I really think this has been well-answered, but:
(1) Knowledge check to identify; you'll need 10 + CR + 5 to get "identity" AND "one question" - so now we know about this particular creature and its poison.
(2) Heal check to extract the poison; here, I'd model the check after a "Disable Traps to Bypass" check, so the DC of the "extraction" check would be 10 + CR + 10, or 20 + CR; I'd modify this by creature size, as well (anyone who's done precision animal dissection or surgical procedures on animals knows that smaller animals are trickier here). As with traps, failing the check by enough (a check of 5 + CR or less) poisons the operator.
(3) Final stage is one of two options: (i) if we're going to use the poison *right now* (or soon), we can just use it raw from extraction - I'd give it maybe 10 minutes per CR to stay "active"; (ii) we can "process" the poison for storage and later use, using Craft (Alchemy) with a DC of 10 + CR or so.
If we want to get fancy, we might have other kinds of alchemical things we can do in a workshop, like prepping it as a material component (maybe to add +1 CD to Poison spells), intensifying it (maybe we add +1 to its DC per 5 points we beat the Craft (Alchemy) DC), and so on.
As a DM, I would rule that you could do it using craft (alchemy). While I understand the reasoning behind others ruling that you need a nature check, I also don't think extraneous information should be a requirement. After all, you don't need to know a viper's eating habits, lair preferences, or mating seasons - you just need to know where the poison glands are located and how to extract the poison from them.
As to rulings regarding poison use a being evil....Evil and Good are moral concepts. (All animals are neutral, including the poisonous ones. Just sayin'.) I'd say, ask your DM if your patron deity would consider poisoning an evil act in his version of the campaign world.
Pretty sure the "poison use is evil" rule did not cross over to PF from 3.5 ... of course I could be wrong and if so, please point me to the rule in the book.
It tends to be dishonorable, disrespectful and likely to inflict needless suffering. It's use will also tend to be illegal in many places, I think most clerics in good standing will want to avoid damaging the reputation of the faith.
Personal opinion I guess, I have a hard time imagening a cleric of Desna using poison on a regular basis.
As a DM, I would rule that you could do it using craft (alchemy). While I understand the reasoning behind others ruling that you need a nature check, I also don't think extraneous information should be a requirement. After all, you don't need to know a viper's eating habits, lair preferences, or mating seasons - you just need to know where the poison glands are located and how to extract the poison from them.
As to rulings regarding poison use a being evil....Evil and Good are moral concepts. (All animals are neutral, including the poisonous ones. Just sayin'.) I'd say, ask your DM if your patron deity would consider poisoning an evil act in his version of the campaign world.
I think as an alchemist you don't really need to know where your raw materials come from or how to harvest them to work with it, a cook can do his job just fine without knowing a thing about hunting or farming.
Besides the multiple rolls approach using different skills, I would allow an appropriate profession skill to get the job done with a single roll, giving X doses of raw poison, usable in the same way the creature used (usually injury). Of course, I can't figure out exactly which professions would be appropriate here. Is there a Profession (Monster Butcher)?Generally speaking, a profession that makes things is instead treated as a craft.
A simple approach would be to say that you can use Craft (poison) or Craft (alchemy) to make a few doses of the appropriate poison as normal without having to pay for the materials, since the monster corpse provides the raw materials. For a live creature, let them get one dose worth of materials per week with a Handle Animal check.
Except you aren't making anything, you're harvesting it. Compare Profession (Fisher).
Anyway, my point is while the three rolls makes logical sense, it's not going to take long before it gets really tedious.
Also, using the default crafting rules to try and make poisons just doesn't work without the Master Alchemist feat.
I think as an alchemist you don't really need to know where your raw materials come from or how to harvest them to work with it, a cook can do his job just fine without knowing a thing about hunting or farming.
True, but a cook most likely knows how to butcher an animal, or what parts of the plant to keep for cooking.
Offer a simple craft(alchemy) check and the 3 stage check to your GM. Let them choose.
Honor determines whether one uses poison. An honorable LE person probably won't use poison.
A Paladin's code of honor doesn't allow them to use poison, a LG Fighter Though might not have honor, but he might constantly save the innocent. A LE Fighter might have honor and refuse to use poison. While a LE Rogue might use poison.
|
Pretty sure the "poison use is evil" rule did not cross over to PF from 3.5 ... of course I could be wrong and if so, please point me to the rule in the book.It tends to be dishonorable, disrespectful and likely to inflict needless suffering. It's use will also tend to be illegal in many places, I think most clerics in good standing will want to avoid damaging the reputation of the faith.
Personal opinion I guess, I have a hard time imagening a cleric of Desna using poison on a regular basis.
That may be, but the use of poison is not automatically evil per RAW by default. The view of poison use should vary by the deity, society, etc. and not be universally lumped into being evil.
Not all poison kills, after all. Some merely knock its targets out. Would that be considered evil? If a society has a neutral or even positive view of poison use, would using poison be evil? The point is it should be situational, not just a "of course it's evil" stance.
As to the OP, I have to agree there would be multiple checks, including Heal (to successfully locate and remove the source of the poison), Knowledge (Nature) to identify if a creature is poisonous or not in the first place and Craft (Alchemy) to work it into a usable form.
One of the most favored painkillers today was originally used as poison to knock someone unconscious or even kill. Morphine/Opium.
1) Knowledge(based on the Creature type): to determine if they are poisonous or where the poison glands are located.
2) Heal: To extract the gland. Failure results in you being poisoned. Poison use effects this.
3) Craft(Alchemy): To make poison usable. Failure results in you being poisoned. Poison use effects this.
Different poisons require different methods for making them usable. Either being stabilized, anticoagulant added, or even a coagulant added to it.
Pretty sure the "poison use is evil" rule did not cross over to PF from 3.5 ... of course I could be wrong and if so, please point me to the rule in the book.
I think we've done the rounds on that before and I believe it's not in RAW for PF. Of course, they don't have a huge list of what is good / evil either. The section on alignment is slim with the DM / GM expected to take up the slack. I suspect they had other things to squeeze in to one rather over sized book.
The classic conception of poison use in the West is that it's vile, underhanded, disgusting, and evil. There was nothing worse than being a "poisoner" and people who were even suspected of it had the worst reputation. If your culture assumes these type of things it's a no brainer. Given D&D / PFs RAW belief in absolutes of good and evil, the strict prohibition in the Paladins code, the close association of Assassins (evil by RAW) and poison, and the western assumptions of the bulk of the game setting I'd say poison use is evil. But that's just opinion, my 2 cp as it were. In my game, it is, but I don't game in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it say Good/Evil are absolutes?
And the assassin being Evil irks me to no end. After all if all assassins are Evil then so are all Ninja and anyone else who kills without being seen.
Assassin's Creed has a good outlook on it. They are Neutral they only kill those who threaten and abuse power.
|
Poison use is not evil in pathfinder, it has never been written RAW. Even RAI it's hard to define poison use as evil as a number of non evil archetypes can get it. Not to mention races that have natural poisons and its availability as talents/feats/bonus' to it from traits.
Even if we assumed all of those things were geared towards evil npcs/pcs, the debate everyone is using is inherently flawed. Right in the PFSRD, emphasis mine:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.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.
This shows that RAW its dishonorable, however, it is not actually evil. If it was evil it would have not been listed as an example under the additionally and would have just been left under the "commits evil act" descriptor.
RAW - Pathfinder poison use is not evil, and just for the record, the only book in 3.5 that I know of that had that whole nonsense was the Book of Vile Darkness. Which as far as I know was not part of the core rules and was thus a splat book, which 3.5 had hundreds of. Hard to keep all your ducks in a row when you put out a hundred books, and there is specific examples even in that system that counter that stupid, garbage, useless book.
Edit - The assassins are evil bit is only because of the stupid clause that requires they kill for no reason other than to begin training as an assassin. Killing something without good motivation/reason is always evil. So even if they didn't have a requirement of evil, you would instantly get 1 step closer just for fullfilling that stupid requirement. Just for the record, I don't think assassins are evil, that's just how I justify the golarian "assasins guild." You can be a pathfinder without having it as a class, and you can be an assassin without having it as a class. You just can't join the guild unless you meet those requirements. Least that's how I define it.
Hmm I always change that kills just to become bit.
Heck, I made it to where they just join an Order of Assassins. Each order has a Creed (yes I know). And each Order has an initiation rite.
This is more realistic to historical assassins.
Poison is one of the Grey areas of Good/Evil alignment.
Perfect Example of a Spell causing suffering: Dominate Person, have said person kill the love of their life.
Perfect Example of a Spell causing suffering: Dominate Person, have said person kill the love of their life.Well, if said love is innocent, that would most definitely be evil; but that's 'independent' of the nature of the spell (i.e., the spell itself is not evil: you could Fireball the innocent love of their life too, and that wouldn't make Fireball evil).
I didn't say it was Evil. Only that it causes suffering onto the target of the spell.
To me poison is one of those "depends on the circumstances". If your deity is fine with it as well as your "Code of Honor" then fine. If said Deity isn't fine with you using poison... Well your local priest probably shouldn't hear about it.
It also depends on how it is used.
Perfect Example of a Spell causing suffering: Dominate Person, have said person kill the love of their life.Well, if said love is innocent, that would most definitely be evil; but that's 'independent' of the nature of the spell (i.e., the spell itself is not evil: you could Fireball the innocent love of their life too, and that wouldn't make Fireball evil).I didn't say it was Evil. Only that it causes suffering onto the target of the spell.
To me poison is one of those "depends on the circumstances". If your deity is fine with it as well as your "Code of Honor" then fine. If said Deity isn't fine with you using poison... Well your local priest probably shouldn't hear about it.
It also depends on how it is used.
I understand, but in order to make the analogy work, it has to show that the spell itself is evil (i.e., in every circumstance it's used, it is evil), much like poison detractors claim that poisons themselves are always evil.
What you're describing is not inherent evil in the spell itself, but in the use of it--much like Fireballing/Meteor Swarming an orphanage.
Are you one of my former players...
And trust me I don't get the X is always evil bit... heck, slavery in its original form wasn't evil.
Perfect Example of a Spell causing suffering: Dominate Person, have said person kill the love of their life.Well, if said love is innocent, that would most definitely be evil; but that's 'independent' of the nature of the spell (i.e., the spell itself is not evil: you could Fireball the innocent love of their life too, and that wouldn't make Fireball evil).I didn't say it was Evil. Only that it causes suffering onto the target of the spell.
To me poison is one of those "depends on the circumstances". If your deity is fine with it as well as your "Code of Honor" then fine. If said Deity isn't fine with you using poison... Well your local priest probably shouldn't hear about it.
It also depends on how it is used.
I understand, but in order to make the analogy work, it has to show that the spell itself is evil (i.e., in every circumstance it's used, it is evil), much like poison detractors claim that poisons themselves are always evil.
What you're describing is not inherent evil in the spell itself, but in the use of it--much like Fireballing/Meteor Swarming an orphanage.
Are you one of my former players...
And trust me I don't get the X is always evil bit... heck, slavery in its original form wasn't evil.
LOL, I'm pretty sure I'm not (since I've only had one GM, and we're running a session at the moment). Why do you ask?
Either way, we seem to be bumping threads in the forums left and right.
I had a Drow Wizard that Fireball/Meteor Swarm/Nuked a Orphanage just to mess with the Paladin by making her feel like she failed to save them.
and yes... yes we do seem to be bumping threads.
Well he was the BBEG(irl)'s lieutenant. The funny part was the Paladin getting poisoned by the parties alchemist who turned out to be said BBEG(irl).
Her use of poison was Evil the parties Rogue was the opposite.
There are spells with the evil descriptor.
I have yet to see a rule that points out that poisons are innately evil. If anyone thinks that they are evil by RAW could you please point out such a rule? If not then please just admit that it is personal opinion and it has no bearing on actual game rules.
There are spells with the evil descriptor.
I have yet to see a rule that points out that poisons are innately evil. If anyone thinks that they are evil by RAW could you please point out such a rule? If not then please just admit that it is personal opinion and it has no bearing on actual game rules.
There is no such rule.
There is no such rule.There are spells with the evil descriptor.
I have yet to see a rule that points out that poisons are innately evil. If anyone thinks that they are evil by RAW could you please point out such a rule? If not then please just admit that it is personal opinion and it has no bearing on actual game rules.
I don't think anyone in this thread is actually arguing that poison use is evil. What people are arguing for is that it is a morally gray area and in the minds of people it might very well be perceived as evil.
In most campaigns it is probably shady enough for 'good' people to avoid it not least of which because it tends to be illegal.
There is no such rule.There are spells with the evil descriptor.
I have yet to see a rule that points out that poisons are innately evil. If anyone thinks that they are evil by RAW could you please point out such a rule? If not then please just admit that it is personal opinion and it has no bearing on actual game rules.
I don't think anyone in this thread is actually arguing that poison use is evil. What people are arguing for is that it is a morally gray area and in the minds of people it might very well be perceived as evil.
In most campaigns it is probably shady enough for 'good' people to avoid it not least of which because it tends to be illegal.
That is a good explanation... poisons, traps, diseases, etc don't come up as often as they should.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spraying insects with insecticide is poison use.
Using 10-80 to kill feral dog packs on farmlands is poison use.
Treating your homes for termites is poison use.
None of those are evil, and in a world like Golarian, using poisons on monsters would most likely be seen as no different to any of those things. It's probably how they keep the goblin numbers down in Sandpoint.
Cheers
Spraying insects with insecticide is poison use.
Using 10-80 to kill feral dog packs on farmlands is poison use.
Treating your homes for termites is poison use.
None of those are evil, and in a world like Golarian, using poisons on monsters would most likely be seen as no different to any of those things. It's probably how they keep the goblin numbers down in Sandpoint.
Cheers
Thanks Now I am imagining people putting out blocks of goblin poison how modern people put out blocks of rat poison...
Thanks Now I am imagining people putting out blocks of goblin poison how modern people put out blocks of rat poison...Spraying insects with insecticide is poison use.
Using 10-80 to kill feral dog packs on farmlands is poison use.
Treating your homes for termites is poison use.
None of those are evil, and in a world like Golarian, using poisons on monsters would most likely be seen as no different to any of those things. It's probably how they keep the goblin numbers down in Sandpoint.
Cheers
You think dragons put out blocks of Human poison outside their lairs?
|
|
Thanks Now I am imagining people putting out blocks of goblin poison how modern people put out blocks of rat poison...Spraying insects with insecticide is poison use.
Using 10-80 to kill feral dog packs on farmlands is poison use.
Treating your homes for termites is poison use.
None of those are evil, and in a world like Golarian, using poisons on monsters would most likely be seen as no different to any of those things. It's probably how they keep the goblin numbers down in Sandpoint.
Cheers
I was thinking more like rangers and Druids, but in Sandpoint, maybe the guy who runs the garbage dump would bait the place too. A bit of meat sprinkled with slow acting poison would deal with any of those hungry little buggers right quick and stop them getting into your pantry at night.
Cheers
|
|
You think dragons put out blocks of Human poison outside their lairs?Thanks Now I am imagining people putting out blocks of goblin poison how modern people put out blocks of rat poison...Spraying insects with insecticide is poison use.
Using 10-80 to kill feral dog packs on farmlands is poison use.
Treating your homes for termites is poison use.
None of those are evil, and in a world like Golarian, using poisons on monsters would most likely be seen as no different to any of those things. It's probably how they keep the goblin numbers down in Sandpoint.
Cheers
I think very clever dragons would leave poisoned treasure in convenient locations for just such occasions actually.
All they need to do is go along and breath weapon the corpses everyone an a while and reapply the contact poison to the low level magic item and chest of copper coins in the entrance to its lair.
Or a very clever and efficient trap would work as well.
You sir just gave me a wonderful idea... my players will hate you for it.
You think dragons put out blocks of Human poison outside their lairs?Thanks Now I am imagining people putting out blocks of goblin poison how modern people put out blocks of rat poison...Spraying insects with insecticide is poison use.
Using 10-80 to kill feral dog packs on farmlands is poison use.
Treating your homes for termites is poison use.
None of those are evil, and in a world like Golarian, using poisons on monsters would most likely be seen as no different to any of those things. It's probably how they keep the goblin numbers down in Sandpoint.
Cheers
I think very clever dragons would leave poisoned treasure in convenient locations for just such occasions actually.
All they need to do is go along and breath weapon the corpses everyone an a while and reapply the contact poison to the low level magic item and chest of copper coins in the entrance to its lair.
They could curse a chest full of coins similar to the black pearl curse for a steady supply of undead servants.
@TCG: that is priceless... and oddly I think it would make a hilarious addition to Skull & Shackles, no?
@TCG: that is priceless... and oddly I think it would make a hilarious addition to Skull & Shackles, no?
Love it.
@TCG: that is priceless... and oddly I think it would make a hilarious addition to Skull & Shackles, no?Love it.
Great Now I am going to have to make an artifact with this function...
One point that I feel should be brought up: Everything that is being debated about poisons and honour / morality is valid, but all presuppose the use of poisons that are lethal.
There *is* another class of poisons that should be palatable to paladins and the good / lawful crowd - sophorics (sleep) and paralytics (DEX damage).
These are incapacitating poisons that wear off with no ill effect, and can be used to facilitate capture of a target.
One point that I feel should be brought up: Everything that is being debated about poisons and honour / morality is valid, but all presuppose the use of poisons that are lethal.
There *is* another class of poisons that should be palatable to paladins and the good / lawful crowd - sophorics (sleep) and paralytics (DEX damage).
These are incapacitating poisons that wear off with no ill effect, and can be used to facilitate capture of a target.
That is mostly because of the context of the poison discussion, harvesting random poisons to use as a combat booster. I have no reason to believe the target objective is to capture enemies by poisoning, and few poisons work particulary well for that purpose in PF.