Tom Baumbach brought up a really good point:
3) Must you be evil to utilize them (since its poison)?GM fiat, I'm afraid. (A quick scan of the relevant core rules reveals that there is no mention of poison use being evil in nature.)
Is there anything in the rules that says using Poison is an evil act?
|
I'd also note that it's not an uncommon decision to label poisons as underhanded and "evil" with regards to a paladin's code of honor. In other words, I expect that a GM will wag a finger at a paladin who uses poison. (Same goes for similar honor-bound characters.)
Edit: Oh wait, the paladin-poison thing is actually in the paladin write up. So yeah, there's that.
|
The only rule I found was in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play
Although in regular play poison use carries with it a
legacy rule stating that poison use is an evil act, for the
sake of Pathfinder Society Organized Play, using poison
is no more evil than casting fireball. Paladins, per their
code of conduct, still must not use poisons, but they
don’t necessarily view the use of poisons as an evil to
be opposed—it’s simply something their code prohibits
them from doing.
Posion is OK, how it is USED may well be evil.
We use Ratsak to get rid of rodents, why not BIG rodents?
That said, indiscriminate use of poison (ie where it could kill anyone up to and including our target) is thoughtless and could result in 'innocent' casualties, that is pretty shady behaviour.
Its a tool like any other, and not intrisically evil.
Although it does lack a certain sense of 'honour' and sense of 'fair play'.
|
Edit: Oh wait, the paladin-poison thing is actually in the paladin write up. So yeah, there's that.
That merely states that paladins may not use poison. It does not make using poison Evil. It may imply it, but does not make it so.
As a GM, I've never found poison to be any more evil than, say, Charm Person, Shocking Grasp, or Phantasmal Killer.
The paladin part is because it impinges on their honor, not because it is evil. Poisons where considered evil in 1st and 2nd edition if I recall, and many old school GMs cant let go of that.
I only have one question for you.
Is using a sword evil?
The alchemist is not evil
The alchemist gets tons of abilities to use poisons..
please dont turn this into an alignment thread with 1200 posts
Nope. But it is probably against the Paladins code anyway.
The oddest thing about old school D&D thing with poioson being consided evil is that people forgot there was a more whacky restriction...Monks could not use oil.
Sorry was just looking at my 1st ed PHB...
It's surely entirely circumstantial. We use poisons against vermin like rats and mice and wasps' nests without a second thought. If the party have to stop a huge monster that can't be reasoned with, (perhaps a particularly powerful hydra) it's tactically good sense to try and weaken it first (perhaps leaving poisoned animal corpses for it to eat). A bounty hunter might use sleep poison to bring in the bounty alive. So everyone draws their own line at where it crosses into evil. It's up to the GM and players to decide where that line is for their party in their circumstances - a community struggling to survive is likely to have different views to that of one that feels secure.
I think the Book of Exalted Deeds had a line explicitly outing poison as evil (hence the pseudo-poisons and diseases in that book). But that's both a splat book and 3.5, and introduced alternatives to poison that looked like poison, acted like poison, but were not, in fact, a duck. I mean poison.
I'm happier with poison simply being a grey area.
I've never understood why a Paladin (for example) can't use poison but if multi-d into a sorc or wiz they have no issue casting say.. ray of enfeeblement.
or slow or sleep or .. well, nearly anything that is really just "poison" cast by magic rather than chemical solution.
It is rather arbitrary that you can't do the one and you can the other because of "honor". There is nothing dishonorable about fighting effectively. If ray of Enfeeblement isn't "dishonorable" then neither should be using a strength-attacking poison in your attack routine.
(in fact feeb can be worse because you automatically take the str damage regardless of save (save just halves it) whereas yuo can negate the poison entirely by saving the first shot, if i remember correctly).
Not saying they are/aren't should/shouldn't alter the paladin.. just that it makes no sense.
Paladin: "I am honor bound not to use Poison. *casts ray of enfeeblement"
badguy: yeah, real big distinction there shiny guy.
-S
If I had to place poisons on the alignment chart, they'd probably be CN. Poisoning is a very underhanded thing to do, but the main reason paladins can't use it is their code, not any alignment restrictions. The code is not necessarily about rules-effectiveness, either, or even combat effectiveness. The most effective way to attack someone is when they are helpless, or otherwise not at all expecting your attack; killing a sleeping or disarmed foe is much more efficient than letting them defend themselves or be aware of your presence or intent.
I generally feel that the issue with poisons has more to do with implied social contract between honorable combatants than anything else; in the same way that if we were to step into a boxing ring, I'd expect there to be nothing in your gloves but your hands, and that you won't kick me, when a paladin draws steel there's an implied amount of sportsmanship involved, regardless of the nature of their foe. It's their rigid adherence to limitations like this which is a big part of the discipline, which in turn gives them more power than your run-of-the-mill combatant (I tend to think the fear immunity is more a result of mental control than direct divine blessing).
It's okay to use lethal poison on animals and monsters, but not on people; how you define "people" depends largely on your moral code, but I would default to anything with an Intelligence of 3 or higher.
Harmless poisons are okay if they're used to take someone alive in a situation in which you'd otherwise be forced to kill them.
I'd say it depends on how you deliver it.
If you slip something lethal into a punch bowl at a fancy dress party, it's pretty much evil. If you smear something inevitably fatal on your sword then shove it in someone's gut, it's no different from the flaming property. The point is that if it's used as a deception-based weapon, it could be construed as kind of evil. That's likely the core issue for paladins. If you're using it as a damage-multiplier, it's like adding spikes to armor.
I've always thought of poison use as "unlawful" rather than "evil".
I've always thought of poison use as "unlawful" rather than "evil".So psychiatrists in insane asylums injecting their patients to calm them down are all unlawful?
A toxicologist once told me there are no toxins, just toxic levels, so in my mind all poisons are actually not poison.
How funny! I know everything is a varying degree of poisonous, so in my mind water is just uncommonly lethal.
