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.
Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?
Ok Durngrun, so killing rats with ratpoison is evil?
- Gauss
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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?
So; scorpions, snakes, insects, and many other creatures are evil because they use poison?
Seems legit. I bet Smite Evil works on them too.
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.
Defending yourself (or others) isn't evil. Using poison to defend yourself (or others) is using evil to defend yourself. You can make an argument that the "evil" of poison is negated by your "right" to defend yourself (and clearly many would agree) but by the rules of the book (yes, by my interpretation), poison, that is to say using poison as poison, is evil.
Ok Durngrun, so killing rats with ratpoison is evil?
- Gauss
By the rules of Pathfinder, yes. If this greatly affects you're game then you are having very different adventures when you play then I have when I play.
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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?
thats my whole damned point!!! if you sell the poison the GOOD people, who arnt going to use it to kill others, then selling the poison isn't evil!!!! the party from the original post could have taken that poison to a monistary or church or anywhere like that and sold it there for good use and still made a profit and commited no evil act. this was my whole damned point from square one!
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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?So; scorpions, snakes, insects, and many other creatures are evil because they use poison?
Seems legit. I bet Smite Evil works on them too.
Already covered that.
By the rules of Pathfinder, yes. If this greatly affects you're game then you are having very different adventures when you play then I have when I play.Ok Durngrun, so killing rats with ratpoison is evil?
- Gauss
What rules? Where does it actually say using poison is evil? I pulled a quote saying it is UNLAWFUL. Lawful and good are completely different things, just ask any chaotic good person.
thats my whole damned point!!! if you sell the poison the GOOD people, who arnt going to use it to kill others, then selling the poison isn't evil!!!! the party from the original post could have taken that poison to a monistary or church or anywhere like that and sold it there for good use and still made a profit and commited no evil act. this was my whole damned point from square one!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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?
Was that the intent of the party? Did the Paladin object to the party's plan to bring back some weed-killer/medicine? This is all my fault, then. I thought we were talking about the commonly accepted notion of poison in the game of Pathfinder. My apologies.
That's the whole argument. Selling poison isn't evil. Who and why you sell it to and for IS. If the party had made my argument to the paladin, he might have changed his mind.
What rules? Where does it actually say using poison is evil? I pulled a quote saying it is UNLAWFUL. Lawful and good are completely different things, just ask any chaotic good person.By the rules of Pathfinder, yes. If this greatly affects you're game then you are having very different adventures when you play then I have when I play.Ok Durngrun, so killing rats with ratpoison is evil?
- Gauss
Already covered that.
Look, everybody can calm down. I was answering the OP using my reading of the rules. My interpretation has no official weight. I am not a Dev, this will not affect PFS. If you play it differently (and are not looking to change that), then simply ignore me.
That's the whole argument. Selling poison isn't evil. Who and why you sell it to and for IS. If the party had made my argument to the paladin, he might have changed his mind.
If that was there intent I would say it was not evil because it is not really poison anymore (in the sense the game uses the term poison). If they are lying to convince him to sell poison, then it's still evil.
Defending yourself (or others) isn't evil. Using poison to defend yourself (or others) is using evil to defend yourself. You can make an argument that the "evil" of poison is negated by your "right" to defend yourself (and clearly many would agree) but by the rules of the book (yes, by my interpretation), poison, that is to say using poison as poison, is evil.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. By the rules of Pathfinder, you can have a true neutral, or neutral good, or even lawful good necromancer wipe out a small pack of marauding goblins with Circle of Death without committing an evil act. Yes, magic that attacks sapient being's souls ISN'T, by default, evil. To argue that poison is evil when the very act of sucking an intelligent creature's spirit out of it's corporeal form is not makes no sense at all.
Furthermore, there's all sorts of poisons that don't attack the victims Constitution score and, therefore, will not kill the victim. Take a look at medium spider venom of giant wasp poison, those do Strength and Dexterity damage, respectively. Heck, some poisons don't even do ability damage at all. For example, Drow poison. Now, maybe some beings use that poison for evil acts, but that doesn't make the poison any more evil than the swords they carry.Speaking of which, the idea that poison is evil because it exists only to harm others is ridiculous because you're applying a double standard between that and weapons. Oh, it's fine when you sell a dagger, which has no other purpose than killing someone, but somehow doing the same with a concentrated toxin that robs a victim of their coordination and reflexes is a malign act? The logic there doesn't track at all.
Solution: sell the poisons to a good-aligned alchemist if you're so worried. Any moderately creative GM should be able to come up with an explanation as to how the poisons can be implemented for medicinal purposes.
MAybe Durngrun got a look at SKR's list of secret rules the ordinary players allowed to know? Because poison being evil certainly isn't anywhere in the RAW.
Dagger is a bad example; a knife or dagger can be used to whittle things; gut a fish; cut up a salad; open letters... It has non-killing uses.
A sword is usually the best example of a single purpose weapon. It's used pretty much exclusively for killing other people, it has no real mundane alternate uses.
Dagger is a bad example; a knife or dagger can be used to whittle things; gut a fish; cut up a salad; open letters... It has non-killing uses.
A sword is usually the best example of a single purpose weapon. It's used pretty much exclusively for killing other people, it has no real mundane alternate uses.
Didn't daggers and knives used to be separate things precisely because knives were utilitarian and daggers were for killing only? I could've sworn that was a thing back in 3.5, with knives being slashing typed and doing 1d3 damage instead of 1d4.
By the rules of Pathfinder, yes. If this greatly affects you're game then you are having very different adventures when you play then I have when I play.Ok Durngrun, so killing rats with ratpoison is evil?
- Gauss
Actually, by the rules of Pathfinder, no. There is nothing in the rules of Pathfinder that says it is. You have yet to provide ANY rules quote that says the use of poison is evil. Even the spell Poison is not evil.
- Gauss
Defending yourself (or others) isn't evil. Using poison to defend yourself (or others) is using evil to defend yourself. You can make an argument that the "evil" of poison is negated by your "right" to defend yourself (and clearly many would agree) but by the rules of the book (yes, by my interpretation), poison, that is to say using poison as poison, is evil.I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. By the rules of Pathfinder, you can have a true neutral, or neutral good, or even lawful good necromancer wipe out a small pack of marauding goblins with Circle of Death without committing an evil act. Yes, magic that attack sapient being's souls ISN'T, by default, evil. To argue that poison is evil when the very act of sucking an intelligent creature's spirit out of it's corporeal form make no sense at all.
Furthermore, there's all sorts of poisons that not only don't attack the victims Constitution score. Take a look at medium spider venom of giant wasp poison, those do Strength and Dexterity damage, respectively. Heck, some poisons don't even do ability damage at all. For example, Drow poison. Now, maybe some beings use that poison for evil acts, but that doesn't make the poison any more evil than the swords they carry.Speaking of which, the idea that poison is evil because it exists only to harm others is ridiculous because you're applying a double standard between that and weapons. Oh, it's fine when you sell a dagger, which has no other purpose than killing someone, but somehow the concentrated toxin that robs a victim of their coordination and reflexes is a malign act? The logic there doesn't track at all.
Well, this is getting into different territory. A lawful good necromancer would have a hard time of it as Animate Dead clearly is an evil spell. (And yes, when I think necromancer I think undead. I do realize you could specialize in Necromancy magic without Evil spells). I would consider casting Circle of Death evil. It doesn't have to have the Evil description to be an evil act. In my games, it would be an evil act (as are all Death spells, again in my game). I would argue the flavor clearly fits as evil within the rules of the game.
So what you are saying Durngrun, is that you are taking your personal house rules and bringing them into a RULES FORUM discussion and claiming they are rules?
Circle of Death is not inherently evil. It is a Death spell but it does not have the Evil descriptor. Therefore, it is not evil. What you use it for may or may not be Evil but just using it does not automatically make it evil.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are ALWAYS evil regardless of use. Poison, Circle of Death, and many other Necromancy spells without the Evil descriptor require INTENT to become evil. Use Circle of Death in a major battle against evil bad guys? Not Evil. Use it against a peaceful village? Evil.
- Gauss
By the rules of Pathfinder, yes. If this greatly affects you're game then you are having very different adventures when you play then I have when I play.Ok Durngrun, so killing rats with ratpoison is evil?
- Gauss
Actually, by the rules of Pathfinder, no. There is nothing in the rules of Pathfinder that says it is. You have yet to provide ANY rules quote that says the use of poison is evil. Even the spell Poison is not evil.
- Gauss
I quoted the pages and rules that I think would classify poison as evil. Poison, when used as poison, is only used to harm. Not protect, not defend, only "hurt, oppress, or kill others." If you disagree, that is fine. When I started posting in this thread I thought the purpose was to say what my interpretation was of the use, possession, and selling of poison. I gave my interpretation (of what I believe the rules to say). When asked to explain my beliefs further, I have tried to explain. I'm not really interested in how every one else can justify poison use. It does not affect my interpretation of the rules of the game.
Well, this is getting into different territory. A lawful good necromancer would have a hard time of it as Animate Dead clearly is an evil spell. (And yes, when I think necromancer I think undead. I do realize you could specialize in Necromancy magic without Evil spells). I would consider casting Circle of Death evil. It doesn't have to have the Evil description to be an evil act. In my games, it would be an evil act (as are all Death spells, again in my game). I would argue the flavor clearly fits as evil within the rules of the game.
Actually, it's not different territory at all. Magic, weapons, poison, trickery, it's not how you kill something that makes it good or evil, it's why you do it. The only reason Animate Dead is universally evil is because it has the [evil] descriptor. Circle of Death, on the other hand doesn't. And it's for precisely that reason that if those marauding goblins I mentioned were about to light on fire and/or eat an entire wagon full of innocent babies, the guy who killed them with necromancy is a hero doing a good act. That's really the long and short of it.
Besides, it's not like Circle of Death is necessarily an incredibly cruel and painful way to kill something. There are plenty of spells that let you light an enemy on fire so that they can feel the last moments of their miserable lives in agony. How are those not evil when something that snuffs out life in an instant without pain or injury supposedly is?
So what you are saying Durngrun, is that you are taking your personal house rules and bringing them into a RULES FORUM discussion and claiming they are rules?
Circle of Death is not inherently evil. It is a Death spell but it does not have the Evil descriptor. Therefore, it is not evil. What you use it for may or may not be Evil but just using it does not automatically make it evil.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are ALWAYS evil regardless of use. Poison, Circle of Death, and many other Necromancy spells without the Evil descriptor require INTENT to become evil. Use Circle of Death in a major battle against evil bad guys? Not Evil. Use it against a peaceful village? Evil.
- Gauss
I can only speak to rules as I see them. I may be incorrect, I've never claimed to be an authority. Based on the way I read the rules, poison is evil. I believe this to be both RAW and RAI. I may be wrong on both, one of them, or neither. If it is explicit in the book that poison (by which I mean using poison as poison) is good, evil, or, neutral; then show me that explicit rule. If that is lacking, then I can only offer my interpretation. If this violates Rules Forum Protocol, then I am in the wrong and I apologize.
So, ANY combat is evil? Because by your definition any combat qualifies as hurting or killing. I guess that Lawful Good Paladin should never raise a weapon because if he hurts anyone or kills anyone he is committing an evil act. Sure does make being a Paladin difficult. Heck, how can any warrior be Good?
Funny part? Many poisons don't do ANY of those things. Strength and Dexterity poisons cannot kill. Heck, they don't even cause Hitpoint damage so it can be said they don't hurt.
What about knockout poisons? They dont hurt and surely don't kill.
The problem you have is that you are using a general guideline as an absolute rule. It isn't. You have stated that Poisons are Evil, period. But, you are using motivation qualifiers to do that. How can you use something that is based on the motivation of the person acting to state that all actions using poison must be evil?
- Gauss
And it's for precisely that reason that if those marauding goblins I mentioned were about to light on fire and/or eat an entire wagon full of innocent babies, the guy who killed them with necromancy is a hero doing a good act. That's really the long and short of it.
I would rule he used an evil method to accomplish a good goal.
So, ANY combat is evil? Because by your definition any combat qualifies as hurting or killing. I guess that Lawful Good Paladin should never raise a weapon because if he hurts anyone or kills anyone he is committing an evil act. Sure does make being a Paladin difficult. Heck, how can any warrior be Good?
Funny part? Many poisons don't do ANY of those things. Strength and Dexterity poisons cannot kill. Heck, they don't even cause Hitpoint damage so it can be said they don't hurt.
What about knockout poisons? They dont hurt and surely don't kill.
- Gauss
Again, you can make it simple or complicated. I prefer simple. Poison is evil, combat is not, using poison in combat is evil. If I'm wrong, show me the rule that says poison is good (or neutral, or simply not evil). If you disagree with my interpretation of the rules, then don't use it.
So why is combat not evil? You said that hurting and killing is evil. There must be some qualifier you are not stating that makes one form of killing ok but a different form of killing not ok. Or for that matter, how do you declare killing via a sword is not evil but using a knockout poison is evil?
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it's for precisely that reason that if those marauding goblins I mentioned were about to light on fire and/or eat an entire wagon full of innocent babies, the guy who killed them with necromancy is a hero doing a good act. That's really the long and short of it.I would rule he used an evil method to accomplish a good goal.
I can see this is an uphill battle I'm not going to win, so I'll just leave you with a few thoughts.
First off, no one here is claiming you can't have your interpretation of the rules, that's fine. However, you came onto the rules forum and offered a rationale for how you felt. Others offered an arguably better set of reasons against yours. It happens, don't take it personally.Also, if you're going to argue why a certain type of act is evil, regardless of any descriptors it has, there needs to be a really good reason for it. Good and evil are not just ideas in Pathfinder, they tangible, powerful, and, perhaps most importantly, active forces in Golarion and others worlds of the Paizo-verse. When a Holy Smite is dropped by a cleric, there is a channeling of righteous wrath mixed with benevolent protectiveness that evokes the very power and ideals of the cleric's good aligned god itself. Slapping down a judgement about good or evil should not be taken lightly since, bit by bit, partaking in evil acts can have a very real impact on a characters alignment. Letting the evoker that roasts his enemies alive off the hook while the instant-death necromancer gets punished by the gods is a discrepancy that's going to raise eyebrows. Same thing with the rogue who uses poisons to finish a fight faster so his friends don't get hurt versus the fighter who wades into battle attempting to kill anything he comes across with brutal force.
Lastly, take a look at this. It came out from the recent supplement Champions of Purity, which is all about being good-aligned: Celestial Poisons. As you can see, the intent here is clearly to give good-aligned characters a way to poison evil things (yes, even living ones) that are normally immune to it. Now, why would Paizo create something like that if they thought that use of poison should always be an evil act? Just saying, it's their game you're playing, so you might not want to deviate too much with your house-rules from the fundamentals they're set down about this kind of thing.
I can see this is an uphill battle I'm not going to win, so I'll just leave you with a few thoughts.And it's for precisely that reason that if those marauding goblins I mentioned were about to light on fire and/or eat an entire wagon full of innocent babies, the guy who killed them with necromancy is a hero doing a good act. That's really the long and short of it.I would rule he used an evil method to accomplish a good goal.
I didn't realize this was a contest. I was merely offering my interpretation of the rules.
First off, no one here is claiming you can't have your interpretation of the rules, that's fine. However, you came onto the rules forum and offered a rationale for how you felt. Others offered an arguably better set of reasons against yours. It happens, don't take it personally.
I have not.
Also, if you're going to argue why a certain type of act is evil, regardless of any descriptors it has, there needs to be a really good reason for it.
I wasn't trying to argue. I offered my opinion and cited the rules that helped me form my opinion.
Good and evil are not just ideas in Pathfinder, they tangible, powerful, and, perhaps most importantly, active forces in Golarion and others worlds of the Paizo-verse. When a Holy Smite is dropped by a cleric, there is a channeling of righteous wrath mixed with benevolent protectiveness that evokes the very power and ideals of the cleric's good aligned god itself. Slapping down a judgement about good or evil should not be taken lightly since, bit by bit, partaking in evil acts can have a very real impact on a characters alignment. Letting the evoker that roasts his enemies alive off the hook while the instant-death necromancer gets punished by the gods is a discrepancy that's going to raise eyebrows. Same thing with the rogue who uses poisons to finish a fight faster so his friends don't get hurt versus the fighter who wades into battle attempting to kill anything he comes across with brutal force.
Agreed, which is why I said I would not change someone's alignment for using poison. Using poison is evil, commiting an evil act does not give you an evil alignment. Good alignment does not mean you can only do good things all the time.
Lastly, take a look at this. It came out from the recent supplement Champions of Purity, which is all about being good-aligned:...
Now, at the time of posting this I have not read the link you provided. If it is as you claim (and I have no reason to doubt you) then that would certainly speak to whether poison is evil or not and would be a much better argument than poison being the same as a chair. However, that is a supplement to the core rules and therefore be an exception and not the rule. I'll check it out.
Okay, read the link. That has nothing to do with making poison "good." It merely allows you to affect creatures that normally would be immune.
Okay, read the link. That has nothing to do with making poison "good." It merely allows you to affect creatures that normally would be immune.
Really? CELESTIAL poisons doesn't sound like it's at all something infused with goodness? You are aware that celestial power would mean taking the essence of part of the good-aligned outer planes and putting it directly into the substance? The good aligned outer planes in this case being made up, literally, of the passed on souls of countless billions of good-aligned mortals and outsiders. You think Heaven would let you take the essence of their lost generals and saints from thousands of worlds and use it in a toxin against devils from Hell or nightshades from the Void if it weren't, at the very least, a non-evil act?
Damn man, I really don't know what to say to that. Have fun explaining that to your players.
Already covered that.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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?So; scorpions, snakes, insects, and many other creatures are evil because they use poison?
Seems legit. I bet Smite Evil works on them too.
No you didn't. Let's expand upon your example further to see how your "rules" aren't the book's rules.
If using poison is evil, then creatures who naturally have poison and use it as means of survival should have an Evil-Based alignment.
If these creatures have an Evil-Based alignment, effects such as PFE and Smite Evil should work against said creatures.
So, if I (miraculously, based upon your rules) applied a PFE spell or Smite Evil, it would work on scorpions, snakes, and other poison-prevalent creatures simply because they use poison, yes? They should, since they use poison, and poison is evil, according to your rules.
But what's this? I look at the Beastiary page 43 and I see a centipede creature that uses poison, but it doesn't have an Evil-based alignment! Perhaps it's just Paizo forgetting a typo. Let's find another creature. Ah, the scorpion on page 242, surely THAT freaky looking thing is Evil. No? Just neutral? But it uses poisons, it has to be Evil! Surely Paizo isn't silly enough to mess up twice in a row...are they?
No, they aren't at all, and those examples are clear as day: you're just making a ridiculous assumption based upon the commercial and common use of poison (which has other, more helpful uses), and professing it as the official ruling of Paizo when you have no proof or basis other than your own experience. No RAW, no FAQ/Errata, just "Poison is evil, dudes!"
If I could get away with stuff like that, I'd have level 1 characters start off with Holy Avengers. But I don't because 1. I know better than to break the basis and fun of the game, and 2. The rules have no means to support such garbage. Now if this doesn't change your mind on anything, I'll wait for the Dev Team to paraphrase exactly what I said.
Edit - This might come across as undermining or rude, but that is not my intent of this post. It is frustrating when an answer is unknown, yet lies right in front of your face, whether the answer is for me or anyone else: I apologize for any wrong intent I may have expressed, though my conviction for the question still remains unchanged.
Okay, read the link. That has nothing to do with making poison "good." It merely allows you to affect creatures that normally would be immune.Really? CELESTIAL poisons doesn't sound like it's at all something infused with goodness? You are aware that celestial power would mean taking the essence of part of the good-aligned outer planes and putting it directly into the substance? The good aligned outer planes in this case being made up, literally, of the passed on souls of countless billions of good-aligned mortals and outsiders. You think Heaven would let you take the essence of their lost generals and saints from thousands of worlds and use it in a toxin against devils from Hell or nightshades from the Void if it weren't, at the very least, a non-evil act?
Damn man, I really don't know what to say to that. Have fun explaining that to your players.
I don't have to explain anything to my players as they don't have Champions of Purity. You say Celestial makes it good, I say Celestial makes the poison able to affect creatures not normally affected by poison (undead and evil outsiders) because that's what the link, that you provided, said. It did not say those poisons were good or that those poisons were an exception. Lacking that, I revert to my ruling that poisons are evil. I understand you disagree. Frankly I don't care. I don't mean to be offensive, I'm simply not interested. I did not come to this thread to clarify my understanding or to convince you (or anyone) of my opinion. The OP asked a question regarding poison. I answered to the best of my ability. If you can show me in the rules that I am wrong then please do. I always enjoy learning. If you wish to convince me of your opinion, please don't bother. I did not start this thread. I did not ask how others run it in their games. I am simply adding my viewpoint to the discussion.
My question is do all good characters believe poison use is evil?
Poisons have tons of uses. Not all of them are combat related. Some are medicinal (antivenom), some are agricultural (herbicides), some are defensive (animal traps). Like EVERYTHING selling Poison can be almost any sort of act. Usually the setting will assign a social view of wether is it commonly believe using poison is frowned upon/considered bad or not in that world.
Sell poison to a reputable healer so they can make antivenom or some sort of alchemical cure or magic healing item or potion I think would definately be a good act.
Sell poison to your thieves guild or assassin contact will probably be near the evil area.
Paladins dislike poison. It is a legacy of the old ideals of chivalry where it was considered base and cowardly to use poison rather than to look a man in the face and fight him with courage and the strength of your own arm. They would rather not use such and they would prefer the people they associate with to be similar in outlook.
That said, I would think the Paladin would have asked his companions why they wanted the poison and to whom they wanted to sell it. If they gave a good enough reason and he believes and trusts them maybe he would allow them to take it and sell it to the right people. Or take it and destroy it so no one ELSE comes along and gets hurt by it or tries to use it for evil.
Very much like every action it is the factors sourrounding the action that will determine wether that action is good or evil.
A decent rule of thumb is that poison used as a tool, carefulling, to kill vermin or dangerous animals is usually not considered evil by most civilzations, fantasy or otherwise (several druidic types probably will cry exeption).
Using poison to kill sentient races is normally frowned on or considered cowardly/evil in most civilizations BUT this can vastly vary by setting, race and country.
Already covered that.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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?So; scorpions, snakes, insects, and many other creatures are evil because they use poison?
Seems legit. I bet Smite Evil works on them too.
No you didn't. Let's expand upon your example further to see how your "rules" aren't the book's rules.
If using poison is evil, then creatures who naturally have poison and use it as means of survival should have an Evil-Based alignment.
If these creatures have an Evil-Based alignment, effects such as PFE and Smite Evil should work against said creatures.
So, if I (miraculously, based upon your rules) applied a PFE spell or Smite Evil, it would work on scorpions, snakes, and other poison-prevalent creatures simply because they use poison, yes? They should, since they use poison, and poison is evil, according to your rules.
But what's this? I look at the Beastiary page 43 and I see a centipede creature that uses...
I specifically mentioned scorpions and snakes and how they would be handled. If you did not read it, I'm sorry. If the addition of insects was supposed to somehow change my answer, then I'm confused.
Durngrun, at one point you asked if you are violating convention. I can safely say, as of two posts ago you are violating the convention of the rules forum. You declared that you are not willing to defend your position. The rules forums are for hammering out the meaning of the rules. If you will not do that then why do you bother posting in them?
You didn't even respond to my question regarding why you think killing with a sword is not evil but killing with poison is.
- Gauss
...Already covered that.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.Do you want simple or complicated? Using poison, as poison, is evil. Selling someone poison, to be used as poison, is evil. If you are using poison as a weed-killer, consider it as if it were a weed-killer. If you're using poison as medicine, the consider it as if it were medicine. How explicitly does something have to be defined?So; scorpions, snakes, insects, and many other creatures are evil because they use poison?
Seems legit. I bet Smite Evil works on them too.
No you didn't. Let's expand upon your example further to see how your "rules" aren't the book's rules.
If using poison is evil, then creatures who naturally have poison and use it as means of survival should have an Evil-Based alignment.
If these creatures have an Evil-Based alignment, effects such as PFE and Smite Evil should work against said creatures.
So, if I (miraculously, based upon your rules) applied a PFE spell or Smite Evil, it would work on scorpions, snakes, and other poison-prevalent creatures simply because they use poison, yes? They should, since they use poison, and poison is evil, according to your rules.
But what's this? I look at the Beastiary page
It doesn't matter the difference between a sentient being and a simple insect. You said it yourself, poison is evil, and using poison as poison is evil, the act or creature doing the act has no meaning. It doesn't matter if it's a God reigning Black Death or if it's some annoying gnat. The example creatures I cited should be Neutral Evil at the minimum and PFE/Smite Evil should work on them, based upon your logic and rules, which you claim are the book's rules.
Considering your statement versus the book's publication format, the book's rules are different from your ruling AND superior in presentation, reasoning, and officiation. The answer is clear, cut, and dry; why you still aren't admitting you're wrong I can guess is either by pride or by foolishness: the least I can do is say it's the former because it would be rude of me to say it's the latter (but that doesn't mean it isn't).
Durngrun, at one point you asked if you are violating convention. I can safely say, as of two posts ago you are violating the convention of the rules forum. You declared that you are not willing to defend your position. The rules forums are for hammering out the meaning of the rules. If you will not do that then why do you bother posting in them?
You didn't even respond to my question regarding why you think killing with a sword is not evil but killing with poison is.
- Gauss
Very well, this will be my last post in this thread.
The OP asked about poison and I tried to answer. When asked for the basis of my position, I explained. All subsequent posts seemed more directed at telling me I was wrong rather than showing me how I was wrong. I am not interested in other people's unsolicited opinions. Again, not my thread, not my question. I was unaware the Rules Forum demanded you surrender to other's opinions. I am unsure as to how I violated protocol but I recognize I don't fully grasp the expected etiquette here.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Durngrun, I don't mean to pile on, because I get where you're coming from, but I really think this is worth discussing. To go back to your earlier post:
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 hacking people apart with a longsword?
I'm leaning toward the latter, but clearly longswords aren't evil.
So why is a longsword different from poison?
Durngrun, at one point you asked if you are violating convention. I can safely say, as of two posts ago you are violating the convention of the rules forum. You declared that you are not willing to defend your position. The rules forums are for hammering out the meaning of the rules. If you will not do that then why do you bother posting in them?
You didn't even respond to my question regarding why you think killing with a sword is not evil but killing with poison is.
- Gauss
Very well, this will be my last post in this thread.
The OP asked about poison and I tried to answer. When asked for the basis of my position, I explained. All subsequent posts seemed more directed at telling me I was wrong rather than showing me how I was wrong. I am not interested in other people's unsolicited opinions. Again, not my thread, not my question. I was unaware the Rules Forum demanded you surrender to other's opinions. I am unsure as to how I violated protocol but I recognize I don't fully grasp the expected etiquette here.
I understand how you may feel like you were "attacked," and that is not the intent that others should express. I understand I may have come across as attacking, but I apologize for that. At times it's difficult with how stubborn people get; I have gotten into such fields before, but with a much better grasp on the rules, it's not so difficult.
But I have went my way to provide a rules explanation via Paizo-published creatures to prove that poisons have no inherent evil. Whether you take that as proof and accept (or at the very least comprehend) my argument is up to you. I'm no rules expert, but if I don't convince you, then the Dev team has a snowball's chance to.
At this point, we can either use this thread as the FAQ thread, or make a separate one and move on with life; it's not like there is much left to discuss here anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.
Nowhere in the rulebook does it say poison is evil. Nor does it imply it. At all.
Last I checked, Pathfinder Society (which explicitly disallows evil characters and frowns on evil acts) has poison (and other alchemical substances) on the always available for purchase list of items.
Two classes (Ninja and Poisoner Rogue) have Poison Use. Neither have an alignment restriction.
One race (Vishkanya) has poison in its blood and saliva. It is nowhere even implied to be an evil race.
There is no rules reason for poison to be evil. There is no logical reason for poison to be evil. There is no thematic/setting specific reason for poison to be evil.
Poison is not evil.
I am not interested in other people's unsolicited opinions.
You entirely forfeited your right to not have someone comment on your opinions when you posted it on a public forum. If you do not want people's unsolicited opinions, keep yours to yourself.
Two classes (Ninja and Poisoner Rogue) have Poison Use. Neither have an alignment restriction.
Add the alchemist to that.
If the intent of the Pathfinder rules team was that poison was evil, they would have put alignment restrictions on these classes or given special ability options for non evil characters of these classes.
Again, you can make it simple or complicated. I prefer simple. Poison is evil, combat is not, using poison in combat is evil. If I'm wrong, show me the rule that says poison is good (or neutral, or simply not evil). If you disagree with my interpretation of the rules, then don't use it.So, ANY combat is evil? Because by your definition any combat qualifies as hurting or killing. I guess that Lawful Good Paladin should never raise a weapon because if he hurts anyone or kills anyone he is committing an evil act. Sure does make being a Paladin difficult. Heck, how can any warrior be Good?
Funny part? Many poisons don't do ANY of those things. Strength and Dexterity poisons cannot kill. Heck, they don't even cause Hitpoint damage so it can be said they don't hurt.
What about knockout poisons? They dont hurt and surely don't kill.
- Gauss
You're the one making the claim that poison use is evil. Burden of proof is on you.
I think it was in 3.5. The logic was that it caused unneeded suffering, but I see it as just being a tool, and I dont think that logic is repeated in Pathfinder.
I think it was in 3.5. The logic was that it caused unneeded suffering, but I see it as just being a tool, and I dont think that logic is repeated in Pathfinder.
And that logic failed horribly, as not all poisons are painful.
|
So when I go to my local hardware store and get some gopher or rat poison. The guy who is running the store is an evil guy?
Selling poisons is a neutral act at worst and maybe not lawful depending on the laws of the city/realm. I can see an LN guy who is out trying to support his family selling poisons.
Some good arguments here, but I would side with the paladin in your game. Poisons are insidious and used for nefarious purposes. They are dishonorable. No lawful society would condone their use, (except against vermin, which is another matter).
Things that are unlawful tend to be used for evil. One thing leads to another, after all.
Still, that point of view didn't stop my LN wizard from collecting a vial of centipede poison after our party's paladin helped kill it. (My wizard is a worshiper of Abadar). He may find some use for it against some big baddie, but he sure isn't going to be selling it on the open market. Nor did he ask the paladin's opinion.