Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DeadEye19 05-18-05, 03:00 AM	Too many people say the deathless is just like an excuse to make good undead, but I think it's very different. The deathless are (I'm not positive about 100% of the cases) those who willingly gave up the peace of death, for their devotion to a certien idea of good and service or to someone in particular is just that great. You might say a lich is a willing ritual too, but the lich does so for a selfish reason. The deathless feels his service is still needed. He gives up the comfort of the higher planes for this. The difference is idiological more than circumstantial, yes( altough deathless isn't a forced thing). It's like the assasion and the slayer of domiel. Their abilities are similar, but it's the service and devotion of the slayer that keeps him way above the assasion, the very talented killer who murders for money or so. Psychologically, they share nothing. P.S, about ravages: I see why most people complain. However, unlike most poisons, that many of them are mundane, created through alchemy, herbals and venoms, all ravages are supernatural. It doesn't directly steam the blood of the infected creature, mixing toxic substances in his blood that wither his body. In an unatural way, it makes his mental, psychological corruption to become physical. Only if you are evil you will be effected, as it actually turns your evil against you, like Wages of Sin does, only in a physical manner.
Wayward Son 05-18-05, 09:54 AM	:clap: Well spoken, sir.
Cantankerous 05-18-05, 10:04 AM	Oh come on... both ARE cases of Monte-itis. The Slayers and the Deathless are cheap ripoffs of ideals that have nothing in any respect to do with what D&D has defined as good...outside of the Monte splatbooks they inhabit. As NPC's only, the Deathless might have some usage...but they always seem to fall short of that in practice and their just is no good purpose served by the Holy Assassins... they completely blur the line between good and evil and while that IS the way it is in real life, it completely and utterly blurs the line in game. Worse than useless, they are actively detrimental to the game as it stands. Isshia
escherblacksmith 05-18-05, 10:51 AM	Worse than useless, they are actively detrimental to the game as it stands Why? Not trying to be flippant, just curious as to what ramifications there are to having these items in the game?
Cantankerous 05-18-05, 11:12 AM	They're actively detrimental in that they cloud and confuse the alignment issue, specificly what good and evil are in D&D terms, more than they were already clouded. They took a not very clear arena and made it as clear as thick mud. Good is supposed to be, in short, life positive. Neither the Slayer PrC nor the "Deathless" are life positive. Paladins CAN smite, but the essence of the Paladial is to support the Good (ie: life positive aspects), while the Slayer is just that, a Slayer, a tremendously life negative aspect trying (very poorly in my opinion) to masquerade itself as life positive. Undead of any variety are about as life negative as you get, by their very nature. Both of these things do, thus, harm the fiber of the game by making alignments even more unusable and inconsistent than they already are. Isshia
Krelios 05-18-05, 11:25 AM	Quite frankly, a system that can say "Using Poison Is Always Evil" and then turn around and say, "Unless you use it on evil creatures, in which case, we'll give it a nice name to make ourselves feel better" it hypocritical to say the least. Adding in all of these "good" versions of things that are supposed to be "always" evil is pure and simple munchkinism. What ever happened to Good having to work harder for their rewards? Evil was supposed to be the easy path to quick power, but those striving to higher ideals would win out in the end... The BoED is the absolute worst book ever to be printed in the history of Dungeons and Dragons.
Cantankerous 05-18-05, 11:58 AM	The BoED is the absolute worst book ever to be printed in the history of Dungeons and Dragons. I wouldn't go that far, but only because I remember the original 1st edition Unearthed Arcana (or as my group often called it: the Unholy Abortion). Isshia
Norhg 05-18-05, 12:00 PM	The BoED is the absolute worst book ever to be printed in the history of Dungeons and Dragons. Even if my players have gotten addicted to Fist Of Raziel.
escherblacksmith 05-18-05, 02:16 PM	eh, I am pretty iffy on ravages, but I used to play 2nd edition and we used holy water as a poison on arrows/blades and so on. I may have to re-read that bit, I skipped over it as it is usually too much of a pain to mess with. But, that said, I don't see how the good assassin is in any way changing the dynamic. To say the lines are blurred is somewhat extreme, and, to my mind, somewhat Johnny-come-lately. The reason I say this is that most of the CG gods of the previous incarnations didn't give one wit about saving or redeeming. They wanted evil eliminated. This, to me, is enhanced by the BoED. Not blurred. I think rogue is a good example. Nowhere does it say in the old books that you can't be a good rogue. Yet, sneak-attack, as a concept, is not what I would call glaringly "good". So, to take a step further, you have an assassin whose skill sets allow him/her to kill/subdue/capture/whatever evil quietly and without much fuss, I don't see the issue. As long as the reason is good, I think it is pretty clear. It is certainly not Lawful, but that is pretty much the point. Doing good can be done in a chaotic, lawful or neutral way. Now, if they killed a whole bunch of innocents in the process, well, that is different. Of course then he'd be a pretty sucky assassin. I can't say yet whether I would incorporate all of the doo-dads of the BoED, but that is a choice with any expansion book. The same as the BoVD.
DeadEye19 05-18-05, 02:31 PM	Well, as for the slayer, the celestial army needs verstility. They can't all be sanctified spells and holy warriors. Sometimes, to foil a grand evil plan, you need to take out a special target, the weak link of the whole thing. If, in order to complete a vile ritual that will bring forth something that will threat thousands of live (an great storm, a fiend, an earthquake) a mage need to cast a certien spell which only he has access to- taking him out secretly, bypassing his guardians through stealth and taking him out when he is unaware would be much better than assulting the place. What if he teleports as soon as he realizes he is in danger- and you can't tell where the ritual will take place? How will they be stopped then?
DeadEye19 05-18-05, 02:46 PM	About the deathless- even if you classify them as "good undead", it's not an evil concept. For example, the wizard in my capaign has been protecting a paladin that was marked as a gift to a demon lord (jarren... it's a long story really) and they tried to find a way to get the markings off.He was willing to protect her with his life, but one morning he went hunting for food, he fell to an ambush of an ambitious cultist (and a big demon), that knew taking him out is necessary in order to take the paladin easily. The wizard fell in battle, knowing they will take her in her sleep- completly unprepared, defensless and without hope of escape from her captures (or the abyss, later)... He knew he is her only hope- so he willed his soul to remain(it took him a check btw), bond to her without her knowladge- and so he saved her.
Cantankerous 05-18-05, 02:57 PM	Expediency does not now, and never has, made a thing that is not Good, (as per the D&D definition of that term) Good. Poison is expediency defined, a sneak attack is not. Poison short cuts in a manner that devalues valor and devalues that which Good values, life; while Sneak Attacks and the Roguish modality with that skill are as hard won and obtained as the Paladin's high level of skill with his weapons and the other advantages he has. Poison can be used by any boob, Joe 1st level Commoner can stab a 10th level Wizard with a properly envenomed blade and irregardless of the Wizard's hit points, kill him. He can not do likewise appreciably easier with a flank attack than he can from right in said Wizard's face. THERE in lays the difference. Nor has any of this changed from yesteryear. As a DM who has been doing this since years before 1st edition was first published, I can attest to that fact. At the very first GenCon way back when it was called GenCon because it was in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, it was being argued. In Dragon Magazine #2 it was being argued. There is absolutely nothing Jonny Come Lately about it. The official word in the Core Books for each Generation of D&D from OD&D through 3.x D&D has always been about the same... Poison is evil and undead are not Good as they are UNlife. Then some Monty Haul splatbook comes along and loe and behold the munchkins grab it up and proclaim it good. This is as old as the hobby itself. And Versatility? Yeah, sure, and the Good character should be able to slaughter thousands of non-combatants without harming his alignment either, because that way you can terrorize your enemy, a strong tactical advantage. And Torture is a definate MUST for the versatile Good character, because we won't call it Expedient, we'll call it versatile and claim that it is NEEDED to give Good a chance. Heck, we'll just do everything evil does and claim the same NEED. Isshia
DeadEye19 05-18-05, 03:58 PM	And Versatility? Yeah, sure, and the Good character should be able to slaughter thousands of non-combatants without harming his alignment either, because that way you can terrorize your enemy, a strong tactical advantage. And Torture is a definate MUST for the versatile Good character, because we won't call it Expedient, we'll call it versatile and claim that it is NEEDED to give Good a chance. Heck, we'll just do everything evil does and claim the same NEED. Isshia Well, no. I don't think toture or killing non-combatants can be justified.My players know it. It's inexcusable. By veratility I mean the ability to handle situations- the situation above, with the teleport-easy wizard, would a a thing best taken care with the slayer or Domiel- if the wizard has enough hp, he might survive the first stab(if he rolled a better initiative check) and teleport. The death attack is a good thing to have. Don't overreact over this. Disagree if you wish, but don't do so agressively, please.
DeadEye19 05-18-05, 04:08 PM	:clap: Well spoken, sir. Thanks, I realy appreciate it. I tried making a good argument which could at least be accepted even by those who see these things as an excuse- I understand them, but I think otherwise.
Cantankerous 05-19-05, 08:48 AM	The line is drawn where it is for a reason. Once stepped across, the rest follows rapidly. The excuses begin piling on and soon there is no difference. Moral ambiguity does not belong IN game. Isshia
escherblacksmith 05-19-05, 09:55 AM	I think moral ambiguity makes the game more interesting, but that is just me and has nothing to do with the game viewpoint. Now, back to the assassins deal. I read up on it last night, and I can see why you have an issue with ravages. certainly iffy. But the slayer doesn't even get poison use as a class ability, they seem to be like a divine rogue. So, why the issue with them?
Cantankerous 05-19-05, 10:17 AM	They're not a Divine Rogue, they're basicly an assassin with a name change. The biggest drawback with the class is the flavoring issue. The flavor is Divine Assassin. Really, in life, everything is morally ambiguos. There it's fine. In the game is clouds an already too cloudy issue: to whit. what alignment is. Isshia
escherblacksmith 05-19-05, 12:30 PM	okay, I think I see you concern. If they had simply made it a divine seeker variant or rogue/hunter or something other than comparing it to assassin, you would have been okay with that bit. right? interesting. I still don't agree that it murks the waters any further, but then again my DM is big on moral dilemmas, so we are constantly having to deal with questions that will push us to the various limits of our alignments. So, grey is an area we are constantly in. I'll read up on the deathless as well, that one seemed a trifle strange . . . could have probably had a different title as well.
DeadEye19 05-19-05, 02:27 PM	I don't see a problem with the title(unless you find something really good)- they have given up the peace of death( if you are exalted, it means the higher planes) to perform a service beyond the dare or abilities of many(or to accomplish something they could not do in their lives- like the wizard in my example, who knew, as he died, that the paladin is defenseless)- therefore, they are death-less, I guess.
escherblacksmith 05-19-05, 02:34 PM	I have been focusing on the bits of the BoED that are directly applicable to my character/game so there are some bits I really haven't read thoroughly. Now, the Deathless, as I understand it, the spirit/soul of the being in question is off-plane somewhere (somewhere pleasant, presumeably) and when an event occurs to wake the Deathless, then the spirit is whisked back into the now desicated shell to magically animate and fight or guard or whatever. right? You see, to me, they should have gone down the path of a construct, good-orientated and perhaps soul-animated, but then you wouldn't have to deal with corpses. Eh, could just be me.
Cantankerous 05-20-05, 03:07 AM	The big problem with the Slayer is, again, flavor. That Death Attack is the signasl ability of the assassin, making the flavor assassin-esque. The same problem exists with the Deathless. BOTH are simply, IMO, very poor excuses to let the munchkins out there have their Good Ninjas or in the case of the Deathless, their vaguely sinister and scary immortals. Too, there is a difference between playing the game in a fashion that challenges the alignment and making alignment worthless. Without the RIGID definition possibility, in the case of alignment, since IT is simply a game mechanic, there really can be no "pushing the limits" of the alignment; because the limits go away. Isshia
escherblacksmith 05-20-05, 10:21 AM	Okay, that I agree with. Although, I didn't see anything in the books last night about being able to play a deathless, they are creatures or at the very most, NPC's. Although I can see someone taking the BoED (or the BoVD) way too far, I also think it can be used in moderation to add some very interesting things. btw, when you were refering to the "monte splatbooks", I assume you were referring to Monty Haul type splatbooks instead of Monte Cook?
Cantankerous 05-21-05, 01:22 AM	Yeow. Thanks for catching that typo. It should have read Monty splatbooks, not Monte splatbooks. Actually, I like Monte Cook's work to a great extent. I do think that he sometimes Monty's out, but on the whole I like his stuff; he's just got an unfortunate first name when it comes to this industry. The BoED is far more abuseable though and more Monty in it's basis than the BoVD was (Or that it is with the updates to it that our own "Seraph of Babel" did with the "Leaflets of Triel".) even at it's worst. The big reason for this is that the BoVD was less aimed towards players than the BoED. When you tell the players, especially the "rules lawyer" types that "this is canon" and then proceed to disemember the alignment system by making good assassins and the like, you're defeating your own purposes. This is why, as much as I liked some portions of the book, it is NOT listed among the canon books for my own campaigns. Isshia
escherblacksmith 05-23-05, 11:31 AM	Okay, that makes sense. I am a big fan of the Diamond Throne and Eldritch might stuff. I think I might be doing a VoP druid . . . should be festive.
Shemeska the Marauder 05-24-05, 09:56 PM	Too many people say the deathless is just like an excuse to make good undead, but I think it's very different. You already -can- have good undead. Deathless were just another of the fluffy abortions from the BoED. They're just like undead, but they're 'good!' yeah that's right. And none of that icky negative energy stuff because umm, they're powered by positive energy! Yeah, that's the ticket! Just ignore that things powered by positive energy are -alive-, and that negative and positive energy are both morally neutral elemental concepts completely divorced from good and evil. In my opinion, they're insanely stupid as a concept. The deathless are (I'm not positive about 100% of the cases) those who willingly gave up the peace of death, for their devotion to a certien idea of good and service or to someone in particular is just that great. And there's a lovely and long tradition of good or neutral liches, ghosts, etc doing the exact same thing. You might say a lich is a willing ritual too, but the lich does so for a selfish reason. The deathless feels his service is still needed. He gives up the comfort of the higher planes for this. Not all liches and I can name you some from a scattering of campaign settings if you'd like that embraced undeath for entirely unselfish reasons. It's like the assasion and the slayer of domiel. Their abilities are similar, but it's the service and devotion of the slayer that keeps him way above the assasion, the very talented killer who murders for money or so. Psychologically, they share nothing. Outside of the fact that one of them kills people he's ordered to kill because they're the 'bad guy' and the other one kills people by contract so he can eat. Which one is evil again? Oh it's ok to kill him, he's Joe Evil Wizard and he's evil, so it's not a sin to go to slaughter him while he's eating dinner with his wife and young children who he actually loves next tuesday night. It's called hypocrisy, and the BoED is stuffed to the gills with it. To paraphrase a very wise person: 'I trust the authority of the BoED on what good is and isn't like I'd trust a bloodstained paper package in the mail, buzzing with flies, and scrawled over with an inverted pentagram and the sign of Baphomet'
Sabelo2000 05-25-05, 08:52 AM	I tend to agree with this idea, that the Slayer and Ravages/Afflictions are simply a cheap way to make an evil tactic available to good players. Deathless I'm ambivalent about. However, as a DM, there's a lot of stuff in the BoED and BoVD that I don't allow. Never forget the power of Rule Zero! If I don't like it, it doesn't exist. Especially since the entire BoED carries the disclaimer that its entire contents are OPTIONAL! And as we all know, "optional" means "at the option of the DM" NOT "...of the players."
codexia 05-25-05, 03:07 PM	Most of the BoED is fine with me actually...including the Slayer. Mostly because every other good class (or nearly) is expected to kill and/or stop evil from doing its evil thing. Paladins go around smiting it, clerics go around whacking things with maces, good mages blow them to pieces, whats wrong with somebody sneaking around and stabbing them? Less messy actually, then invading a castle with an army to get at somebody. As for Deathless...I think the concept is good, but they way they did it needs work. What's wrong with a good character being animated by negative energy? Dark powers aren't evil unless the person that possesses them chooses to use them for evil. Hell, my DM actually has let me run a few characters who were built for evil, as good characters. I like reformed characters, adds some flavor. [edit] Forgot Ravages and Afflictions...I think the ones that do stat damage are horribly, horribly munchkin in flavor. Poison is evil, period. Kill them quick and put them out of their misery, don't make them writhe on the floor screaming as their strength is draining from their bodies. The other one though, the one that physicaly manifests their sins, is fine with me.
Shemeska the Marauder 05-25-05, 04:33 PM	whats wrong with somebody sneaking around and stabbing them? Less messy actually, then invading a castle with an army to get at somebody. Oh I don't think that the assassin is evil either. I just can't stand the false dichotomy that the BoED makes between assassins and 'exalted' people who do the exact same thing but God forbid you call them assassins. ;)
Kyuketsukiouji 05-25-05, 09:07 PM	Oh I don't think that the assassin is evil either. I just can't stand the false dichotomy that the BoED makes between assassins and 'exalted' people who do the exact same thing but God forbid you call them assassins. ;) They are assassins. Just not Assassins, the PrC. I can't really see why there's such a hang-up over the name. Slayer of Raziel sounds fine to me. And the Assassin PrC, being the evil guy who kills by stealth for his own profit, and not for a noble cause, works just fine by me too. Seriously, it seems like such a singleminded focus on semantics, just to find something wrong with the BoED. Call the Slayer of Raziel the Exalted Assassin if it makes you feel better. It'll work just as well as a warrior of good who uses stealth to accomplish his goals.
Shemeska the Marauder 05-25-05, 10:04 PM	Seriously, it seems like such a singleminded focus on semantics, just to find something wrong with the BoED. Call the Slayer of Raziel the Exalted Assassin if it makes you feel better. It'll work just as well as a warrior of good who uses stealth to accomplish his goals. Don't misunderstand me, I don't take issue with semantics. I just don't like the fact that the BoED ignores that the Slayer of Raziel is effectively the exact same thing as the Assassin that it decries as evil, yet it goes about doing the exact same thing. Semantics don't bother me, double standards do.
Kyuketsukiouji 05-26-05, 10:04 AM	But it isn't the same thing. There are some differences between both, but they're just not mechanical, they're motivational. There is no double standard, because the Assassin PrC specifies you -have- to kill someone for the sole purpose of being admitted, or, in other words, to kill a person for no reason than your own personal advancement. That's what makes being an Assassin evil, not the killing people stealthily, since a Good Ranger can do that just as well, but the slaying of intelligent life for no reason more than your own gain. It's not being an Assassin that makes you Evil, it's being Evil that makes it possible for you to be an Assassin. Hiding and killing enemies when they don't spot you has nothing to do with the alignment part of the equation. Assassins kill people by stealth for profit or personal advancement. Slayers of Raziel slay evildoers by stealth, but not for their personal benefit. Yes, they do use the same mechanism, but an Assassin and a Slayer of Raziel would probably be at each other's throats the moment they met... Hmm...now -there's- a solo adventure idea in the making.... :plotting:
DeadEye19 05-26-05, 10:15 AM	The Slayer of Domiel does not do the exact same thing. First, I disagree with your opinion about assassins-they are evil. It's better to work in whatever you can get than killing for money, I don't care how many you have to feed. Just like stealing-"I got four hungrey children!" is not an excuse, the other guy worked to get that money/ item. It's his, taking it is evil. And Kyuketsukiouji is right- it's just another way of fighting evil.
Shemeska the Marauder 05-26-05, 10:39 AM	The Slayer of Domiel does not do the exact same thing. First, I disagree with your opinion about assassins-they are evil. :nonono:
Paul Hopebringer 05-26-05, 11:02 PM	You silly man! :rofl: He said assassins are evil! All right. How about this. If you will pay close attention to the desciptor for the Assassin PrC, you will find out that it is a Guild. That's what makes the assassins Assassins. Secondly, if killing can be good, well... then killing somebody sneakily in order to avoid unneccisary bloodshed can be good too. Just think of the double standard you're seeing as actually being a stipulation from the Assassins guild, which they are often mistaken for because of there tactics and skills. They Call themselves Slayers because if they called themselves Assassins... well think about it. PC: Hey, don't worry, I'm a trained assass- Farmer: OH NO!!! AN ASSASSIN!!! PC: No, really... I'm... Towns folk: WE'RE DOOMED!!! COVER YOUR CHILDRENS EYES, AS THERE STARES CORRUPT!!! PC: My gaze won't corrupt your children, I swe- Town Malitia: ASSASSINS!!! CALL THE GUARDS!!! PC: I'm really not even that good of an assassin, real- Guards: AHH!!!! CALL THE TOWN ELDER!!! PC: Elder? He isn't a wiz-? Elder: I shall rain death on you, foul creature of vileness!! Go, dingbat, and fetch the Guardians!!! PC: OH PLEASE!!! Have some s- *zap* ... *ZAPZAPZAP* Guardian General: Foul Creature of evil, we shall rid the world of your taint once and for all! PC:... My... poor...body... *swift death* Assassin: Yeah!! You killed him good!!! Now I don't have to!!! Woohoo!!! And futher rediculousness.
Cantankerous 05-27-05, 05:50 AM	They are assassins. Just not Assassins, the PrC. I can't really see why there's such a hang-up over the name. Slayer of Raziel sounds fine to me. And the Assassin PrC, being the evil guy who kills by stealth for his own profit, and not for a noble cause, works just fine by me too. Seriously, it seems like such a singleminded focus on semantics, just to find something wrong with the BoED. Call the Slayer of Raziel the Exalted Assassin if it makes you feel better. It'll work just as well as a warrior of good who uses stealth to accomplish his goals. Somantics, when you are talking about written game rules, ARE the essence of the discussion. What else could be? Flavor, in the context of the game, not societally or in any manner relating to reality, is the PRIMARY and only really recognizable difference between the Paladin and the Blackguard. Isshia
Szat 05-27-05, 07:25 AM	Sorry I don't see it. I like the flavour and mechanics of the Deathless. Nothing in the description says that because of their ties to the "Positive Plane" the template is good-aligned. It merely states that they draw their spiritual energy from that plane with is the "birthplace of all souls". Rather than the form of life-mockery that the undead are the deathless are spirits that have refused the higher planes and Nirvana to continue living for a just cause. Touting everything as feed for the munchkins in a tunnel-visioned view on things. To me the whole point of the BoVD and BoED was to PURPOSEFULLY muddle the the alignment axis. What happens when you add morals to a game of D&D? Beyond simple "stealing is wrong, and you shouldn't kill innocents" both the books ask realistic questions about moral ambiguity. When do Good intentions beget Evil Ends. When does a seemingly Evil act become Good? So yes, these books DO muddle the alignment debate. They debase the solidity of the alignment system. That's what a SUPPLEMENT does. It adds something new to the current rule set. Good can rage and good can destroy. Evil can rage and evil can destroy. The motivations are drastically different. Even when looked at through a mechanical view the Slayer & Assasin classes are divergently different. First off the Slayer gets no proficiency with poisons like the Assasin does. Secondly the mechanics of the "Death Attack" are different from the "Death Touch" ability. I find people often confuse "Good" with "Chivalry". Not all good people believe that you have to face your opponent in open battle. A CG Fighter beset by invisible death-inducing poison could, within his alignment, use the same poisoned bolts fired at him on his opponents. Why? Because the motivations are HUGELY different. I'll concede the point that ravages seem to blur the line. However, I think that the content of the Book Of Exalted Deeds does that on purpose. In the endless war between Good & Evil, Good needs a response to Evil's poison and diseases. Don't forget that these books are meant for a "mature" audience. This doesn't mean that the pictures inside are risque or frigtening it also means that the content with the WORDS are of a nature that makes them mature. If you hand this book to a munchkin player or a powergamer then you'll obviously see detrimental effects. These books seem to me to be written for an audience that wants to ask the question "Why is assasination evil?". Both of these products broaden the narrow-minded alignment axis and add a depth to any campaign that is both welcome and valuable IMO.
Kyuketsukiouji 05-27-05, 10:35 AM	Somantics, when you are talking about written game rules, ARE the essence of the discussion. What else could be? Flavor, in the context of the game, not societally or in any manner relating to reality, is the PRIMARY and only really recognizable difference between the Paladin and the Blackguard. Smite Good seems to be a pretty big difference, too, not to mention the Paladin not needing to consort with demons to get his career started.
Shemeska the Marauder 05-27-05, 01:55 PM	To me the whole point of the BoVD and BoED was to PURPOSEFULLY muddle the the alignment axis. What happens when you add morals to a game of D&D? Beyond simple "stealing is wrong, and you shouldn't kill innocents" both the books ask realistic questions about moral ambiguity. When do Good intentions beget Evil Ends. When does a seemingly Evil act become Good? So yes, these books DO muddle the alignment debate. They debase the solidity of the alignment system. That's what a SUPPLEMENT does. It adds something new to the current rule set. .... Don't forget that these books are meant for a "mature" audience. This doesn't mean that the pictures inside are risque or frigtening it also means that the content with the WORDS are of a nature that makes them mature. If you hand this book to a munchkin player or a powergamer then you'll obviously see detrimental effects. These books seem to me to be written for an audience that wants to ask the question "Why is assasination evil?". Both of these products broaden the narrow-minded alignment axis and add a depth to any campaign that is both welcome and valuable IMO. The BoED failed to do this, and it failed miserably. It was a shallow treatment of morality and it didn't address those moral ambiguities that it could have. And it's been done better before this point. It's stuck in a world of color bleached black and whites compared to the treatment the alignments got in say, Planescape, in the details of the upper and lower planes, their denizens and their interactions. The BoED was a high school freshmen paper compared to the PhD thesis that the PS material was on the same topics by comparison. They may have had noble goals for the book, I don't think they intentionally went out of their way to make it a munchkins dream in certain parts, but it was the victim of failed expectations and having to fill shoes that it could never fill based on what had come before it. *shrug* The 'mature' tag on the book is just an insult.
Cantankerous 05-27-05, 03:13 PM	I'm with Shemeska on this. All that either book did was to take a part of the game that is already so clouded as to be detrimental to it's furtherance and made it even cloudier. Where I differ from Shemeska is in my own belief that WoTC was exactly catering to the lowest common denominator in both books (yet especially the later)... aka, they were going for the munchkin dollars. But that's just my opinion. There was NOTHING that either of these books did that made D&D in ANY way more mature. There has also never (in 3.x editions) been any real solidity to the alignment issues. They've been muddled to the point of frustration right from the start. Any individual who looks at the descriptions will very likely get a differing interpretation of what they mean than the guy next to him. While this is great in life, it makes for rules that are utterly non-rules. How many threads in the DM's forums, for instance, rage on endlessly about JUST the CORE meanings of the various alignments? Making these debates more confused by purposefully muddling them is ridiculous. Any DM worth his/her salt needs absolutely no help from the Bo collection to provide questions about moral ambiguity to this already ambigious mess. And realism? The LAST thing that a game of fantasy needs is a shot of realism. It makes almost as much sense as arming the players with live steel wepons to demonstrate their attack routines. Really, how can making a rule that is already so muddled as to spawn thousands of threads and responses more muddled add anything valuable to a GAME system? Planescape did NOT do this. Planescape kept the alignments as they were and presented different VIEWS of the same alignment based on differing cultures, et al. It did not NEED the silliness and over the top muddling that, especially, the BoED threw out to do so. It challenged ideas, ideals and ideolgies as ideas, ideals and ideolgies; not by twisting already structurally unstable mechanics past their breaking point. Isshia
PrinceAzar 05-28-05, 09:32 PM	This isn't the Planescape board, please stop whoring it up, you do it enough on other boards. I liked the BOED as a whole, faults aside. :)
Andrew_980 05-29-05, 01:41 PM	I think we need to see an alignment book written by Shemeska, sounds like it would be a better read than wizards failed attempts
Shemeska the Marauder 05-30-05, 10:27 PM	This isn't the Planescape board, please stop whoring it up, you do it enough on other boards. I liked the BOED as a whole, faults aside. :) I'll doll it up and pimp it like an orphaned aasimar in Dis when it applies, and it does here. :D It gave a treatment of the alignments and the conflict between them that hasn't been equaled since in terms of depth. Technically if you wanted to be picky, the BoED is non core and optional while the flavor text of the PS material is canon till it's been explicitely rewritten by a core source, and it covered ground that I doubt a 3.5 book will handle anytime soon, so feel free to treat the PS take as gospel. ;) I actually dislike the BoED for reasons completely outside of its treatment of what is or isn't Good. But that's another topic entirely. I doubt hate it, I just thought it could have been done much much better than it was. I still purchased it. But at this point there's little more to add to the discussion that I see needing to be added.
PrinceAzar 05-31-05, 12:34 AM	Ha ha, no way man, until Planescape is 3.5 in any form, core or optional, i treat it as novel material rather than gameplay, which is to say, good to read, not to play :cool:
Shemeska the Marauder 05-31-05, 03:50 AM	Ha ha, no way man, until Planescape is 3.5 in any form, core or optional, i treat it as novel material rather than gameplay, which is to say, good to read, not to play :cool: 3.5 DMG, 3e MotP, 3.5 Planar Handbook, monsters throughout the various monster books... has stuff derived from or almost verbatim from the Planescape source material ;) You could argue that Planescape has more official support than Greyhawk in some sense. It became the standard cosmology for 3.x, just not a seperate, specific product line. *shrug* But this is off topic, somebody denigrate the BoED for something *wink*
Callista 06-03-05, 08:18 PM	Quite frankly, a system that can say "Using Poison Is Always Evil" and then turn around and say, "Unless you use it on evil creatures, in which case, we'll give it a nice name to make ourselves feel better" it hypocritical to say the least. Adding in all of these "good" versions of things that are supposed to be "always" evil is pure and simple munchkinism. What ever happened to Good having to work harder for their rewards? Evil was supposed to be the easy path to quick power, but those striving to higher ideals would win out in the end... "Always Evil"... *sigh* I disagree. It really shouldn't be--I would say, "Always Chaotic". As in, underhanded and dishonorable. It still stops paladins from using Ravages; but it doesn't disallow that CG rogue who's as sneaky and tricky as Robin Hood from doing so. That's what I think it ought to be. But that, of course, is a house rule, not RAW.
Cantankerous 06-04-05, 04:48 AM	Not even always Chaotic. Think of the Coatal. They have poison as part of their natural weapons. They can't bite without using poison, it's part of what they are. This is neither dishonorbale nor underhanded in their case. It's CHOICE that makes it Evil, or Chaotic and POV which cements it into place. If a being who has a choice uses extraordinary means to use poison then he has the consequences of those actions to face. With the Coatal you have a differeing scenario, so it's not ALWAYS anything. BUT... in the terms of a game, which this is, the flavor is vitally important to the over all concept. Isshia