Considering the way I've had poisons work AGAINST my characters... I would totally say NOT EVIL.
Poisons slow you down, they drop your stats... They're essentially Traquillizer darts... I can TOTALLY see a Paladin or other LG character hitting a dangerous villian with something. Drugging him.. and returning him to the proper authorities for trial.
Like most things, I don't believe that 'poison' is good OR Evil... it's all based on the actions and motivations of the character CARRYING it.
As for Lawful... I'm a bit more realistic on that. YES, you can have weak poison to control the rats and vermin in your yard... but I don't think any government would allow you to have 10 jars of Wyvern poison. People who have THAT are going to be up to questionable activities. Like Lockpicks ;)
i think the 'serious' and Deadly poisons, would be generally illegal to have, and thus unlawful to use. Though if you save the town with a well placed poisoned arrow against the BBEG... i don't think you'd get prosecuted...
So his failure of logic is somehow everyone else's fault
No, harping on it EVEN after he gets so upset he leaves the discussion is. Okay, not EVERYONE just those involved and their supporters
and because he didn't want to debate the merits of his unsubstantiated claims we are somehow at fault that he ragequit when his opinion was called into question when he presented it as fact?
It is not about being at fault. That is just a pointless debate IMO. It is about the reason he left. People that are not intending to ‘shout someone down’ generally stop their ‘questioning’ when the other side gets their feelings hurt and ALWAYS stop when the opposition has left.
I've never claimed to be 'proper'.
That is a good idea. You should probably add ‘compassionate’ to that list.
You need to treat medicine and poison seperately, as one is used to heal and the other to kill or debilitate. I have never seen someone put poison on a sword to heal their enemy. Poison is also subversive, because the intent of most poisons is to go undetected, or to gain an unfair advantage. But anything a character does requires intent and an action, and based on that you should be able to determine if it is within alignment. Most lawful societies would prohbit it's use and it may be considered an evil act. But alignments are fluid, versus set in stone.
It would be interesting to run a campaign where poison was readily available and used by everyone, just don't drink the water.
You need to treat medicine and poison separately...
I agree. If medicine counts as ‘poison’ because improper dosage can harm/kill, then everything is poison – sunlight, water, a mother’s love…
It is not about being at fault. That is just a pointless debate IMO. It is about the reason he left. People that are not intending to ‘shout someone down’ generally stop their ‘questioning’ when the other side gets their feelings hurt and ALWAYS stop when the opposition has left.
Actually, I'd argue that if your intent is merely to shout someone down, you probably would stop if the other person left. If your intent was to have a public discussion (as, I believe, is the intent of everyone here), wouldn't it make perfect sense to continue the discussion even in the absence of a single participant?
Like it or not, cfalcon raised arguments in this thread that deserved to be addressed. When they were, he then proceeded to speak for and insult those who disagreed with him, and "left" the thread (experience has taught me that those who claim to be done with a thread return about half the time, and continue reading almost every time).
Really, though, I think we were all pretty much done with our response before you decided to wag your own finger.
I just want to hug Scott.I get that a lot.
Now that I think about it, typically from other guys.
Huh.
I have in fact hugged Scott. It was quite enjoyable.
Back on topic: Poison use in itself is not evil. Poisons are often used for murder and murder is evil.
Not evil in my opinion, though as has been stated in some societies it will be seen as weak or cowardly. Oddly enough I'd see poison as outlawed in lawful evil conquering societies as much as lawful good ones. Anyone who rules by strength would probably discourage or outlaw anything that would help an underdog in a fight, whether that's magic, poison, or 'dishonorable' fighting methods. That way they ensure that their well trained and equipped forces always have the upper hand over the weaker, oppressed populace. As has been stated poisons do nothing in game that spells, special abilities, and weapons don't already do, and as also stated there are good, even lawful good, creatures that have poisons as an innate ability.
I see poison being the same as firearms in the real world or enchanted weapons, traps, or debuffing spells in fantasy. Each of those things allows you an advantage over your enemy no matter how much stronger or more powerful he is than you. It doesn't matter that I'm not a master martial artist, or that my sister is a petite woman of very mediocre strength, both of us can fire a pistol accurately(her more than me), and I hope nobody would try to claim that the gun itself is inherently evil.
Alternately, for a fantasy view, the 4th level fighter with 22 strength, 18 constitution, and armored in full plate and a heavy shield is just as affected as anybody by the sleep spell cast by a 1st level halfling sorcerer with 8 con and 6 str. The fighter's actually more likely to be affected by the spell than by a dose of drow sleeping poison, yet the poison is supposed to be evil and the spell is not? They both knock the subject out, do no damage to the mind, body, or soul of the target, and after they wear off the target is completely unaffected.
Similarly, there is a spell that can reduce a target to dust, a spell that turns the target into your puppet, spells that leave the target permanently blind or insane, lock them into place without the ability to move, and the basic spells that 'just' roast the target in flames, shock them with a bolt of lightning, or pepper them with blasts of pure force, but none of these are considered evil. A sneak attack from a rogue with a dagger can end an average NPC's life in one hit yet neither the thief, the dagger, or the sneak attack ability are inherently evil either.
And finally, when animals or good monsters with innate poison use them the game does not recognize them as evil, which it should if poison is seen as inherently evil. This is directly challenged by the fact that negative energy, which in the game's definition is evil, forces even mindless undead that are fueled by such energy to be evil by association with it.
In the end it's the person and intent behind the tool, whether that tool is poison, a blade, spells, or natural abilities, that determines the goodness or evil of an action.
GoldenOpal wrote:
You should probably add ‘compassionate’ to that list.
I'm interested in hearing what you base that on.
The meaning of the word and your posts in this thread. ;P But I suspect you know that.
Actually, I'd argue that if your intent is merely to shout someone down, you probably would stop if the other person left.
Yeah, like how bullies always stop with the first humiliation.
If your intent was to have a public discussion (as, I believe, is the intent of everyone here), wouldn't it make perfect sense to continue the discussion even in the absence of a single participant?
So where does criticizing that he left and his stated reasons for leaving fit into the discussion exactly? That’s right it doesn’t. That is the point in the thread that put it over the top for me.
Really, though, I think we were all pretty much done with our response before you decided to wag your own finger.
Either that or you found another poster to focus on – which was my intention.
|
Anyone who rules by strength would probably discourage or outlaw anything that would help an underdog in a fight, whether that's magic, poison, or 'dishonorable' fighting methods. That way they ensure that their well trained and equipped forces always have the upper hand over the weaker, oppressed populace. As has been stated poisons do nothing in game that spells, special abilities, and weapons don't already do, and as also stated there are good, even lawful good, creatures that have poisons as an innate ability.
I see poison being the same as firearms in the real world or enchanted weapons, traps, or debuffing spells in fantasy. Each of those things allows you an advantage over your enemy no matter how much stronger or more powerful he is than you.
That was indeed a common argument against the longbow, the crossbow, and, eventually, the gun, that a man who had trained his entire life to sit a horse in heavy plate and wield expensive weapons and was a blue-blooded better-than-them landed noble could be killed by a peasant with a sharp stick. It was seen as horribly 'unfair' and dishonorable, that the wealthy could be so cheaply killed by someone who wasn't a land-owner and didn't have twenty serfs working to support him.
Poison would be just as powerfully discouraged in a 'might makes right' society, since it's an 'equalizer' that allows a weak person to kill a strong person, or an oppressed person to kill an oppressor that could otherwise physically or socially overpower them.
So his failure of logic is somehow everyone else's faultNo, harping on it EVEN after he gets so upset he leaves the discussion is. Okay, not EVERYONE just those involved and their supporters
Except he was just as 'harping' -- and didn't provide reasons for his position -- He made clear errors in fact (saying the rules stated poisons are evil), clear errors of logic, and then got upset when they were pointed out. No one harped on him, anymore than anything gets harped on in these forums -- mostly because as forums we don't have the luxury of knowing what is about to be posted before we post ourselves.
and because he didn't want to debate the merits of his unsubstantiated claims we are somehow at fault that he ragequit when his opinion was called into question when he presented it as fact?It is not about being at fault. That is just a pointless debate IMO. It is about the reason he left. People that are not intending to ‘shout someone down’ generally stop their ‘questioning’ when the other side gets their feelings hurt and ALWAYS stop when the opposition has left.
Generally since once they leave you can't talk to them anymore. However lets consider the possibility that he got his feelings hurt for no reason other than the fact he didn't like the fact he wasn't fawned over for his infallible wisdom. He certainly wasn't blameless in his posts, or reactions and was just as -- aggressive in his posts and style as anyone else.
In fact your own posts follow a similiar bent -- assumption of victimdom, the fact that everyone else is somehow wrong, and ad homin posturing.
Anyone who rules by strength would probably discourage or outlaw anything that would help an underdog in a fight, whether that's magic, poison, or 'dishonorable' fighting methods. That way they ensure that their well trained and equipped forces always have the upper hand over the weaker, oppressed populace. As has been stated poisons do nothing in game that spells, special abilities, and weapons don't already do, and as also stated there are good, even lawful good, creatures that have poisons as an innate ability.
I see poison being the same as firearms in the real world or enchanted weapons, traps, or debuffing spells in fantasy. Each of those things allows you an advantage over your enemy no matter how much stronger or more powerful he is than you.
That was indeed a common argument against the longbow, the crossbow, and, eventually, the gun, that a man who had trained his entire life to sit a horse in heavy plate and wield expensive weapons and was a blue-blooded better-than-them landed noble could be killed by a peasant with a sharp stick. It was seen as horribly 'unfair' and dishonorable, that the wealthy could be so cheaply killed by someone who wasn't a land-owner and didn't have twenty serfs working to support him.
Poison would be just as powerfully discouraged in a 'might makes right' society, since it's an 'equalizer' that allows a weak person to kill a strong person, or an oppressed person to kill an oppressor that could otherwise physically or socially overpower them.
Heh, I thought that idea made too much sense for me to be the first one to come up with it. I must have read it somewhere while reading about history. I don't know if I'd say a longbow falls into that category though. As far as I know longbows, especially the largest ones, required a lifetime of training to develop the muscle strength and ability to use them.
I think the idea, if I'm remembering right which I may not be, had to do with a cynical view of why views of honorable combat and duels came into being. Fighting one on one, especially, favors the more well trained and equipped fighter, so it was a big advantage for those who could spend time training and could afford the best weapons and armor. Anyways, it's not important to the topic at hand exactly where I remembered that from, glad to see someone else sees the point I was making though.
This thread has been fascinating. It's like a TV drama episode that I walked in on and now can't stop watching.
|
I usually like to quote the Pathfinder Society guidelines in this matter:
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.
This thread has been fascinating. It's like a TV drama episode that I walked in on and now can't stop watching.
Most of them are.
Interestingly, some things are poisonous to some and not to others. I know people who can roll around in poison ivy without so much as a rash, while my mother can become ill from someone burning it from a distance (essentially being poisoned through airborn contamination).
Belladonna is poisonous, specifically, and yet it's used to cure lycanthropy. Woe to the Paladin who gave his bitten friend some wolfs-bane, 'cause in a world where poisons are evil, he just poisoned his friend and lost his paladinhood.
Seriously, anyone who just looks at poison reasonably will see it's not innately evil.
Logic Map
Is Poison Evil? Maybe.
Poison can kill? Yes.
How does that compare?
Sword can kill? Yes.
Is Sword Evil? Maybe.
Yes or no? :P
Except he was just as 'harping' -- and didn't provide reasons for his position -- He made clear errors in fact (saying the rules stated poisons are evil), clear errors of logic, and then got upset when they were pointed out. No one harped on him, anymore than anything gets harped on in these forums -- mostly because as forums we don't have the luxury of knowing what is about to be posted before we post ourselves.
So… A)He started it. B) It wasn’t harping except it was, but no more than usual. And C) really it was all due to the fact that the ‘offenders’ did not know what he was going to post next, after he explicitly stated he left the tread and the posts I objected to were about how/why he left as the topic.
A-B is just convoluted, but if I understand you right a fair point.
C is, according to the evidence, a weak defense. IS that what you honestly believe, just a devil’s advocate thing?
He certainly wasn't blameless in his posts, or reactions and was just as -- aggressive in his posts and style as anyone else.
Just realize it goes both ways. Just like his rage-quit makes him look whiny. The continued piling-on with the added ‘let’s criticize him for leaving too’ legitimizes his complaints. I’m not going to blame you (or the others involved) for his actions any more than I’m going to blame him for yours. Again it’s not about blaming people for ME.
In fact your own posts follow a similar bent -- assumption of victimdom, the fact that everyone else is somehow wrong, and ad homin posturing.
Sorry for the confusion. I will clarify:
My intention was to call out the culprits’ bad behavior and give them a chance to either cut it out altogether (I all but knew that was not going to happen, true) or give them another target, one that wouldn’t mind so much. If ‘assuming victimdom’ means painting a target on myself knowing y’all would take the bait and hang yourselves with it. Then I have a new favorite term and wear that crown without shame.
My intention was not to imply EVERYONE acted poorly or is ‘somehow’ wrong. Not sure how you got that one. Ha! There has got to be someone out there that would agree with me right? Too bad I said they were wrong, oops. I really would like to avoid this misunderstanding in the future, but not enough to list EVERYTHING I’m NOT saying in every post. I suggest you take the onus on yourself to do it mentally as you read them if that’s what it takes. After the first try you’ll probably realize why I am unwilling to do it for your convenience. Again, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding there, just not sorry enough to jump through those kinds of hoops to avoid it.
Ad homin? Who is 'assuming victimdom' now, huh? See how easy it is? :P Sorry for any offense.
GoldenOpal,
Having read the thread, the post in question, and the posts of Abraham and the others, I would say they have done absolutely nothing wrong. It seems like you are picking on them for not being stupid.
To clarify, I mean that they (politely, I might add) pointed out the logical errors in his post. He then threw a fit and demanded that he was leaving, and would not stand to be shouted down (some sort of fantasy that he made up). After he declared that he was leaving, the conversation was cleaned up with some further commentary by those involved. Again, with respectful mannerisms.
You seem to be picking on them for no reason. Why the bullying, GoldenOpal?
If ‘assuming victimdom’ means painting a target on myself knowing y’all would take the bait and hang yourselves with it. Then I have a new favorite term and wear that crown without shame.
Not to take away from your new favorite term crown of martyrdom but I think by 'assuming victimdom' Abraham was saying that you came into this thread making the assumption that the poster who 'stormed out' was a victim, rather than that you came into this thread and assumed the role of a victim as some odd form of pseudo-self-sacrificing behavior.
What you initially seemed to take offense to was a couple posters calling the guy who left out for making claims about the rules and then leaving in a huff rather than defending those when they were called into question. The leaving poster also managed to imply, if not outright declare, that those who opposed him were in a "shouting match" rather than making logical points. You were assuming 'victimdom'(or victimhood, or whatever makes grammatical sense) on the part of the departing poster, which is your right but doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
The ad homin posturing part was because of your statement heavily implying that TriOmegaZero is not a compassionate person, rather than actually meeting his points about the departing poster or the actual topic of the thread. You aren't calling his logic into question, which would be fine, but just attacking him personally with a statement that has no bearing on the actual discussion. It doesn't matter if he's compassionate, proper, or any other description, what matters is the point he, and others, made about leaving when your position is challenged in any way, a point which you didn't address.
This thread has been fascinating. It's like a TV drama episode that I walked in on and now can't stop watching.
it's making my head hurt.
|
Poison used to be evil as explicitly explained in the rules, which always struck me as odd, though I could live with it. Apparently that is no longer the case in Pathfinder?
Remember, there are a few poisons that merely incapacitate (Drow sleep poison, for instance) without killing. Might be more humane to get hit with that than with a sword.
IMHO, using the alignment rules to explore the finer points of narrative morality is like trying to use a really poorly conceived analogy to describe an extremely nuanced topic.
Poison used to be evil as explicitly explained in the rules, which always struck me as odd, though I could live with it. Apparently that is no longer the case in Pathfinder?
Remember, there are a few poisons that merely incapacitate (Drow sleep poison, for instance) without killing. Might be more humane to get hit with that than with a sword.
IMHO, using the alignment rules to explore the finer points of narrative morality is like trying to use a really poorly conceived analogy to describe an extremely nuanced topic.
Actually any poison that doesn't hit Con or HP will only incapacitate.
I've never claimed to be 'proper'. I'm not even sure who gets to decide what 'proper' is.
I don't remember using poison on others being evil in 3.0 and 3.5. Also, then all the poisonous vermin and poisonous animals would not be neutral, but evil, because they use poison.
Book of Exalted Deeds called poisons out specifically as evil. Same with diseases.
It also introduced "ravages" and "afflictions", which are JUST Like poisons and diseases except that they can be used by good characters.
Personally, I don't feel that BoED was a very good book. Though I do enjoy the Old Testament vibe of a character specialized in the use of 'holy diseases'.
IMHO, using the alignment rules to explore the finer points of narrative morality is like trying to use a really poorly conceived analogy to describe an extremely nuanced topic.
Killer analogy, by the way. :)
I always found the idea that somehow using ravages and afflictions was not "evil" to be ridiculous, they do the same freakin thing as poisons just to evil creatures only, ...so if i only use poison against evil creatures only then whats the difference???
I don't remember using poison on others being evil in 3.0 and 3.5. Also, then all the poisonous vermin and poisonous animals would not be neutral, but evil, because they use poison.Book of Exalted Deeds called poisons out specifically as evil. Same with diseases.
It also introduced "ravages" and "afflictions", which are JUST Like poisons and diseases except that they can be used by good characters.
Personally, I don't feel that BoED was a very good book. Though I do enjoy the Old Testament vibe of a character specialized in the use of 'holy diseases'.
better not to take BoED too seriously. The book had awesome stuff, but some of the fluff was "O__o"
I always found the idea that somehow using ravages and afflictions was not "evil" to be ridiculous, they do the same freakin thing as poisons just to evil creatures only, ...so if i only use poison against evil creatures only then whats the difference???
Especially since ravages and what not were some of the cruelest ways to attack an enemy ever, and some of the most reckless. They did terrible things like make people hunger and wither away, no matter how much or what you eat, you feel famished and starved.
Or how about this twisted thing. One of the ravages attacks the afflicted with their own desires, and makes them feel overwhelming sexual frustration that, try as they might, nothing sates or offers release until it drives them completely mad.
That is f---in' sick.
Ravages were lame. "Poisons are evil, but here are those kosher equivalents, no friendly fire included." Yeah, thanks.
Overall, I'd consider poisons more along the line of chaotic, since it is a generally dishonorable (and often illegal) measure. There's also the manner in which the poison in question works and how the victim feels it - something that makes the victim writhe in unspeakable agony for an hour is definitely not ok for a good character, but a powerful sedative would likely be fine even for the LG crowd.
I don't think poisons can be found using Detect Evil.
But, with the reference in the initial post to a good society... If nothing else the posts that followed show that thing like good and evil are very much a matter of perception.
Assuming that you're running a standard fantasy setting. I think it would be reasonable to say that considering the associations, assumed dishonor, and lack of specific knowledge by the population at large of such a world, it may be perceived that poisons are evil.
As such a society or character that believes themselves (regardless of actual alignment) to be particularly "good" or "honorable" would probably condemn poison use as a vile act. However a character (while in game mechanics good) who considers him/herself to be something of an "outlaw" would probably be willing to use it.