We have a veteran group of players who just started a new campaign at 1st level. The party killed some giant caterpillars. We have a Paladin in the group who said to collect and sell it was just as evil as using it. The party begrudging left the bodies to rot with poison glands still in tack.
When they asked me for a ruling I said Paladins frown on poison use and left it at that.
My question is do all good characters believe poison use is evil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They shouldn't, because poison is a legit weapon just like a sword or a giant hammer. Does that Paladin think little Halfling dudes should sit there and try to swordfight something like an Orc or a Wendigo? Screw that, break those suckers down.
Mind you, I don't know if Wendigos can be poisoned or not.
Classically, in D&D, poison was evil. It was considered evil in medieval western civilization as well. Being a "poisoner" got you the extra nasty execution. I'm not talking about weed killer. That's evading the issue. Gamers tend to the practical though and to many it is just another weapon. Unless someone uses it on them :) How the cultures in your game see it is up to you. And the "is it evil" question is a cultural matter. A pointer would be Paladins finding it wrong.
Note, did you mean giant centipedes? Caterpillars aren't known for their poison...
They are when they become Mothra.
Vamptastic: Or Buterfree.
an Orc or Wendigo probably has a good fort save. Poison is to use against halflings and elves =p.
I as GM I would say: "Does the poison have any concieveable use other than killing intelligent creatures?"
Yes: Not evil
No: evil.
I realize that nobody buys a sword for deer hunting, but poison is evil because of its offensive and premeditated nature. Nobody is "defending themselves" with poison. If you use poison on a person, your intent is to kill them in cold blood, without giving them a chance to put up a fight or even to surrender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that nobody buys a sword for deer hunting, but poison is evil because of its offensive and premeditated nature. Nobody is "defending themselves" with poison. If you use poison on a person, your intent is to kill them in cold blood, without giving them a chance to put up a fight or even to surrender.
Thus protecting the children from their high level adventurer father so that you didn't have to try(and fail) to take him on in a fair fight and make things worse for his children when you lost. Thankfully you performed that good act.
Poisons are not evil, not even to a paladin. However, a paladin would consider their use dishonorable (ie, against their code to use).
Btw, medicine = poison just in a different dose.
All that being said, a GM can make his own rules for his own world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is Bob the Paladin. He worships the deity Aroden who has the domain Protection. Its not an evil act to destroy what threatens the society he protects.
Its the intent behind every action that can be weighed as good or evil. Which causes the typical B&W alignment system to become gray instead.
If the paladin believes he is doing this to better protect humanity and be a selfless shield for it, he is not being evil if he chooses to destroy the Assassin Vines or Giant Slugs.
One might retort with how unintelligent creatures also commit acts what intelligent creatures consider evil which can be seen as murder or thievery for instance. However then one must question if the hungry stray dog's actions are inherently "evil" because it stole the neighbors steak because it foraged for food by acting on its survival instincts.
So should a paladin steal food or commit murder just to survive? As long as it follows their code of conduct with good intention. After all a paladin who steals food or medicine could be stealing from the callous rich and giving to the poor who are suffering.
However it could be retorted that by stealing or killing evil doers your breaking the law yourself. If that is true then every paladin who ever killed anything is considered a lawbreaker who just committed what can be seen as an evil act who broke the law.
Which.... ...... .... .... is also why its a fantasy-based game where killing the baddies and looting them is not only expected but also celebrated and one should not fall into the Prisoner Dilemma trap.
Ask the person at walmart.
I'm not sure about PF. In D&D 3E, the selling of poisons was unlawful. As in, against the law in most civilized areas. It's not inherently evil, though it's certainly not a good action...
Price
The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources.
Poisons are not evil, not even to a paladin. However, a paladin would consider their use dishonorable (ie, against their code to use).
Btw, medicine = poison, just in a different dose.
All that being said, a GM can make his own rules for his own world.
What he said.
MANY poisons are used to developed medicines, especially anesthesia.
Poison is a tool. It can be used in hunting, much as a bow, crossbow, or gun. Some Amazonian tribes use tree frog poison in their blow darts. So, like a bow, crossbow, or gun, it all comes down to how it is used. Yet, of all these, only poison has the possibility to benefit the "victim" (as a medicine), so by that standard, it would be LESS evil than a bow, crossbow, or gun.
Contrast these items with a sword, which basically has only 1 purpose...
Poison is also a weapon, certainly. But depending on the type of poison, it can be seen a more humane way to kill someone. That's why some states in the US use lethal injection when carrying out the death penalty. Socrates was sentenced to death by poison, and carried out the sentence himself.
That said, modern armies are prohibited from using poison munitions by the Geneiva Convention... Even though many, including the USA, keep stockpiles of them.
Since you are looking for advice, I'll give mine. I would rule poison as a "grey area", much like necromancy. Not exactly evil, but certainly frowned upon. Many historical cultures viewed killing by poison as cowardly, because it could deny your opponent the chance to retaliate. Interestingly, denying your opponent a chance to retaliate could be seen as good tactics in military campaigns. I guess that's national honor vs. personal honor.
I'll close by saying that there are many types of poison, and some of them are painless. So it depends on the type of poison, and how it is used.
Selling poisons even using them is not an evil act. Just the same as using your sword. Some cultures may look down on, make them illegal or the honorable may deem them dishonorable but no it is the intent behind the use that is evil. If you use a lethal poison to commit a murder in cold blood because the act itself is already evil. Some use poisons as an equalizer to someone's skill or might for their survival or to subdue an enemy you don't want to kill or even in defense. Question should be are they illegal and the paladin I upholding the law. If they aren't then they don't have any ground to stand on other than the paladin thinks them dishonorable.
I pretty much mirror this. Poison is just a tool, like a hammer or a sword. Inherently, there's no alignment attachment to it; all that matters is how you use it.
Also, it doesn't matter if Mr. Paladin frowns on it. Just 'cause he's got the high-falutin' title doesn't give him any authority over the rest of the party. If he can't live with it, he can take a hike - he has no right or business forcing his ways on the rest of the party.
its as simple as weather or not you are playing lawful stupid or lawful good. just because something is traditionally unsavory in the eyes of a LG character such as your paladin, doesn't mean its evil. for example: if your paladin is playing with a rogue friend and said rogue needs to pick a lock to get into some place the party needs to be, the paladin shouldnt pick him up and take him to the local jailor. that would be playing lawful stupid. just because you sell poison doesn't make you evil, it just means you have a good idea of how to make a profit. actually using the poison might be considered evil, but selling it is just good money management.
however! this does not mean that the paladin in the original post is playing lawful stupid. he voiced his opinion (which is 100% accurate to how a paladin should look at that situation) and the rest of the party CHOSE to take his advice. sounds too me like there was an unrolled deplomacy check in there somewhere that the paladin clearly rolled a natural 20 on....
|
It depends.
What kind of poison is it?
Who are they selling it to?
What reasonable conclusions can they make about how that poison will be utilized?
Selling poison that causes an agonizing death to people likely to use it on innocents is worlds apart from selling poison that numbs and disables to trustworthy folks that would use it to nonlethally subdue hostiles or to make painkilling medicines.
Assuming OP actually meant Giant Centipedes and not giant Caterpillars (which I can't find any references to via a quick search on PFSRD/PRD), it should be noted that the poison in question does dexerity damage. So for what it's worth the poison is paralytic, not lethal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jeven, it is not the poison that is dishonorable, it is the paladins take on the use of poisons that makes them dishonorable to use.
Thus protecting the children from their high level adventurer father so that you didn't have to try(and fail) to take him on in a fair fight and make things worse for his children when you lost. Thankfully you performed that good act.
again, a high level adventurer is likely to have a good enough fort save that poison will be an inneffective weapon against him. Even if not (say, sorcerer class) probably smart enough to realize their stats are going down and able to afford a casting of Neuteralize Poison "just in case".
poison is most effective against low level npcs, which even another low level npc could pottentially take on in a fair fight, they just don't. Hence poison use is typically pretty underhanded.
|
Well.. awp832, your mostly correct...
Take 10 doses of poison, shove it in his goblet of wine (darn drunkards), and now he has a +18 to the DC to resist the poison (see the FAQ on poison AND deadly concoction, the master rogue talent).
So WHATEVER you guys do, don't drink a whole goblet full of fluid no matter how good it tastes. :P
yeah, but he's only gonna take the damage once. A neuteralize poison and a lesser restoration later you're back to where you started. I bet Mr. Target spent less gold than you did too.
|
|
Eh... Neutralize poison can still fail, and with a DC of 30ish, you'd have to get a nat 20 at level 10 (not including stat adjustment). Not to mention how much and how deadly the poison the housewife uses depends directly on the adventurer. He left his awesome sword at home that she sells to raise the money (1k gold is about right to get 10 doses of poison, imagine what a 4k or 5k piece of "I'm leaving it here until I can sell it" item would get her). He'll take the stat damage once per frequency.
Add in a couple doses of knockout poison and say "good night dear!"
After that, sell the rest of his gear and your walking away with a happier family, and a brighter, wealthier future O.o.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or she could just buy a knife and coup de gras him in his sleep?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that nobody buys a sword for deer hunting, but poison is evil because of its offensive and premeditated nature. Nobody is "defending themselves" with poison. If you use poison on a person, your intent is to kill them in cold blood, without giving them a chance to put up a fight or even to surrender.
By that logic, Quivering Palm is just as evil. You must declare your intent to use Quivering Palm before the attack roll: it's premeditated. It causes death and is conveyed via an attack roll: it's offensive. All the person has to defend themselves from a instant kill is having a high enough AC to not get hit (no more of less than what the target of the poisoned weapon had) and succeeding on a saving throw (just like what the target of the poison gets).
If a person has no more a chance to put up a fight or surrender versus poison or a quivering palm, then why would a 15th level LG Monk ever use it?
Poison is a tool. Snakes have poison. Unintelligent spiders have poison. They are animals/vermin, and therefore nonevil. Can the use of poison be evil? Why, yes. So can the use of all the little household items Jigsaw used for his tests (syringes, rusty nails, keys, broken pieces of glass, etc).
fordo: she can spend a few extra gold and get a greataxe or scythe then.
tectorman: you don't understand what premeditated means. deciding to do something literally ~3 seconds before you do it does not count as being premeditated.
I realize that nobody buys a sword for deer hunting, but poison is evil because of its offensive and premeditated nature. Nobody is "defending themselves" with poison. If you use poison on a person, your intent is to kill them in cold blood, without giving them a chance to put up a fight or even to surrender.
Unless you use the poison after you've already been attacked, in which case, it is obviously self-defense. Or if you choose to use a non-lethal poison.
well yes, as I said before, if the intent isn't to kill intelligent beings (non-lethal poison) then not evil.
It's mostly the *poison* sort of poisons that trigger the evil alarm in my book. Things with say, an ingested trigger. Contact poisons don't make a whole lot of sense, as the poison would quickly lose its potency when exposed to air, but whatever, I don't make the rules. Contact poisons are more akin to acid or something than they are to what we typically think of as poison.
It's a game. In the game, poison is evil. You can rationalize it this way or that but the use of poison (as poison, not medicine or weed-killer) is evil. Having said that, I wouldn't make it an alignment issue any more than I would for lying or stealing. I would have a Paladin fall for willfully using poison (as that's in the book), I would frown on a Paladin selling poison, and I would expect him to look down on those using or selling it but otherwise wouldn't care.
It's a game. In the game, poison is evil. You can rationalize it this way or that but the use of poison (as poison, not medicine or weed-killer) is evil. Having said that, I wouldn't make it an alignment issue any more than I would for lying or stealing. I would have a Paladin fall for willfully using poison (as that's in the book), I would frown on a Paladin selling poison, and I would expect him to look down on those using or selling it but otherwise wouldn't care.
and where in the rulebooks does it say that poison itself is evil? for that matter, asside from the paladin section, where does it say USING any kind of poison is evil? it doesn't. its a tool used by evil ppl. that doesn't mean the substance its self is evil or that anyone who posesses it is evil.
It's a game. In the game, poison is evil. You can rationalize it this way or that but the use of poison (as poison, not medicine or weed-killer) is evil. Having said that, I wouldn't make it an alignment issue any more than I would for lying or stealing. I would have a Paladin fall for willfully using poison (as that's in the book), I would frown on a Paladin selling poison, and I would expect him to look down on those using or selling it but otherwise wouldn't care.
It's all about perception. It's not evil for Scorpions to use poison from their stingers or Snakes from their fangs; it's a natural resource that has a harmful effect against those who threaten territory or offspring.
Sometimes they can be used for things outside their most common effect; primarily, producing an antidote for others who may have been unfortunately poisoned ,something the Paladin could have thought of, instead of wasting useful, valuable natural resources because the people whom he is partied with decide to use things that can be good to instead be implemented in negative ways.
Honestly, I don't blame the Paladin for shunning them against poison use; any Paladin promoting poisons is not really a Paladin, but at the same time he could've been more suggestive and/or smarter about the situation to turn something he views as bad into something good and useful to his ambitions, without violating his code.
Poison is in nature. Poison the spell not only is not listed as evil, druids get it a spell level lower. And yet only 1 out of 5 possible druid alignments is even evil.
I could also bring up that literally, by the rules, Alcohol is a type of poison (dwarves get their poison save bonus against it; between that and their high Con is *why* they can drink such strong liquor). So is possessing and using alcohol evil?
Poison is in nature. Poison the spell not only is not listed as evil, druids get it a spell level lower. And yet only 1 out of 5 possible druid alignments is even evil.
I could also bring up that literally, by the rules, Alcohol is a type of poison (dwarves get their poison save bonus against it; between that and their high Con is *why* they can drink such strong liquor). So is possessing and using alcohol evil?
** spoiler omitted **
Nature is generally considered neutral, or lacking morality. To answer a question from another post I would say a scorpion was unintelligent and unable to perform good or evil acts. With the snake I am actually tempted to say yes, it is evil (but wouldn't change the snake's alignment for it.) The spell Poison is a spell, not a poison. It imitates poison but is not poison in itself. (At least I'm pretty sure on that. Does Neutralize Poison stop the Poison spell?) Alcohol is a poison and if you use it to poison someone that would be evil, but that's not how we use alcohol. No, a Paladin wouldn't fall for drinking or buying a round with his friends.
Look, the game can be simple or it can be complicated. I prefer to keep it simple. Poison is evil. Using poison is evil. If I use poison to kill this guy, is it evil? Yes. If I use poison to kill these wrinkles, is it evil? No. You shouldn't have to be told everything.
It's a game. In the game, poison is evil. You can rationalize it this way or that but the use of poison (as poison, not medicine or weed-killer) is evil. Having said that, I wouldn't make it an alignment issue any more than I would for lying or stealing. I would have a Paladin fall for willfully using poison (as that's in the book), I would frown on a Paladin selling poison, and I would expect him to look down on those using or selling it but otherwise wouldn't care.and where in the rulebooks does it say that poison itself is evil? for that matter, asside from the paladin section, where does it say USING any kind of poison is evil? it doesn't. its a tool used by evil ppl. that doesn't mean the substance its self is evil or that anyone who posesses it is evil.
Page 166
Good versus EvilGood implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Which one better describes poison?
Where does it say poison is evil? Using poison to kill someone is no more evil that killing them with a weapon, but a paladin is allowed to do that... the tool used is irrelevant. If a paladin were to apply poison to a sword and use that to kill the big bad evil dude, the effect would be the same as if he hadnt used poison. The only time poisoning someone is evil is when they don't need to die. In which case killing then by any means is evil.
It's a game. In the game, poison is evil. You can rationalize it this way or that but the use of poison (as poison, not medicine or weed-killer) is evil. Having said that, I wouldn't make it an alignment issue any more than I would for lying or stealing. I would have a Paladin fall for willfully using poison (as that's in the book), I would frown on a Paladin selling poison, and I would expect him to look down on those using or selling it but otherwise wouldn't care.and where in the rulebooks does it say that poison itself is evil? for that matter, asside from the paladin section, where does it say USING any kind of poison is evil? it doesn't. its a tool used by evil ppl. that doesn't mean the substance its self is evil or that anyone who posesses it is evil.
Also,
Page 557
Poison
From the fangs of a viper to the ichor-stained assassin's blade, poison is a constant threat.
Now clearly that is flavor text. What kind of flavor does it seem to give poison?
It's a game. In the game, poison is evil. You can rationalize it this way or that but the use of poison (as poison, not medicine or weed-killer) is evil. Having said that, I wouldn't make it an alignment issue any more than I would for lying or stealing. I would have a Paladin fall for willfully using poison (as that's in the book), I would frown on a Paladin selling poison, and I would expect him to look down on those using or selling it but otherwise wouldn't care.and where in the rulebooks does it say that poison itself is evil? for that matter, asside from the paladin section, where does it say USING any kind of poison is evil? it doesn't. its a tool used by evil ppl. that doesn't mean the substance its self is evil or that anyone who posesses it is evil.Page 166
Good versus Evil
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Which one better describes poison?
And by that reasoning every time a paladin kills a bad guy in a fight instead of letting them go he's committing an evil act and should fall. This all goes back to playing lawful stupid. Stop using that logic. He's lawful good. Not a saint
Where does it say poison is evil? Using poison to kill someone is no more evil that killing them with a weapon, but a paladin is allowed to do that... the tool used is irrelevant. If a paladin were to apply poison to a sword and use that to kill the big bad evil dude, the effect would be the same as if he hadnt used poison. The only time poisoning someone is evil is when they don't need to die. In which case killing then by any means is evil.
Where does it say the words, "poison is evil?" Nowhere that I have found. Does every single thing that can possibly happen have to be spelled out so specifically in your game?
Where does it say poison is evil? Using poison to kill someone is no more evil that killing them with a weapon, but a paladin is allowed to do that... the tool used is irrelevant. If a paladin were to apply poison to a sword and use that to kill the big bad evil dude, the effect would be the same as if he hadnt used poison. The only time poisoning someone is evil is when they don't need to die. In which case killing then by any means is evil.Where does it say the words, "poison is evil?" Nowhere that I have found. Does every single thing that can possibly happen have to be spelled out so specifically in your game?
That's the point, just because an object has the potential to kill doesn't mean its evil. A chair can kill you if I use it to kill you. The chair isn't evil, I am. The poison I fed you isn't evil, I am.
Neither, poison is a tool, not a sentient being or action, it has no alignment.Page 166
Good versus Evil
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Which one better describes poison?
And if that's the way you rule that is fine. I wasn't trying to imply poison was a sentient evil creature that will go to hell when it dies. If it's easier, the use of poison is evil and you could say whatever you like about someone merely possessing an item that only has an evil use. I would consider that evil. (Unless, of course he was taking it somewhere to be disposed of or destroyed, etc.) This is just getting into nit-picking at this point.
That's the point, just because an object has the potential to kill doesn't mean its evil. A chair can kill you if I use it to kill you. The chair isn't evil, I am. The poison I fed you isn't evil, I am.Where does it say poison is evil? Using poison to kill someone is no more evil that killing them with a weapon, but a paladin is allowed to do that... the tool used is irrelevant. If a paladin were to apply poison to a sword and use that to kill the big bad evil dude, the effect would be the same as if he hadnt used poison. The only time poisoning someone is evil is when they don't need to die. In which case killing then by any means is evil.Where does it say the words, "poison is evil?" Nowhere that I have found. Does every single thing that can possibly happen have to be spelled out so specifically in your game?
If there is no difference between a chair and poison, then I don't know what to tell you.
Now were back to square one. Possessing poison is evil only if you intend to use it to kill, OK. But selling a tool used to kill isn't evil if you sent the one doing the killing. Blacksmiths arnt evil. They sell all manner of things used to kill. Its no different. You can argue that swords can be used to decent. That's a noble thought, sure. And of course buying/selling for that purpose is not evil. But if taken to the right ppl to sell, poison can save lives as well as kill. It can be used to make antidotes or as an anesthetic for surgery. WHO you sell two determines weather or not selling it is evil, not just simply selling it.
If there is no difference between a chair and poison, then I don't know what to tell you.That's the point, just because an object has the potential to kill doesn't mean its evil. A chair can kill you if I use it to kill you. The chair isn't evil, I am. The poison I fed you isn't evil, I am.Where does it say poison is evil? Using poison to kill someone is no more evil that killing them with a weapon, but a paladin is allowed to do that... the tool used is irrelevant. If a paladin were to apply poison to a sword and use that to kill the big bad evil dude, the effect would be the same as if he hadnt used poison. The only time poisoning someone is evil is when they don't need to die. In which case killing then by any means is evil.Where does it say the words, "poison is evil?" Nowhere that I have found. Does every single thing that can possibly happen have to be spelled out so specifically in your game?
The issue you're both coming across is that we're arguing alignment v.s. objects.
Objects by themselves aren't evil. They aren't even sentient enough to understand such concepts. Alignment is derived from the soul and its intentions (because your everyday weapon doesn't have any sort of intent). Harmful and evil aren't the same thing. By your logic, a pit of spikes covering an entrance is evil, a moat full of crocs is evil, and a toothy mouth to attack and eat prey is evil because it kills things for its own gain.
The intent is what's important, not the object and its seemingly negative uses; poisoning people for malicious purposes is evil. Using poison for survival isn't, because if the opposing side was given the opportunity to use poison, they'd do whatever it takes to live, whether to fend off predators/intruders, or to save those affected by predators/intruders and their poison.