Post/Author/DateTime	Post
otomik 03-09-05, 05:14 PM	in BoED it never specifically says whether or not ravages are evil like poisons. It says "using a poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." In the SRD it says "Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them." So I'm thinking that ravages are special types of poisons, magical in nature that target evil and so are rarely refered to as poisons because the people that often use them profess to fight evil. They all have ability damage and their descriptions sound like a lot of suffering, mental torture really. if these weren't evil wouldn't everyone be using these instead of poisons? I mean you could poison the zhent's water supply without killing any innocents, it might not meet the paladin's strict code but normal adventurers could deal with it.
Cymraegmorgan 03-09-05, 05:33 PM	The balance here is that Ravages and Afflictions only harm evil creatures, so they can only be used by evil on evil(in the case of Ravages). And because of the "evil-only" failsafe, one could easily argue for paladin usage. :angel:
Wayward Son 03-10-05, 10:58 AM	:banghead: By all that is holy, not again!!!!! :weep: Ok, got that out of my system. You'll find (very shortly, I imagine) that this is a topic of some debate on the boards. My take is that they are, in fact, not evil. This is largely because of how they cause the Evil within a subject to react with itself, causing the damage, and because ability damage, in itself, is not evil. They are, in essence, an infusion of Good so pure and powerful that the Evil within the subject can not stand against it. I am certain, however, that you will hear the opposing viewpoints very soon. Good luck.
otomik 03-10-05, 01:22 PM	I wish they were more detailed in their description, for a book all about good and evil they don't even tell you if using them is evil. Read the descriptions of the afflictions and they're all this poetic justice kind of torture, like the people in Dante's hell. I was talking with my GM about it, they would be fun to use with a character that thinks they're lawful good but is a judgmental lawful evil type or a neutral character thats working for good with evil methods but not actually good themselves (John Constantine). because ability damage, in itself, is not evil.yeah I'd tend to agree that limiting someone's power isn't the most evil thing you can do (though they specifically say ability damage is what makes poisons evil), but on top of that they sure sound painful, and it doesn't sound like the end result is saving their soul or anything, they just die. maybe this has been covered before but the search function doesn't work.
Melpomene 03-10-05, 02:13 PM	Ravages specifically target the evil-infused elemental energy within the body of the "victim." The Good-aligned ravages negate (for want of a better word) the evil-infused structures of soul. The point is, ravages themselves are infused with elemetal Good. They have to be to work as they do. Furthermore, anything (up to and including anything) which is infused with elemental Good is, by deffinition, Good. Good (in Greyhawk cosmology, according the the Nature of the Wheel), is a thing, as well as an ideal.
otomik 03-10-05, 08:31 PM	Ravages specifically target the evil-infused elemental energy within the body of the "victim." The Good-aligned ravages negate (for want of a better word) the evil-infused structures of soul. The point is, ravages themselves are infused with elemetal Good. They have to be to work as they do. Furthermore, anything (up to and including anything) which is infused with elemental Good is, by deffinition, Good. Good (in Greyhawk cosmology, according the the Nature of the Wheel), is a thing, as well as an ideal.yeah but that doesn't change the action, that stuff is all going on within the evil creature's body, poison (most poisons i've heard of at least) isn't evil because it's infused with evil energy is it? If you allow ravages as good by that logic then how about an exalted PrC class Holy Rapist with a magic holy condom?
Cymraegmorgan 03-10-05, 08:50 PM	yeah but that doesn't change the action, that stuff is all going on within the evil creature's body, poison (most poisons i've heard of at least) isn't evil because it's infused with evil energy is it? If you allow ravages as good by that logic then how about an exalted PrC class Holy Rapist with a magic holy condom? Allowing Good characters access to a specialized tool for destroying evil is not the same as wrapping a PrC around a sinful and odious act. Like I said before, the Fail-Safe here is a good or neutral character or monster cannot be harmed by Ravages and Afflictions. It is a "just" weapon in the hands of a good character, for only the wicked are punished by it. If, as a DM, you think they cross the line, do not allow them. But I believe Ravages and Afflictions, as written, are not evil.
otomik 03-10-05, 11:54 PM	Allowing Good characters access to a specialized tool for destroying evil is not the same as wrapping a PrC around a sinful and odious act. Like I said before, the Fail-Safe here is a good or neutral character or monster cannot be harmed by Ravages and Afflictions. It is a "just" weapon in the hands of a good character, for only the wicked are punished by it. If, as a DM, you think they cross the line, do not allow them. But I believe Ravages and Afflictions, as written, are not evil.Fail-Safe? Is it "just" to kill any Evil creature sentient or non-sentient anytime anywhere ? I didn't see anything in there about only Good characters having access to them, wouldn't evil character like to have them too? evil creatures fight other evil creatures all the time (the whole demons versus devils thing even). Wouldn't the foulest assasin love to have them because outsiders are often immune to poisons?
ShadowDragon8685 03-11-05, 01:31 AM	I don't have the BoED, but I have to say that I'm seeing a weeee bit of hypocracy here. It's Good to use a Ravage on a water supply to cause death and pain and destruction that is essentially poisioning to Evil creatures, because they are Evil, and Ravages are selective to Evil creatures. Yet it is Evil to use Smite Evil, which is also Good, and Evil-Selective, on something you know without a shadow of a doubt is Evil... So, I'd say that if you're going to allow Paladin Dredd, then Ravages are okay. If not, no. Also, what about poisons that are also strong anasthesiacs. They don't feel a thing - how is that undue suffering?
Melpomene 03-11-05, 09:00 AM	For the record, Smite Evil is now and has always been Good to the last drop.
Wayward Son 03-11-05, 10:13 AM	I wish they were more detailed in their description, for a book all about good and evil they don't even tell you if using them is evil. As do I. It would save pages and pages of circular debate on the topic. :P Read the descriptions of the afflictions and they're all this poetic justice kind of torture, like the people in Dante's hell. I was talking with my GM about it, they would be fun to use with a character that thinks they're lawful good but is a judgmental lawful evil type Indeed, it would. Especially since that character would also be subject to the Ravage if it is introduced properly into his system. :D yeah I'd tend to agree that limiting someone's power isn't the most evil thing you can do (though they specifically say ability damage is what makes poisons evil), but on top of that they sure sound painful, and it doesn't sound like the end result is saving their soul or anything, they just die. Yep, and sometimes evil people need to be killed to stop their predations. Ravages just provide additional means for good characters to combat evil ones. The right Ravage introduced into the BBEG at the right moment can tip the scales in a battle, turning it from an impossible fight to a winnable one. As to the ability damage, what it says is that the pain and suffering of the poison causing the ability damage is what makes it evil, not the damage itself. Otherwise, every ability-damaging or draining attack would have to carry the Evil descriptor. Important afterthought: Good, in D&D, does NOT equal pacifist. Good people can, and often do, actively fight against and kill evil ones. The entire Paladin class revolves around this idea. The difference between them is their means, their goals, and their motives for fighting. Evil kills for profit, pleasure, or to spread despair and denegrate life. Good kills for defense, to inspire hope and preserve the dignity of life.
robertliguori 03-11-05, 10:29 AM	Either they are, or poisons aren't. In logic: Most poisons cause undue suffering. Causing undue suffering is evil. Therefore, poisons are evil. All ravages cause undue suffering. Causing undue suffering is evil. Therefore, all ravages are evil. Thus, you end up with distilled goodness causing evil.
Melpomene 03-11-05, 05:17 PM	Either they are, or poisons aren't. In logic: Most poisons cause undue suffering. Causing undue suffering is evil. Therefore, poisons are evil. All ravages cause undue suffering. Causing undue suffering is evil. Therefore, all ravages are evil. Thus, you end up with distilled goodness causing evil. There's a problem with one of your premises. Namely, premise 1 of arguement 2. I contest ravages don't cause *undue* suffering. The suffering they cause is deserved. Therefor, they are not nescessarily evil.
Cymraegmorgan 03-11-05, 09:40 PM	Fail-Safe? Is it "just" to kill any Evil creature sentient or non-sentient anytime anywhere ? I didn't see anything in there about only Good characters having access to them, wouldn't evil character like to have them too? evil creatures fight other evil creatures all the time (the whole demons versus devils thing even). Wouldn't the foulest assasin love to have them because outsiders are often immune to poisons? First, I do not believe non-sentients can be anything but neutral, but I could be wrong.... And yes, evil creatures can use ravages, but as they only work on evil creatures, then it becomes a case of evil doing, off-handedly, the work of good. And yes, again, what assassin worth her salt would not have a ravage or two to use on her evil targets? :evillaugh And while on the subject of assassins, ShadowDragon8685, I am adding a couple more pix to the Altvogge Gallery, and check out the new pix on the assassin and sorcerer pages.
malykoth 03-11-05, 10:47 PM	Yup...here we go again! Oh, well...it is a fun ride! :D Personally, I always thought making poison-use a universally "evil" act was incredibly stupid. Using a toxin that could (possibly) be painless is more evil than burning someone to death with a fireball? If you think so, go visit a burn ward in a hospital. Taking a big piece of metal...possibly dull-edged from previous fights...and ramming it through a person's body isn't as evil? Most people is battles didn't die in the dramatic few seconds it takes to die in a movie. Death could take minutes, hours or even days due to sword wounds (or any weapon, I guess). Poison = evil in a D&D setting seems quite arbitrary to me. On top of that, some poisons don't even kill, they incapacitate. I think a group of alchemist-paladins that use non-lethal Dexterity or Strength sapping toxins would be a perfectly viable concept. They could knock-out their foes and take them captive. They could have holy blow-guns instead of holy swords! Slipping poison into a person's drink, without giving them a way to defend themselves, is certainly a cowardly and evil act...but so is blasting them with a silenced lightning bolt while invisible. It's the act or intent that is evil, not the substance (spell/weapon/etc....well, maybe some spells can be evil, but that's more a function of the magic.)
otomik 03-12-05, 01:59 AM	There's a problem with one of your premises. Namely, premise 1 of arguement 2. I contest ravages don't cause *undue* suffering. The suffering they cause is deserved. Therefor, they are not nescessarily evil.Then you would also be saying that poisons aren't evil if you use them against evil people correct? Which would make ravages not so unique, just a form of poison not referred to as poison, cloaked in a name with religious connotations to make some of the users of ravages more comfortable with their use?
Andrew_980 03-12-05, 04:52 AM	the problem is that it never describes pioson, let alone as very painfull. Ravages are specifically very painfull. what if you spill a little ravage on a evil child? is that ok, is that good? The suffering they cause is deserved. Therefor, they are not nescessarily evil. so I can skin them alive with a holy sword, it's deserved after all! And for that last time pioson is not evil, it can be the most mercifull way to die and sure beats the hell out of death by fire or acid
Kyuketsukiouji 03-12-05, 10:22 AM	First, I do not believe non-sentients can be anything but neutral, but I could be wrong.... Unintelligent undead are Evil, just as some nonsentient magical items can be Evil. Evil is not a function of free will in 3rd edition D&D.
Quenditar 03-12-05, 02:49 PM	As I recall, skeletons and zombies were neutral in 3.0; that was changed in 3.5 so holy weapons and such could affect them. I still think that skeletons and zombies being evil is logically incoherent, but holy weapons not affecting them is also silly, and I guess the revision committee went for the less silly option.
otomik 03-12-05, 04:09 PM	i played a character that was killed by a shadow's create spawn ability. anyway I became an emancipated spawn and while i didn't play the character as evil I knew that my strength draining power was evil because I disrupted the whole flow of life to the afterlife. I think undead are evil because they are an abomination to the natural order, but that's another absolute good/evil thing that might make people uncomfortable, in a similar fashion your DM could even declare that all homosexuals are evil.
malykoth 03-12-05, 10:19 PM	in a similar fashion your DM could even declare that all homosexuals are evil. True...or females who appear uncovered, or anyone drinking any type of alcohol, or anyone who works on a certain day, with a particular substance or in a specific occupation. All sorts of things can be declared evil by a DM for a particular ethos. Some, like owning slaves, are easy to accept as evil. Others, like wearing certain colors or eating certain foods, are less easy to understand, but might still lead to interesting role play, especially if the players are ignorate of the local taboos.
Melpomene 03-13-05, 12:30 AM	Poisons and ravages work by eating away at the target's soul. It couses damage to the formations of the soul; Eagle, Bear, Bull, Fox, Owl, and Cat. Damaging souls is generally evil. However, ravages select only the Evil parts of a person's soul to attack, due to being infused with elemental Good. It is a weapon of righteousness, which scourges the Evil from the souls of the wicked.
Wayward Son 03-13-05, 04:36 AM	As I recall, skeletons and zombies were neutral in 3.0; that was changed in 3.5 so holy weapons and such could affect them. I still think that skeletons and zombies being evil is logically incoherent, but holy weapons not affecting them is also silly, and I guess the revision committee went for the less silly option. Or no one on the revision staff thought to simply change the description of the Holy weapon ability to inflict the extra damage against "any evil or undead". :D
malykoth 03-13-05, 09:39 AM	I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I can see both sides of the evil/neutral unintelligent undead thing. For "evil", the bodies are animated by a malevolent, primal force that (though basically mindless as humans understand it) is devoted to snuffing out all life. Life force is something like an irritant or lure to the negative energy that animates the bodies. These undead instinctively seek it out and try to destroy it. I feel this concept is more appropriate to the "ravaging, flesh-eating" variety of zombie, though. For "neutral", the bodies are basically organic robots. Creepy, but no more evil than any other dead body. Until V4.0, it ain't gonna change (if even then)...so don't fear the "house-rule", it can be your friend... :) The same goes for the evil nature of poisons, of course...
Andrew_980 03-15-05, 10:58 AM	it all boils down to the "we will tell you how to think, so you don't need to think about the morality" policy that covers most of WotC's goofy rulings on anything related to alignment. that is why i use a combo of older editions and good old logic.
Cymraegmorgan 03-15-05, 02:33 PM	it all boils down to the "we will tell you how to think, so you don't need to think about the morality" policy that covers most of WotC's goofy rulings on anything related to alignment. that is why i use a combo of older editions and good old logic. I think it all boils down to "keep the Core Game G/PG, so we do not experience the same perception problems(and legal silliness) TSR went through." Does it lead to illogical game mechanics? Yes, but better to have a bunch of gamers like us whining and complaining on the boards about those goofy rulings than to have to pay the lawyers to fend off the Moral Majority and company. :D
Kyuketsukiouji 03-15-05, 03:25 PM	It boils down to "we made a design decision, and if you don't like it, rule 0 away." And intelligence is not a requsite for alignment, as the poor forgotten Lemure shows.
Andrew_980 03-15-05, 09:45 PM	man you are just determined to crap on every discussion about morality there is aren't you. regardless of who wrote the rules we are able to discuss the wisdom of their desision.some of us remember the days when alignment was motive based not "cosmic alignments, don't bother thinking"
Melpomene 03-15-05, 11:59 PM	Lemures are infused with elemental Evil. So, actual morality isn't really a factor for them. For moral agents, however, there are quite a few ways and means. A moral agent can't be mindless. However, being a moral agent is not a prerequisit, in D&D, for being aligned.
otomik 03-16-05, 01:37 AM	This conversation is getting a little broad, I kind of like the simplified morality system in a way because too much discussion can be a headache, everybody comes to the table with different values but in the end it's the DMs that matter, that can be frustrating. Being able to turn to a book for all this is easy (not a dig on religion, except maybe literal fundementalists) so I don't think I'm asking too much that the authors present something consistent.
PhaedrusXY 03-16-05, 04:23 AM	No, they're definitely good. At least acording to the definition of Dark Helmet from Spaceballs, which is a good one. "Evil will always triumph because good is stupid.". Ravages are very stupid, so they must be good. :D (I think Dark Helmet was the source of that quote. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) You may now carry on with your normally scheduled flame war. /dons flame resistant vest
The_Dark_One 03-16-05, 09:17 AM	PhaedrusXY, are you sure you want your moral authority to be a guy who can't tell the difference between a radar screen and a Mr. Coffee ?
Kyuketsukiouji 03-16-05, 09:36 AM	man you are just determined to crap on every discussion about morality there is aren't you. regardless of who wrote the rules we are able to discuss the wisdom of their desision.some of us remember the days when alignment was motive based not "cosmic alignments, don't bother thinking" You can remember these days with as much fondness as you want and bemoan the fact they're gone, but they are just that, gone. And, yes, I will "crap" on alignment discussions when they spring up because people like you seem insistant on carrying on as if things hadn't changed, thus spreading disinformation around to confuse the issue for other players. Alignment is no longer just a result of your actions. Alignments are now active forces of the universe than can mark and infuse creatures, objects and even places. You can be evil simply by virtue of your essence, you can worship "Evil" and get rewards for it, and so on and so forth. This isn't 2nd edition anymore. Get over it.
Quenditar 03-16-05, 10:20 AM	Would someone mind explaining the difference between the 2e and 3.Xe alignment systems for us newbies?
robertliguori 03-16-05, 10:44 AM	Indeed. Ravages are infused with holy energy, so they're good. They create massive amounts of unnecessary pain and suffering, so they're evil. Therefore, Ravages are kind of like an assassin with the Good subtype.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-16-05, 11:00 AM	Basically, 2nd Ed. morality had a lot less emphasis on intrinsic alignment (basically, you being alignment x because it was your basic nature) and more on acquired alignemnt (you are alignment x because you've been acting x most of your life). Under such concepts, the idea of mindless creatures with non-neutral alignment was much harder to explain, since you needed to be aware of what you did to actually be an alignment other than True Neutral (the "default" alignment). This is no longer true under 3rd edition. You can have unintelligent creatures with non-neutral alignments, and you can have highly intelligent creatures with a fixed alignment.
malykoth 03-16-05, 11:05 AM	Alignment is no longer just a result of your actions. Alignments are now active forces of the universe than can mark and infuse creatures, objects and even places. You can be evil simply by virtue of your essence, you can worship "Evil" and get rewards for it, and so on and so forth. I'm reminded of some quotes from "Time Bandits" Evil: No one created me! I am Evil! Evil existed long before Good. I cannot be unmade. I am all-powerful! Kevin: Yes, why does there have to be evil? Supreme Being: I think it has something to do with free will. Supreme Being: Do be careful! Don't lose any of that stuff. That's concentrated evil. One drop of that could turn you all into hermit crabs. Kevin: Mom! Dad! It's evil! Don't touch it!
Cymraegmorgan 03-16-05, 12:37 PM	This isn't 2nd edition anymore. Get over it. I don't know about Andrew_980, but I played 1st edition until last year, so I still have trouble "getting over" in excess of two decades of AD&D1E alignment rules....
otomik 03-16-05, 03:17 PM	Indeed. Ravages are infused with holy energy, so they're good. They create massive amounts of unnecessary pain and suffering, so they're evil. Therefore, Ravages are kind of like an assassin with the Good subtype.that's confusing too since there's a "good" assasin presitige class now in BoED. or you can just call the whole thing off and say there was always some good assasins.
Andrew_980 03-16-05, 08:57 PM	i much prefer the older alignment system because it handled morality as how you think and behave, not "cosmic forces" CG: beleives in freedom, thinks that rules are usually a way to hold people down, supports indeviduality even at the cost of society LG: beleives in strong community, does what is best for the majority even if an indevidual is adversly affected NG: beleives in pure good, does what seems the most good at the time Good people are not saints and can at times be less than perfect, good is interperated such as punishment, slaves, ect are based on society values not a "cosmic standard" later i can type in the exact definition of good for you but i don't have the books with me right now. I don't know about Andrew_980, but I played 1st edition until last year, so I still have trouble "getting over" in excess of two decades of AD&D1E alignment rules.... hell, i'd still play them, at times at least, if i had more cooperation from other players. and it isn't a matter of "getting over" it is a matter of knowing the roots and understanding what it is meant to be. by the arguments of Kyuketsukiouji all morality is out dated and useless, so then nothing is right or wrong because those notions are old.why follow a religion and it's concepts of good and evil if it is more than 5 years old, eh.
Cymraegmorgan 03-16-05, 09:27 PM	that's confusing too since there's a "good" assasin presitige class now in BoED. or you can just call the whole thing off and say there was always some good assasins. With my CS, I reinvented the wheel, so to speak, and we have a 3.5 Core Assassin Class, whose alignment restrictions are: NG,TN, or NE. Andrew_980, Your definition of the three Good alignments seems spot on. You hit on the strength/weakness of the Three Goods. :)
PhaedrusXY 03-16-05, 09:49 PM	PhaedrusXY, are you sure you want your moral authority to be a guy who can't tell the difference between a radar screen and a Mr. Coffee ?I think his judgement would be just as good as the D&D authors, as far as issues of what's good and evil. :embarrass :D :cool: (I like the BoED. I just think it's stupid to create an entirely new prestige class that is a "good" assassin, rather than just saying "Some assassins can be good." Same with poisons and ravages. It was stupid to label both assassins and poisons as unequivocably "Evil" in the first place. But instead of admitting that, they'd rather make up newer, "good" versions of both, so they can sell another book. :rolleyes: )
Andrew_980 03-17-05, 08:24 AM	Your definition of the three Good alignments seems spot on. You hit on the strength/weakness of the Three Goods. thanks, if this argument keeps going i may be forced to track down my 1st and 2nd ed books and start throwing quotes. This really seems like a "new guy" vs. "old-school" of thought argument those who say "the book says..." and those who say "for damn near 30 years it was...) guess what side i'm on
Kyuketsukiouji 03-17-05, 01:58 PM	by the arguments of Kyuketsukiouji all morality is out dated and useless, so then nothing is right or wrong because those notions are old.why follow a religion and it's concepts of good and evil if it is more than 5 years old, eh. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and are doing so in one of the most insulting manners I've had the displeasure of seeing on these boards in quite some time. Please be so kind as to restrain from pretending you have any clue what I'm talking about, since it's glaringly obvious you don't.
otomik 03-17-05, 04:07 PM	perhaps we're getting ahead of ourselves. the reason why the assasin class is evil doesn't have to be because of poisons, see SRD Requirements To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any evil. Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks. Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.so to become an assasin you have to murder someone to "join the assasins", sounds like an assasin guild, also sounds like something from the Dark Dungeons Chick Tract actually :rolleyes: Kind of dumb too since if someone is playing their character right a lawful evil character doesn't just murder somone, only chaotic evil really. By Dark Helmet's Maxim I declare assassins to be good because they are also dumb. They don't mention that poisons are evil in the SRD, only that they're illegal just about everywhere and loathed, that's only natural. It's BoED that explains why poisons are evil, even though nobody said they were evil before.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-17-05, 04:16 PM	That's because people keep confusing "Assassin", the prestige class, and "assassin", someone who kills someone else, usually by stealth and surprise. An Assassin is always evil, yes, for the reasons mentionned. You need to gratuitously waste a life just to join the club, and you are basically killing people for no other purposes than your own personnal advancement. But the Assassin isn't all there is to being an assassin. Killing people by stealth is no more evil than killing people at all. It doesn't matter how you do the killing. Doing it for ideological purposes, to advance the greater good by disposing of obvious enemies of the innocent and the weak, that's not an Evil act. Not a particularily honorable one, mind you, but there's many ways to do Good.
Objulen 03-21-05, 03:30 AM	Ah, this debate. The BoVD and BoED are both good sources of "paints" for making evil things in your game, but are abominations of illogic when it comes to actually trying to explain D&D ethics, frought with logical inconsistancies and downright absurdities. Ravages and afflictions are among these. The case that poisons and diseases are evil, while ravages and afflictions are not, because the latter are "evil-seeking", is irrational when properly examined. Along similar lines, Deathless violate certain rationals provided for why Undead are evil, providing distractions instead of real reasons (an animated corpse is an animated corpse, and one can not be natural while the other is unnatural, for example). Then again, D&D is frought with similar irrationalities, especially when it comes to things like this, such as the negative energy "death and evil" and positive energy "life and good" that causes this conflict (again, with Deathless -- if positive energy powers living things, then why are Deathless ambulatory corpses?). While one can ignore these flaws, the ease at which they surface inevitably draws attention, leading to a degeneration of suspension of disbelief.
residieu 03-22-05, 12:37 AM	Indeed. Ravages are infused with holy energy, so they're good. They create massive amounts of unnecessary pain and suffering, so they're evil. Therefore, Ravages are kind of like an assassin with the Good subtype. I think I've got it. Ravages themselves are good, just like a Holy Sword is good. But poisoning someone is evil. If you perform an evil act with a good tool, it is still an evil act. So using Ravages on someone is evil, just like using a holy sword to knowingly and willingly kill an innocent.
The_Dark_One 03-22-05, 01:31 AM	So using Ravages on someone is evil, just like using a holy sword to knowingly and willingly kill an innocent. Umm, Ravages can't be used on an innocent . They affect evil people, who richly deserve the harm that ravages do them. A holy sword can still be used to kill good or innocent people (note that these are not the same things) because its still a pointy metal object that you can still use when you want to get stabby.
PhaedrusXY 03-22-05, 02:28 AM	Umm, Ravages can't be used on an innocent . They affect evil people, who richly deserve the harm that ravages do them.He didn't say that using the ravages on an innocent was evil. He said that using the ravages on anyone was evil, since by definition they are a poison. If the fact that poisons are "painful" and cause "undue suffering" is enough to justify the act of using them on anyone as evil, then using the exact same logic, it is enough to damn the use of Ravages, also. It doesn't matter that they "only hurt evil people". You can "hurt evil people" in a way that is evil, also. Otherwise, it should be perfectly acceptable morally to torture, maim, and kill helpless prisoners (as long as they're evil prisoners). So... like I said... Ravages are stupid.
Salla 03-22-05, 03:50 AM	I think the theory is that the ravages/afflictions, themselves, are not doing the damage. It's simply catalyzing that which is already occuring; the evil is feeding on itself. I'm not sure I buy it, myself, but I think that was the designer's theory; alternately, they were just trying to mirror something in the BoVD, a book which I will not touch with a 10' pole of touching stuff. However, there are cases for the ravages/afflictions to be used incorrectly; for example, a greedy merchant who charges too much and thumbs the scales is definitely NE. But he doesn't deserve something like that. Unless the target of the ravage is proven irredeemable, then ravages are probably overkill. So, I file it in the same category as healing spells; neither good nor evil. I do the same with poisons, though. It says that poisons are evil because they generate 'undue pain' (I suppose afflictions and ravages are 'due pain'. but anyway), but that isn't necessarily the case. A poison that causes Int/Wis/Cha damage might be a tranquilizer or simply get you 'high' instead of causing pain ... and if you're using a nonlethal poison to make someone easier to capture, not kill, that's certainly not evil. Now, CHAOTIC for that situation, I'll grant you. That's definitely underhanded and dishonest, and isn't going to get you your merit badge in Paladinliness. The thing that I get out of the BoED is that it's for a specific type of campaign, and a specific kind of players. The morality in the BoED is very cut and dried, black and white. Some people like it, some don't. It fits in some game worlds, not in others. For instance, I wouldn't use any of the Exalted material in Eberron, since it's a darker world and has a lot of alignment haziness; Exalted characters just don't fit there, IMHO. On the other hand, in some worlds, Smite Makes Right. You don't argue complex morality, monster X is always evil because that's the way the universe works; the characters don't question it, because it's a universal constant. I can't remember where I heard the term, but it's called a 'convention of the genre'; something that the audience, and the characters, simply accept no matter how ridiculous it may be, as otherwise the whole thing falls apart. For example, let's take, I dunno ... Sailor Moon. Even though it takes like 5 minutes for the Sailors to do their funky transformation sequence, the bad guys all just sit and stare at them while they do it, instead of attacking. In comic books, a tiny little domino mask (a la Robin) can completely conceal your identity. Should either of these work? No, but they do, because the genre requires it. What's the point of this digression? Because I feel it's the DM's responsibility to communicate with the players and work out what the conventions of their particular genre is, even more narrow than 'fantasy'. How strict are you going to be with Paladins? I've encountered very loose and very strict DMs on these things. How important is alignment? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? ("Are you Chaotic Good because you do this, or do you do this because you're Chaotic Good?") Are monsters likely to vary in alignment, or is it safe to assume that every orc in the world has it out for you? Will you reward or punish players who try outlandish moves in combat, like swinging from chandeliers? Do your gods butt in, or just sit back and watch the show? We may all play D&D, but each of us puts our own spins on it based on our playing/running style. The game is different for each of us; every single player and DM looks at things in a slightly different way, interprets things differently. It's important to get with your group and determine just what conventions define your game. All those questions above? There are no right and wrong answers. Only different ones. The Only Wrong Way Of Gaming Is The Way Of No Fun.
residieu 03-22-05, 07:16 AM	Umm, Ravages can't be used on an innocent . They affect evil people, who richly deserve the harm that ravages do them. A holy sword can still be used to kill good or innocent people (note that these are not the same things) because its still a pointy metal object that you can still use when you want to get stabby. But using poisons on anyone is evil, even non-innocents. Besides being evil does not automatically condemn you to deserving death. If your paladin walks around immediatly killing everyone who detects as evil, he will soon no longer be a paladin.
otomik 03-22-05, 09:17 AM	what book is it declared that poisons are evil? in the SRD is says they're pretty much universially reviled but that doesn't mean they're evil (though you can't spell reviled without evil!). It says poisons are evil in the section on ravages but it plainly doesn't make sense anyway.
Objulen 03-22-05, 03:15 PM	what book is it declared that poisons are evil? in the SRD is says they're pretty much universially reviled but that doesn't mean they're evil (though you can't spell reviled without evil!). It says poisons are evil in the section on ravages but it plainly doesn't make sense anyway. The BoED says that poisons and diseases are evil, and I believe the BoVD might as well.
Quenditar 03-22-05, 06:51 PM	I think the argument here is whether the declaration that poisons and diseases are evil is stupid or not. I think it's very stupid.
residieu 03-22-05, 07:30 PM	I think the argument here is whether the declaration that poisons and diseases are evil is stupid or not. I think it's very stupid. I don't particularly like that rule, but I can live with it. What bothers me is the inconsistency. Poisons are evil because they cause undue pain, even if used against evil people. Ravages cause undue pain, but they are not evil because they can only be used against evil people. These two rules are given in the same chapter, but just don't mesh.
Objulen 03-23-05, 12:21 AM	I don't particularly like that rule, but I can live with it. What bothers me is the inconsistency. Poisons are evil because they cause undue pain, even if used against evil people. Ravages cause undue pain, but they are not evil because they can only be used against evil people. These two rules are given in the same chapter, but just don't mesh. D&D ethics are a sad thing, especially with the new "alignment as a force". Just check out the various self-defeating rationals for undead being evil, not to mention the abominations of illogic that are the Deathless. The supreme irony of inherent alignment, i.e. alignment "energies", is that the best setting for this sort of mechanic, Planescape, is no longer officially supported. When the very land you walk on is, in a very real way, governed and controled by belief, manifest in inherent, alignment-based energies, the notion makes much more sense. In most settings, however, the effects of belief and alignment are generally intangible in comparison, especially in a low magic campaign, and any sort of "inherent alignment" falls flat on its face in the face of mundane situations and magic-as-science.
Andrew_980 03-23-05, 09:00 AM	D&D ethics are a sad thing, especially with the new "alignment as a force". Just check out the various self-defeating rationals for undead being evil, not to mention the abominations of illogic that are the Deathless it is just an effort to remove thought from the issue Poisons are evil because they cause undue pain, even if used against evil people. Ravages cause undue pain, but they are not evil because they can only be used against evil people the sad part is that nowhere does it actually describe any pioson as painfull but goes out of it's way to describe the agony caused by ravages. so can you torture to death a foe who pops up on the old paladin-radar? or just ravage them to death, wich is apparently just fine. i cant say enough of how much i hate the BoVD/BoED, they are just so poorly thought out
Objulen 03-23-05, 02:54 PM	it is just an effort to remove thought from the issue Perhaps. But I must wonder -- what would be the point? If Wizards wants D&D to become a hack 'n slash, they might as well just turn the minatures game into something like Mech Warrior or Shadow Run, with the health levels on the base, measuring tape, etc. That and if I wanted to get a body count I could just play an FPS; they are much better suited to simple carnage in gameplay. :)
otomik 03-23-05, 05:40 PM	the sad part is that nowhere does it actually describe any pioson as painfull but goes out of it's way to describe the agony caused by ravages. so can you torture to death a foe who pops up on the old paladin-radar? or just ravage them to death, wich is apparently just fine. i cant say enough of how much i hate the BoVD/BoED, they are just so poorly thought outPersonally i think of poisons as more of a chaotic thing than evil, tradition and whatnot, they are described as universally reviled by society because they threaten law, they are used deceitfully and assasinate important leaders all sounds like a anti-law thing but chaos/law is so often poorly understood. I doubt a law or chaos centered book would sell as well though, something like The Book of the Honor Bound and the "Hey it's a free country, I do what I want!".
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-23-05, 07:13 PM	By the diseased logic of the BoED: yes/no They're evil because by the BoED, all things that cause undue suffering are evil. They're good because the BoED say's they're good. Just use some damn black lotus dust and be done with it.
Crossover-Chronicler 03-29-05, 11:56 AM	It's Good to use a Ravage on a water supply to cause death and pain and destruction that is essentially poisioning to Evil creatures, because they are Evil, and Ravages are selective to Evil creatures.Well.. yeah. So long as you know the creaturesyou're poisoning are evil enough to "deserve" consequences of the Ravage.Yet it is Evil to use Smite Evil, which is also Good, and Evil-Selective, on something you know without a shadow of a doubt is Evil...Since when?So, I'd say that if you're going to allow Paladin Dredd, then Ravages are okay. If not, no.I'd say that Ravages aren't Paladin tools for other reasons - good and evil aside, the use of such substances might qualify as "dishonorable" means.Also, what about poisons that are also strong anasthesiacs. They don't feel a thing - how is that undue suffering?That's what we call an exception. They exist.
Marcus Majarra 04-02-05, 08:35 PM	I think we are going about this reasoning in the wrong way. We have yet to define exactly what good and evil represent, and how they can manifest themselves in creatures. In the light of a recent article on lawful and chaotic alignments posted at the WotC site (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a), it has been brought up that good and evil are driving forces in a creature. The problem I see is in how the level of "dedication" to that sort of ideal warrants the manifestation of an alignment. Is a human merchant, with a greedy penchant, who demands higher prices than his competitors essentially evil? In my humble opinion, that is not the case. Though this is an entirely subjective matter, I think being on one end or the other of the moral axis requires a considerate degree of disregard for what the other end represents. Consider, if you will, that goodness is a more social concept and evil a more selfish one. A good character will promote his morals, in part, through disregard for his own impulses and desires. Similarily, an evil character will promote his morals through disregard for social needs, considering himself before any others. Going back to the example above concerning the greedy merchant, which alignment best describes his behavior and motivations? The answer is not ascertainable, in all fairness. We are unaware of what kind of consequences his raising the prices brings to those around him, nor do we know how he feels about the consequences of his actions. Are people suffering because of his actions, and if so, is he even aware of it? Naturally, this exemplifies how you can't decide which alignment fits best based off a single act. This furthers what the aforementioned article discusses in that moral alignments are driving forces in a character's life. A good character manifests good behavior on a constant basis; an evil character does the exact opposite. Most human characters are neutrally-inclined, meaning that they don't manifest acts of either alignment on a constant enough basis whether or not characters are truly good or evil. There are certainly more opinionated human characters who swing one way or the other. On a similar basis, dwarves, who are raised within their clan and family and who tend to live in mostly cramped spaces with their close ones (as described in Races of Stone), tend to be good-inclined most of the time, since their upbringing involves a great deal of social values. Similarily, drow are raised in an environment that promotes conflict and individuality as the base means for simple survival. It is normal to see that most of them manifest an evil alignment, as its values are what allows such characters to exist in their environment. Simply put, being on either end of the moral axis is not simply a set of beliefs. It is a way of life. Being greedy doesn't make you evil, but founding your way of life around your greed is. Similarily, healing the wounded doesn't make you good, but living a life dedicated to healing the wounded does. I believe that it's this kind of reasoning that gave rise to the concept of "due" and "undue" harm. If being evil is a way of life, then the moral backlash of ravages and afflictions is certainly not undue. Notice my choice of words in the previous sentence: "moral backlash." This is best explained through a careful look at some afflictions. Consider Haunting Conscience, which is described as casuing a creature "to dwell on its evil deeds, becoming guilt-wracked and violently angry." I opt to view all ravages and afflictions under this kind of reasoning, even if it is not textually explained in the ravages' and afflictions' descriptions. Golden Ice, for example, would subject the target to the kind of cruel coldness the character has manifested towards others. Still, how does this make ravages and afflictions good? Mechanically, they are identical to poisons and diseases, aren't they? All of them gradually deteriorate the target's system, physically or mentally, with no clear way of escaping this deterioration. Of course, this statement is false. Unlike poison and disease, whose effects can only be evaded through a strong metabolism or magic, ravages and afflictions can be avoided altogether by pure strength of morals of the target. If the target changes alignment to anything nonevil, the ravage or affliction stops affecting him or her. This kind of logic suggests that ravages and afflictions were engineered as incentive for evil characters to see the wrong of their ways. Certainly this kind of mentality is dictatorial and forceful, but that doesn't make it evil. As stated by a few other people, the Paladin is a warrior of goodness. He is trained for combat, and combat is his primary tool towards the removal of evil. This is why he is able to smite his opponents in the first place. This means that neither goodness nor exaltedness forbids violence as a means to achieve the greater good. What does oppose violent means to achieve the greater good are two sacred vows: the Vow of Nonviolence and the Vow of Peace. Naturally, all sacred vows promote good through exemplary good behavior or through discouraging nongood means. Violence is not good, but neither is it evil. Pacifist exalted characters promote the avoidance of violence, as it is not a good way to achieve things, as opposed to diplomacy. I hope this all makes sense to you. On a final note, I'd like to address the question of mindless undead (or any sort of mindless creature). Naturally, since the moral axis of alignments represents a driving goal (whether it is concrete or abstract), one would logically state that mindless creatures cannot take any of the polar alignments. Undead are an exception to this rule. Mindless undead represent the biggest perversion of life among sentient creatures, as they are simply animated carcasses devoid of any sort of thought. They are a desecration of life and the ability to decide to promote goodness, and this why they are inherently evil. They represent all that is evil. I believe this is the reasoning that led to the creation of the Deathless type. On the other extreme, the Deathless carry the promotion of good beyond the boundaries of mortal life, giving away the peace of their souls to keep advancing good in the mortal world.
Objulen 04-03-05, 04:16 AM	I think we are going about this reasoning in the wrong way. We have yet to define exactly what good and evil represent, and how they can manifest themselves in creatures. In the light of a recent article on lawful and chaotic alignments posted at the WotC site (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a), it has been brought up that good and evil are driving forces in a creature. A good argument. The problem, however, is that the method of dealing damage doesn't change the fact that they are functionally the same thing as poisons and disease. They simply happen to be smart poisons and diseases. A has X results uses chemicals or biological agents, B has X results using metaphysics. In the end, ravages and afflictions are functionally poisons and diseases, just ones that use different methods to achieve the same results. There would be little functional difference between a ravage or affliction, for example, and a poison or disease that affects only fiends, since they would both affect the vast majority of fiends. On a final note, I'd like to address the question of mindless undead (or any sort of mindless creature). Naturally, since the moral axis of alignments represents a driving goal (whether it is concrete or abstract), one would logically state that mindless creatures cannot take any of the polar alignments. Undead are an exception to this rule. Mindless undead represent the biggest perversion of life among sentient creatures, as they are simply animated carcasses devoid of any sort of thought. Unlike flesh golems? This argument is null; holding the opinion that undead are perversions of sentient creatures while golems are not is a matter of opinion that has no rational moral basis. The official reason that mindless undead are considered given in the Libris Mortis is that they are animated by evil spirits, but that boils down to a massive deus ex machina, since it also applies to intelligent undead. The soul is gone, but the evil spirit retains all of it's host body's memories. How convient. They are a desecration of life and the ability to decide to promote goodness, and this why they are inherently evil. They represent all that is evil. And why, exactly, are they a desecrations of life? Because they are corpses? So what? Again, look a the example of the flesh golem, or deathless for that matter. And how exactly do they desecrate the ability to promote goodness? Because the rules say so? Sorry, but this is circular. Why are undead evil? Because the rules say they are evil. Why do the rules say they are evil? Because undead are evil. All reasons given in the BoVD and BoED are inherently flawed or so highly opinionated and dependant on one's perspective that no objective view of the situation can agree. I believe this is the reasoning that led to the creation of the Deathless type. On the other extreme, the Deathless carry the promotion of good beyond the boundaries of mortal life, giving away the peace of their souls to keep advancing good in the mortal world. This is rich. Deathless are good, even though they are animated corpses, just like Undead. O, but they are animated by positive energy, the energy of vitality and life. Why is it that corpses, which are revived by positive energy, are animated as corpses by that same energy and held in timeless stasis, which is the antithesis of life, vitality, and growth? It can't be explained in any rational way. Wizards wanted good Undead but made them all evil, so they invented Deathless, but any objective view of the two creature types and the reasons behind their supposed virtue or wickedness reveals that the entire structure is hideously fallicious.
Athryn 04-20-05, 11:32 AM	I think the whole issue has to do not with the fact (according to WotC) that ravages are good, but that poisons are evil. If poisons are evil because they cause undue suffering then what does lopping off somebody's limbs with a sword cause? Mild discomfort? Obviously, pouring poison into the punch bowl at a ball would be evil. Placing poison into a specific evil tyrant's cup would probably not be appropriate for a good/exalted character, as it does not allow the chance to surrender, but if anything it would shift a character's alignment to neutral, not evil. And finally, poisoning a weapon to increase combat effectiveness. I can't see how this is any worse than using a magic weapon. As long as you don't use con-damaging poison it won't kill anybody, making it less dangerous than a normal weapon. If reducing somebody's dex to 0 is evil, then I think Hold Person needs the [Evil] descriptor. Personally, I think that an exalted character (as opposed to merely good) should never fight as long as there is another choice, even if it puts him/her at risk. Otherwise, what distinction is there between being exalted and merely good?
Objulen 04-21-05, 04:22 AM	Placing poison into a specific evil tyrant's cup would probably not be appropriate for a good/exalted character, as it does not allow the chance to surrender, but if anything it would shift a character's alignment to neutral, not evil. I beg to differ here. One of the advantages of poisons are that they allow the weak to strike at the strong -- a lvl 1 character can potentially kill a lvl 20 foe with a significantly powerful poison, for example. Offering surrender is not always practical. A weapon of last resort, perhaps, but then again, how many good wizards do you see offering their foes the chance to surrender before using Finger of Death or Disintegrate?
Athryn 04-21-05, 04:05 PM	A weapon of last resort, perhaps, but then again, how many good wizards do you see offering their foes the chance to surrender before using Finger of Death or Disintegrate? Far fewer than there should be, in my opinion. Too many people (especially WotC) avoid considering situations in D&D the way they would in the real-world. To some extent this is reasonable, D&D is fantasy after all, I just think that a good-aligned PC would think about any given situation more than players tend to. The idea that poison use is automatically evil is BS. Poison is merely a physical object, and as such there is no reason that it is any more evil than the use to which it is put. Also, note that I said "no other choice". For a L1 Paladin against a L20 BBEG, there very likely WOULDN'T be any other choice.