| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take on it is that poison is just another weapon, like a sword or a fireball, and there's no morality issues on using them. It just depends who you use them on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poison is a weapon, but it's more like a landmine than a sword. In other words, be very careful to avoid collateral damage.
Some poisons are hard not to think Evil but in the game it will depend on many things just like using swords, charms and fireballs. Some stuff like devils and undead are Evil by Nature poison is not. At least not in my game.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's a peripherally-related FAQ that makes this comment:
Paladins, per their code of conduct, may not use poisons, but they don’t necessarily view the use of poisons as an evil to be opposed—it’s simply something their code prohibits them from doing themselves.
And when you think about it, the fact that the paladin's code prohibits ever committing an evil act and also prohibits using poison kind of shows that poison use isn't inherently evil—if it were, then it wouldn't have needed to be called out separately.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how you're using it. Killing rats in your mother's basement, then you're on strong ground, morally speaking.
Mercifully killing your mother at her request with poison to spare her the great pain of the cancer eating away at her, then you're on questionable ground.
Poisoning the king so that you can ascend to the throne in his place, well then, you're just a real bastard completely devoid of morals, aren't you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about using it to spike the bandit camps barrels of booze? Is it really any different morally than putting them all to the sword?
Would take a LOT of poison to make a barrel full of booze lethal.
But I don't see it as an Evil act in and of itself.
Generally speaking, in the middle ages, the inspiration for most fantasy games, using poison would be considered dishonorable. So presuming you keep that as part of the flavor of your world, a lawful character, even lawful evil, would probably not use poison.
Evil would depend on how you use it. Poison itself is probably not any more intrinsically evil than a sword.
How about using it to spike the bandit camps barrels of booze? Is it really any different morally than putting them all to the sword?
if they give some to the slave kids they keep around, you will know the difference:)
if used to spike drinks and food you may hit the wrong target and that show disregard of innecent lives. like blowing a bomb in a supermarket to kill one person. if this is somthing you do without remorse you will have crossed the line in my game.
|
|
Depends on how you're using it. Killing rats in your mother's basement, then you're on strong ground, morally speaking.
Mercifully killing your mother at her request with poison to spare her the great pain of the cancer eating away at her, then you're on questionable ground.
Poisoning the king so that you can ascend to the throne in his place, well then, you're just a real bastard completely devoid of morals, aren't you?
Oh oh! I would use poison to kill the king and take his place, but using poison that way is evil, i'll just slit his throat while he is at sleep.
Depends on how you're using it. Killing rats in your mother's basement, then you're on strong ground, morally speaking.
Mercifully killing your mother at her request with poison to spare her the great pain of the cancer eating away at her, then you're on questionable ground.
Poisoning the king so that you can ascend to the throne in his place, well then, you're just a real bastard completely devoid of morals, aren't you?
Well, lets be honest he wasn't a very good king and real social Darwinist philosophy going that oppresses the poor. Really they'll be much happier with me in charge and this is more merciful to the old king.
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?
This question has come up a few times. As far as PF rules are concerned poisons are just another tool. There is no alignment restriction. The only character who can't use poison is a Paladin because it's against their code. But any other characters, whether good or not, have no such restrictions. That being said, what you choose to do with the poison may be evil, just like what you choose to do with a dagger may be evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?
First things first; alignment does not restrict your actions in any way. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.
Poison is just a tool, as stated above. It's just a chemical. What you do with it is what matters, just like with every other tool.
Which ... really makes me wonder about the Paladin thing. "Yeah, this stuff can make it easier to take someone alive ... but I can't."
How about using it to spike the bandit camps barrels of booze? Is it really any different morally than putting them all to the sword?if they give some to the slave kids they keep around, you will know the difference:)
How about if the trapper ranger sets up a trap for one of the bandits and someone unintended walks into it first?
What about a wizard laying down some sort of spell trap intended for the bandit but taking out someone else instead?
How about a fireball that kills someone the wizard/sorcerer didn't even know was there?
What about the ranger who goes out of his way to slays an orc he sees wandering outside a town, even though he has NO IDEA if that orc is actually Evil.
Would any of these things cause a character to become Evil? They are all things a Good/Neutral character should probably regret, I don't think they make that character Evil. The intentions behind an action and the presence or absence of regret say as much or more about alignment than the actions themselves do. There are a lot of "landmine" like weapons that parties and GM's use on a regular basis that no one ever thinks twice about. But the minute poison is involved people start questioning if it's evil and dishing out warnings. These four examples are no more or less Evil than trying to poison a bandit and accidentally injuring one of his prisoners.
I guess this all also depends on what kind of poison you use and how it is applied (as well as what purpose...but that is often its own separate morality question).
Nonlethal poisons that put people to sleep? Sure, spike the punch to take out bandit camps and aristocratic parties alike. Even if people get caught in the crossfire, they will mostly just get a hangover.
Poison that instantly kills if it is taken orally or breathed in? Well, it is something you should generally reserve for the kinds of situations where 'people' aren't involved. No one will complain if a few dozen ravenous sharks are removed from the ecosystem.
Another general tip: if it is applied to a blade, I would generally say it is alright. I mean, you use it by stabbing someone. You are well past the point of pleasantries. The fact that it is fairly easy to keep crossfire to a minimum means there are few moral problems (well, other than the bit that got you into a shanking contest in the first place..but again, that is a different morality question entirely.
And sure, paladins do not use poison. But they are the 'knight in shining armor with a stick up the---" class. They are meant to gallantly ride into combat and take those dragon fangs to the face head on. That is why two of their key class features are a huge increase to saves and the ability to heal themselves in with an action they would never take anyway. If people weren't so keen on 'smite first, questions never' then they might realize that the paladin's job is to roll that diplomacy check on the cannibal trolls on the off chance it works/GM is feeling comedic and decides to have them turn to a life of baking instead.
Paladins are good, but they are also defined by the phrase 'work harder, not smarter'. Not to disrespect the class, it is an intriguing role to play, and some of my favorite media characters fit the archetype.
Don't worry, there are "good poisons" called Ravages in the BoED to use!
Poisoning is not honorable, its not seen as good form, but depending on how its applied not necessarily evil. . . poisoned blade is one thing; poisoning food is however, probably is evil.
Poison that instantly kills if it is taken orally or breathed in? Well, it is something you should generally reserve for the kinds of situations where 'people' aren't involved. No one will complain if a few dozen ravenous sharks are removed from the ecosystem.
What if the "people" are Evil? Is it okay to instantly kill them with poison then? No one is going to complain if a few dozen murdering bandits are removed from society either.
poisoned blade is one thing; poisoning food is however, probably is evil.
What if the poisoner has gathered the proper information first and knows that this bad guy doesn't employ taste testers or share his food? Or what if you know for a fact there are only bad guys in the bandit camp; even if there is a taste tester, he too will be a bad guy? And again, I have to ask:
- How about if the trapper ranger sets up a trap for one of the bandits and someone unintended walks into it first?
- What about a wizard laying down some sort of spell trap intended for the bandit but taking out someone else instead?
- How about a fireball that kills someone the wizard/sorcerer didn't even know was there?
- What about the ranger who goes out of his way to slays an orc he sees wandering outside a town, even though he has NO IDEA if that orc is actually Evil.
If poisoning a bad guy's food is evil, any of these acts should be evil too. Most people would let these fly without a second thought.
....
Good and Evil actions are pretty well defined:
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Trying to poison an Evil enemy, whether it's on a blade or in his food, is a Neutral action at the very worst according to the description above. It takes the nonchalant killing of innocent life to be Evil. Furthermore even if an innocent did get caught in the crossfire it may not be strictly Evil if it was unintentional and the character shows remorse. Remember, Evil acts are specified as killing innocent life forms for fun or money, out of a lack of compassion, sheer convenience, or in service to an evil patron. Accidently poisoning an innocent when trying to kill someone Evil and showing remorse, trying to atone, does not fall within that criteria. Successfully poisoning an Evil enemy is WAY outside that criteria.
....
Let me specify, I am not trying to start a heated alignment argument with the people I've quoted. I just want to provide counterpoints. I think poison use has a lot of unfair bias.
Poison that instantly kills if it is taken orally or breathed in? Well, it is something you should generally reserve for the kinds of situations where 'people' aren't involved. No one will complain if a few dozen ravenous sharks are removed from the ecosystem.What if the "people" are Evil? Is it okay to instantly kill them with poison then? No one is going to complain if a few dozen murdering bandits are removed from society either.
Oh, I can understand that point. It is just that, due to the interconnected nature of human interaction, you are much more likely to get crossfire in that case.
I mean, for a list of innocents (or at least complacent bystanders that may or may not indirectly profit from the crimes) that you can find in a bandit camp: hostages of all sorts, various women taken in as servants, possibly family members (small children had with those serving women?), maybe a merchant that only has a vague idea of where all these bloodstained goods come from, the hired help of that merchant that load the bloody goods and keep quiet since they need this job to feed their family, and so on and so forth. Can you say that none of those are there and might not drink the kool-aid?
I'll admit: you could get away with this once since you were not expecting any innocent people to be there. Intent seems to be a major thing with these morality questions. But once you accidentally poisoned the birthday cake for the blind orphanage for the first time, you should get the message that poison needs to be applied with EXTREME caution and forethought.
And that is in fact character development. You character f'ed up, and the emotional weight of his action hangs over his head causing him to do his best never to make the same mistake again. It sounds like a perfectly fine character arch of the struggle between redemption and the rather skill set this character has to get by on the battlefield.
Oh, I can understand that point. It is just that, due to the interconnected nature of human interaction, you are much more likely to get crossfire in that case.
I mean, for a list of innocents (or at least complacent bystanders that may or may not indirectly profit from the crimes) that you can find in a bandit camp: hostages of all sorts, various women taken in as servants, possibly family members (small children had with those serving women?), maybe a merchant that only has a vague idea of where all these bloodstained goods come from, the hired help of that merchant that load the bloody goods and keep quiet since they need this job to feed their family, and so on and so forth. Can you say that none of those are there and might not drink the kool-aid?
Fair point, in a case like this it would probably be Evil since there is a high percentage you could end up killing kids or other random bystanders. Just too many variables in a situation like that. However, if it's a bandit raiding party's forward operating location, rather than the bandit gang's permanent encampment, there's a fair bet it contains only murderous thugs. And if, with a little scouting, you can prove that to be true... why not poison their keg?
I'll admit: you could get away with this once since you were not expecting any innocent people to be there. Intent seems to be a major thing with these morality questions. But once you accidentally poisoned the birthday cake for the blind orphanage for the first time, you should get the message that poison needs to be applied with EXTREME caution and forethought.
Nonchalant ignorance isn't really an acceptable excuse either. Like any tool of assassination, it should have been applied with extreme caution and forethought to begin with. However, even with extreme planning, unforeseen events can occur in a scenario like this. I don't know if I would say you get away with it, but it shouldn't make you instantly evil either.
And that is in fact character development. You character f'ed up, and the emotional weight of his action hangs over his head causing him to do his best never to make the same mistake again. It sounds like a perfectly fine character arch of the struggle between redemption and the rather skill set this character has to get by on the battlefield.
Agreed.
Chemical Weapons are immoral according to what I been watching one the news lately.
Chemical Weapons are immoral according to what I been watching one the news lately.
That's likely because the modern use of chemical weapons is either to suppress the populace (attacking innocents = evil), or the weapons are better at maiming than killing (often considered worse than straight up murder, see any discussion on torture.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poison's, like any action's, morality relies on the circumstances involved.
No action (in my eyes) is inherently evil or good. It's the context that defines it.
Killing, as an action, is a neutral deed.
Squashing a bug is neutral. So is killing an animal for food, or killing a person in self defense.
Killing someone in the act of harming another human being is probably a good act (assuming you had good motivations).
Straight up murdering a dude for no reason/profit is evil.
Same with poison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poison's, like any action's, morality relies on the circumstances involved.
No action (in my eyes) is inherently evil or good. It's the context that defines it.
Killing, as an action, is a neutral deed.
Squashing a bug is neutral. So is killing an animal for food, or killing a person in self defense.
Killing someone in the act of harming another human being is probably a good act (assuming you had good motivations).
Straight up murdering a dude for no reason/profit is evil.
Same with poison.
So 1.) swinging a sword is neutral. 2.) Swinging your sword at a man attacking a group of children is good. 3.) Recklessly swinging your sword around while in the middle of a group of children...well...you are the receiving end of 2.), aren't you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it evil. I wonder, however, could you call it chaotic rather than lawful (or honorable)?
How about using it to spike the bandit camps barrels of booze? Is it really any different morally than putting them all to the sword?if they give some to the slave kids they keep around, you will know the difference:)How about if the trapper ranger sets up a trap for one of the bandits and someone unintended walks into it first?
What about a wizard laying down some sort of spell trap intended for the bandit but taking out someone else instead?
How about a fireball that kills someone the wizard/sorcerer didn't even know was there?
What about the ranger who goes out of his way to slays an orc he sees wandering outside a town, even though he has NO IDEA if that orc is actually Evil.
Would any of these things cause a character to become Evil? They are all things a Good/Neutral character should probably regret, I don't think they make that character Evil. The intentions behind an action and the presence or absence of regret say as much or more about alignment than the actions themselves do. There are a lot of "landmine" like weapons that parties and GM's use on a regular basis that no one ever thinks twice about. But the minute poison is involved people start questioning if it's evil and dishing out warnings. These four examples are no more or less Evil than trying to poison a bandit and accidentally injuring one of his prisoners.
I think i gave the answer to that question in the post just below the one you quote.
If you want to win so badly that you risk harming innocent bystanders, yes then you are acting like a Evil person. But depending on how you act when the bad stuff happens to innocents, it will be plain to see if you are Evil or regeret your actions.And remember there is no team Evil it is possible to figth bad with bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to win so badly that you risk harming innocent bystanders, yes then you are acting like a Evil person.
True enough. I was more advocating for someone who is actively trying to avoid collateral damage while at the same time using his unique tactics and skill set to get the job done.
Randomly dropping poison into a castles kitchen because the lord of the castle "might" eat it is careless and probably Evil. But poisoning that lord's medicine cabinet is a pretty sure way to specifically target that guy and only that guy. Maybe through Gather Information you find that he needs a "sleeping tonic" to get to bed every night. Or maybe he just goes to his personal wine cabinet and gets a night cap before bed. Poisoning those items would be poisoning food, but it's a very targeted use of poisoned food and you have a very low chance of harming innocent life.
But depending on how you act when the bad stuff happens to innocents, it will be plain to see if you are Evil or regeret your actions.
Agreed.
And remember there is no team Evil it is possible to figth bad with bad.
Agreed. And some of my favorite character types. Although I still do my best to specifically target the one I wanted dead.
If you want to win so badly that you risk harming innocent bystanders, yes then you are acting like a Evil person.True enough. I was more advocating for someone who is actively trying to avoid collateral damage while at the same time using his unique tactics and skill set to get the job done.
Randomly dropping poison into a castles kitchen because the lord of the castle "might" eat it is careless and probably Evil. But poisoning that lord's medicine cabinet is a pretty sure way to specifically target that guy and only that guy. Maybe through Gather Information you find that he needs a "sleeping tonic" to get to bed every night. Or maybe he just goes to his personal wine cabinet and gets a night cap before bed. Poisoning those items would be poisoning food, but it's a very targeted use of poisoned food and you have a very low chance of harming innocent life.
Well, that might be true even if someone else does get caught in the crossfire. I mean, stealing from the king's booze cabinet is typically a crime punishable by death in many places. So you are just doing a public service by bringing a scoundrel down. Heh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?
I'd think that an evoker who regularly attacked enemies with Fireball and Acid Arrow would be a bit of a hypocrite if he admonished someone else against using poison because it was so evil.
Don't believe me? Go do a web search for what fire and acid do to people's bodies when they are unfortunate enough to get hurt by them. What they do to their faces.
I wouldn't call it evil. I wonder, however, could you call it chaotic rather than lawful (or honorable)?
Depending on usage, it could definitely be deemed dishonorable, but so could a LOT of spells (most mind affecting enchantments, for example).
Using poison to slowly kill the king or a rival? Probably evil (depending on circumstances) and definitely dishonorable.
Using poisoned food to kill rats, or a pack of dire wolves that have been wreaking havoc with the local farmers? I'd find it hard to call that "evil".
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?I'd think that an evoker who regularly attacked enemies with Fireball and Acid Arrow would be a bit of a hypocrite if he admonished someone else against using poison because it was so evil.
Don't believe me? Go do a web search for what fire and acid do to people's bodies when they are unfortunate enough to get hurt by them. What they do to their faces.
Or the wizards and sorcerers who would prefer to repeatedly summon animals to go trip a trap and die rather than let a Rogue do their job.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
So you have casters mass murdering small animals (innocent life) out of convenience. Just throwing it out there...
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?I'd think that an evoker who regularly attacked enemies with Fireball and Acid Arrow would be a bit of a hypocrite if he admonished someone else against using poison because it was so evil.
Don't believe me? Go do a web search for what fire and acid do to people's bodies when they are unfortunate enough to get hurt by them. What they do to their faces.
Or the wizards and sorcerers who would prefer to repeatedly summon animals to go trip a trap and die rather than let a Rogue do their job.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.Fixed. Exactly who is the conjurer murdering again?
So you have casters mass murdering small animals (innocent life) out of convenience. Just throwing it out there...
Or the wizards and sorcerers who would prefer to repeatedly summon animals to go trip a trap and die rather than let a Rogue do their job.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.So you have casters mass murdering small animals (innocent life) out of convenience. Just throwing it out there...
I think you need to check up on what the word murder means because last I checked it involved actually killing someone.
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?I'd think that an evoker who regularly attacked enemies with Fireball and Acid Arrow would be a bit of a hypocrite if he admonished someone else against using poison because it was so evil.
Don't believe me? Go do a web search for what fire and acid do to people's bodies when they are unfortunate enough to get hurt by them. What they do to their faces.
Or the wizards and sorcerers who would prefer to repeatedly summon animals to go trip a trap and die rather than let a Rogue do their job.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.Fixed. Exactly who is the conjurer murdering again?
So you have casters mass murdering small animals (innocent life) out of convenience. Just throwing it out there...
Hmm... Clearly I should have read further. Still, if you think about the effects of spells and how freely most casters use them, they are far more sociopathic than most.
I think you need to check up on what the word murder means because last I checked it involved actually killing someone.Or the wizards and sorcerers who would prefer to repeatedly summon animals to go trip a trap and die rather than let a Rogue do their job.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.So you have casters mass murdering small animals (innocent life) out of convenience. Just throwing it out there...
You mean as opposed to torturing animals, which is an early sign of a serial killer? Anyway, it's a good thing the Evil description doesn't use the word murder then.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Unfortunately those brave little animals don't actually die so the point might be moot. But they are still essentially being tortured, which is debasing, so... maybe not.
What is the morality of poison use? If your character is any of the good alignments can you use poisons in/or out combat? What about neutral alignments?
It's an arms race. People who disapprove of poisons want a society that doesn't use poison. When you poison an evil king to restore good, then good has to watch what they eat.
One thing ive found is that players in these games cant seem to distinguish the difference between shooting a man hacking him to death or casting a fireball and stuff the game labels Evil. In the case of poisons which the game does not specificially label as good or evil the moral grey area becomes murkier.
First, i get the impression that players just look at the stats of poisons and dont comprehend what poisons do. To Elaborate, Poisons in Rl do aweful horrible things beyond killing people they render you permanently blind in agony a parapalegic or really many things short of death.
Heroic fantasies tend to depict good guys going at each other man o a man o as 'honorable combat' and this has mostly been the historic view even if real warfare gets much much nastier.
On a moral level there is a difference between this and caually grazing a mans arm rendering that arm crippled or unusable for weeks or maybe permenently so that he starves to death. OR nicking him with a pin in the street saying 'oh excuse men' and having his nervous system liquefy.
Secondly, Many poisons are wholly indiscriminate they dont care who they kill.
At the end of the day though whether Poisons are good or bad is a cultural thing, that most cultures have condemped historically and then been freely willing to use on their enemies. Its only when the poisons get really awful and possibly become a wider part of warfare that an attempt to prevent their use as been made. Ie Mustard gas etc, yet even today govornments still manufacture that stuff.
However, Given the effects poisons have on the people that survive i cannot really picture good people using them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people apply societal bias from real life to in game poisons. In most countries poisoning someone is considered to be a really terrible thing to do. Even in children's Disney movies poison is exclusively used by evil characters. However, if you try to take away that bias, poisons are really only evil when they are used to do evil things. Is there really much difference between a disgruntled wife killing her husband with poison vs. shooting him in the face when he gets home from work or stabbing him to death in his sleep? Either way he dies and either way it's murder. But in the game we all go out and kill people, you kill bandits, you kill cultists, you kill evil wizards, not to mention a host of corrupt and dangerous monsters. So is there really any difference between using an Acidic sword and using a poison tipped blade? Take a moment and think about how horrific it would be to plunge an acid coated weapon into someone's stomach, even an enemy. That is terrible. That is the kind of thing that present day military law bans because it is universally recognized as a horrific and torturous way to kill anyone. No one bats an eye at the Fighter who wields an acid coated sword. However, the minute the Rogue, Alchemist, Ninja... etc pulls out his poison kit people are all up in arms about alignment. Then in the next fight the Good Cleric casts the Poison spell on a creature, which is worse than most actual poisons and again, no one bats and eye.
Take a moment and think about some other spells the every day adventuring magic user might cast:
1. Acid/Flame Arrow - Equivalents are banned from military use as anti-personnel weapons.
2. Acid Fog - Seriously, this is a chemical weapon.
3. Baleful Polymorph - If this isn't cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is.
4. Bestow Curse - Every time I have ever seen someone cast a curse in a movie it's Evil. This spell is permanent, yet not Evil.
5. Binding - So many possibilities.
6. Blindness/Deafness - This is permanent.
7. Charm Person - This is witch craft to subvert a persons free will.
8. Clone - I believe this falls under the category of controversial scientific practices.
9. Cloudkill - A particularly nasty chemical weapon.
10. Command - Again taking free will from another creature.
11. Delay Blast Fireball - Oh good a terrorist weapon. Set it, walk away, and see who walks into the blast zone.
12. Demand - Yet another spell that subverts free will.
13. Detect Evil, Detect Thoughts, Discern Lies, Discern Location, Scry - Big brother at it's finest. Most people don't care too much for that.
14. Disintegrate - Bears striking resemblance to an Evil Death Ray.
15. Dominate - Nothing like a little total mind control.
16. Enervation - This is essentially attacking someone's soul.
17. Feeblemind - Wow, just wow... instantly turning Einstein into a special needs citizen. That's like a lobotomy, clearly not inherently Evil...
18. Explosive Runes - This is a landmine. Any child read this and have their legs blown off or die just as easily as from a carelessly poisoned bit of food.
19. Fire Storm - Napalm... very nasty.
20. Fire Trap - That's not like a land mine at all...
21. Flesh to Stone - I wonder how people would react to a weapon that could actually do this...
22. Geas - Turning anyone into a Manchurian Candidate, thank you magic.
23. Insanity - Permanent confusion spell.
24. Magic Jar - Really, you can steal another person's body and trap their soul in a gem... how is this not inherently Evil?
25. Modify Memory - Funny when the Men In Black do it, but imagine the effects of this in Real Life... Anyone think there wouldn't be a massive public outcry to destroy that technology?
26. Phantasmal Killer - Creating manifest fear to attack your enemy.
27. Power Word Kill - This is inherently Evil and Unforgivable, in the Harry Potter series.
28. Soul Bind - Who among us wouldn't consider doing this to the BBEG? Hmm, eternally binding someone's soul though? Sounds like the highest order of Evil to me.
30. Suggestion and Mass Suggestion - More mind control, sweet.
31. Trap the Soul - Excellent, there's more than one spell that does this.
32. Interrogation - Yeah that's not torture. Water boarding comes to mind. I believe the public disliked that method of information gathering... even against terrorists.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. But I think it serves the purpose. That purpose being, don't look at poisons in a game and start adding real life bias to them. Look what happens when you apply some real life bias to magic. With real life bias magic becomes every inherently EVIL thing you can imagine. No one would ever play a Good spell caster because of how restricted the spell list would be. Unless I accidentally missed a line, none of the above spells are inherently Evil... a lot of them probably should be. Poison is not inherently Evil either, so let it be a tool and let the user's actions dictate whether or not he is playing an Evil character. Compare what the poisoner does, to bad guys, using his poisons with what the caster does every day, even to non-bad guys, with his spells.
|
Excellent breakdown, Shadowlord.
I'll add, what's the difference between a rogue using Int/Wis/Cha damaging poison, and a Magus Spellstriking with Touch of Idiocy?
Apart from the magical option actually being effective?
In a way that game poisons no longer are, thanks to now requiring two failed saves before any bad effects occur.
Poisons have been nerfed to irrelevance, while casters use ranged Rohypnol to enslave strangers, with no comeback.
I think poison is more likely to be considered dishonorable, which would make its use a possible chaotic act, depending on the character's own morals and code. For example, a LN knight (or paladin) whose code stresses personal honor etc and uses poison is committing a chaotic act, but a LG spy whose loyalty is to her king and people is not actually breaking her principles by, say, spiking the food supply of a cult to allow for their easier capture.
In the case of paladins and possibly cavaiers, I think it is a chaotic act as their code urges them to act honorably. Even then it need not be evil, unless the poison in question is particularly torturous or is inherently antithetical to good, i.e. an infernal extract that attacks the soul of the victim (I am not aware of any such, but it is a possibility in a fantasy setting).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment wise, poison is obviously not evil, otherwise poison would be an evil spell ;) .
It is, however, handle with care. Ingested, inhaled, and contact poisons, at least, tend to offer a lot less control than a sword swing does. If you don't want to kill the person who wandered into your reach in battle, you don't attack them. Much less true of the poison mist you released or the poisoned dish you sent up to the table - the chance of unintentional collateral damage is a lot higher.
Therefore, a nonevil poisoner likely has to be more careful than a nonevil sword-swinger. Negligence may have alignment repercussions.
Injury poisons are less indiscriminate and I see few potential pitfalls over and above anything else in the game.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Also in Pathfinder, some poisons can't (directly) kill. Wasp poison does dex damage for example.
I'm thinking about Samiel (my aasimar archaeologist) buying some giant wasp poison. Right now i'm using tangleshot arrows to hamper foes but at higher levels, a bit of dex damage will help. With the bonus of keeping them alive.*
It's kind of a challenge at times, especially if we have some, um, violent people at the table.
*
Why? I mean death is, for most folks, a permanent thing. A dead person can’t change, can’t be hired, can’t be bribed or bought. All a dead guard gets you is the next guard. Especially for guards. Most people aren’t fanatics. Guards are often just doing their job. They’re getting paid. If you get a reputation of killing everyone and everything, who’s going to talk with you?
The standard guard, the guy who’s just earning his pay, there’s no point in killing him when you can disable him. If he realizes you spared his life, he might be more amicable the next time you have to deal with him. Heck, he might be better inclined to just let you pass for remuneration rather take a beating.
Now the guy who won’t quit? The fanatic, the despot, the one who swears revenge? Yeah, those you need to send to the boneyard. To quote a great Varasian philosopher, “Revenge is a sucker’s game.” Besides, if you’ve left a string of battered guards, associates and even rivals, and one turns up dead, it goes from, “Just another victim of the family,” to “Desna weeps! What did he do to cross the family?”
In most cases, I see poison as an underhanded weapon: a weapon of deceit, or trickery, or betrayal. The poisoned blade is almost always the weapon of a villain (or at best an amoral mercenary). Poisons can kill or damage indiscriminately and inadvertantly. A poisoner needs a certain level of callousness to use it, and disregard for the lives or safety of innocents is the hallmark of evil.
At my table, it's not necessarily an evil act to use poison against an opponent, but you would be very hard-pressed to say that it's ever a good act.
|
|
But most poisons inflict ability damage, which may not be fatal in and of itself, unless it attacks Con.
How does that differ from touch of idiocy, ray of enfeeblement, feeblemind or cloudkill?
Should casters who routinely use these spells also be considered 'a villain (or at best an amoral mercenary)'?
Does a caster require 'a certain level of callousness to use it, and disregard for the lives or safety of innocents'?
Does researching these spells constitute 'the hallmark of evil'?