The Gaming Den

As I mentioned over on Frank's OSSR for the Book of Exalted Deeds, there was a third-party book which covered similar ground and I wondered how it compared. As it happens, that third party was AEG, and due to Frank's well-known rage-boner for the company that (among other offenses) killed him in effigy, I suspect he'd never dignify it with his own review. Fortunately, my store still had a copy tucked away in the old third-party d20 stuff, so I can do it myself.

The book was called simply Good, to fit in with their line of similarly tersely titled books, like Gods, Magic, and Feats.

I remember really liking this book when it first came out, but that was before my critical thinking skills developed. I really liked Savage Species too, for fuck's sake, so: 1) I don't blame you for giving up on my opinion having any value right now, and 2) I suspect I am in for some rude shocks as I try to reconcile my fond memories with whatever is actually on the pages. Alas, I am not a drinking man, so I'm doing this without a net.


Opening Pages

The first thing I notice is that this thing was published in 2002, so it predates the BoED's 2003 release. It turns out that AEGs book Evil came out in 2001, and also predates its counterpart, the BoVD. The second thing I notice is that the name Mike Mearls is all over the credits for this thing.

I need a drink.

Yes, Mike 'What's a Deadline' Mearls is listed under 'writing,' 'editing,' and 'project manager.' He's also listed under 'special thanks' for 'being the sixth sense,' which I assume is an in-joke I will never get. Also troubling is a fellow named jim pinto, because having been on the Den for a while now, I have some negative associations with people who reject capital letters. jim's listed in multiple places (under 'writing,' 'art direction,' and 'line developer'), so I assume it's not a typo.

Other credited names I recognize at all are Shawn Carman (who did a bunch of fiction for L5R) as a writer, and the dedication to John Zinser (co-founder and president of AEG) as 'the original paladin.' Sorry guys, I'm sure John's a great guy and all, but I'm pretty sure the original paladin is still Roland.

The introduction opens with something that is so incoherent that I have to share the whole thing.

The good guys have style and class. In the movies, they always win. In books, they get all the cool lines. In games, they're the center of the campaign world. Everyone wants to be a good guy.
Why?
On the surface, that's a damn good question.

Seriously, you have just pre-answered your own question four times, then congratulated yourself for asking it. And that's before we even get into how there are many movies where the good guys lose, many books where the bad guys get all the cool lines, many games... you get the picture. Who edited this mess? Oh, right.

Anyway, the intro goes on to talk about how being good gets you true friendship, popularity, and endorphin rushes. It's unusual to hear a recruiting pitch for good based on individual benefit and not collective benefit. I don't object to the enlightened self-interest, but seriously, 'YOU can be a rock star' is kind of a weird place to start selling a moral ideal. On the other hand, the conflation of popularity with goodness is a time-honored part of D&D's incoherence on the subject.

Then it goes on to an entirely different conflation, this time of 'good' with 'protagonist.' It's the exact same confusion we often see around the word 'hero,' because some people are heroic because they are impressive (like the Greek heroes) and some people are heroic because they are moral (unlike the Greek heroes). Also (like in the BoED) it really sounds like it's trying to sell itself as a player powercreep book.

This book takes the concept that heroes are special and applies it to the d20 system... The player characters are special, the stars of the story. This book takes that concept and runs with it. The rules and material presented here give the characters more options and abilities in their endless quest against the forces of evil. DMs won't find too much to use here, but players will find options for making their characters truly heroic.

Damn, that writing has a lot of echoes in it. There is no way anybody edited that.

The other half of the intro page is chapter summaries:
• Chapter 1 is going to talk about the different kinds of Good (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) and then give us a lot more customization of our paladins.
• Chapter 2 is the powergame chapter, promising 'rules that allow powerful heroes to cleave through large mobs of weak monsters' (I thought we already had Cleave), some sort of 'emotional element,' and many prestige classes and feats.
• Chapter 3 is spells, items, and moral confusion. 'While good may believe in peace, it's always ready to go to war to protect the innocent. These spells and items will come in handy for characters preparing for a crusade of their own.' Who wrote this, Donald Rumsfeld?
• Chapter 4 is about 'heroic orders' and 'worship points' and seems to be entirely about kissing NPC ass for favors.
• Chapter 5 is monsters, but good monsters, the kind you could ally with.

Back later with chapter one.

Sounds pretty decent so far. How bad can it get?

wait what's this bout franktrollman's effigy?

Nice. The closest I've ever gotten into delving into those d20 books is looking at my cousin's d20 monster book. I seem to remember some stupid monster with two heads that makes a really awesome caster...

This should be good. Third party and Mike Mearls.

OgreBattle wrote:wait what's this bout franktrollman's effigy?

Third post.

RobbyPants wrote:This should be good. Third party and Mike Mearls.

Mearls does offer some hope, but I'm not seeing a lot of religiosity or furries, so it may be hard pressed to compare to the pros.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:• Chapter 5 is monsters, but good monsters, the kind you could ally with.

Oh, right. Lame monsters. Why does something I'll never fight need to take up a page with stats?

Chapter 1: The Righteous

This chapter opens with a quote from some paladin about how he's a sinner, but fighting that nature slowly redeems him; and that no-one has an excuse not to fight as he does, not even his father (or possibly priest?). Despite the catholic overtones, as a one paragraph piece of expository characterization, it's not bad, though it doesn't really fit the material that immediately follows. Which is a discussion of Good in general and the three Good alignments in particular.

Good and Evil
The general discussion of Good is a bizarre contrast with the introduction. It is all about altruism, about 'fighting the basic impulse of self-preservation so that others can survive,' and going on about how 'many a hero has died a lonely, uncelebrated death saving the lives of total strangers.' This is exactly the kind of shit that should have preceded the question of why people choose to be Good in the intro, except that it's hard to be rewarded with true friendship, popularity, and endorphins after you've just given your life for strangers.

There is then a brief mention of idealism conflicting with practicality, and how balancing those can be difficult. No examples to clarify that aggravatingly vague statement, though. Maybe they come later?

The first Good they get into is Chaotic Good, and it becomes clear that the version of Chaos they are going with is 'disorganized,' with a side order of individualistic. The exact term 'rugged self-reliance' is actually used. Other traits that are brought up are decisive/impatient and flexibility. Chaotic societies apparently prefer barter to coinage (a little weird, since the coinage is *also* barter) which reads like a way to screw players who are frequently long on gold and short on bales of linen. Finally, it mentions that Chaotic Good characters under charm effects should count more commands as 'against their alignment,' because their alignment doesn't follow orders, man. It's a bit strange, but I think it's actually more coherent than the PHB.

Next up is Lawful Good, which is unusually not fellated. They are portrayed as potentially hidebound, the attention paid to law (work within the system, stick to the plan) diluting the attention paid to good, which nicely mirrors how the chaotic behaviors do the same. There's also mention that Lawful Good societies tend to be 'aggressively expansionist, and view their conquests to be in their enemies' best interests' (creepy). Editing is still bad, because there's a chunk in here which is specifically about paladins implying falsehoods through carefully phrased truths. There's also a bit about how LG is the most self-sacrificing alignment, and how an LG character might voluntarily fail a reflex save against a lightning bolt to shove a friend out of the way and give them a bonus. Regardless of utility, that's not even as mechanically rigorous as the CG anti-charm effect; odds that they will introduce this as a formal optional rule later on: Jim Slim to Senator Sam Nunn.

Neutral Good is a maddening combination of intriguing and incoherent. The conceit here is that while NG characters aren't distracted by Law or Chaos... they aren't anchored by those things either, and without the extra principle it's easier for them to say 'no matter the cost,' go fanatic, and slip into evil behaviors in pursuit of their ideal. That's actually pretty cool and combines with the first two to lay out some pros and cons for each of the three Goods.

The problem is that in a three-page screed about Good, there's basically no actual mention of what Good might actually be, except dying so others can live. It's implied that the CG guy believes that Good is 'freedom,' and the LG guy believes in some form of utilitarian Good, but the NG section has nothing but self-referential bullshit to work with. They also don't get any special powers for some reason.

The problem is that nobody was willing to sit down and write either 'this is Good' or 'here are some options for what Good could be in your game.' I don't know if it was cowardice or laziness or whatever, but that failure sharply limits the use of this whole section, because it's about motives and methods for promoting a thing that nobody knows what it is.

Orange juice doesn't help.


Why Good?
Oh, here we are again. The answer they give is loyalty, even though in the Chaotic Good section they talked about how those guys specifically don't hang together and right here they mention how Lawful Evil guys honor their obligations. There's a real Lensman vibe here, where they talk about how Good societies form mutual supports while Evil societies are cut-throat competitive and discard failures Darth Vader-style.


Good as Bad
Holy cow, a ray of light; actual discussion of conflict between Good people. Okay, sometimes there are just hard resource limits and there is no diplomatic solution; hardcore. Sometimes both sides are Good but so alien that they don't recognize each other as such. How is that possible? What? That would require knowing what Good is? Motherfucker.

Next up, tribalism; some people are Good but also bigots, apparently. Also, Good people may tolerate slavery if the slaves are treated well.

I'm suddenly glad they didn't do a 'this is Good' section, because I don't want to know what would have been in it. The light was a train.

...and now clerics and paladins of Dwarf and Elf gods are approaching genocidal and apparently those Gods who are Good are also bigots. We have just reached 'Good is what my God tells me to do' territory. Now, we are told that this sort of thing is actually evil, which is confusing when the very next section is...


High Good vs. Low Good
High Good is about how those who have no choice but to be Good - celestials, metallic dragons, people under helm of alignment effects - are intolerant of the minor or rare lapses that other people might tolerate. How is that coherent with ostensibly Good gods condoning genocide? Who edited... never mind.

Low Good is about how crapsack peasants can be Good too, if only in small ways. Very patronizing.

Alternate Paladins
Oh good, game mechanics; that seems less likely to enrage me.

So first up, a whole bunch of alternate class features so Paladins can be tailored to more specific deities. You're stuck with Divine Grace, Divine Health, Aura of Courage, Turn Undead, and spellcasting. You can trade Detect Evil for Detect Chaos or Detect Law if your deity is Lawful or Chaotic, and nobody cares.

You can trade Lay on Hands for a bullshit small ranged touch energy damage effect, or a bullshit inflict effect, or a poorly-worded ability to boost saving throws that I can't parse. You can trade Smite Evil for Smite Law or Chaos, or one of your deity's domain effects (I'd say Travel would be a real winner, but that ability references your Cleric level), or a 1/day gimpy version of a Barbarian's rage, or spontaneous curing like a cleric.

You can trade Remove Disease (sold!) for any 3rd-level or lower spell from your deity's domains. The per week uses are still bullshit, but trading out Remove Disease for something proactive like Fly or Detect Thoughts is a plus. You can trade your mount for any CR 2 animal which will get the same bonuses, which is cool, now Medium characters can reliably take that class feature into the dungeon.

All told, nothing to write home about, because at the end of the day: still paladins and not classes that are good.


The Avenger is the specifically Chaotic Good paladin variant. The flavor text is that these guys are loose cannons who don't protect or heal, only punish the wicked. They also specifically have a problem figuring out who's wicked, because their Detect Evil also Detects Law at the same time and does not distinguish. I am not kidding.

At level 1, they lose proficiency with heavy armor and shields, also lay on hands and divine grace; in exchange they get a good Reflex save, which is clearly not worth it. At level 2, instead of Aura of Courage they get Aura of Righteousness, which is a +2 to Intimidate Evil and Lawful beings. That's terrible. Instead of Smite Evil, they get Unbridled Wrath, which is +Wisdom mod to hit (instead of Charisma) and on a successful hit staggers the target for (Wisdom mod) rounds, which is admittedly better than a little extra damage. Instead of a special mount, they get a hunting beast like a hound or hawk who gets bullshit small sneak attack as the Avenger levels up.

Instead of Remove Disease they get nothing. Until level 8, when they get Summary Judgement, an ability with 4e levels of flavor/effect disconnect.

An Avenger's Wrath is a terrible all-consuming force which the unrighteous can never escape. At 8th level, the Avenger can perform a coup de grace as a move-equivalent action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

The Defender is the NG paladin variant, and its conceit is that it seeks out good people to protect, so it actually has Detect Good instead of Evil, which is not uninteresting.

At level 1, it loses Divine Grace and Divine Health in exchange for Tower shield proficiency, a good Will save, and Shield Familiarity, which is Ambidexterity only for shield bashing. At level 2, instead of Aura of Courage or Smite Evil, they gain the ability to shove people around or pin them with their shield.

Instead of a special mount, they get nothing. Instead of Remove Disease, they get the ability to give their shield bonus and their Expertise-related bonuses to AC to a character in their threatened area, the use of which provokes an attack of opportunity. This is a class whose design is unsullied by math or playtesting. How else could nobody notice a complete inability to actually y'know, protect people from things.

Okay, I actually can't take any more of this just now, but there are a couple extra non-paladin classes here that weren't mentioned in the introduction. I'll try to get to them later tonight as a bonus round.

They also specifically have a problem figuring out who's wicked, because their Detect Evil also Detects Law at the same time and does not distinguish. I am not kidding.

Hey, don't knock it. That's pretty flavourful.

angelfromanotherpin wrote: The Defender is the NG paladin variant, and its conceit is that it seeks out good people to protect, so it actually has Detect Good instead of Evil, which is not uninteresting.

At level 1, it loses Divine Grace and Divine Health in exchange for Tower shield proficiency, a good Will save, and Shield Familiarity, which is Ambidexterity only for shield bashing. At level 2, instead of Aura of Courage or Smite Evil, they gain the ability to shove people around or pin them with their shield.

Wait do Paladins get Tower Shield Proficiency?
Ambidexterity is 3.0. Is this book as well?

Slade wrote: Ambidexterity is 3.0. Is this book as well?

The OP says the book was published in 2002.

Game On,
fbmf

Grek wrote:

They also specifically have a problem figuring out who's wicked, because their Detect Evil also Detects Law at the same time and does not distinguish. I am not kidding.

Hey, don't knock it. That's pretty flavourful.

Is it? It seems pretty weird to me that a High Priest of Ilmater is indistinguishable from a balor in divinely granted mystic vision.

Sure. The High Priest of Ilmater is the Man, man. And the Balor, he's a jerk, man. And everyone knows the Man is a jerk, and that most jerks work for the Man, man. So they must be equally bad.

And if you go by the planescape Great Wheel cosmology thing, CE and LG are both equally distant from CG, so they are equally repugnant to the CG paladin's sensibilities.

Meh. Mostly I just see it as a weird attempt at a Good assassin (or at least executioner, with that CdG rule), but for every Hitler contract, he accidentally murders a Gandhi too.
A standoff between craftsmen (maybe) and bandits = kill everyone.


Yeah, lets not go on the Great Wheel cosmology idea, as that leads directly to CG heroes helping demons rape kittens so that they will help murder devils. Obviously that is reasonable, since CR is a close corner on the wheel, and LE is the opposite square.

I'm... not sure that Ghandi would be Lawful... I mean, sure, civil disobedience, but still, disobedience. Also, he was a dick in his personal life, from what I've heard.

Prak_Anima wrote:I'm... not sure that Ghandi would be Lawful...

“Mussolini's care of the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about coordination between capital and labor, seem to me to demand special attention ... My own fundamental objection is that these reforms are compulsory. But it is the same in all democratic institutions. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini's implacability is a desire to serve his people. Even behind his emphatic speeches there is a nucleus of sincerity and of passionate love for his people. It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini.
-Gandhi, on Mussolini


Perhaps Neutral is better than lawful. But then Gandhi also believed for a time that Britain should peacefully submit to Germany, as India had to Britain, and they could eventually earn their independence through peaceful protest. He changed his mind on that though, so his flexible views seem more Neutral than absolute Law.

dick in personal life

He abstained from sex after his father died. He was at his father's deathbed for over a month but one day got really horny so went to fuck his wife, when he was fucking her this dude came in the room and said "GANDHI YOUR DAD DIED!!"

that moment killed his boner FOREVER, he calls it "double shame"

and yeah being the leader of a country fighting for independence from violent colonials means he spent little time with his wife or kids, and puts alot of pressure on his family to also hold up an ideal.

New Character Classes
The Priest is the divine caster who doesn't wear plate armor, and I was really excited about this class back when I first read it, because a lot of source material involves priests in robes and bikinis and so on, not ironmongery. Freed to represent such characters without putting a Hat of Disguise on a person in full plate, I actually used a fair number of these in my games.

They have a lot of flavor text about how they adventure less than Clerics and are generally higher-ranked in their church; which doesn't make a lot of sense because we all know that religious rank is closely related to level, and people who adventure more also level more. They also have to be exactly the same alignment as their deity, because they get less leeway for some reason. Although you can totally be a Priest without a god, just like a Cleric, so whatever.

The basic class chassis is d6 Hit die, Poor BAB, Good Fort and Will, and 4 skill points. This is still better than the Wizard chassis, but probably overall better design for such a chassis. I remember reading John Tweet said that they'd have given the Wizard a d6 hit die for a touch more survivability, but they thought the grognards would have a tantrum over it; and 4 skill points seems to have been accepted as the Den standard, especially as the class has little reason not to dump Int.

The Priest has no armor or shield proficiencies, and weirdly also the text: 'may incur spell failure for using armor or shields they are unfamiliar with.' First off, it's called Arcane Spell Failure, and the Priest is still a (preparation) divine caster, so I don't even know what it's talking about. Second off, 'unfamiliar' is not a game term I'm aware of relating to armor. So I have no idea what that text is supposed to mean, but I'm pretty sure what it winds up meaning is nothing. The lack of armor proficiency does make it harder to just throw up Divine Power and pretend you'd given up no martial ability, though I'm sure there's a spell somewhere to just give yourself the armor bonus anyway.

Priests also have the exact same weapon proficiency list as the wizard, except they also get to use the light mace. This doesn't mean much because if you were going to meaningfully wield a weapon you could get a decent proficiency through the War sphere or being an Elf anyway.

Priests also can't spontaneously Cure (or Inflict) unless they have the spheres of Good, Healing, or Protection (or Death, Destruction, or Evil). That's a little weird, but whatever, get your wand on and don't care.

So, what do Priests get in exchange for all this?

That was predictable, wasn't it?

Well, there's also moar Turning. Priests can turn 1 extra time per day and turn as a Cleric one level higher than themselves. Whoop-de-do.

The real meat is this: one extra domain spell per spell level per day (the two domain spells must be from different domains), and three domains instead of two (Deities with fewer than three domains are explicitly not cool enough to have Priests).

But wait, there's more. They also have the Miracles ability, which lets them, once per day per spell level, spontaneously cast a spell from the Cleric list. That's insane, because the Cleric list is insanely long and will have the player dumpster diving a lot. I'm going to call that a high chance of play delays with a side order of option paralysis.

Miracles also contains this poorly thought out bit: 'If the priest chooses to replace a prepared spell with a spontaneously chosen one, he must spend a move-equivalent action to prepare the miracle before casting it with his next action. If he uses a slot he has not allocated to a prepared spell, he may select and cast a spell as a standard action.'

So first, there's literally no downside to just leaving one spell per spell level open to become whatever the fuck spell you want. Second, I'm pretty sure that second sentence technically lets a Priest bypass long casting times. I remember that this ability was basically ignored at my table, I think because no-one could actually be fucked to put in the necessary effort.

Priests also have the ability Church Leadership, which is usable once per game. I assume they meant once per game session rather than once per campaign, but once again the writer can't be bothered to define the terms they're using. Whichever it is, using it lets the Priest get a favor from an NPC associated with the church, because Priests are inexplicably more tied to the Church community than Clerics. The example favors are meaningful but modest, and the NPC will expect a similar favor at some point. The NPC's level cannot exceed the Priest's level plus their Charisma mod, which suggests the writer did not appreciate what kind of power spectrum that represents. There's an implication that this basically retcons an appropriate NPC into wherever the Priest is when this ability is used (and it specifically can't be used 'in locations where the Priest's religion is unwelcome,' which I assume means most dungeons) but it is not implied strongly enough that you'd have anything to point to if a DM just denied you on the grounds that there was no such NPC nearby. I actually kind of like this ability, but it's very sloppily written.

Finally, at level 15, a Priest gets Favored of the Gods which is a two-parter. First, once per week (lame!) any one person who strikes the Priest with a melee or ranged attack must make a Fortitude Save or die. The Fortitude save is weirdly non-standard, too, with a DC of: Cleric's level (presumably typoed from Priest level) plus Wisdom modifier plus Charisma modifier. Anyone who makes the save takes the same amount of damage that their attack inflicted on the Priest, and you're immune to the whole thing if you're a divine caster at all or if your level (or CR) is equal to or higher than the Priest's level. Not listed: if the Priest chooses when this activates, or if it's just the first person each week who manages to nut them, and whether the immune people discharge the effect harmlessly or leave it in place until someone eligible comes along. Just sloppy.

Second, as an afterthought, the Priest gains a +3 sacred (or profane) bonus to all saving throws. Y'know, 'cause.

Oh, I didn't even notice this, Favored of the Gods also means that your god loves you so much they're reluctant to let you leave their side, so you can't be resurrected unless another Priest of at least your level gives the rez attempt their blessing. Now, I know that 15th+ level play is cray-cray town anyway, but that's actually a significant downside considering how much rezzing you're supposed to need at that level. Apparently high-level Priests are incentivized to adventure in plurals. I never ran a Priest at this level so none of this nonsense ever came up.

And that's the Priest. Even more OP than a Cleric in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing; actually kind of underperformed in my own hands 11 years ago, mostly due to squishiness.


The Adherent is an NPC-grade divine caster, meant to fill in for nameless but still empowered dogsbodies in a faith. They are spectacularly uninteresting, except that despite being even less martially inclined than a Priest (d4 hit die, one simple weapon proficiency, no armor or shield proficiency) they have 3/4 BAB. That's weird, right?

Prak_Anima wrote:I'm... not sure that Ghandi would be Lawful... I mean, sure, civil disobedience, but still, disobedience. Also, he was a dick in his personal life, from what I've heard.

I hesitated a lot on naming actual leaders on the grounds that someone would randomly nitpick, but decided that since the last time it happened, someone jumped in with 'but Indians are actually fine with Nazis,' and decided it was thus appropriate to do Hitler and Gandhi.

But if you object, pick your own. I don't give two shits- the point is still obvious.

angelfromanotherpin wrote: And that's the Priest. Even more OP than a Cleric in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing; actually kind of underperformed in my own hands 11 years ago, mostly due to squishiness.

So in the "GOOD" book you can still make evil characters? So would this also double for creating black hat churches and stuff?

Spoilered for Ghandi off topicness.

OgreBattle wrote:

dick in personal life

He abstained from sex after his father died. He was at his father's deathbed for over a month but one day got really horny so went to fuck his wife, when he was fucking her this dude came in the room and said "GANDHI YOUR DAD DIED!!"

that moment killed his boner FOREVER, he calls it "double shame"

and yeah being the leader of a country fighting for independence from violent colonials means he spent little time with his wife or kids, and puts alot of pressure on his family to also hold up an ideal.

Oh, in fact checking what I only know from Bullshit!, apparently he only slept next to naked female children and teenagers to test his celibacy.
Well that makes it loads better...

OgreBattle wrote:So in the "GOOD" book you can still make evil characters? So would this also double for creating black hat churches and stuff?

Yes, a lot of the stuff here is actually alignment-agnostic. I'm pretty sure the section about carving through hordes of mooks is just about being a protagonist and the section about winning favor with gods and organizations could just as easily apply to evil gods and evil organizations. I guess we'll see, I'm not reading ahead.

Does the Favored of the Gods ability specify A Priest or ANOTHER Priest? Cause the second means no self-rezzing with Contingencies

shirak wrote:Does the Favored of the Gods ability specify A Priest or ANOTHER Priest? Cause the second means no self-rezzing with Contingencies

It specifies 'another.' You definitely need a bro, though he might only have to be there giving you the thumbs up when you placed the Contingency. Again, what 'giving their blessing' requires or involves is not at all explored. It's possible that when any Priest reaches 15th level they could visit the pope of their religion and get rez permission in perpetuity. Hell, getting that permission as a form letter could be part of being ordained at level 1, just in case.

Does it deal with the afterlife, like why their God NEEDS to keep a level 15 Priest at their side instead of on earth to do His Work.

The sum total of explanation is: 'Characters with the class feature are among the greatest members of their church in history, and may become saints or other servitors of their gods once they die.'