The Book of Vile Darkness: Post Game Report

Click here to read from the beginning

The Book of Vile Darkness has been a disappointment on so many levels. The logic throughout the majority of the book is so corrupted by false premises and assumptions that it has created a world where there are no good guys and for a game built on heroes that is simply untenable. The gods are mostly useless and often so poorly written that it makes my head spin. The feats are either game breaking, redundant, or just an awful mess. The majority of the spells are reworkings of previously existing material (I'm looking at you No Light). The monsters are, again, from mostly previously existing material. And even Chapter 7 Lords of Evil, which is the most interesting chapter in the entire book, is nothing more than a re-hash of previously published material.

I can not understand why anyone would ever recommend purchasing this book after they've read it. Instead you're far better off answering the following questions and building your campaign's evil forces around them.

1.) Who are the major evil powers in your campaign?

2.) What makes them evil?

3.) Who and what works for them?

4.) What are their long term plans for your campaign world?

5.) Who or what is the most powerful evil entity in your campaign?

6.) What are their long term plans for your world?

----------------------------------

Now if you're looking to find some really good evil gods to pepper into your campaign then you should look at the Monster Mythology. This book has some amazingly detailed gods that can be slipped in most anywhere and that are fully compatible with most any Dungeons and Dragons style campaign. 

The Book of Vile Darkness: Part What the . . .

Click here to read from the beginning

After wading through the asinine logic in the last entry I've found the first interesting section of the book: Evil Acts. Ideally this section would feature a mechanic to help discern a person's alignment on the good to evil axis. Unfortunately what we get is a list of acts that Monte Cook feels are evil in a black and white world; as usual, he uses a system of faulty premises to compile the list and includes some acts that are not evil, such as greed, which he assumes is so evil that ". . . it hardly seems worth mentioning . . ." (pg 9). Really?

Fuck me running Monte.

For a man who has been involved in the industry for 14 years when this book was published your logic about objective evil is coming out like a first year philosophy hack. Greed isn't intrinsically evil. But far more importantly, by this logic every adventurer who steps outside his door in search of loot is committing an evil act by simply following that great adventuring motto: "Save the girl, slay the dragon, loot the treasure."

Anyway, next we come to Monte's list of evil fetishes and addictions. Here he equates alcoholism, drug addiction with cannibalism and psychopathy. To be perfectly honest this list is such a statement on his own hang ups about sex and social mores that I really can't be bothered with it. Suffice it to say that the list should be shorted from eight items to five: cannibalism, sadism, psychopathy, necrophilia, and bestiality (though the example he uses when it comes to bestiality really isn't evil it's just misdirected love created by lycanthropy).

The next section is titled Vile Gods, save your time and skip this section as they're so poorly crafted that you could come up with better dark gods on the fly.

Of the Vile Races and Cultures presented in the book I can not honestly give an answer for why he wasted his time. The Vashar have an okay story but really there isn't a place for them in most games as they're just evil humans. Why he chose to make them a race instead of a nation I'll never understand. And the Jerren are just as bad. Save yourself the headache of introducing them as a separate race and run them as a nation. You'll get far more millage out of them.  

The villain section presents some broad strokes that if you had never read a book or seen a movie might be useful for you, otherwise skip.

The Malign Sites (pg. 21-22) are worth reading though Monte never went far enough with them. There is a clear influence of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play at work here and my suggestion would be to go to the original source instead of fooling with this derivative slag.

Now the section on possession is actually pretty neat. Far too many game mechanics at play here (more the system's fault I think than Monte's) but the main kernel of the idea is good and the section is worth reading. I'm using the main crux and dropping the rest (really, the possessed creature gets a save every god damned round? How are you ever supposed to set up interesting situations like that?).

The Sacrifice rules and reward system are complete crap.

The section on Curses is going into my game -- especially the Alternative Curses (pg 28).

The Diseases are okay though again you can see the influence of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play with things such as Warp Touch (pg 31).

It is at this point that we come to one of the biggest missed opportunity for some amazing game fodder in the Other Aspects of Evil section. Here Monte pulls from a variety of sources and screws them all up. The Calling (pg 32) would be far better if it were a single powerful evil creature began to pull all the other evil creatures to it and lead a crusade against the good nations of the world - hell you're already emulating Warhammer throughout the rest of the book you might as well pull the best stuff too. Dark Speech and Dark Chant are forced though you can adjust them to make them work for you if you've the time. Hivemind (pg 34) would be far better if it weren't just vermin.

The Lingering Effects of Evil (pg 35) section is worthless, Heroes of Horror did it far better and without anywhere near the page count.

When it comes to Chapter 3 the only part worth reading is pages 41 - 46 starting with the section tilted Drugs. Otherwise this chapter is mostly a waste.

Chapter 4 is a waste of ink.

Chapter 5 has some interesting prestige classes but you don't really need them in your game unless you're running an evil campaign.

In Chapter 6 read only pages 117-122 starting with the section titled Artifacts. Anything else in this section should be set on fire and ignored as it's predicated on his asinine logic. But if you press me to find some good spells in the previous pages of Chapter 6, I can only recommend the following spells: Aberrate (pg 84), Bestow Greater Curse (pg 85), Charnel Fire (87), Consume Likeness (pg 89), and Eternity of Torture (pg 93). There are some other spells that might tempt you to use them but most of this section is just filler (No Light [pg 100], really Monte? Why not just use fucking Darkness).

Chapter 7 is worth reading from beginning to end. There are a plethora of vile lords of darkness and evil that you can set up as major villains in your campaign. Keep in mind that most of this section is a rehash of previous material publish on the Demon Lords and Arch-devils so don't expect anything that will make this a must own.

Chapter 8: I'm not a huge fan. There are some interesting monsters sprinkled in here and there, but most of these guys just come across as filler.

At the very end of the book we get an appendix which is essentially about running an evil campaign. Now let me tell you that if you're going to be playing in the world Monte Cook created using his fucked up logic then any party that isn't questing to eradicate evil is already an evil party in the view of this book. So it should come as no surprise to find that the appendix recommends you run an evil party essentially as you would a good party.

Fuck no.

Just.

         Fuck.

                       No.

Click here to read the final part

The Book of Vile Darkness: Part One

 Click here to start from the beginning

Not half as good as Heroes of Horror

The Book of Vile Darkness begins by warning the reader to "Hide this book! . . . [The] Book of Vile Darkness is for Dungeon Masters (DMs) only. Just as you would keep the contents of a published adventure to yourself, restrict your players' access to this book as well. Don't let them know what's in store for their characters . . ." (pg 4). I wish that I could tell you that the book is going to live up to such a wonderful little addendum, but I have a feeling that will not be the case. Still, let's proceed.

The book properly begins by addressing the nature of evil. There are two type of evil: Objective and Relative. The Objective view holds that good, neutral, and evil are clearly defined traits and that an act, person, or what-have-you can clearly be put into one of these three categories. The Relative view, on the other hand, holds that good, neutral, and evil are subjective to the individual and the culture in which the act is committed. It further holds that a valuation of the act from an outside observer is not possible as the observer is subject to their own social mores and would not be capable of accurately determining the nature of the act. As we are playing a game in which we are able to use magic to determine another's alignment and to protect ourselves from people of the opposite alignment the book would like you to use the Objective version of evil. I am fine with using the Objective version of evil as relativism is a real pain in the ass in terms of the game. I understand its value in real life, but it can get fucked when it comes to my game.

Now on page six we come to the first major problem this book has: it can not value good and evil correctly. Allow me to quote the book and then I'll explain.

. . . Consider the paladin Zophas. When climbing to the very top of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues down the hill, crushing a hut full of commoners. Is Zophas an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good alignment? No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and responsibility . . . But what if Zophas' friend Shurrin said, "Don't climb up there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the hut!" Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of hubris. At this point, Zophas isn't exactly a murderer, but he should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.

If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide but climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the owlbears, that's clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is . . .

Sometimes, however . .  . [the] categories . . . [of accidental acts, reckless acts, and negligent acts] are insufficient to determine evil intent. You are free to judge an act in the context of other actions . . . A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly!) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character pours poison into the town's water supply. Is that evil? Probably not - at least, not in the context of the rest of the character's actions and the circumstances involved. Still, good characters shouldn't commit even remotely questionable acts on a large scale unless they're absolutely sure there's no other way to succeed . . . But let's make it even more complicated. Another character witnesses the good character about to put the poison in the town's drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs - the other choice the witness has - is far more evil than preventing the poisoning . . . (pg 6-7)

Let me begin with the situation involving Zophas and Shurrin: according to Monte if Shurrin warns Zophas that the slope might slide if he climbs it to get away from the owlbears, and Zophas ignores his warning, then Zophas has probably committed an evil act because innocents will have died as an indirect result of his direct action.

To quote one of my favorite philosophy professors, bullshit.

Zophas can only be responsible for his own actions and not for every subsequent reaction to his actions. If we break down the event into its parts we find that the act of escaping from the owlbears is not evil. Climbing the hillside is not evil. Ignoring Shurrin's warning is not evil. The resulting rockslide is not evil. The death of innocents in the hut is not evil, tragic yes, but not an evil act. Evil has intent behind it. An accident has no intent behind it and therefore cannot be an evil act.

Monte, however, is not done with our paladin. He goes on to say that " . . . If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide but climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the owlbears, that's clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is . . ." (pg 6).

What asinine logic!

Even if Zophas can clearly see the potential for danger there is nothing wrong with him taking the chance to save his own life as prior to him actually climbing the hillside as there is no way for him to know if the slide will occur or not. Yet Monte would have us believe that an accident is the same as an intentional act. For in the ruling on the scenario Zophas is as guilty of committing an evil act as if he had poisoned the family in the hut to use them as bait for the owlbears.

The ruling is wrong and the logic is bankrupt.

Let's move on and look more closely at the maniac and the player character.

. . . A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly!) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character pours poison into the town's water supply. Is that evil? Probably not . . . (pg 6)

In this situation Monte would like us to believe that the maniac is guilty essentially because he is a non-player character while the player character is innocent because there are mitigating circumstances behind his action.

Seriously?

Both examples are convinced that the people in town are demons, the difference is that in the first example the character is mislead by his own mind while in the second he is mislead by a evil entity. Essentially there is no difference between the two acts. So why then would one be evil and one not?

The answer, quite simply, is that there is no difference between the acts: both are evil.

Before I move on let's look at the last part of this scenario:

. . . let's make it even more complicated. Another character witnesses the good character about to put the poison in the town's drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs - the other choice the witness has - is far more evil than preventing the poisoning . . . (pg 6-7)

Standing by while a mass murder occurs is not evil, it's cowardice. Participating in the act - getting the poison, opening the well, encouraging the character to pour the poison - those are evil acts. Not acting in a situation where your help is needed because you're unsure of what to do or afraid to interfere is not evil. It's sad, pathetic and most probably an act of a coward, but it is not an evil act.

Click here to read the next part

The Book of Vile Darkness: Preamble and Such

When I first started playing Dungeons and Dragons the Book of Vile Darkness had just come out and many of the people that I was gaming with at that time were enthralled with its contents. I can still remember sitting on the back of the Little Caesar's car with the Bus when Momma's Boy came over to us and started his stuttering speech that he thought made him sound tough. "Hey, hey, have you guys read the, ah, BVD yet?" He was shifting his eyes around as though he expected a cop to roll up any minute and ask him if BVD were a drug. Come to think of it I believe that's what I asked him.

"Heh, no. See, like, the BVD is the Book of Vile Darkness. An' it's like, this book, see? Where, like, Wizards put in all the shit you need to run evil."

The Bus hated the Momma's Boy more than most and asked in a mocking stutter, "So is this book, like, the one you used when, like, you were trying to fuck fourteen year old girls?"

Momma's Boy broke his cigarette and sulked away as Little Caesar and I laughed at him. The Bus had a tendency to be direct and biting when he didn't like you. His boyfriends would later tell me that he had a nasty temper but then again the Bus like weepy little men who would make even the most melodramatic woman stand up and ask them to sack up so I never put much stock in what they said.

Later that night I was sitting on a bench outside Elton's Lifetime Loser Lounge when the Master Planner came over. The Master Planner was near six feet tall, bald and loved a good fight: he was and is my best friend. I slipped him a cigarette as he slid next to me on the bench and we got to talking about the Book of Vile Darkness.

"The Bus," I said, "seems to think that the BVD is nothing more than a waste of money."

"Oh?"

"Real horror, he says, is in the Book of Exalted Deeds."

---------------------------------

It would be a couple of years before I even bothered purchasing either the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds. In retrospect neither of them have been very useful to me over the years as each is a cluster-fuck.

I understand that for many people in the third era camp that the Book of Vile Darkness represents a watershed of creativity for the edition and for Monte Cook in particular. It has been my opinion that such people have their heads firmly stuck up their collective asses. My wife, however, disagrees with my flat out dismissal of the book; so I'm going to go through it in the next couple of posts and see if it's Monte's supporters who have their heads up their asses, or me. 

 Click here to read the next Part