Post/Author/DateTime	Post
meatpuppet 01-08-07, 12:21 PM	I was wondering, Does the release of the 2 Fiendish Codex make the Book of Vile Darkness obsolete?
Ravenwild 01-08-07, 12:48 PM	No. While the BoVD does have a lot to do with fiends that is only part of the book. It has much talk on what evil is, many different poisons, magic items, feats, prestige classes, monsters, and spells. If you have the Book of Exalted Deeds its like that but evil.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-08-07, 01:38 PM	Idunno. I kinda have this Mortal Kombat voice in my head going "Codex Wins! FATALITY!" The BoVD, despite being 3.0, has useful material in it that isn't exclusively fiend-centered. It deals quite a lot with mortal, material-plane evildoers, like murderers, rapists, arsonists, lawyers, and bureaucrats.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 01-08-07, 04:03 PM	No. If NOTHING else, the BOVD is still a damn fun read. Well I'm off to my therapist!;) The Count :dragon:
Seeker95 01-08-07, 08:28 PM	No. The BoVD made the BoVD obsolete. :devil:
leather_book_wizard 01-08-07, 08:42 PM	No. The BoVD made the BoVD obsolete. :devil: Quoted for undeniable truth.
Ariath Ska'Vhor 01-08-07, 08:44 PM	I still like the 'almost-too-powerful-to-fight' versions of the demon lords and archdevils in the BoVD, despite being 3.0.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-08-07, 08:58 PM	Well I'm off to my therapist!;) You should see a therapist if you like the BoVD, just not for the reasons you might think.
meatpuppet 01-08-07, 09:24 PM	No. The BoVD made the BoVD obsolete. :devil: BoVD is that bad? Dang, I was looking forward to read it
Rahu 01-09-07, 07:48 PM	what's with the senseless BoVD hate? It's a solid resource for creating both villains and anti-heroes. Sure other books have come along since that have done it better, but you have to start somewhere. Also, dude the ability to sacrifice people instead of paying experience to make magic items and stuff, gives villains a genuine reason to do evil things. In conclusion, The Book of Vile Darkness is awesome. Nay Sayers will be found as vital components in my new Vorpal Sword.
Ariath Ska'Vhor 01-09-07, 08:03 PM	what's with the senseless BoVD hate? It's a solid resource for creating both villains and anti-heroes. Sure other books have come along since that have done it better, but you have to start somewhere. Also, dude the ability to sacrifice people instead of paying experience to make magic items and stuff, gives villains a genuine reason to do evil things. In conclusion, The Book of Vile Darkness is awesome. Nay Sayers will be found as vital components in my new Vorpal Sword. Agreed.
Seeker95 01-09-07, 08:49 PM	The BoVD is what you get when you combine underclassmen with alcohol and tell them they can play evil PCs. Over the top with every idea, and each drunken fool trying to out-gross the previous idea. Throw in a Hellraiser sequel with a "betcha can't top that one" and you come close to the crap that is the BoVD.
Kojiro James 01-09-07, 11:53 PM	Interesting hyperbole there, Seeker, but it's wrong. The BoVD is downright awesome. It's full of delicious ideas for the darkest villains a DM can joygasm to.
Brightblade 01-10-07, 04:51 AM	Interesting hyperbole there, Seeker, but it's wrong. The BoVD is downright awesome. It's full of delicious ideas for the darkest villains a DM can joygasm to. Agreed! And outside that, it is a plain good read anyway...just like its sister BoED. As a side note, some of the info in BoVD gives you insight into the timeline presented in the fiendish codexes. Besides, liquid pain! Need I say more? Any way, lots of stuff in it that compliments the codexes and adds to what they didn't cover, especially where certain demons and devils stats and history come in. Outside of the fiendish there is a ton of stuff unique to the BoVD and very worth having. Vile spells, unique poisons, drugs, and diseases...etc etc...
Seeker95 01-10-07, 09:24 AM	Interesting hyperbole there, Seeker, but it's wrong.Can't be wrong. It is an evaluative opinion.The BoVD is downright awesome. It's full of delicious ideas for the darkest villains a DM can joygasm to.If this book were only used by DMs, you would have a legitimate point. Far too many DMs, however, have allowed this doggerel into the hands of their players. And "joygasm" does not make it any less a piece of crap. There are tons of weird fetishes out there.
Solik 01-10-07, 05:34 PM	Are you actually calling material in a source for Dungeons and Dragons "over the top?" I can't even fathom what that's supposed to mean in this context.
Seeker95 01-10-07, 06:13 PM	Are you actually calling material in a source for Dungeons and Dragons "over the top?"Yes. Over the top. It reads as if the instructions to the designers were: Be gross. Then after you all get together to share your ideas, see if you can top each others' ideas for grossness. Forget Evil. Just be gross.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-10-07, 09:14 PM	BoVD is awsome. Two words, friend: CANCER MAGE. Worth it right there.
Voldar_Mecorthio 01-10-07, 09:20 PM	BoVD is not worth full price, but if you can get it used (possably off ebay or amazon) than it's worth it, if for no other reason than you're next BBEG can have his own tumor as a familiar.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-10-07, 09:25 PM	Exactly.
Kojiro James 01-10-07, 10:38 PM	Can't be wrong. It is an evaluative opinion.If this book were only used by DMs, you would have a legitimate point. Far too many DMs, however, have allowed this doggerel into the hands of their players. And "joygasm" does not make it any less a piece of crap. There are tons of weird fetishes out there. So you're judging a book because of what irresponsible DMs have done? That makes sense. Not.
protonik 01-11-07, 02:16 AM	BoVD is that bad? Dang, I was looking forward to read it It's not that bad. It depends on what you want really. It has some silly things in it but it was SUPPOSED to be over the top.
protonik 01-11-07, 02:18 AM	Yes. Over the top. It reads as if the instructions to the designers were: Be gross. Then after you all get together to share your ideas, see if you can top each others' ideas for grossness. Forget Evil. Just be gross. One designer... the Grant Morrison of D&D Design Monte Cook
Seeker95 01-11-07, 09:39 AM	So you're judging a book because of what irresponsible DMs have done? That makes sense. Not.It makes plenty of sense. Judging the rules by what you can do with them is the most valid means of evaluation. Judging this book by what the DMs and players have done with it is the best means of evaluating the BoVD.
someonelse812 01-11-07, 11:53 AM	I'd just like to mention that if you want info on fiends you should check out some of the second edition planescape books. ignoring the mechanics of course. all of this stuff in fiendish codex and BoVD came from planescape.
Kojiro James 01-11-07, 07:03 PM	It makes plenty of sense. Judging the rules by what you can do with them is the most valid means of evaluation. Judging this book by what the DMs and players have done with it is the best means of evaluating the BoVD. No. Incorrect. Try again.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-11-07, 07:16 PM	It makes plenty of sense. Judging the rules by what you can do with them is the most valid means of evaluation. Judging this book by what the DMs and players have done with it is the best means of evaluating the BoVD. So by your own logic, all current edition D&D sucks because Pun-Pun is possible within the rules.
Seeker95 01-11-07, 07:25 PM	changed my mind on the comment
Seeker95 01-11-07, 07:28 PM	No. Incorrect. Try again.Care to offer anything to make this worth paying attention to? By claiming I am incorrect, you are evaluating my opinion as if it were fact. This is as non-sensical as when my three year old tells me that I don't really like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. You are perfectly free to have an opinion that differs from my own. I am not in any way threatened by those who think the BovD is anything other than a piece of crap. That so many seem to feel threatened by my opinion of this book is amusing at best, albeit somewhat disturbing that my opinion can have such an impact on someone else.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-11-07, 07:29 PM	I am aware a glad that our opinions do not bother you, I just ask you not ruin his opinion of the book without him seeing it. Just say you don't like it. Or you hate it. Whatever you want. I will accept your evaluation if you can come up with a more convincing reason. Kojiro doesn't seem to think your answer is resonable either.
One_WingedAngel 01-11-07, 07:33 PM	I personally LOVE the BoVD (and just about everything else by Monte Cook). Combining it with the BoED is the best way to go by far so you can see just how far all the foils go. BTW, is there any update book/errata for the BoVD? I looked and couldn't find any.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-11-07, 07:35 PM	On the Mature boards. EDIT: But you didn't hear in from me. Glasya might get angry.
One_WingedAngel 01-11-07, 08:17 PM	On the Mature boards. EDIT: But you didn't hear in from me. Glasya might get angry. Hey thanks! And don't worry, I wont tell.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-11-07, 08:19 PM	Thanks. Leaflets of Triel, I believe. Yeah, Glasya's surprisingly strong for her si- oh, Hi honey... *help!*
Kojiro James 01-11-07, 08:57 PM	I am aware a glad that our opinions do not bother you, I just ask you not ruin his opinion of the book without him seeing it. Just say you don't like it. Or you hate it. Whatever you want. I will accept your evaluation if you can come up with a more convincing reason. Kojiro doesn't seem to think your answer is resonable either. Indeed. The beef with the BoVD is about as reasonable as a pink, flying elephant. The position rather judge books by how they're used by munchkins rather than what the actual content is. This is a ridiculous position. What if I judged a novel solely on the basis of how a person read the book (repeating the words in a calculating, wooden monotone, for example) opposed to what was actually written? That's how the position's argument falls.
Seeker95 01-11-07, 10:30 PM	I will accept your evaluation if you can come up with a more convincing reason.I am not asking you to accept my evaluation. I am not asking you to agree with me. I have offered my opinion of the book, and given my reasons for said opinion. What the OP does with this is his own concern, not mine.
Seeker95 01-11-07, 10:35 PM	What if I judged a novel solely on the basis of how a person read the book (repeating the words in a calculating, wooden monotone, for example) opposed to what was actually written?It would not be much different from judging a movie based on how the actors performed, or judging a song by how the singer sounded. Quite reasonable. The BoVD has, in my experience with players here in these forums, and at conventions, and in two games in which the DM allowed it, been a source of immature play, by both DM and player alike, in an effort to be stupidly gross. The games in which it was used became 3rd-grade gross-out contests. Although Monte gave a wonderful intro to the book, it seems as if the majority of BoVD users chose to ignore the intro and went straight into the "let's see how sick I can be". If this style of play appeals to the OP, then I recommend this book unreservedly. But in my experience, such play is as entertaining in D&D as the player who shows up drunk -- amusing once (maybe), but unwelcome after that.
Kojiro James 01-11-07, 11:14 PM	It would not be much different from judging a movie based on how the actors performed, or judging a song by how the singer sounded. Quite reasonable. If the actors and singers were part of the audience. But they're not. Once again a bad argument. A better example would be a person sitting in the theater reciting each line with the characters on the screen in a high, squeaky voice.
Seeker95 01-12-07, 08:57 AM	Either way, my enjoyment of the entertainment is diminished. While I still believe the BoVD to be a piece of crap, your interest in my dislike in this book is rather entertaining.
Kojiro James 01-12-07, 11:08 PM	And I find it curious that you judge products on what irresponsible idiots do with them. Your logic states that Starbucks coffee is a horrible thing because a rotten person at a bus stop may throw a cup of it in someone's face causing burning. The munchkins did not write the book they're using for their immature grossout sessions. They bought it, like you and me have bought it. You're judging it on how a customer is using it while trying to argue that there's no point in buying it because of this reason, and not for it's actual content—that just does not make sense. You don't even know the gaming style of this person... he might not turn his session into an immature grossout contest. Anything can be misused. That doesn't make anything a piece of crap.
Archmage_of_Blood 01-12-07, 11:46 PM	And I find it curious that you judge products on what irresponsible idiots do with them. Your logic states that Starbucks coffee is a horrible thing because a rotten person at a bus stop may throw a cup of it in someone's face causing burning. The munchkins did not write the book they're using for their immature grossout sessions. They bought it, like you and me have bought it. You're judging it on how a customer is using it while trying to argue that there's no point in buying it because of this reason, and not for it's actual content—that just does not make sense. You don't even know the gaming style of this person... he might not turn his session into an immature grossout contest. Anything can be misused. That doesn't make anything a piece of crap. Which Kojiro and I have been saying for a while now.
zvbxrpl 01-13-07, 01:10 PM	I didn't like the BOVD, myself. I thought it was over-the-top to the point of being farcical. That being said, the Fiendish Codices don't do much for me either. I'd go with Heroes of Horror if you are going for creepy-evil. I don't normally go for that stuff, but HoH is G-E-W-D: good!
Seeker95 01-13-07, 03:37 PM	Which Kojiro and I have been saying for a while now.:cheer: :dancin: :clap: :w00t: :ayyyy!: :bow: :cloud9: Just figured the happy happy joy joy warm fuzzy feelings of agreement was worth sharing. Does it disappoint both of you that I still do not like the book?
Seeker95 01-13-07, 03:40 PM	You don't even know the gaming style of this person... he might not turn his session into an immature grossout contest.Your point would be? The OP asked my opinion, in a follow-up post. I offered it. So why are the two of you so uptight about my not liking it? What manner of dire impact on your lives could my reasons for not liking it possibly generate?
Vestigial_Thumb 01-13-07, 04:02 PM	I'll concede that I use most of the mechanics in the book. I will never, and I mean NEVER, use the guidelines at the front of the book that describes Evil. Cheating is Evil? WTF? Cheating is the signature move of Chaos. And don't get me started on the judgemental drivel about fetishes and addictions.
ArcTan 01-13-07, 07:48 PM	I hate the BoVD, and that's entirely based on reading it, *not* on abusive uses in play -- since I've never been in a group that's allowed it. Whether or not the rules are abusable, they're *dumb*.
Kojiro James 01-13-07, 08:33 PM	Your point would be? The OP asked my opinion, in a follow-up post. I offered it. So why are the two of you so uptight about my not liking it? What manner of dire impact on your lives could my reasons for not liking it possibly generate? None, but Vestigial_Thumb and ArcTan just offered better arguments than you ever did. If you sounded like them, I wouldn't have argued with you as long as I did. They're actually discussing the material... your discussing the gameplay of a few groups.
Seeker95 01-13-07, 10:12 PM	That explains why you did not agree with my reasons. I still find it rather odd that you have such a vested concern for my reasons in the first place. And why the two of you seem so needful of presenting a united front in convincing* me that the reasons I do not like the book are invalid reasons. That said, why are you mentioning Vestigial_Thumb in the first place? He hasn't offered a shred of support or endorsement of your position. You and Archmage_of_Blood have been in the same bed since joining the conversation, and you don't give him any credit at all for smiling and nodding at everything you write. Keep your dance partners' names straight. :P *I do not like coconut, either. My reasons are rather personal, and have nothing to do with the taste of coconut. But no amount of group hugs and disagreement with me is going to make me start liking coconut.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-13-07, 10:17 PM	That said, why are you mentioning Vestigial_Thumb in the first place? Because I'm just that cool. :P
ArcTan 01-14-07, 02:24 AM	In Seeker95's defense: Seriously, when talking about whether rules are well-made or not, we're talking about whether the rules save you time. Any DM can make up whatever rules he wants for his game. The reason you buy books with rules in them is so you don't have to put in the time to balance them and idiot-proof them and figure out exactly how to use them to make them work well in the game -- you just drop them in the game, take a load off your mind, and focus on the fun part, designing the encounters and writing the story. Bad rules are rules that prevent you from doing this. Bad rules are rules where you look at it and you're compelled to go, "Wait, but that doesn't make sense. What if the player does X? What if the player does Y?" Now, I'm not a rules lawyer. I don't go looking for loopholes and I don't expect my players to. I don't throw something out because you *could* potentially create problems with it. Still and all -- there are situations where bad rules will allow a player to ruin the game without even really trying. Let a player get his hands on stuff like a liquid pain extractor and see all the damage he can do to game balance *without really trying*. With a little bit of cleverness he can very quickly become infinitely powerful, or at least keep on getting more powerful than you think he should be as you frantically try to adjust CRs to keep up. I don't fault rules for overlooking things. I do fault rules when the author seems to have intentionally created them in such a way that they break the game -- that if I allow it in my game I have to watch the players like a hawk to make sure they don't start wrecking things, and have to ad hoc create exceptions or limits on the rules to make them balanced. That's more work for me. That obviates part of the point of buying a book in the first place. That's annoying because it means players will pull out the book and argue with me when I try to create a limitation. Even if they don't, it feels annoying -- it hurts the consistency of my rules if I have to make something up and tell them to modify their understanding of the text in such a way. It opens the game up to me making mistakes every time I houserule away a problem, possibly swerving balance too far in either direction. Of course, none of this would be a *huge* issue if I also didn't think the flavor sucked. In D&D, rules are like ingredients in a recipe -- they only matter to create the right flavor. And BoVD has a flavor full of blood, guts, blood and guts, blood and guts with tumors growing on it, creepy sexual fascination with blood and guts, frenzied exultation in the bloodiness and gutsiness of the blood and guts that acts like it evokes a philosophical meaning about the Nature of Evil but really just says "Blood and guts are icky!", and a picture of a topless demon chick. As a DM's guide to morality, it's puerile, self-contradictory and dull. As a guide to how evil magic might work, it's over-the-top to the point of camp and to the point of stretching suspension of disbelief to the breaking point, in any campaign that tries to take itself the least bit seriously. As a source of random mechanical goodies, it's one of the most inconsistent books ever and requires you to be a veteran DM with veteran, highly responsible players to make sure that you don't open the door wide for senseless abuse -- and even then I don't see any ideas that are all that fun to play. (You're telling me people actually enjoy playing as the Cancer Mage, from a mechanical standpoint? It's worse than that stupid Blood Magus thing from Complete Arcane.)
ArcTan 01-14-07, 02:32 AM	But you're reviewing the coconut eaters, not the coconut itself. BoVD is not a book to be read for pleasure -- it's a gamebook to be used to play a game. Therefore, how useful it is in playing the game -- and how likely it is to be misused by game players -- is a big factor in how well it succeeds as a book. The best comparison is really with a script -- D&D players are much more like actors than they are like an audience. And if I have a script that has potential for seriously exploring Evil but could really, really easily turn into a degenerate splatterfest of blood and gore and obscenity as spectacle without meaning, that's a bad script. Even if a talented group manages to make a good *performance* out of it, it's still a bad script. That said, I also disagree with people who said BoVD was fun to read on its own. I felt like I had to take a shower after reading it. And not in the good, naughty, perversely exciting way. In the dull, dejected, "Well, that was pointless and now I smell bad" kind of way.
Kojiro James 01-14-07, 02:47 AM	But the BoVD is not meant for the players, it's meant for the DM. It even says so in the front of the book. It is not the book's fault, nor the author's, if the DM allows his players to use and abuse it. It's the DM's fault. Ergo that argument of judging what players do with it is still falling flat.
Seeker95 01-14-07, 08:55 AM	It is not the book's fault, nor the author's, if the DM allows his players to use and abuse it. It's the DM's fault.So, it is the DM's fault if he allows a set of rules into the game and then does not allow that set of rules to be used by the players? It is the DM's fault if a set of rules MUST be used one-sided? I see where you are coming from now. And I have to say, I flat out reject where your argument leads. BoVD is still a piece of crap. Even moreso if the onyl way to regulate it is to railroad the mechanics to keep them out of the hands of players but still allow them into the game.
Kojiro James 01-14-07, 10:27 PM	So under that argument, the Monster Manual, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and every other DM resource is a piece of crap. Very brilliant argument, Seeker95.
Seeker95 01-15-07, 09:26 AM	So under that argument, the Monster Manual, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and every other DM resource is a piece of crap. Very brilliant argument, Seeker95.I am glad to see you finally agree with me. :tiphat:
Solik 01-15-07, 12:54 PM	No one cares about your opinion of the book. They care about bad arguments. Haven't you been reading threads on these boards? 90% of posts are just people tearing into bad arguments, or making bad arguments themselves.
lugnut71 01-15-07, 01:59 PM	No. The BoVD made the BoVD obsolete. :devil: I just want you to know I was going to say that. Now I'm sad.:weep:
zvbxrpl 01-15-07, 02:05 PM	Of course, none of this would be a *huge* issue if I also didn't think the flavor sucked. In D&D, rules are like ingredients in a recipe -- they only matter to create the right flavor. And BoVD has a flavor full of blood, guts, blood and guts, blood and guts with tumors growing on it, creepy sexual fascination with blood and guts, frenzied exultation in the bloodiness and gutsiness of the blood and guts that acts like it evokes a philosophical meaning about the Nature of Evil but really just says "Blood and guts are icky!", and a picture of a topless demon chick. You just won the thread.
Seeker95 01-15-07, 07:18 PM	No one cares about your opinion of the book. They care about bad arguments.If I were making an argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), you would have a point. I am offering my opinion. Rather than simply disagreeing with my opinin, they seem intent on challenging my reasons. But there is nothing to challenge. Reasons are only challengable if they are incorrect facts. I am not offering any "facts" (beyond "the fact is that these are my reasons and experiences"). They are free to share that the reasons I have offered are not sufficient to lead them to the same conclusion. They are free to say that their experiences are different. As I have made no argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), there is nothing to refute. With no argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) offered, there can be no argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) to evaluate -- neither good nor bad. For those not wishing to click the link: An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises.
Witch 01-15-07, 07:24 PM	Can't be wrong. It is an evaluative opinion. Note: that does not automatically mean that it can't be wrong. I can call genocide a good act as much as I want, but I'd be wrong. I don't see a reason why ethical statements can't have truth value. Although I do agree that the BoVD has severe flaws.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-15-07, 07:39 PM	I can call genocide a good act as much as I want, but I'd be wrong. In your own opinion, at least. There's always someone out there to disagree with you. Since I'm not in the mood for a lengthy moral debate, I'll just agree with you for now (don't worry, I'm not going to call genocide a good act). I don't see a reason why ethical statements can't have truth value. Because someone else can just disagree with you, bring some logic to support it, and what happens? A deadlock (if both parties are stubborn enough).
Seeker95 01-15-07, 08:45 PM	Note: that does not automatically mean that it can't be wrong. [...] I don't see a reason why ethical statements can't have truth value.Personal opinions are not ethical statements of fact, although many people make the mistake of presenting them as fact, and many others (as this thread has demonstrated) easily mistake a personal opinion as fact, or (as is further evidences d in this thread) treating personal experience as something with which one may disagree. My reasons for disliking the BovD are based on my experience with the use of the book. That I had the experiences I had with this book is unchallengable. That some people have not had the same experience as I does not change my experience. To claim that my opinion of the book is wrong because someone disagrees with the link between my experience and my opinion is a non-argument. It is irrational (argumentatively) because it is attempting to treat as fact (my opinion) something which is not. Further, it attempts to treat my experience as something that can be disputed. It cannot.
Kojiro James 01-15-07, 09:31 PM	I am glad to see you finally agree with me. :tiphat: It's called sarcasm. And your argument about arguments is flawed when we apply it to this thread, as an opinion only need be stated once. You repeated yourself several times in this thread that usually leads into a pattern of how an argument takes place. So if you actually think time-held traditions to the D&D game like the DMG and MM and SURPRISE! adventure modules are crap, why are you even playing the game?
Seeker95 01-15-07, 09:56 PM	Kojiro, the degree to which your comments have absolutely nothing to do with what I write is astounding. Actually, after reading msot of your replies to my posts, I take that back. It is no longer astounding. To the OP, I am sorry I allowed myself to participate in the derailment of your thread. Read the opinions offered herein. Take each (including my own) with a grain of salt. Form your own opinion. As an opinion, it won't be wrong.
darqmage1 01-15-07, 09:58 PM	No. The BoVD made the BoVD obsolete. :devil: Um... I knew I had those words in my mouth... Did you steal them!? at any rate, I read the BOVD pretty much every day sadly. It's one of the few DnD book's I read Cover to cover!! :schemes:
ArcTan 01-15-07, 10:05 PM	But the BoVD is not meant for the players, it's meant for the DM. It even says so in the front of the book. It is not the book's fault, nor the author's, if the DM allows his players to use and abuse it. It's the DM's fault. Ergo that argument of judging what players do with it is still falling flat. It would definitely be the book's fault if I allowed it into the game and players abused it. It's the book's fault, though, for being so bad that there's not much I *can* allow into the game without players being able to abuse it. It's also the book's fault if there's nothing in it I particularly want to allow into the game because the flavor is dumb and the mechanics are clunky. I can't believe we're still having the argument in this way about this issue. If I said "This restaurant is crap because you can't eat there without getting food poisoning and throwing up", you would be right to say "It's your fault if you choose to eat there and get sick". Sure. That doesn't mean it's not a crap restaurant. It's a crap restaurant because you *shouldn't choose to eat there*. Seriously, Rule Zero doesn't absolve a book from being bad. It just means that the book can't force me to use it. Fine. But if there's nothing in it I want to use, that makes the book a waste of money, and a bad book, at least in my lights. There's still nothing at all wrong with Seeker95's argument. If I have to work hard to fix the rules in a book before they're usable, that's work *I* have to do that the designers of the rules should've done first, given that I paid money for the book. That makes the book inferior to one that's balanced out of the box. And yes, while all D&D books have been abusable, BoVD has a much higher percentage of abusable content to fun, interesting, viable content than most other books out there. That mainly because the degree to which the fun, interesting, viable content compensates for the abusable content depends on how much you think blood and guts and tumors make for fun and interesting.
Kojiro James 01-15-07, 10:46 PM	Kojiro, the degree to which your comments have absolutely nothing to do with what I write is astounding. Actually, after reading msot of your replies to my posts, I take that back. It is no longer astounding. "Nothing to do".... HAVE YOU READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN? I don't think you have. From the very illogical conclusions and arguments you have formed, it is obvious that between your ears, there is no one at home. This is why it's a bad idea to hang out with mind flayers. And ArcTen... IT IS VERY MUCH THE DM'S FAULT. I addressed such in the very message you quoted. It is the DM's responsibility to control what his players have access to at the table. There is no referee dictating a personal choice of visiting a crappy restaurant to keep gastrointestinal balance. And a more accurate example would be: "This is a crap restaurant because there are immature kids slinging its food around a block away every day." The private use of a product has nothing to do with its contents. The BoVD is suppose to be a tool to help the DM create truly horrific villains. Now whether or not these mechanics are actually useful is no longer the basis of this entire thread. The thread has become an argument about whether or not a book should be judged by the abuse it has suffered in a few isolated gaming groups. It should not, because they did not create the book! The book and its contents can actually be handled both maturely and intelligently at a table just like any other gaming product be used for both good and ill. Another example... should we judge Monopoly to be crap because two people weren't playing it with maturity? NO! It was their fault, not the game's. And that said, any argument otherwise will be judged as pure ridiculousness and ignored, as it's obvious that neither of you have any idea what the hell you're talking about!
Witch 01-16-07, 04:27 AM	To claim that my opinion of the book is wrong because someone disagrees with the link between my experience and my opinion is a non-argument. You said evaluative statements in general cannot be false. How I see it, is that you can speak of the Book of Vile Darkness all you want, it hardly matters. Just don't claim it for everything. Because someone else can just disagree with you, bring some logic to support it, and what happens? A deadlock (if both parties are stubborn enough). Someone else can say the moon is made of cheese as well, and keep disagreeing until we reach a deadlock. Doesn't make any difference. And he can keep disagreeing, even when I take him to the moon, because he can say "his senses deceive him".
Doom_Linnorm 01-16-07, 05:02 AM	*Wades into the fray, looks around several times, sticks a sign into the ground and runs off.* Upon closer inspection the sign reads. "I agree with Kojiro!" Ok that out of the way, lets disect the book to make a proper statement about its nature ok. The front of the book discusses the nature of evil: Pay attention to some of the tips and ideas wedged between the lines, while most of it is not perticulairly usefull there are a few key concepts wich definatly allow for memorable villainy. Then there are suplemental mechanics: These are very entertaining and usefull, drugs, diseases, torture, lasting evil..... these are all wonderfull plot devices just waiting to be put into action, they add a good bit of dark flavour to any campaign... I myself am VERY fond of Warptouch, though I think it should have been in the BoEC (Book of Erratic Chaos, (not available in stores)). Edit:Argh can't belive I forgot to mention sacrefice, that is the most usefull stereotype evil thing in there. After that we come to classes and evil equipment: Flawed but dead usefull, worth a peek and a little finetuning before use, some classes and items however are best left alone. Then finaly we reach the part of the book that has truly become obsolete with the new Codices: The momnsters and aspects, fun to read but other then the Kython entry... nothing I think I'll ever use.. especialy with the new Codices on my bookshelf. *Raises his head from behind a large rock and yells* "I agree with Kojiro!" *Then quickly planeshifts to a random part of the Styx*
Doom_Linnorm 01-16-07, 05:03 AM	(Damned wireless... sorry for double post.)
Seeker95 01-16-07, 09:20 AM	Someone else can say the moon is made of cheese as well, and keep disagreeing until we reach a deadlock. Doesn't make any difference.See above reference to people confusing opinions of value and statements of fact. The moon either is or is not made of green cheese. There is no value judgment there. It is a fact that is true or false. The BoVD is crap is not a factual statement at all. It is 100% evaluative. There is nothing to be right or wrong. (Unless someone were using the term "crap" in a sense of describing the material from which the paper is constructed. I am not making such a claim.) Your attempts to treat my opinion as fact are still unwarranted and unproductive.
Witch 01-16-07, 09:23 AM	And why exactly would value judgements be outside of truth value? I'm just pointing out there that there are numerous ethical theories that state evaluative statements can be true or false. But I'll drop the subject. I simply wished to point out an incorrect statement, not enter into a discussion - I don't have the time for one.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-16-07, 11:00 AM	Someone else can say the moon is made of cheese as well, and keep disagreeing until we reach a deadlock. Doesn't make any difference. And he can keep disagreeing, even when I take him to the moon, because he can say "his senses deceive him". But if he does, you can immediately ship him off to an asylum as soon as you get back. Also, take a piece of moonrock with you and test it to make damn sure it isn't made of cheese.
Solik 01-16-07, 11:15 AM	If I were making an argument, you would have a point. I am offering my opinion. Stop playing word games. Someone asked if a book was good or not, you offered reasons for saying it was not (in your opinion), and people who disagreed with you attacked those reasons. As well they should. If they think those reasons are ridiculous, then pointing out why those reasons are ridiculous (yes, in their opinion) assists the OP and other people wondering the same in making their decision. Dancing in circles away from those, spending time instead acting amused that people care about your opinion, does not.
Witch 01-16-07, 11:27 AM	But if he does, you can immediately ship him off to an asylum as soon as you get back. Ah, but if people go tell me that genocide is a good thing, I'll ship them off to an asylum even faster.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-16-07, 11:41 AM	Ah, but if people go tell me that genocide is a good thing, I'll ship them off to an asylum even faster. What if they can support their opinions with science? The guy who thinks the moon is made of cheese has no scientific evidence to back it up. The guy who say it's made of rock/metal does. The guys having the moral discussion have no science. Science does not help them.
Witch 01-16-07, 11:45 AM	Recent research proves otherwise. Cfr. John Searle, Peter Geach, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch and Jerome Schneewind for the drastic similarities between scientific and moral reasoning. You seem to be stuck in Stevenson's prescriptivism, which is linked to the positivism of the Vienna Circle - and has been proven drastically flawed.
Seeker95 01-16-07, 11:56 AM	Stop playing word games. you offered reasons for saying it was not people who disagreed with you attacked those reasonsThey are saying that my reasons are *wrong* -- not that they disagree with my reasons. There is a difference.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-16-07, 12:31 PM	Recent research proves otherwise. Cfr. John Searle, Peter Geach, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch and Jerome Schneewind for the drastic similarities between scientific and moral reasoning. You seem to be stuck in Stevenson's prescriptivism, which is linked to the positivism of the Vienna Circle - and has been proven drastically flawed. So you believe someone can come up with facts to prove that a moral stance is correct? 'Cause I don't. Science is not an exact science. Coming up with support and claiming you've proven something doesn't mean much if someone comes up with something else and backs it up. This is expecially true with morals and ethics. They come from the personalities of people, and people have different personalities. Furthermore, morals can't be proven unless all premises are accepted.
Witch 01-16-07, 12:33 PM	So you believe someone can come up with facts to prove that a moral stance is correct? 'Cause I don't. Science is not an exact science. Coming up with support and claiming you've proven something doesn't mean much if someone comes up with something else and backs it up. This is expecially true with morals and ethics. They come from the personalities of people, and people have different personalities. Furthermore, morals can't be proven unless all premises are accepted. That depends on your definition of proof. If you mean absolutely, logically deduced, then indeed, morality can't be proven. Then again, that's not what people want, for proof. It's also not the method science uses. Hume's gap between is and ought is of the past.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-16-07, 12:47 PM	That depends on your definition of proof. If you mean absolutely, logically deduced, then indeed, morality can't be proven. I use this one: 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I vary, though; if I find an argument appealing, I may change my stance. Then again, [I]that's not what people want, for proof. It's also not the method science uses. If they want to claim they've proved a correlation between science and morality, then they need to have proved it scientifically AND philosophically (scientifically is usually enough, as it often implies philosophical proof, too).
Witch 01-16-07, 12:53 PM	They have. There is plenty of evidence to establish that genocide is evil, for instance. Don't you think there's enough evidence that if someone murders his best friend for profit, that that is evil? Generally, there are hundreds upon hundreds of ethical statements made upon which nigh everyone will agree. I'd also like to point out that, if morality is not provable, neither is science: scientific methodology is based on an evaluation of the values one wants to accomplish with it. Make those values unprovable, and your scientific method, and hence your science, is now based completely based on unproven statements and hence falls to dust. Is that what you want? ;)
Vestigial_Thumb 01-16-07, 01:00 PM	There is plenty of evidence to establish that genocide is evil, for instance. Don't you think there's enough evidence that if someone murders his best friend for profit, that that is evil? Generally, there are hundreds upon hundreds of ethical statements made upon which nigh everyone will agree. I never said I didn't feel genocide wasn't Evil (I know you didn't ask, but I felt I need to state it again, given my reputation). There is one thing I feel is important to note about how I argue: I do not believe the words "right" and "wrong" hold much meaning when it comes to philosophy. Furthermore, I do not equate Evil with wrong or Good with right. I'd also like to point out that, if morality is not provable, neither is science: scientific methodology is based on an evaluation of the values one wants to accomplish with it. Make those values unprovable, and your scientific method, and hence your science, is now based completely based on unproven statements and hence falls to dust. Is that what you want? ;) As I said earlier, science isn't an exact science. I go by cogency, and so do most.
Witch 01-16-07, 01:04 PM	I never said I didn't feel genocide wasn't Evil (I know you didn't ask, but I felt I need to state it again, given my reputation). I was giving examples, that is all. As I said earlier, science isn't an exact science. I go by cogency, and so do most. In that case, it's easy. Morality is compelling enough to convince most people of what is right and wrong in our society.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-16-07, 01:08 PM	I was giving examples, that is all. I figured you'd know better than to accuse me of anything. :) In that case, it's easy. Morality is compelling enough to convince most people of what is right and wrong in our society. I guess so. I try to draw my own conclusions, though (you'd be surprised at all the "of course it's..." I get).
DaidojiTaidoru 01-16-07, 01:27 PM	Well I'll toss my 2 cents into the fray in the unlikely event that the OP hasn't made up his mind and still reads the thread. I personally regret ever purchasing the Book of Vile Darkness. I found the mechanics to be uninspired and broken, the morality to be self contradictory and stupid, and the flavor would inspire my party to crack 3rd grade jokes about my villians rather then actually fear them. Pretty much any book you purchase would be better then the BoVD, excepting of course the BoED, which is the Book of Vile Darkness wrapped in gold foil and with a side of hypocracy. The Fiendish codex is probably a better book all around, though there's always the chance....
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:12 PM	They have. There is plenty of evidence to establish that genocide is evil, for instance. Don't you think there's enough evidence that if someone murders his best friend for profit, that that is evil? Generally, there are hundreds upon hundreds of ethical statements made upon which nigh everyone will agree. I'd also like to point out that, if morality is not provable, neither is science: scientific methodology is based on an evaluation of the values one wants to accomplish with it. Make those values unprovable, and your scientific method, and hence your science, is now based completely based on unproven statements and hence falls to dust. Is that what you want? ;) ...I'm staring at this sentence and still trying to figure out what you mean by it. "Science" is the act of trying things over and over again to see what happens. What things you choose to try might be informed by your values -- you might be more interested in learning about the human body than about celestial bodies if you're more interested in curing diseases than flying to Mars -- but the way science works is not. There's no particular ethical or moral value system you need to hold to see that rocks fall at the same speed every time you drop them. There is, of course, a whole set of a priori assumptions that scientists make that the truth of a scientific claim is based on -- the principle of induction, that things that happened a certain way in the past will happen a certain way in the future, the idea that there is some reality to the observed world beyond illusion, etc. These are ontological and not moral claims, though, and you don't need to hold them in order to believe that something is "scientifically valid" -- you just need to hold them in order to believe that "scientifically valid" equates to "true". A scientist may believe in God and may believe that miracles occur -- he just believes that these things would not be empirically provable as scientific facts because by definition they break the basic assumptions, and hence would not be amenable to scientific analysis, whether or not they are true. I still don't see how an amoral universe makes science "collapse to dust" in any way, unless you make the dubious Cartesian claim that "The universe is predictable" somehow translates directly into "God exists and is benevolent". I've seen people try to make this claim, and it's a particular bit of philosophical contortion that I myself don't care for.
Witch 01-16-07, 04:16 PM	The goals of science determine how one uses science. If one wants science to form a "true representation of the universe" (an ethical desire), then that determines your scientific method. If one wants science to be productive to society, or create more happiness for people, that changes your scientific method. Scientific method is not one constant method. It has changed many a time. For example - the old inductive method has been dropped somewhere around 1800, for a new romantic ideal of creativity, and now even that one has been dropped for something different. Your methodology is entirely based on values.
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:24 PM	"Nothing to do".... HAVE YOU READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN? I don't think you have. From the very illogical conclusions and arguments you have formed, it is obvious that between your ears, there is no one at home. This is why it's a bad idea to hang out with mind flayers. And ArcTen... IT IS VERY MUCH THE DM'S FAULT. I addressed such in the very message you quoted. It is the DM's responsibility to control what his players have access to at the table. There is no referee dictating a personal choice of visiting a crappy restaurant to keep gastrointestinal balance. And a more accurate example would be: "This is a crap restaurant because there are immature kids slinging its food around a block away every day." The private use of a product has nothing to do with its contents. Are you seriously saying that there's no such thing as brokenness in rules, and that no book's rules are easier to abuse than any other's? To use the restaurant analogy, there most certainly are restaurants that are *more conducive* to letting kids run around and scream while other restaurants are not. And if I don't want kids running around and screaming, I'd rather go to a restaurant that doesn't allow such things *in the first place* than a restaurant where I have to do most of the work to keep things under control. Hence the difference between going to Le Bec Fin and Chuck E. Cheese's. The BoVD is suppose to be a tool to help the DM create truly horrific villains. And it's a bad one. Now whether or not these mechanics are actually useful is no longer the basis of this entire thread. The thread has become an argument about whether or not a book should be judged by the abuse it has suffered in a few isolated gaming groups. The easier it is to abuse, the less useful the mechanics are. How is that hard to grasp? BoVD mechanics, in case you didn't realize, are possible to abuse *by accident*. You don't have to assume malice on the part of a player to say that rules are abusable. Using a pain extractor the way the book tells you to use a pain extractor *constitutes abuse*. It destroys the balance of the game. The rules are *bad rules*. Outside of a D&D context, if I bought a book called "1001 Fun Playground Games to Play With Your Kids!" and the first one was "Throwing rusty steak knives at each other", no, I would not be such an idiot as to actually let my kids do that. I would, instead, throw the book away and call it a stupid waste of money. It should not, because they did not create the book! The book and its contents can actually be handled both maturely and intelligently at a table just like any other gaming product be used for both good and ill. ...By disregarding about half of it and completely rewriting the rest. C'mon. By saying "any gaming product can be used for good or ill" you're basically saying there's no difference between any two gaming products because as the DM I can always fix any problem therein. I should be willing to pay $30.00 for a book that consists solely of the text "You know what would be fun? If all attacks automatically hit and critted!" because I could "fix" this book by saying "No, that wouldn't be fun at all" and instead staring at the picture of the topless demon chick. If using the book for good requires a huge amount of revision, rebalancing, and eventually just ignoring large portions of the book, then I *wasted my money when I bought the book*. Another example... should we judge Monopoly to be crap because two people weren't playing it with maturity? NO! It was their fault, not the game's. And that said, any argument otherwise will be judged as pure ridiculousness and ignored, as it's obvious that neither of you have any idea what the hell you're talking about! For cripes' sake. You're basically saying that no game product should *ever* be judged negatively, *at all*. You realize why that's a problem for some of us with limited time and money who actually want to know whether a book is worth buying before we buy it? If *every* problem I have with a book is my fault, not the game's, by that logic I should buy every single gaming product in existence (Green Ronin, Penumbra, RIFTS, FATAL, whatever) and use them *all* in my game because they're *all* potentially wonderful cornucopiae of gaming excitement as long as I'm a "good enough DM" to use them. Why don't I just go onto e23, sell my house, and spend tens of thousands of dollars on every crappy, ill-tested, disgusting-looking, unbalanced, useless piece of garbage gaming product ever written, then? Sheesh.
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:28 PM	The goals of science determine how one uses science. If one wants science to form a "true representation of the universe" (an ethical desire), then that determines your scientific method. If one wants science to be productive to society, or create more happiness for people, that changes your scientific method. Scientific method is not one constant method. It has changed many a time. For example - the old inductive method has been dropped somewhere around 1800, for a new romantic ideal of creativity, and now even that one has been dropped for something different. Your methodology is entirely based on values. Er... no. I'm sorry, but no. This is the kind of thing that arrogant liberal arts undergrads say when they haven't actually done any science. You sound like the editors of Social Texts during the Sokal debacle. The *goals* to which science has been bent have radically changed over time, sure. That doesn't mean *science* has changed. Science is the principle that "If you try something lots of times and get the same results every time, that result can be predicted to happen again in the future". That's all it is. You can view it with different *attitudes*, sure. The specific way in which people pay for experiments and organize people to perform experiments and write up papers changes radically as society changes. Fine. That's not what the "scientific method" is, though. It doesn't matter whether I view the scientific method through a romantic lens or a mechanistic one -- the basic principle, "Try it lots of times and see if it works", is fundamental and unchanging -- as are the actual facts uncovered by this principle. (It is just as true that two objects dropped above the surface of the Earth accelerate towards it at the same rate now as it was true in 1799, regardless of how much you think "science" has changed since then.)
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:30 PM	You said evaluative statements in general cannot be false. How I see it, is that you can speak of the Book of Vile Darkness all you want, it hardly matters. Just don't claim it for everything. Dude, we don't need to take an introductory philosophy class here. He thinks the BoVD sucks. You don't. Deal. (And, yes, "It can be abused by thoughtless players" is just as valid a reason for disliking the BoVD as "The art is atrocious".)
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:32 PM	Recent research proves otherwise. Cfr. John Searle, Peter Geach, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch and Jerome Schneewind for the drastic similarities between scientific and moral reasoning. You seem to be stuck in Stevenson's prescriptivism, which is linked to the positivism of the Vienna Circle - and has been proven drastically flawed. I.e. you're one of those people who thinks that whether or not something is moral equates to whether or not a bunch of people who have been surveyed in a study say it's moral. One of those people, in other words, who apparently hasn't let the full effect of things like the Milgram experiment sink in. The reason I don't think morality can be objectively defined through scientific processes is that I *define* it as something more objective than just "something encoded into most people's brains".
Witch 01-16-07, 04:35 PM	Dude, we don't need to take an introductory philosophy class here. He thinks the BoVD sucks. You don't. Deal. (And, yes, "It can be abused by thoughtless players" is just as valid a reason for disliking the BoVD as "The art is atrocious".) Actually, I agree with his statement that the BoVD sucks. I.e. you're one of those people who thinks that whether or not something is moral equates to whether or not a bunch of people who have been surveyed in a study say it's moral. One of those people, in other words, who apparently hasn't let the full effect of things like the Milgram experiment sink in. Not completely, but in a way. Those people could be wrong - we'd have to critically evaluate systems of value for that. We'd also have to look to the tradition we've been following for ages. Personally, I prefer Toulmin's approach as looking at moral judgements similar to court cases. The reason I don't think morality can be objectively defined through scientific processes is that I *define* it as something more objective than just "something encoded into most people's brains". Morality can't exist outside of living creatures - and if it's not ingrained in brains or society, there is no morality.
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:43 PM	*Wades into the fray, looks around several times, sticks a sign into the ground and runs off.* Upon closer inspection the sign reads. "I agree with Kojiro!" Ok that out of the way, lets disect the book to make a proper statement about its nature ok. The front of the book discusses the nature of evil: Pay attention to some of the tips and ideas wedged between the lines, while most of it is not perticulairly usefull there are a few key concepts wich definatly allow for memorable villainy. Key concepts that any six-year-old who's watched cartoons on television could replicate offhand, by the way. It's actually the dubious, shallow and frankly utterly cliched and boring claptrap about the "nature of Evil" that I dislike about BoVD. The Nature of Evil is too heavy a subject for a gamebook to be able to actually define universally -- the best you can do is try to adopt a philosophically consistent point of view that works for a fantasy setting (like what White Wolf has attempted on multiple occasions, mostly failed to do but *at least tried*) or else ignore the question of what Evil *is* and instead try to focus on atmospheric details or plot details that evoke the *feeling* of evil, which the infinitely superior Heroes of Horror did rather well. Instead BoVD takes the horrible middle route of giving several shallow, wishy-washy definitions of evil (sometimes being evil means being selfish; other times it means giving selflessly to a cause, as long as that cause is an *evil* cause; other times it means having sex with icky things!) and then actually *equating* its crappy, cliched, shallow ideas of what "feels" evil with said wishy-washy definitions. Heroes of Horror at least was open and honest about using cliches, and trying to use them in a somewhat understated way, with the end goal -- creating an *atmosphere* of horror, from the DM's perspective -- always in mind. BoVD, on the other hand, just seems to wallow in the ickiness of things like cancer and rape and sexual fetishism without any thought behind why this would be frightening or disturbing when presented to the players, or how best to present them in such a way that they do evoke fear and tension rather than puerile laughter (because, after all, the book does a very bad job of making this presentation itself). Seriously, *why do I need a book* to tell me that body parts are gross, or that someone who values human life so little that he wants to use human beings in crazed experiments is scary, or that putting the two ideas together is gross *and* scary? Then there are suplemental mechanics: These are very entertaining and usefull, drugs, diseases, torture, lasting evil..... these are all wonderfull plot devices just waiting to be put into action, they add a good bit of dark flavour to any campaign... Whatever floats your boat, man. The drugs are way too expensive and crippling in their effect to be useful as actual drugs. (No one is going to spend a year's salary on a drug whose high lasts for an hour and leaves you half-dead afterwards. How the hell is someone supposed to get hooked on that in the first place?) We already have more than enough diseases from other supplements, most of which have some kind of logic to their existence and operation besides "It's evil!" The mechanic of the pain extractor is the most broken thing ever. "Lasting evil" is like Taint but without the interesting mechanics and flavor details, and phrased in such a way as to sound stupid. Etc. Mainly, aside from nitpicky individual judgments about the book, the book in general is hugely over-the-top and so biased as to making the mechanics icky, disgusting and gross that they're either unusable or else easily abusable -- Evil appears to be about crippling yourself for no reason at all, until you reach the point of crippling yourself where you become an unstoppable god. No thanks. I myself am VERY fond of Warptouch, though I think it should have been in the BoEC (Book of Erratic Chaos, (not available in stores)). Don't get me started about how BoED and BoVD have utterly confounded the whole rest of the publishing line's emphasis on keeping the moral and ethical axes *separate*. BoED as good as tells you Lawful Good is the real good. BoVD as good as tells you Chaotic Evil is the real evil. Edit:Argh can't belive I forgot to mention sacrefice, that is the most usefull stereotype evil thing in there. And any module writer, adventure writer, or DM who'd ever read a fantasy novel already knew human sacrifice could be used as a cliched plot point without a stupid set of mechanics for it that basically exists to make it breakable by PCs. After that we come to classes and evil equipment: Flawed but dead usefull, worth a peek and a little finetuning before use, some classes and items however are best left alone. Replace "flawed" with "most" and you have a point. Okay, so most of the items are harmless, but they're also not that compelling. Then finaly we reach the part of the book that has truly become obsolete with the new Codices: The momnsters and aspects, fun to read but other then the Kython entry... nothing I think I'll ever use.. especialy with the new Codices on my bookshelf. They were already pointlessly over-the-top for any normal adventuring party while, at the same time, being ridiculously easy-to-kill for anyone who actually advanced into Epic levels and learned how to use the horribly broken rules of Epic play.
ArcTan 01-16-07, 04:44 PM	Morality can't exist outside of living creatures - and if it's not ingrained in brains or society, there is no morality. Not being a philosopher, all I can say is that if every other person on Earth became a Nazi, that would not make me decide that being a Nazi was now what I defined as "moral".
Witch 01-16-07, 04:52 PM	Obviously not - and me neither. But that would presume we see it (whether now, in the past, or in the future). If we were not to exist, I'm fairly sure that those in the regime wouldn't have any objections. Morality always presumes a point of view. There are no metaphysical "Forms" that determine it.
ArcTan 01-16-07, 08:01 PM	Obviously not - and me neither. But that would presume we see it (whether now, in the past, or in the future). If we were not to exist, I'm fairly sure that those in the regime wouldn't have any objections. Morality always presumes a point of view. There are no metaphysical "Forms" that determine it. In other words, my own morality can't be determined separately of me, yours can't be determined separately of you, and our society's can't be determined separately of it. Unlike with scientific truths, there's no objective, external reality it presumes, unless you take issue with the statement you just made and do believe in something like God. To claim that you can determine a "real" morality through any "scientific" examination of our society at large, then, would be foolish. You'd only be determining our society's morality, which is only as real or permanent or necessary as our society is, and wouldn't be saying anything important about an individual *in* that society who is free to differ from that society if he wishes.
Sleepwalker13666 01-16-07, 08:23 PM	I see a Thread Lock coming up. I find the book of vile darkness useful, but that does'nt mean all dms are going to, it covers just about all subjects people find touchy, such as Cannibilism, Sacrafice, Rape and Necrophelia. Some of it's content is a bit over the top for me. If you want a villian resource book, BoVD has some usefull information, but that does'nt mean you need it. The Fiendish Codex's cover a very small aspect of the BoVD, and they do not make it obsolete.
Witch 01-17-07, 10:58 AM	In other words, my own morality can't be determined separately of me, yours can't be determined separately of you, and our society's can't be determined separately of it. Unlike with scientific truths, there's no objective, external reality it presumes, unless you take issue with the statement you just made and do believe in something like God. Scientific truths aren't objective either. Not even mathematical truths.
zvbxrpl 01-19-07, 05:37 PM	(And, yes, "It can be abused by thoughtless players" is just as valid a reason for disliking the BoVD as "The art is atrocious".) Hey, hold on a sec. The illustration of Asmodeus in there was awesome! :P
meatpuppet 01-25-07, 08:52 AM	Whew! :eek: I just finished reading every post in this thread I wasn't aware the BoVD would raise so much havoc :devil: Thank you all for your replies I'll keep you posted on my opinion of the said book as soon as I finish it.
okaynowa 01-25-07, 03:30 PM	As a collector, I bought both pairs of books (BoED & BoVD, and Fiendish Codices I & II) and do not regret it. I like having matched sets. I'm a completist. As a DM, I value the Fiendish Codices over the Book of Vile Darkness. They provide a greater variety of antagonists for me to throw against my players, as well as updating several classic demons and devils from editions gone by. They also make great gazetteers for the Abyss and the 9 Hells, offering a lot more detail than is available in the Planar Handbook. The spells and feats in the Codices are a little broader in application as well, since the books include both pro-fiend and anti-fiend options. (If you've picked up the Complete Scoundrel sourcebook, the Malconvoker prestige class would be a great angle into accessing the info in the Fiendish Codices.) Once in a while I go back and read the Book of Vile Darkness for fun, but aside from the concept of Dark Speech (which could be reintroduced as a sub-set of Tome of Magic's Truespeech), I've seen very little in it that I would throw at my players. They're more into politics than squick.
yrogerg 01-25-07, 08:41 PM	So by your own logic, all current edition D&D sucks because Pun-Pun is possible within the rules. No, just the rules that allow Pun-Pun. Specifically, The Sarukkh from Serpent Kingdoms, the Master of Many Forms, the Illithid Savant... Anyone want to argue that those things aren't broken, or that banning those doesn't make the game better? No? Didn't think so. Anyway, for creating Evil Characters and Villians, I personally found HoH to be a *much* better resource than BoVD.
Witch 01-26-07, 07:38 AM	No, just the rules that allow Pun-Pun. Specifically, The Sarukkh from Serpent Kingdoms, the Master of Many Forms, the Illithid Savant... Anyone want to argue that those things aren't broken, or that banning those doesn't make the game better? Yes. There is no need for Illithid Savant for Pun-Pun. Neither is Illithid Savant broken if you play it in an actual game. Nor is the Master of Many Forms that expressly broken. Nor is the Sarrukh broken as a creature, unless you abuse it by shapechanging.