Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.Of course, this same book introduced the concept of "ravages", which inflict ability damage using exactly the same game mechanics as poison, but they only do it to evil creatures, so that's OK.
It also said paladins shouldn't kill succubi if they were lesbians.
Ravages are to poison what holy water is to acid. Is holy water acid, just because it acts as such to undead or evil outsiders?
Creative Director
|
In the Pathfinder RPG (and in 3.5, for that matter), poison use is not evil.
Using poison might be considered dishonorable, but that doesn't make it evil.
What makes it evil is when you sneak poison into someone's food and then hope they eat it and die.
Poison itself is no more evil than a knife or fire or a pillow. The fact that it's easier to kill someone with poison than it might be with a knife or fire or a pillow (since poison is MUCH more stealthy than many other methods of murder) makes it a popular choice of mayhem for evil folks, but that doesn't mean that using poison itself is evil.
Couatls and guardian nagas, both lawful good, have poison attacks, after all... and their poison does CON damage so it's arguably the worst KIND of poison. But neither of those two creatures is likely to sneak into a sleeping person's house and poison them at night, or gloat over a helpless poisoned victim's twitching and dying body.
What makes it evil is when you sneak poison into someone's food and then hope they eat it and die.
Not to disagree but what if you're poisoning an evil persons food? Sorry to complicate things but I'm currently playing a Chaotic Good Alchemist (very anti-hero-esque) and I tend to use poison a lot and along with many other uses the DM set up an encounter where we specifically had to take out an evil NPC in this way. Well maybe not specifically but our only other choices were to burst in and fight our way through this NPC's army of bodyguards or kill him in his sleep.
Couatls and guardian nagas, both lawful good, have poison attacks, after all... and their poison does CON damage so it's arguably the worst KIND of poison. But neither of those two creatures is likely to sneak into a sleeping person's house and poison them at night, or gloat over a helpless poisoned victim's twitching and dying body.
Couatl's poison does Str damage, not Con, but other than that the point holds.
|
Creative Director
|
What makes it evil is when you sneak poison into someone's food and then hope they eat it and die.Not to disagree but what if you're poisoning an evil persons food? Sorry to complicate things but I'm currently playing a Chaotic Good Alchemist (very anti-hero-esque) and I tend to use poison a lot and along with many other uses the DM set up an encounter where we specifically had to take out an evil NPC in this way. Well maybe not specifically but our only other choices were to burst in and fight our way through this NPC's army of bodyguards or kill him in his sleep.
Still an evil act to poison an evil person's food, I would say. I'm not saying that doing so would AUTOMATICALLY shift your alignment to evil, and if it were a single situation that arose, I certainly would not, ESPECIALLY if you roleplayed your Chaotic Good character as agonizing over the choice. Situations where a good aligned person takes a shady route like this make for good storytelling.
Kierato wrote:
And again I say this is not a question of morality, it is a rules question. And I am well aware that I was the first one to state this because that would be the point of wondering if it is evil.
Wondering if it is evil is a question of morality. "Evil" is a moral designation.
Quote:
You have not paid attention to my posts because you keep resorting to morality which means you cannot answer the question.
False. Saying the morality depends on the action you use it for is answering your question. Just because you don't know what "morality" means doesn't mean that I am incapable of answering the question; it means you're ignorant.
"Good and Evil are not abstract moral concepts in D&D, they are laws that bind the universe" This is a quote from an official book in 3.5 D&D. I know full well what morality means and it is irrelevant to this topic. Wondering if an act is evil here is not a question of morality, this is a rules forum, not a philosophy forum. The fact that this simple concept has escaped you shows that you are the ignorant one here, not I.
To everyone on the Forum:
I apologize, I should have been the bigger person and not retaliated when Zurai provoked me. Please disregard my comments.
I'd say James Jacobs' comparison to knife or a fire or a pillow is perfect--it's how you use it and why that matters.
If say you used a poison gas bomb that rendered its victims simply asleep that, circumstantially speaking, could be a much less "evil" use of a weapon since it isn't fatal, and the intent may in fact be to protect someone from harm--heck, you could probably use something like that "for medicinal purposes."
Anyway--I'd say this is definitely one of those cases of, "Depends on what you plan to do, and it's up to your GM."
I think the issue comes from some version of AD&D where poison use was considered evil---probably my guess is around the "Mazes and Monsters" backlash era, and general fear of encouraging any kind of unethical behavior caused some rather extreme declarations of what was good and evil came forth. I don't think it's ever been mentioned in any 3rd edition book or since (as far as I know).
|
Still an evil act to poison an evil person's food, I would say. I'm not saying that doing so would AUTOMATICALLY shift your alignment to evil, and if it were a single situation that arose, I certainly would not, ESPECIALLY if you roleplayed your Chaotic Good character as agonizing over the choice. Situations where a good aligned person takes a shady route like this make for good storytelling.What makes it evil is when you sneak poison into someone's food and then hope they eat it and die.Not to disagree but what if you're poisoning an evil persons food? Sorry to complicate things but I'm currently playing a Chaotic Good Alchemist (very anti-hero-esque) and I tend to use poison a lot and along with many other uses the DM set up an encounter where we specifically had to take out an evil NPC in this way. Well maybe not specifically but our only other choices were to burst in and fight our way through this NPC's army of bodyguards or kill him in his sleep.
Poisoning food is evil because it's indiscriminate, in particular if you are not entirely certain who is going to take the poison. You may just as easily kill the kitchen staff or the food taster.
Poisoning the stewpot two trolls are eating out of? I'm not so sure I would agree with that. I guess it somewhat depends on how closely you tie goodness with honor.
Still an evil act to poison an evil person's food, I would say. I'm not saying that doing so would AUTOMATICALLY shift your alignment to evil, and if it were a single situation that arose, I certainly would not, ESPECIALLY if you roleplayed your Chaotic Good character as agonizing over the choice. Situations where a good aligned person takes a shady route like this make for good storytelling.
Yes! I knew rat poison and insecticides were evil :P
|
Still an evil act to poison an evil person's food, I would say. I'm not saying that doing so would AUTOMATICALLY shift your alignment to evil, and if it were a single situation that arose, I certainly would not, ESPECIALLY if you roleplayed your Chaotic Good character as agonizing over the choice. Situations where a good aligned person takes a shady route like this make for good storytelling.Yes! I knew rat poison and insecticides were evil :P
well animals and vermin are neutral, and poisoning a neutral thing with an int of 2 or less is rather impolite :P
Still an evil act to poison an evil person's food, I would say. I'm not saying that doing so would AUTOMATICALLY shift your alignment to evil, and if it were a single situation that arose, I certainly would not, ESPECIALLY if you roleplayed your Chaotic Good character as agonizing over the choice. Situations where a good aligned person takes a shady route like this make for good storytelling.What makes it evil is when you sneak poison into someone's food and then hope they eat it and die.Not to disagree but what if you're poisoning an evil persons food? Sorry to complicate things but I'm currently playing a Chaotic Good Alchemist (very anti-hero-esque) and I tend to use poison a lot and along with many other uses the DM set up an encounter where we specifically had to take out an evil NPC in this way. Well maybe not specifically but our only other choices were to burst in and fight our way through this NPC's army of bodyguards or kill him in his sleep.Poisoning food is evil because it's indiscriminate, in particular if you are not entirely certain who is going to take the poison. You may just as easily kill the kitchen staff or the food taster.
Poisoning the stewpot two trolls are eating out of? I'm not so sure I would agree with that. I guess it somewhat depends on how closely you tie goodness with honor.
James: So it is more evil than drawing your sword, charging the evil lord, and being forced to slay his neutral bodyguards to stop his evil?
0gre: Trying to kill someone with more direct means (such as with a sword) could have mishaps of its own (such as missing and lopping the head off the innocent queen rather than the tyrant king).
James: So it is more evil than drawing your sword, charging the evil lord, and being forced to slay his neutral bodyguards to stop his evil?
Irrelevant question. It doesn't matter if one is more evil than the other only if either of them are evil in the first place.
Also since the neutral bodyguards accepted the job to defend them they have the choice of getting in the way or not -- they are profiting from his evil (by accepting his job offering and pay to guard him) and choosing to defend him -- which isn't a good act either. They have accepted specifically what is going to happen to them by taking the job.
"Good and Evil are not abstract moral concepts in D&D, they are laws that bind the universe" This is a quote from an official book in 3.5 D&D. I know full well what morality means and it is irrelevant to this topic. Wondering if an act is evil here is not a question of morality, this is a rules forum, not a philosophy forum. The fact that this simple concept has escaped you shows that you are the ignorant one here, not I.
"Good vs Evil" is a moral question, period. That is the definition of morality. What your quote indicates is that it is not an abstract moral concept (like it is in real life), but rather a definitive one. There are absolute answers to every moral question; this is not true in the real world, but is in Pathfinder, where you can buy a cheap magic item that tells you without fail every time you even think about taking an evil action.
Here's the definition of moral, since you clearly do not understand what it means:
MORAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
–noun
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.MORALITY
-noun
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
Any question of "is this right or wrong" is a moral question. Period. You cannot separate "right and wrong" or "good and evil" from morality. Period.
Kierato wrote:
"Good and Evil are not abstract moral concepts in D&D, they are laws that bind the universe" This is a quote from an official book in 3.5 D&D. I know full well what morality means and it is irrelevant to this topic. Wondering if an act is evil here is not a question of morality, this is a rules forum, not a philosophy forum. The fact that this simple concept has escaped you shows that you are the ignorant one here, not I.
"Good vs Evil" is a moral question, period. That is the definition of morality. What your quote indicates is that it is not an abstract moral concept (like it is in real life), but rather a definitive one. There are absolute answers to every moral question; this is not true in the real world, but is in Pathfinder, where you can buy a cheap magic item that tells you without fail every time you even think about taking an evil action.
Here's the definition of moral, since you clearly do not understand what it means:
Quote:MORAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
–noun
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.MORALITY
-noun
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.Any question of "is this right or wrong" is a moral question. Period. You cannot separate "right and wrong" or "good and evil" from morality. Period.
I will assume you simply over looked my post about "Ignore my comments" and you are not trying to purposefully provoke me again.
Have a nice day.
James: So it is more evil than drawing your sword, charging the evil lord, and being forced to slay his neutral bodyguards to stop his evil?Is this trying to turn into one of those never-ending internet "but what if" battles of semantics?
Are you honestly answering a question with a question?
:P <--- Note the smiley.
Is this trying to turn into one of those never-ending internet "but what if" battles of semantics?
Ah, I hate/love/hate/love those things ...
Since the matter for the OP has been decided, he(she?) just wanted to know if Poison was by RAW an evil act, the question has been answered but the DM in question is calling it an Evil Act in his home-brew, so the matter is settled.
In one extreme arguement, a Poison is more dangerous than a normal 'Tool' in that a vial of the stuff can cause intense suffering without killing, and the truly lethal (High DC) ones can affect multiple targets in the same round and leave long-lasting damage that needs potent magic to cure.
At the same point, it is 'frowned upon' in most campaigns by the legal authorities in the same vein that most guards will flip their lids if they see the party walking down the street with their weapons drawn. Poison just gets a bigger slap on the wrist, I fear, due to the 'Sacred Cow' theory from previous generations of the game and also because, hey, Poison is nominally the tool of either assassins or pest exterminators (heh, I just made a fun comparison!
An Alchemist who develops poisons could be an evil, shadowy man who supplies the rogues, assassins and otherwise nefarious criminal elements within the city with a variety of concotions and devices to further the eternal Guild Wars to line his own pocket ...
Or he could just be the man who creates poison-tainted traps for people to use to trap then kill/capture vermin such as Rats, Cockroaches, Spiders or similar. A cage big enough to admit 4 Tiny creatures or 1 Small (with an Escape Artist check!) with a piece of meat attached to a hook inside, soaked in a solution containing Belladonna or Id Moss or Oil of Taggit to render the Rat(s) paralyized or unconscious, to be given to the Ratters to be taken down to the rivers and drowned, the ratters buy more poisoned meat off the Alchemist and the whole process starts over again.
Con based poisons kill, they have no point but to do so, and they cannot be taken back once delived.
Neither can a broadsword through the chest.
Poisioning someone is no worse than hitting them with a weapon.|
|
Poisoning food is evil because it's indiscriminate, in particular if you are not entirely certain who is going to take the poison. You may just as easily kill the kitchen staff or the food taster.
Yeah, I was gonna say this, but 0gre beat me to it. Poisoning food carries a risk that stabbing someone with a sword or smothering them with a pillow doesn't carry, of accidentally hurting someone that you didn't mean to hurt. (Which is not only callous and evil, but also sloppy and wasteful. Very unprofessional. Leon disapproves.)
But even that isn't terribly worse, from a mechanical standpoint, than firing a crossbow into melee (assuming an earlier edition, where you could hit someone other than your target), or throwing alchemical fire / alchemist's bombs into a crowded fight scene, knowing that you can injure allies or innocents. (And, suitably, 1st edition Paladins couldn't use 'flaming oil' either, and, in some interpretations, missile weapons, since that was as 'dishonorable' as poison, by their code.)
Disease is the ultimate indiscriminate 'attack,' taking days to take effect and possibly afflicting entire communities, not just the target.
From a practical standpoint, very few poisons are particularly good at killing people anyway, and those that are tend to be freakishly expensive (and unlikely to do more than annoy a CR-appropriate foe, as an expendable resource). Most poisons (Str and Dex poisons, particularly) are more like long-lasting debuffs than anything else...
I'm not so overwhelmed with the options for non-spellcasters to impose debuffs / conditional penalties upon their opponents that I feel a balance need to too-harshly restrict the use of a poison that, at the end of the day, is pretty much an expensive single-use longer-lasting version of ray of enfeeblement or shivering touch available to non-wizards.
|
|
Poison and disease are scary to ordinary folks in a way that swords and arrows are not.
Arrows (and later crossbows, and still later, guns) were considered to be cowardly and dishonable ways to fight someone, as they allowed an essentially untrained and unarmored peasant to point and kill a much better trained and equipped noble knight. The rich twit spent more money than the peasant will see in his *life* outfitting himself, and was trained in horsemanship and swordwork and all that jazz, and some punk with a stick points at him and it's all over? The English longbowmen were *loathed* by enemy forces, as they were considered to fight dishonorably, killing men unfairly, at range, rather than getting up close and challenging their foe by strength of arm and courage of heart, as God intended. (Never mind that effective longbowmen trained every bit as rigorously as a swordsman, and, in some cases, had to have nerves of steel, since they didn't get to wear armor, and were much more vulnerable if anything went wrong, as, in war, happens not-infrequently...)
The crossbow was once described as such a terrible weapon, so monstrous and cruel, that it would 'surely end war forever.'
Circumstances determine what is 'dishonorable.' Pulling a knife in a fistfight is totally unacceptable, and changes the entire tenor of the event, with onlookers going from rooting on the fisticuffs to backing away and dialing 911. The knife itself is not a dishonorable weapon, but whipping one out during a barfight is going to lead to a more severe reaction than 'boys just lettin' off some steam.'
|
Dying from poison's a bad way to go. I promise you that if I kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed when you die. Isn't right to kill a man any other way.
That said, there's a large difference between dumping magically lethal poison into a castle's water supply and putting a little soporific on your blade.
I adjudicate the morality and ethics of using poison on a case-by-case basis. There's really no other way to do it.
Personally, if I had the choice to expire due to a hardcore neurotoxin or being stabbed in the gut by a questionably sharp blade or being whacked in the head with a stick, I'll pick the poison.
I'd rather be stabbed, then stabbed and poisoned. It's just not a fair fight. I think Evil is a stretch, whether something's evil or not should be judged on the circumstances, as noted upthread. But it's definitely dishonourable.
Potentially you could have barbaric or Druidic characters who merely see using poison as an extension of natures resources or mimicking local apex predators [Wyvern etc]...
Not necessarily evil, potentially nasty yes - but then life ain't pretty in tooth and claw - just an effective way of downing foes/defeating rivals etc.
My 2 runes worth
Poison is typically considered an evil act as a balancing mechanic for the game. Is it truly evil though? Probably not. Then again, neither is assassination. It is all about the context as to why it is being done.
Personally, if I had the choice to expire due to a hardcore neurotoxin or being stabbed in the gut by a questionably sharp blade or being whacked in the head with a stick, I'll pick the poison.
It's called the "Lethal Injection" as opposed to "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" which is what I would call being stabbed and sliced to death by flaming and shocking and freezing weapons. Not to mention all the very nasty spells out there.
People just look at poison through the lenses of their own culture and history. It has been used in very evil ways through the past, but that is not to say the poison is evil, or that using it is evil. It is a tool like any other. How many people have been poisoned since the invention of modern guns? I would guess not as many as before guns were invented. But are guns considered automatically evil? NO, it's a tool, what makes it evil or not is how you apply that tool.
I'd rather be stabbed, then stabbed and poisoned.
And why is that? Is it more fair to use flaming, shocking, freezing weapons? Is it more fair to use a weapon that does horrific damage to specific races of sentient beings?
Potentially you could have barbaric or Druidic characters who merely see using poison as an extension of natures resources or mimicking local apex predators [Wyvern etc]...
Not necessarily evil, potentially nasty yes - but then life ain't pretty in tooth and claw - just an effective way of downing foes/defeating rivals etc.
Agreed, and I believe I posted a very similar point back when this thread was active.
Poison is typically considered an evil act as a balancing mechanic for the game.
I hear a lot of people say that. But no one yet has produced the rule that backs their claim. If there is a rule somewhere that says "using poison is evil" I would be interested to see it. Outside that unlikely event, poison is just a tool like any other. What makes using it evil or not evil is how you employ it.
The question of this thread is akin to asking: Is it evil to kill something with a flaming weapon?
Well I say it depends on what you are killing and why. Are you killing a beast that is terrorizing innocent townsfolk, or are you killing the innocent townsfolk?
In the Pathfinder RPG (and in 3.5, for that matter), poison use is not evil.
Using poison might be considered dishonorable, but that doesn't make it evil.
What makes it evil is when you sneak poison into someone's food and then hope they eat it and die.
Poison itself is no more evil than a knife or fire or a pillow. The fact that it's easier to kill someone with poison than it might be with a knife or fire or a pillow (since poison is MUCH more stealthy than many other methods of murder) makes it a popular choice of mayhem for evil folks, but that doesn't mean that using poison itself is evil.
Couatls and guardian nagas, both lawful good, have poison attacks, after all... and their poison does CON damage so it's arguably the worst KIND of poison. But neither of those two creatures is likely to sneak into a sleeping person's house and poison them at night, or gloat over a helpless poisoned victim's twitching and dying body.
In my mind, any serious debate about the merits of poison being Evil should have ended here. When one of the Designers of the game in question says it's not Evil, chances are, it's really not Evil.
That is only true if all parties accept the designers as anything more than fellow gamers. Some of us weigh their opinions on the merit of the opinion, not the job or title of the owner of that opinion. :)
That's all well and good, except this isn’t the General Discussion forum or the Advice forum; this is the Rules Questions forum. And when the guy involved in writing the rules says:
In the Pathfinder RPG (and in 3.5, for that matter), poison use is not evil.
With no if, ands, or buts, it is not an opinion of the designer. It is a statement of fact concerning the RULES in question. It was not Evil in 3.5 and it is not Evil in Pathfinder.
And yet he has been contradicted by Jason and recanted his position before. When you see two designers having different ideas on the rules, you take them as the law a little less.
If you are referring to the Vital Strike + Spring Attack incident, it is irrelevant here. That was a completely different circumstance:
1) James was not citing rules, he was giving an example of how he ran the rules, which were unclear at the time, in his personal, at home game. It has nothing in common with this discussion in which people are trying to justify making something Evil when it has NEVER been Evil - either in 3.5 or in PF.
2) It was not that the rules were not there, it was that the rules were unclear on that point. He stated that he ran it one way in his game and didn't see any balance issues with his group. That has nothing to do with the fact that the designers later decided to make them incompatible feats. In this case, there are extensive rules about Poison as well as a host of examples that all point to Poison being a Neutral tool just like any other.
Improved Natural Attack and Monks, actually.
I'm not familiar with that one. I would have to know where it is and read it for myself. However, the point stands that this isn't about rule interpretations. There are NO rules that say using poison is Evil. It is just another tool.