This is, sort of, a continuation of another discussion on PCs harvesting poison for later use, and or sale.
The more I thought about this: post by James, the more I really started to wonder about the economy of the poison trade. Clearly, table 16-2 on page 559 in the Core Rulebook, there is a list of poisons and their gold piece values. (Though it doesn't say exactly what amount of each is considered for the GP value. I'll just assume it is one standard dose, however big or small that may be.) So, also clearly, there is some time of economy revolving around the bartering, sale, and trade of poisons. However, in the Adventurer's Armory, the expanded list of poisons are all listed under the "Black Market" section. Which to me, means that these things are "black listed" and considered contraband by the formal authorities in most of the settle and civilized areas of Golarion. If that is true, doesn't it necessitate some type of back room, special "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" type of poison economy?
I mean, one doesn't just come into a grand market, set up a stall, and start hawking purple worm poison, or the tears of death. If one did so, they would more than likely be put in shackles and taken to the nearest, dank, dark dungeon for questioning.
It goes without saying that poison, especially in such a diverse and fantastical place as Golarion, does have a gold piece value. The question I'm asking is, does that gold piece value, really translate into usable wealth by the characters? One would almost certainly have to be a privileged member of an underground society or guild of some sort in order to be a regular buyer or seller of poison, and, that activity in and of itself might cause the person (character) to be brought under scrutiny with commanding authorities.
In cases where a group of PCs have a lawful cleric or paladin amidst the group, almost certainly that character would not allow poison to be harvested or sold, as it might directly cause harm to innocents at some point. One might even argue that any character of Good alignment would feel the same, since:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
(Bolding is mine)
So while I will certainly not debate the fact that poison has a real value, I'm starting to question whether or not that "value" would realistically work itself out to be character wealth, in the bulk of campaigns? Perhaps the real value of poison is in its ability to help take down a powerful "bad guy" that has low Fortitude saves? Or is it possible that poison is a legitimately illegitimate business, that has a regular trafficking system within the world of Golarion?
I'm open for discussion. I would like to point out that I have by no means made up my mind on this point. The above ramblings are just my leanings upon first observation and analysis.
The city of Daggermark in the River Kingdoms is of note because of the strength of its Poisoner and Assassin guilds.
Not sure if this answers your question, but I think it is worth thinking about.
I've never been a fan of poison prices, and in my game I divided most of them by 10, with the exception of some of the obviously valuable and/or magical ones like Kings Sleep.
The city of Daggermark in the River Kingdoms is of note because of the strength of its Poisoner and Assassin guilds.
Not sure if this answers your question, but I think it is worth thinking about.
I've never been a fan of poison prices, and in my game I divided most of them by 10, with the exception of some of the obviously valuable and/or magical ones like Kings Sleep.
I'll see what I can find on Daggermark.
Any others with opinions on this?
Any others with opinions on this?
Selling illegal/black market items should be an adventure hook, not an everyday transaction. You don't just dump wyvern poison in a marketplace, as you said, it takes serious connections and/or risks to find a buyer. This can probably be equated to a skill challenge (convincing buyers you aren't a cop, to dangerous to double cross, etcetera) with an appropriate CR; the reward for success is the payoff. Think of the poison as you would an incriminating document; while it has an end gp value, it takes effort to get that money so it's not really 'treasure' as such.
I mean, one doesn't just come into a grand market, set up a stall, and start hawking purple worm poison, or the tears of death.
Sure you can. Just make sure that you take the space between the guy selling IED supplies (the alchemy stall) and the guy selling burglary equipment (thieves' tools). Turn left at the guy with the firebombs (Alchemist's fire). Grab me a flask of powerful acid while you're there!
Looked at another way, when bat crap is all you need for a bomb that can kill most "average" people that are standing around in a large room (and let's not even get started on magic weapons), the mere availability of poison seems almost quaint on the list of dangers.
Of course, I also like the idea that they're sold for other reasons, like folk remedies ("ah, scorpion glands, perfect for curing ear ache") and industrial purposes ("I'm a leatherworker - how do you think we get mauve, without a few drops of the ol' Purple worm?") but just happen to have untoward uses.
Selling illegal/black market items should be an adventure hook, not an everyday transaction.
Sure you can. Just make sure that you take the space between the guy selling IED supplies (the alchemy stall) and the guy selling burglary equipment (thieves' tools). Turn left at the guy with the firebombs (Alchemist's fire). Grab me a flask of powerful acid while you're there!
Okay, this is clearly two separate views of the economy of poison. I have to say that I previously thought much like Helic, but after reading your post J.S. I'm leaning the completely opposite way. You are right that in a setting where weapons and armor are sold, sometimes in bulk, and fire bombs are a (somewhat) common place item, selling poison seems like it might not be so contraband after all. My only caveat to that is the fact that the publishers themselves have "black listed" the expanded list of poisons in Adventurer's Armory, and at no point put poison on the main equipment lists, even in Adventuring Gear.
Your point about the other uses for these types of things really makes a strong argument. Mauve from purple worms... brilliant! So now I'm of two completely different minds about it. I'd love for others to weigh in on how you handle the economic standards for the poison trade.
So while I will certainly not debate the fact that poison has a real value, I'm starting to question whether or not that "value" would realistically work itself out to be character wealth, in the bulk of campaigns? Perhaps the real value of poison is in its ability to help take down a powerful "bad guy" that has low Fortitude saves? Or is it possible that poison is a legitimately illegitimate business, that has a regular trafficking system within the world of Golarion?
well there's a few things.
There's nothing any less GOOD about interfering with someones internal organs by poisoning them than interfering with their internal organs by slamming a halberd into them and wiggling it around. You just need a very good reason for doing either. People pass laws against poison because they have people with halberds to protect them from people with halberds , but poisons are harder to keep from use against the ruling elite unless the ruling elite is very proactive against it.
If you're getting poison so often that it's making a real impact on the characters wealth by level and selling it is a problem...mix up the treasure a bit.
It's also possible that there are tightly regulated, legitimate uses for many poisons. The line between poison and medicine is usually dosage.
Not every party member is a paladin. My alchemist has a paladin in the party. He invested ranks in bluff precisely for this reason.
I think the only real problem with the economy of poisons is what it does to the crafting time. You need to be an alchemist or have the swift alchemy feat to make them in a reasonable amount of time.
Of course, I also like the idea that they're sold for other reasons, like folk remedies ("ah, scorpion glands, perfect for curing ear ache") and industrial purposes ("I'm a leatherworker - how do you think we get mauve, without a few drops of the ol' Purple worm?") but just happen to have untoward uses.
This is very much how I look at it too. Cyanide-deadly poison. Cyanide-source of blue pigment for medieval clothing.
Many deadly poisons would just be growing in the field. A little herbalism and you should be able to make a deadly poison in almost any environment. Hemlock grows wild in most of Europe and looks like a carrot: cut it up for a stew and you can kill people. People refused to eat tomatoes and potatoes because of its similarities to nightshade, the green parts of potato plants are potentially deadly. The green portions of Rhubarb are toxic, while red and white parts are delicious. And this isn't even getting into things kept around because they're pretty. Then there are things like Fugu, which is a delecacy because of the danger in preparing it.
Of course, I also like the idea that they're sold for other reasons, like folk remedies ("ah, scorpion glands, perfect for curing ear ache") and industrial purposes ("I'm a leatherworker - how do you think we get mauve, without a few drops of the ol' Purple worm?") but just happen to have untoward uses.This is very much how I look at it too. Cyanide-deadly poison. Cyanide-source of blue pigment for medieval clothing.
Many deadly poisons would just be growing in the field. A little herbalism and you should be able to make a deadly poison in almost any environment. Hemlock grows wild in most of Europe and looks like a carrot: cut it up for a stew and you can kill people. People refused to eat tomatoes and potatoes because of its similarities to nightshade, the green parts of potato plants are potentially deadly. The green portions of Rhubarb are toxic, while red and white parts are delicious. And this isn't even getting into things kept around because they're pretty. Then there are things like Fugu, which is a delecacy because of the danger in preparing it.
That's how I see it. Even today, poisoning someone is, of course, illegal but you can very easily go into a hardware store or a pharmacy and get stuff over the counter that would cause serious damage (even death) to someone if included in their food just imagine if you sting someone with it!
Much of what was called poison was also (and actually still is) a form of medication. People used different names for each but basicaly they came from the same "root".
That's how I see it. Even today, poisoning someone is, of course, illegal but you can very easily go into a hardware store or a pharmacy and get stuff over the counter that would cause serious damage (even death) to someone if included in their food just imagine if you sting someone with it!
Much of what was called poison was also (and actually still is) a form of medication. People used different names for each but basicaly they came from the same "root".
A lot of convincing arguments here, and I'm starting to definitely think poison for sale is, and should be, a legitimate, regulated business. Any herbalist will more than likely have both toxins and antitoxins hanging about, what people do with them is their own business.
Definitely a fascinating thread. I don't have much else to contribute other than to say--depends on the poison, the GM, and the campaign setting. Absolutely I can see a number of poisons--which in other quantities as noted can be used for medicinal, cooking, and artisanal purposes.
Other poisons, like, say, drow poison, would definitely be black market (if findable at all).
Is it technically part of player wealth if players have poison? Yes. It has uses and a market value. But just like, say, an assassin's dagger or a blackskull, it may not be of immediate or desirable use to a party, but it's still a resource they found--and if nothing else, are keeping it out of the hands of those who might misuse it.
Tangentially, I remember leaving poison on the person of some enemies (they had poisoned weapons, and spare poison) for the party to find. I knew the paladin would eschew using it, but figured the shadowdancer or cleric of trickery and cunning would find a use for it (I think it rendered targets asleep or had Wis drain or something). Interestingly, they both shied from its use, deciding it was "too dirty" for them to use (they were both of good alignment, but I could think of uses for it that would have served worthwhile causes--maybe not honorable uses, but they were chaotic after all). Not a criticism of them--indeed, I was impressed and intrigued by their roleplaying out their decision--but it was an interesting scenario whereas GM I did intend it as "wealth" of sorts---and I think they just destroyed it.
Definitely a fascinating thread. I don't have much else to contribute other than to say--depends on the poison, the GM, and the campaign setting. Absolutely I can see a number of poisons--which in other quantities as noted can be used for medicinal, cooking, and artisanal purposes.
Other poisons, like, say, drow poison, would definitely be black market (if findable at all).
Is it technically part of player wealth if players have poison? Yes. It has uses and a market value. But just like, say, an assassin's dagger or a blackskull, it may not be of immediate or desirable use to a party, but it's still a resource they found--and if nothing else, are keeping it out of the hands of those who might misuse it.
Tangentially, I remember leaving poison on the person of some enemies (they had poisoned weapons, and spare poison) for the party to find. I knew the paladin would eschew using it, but figured the shadowdancer or cleric of trickery and cunning would find a use for it (I think it rendered targets asleep or had Wis drain or something). Interestingly, they both shied from its use, deciding it was "too dirty" for them to use (they were both of good alignment, but I could think of uses for it that would have served worthwhile causes--maybe not honorable uses, but they were chaotic after all). Not a criticism of them--indeed, I was impressed and intrigued by their roleplaying out their decision--but it was an interesting scenario whereas GM I did intend it as "wealth" of sorts---and I think they just destroyed it.
(Bolding is mine)
This is really the crux of my dilemma. Poison has real gold value, but, as you so clearly point out, not everyone will be taking it and using it as "wealth." I guess the question that really needs to be answered by the GM then, is: Do I consider poison, either harvested, or as booty off of dead NPCs, to be part of the treasure value that I figure in per adventure?
|
Definitely a fascinating thread. I don't have much else to contribute other than to say--depends on the poison, the GM, and the campaign setting. Absolutely I can see a number of poisons--which in other quantities as noted can be used for medicinal, cooking, and artisanal purposes.
Other poisons, like, say, drow poison, would definitely be black market (if findable at all).
Is it technically part of player wealth if players have poison? Yes. It has uses and a market value. But just like, say, an assassin's dagger or a blackskull, it may not be of immediate or desirable use to a party, but it's still a resource they found--and if nothing else, are keeping it out of the hands of those who might misuse it.
Tangentially, I remember leaving poison on the person of some enemies (they had poisoned weapons, and spare poison) for the party to find. I knew the paladin would eschew using it, but figured the shadowdancer or cleric of trickery and cunning would find a use for it (I think it rendered targets asleep or had Wis drain or something). Interestingly, they both shied from its use, deciding it was "too dirty" for them to use (they were both of good alignment, but I could think of uses for it that would have served worthwhile causes--maybe not honorable uses, but they were chaotic after all). Not a criticism of them--indeed, I was impressed and intrigued by their roleplaying out their decision--but it was an interesting scenario whereas GM I did intend it as "wealth" of sorts---and I think they just destroyed it.
Thank you! I've always been really annoyed that the use of poisons was somehow inherently evil in D&D. Just like any other way to kill people or monsters (which is pretty much what the game is about) it isn't the weapon, but how you use it that makes it evil. And since the majority of poisons in D&D are meant for application on a weapon as opposed to slipping in a drink or a bit of food, I don't really see the difference between that and judicious use of power attack or sneak attack. I can't see any reason why a Paladin would have any qualms about someone in the party using it in combat, or even doing it himself!
Seriously, what's the difference between using a flaming dagger and a dagger with a bit of poison applied to it? Or how about a silver dagger against lyconthropes, or cold iron against an evil fey? Isn't that basically poison to them too?
If, in certain campaign settings, there are certain poisons that are declared illegal or regulated, fine. But barring their use makes it really difficult to take care of that rat problem in the basement with your standard hardware store rat poison. Then again, maybe that's why there's so many rat-killing quests in RPGs!
|
|
Definitely a fascinating thread. I don't have much else to contribute other than to say--depends on the poison, the GM, and the campaign setting. Absolutely I can see a number of poisons--which in other quantities as noted can be used for medicinal, cooking, and artisanal purposes.
Other poisons, like, say, drow poison, would definitely be black market (if findable at all).
Is it technically part of player wealth if players have poison? Yes. It has uses and a market value. But just like, say, an assassin's dagger or a blackskull, it may not be of immediate or desirable use to a party, but it's still a resource they found--and if nothing else, are keeping it out of the hands of those who might misuse it.
Tangentially, I remember leaving poison on the person of some enemies (they had poisoned weapons, and spare poison) for the party to find. I knew the paladin would eschew using it, but figured the shadowdancer or cleric of trickery and cunning would find a use for it (I think it rendered targets asleep or had Wis drain or something). Interestingly, they both shied from its use, deciding it was "too dirty" for them to use (they were both of good alignment, but I could think of uses for it that would have served worthwhile causes--maybe not honorable uses, but they were chaotic after all). Not a criticism of them--indeed, I was impressed and intrigued by their roleplaying out their decision--but it was an interesting scenario whereas GM I did intend it as "wealth" of sorts---and I think they just destroyed it.
Thank you! I've always been really annoyed that the use of poisons was somehow inherently evil in D&D. Just like any other way to kill people or monsters (which is pretty much what the game is about) it isn't the weapon, but how you use it that makes it evil. And since the majority of poisons in D&D are meant for application on a weapon as opposed to slipping in a drink or a bit of food, I don't really see the difference between that and judicious use of power attack or sneak attack. I can't see any reason why a Paladin would have any qualms about someone in the party using it in combat, or even doing it himself!
Seriously, what's the difference between using a flaming dagger and a dagger with a bit of poison applied to it? Or how about a silver dagger against lycanthropes, or cold iron against an evil fey? Isn't that basically poison to them too?
If, in certain campaign settings, there are certain poisons that are declared illegal or regulated, fine. But barring their use makes it really difficult to take care of that rat problem in the basement with your standard hardware store rat poison. Then again, maybe that's why there's so many rat-killing quests in RPGs!
(...) Do I consider poison, either harvested, or as booty off of dead NPCs, to be part of the treasure value that I figure in per adventure?
Probably O.K. for booty of NPCs but in a proper market for the value and knowledge (appraise?) of it's worth for the PCs.
For the harvested, I would present it as material used to produce the final version: The liquid injected threw the fangs of a giant spider might be more than 1oz, might not last long when exposed to the air and might not stick well to a blade as it is when pumped out of the head of the spider.
I would call for Survival, Heal or Craft(...) roll for extraction with a max value of 1/3 the final sold version (based on crafting material costs) and would consider it as an "Incidental" treasure type for poisonnous creatures.
Thank you! I've always been really annoyed that the use of poisons was somehow inherently evil in D&D. Just like any other way to kill people or monsters (which is pretty much what the game is about) it isn't the weapon, but how you use it that makes it evil. And since the majority of poisons in D&D are meant for application on a weapon as opposed to slipping in a drink or a bit of food, I don't really see the difference between that and judicious use of power attack or sneak attack. I can't see any reason why a Paladin would have any qualms about someone in the party using it in combat, or even doing it himself!
I do believe that the Paladin (and most good aligned PCs) would have trouble with it because it removes the individual's skills from the equation.
Sneak Attack still requires the user to get in close (and becoming subject to attacks themselves), and their skill dictates how effective their blow is. Same for Power Attack and any other attack routines.
The best fighter in the world can be taken out, or seriously incapacitated by a scratch, or something slipped into their water/drink/headband/etc...
I do believe that it also comes down to perceptions. Where a stand up fight is seen as more honorable than someone slipping poison into their opponents food or drink. Where both you and your opponent have a chance of winning in that stand up fight - the poisoner only has to get lucky once, while the poisoned needs to make that save everytime (and even then, it may not keep them alive).
Somehow, I managed to copy paste this before the server crashed:
This is really the crux of my dilemma. Poison has real gold value, but, as you so clearly point out, not everyone will be taking it and using it as "wealth." I guess the question that really needs to be answered by the GM then, is, do I consider poison, either harvested, or as booty off of dead NPCs, to be part of the treasure value that I figure in per adventure?
Personally, I would count it as "wealth" as much as I would any other item that it makes sense for the NPC to have but would be useless--or unlikely to be used--by the PCs.
What if the party finds a black (i.e., for evil characters only) robe of the archmagi? Technically, it's a highly valuable magic item, but only usable by a powerful wizard of calamitous intent. Selling it willy nilly could do as much "damage"--if not more--as selling poison---as in the wrong hands, it could be acquired by someone who would go out and do great evil with it. Is that "wealth"? Or is it a plot element, or both?
Even less sinister items--what if the party finds an axe and nobody uses axes? Or a wondrous item that requires the Perform skill and nobody has ranks in that skill? Do you count those as party wealth or not?
This is really your (GM's) call, because none of us can judge the particular circumstances your PCs are in. Not a precise answer, but IMO the best one.
I consider any treasure found a potential resource. I think poison is a resource, as are other items mentioned above. A creative party will find something to do with it--the party wizard or alchemist might use the poison in an alchemical recipe. The party wizard will, when he gets time in a magic lab and access to a sewing machine, turn the black robe into a white one. So I would usually calculate poison--or any other "questionable" item into the general wealth value of what a party finds.
Of course, it should go without saying that a GM should not only give the party treasure that they cannot use. I would say that if you know you're going to leave an item that the party will not be able to use or use right away, to make sure there is something else in the same or nearby cache that is of immediate use to them. How you calculate that in is, again, up to you. Maybe if they are finding a LOT of poison, diminish its value (because it's "common" anyway in that kind of environment). I would also get feedback from your players on the issue--are they feeling frustrated with what they find and what would they suggest? While many players may default to “moar treasure pls” regardless of the situation, you still hopefully should get some valuable feedback.
I guess the question that really needs to be answered by the GM then, is: Do I consider poison, either harvested, or as booty off of dead NPCs, to be part of the treasure value that I figure in per adventure?
If you go back to the post that this is spun off of:
Poison has a real GP value, and if you allow PCs to harvest poison, you technically need to adjust treasure values in the campaign to allow for this new source of income. And that can get weird when you have some monsters that have really expensive poison that already have or NEED a lot of treasure.
So then, yes. But it's the sort of thing you might want to wait to let the players initiate. If the players aren't 'harvesting,' don't fret about it. If they are, adjust accordingly.
It's just like if the characters start stripping their foes of every scrap of clothing and weapons, or start taking hostages and selling them into slavery, or capturing dungeons in order to do gut rehabs and sell them to yuppies looking for an edgy new neighborhood, or start making sure to get every possible spell/alchemy component off of anything the foes come across, et cetera. If you do it, you might want to adjust downward more traditional income streams for the party.
|
|
Thank you! I've always been really annoyed that the use of poisons was somehow inherently evil in D&D. Just like any other way to kill people or monsters (which is pretty much what the game is about) it isn't the weapon, but how you use it that makes it evil. And since the majority of poisons in D&D are meant for application on a weapon as opposed to slipping in a drink or a bit of food, I don't really see the difference between that and judicious use of power attack or sneak attack. I can't see any reason why a Paladin would have any qualms about someone in the party using it in combat, or even doing it himself!I do believe that the Paladin (and most good aligned PCs) would have trouble with it because it removes the individual's skills from the equation.
Sneak Attack still requires the user to get in close (and becoming subject to attacks themselves), and their skill dictates how effective their blow is. Same for Power Attack and any other attack routines.
The best fighter in the world can be taken out, or seriously incapacitated by a scratch, or something slipped into their water/drink/headband/etc...
I do believe that it also comes down to perceptions. Where a stand up fight is seen as more honorable than someone slipping poison into their opponents food or drink. Where both you and your opponent have a chance of winning in that stand up fight - the poisoner only has to get lucky once, while the poisoned needs to make that save everytime (and even then, it may not keep them alive).
Again, just because a tool can be used for something doesn't make it inherently evil. A Paladin shouldn't complain that someone in his party has poison in their inventory, or that they use them to aid in battle. If someone in that party takes that poison and then does something evil with it, for example slip some into an innocent person's drink, then there's a problem. But the poison itself remains a tool, just like any other. It's only in its application that it becomes good or bad.
Again, just because a tool can be used for something doesn't make it inherently evil. A Paladin shouldn't complain that someone in his party has poison in their inventory, or that they use them to aid in battle. If someone in that party takes that poison and then does something evil with it, for example slip some into an innocent person's drink, then there's a problem. But the poison itself remains a tool, just like any other. It's only in its application that it becomes good or bad.
I totally agree with you on this Buggula, especially, as many other people pointed out, the bartering and sale of deadly weapons is an entirely commonplace part of the market economy.
I guess my whole dilemma with this comes from the non-descriptors of the Core Rulebook, and the, what I think to be at least, very clear descriptor of the Adventurer's Armory. If the AA says that the poisons within its pages are black market material, that clearly means that the authorities of almost any civilized nation consider them to be contraband. I don't think anyone would argue that point; it is definitively what "black market" means. The Core Rulebook, at least upon my reading of it, makes no mention of poison being contraband or not. Again as we've all said, in a market economy where tools of death, and aegis against death, are a massive part of the market, selling poison openly (especially because, as some have mentioned, it has alternate, very substantive uses) seems like it would be "no big deal."
What is now entirely clear to me is that poison, harvested or found, is definitely supposed to be figured into total character wealth. Page 400 of the Core Rulebook says, in regards to Nonmagical Treasures
This expansive category includes jewelry, fine clothing, trade goods, alchemical items, masterwork objects, and more.
(Bolding is mine)
So I need to make a bit of change and look at any collected poison, whether harvested or not, as part of total character wealth. Which will, of course, affect how much other treasure they receive.
As I've said before, I doubt we'll ever get a definitive answer about whether or not the creators think poison is contraband, or regular market, it's just not something they should worry about. Each GM has to decide for himself how best to fit poison into their world's market. Interestingly, it does also say in the Core Rulebook
Giving treasure a personality can not only help the verisimilitude of your game, but can sometimes trigger new adventures.
Perhaps the GM who considers poison contraband will use it as a tool to set an adventure about their underground markets, guilds, etc.
Thanks to all who responded on this.
Again, just because a tool can be used for something doesn't make it inherently evil. A Paladin shouldn't complain that someone in his party has poison in their inventory, or that they use them to aid in battle. If someone in that party takes that poison and then does something evil with it, for example slip some into an innocent person's drink, then there's a problem. But the poison itself remains a tool, just like any other. It's only in its application that it becomes good or bad.
I was pointing out the rational that likely lead to the use of poison being "evil".
I agree with you that, for the most part, it is the use that determines whether it is evil or not. However, perception of others may have a negative impact on PCs that are known to use poison, depending on how they used it.
Contact and Injested poisons are more problimatical. Especially those that have a long onset time, I would have trouble accepting as anything but evil. Ex.: King's Sleep, onset time of a full day for Con drain.
I could see oil of taggit, which has an onset time of 1 minute, and causes unconsciousness, as something a Paladin would find acceptable, as long as the goal was to avoid a fight, take prisoners, etc.. and not simply slit throats while they are unconscious.
So I need to make a bit of change and look at any collected poison, whether harvested or not, as part of total character wealth
Coming up with some interesting non-death uses for some of the more "fantastical" poisons in the game may be another way that you can help get some of the more righteous thinking players on board with poison as treasure(those who like to see clean lines between good and evil with less shades of gray). It will help keep the argument at the table where it belongs (ie the use of poison) and bother everyone a bit less with the simple existence of poison in the inventory of the group.
As mentioned before, cyanide can be used to render blue dyes. Arsenic was/is used in metalurgy and even medications in the world before the onset of our friendly fungal pal penicillin. The modern list of readily available and rationally used poisons is even more extensive(be it detergents or o.t.c. medications).
So in moving forward with the rule of poison as having treasure value, perhaps the source of a new homebrew thread could be "In-game legal uses for deadly fantasy poisons." That way when Johnny the Paladin comes charging over to Winge the Rogue to smash all his vials of chimera poison you can toss out things on a knowledge check like "you know Johnny, chimera poison is also used in [noble use here] and could do a large amount of good." You then can have the continued debate of poison use rather than the more problematic ipso facto argument on the point of "possession of poison = evil"
So I need to make a bit of change and look at any collected poison, whether harvested or not, as part of total character wealthComing up with some interesting non-death uses for some of the more "fantastical" poisons in the game may be another way that you can help get some of the more righteous thinking players on board with poison as treasure(those who like to see clean lines between good and evil with less shades of gray). It will help keep the argument at the table where it belongs (ie the use of poison) and bother everyone a bit less with the simple existence of poison in the inventory of the group.
As mentioned before, cyanide can be used to render blue dyes. Arsenic was/is used in metalurgy and even medications in the world before the onset of our friendly fungal pal penicillin. The modern list of readily available and rationally used poisons is even more extensive(be it detergents or o.t.c. medications).
So in moving forward with the rule of poison as having treasure value, perhaps the source of a new homebrew thread could be "In-game legal uses for deadly fantasy poisons." That way when Johnny the Paladin comes charging over to Winge the Rogue to smash all his vials of chimera poison you can toss out things on a knowledge check like "you know Johnny, chimera poison is also used in [noble use here] and could do a large amount of good." You then can have the continued debate of poison use rather than the more problematic ipso facto argument on the point of "possession of poison = evil"
Well put. I'll let somebody else start that thread though.
So I need to make a bit of change and look at any collected poison, whether harvested or not, as part of total character wealthComing up with some interesting non-death uses for some of the more "fantastical" poisons in the game may be another way that you can help get some of the more righteous thinking players on board with poison as treasure(those who like to see clean lines between good and evil with less shades of gray). It will help keep the argument at the table where it belongs (ie the use of poison) and bother everyone a bit less with the simple existence of poison in the inventory of the group.
As mentioned before, cyanide can be used to render blue dyes. Arsenic was/is used in metalurgy and even medications in the world before the onset of our friendly fungal pal penicillin. The modern list of readily available and rationally used poisons is even more extensive(be it detergents or o.t.c. medications).
So in moving forward with the rule of poison as having treasure value, perhaps the source of a new homebrew thread could be "In-game legal uses for deadly fantasy poisons." That way when Johnny the Paladin comes charging over to Winge the Rogue to smash all his vials of chimera poison you can toss out things on a knowledge check like "you know Johnny, chimera poison is also used in [noble use here] and could do a large amount of good." You then can have the continued debate of poison use rather than the more problematic ipso facto argument on the point of "possession of poison = evil"
Wolfsbane/Nightshade = Anti-Lycanthrope Medication. Just in case. Or "I'm a werewolf hunter."
(...) I would have trouble accepting as anything but evil. Ex.: King's Sleep, onset time of a full day for Con drain.
(...)
Even if it's a Tourturer/Slaver King protecting himself surounded by dedicated children protector and naive or charmed (possibly neutral)warriors? It's O.K. to hack threw his "shields"?
No, I don't think it's good but I would not flag it as automatic evil. If the players mention that it's not done with pleasure or power tripping of the character and don't make it a "by default" process. I would say it's a neutral action, not a "Good-Kill" but not an "Evil-Sin" either.
(...) I would have trouble accepting as anything but evil. Ex.: King's Sleep, onset time of a full day for Con drain.
(...)
Even if it's a Tourturer/Slaver King protecting himself surounded by dedicated children protector and naive or charmed (possibly neutral)warriors? It's O.K. to hack threw his "shields"?
No, I don't think it's good but I would not flag it as automatic evil. If the players mention that it's not done with pleasure or power tripping of the character and don't make it a "by default" process. I would say it's a neutral action, not a "Good-Kill" but not an "Evil-Sin" either.
I wasn't saying that it would automatically be "evil", but that I would have trouble accepting it as anything but evil. There would need to be a really convincing argument why it needed to be done. It is the top of a slippery slope once "good" starts using questionable (or evil) for expediency or ease or... If I remember correclty, there is an expression that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
If the characters could find a way in to apply king's sleep to this fiend, then why could they not use the same methode to challenge the fiend directly, while using non-lethal attacks on the children?
I think every GM needs to decide within his particular campaign world (or very likely each distinct country or region within that world), what the dominant view of poisons is. I agree that they can be viewed as just a tool, neither inherently good nor evil. A few things to consider, though, in determining how legitimate and accepted poison use is:
-- Do the rulers of the area fear poison use against them? If so, they are likely to ban or control it, and encourage the perception that it is evil.
-- Do they consider a distinction between poison used as an aid in "honorable" combat and poison used to kille someone by stealth
and trickery.
-- Do most martial characters consider poison to be "fighting fair" or not?
-- Is there a moral distinction between poisons that cause pain and suffering and those that just put someone to sleep or kill them quickly and painlessly?
I think different campaign worlds, and different cultures within each campaign world, could answer those questions differently. Lots of GM discretion, IMHO.
As for paladins and poison, I actually just helped write up a paladin's code for a paladin of Erastil that permitted some limited use of poison. In my view, Erastil is a pretty practical god, and the hunt is a part of his portfolio. Many hunters around the real world use poison to make their kills, and I see no reason why Golarion would be different. Similarly, I think Erastil would view evil characters and monsters or those that are an unacceptable danger to the community much as he would view rabid dogs, as something that needs to be put down as quickly and humanely as possible, for the good of the community. So, the paladin may use poison (and allow it to be used by others in the party) in combat or in the hunt, so long as it is not poison that causes undue suffering and contributes to making quicker, cleaner kills. He may not use poison to kill someone by deception or trickery or against anyone who is not an obvious danger to the community at large. Even though he is allowed to use it, this particular paladin character has chosen not to, as he finds it personally distasteful.
All of this impacts the economy of poison, as it determines whether something can be sold openly and honorably, or in dirty deals in back alleys and black markets.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
(...) I would have trouble accepting as anything but evil. Ex.: King's Sleep, onset time of a full day for Con drain.I wasn't saying that it would automatically be "evil", but that I would have trouble accepting it as anything but evil. There would need to be a really convincing argument why it needed to be done. It is the top of a slippery slope once "good" starts using questionable (or evil) for expediency or ease or... If I remember correclty, there is an expression that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
If the characters could find a way in to apply king's sleep to this fiend, then why could they not use the same methode to challenge the fiend directly, while using non-lethal attacks on the children?
I don't view poison as being evil, it is merely a tool. An axe may be used to chop up firewood for warmth in the winter, or it could be used to brutally and slowly dismember living beings from the extremities up.
I will say that paladins shouldn't use poison, not because its evil, but because its not 'honorable' (read: Lawful). Poison is a sneaky way to inflict damage onto someone without them fully appreciating the danger they're in before its too late. For the paladin, who weighs the effectiveness and honorable-ness of an ambush against each other, poison is right out except the most extreme cases.
All of this impacts the economy of poison, as it determines whether something can be sold openly and honorably, or in dirty deals in back alleys and black markets.
Which was, of course, the point of the original post. I think the answer provided here is: your GM and players need to decide for themselves. Unfortunately that feels like a non-answer, but there are a lot of those in RPGs in general. GM discretion is a coined term for a reason. It happens.
(...)
If the characters could find a way in to apply king's sleep to this fiend, then why could they not use the same methode to challenge the fiend directly, while using non-lethal attacks on the children?
Because a group based on the background of good-willed rebelious urban orphans and a group based on the background of the Protection of the Weak Knighly Order will each have different capacities to execute each options.
I agree with the same parameters that you seem to use for Evil action vs Good action. I also include the "Neutral Action if not improperly applied".
(...)
I will say that paladins shouldn't use poison, not because its evil, but because its not 'honorable' (read: Lawful). (..)
I usualy "read" it as Very-Lawful AND Very-Good but note that I include the "Not Always-Only-Lawful/Good" mention.
I will say that poison could easily be a form of pest control. Farmers probably use poison.
As for paladins it would depend on what way you were using poison. Most of the Paladin's smiteable enemies are already immune to poison so basically I see poison use as out in most honorable duels (though it depends, and definitely in practicality).
Using poison as a paladin should be examined on a case by case basis honestly.
Is lethal injection more humaine than the electric chair?
I would say a paladin that uses poison over the wizards chain lightning deserves a medal of honor then.
I will say that paladins shouldn't use poison, not because its evil, but because its not 'honorable' (read: Lawful).
The main reason for most good characters to not use poison is the fact that poison causes a lot of unnecessary suffering. Most poisons aren't 'instant death fight enders', but rather are a matter of 'if my stabbing doesn't kill you, the poison eventually will - and it will hurt like hell'.
Using poison on a weapon is kind of overkill anyways. Stabby McStabberton will usually end a fight long before the poison would have. Poison is most useful for covert murdering (poisoning someone's food, drink, toilet seat, whatever) and another reason good folk avoid it (b/c covert murder is generally regarded as an evil activity).
(...)
The main reason for most good characters to not use poison is the fact that poison causes a lot of unnecessary suffering.
(...)
That's a good point. I'll make sure to take it in consideration when dealing with an application of poison.
Thank you for bringing it up.
(...)
The main reason for most good characters to not use poison is the fact that poison causes a lot of unnecessary suffering.
(...)That's a good point. I'll make sure to take it in consideration when dealing with an application of poison.
Thank you for bringing it up.
You're welcome. The funny thing is that Pathfinder deals mostly with combat poisons, whereas a proper poisoning should be done slowly over time, so that the target appears to be sickening. When people drop dead immediately after drinking a cup of wine, people get suspicious. When somebody gets sick and dies after a month of deterioration, they chalk it up to disease.
Also, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, poison is only good for killing (note to nitpickers; if it's not potentially lethal, it's more of a drug than a poison, and a lot of Pathfinder 'poisons' fall into this category). Other 'weapons' like swords and axes can certainly be used to kill people, but are also there to prevent fights (i.e. "I have a sword, do not try to take advantage of me.") and many can be used for a variety of purposes (like using a dagger to peel an apple). Someone with a sword has it to protect himself; someone with poison is intent upon killing.
Of course, that's not a totally consistent argument, as things like Fireball spells are really only good for killing as well, and nobody suggests barring Fireballs from good wizards. You can't tell if a wizard is packing Fireball spells either. And fire generally causes all kinds of suffering; burns are nasty business. Though in a D&D world, even unassisted healing will bring someone back to full health eventually without related side-effects of scars, hair loss et.al., just as swords don't leave you with a perforated gut and septicemia. Deadly poisons, OTOH, leave you with real, long term debilitation (reduced CON = less hp, lower Fort saves).
IMO if poisons were done properly, a lot of them would tack on things like Fatigue, Nausea and Exhaustion aside from CON damage, to represent the kind of suffering the target is actually experiencing.