Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 03:58 AM	I started playing in a campaign just two sessions ago. I'm playing a poncy, elven rogue who avoids combat like a sissy :P The campaign started in a city where we found some kobolds in the sewers. We ended up retreating after some gnolls came out and got the city guard. After an embarassing moment trying to explain ourselves it became clear that we needed some evidence. Our barbarian is kill happy, the Warlock is fry happy, and our cleric couldn't hit the broad side of a bugbear. So I suggested that I use a short bow with some paralysis poisoned arrows. The DM said, "You can't use poison because you're not evil." I said, "O.K., I don't mind house rules. I'll just have to flank with a Sap." That's when the DM said it's a D&D standard rule. Huh? I can remember that being the case way back when certain classes couldn't use flaming oil but is it the case in 3.5? I looked and I can't find it. I'm just curious because there are quite a few situations where poison would make our character's lives easier. Not to mention longer lived ;)
Derren S. 09-18-05, 05:18 AM	Poison is in D&D considered evil but that doesn't mean that only evil persons can use it.
weasel fierce 09-18-05, 05:30 AM	I'd say that paladins, and clerics following strictly good aligned deities might be in trouble, but generally, I dont see an issue with using poison, for a neutral or good character. Now, others may very well consider such dastardly tactics to be evil, and they may well be illegal in the nation or city that the adventure takes place in :)
polt 09-18-05, 06:52 AM	Why is it more evil to poison somebody than to put a dagger through their throat? Or cut up their chest with a longsword?
Derren S. 09-18-05, 06:54 AM	Official version? Because poison create unneccesary suffering of the victim.
polt 09-18-05, 06:57 AM	A stab in the chest might do that also though. And you can get posion which causes no pain. Short story: I don't play with the whole "poison is evil" thing.
Derren S. 09-18-05, 07:02 AM	A stab in the chest kills. Poison doesn't kill but only causes pain.
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 07:02 AM	Poison is in D&D considered evil but that doesn't mean that only evil persons can use it. Can you give me a page number where Poison Use is considered evil?
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 07:03 AM	A stab in the chest kills. Poison doesn't kill but only causes pain. A specious argument at best. A stab in the chest causes 1-8hps while Poison can cause 2D6 Con.
Derren S. 09-18-05, 07:07 AM	No, a stab in the chest reduces somone bellow 0 HP possibly killing him as HP represents the ability to dodge. 0 HP = You can't dodge the attack and it is a full hit. 2w6 con damage is 7 con damage average, not enough to kill a normal person and many poisons don't do con damage at all.
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 07:17 AM	No, a stab in the chest reduces somone bellow 0 HP possibly killing him as HP represents the ability to dodge. 0 HP = You can't dodge the attack and it is a full hit. 2w6 con damage is 7 con damage average, not enough to kill a normal person and many poisons don't do con damage at all. Let's see... 20th Level Character with 10 Con fails a Poison Save and takes 7 Con damage. They lose 80 hit points from a single dose from an average Joe. A single stab in the chest doesn't do 80 hitpoints of damage on average, not even from a 20th level Rogue. The other glaring fact that you're failing to realize is that poison does Secondary Damage so after a minute that person who just took 7 Con will take another 7 Con. The person who got stabbed, just sits there and spends a few days healing. Poison kills, swords pester. Simple fact. BTW - Did you find a page number yet?
LCD2YOU 09-18-05, 07:39 AM	A stab in the chest kills. Poison doesn't kill but only causes pain.Not true in many cases. Poison can be debilitating, painfull or both. It can have persistant effects. Actually, I'd say using a poison on some evil warlord who is about to unite the blood-thirsty human tribes under one banner and go a pillaging about the lands is not an evil act. Stopping evil from spreading is a good act. Again, it is a delicate dance of what is the goal, what methods were used and what was the final result. Like everything else, poison is a tool. Some poisons I don't think a "good" person would ever use. Then again, there are some weapons a "good" person would never use. All are tools and it as such they are inherently neutral. Like a nuclear warhead. using nukes on your enemy will most likely be considered evil. Using a nuke on an asteriod to deflect it from hitting Earth is a good thing.
Callista 09-18-05, 07:40 AM	I believe the reference most people use, other than the BOED discussion of poisons (let's not even touch that one) is the reference to a Paladin's code of conduct in that he must "...act with honor (...not using poison)". However, honor is a Lawful concept, not necesarily a Good one; and I submit that poison use is a Chaotic act. Additionally, someone once mentioned that Drow poison is an exception, since it causes only unconsciousness... I don't know where they got that, though.
Rhomphaia 09-18-05, 07:51 AM	By and large, poisons, like magic, are not evil in and of themselves. Nor are they good. Their use is defined by motive and the origin of the poison. Now some poisons may be gleaned from the blood of young virgin elves sacrificed under the almost new moon with a rusty plastic spork. Obviously such poisons would be evil in and of themselves, and so their use would also be evil. But what about getting the poison sac off of a monstrous scorpion and using that? Is that evil? Dishonorable yes (and therefore why a paladin and most good clerics shouldn't do it) but I do not think it is evil unless the poison causes no undo harm. In all, it is up to your DM. However, nowhere in the core rules does it state that the use of poison is evil. I may be wrong, but I remember absolutely nothing stating such in the PHB, DMG or MM1.
ck2001wendt 09-18-05, 08:04 AM	Additionally, someone once mentioned that Drow poison is an exception, since it causes only unconsciousness... I don't know where they got that, though. Book of Exalted Deeds. Drow Poison is (ironically) not considered evil because it renders the victim unconscious rather than damaging them. Most "poisons" in the DMG are interesting in that they don't cause Con damage. Is a Str damage poison cruel and unusual? Enough doses of it will paralyze (not kill) a character; it is basically a muscle relaxant. Furthermore, they work exactly like Ravages and Afllictions (the BoED's "good" poisons). There is no hard and fast restriction on all Good characters being disallowed from using poison. "Very" good characters, like Paladins and Exalted, will find themselves without their powers very quickly.
Gilean 09-18-05, 09:38 AM	They are exactly as evil as acid. In other words, not at all.They can't be inherently evil; see detect evil. Also, a Couatl has inherent poison, good alignment (LG, to be precise) and Good subtype.
Derren S. 09-18-05, 09:44 AM	BOED Page 34. "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent".
Crystal Monk 09-18-05, 09:57 AM	BOED Page 34. "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent". hmm... I disagree with that, because it assumes poison causes suffering. the DMG lists poisons, the rules for them, and their effects on pages 296-297, and nothing there says anything about suffering. granted, I'm sure that some poisons do make the poisoned individual feel like the floor at a Tarrasque dance club, but to assume that they all do? I don't buy it. I think a good, though definitely not lawful, user of poison could be a bounty hunter or similar person. it's one thing to hunt your quarry down and kill/incapacitate them with force of arms. it's another to find a way to poison their food so that they pass out, then show up and act like an old friend who's helping someone with a drinking problem or the like. problem solved, bounty caught, not a blade drawn. not lawful by a long shot, but I think it falls under "good." :D
feartheinvinceblehamster 09-18-05, 10:43 AM	i just wanna light up that section of the BOED. why is causing evil creatures suffering with "ravages"(AKA poison) not evil, but in fact exalted????
Derren S. 09-18-05, 12:20 PM	hmm... I disagree with that, because it assumes poison causes suffering. the DMG lists poisons, the rules for them, and their effects on pages 296-297, and nothing there says anything about suffering. Nothing in the DMG says that slashing someone with a sword causes pain so killing someone by slicing his extremeties one by one is completly painless...
Andrew_980 09-18-05, 12:53 PM	Does CORE say poison is evil? Does CORE say poison causes pain? BoED says poison is evil because it causes pain. BoED says ravages are good DESPITE THE FACT IT GRAPHICLY DESCRIBES THE SUFFERING THEY CAUSE!!! BoED is not fit for toiletpaper, it should be burnt and forgoteen and never used for morality arguement as it is self contradictory and follows no logic at all.
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 06:16 PM	Thanks for the BOED quote but what's the page number. I don't mean to be a pest but I don't own the book and we're not using it. I think this is more of a case of old school gamers unable to fit into the new D&D mentality (they still play the hopelessly pathetic Forgotten Realms setting). I really want my character to be sort of a pacifist but w/o poison to knock them unconcious I have to get a Bow of Mercy or become an Arcane Trickster. Or I simply have to change my character concept to become a Holy, Compassionate Stabber.
Derren S. 09-18-05, 06:22 PM	Note that according to the BOED only poison which does ability damage is evil. Poison which knocks the target unconcusionous is ok,
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 06:27 PM	Note that according to the BOED only poison which does ability damage is evil. Poison which knocks the target unconcusionous is ok, AWESOME! Thanks, you've beeen a big help :D :D
AtomicPope 09-18-05, 06:30 PM	I'm playing in an hour so I'll be sure to purchase some God fearing poison :P My character has a piddly 8 strength so I typically do 1 pt of damage with a thrown dagger :embarrass:
Salla 09-18-05, 06:47 PM	My personal take: All poisons are chaotic (it is a remarkably underhanded way to battle), but only lethal (Con damage or damage=death) poisons are evil. Poisons are usually considered evil because they 'cause undue pain and suffering', but a fair number of poisons actually don't hurt you as they work through the body. For example, an INT, WIS, or CHA-damage poison could easily simply make you 'high' or have pleasant hallucinations. A DEX or STR damage poison could just make you numb. Additionally, I can't see where using a nonlethal poison to capture an opponent without risking kill him is evil. It's certainly dirty pool, so Paladins probably shouldn't be doing it, but really, I can't see anything evil about using a STR damage poison to weaken someone so they can be easily tied up and taken to the authorities. Yes, you can use that situation to kill them while they're defenseless, but that's the evil act, not putting them in the position where it's possible.
Salla 09-18-05, 06:50 PM	i just wanna light up that section of the BOED. why is causing evil creatures suffering with "ravages"(AKA poison) not evil, but in fact exalted???? Because the ravage is merely a catalyst; the ravage makes the evil within the creature turn on it (evil feeds upon itself). Note that attacking a non-evil creature with a ravage does nothing, whereas poisons are indiscriminate. (I'm not sure I buy it, but I believe that was the theory.) To go back to the original post: Even if you're not evil, and poisons are considered universally evil, there's nothing at all stopping you from using poison. If you use it a lot, you will be in danger of an alignment change, but there is no rule that says you cannot use it. You'll just have to suffer the consequences of doing so (legal problems, loss of Paladinhood if appropriate, alignment shift may change class availability). So you always CAN use poison, but it's not always so clear whether you should.
=-Nonsensical-= 09-18-05, 08:03 PM	IMO it depends on who you're poisoning and why. Poison is just a tool and isn't inherently good or evil, in the same way a sword is neither good nor evil.
Super_Demolition_Christ 09-18-05, 08:04 PM	using poison is an evil deed. But you dont have to be evil to use it. this is the case of the "greater good". The official books only warn that Paladins, and often good clerics, cant do even a small evil deed for a good outcome. However, no one else has such divine restictions. Causing a little pain in an enemy so you can knock him out and tie him up so you dont have to kill him, is a little evil for a greater good.
spectralphoenix 09-18-05, 08:19 PM	Call me crazy, but isn't it less evil to use a non-CON damaging poison to cause a little suffering and incapacitate a target without killing him then to use an axe and cut him into tiny pieces? Especially considering that the axe will probably hurt just as bad as the poison. I think the whole poison = evil thing is an artifact of older editions of D&D, which were built on a much stricter set of fantasy archetypes.
Deflare 09-18-05, 08:23 PM	I'd call the use of poison Chaotic, not Evil. It's a dishonorable way to fight, but come now- would you really dub someone evil if they had slipped hemlock into Hitler's drink? (Please no invocation of Godwin's Law; Hitler is the best example of RL evil that I can think of) This applies doubly so for poisons that don't kill. Which is more good- killing an evil being outright, or knocking them out with poison and dragging them back to the authorities?
Crystal Monk 09-18-05, 08:42 PM	hmm... I disagree with that, because it assumes poison causes suffering. the DMG lists poisons, the rules for them, and their effects on pages 296-297, and nothing there says anything about suffering.Nothing in the DMG says that slashing someone with a sword causes pain so killing someone by slicing his extremeties one by one is completly painless... okay, now you're just being silly. anyone who's been cut, which is probably just about everyone here, knows that it hurts. if that needs to be pointed out in the rules, then that's a problem that goes far beyond D&D. :D however, being that the book in question (BoED) says that poisons cause suffering and are therefore evil, and the core book (DMG) says nothing about physical suffering due to evil, that's why I took issue with it. after thinking about it, though, I have to agree that poisons would cause suffering, regardless of the DMG's not mentioning it. considering that they drain one or more of the six vital statistics, that's not something a living being would be able to just shrug off or ignore. therefore, yeah, I think using poison that drains ability scores would be an evil act.
Capt. Pixel 09-18-05, 08:46 PM	Note that according to the BOED only poison which does ability damage is evil. Poison which knocks the target unconcusionous is ok, Hmmm. So Ray of Enfeeblement and Chill Touch are Evil Spells? :confused: Seems a bit contradictory, eh?
spectralphoenix 09-18-05, 09:14 PM	First of all, I think the whole "ravages" thing is a little silly. If something causes pain, whats the difference between that and traditional poison? Second of all, swords kill people. Why would anything that deals with enemies nonlethally be more evil?
feartheinvinceblehamster 09-18-05, 09:59 PM	this is a good ravage: essence of evil, pain, terror, horrid agony, and absolute good. intial damage: 1d6 con damage, nauseated, collapse on the ground screaming and trying to kill yourself. secondary damage: fall to the ground shreiking, retching, hallicanating, and on fire. only works on evil creatures save DC 23 using this pois-i mean ravage, is just about the most holy thing you can do. if a paladin uses it, he is more favored by his god. Clerics love it because of how holy it is. people affected by it tend to disagree. but they usually can't because they are on the ground with 3 less con, nauseated, on the ground screaming, shreiking, hallucinating, on fire, and trying to kill themselves. if you use this pois-ravage you automatically become a saint. that is how holy and good using this ravage is. and, correct me if i'm wrong, aren't ravages made by using the craft(poisonmaking) skill? i wouldn't be surprised if they are.
Deflare 09-18-05, 11:20 PM	after thinking about it, though, I have to agree that poisons would cause suffering, regardless of the DMG's not mentioning it. considering that they drain one or more of the six vital statistics, that's not something a living being would be able to just shrug off or ignore. therefore, yeah, I think using poison that drains ability scores would be an evil act. Not necessarily. There are neurotoxins that kill within seconds (that's a whole lotta CON damage);presumably, they don't hurt much more that a quick sword to the head (not that many people who have experienced either have lived to tell about it). Novacaine could be said to do DEX damage, as it renders that particular area incapable of movement or feeling; that doesn't cause agony, does it? Anaesthetics render one unconscious (STR damage); yet all they do is make you sleepy. Marajuana, opium, alcohol, and various other recreational drugs can be said to be WIS, INT, and CHA affecting poisons; the fact that people take them for fun indicates that they don't cause suffering (well, except for the hangover). While there are certainly poisons that cause all sorts of suffering as the operate, there are undoubtedly some that don't. It should be up to the DM to rule which is which, and decide whether using either or both is an evil act. Nonetheless, there are some poisons that cause no pain other than that of getting hit with the arrow that delivers the poison. Final thought: How are painful poisons evil, but not a spell like heat armor (don't remember the specific name, but you get an idea of its effects)? Wouldn't burning alive in one's armor be much more unpleasant than feeling ill before keeling over?
Andrew_980 09-19-05, 01:25 AM	The whole "causes pain" arguement doesn't work, as many poisons are anistetic (no pain) or even enjoyable (mental damage/"high"), and ALL weapon strikes are sure to hurt! My further hatred of the BoED is that unlike poisons, ravages give detailed descriptions of torture. Mind you, this is the same book that says it is NEVER ok to torture but apparently this form of torture gets the "paladin aproved" stamp? This is how that book earned a spot on my sig dammit
Derren S. 09-19-05, 04:47 AM	Please show me a D&D posion which is a painless neurotoxin or enjoyable drug (which are, to begin with drugs, not posion)
spectralphoenix 09-19-05, 04:49 AM	Yeah..."the ends justify the means as long as the means are called something different and used against evil." I think that certain societies, like the the medieval Europe that D&D is based on would consider poison immoral or at least unethical, but I think that's a society thing, rather than an intrinsic quality. Edit: I just had to add this because the post above was placed after I started writing this, most of the poisons on the DMG don't exist, so I can't really tell you much about their effects.
Gilean 09-19-05, 11:27 AM	Please show me a D&D posion which is a painless neurotoxin or enjoyable drug (which are, to begin with drugs, not posion)Drugs would be treated as poisons. Anyway, you seem to be conveniently ignoring all the posts that tell you how contradictory the BoED is. It is not a valid source for anything. Also, Couatl, spells that deal ability damage (including the poison spell), lack of core references on your part... Though you have a good avatar, please argue your point with more than "BoED says so."
Derren S. 09-19-05, 11:42 AM	How can I debate with you when you simply ignore anything which speak against your point (BOED)? Only because Ravages are a bit contradictory with the exalted status doesn't make the statement that poisons are evil untrue. Thats something completly different. Also drugs are not poison, they are a seperat category as per BOVD. Spells that deal ability damage are different from poison, they only have the same effect. Or you can say torture and diplomacy are the same as you can extract information with both from a prisoner. And what has the Couatl to do with this? They are LG but thats all, they have no good subtype and alignment has nothing to do with some species physical abilities.
DrMorganes 09-19-05, 11:54 AM	Poison is a marvelous way to level the playing field. Rogues and other underhanded (read "chaotic") types will, in general, use it without much of a second thought. Keep in mind, however, that untrained characters have a flat 5% chance of poisoning themselves when applying poison to a blade or arrow. That's 5% per application. Poisoning 20 arrows? Roll 20 times. You'll manage to nick yourself once on average... There are no standard classes and very few non-evil prestige classes with poison proficiency. The whole "poison use is evil" thing harkens waaaaaay back to AD&D, when there was a table in the DMG (or was it the Player's Handbook...?) listing all classes and whether they could use poison. Most of those entries read "only if evil". If you're concerned about it, rule that non-evil characters would only use non-lethal poisons. Anything damaging STR or DEX, or that causes sleep would fall into this category. CON-damaging toxins would be right out.
Rhomphaia 09-19-05, 11:54 AM	You know, the last time I checked, monstrous scorpions, spiders and centipedes were neutral, not evil and yet their primary attack mode is POISON that deals ABILITY damage.
Derren S. 09-19-05, 12:02 PM	But because they are nonsentient they can't have an alignment other than neutral. Oh and Gilean, plese show me the ravage which causes undue suffering as all ravages have a psychological and not a physical effect. The only ravage which coud fit this is Depraved Decadence which causes a feeling of hunger.
Planar Wanderer 09-19-05, 12:29 PM	cue debate on skeletons and zombies so can we just assume we got that bit out of the way to begin with since too many threads have been devoted to that already. First I'll say that if Derren S. wants to run his game with poison use being evil he can, thats his right, I personally disagree however, for one thing the "poison" spell is lacking the [evil] descriptor, if poison use was evil shouldn't it have that descriptor then, I can't comment on BOED, BOVD as I don't have them. The feelings created by a poison are as much your guess as mine since the core doesn't list it and some RL things such as anaesthetics and alcohol which would probably need to be modeled as poisons don't cause pain, at least discounting things like hangovers.
Judging Eagle 09-19-05, 01:15 PM	... Also drugs are not poison, they are a seperat category as per BOVD. ... Not true, poisons are simply medecines used in large quantities. Examples include: morphine (and opiates) (since... morphine can stop your heart if you take enough to relax your muscles too much), coco (ie. cocaine, the same goes with excessive endorphine flow, too much is always a-okay! by your defintion), sleeping medication (oh.. awit, I've never heard of a person over-dosing on sleeping pills to commit suicide). By the same light, medicines can be obtained from poisons. Hell, look at snake antidotes, they're made from snake venom extracts. Toxicology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicology) In any case. This topic suddenly reminded of a PC cohort in a campaign I run. The cohort is a Formian warrior that has as her (ants are, by almost default female, the only males are breeders) primary attack, a stinger that uses a poison to deal Str-based damage (1d6 str initial and 1d6 afterwards). Now if this lawful neutral creature uses poison in combat (and considers the male half-elf bard her 'sister'), then realizes that her warrior-sisters (the other party) aren't using weakening poisons on their large 'claws', and she then told them that they could produce doses of the poison; would the PCs extracting poison (and of course using it) from a willing source who already uses this natural poison herself in combat be evil? How hard would it be to extract poison from
Derren S. 09-19-05, 01:17 PM	Not true, poisons are simply medecines used in large quantities... In real life yes. In D&D not. In D&D drugs have a chance for addiction, posions not. Thats the primary difference.
Gilean 09-19-05, 01:47 PM	How can I debate with you when you simply ignore anything which speak against your point (BOED)?It is contradictory specifically on matters of poisons and alignment, in the form of ravages. To me that indicates that it is not a valid source for arguments concerning poison and alignments.Only because Ravages are a bit contradictory with the exalted status doesn't make the statement that poisons are evil untrue. Thats something completly different.Something related. Obviously related.Also drugs are not poison, they are a seperat category as per BOVD.Shrug. Are they mechanically different too?Spells that deal ability damage are different from poison, they only have the same effect. Or you can say torture and diplomacy are the same as you can extract information with both from a prisoner.Uhmm...the poison spell. Deals con damage, no evil tag. Also, according to your precious source text poisons are evil because they cause unnecessary pain in the form of ability damage. From that we can deduce that ability damage causes pain. And is thusly evil. Which is simply not true. Would you say that acid causes unnecessary pain? What about fire? Lightning? Cold? Diseases? Where is the line drawn? Personally, I would say that acid is a lot more evil than poison by that standard.And what has the Couatl to do with this? They are LG but thats all, they have no good subtype and alignment has nothing to do with some species physical abilities.Always LG, and outsiders. Granted, they do not have the Good subtype. I remembered wrongly. Still, if using poison was inherently evil they would at least have some kind of note on disliking to use it, or coldn't be good. Just for record, I have exactly as much access to BoXD as I want. In other words, none. Suffering isn't real unless it is physical? Right.
Derren S. 09-19-05, 01:56 PM	Ok, then before you come with the great inconsisty between poison and ravages you should know that ravages only have psychological effects. Depression, hunger, drowsiness and other mental effects which is quite different from the physical effects poison has. And yes drugs have a other mechanic than poison. They have the same save and secondary save as poison but in addition a addiction rating, a unsafeable side effect (Thats the pleasure thing, mostly) and they have a overdose danger.
Andrew_980 09-19-05, 02:27 PM	Depression, hunger, drowsiness and other mental effects which is quite different from the physical effects poison has Mental torture=exalted Possable physical pain=evil Mentally abuse, chinese water torture, and mindrape your captives, cause mental torture is exalted!!! but don't cause any physical pain, thats evil :confused: Forgive me if I am ignorant but how is it good to cause such hunger it weakens the enemy, such sexual frustration they cease to function properly but evil to use an anystetic (dex damage)?
LCD2YOU 09-19-05, 02:39 PM	Ok, then before you come with the great inconsisty between poison and ravages you should know that ravages only have psychological effects. Depression, hunger, drowsiness and other mental effects which is quite different from the physical effects poison has.Come on Derren, the differences between poisons and drugs depends on what name you give them. Many poisons will do the same thing as a drug. As was pointed out earlier, enough Morphine will kill you by stopping your heart. Sounds like a poison to me.And yes drugs have a other mechanic than poison. They have the same save and secondary save as poison but in addition a addiction rating, a unsafeable side effect (Thats the pleasure thing, mostly) and they have a overdose danger.From the example above, would you say that Morphine is a drug or a poison? What about the poison of the Ctoatl? Like everything that is non-sentient, the tool is not evil. It is how the tool is used that is good or evil. Undo pain? Try a hammer on the ends of a person's fingers.
Derren S. 09-19-05, 03:09 PM	Morphine would actually be a drug because the primary use for it, reducing/ignoring pain, isn't a poison effect which is ability damage, sleep, unconcussioness or death, all negative effects. in D&D stats the pain resistence morphine gives would be a secondary effect similliar to luhix but a lot less potent (and dangerous). The "take enough to stop your heart" is the overdose effect. Generally speaking. Poisons have no positiv effect. They only harm even in small quantities and I have yet to hear from someone addicted to cyanide. The poison of a Couatl is of course poison.Nnow someone will for sure come and say that they are LG so poison is not evil. So, how do you know that a normal Couatl uses his poison at all unless under dire circumstances? They still have their constrict ability, spells and psionic.
LCD2YOU 09-19-05, 03:43 PM	Morphine would actually be a drug because the primary use for it, reducing/ignoring pain, isn't a poison effect which is ability damage, sleep, unconcussioness or death, all negative effects. in D&D stats the pain resistence morphine gives would be a secondary effect similliar to luhix but a lot less potent (and dangerous). The "take enough to stop your heart" is the overdose effect.Or one could say that the difference between "Morphine the Drug" and "Morphine the Poison" is again the amount one takes as Judging Eagle stated. The amount of Morphine that drops your Con to 0 as it stops your heart, is much higher than the medicinal effect of very low dose of Morphine to numb the pain.Generally speaking. Poisons have no positiv effect. They only harm even in small quantities and I have yet to hear from someone addicted to cyanide.Actually, in small doses, many cases of poison can cause withdrawl symptoms. Nicotine and Caffeine are two such "drugs".The poison of a Couatl is of course poison.Nnow someone will for sure come and say that they are LG so poison is not evil. So, how do you know that a normal Couatl uses his poison at all unless under dire circumstances? They still have their constrict ability, spells and psionic.Which leads one to say for if such a paragon of virtue that I believe the Couatl to be can use poison in the most dire of circumstances, then I don't see why a Paladin should be barred from it. Afterall, if an extreme situation comes up, a Paladin should be allowed to use poison.
Derren S. 09-19-05, 03:52 PM	Or one could say that the difference between "Morphine the Drug" and "Morphine the Poison" is again the amount one takes as Judging Eagle stated. The amount of Morphine that drops your Con to 0 as it stops your heart, is much higher than the medicinal effect of very low dose of Morphine to numb the pain. It doesn't work that way in D&D. A substance is either a poison or a drug, not both. If you don't know it, drugs also do ability damage so they don't only rely on their overdose effect to kill someone. Actually, in small doses, many cases of poison can cause withdrawl symptoms. Nicotine and Caffeine are two such "drugs". And what makes you think that those two are poison in D&D and not drugs? As both have beneficial side effects they are drugs, not poison. Which leads one to say for if such a paragon of virtue that I believe the Couatl to be can use poison in the most dire of circumstances, then I don't see why a Paladin should be barred from it. Afterall, if an extreme situation comes up, a Paladin should be allowed to use poison. Why? Poison use is evil and paladins are very restricted when it comes to evil things other than "only" LG creatures.
Judging Eagle 09-19-05, 04:26 PM	Why? Poison use is evil and paladins are very restricted when it comes to evil things other than "only" LG creatures. All right. Couatl's are... Only LG. However they can use poisons when circumstances are "dire". Correct? After all, you already asserted that yourself. The poison of a Couatl is of course poison.Nnow someone will for sure come and say that they are LG so poison is not evil. So, how do you know that a normal Couatl uses his poison at all unless under dire circumstances? They still have their constrict ability, spells and psionic. So. Now, Paladins can only be? Oh, right... lawful good. In fact, a Paladin has to be more lawful good than a Coatl, since if a Paladin does anything to change his alignment they lose all of their paladin abilites and have to Atone. However, if circumstances were "dire", wouldn't he be "allowed" to use a poison to disable an enemy so as to not have to kill them (ie. Formian Warrior Stinger Poison, Carrion Crawler Brain Juice)? By your own words, a Paladin would do whatever he needed to to be able survive a terribly 'dire' fight. I'm not going to argue that a paladin or cleric would go and burn down an orphanage, round up the orphans and sacrifice them to a dark god to save a nation because that's a catch-22 meant to make a PC fall. What I'm talking about is what is the result, the intent, and the method. The result is an enemy who you can now tie up or carry out to the local justice hall. The intent is not to kill, but rather to disable, you never see anyone in pain when novocaine is spread on their hand, however it completely makes the contacted skin useless and numb. The method is... a bit sneaky, but it risks less harm to everyone involved if an enemy doesn't have to be actually killed. Then again, you may play your "Paladins" as an excuse to destroy anything evil as way to vent anger and you are no better in the manner in which you fight "evil" than they are when they fight you back. Those who slay monsters must beware becoming a monster themself.
Derren S. 09-19-05, 04:32 PM	Read the paladin code again. When a paladin willingly performs a evil act he looses his powers. No "End justifice the means" or "dire circumstances" or "good intent". A Paladin uses poison then he looses his powers. Note the poison which makes someone unconcussionous is allowed even for a paladin, but poison that does ability damage isn't.
Rhomphaia 09-19-05, 07:43 PM	But because they are nonsentient they can't have an alignment other than neutral. Oh and Gilean, plese show me the ravage which causes undue suffering as all ravages have a psychological and not a physical effect. The only ravage which coud fit this is Depraved Decadence which causes a feeling of hunger. Skeletons and zombies are nonsentient too, and have a NE alignment.
feartheinvinceblehamster 09-19-05, 07:52 PM	here's another ravage: essence of death...and loving kindness save DC: 18 take 100d6 points of damage as your body is wracked with pain. and 4d6 points of con damage. and 2d4 points of str damage. and 3d6 points of INT damage. and 4d4 points of wisdom damage. and 1d4 points of charisma drain. and gain 1d4 negative levels. and be targetted by a disintergration spell(no save) if you aren't dead and you failed your save, your probably a munchkin.
Verelor 09-19-05, 09:47 PM	Here's your answer: lethal poisons are both chaotic and non-good, but not evil. There, done! And btw, there have always been and currently are people out there just as evil as or more evil than Hitler, they just don't have power.
Solik 09-19-05, 10:41 PM	The poisons vs ravages thing has already been covered in the Mature forums. Ravages are not evil because they function on the target's own evil nature. Those who are not corrupted have nothing to fear from them. Thus, only evil beings could call them evil -- and who cares what they think, really? The deal about poisons themselves being evil because of ability damage, though, does disagree a little with core. It could be that the author disagreed with the authors of core (in which case all you have to do is decide which author -- if any -- to go with, as none of them are omnipotent ultimate sources of moral thought). It could have also been an oversight. Who knows? Who cares? All the other non-core books have material that disagrees with core. They just openly label them "Variants" and so forth. The author of the BoED probably hoped that the "Mature" label would remove the need to childishly clarify every little statement. Apparently he was mistaken.
Lina_Inverse 09-19-05, 11:26 PM	Poison is evil because it is used to harm those who are not threatening innocents. The evil baron is not currently oppressing his people he is eating dinner and chatting with his family.
Starlight Knight 09-19-05, 11:56 PM	Ok I have to throw my 2 cents in here. But first, keep in mind that I play mostly 2nd edition so I'm not going to claim to be an expert on anything. First, a paladin would consider poison evil. He would also consider backstabbing (something rogues excell at) to be evil as well. But let's face it, a rogue should not be doing the main fighting. I see no problem with him using it as a means to stay alive and keep his friends alive as well. Now if you get a slow poison intending to cause pain just so you can get some kicks, then yes that is evil. But if you can find a quick poison I see nothing wrong with it. In my mind, using a good poison is the same as a paladin using a bastard sword. Though the right type of poison might kill quicker. I hate to sound like a newbie, but what is the BoED?
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-05, 12:35 AM	Poison is evil because it is used to harm those who are not threatening innocents. The evil baron is not currently oppressing his people he is eating dinner and chatting with his family. So the only time I can whack him with my greenblood oil enhanced sap is while he's eating with his family? Odd restriction. No, poison isn't evil, the BoED, where this crap came from is a bad supplement. No argument for it being evil holds water, even the half assed 'ability damage hurts' excuse in the BoED, since it didn't try to call wounding weapons or Ray of Enfeeblement evil.
spectralphoenix 09-20-05, 01:02 AM	The BoED is the book of Exalted Deeds. That said, just because ravages only work on evil creatures doesn't make them okay. A long sword works on creatures of all alignments and you don't see paladins penalized for using swords, do you? Besides, wouldn't it be ok then to cast detect evil to make sure your target was "officially" evil and then use a poison? Originally Posted by Solik Ravages are not evil because they function on the target's own evil nature. Those who are not corrupted have nothing to fear from them. Thus, only evil beings could call them evil -- and who cares what they think, really? Isn't this saying the ends justify the means? As long as a creatures evil, it can be tortured, poisoned, whatever by paladins?
Deflare 09-20-05, 03:04 AM	The poisons vs ravages thing has already been covered in the Mature forums. Ravages are not evil because they function on the target's own evil nature. Those who are not corrupted have nothing to fear from them. Thus, only evil beings could call them evil -- and who cares what they think, really? Aye, just like having the government invade private citizens' privacy isn't bad, because only criminals have anything to worry about. Nevermind the possibility that individual government officials may misuse the information, or that idiotic, evasive laws against victimless 'crimes' may be passed. Who cares? All the other non-core books have material that disagrees with core. They just openly label them "Variants" and so forth. The author of the BoED probably hoped that the "Mature" label would remove the need to childishly clarify every little statement. Apparently he was mistaken. Dirty trick #3: If you can't discount your opponent's argument, discount your opponent. So, because those of us that see good or neutral uses of poison don't subscribe to the "black and white- f we use it it's good, if you use it it's bad" school of thought, we're immature? Wonderful. Once more going back the Hitler example (aye, he's not the worst evil, but he's definitely the most well-known), he never directly killed anybody in the concentration camps; by your logic, that would make killing him with poison an evil act, which I simply cannot accept. Again- look at all the spells throughout all the supplements, as well as core. Think about what their effects would be in real life. If many of the combat spells aren't more tortuous than a poison that's designed to be non-painful (which is up to the DM, since none of the D&D poisons exist in real life), I'll eat my watch- and this is one of those near-indestructible watches with the liquid crystal stuff inside. Acid fog is a big one- Think of what it'd be like to be enveloped by a fine mist that begins eating away at your flesh, relentlessly driving infinite needles into your skin and removing chunks as they go. At this point, a good poison may well be a mercy.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-05, 03:14 AM	My personal take: All poisons are chaotic (it is a remarkably underhanded way to battle) I'd think a marshal in the Watch would be both Lawful and very happy to make use of incapacitating chemicals.
KismetRose 09-20-05, 03:50 AM	The rationale that poison use is evil has always seemed flawed to myself and my group, and we've come down to this: The main line of D&D is that you're supposed to be playing the heroes. It is the steady theme across most products. Thus, if they make poison use evil, then poisons will be out of the hands of the good PCs and squarely in the hands of the DM. It appears that poison was outlined in depth mostly because of all the creatures that produce it; the rules for character use were added reluctantly. Thus, all of the restrictions (alignment, generally inflated prices, low save DCs, the chance to poison oneself) that make the use of poison amongst PCs less likely. I mean, honestly, poison is cruel because it causes ability damage? As others have pointed out here, there are other means to damage ability scores that are more effective (since the save DCs for spells go up with caster level, while the save DCs for poison remain static and often quite low). These methods are often not listed as being evil. The idea that poison is evil because it causes undue suffering above and beyond weapons and spells just doesn't jive. Weapons are made to cause suffering; even when the evil folks are being skewered by the "righteous," they are still experiencing suffering. Hell, some weapons cause effects that don't go away instantaneously and cause more damage, like wounding. And spells are the same way. Bestow curse can damage scores for quite an amount of time and blindness can really slow the enemy down, but those lasting spells aren't evil. But the heroes are supposed to be using spells and weapons - not poisons. As I said before, this is what we've come down to in my group. Your mileage may vary.
IceFractal 09-20-05, 05:56 AM	Yes, I always found the BoED take on things ridiculous. Saying that something is evil because it can hurt non-evil creatures is just ridiculous. I guess a sword is evil then? And sure, maybe poison hurts. But you know what? Being stabbed hurts. Being smacked on the head with a warhammer hurts. Being thrown through a window hurts. Being engulfed in a blast of fire hurts. Being trapped in a cloud of acid really hurts. Most things that you do in combat are going to hurt. And saying that poison is somehow "extra bad" is foolish. To me, it comes down to fantasy cliches. If you're playing a game to get the martial-arts movie, running up the walls and jump kicking people experience, then cliches like katanas being uberweapons of doom or jumping across a whole football field to kick somebody are going to fit in just fine. But if you're trying to play a realistic ancient Japan themed game, then those things are going to feel stupid. If you want a classical "knights in shining armor" setting, then the heroes don't use poison - they just don't, even when it seems the obvious course of action. But if you're trying to get a setting with more verisimilitude where things aren't just black and white, then saying that poison=evil isn't going to work.
Callista 09-20-05, 08:03 AM	Apparently, according to the BOED, poisons cause "undue pain". That means that, if you don't house-rule it, even a STR-draining poison (for some reason) is more painful than being hit with a fireball or a flask of acid... Frankly, I think it ought to be house-ruled, because that doesn't make sense. Poisons aren't any more painful than any other attack; or, at least, most aren't; and they heal just like HP damage. Poison use is dishonorable, just like stabbing someone in the back, because you get an advantage over them by using poison that they can't see right away... it's not evil, though. I can see a Good-aligned person using poison often, since it disables without killing. Not a Lawful Good person, because they'd find it distasteful. But Good? yeah. Exalted Good? Even that.
digoraccoon 09-20-05, 08:24 AM	Poison use is dishonorable, just like stabbing someone in the back, because you get an advantage over them by using poison that they can't see right away... it's not evil, though. I can see a Good-aligned person using poison often, since it disables without killing. Not a Lawful Good person, because they'd find it distasteful. But Good? yeah. Exalted Good? Even that. I can see a Lawful Good character use a sleep poison in certain situations. If he's trying to catch an outlaw and knows this outlaw will not surrender willingly, I could see the use of sleep poison to dull out the chances of someone getting hurt or even killed in the persuit. :) Modern Police Officers use dibilitating poisons like tear gas to subdue rioting to make it easier to capture them or route them without having to resort to hurting them badly. It doesn't necessarily make the officers evil to use tear gas, so long as it was warrented and it was used properly. I agree with the earlier mention that poison is a neutral tool. It's how it's used that determines good and evil intentions.
Callista 09-20-05, 08:48 AM	Well, yeah, I'll make an exception there. A LG person capturing a criminal using sleep poison makes sense. At any rate, I wouldn't give any of my PCs trouble about it.
pres_man 09-20-05, 09:14 AM	Example of a LG creature that uses poison regularly, and not the sleepy kind. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG38a.jpg COUATL Alignment: Always lawful good Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 16, initial damage 2d4 Str, secondary damage 4d4 Str. Poison use is for the most part dishonorable, not evil.
Callista 09-20-05, 09:30 AM	Might as well be. Strength damage paralyzes and doesn't kill.
Ut-Napishtim 09-20-05, 10:00 AM	I'm pretty much with LCD2YOU on this one. Poison is a tool like any other tool (swords, flails, wands of Fireball) adventurer's use. Hitting someone's alignment for it is silly. I think the poison = evil thing is generally implied by the RAW as Paladins can't use it, and the one class that can (Assassin) has an "Any Evil" alignment requirement. The BOED doesn't really count as it's not core, even though it does spell it out as definitely evil. For one thing though poison is generally illegal (save for certain professions like alchemists and trapmakers who get licenses for it, see the DMG II for more on this) in most societies. The best thing I've found to do to avoid any confusion is just spell it out in my house rules up front for the players that poison use isn't inherently evil in my games. After all, as a DM it's my responsibility to decide which supplements and optional materials like the BOED to include or not include in my games. :ayyyy!:
Solik 09-20-05, 10:14 AM	That said, just because ravages only work on evil creatures doesn't make them okay. No, but that's grossly understating what it is that ravages are and exactly how they work. Ravages are designed to punish evil for their own deeds, and their function is nothing more than exposing the individual to the pure force of good. It is the twisted nature of the individual that results in the psychological torment. It's sort of like, you know, the sun. The sun certainly isn't a vile thing, but it causes great harm and suffering to vampires and some other evil beings. Actually, it's even worse than ravages, because its effect is physical. Welp, somebody go tell Lathander and Pelor that they're black-hearted villains! Aye, just like having the government invade private citizens' privacy isn't bad, because only criminals have anything to worry about. Nevermind the possibility that individual government officials may misuse the information, or that idiotic, evasive laws against victimless 'crimes' may be passed. Sorry, I must have missed the part where ravages can work on innocent, non-evil beings when used by mistake or by those with nefarious intentions. Oh right, they can't. So are you arguing that ravages violate privacy? That's a new one. Did you have a point? Dirty trick #3: If you can't discount your opponent's argument, discount your opponent. So, because those of us that see good or neutral uses of poison don't subscribe to the "black and white- f we use it it's good, if you use it it's bad" school of thought, we're immature? Wonderful. D&D has been black and white from the beginning. I'm sorry you missed out on such basic things as what's written in the PHB. Perhaps you should, you know, go back and brush up on the core rules. Discounting your opponent is not only acceptable, but valid and even required in a black-and-white morality world. Please leave 21st-century thought behind when approaching this discussion. Someone in D&D is not arbitrarily judged to be evil -- they can be detected and demonstrated as such. And I don't know what you mean by the "those of us that see good or neutral uses of poison" bit. I was quite clear in stating that it was either an oversight or a variant. Poison is neutral in my games. All poison. So it's not like I disagree with you there. It's just a variant I choose not to use. The mature thing to do is recognize it for what it is, decide whether or not you want to use it, then move on with your life. What we have instead is a lot of people declaring that everything is contradictory and wrong and useless, simply because it doesn't actually label itself as "Variant" like the contradictory variant rules in the non-mature books.
Demi 09-20-05, 10:20 AM	Poison is inherently neutral, like most things. It's how it's used that determines good or evil. Poisoning a village's water supply is just as evil as going around and slaughtering them all. Using poisoned arrows in battle is just as neutral as casting a spell which deals similar ability damage. If Ray of Enfeeblement isn't evil, why should a Str poison be?
LCD2YOU 09-20-05, 10:44 AM	What about the spell Cloud Kill? It's a Conjuration Spell. Should it have the Evil subtype as well? Would it be ok for a LG any character to coat their weapons all the time with a Ravage? After all, as some feel that it only punishes those that are evil, I would say that a Paladin could do it without fear. If the person is evil, they get what they deserve.
Solik 09-20-05, 11:55 AM	Spells with the Evil subtype are evil because they channel negative energy, IIRC. So no, you shouldn't start changing spell subtypes. However, if you rule that poisons are evil because of ability damage, then you should start ruling that using these other spells is an evil act for the same reason (without adding subtypes). Ravages on weapons for paladins would depend on the paladin's code. If it's an order that tends to focus more on the Lawful than the Good, then this might be seen as dishonorable and frowned upon. An order more worried about annihilating evil would have fewer problems (if any) with it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-05, 03:29 PM	Spells with the Evil subtype are evil because they channel negative energy, IIRC. Yeah, like inflict wounds! Wait... NO. So no, you shouldn't start changing spell subtypes. Removing entirely (which is what should be done) isn't technically 'changing'. However, if you rule that poisons are evil because of ability damage, then you should start ruling that using these other spells is an evil act for the same reason (without adding subtypes). Tell that to the BoXD's Ravages on weapons for paladins would depend on the paladin's code. Code says no poison. No amount of sugar coating makes ravages not a poison. An order more worried about annihilating evil would have fewer problems (if any) with it. Only is 'annihilating' means 'propigating'.
Elemental 09-20-05, 04:00 PM	Ah....the BoED. If you drain an evil person's DEX with golden ice, you're Exalted, if you do the exact same thing with centipede poison, you're evil. :rolleyes:
Solik 09-20-05, 04:16 PM	Yeah, like inflict wounds! Wait... NO. Hmm. Then I've been misinformed. That's what I get for accepting things other posters around here say matter-of-factly. Tell that to the BoXD's Covered that twice already Code says no poison. No amount of sugar coating makes ravages not a poison. If that's your house rule, then go with it. I'm pretty sure the questions here were regarding RAW. And for the record, your equivalence of plugging your ears and screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" every time anyone offers a plausible rationale for including ravages when the group / DM desires it is tiresome. We know your personal opinion. We don't care.
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe 09-20-05, 05:28 PM	The whole "poison use is evil" thing harkens waaaaaay back to AD&D, when there was a table in the DMG (or was it the Player's Handbook...?) listing all classes and whether they could use poison. Most of those entries read "only if evil". Okay....now I'm definitely digging through my old books today to find that rule. (I've got them all way back to AD&D before Second Edtion.) :smirk:
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-05, 05:35 PM	And for the record, your equivalence of plugging your ears and screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" every time anyone offers a plausible rationale for including ravages when the group / DM desires it is tiresome. I assure you, I won't do that the very second someone comes up with a plausable explanation how an agent that causes a violent, potentially fatal reaction within an organism is not poison when, that's sort of the definition of poison.
ThiefofSouls 09-20-05, 06:20 PM	Ok, then before you come with the great inconsisty between poison and ravages you should know that ravages only have psychological effects. Depression, hunger, drowsiness and other mental effects which is quite different from the physical effects poison has. And yes drugs have a other mechanic than poison. They have the same save and secondary save as poison but in addition a addiction rating, a unsafeable side effect (Thats the pleasure thing, mostly) and they have a overdose danger. Also mental torture is the worst kind that exists, you can easily recover from a physical wound given time and apropriated care, but mental problems are a bit harder, you'll never truly forget about what happened, your unconcious mind will always remember that feeling and will bring it back to your counciosness given a proper situation.
Ned the Normal 09-20-05, 07:08 PM	Poison is as evil as it’s used as. A sword could be used in an extremely painful way, such as cutting off a helpless opponent’s fingers one by one. Coating your blade in a poison that causes suffering and CON damage, is no more evil then lobbing an orb of acid into someone’s face. Acid hurts, A LOT. So do third degree burns. Just because it hurts doesn’t make it evil. Hurting for the sake of hurting might be, but if the hurt is a byproduct of an attack, I wouldn’t be so eager to call it a vial and irredeemable act.
Verelor 09-20-05, 07:50 PM	Ok, how about this: Poisons that drain Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma are generally evil in nature and typical applications. They hurt, torment, and stupify, and humiliate. They are dishonorable and cowardly, as well. Poisons that drain Strength and Dexterity are essentially a sword principal; they are as evil or just as what they are used for. Poisons that tranquilize or subdue are nuetral and in many cases good and merciful. In any case, poisons cost way too much to use all too regularly, and Dungeons & Dragons is generally a heroic, epic-style adventure game where poisons aren't really a good idea in the hands of most PC's anyway (though I cannot say the way the limb-maiming combat in my precious homebrewn Mysterran campaign setting is dealt with is very heroic).
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-05, 08:11 PM	Poisons that drain Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma are generally evil in nature and typical applications. They hurt, torment, and stupify, and humiliate. They are dishonorable and cowardly, as well. They don't hurt, torment, stupify, or humliate. Constitution (snake venom, arsenic): Normally, you won't even feel this before you convulse and die or feel sick. Wisdom (laughing gas): You feel no pain, in fact, you're pretty floaty. Your senses are dulled and fuzzy. Intellegence (sodium pentathol): You feel no pain, you become loopy and forgetful, your concentration is shot to hell. Charisma (THC, lithium): Causes paranoia, a loss of sense of self and bravery. Poisons that drain Strength and Dexterity are essentially a sword principal; they are as evil or just as what they are used for. Funnily, these are the ones that hurt a little. Dexterity (Adrenaline, novacane): Either numbs you or causes stiffness and cramping. Strength (poison ivy smoke, aloevera): Relaxant or causes severe cramps. Poisons that tranquilize or subdue are nuetral and in many cases good and merciful. They do the same thing as high does of Int, Wis, or Cha drain. In any case, poisons cost way too much to use all too regularly, and Dungeons & Dragons is generally a heroic, epic-style adventure game where poisons aren't really a good idea in the hands of most PC's anyway (though I cannot say the way the limb-maiming combat in my precious homebrewn Mysterran campaign setting is dealt with is very heroic). Hercules dipped his arrows in the blood of Hydra, imbuing them with a painful, wasting toxin similar to a ravage. It literally melted the skin. But when you say Hercules, you're talking about one of the top ten heros.
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe 09-20-05, 10:29 PM	Do you remember exactly how Hercules died? Didn't he put on a shirt soaked in, oh yeaah!, Hydra's blood then attempted to remove it, killing himself. So, Hercules isn't really a "good example" since he was killed by his own tactics. Not saying he wasn't a "Great Arch-Type Super Hero", just that he was felled by the same thing....almost like a punishment... ;)
Jaime_Wolf 09-21-05, 01:20 AM	I've always wondered what makes using poisons "dishonerable?" Okay, we can have a fair fight where you try to jab me with your pointy piece of metal, and I jab you with my better pointy piece of metal. Should Paladins throw away their weapons and buy weapons more comparable to their enemies's? Should they poision themselves to take their combat ability down to their enemies's to make it a fair fight? The notion that one piece of equipment is less honourable than another is ridiculous. Now, leaping out on an unaware opponent might be dishonourable, but the only difference with using poison is essentially that the poisoner was better prepared and equipped, they're still stabbing their opponent until they die, they just die sooner.
digoraccoon 09-21-05, 08:05 AM	I've always wondered what makes using poisons "dishonerable?" I interpret it as not surprising your opponent in a duel with something you both didn't agree on being allowed for said duel. Though even then I guess there's a fuzzy line left open for interpretation. Guess it just really depends on your point of view. :) Though cloud kill... man you know if you buy some tarps and sew 'em together you could make an "evil" profit by selling your services as a vermin exterminator. :D "Okay, we'll just tent up the castle here and cast a dozen cloud kills in there. Don't worry your majesty, you'll be back within two days!"
Gilean 09-21-05, 10:05 AM	Armours are the inhonourable things. They are easy to use and grant great protction. Totally inhonourable. Ban armours, I say!
wrecan 09-21-05, 11:06 AM	I once designed an entire campaign world on the premise "What if society accepted poisons as a legitimate combat tactic and they were readily available?" I created a world of poisons and medicines that had a variety of effects, both harmful and beneficial. I standardized the costs of the poisons as well as the skill needed to weild them. I instituted rules about dosages needed for differently sized creatures. It was not unbalancing at all. As long as the poisons cost commensurate to what a magic item of the same capacity would cost, who cares? It did change the flavor of the campaign, but that is not a bad thing. (This world had a mix of 16th century Caribbean colonies, mythical Greek Isles and Irish culture.) And as long as it was specified that most manmade poisons only affected humanoids and animals, dungeoneering was rarely unbalanced. And NPCs utilized poisons as much as the PCs. There were no ethical issues raised by their use. This was a second edition world, but it can easily translate to 3.5. I'd probably add a new class called Apothecarist, who could make poisons, medicines and alchemy. I can understand limiting them in a standard campaign. Common use of poisons does alter the flavor of a campaign. But I think they should be limited through rarity (possibly requiring outrageous skill levels in Herbalism to accomplish it, or simply through rare ingredients that cannot easily be magically generated), and not through ethics.
Yak of Darkness 09-21-05, 11:59 AM	The hell of it is, the answer to the thread title's question is right in the PHB, page 262. The poison spell. It poisons someone. It's necromancy. It does Con damage, and has the potential to do quite a bit of it, at that. It doesn't have an alignment tag. It's not evil. It's not nongood. It's not chaotic. It's not nonlawful. It's not dishonorable. It's just something that people can do, and the magical version is significantly more vicious than pretty much any natural or manmade poison you can find (what with it doing always-useful Con damage, doing more of it than most poisons damage any ability, and, being a spell, having a shot at a much higher save DC than most poisons). And, if you really start to analyze poison use in context of the D&D world as a whole, it starts making sense. I mean, sure, it's easy to say that "honorable" combat is all about being the big man hitting people with the big weapon (especially if you are, or happen to be on the side of, said big man), but, while that logic is tenuous at best in our world, it completely falls apart in a world of trolls, dragons, spellcasters, and magical equipment. The knight in shining armor who chooses to run into battle with his sword and shield may look honorable when he complains that just the poison-user is employing underhanded tactics instead of facing the knight on his own terms, but since this complaint can equally extend to fireballs, breath weapons, disance bows, and the like, the knight's either going to come off like a whiner who just can't handle anything out of his own focus or a hypocrite. Of course, that view isn't what we're all looking for in our games. Sometimes we want to play games of muddled intrigue and gray areas, where you never quite know who the good guys are and who you can trust. On the other hand, sometimes you just want things to be simple--the guy with the sword is noble, not dumb, for fighting that way; the door needs to be kicked down; the orcs need to be slain; and the princess needs to be saved, wooed, and given a handkerchief. Both ways are equally "right" ways to play D&D (as far as anything can be), and both are, I might add, fun. What is laughable and ridiculous to me, however, is that the book that really pushes the overly-simplistic, black-and-white, "accept fantasy clichés for what they are and don't think too much about it" view of gaming (and does so with a very superior "this is right, and you're wrong if you don't accept it, because you're not accepting what I've already established is right" tone), is the one with the "MATURE" label on the cover.
yrogerg 09-21-05, 12:17 PM	I'd say that using poison isn't evil per se, but the purchase or production of poison, by most "developed" societies in D&D, is generally considered to be illegal, and antithetical to social and ethical norms, thus, non-Lawful. On the other hand, for someone coming from a more tribal background and upbringing, poison use would not necessarily be seen as alignment-charged. But, the interaction between the Lawful alignment and laws is somewhat complicated. I'd say that a lawful tribal sort should still try not to break the law *too much*- make poison for his own use, rather than buying or selling it, that sort of thing.
LCD2YOU 09-21-05, 12:25 PM	Being a highly skilled fighter who's a tank in heavy armor is dishonorable if you're fighting unarmored rabble. Using a ranged weapon is dishonorable when your opponent doesn't have them. Ask the French. Attacking an inferior number is dishonorable. Many things are dishonorable to many different people. It all depends on who's getting gored at the time.
Sigurd van Norhusen 09-21-05, 12:52 PM	Interesting question: is getting someone drunk (essentially mild alcohol poisoning) an evil act? Is getting yourself drunk an evil act? By the BoXD logic, it would be. All tavern owners should be hunted down and burned, I tell you!
Leewei 09-21-05, 04:03 PM	BoED is not fit for toiletpaper, it should be burnt and forgoteen and never used for morality arguement as it is self contradictory and follows no logic at all. Hahaha. I'm not 100% with you on this, but I certainly agree regarding the book's take on morality. I'm with those saying it isn't the tool, it's how you use it. A specific code of honor may forbid the use of poison, but another one may require it. Consider a Lawful Good rogue who is the agent of an empire coming across an evil wizard dining dining with his orcish lieutenants and discussing sacking a nearby village. The rogue has sworn to protect the people of the empire; one of the surest ways to kill the wizard and sow dissent is to poison him and frame a lieutenant for it.
Bane 09-21-05, 05:03 PM	Personally, I would rather be rendered unconscious chemically, like at the dentist, instead of physically, like in a boxing ring. Two scenarios, both result in unconsciousness, but only one of them involves me being beaten until I can't walk. I'll take the poison, if you don't mind.
Verelor 09-21-05, 06:17 PM	The Book of Exalted Deeds is great. It gets a few things wrong, but I love it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-21-05, 06:30 PM	The Book of Exalted Deeds is great. It gets a few things wrong, but I love it. Only three: 'good', 'evil' and 'game balance'.
Solik 09-21-05, 08:11 PM	I assure you, I won't do that the very second someone comes up with a plausable explanation how an agent that causes a violent, potentially fatal reaction within an organism is not poison when, that's sort of the definition of poison. Your fallacy is using real-life definitions to classify fantasy objects. Yes, if you use, say, dictionary.com's definition of "poison," then ravages, as defined, are similar enough to be included within that definition. That is irrelevant. We have no concept of magical "ravages" outside of fantasy. It is simple: ravages are not poison because they are explicitly defined as "not poison" by the rules. It does not matter if the mechanics are similar. The mechanics of divine and arcane magics are similar, but they are not the same.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-21-05, 08:17 PM	It specifically says it reactes with the creature is effecting. That's a poison. Mechnically, it may not 'count', but its still a poison. Edit: Why do you take the time to edit out my persona's first name?
spectralphoenix 09-21-05, 09:49 PM	I think the reason that poison was considered dishonourable in RL is society. In a world without magic, dragons, etc. who do you think is on top in terms of personal power? The knights. Who makes the rules and decides whats honourable? The knights. They don't want there position of power threatened by anyone else, so they try to make anything that can beat a knight "dishonourable." The same thing happened with the crossbow. It was too effective against knights, so they (through their higher ups, the nobility and the church, who rely on the knights for THEIR power) banned the weapon until they needed it to fight in the Crusades. It wasn't because crossbows cause pain and suffering, it was because crossbowmen could kill knights. If the knights could be killed by peasants, the knights would be out of a job. Not to mention that the nobles and clergy would find it a lot harder to hold onto their power without the knights to back them up. In the traditional high fantasy world however: a)There are many religions and types of governments, all of whom have different sources of power. It would be almost impossible to get them to agree on a blanket condemnation. In RL, even though individual countries may be enemies, they all had the same power structure (Nobles ruling knights ruling peasants.) b)There are many different ways to become powerful. Unlike RL, where the knights were easily the best at combat, there are many different character types, all of whom can excel at combat. Between those two facts, I find it extremely unlikely that poison would be considered evil in such a fantasy world.
Solik 09-21-05, 10:35 PM	Let's look at the description, word-for-word: ...ravages and afflictions, magical traumas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies... In contrast to most diseases and poisons, all ravages and afflictions are supernatural. So, unlike traditional poison, we see that ravages: * Are supernatural * Function on moral corruption * Transform a being's own moral state into a physical state rather than inflicting actual harm on its own If you must call them "poison," feel free, but it makes no difference how you classify them -- especially given that the majority of those in this thread do not use the variant of poison use being evil. Personally, I think a distinction was made mostly just to create a bigger wall between the tools employed by good and evil -- encourage evil to use poisons, encourage good to use ravages, and you get a more flavorful game. Also, I'm not editing your name out. I don't make use of the quote button or anything, so I type out names when I use quote (or just leave it blank). I generally can't be bothered to type out your full name :p
bolgar 09-22-05, 07:36 AM	@Solik: I think the main problem is that the BoED and its clear rules on poison=evil is not part of the core rules. People who do not have that book or do not like its concepts of morality won't accept it as a reference on poison rules. And the 3 core books simply don't calssify poison use as evil or chaotic, but use it as an example of something that is against the paladins code.
Derren S. 09-22-05, 07:42 AM	, but use it as an example of something that is against the paladins code. For something to be against the paladins code it must be chaotic or evil.
Sigurd van Norhusen 09-22-05, 07:51 AM	Untrue, it just need to be neither lawful nor good. It depends on a case-by-case basis. For example, watching two guys beat someone else up without doing anything is neutral, but against a Paladin's code. Unless you decided (by BoED logic) that this, too, is evil. Buying bread is also a neutral act, but not against a Paladin's code. I'm still pondering about the alcohol. Does a Paladin that drinks a beer lose his Paladin status because of the alcohol poisoning involved?
bolgar 09-22-05, 08:48 AM	For something to be against the paladin's code it must be chaotic or evil. That's not true: The paladin's code goes beyond lawful and good. It says so clearly in the class description: Code of Conduct A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. The additional part is clearly part of the paladin's code and not part of being lawful and good. So this cannot be taken as an example of good/lawful behaviour.
Solik 09-22-05, 10:31 AM	I think the main problem is that the BoED and its clear rules on poison=evil is not part of the core rules. ...which is why I've been calling it a "variant" since the beginning. Where have you been?
goawayugh 09-22-05, 02:38 PM	I forget which book it says it in (maybe BoED), but using a poison that causes ability damage/drain or hp loss is evil. Using a poison that just incapacitates is not (like drow poison, just knocks you unconsious)
ArcImpulse 09-22-05, 06:33 PM	Yes, that's from the BoED, and is what's raising a lot of the stink in here. I'd go with the core rules on this, and since the core rules don't say, I'd say all poisons are neutral.
Verelor 09-22-05, 06:43 PM	Anyone consider that the core rules might not ahve ROOm tos ay many things of this nature, and that they wanted to elave plenty up to the homeruling DM's?
spectralphoenix 09-23-05, 12:23 AM	Why houserule something when you can argue about it on the internet? Seriously, unless you want to run a campaign that's extremely heavy on the moral absolutism thing, I don't think there's much of a difference between poisons and ravages as far as good and evil go.
plonnie 09-23-05, 04:50 AM	I dare say that a paralysing poison is less evil than cutting your foe up. it does become evil when you perform then one after the other. So How could saving someones lives through use of poison be an evill act?
Derren S. 09-23-05, 05:02 AM	Ever heared of subdual damage? That is a better way to take a enemy alive than ability damaging poison.
plonnie 09-23-05, 05:26 AM	Yes. So what youre saying there is more than one way to keep your foes alive. Truley I do not view paralizing poising as Evil. Nor do I view a pair of siccors to be Evil. It is the means of putting it to use that could make it Evil. ie: cutting a piece paper from your foe is not Evil. Cutting fingers from your foe would be. Paralyzing your foe is not Evil. Paralyzing your foe in mid air would be.
Deflare 09-23-05, 09:09 PM	Ever heared of subdual damage? That is a better way to take a enemy alive than ability damaging poison. Not really. Subdual damage is much less likely to hit minus certain feats or class features. A poisoned weapon doesn't incur the -4 penalty. Besides, I'd rather be chloroformed than clubbed unconscious. No, but that's grossly understating what it is that ravages are and exactly how they work. Ravages are designed to punish evil for their own deeds, and their function is nothing more than exposing the individual to the pure force of good. It is the twisted nature of the individual that results in the psychological torment. It's sort of like, you know, the sun. The sun certainly isn't a vile thing, but it causes great harm and suffering to vampires and some other evil beings. Actually, it's even worse than ravages, because its effect is physical. Welp, somebody go tell Lathander and Pelor that they're black-hearted villains! The sun also harms albino creatures, and pale-skinned humans that aren't necessarily evil. If getting sunburned makes a creature evil, then that means that pretty much everyone without skin so dark it's almost black must be evil. Since the sun obviously isn't evil, despite the fact that it harms both good and evil creatures, it must therefore be neutral. Good analogy, actually. Sorry, I must have missed the part where ravages can work on innocent, non-evil beings when used by mistake or by those with nefarious intentions. Oh right, they can't. So are you arguing that ravages violate privacy? That's a new one. Did you have a point? Ever heard of an analogy? And who decides what is good or evil, except for the people making the ravages? I would never describe the method of a ravage's actions in any way other than going after memories of past actions decided by the maker (thus, a special ravage for gluttony and such). This leads it open to all sorts of abuse. D&D has been black and white from the beginning. I'm sorry you missed out on such basic things as what's written in the PHB. Perhaps you should, you know, go back and brush up on the core rules. Thing is, it's simply impossible to form a black-and-white system of morality that isn't idiotic. Each person has an opinon on what is good and evil, and if they put that idea into a game played with more than one person, then clashes will inevitably arise. I don't care about the tradition- black-and-white morality is simply impossible, and therefore doesn't bear discussion. Discounting your opponent is not only acceptable, but valid and even required in a black-and-white morality world. Please leave 21st-century thought behind when approaching this discussion. Someone in D&D is not arbitrarily judged to be evil -- they can be detected and demonstrated as such. You're right- I should leave my 21st century mentality behind, and make sure that female PCs either are forced in marriage or into the clergy, make sure that non-human PCs can't go anywhere without being enslaved, and that maintaining the status quo by violantly crushing peasant revolts is a good act. Or, you know, not. And the moral code in D&D is quite arbitrary- based on the absolute moral code established by the DM. And I don't know what you mean by the "those of us that see good or neutral uses of poison" bit. I was quite clear in stating that it was either an oversight or a variant. Poison is neutral in my games. All poison. So it's not like I disagree with you there. It's just a variant I choose not to use. The mature thing to do is recognize it for what it is, decide whether or not you want to use it, then move on with your life. What we have instead is a lot of people declaring that everything is contradictory and wrong and useless, simply because it doesn't actually label itself as "Variant" like the contradictory variant rules in the non-mature books. Well, now, if everyone just said "Houserule it!" and moved on, there would be little point to these boards, now would there? The discussion is based on what core says about poison, which is that there's nothing about poison's alignment in the core rules. It moved on to state that the BoED is decidedly wrong on the issue- observe all the non-painful, non-evil uses and examples of poison mentioned around the discussion. You have seen fit to argue for the evilization of poisons, and I have seen fit to argue against- thus, this little debate. If you don't want to argue about it, then don't post on the thread- especially in a particularly inflaming tone.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-24-05, 02:17 AM	Oh, it gets better; UV radiation is a poison! That's why scientists are so worried about the hole in the ozone; if that was over a population -- people would start dropping from a little thing they like to call radiation poisoning. But hold on, we're talking sun vs. ravages, neh? The sun kills vampire indiscriminately. It doesn't care what alignment they are, they're just have a bad reaction to sunlight. Better yet, the sun won't inflict cruel and perverse punishment on them! But a ravage will have no effect on a non-evil vampire. Won't even give her a case of the sniffles. But it effects fiends, even refomed or one-in-amillion Good fiends all the same, inflicting a violence upon thier mind so unessecsary (sp?) and grotesque, it would be cut from a Tarantino flick. In short: Sun = Mindless neutral force Poisons = Mindless Killing force Ravages = poisons as imagined by the guy from Se7en.
Solik 09-24-05, 10:54 AM	Ever heard of an analogy? Analogies must be valid, not random. Your analogy was full of flaws, as demonstrated. And who decides what is good or evil, except for the people making the ravages? No one decides it. It just "is." This is reflected through the alignment detection spells, effects that work only on creatures of certain alignments, and so forth. The people making the ravages have no input on what is "good" or "evil." In fact, if a ravage-maker created some and used it on a foe that they mistakingly believed was evil, they'd be quite surprised when it didn't work. Sorry, but your moral relativism does not exist in D&D. Thing is, it's simply impossible to form a black-and-white system of morality that isn't idiotic. Only if you try to approach it from a real-world earth mentality. D&D is not constructed from such a mentality. It is fantasy in the purest sense. Fantasy frequently uses black-and-white morality. It's simple and enjoyable. If you don't like it, that's fine; find a new game. D&D -- and most fantasy -- is chock full of things that seem idiotic if you try to draw parallels to reality. Magic breaks so many laws of physics that any attempt to make it anything other than pure acts of divinity can be seen as idiotic. And let's not get into all the flying creatures that should not be able to even glide, much less get themselves off the ground and soar about... I don't care about the tradition- black-and-white morality is simply impossible, and therefore doesn't bear discussion. Then you're in the wrong thread. And forum. You're right- I should leave my 21st century mentality behind, and make sure that female PCs either are forced in marriage or into the clergy, make sure that non-human PCs can't go anywhere without being enslaved, and that maintaining the status quo by violantly crushing peasant revolts is a good act. Wow. Where to begin? A) These things are campaign-dependant, and in large campaigns, culture-dependant based on where you play. If you want to work those things into your campaigns, more power to you! However, these things come from medieval earth. Fantasy worlds are not medieval earth. They frequently have thousands of years of their own history. They're just not (usually) technologically advanced because the means for technology does not exist, or (more commonly) because the intelligents of the world study magic, not building crude things. They have neither 21st century earth mentality nor medieval earth mentality. B) You are assuming that humans run most of the world, yes? You are also assuming that humans have always been dominant and are even capable of enslaving everything else. You are also assuming that humans are not mystified (in a positive manner) by, say, the grace of elves, the ingenuity of dwarves, and the goodheartedness of halflings. D&D assumes none of these things. C) Violently crushing peasant revolts could be either a neutral or evil act, depending on the circumstances (the latter being much more common). This is not "good" because people in medieval earth thought it was "okay." Actions in D&D are good and evil based on the guidelines provided in the rules under alignment. I suggest you actually read them. You have seen fit to argue for the evilization of poisons, and I have seen fit to argue against- thus, this little debate. Please do me the common courtesy of reading the words that I post. I have stated, quite clearly and more than once, that poison being evil as presented in the BoED is a variant which I choose not to use. I do not agree with it, but it is a perfectly valid idea for groups that wish to employ it -- just like every other variant in existence. So, let's summarize. You are arguing that the core rules of D&D are idiotic. You are arguing that D&D fantasy mirrors medieval earth. You are arguing that D&D morality is relative. You are arguing about a stance I do not even hold. I think you're done here. But a ravage will have no effect on a non-evil vampire. Won't even give her a case of the sniffles. But it effects fiends, even refomed or one-in-amillion Good fiends all the same, inflicting a violence upon thier mind so unessecsary (sp?) and grotesque, it would be cut from a Tarantino flick. This is a very good point (regarding ravages on redeemed [Evil] creatures). The ravages still work because the creature was built of things of evil (much moreso than a mere vampire). However, if you attempt you use a ravage on this being, you now have an issue. If you use the variant that poison use is evil, then this act defaults to evil. Why? Because, even though ravages are not evil in normal circumstances, this is an exceptional circumstance. Drawing upon the intent of the rules, it is obvious to see that this should be judged evil, regardless of whether or not said redeemed creature posed a threat to you. If you do not use this variant and instead work by core, with poisons being neutral, then the use of ravages on a redeemed [Evil] creature is a neutral act in and of itself. Therefore, judging whether or not the action is evil requires the same judgment as if the player had poked the thing with a sword. If attacking it in general would be evil (based on circumstances), then using ravages would likewise be evil. If attacking it would be neutral (it is hard to imagine it being good), then ravage use would likewise be neutral. Also, unnecessary.
Gilean 09-24-05, 11:01 AM	If you use the variant that poison use is evil, then this act defaults to evil. Why? Because, even though ravages are not evil in normal circumstances, this is an exceptional circumstance. Drawing upon the intent of the rules, it is obvious to see that this should be judged evil, regardless of whether or not said redeemed creature posed a threat to you.And, in similar manner, only those who use poison on nonevil opponents should be judged for an evil deed, if the (idiotic) variant is used. This logic isn't working.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-24-05, 01:38 PM	This is a very good point (regarding ravages on redeemed [Evil] creatures). The ravages still work because the creature was built of things of evil (much moreso than a mere vampire). However, if you attempt you use a ravage on this being, you now have an issue. Not really, using the posions are evil thing means you're using the BoXDs, so you use Monte's 'see if its evil technique' from BoVD: Detect for evil, drop a Holy word and see who gets hurt. (That's in the book, I'm not making this up) Both will check out and you are now 'clear' to inflict liquid torment on the target. You don't have an issue unless you find out later it wasn't actually evil but if you were using a ravage, you probably don't care anyway. If you use the variant that poison use is evil, then this act defaults to evil. Why? Because, even though ravages are not evil in normal circumstances, this is an exceptional circumstance. Drawing upon the intent of the rules, it is obvious to see that this should be judged evil, regardless of whether or not said redeemed creature posed a threat to you. I'm not following here. The intent for making poisons evil is specifically stated in the BoED. Ravages do the same thing. Drawing on the intent of the poison rule, how were they not evil to start with? To extend your sun metaphor once more, how is it more evil or neutral to lure a neutral vampire out into the sun to die a flaming death than to lure an evil one who isn't a threat to you?
Solik 09-24-05, 05:31 PM	And, in similar manner, only those who use poison on nonevil opponents should be judged for an evil deed, if the (idiotic) variant is used. This logic isn't working. what Not really, using the posions are evil thing means you're using the BoXDs, so you use Monte's 'see if its evil technique' from BoVD: Detect for evil, drop a Holy word and see who gets hurt. (That's in the book, I'm not making this up) Both will check out and you are now 'clear' to inflict liquid torment on the target. You don't have an issue unless you find out later it wasn't actually evil but if you were using a ravage, you probably don't care anyway. It's pretty obvious that both this text and the text for ravages did not take into account Evil-subtyped creatures who are Redeemed. One, because it's rather contrived, and two, because it's rather easy to miss. Is it that difficult to use just a little imagination and assumption of intent to handle this issue? I mean, following your logic, you could theoretically fill up a small chamber with golden ice and drown someone in it without any repercussions because you used a ravage to off them. I'm not following here. The intent for making poisons evil is specifically stated in the BoED. Ravages do the same thing. Drawing on the intent of the poison rule, how were they not evil to start with? I'm not going to restate my arguments on how one can differentiate poisons and ravages. I've made them more times than I care to count at this point. If you're not following, then it's because you either ignored my posts, or you're just being an ass. Given that we are aware of each other's position and that we already know we disagree, I think I can surmise which it is. To extend your sun metaphor once more, how is it more evil or neutral to lure a neutral vampire out into the sun to die a flaming death than to lure an evil one who isn't a threat to you? Because evil vampires, by their nature, are a threat to someone. If they were not, they would not be evil. Obviously, if the neutral vampire is a threat to you, then the action is not evil; likewise, if you somehow contrive a situation where an evil vampire is a threat to no one, then killing him may be a rather dastardly act (depending on how undead are treated in your campaign world by the forces of good and evil). Neither of those situations have any impact whatsoever on my points.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-25-05, 02:31 AM	I mean, following your logic, you could theoretically fill up a small chamber with golden ice and drown someone in it without any repercussions because you used a ravage to off them. Not my logic, the logic from the books. To paraphrase: "Want to know who's evil? Cast Holy Word and see who drops." Apperently that's okay to do according to the mature line, so where does that leave us?
Gilean 09-25-05, 03:07 AM	whatI'll rephrase. Using ravages is normally fine. Using ravage on a nonevil target is evil. Using poison is normally evil. Using poison on nonevil targets is evil. Yet, the ravage does exactly the same thing as the poison does. Both can be used on evil (obviously) and on nonevil (extremely rarely, but still). Ability damage --> unnecessary suffering --> an evil action
Derren S. 09-25-05, 04:37 AM	Gilean, you seem to forget that ravages don't work on nonevil targets.
Gilean 09-25-05, 11:13 AM	Gilean, you seem to forget that ravages don't work on nonevil targets.Unless they have the Evil subtype.
Derren S. 09-25-05, 11:21 AM	You are again wrong Gilean. Ravages only deal damage to evil creatures with additional damage to evil outsiders (and other things). Subtype doesn't matter.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-25-05, 01:14 PM	Ravages only deal damage to evil creatures with additional damage to evil outsiders (and other things). Subtype doesn't matter. Sorry dude, you're wrong. A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above). A ravage will jack a redeemed demon as easily as any other.
Solik 09-25-05, 02:19 PM	Not my logic, the logic from the books. Which is why I stated: It's pretty obvious that both this text and the text for ravages did not take into account Evil-subtyped creatures who are Redeemed. One, because it's rather contrived, and two, because it's rather easy to miss. Is it that difficult to use just a little imagination and assumption of intent to handle this issue? Using ravages is normally fine. Using ravage on a nonevil target is evil. Using poison is normally evil. Using poison on nonevil targets is evil. I dunno about that. I can imagine some situations where using poisons (and even ravages) on nonevil targets would not be an evil action (a neutral one instead). That's nitpicking, though.
Andrew_980 09-25-05, 02:37 PM	Yet, the ravage does exactly the same thing as the poison does. Both can be used on evil (obviously) and on nonevil (extremely rarely, but still). Ability damage --> unnecessary suffering --> an evil action Hence ravages/affliction=evil for being TORTURE, and that same damned book says it is never ok to torture for any reason. god I hate that book "Want to know who's evil? Cast Holy Word and see who drops." Apperently that's okay to do according to the mature line, so where does that leave us? the neutral peasant had it coming for not being pure enough to survive
a_psh 09-25-05, 03:13 PM	the neutral peasant had it coming for not being pure enough to survive Or how about the evil innkeeper who is selfish, greedy, and a terrible liar, but doesn't ritually murder people in his basement, for that matter? Just because he's evil, does that make it okay for him to be collateral damage from a holy word spell? Is it okay for an Exalted hero with Touch of Golden Ice to shake his hand and see how he reacts? If a paladin is king, effectively making him the law of the land, can he just use detect evil and execute anyone who comes up? I think this goes to an idea that the BoED only enforces very selectively: the moral consequences of an action are the same regardless of the victim's alignment. Using the last charge of your wand to heal a person you find dying on the side of the road is a good act, even if the man is Evil. Risking your life to save a stranger is Good. Enslaving others with the power of magic is Evil. Eating their souls is Evil. Killing someone is, well, effectively Neutral (yes, this seems odd to our modern sensibilities, but you can't really build a game of heroic adventure without doing this, and D&D does this very clearly). It's the secondary effects of the action that have moral consequences: killing someone for pleasure or greed is Evil, killing them to free others from oppression is ~Good. Killing for the sake of killing is regarded as evil. Murdering an Evil person in cold blood doesn't make it a Good act, any more than Killing a paladin in self-defense automatically makes it an Evil act. I think the big problem with the BoED and the paladin's code is that people use the morality they advocate and apply it to all Good. They seem to forget that a generic Good character can perform evil acts and easily remain Good. Thus, even if using poison is an evil act in the campaign setting (I'm not supporting this point of view, however), an LG rogue who uses poison a few times can still be Lawful Good. Just making something an evil act shouldn't automatically take it out of the list of things permissible to PCs. Given how similar they are in their effects, the only real reading that makes sense to me is that poison and ravages are both morally Neutral themselves. The only morality here is in whether you're harming an enemy vs. harming a random guy, I believe. And both are equally capable of either.
Andrew_980 09-25-05, 03:32 PM	according to Monte if Holy word kills them, it's their fault they died. The BoED is full of this non-sense reasoning, so I feel the need to tear it apart and disregard it as proof in any arguement. ESPECIALLY morality arguements.
Solik 09-25-05, 07:30 PM	<SNIP> Or how about the evil innkeeper who is selfish, greedy, and a terrible liar, but doesn't ritually murder people in his basement, for that matter? Personally, I'm a lot more selective in whom I give evil alignments to in D&D. The PHB uses the text "(ethics) Evil is the most dangerous because..." To me, someone who's selfish/greedy but doesn't go out and kill for it or whatever is just neutral. Evil tends to come with a willingness to infict harm on those who stand in the way of what you want. I'm not really sure if that's by RAW, but it works very well with the absolutism of D&D -- if you restrict your evil to those who are really evil, then you no longer have any problems with this. Another question that can arise is whether a being becomes evil through actions (i.e. you must be guilty of things before you can be considered evil), or if you just have the sort of nature where, given the opportunity, you would engage in such things. Don't confuse Evil with laws, either. No, an evil individual may not be breaking the law via murder and so forth. However, they've still given themselves over to the darker power (which is an actual force in D&D) and are quite capable of Ao-knows-what. Given that most of us here live in Lawful societies, it is hard to imagine punishing people who haven't even broken laws; however, in fantasy, there's more to the world than humans looking for a way to live together. And Chaotic Good individuals might well be willing to break the law to hunt down creatures of evil. It does require a new way of looking at the world. It may not be a window you prefer to use for your games, in which case you'd probably not want to use most of these variants that are presented for alignment (and not get too rigid with the basic system either).
a_psh 09-25-05, 07:55 PM	Personally, I'm a lot more selective in whom I give evil alignments to in D&D. The PHB uses the text "(ethics) Evil is the most dangerous because..." To me, someone who's selfish/greedy but doesn't go out and kill for it or whatever is just neutral. Evil tends to come with a willingness to infict harm on those who stand in the way of what you want. I'm not really sure if that's by RAW, but it works very well with the absolutism of D&D -- if you restrict your evil to those who are really evil, then you no longer have any problems with this. Entire races are set up to be majority-Good or majority-Evil in D&D, though. Table 4-7: Random NPC Alignment has a 50% chance of making an NPC Evil. Now, I'm not saying that that means half the world is Evil, but it definitely means that the game expects a huge chunk of the noteworthy people you interact with to be Evil. What BoVD/BoED do is create a separate designation of Vile or Exalted, meaning Really Really Evil and Really Reall Good. They don't suddenly make Good and Evil alignments rare. Based on the setup of the game, there's a fair-but-not-great chance that that random innkeeper is, in fact, Evil. Take a character like the lord mayor of Rel Astra in Greyhawk. He's a manipulator. He's ruthless. He's an undead creature (made so against his will). He takes his counsel from a fiend. But is it really morally Good to kill him without provocation? Basically, the big thing with ravages seems to be "the victims are Evil so they deserve it". I dispute that.
LCD2YOU 09-25-05, 10:12 PM	of opinions, ideas, thoughts and diatribe, I stick with my initial assesment. Poison is no more evil than a ranged weapon. It is no more evil than a dagger. It is how you use it that matters. As far as using poisons and calling that a "lawful" or "chaotic" act, that is in the nature of the civilization that the person comes from. Does poison cause undo pain? Some do. But so does a dagger going 1.5mm into someone's eye. Can poisons cause ability loss? Some do. But so can a person weilding a dagger cutting the tendons and ligaments on another. I'll bet that is painful too. So is poison "sneaky" or "underhanded". Depends on which side of the losing side you're on. Are longbows "sneaky" or "underhanded" when used against a foe who only has sword and shield and is trying to attack you running up a hill? What about subs? If successful, a sinking ship doesn't know about the sub until they feel the thud of the explosions hitting the hull. Sounds a lot like a backstab to me but countries, even supposed "lawful" ones like them. Tools are tools. What matters is what you were trying to accomplish, how well it worked out and what steps you took. Keep in mind the phrase, "The ends do not justify them means", is a Maxim and like all Maxims have their limits and can fail in their meaning when pushed to the extremes. There is a difference between most means and Draconian actions. If you want to protect your people and lands from murderous orcs, you hit them back hard and let them know you mean business. Deprive them of their hunting grounds and easy game in your direction and make them look elsewhere. I'd say that is perfectly justifiable. Going out and slaughtering all orcs you find without knowing about them is Draconian and not justifiable. What we are all argueing about here is the basis behind everyone's game. If you want high heroic fantasy, great go for it. Just have the bad guys be bad and the good guys be good. Have the evil creatures fight to the death and have those evil creatures who want to be redeemed, stay that way. It's not an approach I'd take but that's me. If you're going to have quanderies, moral ambiguities and the like then remember that things like poison are based on what you use it for when used. Don't label things "good" or "evil" without the action to back it up. My $0.02 US, $4.53 Canadian
Cymraegmorgan 09-25-05, 10:44 PM	of opinions, ideas, thoughts and diatribe, I stick with my initial assesment. Poison is no more evil than a ranged weapon. It is no more evil than a dagger. It is how you use it that matters. As far as using poisons and calling that a "lawful" or "chaotic" act, that is in the nature of the civilization that the person comes from. Absolutely true. A couple of months ago, I argued the opposite side of the case, and was challenged by another board member to find where, in the Core rules, it was stated that poison use was evil. I could not find it. It was just a vestige of first edition that had clung, leech-like, to the inside of my skull. Poison use is not evil. No matter what the Book of Exhausted Duds says.
a_psh 09-25-05, 10:51 PM	Poison is no more evil than a ranged weapon. It is no more evil than a dagger. It is how you use it that matters. As far as using poisons and calling that a "lawful" or "chaotic" act, that is in the nature of the civilization that the person comes from. Agreed. In a conventional fantasy game, my view is this: Evil people use poison, often for evil things. Good people can use poison, sometimes even for definitively Good things, but most opt not to because they associate it with Evil people doing Evil things. Thus, other people might look upon a Good character using poison with a bit of bias, but it's not an Evil act as far as the universe is concerned. In the game I'm running at the moment, my view is this: Poison is a tool like blade or spell. Perhaps a bit more subtle at times, but no different. Often, it is useful. Sometimes, it is necessary. There are no moral or ethical attributes attached to poison itself.
spectralphoenix 09-26-05, 07:03 AM	About the whole "ravages only hurt those who deserve it" thing... What about magical alignment change? If Regdar is exploring a dungeon and puts on a helm of opposite alignment, his alignment will become evil. He then leaves the dungeon and enters a tavern, where Alhandra hits him with a ravage. Regdar is now experiencing a "good" poison, and is on the floor screaming and clawing at his eyes. Does he deserve it? He hasn't commited any evil actions, and he didn't decide to become evil. Despite this its ok to use a ravage on him, but not ok for Lidda use a traditional poison on an infamous blackguard.
Solik 09-26-05, 10:30 AM	Despite this its ok to use a ravage on him No, it isn't, and any DM that rules otherwise is lacking serious common sense (as well as basic understanding of good vs. evil actions).
Andrew_980 09-26-05, 01:10 PM	That's great, Andrew, but your pathetic hate for an optional sourcebook is not needed here. Troll elsewhere. it Is not trolling to point out HUGE moral fallicies in a book that some of you like to attempt to use as proof in a morality debate. That optional source book is the only evidence that the "poison is evil" crowd has, so if that book is so easily debunked as non-sense then they really have NO arguement.
Avrilmalidor 09-26-05, 01:14 PM	An honorable person would never use poison (LG). I would say a good person would not use poison. A neutral person could use poison depending on its use, to kill a very evil villian is a good act if you count the ends justify the means but neutral characters can get away with this. An evil person would not hesitate to use it at all for their own means.
a_psh 09-26-05, 02:07 PM	An honorable person would never use poison (LG). I would say a good person would not use poison. A neutral person could use poison depending on its use, to kill a very evil villian is a good act if you count the ends justify the means but neutral characters can get away with this. An evil person would not hesitate to use it at all for their own means. I think it depends on the code. No alignment, even Lawful Good, has a completely fixed standard of honor. I think yours is an acceptable viewpoint, but it needs clarification: Why is it Evil to use poison? In a world where you can have magic swords and spells that damage or hamper your opposition, is it still the case that poison is bad? If coating my blade with Dexterity-affecting poison isn't playing fair, what does it mean to cast a slow or bane spell on someone? What does it mean to use invisibility to sneak up on someone or drink a potion of cure serious wounds in the middle of a swordfight? If underhandedness makes something Evil, one could argue that anything from bestow curse to a ring of deflection to feinting in battle (with Bluff) is likewise Evil. If this is not the case, then what makes poison special? Why is it Evil?
Cymraegmorgan 09-26-05, 02:17 PM	Let us all turn to the 3.5 Monster Manual, page 37. The couatl, listed as Always Lawful Good, uses a poison that causes ability damage, not unconsciousness. By RAW, we have a perfect example of poison use by those designated Lawful Good.
Derren S. 09-26-05, 02:28 PM	Let us all turn to the 3.5 Monster Manual, page 37. The couatl, listed as Always Lawful Good, uses a poison that causes ability damage, not unconsciousness. By RAW, we have a perfect example of poison use by those designated Lawful Good. The Couatl has poison, thats all. Nothing in the description says that it normally uses this weapon. If the couatl would it would not be LG.
Moon-Lancer 09-26-05, 02:31 PM	I think if poison was evil, Druid poison spells would have a subtype? of evil. How about snakes. are snakes evil?
Cymraegmorgan 09-26-05, 02:36 PM	The Couatl has poison, thats all. Nothing in the description says that it normally uses this weapon. If the couatl would it would not be LG. :rofl: :rofl: It is listed under its special attacks!! Since it is in both the stat bloc and the descriptive text, the presumption is that poison is there to be used. If the couatl would it would not be LG. Show me the place in the 3.5 Core Rulebooks where it says LG cannot use poison. Not where it says it is against a Paladin's moral code, but where it says poison use is evil, or even non-good.
Derren S. 09-26-05, 02:40 PM	:rofl: :rofl: It is listed under its special attacks!! Since it is in both the stat bloc and the descriptive text, the presumption is that poison is there to be used. The Couatl also has a tumble skill listed. I pressume that means it is always tumbling?
Cymraegmorgan 09-26-05, 02:54 PM	The Couatl also has a tumble skill listed. I pressume that means it is always tumbling? I never inferred it always uses poison. It means it will use tumble when appropriate, just as it will use poison or psionics or spells, when appropriate. Face the fact, just as I did, that 3.5 does not make poison use evil. One supplement does not trump the Core Rules. If you want to House Rule BOED's slant, realize it is a House Rule, not RAW. RAW, as shown by the MM, and as Moon-Lancer pointed out, the Cleric/Druid Poison spell, does not make poison use evil.
curan69 09-26-05, 03:03 PM	Threads like these make our group so happy we use Core Only. ( Heaven knows there is enough ambiguity in the core books without adding supplements) I realize we may be living in ignorance, missing out on so many neat things. But we seem to be happy in our ignorance. Nothing in the core books says poison is evil.
Solik 09-26-05, 05:11 PM	it Is not trolling to point out HUGE moral fallicies in a book that some of you like to attempt to use as proof in a morality debate No, but it is trolling to: * Enter threads where the BoED is being discussed with the only intent being to flame the book (and thus anyone who uses it) * To post blindly in threads without reading them (you ramble "That optional source book is the only evidence that the 'poison is evil' crowd has, so if that book is so easily debunked as non-sense then they really have NO arguement", which is a waste of words had you actually read the thread, where said rule is argued as a variant) * To engage in any such actions as these: "so I feel the need to tear it apart and disregard it as proof in any arguement" * To waste space with repeated comments such as: "god I hate that book" * To make repeated posts that add nothing to the debate; indeed, you've yet to say a single thing that either hasn't already been said, or isn't mindless trolling a la "god I hate that book" You are a troll. Plain and simple. As for the couatl / core issue -- yep, by core, poison is not evil. Intriguingly, the BoED, which offers poison use being evil, does list purified couatl poison as a ravage, but it fails to deal with the implications of a creature using poison as a natural attack. Now, given that a couatl is LG, and the authors of the book were aware of its poison, there can be only one logical conclusion -- poison use is not evil if it is a natural weapon. Thus, it is the application of poisons to weapons that results in the act being evil (by this variant). I think, above all else, the logic for this is that it is simply unnecessary. Ability damage poison just doesn't do you a lot of good if you're killing the enemy in the first place. Now, given that the book also states that it causes undue suffering, we can surmise that AD&D poisons that damage ability scores cause suffering despite the fact that many real-life comparable poisons do not. This minor difference should not be overly hard to swallow, given all the other differences between D&D worlds and our own. Ingested and inhaled poisons are even worse; these tend to be attempts to outright murder someone. Perhaps they deserve it, but D&D often tries not to go farther than allowing killing in combat for Good (and even then not always). To restate myself from previous posts so that others don't try this obvious response: the above does not apply to ravages because ravages are not external chemicals that act upon the bodies of the victims to destroy them. Rather, they convert the moral corruption of the individual to physical corruption. In other words, the target is ultimately responsible for any suffering. Note that, of course, this does not apply to redeemed [Evil] or those who have had their alignments magically altered against their will; DMs should judge such reckless ravage use as Evil. Yet Another Disclaimer: The above words were designed for those who either wish to employ this variant, or wish to attempt to understand, at the least, the BoED's reasoning. They are not necessarily an argument for how things should be in my own opinion; I do not use the poison-is-evil variant.
Cymraegmorgan 09-26-05, 05:29 PM	No, but it is trolling to: * Enter threads where the BoED is being discussed with the only intent being to flame the book (and thus anyone who uses it) * To post blindly in threads without reading them (you ramble "That optional source book is the only evidence that the 'poison is evil' crowd has, so if that book is so easily debunked as non-sense then they really have NO arguement", which is a waste of words had you actually read the thread, where said rule is argued as a variant) * To engage in any such actions as these: "so I feel the need to tear it apart and disregard it as proof in any arguement" * To waste space with repeated comments such as: "god I hate that book" * To make repeated posts that add nothing to the debate; indeed, you've yet to say a single thing that either hasn't already been said, or isn't mindless trolling a la "god I hate that book" You are a troll. Plain and simple. And you are a troll for repeatedly flaming him for his hatred of BOED. Thus, the Eternal Flame Cycle continues.... I think the greatest blessing of Hurricane Katrina is the fact that my copy of BOED was destroyed by said storm.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-26-05, 05:41 PM	You are a troll. Plain and simple. Same as you, considering the innumerable trollish and harassing things you've said to me alone, not to mention an others that dare stand against you.
LCD2YOU 09-26-05, 06:44 PM	I happen to think highly of Andrew_980 and I disagree with your assesment of him. I'd like you to take it back. He is not trolling, he is disagreeing with you. I hope you are not trying to come off as a person who accuses another of trolling when they disagree with you.No, but it is trolling to: * Enter threads where the BoED is being discussed with the only intent being to flame the book (and thus anyone who uses it)Maybe I missed something here but I haven't seen that. I will say that the BoED and the BoVD are terribly flawed. Their morality and philosophical POV are both suspect at best, highly dubious at worst. I will say that taken in part they both give the DM a few interesting things to use. Personally, I like the Vile Spells for my RRBBEG (Really Really) but it falls flat as a rules supplement.* To post blindly in threads without reading them (you ramble "That optional source book is the only evidence that the 'poison is evil' crowd has, so if that book is so easily debunked as non-sense then they really have NO arguement", which is a waste of words had you actually read the thread, where said rule is argued as a variant)I agree with his statement. As BoED is a supplement and not part of the Core Rules, it has some points lacking. If one is going to argue from a sourcebook, then one's opinion is just that, an opinion. * To engage in any such actions as these: "so I feel the need to tear it apart and disregard it as proof in any arguement"The BoED has too many flaws to be used as an effective debating tool.* To waste space with repeated comments such as: "god I hate that book"Oh my gosh. He's being honest with his feelings. Andrew_980 NO MORE HONESTY! There, hopefully Andrew will obey. :D * To make repeated posts that add nothing to the debate; indeed, you've yet to say a single thing that either hasn't already been said, or isn't mindless trolling a la "god I hate that book"Or point out what you consider mindless drivel over and over again.You are a troll. Plain and simple.Ah, no he isn't and unless you can show where he's done anything other than be honest, disagree with you or point out logical inconsistancies in his aguement please take it back.As for the couatl / core issue -- yep, by core, poison is not evil. Intriguingly, the BoED, which offers poison use being evil, does list purified couatl poison as a ravage, but it fails to deal with the implications of a creature using poison as a natural attack. Now, given that a couatl is LG, and the authors of the book were aware of its poison, there can be only one logical conclusion -- poison use is not evil if it is a natural weapon. Thus, it is the application of poisons to weapons that results in the act being evil (by this variant).Whoa, that is grasping at straws here. Poison is not evil nor does it need to be dishonorable. You are coming from a certain POV which is fine. What it doesn't do is make you POV better or more correct than any other.I think, above all else, the logic for this is that it is simply unnecessary. Ability damage poison just doesn't do you a lot of good if you're killing the enemy in the first place.Oh I disagree mightily. Let's say my plain vanilla fighter is going up against a barbarian. Hit ol' dummy with a sword of Con affecting poison and maybe I'll live to see another day.Now, given that the book also states that it causes undue suffering, we can surmise that AD&D poisons that damage ability scores cause suffering despite the fact that many real-life comparable poisons do not.That is up to the DM.This minor difference should not be overly hard to swallow, given all the other differences between D&D worlds and our own. Ingested and inhaled poisons are even worse; these tend to be attempts to outright murder someone. Perhaps they deserve it, but D&D often tries not to go farther than allowing killing in combat for Good (and even then not always).As compared to firing arrow after arrow at a target. No, I fail to see the difference.To restate myself from previous posts so that others don't try this obvious response: the above does not apply to ravages because ravages are not external chemicals that act upon the bodies of the victims to destroy them. Rather, they convert the moral corruption of the individual to physical corruption. In other words, the target is ultimately responsible for any suffering. Note that, of course, this does not apply to redeemed [Evil] or those who have had their alignments magically altered against their will; DMs should judge such reckless ravage use as Evil.What they really do is allow people who say poison is evil, end of discussion, a way out to poison "bad guys". This flies into the face of the crowd that says nothing is ever really evil.Yet Another Disclaimer: The above words were designed for those who either wish to employ this variant, or wish to attempt to understand, at the least, the BoED's reasoning. They are not necessarily an argument for how things should be in my own opinion; I do not use the poison-is-evil variant.Now I am confused. What are you saying about poison? Please be specific. One other thing, yeah, I think you've been a bit too nasty on Vaalingrade Ashland too, but that is my opinion.
Yak of Darkness 09-26-05, 07:03 PM	Yet Another Disclaimer: The above words were designed for those who either wish to employ this variant, or wish to attempt to understand, at the least, the BoED's reasoning. They are not necessarily an argument for how things should be in my own opinion; I do not use the poison-is-evil variant.If it's not your view, then why spend so much effort on this thread to torture the BoED's silly logic to the point where it sortakindamaybe makes sense if you squint at it? I just don't see the point in coming up with elaborate justifications for the BoED's take on poison use and morality beyond, "They screwed up." Besides, all that torturing of logic is an evil act. :P
Solik 09-26-05, 07:16 PM	Welp, this thread's a step away from being closed now... Same as you, considering the innumerable trollish and harassing things you've said to me alone, not to mention an others that dare stand against you. -_- Sorry, but you've no position to play victim here. I happen to think highly of Andrew_980 and I disagree with your assesment of him. I'm sure he's a great guy when you're not talking about something he decides he doesn't like. Maybe I missed something here but I haven't seen that. This is at least the third thread I've taken part in that involved the BoED that Andrew has run in, made inflammatory comments, and otherwise added nothing to the discussion. The BoED has too many flaws to be used as an effective debating tool. Huh? This is a debate about the sourcebook! Oh my gosh. He's being honest with his feelings. Um. What does that have to do with anything? I mean, if I suddenly decided I didn't like you, so I went into every thread you were in and posted that opinion, that would be trolling, right? So why should being honest forgive me for that? Honesty does not preclude basic etiquette. Ah, no he isn't and unless you can show where he's done anything other than be honest, disagree with you or point out logical inconsistancies in his aguement please take it back. Would the following post be considered okay in a political forum: "Democrats/Republicans are idiots! They have NO argument to stand on because I disagree with their base beliefs! I think (insert politician here) should be fired and kicked out of the country!" Or would it be considered trolling? I take nothing back. Well, except being overly harsh to Ashland a few times. No Slayers fan deserves that much, even if he does give as good as he gets :p As for the rest of it? I invite you to re-read my disclaimers. If it's not your view, then why spend so much effort on this thread to torture the BoED's silly logic to the point where it sortakindamaybe makes sense if you squint at it? Good question. Mostly because I like the BoED overall, so it annoys me to no end to see people thrashing it relentlessly because they don't like a couple paragraphs. It never ceases to amaze me how picky people can be -- if there's any perceived flaw at all in your designs, all of a sudden you're incompetant and your work should be trashed. As a game designer, that just makes the hair on my neck stand on end :p
Verelor 09-26-05, 07:41 PM	I love the BOeD, refuse to see it get bullied anymore. So you saw a couple contraversial statements made in chapter one and the remaining pages are toilet paper? That's weak as crap. I've already seen how you attempt to defend rotting, festering, limb-gnawing undead as pure and sacred in another post, Ashland. It's old.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-26-05, 09:22 PM	I've already seen how you attempt to defend rotting, festering, limb-gnawing undead as pure and sacred in another post, Ashland. It's old. Quote any post where I specifically say any of that and I will kiss you full on the lips. Tongue and all. Otherwise, stop posting bald faced lies.
spectralphoenix 09-27-05, 12:12 AM	Chill out, everyone. Regardless of whether poison is evil or not, there's no need to start a flame war over it. I think that poison use is not evil when it's used against an evil person because it has the same effect as a ravage. If anything, it's probably less painful. If I detect evil to make sure my target's "officially" evil, why is poison more evil than a ravage?
Andrew_980 09-27-05, 12:34 AM	This is at least the third thread I've taken part in that involved the BoED that Andrew has run in, made inflammatory comments, and otherwise added nothing to the discussion Funny I thought this was about the morality of poison use and I added that it is MORE humane way to die then acid or fire. Why "the Book of good" got torn apart was that it was being used as proof that poison must be evil as it mus be painfull. This is a debate about the sourcebook Again debate about poison, not BoED Good question. Mostly because I like the BoED overall, so it annoys me to no end to see people thrashing it relentlessly because they don't like a couple paragraphs. It never ceases to amaze me how picky people can be -- if there's any perceived flaw at all in your designs, all of a sudden you're incompetant and your work should be trashed. As a game designer, that just makes the hair on my neck stand on end It isn't a 'couple of paragraphs' it is the pretence of the whole damnable book that good and evil are absolute and infinate and the rules of good and evil cannot be bent. But here is your good undead, poison, brainwashing, assassins, ect!!! For the record solik, is it not trolling to post to complain that most who disagree with you must be trolls
Gilean 09-27-05, 07:59 AM	Solik; if natural poisons are fine, are they not painful, or are they less painful than those poisons that are unnatural? IIRC, the poison list had a few monstrous bug poisons there, too.
Solik 09-27-05, 01:03 PM	Gilean: Poison as part of a natural weapon would not be considered evil simply because the creature was just born with it. If its means of self-defense includes sharp teeth, and those sharp teeth happen to be poisoned, well. It's not like it went out and found poison to coat its fangs with. Moreover, it is common knowledge that most poisonous creatures are indeed poisonous. Poison on a weapon, though, is usually covert and used for murder and assassination purposes (and is explicitly added by the weapon user). Yeah, it's a little thin, I admit.
yrogerg 09-27-05, 05:54 PM	Here's the problem I have: BoED seems to be defining morality from a very narrow perspective, much more narrow than the core. Like, narrow on the order of developmentaly pschologists that formed Western-centric theories on moral development, and went on to say that members of other cultures just never developed to the later stages. What I mean by this is that there are plenty of cultures for whom poison use, in, say, hunting, is by no means a morally ambiguous thing, let alone an evil thing. It's as evil as hunting normally is. At the same time, saying that stat damage causes undue suffering is bothersome in a few ways: first off, no other rule for any other spell or effect suggests this. Second off, few real-world analogues to Strength, Dex, or Wis, poisons actually cause suffering, in non-lethal doses. Outside of psychotropic drugs (including low doses of chemicals that are, effectively poisions, but that's a separate issue), let's take a fairly potent one: curare. Curare is a poison that operates by paralyzing skeletal muscle fibers. In sufficient doses, it kills victims by asphyxiation. Sure, that's suffering. But in milder doses, curare derivitives are used as muscle relaxants and anaesthesics. Yeah, that's some undue suffering right there. Now, admittedly, part of the problem here is that non-Con-damage poisons can't actually kill a character. So, there's no real way of dealing with that issue. Thirdly, there's the issue of ravages. Here's my take: Poison, by this variant of rules, is bad because it causes undue suffering. Torture is another example of something that's bad because it causes undue suffering. Torturing bad people? Still considered bad by most people's standards. Due to the suffering involved and the outside chance that they're innocuous or innocent. A paladin would lose his paladinhood over this, it strikes me as being well within the realm of you're-not-Exhalted-ness. Poisoning bad people, even if it's by means of turning the bad in them against them, is still bad. They might not be *that* bad, or bad in the way you think. Or they might be redeemed fiends. At best, this makes you that creepy serial killer in Se7en. Still a bad guy. I consider this to be a case of deeply flawed and inconsistent moral reasoning on the part of BoED. The obvious alternative is to say that poison isn't bad, but some uses of poison, i.e, assasinations, are bad.