| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Maekrix_Waere02-02-07, 12:12 AM | In my current campaign, I am playing as a Chaotic Good Ranger alongside a Sorceror and a Paladin. We seem to have come to one small problem, considering my ranks in Craft(Poisonmaking): Is the use of poisons an inherently evil act? The person playing the Paladin is adamant that it is a yes, and, if I continue, he will be forced to (attempt to) kill me. I vote no, seeing nothing inherently evil in making a weapon more deadly. However, what do these forums think? Secondly:As a secondary arguement against it, the person playing the Paladin said that even if it wasn't evil, it would be against the law, and he would have to (once again, attempt to) kill me as his pledge to uphold the law. I balk at this arguement, stating that Paladins uphold their good alignment before their lawful disposition, even though he clams it should be 50-50. But I digress, what do you think? |
| Templetroll02-02-07, 12:41 AM | In 1e poison use was specifically evil; such that it was supposed to bring outrage from other PCs and almost all NPCs. Now, it is not specifically mentioned as being evil in the RAW that I could find. You should ask the DM if poison use is considered evil in his world. If he tries to leave it up to you ask him if there is anything considered evil in his world and behave accordingly. This http://ynnen.blogspot.com/2005/09/poison-its-too-good-to-be-bad-ddrpg.html is someone's writeup of reasons why the use of poison is not evil and suitable for all alignments, but not necessarily for specific Codes of Conduct. That is the relevant point. I don't agree with all his points but the basic arguement was sound. Your paladin buddy may still oppose you but he should strive to convince you to not use it instead of trying to berate you or threaten you. Oh, your view of paladin behavior is exactly as valid as his view of the use of poison. He told you how he is playing his character, your character needs to discuss the moral and ethical points if you want him to be more Good than Lawful. :) |
| Maekrix_Waere02-02-07, 12:57 AM | Templetroll, that easily has to be one of the most convincing manuscripts I have ever read, thank you very much. |
| Dunsel02-02-07, 11:34 AM | In my campaign, lethal (con damage,etc.) poison is evil but nonlethal (dex damage,etc.) poison is questionable. The DM's job is to set the parameters of his world. He should not let you decide. |
| lint trap02-02-07, 11:40 AM | On the other hand, trying to kill an ally for doing something you disagree with is an evil act. |
| PhaedrusXY02-02-07, 11:52 AM | Nothing in the core rules says Poison is evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds claims that it is, but that same book also has a very childish view of good and evil, and introduces Ravages, which are "good poisons". So I don't think alot of people take what it says too seriously. The palladin's code prohibits him from using poisons because they are not honorable, not because they are evil. |
| Templetroll02-02-07, 12:31 PM | Templetroll, that easily has to be one of the most convincing manuscripts I have ever read, thank you very much. You're welcome. It was useful to me so I thought I'd share and make sure credit went to his site. In my campaign, lethal (con damage,etc.) poison is evil but nonlethal (dex damage,etc.) poison is questionable. The DM's job is to set the parameters of his world. He should not let you decide. That's a workable option and I agree that the DM should be the one to set the parameters and let players know. Here's a point for the OP to bring up to the paladin - If the ranger used non-lethal poisons would that be acceptable? If the use of non-lethal poisons caused a foe to be captured, would the paladin accept the responsibility to decide the fate of that prisioner? It seems a right and reasonable way to handle it since the paladin has already expressed willingness to decide the fate of the ranger. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-02-07, 06:30 PM | Here's a point for the OP to bring up to the paladin - If the ranger used non-lethal poisons would that be acceptable? If the use of non-lethal poisons caused a foe to be captured, would the paladin accept the responsibility to decide the fate of that prisioner? It seems a right and reasonable way to handle it since the paladin has already expressed willingness to decide the fate of the ranger. Good idea. I'll have to bring this up. Also...:bump: |
| Dragoncat02-02-07, 11:04 PM | One more thing to bring up, although I think the wonderful article Templetroll posted covers everything. Show him the Couatl, a Lawful Good (always) outsider with a bite attack that inflicts poison. If they can do it, so can you. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm |
| Light_Colonel02-03-07, 03:57 AM | Another good example of good characters with poison: Any good wizard with a viper familiar. Pseudodragons are always good with a poison sting. Any good Druid with an animal companion with poison. While the Druid and Wizards are not themselves using poison, ordering their familars/companions to attack is tantamount to using it themselves. It also adds questions to the use of Summon Monster/Summon Natures Ally spells. Also, what happens if you have a character playing an Arenea or other race with a poison bite? |
| holylink71802-03-07, 08:35 AM | In my current campaign, I am playing as a Chaotic Good Ranger alongside a Sorceror and a Paladin. We seem to have come to one small problem, considering my ranks in Craft(Poisonmaking): Is the use of poisons an inherently evil act? The person playing the Paladin is adamant that it is a yes, and, if I continue, he will be forced to (attempt to) kill me. I vote no, seeing nothing inherently evil in making a weapon more deadly. However, what do these forums think? Secondly:As a secondary arguement against it, the person playing the Paladin said that even if it wasn't evil, it would be against the law, and he would have to (once again, attempt to) kill me as his pledge to uphold the law. I balk at this arguement, stating that Paladins uphold their good alignment before their lawful disposition, even though he clams it should be 50-50. But I digress, what do you think? First of all, your paladin friend is an idiot...even if using poison was evil, threatening to kill you for using it would be, if not downright evil, very un-paladin, if you know what I mean. Second of all, ask your dm if using poison is evil in his world. If he says no, say haha to the paladin and continue playing your character the way you are. However, if he says yes, your CG ranger probably wouldn't do it, but not because of anything the paladin said, but because he chooses not to be that way. Third of all, reguarding arguement #2, ask him if he hasn't noticed that your <B>not</B> LG, your CG, and just because the law says one thing, you won't neccesarily care. If he really has a problem dealing with none-LG people, tell him to go find LG people to hang out with. However, if the player is fine with it and he's just trying to add some cool role-playing to the game, role-play it out. But if he's just being an ass, have no mercy on him. btw, let the paladin know that his code prevents him from knowingly working with evil characters, not CG characters who do things he thinks are dishonorable. If that were the case, and deciding what was good or evil was up to a human being, we'd all be screwed. lol. hope this helps! :D |
| Maekrix_Waere02-03-07, 02:11 PM | Second of all, ask your dm if using poison is evil in his world. If he says no, say haha to the paladin and continue playing your character the way you are. However, if he says yes, your CG ranger probably wouldn't do it, but not because of anything the paladin said, but because he chooses not to be that way. I asked him, and he said that while, no, it was not evil, it wouldn't be something that any Good-aligned character would do due to the suffering it causes on the enemy. However, considering that the odds of that particular enemy surviving longer than 30 seconds-1 minute (5 rounds-10 rounds (though 2 rounds is the average life-span of our current enemies).) are extraordinarily low, I didn't think that was very justified because I'm sure the arrows sticking into his body are cause about the same amount of suffering as any poison what might be on them. Also, any poison that doesn't do Con damage wouldn't actually cause suffering. Drown poison just knocks you out, Str damage would force your muscles to relax, Dex damage would make your reflexes sluggish, and Int, Wis, and Cha damage just temporarily affect your brain, causing you to have impaired judgement. Any comments on this? |
| High Octane02-03-07, 02:27 PM | The thing is this: poisons are not evil, but dropping poison into the count's glass to assassinate him is. Poisons are expensive and generally used by assassins, which are evil. So poison use is not evil, but its highly suspicious. If you walked down the street and saw a guy pull a knife, you would have no idea if hes a gangster or just someone trying to protect himself. You see a guy with a gun, he could be a ********er, or a cop, or a security guard. But if you see him pull out a bottle of ARSENIC, you are going to immeidately think this guy is a hitman! Granted the D&D world is different, but considering how expensive it is and the type of person who benefits best from its use, you are pretty much guaranteed to be struck with the label of rogue/assassin when carrying it. Also, only assassins and a few other evil tending classes are TRAINED in how to use it without nicking themselves. Not too many monsters are weak to poisons. Humanoids are. I honestly dont think poison use is evil in itself, but I do think it will be looked on with suspicion from your average joe guard. Edit: And poisons dont cause you to suffer any worse than being SWALLOWED IN FLAMES BY A FIREBALL! |
| Maekrix_Waere02-03-07, 09:59 PM | :bump: Anyone else got a comment? Anyone agree with the pally? Edit: Granted the D&D world is different, but considering how expensive it is and the type of person who benefits best from its use, you are pretty much guaranteed to be struck with the label of rogue/assassin when carrying it. Also, only assassins and a few other evil tending classes are TRAINED in how to use it without nicking themselves. Ninja from Complete Adventurer can be any alignment, and it gets poison use within the first 5 levels. Edit #2: Oh, and I showed the character playing the pally the paper that templetroll posted. He said it was complete bull s---. |
| Ozymandias V.02-03-07, 10:46 PM | If your paladin tries to kill you, he's committing an evil act. "Oh, my ally is doing something I don't agree with and so I must kill him" is definitely evil. |
| Ceirnian02-04-07, 01:40 AM | Get some poison ready and completely plan out your actions if he attacks you. It sounds like your paladin friend is being an idiot by threatening to kill you, so make sure you'll be able to handle him when (not if at this rate) he tries to kill you. If you subdue him he will probably wake up with a loss of powers, showing that it's quit evil to try and kill someone over a disagreement. Using a poison is not an evil act any more than using a sword is. If it were truly evil, then spells that used poisons would have an [evil] marker. edit* Just read the article on poisons, guess we're on the same track since he used that spell as an example. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 02:11 AM | Get some poison ready and completely plan out your actions if he attacks you. It sounds like your paladin friend is being an idiot by threatening to kill you, so make sure you'll be able to handle him when (not if at this rate) he tries to kill you. If you subdue him he will probably wake up with a loss of powers, showing that it's quit evil to try and kill someone over a disagreement. First of all-Being level 4, the odds of him failing a Fort. save vs the poison are astronimically low. My guess of his bonus-Base +4 +4 Con +3 Cha=+11 Fort. Secondly-I'm a ranged combat specialist and he says that the use of ranged weapons is against the paladin's code, he's wearing medium armour, I'm wearing light (got Dex of 20, though), and IRL I have a +17 on all Profession(Tactician) checks. Do the math. There's a reason I put attempt in there. Thirdly-:bump: |
| Ceirnian02-04-07, 04:36 AM | Oh wow an 18 con and 16 cha? Yeah you're screwed on the whole poison deal, but it sounds like you have that fight wrapped around your finger. |
| johnkretzer02-04-07, 05:01 AM | I always thought poison use being evil was stupid.... So is the pally friend going to kill the innkeeper who sets out poison for the rats? Also the whole poisoning thing being evil because it causes suffering? You get arrows shot in you doesn't causeing suffering? Or get chopped up by a sword doesn't either? There some poisons out there that kill mercifuly... Also another way to Poison use is the Deep Wood Sniper PrC that doesn't require you to be evil...though that is a 3.0 edition souce. |
| bonethug010802-04-07, 07:16 AM | :bump: Anyone else got a comment? Anyone agree with the pally? Edit: Ninja from Complete Adventurer can be any alignment, and it gets poison use within the first 5 levels. Edit #2: Oh, and I showed the character playing the pally the paper that templetroll posted. He said it was complete bull s---. I will make this as simple as possible. If you kill good or neutral people with poison, it is evil. If you kill someone who is evil(you know, the guy that would kill innocents with poison if you don't stop him), it is not evil. You are stoping evil, by any means necessary. It might be unlawful depending on the laws of the land. So the paladin has a valid point of not wanting you to use it. His is not within his code to kill you for it as long as you use it to kill evil. His is within his rights to say that you offend his codes and you are dishonoring him, thus asking you to leave the group or leave himself. And the ninja is a perfect example of a good aligned character using poison. Nowhere in the description does it say only evil ninjas get the class feature. It was put in and meant to be used by all ninjas, if they so chose. Show him this post and I guarantee he won't argue with me, but then you have the dileema of you offending his code. As long as you hide your using it, though, he can't metagame and kick you out. I shall site the passage from the player's handbook, pg. 44 to explain further: Associates While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her morale code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. So he has legitimate beef with you using it, but he isn't looking at from the proper angle. |
| bonethug010802-04-07, 07:18 AM | Also the whole poisoning thing being evil because it causes suffering? You get arrows shot in you doesn't causeing suffering? Or get chopped up by a sword doesn't either? This is a perfect point of why poisons aren't inherently evil, it is the purpose they are used for. |
| holylink71802-04-07, 11:09 AM | Edit: And poisons dont cause you to suffer any worse than being SWALLOWED IN FLAMES BY A FIREBALL! True...very true. :D |
| holylink71802-04-07, 11:14 AM | If your paladin tries to kill you, he's committing an evil act. "Oh, my ally is doing something I don't agree with and so I must kill him" is definitely evil. Agreed. if you are endangering the party, that is one thing, but if you're not, killing you for <I>any</I> reason (unless you are raping women or killing inocents, which I didn't see as part of the original post) would be evil and your paladin friend could not "justify" it in any way and remain a LG paladin. Unless alignment means nothing in this game, and he can do whatever he wants and "repent" later. And in that case, play with other people. |
| holylink71802-04-07, 11:17 AM | Secondly-I'm a ranged combat specialist and he says that the use of ranged weapons is against the paladin's code, Thirdly-:bump: <B>WTF!?</B> Where'd he get that idea? Is that something he made up for flavor, or is he seriously just being an ass? |
| Fatalis_90202-04-07, 03:15 PM | If he refuses to use ranged weapons, fine, that's his choice. I just pray that he realizes that his opponents in duels do not have to follow his moral code. Of course, he seems too thick-headed and conservative to realize this. |
| Dei02-04-07, 08:11 PM | :bump: Edit #2: Oh, and I showed the character playing the pally the paper that templetroll posted. He said it was complete bull s---. Hehe, what an evocative and well thought-out counter arguement. Frankly if the paladin won't see reason the answer is simple, don't tell him. How's he going to know that you're using poison? You coat your arrow-heads while you're away from him, keep the doses well hidden and even if he does become suspicious, unless he breaks the paladin's code by assaulting someone while he has no proof of their guilt he's not going to know. If he keeps on at you, play your character like this: "You don't like it? Well that's too damn bad." He has two choices, 1) back down and let you get on with doing your job. 2) Break the paladins code and attack you at which point you with 4x30 feet of movement and a bow and him with 3x20 feet of movement and a sword get to have a lot of fun romping around through the countryside until he begins failing fort saves to keep running after you. There's no feeling like walking up to someone in full plate that's just collapsed from exhaustion from trying to chase you down and going *nyah-nyah nyah-nyah-nyah* (childish? me? :D ) |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 08:15 PM | WTF!? Where'd he get that idea? Is that something he made up for flavor, or is he seriously just being an ass? He seriously believes that core rules state that Paladins cannot use ranged weapons because it is dishonourable to detatch yourself from your opponent in combat. I tried to :teach: him he's wrong, because, in the Elf Paladin racial substitution levels (from Races of the Wild), Elf Paladins get a ranged smite evil, and why would WoTC give them a class skill that they are not allowed to use due to restrictions placed upon them by the same class that gives them the ability. However, he said that's because elves are p---ies who are afraid to fight in CQC. Makes no sense to me, cause my melee damage is 1d10+6 with a 18-20/x2 crit. range, whereas my bow is 1d10+3 with a x3 crit. Also, delaying the combat to level 7+ would help as well, as it will see me in the Arcane Archer PrC, which is just plain beautiful for ranged weaponry. At level 18, every arrow I fire will be +6. Edit:However, I would like to get off this tangent, and ask that we stick to primary concern in this thread. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 08:21 PM | Hehe, what an evocative and well thought-out counter arguement. Frankly if the paladin won't see reason the answer is simple, don't tell him. How's he going to know that you're using poison? You coat your arrow-heads while you're away from him, keep the doses well hidden and even if he does become suspicious, unless he breaks the paladin's code by assaulting someone while he has no proof of their guilt he's not going to know. If he keeps on at you, play your character like this: "You don't like it? Well that's too damn bad." He has two choices, 1) back down and let you get on with doing your job. 2) Break the paladins code and attack you at which point you with 4x30 feet of movement and a bow and him with 3x20 feet of movement and a sword get to have a lot of fun romping around through the countryside until he begins failing fort saves to keep running after you. There's no feeling like walking up to someone in full plate that's just collapsed from exhaustion from trying to chase you down and going *nyah-nyah nyah-nyah-nyah* (childish? me? :D ) Frankly, I find it easier to just lay down an entangle spell, where the edge farthest from me just covers his square. That way (with Rapid Shot) I get 6 shots before he gets 1 attempted strike (and that's accepting he make ALL his saves). Also, if all else fails, I'll just use my +11 climb and climb up a tree. Shoot at him from there and rely on his ACP and untrained skill penaltys to keep him on the ground. Oh, and he did have a counter arguement-How can a nine page paper that quotes the Powerpuff Girls for two words possibly have any valid points? Edit:Yes, sorry, now lets get off this tangent. |
| Amon_WinterfallIV02-04-07, 09:01 PM | Well, I would agrue that poison usage might be slightly chaotic aligned (ie, not honorable). The moral rules against poison are flimsy at best (BoED) The paladin does have a code violation, and this is legit; but wasting your character is evil. If the Pally attempts a single strike on you, I'd rule he instantly falls. Talk to your DM, this is silly. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 09:03 PM | Talk to your DM, this is silly. He appears to be trying not to take sides. Edit:Guess I should expand this out. He says that it sounds like something a neutral person would do, and if he were playing a good aligned character he wouldn't do it because good-aligned charcters would not cause undue suffering on others. However, as common sence tells us, arrows and swords cause more suffering then Con. poison that is in your system for 12-60 seconds. Unfortunatly, our DM has far too many extracurricular activites for his own good, so we couldn't pursue the issue any futher then his telling me his opinion. In other words: I didn't have a chance to respond. I'll be taking it up again tomorrow, and I am confident I can change his mind. Unlike the Paladin, he at least has an open mind. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 10:07 PM | :bump: |
| bonethug010802-04-07, 11:00 PM | He appears to be trying not to take sides. Edit:Guess I should expand this out. He says that it sounds like something a neutral person would do, and if he were playing a good aligned character he wouldn't do it because good-aligned charcters would not cause undue suffering on others. However, as common sence tells us, arrows and swords cause more suffering then Con. poison that is in your system for 12-60 seconds. Unfortunatly, our DM has far too many extracurricular activites for his own good, so we couldn't pursue the issue any futher then his telling me his opinion. In other words: I didn't have a chance to respond. I'll be taking it up again tomorrow, and I am confident I can change his mind. Unlike the Paladin, he at least has an open mind. Did you go on to tell him that undue suffering is also caused by swords through your stomach? Or are you leaving that part out when you bring it up? Definitely further explain this very fine point. And please also bring to his attention the ninja poison use thing. In fairness, you should also let him not that your use of poison, if known by the paladin, would offend his code. So eventually you would have to hide it or stop it or have one of you let. Let him know the whole truth and that you aren't being biased. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 11:07 PM | Did you go on to tell him that undue suffering is also caused by swords through your stomach? Or are you leaving that part out when you bring it up? Definitely further explain this very fine point. And please also bring to his attention the ninja poison use thing. I said in my previous post that he had to go before we could get farther then him telling me his opinion. I am going to bring it up when I can. In fairness, you should also let him not that your use of poison, if known by the paladin, would offend his code. So eventually you would have to hide it or stop it or have one of you let. Let him know the whole truth and that you aren't being biased. Well, actually, since I am one of the parties involved, I am biased, and it would be a lie to say I am not. However, by relying far more on common sence and a willingness to come to an agreement, I can become as close to unbiased as possible. That's why I posted on the forums. To get unbiased opinions on the matter. |
| bonethug010802-04-07, 11:11 PM | I said in my previous post that he had to go before we could get farther then him telling me his opinion. I am going to bring it up when I can. Well, actually, since I am one of the parties involved, I am biased, and it would be a lie to say I am not. However, by relying far more on common sence and a willingness to come to an agreement, I can become as close to unbiased as possible. That's why I posted on the forums. To get unbiased opinions on the matter. Yeah, I'm not telling you you have to or you should, I just said it was fair. I am not always fair:P I would play it by stating all the good things for me, and pull out the last part if it didn't look like it was working(which it sounds like it isn't). See how "fair" I am. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-04-07, 11:41 PM | Yeah, I'm not telling you you have to or you should, I just said it was fair. I am not always fair:P I would play it by stating all the good things for me, and pull out the last part if it didn't look like it was working(which it sounds like it isn't). See how "fair" I am. A) What "last part"? B) In Real Life I have 17 ranks in Profession(Tactician). I know how to censor things, and know what things not to censor. (Things that are on my side and things that are against me are both included in that second one.) |
| bonethug010802-05-07, 12:00 AM | A) What "last part"? B) In Real Life I have 17 ranks in Profession(Tactician). I know how to censor things, and know what things not to censor. (Things that are on my side and things that are against me are both included in that second one.) About how the paladin still would have issues with your poison use. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-05-07, 12:07 AM | About how the paladin still would have issues with your poison use. If the DM wants to enforce that, it's his choice, and its not my place to bring it up...if you know what I mean...:incog: |
| bonethug010802-05-07, 12:09 AM | If the DM wants to enforce that, it's his choice, and its not my place to bring it up...if you know what I mean...:incog: That's what I was sayin:shiftyeyes: |
| Maekrix_Waere02-05-07, 12:15 AM | That's what I was sayin:incog: Now, all you people reading this and hating us, you have to realize, it is actually for the betterment of all parties involved. The paladin gets to keep his abilities, I get to keep my poisons, and the DM gets to stop having to deal with feuding players more quickly. |
| Amon_WinterfallIV02-05-07, 03:59 AM | Well, without the 'dishonorable poison clause' of the Paladins Code; there is no real arguement that hasn't been said about poison by someone else's arguement. The Paladin code has rules against Murder. And this is what this is. Killing a Fellow PC is a betrayal of trust and a basic violation of life. This is not a trival matter: You're CG, and good doesn't kill good. There is no way this is defensible as a neutral argument--otherwise, you are good to kill the Paladin's character and claim to be good aligned. You can't kill people just because you disagree with them. That behavior is FASCIST and LAWFUL EVIL. Repeat to the DM as necessary. One last thing--don't be the first person to go to words from deeds. Leave that to the Paladin. Oh, and if the DM won't support your position, your problems would in part lie with him, and you should rethink playing with this campaign. |
| Sereno02-05-07, 10:33 AM | Just adding my two coppers: Using poison is no more evil than using a sword (or any other weapon) and in many cases is MORE merciful than simple killing. Use of all poisons, other than Con, just incapacitates and there's nothing in the descriptions about them causing agony. Even if they did cause pain, doubt it's any worse than being roasted by a Fireball, or dissolved by an Acid Arrow. And, I don't think *anybody* would call FB or AA evil.... The bias, I think, is a throwback to older versions of the game. However, attacking a companion just because they're doing something you don't agree with IS evil. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-05-07, 07:20 PM | :dragon::bump: |
| Maekrix_Waere02-06-07, 01:04 AM | :dragon::bump: #2 |
| johnkretzer02-06-07, 02:46 AM | I will make this as simple as possible. If you kill good or neutral people with poison, it is evil. If you kill someone who is evil(you know, the guy that would kill innocents with poison if you don't stop him), it is not evil. You are stoping evil, by any means necessary. This just struck me as funny. So anybody who uses poison to kill insects or other vermin is evil? |
| bonethug010802-06-07, 08:27 AM | This just struck me as funny. So anybody who uses poison to kill insects or other vermin is evil? I said people, as in higher intelligence beings. Killing things such as animals and insects isn't Inherently evil. It is evil if you kill them out of pure enjoyment. And yes, I do think that people who hunt just for sport are committing evil. |
| BlueBlazer02-06-07, 10:54 AM | Yay! Devil's Advocacy! Well first, the Paladin is not the least bit evil for threatening to smite evil or for actually smiting. That's his/her JOB. You've had a warning, and evil gets smitten. The most you could argue is that s/he should arrest you and turn you over to the proper authorities (that is, if killing evil individuals is illegal). Smiting evil isn't evil at all, but it might be illegal (depending on where you are). The crux of your argument should be Poison Isn't Evil, not You Can't Just Kill Evil People, because if you argue that, the paladin is going to start arresting every goblin, orc and kobold you come across. Or, if you want to argue on intelligence, s/he'll arrest evil dragons and clerics of evil gods (who actually radiate evil auras)... which is kinda silly. Second, saying Poison Isn't Evil is rather generalizing (as is saying All Poisons Are Evil). Drow poison just knocks people out, and most poisons (the ones that do temp damage) just incapacitate. However, temp con damage can kill, and there are lethal poisons and poisons that blind and poisons that do permanent damage. So if you want to be reasonable and compromise (or just look at it objectively) I'd say poisons that do temporary damage and incapacitate are fine (neutral) and poisons that can kill (con damage) or that do permanent damage or have nasty side effects are evil. The Devil rests his case. |
| BlueBlazer02-06-07, 11:01 AM | Wait, no! The Devil thought of something else. Someone's going to argue that there should be no difference between killing with a sword or killing with poison... that you're just as dead. And that poisons that do permanent damage are no more debilitating that scars and permanent wounds... Well, the paladin would say that battle has its own justice. That wounds received in battle are part of battle (but the paladin wouldn't just slice open someone who was just standing there). Poisons are underhanded and sneaky (not-lawful, not as in illegal but as in not respecting of order and Justice and Honour) by their very nature, and using poisons with nasty effects is (to a paladin) pointlessly cruel. If there's no difference between killing someone with a poison or killing someone with a sword, is there also no difference between beheading someone cleanly or beheading someone starting the slice at the toes? Between beheading with an axe or with a dull saw? Generalizations aren't always so clean cut. The paladin is saying that s/he trusts his heart and moral compass to discern what's right, and s/he feels that poisons are not right. So throw the poor pally a bone and stick to the nicer poisons... |
| Sereno02-06-07, 11:04 AM | poisons that can kill (con damage) or that do permanent damage or have nasty side effects are evil. If "permanent damage" by poison is evil, then why isn't a sword or a fireball evil? Sure, being poisoned *might* hurt ... but, being stabbed or chopped or pierced *definitely* hurts. Why is one form of hurt evil while the other form isn't? |
| BlueBlazer02-06-07, 01:21 PM | If "permanent damage" by poison is evil, then why isn't a sword or a fireball evil? Sure, being poisoned *might* hurt ... but, being stabbed or chopped or pierced *definitely* hurts. Why is one form of hurt evil while the other form isn't? Well, I agree with you, because I'm not "lawful". I don't personally see a lot of difference. Speaking as Devil's Advocate, though, I'd say that poison is underhanded (not winning by virtue of personal prowess/blah but by weakening the other) and not the least bit lawful (which is reason enough for a Pally to get bunched knickers). Also, in D&D hitting someone with a sword is easy to fix (potion, cure spell, a week in bed) but permanent damage is, for your garden variety NPC, something they'll have forever. Some paladins might have a problem with any and all poison, but I could see a paladin allowing "knock out" poison or temporary-strength-reducing poison but putting his/her foot down at something that blinds or kills. Or else, why does one have to be "evil" to take the Assassin PrC? An assassin just kills people for money (which is one way of describing your average adventurer). There are spells that kill with damage (fireball) and other spells that kill with damage and yet have the [evil] descriptor. I personally don't see much difference, but I'm sure a paladin does. And there are Evil swords (unholy, evil-aligned, vile, corrupted) and Evil fireballs (vile, corrupted). I'm not saying all poison is evil... I'm not even saying all paladins have to hate poison (regardless of the nature of damage it does)... I'm saying that SOME paladins can have a problem with it, and that compromise on the issue is not completely out of order. I personally have a passionate disgust for playing with paladins (not when I DM, just when I play), but I do recognize that a player has just as much right to play paladin as one does a CN rogue. The paladin "restricts" what the party can do, but then so does any PC. I don't think the paladin should dictate terms to the party, but neither do I think the party can dictate terms to the paladin ("we're using poison, so shut up"). So I'm trying, as far as I'm able, to come up with arguments to justify the paladin's stance and an outcome that doesn't involve anyone being ordered about by anyone else. I realize I'm splitting hairs with these arguments, that any definition of evil is by its very nature arbitrary... I'm just saying that this is one of many valid ways of looking at it. |
| BlueBlazer02-06-07, 01:34 PM | Further devil's advocacy... Poison can be seen as a form of "cheating." Sure, paladins try to kill, they hit things with swords, but it's not that you fight and kill but how you fight and kill... using poison makes you as bad as the evil you're fighting. Poison is unnecessarily cruel. There's a difference between doing permanent damage by stabbing someone through the heart with a sword and stabbing someone through the heart with a poo-covered spoon, between killing someone with a fireball and killing someone by dunking their head in a vat of lye. Now I really don't want to give the impression that this is the only way to look at it. I've played characters who used poison; my personal opinion is that poison use is "neutral". I just looked at the thread and saw a lot of argument on one side of the coin and so decided to argue the other side. I actually agree with you, Sereno... I just don't think you and I have the only valid opinion... maybe the only correct opinion or logical or reasonable opinion, but not "valid". |
| Sereno02-06-07, 02:01 PM | Poison can be seen as a form of "cheating." Sure, paladins try to kill, they hit things with swords, but it's not that you fight and kill but how you fight and kill... using poison makes you as bad as the evil you're fighting. But, isn't it really "cheating" to attack someone that you think you can kill? After all, most PCs attack their foes because they think they'll win, not because they have no choice. Isn't being "better" every bit as much "cheating" as using poison? Or, having a better weapon? Or, a magic weapon? Or, spells? Poison is unnecessarily cruel. There's a difference between doing permanent damage by stabbing someone through the heart with a sword and stabbing someone through the heart with a poo-covered spoon, between killing someone with a fireball and killing someone by dunking their head in a vat of lye. I haven't read the DnD rules for "poo-covered spoon" and "vat of lye" as useful in-game poisons. What makes the use of poison so "unnecessarily cruel"? Using any of the disabling poisons (non-Con damage ones) could be likened to tranquilizing the enemy ... there's no need for it to be an agonizing experience. And, you're sparing their life ... that's got to be good, right? |
| johnkretzer02-06-07, 02:53 PM | Also the Poison spell (which Clerics of the same faith as the paladin can cast) is not evil... |
| johnkretzer02-06-07, 03:00 PM | I said people, as in higher intelligence beings. Killing things such as animals and insects isn't Inherently evil. It is evil if you kill them out of pure enjoyment. And yes, I do think that people who hunt just for sport are committing evil. Please leave you personal opions on RL issues at the door.... I could answear that by saying by letting the deer population grow too large so that they start starving to death is a worst form of evil. But the morality of hunting isn't a issue here. So pretty much what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what weapon you are using to do it.. It all comes down to intent? If that is the case then I agree though using poison to defeat neutral or good being that you come into conflict with isn't neccessarily evil either. Though then again there is sometimes deadly conflict alone the axis Chaotic and Lawful in my games. It wouldn't be that hard for LG to set up a tyrantical state for all the right reasons. |
| bonethug010802-06-07, 07:06 PM | Please leave you personal opions on RL issues at the door.... I could answear that by saying by letting the deer population grow too large so that they start starving to death is a worst form of evil. But the morality of hunting isn't a issue here. So pretty much what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what weapon you are using to do it.. It all comes down to intent? If that is the case then I agree though using poison to defeat neutral or good being that you come into conflict with isn't neccessarily evil either. Though then again there is sometimes deadly conflict alone the axis Chaotic and Lawful in my games. It wouldn't be that hard for LG to set up a tyrantical state for all the right reasons. I put that last part in just in case someone wanted to question that aspect of my answer. I didn't put it in because I felt like it. And no, letting deer starve is called nature. Nature has a way of balancing things out itself. It is us humans that mess everything up. And who said I haven't hunted for sport(which I have). Don't assume that I'm some goodie two-shoe moral high ground person. I can be just as evil as the next guy, and believe me I have been. All alignment issues have to do with the intent of your actions. You can kill somebody and it could be good, neutral, or evil. I'll give one example of each. Good: To protect someone else in some sort of way, if it is the best course of action. Neutral: To protect yourself from someone, whether it is the best choice or not. Evil: The kill someone just for the sake of doing it. Look up the alignments in the phb, and it all becomes clear. I never use real world good and evil when we are supposed to be relating our ideas to d&d. No if you want my real world view, it is very much different than the phb definitions. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-06-07, 09:33 PM | BlueBlazer: You'll forgive me, I'm reading your arguements in reverse order, so these will be out of order with your posts. Just a note-The only poison which does permanent damage (that I can remember) are Burnt Othur Fumes, and those are Con damage. Also, unless I missed something while scanning the PHB, an amputated limb (through battle or medicine) is actually harder to get back than otherwise permanent ability damage, such as that done via poison. I would also like to note that if you live in a cold climate, then Frostburn damage is permanent until you get to a sufficiently warm zone, wherein it turns to normal damage. However, none of the MANY spells that do Frostburn damage have the [Evil] descriptor. Also, if you make the poisons yourself, spend the time and resources to make them, then use them in battle, and win because of them, is that not victory of your own prowess in the identification and synthesizing of inert chemicals found in the natural/unnatural world and through that create a substance to assist you in battle, much the same as if you forged your own sword/axe/hammer or as if you had crafted your own bow? Technically, by what you would be proposing in the assumed arguement, then the only way to win by your own prowess would be unarmed combat. About your first post-Yes, it is a paladin's duty to smite evil. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the paladin to smite a Chaotic GOOD person just because they do something the paladin wouldn't do themselves. Also, Poison is not Evil IS the crux of my arguement. Also, I am going to offer to stay away from Con poison AMAEP. Also, most (if not all) of the spells that kill via damage AND have the [Evil] descriptor kill using Negative Energy damage. So, just like all Positive Energy spells have the [Good] descriptor, their opposite has the [Evil] descriptor. Also, I apologize for all the also's. :P P.S.-Why are you a Devil's Advocate? Last time I checked Devils were LE, not LG. :devil: I would think you would be an Archon's Advocate. :angel: |
| Salla02-06-07, 11:53 PM | In my current campaign, I am playing as a Chaotic Good Ranger alongside a Sorceror and a Paladin. We seem to have come to one small problem, considering my ranks in Craft(Poisonmaking): Is the use of poisons an inherently evil act? The person playing the Paladin is adamant that it is a yes, and, if I continue, he will be forced to (attempt to) kill me. I vote no, seeing nothing inherently evil in making a weapon more deadly. However, what do these forums think? Secondly:As a secondary arguement against it, the person playing the Paladin said that even if it wasn't evil, it would be against the law, and he would have to (once again, attempt to) kill me as his pledge to uphold the law. I balk at this arguement, stating that Paladins uphold their good alignment before their lawful disposition, even though he clams it should be 50-50. But I digress, what do you think? Absolutely nothing in the PHB Sections on alignment, nor the DMG section on poisons, says that the use of poisons is evil. The purpose to which you may put said poison can be an act of any alignment, however. I would view it as perfectly acceptable to use a nonlethal poison (anything but CON damage) to weaken a target for capture, for example, even by a Paladin. A paladin can't perform a chaotic act, but I'd argue that observing a chaotic act in progress constitutes a chaotic act. The paladin isn't actually DOING anything. Were I the DM, the Paladin would be in the wrong and you'd be in the right. But ... I'm not the DM. |
| johnkretzer02-07-07, 12:44 AM | I put that last part in just in case someone wanted to question that aspect of my answer. I didn't put it in because I felt like it. And no, letting deer starve is called nature. Nature has a way of balancing things out itself. It is us humans that mess everything up. And who said I haven't hunted for sport(which I have). Don't assume that I'm some goodie two-shoe moral high ground person. I can be just as evil as the next guy, and believe me I have been. All alignment issues have to do with the intent of your actions. You can kill somebody and it could be good, neutral, or evil. I'll give one example of each. Good: To protect someone else in some sort of way, if it is the best course of action. Neutral: To protect yourself from someone, whether it is the best choice or not. Evil: The kill someone just for the sake of doing it. Look up the alignments in the phb, and it all becomes clear. I never use real world good and evil when we are supposed to be relating our ideas to d&d. No if you want my real world view, it is very much different than the phb definitions. Ok won't get into a hunting or your own morale philosphy in RL. Well not on this thread atleast. But is it possible for a CG character to come into conflict with a LG to the point where they come to trying to kill each other? Yes it could happen. The question is you put a distinction on if the victem's alignment if it is a evil act or not. Now if a LG character believes in killing CG character will save protect lives(from themselves) and CG character believes by killing character because he will protect people's freedom. Why would it be evil to use poisons? |
| Andrew_98002-07-07, 12:44 AM | [QUOTE][Poison is unnecessarily cruel. There's a difference between doing permanent damage by stabbing someone through the heart with a sword and stabbing someone through the heart with a poo-covered spoon, between killing someone with a fireball and killing someone by dunking their head in a vat of lye/QUOTE]The problem is that neither of them are poison. Poison is often NOT painfull at all, unlike blades, fire and acid. |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 07:40 AM | Ok won't get into a hunting or your own morale philosphy in RL. Well not on this thread atleast. But is it possible for a CG character to come into conflict with a LG to the point where they come to trying to kill each other? Yes it could happen. The question is you put a distinction on if the victem's alignment if it is a evil act or not. Now if a LG character believes in killing CG character will save protect lives(from themselves) and CG character believes by killing character because he will protect people's freedom. Why would it be evil to use poisons? I never said it would be evil to use poisons. I stated many cases in the opposite. And if a character is truly a good character, the wouldn't try harming innocent lives, as the description in the phb clearly states that they have a respect for life. As for neutral characters, there are situations in which it would be acceptable for a good character to kill them and have it not be an evil thing. Earlier I was thinking more in general that neutrals normally wouldn't kill goods or other neutrals. But there are situations that would arise where that could be considered a good or evil act in itself. |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 07:50 AM | I see everyone starting to mention "every poison but Con" alot. Con poison isn't any different than dex poison except in which way it works. So you are saying it is okay to make someone retarded with INT poison, but not okay to kill someone with Con poison. That fact is it is the purpose to which you put the poison to use. If you are using that poison to kill a person(normally evil) that would hurt good or neutral people, than it is a good act. It isn't any different than using a sword to accomplish the same feat. Would you say that people using swords instead of poison in the same scenario are evil? I wouldn't think so. And it doesn't matter how you implement it's use. Implementation because an issue of law/choas. Pretty much any use of poison is chaotic, as I imagine poison is illegal in most places. But it depends on the campign and the specific place. If they don't outlaw poison, there are certain situations it would be considered something else. |
| Sereno02-07-07, 11:20 AM | I see everyone starting to mention "every poison but Con" alot. Con poison isn't any different than dex poison except in which way it works. So you are saying it is okay to make someone retarded with INT poison, but not okay to kill someone with Con poison. I can't speak for the other pro-poison posters, but the reason *I* left Con-damage poison out of my arguments is specifically because I was refuting the "causes suffering" angle. I think it's the one type of poison for which you can make a case for actually causing pain ... hits to Con are directly at the "health" of the individual and I can certainly imagine them being painful (though, I doubt it's any more painful than being stabbed, chopped, pierced, burned or melted). . All of the other poisons render you immobile in some fashion which sounds a lot like tranquilizers to me ... far less likely to be painful. But, my complete argument is that poisons are nothing other than a weapon ... and, like any weapon, they can be put to good or evil uses. They are no more good or evil, on their own, than a sword. Even a holy sword can still be thrust through the heart of a lawful good peasant farmer. The sword isn't evil, the killing of an innocent farmer is. |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 11:28 AM | See, you have a good angle on this problem too. The only case for not using poison in front of a paladin is that it may be unlawful and thus offend him. You used very good examples, as have I and others, and it confuses me when people still try to argue to the contrary. It's fact, the rules, finito. If the dm wants to use different rules, that's a whole other case. |
| Sereno02-07-07, 12:11 PM | See, you have a good angle on this problem too. The only case for not using poison in front of a paladin is that it may be unlawful and thus offend him. Even IF it's unlawful, a paladin doesn't have the right to execute a team-mate for doing something unlawful. Of, if the paladin DOES have that right, it's not any gaming world *I'd* want to play in. Heck, in cases where there is a legitimate lawful authority in place, a paladin might not even have right to execute a *wanted criminal* just because they've committed a crime in his presence! |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 12:14 PM | Even IF it's unlawful, a paladin doesn't have the right to execute a team-mate for doing something unlawful. Of, if the paladin DOES have that right, it's not any gaming world *I'd* want to play in. Heck, in cases where there is a legitimate lawful authority in place, a paladin might not even have right to execute a *wanted criminal* just because they've committed a crime in his presence! I didn't mean the paladin could kill him. But by paladin code he would not be allowed to associate with him, otherwise he would become an ex-paladin. |
| BlueBlazer02-07-07, 12:15 PM | Okay, this is my absolutely last post on this topic... after this I'm dropping the case and telling the Paladin to find another lawyer... By "poison is cheating" I mean Not Sporting, not based on the kinds of ideals one associates with fair play and paladins. Not that poison or its use is by its nature chaotic... just that it's not necessarily compatible with the Paladin's Code. Or at least the Code of some paladins. By "poison is cruel", I'm obviously using different poisons in my games than you are... some of my splatbooks have poisons in them that are quite nasty. Given, the bog-standard DMG poisons aren't really too bad. And as for poison v. lopping off an arm, I'd say a) paladins shouldn't be lopping off arms either, and b) how is a paladin lopping off arms anyway without 3.0 called shot? Are you using sunder rules on limbs? Anyway, you can argue that killing with poison isn't any different than killing with a sword. You can also argue that killing with assassin Death Strike is the same... but for whatever reason the assassin (and, one assumes, the Death Strike, as that's kinda the point of assassins) is "evil". The point is not necessarily pain. The point is, for whatever reason, settling things with swords is not displeasing to the Goodly Gods... but I don't think it's ridiculous for a paladin (maybe not all paladins, but some) to find poison use Not Cricket... mostly because it's underhanded (lawful means you likey the law and order, not just that you don't jaywalk) and partially because they can be debilitating (and nasty if you have certain books). Aside from all my examples and diarrhea-of-the-keyboard, the main crux of my arguments is (or at least should be) that : this specific paladin finds poison use questionable, and in the interests of considering the needs of all party members it may be reasonable for the poison user to restrict him/herself to certain poisons (as many poisons should be just fine for even the most upstanding of paladins). Not that all paladins have to think this way, or that this is the "right" way of looking at it... just that THIS paladin can reasonably look at it this way and compromise might be appropriate. That's it, I'm resting my case. Stupid pro bono paladin defense... |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 12:23 PM | Your assassin arguement is flawed. The assassin is evil because he kills to kill. That does not by any means make his specific methods evil. As I have stated numerous times, it's not how you execute your plan, it is the intentions of it. Are you intending to do evil with the poison? Then the act would be evil. But the poison use itself is not evil. If you use poison to render someone unconscious to make it look like they are dead because they are under threat of death, is that evil? This would be a good use of poison. They poison itself is still not good or evil. And you don't have to have called shots for a weapon to cause pain. Hp damage itself causes pain. If someone hit you with a sword, would you not be in pain? Ridiculous.:rolleyes: |
| Sereno02-07-07, 12:27 PM | I didn't mean the paladin could kill him. But by paladin code he would not be allowed to associate with him, otherwise he would become an ex-paladin. It really comes down to the paladin's code ... the one in the book isn't very specific. Paladins are allowed to associate with the unlawful, just not Evil. Also, it IS up to every player to decide how his paladin approaches Law and Good ... but taking an unnecessarily adversarial stance against another player's character (especially when NOT backed up by any rule, or even half-convincing argument) is being a Problem Player, IMO. It's hardly different then playing the psychotic CN/CE in a mostly good or neutral party. Or, bringing an undead PC into a party with an established Cleric of Pelor. |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 12:34 PM | Yes, they are allowed to associate with the unlawful. But if that person consistently offends his code, than the paladin would have to break ties with him. So you're right, if poison use is not in that paladin's code, than he wouldn't be offended by it. |
| IceFractal02-07-07, 03:21 PM | My theory is that poison being considered evil is a holdover from feudal attitudes - the same as crossbows in medieval Europe or guns in feudal Japan. You've got a system where a major unit of military force is the knight equivalent, in which a lot of training and equipment is invested, requiring significant resources, thus enforcing the stability of the system. Then you've got stuff like poison, where you can just give it to some barely trained drafted peasant, and he's got a decent chance of taking out a knight. That kind of thing is a threat to stability, and so it must be bad, right? Or at the very least dishonorable, because what the hell's the point of being an elite knight if some yahoo with a poisoned spear can take you down? And then we have Paladins, which are, it's safe to say, influenced by the knight concept, so it's not surprising they're against poison. And because Paladins are the paradigm of good, things they don't like must be evil. And thus, poison is evil. The problem with this is that it bears really no resemblance to the situation in D&D, where magic, monsters, divine intercession and so forth already changes the societal situation completely. So to make a long story short, poison is neutral, and that's all there is to it. :P |
| Maekrix_Waere02-07-07, 07:33 PM | Yes, they are allowed to associate with the unlawful. But if that person consistently offends his code, than the paladin would have to break ties with him. So you're right, if poison use is not in that paladin's code, than he wouldn't be offended by it. I have to say, bone, that so far, I have yet to actually use any poisons in battle, though I did sell about 10 doses of Drow Poison to a local Thieves' Guild. Frankly, if thieves are allowed to have guilds...then I'm pretty sure trading in poisons wouldn't be illegal (in that city) either. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-07-07, 07:48 PM | Okay, this is my absolutely last post on this topic... after this I'm dropping the case and telling the Paladin to find another lawyer... By "poison is cheating" I mean Not Sporting, not based on the kinds of ideals one associates with fair play and paladins. Not that poison or its use is by its nature chaotic... just that it's not necessarily compatible with the Paladin's Code. Or at least the Code of some paladins. Of course, if we are choosing things that are not sporting, then shall we look at the following as offending paladins: Whips, Spiked Chains, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip, Improved Feint, Spring Attack, and Sneak Attack. All of these assist you "unfairly" in combat by making it so your foe either has no weapon to use against you, making it so your opponent cannot stand up, using deciet in combat to gain an advantage, making your opponent have to pursue you to fight you, and making you better for using any of the previous tactics. However, I sincerely doubt any paladin has ever told the party rogue to either not use their sneak attack ability or die. And I don't see paladins going around and confiscating all the whips and spiked chains in town for the sake of honour. I'm also fairly confident that paladins will not order their allies to not use any of those feats I listed (amongst others) or be in deep trouble. Also, I never heard of a Paladin losing his powers because the party rogue continually Sneak Attacked. Good arguement though. Note: For other examples of things that could fit into this category, please see the Spell Compendium, Frostburn, any of the Races of...., The Complete Adventurer, The Complete Scoundrel, The Complete Warrior, The Complete Arcane, The Complete Mage, Unearthed Arcana, the PHB, the DMG, any of the Monster Manuals, etc. By "poison is cruel", I'm obviously using different poisons in my games than you are... some of my splatbooks have poisons in them that are quite nasty. Given, the bog-standard DMG poisons aren't really too bad. And as for poison v. lopping off an arm, I'd say a) paladins shouldn't be lopping off arms either, and b) how is a paladin lopping off arms anyway without 3.0 called shot? Are you using sunder rules on limbs? Anyway, you can argue that killing with poison isn't any different than killing with a sword. You can also argue that killing with assassin Death Strike is the same... but for whatever reason the assassin (and, one assumes, the Death Strike, as that's kinda the point of assassins) is "evil". The point is not necessarily pain. The point is, for whatever reason, settling things with swords is not displeasing to the Goodly Gods... but I don't think it's ridiculous for a paladin (maybe not all paladins, but some) to find poison use Not Cricket... mostly because it's underhanded (lawful means you likey the law and order, not just that you don't jaywalk) and partially because they can be debilitating (and nasty if you have certain books). When we look at poisons, we know for a FACT that any poison that does not do Con damage will not cause any amount of suffering. However, as anyone who has heard story of people being killed via poison in their food knows, most Con poisons merely make you either feel sick, as your immune system tries desperatly to repel the poison, or make you tired, as your body begins to sytematically shut down. If poisons cause you to suffer, then more likely then not it is because they were specifically designed to do so in addition to their other effects. However, my character, being good, would never do such a thing. Aside from all my examples and diarrhea-of-the-keyboard, the main crux of my arguments is (or at least should be) that : this specific paladin finds poison use questionable, and in the interests of considering the needs of all party members it may be reasonable for the poison user to restrict him/herself to certain poisons (as many poisons should be just fine for even the most upstanding of paladins). Not that all paladins have to think this way, or that this is the "right" way of looking at it... just that THIS paladin can reasonably look at it this way and compromise might be appropriate. That's it, I'm resting my case. Stupid pro bono paladin defense... I agree, and I will be offering to restrict what poisons are used (if I ever get around to using any at all). However, I only do this to shorten this little problem, not because I actually see merit to the arguement. |
| bonethug010802-07-07, 09:43 PM | I have to say, bone, that so far, I have yet to actually use any poisons in battle, though I did sell about 10 doses of Drow Poison to a local Thieves' Guild. Frankly, if thieves are allowed to have guilds...then I'm pretty sure trading in poisons wouldn't be illegal (in that city) either. Well, yeah. I've said before that poison use isn't necessarily unlawful. I depends on the laws of the land. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-08-07, 12:13 AM | :bump: |
| johnkretzer02-08-07, 04:29 AM | I have to say, bone, that so far, I have yet to actually use any poisons in battle, though I did sell about 10 doses of Drow Poison to a local Thieves' Guild. Frankly, if thieves are allowed to have guilds...then I'm pretty sure trading in poisons wouldn't be illegal (in that city) either. Um...most Thieves 'guilds' aren't openly allowed. The word guild doesn't mean a organization supported by the goverment. |
| ZypherX02-08-07, 12:26 PM | I always liked the idea of sanctioned Thieves' Guilds personally. Keeps the crime nice and orderly, ya know. :D Onto the topic at hand. There is nothing good or evil about poison use itself. Poison is a tool, and while Mr. Paladin might have problems with it, that's hardly justifcation for going smite happy. At most, he should frown on your poison use and keep an eye on your source for the poisons, since according to the DMG, the buying and selling of poisons is often illegal. However, he also needs to stop being stupid. I mean, you're a ranger. One with the wild and all. It's foolish to think that you wouldn't capitalize on one of nature's basic defense/attack mechanisms. |
| Salla02-08-07, 01:11 PM | Even IF it's unlawful, a paladin doesn't have the right to execute a team-mate for doing something unlawful. Of, if the paladin DOES have that right, it's not any gaming world *I'd* want to play in. Heck, in cases where there is a legitimate lawful authority in place, a paladin might not even have right to execute a *wanted criminal* just because they've committed a crime in his presence! A paladin can't perform a chaotic/unlawful action, however, he is not actually required to prevent such in other people. A paladin can sit back and WATCH chaotic/unlawful things occur, just not evil things. As far as 'smite makes right' goes, no. There are degrees of evil. The punishment must fit the crime. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-08-07, 08:12 PM | Um...most Thieves 'guilds' aren't openly allowed. The word guild doesn't mean a organization supported by the goverment. I'm sure that if it WASN'T a government sanctioned/accepted Thieves' Guild, then a Gather Information check would have been required to find it. However, since all I said was, "I go to the local Thieves' Guild," and then, all of a sudden, there I was, I'm pretty sure it was at the very least accepted by the government. Also, governments should WANT Thieves' Guilds. Think of it this way: If someone was stealing things, then who better to contact then the local Thieves' Guild? Either you'll find the culprit right there, or, if he wasn't there, I'm sure the thieves there would help to authorities investigate. The Guild wouldn't want someone else encroaching on their "turf." And if you argue that even if the thief/theives were there, why would their guild give them up, I would say that the authorities SHOULD very easily be able to put every member under arrest and try the perpetrator(s) for Thievery and the rest of the guild with Obstruction of Justice. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-08-07, 10:50 PM | :bump: |
| Maekrix_Waere02-09-07, 06:57 PM | :bump: #2 |
| Stormbrand02-09-07, 07:48 PM | Okay, this is my absolutely last post on this topic... after this I'm dropping the case and telling the Paladin to find another lawyer... By "poison is cheating" I mean Not Sporting, not based on the kinds of ideals one associates with fair play and paladins. Not that poison or its use is by its nature chaotic... just that it's not necessarily compatible with the Paladin's Code. Or at least the Code of some paladins. By "poison is cruel", I'm obviously using different poisons in my games than you are... some of my splatbooks have poisons in them that are quite nasty. Given, the bog-standard DMG poisons aren't really too bad. And as for poison v. lopping off an arm, I'd say a) paladins shouldn't be lopping off arms either, and b) how is a paladin lopping off arms anyway without 3.0 called shot? Are you using sunder rules on limbs? Anyway, you can argue that killing with poison isn't any different than killing with a sword. You can also argue that killing with assassin Death Strike is the same... but for whatever reason the assassin (and, one assumes, the Death Strike, as that's kinda the point of assassins) is "evil". The point is not necessarily pain. The point is, for whatever reason, settling things with swords is not displeasing to the Goodly Gods... Gods do not define morality, so "good gods don't like it" is built on a premise already known to be false. Assassin abilities are not evil, they however, lean heavily towards killing by surprise. For surprise the general state of affairs is that the target is unaware of the attacker and therefore poses no threat to him. So an assassin specialises in killing under circumstances difficult to justify. My theory is that poison being considered evil is a holdover from feudal attitudes - the same as crossbows in medieval Europe or guns in feudal Japan. You've got a system where a major unit of military force is the knight equivalent, in which a lot of training and equipment is invested, requiring significant resources, thus enforcing the stability of the system. Then you've got stuff like poison, where you can just give it to some barely trained drafted peasant, and he's got a decent chance of taking out a knight. That kind of thing is a threat to stability, and so it must be bad, right? Or at the very least dishonorable, because what the hell's the point of being an elite knight if some yahoo with a poisoned spear can take you down? And then we have Paladins, which are, it's safe to say, influenced by the knight concept, so it's not surprising they're against poison. And because Paladins are the paradigm of good, things they don't like must be evil. And thus, poison is evil. That theory is true. In short, it was a class of people who thought they were the best, so everything which worked against them was unfair. Knights and Samurai seldom complained that they were fighting foes who lacked the same quality armour, or were without full katanas, or about being mounted against foot troops. Historically, pride was confused with honour. Edit:Guess I should expand this out. He says that it sounds like something a neutral person would do, and if he were playing a good aligned character he wouldn't do it because good-aligned charcters would not cause undue suffering on others. However, as common sence tells us, arrows and swords cause more suffering then Con. poison that is in your system for 12-60 seconds. Actually, the RULES for poison only include ability damage for 12-60 seconds. The poison remains in the system for longer and presumably has some sort of unpleasant effects as well. He seriously believes that core rules state that Paladins cannot use ranged weapons because it is dishonourable to detatch yourself from your opponent in combat. I tried to :teach: him he's wrong, because, in the Elf Paladin racial substitution levels (from Races of the Wild), Elf Paladins get a ranged smite evil, and why would WoTC give them a class skill that they are not allowed to use due to restrictions placed upon them by the same class that gives them the ability. However, he said that's because elves are p---ies who are afraid to fight in CQC. Makes no sense to me, cause my melee damage is 1d10+6 with a 18-20/x2 crit. range, whereas my bow is 1d10+3 with a x3 crit. First of all, what makes killing someone up-close more honourable than detatching oneself from an opponent? What does being detatched from your foe have to do with honour? His answer was sheer childish bigotry, thus rendering all his opinions worthless. The problem is really that the player is arrogant and willing to start trouble by throwing his weight around and deciding what the party can and cannot do. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-10-07, 12:41 PM | a) :bump: b) Actually, the RULES for poison only include ability damage for 12-60 seconds. The poison remains in the system for longer and presumably has some sort of unpleasant effects as well. Yes, but because the effects manifest themselves in the first 60 seconds, the most intense pain, if any is felt at all, would be felt during that time period. Also, I was making that statement based off of the fact that the usual life expectancy of an enemy is about 2-4 rounds after they meet us. I chose to extended the arguement up to 10 rounds for large enemies, such as Dragons/Giants/etc. |
| Stormbrand02-10-07, 02:19 PM | Also, I was making that statement based off of the fact that the usual life expectancy of an enemy is about 2-4 rounds after they meet us. Excellent point! :clap: Anyway, I think your problem is not the paladin code but the arrogance of the other player. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-10-07, 10:35 PM | :bump: |
| High Octane02-11-07, 10:59 PM | The "Only con damaging ones" arguement is really more since they are the only poison that will actually kill someone. Poison damage wears off (normally, only a few cause permanent drain), but if the person is dead, that effect doesnt wear off. |
| The_Undertaker02-12-07, 12:14 AM | fact is posionmaking isnt actually evil or good it just is. you could argue your using it to fight evil. Also some towns its openly known that posion is used and for sale. ex: forgotten realms, waterdeep uses posion in its defenses and sells certain ones to the public. |
| Maekrix_Waere02-12-07, 09:27 PM | :dragon::bump: |
| Maekrix_Waere02-13-07, 08:17 PM | :dragon::bump: #2 |
| Maekrix_Waere02-14-07, 07:09 PM | a) Final :dragon::bump: b)The DM read a bit of the thread. He told me that he thought that he was not qualified to make the decision on the alignment of poison, BUT that if the Paladin acted in any way un-paladiny, he will lose all his powers, but not be told so, he will merely fail when he tries to use any of the abilites he would (*cough*will*cough*) lose. Perhaps the saddest part of all though-the paladin (somewhat jokingly) said that if he did lose all his powers, then he would change classes and become an anti-paladin (the fun name for blackguards). c)I am now taking a poll that, if the DM has decided not to make a decision is it right to use what these forums have said as final justification to continue on as I have previously been. |
| zzakk2to202-14-07, 07:58 PM | I would have the paladin show you where it says in any of the core rule books that poison is evil. Also if your guy gets killed at sometime in this game and the guy is still a paladin make a paladin that specializes in ranged and uses poison just to tweak his nose. |
| Sereno02-15-07, 04:36 PM | He told me that he thought that he was not qualified to make the decision on the alignment of poison... What? He's the DM! Technically, that makes him the ONLY person 'qualified' to make that decision! All he really needs to do is this, "*Using* poison isn't evil, Mr. Paladin. It might be against your CoC, but that only means that YOU may not use it, not that you have the right to kill anyone who does." Simple. Direct. Done! |