Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SephDragoon 08-25-07, 06:58 PM	Now, I would like to keep any discussion of poison being a good or evil act out of this, since my group has already decided on that. What is not decided on is... can a character with Vow of Poverty create poisons from animals or plants that he comes into contact with, and use them? I ask this because my DM is thinking no, since poisons have a monetary value, but I think yes, since you never have any money involved. Like using firewood for a fire... yes, you could sell the firewood, but you harvested it yourself. The reason I ask is, my idea for this character was a tribal character who beleives that you should only ever take what nature gives you, and only as much as you need. He's very in touch with nature, and plenty of tribes use poisons and stuff. Considering I get Poison Use, I thought there should be no reason not to use poisons, except well... this.
risner 08-25-07, 07:07 PM	can a character with Vow of Poverty create poisons from animals or plants that he comes into contact with, and use them? No, no more than he can Craft Wondrous Items to make Wands and use them. In other words, regardless of how he came into possession of the poison, they are worth money and as a result restricted from use by a VoP player.
SephDragoon 08-25-07, 07:11 PM	except, wands and wondrous items are magical... and not everything worth money is restricted. He can still use weapons, just non-magical ones...
SephDragoon 08-25-07, 07:27 PM	Ok, how about a slightly different question. Could he create and apply the poison to a party member's weapon?
Mojo_Rat 08-25-07, 08:10 PM	To be honest I think the issue comes down to what is considered vallue? Can a person with VoP say kill a deer skin it and Feed himself and his party members?. Generaly speaking I would Say Yes (issues of using the food for charities or the hide for the heomless i dont think really matter in the middle of no where) I would think As far as the poisons go it would probly depend on what kind and the amount of effort. Since rarity and amount of work are what creates value (well demand too but again i think thats a seperate issue) So i would Say Turning some common flower Into a poison Would be alright just in the same way turning that comon flower into a herbal remidy might be alright. I would just think making anything Rare hard to find or extremely potent that requires lots of work (and Thus Value?) would change the issue. However if the answer is 'yes poisons have value ergo VoP prevents teir creation' Then no you would not be able to create them and apply them To others weapons i think.
DreadPirateSkippy 08-25-07, 09:52 PM	I do believe that a strict interpretation of the rules says that this is illegal, because the feat gives a specific list of exceptions, and poison isn't on it. However, if a friend hands you a bottle filled with cure light wounds potion, you can drink it. Thus, logically, if a friend handed you a bottle of poison you could apply it to a weapon. So I would probably allow it as long as you didn't sell or trade it in any way.
lord_xarallon 08-26-07, 08:47 AM	What ever you decide the Master of Poison feat from DotU is a good way to get poison use.
T_Stalker 08-26-07, 09:11 AM	Don't have BoED with me right now, but if memory serves right there's no real gp value listed anywhere concerning what you may and may not have. I think that's the biggest problem with VoP. However, I do know it sais you can posses weapons. Now the most expensive weapon I see in the PHB is the Heavy Repeating Crossbow for 400 gp. As DM, I wouldn't allow that, so let's draw the line at the third most costly one which is a nice round 100 gp. Armor's even more expensive and you can still have that. Now poisons as listed in the DMG are still pretty costly, since you're making it yourself however it's only 1/3 the cost. (If memory serves, BoVD let's you make it at 1/6 the cost if components are readily available. Let's assume they are since you're pretty much foraging them.) Going by those numbers, I personally would say: Yes, you can make your own poisons from the monsters/plants you come across. Personally, ( and that's really the keyword for everything concerning VoP,) I'd draw the line at about 700 gp/dose. Maybe you could lower the DC or the damage, lowering the price, since you obviously don't have access to an alchemical laboratory. But really, it all depends on your DM.
SephDragoon 08-26-07, 06:33 PM	yeah, he is allowing me to apply it to the party's weapons, but not my own. I am not too thrilled by not being able to on my own, but at least my poison use ability will not go to waste now. Thanks for all of the replies. I wanted to create a purely tribal VoP character (if it isn't from nature, he won't own it... slightly more restrictive than VoP imo), but since he can't use poison with his weapons... the snake theme seems to be a little missing. At least I have stunning fist. There is paralitic poison snakes too right?
Nephlite 08-26-07, 07:04 PM	Don't have BoED with me right now, but if memory serves right there's no real gp value listed anywhere concerning what you may and may not have. I think that's the biggest problem with VoP. However, I do know it sais you can posses weapons. Now the most expensive weapon I see in the PHB is the Heavy Repeating Crossbow for 400 gp. As DM, I wouldn't allow that, so let's draw the line at the third most costly one which is a nice round 100 gp. No exotic: only simple weapons allowed. Armor's even more expensive and you can still have that. Now poisons as listed in the DMG are still pretty costly, since you're making it yourself however it's only 1/3 the cost. (If memory serves, BoVD let's you make it at 1/6 the cost if components are readily available. Let's assume they are since you're pretty much foraging them.) Nope. No armor allowed. Vile Darkness?! Um, I really do'nt think an exalted dude should be following its advice. Going by those numbers, I personally would say: Yes, you can make your own poisons from the monsters/plants you come across. Personally, ( and that's really the keyword for everything concerning VoP,) I'd draw the line at about 700 gp/dose. Maybe you could lower the DC or the damage, lowering the price, since you obviously don't have access to an alchemical laboratory. But really, it all depends on your DM. I'd say, no poison due to costs.
Sleepwalker13666 08-26-07, 07:49 PM	You could always just take touch of golden ice, now your touch is poisonous, and there are several feats for boosting that dc.
dman11235 08-26-07, 09:54 PM	Besides, it violates the spirit of that feat. The point of VoP is not a way to get some fun abilities, it is a way to RP being an ascetic exalted person, with some bonuses attached. Considering that poisons are evil (except drow), but you don'twant this discussion right now. The way you describe it, it seems like you are getting poisons from nature, readily available sources, I would cautiously say yes. VoP doesn't have a value limit because something like that is too vague. It does say that you are limited to simple weapons (usually a quarter staff) and a couple days of trail rations, and a couple other very mundane things. The point of the feat is: you don't own anything else. In fact, it would be more fitting if you didn't own anything but maybe a pair of clothes, and get your food/water from the wilderness. In response to everyone trying to put a price on what you can own, stop. There is no price listed for a reason. The most you should probably spend on things is 5 gp. And that's a lot. In response to who ever said that you can use poison: you can't use a wand that someone hands you, why should you be able to use poison? In conclusion: I think it depends on the poison, as most will make you lose exalted status, and most are so expensive that only adventurers can afford it. Only if you make it from nature, and it has to be a purely natural thing, something druids and rangers would be okay with.
EpicEvokerElf 08-26-07, 10:31 PM	You can't have armor. Only simple weapons. And you can't have water. Don't bother.
risner 08-26-07, 10:34 PM	if a friend hands you a bottle filled with cure light wounds potion, you can drink it. Thus, logically, if a friend handed you a bottle of poison you could apply it to a weapon. You can't use a friend's potion of cure light wounds.
dman11235 08-27-07, 12:08 AM	But it can be fed to you, make that distinction. And yes, you can have armor, just not expensive armor. It's not worth it, though, you get a higher armor bonus from the feat.
arderkrag 08-27-07, 12:29 AM	Don't have BoED with me right now, but if memory serves right there's no real gp value listed anywhere concerning what you may and may not have. I think that's the biggest problem with VoP. Corect. You cannot have spell components or magic items. Poisons are not covered, I would personally think they'd be in the clear.
Tedronai 08-27-07, 12:47 AM	The feat specifically lists EXCEPTIONS to not owning and using items. Poison is not listed, therefor it is banned. Furthermore, any poison that deals ability damage (or worse) is evil, and would cause the loss of any exalted feat, not just poverty. If you manage to make a poison from an entirely natural source that you gathered yourself (or that were donated), and using only improvised equipment of no real value (not even equipment borrowed from another individual), you might have a case to argue the point, since nothing other than your own labour gives the material value, but the RAW are anything but in your favour on that. The rules could use a great deal more work on the issue, admittedly, but as written they wouldn't allow poisons, on multiple levels.
runestar 08-27-07, 12:52 AM	Considering that poisons are evil (except drow) Where does it state that using poisons is evil? I thought it was a neutral act.
Tedronai 08-27-07, 01:04 AM	BoVD (being the book that deals with the issues of evil) states that the use of any poisons that cause ability damage, drain, or death is evil.
Dazzer 08-27-07, 01:44 AM	The Vow of Poverty is a vow that gives up material wealth and reliance upon possessions. Poison, is a possession. Therefore you cannot use it. Additionally. Despite the fact that the VoP is underpowered compared to a normal character of a given level with any items he likes (assuming they choose them). It is counted as being perfectly geared up as per your WBL guidelines. Hence, poison would tip the balance. Additionally. Since you've told us that you have made a decision on poisons being non-evil (I assume non-stat damaging poisons like drow poison are considered ok, but con damage = evil type thing). Why don't you just make a ruling on whether this works? By the rules, it doesn't. Do you wish to change this fact? If yes, continue, type thing.
T_Stalker 08-27-07, 05:39 AM	Besides, it violates the spirit of that feat. The point of VoP is not a way to get some fun abilities, it is a way to RP being an ascetic exalted person, with some bonuses attached. Good point actually. Ok then, let's try looking at it from a RP point of view, leaving the mechanics for later. SephDragon and his crew are just walking around in the forest, chilling, illing, minding their own business. Suddenly SD catches a glimpse of a viper. Being the nature minded guy he is, things like "Hey, jummy free food." and "Don't get bitten because ..." are going through his head. So after a light snack SD remembers this critter makes use of poison. With his superior survival skills in the field, it should be no problem to harvest that little poison gland and smear it over his weapon of choice. Right? Right? No money involved whatsoever. He's not even posessing the poison, it's just a dirty stain on his stuff. I'd just give it a low(, low, low) DC and get it over with. Now forgive me, but I feel like making things a little silly. What if he actually used the snake as his weapon? Like, cut off the lower jaw and swing it like a whip/chain (at a -4 penalty). Oh and yes, there are paralytic snakes. If by paralysis you mean, making their prey fall into a coma ;) Oh, and one more thing. Do the people who keep on posting that poisons are evil consider snakes, spiders and plants to be evil? I think they're listed as neutral. Going by Core and Core only, is it listed anywhere that poison use should be evil?
runestar 08-27-07, 07:28 AM	Going by Core and Core only, is it listed anywhere that poison use should be evil? Nowhere, when you consider that the MM has the coautl, which is lawful good and has a poisonous bite which deals str damage (and a lot of it too). Some vermin and animals also have poisonous attacks and are neutral, but that is debatable because of their int scores. BoVD (being the book that deals with the issues of evil) states that the use of any poisons that cause ability damage, drain, or death is evil. Seems like a whole bunch of crap to me. BOVD appears intent on reinforcing the stigma that anything gross or icky is effectively evil. I don't see how stuff like S&M is inherently evil in itself, for example. :confused:
SephDragoon 08-27-07, 08:25 AM	This was just the kind of discussion I didn't want to get started... is poison evil, is it not? etc etc... We take a liberal way of dealing with good and evil, if it hurts an innocent, it is evil, if it helps an innocent, it is good. Anything inbetween is just neutral. That's how we play it, and you may not be thinking along the same lines, but that is neither here nor there. T)Stalker has the RP point of view down to a T (no pun intended). He uses nature to provide for him... and his style emulates snakes. So... if he comes across a snake and eats it, why not harvest the venom to further emulate nature? That's the only issue here.
dman11235 08-27-07, 11:03 AM	Okay, fine, I'll give you that Seph. If it fits your character and doesn't violate the spirit of the feat, go ahead. You can even use some poisons to put animals out of misery.
Frugal 08-27-07, 12:03 PM	The big issue that I could see with it is what tools or ingredients, etc you'd need to gather and prepare those poisons into a usable poison for applying on weapons. This is pretty much a DM call here as I don't believe there's any definite rules for harvesting them. If it's simply applying a venom gland to a weapon, then I'd say you might be on legal grounds. If you need to take the venom gland and refine it, or mix it with other materials (I'm thinking preserving it might be required) and then want to bottle it, I'd say you've got an issue with the vow.
EvilVegan 08-27-07, 12:22 PM	If it is helpful you may want to consider rewording VoP. It was the most helpful thing in my campaign. For instance by RAW you can eat caviar costing thousands of gold for every meal and shoot people with your 50 gp heavy crossbow and millions of GP worth of ammunition, but you can't use a short bow and arrows you crafted yourself (15 gold) or use a wooden holy symbol of your god (1gp). It is really, really poorly written. Limit yourself to a light load (or a light load for a 10 str medium character), with no single item worth more than X gold if you make it yourself (I recommend 50 gold base worth or less) and you can't buy anything. So if you collect all the ingredients yourself and make a tanglefoot bag, a shortbow, or some poison (for instance) you can use it, as long as you didn't buy anything to make it. If you spend the time to find the metal you could even make a sword, but who wants to mine, smelt, and all that. But if you aren't into house ruling, the only way to get poison (that I know of) would be via a class/feat that grants you a natural/magical poison attack.
Ogreman 08-27-07, 01:00 PM	As mentioned, Touch of Golden Ice is a great exalted feat that emulates poison. The other ravages in the book could probably be used by an exalted character as well. As an aside, the Fist of the Forest PrC sounds like what you're looking for.
Frugal 08-27-07, 01:34 PM	Honestly, the biggest issue with VoP is that it gives mechanical benefits and then relies on RP-consequences to "balance" it. Now say what you will about the balance or power of what it gives but that's just plain bad design. It's the same as the problem with the Paladin class, and more or less the Frenzied Berserker PrC. Mechanics should be balanced with mechanics and not force an particular RP traits on you (directly I mean, a lot of mechanics can provide rich RP material but that's material you come up with or involving the flavour, but not something explicitly written into the mechanics). edit: Should add that the 2nd thing that's wrong with VoP is that it gives you bonus exalted feats and there's just not that many exalted feats in the book, between that and that many of them suck and meeting prerequisites it means that just about any VoP character is going to be pretty much "cookie cutter" copies of each other in this regard. They might as well have just hard-coded in the feats into the progression instead of giving you "choice".
Yeshua 08-27-07, 06:46 PM	My DM and I would prolly agree on this: a one time application from your own labor and natural materials would be fine. Saving any poison to use for later would be a violation of the vow.
LazyNinja 08-28-07, 12:02 AM	My DM and I would prolly agree on this: a one time application from your own labor and natural materials would be fine. Saving any poison to use for later would be a violation of the vow. Devil's advocate: So what do you do with any extra poison? Unless you can control the exact amount you make, you're going to have leftovers. You can't keep it, so do you pour it on the ground? That's wasteful, and potentially hazardous to passers-by. Do you leave it in a vial, where some evil ne'er-do-well might stumble across it? Nix. Burn it? Again, wasteful. But you can't give it to your party members, so do you sell it to provide for the orphanage? (Never understood why orphan=good. You know, the Nazis were orphans. :D ) How carefully must you monitor the buyer to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Just a thought exercise. I love the Vow's intent, but as everyone's pointed out, terrible execution. Houserule away.
SephDragoon 08-28-07, 12:22 AM	What book is the fist of the forest in? I would be interested in it.
T_Stalker 08-28-07, 05:46 AM	Complete Champion Here's a link you might find useful: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes) Had to google it myself. Don't have the book, but indeed sounds interesting.
StruckingFuggle 08-28-07, 05:08 PM	Vile Darkness?! Um, I really do'nt think an exalted dude should be following its advice. Have you ever heard of a thing called a knee-jerk reaction? 'Cause this is a pretty good example of one. Stop and ponder for a moment - just because it's in BoVD doesn't make it vile, or even evil. Even by D&D's screwed up standards, I have a hard time imagining any way in which "poisons would be cheaper to make if the components are readily available in abundance" is vile, or even 'just' evil - it's neutral. It's a neutral item that just happens to be in the BoVD. Honestly, the biggest issue with VoP is that it gives mechanical benefits and then relies on RP-consequences to "balance" it. Really? I would imagine that it's balanced even if you strip away the roleplaying aspects of it, so long as you keep the mechanical penalty of not really owning much of anything. Why wouldn't it be?
Avulsion 09-09-07, 11:59 PM	Edit: I got mixed up and thought the OP had Vow of Nonviolence/Peace too. I agree that there need to be careful houserulings to make VoPers playable.
T_Stalker 09-10-07, 07:50 AM	I thought someone else just said that poisons that do ability damage should be considered evil, but I put that aside as his personal view, not necessarily applicable to the OP. BoED has a statement that exalted characters shouldn't use poison, but has an immediate alternative that works just the same, but only on evil characters and conviniently has another name. I just found this really silly and therefor discarted the whole idea personally. It's Role playing people, as long as it's not mechanically unballancing, I really don't mind my players doing things that are on a different moral scale then mine personally. Then again, as most of you probably noticed already, I'm a big fan of the Rule As You Want principle. Because sometimes RAW is obscure or just really silly.
yrogerg 09-10-07, 08:08 PM	Seems like a whole bunch of crap to me. BOVD appears intent on reinforcing the stigma that anything gross or icky is effectively evil. I don't see how stuff like S&M is inherently evil in itself, for example. :confused: It is a bunch of crap. But, by the same token, how, exactly, is making a bunch of pointless Vows that require you to adhere to a rigid behavioral code that doesn't actually include anything that relates to helping or harming others the epitome of Good, rather than, say, Law?
Kyuketsukiouji 09-10-07, 11:17 PM	Seems like a whole bunch of crap to me. BOVD appears intent on reinforcing the stigma that anything gross or icky is effectively evil. I don't see how stuff like S&M is inherently evil in itself, for example. :confused: That's good, because you won't see anything in the BoVD that says it is, either. As for the couatl, obviously, given that the couatl was statted before the BoED came out, it's poison entry should be taken out and replaced with Couatl Venom ravage, instead.
StruckingFuggle 09-10-07, 11:19 PM	Or we could realize the asininity of poisons vs. ravages and just make poison not inherently evil.
Kyuketsukiouji 09-10-07, 11:20 PM	It is a bunch of crap. But, by the same token, how, exactly, is making a bunch of pointless Vows that require you to adhere to a rigid behavioral code that doesn't actually include anything that relates to helping or harming others the epitome of Good, rather than, say, Law? "Give your money to the poor" isn't "helping others" now?
StruckingFuggle 09-11-07, 12:54 AM	"Give your money to the poor" isn't "helping others" now? That depends. Ever notice how a lot of lottery winners who were poor ... end up poor again?
yrogerg 09-11-07, 01:45 AM	"Give your money to the poor" isn't "helping others" now? Because the *point*, re-reading those paragraphs, is asceticism and self-denial, not tithing or helping the needy? Giving money to the poor or a church is simply the "what you should do if you accidentally end up with wealth" clause in that Vow. Oh, and then there's Vow of Abstainence, Vow of Chastity, Vow of Obedience, and Vow of Purity, none of which put any real emphasis on Good behavior, and all of which put lots of emphasis on Lawful behavior. (Seriously, re-read Vow of Obedience: "To fulfill your vow, you must unquestioningly obey your superior and live according to the rules of your organization"? How the hell is that Good instead of Lawful?)
yrogerg 09-11-07, 01:57 AM	That's good, because you won't see anything in the BoVD that says it is, either. Except for that Vile Bondage Goddess, who really just screams it. Oh, and the nipple clamps. As for the couatl, obviously, given that the couatl was statted before the BoED came out, it's poison entry should be taken out and replaced with Couatl Venom ravage, instead. The problem is in the rationale for Ravages: Stat damaging poisons are evil because stat-damaging=painful, and they cause suffering. So, instead, Good characters use Ravages, which also cause stat damage, *and* frequently have explicit flavor text about how painful they are to the targets, something which Poisons never had. Ergo, torture is Evil, but torturing Evil characters more is Good! Yay! Most likely: Monte Cook read the Paladin entry and conflated the Paladin's code's prohibition of poison with their alignment restriction, despite the fact that the poison is mentioned *specifically* in the context of "dishonorable" behavior, not evil actions.
dman11235 09-11-07, 01:58 AM	Because the vows are what the angels have? (Seriously, the angels should be L/G). Because chaotic is close to evil and lawful is close to good in D&D. It's sort of a circle of alignments, with good at N, lawful is at NE, evil is at S, chaotic at WSW.
Kyuketsukiouji 09-11-07, 07:06 AM	Except for that Vile Bondage Goddess, who really just screams it. Oh, and the nipple clamps. There's no goddess of bondage. Torture and pain, yes. Not bondage (more the pity). The problem is in the rationale for Ravages: Stat damaging poisons are evil because stat-damaging=painful, and they cause suffering. So, instead, Good characters use Ravages, which also cause stat damage, *and* frequently have explicit flavor text about how painful they are to the targets, something which Poisons never had. Ergo, torture is Evil, but torturing Evil characters more is Good! Yay! The stuff with the really, really stupid flavor text is the afflictions, not the ravages. No one will find me arguing that whoever wrote those managed an Epic ball-dropping when that came up. Though, I'll concede afflictions are rather borderline. Most likely: Monte Cook read the Paladin entry and conflated the Paladin's code's prohibition of poison with their alignment restriction, despite the fact that the poison is mentioned *specifically* in the context of "dishonorable" behavior, not evil actions. Well, you know, the table of 0 stat effects isn't exactly the most cheerful list of things to happen to you. Nightmare-plaged unconciousness, total paralysis, death, inability to engage in thought, every one of your voluntary muscles locking up... None of that really sounds particularily nice to inflict on other people, expecially when you have harmless alternatives.
yrogerg 09-11-07, 08:11 AM	There's no goddess of bondage. Torture and pain, yes. Not bondage (more the pity). And yet, there's the discussion of Masochism. And the spell of the same name. They are, in fact, saying something rather direct there. And thent there's Willing Deformity and the Deformity feats, which, again, have nothing to do with being Evil. And Verminfriend. Bugs and Self-mutiliation: also evil acts. Well, you know, the table of 0 stat effects isn't exactly the most cheerful list of things to happen to you. Nightmare-plaged unconciousness, total paralysis, death, inability to engage in thought, every one of your voluntary muscles locking up... None of that really sounds particularily nice to inflict on other people, expecially when you have harmless alternatives. Sure it's not super-nice. Unless you compare it with Hit Point damage, that is. But it's not enough to, say, make a Wizard or Psion Evil. And in plenty of situations, those *are* the harmless alternatives. (Harmless, in this context, meaning "won't result in death or hit point loss") I mean, if Paralysis is Evil, then so is Hold X, if unconsiousness, a coma-like stupor is Evil, then so are Drow poison (which is noted as an exception in BoED), Color Spray, and just about every other spell that renders a creature unconsious. If Stat damage in general is, then so is Ego Whip, Strength of My Enemy, and one could argue that Mind Fog, Feeblemind, Ray of Enfeeblement and Touch of Idiocy should all be too. Heck, Cloudkill and Poison do Con damage and there's nothing directly calling them out as evil in the PHB. Not to mention the stuff with Ravages and Afflictions, which, if inflicting these statuses on people amounts to torture, should, by rights, still be Evil, since commiting Evil acts against Evil creatures remains Evil. And that's really the thing: there were plenty of opportunities to call poison evil, or to strongly associate it with such, in either the PHB, DMG, or MM. The closest they come to such *is* the Paladin's entry, which prohibits it for Paladins as "dishonorable", not evil. Since the BoED is pretty clear that it's taking Paladinhood as a starting point for most of its stuff, it seems pretty obvious where the Poison=Evil thing came from. (And incidentally, Ravages and Afflictions are similar enough to Poisons in terms of 'honorableness' that it's rather unlikely that Paladins should be allowed to use them, either) Oh, and Formians are another example of Intelligent, non-Evil creatures with Poison entries in their stat blocks.
Delfast 09-11-07, 11:04 AM	except, wands and wondrous items are magical... and not everything worth money is restricted. He can still use weapons, just non-magical ones... Thats incorrect. A VOP player can only use simple weapons he cant use nothig thats ha a certain value. Any other excuse to use whatever that has a cost attempt against the spirit of the rul of VOP.
Delfast 09-11-07, 11:27 AM	Now, I would like to keep any discussion of poison being a good or evil act out of this, since my group has already decided on that. What is not decided on is... can a character with Vow of Poverty create poisons from animals or plants that he comes into contact with, and use them? I ask this because my DM is thinking no, since poisons have a monetary value, but I think yes, since you never have any money involved. Like using firewood for a fire... yes, you could sell the firewood, but you harvested it yourself. The reason I ask is, my idea for this character was a tribal character who beleives that you should only ever take what nature gives you, and only as much as you need. He's very in touch with nature, and plenty of tribes use poisons and stuff. Considering I get Poison Use, I thought there should be no reason not to use poisons, except well... this. another thing. Your party should reconsider the aplication of that rule of the vow of poverty, read the page 34 of the Exalted Deeds Book. Use a poison its an Evil act, only the Oil of Taggit its allowed because it cause not harm just put unconsious the target. Thats why exist the Ravages and Aflictions, of course they are powerless than the poisons and deseases but is the cost your character pay to do the rigth things. The means care as much as the ends to an exalted character. Thats it. Bye
Kyuketsukiouji 09-11-07, 07:17 PM	And yet, there's the discussion of Masochism. And the spell of the same name. They are, in fact, saying something rather direct there. No, actually, they are most certainly not saying anything directly. It's not because it's in the Book of Vile Darkness that it's de facto Evil. While masochism is talked about in the BoVD because it's "common to the evil and perverse", it is not stated anywhere that those things are evil. Or do I have to remind you that "breathing air" is also "common to the evil and perverse"? And thent there's Willing Deformity and the Deformity feats, which, again, have nothing to do with being Evil. "Through scarification, self-mutilation, and supplication to dark powers..." And Verminfriend. Bugs and Self-mutiliation: also evil acts. Verminfriend is a Vile feat. If you want to be friends with insects, you can do it without requiring pacts with dark forces. Sandstorm has a few character options just for that, if I remember properly. Sure it's not super-nice. Unless you compare it with Hit Point damage, that is. But it's not enough to, say, make a Wizard or Psion Evil. And in plenty of situations, those *are* the harmless alternatives. (Harmless, in this context, meaning "won't result in death or hit point loss") I mean, if Paralysis is Evil, then so is Hold X, if unconsiousness, a coma-like stupor is Evil, then so are Drow poison (which is noted as an exception in BoED), Color Spray, and just about every other spell that renders a creature unconsious. If Stat damage in general is, then so is Ego Whip, Strength of My Enemy, and one could argue that Mind Fog, Feeblemind, Ray of Enfeeblement and Touch of Idiocy should all be too. Heck, Cloudkill and Poison do Con damage and there's nothing directly calling them out as evil in the PHB. Not to mention the stuff with Ravages and Afflictions, which, if inflicting these statuses on people amounts to torture, should, by rights, still be Evil, since commiting Evil acts against Evil creatures remains Evil. I can't help but notice how neatly you're pruning certain rather key words from what I mentioned. For instance, it's not "unconciousness", which, as clearly stated, is nor evil even if caused by poison, but there's that whole "wracked with horrible nightmares" bit, which Colour Spray, sleep, an other stuff has no relation to (not to mention, it's not only nightmare infested delirium, it's nightmare infested delirium that lasts at least 24 hours, if not more) And that's really the thing: there were plenty of opportunities to call poison evil, or to strongly associate it with such, in either the PHB, DMG, or MM. The closest they come to such *is* the Paladin's entry, which prohibits it for Paladins as "dishonorable", not evil. Since the BoED is pretty clear that it's taking Paladinhood as a starting point for most of its stuff, it seems pretty obvious where the Poison=Evil thing came from. (And incidentally, Ravages and Afflictions are similar enough to Poisons in terms of 'honorableness' that it's rather unlikely that Paladins should be allowed to use them, either) Oh yes, because we've all seen just how thoroughly the Core books cover alignments... Oh, and Formians are another example of Intelligent, non-Evil creatures with Poison entries in their stat blocks. Right. Because, of course, we all know Formians have absolutely no choice but to use poison every time they attack (oh, wait, you mean they have other combat modes?) and we also know that performing even a single act of evil not only automatically tosses your alignment straight into the deepest pits of hell, but also requires your DM to brutally slaughter your PC. Man, why are you even arguing against the BoVD/BoED when half the stuff you're saying it says is not only wrong, but is actually saying just what you want it to say? Ravages and afflictions, though, don't have good flavor text. Personally, I'd make ravages be unable to reduce a victim's stat below 1 (because, let's face it, 1 in any stat is incapacitating enough), and afflictions should -dampen- the affected evil, not increase it. As I've said many times, I will not argue with anyone who says that afflictions, as presented, are not Good. They really stand out in my mind as -the- glaring failure of the two Books.
yrogerg 09-12-07, 02:22 AM	While masochism is talked about in the BoVD because it's "common to the evil and perverse", it is not stated anywhere that those things are evil. Or do I have to remind you that "breathing air" is also "common to the evil and perverse"?Masochism the spell, however, is an Evil spell. And the usual reasons for [Evil] spells being [Evil] don't really match up nearly as well. I can't help but notice how neatly you're pruning certain rather key words from what I mentioned. For instance, it's not "unconciousness", which, as clearly stated, is nor evil even if caused by poison, but there's that whole "wracked with horrible nightmares" bit, which Colour Spray, sleep, an other stuff has no relation to (not to mention, it's not only nightmare infested delirium, it's nightmare infested delirium that lasts at least 24 hours, if not more) I pruned the word because "wracked with horrible nightmares" is only true of Wisdom 0. There are, you'll note, different effects for the other mental stats. Int and Cha damage simply send you into a coma-like stupor, not a nightmare-wracked sleep. Is it that Int and Cha damage are non-evil? Frankly, I'm pretty willing to expand this to poisons that cause paralysis or immobility, too: how is Str or Dex poison more inherently Evil than Hold Person, or Binding? The end effect is the same. Heck, a fun Good spell like Holy Word's liable to leave creatures paralyzed, as well. If it's the end effect of 0s in the stats that makes them evil, then we have a bit of a problem Oh yes, because we've all seen just how thoroughly the Core books cover alignments... In this instance, it's actually clear enough. The gist of the relevant portions paladin's code entry is, "Paladins can't commit evil acts. Also, they can't do anything dishonorable, like lying, cheating, or using poison". Under most standard understandings of the English language, poison is used as an example of the second, additional category because it's not a member of the first category. If Poison use is evil, then even if it would fit in the second category, it wouldn't be used as an example. Paladins can't commit evil acts. They also can't commit dishonorable acts. Obviously, they can't commit acts that are both evil and dishonorable, but nobody who writes things like this for publication would use something that was intended to be both evil and dishonorable as an example of one category or the other. Right. Because, of course, we all know Formians have absolutely no choice but to use poison every time they attack (oh, wait, you mean they have other combat modes?) and we also know that performing even a single act of evil not only automatically tosses your alignment straight into the deepest pits of hell, but also requires your DM to brutally slaughter your PC. Actually, their stings are the primary melee attacks for the Warriors, Taskmasters, and Myrmarches, and all of their listed melee attack routines include the sting. Plus, the rest of those creature entries makes casual reference to these creatures using their stings in combat. So, no, Formians don't really have that much of a choice in the matter. However, they are Always Lawful Neutral, despite entering combat, ever. It stands to reason that the writers of the MM weren't insane in thinking that made sense. We can also do some other fun thought experiments: a Tiny Viper familiar is a magical beast, and eventually gets a better Int score than its Sorcerer owner. If it's capable of moral actions due to its hefty Intelligence, does that mean it also takes a slide towards Evil for using its poison every time it eats? Or do we just assume that the familiar is running around off-screen doing good deeds, saving babies from Mongooses and the like?
Gru 09-12-07, 04:43 AM	The book says the following: "You can drink a potion of Cure Serious Wounds a friend gives you." So yeah, you can receive a potion then drink it. I'd rule that you make poison, you apply it to your weapon, you give the rest away. Nowhere is it stated as prohibited to give stuff to your friends, so you could give it to whomever you like. Giving it to an evil person would, however, in my campaign, be considered an evil act and thus violate the Exalted thingy. As for the feat itself and whether it is stupid or whatnot: I've played a character with this feat and it made him the character I wanted him to be. It's great RP stuff, not great hack-n-slash stuff (unless you bend the rules).
Kyuketsukiouji 09-12-07, 06:59 AM	Actually, their stings are the primary melee attacks for the Warriors, Taskmasters, and Myrmarches, and all of their listed melee attack routines include the sting. Plus, the rest of those creature entries makes casual reference to these creatures using their stings in combat. So, no, Formians don't really have that much of a choice in the matter. However, they are Always Lawful Neutral, despite entering combat, ever. It stands to reason that the writers of the MM weren't insane in thinking that made sense. They're Lawful Neutral. They're perfectly allowed to commit Evil acts so long as those acts are balanced by Good ones. There's only one things out there that's not allowed to commit Evil acts, that's paladins. And they don't turn evil as soon as they knowingly commit an Evil act, they just stop being paladins. You could lose your paladin status and still be Lawful Good just fine. We can also do some other fun thought experiments: a Tiny Viper familiar is a magical beast, and eventually gets a better Int score than its Sorcerer owner. If it's capable of moral actions due to its hefty Intelligence, does that mean it also takes a slide towards Evil for using its poison every time it eats? Or do we just assume that the familiar is running around off-screen doing good deeds, saving babies from Mongooses and the like? Or you know, it can ask its master to feed it, if the viper's newly aquired knowledge of good and evil makes the pain its venom inflicts on animals unpalatable.
yrogerg 09-12-07, 07:45 AM	They're Lawful Neutral. They're perfectly allowed to commit Evil acts so long as those acts are balanced by Good ones. Great! Too bad their ecology and behavior -well-described in several books- never describes them as running around committing good deeds to balance out the fact that they possess a natural poison that they use unhesitatingly in combat. In fact, since their main extracurricular activity involves using Dominated slaves to do their bidding, I'd hardly say that they drift towards the Good side of LN *at all*. Not to mention the fact that the "oh, I'll just do some good deeds to balance out the evil ones" leads to what are frankly some of the most absurd, incoherent conceptions of alignment you can get. There's only one things out there that's not allowed to commit Evil acts, that's paladins. And they don't turn evil as soon as they knowingly commit an Evil act, they just stop being paladins. You could lose your paladin status and still be Lawful Good just fine. Funny how you bring up paladins again, despite ignoring my comment above. Paladins are barred specifically from using poison because it's dishonorable. If it were meant to be evil as well, it wouldn't be used it as an example of a dishonorable action that, implicitly, is not evil but still violates their code. Paladins would have simply been barred from it because it's Evil. A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. See? The Additionally suggests that all the items following it are not, themselves covered by the preceding clause. Or you know, it can ask its master to feed it, if the viper's newly aquired knowledge of good and evil makes the pain its venom inflicts on animals unpalatable. Or maybe the viper becomes a vegan pacifist and gets itself de-fanged!:rolleyes: Seems about as likely.