| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opium
Type inhaled, ingested, or injury; Addiction major, Fortitude DC 20
Price 25 gp
Effects 1 hour; +1d8 temporary hit points, +2 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saves, fatigue
Damage 1d4 Con and 1d4 Wis damage
When a character takes a drug, he immediately gains the effects, an amount of ability damage, and must make a Fortitude save to resist becoming addicted to that drug (see Addiction).
At 25 gp, opium is a very affordable way to hit someone for 1d4 Con and 1d4 Wis, no save.
Further research reveals other interesting substances.
Shiver
Type injury or ingested; Addiction major, Fortitude DC 18
Price 500 gp
Effects variable; 50% chance to sleep for 1d4 hours or gain immunity to fear for 1d4 minutes
Damage 1d2 Con damage
For 500 gp, 50% chance to instantly drop any foe not immune to sleep!
We now plan to invest in injury drugs and start offering... involuntary free samples... to our enemies, and slaughtering them as they stumble around all doped up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to Evil.
Are you sure you don't want to give it to the bard so he can channel Oscar Wilde?
How is it evil to hit someone in their Con or Wis? It's not like we'd be using particularly deceptive or underhanded methods to go about it.
How is it evil to hit someone in their Con or Wis? It's not like we'd be using particularly deceptive or underhanded methods to go about it.
Forcing addictive drugs upon another living being could be considered evil mayhaps?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it was an intentional exaggeration. Perhaps I see parallels between purposefully getting someone addicted and purposefully giving someone HIV.
But mostly we just need more Oscar Wilde.
I've never ruled that using weapon poisons is evil at all.
No different than using a flaming weapon or some magic like charm monster or hold person.
(Putting it in their food, where they are not expecting an attack, is a bit different, but in combat...a weapon is a weapon.)
Forcing addictive drugs upon another living being could be considered evil mayhaps?
More so than forcing upon them the pain of being burned to death, which is par for the course for D&D combat?
Mayhaps. Even so, that limitation is only relevant for characters who aren't already and are averse to becoming Evil. It's still a tasty tasty bargain for everyone else.
I always figured opium was the same thing as pesh. Stephen Greer and/or Amber Scott appear to have done a lot of interesting homework when they wrote Dark Markets.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
They're only addictive for the brief period they are using them before death; why would casting a spell that does the same or worse not be considered evil but using a poison to debuff would be?
So, you'd be OK with a Paladin using drugs and poison against his enemies?
I've always wanted to make a Junky character. Could be fun.
|
|
Depends, would you be OK with said paladin casting bane / bestow curse (extended arcana) on the same opponent? What about slicing through them with a sword dripping with acid and on fire?
In the end, yes, I believe if a Paladin applies poison to his blade and defeats evil foes with it, it is no different than applying a de-buff spell or other gruesome death. This same Pally is already going to do the dubious act of looting the dead corpse afterwards, so if they go that far the morals are different than this world. Basically a paladin must hold ideals on defeating evil and protecting good; not lying and not stealing. Beyond that, given the game's encouragement to cause greusome, magically-enhanced deaths, poisons seem like they should not be singled out as the "evil act" here
I agree with Sloanzilla.
The idea that poisons (by any other name) are "evil" has its roots waay back in early D&D. This was when only humans could be paladins, they couldn't lie, and had to fight their foes in a straight forward manner.
The idea (not unique to D&D) was that poisons were cunning, sneaky, cruel, and cowardly. It was more honorable and good-er that your foe die cleanly. There was no honor to be had from winning over a weakened foe. Much better to salute your opponent before engaging. And while the paladin was busy saluting, the enemy would kick him in the codpiece.
Obviously this line of thinking has more loopholes than the U.S. tax code
if you are your typical shoot-to-kill adventurer then giving someone an opium high before you kill him is surely not evil, I would even consider it (the drugs alone) a good act (the killing probably not).
Anyhow if you get a dose of a drug and you don't even know what it is, is not the same as giving one free go to kids. It could be considered as a poison with later onset redrawel.
|
|
I guess I retract my statement; Pallies can't use poison, because their rules specifically void the possibility by a rule in their conduct code. On the other hand, I would not rule it evil for any other person; debuffing and making opponents helpless in combat is probably not the most noble combat choice either, but nobody calls web evil.
Paladins can´t be game rangers either. They have to use Tranq Darts some times. DISHONORABLE KNAVES!!!
The history of Poison=Evil in D&D, which persists in the Paladin Code,
is based on normal usage of poison... when you say ´he was Poisoned by her´ that probably implies that she slipped the poison into his drink, or MAYBE injected it via an un-noticeable blow-gun dart, etc... i.e, not in the thick of combat, where the target could fight back or run away. Coating your Great-Axe with some Poison that Slows the target (f.e.) just in case one of your physical attacks isn´t enough to down them is a quite different thing... for one, it´s just changing the battle-field conditions, since if one blow isn´t enough you would continue to whack at them whatever the case. Many spells and other abilities in fact have functionally identical effects to ´Poisons´... Not to mention that the effect of many Poisons is not instant death or incapacitation, but a minor penalty on par to cancelling out Flanking.
I guess Paladin/Sorceror multi-classes can´t use spells like Stinking Cloud though.
But if it was ´Hacking Dust Cloud´ with the same effects but no mention of Poison, A-OK Paladin Dude!!!
Note: saying ´I would not rule it evil for any other person´ is missing the point.
An act isn´t determined to be evil or not evil depending on the person who does it.
Paladins have in their code that they can´t willfully commit evil acts... AND OTHER RESTICTIONS (such as Poison).
That doesn´t mean that Poison usage is EVIL for them, because that would be redundant with the ban on Evil acts.
They have restrictions against stuff which ISN´T inherently evil, it just happens to be barred by the Code.
Alternate Codes exist...
One could stipulate never pronouncing the sound ´SH´. That doesn´t mean ´SH´ is Evil, just that is barred.
Also note where the Poison ban is mentioned: act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
Those aren´t examples of Evilness, but of lack of honor... i.e. the Good guys´s take on Lawfulness.
(this is apart from my distinction between ways to use poison: secret assassinations vs. enhancing a melee attack, just as you can enhance a melee attack with magics which achieve functionally similar effects to many Poisons... not to mention using Poisons like a Game Warden does to achieve non-Evil ends by preventing a fight.)
Opium
Type inhaled, ingested, or injury; Addiction major, Fortitude DC 20
Price 25 gp
Effects 1 hour; +1d8 temporary hit points, +2 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saves, fatigue
Damage 1d4 Con and 1d4 Wis damage
When a character takes a drug, he immediately gains the effects, an amount of ability damage, and must make a Fortitude save to resist becoming addicted to that drug (see Addiction).At 25 gp, opium is a very affordable way to hit someone for 1d4 Con and 1d4 Wis, no save.
Further research reveals other interesting substances.
Shiver
Type injury or ingested; Addiction major, Fortitude DC 18
Price 500 gp
Effects variable; 50% chance to sleep for 1d4 hours or gain immunity to fear for 1d4 minutes
Damage 1d2 Con damage
For 500 gp, 50% chance to instantly drop any foe not immune to sleep!
We now plan to invest in injury drugs and start offering... involuntary free samples... to our enemies, and slaughtering them as they stumble around all doped up.
I'm amazed that I didn't come up with the idea of using drugs offensively myself. :(
How did I not know that PF has rules for drugs in it? What source is that from?
I can finally run that campaign about the alchemist that wants to control the world through opium addiction... <.<, >.>
I'm amazed that I didn't come up with the idea of using drugs offensively myself. :(
I just want to emphasize that this is the main thrust of my first post, not the finer points of paladin morality. Not everyone is a paladin... but everyone will take 1d4 Con and Wis from a greatsword slathered in a 25 gp dose of opium.
How did I not know that PF has rules for drugs in it? What source is that from?
GameMastery Guide, I think.
Opium is an injury poison? Huh...I could care less about the morality issues, if you're not grown up enough to decide what's GOOD or EVIL in your own campaign, you're not grown up enough to play in my opinion...but I'm a little baffled that you can (potentially) smear opium on a blade and have it do anything (in combat anyways).
I guess I retract my statement; Pallies can't use poison, because their rules specifically void the possibility by a rule in their conduct code. On the other hand, I would not rule it evil for any other person; debuffing and making opponents helpless in combat is probably not the most noble combat choice either, but nobody calls web evil.
Interesting semantic point.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The Core Rulebook doesn't specifically say that using poison is evil. It says it's dishonorable. In my mind there are quite a number of things that are dishonorable, that are not inherently evil.
One example would be tournament fighting for knights. They are, in essence, fighting a melee (they rolled initiative and they are trying to bring the other person to 0 hit points), but it would be considered dishonorable to, say, throw sand or powder in their opponents' eyes. Is it evil? Not really, you are in a fight to the "death" (at least game mechanics wise--see death and dying).
Another point of evidence for that would be the old phrase "honor amongst thieves." Implying, of course, that even amongst known criminals there are patterns of behavior considered taboo, because they are dishonorable. This brings up the strange idea that a group of people that make their living stealing other people's belongings and selling them, still have some code of decency, at least amongst other people that make their living stealing other people's stuff and selling it. These situations, in literature, always bring up the hilarious dialogue where a criminal says something like, "I may be a thief, but I'm not a liar."
These then bring up the idea that there are "levels" or gradations of evil. It's a little evil. Like, it's a little evil to slap a woman. It's really evil to push a pregnant woman down the stairs. A paladin should do neither of those things, because both are dishonorable. He could however, push an evil pregnant woman down the stairs if she was carrying a demon-child in her womb. That would be perfectly legit.
Ahhhh morality threads. How I love you.
Wait... opium does Con damage? WTF?
What's next? Ale doing Str damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... opium does Con damage? WTF?
What's next? Ale doing Str damage?
I always had a hunch that Lincoln had an opium den.
Considering every reference to poison being "dishonorable" Honor seems to me to be more on the Chaotic axis then a factor of Good/Evil axis. Chaotic good = The ends justifies the means. By that regard I'd say poison is highly chaotic, hence why it is inappropriate for a paladin, but I see no reason why it would be inappropriate for a chaotic good ranger, rogue or fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always had a hunch that Lincoln had an opium den.
Palace, Cheapy. Presidential Opium Palace, Perfect Yes!
I'm pretty sure that drugs are not poisons (no matter what real life says), as they work differently, mainly they have no saving throw. (which is why they are awesome for dirty optimizers)
However there are probably no rules for accidently drugging yourself, so no need for all that drug-use class features.
|
|
They do have a save (DC 20 is high for the price, but the effect isn't so horrible).
Is the Serpent's Den a Pathfinder module though? I just realized it was kinda listed like an old-school poison.... no "damage over time" setup. But unless I read this wrong, even that damage doesn't occur till one hour later, effectively negating its combat effectiveness.
And dunno about their GM, but if they treat it like a poison I would too; those not specially trained can accidentally drug themselves.
They do have a save (DC 20 is high for the price, but the effect isn't so horrible).
Is the Serpent's Den a Pathfinder module though? I just realized it was kinda listed like an old-school poison.... no "damage over time" setup. But unless I read this wrong, even that damage doesn't occur till one hour later, effectively negating its combat effectiveness.
And dunno about their GM, but if they treat it like a poison I would too; those not specially trained can accidentally drug themselves.
Yes, those are Pathfinder rules, I copypasted them from the online SRD, and I don't think you're reading them correctly.
When a character takes a drug, he immediately gains the effects, an amount of ability damage, and must make a Fortitude save to resist becoming addicted to that drug (see Addiction).
So no save to take 1d4 Con and 1d4 Wis (and +1d8 temporary hp, and +2 Fort), just to avoid becoming addicted.
on the side note of poison being evil
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
I guess you say it´s technically against the Core Code for a Paladin to be Polymorpohed into a Giant Scorpion which has Poision in it´s attack, even though this is emulating the combat style of a creature that is purely Neutral. Or an Awakened Giant Scorpion will be congenitally prone to Falling if they want to be a Paladin. What do you do for a Paladin from a society which condones ritual suicide via poison as ´honorable´? Bunch of hogwash I say.
Wait, poison is evil?
Quick: someone tell all the couatls to stop existing, or else they'll be corrupted!
EDIT: also worth thinking about: addictive drugs+insta death might still be more evil (maybe even actually be evil) than just using poison, as the addiction may be a mental effect, meaning that it might carry over to the next life as a petitioner, basically adding soul torment. This, of course, depends entirely upon the underlying principles of what's going on "behind the scenes" in the universe's rules.