So to begin i will explain the ruling that is at the heart of my concerns: Poison and the use of poison is considered evil / an act of evil. The ruling is no more AND no less than what I have just stated. All players in the group were either apathetic or opposed to it when it was made however for the sake of avoiding argument on what theoretically shouldn't come up frequently its being more or less accepted and discussing the topic is (not entirely, but mostly) frowned upon.
Now further results of this ruling have brought about 3 other unexpected results-
1. Ilussory poison: removed from use in the campaign. Mechanically its a nice way of getting around high fortitude enemies resisting poison all day long but the GM and I (it's only on my class spell list) at least agree that thematically its a wacky spell.
2: One of our characters has had an alignment shift due (IN PART) to using poison for a foolish but very well intentioned act for which he was fully willing to accept all story related consequences. He was formerly unaware of the ruling on poison and now his perception of his character's view of that particular societal standard is causing him confusion in how to further roleplay his character. I intend to help him on this as much as he'll permit.
3. On level up our summoner posed the question: How will summoning an ant which naturally has a poison attack and by the RAW cannot be an evil creature, without being awakened or acquiring an evil template, affect his character's alignment? Our GM has yet to make the ruling but is clearly apprehensive on having to further homebrew this in particular but still resilient in the founding ruling, that poison is always evil and using it is likewise evil.
I would like to broach the question on how to convince my GM he can maintain his ruling while also preventing the complete striking out of various summons from my friends summon list. More specifically, advice on how he can 'flavor' the difference between using poisonous animals and actually taking an action to poison someone.
Further, so that I can brace myself, can anyone think of other situations where the use of poison might come into the players hand that are not as direct as the standard mundane methods (much like the illusory poison spell or summoning poisonous creatures)?
So anyone who uses ant poison is evil. So is every farmer who wants to protect his crops.
That doctor who wants you to sleep before operating...yup he is evil too.
Maybe his ruling was just a bad one?
In other words, there is no room for a "work around" if this rule is to remain consistent.
Sadly, once this rule loses its consistency it'll turn into a moral value with blatant contradictions that are to be ignored because the Gods declare it to be as it is...
Also, to clarify, my GM isn't saying that anyone who performs an evil act is definitively evil. However, a person who is continually performing the same evil act can't possibly remain good. So Neutral Good chirurgeon is still unplayable but he would not be counted as the most heinous of villains.
Poison may be cheating/dishonorable, but I fail to see where using, for example, a non-lethal poison to knock someone out so you can take them alive is evil.
Either way, don't worry about it. Just play your/his character.
Regarding Roleplaying and changed alignment for your friend: Alignment is 2 words on a piece of paper that define a very general starting outlook you have for your character while playing him (or her as case may be). It has a mechanical effect, but no actual limit on how you play your character. Even if the GM changes it, you do not have to change how you RP. You can have CE written on there, but play your character completely as LG. Now, in theory, it should stay consistent with how your character acts. But if you have an overly reactive GM who knock you down to neutral instead of good, that doesn't mean you have to stop playing Good. Play it all the more if you want. It's your character. Play the alignment you want them to be instead of the one the GM has tagged onto you.
BTW: If your GM is so quick to knock a character down from good for a specific action, I would demand the GM to produce a specific 'Good' action that would raise alignment. For some reason, GMs are more than willing to knock a character down an alignment, but never look at the good deeds and values of the character and consider upgrading them to good. There is also getting an atonement spell, which outright lets a character change his alignment to whatever he wants (Or rather, states that alignment change is up to the player). So, there is that too.
Regarding Poison as evil: This is something I disagree with. Poison is no more evil than a weapon. How it is used is evil. Using it to deceptively kill someone, probably evil. But so is using a knife to stab someone while they sleep. In fact, if it doesn't deal con damage, Poison is actually less lethal than weapons, and one of the best option if you're trying to defeat people without actually killing them. I would ask your GM, under this understanding, to at least limit the rule that Con damage poisons are evil. This small clarification should solve most of the problems (I beleive most monster venoms are str or dex damage, so that should still give the summoner a broad range to summon from), if you can't convince him that poison in general isn't specifically evil, only how it's used. That being said, whether or not it's good or evil, it may be illegal in most societies, so therefore, there is still a RP barrier to it's regular use by the party.
|
I am the GM in question. Thanks Watre for your commentary on the matter. Now that you know what my name is on the messageboards, I'd kindly ask that you refrain from searching for my posts, as you may learn things about my campaigns that are not intended for your eyes.
So here's my reason, and I realize it may seem stubborn:
I am trying to remain consistent. A long time ago, in 2e, I was met with a player who was determined to be as evil as possible in a campaign I was helping to run. I laid the issue to rest, by declaring that he could no longer be good if he continued to use poison. This was fairly early in my gm experience, but the problem I'm running into is that it seems unfair to all the players I had then, and have had since if I don't remain consistent with my prior ruling. It also makes things easier for me, because then there isn't the issue of messy moralistic inconsistencies every time one of my players uses poison.
I recognize that it's overly restrictive, and I don't like it. But I don't see many ways around it, and it just feels evil to me, even if it's non-lethal.
Regarding Alignment shifts, the character in question was Lawful Neutral, but the player in question has been playing his character closer to my interpretation of Chaotic Neutral. In the instance that caused his alignment to shift, I was going to shift it to True Neutral, but the player was offended by my implication that poison use is evil, so decided to write LE on the alignment line. I have yet to tell him that it's an unnecessary thing to do, since his character's actions do not warrant that descriptor.
An alignment shift was headed his way regardless because I don't see alignment as prescriptive, but rather as a descriptor. It describes your character, it doesn't determine anything about them, neither what they do, how they think, or why they do what they do. It simply is a tool for me and my players to use in describing the general direction an individuals actions fall on the chart. If I had it my way, there would be no mechanical implications to alignment, but it's something hard-coded into the system and I can't easily remove it without upsetting a TON of things.
Anyway, I am not particularly closed to changing my view on Poison. If I'm given a really good reason to change my mind, I will, but I want to remain consistent in my rulings if I can, when I can, and when it doesn't hurt anyone's characters. Please refrain from using the "Argument from Mechanics" argument. It's the one that is completely faulty in my mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If poison use is inherently evil, why are venomous animals not evil?
Is every barkeep in your world evil? Alcohol is a poison.
You can suffer water poisoning. Is water evil?
Any vitamin or mineral in excess can poison you. Is food evil?
Breathing pure oxygen is poisonous. Is air evil?
I can understand how one douchebag player can turn you off of something for a long time ... but PF isn't 2e, and this player isn't that player.
What he said.
Indeed, agreement with the past couple of posts. As a GM, you should tailor your rules to fit your current party. There are some groups I've played with where there was a strict no-evil rule in place, because I knew the players couldn't handle such characters maturely. Other groups where I have allowed evil characters because I've seen them been played well and they have really added to the story of the game. If you past rule seems unfair to new players, then it probably is, and you should change it.
If poison use is inherently evil, why are venomous animals not evil?
Is every barkeep in your world evil? Alcohol is a poison.
You can suffer water poisoning. Is water evil?
Any vitamin or mineral in excess can poison you. Is food evil?
Breathing pure oxygen is poisonous. Is air evil?I can understand how one douchebag player can turn you off of something for a long time ... but PF isn't 2e, and this player isn't that player.
I agree with the last comment.
DM' has been burned by bad experience with an abusive player. Problem is more with the abusive player than anything else. Perhaps it's time to let go?
However, everything has a lethal dose and becomes toxic in excess, but everting isn't poison. In PF, what we consider a poison is something that the said lethal dose is small enough to be used as a weapon. As with every other game, terms in PF are codified. Water and air are not poison as per PF's definition of a poison even if water and oxygen can be lethal if enough is consumed.
While I don't agree with use of poison = evil act, poison does not equal evil even in the DM's houserule. Only, the conscious and aware intent of using poison in a way to kill/maim/sicken someone is evil.
Animals using poison have been given a natural tool for offensive or defensive purposes. Animals don't have such a level of awareness, so it's reasonable to rule that animals with an intelligence of less than 3 aren't evil because they use poison (for lack of conscious intent). Under this philosophy, an awaken animal (or animal companion with INT 3 or more) would consider the use of its own poisonous attack an evil act however.
[I think?] alcohol is considered a legit poison in PF. Giving someone alcohol without the intent to harm that person wouldn't be evil, although forcing someone to drink a dangerous dose (or using alcohol to take advantage of that person in some way) would be considered an evil act. This makes some barman dubious, but not systematically evil. Same goes for delivering medicine based on venom, or that have high level of toxicity in high concentration.
In this regard, use of poison = evil becomes similar to other "passive" way of killing/maiming people without leaving them a fair way of defending themselves. To be consistent, you'd have to apply the same reasoning to other not-so-fair ways of attacking enemies such as sneak attacks against unknowing victims, sleep/paralysis/coup-de-grace combos, attacking from invisible etc, setting magical traps that your enemy has not chance of discovering etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poison is a tool, nothing more. It is like a gun. It is inanimate, unthinking, and morally ambiguous. It is the USE of this tool is what might make it evil.
Adun, I hope you think this through again. Your devotion to consistency is problematic if your ruling was an error in judgment. Where would society be if we valued rigid consistency in our laws over good moral judgment?
I fail to see how a ranger who uses poisoned arrows on his enemies is committing an evil act, simply based on the poison use itself. His arrows are incredibly deadly all by themselves. If he shoots an arrow at an Orc who is chasing a small child, he is trying to save the child's life. If he shoots a poisoned arrow at that same Orc who is chasing a small child, the only difference is the effectiveness of the arrow. The motive is the same.
If poison is evil, all weapons that inflict potentially lethal damage are evil.
|
|
I am not even going to lie here; this is one of the silliest rulings I've heard of in a long, long time. The use of poison is not "evil." What you do with it might be evil, but poison itself certainly is not. That's like saying contracting the flu is an evil act. The hell?
Anyway, the question you wish to come up with regarding summons will be an iffy one. You may simply have to tell your friend to avoid using summons that possess venom if the GM is that vehemently opposed. It's ridiculous, I know, but your description paints the GM as being very dead set on this. Or if they do summon something with poison, he could instruct them to only dry bite. .... The problem would be telling an animal, which has a low intellect most of the time, not to use something it naturally wants to inject when it bites.
*no actual monkeys were harmed in this theoretical example
I certainly hope not!
Poison is a tool, nothing more.
This is the same reason I scoff at 'evil spells' or 'evil items'. It's how you use it that matters, not what it is.
|
|
I think I'll start by saying this:
The argument from mechanics states that if thing x does something functionally equivalent to thing y, then there is no difference between thing x and thing y. However, in Pathfinder, and DnD for that matter, this has never been the case. If thing x is a spell, lets say, Hold Person, and thing y is a paralysis poison, they are functionally the same, however they are not mechanically the same. The flaw in the argument is that many of you have been arguing that because poison has similar functionality to other things, that it thus is mechanically equivalent and therefore should not be restricted. It's a flawed argument, and it's kind of annoying.
I'm going to allow the summoner to summon creatures with natural poison. It seems unfair to cut some of the utility of the class as well as to punish creatures that really had no say.
I just don't know how I can get over how poison use feels. It feels dirty, evil, and cheap. It feels wrong to use poison.
Mostly I want a ruling that I can be happy about, but also know that my players wont abuse. Something everyone can be pleased with. I don't know what that is. If someone can give me a ruling that will make everyone happy, myself included, then I'll change my mind. But so far, I've only been getting people telling me I should change it because I'm being dumb.
Mostly I want a ruling that I can be happy about, but also know that my players wont abuse.
A ruling you could use would be to treat poison as "non-lawful," and other than that, to only rule that it is evil based on application -- the same as you would for any spell or weapon. What you're doing right now seems a bit heavy-handed to me.
"I don't like how lying feels. It feels dirty, evil, and cheap. It feels wrong to lie." --> "Bluffing is an evil action," actually follows the same reasoning as you've applied to declaring poison to be evil. But bluffing is not necessarily an evil action in PF. It depends on context.
That being said, in the end it's your game, and I kind of doubt any number of counter-examples will sway you from what is at its heart an emotionally driven rule. Good luck, and just make sure you don't let your application of this rule cause increasing conflict with your players.
So I'd like to clarify something that seems to be lost to everybody in this thread, apart from my first responder Jarl. This post was asking for advice on how to cope with a ruling's impact on indirect issues and how to address my GM regarding the summoning of poisonous creatures. At no point did I hint at wanting to hear about people who would simply argue that poison use shouldn't be evil. I was already of this stance, i didn't need a following and my GM has already discussed this with me and others. I was fully aware of his position, and again was hoping to get advice on how to work 'within' the confines of his ruling. The Jarl, while initially misunderstanding the ruling, did respond within these terms and made it apparent to me with few words that my intentions were futile.
I don't like that this conversation has diverged from its original intent due to the comments of those who misunderstood the subject at hand and due to my apparent GM thinking that he needed to defend him own stance when the people who it matters to have already agreed to go along with it.
Despite my disappointment in the direction of things, I still thank you all for taking the time to respond to my post.
ick
As for summoning poisonous creatures, a caster who takes the "Summon Good Monster" feat from Champions of Purity gains the ability to summon not only a Neutral Good celestial viper and pseudodragon, which both have Poison but eventually the mighty Couatl, which is like a Lawful Good embodiment of Poison. It is tough to believe that summoning these Good aligned creatures from a special summoning list for Good aligned casters could be an Evil act.
It might be worth noting that Paladins are forbidden from using poison as it is dishonorable. The rules say, "a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)" Perhaps the GM could decide that his world has an enhanced sense of honor and using poison (at least on sentient creatures) is considered a crime and affront to society even if there was cause for violence. I'd still suggest allowing at least the use of non-lethal poison via spells without alignment or severe social repercussions. Otherwise Stinking Cloud could be off limits for a lot of casters. Cloudkill, on the other hand, bears an unpleasant similarity to weapons which are often considered "evil" in the real world. I guess it is kind of like tear gas vs nerve gas.
Intent is important in determining effects on alignment. Using a knockout drug with a patient's consent so they can be operated on painlessly is different than drugging innocents so you can rob and murder them. Poison in a scorpion stinger is expected, poison on a hidden dagger is sneaky and underhanded.
I think the ruling on poison needs to be refined to include the context for when it is used.
One example of use of disease as evil: loosing plague infested rats into a city. The intent is cause harm to random people.
I think I'll start by saying this:
** spoiler omitted **
I'm going to allow the summoner to summon creatures with natural poison. It seems unfair to cut some of the utility of the class as well as to punish creatures that really had no say.
I just don't know how I can get over how poison use feels. It feels dirty, evil, and cheap. It feels wrong to use poison.
Mostly I want a ruling that I can be happy about, but also know that my players wont abuse. Something everyone can be pleased with. I don't know what that is. If someone can give me a ruling that will make everyone happy, myself included, then I'll change my mind. But so far, I've only been getting people telling me I should change it because I'm being dumb.
Let me ask you this ... who cares if their characters are dirty, evil, and cheap? That doesn't mean they're baby eaters and puppy rapists. It doesn't mean that they're going to disrupt your game and run around throwing arsenic into wells for gits and shiggles. Good and evil aren't sports teams, they aren't clearly divided sides, there's no absolutes. "Yeah, my alignment shifted to evil, so I gotta side with these bandits now." Not how it works, at all.
Let them play their characters. IF they become disruptive, THEN deal with it. You're simply being grossly unfair here, penalizing other players for the actions of one you had decades ago.
Let them play their characters. IF they become disruptive, THEN deal with it. You're simply being grossly unfair here, penalizing other players for the actions of one you had decades ago.
Zhayne, your comment is unfair and presumptuous. You have assumed limitations that are beyond the scope of my original post also please read my previous statement.
FOR EVERYONE: I would like this thread locked. The matter has found a resolution in real life. I'm glad the community is responsive and wants to look out for players who seem to be treated unfairly but I must ask that the majority of those who posted here go back over my post, my GM's post and their own. No need to get worked up over this kind of stuff.
Carter Lockhart, Laurefindel, Cheburn: You were the most curtious of responders so thanks. However, yall also missed the OP subject matter, lol. and Laurefindel, just saying we have a class of yours and its been great. Knight-Errant.
I just don't know how I can get over how poison use feels. It feels dirty, evil, and cheap. It feels wrong to use poison.
Suppose there is an evil ruler of a city. Not evil enough to behead his subjects for stealing loaves of bread, but evil enough that that most of his subjects are destitute and hungry, those who object to his power are beaten and imprisoned, all the while he and his army are well-fed and well-to-do.
A group of heroes steps in and, not wanting to repay non-lethal cruelty with outright murder, decides to sneak into the castle and abduct the ruler, in order to depose him or at least make him pay for his "crimes". Would it be wrong to use a non-lethal poison to keep him incapacitated?
Carter Lockhart, Laurefindel, Cheburn: You were the most curtious of responders so thanks. However, yall also missed the OP subject matter, lol
Just to clarify, while I did comment on other issues apparent in the situation, and made a statement of disagreeing in general with the GM's ruling, I did also try to suggest a reconciliation to your GM's rule that would allow the summoner to maintain venomous creatures on their list, That poison that damage Con (Lethal poisons) remain evil, but poisons that damage Str or Dex (most poisons from animals intended to paralyze targets and therefore nonlethal) be allowable, which should keep most of the summon monsters on the list. This would be the difference between say, a lethal injection, and a tranquilizer dart or something. So, no, I do not feel I missed the subject matter, but rather you missed my suggestion. Or perhaps you didn't find it satisfactory, but that was my attempt nonetheless.
I know that OP already got his answer IRL, but for anyone else trying to accomplish the same thing there is a simple solution to this, just have a restricted/accepted poisons list. So Knockout poison is accepted and won't affect your alignment, but using the tortuous poison that makes a person writhe in pain would be evil.
I personally don't deal with the whole poison is evil thing, but for those that do, there are solutions.
Just to clarify, while I did comment on other issues apparent in the situation, and made a statement of disagreeing in general with the GM's ruling, I did also try to suggest a reconciliation to your GM's rule that would allow the summoner to maintain venomous creatures on their list, That poison that damage Con (Lethal poisons) remain evil, but poisons that damage Str or Dex (most poisons from animals intended to paralyze targets and therefore nonlethal) be allowable, which should keep most of the summon monsters on the list. This would be the difference between say, a lethal injection, and a tranquilizer dart or something. So, no, I do not feel I missed the subject matter, but rather you missed my suggestion. Or perhaps you didn't find it satisfactory, but that was my attempt nonetheless.
Carter Lockhart, Laurefindel, Cheburn: You were the most curtious of responders so thanks. However, yall also missed the OP subject matter, lol
I meant no offense. Yes i do believe i read that but overlooked it when typing. My apologies.
