Post/Author/DateTime	Post
vader_rocks 02-20-07, 07:56 PM	Check this out: Dan O'Reilly Swashbuckler 4 Chaotic Neutral Mariner Background (High Ranks in Climb, Swim, Use Rope, etc.) Dan, like a lot of sailors, is a very superstitious man. He believes heavily in luck, thinks that it is a very bad thing to go messing with someone's grave (no matter who is laid in it), and generally thinks that dealing with the dead and undead is a very bad thing, and it scares him. My character is constantly being insulted, ridiculed and basically being made fun of. It's really annoying, to be completely honest. I have the background of a ship captain, so I tend to have tactical discussions with the self-appointed leader of our group. (Dragon Shaman 4) The other characters in the group automatically dismiss whatever idea I come up with, and go with the Dragon Shaman's idea. They call my ideas "stupid," and "dumb." I'm called a "scaredy-cat" for staying as far away from tombs and graveyards as possible, and offering to "guard the entrance" while the rest of the party goes inside. Most of my decisions are railroaded by the rest of the party, and Dan is about fed up. So here's my idea... Dan wants to get his hands on some really nasty poison, and the next time that the party treats him like crap, he wants to slip some into their food. (Dan does all the fishing in the party, so he can inject some into the filets.) Now, the poison won't actually kill them, but just make them incredibly sick. That way he can stand over them as they are bent over vomiting and say something to the effect of: "I poisoned you all. Now, I have the antidote for this poison, but in order to get it, you all have to promise to treat me with a little bit more respect." Would this be considered an evil act? I mean, it's not nice, but is it evil?
Prator_the_Legendary 02-20-07, 08:03 PM	Hmmm... This definitely verges on evil. If it was constitution poison, I'd say "Evil, no question." Abusing someone and trying to intimidate them into respecting you is never good, and it's frowned on by nuetral people, no matter how justified YOU might feel in your actions.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 08:23 PM	Poison itself, no matter what kind, is not not not evil. There was a thread on this a few weeks ago. I'll look for it. How you use it, on the other hand, is what determines whether its use is good, neutral, or evil. Whether you use sword, spell, or poison to kill, your still killing. What you are using it for is evil. You're intending to hurt them on purpose. You don't need to kill to be evil, hurting and oppressing works just the same. But that said, your character could still do it, as it is your character and you decide what he does.
taski 02-20-07, 08:56 PM	A poison that just makes them nauseous? Mean, chaotic, slightly evil. I wouldn't personally call it evil enough to make you fall from neutrality.. this time. If you keep pulling stuff like that though, I'd expect the group to turn on you, whether or not you become evil.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 08:58 PM	If you keep pulling stuff like that though, I'd expect the group to turn on you, whether or not you become evil. Yeah, it would definitely make the problem worse, not better.
Zoycitenega 02-20-07, 09:16 PM	I'd call not evil on this, especially if you've got an important quest that the PCs are ignoring.
Willie the Duck 02-20-07, 09:18 PM	Frankly, that's pretty far into the field of evil. Think about it in the real world instead of the game? Threatening (actually extorting) someone? Poisoning them? Yeah. Evil. I thought this thread was going to be a, "If I'm going to shoot the owlbear with an arrow to try to kill it, why is poisoning the arrow first to kill it better make it an evil act?" Type question we all had back in first edition. Better way of handling it? Talk to DM, make clear the group is out of control and you're going to hold him responsible. Maybe even suggest a solution: next time the players rob a tomb, have captain sail off without them. Then have next hour or more have the DM focus on the captain, letting them just sit, since they broke up the party. Eventually they'll have to find their way back to civilization (without food). Along the way, they'll have to endure questions about what they were doing out by the tombs, why they're covered in gore, why they have the amulet my great grandfather was buried with, and a bunch of other things that remind them that wading into tombs is supposed to be a creepy persons career and their cavalier attitude is bad roleplaying.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 09:20 PM	I'd call not evil on this, especially if you've got an important quest that the PCs are ignoring. So, it's not evil because they are ignoring a quest, or for other reasons too?:confused: Because that makes no sense. In the alignments section, evil is intentionally cuasing harm, killing, or oppressing. In this case, he is intentionally causing harm, evil.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 09:21 PM	Think about it in the real world instead of the game. Never do that. Real world doesn't apply in d&d. Though in d&d terms, it would be evil.
Zoycitenega 02-20-07, 09:32 PM	So, it's not evil because they are ignoring a quest, or for other reasons too?:confused: Because that makes no sense. In the alignments section, evil is intentionally cuasing harm, killing, or oppressing. In this case, he is intentionally causing harm, evil. If they are ignoring a quest that will save lives, it balances. The poison isn't deadly, and it isn't going to last forever.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 09:39 PM	If they are ignoring a quest that will save lives, it balances. The poison isn't deadly, and it isn't going to last forever. One has nothing to do with the other. They may be "not good" for going on the quest, but that doesn't make the act "not evil". He is still intentionally causing harm to people for self gain, which is defined as evil in the phb. One doesn't balance the other.:nonono:
robertliguori 02-20-07, 09:43 PM	A: No poison. Engaging in aggression, passive or no, against your party, is never a winning move. B: There is superstitious, yes, and then there is crankery. In D&D, both unnatural luck and the influence of death and the dead can both be fairly trivially detected. Your character is the D&D equivalent of, say, someone who refuses to be near microwaves because they are deathly afraid that they'll get cancer. Now, keep in mind that this is assuming the standard D&D-universe rules. In the standard D&D-universe, a pass by the party arcanist and the party paladin will determine (barring a few creative effects with Nondetection or Magic Aura) whether or not something is magical and/or malign. Beliving otherwise with no evidence to back you up when this is an established and testable body of knowledge is, to say the least, rather silly. Now, lots of players and DMs both don't like this. Magic, many feel, should be magical. A wizard with Int-boosting items and skill focus (spellcraft) should not necessarily understand every nuance of an aspect of raw, unchanneled potentiality within 1 minute of starting to play with it. Magic should be strange and mysterious and eldritch, and even those who seek to master it should be reminded that there is more on the Outer Planes and the Prime than is covered in their knowledge checks. I'd talk to your DM, and see if he feels the same way. If so, turn the tables; throw something at them that they fear. Here's an idea: in the next tomb/dungeon crawl, have the party ambushed by incorporeal undead (a pair of shadows would work nicely). Have your character come up with a superstition (possibly inspired by something specific to this tomb; making sure to wear the colors of the family whose tomb it is, say). Now, the shadows see the party, and what they will notice is that of the available party members, you are the least likely to whip out turning, magical fire (assuming a lack of Bo9S here), or other things that the corporeally-challenged hate. What the party will see is that the shadows will hop among the party, touching everyone but you and causing (hopefully) lots of annoying attribute damage. You will of course attribute this to your choice of clothing for the incursion; the party is welcome to come to their own conclusion. Now, if your DM is also annoyed by you jumping at shadows that aren't strength-draining and just wants the rules-as-written to apply, then you should recognize that your supersticion is not grounded in D&D-reality, and stick with the party on their tomb-robbing.
3DJutsu 02-20-07, 09:47 PM	Using poison is not, in itself, an evil act. HOW you use the poison is another matter entirely An example from the D&D FAQ: Can a good-aligned ninja use poison without violating her alignment? In other words, is using poison considered an evil act? Nothing in the alignment information in the Player’s Handbook or the poison entry in the Dungeon Master’s Guide specifically describes the use of poison as an evil act. Of course, the purpose to which you put the poison might well be an evil act: Using poison to murder the local constable is just as evil as knifing him in a back alley. It’s possible that using poison might violate a character’s personal moral code, or the moral code of his faith or cause. For example, if local laws restrict the use of poison, its use would be considered an unlawful act, which would violate a paladin’s code (which includes “respect [for] legitimate authority”). The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn’t legal in his campaign. Remember, a character’s alignment isn’t a set of rules to follow—it’s a player’s declaration of an intent to play a character a certain way. Declaring your ninja is lawful good doesn’t mean she can’t act in a manner considered either unlawful or evil (or both). Repeated behavior of this sort can and should be construed as a decision on your part that your character’s actual alignment—that is, the way you’ve chosen to play the character—doesn’t match her stated alignment. In this case, the DM is fully within his rights to suggest or even impose an alignment change on your character. For most characters, this has minimal mechanical impact, although some classes impose alignment restrictions.
inspectr88 02-20-07, 09:55 PM	If you want good "poisons", check out the ravages in book of exalted deeds?
pres_man 02-20-07, 10:19 PM	Just buy some ex-lax and mix it in brownies and give it to the other players.
vader_rocks 02-20-07, 10:24 PM	Just buy some ex-lax and mix it in brownies and give it to the other players. That's kinda the thing I was thinking of. Nothing that would do permanent damage, just something that says "Hey, knock it off!" On the subject of my character's fear of the dead, it's a case of Necrophobia. It's a character quirk, and I'm playing it that way. Don't any of your characters ever have phobias?
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 10:27 PM	That's kinda the thing I was thinking of. Nothing that would do permanent damage, just something that says "Hey, knock it off!" On the subject of my character's fear of the dead, it's a case of Necrophobia. It's a character quirk, and I'm playing it that way. Don't any of your characters ever have phobias? Well, if it's something that isn't harmful and just embarrising instead, than it wouldn't be evil. It would be neutral. Maybe something that makes their hands turn into spoons or that makes their skin turn pink. That would not be evil.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-21-07, 02:54 AM	If you want good "poisons", check out the ravages in book of exalted deeds? Just for the record, by DnD's own standards, ravages are evil. Really, really evil.
TheChilliGod 02-21-07, 03:18 AM	Well, if it's something that isn't harmful and just embarrising instead, than it wouldn't be evil. It would be neutral. Maybe something that makes their hands turn into spoons or that makes their skin turn pink. That would not be evil.Mind you, I've never seen an official poison that's designed just to humiliate people instead of incapacitate them. Maybe illusion spells would be better for that sort of thing.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 09:35 AM	Mind you, I've never seen an official poison that's designed just to humiliate people instead of incapacitate them. Maybe illusion spells would be better for that sort of thing. Right, that's why I originally said it was evil. But if he found a substance, maybe not necessarily a poison because that's not what it sounds like he's looking for, that was just humiliating and not harmful, then it would be neutral. Either way, the other players will probably be mad.
Millennium 02-21-07, 09:55 AM	At least according to the BoED, most poisons are inherently evil to use, but not all of them are. They give the ironic example of the drow's favorite poison, often just called Drow Knockout Poison or DKP, as nonevil because it merely puts the target to sleep, as opposed to actually causing them suffering. Then again, this is the BoED we're talking about. In the same book they include ravages, which inflict some truly horrific things upon Evil creatures, but which the BoED calls nonevil simply because they only affect Evil. So maybe it's not the best authority on this sort of thing after all. As to your specific example, I'd call it an evil act. Think about it: you're inflicting pain on people in order to extort a particular response out of them. It's an unconventional form of torture, but it falls well inside the definition. The fact that you're using poison to inflict this pain doesn't really have all that much bearing on whether it's Evil or not: the same would be true if you were beating your victims with your fists. It's nonlethal damage, but it's painful all the same.
Lord_Tirian 02-21-07, 10:01 AM	As to your specific example, I'd call it an evil act. Think about it: you're inflicting pain on people in order to extort a particular response out of them. Ditto. Poison per se is no more evil than a sword, a fireball or a Crossbow. All are things created to destroy, damage and kill, yet the Paladin with his Holy Avenger isn't evil, because he uses his tools to destroy evil. However, Dan uses the poison to extort people, to force them to act in a certain way. Deliberately forcing people into a certain behaviour, robbing them (even if it's a mindgame) of their freedom is evil. Hence: Poison not evil, but used for doing evil.
Callista 02-21-07, 10:09 AM	Well, RAW, poison is evil; or anyway, most poisons are evil. However, a LOT of DMs house-rule it so that only some poisons or some methods are evil; and some are OK with poison in general. My own ideas--that CON poison is evil, but others aren't--are about average, I guess. So the point is: Whatever you do, OK it with your DM first. You don't want your character turned evil just because you had no idea your DM was so hard on poisons. Also, your fellow party members need to be allowed a Sense Motive to discern that you're bluffing about the poison being able to kill them. Question: Would your character be afraid of the possible ghosts which could follow him around if he managed to kill party members after all? Depending on how much he knows about poisons, he may be afraid of accidentally killing them. Oh, and a funny idea: You could describe the poison as the equivalent of Ex-Lax, for a comical effect :)
wrecan 02-21-07, 10:22 AM	Well, RAW, poison is evil; or anyway, most poisons are evil. Callista, please see the FAQ cited in post #13. By the rules, poison is not inherently evil. At all. But the purpose to which the poison is used might be. Putting out poisoned rat traps to end a rat infestation? Not evil. May even be good. Giving an insomniac a sleep poison so they can rest? Not evil. Almost definitely good. Putting a mild diaretic in someone's food as a prank? Not evil, probably chaotic. Poisoning your friends so you can extort a promise for them to treat you better? Evil. My own ideas--that CON poison is evil, but others aren't--are about average, I guess. Con poison is no more evil that a sword. It's just confusing since poison is one of the few things specifically mentioned as violating a paladin's code of conduct. Also, your fellow party members need to be allowed a Sense Motive to discern that you're bluffing about the poison being able to kill them. Heck, if you're bluffing, save your money and don't put poison in the food at all! Question: Would your character be afraid of the possible ghosts which could follow him around if he managed to kill party members after all? Ghosts?! If killing caused ghosts routinely, every PC of 5th level would be surrounded by so many ghosts, he'd be granted total concealment!
Mindolin 02-21-07, 10:36 AM	Just buy some ex-lax and mix it in brownies and give it to the other players. Am I the only one who is going to remark on the fact that they said PLAYERS, not characters? As was mentioned before, I would suggest talking to the DM about it and ask if you can call in a favor from a friendly wizard, and get a number of potions of Silent Image, and get the DM to describe it in as vivid detail as possible, and describe it as a bad Acid trip, or something like that. It's a magic potion, thus not evil, and very fun. Give them a warning: you gave them the good batch this time, do they want to try the rejects?
DoctorRomulus 02-21-07, 10:42 AM	Evil ? No. Stupid?? Yes ,sorry it just isn't the way to keep party cohesion. Check this out: Dan O'Reilly Swashbuckler 4 Chaotic Neutral Mariner Background (High Ranks in Climb, Swim, Use Rope, etc.) Dan, like a lot of sailors, is a very superstitious man. He believes heavily in luck, thinks that it is a very bad thing to go messing with someone's grave (no matter who is laid in it), and generally thinks that dealing with the dead and undead is a very bad thing, and it scares him. My character is constantly being insulted, ridiculed and basically being made fun of. It's really annoying, to be completely honest. I have the background of a ship captain, so I tend to have tactical discussions with the self-appointed leader of our group. (Dragon Shaman 4) The other characters in the group automatically dismiss whatever idea I come up with, and go with the Dragon Shaman's idea. They call my ideas "stupid," and "dumb." I'm called a "scaredy-cat" for staying as far away from tombs and graveyards as possible, and offering to "guard the entrance" while the rest of the party goes inside. Most of my decisions are railroaded by the rest of the party, and Dan is about fed up. So here's my idea... Dan wants to get his hands on some really nasty poison, and the next time that the party treats him like crap, he wants to slip some into their food. (Dan does all the fishing in the party, so he can inject some into the filets.) Now, the poison won't actually kill them, but just make them incredibly sick. That way he can stand over them as they are bent over vomiting and say something to the effect of: "I poisoned you all. Now, I have the antidote for this poison, but in order to get it, you all have to promise to treat me with a little bit more respect." Would this be considered an evil act? I mean, it's not nice, but is it evil?
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 10:53 AM	Well, RAW, poison is evil; or anyway, most poisons are evil. Only, and if only, you use the boed. That is not core, and few people use it. So by true core raw, it is not good, neutral, or evil.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 10:57 AM	Callista, please see the FAQ cited in post #13. By the rules, poison is not inherently evil. At all. But the purpose to which the poison is used might be. Giving an insomniac a sleep poison so they can rest? Not evil. Almost definitely good. Putting a mild diaretic in someone's food as a prank? Not evil, probably chaotic. Poisoning your friends so you can extort a promise for them to treat you better? Evil. Con poison is no more evil that a sword. It's just confusing since poison is one of the few things specifically mentioned as violating a paladin's code of conduct. Heck, if you're bluffing, save your money and don't put poison in the food at all! Wow, suprised I agree with you on so many points.:P ;) Especially about con poison. Definitley definitely not different than using any other means to kill. If killing with a sword is evil, well... No whether killing is ever good, I'm discussing that elsewhere.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 10:58 AM	Am I the only one who is going to remark on the fact that they said PLAYERS, not characters? Yup. Totally missed it. That is funny.:D
wrecan 02-21-07, 11:02 AM	Wow, suprised I agree with you on so many points.:P ;) There may be hope for you yet. :devil: No whether killing is ever good, I'm discussing that elsewhere. Well, yeah. I'm assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that killing is sometimes not evil.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 11:14 AM	There may be hope for you yet. :devil: Well, yeah. I'm assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that killing is sometimes not evil. Sometimes not evil, meaning neutral, but very few good reasons?:P And sorry before, it wasn't a personal thing, that really is how I post to everyone.(or at least those I disagree with)
vader_rocks 02-21-07, 11:32 AM	Either way, the other players will probably be mad. Oh, and I can't? They've been doing this crap since level 1! We even have a paladin in the party who gets in on it! Why aren't I allowed to exact a little revenge? Agree with me that they deserve it, at least.
wrecan 02-21-07, 11:43 AM	Vader, is this strictly an in-game issue? Usually, when one PC is getting ragged on by the others, it's an out-of-game issue. Particularly since you're playing a CN character with some peculiar role-play habits (the superstitions). That king of roleplaying quirk can grate on other players' nerves, which may be causeing them to react this way. Might I suggest talking to everyone out of game about how this behavior is irking you, and asking them if your character is annoying them too? It sounds like you're not really enjoying yourself.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 11:48 AM	Oh, and I can't? They've been doing this crap since level 1! We even have a paladin in the party who gets in on it! Why aren't I allowed to exact a little revenge? Agree with me that they deserve it, at least. I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying they will likely be upset. I never said you had no right to do it or that you shouldn't. I'm not the one that said it will mess up party cohesion, as it seems it is already messed up. What I did say is that it will probably make things worse. If you want to do it, do it. I would. If I were treated like that I would've done it long ago. But that doesn't change what it is in game terms. If you intentionally harm someone for enjoyment or some other selfish reason, it is defined as evil. Do it. I will applaud you. But I just wanted you to be aware of the after effects so you know what to expect. I would say for the sake of keeping things reasonable, though, you should probably use a potion with a humorous effect. That way maybe they can be embarrased, but see some humor and understand that they are wronging you all at the same time. But if you want them rolling around sick, that's all on you.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 11:50 AM	Vader, is this strictly an in-game issue? Usually, when one PC is getting ragged on by the others, it's an out-of-game issue. Particularly since you're playing a CN character with some peculiar role-play habits (the superstitions). That king of roleplaying quirk can grate on other players' nerves, which may be causeing them to react this way. Might I suggest talking to everyone out of game about how this behavior is irking you, and asking them if your character is annoying them too? It sounds like you're not really enjoying yourself. This is also another good option. Though I don't know your group, so I'm not sure exactly where everything falls. You should at least consider this, too.
Max the Immortal 02-21-07, 11:57 AM	The itself of lacing the party's food with an emetic, is, in my opinion, mildly evil if Dan gets enjoyment out of watching his companions puking their guts out. It's certainly nothing to cause an alignment shift, but it'll probably get Dan kicked out of the party. It appears that, accustomed to being obeyed by his crew, Dan is resorting to bullying tactics in order to obtain the obedience of his companions. This is petty and power-hungry. He is not being a team player, and I wouldn't want him on my team. What you need to do is scrap your poison plot, and get your DM to send the party on a few adventures in which Dan's superstitions don't hold him back. In fact, it sounds like he's overdue for a turn in the spotlight. I also suggest that Dan work to overcome his necrophobia. It's not unreasonable for a low-level character to be afraid of spirits, undead, or other sorts of supernatural creatures, but sooner or later he's gonna have to suck it up and get over it. A competent adventurer doesn't run away from danger, real or imagined, mundane or supernatural. As Dan gains levels and wealth, have him buy magical items that protect him from from the supernatural and help him better combat it. Ghosts aren't nearly as scary when you own a ghost touch, undead bane sword.
Boraxe 02-21-07, 11:59 AM	Poison use is not evil, it is chaotic. Poisoning your friends is another matter entirely. Essentially your are torturing them for your own personal gain. This is a CE act.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 12:03 PM	Poison use is not evil, it is chaotic. Poisoning your friends is another matter entirely. Essentially your are torturing them for your own personal gain. This is a CE act. It isn't even chaotic. If there is a law against it, the maybe so, but what is more chaotic with using a sword or poison or any other device that harms. How you use the poison determines whether it is good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral. Poison use itself on defaults to nonlawful if there is a law against it.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-21-07, 12:08 PM	Poison use is not evil, it is chaotic. No, it is sometimes illegal. Devils are avid fans of poison, for example. I agree, Vader. Poison those bastards. If they get p*ssed off, tell them about me: I'd buy three doses of Black Lotus Extract and kill all of their characters.
epifreak 02-21-07, 12:24 PM	Here's a variation on the ex-lax idea. Lace the food with some form of knockout poison. I'm pretty sure an ingested one is listed in the DMG. Now, while they're unconsious, drop them in some back alley in the city naked. Sail out past the edge of the bay so that when they eventually make their way to the docks, it appears you've sailed. They'd probably be so glad to see that you haven't run off with all their loot (hint: if you're trying to go evil....) that they won't freak out about the ploy too much. Anyway, that's a good way to ruin party unity. You're probably better off (as a character) leaving these *******s. I once had an ogre barbarian (I rolled phenominally well, so he had like a 6 intelligence rather than a 3). Anyway, one of the characters was being particularly belligerent, so he just turned around and walked off, leaving them in the middle of a dungeon sans a very effective beat tank.
Boraxe 02-21-07, 12:29 PM	It isn't even chaotic. If there is a law against it, the maybe so, but what is more chaotic with using a sword or poison or any other device that harms. How you use the poison determines whether it is good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral. Poison use itself on defaults to nonlawful if there is a law against it. It has nothing to do with laws or regulations. Poison is chaotic cos it is deceitful: it denies the target the chance to defend himself, or often even be aware of the attack. That is neither good nor evil, but it is chaotic.
Boraxe 02-21-07, 12:31 PM	No, it is sometimes illegal. Devils are avid fans of poison, for example. Poison use is chaotic, it has nothing to do with legal/illegal or good/evil. That devils use poison just illustrates that even game designers sometimes fail to realize this point.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 12:45 PM	It has nothing to do with laws or regulations. Poison is chaotic cos it is deceitful: it denies the target the chance to defend himself, or often even be aware of the attack. That is neither good nor evil, but it is chaotic. Okay, so sneak attack is chaotic. So is power attack becuase the target is aware or prepared for that either. Matter of fact, every type of attack is chaotic unless you call it out first.:rolleyes: No, not how it works. Sorry.
Mnky 02-21-07, 12:47 PM	Poison use is chaotic, it has nothing to do with legal/illegal or good/evil. That devils use poison just illustrates that even game designers sometimes fail to realize this point. Is executing a criminal with poison instead of hanging them chaotic?
Willie the Duck 02-21-07, 01:39 PM	Never do that. Real world doesn't apply in d&d. Though in d&d terms, it would be evil. Okay, agreed. D&D ethics so horribly represents real world ethics trying to apply the later to the former only demeans the later. Just for the record, of three major ethical theories -- Deontological: evil, Virtue ethics: evil, Utilitarian: good if it actuall moves them towards their quest, as Zoycitenega suggested. On the subject of my character's fear of the dead, it's a case of Necrophobia. It's a character quirk, and I'm playing it that way. Don't any of your characters ever have phobias? If your character was afraid of heights, and tried to insist that the party take a two week detour around a mountain range instead of through the immenently survivable pass, would it be unreasonable for the characters to subject your character to derision or outright overrule? If there is a paladin in the party, he ought to show kindness and compassion, but heroic types ought to treat this as a character flaw in an otherwise brave character. At least according to the BoED, most poisons are inherently evil to use, but not all of them are. They give the ironic example of the drow's favorite poison, often just called Drow Knockout Poison or DKP, as nonevil because it merely puts the target to sleep, as opposed to actually causing them suffering. The BOED is a (very very very poor) attempt to alter the standard D&D ethics to more closely resemble real world ethics. The primary point I'm making is that it is a deviation from the standard rules. Well, RAW, poison is evil; or anyway, most poisons are evil. No it's not. It hasn't been since 1st edition. Tribal hunters using a paralytic poison to catch prey are not evil because their bows use poisoned arrows instead of regular deadly arrows. Using poison to kill the bartender instead of paying your bill? Evil. Oh, and I can't? They've been doing this crap since level 1! We even have a paladin in the party who gets in on it! Why aren't I allowed to exact a little revenge? Agree with me that they deserve it, at least. Vadar, you don't get to do anything. You can do anything you are capable, but that does not make it ethical. You asked if a certain course of action would be construed as evil, and we are answering that question. As to whether they deserve it, no. Let's say roommate consistently lets the dishes pile up in the sink, and then decides we need to have a "talk," if I ever choose to let them sit there and try to force him to do his share. He's been a real jerk to me. Does he "deserve" a punch in the face? No. His unjust act towards me and my potential unjust act towards him do not interact in anyway. We are both hurting the other, and we each might be giving as good as we get, but we aren't justifying each others actions in any way. Should, in game, your character feel a lack of respect from his teammates? Surely. Roleplaying wise, he might decide to leave them in the lurch at the next town they come to and tell them to find someone else to feed and aid them on their, 'horrible, sinful desecration of places man has no business." Unfortunately this loss would be stunted by the fact that you would undoubtedly still want to play, and would likely have to bring in a new character to replace him. If you feel that the players are being unreasonably impolite towards you, as opposed to your character, should you address the issue? Definately. You do this by talking to the DM, and if that does nothing, the group as a whole. If it comes down to it, tell them you are not willing to play with them if you can't expect a more mature playing environment. Just don't come here asking about 'deserving'. It sounds to me like either you or the rest of the group are having trouble maintaining the boundary between player and character.
Boraxe 02-21-07, 01:45 PM	Okay, so sneak attack is chaotic. So is power attack becuase the target is aware or prepared for that either. Matter of fact, every type of attack is chaotic unless you call it out first.:rolleyes: No, not how it works. Sorry. You're right, that's not how it works. Good thing I suggested nothing of the sort, then, isn't it? Ah, the infamous :rolleyes: smiley. Nothing says "I have no respect for you or your opinion" like that piece of crap. I cannot fathom why people are unable to disagree without being disagreeable, why they can't respect the opinions of others even if they disagree with them. It is indeed a sad world in which we live.
Boraxe 02-21-07, 01:47 PM	Is executing a criminal with poison instead of hanging them chaotic? The method of execution is immaterial as the act of execution itself trumps the method thereof in such a discussion.
ArcTan 02-21-07, 03:45 PM	It has nothing to do with laws or regulations. Poison is chaotic cos it is deceitful: it denies the target the chance to defend himself, or often even be aware of the attack. That is neither good nor evil, but it is chaotic. That's stupid. Do you really think every Lawful character has to be the kind of guy who goes up to an enemy, announces himself, and gives the enemy a fair chance to get the first blow in before engaging in combat? Even if this enemy is planning to blow up the city and kill everyone the Lawful character loves and serves? WotC disagrees, as of Complete Scoundrel, anyway, which stipulates that "scoundrel" tactics (by which they seem to mean "intelligent, efficient and flexible tactics") are usable by characters of any alignment, using Batman as the classic LG scoundrel (a rogue who fights determinedly for a very specific cause out of a very specific sense of personal honor). Which makes sense, because what you're proposing makes Lawful characters helpless in the face of any foe who's at all physically superior to himself, or even in the face of relatively equal foes who aren't idiots.
ArcTan 02-21-07, 03:50 PM	You're right, that's not how it works. Good thing I suggested nothing of the sort, then, isn't it? You suggested that all poison use was a Chaotic act because it catches an opponent without warning or a chance to defend himself, even though Sneak Attack *by definition* only works because it catches an opponent without warning or a chance to defend himself, and a Rogue using Sneak Attack can easily be LN. And this is not true of many other uses of poison: What if I'm wielding a poisoned blade and I shout "Surrender now, for my blade is poisoned!" before I attack with it? You might have some argument if by "poison" you mean the use of poison through subterfuge -- poisoning someone's food or something. I still don't really buy it, though. Lawful characters can and do use subterfuge against their enemies. Lawful does *not* mean "Blindly following a specific version of the paladin's code of chivalry all the time". There's an interpretation of Law that makes stealthy poisoning preferable to combat with blades. After all, it's more reliable, it's quieter and disrupts the lives of fewer uninvolved parties, and if the principles of Law demand that someone be killed, they *must die*, period -- why should they be given any chance to defend themselves against the inexorable force of Law?
ArcTan 02-21-07, 03:55 PM	Poison use is chaotic, it has nothing to do with legal/illegal or good/evil. That devils use poison just illustrates that even game designers sometimes fail to realize this point. Or that game designers themselves are changing the definition from a less silly and stereotypical one. Seriously, if Lawful characters *never* lie, *never* use tricks, *never* exploit unfair advantages, and so on, then it's beginning to seem ridiculous that Chaos hasn't defeated Law in the Blood War long ago (because, to paraphrase Dark Helmet, "Law is Dumb"). There is a better definition for Law than simply saying that Lawfulness consists of having a completely arbitrary -- and completely universal -- system of "fairness" designed to handicap yourself and hewing to it all the time. That's no better than saying that Chaos requires you be some kind of schizophrenic character who hits himself in the face with his own sword half the time.
bonethug0108 02-21-07, 03:57 PM	You're right, that's not how it works. Good thing I suggested nothing of the sort, then, isn't it? Ah, the infamous :rolleyes: smiley. Nothing says "I have no respect for you or your opinion" like that piece of crap. I cannot fathom why people are unable to disagree without being disagreeable, why they can't respect the opinions of others even if they disagree with them. It is indeed a sad world in which we live. Sorry if you feel it to be a disrespect to you. It is meant towards the point you made, becuase that is how I feel about that point. The smiley is here for a reason. If the mods don't like it, they should take it out. And I stated why I disagreed with you and didn't call you any names. It was in no way personal towards you. However, I feel I'm within my rights that if I read something that makes me roll my eyes, then that smiley is appropriate. While I respect your right to your opinion, I don't always have to respect what that opinion is. Again, sorry you took personal offense.
DarkRhystar 02-21-07, 04:12 PM	So here's my idea... Dan wants to get his hands on some really nasty poison, and the next time that the party treats him like crap, he wants to slip some into their food. (Dan does all the fishing in the party, so he can inject some into the filets.) Now, the poison won't actually kill them, but just make them incredibly sick. That way he can stand over them as they are bent over vomiting and say something to the effect of: "I poisoned you all. Now, I have the antidote for this poison, but in order to get it, you all have to promise to treat me with a little bit more respect." Dan's party says "Holy crap, he just poisoned us." Quickly following that is a crewman saying "Man overboard!" Seriously, what intelligent person would voluntarily travel with someone who can and would poison them? Would this be considered an evil act? I mean, it's not nice, but is it evil? Yeah probably as I think this goes a little beyond the realm of "harmless pranks." At any rate, I doubt the party would be too thrilled about it.
Boraxe 02-21-07, 04:38 PM	That's stupid. Stupid or not, it's still correct.
Andrew_980 02-22-07, 12:31 AM	NO Now show me where in a core book, not the immature line of options, it says otherwise
Moon-Lancer 02-22-07, 04:27 AM	Revenge is a dish best served .... cold, and with lots and lots of poison.
Khadmus 02-22-07, 08:39 AM	Why bother with evil? The poison is justified in-character. That should be what matters. It is justified for you, in your character, alignment, and situation, to perform this act. The morality is irrelevant. It is reasonable and within your alignment for you to poison them with a harmless substance.
vader_rocks 02-22-07, 02:23 PM	Dan's party says "Holy crap, he just poisoned us." Quickly following that is a crewman saying "Man overboard!" Seriously, what intelligent person would voluntarily travel with someone who can and would poison them? The fact that I'm even considering doing this shows just how screwed up our party really is. The party cohesion is just about in tatters at this point. To be honest, the only reason I haven't told the DM that Dan walks away from camp in the middle of the night to adventure by himself is that I would have to make a new character. Judging by what they did to this character and how I play the game, my next character probably wouldn't fare much better. They've been ragging on Dan for so long that it's almost expected of him to pull something like this.
wrecan 02-22-07, 03:27 PM	Judging by what they did to this character and how I play the game, my next character probably wouldn't fare much better.So, it is an out-of-game thing. What is it about "how [you] play the game" that irks them so much that they will mercilessly tease your characters? My guess is because you give him annoying quirks like "afraid of the undead". Maybe they're just jerks. Either way, this is an out of game issue. Do not try to resolve it in game. You will not find the satisfaction you're looking for. Just talk to them out-of-game about your feeling and, just as important, listen to what they have to say abotu how your behavior makes them feel.
vader_rocks 02-22-07, 05:04 PM	So, it is an out-of-game thing. What is it about "how [you] play the game" that irks them so much that they will mercilessly tease your characters? Because I actually read the subtitle of the PHB. You know, the part where it says "ROLEPLAYING Game." They're the type of players that want to kill the monsters and steal the treasure. Not Power Gamers or Munchkins, by any means, but people who don't put much focus into roleplaying. Either way, this is an out of game issue. Do not try to resolve it in game. You will not find the satisfaction you're looking for. Just talk to them out-of-game about your feeling and, just as important, listen to what they have to say abotu how your behavior makes them feel. I have. It continues. It occured to me that the only way this would end is if I actually did something IN GAME. If I screwed around with their PC's, maybe, just maybe, they'd take a hint. And I know what your next question's going to be: "Why don't you just leave the group?" Because I can't find any other group. I either find some way to fix this problem, or I don't play anymore.
epifreak 02-22-07, 05:46 PM	How about "Dan leaves the group in the middle of the night to go adventure on his own. He takes all the loot as he goes. Dan subsequently pawns off all the loot and uses it to fund his drug habit, the one he picked up in an attempt to deal with the horrible mockery and belittlement that the party heaped upon his head. Dan dies alone and unloved."
wrecan 02-22-07, 06:25 PM	I have. It continues. What do they say when you tell them how their behavior irks you? DO they say they will stop and then keep doing it? Do they laugh at you and then keep doing it? Do they deny they are doing it and then keep doing it? What's going on? It occured to me that the only way this would end is if I actually did something IN GAME. If I screwed around with their PC's, maybe, just maybe, they'd take a hint. I can 100% absolutely guarantee you this will not work. All it will do is encourage them to be even more mean and ruthless. At that point, the gloves are off and they will move from being mockingly cruel to actual physical cruelty against the PC and all successor PCs you generate. Unless your next action after screwing with their characters is to leave the gaming table and never come back... or socialize with them in any other manner... don't do it. It's never worth it. I can't find any other group. I either find some way to fix this problem, or I don't play anymore. This is unfixable. You have two options: 1. Never play anymore. 2. Find a roleplaying style that lets you roleplay without annoying the rest of the group. From what I have seen of your character description, the roleplaying you engage in involves being annoying to the other PCs. Even assuming the other PCs don't roleplay at all, there is room for you to roleplay in the game without ******* them off. But it appears ot me -- probably out of frustration -- that you purposely pick character personalities that's going to get on their nerves. How's that going for you? Not so good, eh? Pranking them is only going to escalate it even further. (And if you think things can't escalate, you are so, so, so sadly mistaken.) Either accomodate the majority's playing style, or leave and play in on-line games, if there really are no other gaming group options.
Willie the Duck 02-22-07, 10:06 PM	Because I actually read the subtitle of the PHB. You know, the part where it says "ROLEPLAYING Game." They're the type of players that want to kill the monsters and steal the treasure. Not Power Gamers or Munchkins, by any means, but people who don't put much focus into roleplaying. That doesn't even resemble a defense of your proposed actions. There have been numerous suggestions of reasonable roleplaying resonses to the situation on this thread. Your plan is not good roleplaying, it is you lashing out. Roleplayingwise, people don't poison their coworkers, no matter what kind of derision they are subjected to, unless they are highly unstable sociopaths, something you have given us no indication Dan is. Face it, Dan's realistic response is to leave the adventuring party. Won't solve the problem? They'll just do the same to the next guy? Darn. Too bad. You can go ahead with some other course of action if you want, just don't try to defend it with "ROLEPLAYING Game." I have. It continues. It occured to me that the only way this would end is if I actually did something IN GAME. If I screwed around with their PC's, maybe, just maybe, they'd take a hint. And I know what your next question's going to be: "Why don't you just leave the group?" Because I can't find any other group. I either find some way to fix this problem, or I don't play anymore. So you never really asking whether it would be an evil act. Shame. As for the subtext question (should I do this?), frankly no. You're not going to come out of it either looking good or with the results you want. The only way it'll effect their actions is if you poison them, then kill off all their characters. Whereupon they'll likely respond with, "what is wrong with you?" and demand that their characters be reset to life and kick you out of the group (and they very well get their way, most DMs have no tolerance for player tantrums). If appeals to either the DM or these guys doesn't fix this, and it isn't just this character (and thus an in game thing), then you have to face facts; you are playing with jerks. You can't fix jerks by lowering yourself to their level. If you're dead set on this course of action (as you appear to be), we aren't going to stop you. Just don't come crying when it blows up on you.
Templetroll 02-22-07, 11:57 PM	Dan gets a small piece of wood on a leather thong; get enough for each member of the party plus a few for hiding down your boot and in your back pack. When you have something said that would normally elicit the frightened response Dan knocks on the wood. When someone asks why you did that you explain, "This is for luck.", and hand out the lucky pieces you got for everyone. Now you can act like a normal person with the minor quirk that you knock on wood for luck. Do it before battle etc etc. If you roll a 20, Dan attributes that great hit to his lucky piece and suggests everyone uses their's! 9edit0 Invoke the name of the god/dess of Luck for the campaign. The deity should only be pleased that you are asking for their protection and assistance! When you sleep, if anyone takes it from you, reach to the bottom of your back pack and say, "No, here it is! Good luck always comes back!" If someone takes all of yours, then knock on someone else's, "Shared luck is the best luck!" and also carve new ones for your self. But don't attack your companions with poison or spells; it will only annoy them and then they will believe they need to do the same to you. Try the above, see how it goes.
ArcTan 02-23-07, 01:22 AM	Stupid or not, it's still correct. Er, no, it isn't. Isn't this kind of argument satisfying? FWIW, while there are one-liners peppered about here and there that might support your view of Law, most of the big-picture stuff about Law explicitly denies it. Paladins are nowhere defined as having a code that requires that they announce themselves to their enemies before attacking them. Rogues, who rely on Sneak Attack, are nowhere said to be barred from Lawful alignment. Devils, the pinnacle of LE, are poison users. Hell, for this specific example, WotC *never ever said* that poison was Chaotic. The one time they ever said anything about the alignment of poison was BoED, where they said it was Evil, without regard for ethical alignment (and were roundly derided for saying so, and that book's largely been ignored by all subsequent supplements). The *best* takes on Law/Chaos/Good/Evil were the old Planescape books, which have a far deeper view of what Law is than the one you offered. Frankly, something's already screwy when you start saying that the vast majority of official game materials are "wrong" about something that only exists in the D&D game. That's when the argument starts to get unfalsifiable. (I mean, sure, if we're talking about *your* idea of Law/Chaos rather than D&D's, fine. But why should your idea of Law/Chaos matter to any of us? It's what the game thinks that actually matters.)
Andrew_980 02-23-07, 12:38 PM	I'm called a "scaredy-cat" for staying as far away from tombs and graveyards as possible, and offering to "guard the entrance" while the rest of the party goes inside. Most of my decisions are railroaded by the rest of the party, and Dan is about fed up. Sounds like Dan is more interested in his own hide than helping out his compatriots. I would tell dan that we get the hazard pay (the loot from the areas he won't enter) and laugh as we level far faster.
holylink718 02-23-07, 04:49 PM	Check this out: Dan O'Reilly Swashbuckler 4 Chaotic Neutral Mariner Background (High Ranks in Climb, Swim, Use Rope, etc.) Dan, like a lot of sailors, is a very superstitious man. He believes heavily in luck, thinks that it is a very bad thing to go messing with someone's grave (no matter who is laid in it), and generally thinks that dealing with the dead and undead is a very bad thing, and it scares him. My character is constantly being insulted, ridiculed and basically being made fun of. It's really annoying, to be completely honest. I have the background of a ship captain, so I tend to have tactical discussions with the self-appointed leader of our group. (Dragon Shaman 4) The other characters in the group automatically dismiss whatever idea I come up with, and go with the Dragon Shaman's idea. They call my ideas "stupid," and "dumb." I'm called a "scaredy-cat" for staying as far away from tombs and graveyards as possible, and offering to "guard the entrance" while the rest of the party goes inside. Most of my decisions are railroaded by the rest of the party, and Dan is about fed up. So here's my idea... Dan wants to get his hands on some really nasty poison, and the next time that the party treats him like crap, he wants to slip some into their food. (Dan does all the fishing in the party, so he can inject some into the filets.) Now, the poison won't actually kill them, but just make them incredibly sick. That way he can stand over them as they are bent over vomiting and say something to the effect of: "I poisoned you all. Now, I have the antidote for this poison, but in order to get it, you all have to promise to treat me with a little bit more respect." Would this be considered an evil act? I mean, it's not nice, but is it evil? I didn't read the whole post, because it's too long, but I'd recomend against poison and suggest that you do something else, like not saving one of them when you can and justify it by saying, "What, I was just being a scaredy-cat." or, just the plain, "I didn't feel like it." That's IC, you could always tell the players OOC that you don't appreciate it and that you'd like for them to stop. Hope you can solve this problem.
DmMagnus 02-23-07, 05:15 PM	Evil? Depends on who you are poisoning.. I mean if you poison someone that deserves it than it isn`t evil.. right? Remember.. there is a difference between evil and dishonorable... using poison is dishonorable.
bonethug0108 02-23-07, 05:19 PM	using poison is dishonorable. I debate that point. How is it any more dishonorable then sticking someone with a sword. You use it to hurt someone. Sneaky? Yes. Naughty? Maybe.:P Dishonorable? No way.
JulesCARV 02-23-07, 05:20 PM	vader_rocks, why does it matter so much to you whether it's evil or not? Does your DM rule that if your character switches to CE, then he becomes an NPC or something stupid like that? Do you just prefer that your character sheet say "CN" rather than "CE?" Do you have some sort of magical item that would give you negative levels or stop working if you were CE or something?
Boraxe 02-23-07, 07:16 PM	Evil? Depends on who you are poisoning.. I mean if you poison someone that deserves it than it isn`t evil.. right? Remember.. there is a difference between evil and dishonorable... using poison is dishonorable. Correct, and dishonorable is chaotic. Simple, yes?
DaidojiTaidoru 02-23-07, 07:27 PM	using poison is dishonorable. Are we talking Samurai honor or Mafia honor here?
DmMagnus 02-23-07, 07:29 PM	I debate that point. How is it any more dishonorable then sticking someone with a sword. You use it to hurt someone. Sneaky? Yes. Naughty? Maybe.:P Dishonorable? No way. Its a matter of opinion really.. poisoning people is a cheap trick ( dishonorable, unless both parts have poision ) its like punching someone in the nuts, effective, but a cheap trick (aka dishonorable).. A sneaky rogue might think it is completley normal and fair with poison (consider it like a tool, just like a sharpening stone).. (typical for Chaotic character.. doesnt matter where you are on the good / evil axis) A knight on the other hand thinks its a cowards trick because it can win a fight without the wielder of the sword beeing skilled.. just a litte cut in the arm is enough to kill an enemy if you have a deadly venom.. (This point of view is Lawful, doesnt matter where you are on the good / evil axis). This is how I deal with the poison question in my campaign anyway. Its just my personal opinion.. poison is dishonorable (unless both parts is using it).. but not necessarily evil (depends on how you use it).
bonethug0108 02-23-07, 07:49 PM	That is the same as saying using your sword is a cheap trick, when you can easily use your fist. But I guess dishonorable not being defined in the rules is open to interpretation. Still, dishonorable doesn not equal chaotic. Just as honorable does not equal lawful. I could be a thief, but say I let them know ahead of time that I'm stealing from them. I would be honorable, but unlawful.
Boraxe 02-23-07, 08:12 PM	Still, dishonorable doesn not equal chaotic. Just as honorable does not equal lawful. It does, actually.
DmMagnus 02-23-07, 08:38 PM	That is the same as saying using your sword is a cheap trick, when you can easily use your fist. But I guess dishonorable not being defined in the rules is open to interpretation. I disagree with your first example.. using a sword and using poison is completly different.. The thing with poison is that you dont know that people use it before you have it in your blood.. its hidden.. Thats one of the reasons its a nasty trick. You can easly see if someone is gonna draw a sword or not. using a sword is only dishonorable if your opponent is unarmed.. Thats the same as using poison is only dishonorable if your opponent doesn`t use poison. A fair fight is honorable.. In a fair fight, both parts have the same "resources". Still, dishonorable doesn not equal chaotic. Just as honorable does not equal lawful. I could be a thief, but say I let them know ahead of time that I'm stealing from them. I would be honorable, but unlawful. This second example makes very much sense. Dishonorable doenst equal chaotic, true. But it doesn`t equal evil either. (I`ll try to explain my point with this crappy example :P ) : Someone is beating up your friend and you know they wont stop punching him before he is dead. So you sneak up behind the man that mutilates your friend and cuts his throath. sneaking up to him and cutting his throath is dishonorable, but its a good thing to do because you rescue your friend. The thing with alignment is that it is no "rules" for what is good and whats evil, whats chaotic and whats lawful.. In the end its all just a matter of personal opinion (usually the DM`s opinion). In the end poison in itself is not Evil or Chaotic.. Its the way you use it that matters. you should also judge this after the culture in the campaign setting you are using. If you are a member of an indian tribe from the jungle poisons is completley normal and always used in war. It isn`t considered very honorable, but because its so normal (because its easy to find in the jungle) its isn`t viewed as dishonorable either. I mean everyone uses it! If you are from a "civiliced" community from the cold north poisons is rare and suddenly considered dishonorable, because only a handful of people have access to it. People in medival communities thought proving yourself in combat (a fair fight) was honor. Like the rapier dual`s in movies. These people think poison is dishonorable because you dont prove yourself in combat if you use it. I mean if you throw a poisoned dart at a man and run away.. The poison kills the man.. But you didn`t prove that you`re stronger than him, or more skilled with the sword. The only thing you proved was that you have the money to buy some poison or the contacts to get it. * Sorry for my bad english.. its not my main language. I hope I made my self clear enough.. So that you get some of my points.
bonethug0108 02-23-07, 10:52 PM	Dishonorable doenst equal chaotic, true. But it doesn`t equal evil either. I very much agree. Dishonorable means dishonorable. Nothing to do with any of the alignments.
BW0222 02-24-07, 12:34 PM	vader_rocks, Dan wants to get his hands on some really nasty poison, and ... Would this be considered an evil act? I mean, it's not nice, but is it evil? No action is typically good or evil. It is the intent behind it. You are intending to do harm and extort them into treating you better. Not strickly evil, but definitely not a good act. However, the real issue with that coarse of action is that it is incredibly stupid. Even if you are CN, you shouldn't be willing to take actions which are against your self-interest. Anyone with a 5+ wisdom should be able to tell that the other PCs will hate you for this. They will retaliate. If you can poison them for insults, they can certainly burn your ship to the waterline for poisoning them, jump you in the middle of the night and pour the poison down your throat and extort all sorts of false promises out of you, send letters to the town guards about stuff on your ship, etc. They might also decide that if you are willing to poison your own comrades for this "offense", you might steal from them, kill them in their sleep, destroy their property, use lethal poison, etc. for the next perceived offense. Logic and self preservation would say the smart thing to do would be to kick you of of the party or just kill your first. They don't have time to watch you 24/7, search your belongings for more poison, ensure that you don't lead them into an ambush, etc. and they aren't likely to wait for what you do next when you have a dispute over say treasure distribution or they don't agree with you again. Anyone can see where this is going. Poisoning other PCs is a clear step over the 'trust line'. From then on, they can't trust you. Roleplaying not trusting someone to attack or kill you is easy -- common sense and self preservation now says they are justified in killing you out of the party, leaving you nude and unconcious by the side of the road, turning you into the guards, or just killed you first. Honestly, the most likely response to trying that would be for the entire group to grab you, start pouring alchemists fire down your pants and saying "We'll stop when we have the antidode. After which you have ten seconds to leave camp with only your clothing." If you want a response for their treatment of you, then you need to roleplay how someone would honestly react. Not some kneejerk response destined to get you killed. Try... Next time you are in town, leave them in the bar or inn. Go off and look for some adventure. Roleplay this at the table in front of them. Then go hire or recruit NPCs willing to come along. Roleplay this. "My last party treated me like crap and I can't take it any more. I'm thinking of sailing to Freeport and looking for adventuring work their. How about I cut you folks in as equal partners? We set sail tonight." When the players start complaining. Just say "You aren't there." Spend the entire session roleplaying this. If the DM switches to what the other players are doing, take out a book, read, work on supply lists or some such, etc. At the end of the session, talk with the DM and players, "So we appear to have split up. I'm enjoying the campaign and the DM is doing a great job, so I'll leave it to him if he wants to continue splitting sessions between my group and the others, if we want to game on different nights, or if he'd rather pretend that the captain is off doing his own thing and I'll return next campaign?"
_SIN_ 02-24-07, 01:22 PM	The application of poison as an action is 'DECEITFUL', thus it is a sin, so YES it's use is over the border and into the EVIL domain, regardless if poisoning an evil or good creature. Someone said poison is no more dishonourable than sticking someone with a sword? Wrong (depending). If you're attacking someone normally, i.e. no sneak attacks, and they have means to defend, or at least see you coming and YOU have justification to kill them, then attcaking with a sword is not a dishonourable act. IF your blade was coated in poison however, you are not fighting 'fair', greatly reducing your foes chances of survival if you win or lose! A strike to the genitals is not dishonourable, nor evil. It's not nice, but all you are doing is exploiting a NATURAL weak spot, one that most humanoid creature possess. A rogue using poison 'as a tool' doesn't make it any less evil. "Hi, I'm a psychopath, I'm not evil, Guns and knives are just the tools of my trade!!" - understand? Animals have poison and are not always evil because they do not go out of their way to aquire poison, it's natural to them, and I can't see many consciencious scorpions ripping thier own stingers off, or snakes rushing to the dentist. Animals that have poison will rely more on instinct than choice, so if you get stung, it's not an act of malice on behalf of the animal. Other poisonous monsters are more likely to be CE. So, my logic says YES, poison IS evil!
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-24-07, 01:34 PM	The application of poison as an action is 'DECEITFUL', thus it is a sin, so YES it's use is over the border and into the EVIL domain, regardless if poisoning an evil or good creature. So Coatls are committing an evil act every time they bite someone? Oh, and deceit is not evil. Sin is irrelevant.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-24-07, 02:24 PM	Correct, and dishonorable is chaotic. Simple, yes? What about the Devils? They're ruthless and efficient. And sometimes efficiency means killing someone when they can't defend themselves. Wait... that's always efficient. EDIT: And no, _SIN_, poison is not Evil.
bonethug0108 02-24-07, 02:59 PM	So Coatls are committing an evil act every time they bite someone? Oh, and deceit is not evil. Sin is irrelevant. Speak truth. More people need to see this. Remember, we aren't talking real life morality, this is d&d. Real world rules need not apply.
alangriffith 02-24-07, 04:00 PM	Regarding poison being dishonourable, I can point to core rules: PHB page 44: "A paladin's code require that she respect legitimate authority, act with HONOUR (not lying, not cheating, NOT USING POISON and so forth)..." [capitalisation mine, obviously] The sage seemed to miss this bit when merely quoting that a paladin should respect legitimate authority in his poison ruling. This also supports poison not being evil, as a paladin falls for comitting any evil act, so would not need a specific prohibition on the use of poison in her code if poison use was evil. I suppose you could argue that this quote only suggests using poison is dishonourable for paladins, but elsewhere it states that D+D is built on objective not subjective principles when it comes to ethics. I personally think that as it is a medievil-type system, they use the medievil definition of honour (i.e. it is manly and honourable to kill someone with a sword in a fair fight, but not to use poison (even on your weapon) or attack by surprise. A GM can of course rule that the world/nation has a different definition of honour, which is what I assume the sage is refereng to when saying it is really up to the GM as to whether a paladin can use poison. As to dishounourable meaning chaotic, we do have "law implies honour" on page 104 of the PHB, but remember that "evil implies [hurting, opressing and] killing others." Yet paladins are holy warriors who have the signature ability to do bonus lethal damage to evil beings (i.e kill them). So clearly it depends on context, as with all things. The devils are a good example of this context thing. Looking at page 105 of the PHB we see. "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of HIS code of conduct." [capitals mine]. The code of conduct seems to be defined by the villain, not some external standard. Lawful neutral also talks of the option of acting as "a personal code directs her." Lawful neutral and lawful good mention honour in their "[alignment] is the best because" summary, but lawful evil does not. A Chaotic neutral individual "resents restrictions and challenges traditions". If we assume there is a universal standard of honour in the D+D world, you could serve your chaotic alignment by opposing or challenging it (i.e by using poison). So we have two options: 1) Lawfulness is honour, but each lawful character has their own definition of what honour is (it is the 'personal code' they stick to, or it is defined by the nation or religion they choose to adhere to). Some consider poison 'dishonourable' (paladins always do, in the default setting), others do not. Ergo poison use is not a chaotic act, unless you are a lawful character whose code prohibits it. 2) Honour is a specific code which prohibits poison, probably based on medieval chivalry. You can be lawful without being honourable. However by challenging the code you are being chaotic, so poison use once more could be a chaotic act, but is not necessarily. So there is no definitive objective answer, even though alignment is meant to be definitive and objective. Welcome to the insanity that is the D+D alignment system (particularly the law-chaos axis). All I have proven is that law is not honour (but chaos might be dishonour), and that poison use is dishonourable (under RAW). I now return you to your discussion of the actual 'Dan' situation. Hopefully no-one wants to continue the law-chaos argument after I definitively showed it has no sensible answer.
Templetroll 02-24-07, 06:32 PM	Another point - A wizard can create a homunculus and the creator can be of any alignment; the creature will match that alignment. The homunculus has a bite which injects a sleep poison. By its nature the poison use cannot affect your alignment, or the creature would have an effect on its own alignment and on the alignment of the wizard that created. A person can use poison for reasonable and good purposes, such as killing vermin to stop the spread of disease. Certain creatures have a poison as a natural ability of the creature - couatl, homunculus etc. without hindering the alignment of those creatures. BWO222 had some excellent points; always consider the proposed action with the character's view towards survival and success in their life. What you were considering would not be certain of either; it would most likely make the future for that character worse.
Willie the Duck 02-25-07, 12:51 AM	It does, actually. Could you at least TRY to support your position instead of simply reaffirming your belief?
Drausktanchache 02-25-07, 12:56 AM	The poison of and in itself is not at all evil, but the action of intentionally irritating someone just for respect, is evil.
Maekrix_Waere 02-25-07, 01:47 AM	The application of poison as an action is 'DECEITFUL', thus it is a sin, so YES it's use is over the border and into the EVIL domain, regardless if poisoning an evil or good creature. Just because something is a "sin" does not make it evil. Gluttony is a "mortal sin" but you don't see people pointing at fat people on the streets and screaming "YOU UNHOLY SON OF A *****, I HOPE THEY HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL FOR YOU!" Someone said poison is no more dishonourable than sticking someone with a sword? Wrong (depending). If you're attacking someone normally, i.e. no sneak attacks, and they have means to defend, or at least see you coming and YOU have justification to kill them, then attcaking with a sword is not a dishonourable act. IF your blade was coated in poison however, you are not fighting 'fair', greatly reducing your foes chances of survival if you win or lose! Of course, sending someone to kingdom come by blowing them up with a Fireball or destroying them with an Implosion spell is far more dishonourable then both, but you don't see people calling Spellcasters evil now, do you? A strike to the genitals is not dishonourable, nor evil. It's not nice, but all you are doing is exploiting a NATURAL weak spot, one that most humanoid creature possess. Yes, a person's genitals are a natural weakness, and, as you stated, striking them is not an evil act since they are a natural weakness which some combatants may choose to exploit....just as most humanoid creatures have a natural weakness to poison that some combatants choose to exploit. A rogue using poison 'as a tool' doesn't make it any less evil. "Hi, I'm a psychopath, I'm not evil, Guns and knives are just the tools of my trade!!" - understand? A) Most rogues are not psychopaths, despite what you seem to believe. B) Are you calling each and every person in each and every army of each and every nation that has, does, and will ever exist evil simply because guns/knives are the tools of their trade? C) Are you saying that those people who have psychosi are evil simply because they were born with/developed an error with their central nervous system? Animals have poison and are not always evil because they do not go out of their way to aquire poison, it's natural to them, and I can't see many consciencious scorpions ripping thier own stingers off, or snakes rushing to the dentist. Animals that have poison will rely more on instinct than choice, so if you get stung, it's not an act of malice on behalf of the animal. Other poisonous monsters are more likely to be CE. As stated before, a Coutl is ALWAYS good, and it has a poisonous bite that comes natural to it along with the intelligence to FULLY understand the consequences of the action. So, my logic says YES, poison IS evil! I feel true remorse for all those who have to rely upon your logic. :raincloud
BW0222 02-25-07, 02:20 AM	Folks, So, my logic says YES, poison IS evil! Nonsense. By his logic psuedo dragons, snakes, wasps, and other creatures are evil. Sorry, psuedo dragons use a posion sting so they can put folks asleep without having to kill them. Snakes use posion to eat and keep bears away. No tactic is by itself good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. It's the intent of an action which determines if it is evil, good, lawful, or chaotic. If there is a hostage situation, is someone evil for putting sleep poison into the food or the hostage takers? Of course not. The intent is to rescue the hostages unharmed and not to kill. Nor is poisoning a chaotic act. An organized group of mafia or assassins could easily use poison -- certainly against each other or their enemies. It is expected that such groups would do so and it is within their 'code of conduct'. If you kill the son of the assassin's guild, of course you can expect to find poison in your food -- and the father might be duty bound to kill you. Now... indescriminate poisoning of an entire inn or village likely wouldn't be lawful.
JulesCARV 02-25-07, 01:40 PM	The bottom line is, if vader_rocks is really determined to poison his teammates, he should do it, and accept the consequences, including both possible retribution by his teammates and a possible alignment shift (at the DM's discretion). If vader_rocks is really determined to hold onto his CN alignment and not become CE, then he shouldn't do it, to avoid commiting an evil as well as stupid act. What vader_rocks seems to want is a third way, where he gets to poison his teammates, they react as he intends, and it's all non-evil. That is not something the commenters on this thread can offer.
Lhiannon Sidhe 02-25-07, 10:52 PM	Poison itself, no matter what kind, is not not not evil. There was a thread on this a few weeks ago. I'll look for it. In the Paladin entry in the PHB (under Code of Conduct) it states that using poison is not neccessarily evil, but it is dishonourable (and therefore a no-no for paladins)
DmMagnus 02-26-07, 04:27 AM	In the Paladin entry in the PHB (under Code of Conduct) it states that using poison is not neccessarily evil, but it is dishonourable (and therefore a no-no for paladins) Thats what I`Ve been saying! Its dishonorable.. But its the way that you use it that determines if its evil or not.
Vaelan 02-26-07, 07:45 AM	Poison isn't Evil. The idea cannot be supported within the rules and is thus just as meritless as every other random opinion. Causing harm to people just because they don't respect you (on perfectly valid grounds, I might add) is Evil, though. It probably would not warrant an alignment shift. Inflicting a minor amount of harm as a matter of pride is hardly outside of the capabilities of a Good or Neutral character. It is simply a minor Evil tendency.
Boraxe 02-26-07, 11:16 AM	In the Paladin entry in the PHB (under Code of Conduct) it states that using poison is not neccessarily evil, but it is dishonourable (and therefore a no-no for paladins) Yes, cos it violates the lawful portion of their alignment. Thats what I`Ve been saying! Its dishonorable.. But its the way that you use it that determines if its evil or not. Correct. Poison use is neither good nor evil, it is chaotic.
JulesCARV 02-26-07, 11:38 AM	Yes, cos it violates the lawful portion of their alignment. Correct. Poison use is neither good nor evil, it is chaotic. Nah. Poison use just violates the specific code of being a paladin, not either law or good. As an analogy, druids have an alignment restriction that says they cannot be LE, CE, LG, or CG. They also have a specific class restriction that says they cannot wear metal armor. However, this does not mean that wearing metal armor is somehow aligned with LE, CE, LG, or CG. A true neutral fighter can wear all the metal armor she wants and not be dragged toward a "corner" alignment. Similarly, just as a true neutral fighter can wear full plate, even though a true neutral druid can't, a lawful good fighter can use poison, even though a lawful good paladin can't. (In fact, poison-using classes, such as the ninja and the assassin, have no restriction against being lawful)
OravennasBrother 02-26-07, 11:40 AM	Now, the poison won't actually kill them, but just make them incredibly sick. That way he can stand over them as they are bent over vomiting and say something to the effect of: "I poisoned you all. Now, I have the antidote for this poison, but in order to get it, you all have to promise to treat me with a little bit more respect." Would this be considered an evil act? Perhaps Stupid or juvenile, but not evil. Think what will happen if even ONE of the other characters is evil. That character will say "Ooh I'm so sorry, you know my social sklls are lacking, so I never suspected that you were being hurt by my indeifference to yur dignity. Please accept my apology." You give the antidote. Evil character waits until the proper moment. Your Sea Captain keels over dead for no apparent reason, possibly in his sleep. A physician is called to determine the cause an anounces "Stroke" What really happened - YOU were poisoned with a lethal poison by the evil character. He did so at a time/plave where he had already bribed the local physician to proclaim it a natural death. If you want respect, you need to earn it.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-26-07, 12:07 PM	Correct. Poison use is neither good nor evil, it is chaotic. It has no alignment in and of itself. Like I said, Devils are all about efficiency and soemtimes the most efficient way to deal with threats is to use poison. Couatls use it too. Poison has nothing to do with alignment. Nothing.
vader_rocks 02-26-07, 02:30 PM	For those of you that were curious, I'm concerned about becoming evil for one reason: the paladin. To be completely honest, I don't think that anyone else in the party would mind if I were evil. But the paladin (who has been a thorn in my side since she joined the party) would take it upon herself to destroy me. Besides that, we mostly encounter good-aligned NPCs, and I think they would probably have the same views. Either way, it's a bad thing. So, the general consensus on this thread is that I probably shouldn't poison them. And going back and thinking about it, you're probably right. So, what do I do? A lot of people have said, "Oh, just talk to the players, explain how you feel, and ask them to stop." Well, I have. It doesn't work. Oh, sure, I suppose it works for a little while, but sooner or later, they're right back at it. I think that the problem is that they (for some strange reason) don't think I'm serious, or they think that it's really not as bad as they think. And, like I said, I think the only way to get through to them is In-Game. Let me elaborate on our situation: we were sent on a mission to investigate an orc camp on one of the islands of Pelkesh. (There had been no orcs on Pelkesh for decades, almost a century.) When we got there, we discovered an orc shaman performing a ritual to awaken a dracolich. Before we could stop him, he completed the ritual, and the resulting magical concussion transported us to another country thousands of miles away. We're now trying to get home by heading east to the port where we can get passage home, but we're still at least a week away by foot.
wrecan 02-26-07, 02:45 PM	Oh, sure, I suppose it works for a little while, but sooner or later, they're right back at it. I think that the problem is that they (for some strange reason) don't think I'm serious, or they think that it's really not as bad as they think. And, like I said, I think the only way to get through to them is In-Game. You are incorrect. You will never get through to them through in-game means. That will not work. If talking to them makes it better temporarily, then talk to them frequently. Is it just you that is the victim, or do all the players do it to each other and you just don't like it directed at you? I have to admit that when you talk about becoming evil just to annoy the paladin's player, or to annoy the DM with all his "good" NPCs, I do not get the feeling that you are interested in role-play as much as you are interested in being an iconoclast. And if that's your goal, then you shouldn't be surprised when it ticks people off. Let me elaborate on our situation: we were sent on a mission to investigate an orc camp on one of the islands of Pelkesh. (There had been no orcs on Pelkesh for decades, almost a century.) When we got there, we discovered an orc shaman performing a ritual to awaken a dracolich. Before we could stop him, he completed the ritual, and the resulting magical concussion transported us to another country thousands of miles away. We're now trying to get home by heading east to the port where we can get passage home, but we're still at least a week away by foot. How is this relevant to your issues?
vader_rocks 02-26-07, 04:42 PM	Is it just you that is the victim, or do all the players do it to each other and you just don't like it directed at you? Everyone rags on each other at least a little bit. I seem to catch a lot more than everyone else, though, and I seem to be the only one who gets it in-game. I have to admit that when you talk about becoming evil just to annoy the paladin's player, or to annoy the DM with all his "good" NPCs, I do not get the feeling that you are interested in role-play as much as you are interested in being an iconoclast. And if that's your goal, then you shouldn't be surprised when it ticks people off. I'm not trying to become evil; that's the point. The paladin and the NPCs are the reasons that I don't want to be evil, and therefore, I'm trying to judge whether or not my actions are evil. How is this relevant to your issues? I fugured that I would give some background to my situation in case someone wanted to give me an idea for an in-game solution.
Willie the Duck 02-26-07, 06:57 PM	Yes, cos it violates the lawful portion of their alignment. Correct. Poison use is neither good nor evil, it is chaotic. You keep insisting on this fact, but have not provided an adequate argument in your favor. Simple insistence will not make you more right. Vader, while I approve of the idea of using in-game solutions to in-game issues, this doesn't really appear to be what's happening. It sounds like the PLAYERS are sniping at YOU by attacking your CHARACTER in game. Otherwise, you wouldn't have any real reason to be vexed. Your character has a trait which legitimate heroes might rightly consider to be a major character flaw, so I leave it up to you to decide if they are ragging him appropriately or stealth attacking you. As to what to do, basically either you or your character has to become assertive (depending on who's being attacked). No poisoning. No threats. Just plain making it clear that 'you will no longer be acting the way you used to buddy' (Don't list consequences, people that list consequences are those that think there might be some possibility that their demand will not be honored, that's not you). Seriously, a determined person can take anyone down a peg (or at least ignite their, "oh S***, what'd I do?" reaction) with a simple, very strongly worded, "DUDE! WHAT...IS...YOUR...PROBLEM?" while looking like you'd like to take off their head. If it doesn't work, these guys most likely can't help being d*****bags towards you and you should just tell them that you'll go find a group that is mature enough to act civally towards each other (whether you can find another group or not, you don't need this frusttration).
Boraxe 02-26-07, 07:28 PM	You keep insisting on this fact, but have not provided an adequate argument in your favor. Simple insistence will not make you more right. All the proof one needs is a critical reading of the D&D rules and a careful analysis of the evidence contained therein. From there it all falls into place quite nicely. That said I have never claimed my position is anything but opinion, I just don't feel the need to tag "IMO" onto every one of my posts.
unusualsuspect 02-26-07, 09:25 PM	All the proof one needs is a critical reading of the D&D rules and a careful analysis of the evidence contained therein. From there it all falls into place quite nicely. That said I have never claimed my position is anything but opinion, I just don't feel the need to tag "IMO" onto every one of my posts. Please, then, Oh Great and Wise Boraxe, would you mind showing us the relevant critical readings along with your undoubtably clear and careful analysis of the evidence? I request this because those who expouse a differing opinion have done so. Repeatedly. Since you seem so impossible to sway to their particular analyses, perhaps you could share with the rest of us what evidence and critial reading makes you so implacable. It would help the rest of us out oooooh so much. Thanks! -Geoff
Flan 02-27-07, 03:14 AM	Nonsense. By his logic psuedo dragons, snakes, wasps, and other creatures are evil. Sorry, psuedo dragons use a posion sting so they can put folks asleep without having to kill them. Snakes use posion to eat and keep bears away. Your example is meaningless, those creatures lack the intelligence to form the intent for moral decisions or understand ethics. You may as well say wind is evil because it blew over your house. No tactic is by itself good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. It's the intent of an action which determines if it is evil, good, lawful, or chaotic. Intent primarly determines good or evil, not law or chaos. Good/evil is mostly the why, law/chaos is mostly the how. If there is a hostage situation, is someone evil for putting sleep poison into the food or the hostage takers? Of course not. The intent is to rescue the hostages unharmed and not to kill. It is more of a chaotic act than an evil act, but yes, it is chaotic and evil. It is implied by providing food that it is safe. By poisoning it you are being decietful and dishonest. This is defined as chaotic in the PHB. This should be blindingly clear. Boraxe is right generally about poison being chaotic because generally it is decietful and dishonest, but it is case by case. In this case it's very clearly chaotic. Just as the OP's situation. By endagering the hostage takers life with poison, even though a small risk, you are being evil. By trying to save the hostages you are also being good. The fact that it's evil is a tough point for people to understand because people see hostage takers bad, hostages good, freeing hostages must be good. It's not that simple. Good and Evil isn't a balance with whichever one outweighs the other determining the overall count, something can be both good and evil. It should be clear though that had the police talked the hostage takers out of the situation instead of poisoning them it would be "better" than poisoning them, in other words, "less evil." This is a real world example which is good because I can point out a fact about it that should help convince you about it. Hostage situations actually happen, but the police rarely if ever poison people. Why? Because it's dangerous and it's wrong. It is CONVENIENT, and our dislike of the hostage takers might push us to want to do it, but it's still wrong. When in doubt, ask yourself... What would Superman do? He rarely does what is most convenient. Nor is poisoning a chaotic act. An organized group of mafia or assassins could easily use poison -- certainly against each other or their enemies. It is expected that such groups would do so and it is within their 'code of conduct'. If you kill the son of the assassin's guild, of course you can expect to find poison in your food -- and the father might be duty bound to kill you. Now... indescriminate poisoning of an entire inn or village likely wouldn't be lawful. Some have said being decietful is dishonourable, it's not. It CAN be, but it depends entirely on the code of honour. When people think of codes of honour they tend to be the type that knights and paladins follow which tend to be based on lawful good ideals, but not all codes of honour are like that, and not in every way. A code of honour might be "anyone of my religion should be protected to the utmost of my ability, never lied to and helped in any way possible, anyone not of my religion is an object and should be treated as worthless, lied to if convenient, killed at whim." In your example of an inter-gang assassin war (very hollywood, not very real, but whatever), yes, using poison on each other wouldn't be very chaotic because there is no deceit involved. It's not only expected, but both sides are using it, both sides have been using it, both sides know the other side is using it, it's simply a fact of life. Both sides have implicity said "it's okay to use poison." To the OP. Read page 30 of Fiendish Codex II. Poisoning allies would probably rank up 5 corruption points (betraying a friend, gratuitous injury) if your character was lawful. 4 more and it's off to Baator with you. I'm not a huge fan of that list btw, I think it's a little harsh, but the statement "Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life" is pretty good.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-27-07, 04:21 AM	Your example is meaningless, those creatures lack the intelligence to form the intent for moral decisions or understand ethics. You may as well say wind is evil because it blew over your house. Pseudodragons have an intelligence score of 10, and are always neutral good. Try again.
kintire 02-27-07, 08:38 AM	Originally Posted by BW0222 If there is a hostage situation, is someone evil for putting sleep poison into the food or the hostage takers? Of course not. The intent is to rescue the hostages unharmed and not to kill. It is more of a chaotic act than an evil act, but yes, it is chaotic and evil. Poisons that cause only sleep and no damage are not evil, even according to the BOED. It is implied by providing food that it is safe. By poisoning it you are being decietful and dishonest. This is defined as chaotic in the PHB. This should be blindingly clear I don't see it. You've signed no contract with the hostage takers that guarentees food quality. If they assume the food is safe with no guarentees attached, whose fault is that? By endagering the hostage takers life with poison, even though a small risk, you are being evil. Even mechanus isn't this extreme. Once people have started seizing hostages, it is perfectly legitimate to take action to rescue the hostages, and if that endangers the hostage takers, tough. You have no obligations to them. Hostage situations actually happen, but the police rarely if ever poison people Oh yes they do. They don't slip things into food, because that's extremely hard to arrange, but they use poison gases like tear gas all the time.
Maekrix_Waere 02-27-07, 10:55 AM	Your example is meaningless, those creatures lack the intelligence to form the intent for moral decisions or understand ethics. You may as well say wind is evil because it blew over your house. Like Raymond said, pseudodragons have an Int of 10 and are always Neutral Good. However, even if you oppose that example, let us take a look at the couatl. It has a poisonous bite, has an Int of 15 (don't have book in front of me, so might be off by a bit) and is always LAWFUL Good. By endagering the hostage takers life with poison, even though a small risk, you are being evil. By trying to save the hostages you are also being good. Ummmmmm...what part about sleep poison didn't you understand? The fact that it's evil is a tough point for people to understand because people see hostage takers bad, hostages good, freeing hostages must be good. It's not that simple. Good and Evil isn't a balance with whichever one outweighs the other determining the overall count, something can be both good and evil. It should be clear though that had the police talked the hostage takers out of the situation instead of poisoning them it would be "better" than poisoning them, in other words, "less evil." This is a real world example which is good because I can point out a fact about it that should help convince you about it. Hostage situations actually happen, but the police rarely if ever poison people. Why? Because it's dangerous and it's wrong. It is CONVENIENT, and our dislike of the hostage takers might push us to want to do it, but it's still wrong. When in doubt, ask yourself... What would Superman do? He rarely does what is most convenient. Of course, if someone is using poison to resolve a hostage situation, then I'm pretty sure that diplomacy has already failed. Also, last time I checked, Superman wasn't real...and if you can make an ECL 20-30 character that can do everything superman can do then you have my respect. To the OP. Read page 30 of Fiendish Codex II. Poisoning allies would probably rank up 5 corruption points (betraying a friend, gratuitous injury) if your character was lawful. 4 more and it's off to Baator with you. I'm not a huge fan of that list btw, I think it's a little harsh, but the statement "Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life" is pretty good. Personally, I don't view poison as a "Gratuitous Injury." Also, :confused: I don't know about you...but I think any list that says "Get this many points and when you die you go to Hell...it doesn't matter how the rest of your life was, you did bad and you gotta pay for it." I mean...seriously, if you were this evil guy, and then repented and became good, you shouldn't have to pay for what you did back when you were evil if you've truly changed your ways.
Maekrix_Waere 02-27-07, 10:57 AM	*Double Post*
Drausktanchache 02-27-07, 11:03 AM	yes
Maekrix_Waere 02-27-07, 11:08 AM	yes :confused:
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-27-07, 12:21 PM	yes No. My logic is as good as yours but I win because I used capitals and punctuation.
wrecan 02-27-07, 12:44 PM	Ventilatory, Your answer also has the virtue of being more consistent with the rules than Drausktanchache's answer. -Wrecan
wrecan 02-27-07, 12:45 PM	Like Raymond said, pseudodragons have an Int of 10 and are always Neutral Good. However, even if you oppose that example, let us take a look at the couatl. It has a poisonous bite, has an Int of 15 (don't have book in front of me, so might be off by a bit) and is always LAWFUL Good. 17 Intelligence, actually, which makes your point even stronger.
wrecan 02-27-07, 12:51 PM	Oh, and for those who think poison is always chaotic, I give you the Formian Myrmarch, an outsider with a poisonous bite, a 16 Intelligence and an "always lawful neutral" personality. (Of course, the even more intelligent poisonous coatl is Always Lawful Good, which indicates that poison is neither chaotic nor evil.)
Boraxe 02-27-07, 01:00 PM	Poison as a natural weapon is an entirely different matter. This is self-evident.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-27-07, 01:20 PM	Ventilatory, Your answer also has the virtue of being more consistent with the rules than Drausktanchache's answer. I didn't feel it bore mentioning.
Flan 02-27-07, 01:40 PM	Like Raymond said, pseudodragons have an Int of 10 and are always Neutral Good. However, even if you oppose that example, let us take a look at the couatl. It has a poisonous bite, has an Int of 15 (don't have book in front of me, so might be off by a bit) and is always LAWFUL Good. Lawful good will tell you why and when a couatl would use it's poison. Hands are more deadly than poison, hands have been used to murder countless people. Is your alignment choatic evil because you have hands and you CAN murder people? Ummmmmm...what part about sleep poison didn't you understand? What part of the real-world example did you not understand to not be black-and-white where sleep poison isn't magical with no risk or consequences? Personally, I don't view poison as a "Gratuitous Injury." So being keeled over in pain with someone standing over you laughing at you like the OP wants to do isn't gratuitous injury? How about you walk up to a friend and kick them in the groin really hard and while they writhe around in pain for a couple minutes try to convince them they're a big wuss who isn't gratuitously injured. Also, :confused: I don't know about you...but I think any list that says "Get this many points and when you die you go to Hell...it doesn't matter how the rest of your life was, you did bad and you gotta pay for it." I mean...seriously, if you were this evil guy, and then repented and became good, you shouldn't have to pay for what you did back when you were evil if you've truly changed your ways. The going to hell rules say it's possible to repent. I don't see it. You've signed no contract with the hostage takers that guarentees food quality. If they assume the food is safe with no guarentees attached, whose fault is that? By your reasoning if you call the pizza store and ask for a pizza and they give you a poisoned pizza it's your fault for assuming it's safe because you didn't sign a 10 page legal document that explicity said they wouldn't give you a poisoned pizza? It is implicit that food will be safe to eat. You don't need to sign a contract for every aspect of your life. Even mechanus isn't this extreme. Once people have started seizing hostages, it is perfectly legitimate to take action to rescue the hostages, and if that endangers the hostage takers, tough. You have no obligations to them. You're very very wrong. Jay-walking does not give a police officer the right to shoot you in the head, nor does taking hostages. Innocent until proven guilty. The justification of killing someone is because they pose an immediate and unambiguous threat to another's life (defense of life) which is usually not the case with a hostage taker, although it can happen. And in Mechanus, jay-walking may be a punishable by death offense. Mechanus is a little crazy that way. You'll still be entitled to due-process. Oh yes they do. They don't slip things into food, because that's extremely hard to arrange, but they use poison gases like tear gas all the time. The police assaulting is a last resort when the life the hostages are clearly threatened. Tear gas is an overt weapon, not a covert trick.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-27-07, 02:38 PM	Lawful good will tell you why and when a couatl would use it's poison. Hands are more deadly than poison, hands have been used to murder countless people. Is your alignment choatic evil because you have hands and you CAN murder people? Couatls use their poison. It's a part of their bite attack. By your reasoning if you call the pizza store and ask for a pizza and they give you a poisoned pizza it's your fault for assuming it's safe because you didn't sign a 10 page legal document that explicity said they wouldn't give you a poisoned pizza? It is implicit that food will be safe to eat. You don't need to sign a contract for every aspect of your life. I believe they have signed a contract by agreeing to abide by a health code. You're very very wrong. Jay-walking does not give a police officer the right to shoot you in the head, nor does taking hostages. Innocent until proven guilty. Except a guy walking frantically around with a gun in his hand, pointing it at frigthened people is in no way comparable to a jaywalker. I'd also like to note that the rules state that poison isn't Evil. I win.
wrecan 02-27-07, 02:48 PM	Poison as a natural weapon is an entirely different matter. This is self-evident. How is it "self-evident". It's not even "evident". In combat, a couatl could choose not to use its poisoned fangs. A pseudodragon could choose not to use its posioned tail. A formian could choose not to use its poisoned mandibles. All have the Intelligence and the Wisdom to choose differently if doing so clearly violated its alignment. How is a natural poison different - for alignment purposes - from a manufactured one? And all the real-world analogies are plain silly. Cops are not allowed to use swords against criminals, but nobody contends that swordplay is necessarily evil in D&D.
Boraxe 02-27-07, 04:20 PM	How is it "self-evident". It's not even "evident". It is self evident for the same reason that animals are neutral, even the ones that kill and eat innocent human children. It is natural for them. It is the same reason why spanking is not illegal but hitting your kid with a weapon is. I'm sorry but the difference between a rattlesnake defending itself with venom and someone slipping arsenic into the king's morning tea is blindingly obvious to me.
unusualsuspect 02-27-07, 04:45 PM	Except your rattlesnake example completely ignores the issue at hand, since our counterexample involves an INTELLIGENT, always LAWFUL GOOD creature that uses poison. Poison is "natural" to it, but that doesn't seem to allow it to ignore whatever moral/alignment implications poison may have. If poison use itself is inheritly chaotic, then only a creature incapable of moral thought - a rattlesnake, for example - will be able to ignore its chaotic necessities. Please, PLEASE explain what makes poison use chaotic in the D&D system, and explain why poison being more easily available for use (through a natural attack, in our example) makes its alignment issues go away. Until you show WHY natural poison use isn't chaotic when performed by intelligent, morally responsible beings, your argument that poison use itself is Chaotic doesn't hold water.
Boraxe 02-27-07, 05:45 PM	Except your rattlesnake example completely ignores the issue at hand, since our counterexample involves an INTELLIGENT, always LAWFUL GOOD creature that uses poison. Poison is "natural" to it, but that doesn't seem to allow it to ignore whatever moral/alignment implications poison may have. There is no need to ignore anything. It is a natural attribute, not an ethical decision. [/QUOTE]If poison use itself is inheritly chaotic, then only a creature incapable of moral thought - a rattlesnake, for example - will be able to ignore its chaotic necessities.[/QUOTE] What part of "Poison as a natural weapon is an entirely different matter" was unclear? Please, PLEASE explain what makes poison use chaotic in the D&D system, and explain why poison being more easily available for use (through a natural attack, in our example) makes its alignment issues go away. It doesn't make them go away, it doesn't involve them at all. Poison use in D&D is chaotic as it is dishonorable and deceitful, two tennets opposed to law. The reason why poison is such a contentious topic, why people can never pin down whether it is evil or not, is cos it is not a good/evil issue at all. It really is quite simple if you really examine the topic in depth and in context of the D&D alignments. Until you show WHY natural poison use isn't chaotic when performed by intelligent, morally responsible beings, your argument that poison use itself is Chaotic doesn't hold water. Water or no, it's still correct.
wrecan 02-27-07, 05:50 PM	There is no need to ignore anything. It is a natural attribute, not an ethical decision. Of course it's an ethical decision. If the pseudodragon picks up a poisoned dagger and drops it on somebody, you seem to think that is ethically different than ifi the pseudodragon stings them with their tail! That's wholly irrational and your only justification for such a stance is to declare it self-evident. And since nobody else seems to acknowledge its self-evident, it's pretty self-evident that your point is not self-evident at all. What part of "Poison as a natural weapon is an entirely different matter" was unclear? The whole thing. The argument is nonsensical. Poison use in D&D is chaotic as it is dishonorable and deceitful Not necessarily. A brandished poisoned blade dripping with ichor would be neither dishonorable nor deceitful. Would that still be chaotic in your view? What if the attacker called out "Aha! Soon you shall fall to my poisoned blade!" Still deceitful? Still dishonorable? It really is quite simple if you really examine the topic in depth and in context of the D&D alignments. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. I agree it's pretty simple. I just think that you've reached the wrong conclusion
Flan 02-27-07, 07:39 PM	What if the attacker called out "Aha! Soon you shall fall to my poisoned blade!" Still deceitful? Still dishonorable? In that case it wouldn't be chaotic. But if you did it after walking in the doorway to a room full of orphans it would be evil. :D Inigo Montoya: You are wonderful. Man in Black: Thank you; I've worked hard to become so. Inigo Montoya: I admit it, you are better than I am. Man in Black: Then why are you smiling? Inigo Montoya: Because I know something you don't know. Man in Black: And what is that? Inigo Montoya: I... am not left-handed. [Moves his sword to his right hand and gains an advantage] Man in Black: You are amazing. Inigo Montoya: I ought to be, after 20 years. Man in Black: Oh, there's something I ought to tell you. Inigo Montoya: Tell me. Man in Black: I'm not left-handed either. [Moves his sword to his right hand and regains his advantage]
Maekrix_Waere 02-28-07, 12:41 AM	Lawful good will tell you why and when a couatl would use it's poison. Hands are more deadly than poison, hands have been used to murder countless people. Is your alignment choatic evil because you have hands and you CAN murder people? Already been covered. What part of the real-world example did you not understand to not be black-and-white where sleep poison isn't magical with no risk or consequences? What part of the D&D rules where the worst thing an overdose of sleep poison can do is put you to sleep for a few days don't you understand? So being keeled over in pain with someone standing over you laughing at you like the OP wants to do isn't gratuitous injury? How about you walk up to a friend and kick them in the groin really hard and while they writhe around in pain for a couple minutes try to convince them they're a big wuss who isn't gratuitously injured. Of course, I believe that, for the most part, everyone here realizes that what the OP is proposing to do is, in fact, both Chaotic and Evil. I was arguing that most poison isn't a gratuitous injury because that paladin who's about to cut your enemy's skull in half is certainly going to cause a worse injury than some poison which is in an enemy's system for 5-10 rounds. (Average life span for an enemy after meeting a group of adventurers.) Also...nowhere in the rules does it say that poisons cause pain. Even if you thought they did, Constitution poison would be the only poison that could POSSIBLY cause physical pain. By your reasoning if you call the pizza store and ask for a pizza and they give you a poisoned pizza it's your fault for assuming it's safe because you didn't sign a 10 page legal document that explicity said they wouldn't give you a poisoned pizza? It is implicit that food will be safe to eat. You don't need to sign a contract for every aspect of your life. Of course, I believe that the example we were dealing with was hostage takers, and, I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't expect the hostage takers to phone out for pizza in the middle of taking hostages. Even if they did...I doubt the police would let them have it. The police assaulting is a last resort when the life the hostages are clearly threatened. Tear gas is an overt weapon, not a covert trick. Yes, but most poisons are applied to weapons during combat. If I saw someone applying a strange liquid to his weapon, I certainly wouldn't think, "Oh, he must be washing the blade for good luck." If they apply the poison to the weapon BEFORE attacking you, then I think that that person is about to use something just as covert, and the poison is just some added punch to speed this up...after all, he probably has a schedule to keep.
Boraxe 02-28-07, 10:11 AM	What if the attacker called out "Aha! Soon you shall fall to my poisoned blade!" Still deceitful? Still dishonorable? Not so much with the deceitful, but certainly still dishonorable. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. I agree it's pretty simple. I just think that you've reached the wrong conclusion I know precisely what the words me. Just cos you disagree doesn't make me wrong.
JulesCARV 02-28-07, 10:49 AM	Do you think poison (druid 3, cleric 4) should have the [chaotic] descriptor? It doesn't, but should it?
wrecan 02-28-07, 11:20 AM	Not so much with the deceitful, but certainly still dishonorable. Why? Just because it is listed as dishonorable in the paladin's code? Does the paladin's code establish a universal definition of "dishonorable"? Actually, the description of the paladin code does not say that using poison is dishonorable. It says the following (my emphasis in boldface): 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. The code only states that "not using poison" is honorable. That does not mean that using poison is dishonorable. You are committing a classic logical fallacy by assuming that if A = Not (B), then Not (A) = B. This can be shown through the following mathematical explanation. Let's say A is the set of all positive numbers. Let's further say that B is a number that is not in the set A. Would it be accurate, then to say that B must be a negative number? No. B could equal zero, which is neither negative nor positive. This is why your argument fails. Not using poison is an honorable act to paladins. But not all actions must be honorable or dishonorable. Some actions have nothing to do with honor. For example, scratching an itch on your elbow is neither an honorable nor a dishonorable thing to do. Thus, even though refraining from using poison is honorable (to paladins), it is not established that using poison is actively dishonorable. It may, in fact, be an act that has nothing to do with honor. Alternately, whether it has to do with honor may depend on the presence of other variables. Using poison might be neither honorable nor dishonorable. (This is exactly the reason we have "neutral" ethos and morality in D&D.) There is nothing in D&D that makes poison use dishonorable as a general rule with respect to alignment. I know precisely what the words me. Just cos you disagree doesn't make me wrong. You're not wrong because we disagree. You're wrong becasue your argument is fallacious.
aotrscommander 02-28-07, 11:48 AM	Where do you draw the line, Boraxe? Do you consider a vial of acid evil or chaotic (since it's pretty much the same thing as poison, a chemical that causes damage)? Or do you single out poison because it deals ability damage? Are all status spells chaotic? Is Cloudkill? Is there a difference between poisoning someone's food or using a poisoned dagger? Not trying to pick holes, by the way, but a genuine question about your position and why you hold it. As to honour and being chaotic, I would say that being honourable will come as a tendacy (not an absolute) to Lawful. However, a non-Lawful act does not make you chaotic in the same way not being pro-American makes you anti-American (subtitute American for any other noun of your choice). (Otherwise there would be no neutral). 'Honourable combat', for instance, unilaterally in my experience, means 'stand still and be thumped and don't to anything clever or funny like spells, dodging or doing things with the environment (e.g. throwing sand) etc, and the guy who hits hardest wins' with a similar level of 'stand there while we pummel each other with spells' for wizards. You could easily argue that all use of magic is dishonourable (and indeed in many relatively low-magic or 'primative' fiction it often is) in the same way as using steroids is dishonourable (i.e. 'cheating') in a competion because it's gaining you an advantage your competitor does not have. But that doesn't make all magic-uers chaotic any more than it makes Rogues all be chaotic because they sneak around and stab people where it hurts because the victim 'wasn't ready' (i.e. denied Dex bonus). Personally, I think that using poison, like a sword, spell or chemical weapon is itself an unaligned act. The individual it is used upon or the manner in which it is deployed will determine if an act has an alignment.
Boraxe 02-28-07, 01:04 PM	You're not wrong because we disagree. You're wrong becasue your argument is fallacious. It is not an argument, it is an opinion based on my own reasoned interpretation of the D&D alignment system. You are also assuming that I based my opinion on that one part of the description of the paladin's coe and thus my logic is flawed, but this is not the case. My opinon was derived from reading a great deal of material on D&D alignments and applying critical reasoning to it. That you don't agree with my conclusion does not make my opinion fallacious or my logic flawed.
wrecan 02-28-07, 01:55 PM	My opinon was derived from reading a great deal of material on D&D alignments and applying critical reasoning to it. What is the material on which you rely? I have now gone through your posts on this thread and you have yet to reference a single rule. All you do is make unsubstantiated pronouncements that your conclusion is based on the rules. Everybody who has cited actual rules has come out with the opposite conclusion from you. So please, help us help you. What are the rules that lead you to your conclusion that you claim to be "simple" and "self-evident"? That you don't agree with my conclusion does not make my opinion fallacious or my logic flawed. That you have assiduously refused to support your assertions, however, does give credence to the theory that you are wrong. That every rules citation made in this thread contradicts your assetions, moreover, bolsters this conclusion.
Flan 02-28-07, 02:21 PM	Everybody who has cited actual rules has come out with the opposite conclusion from you. Wrong.
Boraxe 02-28-07, 02:29 PM	What is the material on which you rely? I have now gone through your posts on this thread and you have yet to reference a single rule. All you do is make unsubstantiated pronouncements that your conclusion is based on the rules. Everybody who has cited actual rules has come out with the opposite conclusion from you. So please, help us help you. What are the rules that lead you to your conclusion that you claim to be "simple" and "self-evident"? That you have assiduously refused to support your assertions, however, does give credence to the theory that you are wrong. That every rules citation made in this thread contradicts your assetions, moreover, bolsters this conclusion. This is a dicussion forum, not a verbal exame. I don't need to cite chapter and verse cos I'm not trying to ptove anything, I am just stating my opinion. If you must know, the material from which I derived my conclusion is the D&D core rules. It matters not one whit if "everyone" disagrees with me, it still doesn't make me wrong.
wrecan 02-28-07, 02:46 PM	Wrong.What actual rules have you cited? The only one I can see was from the Fiendish Codex (which is not one of the "core rules" that Boraxe is apparently relying upon), and that didn't even deal with a universal statement of the chaoticness of using poison. It dealt, as you explained, with using poisons against one's allies. Other than that you stated, and I agree, that it has to be a "case by case" basis. Boraxe is stating it as a universal rule (in his opinion). In that sense, I don't think you two agree at all. So I stand by my statement that everybody who has cited actual rules has a position opposite of his. He has asserted his opinion (as best as I can determine) that the rules establish that using poison is always chaotic, even if the use of poison is open and obvious. I don't think anybody else in this thread, you included, agrees with that assessment. This is a dicussion forum, not a verbal exame. I don't need to cite chapter and verse cos I'm not trying to ptove anything, I am just stating my opinion. One would assume that you state your opinion, in part, so that people might agree with your assessment. I would like to discuss the basis of your opinion, which is why I asked you to let me know what it is. Apparently, you don't want to do that. That's certainly your perogative, though it doesn't speak well of your conclusions. If you must know, the material from which I derived my conclusion is the D&D core rules. Which rules in the core books? You've cited none. I've cited specific core rules that don't support your position. I have seen no rules that do. Maybe I've missed them. Maybe you've misread them. Until I know what the heck you're talking about, my conclusion (and I assume the conclusion of others) is that you are mistaken. You may claim not to care if others agree with you, but then I wonder what the purpose of discussion with others is.
Boraxe 02-28-07, 03:49 PM	One would assume that you state your opinion, in part, so that people might agree with your assessment. Why would you assume that? The OP asked a question, I answered it. He, and otherss, are free to accept or ignore that as they see fit. I don't need people to agree with me, but a bit less of the suggestion that I must be illogical, deluded, or just plain stupid for have an opinion that differs from yours would be swell. I would like to discuss the basis of your opinion, which is why I asked you to let me know what it is. Apparently, you don't want to do that. That's certainly your perogative, though it doesn't speak well of your conclusions. I don't need my conclusions to be spoken well off. The opinons of others in regards to them will not change them. Which rules in the core books? You've cited none. I've cited specific core rules that don't support your position. I have seen no rules that do. Maybe I've missed them. Maybe you've misread them. Until I know what the heck you're talking about, my conclusion (and I assume the conclusion of others) is that you are mistaken. Sorry, I thought you knew. The "Core Books" refers to the DMG, PHB, and MM. Nowhere did I say this is explicitly spelled out in the rules. If it were than this thread and other like it would not exist. What happened was that I read yet another "is poison evil" thread, probably about the 319th one that week, and got fed up with it. So I sat down and put some thought into the whole topic of alignment. My conclusion was that the reason this topic comes up so often is that human beings are taught a bi-axial good/evil view of the world from childhood, so it is onto that axis that we try to map all moral and ethical issues. D&D complicates this by adding a second law/chaos axis but we still try to map everything onto the familiar good/evil cos it is that with which we are familiar. With that in mind I cast an eye towards several problematic issues such as poison use and lying. By realizing that these are not good/evil issues but rather law/chaos ones the confusion really does vanish as they map easily, even perfectly, to this second axis. Of course there are exceptions, such as creatures with natural posion, but as that was not the intent of the OP I didn't feel it was really salient to delve into. The problem that many people seem to have with the idea of acts having absolute alignment is that they don't relaize that lawful characters can perform chaotic acts and vice versa. Being lawful or good does not mean you can never, ever perform a chaotic or evil act, it jsut means that your moral outlook favours both law and good and that, that you strive for these goals, and that overall your actions fall within those categories. Indeed if all acts were morally neutral there could be no lawful or chaotic, no good or evil, cos nothing we do would be anything but neutral. You see, one of the most important things you learn at university is critical thinking. The ability to derive conclusions from the available information and not just parotting back someon else's words or ideas. The resons I can't quote you chapter and verse where it says "poison use is chaotic" is cos there is no single chapter and verse; it is not splled out anywhere, it is a conclusion I arrived at through critical reading of the core rules as a whole and careful consideration of the issue at hand. I hope that helps to molify you. You may claim not to care if others agree with you, but then I wonder what the purpose of discussion with others is. I'm not trying to prove anything. There is no purpose beyond carrying what was an interesting discussion. Sometimes the ride is enough, you don't need a destination. BTW, sorry about all the typos. Looking at posts like that it is not surprising that you think I don;t know what I am talking about. ;)
wrecan 02-28-07, 04:52 PM	Why would you assume that? Because posting an opinion that you don't care if people agree with seems like a waste of time. The OP asked a question, I answered it. Do you care if he accepts your opinion? a bit less of the suggestion that I must be illogical, deluded, or just plain stupid for have an opinion that differs from yours would be swell. That's fine, but in the future you might consider not saying things like someone else's response is a "piece of crap" (post 46) or an implication that those who disagree with you have not engaged in a "critical reading of the D&D rules and a careful analysis of the evidence contained therein" (post 100), or that your argument is "self-evident" when you later acknowledge that it is not "explicitly spelled out in the rules" (post 113), or that the argument is "blindingly obvious" (post 117) or that those who differ from you have not "explore[d] the topic in depth" (post 120). I mean, since we seem keen to give advice on how not to be obnoxious, I figured you'd appreciate the assist. :D I don't need my conclusions to be spoken well off. Then why post them at all? Sorry, I thought you knew. The "Core Books" refers to the DMG, PHB, and MM. Nowhere did I say this is explicitly spelled out in the rules. I didn't ask for it to be explicitly spelled out. I asked for a general statement of your premises, with references to the areas of the rules that support such premises and which led you to believe that posioning is chaotic. Yeesh, Boraxe. It's amazing you can accuse me of being insulting to you and then you post something like this. My conclusion was that the reason this topic comes up so often is that human beings are taught a bi-axial good/evil view of the world from childhood, so it is onto that axis that we try to map all moral and ethical issues. D&D complicates this by adding a second law/chaos axis but we still try to map everything onto the familiar good/evil cos it is that with which we are familiar. With that in mind I cast an eye towards several problematic issues such as poison use and lying. By realizing that these are not good/evil issues but rather law/chaos ones the confusion really does vanish as they map easily, even perfectly, to this second axis. Your argument makes the same elemental error that many people make when first dealing with the alignment issue: they forget that not every action has alignment consequences. From the argument you described, you have a very large faulty premise: you assume that if an action has no alignment consequences on the good-evil axis, that it must then have consequences on the law-chaos axis. That is a faulty premise and the precise logical fallacy I described in post 126. So, the fact that poison is not an inherently evil (or good) act has nothing to do with whether posion is an inherently chaotic (or lawful) act. That is the problem in your argument, as you have so far described it. The problem that many people seem to have with the idea of acts having absolute alignment is that they don't relaize that lawful characters can perform chaotic acts and vice versa. That may be a problem, but it's not a problem I've seen on this thread anywhere. Indeed if all acts were morally neutral there could be no lawful or chaotic, no good or evil, cos nothing we do would be anything but neutral. No doubt. But just because not all acts are unaligned does not mean that poisoning is necessarily an act with alignment consequences. You see, one of the most important things you learn at university is critical thinking. Nobody who writes this can accuse others of being obnoxious. If you actually learned to think critically at university your argument would not be running afoul of one of the most elementary of logical fallacies. it is a conclusion I arrived at through critical reading of the core rules as a whole and careful consideration of the issue at hand. I hope that helps to molify you. Well, it does confirm my impression that your argument suffers from the precise logical fallacy I previously identified. So, yes, you did mollify me in that respect. Thank you. I'm not trying to prove anything. There is no purpose beyond carrying what was an interesting discussion. Sometimes the ride is enough, you don't need a destination. That's fine, except I was trying to keep the conversation going by examining the premises and assumptions of your argument and you were the one who was prematurely ending the journey by refusing to discuss your premises, assumptions and support. Now that you have begun to discuss such things, I am hopeful that this enjoyable conversation can continue. Assuming of course, that you don't continue to arrogantly claim that your arguments are "self-evident" or imply that those who disagree lack the capacity for critical thinking. Looking at posts like that it is not surprising that you think I don;t know what I am talking about. ;) My posts are always full of typos as well. Your typos are not what makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. :)
Boraxe 02-28-07, 05:47 PM	Because posting an opinion that you don't care if people agree with seems like a waste of time. Do you care if he accepts your opinion? No really. He asked, a bunch of people gave answers. He should now take all thos answers under advisement and draw his own conclusion. That's fine, but in the future you might consider not saying things like someone else's response is a "piece of crap" (post 46) I never said anyone's opinion was a piece of crap, I said the insultingly dismissive :rolleyes: smiley was. or an implication that those who disagree with you have not engaged in a "critical reading of the D&D rules and a careful analysis of the evidence contained therein" (post 100), I did no such thing. It is quite possible for someone else to also engage in a ciritcal reading of the rules and draw a different conclusion. I, personally, don;t agree with that conclusion but that does not mean I am implying that my way is the only right one. or that your argument is "self-evident" when you later acknowledge that it is not "explicitly spelled out in the rules" (post 113), or that the argument is "blindingly obvious" (post 117) or that those who differ from you have not "explore[d] the topic in depth" (post 120). Do I really need to add "IMO" to every post? I mean, since we seem keen to give advice on how not to be obnoxious, I figured you'd appreciate the assist. :D I'm not sure I see what you are getting at here. Then why post them at all? Because a free and open exchange of ideas does not necessitate everyone being in agreement. I didn't ask for it to be explicitly spelled out. I asked for a general statement of your premises, with references to the areas of the rules that support such premises and which led you to believe that posioning is chaotic. Yeesh, Boraxe. It's amazing you can accuse me of being insulting to you and then you post something like this. I didn't intend to be insulting. My apologies. Your argument makes the same elemental error that many people make when first dealing with the alignment issue: they forget that not every action has alignment consequences. I am not "first dealing with the alignment issue." Every action has an alignment - be it good, neutral, evil, lawful or chaotic. That does no necessitate consequences for said action. From the argument you described, you have a very large faulty premise: you assume that if an action has no alignment consequences on the good-evil axis, that it must then have consequences on the law-chaos axis. That is a faulty premise and the precise logical fallacy I described in post 126. That is not a faulty premise, it is true. Don't forget that "neutral" is a point on both axes. So, the fact that poison is not an inherently evil (or good) act has nothing to do with whether posion is an inherently chaotic (or lawful) act. That is the problem in your argument, as you have so far described it. It does, actually. In the D&D universe of absolut morality all actions have alignment, even if said alignment is neutral. That may be a problem, but it's not a problem I've seen on this thread anywhere. I've seen it quite a bit. No doubt. But just because not all acts are unaligned does not mean that poisoning is necessarily an act with alignment consequences. No, but the fact that poison fits into the parameters of a chaotic act does. Nobody who writes this can accuse others of being obnoxious. If you actually learned to think critically at university your argument would not be running afoul of one of the most elementary of logical fallacies. The only thing I appear to be running afoul of is, unfortunately, you. I would prefer this was not the case. Well, it does confirm my impression that your argument suffers from the precise logical fallacy I previously identified. So, yes, you did mollify me in that respect. Thank you. Take whatever impression you like, it doesn't make me wrong no matter how many times you throw aroudn the words "logical fallacy." Just cos you don;t agree with my logic does not make it fallacious. That's fine, except I was trying to keep the conversation going by examining the premises and assumptions of your argument and you were the one who was prematurely ending the journey by refusing to discuss your premises, assumptions and support. Now that you have begun to discuss such things, I am hopeful that this enjoyable conversation can continue. Assuming of course, that you don't continue to arrogantly claim that your arguments are "self-evident" or imply that those who disagree lack the capacity for critical thinking. You may have inferred it but that doesnt mean I implied it. I would hope we can continue in a polite and rational manner, too, though I believe it is key that you realize that just cos my opinion differs from yours it does not mean that my logic is inherently flawed.
wrecan 02-28-07, 06:25 PM	I never said anyone's opinion was a piece of crap, I said the insultingly dismissive :rolleyes: smiley was. The smiley was part of his response and any insult was inferred entirely by you. People generally include smileys to make clear that they are not insulting. A rolling-eye smiley means nothing more than "I don't believe this statement." Do I really need to add "IMO" to every post? No. You have to stop using terms that indicate you believe your critical thinking skills are better than other people's. I'm not sure I see what you are getting at here. I'm saying that when you proclaim your conclusions are "self-evident" you are making the claim that they are obvious. For someone to miss an obvious point indicates a lack of critical thinking skills. I believe that you intended just such an implication when you used such disparaging words. If you did not, you really need to be more careful about the words you use. This is intended strictly in the spirit of helping you not insult people in the future. Because a free and open exchange of ideas does not necessitate everyone being in agreement. An exchange is not truly "open" if one of the participants (in this case, you) refuses to discuss the bases of his opinions, particularly when they claim to be founded in the written rules. That is, in fact, the antithesis of an open discussion. I am not "first dealing with the alignment issue." I didn't say you were. I said you make the same mistake that many who first deal with such issues do make. Every action has an alignment - be it good, neutral, evil, lawful or chaotic. That statement has three problems. First, it is simply untrue. Actions don't have alignments. Only creatures and places have alignments. Actions can only have alignment consequences. As the rules state very clearly, "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies". Actions don't have personality types or philosophies. (Just to forestall the inevitable rebuttal, spells and planes don't have alignments either -- they have alignment descriptors.) Second, it is not stated in the rules anywhere that every action has alignment consequences and I would very much like to know how you made such a conclusion. Moreover, such a rule would be absurd, since 99% of the actions one takes every day would have to be classified as "neutral". Certainly, a CE blackguard who is placed into solitary confinement for his crimes and is thus unable to commit any evil or chaotic acts for ten years is not rendered neutral because all the actions he did commit for ten years are "neutral". Third, even assuming that all actions have alignments, it does not lead to the conclusion that the use of poison is inherently an act with chaotic consequences (ie, a chaotic act). The use of poison could very well be a neutral act, though I would describe it as an action with no alignment consequences (ie, an unaligned action), absent other context. That is not a faulty premise, it is true. Don't forget that "neutral" is a point on both axes. How can I forget it, since it's an essential element of the fallacy I identified. You're the one who concluded that poison must lie ion the law-chaos axis if it doesn't lie on the good-evil axis, thus ignoring the possibility that it could be "true netural" (even assuming you reject the idea of unaligned actions). In the D&D universe of absolut morality all actions have alignment, even if said alignment is neutral. That is not only not in the rules, it is expressly contradicted by the rules that define alignment as applying to things with personalities and philosophies (ie, creatures and constructs), not actions. No, but the fact that poison fits into the parameters of a chaotic act does. You haven't even begun to support that portion of your argument, although I've asked you to do so several times now. And I'll do it again: How does "poison fit[] into the paramaters of a chaotic act"? The only thing I appear to be running afoul of is, unfortunately, you. I would prefer this was not the case. Well, I'm certainly not the only one taking issue with your argument. Pretty much everybody in this thread has been. Take whatever impression you like, it doesn't make me wrong no matter how many times you throw aroudn the words "logical fallacy." Just cos you don;t agree with my logic does not make it fallacious. I never said you were wrong because you disagreed with me, and I have specifically stated (post 163) that you are not wrong merely for disagreeing with me, so please stop writing it. It's quite disingenuous. Nor am I throwing around the word "fallacious". I identified the specific fallacy you committed and even explained how that fallacy disproves your argument. Someone who claims to have learned critical thinking at university should not be put off by reference to a logical fallacy. I believe it is key that you realize that just cos my opinion differs from yours it does not mean that my logic is inherently flawed. Stop saying this. I don't believe that. I've said it several times. Why are you incapable of understanding what I write on this point?
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-28-07, 07:17 PM	They are discussing the alignment of poison.
twad 02-28-07, 07:22 PM	Using poison is no more evil than using a rusty knife, a hammer, a +5 flaming vorpal sword, or anything whatsoever. Snakes are not evil, spiders are not evil. Poison is a tool. Its the intent behind the usage of said tools that makes you evil or not.
Boraxe 03-01-07, 09:29 AM	Stop saying this. I don't believe that. I've said it several times. Why are you incapable of understanding what I write on this point? Just cos I don't agree with what you write on this point doesn't mean I don't understand it, and just cos my opinion differs from yours does not mean I'm wrong or that my logic is fallacious. We should be able to disagree without someone being disagreeable. This whole thing has become pointless and disruptive. Your posts are increasingly focused about trying to tear apart my opinion and reasoning skills and to paint me as some sort of addle minded, arrogant fool rather than focusing on the topic at hand. As such I am withdrawing myself in hopes that this will allow the discussion to resume in a more productive manner. Hoping we can carry on a more civil discourse in other threads. Cheers, man.
wrecan 03-01-07, 12:39 PM	Just cos I don't agree with what you write on this point doesn't mean I don't understand it Then why, after I specifically write that I don't believe you are wrong merely because you disagree with me, that you keep writing that my position is that you are wrong because you disagree with me?!! :banghead: just cos my opinion differs from yours does not mean I'm wrong or that my logic is fallacious. A point I've agreed with several times already!!! I am withdrawing myself in hopes that this will allow the discussion to resume in a more productive manner. Since you're the only one who seems to have a position that differs from the rest of us, I suspect the discussion will end entirely, as it should have done several pages ago.
Leo 03-01-07, 02:53 PM	Let's see... 1-It has no other use than to harm people. Weapons can be used as tools, acid as well. Poison just screws other living beings 2-I never heard of someone not proefecient with a weapon and playing with the rules to hurt himself. Poison is a weapon that can hurt you as well as your enemy. Since when do the forces of good want a weapon that will screw your own forces 1/20 of the times? 3-It hurts. A LOT. There were people who put boiling water over the wound of a dangerous spider in order to distract them from the pain of the poison. Even wasps hurt as hell, ans they are not specially poisonous. A quick slash, on the other hand, is quite painless. Many soldiers in wars didn't realize they had been hurt if they didn't see the blow coming. 4-It's expensive. Why the hell are you wasting your money and resources with a TEMPORARY upgrade to your weapon when the inocent are dying 5-It's useless against undead. And constructs. Elementals Useless against high level enemies. But quite efective in the inocent. Great, you're using a weapon that has around 50% probability of being useless against most oponents, wich at the same time will be quite effective against the good guys. Care to explain to Pelor why you persuaded the merchant to start a poison business and now half the city is ill while the BBEG and his minions are still in good shape? 6-It makes life much harder. You can't even trust the food you eat or the water you drink. An axe in the soup is somewhat easy to see, but poison? It rewards evil cowardly play. Still not evil enough? It kills babies, rewards cowards and evil guys, it's useless against most baddies, hurts even more than weapons, and then it can even hurt yourself. If this isn't evil, what the hell is evil then?
wrecan 03-01-07, 03:22 PM	1-It has no other use than to harm people. Weapons can be used as tools, acid as well. Poison just screws other living beings Unless you are saying that bug exterminators are committing evil, I think poison is absolutely a tool. When I lived in NYC, I planted ant traps and roach traps all the time. Not doing so could be considered unsanitary! 2-I never heard of someone not proefecient with a weapon and playing with the rules to hurt himself. This applies equally to evil, good, lawful and chaotic people. 3-It hurts. A LOT. There were people who put boiling water over the wound of a dangerous spider in order to distract them from the pain of the poison. Poisons in D&D don't work like poisons in the real world. Poison in D&D does nto "hurt like hell". Heck, it doesn't even cause people to be dazzled. 4-It's expensive. Why the hell are you wasting your money and resources with a TEMPORARY upgrade to your weapon when the inocent are dying I don't know. Why do people buy oils of bless weapon or magic fang? Because it helps them defeat enemies. Why wouldn't you put a sleep poison on an arrow. Sleep arrows are just as expensive, but nobody thinks using a magical sleep arrow has alignment consequences. Why should a poisoned sleep arrow?! 5-It's useless against undead. And constructs. Elementals Useless against high level enemies. But quite efective in the inocent. And aberrations and giants and monstrous humanoids. Also, it's useless against good outsiders, but that doesn't stop people from thinking poison is inherently evil. Care to explain to Pelor why you persuaded the merchant to start a poison business I assume it's because the person who did this is a moron? Care to explain to Pelor why you convinced a blacksmith to start a sword business, who then sold his entire inventory of masterworked swords to the invading orc army? The same rationale applies. 6-It makes life much harder. You can't even trust the food you eat or the water you drink. An axe in the soup is somewhat easy to see, but poison? It rewards evil cowardly play. When use din a cowardly evil manner. Daggers are easier to conceal than larger weapons, but nobody thinks that using a dagger is inherently evil. It kills babies, rewards cowards and evil guys, it's useless against most baddies, hurts even more than weapons, and then it can even hurt yourself. If this isn't evil, what the hell is evil then? Things aren't evil. People are evil!!! Daggers also kill babies, reward cowards and evil guys, are useless against most baddies. Why does the fact that something can hurt the user make it evil?! I don't even understand that argument.
DaidojiTaidoru 03-01-07, 03:40 PM	Remember Alcohol is a poison (under normal terminology and D&D rules). If poison is Evil, drinking is Evil. Edit: As is brewing.
Flan 03-01-07, 04:02 PM	Two boxers are preparing to fight. There is no prize money involved. No paying spectators. It's simply a sparring match and the winner gains nothing, and the loser loses nothing. Boxer A puts chloroform on his gloves. Chloroform is about as harmless as it gets as far as poison goes, it can give you a headache, make you weak, and a small number of people have an allergic reaction that is like a fever. It may have smaller effects like cause cancer, birth defects, etc. but they're negligeable. At this point Boxer A is obviously cheating. Boxer A is using a trick outside of the intent of the match and the rules of boxing which were implicitly being agreed to. Deceit is chaotic by definition in the PHB. Although using poison isn't in itself chaotic, the way poison is used often makes it so. During the match Boxer B is weakened by Boxer A's tactics, and lowers his guard, the chloroform has made it so he is unable to properly defend himself. Boxer A hits Boxer B and since Boxer B doesn't react properly and roll with the punch he takes the hit full on and dies from it. Accidents happen in boxing and people die occasionally, however Boxer A's actions made this accident far more likely to happen. Had he not used chloroform it would have been a tragic incident but Boxer A would not be at fault because Boxer B knew and agreed to the small risk. However since Boxer A used chloroform he greatly increased the likelyhood of such an accident and also his trickery prevented Boxer B from knowing that he wasn't fighting a normal match but something much more dangerous. Boxer A's disregard for Boxer B's life is defined as evil in the PHB. He will also be going to jail because of the chloroform. Again, using poison in itself isn't evil, but how and why it is typically used often make it so.
LCD2YOU 03-01-07, 04:08 PM	Is poison evil? Is a nuclear explosive evil? To me, it all depends on how you use them and what you use them on. Using poison on noxious plants that are choking out native vegataion? Not Evil. Using poison on your neighbor just "because"? Evil. Using a nuke on a neighboring country 'cause you have more? Evil. Using a nuke to deflect an asteriod before it wipes out the Earth? Not evil. Tools are tools. The intent behind it is what is good/neutral/evil.
pres_man 03-01-07, 04:29 PM	For anyone that believes poison is inherently evil or chaotic in D&D, please explain: COUATL Attack: Bite +12 melee (1d3+6 plus poison) Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+6, improved grab, poison, psionics, spells Alignment: Always lawful good Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 16, initial damage 2d4 Str, secondary damage 4d4 Str.
wrecan 03-01-07, 04:46 PM	At this point Boxer A is obviously cheating. Because boxing has rules (ie, the Marquess of Queensbury rules). D&D combat (from the character's perspective) does not. (From the player's perspective it does, but those rules don't bar the use of poison) Although using poison isn't in itself chaotic, the way poison is used often makes it so. I don't disagree with this statement. I merely note that "often" and "always" are very different things, particularly in the realm of D&D alignments! :) Accidents happen in boxing and people die occasionally, however Boxer A's actions made this accident far more likely to happen. Of course, in D&D, poison is even safer than chloroform. Accidental death will never occur if the boxers are in D&D world. (First, because posion doesn't ever cause accidental death and second because unarmed fighting is nonlethal unless the boxer intends to inflict lethal damage.) So your analogy falls apart at this point. Poison in D&D does not involve any risk of death unless it is lethal poison, such as COnstitution poisons and Energy Drain Poisons. Sleep poisons, Dex Poisons and the like are never lethal. Ever. (Well, theoretically, you could drown someone in a big vat of Dex poison, but in that case, Dex Poison is no more evil than water!) :) using poison in itself isn't evil, but how and why it is typically used often make it so. That is based on a faulty analogy. Unless you use a lethal poison, there are no accidental deaths in poison. I fail to see why using nonlethal poison should be considered evil any more or less often than inflicting nonlethal damage in combat is considered evil.
vader_rocks 03-01-07, 05:29 PM	You, know, I would just like to point out that I never asked whether or not it was chaotic. Just evil. Just sayin'.
Flan 03-01-07, 06:39 PM	Because boxing has rules (ie, the Marquess of Queensbury rules). D&D combat (from the character's perspective) does not. (From the player's perspective it does, but those rules don't bar the use of poison) Go to a bar, get in a fight, fine, pull a knife and kill the guy, not fine. Society has rules and unless you're wandering around in the abyss, guess what, you're part of them. So your analogy falls apart at this point. Poison in D&D does not involve any risk of death unless it is lethal poison, such as COnstitution poisons and Energy Drain Poisons. In my example the poison didn't kill him. If I knock you unconcious then throw you on the train tracks, I can't then say I'm not at fault because I only knocked you unconcious, that it's the train's fault for killing you. That is based on a faulty analogy. Unless you use a lethal poison, there are no accidental deaths in poison. I fail to see why using nonlethal poison should be considered evil any more or less often than inflicting nonlethal damage in combat is considered evil. If you serve alcohol at a party and someone gets drunk and they drive home and die in a car crash on the way home, guess what, you're ****ed. Think about it. If you dump a date rape drug in someone's drink and you get caught, guess what, you're ****ed. Do most countries around the world get together and make laws against good things all the time? Think maybe drugging or poisoning someone MIGHT be a no no?
DaidojiTaidoru 03-01-07, 06:59 PM	If you serve alcohol at a party and someone gets drunk and they drive home and die in a car crash on the way home, guess what, you're ****ed. Think about it. Uh, I don't know what country you're in by in my country you're not responsible for that death unless the person involved was under the age of 21. A scapel can be used to perform surgery or to commit murder. Ether can be used to reduce pain, or to knock victims unconcious. A tool is neither good nor evil. It's uses are. Some tools may have less good uses then evil uses, but that still does not make the tool good or evil. Edit: Or lawful or chaotic for that matter. Additional Note: And anything that acted as Ether did would be a poison in D&D terms. (Save or sleep)....
Maekrix_Waere 03-01-07, 07:30 PM	Go to a bar, get in a fight, fine, pull a knife and kill the guy, not fine. Society has rules and unless you're wandering around in the abyss, guess what, you're part of them. Of course...only Lawful characters really always care about rules. Chaotic characters don't care at all, but Neutral will at least pay the laws some mind. Also, even IRL, poisons are not punishable by law. Particularly malicious uses of poison are, but not the poison in-and-of itself. In my example the poison didn't kill him. If I knock you unconcious then throw you on the train tracks, I can't then say I'm not at fault because I only knocked you unconcious, that it's the train's fault for killing you. No, it's your fault because you were using the train as a tool to achieve their death, exactly as if one uses a sword to achieve the death of another. Also, if in your example the poison didn't kill him, then how was it a relevant example at all? After all, cheating isn't evil, it is Chaotic Neutral, and that particular form of cheating could have been done with nearly any substance. If you serve alcohol at a party and someone gets drunk and they drive home and die in a car crash on the way home, guess what, you're ****ed. Think about it. They chose to drive home. It's their own fault for not appointing a Designated Driver or giving you the keys to make sure they DIDN'T drive home. If you dump a date rape drug in someone's drink and you get caught, guess what, you're ****ed. Of course, you're in trouble exponentially more for the rape itself than the drug used to give you the opportunity to do so. Do most countries around the world get together and make laws against good things all the time? Think maybe drugging or poisoning someone MIGHT be a no no? We're not saying that using Poison in-and-of itself is Good-Aligned, we're saying that using Poison is not in-and-of itself Evil. Also, most (if not all) countries do not have a law that states, "Any and all uses of poison or any poisonous substance is punishable by law." The final problem with most of the arguements is that you are trying to but a D&D problem into the Real, Modern world, where the only things available to kill legally are rats, mice, insects, your average, everyday pests. In D&D, we have these things called monsters. They are usually very unfriendly and kill innocents on sight.
Flan 03-02-07, 02:13 AM	They chose to drive home. It's their own fault for not appointing a Designated Driver or giving you the keys to make sure they DIDN'T drive home. The law sees it differently in many countries including the US where in many states the host of the party is responsible. Yes, even for something the person at the party took willingly as opposed to an unwilling poisoning which is what we're talking about. http://www.madd.org/Laws/law/?LawID=HOST Of course, you're in trouble exponentially more for the rape itself than the drug used to give you the opportunity to do so. Did I say anything about rape? It's illegal to drug someone. WHY is it illegal to drug someone? Because it is BAD. We're not saying that using Poison in-and-of itself is Good-Aligned, we're saying that using Poison is not in-and-of itself Evil. Also, most (if not all) countries do not have a law that states, "Any and all uses of poison or any poisonous substance is punishable by law." We're talking about poison use on people, and yes, practically every country has laws against that. The final problem with most of the arguements is that you are trying to but a D&D problem into the Real, Modern world, where the only things available to kill legally are rats, mice, insects, your average, everyday pests. In D&D, we have these things called monsters. They are usually very unfriendly and kill innocents on sight. Using poison on a vicious animal is about as evil or chaotic as a vicious animal using poison. It's not what we're talking about.
LCD2YOU 03-02-07, 08:47 AM	Flan, I see reason why YOU feel drugs are evil and possibly chaotic. Some questions for you: What's the difference between killing a monster with a painless, sleep inducing then heart stopping drug and beating the crap out of it for 3 days until it succumbs to painful wounds and blood loss from multiple compound factures? What's worse? Being drugged by the city gaurd to fall asleep and then brought, bound and gagged, to the magistrate for trial or having a group of adventurers come on out, burn you, beat you, shoot you full of arrows, etc., so you can be taken beaten to a pulp back to the magistrate? Poisons are drugs. Drugs are tools. Like any tool they can be misused. It is the intent, like the difference between a nuke weapon used on people vs one used to deflect an incoming asteriod, that makes it good or evil. Pres_man asked a very good question that you've ignored. The LG Couatl uses poison:COUATL Attack: Bite +12 melee (1d3+6 plus poison) Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+6, improved grab, poison, psionics, spells Alignment: [b]Always lawful good[/b[ Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 16, initial damage 2d4 Str, secondary damage 4d4 Str.Please explain this.
wrecan 03-02-07, 09:00 AM	Go to a bar, get in a fight, fine, pull a knife and kill the guy, not fine. So, you're saying that using a poison is just as chaotic or evil (or lawful, neutral or good) as using a knife? Great. I think we all agree, then. If I knock you unconcious then throw you on the train tracks, I can't then say I'm not at fault because I only knocked you unconcious Well, mostly because you'd have been lying since in your example, you also threw him on the train tracks! But why should poison be treated any differently from the use of other things that can cause unconsciousness... like a sap or a weapon with the merciful enchantment? If you serve alcohol at a party and someone gets drunk and they drive home and die in a car crash on the way home, guess what, you're ****ed. Think about it. Can you please tie this into the argument at hand. I have thought about it and I have no idea why this shows that poison should be treated differently, than, say, confusion spells, for purposes of alignment. Think maybe drugging or poisoning someone MIGHT be a no no? Nobody is advocating that we all run around poisoning one another willy nilly. We're just saying that poison shoudld not be treated any differently from other things that are not considered to be inherently aligned. Nobody ever argues that the casting of a confusion spell has inherent alignment consequences. Or a sleep spell. Or using a sap. Ot a merciful weapon. Why should poison be treated differently?
Leo 03-02-07, 01:30 PM	So let's see if I guess this straight: Equiping your army with a weapon that 1/20 of the time will attack the user if he's not proefecient is NOT evil????????
DaidojiTaidoru 03-02-07, 01:46 PM	So let's see if I guess this straight: Equiping your army with a weapon that 1/20 of the time will attack the user if he's not proefecient is NOT evil???????? Yes. You did train them in proficiency right? Grenades are dangerous to the untrained as well, and they aren't considered Evil. If you didn't train them it's not the poison thats Evil, its your lack of concern for their lives.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-02-07, 02:16 PM	Flan doesn't seem to get that laws don't equal morality (i.e. Good - Evil), they are a code of ethics. Breaking those codes is illegal, not Chaotic, and certainly not Evil. Flan, using modern day laws as an argument concerning D&D morality is inherently flawed.
LCD2YOU 03-02-07, 02:24 PM	Flan doesn't seem to get that laws don't equal morality (i.e. Good - Evil), they are a code of ethics. Breaking those codes is illegal, not Chaotic, and certainly not Evil. Flan, using modern day laws as an argument concerning D&D morality is inherently flawed.Yup. Anybody who thinks that modern jurisprudence=justice is sadly mistaken.
DaidojiTaidoru 03-02-07, 02:27 PM	Flan, using modern day laws as an argument concerning D&D morality is inherently flawed. For that matter using any Laws in an argument about D&D morality is flawed, as odd as that sounds. The Mafia is Lawful, despite the number of crimes they commit.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-02-07, 04:08 PM	The Mafia is Lawful, despite the number of crimes they commit. What Mafia? You'd better keep your mouth shut if you want to stay out of trouble. :shifty:
twad 03-02-07, 11:12 PM	Quoted from Leo. Just to comment. 1-It has no other use than to harm people. Weapons can be used as tools, acid as well. Poison just screws other living beings Everything can be used as a weapon. Everything can be used as a tool. And weapons kills your ennemies just as dead as if you were using poison, a spoon or a fireball. It might hurt in the process or not. 2-I never heard of someone not proefecient with a weapon and playing with the rules to hurt himself. Poison is a weapon that can hurt you as well as your enemy. Since when do the forces of good want a weapon that will screw your own forces 1/20 of the times? Depends if you use critical fumbles or not.. and fireball can hurt yourself too. Oh, and every weapon will miss 5% of the time no matter the lvl, imagine the friendly fire potential with a platoon of archers.. 3-It hurts. A LOT. There were people who put boiling water over the wound of a dangerous spider in order to distract them from the pain of the poison. Even wasps hurt as hell, ans they are not specially poisonous. A quick slash, on the other hand, is quite painless. Many soldiers in wars didn't realize they had been hurt if they didn't see the blow coming. Not always. And its effects are pretty much up to the DM, not all poisons might put the victim in pain, not all slice wounds (or spooning wounds) goes unnoticed by the victim. Its doesnt take that much to hurt, and "hurtness" is pretty much relative to everyone. In battle, one might fall at the first scratch, thinking he have been mortally wounded.. 4-It's expensive. Why the hell are you wasting your money and resources with a TEMPORARY upgrade to your weapon when the inocent are dying They range between 200-1000 gp each (i think) There are a lot of temporary one-shot boosts/effects that you can put on your weapons. Or, you know, most potions are expensive too. And are one-shot. Can you blame the PCs for buying poisons so the BBEG dies much more quickly, so that he cant hurt more innocents? They are just another option in the PC arsenal. More firepower or something else? Many spells require expensive copponents, heck, enchanted arrows get costly after a while too and they might break. 5-It's useless against undead. And constructs. Elementals Useless against high level enemies. But quite efective in the inocent. Great, you're using a weapon that has around 50% probability of being useless against most oponents, wich at the same time will be quite effective against the good guys. Care to explain to Pelor why you persuaded the merchant to start a poison business and now half the city is ill while the BBEG and his minions are still in good shape? Yup. Yup, Yup, Nope. Alot of stuff is useless against undead, construct and such. You can easily soften up your ennemy defenses ith a variety of spells (or whatever else, im thinking bestow curse here, im not too familiar with the casters) so that his saves will go down, then strike with the poison. It might fail. But almost all poisons have a "secondary attack" so you actually have two chances at getting damage in. Of course "High level" are harder to hit, again, it depend on what/who you are up against. Why waste poison on low levels ennemies? Just smack them. And why waste poison on innocents? Just ignore them. 6-It makes life much harder. You can't even trust the food you eat or the water you drink. An axe in the soup is somewhat easy to see, but poison? It rewards evil cowardly play. And reward the simple spell "detect poison". Problem solved. In DnD.. its the Paranoids nightmare come true.. scry, invisibility, spells, poisons, diseases, ghosts (etherals), traps, animals, gods.. All kind of invisible forces that can kill.. And if you dont trust your food, dont eat in taverns and make your stuff yourself. Or just give your food to the dwarf... he can handle it. Still not evil enough? It kills babies (Many things do) , rewards cowards (maybe, but they are living, rich cowards now, right?) and evil guys (Of course, its their job, but not an obligation) , it's useless against most baddies(Nope) , hurts even more than weapons (Depends) , and then it can even hurt yourself (not the only thing that can, and the feat "use poison" pretty much clear this up). If this isn't evil, what the hell is evil then? (the BBEG and anything that is cute and fluffy) So i say again, poison is a tool/weapon, its the intent of the person that use the weapon/tool that says if he is evil or not. Oh, are bronze dragons evil because they like to eat poison? After all you are what you eat.. (Or is it copper Dragon? im not sure..)
High Octane 03-03-07, 01:07 AM	Having seen way too many threads on this I will simply give you straight out what I think. Poison is not evil. Poison use is not evil in itself, but can go against certain codes of conduct since its considered by many to be dishonorable. Poisons are generally illegal because unlike weapons, they show premeditation. Poisons are only very effective if applied before the battle when you are intending to kill, so its assumed that is what it is for.
Flan 03-03-07, 01:34 AM	Flan doesn't seem to get that laws don't equal morality (i.e. Good - Evil), they are a code of ethics. Breaking those codes is illegal, not Chaotic, and certainly not Evil. By your statement murder isn't evil, since it breaks a law. Murder in the PHB is by definition evil. Your statement is flawed. Although not all illegal actions are evil, the vast majority of evil actions are illegal because what society deems evil, it tends to outlaw. So yes, modern laws can be a useful, although not perfect, guide as to what is evil and what isn't. Society views poisoning people against their will, even harmless poisons, to be evil, and illegal. There are obvious exceptions like tranquilzers to prevent someone from hurting themselves or others in the case where they pose an immediate threat. Poisoning vermin isn't as long as precautions are taken to avoid harming humans, the environment, pets etc. The main idea is the will and knowledge part. If poison is used against someone smart enough that will and perception apply, then poisons will tend to be chaotic evil. That it is used against their will makes it evil, that it is used without their knowledge is trickery and makes it chaotic. Pres_man asked a very good question that you've ignored. The LG Couatl uses poison: That was discussed pages ago. Having poison doesn't make you evil, killing random people on the street with it does. France having nukes doesn't make them evil, France nuking the U.S. because it's a slow news day does. If a Couatl has to fight a level 1 person who is terrified at seeing a monster and the Coautl bites them and poisons them to death instead of simply using subdual damage then it's not a very good Coautl. A Coautl being attacked by a party of evil PCs who bites them in defence is not being evil either. The fact that it's Lawful Good says when and how it will use the poison, it has nothing to do with the fact that it has it or not.
twad 03-03-07, 01:57 AM	Maybe said coualt could bite without injecting venom?
Maekrix_Waere 03-03-07, 02:33 AM	By your statement murder isn't evil, since it breaks a law. Murder in the PHB is by definition evil. Your statement is flawed. Although not all illegal actions are evil, the vast majority of evil actions are illegal because what society deems evil, it tends to outlaw. So yes, modern laws can be a useful, although not perfect, guide as to what is evil and what isn't. Are you daft? We aren't saying that just because there's a law against it, then it isn't evil. We're saying that just because there's a law against it doesn't make it evil. You're trying to pass a modern, real-life mindset onto a Medieval Fantasy setting. The two just don't mesh. Society views poisoning people against their will, even harmless poisons, to be evil, and illegal. There are obvious exceptions like tranquilzers to prevent someone from hurting themselves or others in the case where they pose an immediate threat. Exactly. The way the poison is being used affects the alignment of the action. A group of city guards who use Drow Poison (or a poison with similar/identical effects) in order to more safely apprehend criminals isn't an Evil act, even if the criminal is being poisoned against his will. The main idea is the will and knowledge part. If poison is used against someone smart enough that will and perception apply, then poisons will tend to be chaotic evil. That it is used against their will makes it evil, that it is used without their knowledge is trickery and makes it chaotic. By this reasoning then city guards are evil because they take criminals to jail against their will. That was discussed pages ago. Having poison doesn't make you evil, killing random people on the street with it does. France having nukes doesn't make them evil, France nuking the U.S. because it's a slow news day does. Who said that killing random people on the street with poison doesn't make you evil? Certainly noone arguing that poison wasn't evil. I believe that was something that a person on your side tried to convince us we said. If a Couatl has to fight a level 1 person who is terrified at seeing a monster and the Coautl bites them and poisons them to death instead of simply using subdual damage then it's not a very good Coautl. A Coautl being attacked by a party of evil PCs who bites them in defence is not being evil either. The fact that it's Lawful Good says when and how it will use the poison, it has nothing to do with the fact that it has it or not. You're really making no sence. You keep trying to tell us we're wrong because, apparently, you disagree with our statement that, when used under the correct circumstances, Poison is not evil. Yet here, you are saying that it is perfectly fine for this couatl to use it's poison so long as the correct circumstances apply. Choose a side and stick with it. Finally, here, Templetroll posted this on another thread, but I believe it could be put to use here. http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://ynnen.blogspot.com/2005/09/poison-its-too-good-to-be-bad-ddrpg.html
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 09:35 AM	By your statement murder isn't evil, since it breaks a law. Murder in the PHB is by definition evil. Your statement is flawed. Feel free to assume the word 'necessarily' is used where it would make sense. I kind of always forget to include it. So yes, modern laws can be a useful, although not perfect, guide as to what is evil and what isn't. The PHB is the only thing you need. And some logic. And the ability to treat the definitions, as a whole, as a sudoku puzzle. Society views poisoning people against their will, even harmless poisons, to be evil, and illegal. Like you said, not everything illegal is Evil. Screw this, I'm ending the discussion now: Can a good-aligned ninja use poison without violating her alignment? In other words, is using poison considered an evil act? Nothing in the alignment information in the Player’s Handbook or the poison entry in the Dungeon Master’s Guide specifically describes the use of poison as an evil act. Of course, the purpose to which you put the poison might well be an evil act: Using poison to murder the local constable is just as evil as knifing him in a back alley. It’s possible that using poison might violate a character’s personal moral code, or the moral code of his faith or cause. For example, if local laws restrict the use of poison, its use would be considered an unlawful act, which would violate a paladin’s code (which includes “respect [for] legitimate authority”). The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn’t legal in his campaign. This is an official ruling in my favor, not yours, Flan.
wrecan 03-03-07, 04:12 PM	Man, I wish I had checked the FAQ when this thread began. Great catch, Ventilatory!
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 07:25 PM	Man, I wish I had checked the FAQ when this thread began. Great catch, Ventilatory! I do this quite often. I hear my opponents out to see if they actually have something. Then I just kick them with this when I get tired of them.
Leo 03-04-07, 11:30 AM	I do this quite often. I hear my opponents out to see if they actually have something. Then I just kick them with this when I get tired of them. You're evil then. Lawfull also. At least by D&D rules:P
plasword 04-01-07, 09:17 PM	Poison use itself ,as in smeared on your weapon. is not evil. however, using it to intentionally poison & kill fellow party members Definitely is E-VILLE! it comes down to ethical use of said item. most weapons arent evil but when they kill some person who didn't even see it coming, that's evil.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-01-07, 09:27 PM	You're evil then. Lawfull also. At least by D&D rules:P Lawful? Hell no! If you say this, you do not know me.