|
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.
Well, if you had read my posts when the thread was active you'd know I don't believe poison is evil either. :P Just had to point out that designer /= law.
But I think your points would remain valid about the INA debate as well.
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.
Well, if you had read my posts when the thread was active you'd know I don't believe poison is evil either. :P Just had to point out that designer /= law.
But I think your points would remain valid about the INA debate as well.
I had read your posts a long time ago. I couldn't remember specifics and I wasn't about to read through the whole thread again, but I had though we more or less saw things in a similar fashion on most points.
Just had to point out that designer /= law.
Except when it comes to Society play, right?
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.Having been stabbed and seen pioson work ( though on animals not people) I'll take the being stabbed thank you.
Not to make light of your experience, I have known people who were stabbed before as well. But in all seriousness it was with a very ordinary knife. Very different I would imagine from being stabbed by a flaming longsword, or even a regular longsword for that matter.
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.
Well Lethal Injection is likely pretty painful, at least according to the biochmist I talked to on the subject. THe reason it looks so painless is that the executed is given a paralytic before the lethal poison. My friend the biochemist told me she would much rather have a goodheadsmen take her head than go through the "Humane" treatment of Lethal injection.
Poison is not the same as a bullet which is why Poison bullets are banned in war. A bullet delivers trama, it is a deliberate acute act, it has no effect in aminute, or in 5 years. Poison does. Now D&D has altered poison so that it is much less nasty in the area of later effects than real poison is. Temporary stat damage is totally recoverable and not much differant than a wound, but permanent stat damage, as is caused by some poisons, is indeed differant. I would arue then anything which causes permenent stat damage is evil.
What you asked was for a discussion about the use of poison in a "rules questions" debate thread. So don't be surprised when people answer you with "the rules" which state nothing about poison being an Evil act. And in addition the designers have come onto the thread and stated it is not an Evil act to use poison.
One person's opinion is as good as another. Again, you are seeing it through the lenses of culture, and personal opinion. This is ONE type of poison among many. Killing is killing, it doesn't matter if you use a poisoned blade or a flaming blade, what matters is how and why. I assure you no matter how painful that poison is, some time, patience, and a good set of knives would be worse. How and why?
As for arguing that permanent stat damage from poison could be evil, well you can argue whatever you want, and think whatever you want, but the rules still don't agree with you about poisons.
|
|
I am not trying to be a troll, I am not even trying convince people, I amsimply trying to make a determination of what is evil for my own game, and have a philosophically consistant set of rules for my game world. My players will notice if I do not.If there is some possible reason that non evil people would ever need a lethal poison which is only orally delivered then it might be available in some legal but restricted way. even in a Lawful good society. If not then possession of it might be a death penealty offense. Little things like that.
I certinly think that poison use tends to chaos for the reasons i said above but is ita chaotic act? If not, why not?
If by Chaotic you mean "adaptable and flexible enough to ignore the rule of never use poison", then I could see it as a Chaotic act. As for the other axis, I already posted my view on it earlier.
An argument could be made that it is an Evil act based on the description of Evil. 'Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.' And purposely inflicting poison on someone is hurting that person. But then the question is 'is poison Evil or the act of poisoning?' And why does replacing poison with sword make a difference?
Wait...are the ones being poisoned wyverns, by chance?
|
|
There is nothing about dishonorable/deceitful actions in the definition of Chaotic acts.
'Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.'
|
|
What if your code is 'lie to anyone who is a member of my rival order'? Is that Chaotic or Lawful? It is deceitful and dishonorable, so it must be Chaotic, right? Or is it Lawful for following your code?
Edit: On the subject of finding a non-evil use of poison, Bestow Curse is not marked as Evil either, and it confers a permanent -6 to an ability score. Should it not be evil as well?
Pretty simple question all in all. Is using a poison in combat an evil act? I know that the Paladin does not use it because it is not honorable, but that is different than it being evil. Many a good character will lie to end up with a good result, and that also is not honorable, but it is not evil.
This has come about because my DM is running a level 13 short game, and I would like to play an Alchemist (sounds like a good way to see what they are capable of). It appears to me that the alchemist is designed partially around the ability to use poisons in combat. The DM is saying that I can only use Poisons if my character is LE, NE, or CE. Not CN.
To the one doing the poisoning, NO. This is just Tactics, damage, and the smart way to make sure you kill ones enemy.
To the one being poisoned, Yes. This is a slow, painful, death that you get to experience over time. The fear of dieing, the knowledge that you will soon die, the fact that your hopes and dreams of the future will be coming to an end.
Is Poison evil..... depends on who you ask.
|
No many chaotic acts are not decietful, but decietful actions are chaotic. And dishonorable acts certianly are, honor is the antithesis of personal freedom, it requires some form of code that is followed, so that which is dishonorable is chaotic.There is nothing about dishonorable/deceitful actions in the definition of Chaotic acts.
'Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.'
Personal codes of honor are one's restrictions they place on themselves, regardless of the views of society at large. It is a code of their personal choosing.
Chaotic code of honor, probably made up by himself and is a very personal, individual thing.
Lawful code of honor, probably based in traditions outside one's self.
Example of decietful and arguably dishonorable lawful characters? Espionage prvides many contenders.
(not meaning to drive-by in the debate, but Lawful=honroable/chaotic=dishonorable has always been a concept that irked me.
Since you brought attention to it:
I too was looking for a discussion on exactly this question. BUt I still have problems with it. This might indeed come from my old first edition days.
I do not think ALL poison use should be evil with the way poisons work ing 3rd edition, however, their use is notthe same as using a sword or even a fireball, becuase they have both initial and secondary damage which cannot be stoped (a lingering damage spell can presumably be canceled) Their use is indiscriminate and there is a measure of intention in thier creation which cannot be seperated from thier use.
I would argue their use being indiscriminant. Any poison on a blade is going to hurt exactly the person it is intended for and no one else. As for poison to the food, well it could be, unless done right. If you pay as much as that kind of poison is worth I should assume you intend to make no mistakes.
Con based poisons kill, they have no point but to do so, and they cannot be taken back once delived. Most posion use is chaotic, it allows the skilled to be defeated by the unskilled, it is dishonourable and decietful. No one with a code of honour would use it regardless.
A fire ball kills to. So does a flaming sword. Why would you but the flaming enchantment on your sword unless you intended to kill more efficiently? And as the designers already pointed out, there are plenty of Good and even Lawful Good creatures that have CON based poison attacks. You cannot take a flaming sword to the gut back either after delivered. Show me any alignment rules that say using poison is Chaotic. A magic sword can allow the skilled to be defeated by the unskilled as well. Hiring adventurers allows the skilled to be defeated by the unskilled - through the acts of said hired adventurers. Adventurers are generally playing the role of mercenaries. No honor huh? So Indians who use poisoned darts to defend themselves and hunt their prey are dishonorable? Maybe they are simply too stupid and primitive to understand honor? Or perhaps you are simply looking at poison through the lenses of your own culture.
However, the dex or str poisons cannot kill in D&D ( though I have always played them as lethal at -10 stat score, where the victim cannot breath, yes I know this violates the RAW where stat droping stops at 0), certianly they are little differant than a sleep spell. I would say that they make a person helpless or near helpless, therefore once used, it would make killing the opponant evil, akin to killing a helpless opponant.
Helpless opponents are killed every day. It is called execution. Show me where in the rules it is automatically Evil to kill a helpless opponent under such circumstances.
A friend of mine pointed out however that if con based poisons are definitely evil and others fall in the realm of chaos. Then,using a stat killing weapon must also be considered chaotic and wounding is evil.
Except that it's explicitly not.
I find this a very hard argument to deal with I have issue with willy nilly poison use on sapient creatures, but i am not sure that a wounding weapon should ALWAYS be evil, the differance with wounding is the damage is limited there is no damge coming in a minute, if they surrender, its done. But that is a narrow bone too pick with.
Perhaps you should read the new versions of bleed. It is in fact continuous damage unless you administer healing. But then again, you could also administer healing to a poisoned opponent as well and stop or even reverse the symptoms. So then what really is the difference between fighting with a poisoned blade and fighting with any other magic blade? They are both just as lethal. The only difference is your preconception of what you feel is right or wrong, which has no bearing on the game rules.
I think this might have to do with unnecessary pain, which most DM's do not play up, I mean a guy dying from a con based poison should be convulsing and gagging on his own bile, etc. If you discribed this regularly you might think of poison as more evil.
Really and how do you think the guy who got his stomach opened up by a flaming sword would feel? Perhaps that would be a walk in the park by comparison. Violence is violence, there is no "more right" way to kill your enemy.
But in the big analysis, what, with the way poison works now, is definantely evil without question? Poisons which kill administered through food and drink. These serve no purpose other than to kill essentially through assassianation. Thats about all I can come up with, as a without question, evil.
What makes it an assassination? People are killed and murdered everyday for no reason at all. Why is poisoning any different? I would put forth that orally administered poison could be used for good or neutral reasons. A good king's spy in an evil nation is caught and ingests poison before he can be tortured and killed by his enemy, which is most certainly neutral.
You can read another pretty good discussion I had with someone about whether or not Poison can be honorable HERE.
|
|
I would contend that lying is inherintly a chaotic act. A lawful person might tell half truths, and gve partial informations, manipulating the truth to thier advantage, but out and out lying is a chaotic act. A demon will out and out lie to you, a devil will give you just the parts of the Truth that get you to do what they want. A demon is a con man, a devil is a lawyer. That isn't to say that in game Lying is always a evil act but I found the devils and demons a convinient example. ( especially since my first post went in to etheral plane).
Oh, I feel your pain on that one. Ctrl-A + Ctrl-C is my best friend.
I have to reject your example as devils use lies of omission, which are still lies.
(refer to BoED for the WHY)
NO, HEAVENS NO! *shudders* That book is a horrible guideline.
Further, again, I have already said I couldn't see why many poisons would be evil but made a specific statement about a specific set of poisons. So can you address the moral use of lethal oral poisons? Or would their use always be evil?
Poison isn't evil sitting on the shelf, any more than a sword is.
Posion can be used for evil. A sword can be used for evil. Is it posible that a lethal oral poison could be used as a moral act?
I posit the following:
A rabid/insane/hungry/man-eating/chaos-touched/whatever Grizzly Bear has been ravaging your outpost nightly, and has killed/injured all the able-bodied men in it's attacks. It will come back tonight, and now there is no one to protect the elderly, sick, and young. An herbalist makes a deadly poison and laces a carcass with this poison, and throws it out to the rabid bear when it comes to attack.
An army of orcs has swept through the outskirts of your kingdom, raping, murering, pillaging, and sacrificing virgins to their dark gods. The king can't muster an army to stop them before they sweep through a dozen more hamlets and towns. However, a small assault group is sent to the next hamlet in the path and poisons the well. When the orcs raze the village, they drink the posioned water and the deaths/sickness slow them down enough that the army can muster and save many of those villages.
etc etc...
Are these moral? I guess it depends. I'd say that in general, the use of poison to kill someone leans toward evil. then again, the use of a sword to kill someone leans toward evil, too. If someone 'needs killing' the tool used to do the job isn't really a factor on it's own.
If your poison use kills innocents while trying to kill the bad guy, that's bad. if your sword use kills innocents while trying to kill the bad guy, that's also bad. If your use of poision is indifferent to the risks to innocents, that's bad. Etc etc.
I think there are situations where assassination is appropriate and non-evil. I think in those situations, assassination by sniper or by oral poison is essentially equivalent.
Yes, the eternal question, 'Is it Evil to kill Hitler?' :)
You know my answer -- violence and killing are not inherently evil, so no. :-)
To the one doing the stabbing someone in the gut, NO. This is just Tactics, damage, and the smart way to make sure you kill ones enemy.
To the one being stabbed in the gut, Yes. This is a slow, painful, death that you get to experience over time. The fear of dieing, the knowledge that you will soon die, the fact that your hopes and dreams of the future will be coming to an end.
Is stabbing someone in the gut an evil act ..... depends on who you ask.
|
|
Well irk you it might, but the alignment discriptions use exactly that term to discribe them. Law is associated with Honor.Lawful neutral people are specifically described as following a code, a personal code perhaps but a code. This is the specific discription of the alignment. I find people want to assume LAw has something to do with honoring societys and it does not, it respects order. It is about order, that order can be personal or societal. Chaos does not respect order, it respects Chaos, choice. Codes do not give choice... they are not chaotic in anyway.
Even if taking on a code is one's personal choice? The limits and expectations one sets upon oneself, regardless of society's opinions on the matter, are one's own.
CHaotic and lawful people aren't bound to extreme ideals of what chaos and law mean.
This reminds me of another reason I love PLanescape. The concept of Oaths were a sacred thing in CG Arborea. You were bound only by your word and your word alone, and it meant a hell of a lot.
What I'm getting at is that Lawful by no means has a monopoly on honor.
"Stay true to my word."
"Never back down from a fight."
"Never allow anyone to be harmed for my sake."
"Never turn down a gift freely given."
"Never turn away a person in need."
These are all things a chaotic type can hold close to their heart while remaining chaotic. Because they did it their way.
There are no rules o alignment? THat is not part of the rules? Rules don't occasionally require interpretation? Rules never might lead one to contrary conclusions?
When the rules give such explicit example of poison not being in itself Evil, NO.
I asked a rules question aboutthe alignment nature of using poison, I did not ask
And the answer is that using poison isn't evil. How you use the poison might be.
I am pretty sure the rules don't specifically mention that say child murder is evil, but most of us would agree good people don't do it, becuase it is indeed evil.
I guess it would depend on the circumstances. In my opinion people do that every day too, and it is perfectly legal, and they go home assured that they are not Evil people. But that can of worms aside there are plenty of stories about demons being born in human form and needing to be destroyed. People trying to be Good don't do it when they can, and when the Demon reaches its full power it is too late. Again, how and why?
Well thank you Curtis Lemay...
And thank you, that is quite mature and I am sure it added a lot to your argument.
All Killing is not morally equivalent.
I don't believe I said it was. I believe what I was saying was that how and why are what determines if it is evil, rather than what particular tool you choose for the job. If you are going to kill the bad guy why does it matter whether you use a poisoned blade or one that burns his flesh away as it cuts?
I have already dealt with that issue above. Can torture be worse than poison? Of course but Torture is Evil, or do you disagree.
So torture is Evil, but stabbing and cutting someone to death with red hot blades of fire is perfectly Lawful Good huh? Well, as long as he is a bad guy that is. Perhaps he deserved such a wretched death. But poison is just going TOO FAR!!! Really, why?
Further, again, I have already said I couldn't see why many poisons would be evil but made a specific statement about a specific set of poisons. So can you address the moral use of lethal oral poisons? Or would their use always be evil?
Oh, well your original question was not nearly that precise. I would say morality, honor, law and ALIGNMENT are all vastly different things. And just because something is unlawful, doesn't make it Evil. Just because something is morally questionable doesn't make it Evil either. And just because something is Lawful doesn't mean it is a decent act.
Morally, I don't think there is any distinction between using ORAL LETHAL poison and killing someone in any other way. I think it is how and why you kill them that make it Evil or not.
You have specified only a few reasons why you believe it is evil:
1) It causes undo pain. Ok, but so do a host of other things that are not Evil so why is poison a special case?
2) It is indiscriminant. I am not sure what exactly you mean by this, but again this comes down to "how" you use it, not using it in general.
Anything else? You have done a lot of arguing, but haven't actually proven your case that poison is worse than any number of other adventurer's tools.
I am not trying to be a troll, I am not even trying convince people, I amsimply trying to make a determination of what is evil for my own game, and have a philosophically consistant set of rules for my game world. My players will notice if I do not.
Something being lawful in one society doesn't make it lawful in another or a good moral thing in either culture. Something being unlawful doesn't mean it is unlawful everywhere or that it is Evil. Build your societies laws based on what you want that society to be, it has no bearing on ALIGNMENT system which does not sway by people's personal morals, it is simply a universal solid in the game system.
If there is some possible reason that non evil people would ever need a lethal poison which is only orally delivered then it might be available in some legal but restricted way. even in a Lawful good society. If not then possession of it might be a death penealty offense. Little things like that.
I certinly think that poison use tends to chaos for the reasons i said above but is ita chaotic act? If not, why not?
It is possible for people to use poisons, even lethal oral ones, for good or neutral purposes. Several people have answered that for you. Poison is not Good or Evil, nor Lawful or Chaotic, it is in itself Neutral. Using poison in an Evil way is Evil, or in a Chaotic way is Chaotic. But there are no universal answers for you.
I do not see poison as evil. Maybe as disonhorable, but stab or poison someone has not difference by itself, IMO.
Another question is: are poison threads an evil act? ;P
(just joking on the strong debate they generate, of course)
Another question is: are poison threads an evil act? ;P
They may very well be Evil. Stealth threads too, and Alignment threads.
|
Wow, this is still going on? I got my answer (that there is nothing in the RAW that declares poisons as evil), and I am good with that. After that, if people want to run their home games and Rule 0 that poison is evil, than go ahead, just as long as they do not claim it as RAW. (My current GM plays it as you can not be good and use poison, but you do not have to be evil).
The Scales of Disbelief
Lets face it, in D&D, Good is allowed to kill Evil. This is as much a game rule for conveyance.
In the Real world, most good people would not try to break into other people homes, steal there goods, and slay anyone who gets in there way. This is the basic of D&D Dungeon crawling.
Now if you want a black and white game of Good vs Evil = Do not let player learn language. That way the (human/orc) screaming at you is a monster, that need to be slayed; instead of the Anger (human/orc) who yelling at you for breaking into his home, threating his family, and looking to steal from him.
NO, it's a tool, what makes it evil or not is how you apply that tool.
I actually agree on this point. Like i said, it's not evil to use poison but it is dishonourable.
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?
Yes. It's fairer to inflict damage (even extra damage) on someone, than render someone unconscious or otherwise unable to defend themselves through a means which is not from my own ability or talent
Yes. It's fairer to inflict damage (even extra damage) on someone, than render someone unconscious or otherwise unable to defend themselves through a means which is not from my own ability or talent
So my Lawful Good Fighter with Craft (Alchemy) who makes his own poisons is totally honorable, lawful, good, and all that jazz.
The paladin who didn't craft his +5 holy avenger, however, is dishonorable, unlawful, etc.
Makes perfect sense.