle of Peace 2/Mystic Theurge 9?
> 
> ...




I think it's nutty too, but I'm pretty sure they didn't think anyone would try that combo.

Are you sure it works?


----------



## gfunk (Oct 27, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I think it's nutty too, but I'm pretty sure they didn't think anyone would try that combo.
> 
> Are you sure it works?



Very sure, check out JollyDoc's Story Hour to see how I abuse this combo.

But seriously, I looked at all the pre-reqs carefully and it works out just fine.  Of course if you REALLy wanted to min-max you could go,

Wizard 8/AoP 2/Mystic Theurge 10

This would give you access to 9th level arcane spells one level sooner.

Of course, with the AoP build you have to be non-violent so no dealing lethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain.  But them's the brakes!


----------



## Voadam (Oct 27, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> I think it's more if you do good when it's convenient, but don't when it's not, then you're not truly good. And I think that's fair enough.




Here is the objectionable quote further focused:

"Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one’s own self-interest, is neutral at best."

Doing good without sacrifice or with a personal interest is not good, it is at best, neutral.

I say again, rubbish.

Performing the heimlich maneuver on someone who is choking in a restaurant and saving their life is not a good act, but at best a neutral one, because there is no sacrifice involved.

Sacrifice is not a necessary pre-condition for good.


----------



## Olive (Oct 27, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Performing the heimlich maneuver on someone who is choking in a restaurant and saving their life is not a good act, but at best a neutral one, because there is no sacrifice involved.




Yes there is. A sacrifice to time, convenience and even soem risk that if it went wrong you could be blamed. Not seeing the sacrifices in that is what makes you good!


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 28, 2003)

Any thoughts on the revised domains?  I was particularly surprised at _crown of flame_, the 5th level Glory spell -- it's useless for almost all PCs!  Was that intentional?


----------



## reiella (Oct 28, 2003)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on the revised domains?  I was particularly surprised at _crown of flame_, the 5th level Glory spell -- it's useless for almost all PCs!  Was that intentional?




The Archon Component?  Yea.
(Last Judgement is another one)


I'm not so sure I like the existance of those 'Components'.

A few PrCs get spells like that as well, just very ... little use for PCs as you said.  At a glance, it just feels like BoED gave more 'head way'/space to the concept of playing good outsiders (Than bovd and evil outsiders).


----------



## Olive (Oct 29, 2003)

reiella said:
			
		

> The Archon Component?  Yea.
> (Last Judgement is another one)
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure I like the existance of those 'Components'.




I'd probably just allow it if it's a domain spell...

I like the components in general, but it's pretty poor if they're sticking them on lists (esp. domain lists) and not many PCs could take them.


----------



## Psion (Oct 29, 2003)

CGreathouse said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on the revised domains? I was particularly surprised at crown of flame, the 5th level Glory spell -- it's useless for almost all PCs! Was that intentional?




Waitaminnut...

Wasn't crown of glory in the Glory domain before in _Defenders of the Faith_ and _Deities & Demigods_?



			
				olive said:
			
		

> I'd probably just allow it if it's a domain spell...




Works for me.


----------



## reiella (Oct 29, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Waitaminnut...
> 
> Wasn't crown of glory in the Glory domain before in _Defenders of the Faith_ and _Deities & Demigods_?
> 
> ...





That it was actually.

However, this was about Crown of Flame  (5th level Glory Domain spell, replaces Holy Sword).

And Crown of Glory wasn't changed, except general 3.5e changes( casting time, area went from fixed to 10ft/casterlevel.  And it gained the good descriptor.

Personally I think I would just allow the cleric to use Holy Sword instead for Glory (Last Judgement I'm still ponderous on).


----------



## Ysgarran (Oct 29, 2003)

Granted, the situation described is a manufactured one but don't get hung up on the particulars.  Generalize a bit about the situation and ask under what situation(s) would a Paladin grant the possibility for redemption.




			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Except that the creatures described *are* always Evil.  They are physical manifestations of Evil itself, brought into existence in realms of pure wickedness.  To say that the Paladin should even consider sparing them because of one _possibly_ redeeming characteristic is patently ludicrous.


----------



## Kender42 (Oct 29, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> I appreciate the idea of Mercy Vs. Justice.   Is it Good to forgive a serial killer who has changed his ways, or is it Good to bring him to justice for those crimes?



Personally, I'd say it was Good that you forgive him. Lawful that you bring him  to justice.


----------



## Ysgarran (Oct 29, 2003)

I would say your view is what makes most D&D campaigns rather bland when it comes to the question of good versus evil.   The PCs run around killing evil, thwart the bad guys and collect the treasure without any kind of self-sacrifice and call it 'good'.   

The situation you provide is a case in point.  While doing nothing for the choking victim would be an evil act, the situation is not a dipolar one.  
The situation you provide is the:
"If I am not evil, then I must be a good person."
kind of situation.

You may disagree that Sacrifice is a pre-condition for good but you do not provide any other meaningful measurement of what it means to be 'good'.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Here is the objectionable quote further focused:
> "Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one’s own self-interest, is neutral at best."
> 
> Doing good without sacrifice or with a personal interest is not good, it is at best, neutral.
> ...


----------



## Voadam (Oct 31, 2003)

Ysgarran said:
			
		

> I would say your view is what makes most D&D campaigns rather bland when it comes to the question of good versus evil.   The PCs run around killing evil, thwart the bad guys and collect the treasure without any kind of self-sacrifice and call it 'good'.
> 
> The situation you provide is a case in point.  While doing nothing for the choking victim would be an evil act, the situation is not a dipolar one.
> The situation you provide is the:
> ...




Generally:

Helping, making things better is a good act,

Doing nothing is neutral,

Harming, making things worse is bad.

Specifically:

Helping the choking person is good. 

Not getting involved is neutral.

Evil is stealing the choking person's purse while everyone else is helping her or watching the spectacle.

I do not think doing nothing is evil. You can't help everybody and that does not make you evil. But helping is a good act, period. 

Society may expect you to do good and help out, but I only count active harm as evil. 

On the topic of self sacrifice, dedicated evil guys make big personal sacrifices for their causes all the time. That does not make them good, it simply makes them dedicated.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 31, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> Yes there is. A sacrifice to time, convenience and even soem risk that if it went wrong you could be blamed. Not seeing the sacrifices in that is what makes you good!





Thank you, but no. I like thinking of myself as a good person who helps out, so there is an element of self interest in my helping people. Therefore my actions when I help people is, at best, neutral under these guidelines.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 31, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Thank you, but no. I like thinking of myself as a good person who helps out, so there is an element of self interest in my helping people. Therefore my actions when I help people is, at best, neutral under these guidelines.




That only works if you take the time to think "hmmm...if I help this person out, that means I am a good person, which makes me feel good" as opposed to "ohmigod, that person is choking!  I had better help him/her."  Most people don't have time to do the former, so if they help others in emergency, time-sensitive situations you can get inductive evidence that they are doing good.  

So if one habitually thinks of others' interests directly, and not their own, to the point where they could sacrifice their own interests, not for their own longer-term interests, but simply for others' interests, that would be good.


----------

