Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Watchdog_of_Hades 04-15-06, 03:05 PM	Is the use of poison inherently evil? Sure, you're being cowardly, but cowardly isn't the same as evil. Okay, well, here's my problem. I'm going to be a poisoner-type person (Apothecary (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=525276&page=12&pp=30)) in my friend's evil campaign. However, we don't have to be evil. I don't like playing my characters in a way that centers around killing everything I can. Besides, one of us already has that position covered. I'd rather just be a... an assassin for hire, I guess. I don't take special pleasure in killing good or evil creatures, I just kill whoever I'm hired to. Am I evil? On one hand, I'm killing people to get money. One another finger of the same hand, I'm also making my employer's life better. On my other hand, good people kill things too. But they're also making other peoples' lives better. I guess my question is: is being an assassin evil?
JulesCARV 04-15-06, 03:18 PM	Poisons are not evil, although they do violate the paladin code more specifically. An assassin who kills innocent people for money is evil. Enjoy your campaign.
Witch 04-15-06, 03:18 PM	Yes, being an assassin is evil. No, evil does not mean killing whomever you can just for the heck of it. Not every evil person is a sociopath. Unfortunately, some games fail to understand that. For instance, when I was playing KotOR2, I tried to be extremely evil, but subtle, and not waste resources if that wasn't necessary. Well, apparently according to those type of games, it's good of you to not want to kill your partymembers. No, it can be evil. You can be using them. Evil is about selfishness and apathy for the suffering of others. That does not mean that you crave for suffering of others. It means that you just don't care.
cat_god 04-15-06, 03:20 PM	Yes, being an assassin is evil. You are not working for the greater good, or the good of the weak and downtrodden, you're killing so a rich guy can kick back and not have to worry. That's evil. Using poison is evil. It is cowardly and dishonorable. Assuming of course that you're using it for personal gain or to kill for cash. In theory, if you poisoned someone for the good of all mankind, it would level out at neutral.
Beezelbob 04-15-06, 03:22 PM	The best you could hope for is some flavor of neutral.
Eikinskjaldi 04-15-06, 03:23 PM	Is Using Poison Evil? Depends on the game you're in and the way your DM is defining morality in it. He can be using an objective morality or one that's really situation and intention-based. The former is much easier for running a game with alignment-based spells and effects. With an objective morality, I would say that yes, using any poison that will harm or kill is an evil action. In previous editions, the lines were more clearly drawn, perhaps for the better. Paladins couldn't use daggers, and poison use was definitely regarded as evil. There's even a section dedicated to poisons in the BoVD. Is Being an Assassin Evil? Umm... yes. Being an assassin means murdering people, which, I think, is much different than just killing someone. You're attacking someone while he's unarmed and unable to defend himself. Murder for personal or otherwise gain is evil.
nhs_boy 04-15-06, 03:26 PM	RAW: Poison use is evil. Any Sensible Moral System At All: Poison use is situational, and is only as evil as using any other lethal weapon. Paladins cannot use poison, but no-one ever said they were sensible :-). Originally, poison was made evil as a game balance factor: The BBEG and his minions could use poison, but the (presumably) good PCs could not. Then the Book of Exalted Deeds, in its typically cack-handed and useless fashion, made 'good' versions of poison, amazingly managing to *fix the wrong problem*. So, if you're running straight-up, classic D&D then keep poison evil. If you're running a more realistic campaign, analyse _what_ the PCs are doing, not _how_ they are doing it.
Kyuketsukiouji 04-15-06, 03:29 PM	RAW: Poison use is evil. Nope. Poison use is not de-facto evil by RAW. In fact, the Book of Exalted Deeds goes out of its way to point out that things like drow knockout poison isn't evil.
nhs_boy 04-15-06, 03:54 PM	Oh yeah. BoED said that _ability damage_ was evil. Then gave rules for ability-damaging substances that _weren't_ evil! Oh, I love well-though out sourcebooks, don't you? :-) Oh yeah, and Couatl venom isn't evil either. Because HEY LOOK A THREE-HEADED MONKEY! . (ahem) Nothing against your post, it's correct. Just a lot of irritation with the Book of (Munchin) Exalted Deeds...
Witch 04-15-06, 03:57 PM	Is Using Poison Evil? Depends on the game you're in and the way your DM is defining morality in it. He can be using an objective morality or one that's really situation and intention-based. They are not mutually exclusive.
Seeker95 04-15-06, 04:20 PM	By the Core RAW, it is unaddressed. Up to the DM. By the BoVD, it is an evil act. By the BoED, the line is blurred. In my game, using poison is evil. Your mileage may vary, and your DM may see things differently.
celtredleg 04-15-06, 04:42 PM	In my games, poison use is evil.. Use it and you are evil. Murder for hire is always evil.
Watchdog_of_Hades 04-15-06, 05:09 PM	Okay. Evil apothecary it is. Thanks for the feedback.
General_Ridley 04-15-06, 05:39 PM	Oh yeah. BoED said that _ability damage_ was evil. Then gave rules for ability-damaging substances that _weren't_ evil! Oh, I love well-though out sourcebooks, don't you? :-) Oh yeah, and Couatl venom isn't evil either. Because HEY LOOK A THREE-HEADED MONKEY! . (ahem) Nothing against your post, it's correct. Just a lot of irritation with the Book of (Munchin) Exalted Deeds... But Ravages only harm evil creatures! That can't be evil! [/stupid
ManTimeForgot 04-15-06, 06:59 PM	Look: People, it's not hard. Using poisons which result in a quick or otherwise painless death will not necessarily be evil any more than using your sword to kill someone in a relatively quick and efficient manner when it is necessary to do so. Its almost certainly more respectful of life in general to use knock-out drugs when applicable, but the mere use of a "poison" (a pharmacologically active substance with harmful effects on the body) does not necessitate evil alignment. But if you use a poison which takes 3 hours, much less 3 days, to kill someone, then you can be PRETTY certain that you have strayed far out of the territory of being respectful of life, and well into the territory of you don't give a rat's :censored: about the life of others. Which just so happens to be "textbook" evil... MTF
Witch 04-15-06, 07:03 PM	Murder is in any case evil. If you have the option to use poison, you have the option to capture someone alive. If you are in combat, you don't have a lot of options left. Murder is never a good thing, but if you're poisoning, it's even worse, simply because you had other choices.
Molitor 04-15-06, 07:11 PM	Poison is no more evil then fireball to me. But it is illegal generally.
nhs_boy 04-15-06, 07:35 PM	If you have the option to use poison, you have the option to capture someone alive. Well, in D&D not so much. One reason that poison is powerful is that, while a creature can have hundreds of hitpoints, if you're doing ability damage then they're only going to be able to take up to 30 at most! If you've got 'a venom for every occasion', then even the most epic of beasties will usually have at least one attribute at 8-12. 2-3 hits, and it's bye-bye baby!
Watchdog_of_Hades 04-15-06, 07:38 PM	If you have the option to use poison, you have the option to capture someone alive. If you are in combat, you don't have a lot of options left. Murder is never a good thing, but if you're poisoning, it's even worse, simply because you had other choices. Put poison on your weapon before battle. Then you'll be in combat and have no other choices. In that case, poisons are just ways of augmenting your combat capability, just as enchantments like Bulls Strength are.
Witch 04-15-06, 08:08 PM	I retract that. Consider what I said to be about ingested poisons, not contact poisons.
Edymnion 04-15-06, 08:17 PM	Poison use is not evil. I would personally slap the guy that put the idea that it is back into 3e if I ever got the chance.
Dragonsblood 04-15-06, 08:24 PM	I don't see how poison use could be evil, but stabbing and smashing is not. It's just a means to an end. The result could be good or evil. Poison use is against the paladin code of conduct because it's not an honorable way to do things.
Max the Immortal 04-16-06, 01:27 AM	If poison should be associated with any alignment, it would be chaos. It is a crime to own poison, and therefore ethically off-limits to lawful (and most neutral) characters. Murdering someone with poison is no more evil than murdering him with a sword, fireball, arrow, or summoned dire lion. The fact that many poisons inflict pain upon the victim is irrelevant; I'm sure that being impaled by a spear is no picnic either. Sadism, on the other hand, is evil. If you chose your preferred weapon --whether it be a spiked chain, a large hammer, poison, or a pack of vicious attack dogs-- because of the pain it inflicts rather than its effectiveness, then it is indeed an evil act (at least on several if not all levels) to use that weapon. If poison is the most effective or even the most humane choice (i.e. choice is between poison and magic fire), then its use has no bearing on the moral shade of the killing.
Suzaku455 04-16-06, 01:37 AM	Ok so if ranger who tracking a crimnal for trial and uses poison which causes sleep like drow poison on his arrows is he evil?
Max the Immortal 04-16-06, 01:40 AM	I can think of one circumstance in which being an assassin is not necessarily evil: If an assassin works for his homeland's government, and exclusively kills the spies, assassins, and various agents of the Evil Empire next door, then he is not necessarily evil.
Chrono Nexus 04-16-06, 01:48 AM	But Max, don't you see the hole in your belief? An assassin is taught to never question their employer's target- they are raised and trained not to. Assassins usually beleive that their actions do good, so they can justify what they do. Turning a human being into a weapon is evil, regardless of the goals that motivate it. The weapon may not be evil- but more likely than not an assassin is not being used for a benevolent cause. Back to the original discussion- using a poison is not more or less evil than using any other kind of weapon. The motivation behind using poison (or an assassin), defines the act.
Novacat 04-16-06, 02:19 AM	Using poison is neither evil, nor any more cowardly than using a weapon (as opposed to fighting bare-handed), since it is, after all, just a weapon itself. It is, however, considered highly dishonorable by most civilized societies (thus, the Paladin restriction). I do not own either the BoVD or the BoED, so I can't speak to their definitions. As for the assassin, what you have described is definitely evil. However, I would like to point out that there are examples of non-evil assassins, as Max pointed out. As for Chrono's objection, being a political assassin (or training one) is no more evil than being (or training) a front-lines soldier. Such assassins (typically) are not "raised" as assassins, but join the ranks of their homeland's defenses out of patriotism, once they have come of age.
Mitchell 04-16-06, 02:34 AM	It's largely dependent on the DMs worldview. In a black-and-white world, poison almost certainly falls on the evil side. If things aren't so black and white, then the end may justify the means, and poison, when used against evil, is not evil. It will still violate a paladin's code (in my eyes... Not getting into a debate). As far as sleep poison goes, it isn't really poison in the sense that is being discussed. it puts someone to sleep. It doesn't drain their attributes unto the point of death, or at least near helplessness allowing a much easier kill. Again, though, it's all about the DMs take on good and evil, so they are the ones that you should direct these questions to. The assassin thing? Justify it how you will, it's evil.
FloppyLlama 04-16-06, 02:54 AM	BoED inconsistency aside, I would say it most definately is (in my campaign). It's just a means to an end. The result could be good or evil. Very arguibly, the ends might not justify the means. When you are cutting someone up with your sword you are attempting to do it efficiently. Assuming you aren't doing subdual damage, you'd be happy to lop their head off and be done with it. When you use poison, while you might prefer to finish them off quickly, you are resigning yourself to a method that could very possibly take a long period of excruciating pain. The fact that you understand that suffering around a minute of excruciating pain before dying is going to most definately occur shows that you disregard their pain, or you might even use poison because it is painful. Ultiamtely though, your ends (killing them) justify your means (causing unneccesary pain). In my campaign world this is an evil philosophy. While in a tough situation, using poison wouldn't be alignment change justifying, I would say it is definately an evil act that is not at all similiar to trying to kill someone as quickly as possible using various instruments such as swords or clubs. Of course, I'm about to get swarmed by people who disagree.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-16-06, 02:59 AM	Poison use is not evil. I would personally slap the guy that put the idea that it is back into 3e if I ever got the chance. And I would give you brass knuckles to wear when you to. As to Assassins: Being *an* assassin isn't evil. Bring a member of the psychotic organization presented in the DMG that happens to be called the Assassins is evil by virtue of them having a stupid entry requirement. Note that not a single ability of the Assassin PrC is evil, just the organization its tied to in GreyHawk.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 03:37 AM	Nowhere does it say that poison inflicts 'excruciating pain' - or, for that matter, any pain at all. Ability damage doesn't necessarily induce pain, nor do most real-life poisons. It's like an anaesthetic - you just feel woozy, then go to sleep (or die). Unlike, of course those oh-so-holy 'ravages' from the Book of Exalted Cheese, which are specifically designed to inflict pain (yet Symbol of Pain has the [Evil] descriptor... go figure)... In any case, it's no more painful than being impaled on a spear, bludgeoned by a mace, cut to ribbons by a sword or incinerated by a fireball. So the question of pain is really a moot issue. From a logical point of view, poison use should not have an alignment attached to it - not even neutral. Just like hitting something with a sword, it's a means to an end. A sword-blow or fireball doesn't have an alignment per se - the intent of the person carrying out the action does. Poisoning the town well to murder the inhabitants so that you can loot everything is an evil use of poison. Disguising yourself as an evil duke's butler and serving him a poisoned meal, killing him to put an end to his tyranny, is a good (as well as a chaotic) use of poison. Hitting someone with a paralysing poison and dragging them to prison is a lawful use of poison. And, of course, using poisoned bait to trap animals for survival is a neutral use of poison.
runestar 04-16-06, 03:45 AM	No more evil that smiting a demon using a spell with the "good" descriptor. :rolleyes:
FloppyLlama 04-16-06, 04:11 AM	Nowhere does it say that poison inflicts 'excruciating pain' - or, for that matter, any pain at all. Ability damage doesn't necessarily induce pain, nor do most real-life poisons. Excuse me? Looking at sources from animals: Platypus venom, spider venom (if it's potent enough to harm a human), scorpion venom, jellyfish, snake venom. Yeah, snake venom's good, let's list symptoms WARNING, DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH, THIS IS UNPLEASANT : "within the first 10 to 15 minutes to a few hours after the bite has occurred, general symptoms may appear such as a sense of anxiety, malaise, vomiting, headache, dizziness, bouts of sweating, respiratory distress, bleeding, heart failure and shock, muscle contractions, confusion, convulsions, paralysis, unconsciousness and death. Symptoms with later onset (often 6 to 24 hours after a bite): local (around the site of the bite): increasing and massive swelling of the whole arm, even if the bite wound is located right out on the hand. Blistering and bleeding often occur in the skin and tissues just below it, and muscles. Blood clots may occur in the surrounding blood vessels. Necrosis (tissue death) of skin, connective tissue and muscles is an evident risk. general symptoms: increasing grogginess, vomiting, respiratory difficulties, fever, falling blood pressure and shock. Bleeding from the mucous membranes (eg the gums), bloody vomit and stool and blood in the urine may also occur. Disturbances of sensation or paralysis may occur, often first in the face and later in the muscles involved in swallowing and breathing." (from http://www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/healthfitness/health_advice/netdoctor/archive/000335.html) Ok, what about from other sources? "Arsenic Poisoning Symptoms: Violent burning in the region of the stomach and bowels; tenderness on pressure; retching; vomiting; sense of dryness and tightness in the throat; thirst; hoarseness and difficulty of speech; the matter vomited, greenish or yellowish, sometimes streaked with blood; diarrhea; tenesmus; sometimes excoriation of the ****; urinary organs occasionally affected with violent burning pains and suppression; convulsions and cramps; clammy sweats; lividity of the extremities; countenance collapsed; eyes red and sparkling; delirium; death." "Cantharidism Poisoning with cantharides, either by their ingestion by the mouth or by absorption from a cantharidal blister. The chief symptoms are strangury, burning pain in the urethra, swelling or even gangrene of the genitals, and the passage of bloody and albuminous urine, together with the usual gastrointestinal signs of irritant poisoning if the drug has been taken by the mouth. The lesions are inflammatory conditions of the kidneys and bladder. Death may occur from the primary irritant effect upon the gastrointestinal canal or from the subsequent renal and cystic inflammation." "Carbolic Acid Poisoning An irritant poison. Symptoms: vomiting of frothy mucus; lining membrane of the mouth white and hardened; severe abdominal pain; cold, clammy skin; insensibility, coma, stertorous breathing; pupils contracted; odor of carbolic acid." "Belladonna The belladonna or deadly nightshade, Atropa Belladonna, contains an alkaloid, atropine, which is largely used by oculists to procure dilatation of the pupils of the eye. The bright scarlet berries of the plant have been eaten by children, who are attracted by their tempting appearance. Belladonna produces dilatation of the pupils, rapid pulse, hot dry flushed skin, with an eruption not unlike that of scarlatina, soreness of the throat, with difficulty of swallowing, intense thirst, and gay, mirthful delirium. The treatment consists in evacuation of the poison by means of the stomach-pump, and the hypodermic injection of morphia as a counter-poison." "Aconite Poisoning The ordinary blue rocket, wolfsbane or monksbood, Acontium Napellus, and an alkaloid extracted from it, aconitine, are perhaps the most deadly of known poisons. One sixteenth of a grain of aconitine has proved fatal to a man. All the preparations of aconite produce a peculiar burning, tingling, and numbness of the parts to which they are applied. When given in large doses they produce violent vomiting, as a rule, more or less paralysis of motion and sensation, and great depression of the heart, usually ending in death from syncope. Intelligence remains unaffected till almost the last. The treatment consists in the hypodermic injection of digitalin, which is a counter-poison in its action upon the heart. The root of aconite has been eaten in mistake for that of horse-rhadish" (from http://www.antiquusmorbus.com/English/Poison.htm). SYMPTOM DESCRIPTIONS DONE You are very, very wrong sir. EDIT: We aren't talking about chemically refined and developed modern day poisons that are intended to knock you off that easily. D&D poisons are extracted from their natural sources, and are therefore not going to be as efficient at killing your opponent. They will be painful, and they will be slow (well, one minute max, but I always thought that was sort of weird)
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-16-06, 04:21 AM	Not all poison causes pain though. Plus, the only place that suggests it is the BoED... and on the facing page, it offers good poisons that explicitly state that they cause excruciating pain.
FloppyLlama 04-16-06, 04:26 AM	Plus, the only place that suggests it is the BoED... and on the facing page, it offers good poisons that explicitly state that they cause excruciating pain. The BoED is irrelevant. It is not core, and "Afflictions" and other such nonsense are something I choose to ignore because they are inconsistent. It is pointless to bring it up as an argument. Not all poison causes pain though. The majority of poisons do. They do in reality, there is no reason they should be different in D&D. Even mechanically it would make sense. You're losing dex, con, str, wis, it is not going to be painless to have your mental or physical health sapped.
Witch 04-16-06, 04:34 AM	Disguising yourself as an evil duke's butler and serving him a poisoned meal, killing him to put an end to his tyranny, is a good (as well as a chaotic) use of poison. No, it isn't. It's an evil, or at best neutral use of poison.
Witch 04-16-06, 04:36 AM	Being *an* assassin isn't evil. No, being a murdering fanatic isn't evil! Oh wait... it is. You see, an assassin has the following definition: Main Entry: as·sas·sin Pronunciation: &-'sa-s&n Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin assassinus, from Arabic hashshAshIn, plural of hashshAsh one who smokes or chews hashish, from hashIsh hashish 1 capitalized : one of a secret order of Muslims that at the time of the Crusades terrorized Christians and other enemies by secret murder committed under the influence of hashish 2 : a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives Nooooh, not evil, murder is good? No, murder is evil, planned murder is even worse.
a_psh 04-16-06, 05:06 AM	Yes, being an assassin is evil. You are not working for the greater good, or the good of the weak and downtrodden, you're killing so a rich guy can kick back and not have to worry. That's evil. Using poison is evil. It is cowardly and dishonorable. Assuming of course that you're using it for personal gain or to kill for cash. In theory, if you poisoned someone for the good of all mankind, it would level out at neutral.Running away from battle is cowardly. Stealing the stodgy old baron's castle out from under him by cheating at cards is dishonorable. Figuring out a way to welsh out of serving in the town militia because you fear battle and personal harm is both cowardly and dishonorable. So, err, just how does poison being "cowardly and dishonorable" lead you to conclude it's evil?
Sunrider 04-16-06, 06:40 AM	No, it isn't. It's an evil, or at best neutral use of poison. Justify your statement. Why is a chaotic good rogue slipping poison into a tyrant's lunch committing an evil act, while a paladin who slices him open with a battleaxe committing a good act? For some misguided reason, people tend to equate 'dishonourable' or 'chaotic' with 'evil', while 'honourable' or 'lawful' behaviour is equated with 'good' - hence the argument that poison (or even, according to some people, sneak attacks) are evil, while dismembering enemies face-to-face is 'good'. Probably because 'honour' was originally defined by muscle-bound brutes without the cranial capacity to be sneaky, but anyway...
Witch 04-16-06, 06:55 AM	Justify your statement. Why is a chaotic good rogue slipping poison into a tyrant's lunch committing an evil act, while a paladin who slices him open with a battleaxe committing a good act? Who the hell said slicing him open was a good act? Did I ever say that? The only reason it ever would be better, not good, would be because in battle, there's not a lot of other options.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 07:01 AM	The majority of poisons do. They do in reality, there is no reason they should be different in D&D. Even mechanically it would make sense. You're losing dex, con, str, wis, it is not going to be painless to have your mental or physical health sapped. Anaesthetics also happen to drain every stat apart from Constitution (you can't move, have no self-awareness, everything that goes with being unconscious). They're also painless. The majority of poisons do not cause serious pain. Carbon monoxide causes drowsiness long before you would start getting hypoxia-induced cardiac pain. Hemlock poisoning causes a mild headache (sometimes) before causing CNS and respiratory depression, followed by death. Opioid poisoning (e.g. heroin overdose) causes CNS and respiratory depression, drowsiness and death. Digoxin poisoning (from foxgloves) causes cardiac arrythmias and sudden death - no pain involved there. Many other poisons either cause early coma, followed by death from respiratory failure, or cause early vomiting (but not pain) followed by death from renal or hepatic failure some days later (again, no pain - they just gradually sink into a stupor and die). I could keep on going, but I won't. In contrast, having your belly sliced open by a 'good', 'honourable' paladin's sword is going to be undeniably painful.
Novacat 04-16-06, 07:03 AM	No one can win this discussion... just so you know.
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 07:04 AM	Turning a human being into a weapon is evil So... The gods are all evil for creating paladins, then? 'Cause, to me the paladin would appear to be a fanatically devoted, extremely efficient killer, brainwashed into slaughtering anyone his god or his code describes as 'evil'. Just a tool of his master. As for 'poison causes pain, and so is bad'... Well, look at it this way: There are a *huge* number of spells that kill people in monumentally awful ways, but which do not have the (evil) descriptor. Killing someone with 'Horrid Wilting', or with the 'Acid' energy type, or with negative energy (inflict wounds) is going to cause enormous pain, yet the RAW just doesn't care. Look at acid arrow: For round after round the affected creature's flesh is being seared and burned away! So pain really isn't the deciding factor. To date, no-one has been able to show me a clear factor that poisons have and other things that aren't evil don't. Not pain, and not ability damage. 'Widely considered dishonourable', I will accept, but that's more Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. Let's all gather round and giggle at the fool who thought he could construct a viable philosophy for a fantasy world, and instead produced the chortlesome 'Book of Exalted Deeds'.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 07:08 AM	Who the hell said slicing him open was a good act? Did I ever say that? The only reason it ever would be better, not good, would be because in battle, there's not a lot of other options. So what would be a 'good' act then? Sitting down and negotiating with him? Not likely - besides, his people are still repressed. Fighting him on the battlefield? How many of your soldiers (and his conscripts) have to die so that you can have your 'good' victory? Confronting him face-to-face in a duel? You're a rogue, not a fighter - or is 'good' limited only to warriors who can fight face-to-face? Or simply sneaking in and taking him out quietly? If you confront him face-to-face, you end up dead. If you negotiate with him, you may reduce the threat he poses to others (or not), but his own people remain repressed. Fighting him on the battlefield or sneaking in and assassinating him have similar endings - the tyrant ends up dead - but the former will be a much bigger drawcard for necromancers seeking to expand their armies.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 07:15 AM	Let's all gather round and giggle at the fool who thought he could construct a viable philosophy for a fantasy world, and instead produced the chortlesome 'Book of Exalted Deeds'. Or whichever idiot figured that a moral and ethical system governed by actions rather than intent would actually work...
Novacat 04-16-06, 07:21 AM	Suppose some defecting german, knowing that his country's actions were horrible and evil, had slipped some deadly poison in Hitler's tea shortly after the beginning of WW2... Would that be evil? Suppose one of Osama Bin Ladin's subordinates realized the **** they were in, and poisoned him... and (let's just for the hell of it, say) coup de graced him... Would that be evil? Suppose someone's been sentenced to death by lethal injection... Would that be evil?
ieattrollsforbreakfast 04-16-06, 07:44 AM	I don't believe poison is inherently evil, but it is the reasons for use, the manner in which it is used and the nature of individual poisons which determine whether the action is evil or not. In the case of poisoning the tyrant...if it came down to it that the best way to free the people was by the death of the tyrant, poisoning him may be the best option (it minimises innocent casualties). If you use a poison that causes a painful death over several days, this is an evil act for good means. If you use a quick poison which minimises pain and acts quickly, your act is a much lesser, forgiveable evil (as all death in the name of good is, and nothing to do with the method of killing). Also, look to the natural world. Are spiders and scorpions evil because they make daily use of poison to survive? How about bees that sacrifice their own lives to protect their hive by stinging a threat?
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 07:47 AM	_Suppose someone's been sentenced to death by lethal injection... _ Heh, I can answer that one for you right off: Hell yeah, that's evil! I just can't imagine why the execution methods: 'lethal injection' and 'gas chamber' are still in use today! The first requires a precisely-administered, sometimes-ineffective barbiturate painkiller beforehand in order to stop tremendous pain, the latter is just sadistic. Honestly, if people are so dead-set on having their government kill people, they could at least do the decent thing and blow their brains out! (or any other swift and humane method. Hell, just OD-ing the lethal-injection individual on barbiturates would be fine, but nooo... couldn't possibly do that! ) EDIT: Sorry, thought I'd clarify - I'm suggesting these things are evil in real life. In D&D they'd probably be OK, since they're supposed to be used on people properly sentenced, and 'incredible agony' doesn't appear to be an evil method in this particular fantasy world...
Sunrider 04-16-06, 07:52 AM	If you use a poison that causes a painful death over several days, this is an evil act for good means. If you use a quick poison which minimises pain and acts quickly, your act is a much lesser, forgiveable evil (as all death in the name of good is, and nothing to do with the method of killing). Pain is probably not the best way of defining how 'evil' something is. Nor is the time it takes to kill. For example, what is worse - killing someone with a painful poison that takes thirty seconds to work, or killing someone with a completely painless poison that takes five days? How about killing someone with a quick, but excruciatingly painful, sword stroke (since a sword-stroke delivered in combat will not be a relatively painless decapitation) versus inflicting a much-less-painful arterial wound with a dagger that causes them to bleed to death over half an hour? In any case, all these moral and ethical grey areas are, at best, poorly handled by D&D's rigid alignment system.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 08:02 AM	_Suppose someone's been sentenced to death by lethal injection... _ Heh, I can answer that one for you right off: Hell yeah, that's evil! I just can't imagine why the execution methods: 'lethal injection' and 'gas chamber' are still in use today! The first requires a precisely-administered, sometimes-ineffective barbiturate painkiller beforehand in order to stop tremendous pain, the latter is just sadistic. You're only considering American methods there. Lethal injection with a massive overdose of sedatives or anaesthetics is painless oblivion; on the other hand, America's three-stage process involves using two drugs which rely on the initial sedative (sodium thiopentone) to work in order to avoid causing extreme pain. Pancuronium bromide causes muscle paralysis - it makes the victim look at peace (since the muscles can't move), but paralyses the respiratory muscles. The victim essentially suffocates while fully conscious. The other chemical, postassium chloride, not only stops the heart, but, at high concentrations is also one of the most painful substances you can possibly inject into a vein. As for the gas chamber, it all depends on the gas. Cyanide poisoning can be very painful - by inhibiting the ability of haemoglobin to carry oxygen, it causes hypoxia in all parts of the body, including the heart (the same as in a heart attack). Hypoxia causes pain. Cyanide doesn't provide pain relief. So, yes, cyanide poisoning is painful. On the other hand, carbon monoxide poisoning is painless - the victim slowly becomes drowsy, becoming comatose before dying from asphyxiation. So, no, lethal injection and poison gas are not necessarily painful, and not necessarily painless - all in all, it probably fits under the 'lawful' banner more than anything.
Witch 04-16-06, 08:19 AM	Suppose some defecting german, knowing that his country's actions were horrible and evil, had slipped some deadly poison in Hitler's tea shortly after the beginning of WW2... Would that be evil? Suppose one of Osama Bin Ladin's subordinates realized the **** they were in, and poisoned him... and (let's just for the hell of it, say) coup de graced him... Would that be evil? Suppose someone's been sentenced to death by lethal injection... Would that be evil? Yes, yes and yes. All three would be evil. The first one would be the lesser of evil out of two. The second one would be the greater evil out of two, as it will create a greater jihad than we currently have. The third one depends.
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 08:26 AM	My problem with the gas chamber (apologies for not mentioning it in the above post) aren't just about the pain of it (although that is a concern). I dislike the very _concept_ of the gas chamber, 'cause think about it: If you want to be humane, you should have an execution carry as little pain and stress as possible. Well, you might find the right gas to avoid pain (as you say, carbon monoxide), but gassing is inherently superstressful! Tell me that you wouldn't try to hold your breath as long as physically possible, panicking all the time. If you survived the first breath, you'd do it again, and again, and as you slowly slipped away you'd get more and more terrified... ...better to use a method which the victim cannot affect. Again, this is all assuming that government-sanctioned killing is a good idea...
Witch 04-16-06, 08:30 AM	So what would be a 'good' act then? Sitting down and negotiating with him? Not likely - besides, his people are still repressed. Fighting him on the battlefield? How many of your soldiers (and his conscripts) have to die so that you can have your 'good' victory? Confronting him face-to-face in a duel? You're a rogue, not a fighter - or is 'good' limited only to warriors who can fight face-to-face? Or simply sneaking in and taking him out quietly? If you confront him face-to-face, you end up dead. If you negotiate with him, you may reduce the threat he poses to others (or not), but his own people remain repressed. Fighting him on the battlefield or sneaking in and assassinating him have similar endings - the tyrant ends up dead - but the former will be a much bigger drawcard for necromancers seeking to expand their armies. What the good act would be was sitting down and convincing the guy to better himself.
runestar 04-16-06, 08:30 AM	Suppose some defecting german, knowing that his country's actions were horrible and evil, had slipped some deadly poison in Hitler's tea shortly after the beginning of WW2... Would that be evil? Suppose one of Osama Bin Ladin's subordinates realized the **** they were in, and poisoned him... and (let's just for the hell of it, say) coup de graced him... Would that be evil? Suppose someone's been sentenced to death by lethal injection... Would that be evil? Depends on how you look at it. From their point of view, it would be evil. From the other camp's POV, it would be a godsend. That's why I never did like the absolute stance alignment took.
Witch 04-16-06, 08:33 AM	Depends on how you look at it. From their point of view, it would be evil. From the other camp's POV, it would be a godsend. That's why I never did like the absolute stance alignment took. Murder is evil regardless of point of view. You're taking away an individual person's life.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 08:43 AM	What the good act would be was sitting down and convincing the guy to better himself. That would be both exalted and suicidal. As in, if you walked in through his front door and tried to gain an audience with him, he'd probably have his guards cut you down for wasting his time. If you managed to sneak past the guards and talk to him directly, what makes you think he'd talk, rather than simply attacking you? As a non-warrior, you'd be cut down quickly and the tyrant would continue his evil deeds as if you had never interfered. And, even if he didn't cut you down on the spot, what makes you think he'd pay any attention to what you say? Why give up the element of surprise when you don't have to? Killing the tyrant is still a good act - the people are no longer repressed and the tyrant is no longer able to continue scheming. An act can be 'good' without qualifying as 'exalted'. Or are you arguing that 'goodness' is the sole preserve of warriors, given that they are the only ones able to stand face-to-face with an enemy and survive.
Witch 04-16-06, 08:45 AM	One need not be a warrior to be good. Hey, you could defend yourself with subdual damage if you needed to. And killing a tyrant, however evil he is, is still evil. You have just killed a human being. Congratulations, you have ended a persons life. That's evil. End of discussion. As I said before, it could be the lesser evil. But still evil.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 08:51 AM	One need not be a warrior to be good. Hey, you could defend yourself with subdual damage if you needed to. And killing a tyrant, however evil he is, is still evil. You have just killed a human being. Congratulations, you have ended a persons life. That's evil. End of discussion. As I said before, it could be the lesser evil. But still evil. Ending a human being's life is always evil in D&D? If that's the case, there's no point in ever playing any non-evil alignment. Ever. Suddenly, Paladins become stupidly useless. Killing something is evil in the real world moral system. This isn't the real world moral system we're talking about here. This is the D&D system, which is NOT reality based.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 08:53 AM	Murder is evil regardless of point of view. You're taking away an individual person's life. So... in your world, a number of things can happen: - Good people sit back and try to talk evildoers out of whatever it is they're doing. Villains, true to their nature, ignore them. Evil people attack good people. Good people don't hit back, since killing people is always wrong. Good people die. Evil wins. Everyone who remains is evil. - Good people sit back and try to talk evildoers out of whatever it is they're doing. Villains, true to their nature, ignore them and keep on slaughtering innocents (genocide?). Good people keep talking, trying to convince them to stop. Evil people get sick of good people and attack them. Good people are caught by surprise. Many are killed. Those who survive now become evil, since they become actively involved in the business of killing evil people. Therefore, everyone who remains is evil. - There are no good people by your definition. Really-evil people engage in genocide, wars of conquest, etc. Other people actively try to stop them, either through force or by assassinating them, and succeed, since no-one really liked the really-evil people anyway. But these people are also evil, since they killed the really-evil people when they could have tried talking instead. Therefore, everyone is evil. Or could it be that such an absolute point of view simply isn't sustainable, and that seeing evil in every action is self-deluding? Or maybe you've just shifted the good-evil axis towards the evil end, turning people into either not-so-evil and really-evil, with 'good' as this nebulous concept to aspire to, but which can't be reached by anyone who actually hopes to survive and achieve something?
Witch 04-16-06, 08:54 AM	Ending a human being's life is always evil in D&D? If that's the case, there's no point in ever playing any non-evil alignment. Ever. Suddenly, Paladins become stupidly useless. Killing something is evil in the real world moral system. This isn't the real world moral system we're talking about here. This is the D&D system, which is NOT reality based. I maintain that since you are simulating human(oid) behaviour, human(oid) morality applies. However, it might balance out. If you kill one man to save 1000 others, you will probably end up on the good side. But that doesn't make it any less evil to kill that man.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 08:57 AM	I maintain that since you are simulating human(oid) behaviour, human(oid) morality applies. However, it might balance out. If you kill one man to save 1000 others, you will probably end up on the good side. But that doesn't make it any less evil to kill that man. But whose morality? Morality is not an absolute thing amongst all people. In some societies, some types of killing is acceptable. And since this game is set generally in a place that mimics the 1300-1400 era in Europe, killing would not be viewed the same way it is today. You are prescribing your own view of morality on this game, which defines morality in a way which is entirely different.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 08:57 AM	Killing something is evil in the real world moral system. This isn't the real world moral system we're talking about here. This is the D&D system, which is NOT reality based. I wouldn't even say it's evil in the real-world moral system. See my previous post - basically, it's just saying that doing really bad things is evil, but stopping such people from doing really bad things through any means other than persuasion (which probably won't work) is also evil. All you have then is a shift along the good-evil axis, to not-so-evil and very-evil. May as well stick with good and evil, since it's simpler, and all relative anyway.
Witch 04-16-06, 08:58 AM	So... in your world, a number of things can happen: - Good people sit back and try to talk evildoers out of whatever it is they're doing. Villains, true to their nature, ignore them. Evil people attack good people. Good people don't hit back, since killing people is always wrong. Good people die. Evil wins. Everyone who remains is evil. - Good people sit back and try to talk evildoers out of whatever it is they're doing. Villains, true to their nature, ignore them and keep on slaughtering innocents (genocide?). Good people keep talking, trying to convince them to stop. Evil people get sick of good people and attack them. Good people are caught by surprise. Many are killed. Those who survive now become evil, since they become actively involved in the business of killing evil people. Therefore, everyone who remains is evil. - There are no good people by your definition. Really-evil people engage in genocide, wars of conquest, etc. Other people actively try to stop them, either through force or by assassinating them, and succeed, since no-one really liked the really-evil people anyway. But these people are also evil, since they killed the really-evil people when they could have tried talking instead. Therefore, everyone is evil. Or could it be that such an absolute point of view simply isn't sustainable, and that seeing evil in every action is self-deluding? Or maybe you've just shifted the good-evil axis towards the evil end, turning people into either not-so-evil and really-evil, with 'good' as this nebulous concept to aspire to, but which can't be reached by anyone who actually hopes to survive and achieve something? Indeed, good can be aspired to but can't be reached by anyone who actually hopes to survive and achieve something. That is why morality and efficiency clash. Secondly, on the other parts: I never said you cannot be a moderately good person and still commit evil acts. The acts, however, are still evil. You are being afraid to call acts evil, while they clearly are. You are killing someone, ending his life, taking away his freedom of choice, his right of life, ... Regardless if he has committed that too, "an eye for an eye" is not a good reason. You do not have to use the means he uses. If no other way can be found, you could kill him, yes. It would still be evil, but at least you tried, and know that it was the only way to save everyone else.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:02 AM	All you have then is a shift along the good-evil axis, to not-so-evil and very-evil. May as well stick with good and evil, since it's simpler, and all relative anyway. That is correct. You have a shift, that shows the actual alignment a lot better than the one used in D&D. Seeing as pure evil is 0, and pure good is 1, anything that is not pure good will at least be partly evil. Pure good can barely survive, as a truly good person will not harm others, but attempt to aid them whatever the costs to himself. Pure evil can barely survive, because these people would be weeded out by moderately good people. It is also hard to reach, because everyone at least cares a bít about some people. So indeed, you could theoretically (if you were omniscient) label people with a number between 0 and 1 to determine about where on the axis they are. All the shades of grey there are. This is where D&D fails. It provides white, black, and only 1 shade of grey. This is a false trichotomy (is that even a word? ^_^).
Mirikon 04-16-06, 09:02 AM	I would say that, like killing in general, poison is neither inherently good nor evil. It is the spirit in which the killing is done that determines the alignment of the action. There is a good case for poison being used to rid the world of an evil you are not strong enough to take on yourself being a good, or at least neutral, act. Poisoning someone because they looked at you funny? Evil. The reason you don't see paladins using poison is because, IMHO, using poison is a chaotic act.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 09:03 AM	That is correct. You have a shift, that shows the actual alignment a lot better than the one used in D&D. Seeing as pure evil is 0, and pure good is 1, anything that is not pure good will at least be partly evil. Pure good can barely survive, as a truly good person will not harm others, but attempt to aid them whatever the costs to himself. Pure evil can barely survive, because these people would be weeded out by moderately good people. It is also hard to reach, because everyone at least cares a bít about some people. So indeed, you could theoretically (if you were omniscient) label people with a number between 0 and 1 to determine about where on the axis they are. All the shades of grey there are. This is where D&D fails. It provides white, black, and 1 shade of grey. This is a false trichotomy (is that even a word? ^_^). If that is truly your view on good and evil, then you will have a very hard time living in the real world.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:04 AM	But whose morality? Universal morality. Morality is not an absolute thing amongst all people. Morality is, morals aren't.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 09:04 AM	I maintain that since you are simulating human(oid) behaviour, human(oid) morality applies. However, it might balance out. If you kill one man to save 1000 others, you will probably end up on the good side. But that doesn't make it any less evil to kill that man. Depends whether that one man you kill is actually responsible for the deaths of the other thousand. If the man is not responsible for those deaths, but you can save a thousand lives by killing him then, yes, killing him could be considered an evil act. Not to say that it shouldn't be done, mind you - sometimes, you have to sacrifice a battallion to save an army - but it's still the lesser of two evils. If, on the other hand, you consider killing someone who is about to detonate a nuclear bomb in a crowded stadium to be evil, however... well, then everything in the world must be evil from your point of view. Some may be more evil than others, but everything is still evil, since, by your definition, any action taken to stop an evil person also happens to be an evil act.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:05 AM	If that is truly your view on good and evil, then you will have a very hard time living in the real world. Perhaps. Or perhaps if more people would try to aid eachother, the world would look better.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:06 AM	by your definition, any action taken to stop an evil person also happens to be an evil act. Not at all. Any action that harms that person is. Not ány action.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 09:12 AM	Not at all. Any action that harms that person is. Not ány action. In other words, any action which actually works. When was the last time anyone talked a megalomanic tyrant out of his plans and aspirations? If 1 is good, 0 is neutral and -1 is evil, every action that harms someone else is, by your definition, somewhere between 0 and -1, regardless of how it benefits others, and regardless of how vile the person harmed is. That being the case, 'good' is something that clearly does not exist in that philosophy, apart from as a nebulous, cosmic ideal to which to aspire - everything just comes in various shades of evil.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 09:16 AM	Perhaps. Or perhaps if more people would try to aid eachother, the world would look better. Unfortunately, under such a philosophy, all it takes is one 'very evil' person out of six-and-a-half billion to upset the balance. Why? In order to stop the 'very evil' person, other people needs to commit 'evil' acts (since talking won't work). These people are now 'evil'. Who supports and helps these people? Now they're helping evil - aiding and abetting, as they say. This, too, would be an 'evil' act. This continues almost as a chain reaction. Multiply this by the number of 'very evil' people in the world at any one time, and pretty soon the whole world begins to look evil...
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 09:16 AM	In my opinion, someone who refuses to save the lives of 100 innocents by torturing the person responsible for their plight to get necessary information is *at best* a dark shade of neutral - too selfish to consider getting themselves dirty in order to help innocents. It's this kind of moral dilemma (and the solution presented in the Book of Exalted Deeds) which would make me despise exalts in real-life situations. When one has power, *not using it* is a decision in itself. One *cannot* simply 'do nothing' and expect to be absolved of responsibility for what happens, if one has the ability to do something about a bad situation.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:18 AM	In other words, any action which actually works. When was the last time anyone talked a megalomanic tyrant out of his plans and aspirations? If 1 is good, 0 is neutral and -1 is evil, every action that harms someone else is, by your definition, somewhere between 0 and -1, regardless of how it benefits others, and regardless of how vile the person harmed is. That being the case, 'good' is something that clearly does not exist in that philosophy, apart from as a nebulous, cosmic ideal to which to aspire - everything just comes in various shades of evil. As I said before, it's not -1______0_______+1 evil <> neutral <> good Because this would allow you to classify an action as solely evil or solely good. It's 0________________+1 evil <> neutral <> good This means that every action actually has components of both.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 09:19 AM	As I said before, it's not -1______0_______+1 evil <> neutral <> good Because this would allow you to classify an action as solely evil or solely good. It's 0________________+1 evil <> neutral <> good This means that every action actually has components of both. Which again, is not standard alignment rules for D&D.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:20 AM	Unfortunately, under such a philosophy, all it takes is one 'very evil' person out of six-and-a-half billion to upset the balance. Why? In order to stop the 'very evil' person, other people needs to commit 'evil' acts (since talking won't work). These people are now 'evil'. Who supports and helps these people? Now they're helping evil - aiding and abetting, as they say. This, too, would be an 'evil' act. This continues almost as a chain reaction. Multiply this by the number of 'very evil' people in the world at any one time, and pretty soon the whole world begins to look evil... Except that "helping an evil person" is not evil on itself. It depends what you're helping him with. If you're giving him food and shelter, that's not necessarily evil. If you're helping him conquer the world, it is. And yes, it is idealistic. But as I said before, one evil act does not make a person evil.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:22 AM	Which again, is not standard alignment rules for D&D. RAW allows Pun-Pun, so even RAW is not unquestionable. If one aspect is, the dubious alignment system certainly is.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 09:26 AM	RAW allows Pun-Pun, so even RAW is not unquestionable. If one aspect is, the dubious alignment system certainly is. What is pun-pun? Actions that break the law or your word = Chaotic Actions that harm innocent beings = Evil That's the definition given by the RAW. Anything else is house rules and should be taken as such.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:28 AM	What is pun-pun? Actions that break the law or your word = Chaotic Actions that harm innocent beings = Evil That's the definition given by the RAW. Anything else is house rules and should be taken as such. Pun-Pun is a level 5 kobold that has achieved divinity through rules purely legal by the RAW of a couple of books published by WotC. By level 5. And he didn't break anything that is official by RAW.
strenoth 04-16-06, 12:28 PM	If Poison is Evil because it adds tot he pain and suffering of a person whom you are trying to kill, then so are all the energy effects you can add to yoru weapons Flaming: Fire causes the most excrutiating pain you've ever felt. I know from personal experience. They actually put me on a morphine drip with a button to give myself occasional boosts. Morphine made me painfully nausious as it turns out, and I still sometimes used the button. THis was for 10% first & secodn degree burns. Totally superficial damage too. it just hurt liek hell and put my system into shock Acidic: Chamical burns, apin levels woudl be the same as fire Cold: Ever heard of frost bite/frost burn? yeah, pretty painful stuff Electric: I've been bit by 120VAC, and that hurts. I'd hate to see what an electrical source that coudl cause 1d6 non-lethal damage would be like. Sonic: Eh, this is probably feels more like normal damage, liek giving your sword a bit of a saw effect tot he wound. More painful, but not much more so than a physical weapon woudl do. In addition, weapons can cause deeper injuries. I imigne burns on muscle tissue woudl hurt a hell of a lot. So yeah.. tell me poison on a blade, which usually end a combat quicker, is some how more evil than a flaming weapon. go ahead. Argue till you are blue. There is no sensable reason to label poison as evil, unless you label flaming weapons as evil.
Witch 04-16-06, 12:35 PM	Oh, we're not saying poison is evil at all. We (or me, at least) are saying that using it is evil. Secondly, not for the reason you're stating, so your explanation is not enough to refute that poison is evil. Thirdly, there should be a distinction between poison on your weapons and any other poison.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 12:45 PM	Oh, we're not saying poison is evil at all. We (or me, at least) are saying that using it is evil. Secondly, not for the reason you're stating, so your explanation is not enough to refute that poison is evil. Thirdly, there should be a distinction between poison on your weapons and any other poison. In that case: a) What makes the use of poison evil, as compared to the use of a dagger, spear, fireball or Holy Word spell for the same purpose (i.e. killing someone)? b) What is the distinction between poisoned weapons and ingested/contact/inhaled poisons, and what makes one more evil (as opposed to more chaotic) than the other?
Witch 04-16-06, 12:57 PM	Read my above posts, I have answered those questions already. Edit: I've looked it up to quote for you myself: Murder is in any case evil. If you have the option to use poison, you have the option to capture someone alive. If you are in combat, you don't have a lot of options left. Murder is never a good thing, but if you're poisoning, it's even worse, simply because you had other choices. I later "errata'd" that to not include contact poisons used in combat.
a_psh 04-16-06, 01:16 PM	Murder is evil regardless of point of view. You're taking away an individual person's life.Sigh. This is an old argument (you made it 2-3 weeks ago in another thread). In response to this specific point (you've seen this before): There is an afterlife in D&D. There is resurrection in D&D. There is real, manifest, undeniably present, no-faith-necessary, look-at-that-avatar-over-there divine power in D&D. Death just doesn't carry the same weight it does in the real world (and, even in the real world, we resort to death to fight those who would deal death to us). Death is not oblivion or even going somewhere else without the possibility of return. There is no punishment in the afterlife, just an existence reflecting what you valued in life (in the standard cosmology, the Lower Planes are harsh but not Hell: the dead souls there are where they would want to be; this is kind of complicated argument to make, so I omit explanation for now). There's no finality to death, no great theft of life and potential and existence with every killing blow. The Prime Material Plane is a battleground for philosophies. The orcs you kill will continue killing and pillaging in Acheron, but now they're not doing it to the townsfolk you're protecting. Your philosophies clashed. Your own philosophy beat out theirs. Now they're exploring their philosophy in a place where they can't touch yours. ... On a more general note: So you've defined good and evil as imppossible ideals, completely untenable ways of life. We already have the terms "Exalted" and "Vile" to describe this (and you see how useless they are in the average game). How does this whole system you've constructed have any relevance to this thread? At best, you're saying "If you buy into my system of any pain or death being evil, poison is evil," and that's all you've really said. However, if we buy into your system, paladins can't function, period, since the code prohibits any evil action... if we have to actively edit something in the PHB to make it fit with your definitions of good/evil, then your definition is clearly noncanonical. So all we know is that you house-ruled poison to be evil, effectively, without really saying anything about how RAW would treat it. Not exactly the most illuminating point.
runestar 04-16-06, 01:20 PM	Murder is evil regardless of point of view. You're taking away an individual person's life. My point is that intangible notions like good or evil are relative. An action can only be deemed as "good" relative to another action. Same goes for an "evil" act. Neither may exist without the other. Why is killing a terrorist "good" while murdering a baby in cold blood "evil"? It's because the alternative is either far worse, or far better. In the real world, murder would probably be more chaotic than evil. You are charged mainly because it violates the law(a chaotic trait). The rationale behind it(whether it was a good, neutral or evil act) will be determined later in court and thus decide your sentence. ;) Let me expand more on this - a sniper is faced with a hostage situation. Diplomacy has failed, and he is faced with the scenario of either shooting the felon in the head(assume here he is assured of a head-shot), or letting him get away scot-free(and the victim possibly coming to harm, even death). If he kills the felon, the victim goes free and unharmed, and he has saved a life at the cost of another. From the victim's POV, he would have saved a life. Few would care about the life of the felon who had just been taken(it would probably be rationalised that he was asking for it). From the POV of those close to the felon, he would have just taken the life of someone close to them, someone they cared for. So who is to say that the sniper was in the right or wrong? What makes the word or opinion, or the life of 1 person matter more than the other? In the end, it really just boils down to weighing the pros and cons of 2 or more alternatives and ultimately choosing 1 which the individual feels he/she will best be able to live with. There are really no absolutes in this world. I realise that this flies in the face of the alignment system in DnD, but I found it stupid in the first place, and so, here's my take. Opinions?
a_psh 04-16-06, 01:32 PM	There are really no absolutes in this world. I realise that this flies in the face of the alignment system in DnD, but I found it stupid in the first place, and so, here's my take. Opinions?I find that the D&D alignment system works if, well, you don't really care about it. Just treat it as a few letters on a sheet, which change from time to time but don't really influence much. Assign alignment based on goals and beliefs and maybe personality traits rather than actions. Don't bother trying to figure out an alignment descriptor for any action. You can be evil because you're the kind of person who would do X, but you don't become evil just by doing X. You don't have to get rid of alignment, but just keep it a little bit in the background. Keeping a running tally of who did what good or evil act when is incompatible with roleplaying lifelike personalities.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-16-06, 01:33 PM	The majority of poisons do. Organic poisons usually cause pain. They're meant as deterrents. Inorganic poisons are usually not painful. Take KCN for an example. It kills you after a minute, and it isn't painful. Hell, there are even organic poisons that are completely painless. Take opiates as an example.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 01:36 PM	Read my above posts, I have answered those questions already. Edit: I've looked it up to quote for you myself: Murder is in any case evil. If you have the option to use poison, you have the option to capture someone alive. If you are in combat, you don't have a lot of options left. Murder is never a good thing, but if you're poisoning, it's even worse, simply because you had other choices. I later "errata'd" that to not include contact poisons used in combat. So, in your opinion, all sneaky-types (be they spellcasters, rogues or stealthy rangers) are inherently evil because they strike from nowhere, without giving opponents a chance? I'd say is just a different style of fighting. Fighters dish it out face-to-face. Rogues use surprise. Neither method is more evil than the other - it's why you do it that matters. Difference is, if you're a sneaker rather than a smasher, you only have one shot. Either you can eliminate the BBEG and end the threat, or you can open up negotiations which probably won't work. Once you emerge from the shadows and start talking, you can't just go back into the shadows and resume the assassination when negotiations fail - you've missed your chance. As for having 'other choices' - pfft, the BBEG blew it the moment he started committing genocide, set orcs against the town or tried to open a permanant gate from the Abyss. Do you really think negotiating is an option? If you can't face him face-to-face, he'll just kill you and add your zombified corpses to his army. Even if you get away, he's now going to be more alert to sneaky tactics and it'll be harder to get in next time. Better to end it on the first shot, spare the people a lot of pain and misery and save the lives of potentially thousands of humans (and orcs). What you are describing as 'good' and 'evil' is more akin to 'law' and 'chaos'. Many people make the same mistake - don't confuse honour with virtue, or indecorum with depravity. They aren't the same.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-16-06, 01:37 PM	Pun-Pun is a level 5 kobold that has achieved divinity through rules purely legal by the RAW of a couple of books published by Blizzard. By level 5. And he didn't break anything that is official by RAW. Uh, no. Pun-Pun uses no Blizzard material. It uses stuff from the PHB, the Wizards site, Serpent Kingdoms, and one other book. Complete Arcane if I'm not mistaken.
Witch 04-16-06, 01:45 PM	There is an afterlife in D&D. There is resurrection in D&D. There is real, manifest, undeniably present, no-faith-necessary, look-at-that-avatar-over-there divine power in D&D. Most petitioners lose their memories of who they were before they died. In other words, you could consider yourself another person after death, and hence, you have been murdered anyway, as your former identity is stripped away. Not everyone can afford resurrection. And thirdly, in Forgotten Realms, what if the person didn't have a deity? He'd be really screwed, then. So all we know is that you house-ruled poison to be evil, effectively, without really saying anything about how RAW would treat it. Not exactly the most illuminating point. As a matter of fact, I haven't houseruled it. RAW agrees with me. If you rule poison not to be evil, then you are houseruling. "Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and characters, implements of corruption and destruction. If snakes and vermin are associated with evil, as they are in many cultures, it is usually because of their venom that they are viewed in such a negative light despite their neutral alignment. Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Masters Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness. Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil to use." There, Rules As Written. And don't say: "But it's a splat book!" Well, it's incidentially the splat book that deals with morality in D&D.
Witch 04-16-06, 01:45 PM	Uh, no. Pun-Pun uses no Blizzard material. It uses stuff from the PHB, the Wizards site, Serpent Kingdoms, and one other book. Complete Arcane if I'm not mistaken. My excuses. I played too many Blizzard games and mixed them up. I'll edit straight away.
Witch 04-16-06, 01:47 PM	As for having 'other choices' - pfft, the BBEG blew it the moment he started committing genocide, set orcs against the town or tried to open a permanant gate from the Abyss. Do you really think negotiating is an option? Everyone can be redeemed.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 02:02 PM	Ironically, it is these same morality-based splatbooks which come up with such things as ravages (if this isn't pain and suffering, what is?) and which have such extreme interpretations of 'good' and 'evil' that practically every action ends up being interpreted as one or the other, with nothing in between. If there are any books you shouldn't use for D&D moral guidance, these are them. I prefer to regard BOED and BOVD as a bad dream, and leave it at that.
Witch 04-16-06, 02:06 PM	Note that the poisons aren't bad because they cause ability damage. They are bad because they use unnecessary suffering. Ravages might not do this. Secondly, I find them fairly well in determining what's actually good. They're just not playable. It's not fun to run a campaign where everyone's an Apostle of Peace.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 02:08 PM	Everyone can be redeemed. But only those who can stand face-to-face with a villain can defend themselves from his counterattack after a failed negotiation. After sneaking in, you only have once chance to make an action. You can either perform an action to kill or incapacitate the BBEG (e.g. poison his lunch), or give up your cover to negotiate with him. If negotiations fail, you're SOL. I certainly wouldn't like to play in your campaign - under those conditions, no good rogue, bard or other sneaky character could survive past level 1 without either dying or turning evil. Why? Because they rely on stealth, and stealth means striking first, and striking hard!!! Besides, exalted rogues exist. They use sneak attacks. They kill people with sneak attacks. Being exalted, they are certainly not evil.
Witch 04-16-06, 02:10 PM	As a matter of fact, I don't turn people evil for that. Both a "let's be as good as it gets" and "let's be as evil as it gets" campaign are boring. Hence, I don't change the alignment system, and just consider good as "better than average" and evil as "worse than average".
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 02:13 PM	When finding sources to quote for principles, it is better to seek out those which actually stick by their own principles. BoED need not apply.
Sunrider 04-16-06, 02:13 PM	Note that the poisons aren't bad because they cause ability damage. They are bad because they use unnecessary suffering. Ravages might not do this. Secondly, I find them fairly well in determining what's actually good. They're just not playable. It's not fun to run a campaign where everyone's an Apostle of Peace. Um... have you even read the section on ravages? Unlike poisons (which probably go either way), ravages are specifically said to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on their victims. If 'pain and suffering' define evil, then ravages are the worst of the lot. Anyone who swings a sword or lobs a fireball is committing an evil act. Melf's Acid Arrow, which pumps acid into an opponent over a period of time, is a spell of unspeakable evil. And anyone who takes the exalted feat Touch of Golden Ice literally has 'evil' flowing through their veins. Or maybe ravages and poisons aren't so bad after all, and the BOED/BOVD guidelines on morality are suited only to an exalted or vile campaign?
Witch 04-16-06, 02:18 PM	Unlike poisons (which probably go either way), ravages are specifically said to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on their victims. If 'pain and suffering' define evil, then ravages are the worst of the lot. Where does it say that? It says here that they "turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that grants their bodies". Granted, it's just as painful probably, and you're right. It's just as bad. That should nót be exalted.
RakenMoraf 04-16-06, 02:23 PM	No, because a lawful neutral person can be hired to kill. A lawful neutral character follows a code of organization. As long as there is order, it's fine. You can also be chaotic neutral. Just because you're an assassin, doesn't mean that you are evil. Also, poisons are not evil. It's the user that may be considered evil. But what people may consider you and what you really are, are two different things.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-16-06, 02:40 PM	Everyone can be redeemed. Fiends can't.
Witch 04-16-06, 02:42 PM	If Angels can fall, why can't fiends be redeemed?
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-16-06, 02:44 PM	If Angels can fall, why can't fiends be redeemed? Good's harder to maintain than evil.
Witch 04-16-06, 02:46 PM	Good point.
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 02:51 PM	If the one can happen, so can the other - theoretically... The kind of situation I see an evil outsider 'rising' is, say, if it was trapped in one of those mirrors-of-soul-trapping with a load of wise (and good) scholars, and had a great many years in which it couldn't attack said scholars, couldn't leave, and had nothing to do but discuss things with them. Aesthetically, I prefer settings wherein demons and angels already perfectly understand the Divine Order, and have made their choice - now and forever - from that perfect understanding. Fallings and rising make for better plots, though... (Edited for spelling. Type in haste, repent at leisure)
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-16-06, 03:15 PM	If the one can happen, so can the other -theoretically... It can happen, it's just not going to. If I remember correctly, there's a grand total of one case in canon. There aren't many cases in canon of celestials falling either. I can only think of one. The point is, when you're completely composed of an alignment, it's almost impossible to change.
Witch 04-16-06, 03:19 PM	Erinyes are fallen celestials, and there's quite a few of those. A few of the lords of the nine are celestials too. Could you care to clarify who the risen fiend was?
gt42 04-16-06, 04:26 PM	no assasins r not evil unless they kill 4 the sake of it GT has spoken
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 04:52 PM	Despite my preference for outsiders staying where they are, I must admit to running a quasit character who was chaotic neutral. My rationale was, he was unusually ancient for such a demon - he had neither been competent enough for promotion nor unlucky enough to be slaughtered in the past few thousand years, but after several missions to the Prime (serving Evil Genius Familiar duty), he had become completely disillusioned with evil, as it all seemed the same after a while. Still, he wasn't exactly 'risen', more just didn't see the point in evil any more...
sneak_Blast 04-16-06, 05:49 PM	Wow. Another one of these, "Do evil ends justify good means?" topics. Let me clear this up. Disclaimer: The following material is based on the BoED's ruling on good and evil ends and means. This does in no way mean that I agree or disagree with the material presented. Every paladin, exalted character, or anyone who would suffer ability losses for violating their good alignment will come across a situation like this sooner or later: Is it okay to kill the baby to save the lives of thousands of people? This is a classic situation in which a character must decide if good ends justify evil means. A neutral character would say, "Yes, of course it is. You are saving many more lives than you are taking." Neutrality, according to the BoED and therefore WOTC in the perspective of D&D, means that you are willing to commit evil means to get to good ends (or the other way around). A good character, therefore, is not allowed to commit an evil act for any reason what-so-ever. Even the smallest evil act for the greatest good ends is not allowed. Therefore, an exalted character (for example) would lose his or her alignment (or at least suffer some punishment) if he commited an evil act. Again, this is according to the BoED, Chapter 1, "Ends and Means", and does in no way necessarily reflect my personal views on the matter. Also, according to RAW (I believe in the DMG under the poison section, not sure), the use of poison is an evil act, so the best alignment a poison-using character could be is neutral (on the good vs. evil axis).
FloppyLlama 04-16-06, 05:55 PM	Inorganic poisons are usually not painful. Take KCN for an example. It kills you after a minute, and it isn't painful. Are the poisons in the DMG mostly inorganic? I'm pretty sure they aren't. ell, there are even organic poisons that are completely painless. Take opiates as an example. They aren't as common as painful organic poisons. I said the majority are, not all of them. EDIT: On the use of spells of energy types. Generally they are big and kill quickly. They aren't intended to sap the health of the target through painful violation of the body until they are weakened. You blast them with acid? You're probably aiming to kill them efficiently. Poison is also used to kill efficiently but in a different manner. It's not about time, it's about certainty and subtlety, and that just happens to be very, very painful.
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 05:57 PM	I prefer not to use game supplements that cause either uncontrollable laughter or several hours worth of argument (depending on my group composition). I have never, in all my years of gaming, met a single person (face to face) who agrees with most of the BoED. Admittedly, most of my years of gaming took place before the BoED was written, but there have been a few since :-). The particular scene quoted, in fact, makes most people's heads hurt. I like to use it as a prime example of why that particular book is broken. I dunno, is this a British thing? Are there plenty of people in other countries who think it's just peachy? 'Cause, I've not met any here.
Vyctavyre 04-16-06, 06:29 PM	You sir are Neutral Evil. The poisons are evil to use. Any time you use a poison it is most defenatly an Unlawful act and then depending on how you use it... If you use it to kill somone who is unarmed and unaware of your presence or stituation. Then I would classify it as evil, but if you used it to doctor a blade then I would classify it as just Unlawful depending on what you killed with the blade. If used for a battle aghainst evil, then good. To stab somone to no hope of recovery then evil... catching the drift? Neutral Evil characters are very indapendent and look to make money anyway possible even if it is an obviously evil act.
Chrono Nexus 04-16-06, 06:39 PM	A poison is a tool. Tools cannot be evil. The person wielding the tool may be evil- but the act is not evil unless the intent is to cause harm (for his own gain) or excessive suffering. An object does not have an alignment. The fact that there are alternatives to using poison does not make using it an evil act. Whether the act is good or evil is based entirely off of what motivates the action- not what the player uses to justify the action.
Vyctavyre 04-16-06, 06:43 PM	Yes, but the DM can give the item an EGO therefor giving it an alignment!
nhs_boy 04-16-06, 06:48 PM	I'll outline an example, and people can give their opinions on it. Let's say we have Mike, the human fighter. Mike is level 4, and so not too tough. Now, in exploring and clearing out some goblin warrens close to his home village, he has found some treasure (yay!), several vials of poison (meh.), and an ENORMOUS HUNGRY BEAST! (boo!) The beast is currently snuffling around the warrens, snacking on dead goblins, but it is plain that it will be finished in a matter of hours, and the village is clearly the closest supply of tasty humanoid food. Mike has no illusions - he means well, but at his power level a straight fight would leave him dead to no effect. The small village has no other strong defenders, and the nearest town is several days away. The poison he found, however, looks like just the thing to let him eliminate the beast! So his options are: i) Fight the beast normally, almost certainly die, village gets eaten. ii) Run away, certainly save himself, village gets eaten. iii) Use the poison to fight the beast, risk himself, village likely doesn't get eaten. iv) Run and tell the villagers, they all immediately flee the area, don't get eaten but are now destitute refugees. v) Generic Other Plan That Is Less Sure Than Poison Use But Riskier. If it fails, village gets eaten. Which one do you think good, neutral and evil characters would go for? Evil is easy, but the other two..?
Aelran 04-16-06, 06:51 PM	Vyctavyre: Do we really need to bring intelligent poisons into this? On the whole assassination element of it: The Slayer of Domiel. An assassin for the cause of good – just doesn't seem to take payment.
a_psh 04-16-06, 10:56 PM	As a matter of fact, I haven't houseruled it. RAW agrees with me. If you rule poison not to be evil, then you are houseruling.As long as you're talking about it in terms of your rewrite of alignment, which is divergent from RAW, all alignment-related arguments you make are, effectively, house rules. The fact that you can cite the BoED to say that poison is evil has nothing to do with constructing an alternate alignment system and then using that to claim that poison use is evil, which is what you're doing. I'm attacking the basis of your argument, not your conclusion (I disagree with those, too, but everyone and their dog knows how to have a classic BoED argument, so I'm going to stay out of that and let other people do it).
a_psh 04-16-06, 11:12 PM	Here is your post (although it looks better in a dark quote box than it did originally, I will point out):Yes, but the DM can give the item an EGO therefor giving it an alignment! Here is your post the way it should look:Yes, but the DM can give the item an EGO therefor giving it an alignment! I don't care if you post one-liners or ten-page essays. I don't care whether you use good spelling and grammar, as long as it's readable. But please don't use giant white letters. They're annoying, not to mention unreadable. Note how effective just a simple use of bold or underlined text can be. Those little typographical tricks are the product of hundreds of years of combined human effort. In contrast, your huge white text is actually less readable than that, since the contrast is actually lower. It's like you're yelling at me through a thick glass window: I see you doing it, but I don't really hear what you say. All I really get out of it is that you look really funny with your mouth open that wide. Like typing in ALL CAPS, posting on a forum in big text is like shouting in real life. Shouting at people is bad. ... The reason an intelligent item has an alignment is that it has its own personality and motivations, as well as the ability to do things by itself (Ego = ability to subvert the wielder's will and act for itself). It's simple: Bob the fighter swings the sword. It is Bob's heart and will guide the blade, and he is responsible for the good and evil that it brings. Now, when Bob the fighter wields the Sword of Kas, that sword wields him right back. Bob the figher can still use the blade for good or for evil, letting his mind and his soul guide his hand. But, when it wants to, the Sword of Kas can act on its own, and it can try to use its own will to influence Bob. This is not a man and a blade anymore; it's two beings brought together, whether in conflict or cooperation. Each has its own goals and its own alignment.
FloppyLlama 04-16-06, 11:51 PM	Now, in exploring and clearing out some goblin warrens close to his home village, he has found some treasure (yay!), several vials of poison (meh.), and an ENORMOUS HUNGRY BEAST! (boo!) The beast is currently snuffling around the warrens, snacking on dead goblins, but it is plain that it will be finished in a matter of hours, and the village is clearly the closest supply of tasty humanoid food. Mike has no illusions - he means well, but at his power level a straight fight would leave him dead to no effect. The small village has no other strong defenders, and the nearest town is several days away. The poison he found, however, looks like just the thing to let him eliminate the beast! So his options are: i) Fight the beast normally, almost certainly die, village gets eaten. ii) Run away, certainly save himself, village gets eaten. iii) Use the poison to fight the beast, risk himself, village likely doesn't get eaten. iv) Run and tell the villagers, they all immediately flee the area, don't get eaten but are now destitute refugees. v) Generic Other Plan That Is Less Sure Than Poison Use But Riskier. If it fails, village gets eaten. Which one do you think good, neutral and evil characters would go for? Evil is easy, but the other two..? Beasts aren't sentient. One could easily argue using poison on an animal isn't actually evil, since animals are amoral beings.
runestar 04-17-06, 12:14 AM	If good has to resort to "The ends justify the means" argument to support their actions, then Good has already lost. :(
a_psh 04-17-06, 12:28 AM	Beasts aren't sentient. One could easily argue using poison on an animal isn't actually evil, since animals are amoral beings.If it's good enough for amoral beings, it's good enough for immoral beings. This is no different from saying "poison's fine as long as you don't hurt innocents". This doesn't actually address the line of argument that says poison is evil, which is based on inflicting suffering. If an animal can perceive pain in any way approaching the level that of sentient being's suffering, then causing it to suffer is evil as well. To actually counter-argue with this point, you'd have to show that pain isn't necessarily evil, which your argument fails to do. This is why most people arguing against this line of thought compare poison to ravages or swords through the chest, both of which are non-evil but involve a lot of pain.
a_psh 04-17-06, 12:32 AM	If good has to resort to "The ends justify the means" argument to support their actions, then Good has already lost. :(I'd much rather just say that, for poison, the means themselves aren't evil and leave it at that. What's the difference between bone-crushingly lethal force and bone-crushingly lethal force with a little bit of black lotus rubbed on the end, really? Accidentally killing an innocent little goblin kid is probably worth ten lifetimes of dipping your sword in poison, karmically.
runestar 04-17-06, 08:19 AM	What's the difference between bone-crushingly lethal force and bone-crushingly lethal force with a little bit of black lotus rubbed on the end, really? Apparently, the former is endorsed by the forces of good, so you can safely apply bone-crushingly lethal force on your foes relatively guilt free. :) However, poison never did get the offical "good" seal of approval, so it remains a big "no-no". :( One theory I have is that the "Thou shall not use poison" commandment was due to the simply fact that the celestials' eternal foes, the demons/devils, were immune to poison, so it would make no sense to use it against them, hence the rule "No poisons" to prevent celestials from wasting their time coating their weapons with poison while their foes were raining blasphemy and dispel good SLAs at them. :P Somehow along the way, some cockster took it to mean that using poison was inherently evil as it was discouraged by the higher powers that be, so they chose to eschew it in favour of torching their foes with ravages and divine columns of flame. :rolleyes:
nyysjan 04-17-06, 09:07 AM	as a side note if anyone has the book of vile darkness, then check the escription on agony (liquid pain) "it is highly sought after by outsiders" no mention of evil, does this mean that angels have a drug habit :P
nhs_boy 04-17-06, 10:54 AM	does this mean that angels have a drug habit Well, why do you think that the more-or-less unified forces of good haven't crushed the bitterly warring forces of evil yet? Pappa Deva needs his medicine! Oh yeah!
Watchdog_of_Hades 04-17-06, 10:58 AM	Originally posted by WitchOriginally Posted by a_psh There is an afterlife in D&D. There is resurrection in D&D. There is real, manifest, undeniably present, no-faith-necessary, look-at-that-avatar-over-there divine power in D&D. Most petitioners lose their memories of who they were before they died. In other words, you could consider yourself another person after death, and hence, you have been murdered anyway, as your former identity is stripped away. So really, you just created a new life. You did murder someone, but there's a person alive now who wouldn't be if you hadn't killed them. It's like a hostage situation. You save one life at the expense of another. And with the "poisons are evil except in combat because you don't have another choice" argument: swords and spears are also evil because you have another choice (poison). Spells are evil, because you have another choice (poison). Futilely trying to negotiate with an evil tyrant who's causing undue suffering to innocents every second by working them to death is evil because you have an alternative (poison). Is poison more evil than swords and that's why it's evil? You have an alternative? So poison is evil because it's evil? Er... no. And if you fight someone you think you have a chance against by "good" (non-poison) means and lose, you've most likely left him with gaping wounds covering his body that won't go away and will be causing him extreme pain until he gets magical healing or lots of rest. That's probably a long time. Alternative: you poison the guy. He survives. He has ability damage that won't go away and will be causing him extreme pain until he gets magical healing or lots of rest. Wow. When you look at it that way, poison is the most disgusting means of killing someone there is. Swords and spells just can't compare in any way. [/SARCASM]
Darkxarth 04-17-06, 11:01 AM	Straightforward answer, yes. But, these kinds of things are discussed all over the boards, and everyone has their own opinion.
Chrono Nexus 04-17-06, 12:07 PM	Using poison is like using any other weapon or item in an inventory- the idea that using poison is inherently evil is silly, because if it is lethal so are other weapons. As for "causing excess suffering"- Death by violent explosions or by decapitation can be just as painful. Using poison is dishonerable, but that does not mean dishonor is evil. Honor is something a group of minds creates, it is not universal law. Poison is only labelled evil because of the thieves and criminals that have used it to aquire power. Using poison is not what made them evil, it was what they used it for that made them evil.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 04-17-06, 12:13 PM	I still maintain that there is nothing inherently evil about poison, but rather the alignment of an action that involves poison is determined by the method it is used, the type of poison used (which includes effect, degree of suffering/pain, length of pain/suffering etc.), and the reasons for its use. I still see no reason why drow poison, which just painlessly knocks out its victim, is in inherently evil. It certainly is entirely preferable to knocking someone unconscious by force. If poison was evil, it would show up under a detect evil spell. It is a tool, like a sword, and it is its specific use that defines the alignment associated with the user, not its nature. If you cut down a pit fiend with a sword, it is a good act. If you cut down an innocent with a sword, it is an evil act. Admittedly, poison is a little more complicated (you have to include the factors I stated above), but the principle is the same. Just to throw something else out there, am I only one that thinks, in the hands of characters, poison use (that's use, not the poison itself) is generally more lawful than chaotic? Why? Simply because using poison skillfully often requires careful planning, which is a lawful trait. Of course, poison can still be used in chaotic ways (for example, a barbarian coating his axe in scorpion vemon before charging head first into a fight).