TorctheOrc's page

Not really, the OP has called using poison a vile and depraved act, so Malthraz' point is good. is a hunter vile and depraved for using poison?

Again, you're conflating things. There is a difference between a depraved and vile act and depraved and vile person. One depraved and vile act does not a depraved and vile person make. I would argue that someone who regularly and repeatedly uses poison, in the context of the D&D world, is in fact a depraved and vile individual. The difference between regular folks and paladins is that even a single act of questionable morality violates their holy vows. That kind of moral rigor opens up a world of fascinating role playing opportunities. If that level of constraint is not something a player is comfortable with, then don't play a paladin.

If we start down the slippery slope of moral equivalency then the idea of what it means to be a paladin disappears altogether. Take the following as an example. A village is invaded every year at harvest time by a group of depraved and vile bandits. This causes much hardship and suffering for the villagers, including some of their number dying each winter from deprivation and disease. A paladin appears. He/She steps up to defend the village from the bandits. While fighting off the bandits, the paladin has to risk his/her life to save a villager from being kidnapped or murdered by a bandit. In the world of moral equivalency, why would the paladin risk his or her life? If the Paladin dies, the village will just be raided again the following harvest season. More innocent people will suffer and die. So just let the bandits drag off one innocent villager because risking the paladin's life risks the greater good? The path of moral equivalency leads directly to a moral quagmire.
What about the classic fantasy trope of sacrificing an individual to a monster to ensure that the rest of the populace is safe from the monster's predations? (Sacrificing a citizen, usually a maiden, chosen by lot to buy off the local dragon being the most familiar example.) Would a paladin be ok with that bargain? The greater good would be preserved after all. I don't think they would. Bargaining with an evil, man-eating monster just to preserve the "greater good", doesn't seem either great or good and I'd argue that no self respecting paladin would ever engage in such behavior.

Is it dishonorable to use arrows tipped with a dragon bane poison when hunting a red dragon?

Hunters have used poison to more effectively bring down game for millennia. Are they somehow vile, depraved people?

This seems like some sort of lawful-stupid argument.

This is where the confusion comes in I think. Are hunters who use poison vile, depraved people? Not necessarily, they're just not paladins. There is a huge gulf between being a Paladin and being vile and depraved. Not being a Paladin isn't the same as being vile and depraved. You're conflating the issue.

I'm inclined to agree, Neuronin. "Lawful Stupid", as some people call it, is part of the Paladin's schtick. Justifying immoral or even questionable actions is just not part of being a Paladin no matter what kind of armor you wear. If you want to be an "ends justify the means" kind of LG character, be a LG Ranger or Cleric. Erring on the side of honor and decency is part of the Paladin package. Paladins receive tremendous advantages when facing evil foes. Whether it's a matter of game balance or just roll playing flavor, they pay for those advantages by adhering to an extremely strict, sometimes self defeating, moral code. Poison use, whatever the justification, falls outside of that moral code in my view. Now will there sometimes be an outlandish circumstance that forces the Paladin's hand such that he is forced to use questionable tactics in order to defeat an agent of evil (such a serial child murderer)? Of course that might happen. That's what atonement is for. That's not to say atonement is some kind of Get-out-of-jail-free card. The circumstances must be extreme and a greater good must be preserved.

As far as "Lawful Stupid" goes, don't replace it with "Neutral Stupid".
Rats in the castle? Please. Get a Ranger or a Druid or a scroll of speak with animals or a cat. C'mon now.
Lycanthropy? Remove disease.
Bane or slaying arrows? Those are keyed to a specific, usually evil, target. Poison is not, it is entirely indiscriminate. Poison can fall into the wrong hands. It can be used to greatly evil ends. I would submit arrows of slaying or a bane weapons are not so readily used by or targeted on the innocent or undeserving.
With all that said, this not a topic that deserves a heated or unpleasant exchange. If there's a rule one disagrees with, don't use it at your table. Call it a higher moral code;)

errr..role playing. Ahem.

I don't suggest that being "Lawful Stupid" is part of a Paladin's code, I only point out that others have suggested it since D&D's inception. I suggest that adhering to a higher, often impractical, moral code is not of necessity stupid. It's often impractical but frankly it's supposed to be. Being a Paladin is not supposed to be easy, it's not supposed to be convenient, it is not supposed to be confused with the path of least resistance. I don't think Paladins are supposed to be just another flavor of player character. They are supposed to be different. Having to adhere to a strict moral code seems like an opportunity for a Paladin to be exceedingly clever and resourceful. They can't just fall back on easy answers to common adventuring situations. They have to think outside the box and confront the adventuring world in fresh, new ways. That is what makes them so flavorful and fun to play. I've never thought of Paladins as "Lawful Stupid", rather I think they invite the player to explore "Lawful Thoughtful" as a role playing concept. One of my favorite PC's that I've ever DM'ed was a lawful good cleric who refused to act like a "normal" adventurer. He spent his early career giving away his wealth by literally handing it out to the poor on the streets. He insisted that the party subdue rather than kill monsters that they encountered. Using rules found in the Book of Exalted Deeds, he spent endless hours attempting to convert a troll the party had captured. It was epic and fun. And entirely impractical. But it wasn't stupid.
I'm not following the logic that using poison is the equivalent of using silver weapons against vampires or devils.
I do think that getting a foe drunk so that they are easier to kill is very unpaladinish.
Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just want Neuronin to realize that he (she?) is not alone. I think many of the arguments marshalled against his/her position are exceedingly weak and nonsensical. Roll on Neuronin!

I'm inclined to agree, Neuronin. "Lawful Stupid", as some people call it, is part of the Paladin's schtick. Justifying immoral or even questionable actions is just not part of being a Paladin no matter what kind of armor you wear. If you want to be an "ends justify the means" kind of LG character, be a LG Ranger or Cleric. Erring on the side of honor and decency is part of the Paladin package. Paladins receive tremendous advantages when facing evil foes. Whether it's a matter of game balance or just roll playing flavor, they pay for those advantages by adhering to an extremely strict, sometimes self defeating, moral code. Poison use, whatever the justification, falls outside of that moral code in my view. Now will there sometimes be an outlandish circumstance that forces the Paladin's hand such that he is forced to use questionable tactics in order to defeat an agent of evil (such a serial child murderer)? Of course that might happen. That's what atonement is for. That's not to say atonement is some kind of Get-out-of-jail-free card. The circumstances must be extreme and a greater good must be preserved.
As far as "Lawful Stupid" goes, don't replace it with "Neutral Stupid".
Rats in the castle? Please. Get a Ranger or a Druid or a scroll of speak with animals or a cat. C'mon now.
Lycanthropy? Remove disease.
Bane or slaying arrows? Those are keyed to a specific, usually evil, target. Poison is not, it is entirely indiscriminate. Poison can fall into the wrong hands. It can be used to greatly evil ends. I would submit arrows of slaying or a bane weapons are not so readily used by or targeted on the innocent or undeserving.
With all that said, this not a topic that deserves a heated or unpleasant exchange. If there's a rule one disagrees with, don't use it at your table. Call it a higher moral code;)

I am the DM who is guilty as charged with just wrapping CoT. This is my second Paizo AP DM'ed to completion in the past six and a half years, the first being AoW. For the bulk of that time I have hosted the game at my gaming pad in NYC. We have met weekly, except during summer vacations, with sessions lasting 4-6 hours apiece.

I thought the main challenge of the CoT campaign was trying to breath life into the city of Westcrowne itself. The entire AP takes place in and around Westcrowne and by the end of the AP the city itself has become one of the major NPC's. Creating depth and continuity in the PC's experience of Westcrowne is the DM's biggest hurdle in pulling off a successful CoT campaign in my opinion. I would give myself a C or C+ in this regard.

My favorite parts of the campaign were the after party at the Mayoral mansion, the Delvehaven vampire storyline, the guildhouse at Wallcourt's treasure vault, and the siege of the Maggot Tree in the Hagwood. My PC's highlights include their early defeat of the Hellknights. By using a combination of nonlethal damage, the color spray spell, and the intimidate skill my PC's were able to rout the Hellknights whenever they encountered them without causing any actual blood shed. It was a beautiful way to start the campaign. The other campaign highlight was the party's use of a pair of Lyres of Building to great roleplaying effect. They spent many hours using the Lyres to rebuild and beautify the streets of the city. They took over the evil monks' creamatoria and turned it into a bakery, "Just Biscuits", that daily distributed bread to the poor. They rebuilt the destroyed plateau, where the mayoral mansion once stood, and turned it into a shining jewel of Westcrowne, with public parks and theater space. In was fun to see PC's turn their hands to creation rather than destruction, which is so often the case.

My least favorite part of the campaign were players who argued endlessly and inflexibly about rules. Any player at my table will tell you that I am a PC's DM. I want my PC's to be heroic so I don't mind giving them good starting stats or extra class features etc. That's why I find rules lawyers at my table almost an affront to common decency. If they are such sticklers for the rules why don't they insist on standard 20 point builds for the entire party? Or refuse to use non-standard class features, spells, or magic items? Because they're frauds, that's why. In my experience rules lawyers do not seek justice, fairness or the spirit or letter of the rules. The only thing they seek is to take advantage for themselves and their party and to endlessly argue, if only to satiate their monstrous egos. (Too harsh?)

In any case, a DM is only as good as his players so I would like to thank all the players, rules lawyers or not, for a fun and memorable campaign.

WDM4f

...you feel sad whenever your shopping cart is empty...