Morality and poisons


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using poison is not an evil act, but it is a dishonorable one, hence the restriction in the paladin's code. It's really that simple.

Scarab Sages

I think you've got the cause and effect switched around, there, cuervo.

el cuervo wrote:
"it is a dishonorable one, hence the restriction in the paladin's code.

The use of the word 'hence' would imply the tactic is inherently dishonourable, therefore, it follows that it should be a forbidden act for them.

However, they don't swear not to use it because of any inherent dishonour in the tactic. Because if it were inherently dishonourable, it would be dishonourable for anyone to use it. And they would be at odds with many of their allies, preventing them from using it.
This usually results in long forum threads about Lawful Stupid paladins, killing their allies over differences in tactics.

The use of poison is dishonourable to a paladin, because the default paladin's code states that they swear not to use it. Not vice versa.
It is the breaking of their self-imposed vow that is the dishonourable act, for which they feel they must make amends.

The ban came first, hence they view its use as dishonourable, in response to the ban.

It may seem like hair-splitting, but there is a fundamental difference, because what one person may forbid themselves to do, as part of a personal code, will often be more stringent than the social norms, even among devout members of the paladin's own faith.

The cleric of Iomedae, the oracle of Erastil, the inquisitors of the Empyreal Lords, may all be coating their blades in poison, in full view of the paladin, and receive not one word of rebuke.
He merely says "I accept this may make the coming battle easier, but I must decline, for my own personal vows.", and the others should not press the issue.


Snorter wrote:

I think you've got the cause and effect switched around, there, cuervo.

el cuervo wrote:
"it is a dishonorable one, hence the restriction in the paladin's code.

The use of the word 'hence' would imply the tactic is inherently dishonourable, therefore, it follows that it should be a forbidden act for them.

However, they don't swear not to use it because of any inherent dishonour in the tactic. Because if it were inherently dishonourable, it would be dishonourable for anyone to use it. And they would be at odds with many of their allies, preventing them from using it.

The use of poison is dishonourable to a paladin, because the default paladin's code states that they swear not to use it.
It is the breaking of their self-imposed vow that is the dishonourable act, for which they feel they must make amends.

The ban came first, hence they view its use as dishonourable, in response to the ban.

You understood what I meant. It really doesn't matter - you're arguing semantics. The end result is the same: poison is dishonorable to the paladin, therefore the paladin does not use poison or else he falls.

That being said, if you want to continue with that conversation, I would argue that what you said goes without saying (and is the reason why I feel it doesn't matter) since, in the case of the paladin, poison use is a clear-cut dishonorable act.

Furthermore, in my subjective viewpoint, the use of poison itself is dishonorable no matter how you shake it, hence the paladin's self-imposed restriction. A paladin doesn't have to like his less scrupulous allies' actions. Traveling with a chaotic neutral rogue who relies on poison doesn't mean the paladin has to fall. It does mean, however, that there is potential for great party dynamic and role-playing. That's way more fun than Mr. No-Fun-Lawful-Pants.

Scarab Sages

It's fine, there's no attempt to catch you out.

If someone wishes to play a paladin who believes the use of poison is inherently wrong, not just 'wrong for paladins', that's a believable stance to take.
But the player will have to expect conflict with other players and their PCs, and be prepared for that being a potentially hot topic that could derail a game session, as the paladin would soon find himself having to 'put up or shut up', when he witnesses its use by other PCs or allied NPCs, and may have to disown them, walking off into the sunset as a party of one, alone, but at least unsullied by dishonourable association.

I did edit the post above, while you were writing, to anticipate that it could be seen as hair splitting.
I see it in a similar light to a vegetarian, in a group of omnivores.
While there are some who would lecture everyone at every meal time, a wise vegetarian would know that this is counterproductive, and seek to change others views via being a good example. They would not seek to remove meat from the diet of everyone, but they would mention their vow, and ask that their self-imposed choice be respected by the others.

el cuervo wrote:
A paladin doesn't have to like his less scrupulous allies' actions. Traveling with a chaotic neutral rogue who relies on poison doesn't mean the paladin has to fall. It does mean, however, that there is potential for great party dynamic and role-playing. That's way more fun than Mr. No-Fun-Lawful-Pants.

We are in full agreement there. More than you may think.

I am wary of having a fundamentalist, zero-tolerance attitude gain traction as the expected paladin norm, because that way leads to party infighting, dead PCs, cancelled campaigns and broken real-life friendships.

In-character philosophical debate, banter, and PCs attempting to prove their way is better via healthy rivalry, is far more fun.

"Come now, my good knight. You will surely have to admit that, without the laxatives in the mine-thugs' rum ration, we would never have been able to lead so many of these tired, hungry slave children to safety so quickly. You owe me a round of drinks at the Hopping Froghemoth, once we have returned them to their joyous parents!"

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Edit: nevermind. I was going to say something along the lines that HOW you use spells can be evil just like poisons. but nevermind.

Grand Lodge

Well, poison use and the use of spells can be considered dishonorable.

Chemical Weapons are considered dishonorable even if they are the most efficient weapon of mass destruction. They are terrifying, that's why they are shunned.

Poison is also terrifying, and many spells have effects even more terrifying than mere chemical weaponry.

So, yes, poison is dishonorable.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Edit: nevermind. I was going to say something along the lines that HOW you use spells can be evil just like poisons. but nevermind.

Exactly. HOW you use anything determines the good or evil of it. It's just a tool.

Grand Lodge

How you use a tool that kills slowly and excruciatingly, in a way that you don't look evil? I want an example, please.

I know that there is poisons that are painless, but i'm talking about the dolorous ones, be they poison, weapons or spells.


Zhayne wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Edit: nevermind. I was going to say something along the lines that HOW you use spells can be evil just like poisons. but nevermind.
Exactly. HOW you use anything determines the good or evil of it. It's just a tool.

You can, however, do something in the name of good, dishonorably. Such as by poisoning the evil king's dinner, instead of facing him head on.

Mind you, the "honorable" action is not always smart, but then, that's where the idea of Lawful Stupid comes from. If you want to live, chances are you'll poison the king, not storm his throne room where his legendary 700 guardsmen stand ready to fight any intruders. Or you'll gather your own army of 700 to face the legendary guard -- that would be the Lawful Good way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darklord Morius wrote:

How you use a tool that kills slowly and excruciatingly, in a way that you don't look evil? I want an example, please.

I know that there is poisons that are painless, but i'm talking about the dolorous ones, be they poison, weapons or spells.

You prove my point. Not all poisons kill, and not all are painful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
el cuervo wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Edit: nevermind. I was going to say something along the lines that HOW you use spells can be evil just like poisons. but nevermind.
Exactly. HOW you use anything determines the good or evil of it. It's just a tool.

You can, however, do something in the name of good, dishonorably. Such as by poisoning the evil king's dinner, instead of facing him head on.

Mind you, the "honorable" action is not always smart, but then, that's where the idea of Lawful Stupid comes from. If you want to live, chances are you'll poison the king, not storm his throne room where his legendary 700 guardsmen stand ready to fight any intruders. Or you'll gather your own army of 700 to face the legendary guard -- that would be the Lawful Good way.

Pfft. Sporting events have rules. Fights don't.


The reason Paladins find poison use dishonorable is because they are champions that aren't supposed to need it. You're supposed to defeat them by overpowering righteousness and virtue; if you can't beat them without using poison, you aren't trying hard enough. If you can beat them without using poison, you don't need to use it. But I can perfectly well see a LG Inquisitor using non-lethal poisons to incapacitate a target for later questioning. And in neither case is it inherently evil; cast Detect Evil on a bottle of poison and nothing happens. But you can cast Detect Evil on a person who habitually kills people using poison and, if their aura is strong enough, it will certainly trigger.


Zhayne wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Edit: nevermind. I was going to say something along the lines that HOW you use spells can be evil just like poisons. but nevermind.
Exactly. HOW you use anything determines the good or evil of it. It's just a tool.

You can, however, do something in the name of good, dishonorably. Such as by poisoning the evil king's dinner, instead of facing him head on.

Mind you, the "honorable" action is not always smart, but then, that's where the idea of Lawful Stupid comes from. If you want to live, chances are you'll poison the king, not storm his throne room where his legendary 700 guardsmen stand ready to fight any intruders. Or you'll gather your own army of 700 to face the legendary guard -- that would be the Lawful Good way.

Pfft. Sporting events have rules. Fights don't.

That's exactly where honor comes in, though. Honor is a self-imposed code (Paladin's Code of Honor, etc), and in a fight, while one might consider it okay to make a low blow on his enemy, the other might not. While the saying "All is fair in love in war" might be true and you can't hold your enemies to the same code of honor that you hold for yourself, that doesn't mean that one can't impose their own restrictions. That's essentially what the paladin is all about.


Kazaan wrote:
cast Detect Evil on a bottle of poison and nothing happens.

Unless the poison IS inherently evil because of the magic used to make it or something similar. In PF, there ARE things that are inherently evil.

I'm not arguing that a poison CAN'T be evil, just that in most cases poison alone isn't inherently evil. However, there is a possibility that certain poisons actually are, in fact, evil in origin.

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
Darklord Morius wrote:

How you use a tool that kills slowly and excruciatingly, in a way that you don't look evil? I want an example, please.

I know that there is poisons that are painless, but i'm talking about the dolorous ones, be they poison, weapons or spells.

You prove my point. Not all poisons kill, and not all are painful.

Oh, your point was that? So no point to discuss here.

Now, there are tools that are wicked and evil, right?

And yeah, agree with el cuervo. You can do good dishonorably. Honor is a code. Code is a set of rules. Fight honorably is fight with rules. Poisons and, to an extent, spells, are not fighting honorably.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

And some of the "rules" are arbitrary. The concensus among lawful fightery types is that weapons A and B as well as tactics X and Y are acceptable, while C and Z aren't. Is that concensus necessarily logical ? No, but it is the consensus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SlimGauge wrote:

And some of the "rules" are arbitrary. The concensus among lawful fightery types is that weapons A and B as well as tactics X and Y are acceptable, while C and Z aren't. Is that concensus necessarily logical ? No, but it is the consensus.

But some fighters think C is Ok, and it is in fact D that is unforgivable.

Wait, what am I arguing?

Oh, right, I was thinking of archery. Yes, sniping targets from a far, and filling them with arrows while they spend turns trying to get across the field to get to you in order to have a duel one on one where you smack each other with large pieces of metal. Saying it like that certainly sounds bad...but there are archetypes for paladins and cavaliers that focus on archery, and to them it is merely a different type of martial prowess. "GG n00b; git bow" as some might say.

So yes, it is largely arbitrary, and the arbitrary lines are drawn in different places depending on your cultural circumstances and such. And for paladins and cavaliers, they are usually born or at least raised into nobility based around a martial power structure where might and right are at the end of a sword. Anything less is cowardly.

Of course, that is a rather bourgeois perspective, since not everyone can afford the long periods of training with experienced masters and the expensive equipment. So you can thus see another perspective, which might in fact lead to different approaches. I mean, why should the peasants try to fight the evil overlord head on when he has deathknights and dragons and legions of highly skilled mercenaries?

Or more realistically- mounted warriors in armor so heavy that they are near impossible to kill in a strait fight, which are further more backed up by archers that have trained their entire lives in order to draw a longbow and accurately hit a target at a considerable distance..while the peasants have...some pitchforks and scythes. So what incentives do they have to fight these insurmountable defenses head on again? That huge gap (paid for from the taxes they themselves were forced to pay) could easily be called unfair.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darklord Morius wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Darklord Morius wrote:

How you use a tool that kills slowly and excruciatingly, in a way that you don't look evil? I want an example, please.

I know that there is poisons that are painless, but i'm talking about the dolorous ones, be they poison, weapons or spells.

You prove my point. Not all poisons kill, and not all are painful.

Oh, your point was that? So no point to discuss here.

Now, there are tools that are wicked and evil, right?

And yeah, agree with el cuervo. You can do good dishonorably. Honor is a code. Code is a set of rules. Fight honorably is fight with rules. Poisons and, to an extent, spells, are not fighting honorably.

Saying poisons are dishonorable is a very subjective statement. Sure a majority may jump on the Disney version of chivalry bandwagon, but that image of honor is only accurate to the people who hold those ideals as important.

A Paladin (or anyone basing their ideals on a Paladin-like code) telling the Assassin he is without honor, is just as empty as the Assassin telling the Paladin he is a goodie-two-shoes who is too busy tripping over his own righteousness to accomplish anything. Both are equally useless and subjective sentiments. In the end whether or not a person has lived honorably is determined by a subjective view of what honor is.

Some people from the middle east consider it "honorable" to kill their daughter if she conducts herself in certain "dishonorable" ways. In western cultures that is considered a disgusting practice.

If honor is defined as living by a code of conduct, who's to say the Assassin doesn't have such a code. A lot of killers do. Who's to say the Assassin doesn't have a detailed code about whom he may and may not kill and how these kills are to be conducted. He may even have a detailed code concerning the use of poisons.

With that I pose the following comical scenario:

A Paladin and a Ninja are working in the same party, after the same goals. The Paladin turns to the Ninja and says, "All that sneaking, deception, and those dirty tricks like poison... you know they are things of dishonor don't you?" The Ninja smirks and replies, "Only according your code of honor, my friend. According to my code of honor, you behave like a naïve child. But that's ok, I like you anyway." And the two go on traveling together, each seeing the other's views as equally ridiculous.


My take: Depends on the people and their individual morals.

In general, poison use isn't evil. Just not lawful. But, in some areas, it might be evil or might be lawful. In general, you won't lose alignment over it.

Only class really forbidden is the paladin, IIRC.


MagusJanus wrote:

My take: Depends on the people and their individual morals.

In general, poison use isn't evil. Just not lawful. But, in some areas, it might be evil or might be lawful. In general, you won't lose alignment over it.

Only class really forbidden is the paladin, IIRC.

What do you mean 'in some areas'? Something that is evil is always going to be evil no matter where you are. Lawfulness? Well sure, laws change region by region, but character alignment lawfulness has little to do with the laws of the region (though they do come into play) and much to do with the generally accepted notion of what is honorable. That's why poisons are dishonorable -- it is generally accepted that they are a dishonorable way to harm or kill your enemy; think Hamlet.

It is my opinion that generally speaking, no lawful character would choose to use poison as that would be dishonest or deceitful, something that lawful characters are opposed to. Remember that in the game world of 3.X/Pathfinder, lawful and chaotic really aren't all that subjective. There are set guidelines for what a character of a given alignment would find acceptable. Without them, it would be impossible for us GMs to adjudicate alignment restrictions, because there would be alignment arguments at every turn.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Rules ? In a knife fight ?


Let's apply the deontological test for morality again, as we did in the pastry thread.

If everybody poisoned everybody else's drinks, what would happen? People would no longer be able to buy drinks, or accept drinks, from anybody; you'd need to milk your own cow, brew your own beer, and get water yourself from a well you dug. I think the net effect would be pretty universally negative; this would make the activity "drinking" much less feasible than it otherwise is. This suggests poisoning drinks is evil.

Coating weapons with poison? A bit trickier, but how would you feel if every blade and arrow were coated with poison? I could see this going either way; it doesn't necessarily affect the goal or feasibility of fighting in a clearly negative way, so I'd say go for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That depends on how you define the goal or feasibility of fighting. If we define "Fighting" as "trying to kill someone", then poisoning your weapon isn't evil; you're trying to kill anyone anyway so poisoning your weapon is no different than using a more dangerous one. If the goal of fighting is to personally survive, regardless of what happens to the other person, it's also not inherently evil and may, in fact, increase your odds of survival to make your weapon more lethal. But if you define fighting as trying to protect life; trying to avoid harm not only for yourself but also trying your best to avoid needlessly killing your attacker, poison "could" be considered evil because, in that case, the goal is to balance enough lethality to win the fight, but not so much that it becomes overkill.

If we're talking about a universe with objective morality, such as Golaron, where "Good" and "Evil" are tangible and objective concepts, it depends on which one the universe itself favors. If Golaron favors Good as the predominant force and Evil as the "antagonistic" force, then Fatal Poisoning could be evil if you would otherwise have a good chance to win without it. If Evil is the predominant force and "Good" is the interloper, then poison isn't inherently evil. Same goes if the two are coequal. Subjective morality, on the other hand, gets a little more tricky. And that doesn't even address the issue of Honor which is more a Lawful/Chaotic concept than a Good/Evil one.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The main problem I would see with poison is one that would cut across all alignments: It is inherently dangerous to the user if he does not have the poison use ability to avoid accidentally poisoning himself. But in that case I would see poison as "bad" in the sense of "stupid" rather than "evil".


That is not necessarily something that would impact alignments, though. Someone not trained in the proper use of arms can injure himself or his allies when trying to wield a complex weapon, too :) .

I think in the case of paladins, poison tends to conflict with their status as exemplars and champions of goodness and virtue. Plus, it is usually against the laws (which paladins generally uphold) and the code of the military elite (which they often belong to). In general, most societies will consider poison as immoral and dishonorable, as well as illegal, and most LG warriors (by the pathfinder interpretation of lawful good) will shun it, even if they are rangers or fighters by class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aegrisomnia wrote:

Let's apply the deontological test for morality again, as we did in the pastry thread.

If everybody poisoned everybody else's drinks, what would happen? People would no longer be able to buy drinks, or accept drinks, from anybody; you'd need to milk your own cow, brew your own beer, and get water yourself from a well you dug. I think the net effect would be pretty universally negative; this would make the activity "drinking" much less feasible than it otherwise is. This suggests poisoning drinks is evil.

Coating weapons with poison? A bit trickier, but how would you feel if every blade and arrow were coated with poison? I could see this going either way; it doesn't necessarily affect the goal or feasibility of fighting in a clearly negative way, so I'd say go for it.

If everybody tried to kill eachother with swords and fireballs, then you could not get a society since everyone would live as hermits away from others. Ergo, you cannot use weapons and spells to fight, since it is immoral.

Or we could not try to simplify the issue like that. There is a difference between controlled and purposeful usage versus random and pointless usage. It is one of the main moral arguments we've been discussing.

...also, if everyone was poisoning each other, then they would develop immunities rather darn quickly as long as it didn't outright kill them. Thus, arsenic would just be something to spread on your toast along with butter.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Since that race was first published, I have been fascinated with the idea of playing a vishkanya paladin. There is someting I find very interesting about having a natural ability that your code of conduct forbids you to use.

Of course, I have a vishkanya oracle in my game who refrains from using poison for a different reason -- her spells are so much more effective than her weapon strikes that it is a complete waste of time and effort to apply poison to her weapons.


Pseudodragons have poison, and they are neutral good. I guess non-lethal poison it's not evil.

http://paizo.com/PRD/monsters/pseudodragon.html


lemeres wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:

Let's apply the deontological test for morality again, as we did in the pastry thread.

If everybody poisoned everybody else's drinks, what would happen? People would no longer be able to buy drinks, or accept drinks, from anybody; you'd need to milk your own cow, brew your own beer, and get water yourself from a well you dug. I think the net effect would be pretty universally negative; this would make the activity "drinking" much less feasible than it otherwise is. This suggests poisoning drinks is evil.

Coating weapons with poison? A bit trickier, but how would you feel if every blade and arrow were coated with poison? I could see this going either way; it doesn't necessarily affect the goal or feasibility of fighting in a clearly negative way, so I'd say go for it.

If everybody tried to kill eachother with swords and fireballs, then you could not get a society since everyone would live as hermits away from others. Ergo, you cannot use weapons and spells to fight, since it is immoral.

Or we could not try to simplify the issue like that. There is a difference between controlled and purposeful usage versus random and pointless usage. It is one of the main moral arguments we've been discussing.

...also, if everyone was poisoning each other, then they would develop immunities rather darn quickly as long as it didn't outright kill them. Thus, arsenic would just be something to spread on your toast along with butter.

Indeed, IRL, killing can be considered evil for exactly this reason. This is the basis for "turning the other cheek." What this means in practical terms is that, from some points of view (some of which have had a significant impact on modern understanding of morality), virtually all of killing done in D&D-style games is evil. Of course, the degree to which any of this applies to the game world is up to GM discretion, and making it evil for PCs to kill things changes the feel pretty dramatically. Of course, for non-Paladins and non-Good-outsiders, this wouldn't matter overmuch. Evil can be perfectly legal so long as it's justified, and killing evil - especially in self-defense - can usually be justified fairly easily. It would mean there'd be a lot fewer really good people in the game world, but then again, that would just increase the degree to which the game world resembles the real world.


aegrisomnia wrote:

Coating weapons with poison? A bit trickier, but how would you feel if every blade and arrow were coated with poison?

If someone is trying to kill me, I would expect them to use every means and method available to them to do so. This would come as no surprise to me.


Zhayne wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:

Coating weapons with poison? A bit trickier, but how would you feel if every blade and arrow were coated with poison?

If someone is trying to kill me, I would expect them to use every means and method available to them to do so. This would come as no surprise to me.

I'd concur, actually. Poisoning weapons enhances fighting, making it more effective, feasible and worthwhile than not. I'd hesitate to call it good, but it's definitely not an inherently evil way to fight.

(Killing aside)


Shadowlord wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
How about using it to spike the bandit camps barrels of booze? Is it really any different morally than putting them all to the sword?
if they give some to the slave kids they keep around, you will know the difference:)

How about if the trapper ranger sets up a trap for one of the bandits and someone unintended walks into it first? Exactly as bad as the above scenario. If you employ lethal means indirectly when you know there are likely many potential unintended casualties, you are doing a bad thing. I don't know how bad we want to call it, but it's bad. If you aren't aware of all the unintended casualties it gets more gray. How reasonable is it to expect you to have known? If it's not reasonable to expect you to have known, it's not that bad, but if you went out of your way to not find out about the innocent slave children you might catch in the crossfire, you're a bad person.

What about a wizard laying down some sort of spell trap intended for the bandit but taking out someone else instead? See above.

How about a fireball that kills someone the wizard/sorcerer didn't even know was there? Not as bad as the poisoned booze scenario because you are in combat (limiting your options and time to consider them since your life is probably on the line) and you are unaware of the innocent. Things like this happen. If you're a good person you'll probably feel bad, but it was never really your fault.

What about the ranger who goes out of his way to slays an orc he sees wandering outside a town, even though he has NO IDEA if that orc is actually Evil. Worse than the poisoned bandit camp. Going out of your way to kill someone that as far as you know isn't doing anything wrong, is worse than accidentally (but not worse than intentionally) killing innocent bystanders while trying to take out the bad guys.

Would any of these things cause a character to become Evil? They are all things a Good/Neutral character should probably regret, I don't think they make that character Evil. The intentions behind an action and the presence or absence of regret say as much or more about alignment than the actions themselves do. There are a lot of "landmine" like weapons that parties and GM's use on a regular basis that no one ever thinks twice about. But the minute poison is involved people start questioning if it's evil and dishing out warnings. These four examples are no more or less Evil than trying to poison a bandit and accidentally injuring one of his prisoners.

Of those four scenarios, I'd say killing the Orc for no good reason should cause you to slide toward evil. Or really any of them assuming you feel no remorse.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
If someone is trying to kill me, I would expect them to use every means and method available to them to do so. This would come as no surprise to me.

If I'm on the battlefield in a declared war between organized combatants, I expect the Hague Conventions to be followed. If it's a street punk, not so much.

The Hague Convention of 1899: Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land forbids the use of poisons, the killing of enemy combatants who have surrendered, looting of a town or place, and the attack of undefended towns or habitations. Inhabitants of occupied territories may not be forced into military service against their own country and collective punishment is forbidden.

In Pathfinder, chances are both warring parties are not signatories, but that doesn't mean that I tell my troops that the rules are off for this battle.


el cuervo wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

My take: Depends on the people and their individual morals.

In general, poison use isn't evil. Just not lawful. But, in some areas, it might be evil or might be lawful. In general, you won't lose alignment over it.

Only class really forbidden is the paladin, IIRC.

What do you mean 'in some areas'? Something that is evil is always going to be evil no matter where you are. Lawfulness? Well sure, laws change region by region, but character alignment lawfulness has little to do with the laws of the region (though they do come into play) and much to do with the generally accepted notion of what is honorable. That's why poisons are dishonorable -- it is generally accepted that they are a dishonorable way to harm or kill your enemy; think Hamlet.

It is my opinion that generally speaking, no lawful character would choose to use poison as that would be dishonest or deceitful, something that lawful characters are opposed to. Remember that in the game world of 3.X/Pathfinder, lawful and chaotic really aren't all that subjective. There are set guidelines for what a character of a given alignment would find acceptable. Without them, it would be impossible for us GMs to adjudicate alignment restrictions, because there would be alignment arguments at every turn.

I use a subjective morality type of play; what may be good on one continent may not be good on another. Keep in mind that alignment is a mindset; it exists in relation to how a character does what is and is not perceived as good in their culture. The fact there's a certain uniformity within modern human cultures is what leads most people to mistakenly think that there is a uniformity in alignment in fantastic cultures or cultures taking place in the past.

For example, in modern times, rape is evil. In the past, it used to not only not be evil at times, but in some cultures it had circumstances where it was encouraged. Even in the U.S. it had, in the past, circumstances where most people generally didn't consider it evil. And genocide, today among the greatest of evils, was actually considered good enough recently enough that Hitler's plan to commit genocide (which he published) actually contributed to him being Time's Man of the Year. It also may have been one of the contributing factors to why the Nazis hosted the Olympics twice.

Now, I don't play a setting where rape is ever considered good, and in general the obvious evils remain evil. But there is still some cultural variation; poison may be evil in one culture, but considered good in another. Illegal in one culture, lawful in another. A good person typically acts according to the cultural standards they grew up with of what is good.

Paladins are the exception; they have a code of honor that comes from divine agreement. So they can never use poison, even if they come from a culture where it's considered a good thing. Because it violates the oaths they took as a paladin.


SlimGauge wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
If someone is trying to kill me, I would expect them to use every means and method available to them to do so. This would come as no surprise to me.

If I'm on the battlefield in a declared war between organized combatants, I expect the Hague Conventions to be followed. If it's a street punk, not so much.

The Hague Convention of 1899: Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land forbids the use of poisons, the killing of enemy combatants who have surrendered, looting of a town or place, and the attack of undefended towns or habitations. Inhabitants of occupied territories may not be forced into military service against their own country and collective punishment is forbidden.

In Pathfinder, chances are both warring parties are not signatories, but that doesn't mean that I tell my troops that the rules are off for this battle.

Well, the Hague Conventions are designed for Wars. And let's face it: anything meant for war that isn't just infantry equipment has a very, very high likelihood of causing tons of causalities. I mean, the mustard gas cloud or arsenic in the water supply meant to kill 1000 soldiers is not exactly going to just go out of its way to avoid medics, refugees, and other noncombatants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.

It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."

Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.

Liberty's Edge

Atarlost wrote:

Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.

It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."

Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.

Wow. That's a bit of a bleak view of things. There's an element of truth there, but that's not all that honor is. A lot of honor codes would've (for example) entirely approved of the woman, say, taking her 'husband's' sword down from the wall and killing him with it (even if he was unarmed at the time) even while disapproving of poison. And even more (though not all) would've viewed forcing a marriage as dishonorable.

Codes of honor are more complex than you're making them out to be. Not all sunshine and roses or anything, but like most moral codes, they're more complex than simply a means of oppression.

On the original topic:

Collateral damage or anything that risks it shades into Evil. So poison can do so...but doesn't have to. In most cultures, where the prevailing mores/codes disapprove, use of poison is almost certainly Chaotic.


Poison is a weapon, but not one like the sword.

Unlike hand-to-hand fighting (or even targeting with a ranged weapon), poison allows for a degree of detachment to your target. It's easier to wait for the enemy to eat your poisoned cake than to strike the final blow, or loosing the arrow. Without going into the good is hard(er) approach, using poison remove the last-second hesitation and impression of mercy; the poison will do its damage regardless if you have a change of heart.

In my book, this is a huge difference; like a summoned creature that you leave to its own design or a lasting area spell that you cannot dismiss.


Atarlost wrote:

Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.

It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."

Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.

Now I feel terrible. I've always considered it to be honorable not to commit violence against women. As part of my own personal honor code, I have tried to deal with people honestly and fairly, and keep my word when I give it. All this time I've been an oppressor!


Not committing violence against women is quite sexist if you're willing to commit violence against men.


Rynjin wrote:
Not committing violence against women is quite sexist if you're willing to commit violence against men.

Yes, I suppose that on a certain level I am implying that women are inherently weaker than men. However, violence against women is a social issue that has been brought to my awareness, and I have pledged to not abuse women physically.

If that makes me sexist, I can live with that.

*EDIT* This doesn't apply to Pathfinder, I kill everything I can get my sword on in Pathfinder


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.

It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."

Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.

Wow. That's a bit of a bleak view of things. There's an element of truth there, but that's not all that honor is. A lot of honor codes would've (for example) entirely approved of the woman, say, taking her 'husband's' sword down from the wall and killing him with it (even if he was unarmed at the time) even while disapproving of poison. And even more (though not all) would've viewed forcing a marriage as dishonorable.

Codes of honor are more complex than you're making them out to be. Not all sunshine and roses or anything, but like most moral codes, they're more complex than simply a means of oppression.

On the original topic:

Collateral damage or anything that risks it shades into Evil. So poison can do so...but doesn't have to. In most cultures, where the prevailing mores/codes disapprove, use of poison is almost certainly Chaotic.

Plus, I am not entirely sure if that is the right oppressed group to focus on. While I can certainly understand that there may be the opinion that poison is a 'woman's weapon', I highly doubt that the average male farmer would be that much better in a straight fight against a well trained nobleman either. Martial skill and training is a privilege that has, quite often, been afforded only to rich men.

Not to say that it isn't possible to kill them with a melee weapon. My advise in that case though would be to take a nice, long, slender dagger and shank them by surprise. Rondel and stillettos have historically been associated with assassins due to their ability to pierce through thick leather and chainmail (often the common forms a knight's every day protection) and their relative ease of concealment, such as within a cloak. But if one is going this far, then it hardly matters whether it is a poor farmer or moderately wealthy noblewoman.

Still back to the issue of 'which oppressed group uses poison', I would much more readily associate with with the lower classes. This comes from the fact that they are the ones that become 'disposable pawns' for the upper class with a bit of coin when they need someone taken out of the picture. They are the ones usually responsible for preparing food and drinks. And depending on their position, they might have enough freedom to roam about the castle/manor on the excuse that they are checking tomorrow's cooking ingredients, or other similar lies. That leads them to become 'invisible'. Everyone notices when the new mistress is wandering about, but what about maid #34?


SlimGauge wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
If someone is trying to kill me, I would expect them to use every means and method available to them to do so. This would come as no surprise to me.

If I'm on the battlefield in a declared war between organized combatants, I expect the Hague Conventions to be followed. If it's a street punk, not so much.

The Hague Convention of 1899: Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land forbids the use of poisons, the killing of enemy combatants who have surrendered, looting of a town or place, and the attack of undefended towns or habitations. Inhabitants of occupied territories may not be forced into military service against their own country and collective punishment is forbidden.

In Pathfinder, chances are both warring parties are not signatories, but that doesn't mean that I tell my troops that the rules are off for this battle.

Things like this treaty and chivalry or things like ROEs and LOAC are great, but I wonder how differently those codes of conduct would have developed if MAGIC had been involved.? Or how the ideals of "honor" in general may have developed differently.


Atarlost wrote:

Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.

It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."

Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.

A lot of corrupt people may use honor, law, and religion as a means to that end, any code or law can be twisted by those in power. That doesn't mean there aren't truly idealistic people who actually believe, actually hold themselves to a higher standard, and wouldn't use it as a means of abuse.


Atarlost wrote:

Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.

It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."

Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.

Welcome to the very definition of Lawful Evil!

Lawful Good, on the other hand, uses honor as a tool to try and do the right thing rather than violate rights.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Morality and poisons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion