Book of Exalted Deeds is Crap!
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:32 am
OK, when I started talking about some of the stuff that could be done with the Book of Exalted Deeds, there was a lot of whining that you couldn't do some of it because of the "spirit of the rules" or some such crap. Well, the spirit of the rules in this case, is crap, so stuff it.
It comes down to a fundamental problem with the way they envision "good" - such that people who are "good" with respect to book aren't actually very "good" with respect to any actual definition of the term I am familiar with ever having been advanced by any rational person or society ever.
Here's the biggy: According to the BoED, "The ends do not justify the means." That is, performing evil acts in order to attain what you hope will be good results is still wrong. Well, that's all fine and dandy - there are a number of real ethical systems which do exactly that and people really follow them (with varrying degrees of success), and from any kind of moral relativist standpoint I can't really condemn them for it even when I don't subscribe to it myself. But they do allow you to fight with weapons, and even kill people.
But Why?
Certainly, killing people causes pain and suffering, both for the person you are killing, and for everyone who knew and loved them. Noone, no matter how vile, goes unmourned. Sometimes it's only by creditors, but there is noone whose passing goes unblemished by sorrow and regret.
And yet, the reasons for allowing this are obvious. This is at its heart a tactical wargame, and victory is not really achieved until the enemy is dead and routed. You have to be able to kill the darklord, because it's a game and killing the darklord is what makes you win!
But Why?
You can't use poison or torture because it causes suffering - you can't even cast spells that make your enemies unhappy in the hopes that they'll bugger off and go home. When tools are removed from your tool kit on account of being "evil" it is because they "cause suffering".
Well, swords cause suffering. Lots of it. Physical injuries are called "trauma" for a reason. When you swing a sword into someone, it hurts them. It chops into flesh and bone, it bruises organs and severes nerves. When you slice into a nerve on someone's arm, it starts pumping out anguish to the limit of its capacity - much like every single pain nerve down stream of it were hammered simultaneously. But you can do that - even though it is potentially the most painful thing that you can do to someone.
But Why?
Well, you are allowed to chop up Evil People who are doing (or going to do) Evil Things. After all, if you don't kill that blackguard, he's going to kill a bunch of people - which really means that your inaction in that case would from a very real standpoint be a choice that killed a bunch of people with that blackguard's sword.
That's unconscionable, obviously. It's morally reprehensible to willingly allow horrible things to happen to people, just as it is awful to do those things to people yourself. And that justifies the use of weapons - even, perhaps especially, with deadly force - provided that it is used to save others and preserve even as you are unfortunately slaying others and destroying.
But Why?
What happened to the ends not justifying the means? In order to justify cutting people open in the name of peace and good neighborliness - we resorted (as indeed we must) to an existential view of choice and a utilitarian viewpoint of actions and good.
We can't "poison people". We can't "mutilate people". We can't do any of a number of things because of this deontological view of good and evil that the game imposes. But we can still cut people open in the heat of battle with a dull axe - provided that we have good cause.
But Why?
Because the ends justify the means, that's why!
Our use of weapons, and indeed everything we do and strive for, is justified in terms of action results. But a lot of stuff is ruled out because of methodology, even though the criteria by which it is ruled out is equally applicable (or more so) to some of the things which we have special dispensation for.
So the forces of "good" are a bunch of hypocrites who cannot be respected by anyone with an ounce of sense. The ethical code is iron clad, and contradictory on many points. They refuse to compromise, except for when they really want to in which case compromise is made not only with the principals themselves - but with the manner in which the principles are defined.
If an "exalted" policeman were to see a normal little girl who was dominated by a demon to pour cyanide into the well - and he was armed with a can of pepper spray and a gun - he'd have to shoot the innocent child instead of bringing her to her knees with the pepper spray. Why? The pepper spray and the bullet will both cause almost unimaginable agony and suffering, albeit temporarily, to the poor little girl. The bullet will also most probably kill her in an excruciating ordeal wherein a lance of white hot pain and despair will shove aside her very life blood until her heart gives out and she lies cold on the floor to while away the last minutes of her life with her brain suffocating in a tomb of unresponsive flesh. The pepper spray will cause one heck of a hystamine reaction and will leave a painful rash that won't go away for days or even weeks.
But "exalted" characters have special dispensation for the use of deadly force to promote good ends, even at the cost of suffering and anguish. They do not have special dispensation to hurt people with debilitating chemical compounds even to protect the person in question.
"Exalted" characters can not give an inch from the path of "righteousness". But the path of righteousness is not defined in this case in terms of helping people or saving lives, or anything sensible like that. It's defined in completely arbitrary terms which upon close examination make no sense at all.
"Exalted" characters do things that make no sense and resort to deadly violence and other astonishing crime when rational people would not. They can not, and will not perform many reasonable activities, but can and will stab people to death if they can't do anything else to attempt to resolve a situation - which is most of the time because they aren't allowed to lie, tranquilize people or animals, or even brand cattle. That's right, if the guards come to the door demanding that you turn over the young woman accused of witchcraft, and you don't have the evidence yet, you are not allowed to pretend she isn't there - but you are allowed to stab the guard in the face!
Noone would want "exalted" characters in their cities or countries. These guys are bat shit nuts and a danger to themselves and everyone around them. This is madness, not goodness.
So what's with this "spirit of the rules" crap? The "spirit" of the rules is adheering strictly to a nonsensical list of dos and don'ts - even at the cost of life and limb for innocent people throughout the world. So if you figure out some method that you can jury rig the rules of "exaltedness" into some method of actually being helpful to those in need - good for you. While the strictures of "good" make that sort of thing extremely difficult, when it's occassionally not actually forbidden it might be nice to try out once in a while.
-Username17
It comes down to a fundamental problem with the way they envision "good" - such that people who are "good" with respect to book aren't actually very "good" with respect to any actual definition of the term I am familiar with ever having been advanced by any rational person or society ever.
Here's the biggy: According to the BoED, "The ends do not justify the means." That is, performing evil acts in order to attain what you hope will be good results is still wrong. Well, that's all fine and dandy - there are a number of real ethical systems which do exactly that and people really follow them (with varrying degrees of success), and from any kind of moral relativist standpoint I can't really condemn them for it even when I don't subscribe to it myself. But they do allow you to fight with weapons, and even kill people.
But Why?
Certainly, killing people causes pain and suffering, both for the person you are killing, and for everyone who knew and loved them. Noone, no matter how vile, goes unmourned. Sometimes it's only by creditors, but there is noone whose passing goes unblemished by sorrow and regret.
And yet, the reasons for allowing this are obvious. This is at its heart a tactical wargame, and victory is not really achieved until the enemy is dead and routed. You have to be able to kill the darklord, because it's a game and killing the darklord is what makes you win!
But Why?
You can't use poison or torture because it causes suffering - you can't even cast spells that make your enemies unhappy in the hopes that they'll bugger off and go home. When tools are removed from your tool kit on account of being "evil" it is because they "cause suffering".
Well, swords cause suffering. Lots of it. Physical injuries are called "trauma" for a reason. When you swing a sword into someone, it hurts them. It chops into flesh and bone, it bruises organs and severes nerves. When you slice into a nerve on someone's arm, it starts pumping out anguish to the limit of its capacity - much like every single pain nerve down stream of it were hammered simultaneously. But you can do that - even though it is potentially the most painful thing that you can do to someone.
But Why?
Well, you are allowed to chop up Evil People who are doing (or going to do) Evil Things. After all, if you don't kill that blackguard, he's going to kill a bunch of people - which really means that your inaction in that case would from a very real standpoint be a choice that killed a bunch of people with that blackguard's sword.
That's unconscionable, obviously. It's morally reprehensible to willingly allow horrible things to happen to people, just as it is awful to do those things to people yourself. And that justifies the use of weapons - even, perhaps especially, with deadly force - provided that it is used to save others and preserve even as you are unfortunately slaying others and destroying.
But Why?
What happened to the ends not justifying the means? In order to justify cutting people open in the name of peace and good neighborliness - we resorted (as indeed we must) to an existential view of choice and a utilitarian viewpoint of actions and good.
We can't "poison people". We can't "mutilate people". We can't do any of a number of things because of this deontological view of good and evil that the game imposes. But we can still cut people open in the heat of battle with a dull axe - provided that we have good cause.
But Why?
Because the ends justify the means, that's why!
Our use of weapons, and indeed everything we do and strive for, is justified in terms of action results. But a lot of stuff is ruled out because of methodology, even though the criteria by which it is ruled out is equally applicable (or more so) to some of the things which we have special dispensation for.
So the forces of "good" are a bunch of hypocrites who cannot be respected by anyone with an ounce of sense. The ethical code is iron clad, and contradictory on many points. They refuse to compromise, except for when they really want to in which case compromise is made not only with the principals themselves - but with the manner in which the principles are defined.
If an "exalted" policeman were to see a normal little girl who was dominated by a demon to pour cyanide into the well - and he was armed with a can of pepper spray and a gun - he'd have to shoot the innocent child instead of bringing her to her knees with the pepper spray. Why? The pepper spray and the bullet will both cause almost unimaginable agony and suffering, albeit temporarily, to the poor little girl. The bullet will also most probably kill her in an excruciating ordeal wherein a lance of white hot pain and despair will shove aside her very life blood until her heart gives out and she lies cold on the floor to while away the last minutes of her life with her brain suffocating in a tomb of unresponsive flesh. The pepper spray will cause one heck of a hystamine reaction and will leave a painful rash that won't go away for days or even weeks.
But "exalted" characters have special dispensation for the use of deadly force to promote good ends, even at the cost of suffering and anguish. They do not have special dispensation to hurt people with debilitating chemical compounds even to protect the person in question.
"Exalted" characters can not give an inch from the path of "righteousness". But the path of righteousness is not defined in this case in terms of helping people or saving lives, or anything sensible like that. It's defined in completely arbitrary terms which upon close examination make no sense at all.
"Exalted" characters do things that make no sense and resort to deadly violence and other astonishing crime when rational people would not. They can not, and will not perform many reasonable activities, but can and will stab people to death if they can't do anything else to attempt to resolve a situation - which is most of the time because they aren't allowed to lie, tranquilize people or animals, or even brand cattle. That's right, if the guards come to the door demanding that you turn over the young woman accused of witchcraft, and you don't have the evidence yet, you are not allowed to pretend she isn't there - but you are allowed to stab the guard in the face!
Noone would want "exalted" characters in their cities or countries. These guys are bat shit nuts and a danger to themselves and everyone around them. This is madness, not goodness.
So what's with this "spirit of the rules" crap? The "spirit" of the rules is adheering strictly to a nonsensical list of dos and don'ts - even at the cost of life and limb for innocent people throughout the world. So if you figure out some method that you can jury rig the rules of "exaltedness" into some method of actually being helpful to those in need - good for you. While the strictures of "good" make that sort of thing extremely difficult, when it's occassionally not actually forbidden it might be nice to try out once in a while.
-Username17