Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Monger 04-27-04, 12:05 PM	I was just curious as to what everyone in this forum would say... I'm a new player when it comes to D&D and I am still learning when it comes to game play basics. My group is primarily good and lawful, yet I want to be the bad boy of the group and go "Chaotic Neutral" (if you can call this bad...lol). I am starting off as a Druid and want to PrC in "Necromancer". If I begin casting "evil" spells, what problems might I come across? Are there any advantages to having a "evil" character in a good group? Please let me know, thanks!
Klaus van der Kroft 04-27-04, 12:46 PM	Good to see you are starting to dedlve into the great realms of Dungeons & Dragons. Now, I would not call Chaotic-Neutral an evil character, as for Chaos itself has noinherent evil. A CN is more the type of character you will find facing terrible odds without worring much about himself, or breaking the laws at anytime without thinking of the results. CN characters (and NPCs) are also prone to maddness, since they have no stabilizing factor in their alignement (it is not the rule, though). Still, although not evil, you should not have problem when casting spells with the evil descriptor. Keep in mind, however, that incurring in continous acts of evil (such as casting those types of spells) could force a change of alignement over your character, pushing it towards Chaotic-Evil, which is a very hard alignement to play when your party is composed of good characters (but not less fun, nevertheless). About the effects it would have over the party, it can vary, but depends mostly on the other players and the DM. If you happen, for example, to have a supremely hallowed and very exalted palading or priest in your group (or any other class, actually), you might be facing his/her anger when daring to cast an evil spell. In common situations, these characters are bound to destroy evil (or at least make it feel very uncomfortable), and party members are not a distinction for the alignement. They will behead you if they must. Furthermore, and if the DM likes to play with the issue of alignements, you may have a drastic effect over the party. A character who continously participates on evil actions can affect party members of other alignements, influencing them towards yours. And this does not have to be a deliberate action. If what you seek is to be the evil man of the group, the easiest alignement to play that way is Legal-Evil. That way, you are likely to share at least part of your alignement with other members of your party, while still allowing you to evily plot and make childrens cry. And good greets. Welcome to the boards.
Monger 04-27-04, 01:56 PM	Lawful evil eh? Sounds interesting, and it might keep me away from being "beheaded". Right now, we have no paladins or clerics in the group. Just a Ranger, a Dwarf, a Druid (myself) and a Monk. However, this left us with no strong healer (cleric) or strong spell caster (sorcerer or wizard) and the Ranger might change to a Cleric before the voyage begins. Either way, I see this team as being somewhat weak when it comes to early level offense or fighting abilities. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do in order to solve this problem? I guess I just need to accept the fact - I cannot be a "reanimator of the dead" when fighting along side of "good" characters.
Grudthak 04-27-04, 02:32 PM	Just ensure that none off your group are into "Metagaming"... It :censored: me to tears when I hear a player say stuff like, "Oh your character is Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Evil...?" *Starts to roll for initiative, grinning menacingly at your equipment list* I have a tendency to take N/E characters in any campaign (Usually a Wizard or Cleric) Once I have saved the party's ass a few times it doesnt matter on alignment because I own them...! :smirk:
Klaus van der Kroft 04-27-04, 02:41 PM	Either way, I see this team as being somewhat weak when it comes to early level offense or fighting abilities. "Upon the lack of muscle, a good brain can do marvels", as the saying goes. You do not require massive fighting skills when you can act with care and plannification. Of course, it will be hard to blast into the baron's castle, cut open his guards, pick up his daughter and jump from the window, only to run ten miles to hide in your cave. But why blast into it when you can use good sneaking abilities, or some expert diplomacy? If the DM realizes the type of party, he will manage this problem for you. Do not worry. Now, Druids are good replacements for band-aid Clerics. Although they do not excel on healing as much as them, just think of a Druid like a naturalist priest, as they have much in common with Clerics. Adventurers can always handle in bad situations. You just have to be extra careful. On the issue of a wizard/sorcerer, I must say that, although those are my favorite classes, they can be replaced by other classes without too much problems. It is true that their spells come very handy at times, but, overall, wizards/sorceres are not a "supply class" per se. I asume that the Dwarf you name is either a Fighter or a Barbarian. Both classes, in combination with a Ranger, can easily fill up the place of the arcane spellcaster (keep in mind that on low levels, arcanists tend to fall back a bit). I guess I just need to accept the fact - I cannot be a "reanimator of the dead" when fighting along side of "good" characters. You can, actually. Of course, it will bring some troubles depending on how is it done, but do not feel repressed by the type of party you have. The best thing is to start with a set model for your character, and then think "why would this character team up with these individuals?". If you can give a good answer to that question, you are half the way up. Then, try to see how to blend the character into the group. Make some concessions, and expect others to do so, until the party reaches a "middle ground", a leveled point in which everyside gets a bit of what it really wants, while avoiding greater disturbances inside the group. After all, who said that a necromancer with a good facade can not turn a good-aligned monk into the dark side? It is all a matter of roleplaying it well. Just take a look at the party I have been mastering the last year: -Legal-Evil Human Cleric -Legal-Good Psionic Elf Warrior -True Neutral Elf Sorcerer -Chaotic-Good Elf Druid -Lawful-Neutral Dwarf Warrior -Lawful-Evil Human Rouge As you can see, it is a soup of alignements. However, it has not stopped the party from advancing (and having an exelent time meanwhile). Actually, the most interesting aspect of the game has been the contraposition of alignements. Everyone has been acting as their characters would, and making some changes for the party to work. Still, the Cleric has acted all the evil he wanted (such as charging party members for healing, as well as slowly turn the Druid into a maniac, who is about to turn Chaotic-Evil). The Lawful-Evil Rouge makes plots all the time against his companions, while still showing his character as a "good willed-Count of Monte Cristo" benefactor style. What I mean with that is alignements in a group will tend to work with each other (the exception happens in cases of either bad players or stubborn ones). You don't have to stop being evil because the ranger is good, and he does not need to become evil neither. All you have to do is find common points and goals, and try to work well together (you can raise their bodies as undead servants after you get there).
Remnant 04-27-04, 02:43 PM	Just a word of advice- If you browse the boards here, you will find that the Chaotic Neutral character playing mindless or evil is something of a negative stereotype. (Right up there with over-the-top paladins) You might try looking for a few of those threads, and deciding if you want to play the character you've created, given the impact such characters can have. That said, if you feel this character will be appropriate for your group, or in the very least won't destroy the game, then go to town.
Seeker95 04-27-04, 08:35 PM	Forget about what your alignment is. Play how you want. However... If I were actually in the group, playing a character whose actions deemed him to be lawful/good, I would also be watching the actions of my companions. Just as in real life I limit my interactions with my "friends" who appear to comfortably act outside my prefered zone. I have ended friendships with those who have cheated on their significant others or who have shoplifted. If a lawful good character sees you cast a spell s/he knows is [evil], what else would you expect? While Grudthak is right about metagaming, it doesn't take much to recognize that those who comfortably *do* evil probably *are* evil.
taltamir 04-27-04, 09:19 PM	well it all depends on the definition of EVIL the books claim using poison is evil, i and others whom i know disagree, is a paladin using poison to ensure the death of the necromancer evil? hardly, why hendicap yourself... Its all about the people you play with, the group is going the sterotypical starting group, lawful good group (or neutral good), ask if that is the best for it? the monk is lawful, but what of the others? I hold its the actions that matter, are you casting an "evil spell"? is it really evil if you cast it in a manner the hurts noone and helps a good cause? ofcourse some spells cannot be cast in that manner, casting a spell that requires you to sacrifice a child is evil because of its action, not because of the spell, but the spell cannot be cast without it. Also its hillarious that you think you will have a hard time without an arcane mage, magic is very weak in the dnd system, a team composed mostly of fighters will kick ass in terms of combat... mages are more fun though in some people's opinion, besides, you do have magic users, thats the druid, a druid is a magicker
Kintaran 04-27-04, 10:47 PM	I'm also relatively new around here, though not to the game, so forgive me if I've repeated anything already stated elsewhere. By the definition of a paladin's code, yes, using poison is evil. D&D is a black and white morality world, after all. Since a paladin is specifically disallowed from using poison, then it is wrong for a paladin to do so. The Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds really go over this topic, so I won't, except to say something for those without access to it. A spell is evil when it is used for evil, or when it carries the evil descriptor, because it is innately evil, such as the spell that requires the sacrifice of an innocent. Something like Animate Dead is that iffy ground, but we call it evil, probably because we don't like the idea of dead things walking around. As for poison, it clashes with the paladin's ideals of honest combat. Surprise attacks and tactical deceptions don't, because they can be countered by a skilled enemy. For a druid, poison is fine. It's naturally occuring, and does what it's meant to do. A chaotic neutral druid with evil tendencies would likely make good use of it, contagion, and anything else similar.
Monger 04-28-04, 07:44 AM	I was able to talk my "cleric" friend into creating his character as Lawful Evil. This will give the group 2 "good" figures, 1 "neutral" figure and 1 "evil" figure. Should be a good combination and interesting for the DM. I will go from what all you fellows have said and obey by the "no killing of innocent" rule. I see what you are saying... If I reanimate the dead to kill an evil figure, its not really an evil action on my part...:D So I CAN find ways around it...good! Thanks guys!
Angel_Azriel 04-28-04, 09:27 AM	Remember this golden rule, however, when dealing with the bounds of good and evil. It's not what you do that makes you evil. It's how other perceive it. I was playing a CN sorcerer who had the Water bloodline. He was considered, at the very least, crazy by the rest of the party. Even though he never cast any evil spells, nor did he do anything that I saw as outwardly evil, he had an affinity for Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Clumsiness. His thinking was, "Why waste time trying to bring myself to my enemy's level when I could just as easily bring him down to mine?" But, with that thinking, he became known as "Icy Ray of Death Guy." Edit: Ok, so maybe ripping the larynx out of an already dead Orc cleric could be considered evil, but he would have Death Knelled me had our cleric not raised me in time.
Addi83 04-28-04, 01:09 PM	On a side note, a druid cannot be Chaotic Good, or slip into Chaotic Evil while still retaining his powers, since all druids must be within one step of True Neutral.
taltamir 04-28-04, 08:59 PM	so you say a neutral druid will not hasitate to use poison, what of a neutral good druid? he is still a druit realising that poison is a natural tool of nature, yet he is good, performing evil acts shouldnt be what he does, oh he can do neutral acts, but evil? As for fair combat, read the thread about fair combat
Grudthak 04-28-04, 10:27 PM	Suree he may be N/G, but a Druid will still use NATURAL means to mess you up if you threaten his area/interests... Grudthaks theorem on Poison use by Character Barbarian: "Poison too slow...Decapitation better" Bard: "Poison...? Mines an ale and thanks for the offer!" Cleric: Starts praying for divine guidance...Doesnt get any and asks the Bishops...A Schism ensues within the church Druid: Snakes make it, spiders make it, as do Scorpions, wasps and some plants...What is unnatural about it? Fighter: Depends on the fighter really Monk: "I hear that there are some temples that train thier monks to be assassins...How can they reach eemptiness that way?" Paladin: "Poison is a sneaky, and underhanded thing to do...I am an honorable holy twit!" Rogue: "If I have to kill them, I would prefer to do it quick and clean, poison arrows and darts are good, but you gotta make sure they get enough in them otherwisee you have a really ****** off mark and you are in a hurt locker...Besides, you can only steal from the dead once!" Sorcerer: "My familiar is a snake...See?" Wizard: "Give me enough time and I can Metore Swarm your ass...What the hell do I want with poison?"
taltamir 04-28-04, 10:35 PM	but again, those are VERY broad generalizations, I can conceive an exception to each of the ones you listed, well except for the warrior, id go with "Fighter: Depends on the fighter really" for all of them, if they can come up with a reasonable explanation for their characters, good for them, not all barbarians are dumb, they are just SAVAGE, not all monks are appalled by monastic orders who use poison, SOME ARE PART OF THOSE... Id say for a monk it will depend on which monastic order he belonds too... Wiz.. perfect candidate to use poison, at lower levels it softens enemies up, at higher level they can create magical poisons... besides a wizzard is cunning and studious, perfect for using any trick to lend him the advantage... Even the paladin, so the paladin might not use poison ALL THE TIME, but is it a fair fight when he is fighting a demonic aberration magicker anyways (in his view)? and will not saving so many lives that the creature will take be worth the lessened glory (aka honor) from killing it with a mere sword?
Addi83 04-29-04, 09:24 AM	Well it does specifically say in the paladin code of conduct that he mustn't use poison. If he does he has to atone. Pretty straightforward really.
Super Guy 04-29-04, 06:09 PM	As for poison, I think it's a stupid idea to make it only evil. There are spells that do worse than poison and aren't considered evil. And really, those good versions of poison aren't good at all- they do basically the same things, but they just have a different name so it's okay. That's a stupid rule to play by, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, the assassin is only evil, while the ravager is neutral/evil. Ravagers are by far worse than assassins. And if you have a neutral ravager, who are said to have no heart whatsoever, do you think he would cringe at the use of poison and say "Oh, that's naughty"? No. Because some rules are screwed up. The guys that write the books don't have all day to dwell over it, so if they mess up we shouldn't assume that the rule they made was an end all be all sort of thing. Just bypass it.
taltamir 04-29-04, 07:29 PM	Originally posted by Addi83 Well it does specifically say in the paladin code of conduct that he mustn't use poison. If he does he has to atone. Pretty straightforward really. it also says that using poison is always evil, hence the whole argument, its assigning alignments to acts without looking at the connotation, and any druid will argue to the death against the poison being evil thing... not to mention there are different paladianian orders.. Super guy got the gist of it, some rules contradict eachother, some rules were mistaken, the authors are ONLY HUMAN (supposedly :P)
Klaus van der Kroft 04-29-04, 07:41 PM	The reason because most -not all- poisons are considered "evil action elements" is because they are ment to cause agony, pain, suffering, among others. It is supposed that a good-aligned warrior will swiftly end the life -or unlife, lifelessness, etc- of his/her enemy, finishing it because it is needed to be ended (otherwise, killing/destroying it would be considered an evil act). Enjoying or extending the death, as well as adding any additional suffering and/or agony to the process is considered evil, as for it is not absolutely required in the process. On the non-evil side we have poisons, oils and balms that affect the target in non-harmful ways (stunning, muting, sleeping, etc), but strictly working in non-permanent ways. A permanent effect is considered evil in these cases because it may induce suffering and/or agony of some way upon the target. Although there are many points in which I disagree with the rules on how the alignement of an act is determined, I do agree with how it is done with poisons specifically. It has sence if you delve into it.
taltamir 04-29-04, 07:50 PM	Originally posted by Klaus van der Kroft The reason because most -not all- poisons are considered "evil action elements" is because they are ment to cause agony, pain, suffering, among others. It is supposed that a good-aligned warrior will swiftly end the life -or unlife, lifelessness, etc- of his/her enemy, finishing it because it is needed to be ended (otherwise, killing/destroying it would be considered an evil act). Enjoying or extending the death, as well as adding any additional suffering and/or agony to the process is considered evil, as for it is not absolutely required in the process. On the non-evil side we have poisons, oils and balms that affect the target in non-harmful ways (stunning, muting, sleeping, etc), but strictly working in non-permanent ways. A permanent effect is considered evil in these cases because it may induce suffering and/or agony of some way upon the target. Although there are many points in which I disagree with the rules on how the alignement of an act is determined, I do agree with how it is done with poisons specifically. It has sence if you delve into it. You have obviously never ever encountered real poison in your life... poison is one of the quickest of deathes, and it is rarely painful, a deep bleeding cut from a sword, crushed ribs and femurs from a mace, imploded spleens from a quarterstaff, or arrows stuck through your flesh will hurt alot on the other hand, and take hours to weeks to kill you rather then seconds like some poisons do, in fact there are dibilitating poisons who are painless and non lethal, but cause you to be immobile or pass out... As far as I know there is no poison or venum that will kill a person who survived the first 24-48 or so hours of being afflicted with it, as it is metabolized out of your body, the only exception is if in the process of metabolizing it your kidney died, in which case you are looking at the several weeks death as from bashing damage, except it will hurt less since the cells died, rather then being ruptured all across leaving living areas at rupture points to report pain You mentioned some of those, oils and the like who are non evil, well thats a contradiction in the rule cause the rules say "All poison use is evil" at some point, either phb or dmg... If they also say that poisons that dont do permanent effects other then death isnt evil, well thats a contradiction, its also stupid because I can tell you most people will rather go blind then die, ESPECIALLY in a world where you can pay a mage (if you manage to save enough money) to restore your vision (at the MOST it will take a Wish or Miracle, but a much lower spell is likely to suffice)... You yourself actually spoke of intent, saying that poison is intended to cause pain and suffering and longer death, did you just realise that you were supporting my point, INTENT, the rules say nothing of the intent, no they poison is always evil, well what if it isnt intended that way? what if the poison is one that causes the person extreme pleasure while killing them quickly? there are such poisons, and they satisfy your intent clause as they spare the subject pain (dulling the pain from the arrow or sword that delivered the poison), and shorten their death! Besides having your arms choped off is just as lethal and permanent as a blinding poison, poisons reduce your stats like strength or constitution etc, rather then blind or cause pain etc, and there are plenty of spells who do what you described permanently... As for unlife, all undead are immune to poison, so are constructs, poison only affects the living
Hope 04-29-04, 08:00 PM	Originally posted by taltamir You mentioned some of those, oils and the like who are non evil, well thats a contradiction in the rule cause the rules say "All poison use is evil" at some point, either phb or dmg... Nothing in the core rules says this anywhere. The only place that says anything like this is the Book of Exalted Deeds, and even then it lists exceptions. If you don't believe me, open your Monster Manual and look up the Couatl. Getting off the perpetually stupid poison use topic and back to the original question, I'm interested to know how a druid intends to create undead while staying a druid.
Super Guy 04-29-04, 08:07 PM	Edit: Nevermind, you answered my question.
Klaus van der Kroft 04-29-04, 08:33 PM	First of all, I should have noted that my statement was based on the rules presented in the Book of Exalted Deeds, therefore not based on core rules. Although I do belive those to be better fitting, it is not an official rule. My mistake for not saying it before. Now, there are poisons that kill you instantly, or at least very fast. Lots of them, in fact. But there are several others that incapacitate you and kill you slowly. Two very good examples (that are used in these days of ours) are the so called Compound 1080 and Sodium Cyanide. Sodium Cyanide will take over five minutes of terrible agony to then kill you, while Compound 1080 can take up to five hours of terrible suffering before calling up the shadow of death. Those are only two of many more terrible poisons currently avaliable to kill. And there are some even worse found in the animal world. The fact that adding poison to an attack, for example, is that it means including unnecesarry elements to an action that is supposed to bring righteous death or disability. As I said before, a good aligned creature kills another because there is a very good reason to do so. Otherwise, it is an evil act, wether poison was used or not. What we find expressed in mere "1d4 points of CON damage" is actually a painful or agonising process. It degenerates the overall health of the target, lowering it's defenses, stability, ability to uphold damage and the like. I am sure we have all experienced illnesses with similar effects at least once in our lifes, and we know the effects do not feel good. And if we add the fact that this is a fantasy game, the chances to find a slow-death poison grow exponentialy. It is not important if the poison kills you instantaneously for it to be considered evil. If a poison adds 1d4 extra points of damage plus 1 damage per round after it hit the target, to your attack, and it kills the creature, it will be treated as evil since the poison had the chance to inflict suffering in the case the creature had survived. If the target had only 3 HP left, it would have fallen with 1d4 rolling 4. The act will be as evil as rolling a 2 and forcing the creature to die two rounds later in agony.
taltamir 04-29-04, 08:59 PM	and is cynide any worse then having your guts spilled and dying slowly and painfully? (it can take very little time to die from blood loss, or ALOT of time to die from infection or dysfunctional support organs such as kidneys etc)... And yes being sick doesnt feel good, speaking of which is sickness evil? sickness is when you have a parasite (a virus is in a way a kind of a parasite), or more often, bacteria that produces a poison (most bacteria do not produce poisons, and some even produce useful materials and live in symbiosis with you), also keep in mind that even though it causes extra suffering to those evil creatures, it prevents them causing it to others, this is use of poison in combat, not capturing them and torturing them to death, or capturing them and applying poison... Also its funny that survivors of heart attacks describe it as "stabbing pain in the chest".... well, a poison that will cause your blood to congeal (many snake venums do that) will do essentially constitution damage, will that stabbing hurt alot less then the stabbing pain of ACTUALLY BEING STABBED? i presume so, but it will be interesting to find out... now a druid creating undead... mmm, I thought druids had aversion to undead since they "arent natural"... however!, it might be possible to excuse somehow, its all a matter of explaining it, plus remember he could always just be "insane". that is his understand of reality conflicts with the standard. What if a druid raises those who had done great injustices against nature to forever bind them to protecting that which they hurt, the fact he is trapping their souls there is extra punishment, kind of how they get sent to hell or whatever. it actually kind of makes sense... or you can think of ironical punishments, a druid raising a necromancer and tasking him with destroying other undead, use fire to fight fire phylosophy
Ferrix 04-30-04, 12:31 AM	neutral evil druid: "undead? yeah, so?" *raises another body to finish off the humans encroaching upon the forest* poison junk depends upon how you play the game, if you play as strictly designed (black/white morality junk) poison is evil, etc. venom's however could be neutral i'd rule anyways (as that's nature) otherwise every poor snake is 'evil', not that i like snakes or anything. however, if you want to play a morally ambiguous game of D&D where the lines blur a bit more, which you can still do so with alignments, they are just a bit more loose in terms of being guidelines.
taltamir 04-30-04, 12:49 AM	loose guidelines fit me, everyone defines morality differently, and to make the game into such a theological argument, or to force someone to play something that goes against their core beleifs isnt entertaining for them. Thats why I hold that if they can supply an argument for it that is better then "me crush things better with it", something that shows that they have given thought to it, then let them have it... Also the thing was not about neutral evil druids, it was would a true neutral, or even a neutral good druid be able to cast it under certain circumstances. Some argued a true neutral, or a CN or LN druid casting such spells will be shifted into evil, some argued that only evil druids could do that, some said that under very specific circumstances and mindset a good druid might raise undead... the question was, is raising undead really all that evil? and that kind of depends on what kind of raising it is, is it animating their bones, or ripping their spirit from the afterlife, dulling its mind, and binding it to its broken dead body... and will it be evil if done as fitting punishment (to a necromancer), or when done with a more temporary timeframe (summon now to defeat the necromancer/demon/evil whatchmacallit, free them of their unlife when the task is done) Well technically the question was, would there be a way for a neutral or evil druid to do it in a good party without having them turn on him and rip him to shreds!
Hope 04-30-04, 12:52 AM	Even evil druids can't mess around with undead. I'm told there's something in the class description about having to revere nature, and some crazy people believe that undead are unnatural. Wacky, huh?
taltamir 04-30-04, 01:00 AM	Originally posted by Hope Even evil druids can't mess around with undead. I'm told there's something in the class description about having to revere nature, and some crazy people believe that undead are unnatural. Wacky, huh? yeah go figure, not only that, but druid wizard theurges are "practically unheard of" because if you look at the class discription it seems that druids think wizardy is unnatural (well i think it says arcane magic but they get better with sorcs who do it naturally) and thus tend to dislike them... I played a chaotic neutral druid wiz combo recently, he held that magic is a force of nature just like anything else, and that there is no problem in tapping it... (that and he liked the more violent spells of both, attracted to the power)
Joe Gold 04-30-04, 02:19 AM	Doesn't the Blighter prestige class have some specific abilities involving the undead?
Hengwrt Ellesmere 04-30-04, 03:23 AM	Poisons are the fantasy equivalent of chemical warheads. While fireballs can wipe out large groups of people, they can also be targeted precisely. Poison is harder to use without poisoning yourself or your friends by accident. Also, once you've poisone someone who then surrenders, it can be hard to stop the poison from killing him. So that's why it's evil. Now ravages aren't evil because they only work on Evil-Doers. Not only can you not hurt yourself, your friends, or innocent bystanders with them, but if an evil person surrenders and actually has a change of heart, the ravage will stop working on him.
Addi83 04-30-04, 08:05 AM	Originally posted by taltamir it also says that using poison is always evil, hence the whole argument, its assigning alignments to acts without looking at the connotation, and any druid will argue to the death against the poison being evil thing... not to mention there are different paladianian orders.. Super guy got the gist of it, some rules contradict eachother, some rules were mistaken, the authors are ONLY HUMAN (supposedly :P) I've never noticed them saying all poison use was always evil, I tend to think that a LG person could use poison without being evil given the right circumstances, but a paladin has a paladin code to follow on top of that. That code specifically forbids poison use.
Joe Gold 04-30-04, 04:41 PM	Paladins' can't use poison because it is dishonorable, not because it is evil. From the doubletalk I've seen in the BoED, I'll take its alignment rulings with a grain of salt.
Joe Gold 04-30-04, 04:41 PM	:embarrass:
taltamir 04-30-04, 09:22 PM	Originally posted by Hengwrt Ellesmere Poisons are the fantasy equivalent of chemical warheads. While fireballs can wipe out large groups of people, they can also be targeted precisely. Poison is harder to use without poisoning yourself or your friends by accident. Also, once you've poisone someone who then surrenders, it can be hard to stop the poison from killing him. So that's why it's evil. Now ravages aren't evil because they only work on Evil-Doers. Not only can you not hurt yourself, your friends, or innocent bystanders with them, but if an evil person surrenders and actually has a change of heart, the ravage will stop working on him. poison is rarely deadly in dnd though, and even if it is, you can use a simple spell to remove it, AND if someone surrenders, it will be after the affect of poison already occured since the whole thing takes at most 2 turns, also fireballs are alot more likely to hurt innocents the poison, true with poison the chance of poisoning YOURSELF is higher, but how the hell will you "accidently" poison your party members? you can poison yourself while applying it, but to poison them you have to slice them with your poisoned sword, which by what you said will make swords evil, a fireball on the other hand can hit something and explode in a place where it will hit your friends. Besides, what if you ONLY use poison if you have a remove poison spell and lesser restore ready? then you can halt it in a surrendered enemy, making your argument that its always evil invalid Poison isnt the equivalent of chemical warheads, its the equivalent of poison, fyi there is poison in real life... a spell that poisons anything for 3 miles is the equivalent of a chemical warheads Besides who said chemical warheads were evil :) (using them might be, but inanimate objects dont have alignment since they arent sentient) As for paladins, well there are different orders, it IS far fetched Ill give you that, most paladins would be forbidden from using poison, but is it absolutely impossible that there will be a paladinian order that allows it? arent paladin orders based around gods? what about one dedicated to the elven goddess of nature? true its abit weird since paladins are lawful good and she is chaotic good i beleive... but i can imagine it happeneing, maybe she agress to lend them some powers so that she could stand on par with the other good gods or something like that, as chaotic its a perfectly reasonable action (law excludes chaos, chaos allows for law, it is in chaos to have opposites and duality, so using the law, of having some lawful aspects, while having their opposite aspect, is chaotic. not to mention that law isnt the opposite of chaos, order is)