Café de Nuit

Negative, positive, etc? Just wondering what people thought about it. I got no idea how it plays out in Ravenloft, so I'm curious to see what people who've used it in Ravenloft thought of it. Obviously, some of the things aren't appropriate at all (Vassal of Bahamut), but I'm curious to see what you folks thought about the rest (Like Vow of Peace, for instance, which at first glance, seems like a good fit for a character like Tara Kolyana).

Green Knight wrote:(Like Vow of Peace, for instance, which at first glance, seems like a good fit for a character like Tara Kolyana).

Funny you say that, I gave her a Vow of non violence from BoEDeeds

There a few good things in it. You have a review by Yours Truly in the Reviews section of the site, under Wizards of the Coast books.

Joël

Green Knight wrote:Negative, positive, etc? Just wondering what people thought about it. I got no idea how it plays out in Ravenloft, so I'm curious to see what people who've used it in Ravenloft thought of it. Obviously, some of the things aren't appropriate at all (Vassal of Bahamut), but I'm curious to see what you folks thought about the rest (Like Vow of Peace, for instance, which at first glance, seems like a good fit for a character like Tara Kolyana).

Oddly enough, my current character has Vow of Poverty... As with most things, I really think it's all in how you use it. In our case, we're very happy with the result.

In this case, my character is a neophyte priest-in-training of the Morninglord who has sort of fallen out with his faith. Essentially, he CLAIMS that the morninglord appeared to him in a vision, as a being of pure light, and commanded him to give up all worldy possession. As well, he was commanded to purify his flesh and so he departed, his clerical training "unfinished", and began sitting on high pillars, going without food for long periods at a time, and only had water (for the most part) from the faithful and the curious who heard of this eccentric man. The clerigy of the morninglord branded him insane, and tried to distance themselves from him as they felt he was a deluded madman.

However, as his legend grew, some people started claiming that he had performed miracles, while others would speak out against him saying they were viscous lies perpatrated by enemies of the faith.

Essentially, the main debate at the center of this character is: "Is he a saint or a deluded madman?" I, myself, have chosen to leave the issue unresolved and my DM also agrees with that - all that matters is that he gets the benefits of Vow of Poverty as well as his full range of clerical spells...

Some of the other PCs think he is a saint and call him that, much to my character's shame, as he feels he is a dirty sinner and is undertaking this vow of poverty to cleanse his tarnished soul. SO, it really is in how you play it, I feel.

Another PC is a fighter with vow of peace - a man who was trying to become a paladin of Ezra, though he was judged "unpure" for some reason and never made it. As a result, he is a straight fighter, but has taken a few vows...

I guess our group is busy exploring the idea of sainthood - with a gothic horror twist that makes you question the who process. (It's a lot of fun - and it makes me aware that myself and ason Am(brus) should make some effort to make the campaign available for perusal...)

I don't have the BoED, but I played with someone whose cleric took vow of poverty and vow of peace. We kept getting hit with that damn aura of clam emotions. It led me to have some wicked thoughts about how that would play out in Ravenloft. One scenario I envisioned was a flesh golem belonging to Adam's Children, who are incapable of feeling emotion, pass through the aura, and feel calm, for the first time in its existence. The golem then kidnaps the cleric, and takes her to the monastery they call home, to show the others.

The Pickled Punk wrote:I don't have the BoED, but I played with someone whose cleric took vow of poverty and vow of peace. We kept getting hit with that damn aura of clam emotions. It led me to have some wicked thoughts about how that would play out in Ravenloft. One scenario I envisioned was a flesh golem belonging to Adam's Children, who are incapable of feeling emotion, pass through the aura, and feel calm, for the first time in its existence. The golem then kidnaps the cleric, and takes her to the monastery they call home, to show the others.

That's pretty good! Actually, one way we worked out one of the problems in that the fighter with vow of non-violence (i think that's the one I'm talking about) ASKED each of the characters wether they would swear to uphold the pact and not kill any opponents who had surrendered. Some said yes, othwers no. We decided that in Ravenloft, that power would be unable to affect any who had not sworn to the pact.

But I like that idea with Adam's Children.

The Pickled Punk wrote:I don't have the BoED, but I played with someone whose cleric took vow of poverty and vow of peace. We kept getting hit with that damn aura of clam emotions. It led me to have some wicked thoughts about how that would play out in Ravenloft. One scenario I envisioned was a flesh golem belonging to Adam's Children, who are incapable of feeling emotion, pass through the aura, and feel calm, for the first time in its existence. The golem then kidnaps the cleric, and takes her to the monastery they call home, to show the others.

*SWIPE*

I liked the book, although it is far more "power-oriented" to my liking. Still, there are very useful rules there and we finally get what's good in a D&D sense. I use these definitions for my games.

So violence in order to protect people isn't evil per se, but violence for revenge isn't justice, so it's evil (so PCheck).

Well, I certainly thought it brought a lot of clarity to things like the Paladin's Code, which I was frustrated with up til that point. The description of the Paladin class, the Paladin's Code (which in itself isn't all that specific), and the alignment descriptors left a lot of ambiguity there, which the BoED cleared up (at least in my mind).

Though I saw a bunch of people tearing it to shreds on the WoTC boards, so I wasn't sure if it had the most accurate depiction.

Green Knight wrote:Well, I certainly thought it brought a lot of clarity to things like the Paladin's Code, which I was frustrated with up til that point. The description of the Paladin class, the Paladin's Code (which in itself isn't all that specific), and the alignment descriptors left a lot of ambiguity there, which the BoED cleared up (at least in my mind).

Though I saw a bunch of people tearing it to shreds on the WoTC boards, so I wasn't sure if it had the most accurate depiction.

I think they might have felt that they didn't need to be told what "goodness" is. I know that we have a pretty organic understanding of it in our group - what is "evil" for one character is not necessarily evil, or as evil, for another, right? Though for paladins, I guess you might want to have an official code - though I maintain that different paladins will end up disagreeing or differing in their "priorities".

While being an average book, i found that the BoED has three main weakness, particulary when an unexperienced players read it.

- It told you what you want to be told, if for you good is mercy, you will keep mercy in mind, if for you good is smite evil, you will retain that you must smite evil.

- While the description of good is great, i found that some players who didn t like to think always get their BoED into their hand when they have a moral dilemna and solve this dilemna by the book instead of making a roleplay.

- The book is sometimes hyporcrical, all poisons are evil, but if you use a poison call ravage that target only evil creature, it s okay.

As for his employ in ravenloft, i will sometime get one feat or a thing or two from it, but i will never ever let my players read it, i have too much fear that they mess up with the stock and use the fact that they are good as a justification to get all kind of uber power.

Boccaccio Barbarossa wrote:

The Pickled Punk wrote:I don't have the BoED, but I played with someone whose cleric took vow of poverty and vow of peace. We kept getting hit with that damn aura of clam emotions. It led me to have some wicked thoughts about how that would play out in Ravenloft. One scenario I envisioned was a flesh golem belonging to Adam's Children, who are incapable of feeling emotion, pass through the aura, and feel calm, for the first time in its existence. The golem then kidnaps the cleric, and takes her to the monastery they call home, to show the others.

That's pretty good! Actually, one way we worked out one of the problems in that the fighter with vow of non-violence (i think that's the one I'm talking about) ASKED each of the characters wether they would swear to uphold the pact and not kill any opponents who had surrendered. Some said yes, othwers no. We decided that in Ravenloft, that power would be unable to affect any who had not sworn to the pact.

But I like that idea with Adam's Children.

Thank you. Alas the group sort of broke up last year, and I don't have an oppurtunity to DM RL these days. The image I had was the characters just walking past a Flesh Golem disguised as a beggar, who feels the calm emotion aura, and longs to feel it again. He would then break into the PCs room and abduct her. (I sort of half-rememebr the scene from Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, where the Creature holds his hand over a woman's mouth and says "Try not to scream.") The rest of the PCs would have to trek through the Lamordian winter to find her.

Feel free to use it in a game involving the BoED.

Scipion_Emilien wrote:While being an average book, i found that the BoED has three main weakness, particulary when an unexperienced players read it.

- It told you what you want to be told, if for you good is mercy, you will keep mercy in mind, if for you good is smite evil, you will retain that you must smite evil.

- While the description of good is great, i found that some players who didn t like to think always get their BoED into their hand when they have a moral dilemna and solve this dilemna by the book instead of making a roleplay.

- The book is sometimes hyporcrical, all poisons are evil, but if you use a poison call ravage that target only evil creature, it s okay.

As for his employ in ravenloft, i will sometime get one feat or a thing or two from it, but i will never ever let my players read it, i have too much fear that they mess up with the stock and use the fact that they are good as a justification to get all kind of uber power.

Yeah - that's really feeling over all as well. But, with the right character concept (and the right mature gamer to play it out) there are some really interesting possibilities in the book. But most of it reduces the idea of "Goodness" to something too easily broken down into a checklist.... "Saved an innocent life... check. Mercy... check... valour... check..."

Especially in Ravenloft, Good, and what people perceive as good, is just not that simple. is it better to kill a dangerous opponent with poison which will lead to hundreds of saved lives? or does one owe it to oneself to try for a straight fowward fight, even if it may mean failure and innocents killed as a result. So, it's basically: "What IS an exalted deed?" Is good an end you should strive towards whatever the means, or a method one should adhere to regarless of the end goal?

And I guess that the book is a little simplistic in its rendering. it really relies on that Dragonlance--like clear cut distinction between good and evil...

I love you, Ravenloft! lol!

While the description of good is great, i found that some players who didn t like to think always get their BoED into their hand when they have a moral dilemna and solve this dilemna by the book instead of making a roleplay.

I could see how that could be a problem, but it's never one I've ever personally experienced. My main problem has always been disagreement with the DM as to how a Paladin should be played. For instance, I always thought it'd be cool to multiclass a Paladin/Rogue (At the time, I thought of taking 2-3 levels of Rogue and then continuing on as a Paladin). But when I floated the idea to the DM we got into an argument over whether Sneak Attacks could be used by Paladins. Suffice to say, I got a bit of vindication when I saw a Rogue/Paladin in there (Not to mention that Complete Adventurer offers a Feat for freely multiclassing Rogues and Paladins, and Prestige Classes intended for multiclassed Paladins which have Sneak Attack).

On the other hand, I thought it was stupid if a Paladin were to have to let a bad guy go because he threw his hands up and screams "I SURRENDER!". BoED says otherwise (I saw the funniest take on this on the part of a poster at ENWorld. Mirrors my opinion, but there's something to be said for consistency and having common points of reference).

Point is, it's nice to have something that's, for the most part, unambiguous. It'd make me alter the way I play a Paladin in a couple ways, but it's worth it in order to not end up getting into disagreements with the DM during a game because we each have a different idea of the way a Paladin should be played (An occurence which isn't unique to me, given the number of times I've seen threads like "My DM did X to my Paladin", or "The Paladin in my game did so-and-so. What do I do?" on other boards).

Green Knight wrote:For instance, I always thought it'd be cool to multiclass a Paladin/Rogue (At the time, I thought of taking 2-3 levels of Rogue and then continuing on as a Paladin). But when I floated the idea to the DM we got into an argument over whether Sneak Attacks could be used by Paladins. Suffice to say, I got a bit of vindication when I saw a Rogue/Paladin in there (Not to mention that Complete Adventurer offers a Feat for freely multiclassing Rogues and Paladins, and Prestige Classes intended for multiclassed Paladins which have Sneak Attack).

On the other hand, I thought it was stupid if a Paladin were to have to let a bad guy go because he threw his hands up and screams "I SURRENDER!". BoED says otherwise (I saw the funniest take on this on the part of a poster at ENWorld. Mirrors my opinion, but there's something to be said for consistency and having common points of reference).

The point of Paladins is that they are lawful good knights, and thus would (or at least, should) follow a code of conduct dictating an honorable method of dealing with foes. Usually, the code is meant to model chivalry, so no poison, attacking an unarmed foe, killing a foe that surrendered, stabbing a helpless foe, etc. Generally acting like a real twit.

The Paladin does not echew these actions because they are inherantly evil, but because they are not lawful means of dealing with an adversary.
You have to take both alignment modifiers.

Just as a side note, a Paladin has to accept a surrender, but that doesn't mean they can't chain the villian seven ways to Sunday and haul them back to legitamite authorities (who probably aren't lawful good). Just because they're good doesn't mean they're stupid.

The point of Paladins is that they are lawful good knights, and thus would (or at least, should) follow a code of conduct dictating an honorable method of dealing with foes.

Yes, but the problem is that no one can really agree on what is or isn't out of bounds within the Paladin's Code. If you don't believe that, well, I can't point you to a couple hundred topics with a couple thousand posts apiece with people arguing back and forth about this or that point on the Paladin's Code. Yes, the rule against not using poison and not being allowed to ally with evil beings are fairly obvious, but that still leaves a LOT open to interpretation. For example, what constitutes Legitimate Authority? The PHB never says. And it was also the source of an argument between me and a DM, who said that even evil nations and tyrants constitute Legitimate Authority. Fortunately, the BoED says that even good countries don't constitute Legitimate Authority to turn a captive over to, if you know that they'll use evil actions against the prisoners (such as torture).

The Paladin does not echew these actions because they are inherantly evil, but because they are not lawful means of dealing with an adversary. You have to take both alignment modifiers.

And the arguments over the specifics of alignment are even more common then the arguments over what exactly the Paladin's Code covers. For example, you say a Paladin has to accept a surrender. Yet in the very description for Lawful Good, it says "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy...". Can you really not see how people can have disagreements over how to play a Paladin, the Code, alignment, and so on?

Just as a side note, a Paladin has to accept a surrender, but that doesn't mean they can't chain the villian seven ways to Sunday and haul them back to legitamite authorities (who probably aren't lawful good). Just because they're good doesn't mean they're stupid.

Agreed, though only because the BoED went at length about it. Prior to that, the only thing we had to go on was that bit from the PHB about Alhandra the Paladin showing no mercy. Though it's not as simple as you make it sound. Ok, so you're jumped by a robber in Waterdeep and before you can kill him, he surrenders. You can just trot him down to the nearest guardsmen a couple blocks away and turn him in. Easy enough, right?

What about the Paladin who's on an extended quest in the Underdark? Turning back isn't an option, and the PC's have to keep moving forward until the task is accomplished, before they can return to the surface. Ok, so a Drow from the band you fought surrendered and he's your prisoner, now. Ok, no problem. Hauling one prisoner around isn't so bad. Then you run into another group, and another Drow surrenders. Now you got two prisoners. Then you run into another group, and three more Drow surrender. Do you see the problem, now?

So you're on your extended quest into the Underdark, and you're now leading a chain gang of 7 captive Drow. On a mission which likely requires stealth, to boot. When I play a Paladin, I'll take captives if someone begs for mercy, now that the BoED has explicitly laid out that mercy MUST be given. But can you not see how that can be disruptive to a game? Either A) You have to go running back to the nearest good aligned civilized realm in order to turn in an evil-doer to the authorities every time you capture one, or B) You have to drag them along with you until you're done with what you're doing and can then return with them, the whole while risking having those prisoners give away your position, or escaping in the night and then overwhelming the party while they sleep, and so on.

Nevermind in a campaign setting like Ravenloft. The villains, in many cases, ARE the authorities. If you get attacked by Vlad Drakov's troops, and they surrender to you, who do you turn them over to? Though once again, I'm willing to swallow my disagreement with this bit, since I'm just glad to have an easy reference to look at for when it comes to the Paladin's Code. Not perfect, but it's MUCH better then the vague Code and sometimes contradictory alignment descriptors that we got in the PHB.