Is poison use evil?

[myancey]

Should poison use be considered evil?

I've been thinking about it, considering the implications of poison use vs. use of a regular weapon.

If you kill someone with a weapon, does it matter if it's coated in poison? In this instance, assume you've a 100% certainty in killing this person. Why would it be more evil than simply shanking him (again, assuming you've a 100% certainty of killing him)?

Is poison use considered evil because of the romanticized notion that only villains use it? An example being Hamlet.

Thoughts?

[PollyOliver]

According to the designers, in a fabulously hypocritical chapter of The Book of Exalted Deeds, poison is evil (except for poisons which cause no ability damage and only unconsciousness) because it causes undue suffering. To which I reply, 1) in that same chapter "ravages", which are magical good guy poisons, also cause ability damage; and 2) smashing his face in with my axe causes a lot more suffering than paralyzing him with dex damage, capturing him, and healing him.

If your DM enjoys logic (or, you the DM enjoy logic) , hopefully poison is not any more automatically evil than spells that cause ability damage (or, you know, stabbing people). But RAW it is...because it just is.

[Coidzor]

This is a contentious issue.

[olentu]

As I recall the given explanation of why stat damaging poison use is evil is that the use of stat damaging poison causes undue suffering or something like that. Those that don't deal ability damage are fine.

Make of that what you will.

[Big Fau]

You see, someone on the Dev team thought that Poison deals damage constantly until the secondary damage kicks in, and that this damage causes incredible pain and suffering.

They decided that knowingly causing pain and suffering was an Evil act, while completely overlooking the moral standards that DnD sets as a baseline.



And then they do a 180 and print Ravages and Afflictions.



In other words, I don't think using poison is Evil, at least by DnD standards. How much suffering can you cause when the only poisons worth using can kill nigh instantly (or could be used with multiple attacks to achieve the same goal)?

[Ashtagon]

By raw, poison is evil. Technically, this even includes poisons used against evil creatures, and ravages, which are designed only to affect evil creatures.

Personally, I'd say it isn't so much evil as dishonourable, by preventing a fair fight. When someone faces you sword to sword, they can reasonably know what to expect. If your sword is poisoned however, they can't know it just by looking, so it inherently makes the fight less fair.

[Pika...]

I always argue: No. What is evil is how it is used.

Think of this, my distant relatives in the Amazon Rainforest use poison on their darts/weapons to take down game, and in the past war. They use it no different than a Fighter putting the Flame or Ice property on his weapon. It is clearly an enhancement to his weapon that is clearly coming at your face.

Now, what is evil is say putting it in an old king's drink and killing him cowardly. That is why we really relate poison to evil.


ps.
I consider being put aflame or being frozen as I am being sliced apart undue suffering. :smalltongue:

[PollyOliver]

By raw, poison is evil.

Personally, I'd say it isn't so much evil as dishonourable, by preventing a fair fight. When someone faces you sword to sword, they can reasonably know what to expect. If your sword is poisoned however, they can't know it just by looking, so it inherently makes the fight less fair.

This I'd agree with. IMO honor is mostly (but not always) the realm of lawfulness, so I'd say poison use is frequently chaotic (but depending on the circumstances/reasoning, might not be, or could even be the opposite).

[myancey]

So, in thinking:

If the person is going to die no matter what, it would be arguably not evil. The method of his death is not as important because with a 100% certainty, he is going to die.

But in practical application--by using it in combat or even in an assassination attempt where one person may not be aware of an impending confrontation--poison use is arguably evil. (By romanticized, moral standards, anyway). Poison use gives an unfair edge, tipping the balance...which could be construed as a neutral or evil action.

And interesting--by RAW it's evil. That's good to note. The ravages and afflictions thing is weird though...



I always argue: No. What is evil is how it is used.

Think of this, my distant relatives in the Amazon Rainforest use poison on their darts/weapons to take down game, and in the past war. They use it no different than a Fighter putting the Flame or Ice property on his weapon. It is clearly an enhancement to his weapon that is clearly coming at your face.

Now, what is evil is say putting it in an old king's drink and killing him cowardly. That is why we really relate poison to evil.


ps.
I consider being put aflame or being frozen as I am being sliced apart undue suffering. :smalltongue:

I enjoy the take on this. Not something I thought of.

[Talakeal]

If you are using BoED (I suggest not doing that) poison is evil by RAW. If going by the PHB it is merely dishonorable by RAW.

[IthroZada]

The last time this was a topic, it devolved into a rather ridiculous argument. Poison being evil is entirely subjective with all sorts of exceptions concerning the greater good or alternative Assassin classes called something like Avengers...

I would simply say it's dishonorable, and plenty of heroes are plenty dishonorable.

[PollyOliver]

So, in thinking:

If the person is going to die no matter what, it would be arguably not evil. The method of his death is not as important because with a 100% certainty, he is going to die.

But in practical application--by using it in combat or even in an assassination attempt where one person may not be aware of an impending confrontation--poison use is arguably evil. (By romanticized, moral standards, anyway). Poison use gives an unfair edge, tipping the balance...which could be construed as a neutral or evil action.

And interesting--by RAW it's evil. That's good to note. The ravages and afflictions thing is weird though...

It's very weird. I like to pretend it never happened (or, rather the always evil part never happened).

I wouldn't say that an unfair edge is evil though, necessarily. Going invisible and shanking your kidney out with sneak attack and staggering you with staggering strike so you can't retaliate is probably an "unfair advantage" by chivalrous standards. I tend to think honor and fairness are more in the realm of law v. chaos. Unfortunately, many of the designers appear to be of the opinion that lawful good is the best good, and this gets confused a lot. Or I'm just wrong. But it makes more sense to me as it being on the other axis, personally.

[Hirax]

Poison use (among other things) being inherently evil is equally stupid as the assassin class requiring you to be evil. Assuming you want to rule that poison use is always evil, the use of one evil method does not an evil character make, anyway.

[myancey]

It's very weird. I like to pretend it never happened (or, rather the always evil part never happened).

I wouldn't say that an unfair edge is evil though, necessarily. Going invisible and shanking your kidney out with sneak attack and staggering you with staggering strike so you can't retaliate is probably an "unfair advantage" by chivalrous standards. I tend to think honor and fairness are more in the realm of law v. chaos. Unfortunately, many of the designers appear to be of the opinion that lawful good is the best good, and this gets confused a lot. Or I'm just wrong. But it makes more sense to me as it being on the other axis, personally.

I like the idea honor and fairness or more law vs. chaos. I think I'll be sure to incorporate that into my DMing...seems reasonable to me.

[Big Fau]

Poison use (among other things) being inherently evil is equally stupid as the assassin class requiring you to be evil. Assuming you want to rule that poison use is always evil, the use of one evil method does not an evil character make, anyway.

Because everyone knows Assassins are Lawful Badass. (http://images.wikia.com/assassinscreed/images/f/f2/Ezio_assassinates_Carlo.jpg)

[kpenguin]

Poison use (among other things) being inherently evil is equally stupid as the assassin class requiring you to be evil.

Well, as a perquisite to joining the mystical brotherhood of assassins, you have to kill someone in cold blood for no other reason to join the assassins. If your alignment isn't evil, it sure is after doing that.

Thus, alignment pre-req. A bit redundant, perhaps, but definitely there.

[Hirax]

Well, as a perquisite to joining the mystical brotherhood of assassins, you have to kill someone in cold blood for no other reason to join the assassins. If your alignment isn't evil, it sure is after doing that.

No, that's not what it says.


The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

Kill a corrupt politician, evil wizard, or other BBEG. It doesn't say you need to choose someone randomly. It only needs to be someone that you otherwise would not have killed before.

[Optimator]

People get confused because poison is on the Paladin no-no list, but it's there because it is underhanded, dastardly, and decidedly unhonorable--not because it is Evil.

[slaydemons]

I don't know why they put it as evil, but they did if you go by raw it is evil but if you don't find it evil and your the dm just say its not evil, or convince the dm to see your side of it, now none of my players know of poison so its not that big a deal for me.

[myancey]

Kill a corrupt politician, evil wizard, or other BBEG. It doesn't say you need to choose someone randomly. It only needs to be someone that you otherwise would not have killed before.

Truth. I actually usually lessen the requirements of the assassin class to allow more than just evil characters entrance. I hate most alignment restrictions when it comes to races, classes. Not in BoED or BoVD though...

[Seharvepernfan]

It's up to you and your DM.

In my opinion, there is nothing evil about poison in the same way that there is nothing evil about a sword.

[Coidzor]

Well, as a perquisite to joining the mystical brotherhood of assassins, you have to kill someone in cold blood for no other reason to join the assassins. If your alignment isn't evil, it sure is after doing that.

Thus, alignment pre-req. A bit redundant, perhaps, but definitely there.

Which does nothing to explain why that requirement is actually there or mitigate the raw stupidity of it, even if that's what it actually was.

[Zaq]

I do find it interesting that, going strictly by what's in the BoED, casting Shivering Touch (and doing 3d6 DEX damage, no save) is less evil than rubbing some terinav root (1d6/2d6 DEX damage, DC 16 Fort negates) on them. Their reasoning is: because.

[Tvtyrant]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning; taking RAW as a whole is like grabbing a book filled with fortune cookie sayings and basing your life off of them. "Poison is evil because it hurts people's stats!" "Ravages are good because they are eco-friendly!" "Assassins are evil because they kill people without the person seeing them!" "Sneak attacking someone isn't evil!" "BaB is equal to spell casting!" "You will find true love/a job/a pet/happiness today!" No one can use RAW indiscriminately and not be contradictory.

[Psyren]

Kill a corrupt politician, evil wizard, or other BBEG. It doesn't say you need to choose someone randomly. It only needs to be someone that you otherwise would not have killed before.

1) If you are killing them because they are corrupt or evil, you have failed the stipulation that there can be no other reason besides "join the assassins."

2) Killing evil people is neutral at best, unless you are saving the life of one of their imminent victims and there is no other way to do this.

[Hirax]

1) If you are killing them because they are corrupt or evil, you have failed the stipulation that there can be no other reason besides "join the assassins."


Disagree 100%. The ramification of your statement being true would be that you need to choose someone at random.

[Coidzor]

1) If you are killing them because they are corrupt or evil, you have failed the stipulation that there can be no other reason besides "join the assassins."

If you use any criteria for selecting someone to kill for the PrC, you've failed the stipulations that there can be no other reason besides "join the assassins," by that logic :smalltongue:


Disagree 100%. The ramification of your statement being true would be that you need to choose someone at random.

Even that wouldn't work, because you're killing them because they're a random person you selected to kill or because they're the first person you saw that's not in your party or the first person you saw and now your party wants to kill you so your character is a wash...

Or simply because it's impossible to be truly random.

Even if you roll a percentile dice, the character is now doing it because the entity outside the game universe that is controlling it rolled a 3 (on the table or without a table), while the player is doing it because the die roll told him to. Or the DM told him to.

[Ravens_cry]

No, but it could be construed as chaotic. If you're fighting someone, in many codes of honour, it is supposed to be a test of your skill verses theirs. The use of poison is an unfair advantage. Codes of honour in general are lawful things in my view.
Poisoning someones food would generally speaking be evil, but not because you used poison but because it is murder.

Disagree 100%. The ramification of your statement being true would be that you need to choose someone at random.
That may very well be the implication. In fact, it rather justifies the alignment requirement as killing someone for such a petty reason is an eminently evil act in my books.

[ffone]

This is a contentious issue.

I disagree, on the basis that I've never actually seen anyone take any side other than 'It's so obviously stupid that poison use is considered evil.' This topic seems to be a biweekly thread and a favorite 'punching bag' issue - raging against the machine of the morality-imposing DnD-designing curmudgeons of olde, whose archaic game design restrictions and sacred cows of sanctimony must be torn down!

I agree with the consensus, I just find it a bit...'fish in a barrel', you know? Playing devil's advocate, it's pretty easy to think of fluff to explain the ravages/afflictions thing: maybe they don't cause the 'undue pain and suffering' of poisons, maybe are debilitating but just feel numb, or even euphoric like some drugs.

Of course, there are RL poisons which are like this - I've heard hemlock just makes you numb and sleepy before you die and isn't painful; don't ask me how we can know for sure though - and of course the 'but a sword or morningstar can be incredibly gruesome and painful' point remains a problem with declaring poison as evil.

[Coidzor]

That may very well be the implication. In fact, it rather justifies the alignment requirement as killing someone for such a petty reason is an eminently evil act in my books.

And completely defeats the whole fluff of needing training and skills and finesse and talent if the entry requirement is, knife the first person you see until they stop bleeding.

If an assassin is all about planning and contracted killings but the entry requirement is to be a brainless killbot... That's some serious disconnect and fluff fail.

[Honest Tiefling]

I disagree, on the basis that I've never actually seen anyone take any side other than 'It's so obviously stupid that poison use is considered evil.'

I've seen players and DMs call posion evil. I agree with it being underhanded, but I could see situations where the poison is a underhanded but still good action.

Through I dislike the fact that assassins are evil, honestly. Maybe non-lawful, but that's probably another issue.

[ffone]

And completely defeats the whole fluff of needing training and skills and finesse and talent if the entry requirement is, knife the first person you see until they stop bleeding.

If an assassin is all about planning and contracted killings but the entry requirement is to be a brainless killbot... That's some serious disconnect and fluff fail.

No. The Evil alignment doesn't mean brainless killbot, nor does the 'must kill someone to join the assassins'.

In fact it's common in RL gangs for initiation to involve committing a crime whose profits go to the gang. It serves several anthropological purposes:

1. Complicity: now you can't rat on the gang to the cops, b/c they have dirt on you
2. Pyramid/ponzi (senior members profit from new members)
3. the usual 'job interview' reasons - measure your dedication, skill, loyalty, etc., Darwinian effect of people who are more likely to get caught being less likely to make it in in the first place

I see the Assassin req as a more upmarket case of this.

(I don't think Evil should be required for the class either - but the RP requirement does make sense for a hypothetical in-world organization of Assassins).

[Hirax]

That may very well be the implication. In fact, it rather justifies the alignment requirement as killing someone for such a petty reason is an eminently evil act in my books.

Remember, the class doesn't require you to be of a chaotic alignment. That doesn't make sense for lawful evil characters entering the class.

[Akal Saris]

Even if you go by the restrictive definition in the BoED Pg. 34-35, that still leaves a number of poisons that are probably acceptable for good-aligned characters to use.

I have a list in my handbook (below), though as with all things alignment-related, the list is subjective. I would allow Svakalor venom for a good-aligned character, for example, but perhaps the secondary ability damage is too evil for some DMs.

For my own 2C, I'll point out that the coatl deal ability damage, yet are exemplars of good. But compare this with over 100 evil monsters that deal ability damage, and that seems like a bit of a straw man.

For GOOD-aligned adventurers and crowd control: Sleep, paralysis, unconsciousness, and other non-lethal poisons listed by save DC
* DC 34: Svakalor Venom, Greater (Paralysis/1d6 Con) (Dungeonscape)
* DC 24: Svakalor Venom (Paralysis/4d6 Con) (Dungeonscape)
* DC 22: Eyeblast (Blindness) (C. Adv?)
* DC 20: Sssartisss (Paralysis 2d6 mins/Unconscious) (Serpent Kingdoms)
* DC 18: Scorcher Fumes (Lose the Scent ability) (A&EG)
* DC 17: Lizardfolk Sleep Poison (Contact, Unconsciousness 1d3 rounds/Unconsciousness 1d3 hours) (Serpent Kingdoms)
* DC 15: Oil of Taggit (0/Unconscious) (Core)
* DC 15: Good-bye Kiss (Exhaustion/Exhaustion, Fatigued on a successful save) (C. Scoundrel)
* DC 15: Sleep-Smoke (DC 15 Unconscious/Unconscious 1d3 mins) (Waterdeep, City of Splendors)
* DC 15: Coldrith Toxin (Paralysis/2d4 Con) (A&EG)
* DC 15: Retch (Nausea) (A&EG)
* DC 15: Wild Dwarf Knockout Poison (Slows for 5 rounds, then unconsciousness) (PGtF)
* DC 14: Homonculus venom (Sleep)
* DC 14: Pseudodragon venom (Sleep)
* DC 13: Carrion Crawler Brain Juice (Paralysis) (A&EG)
* DC 13: Sleeping Weed (Slowed/1d4 Dex) (A&EG)
* DC 13: Drow Poison (Unconsciousness/Unconsciousness) (Core)
* DC 12: Roach paste (Nausea for 1 round/Filth Fever)
* DC 12: Brain Dust (Confusion) (A&EG)
* DC 12: Darkeye (Paralysis 1 min, ingested) (Sharn, City of Towers)
* DC 11: Lockjaw (Can't speak) (A&EG)

[holywhippet]

It's up to you and your DM.

In my opinion, there is nothing evil about poison in the same way that there is nothing evil about a sword.

Not exactly the same thing. If someone wields a sword against you then you have the options of surrender, running away or fighting back using your own skill. If someone has used poison on you then it's too late for any such options.

[Themrys]

Should poison use be considered evil?

Ask yourself: If a child is abused constantly, and, one day, poisons the abuser...is this evil? Should the child have, instead, waited to grow up, taken fighting lessons and dueled the abuser?

In my view, poisoning the drink of someone who should have seen it coming is neither evil nor unhonourable if done by someone who doesn't have the means to fight "fair". If killing is okay, killing with poison is, too.
(Besides, some poisons don't cause more pain than some other methods of killing)

[Coidzor]

No. The Evil alignment doesn't mean brainless killbot, nor does the 'must kill someone to join the assassins'.

I apologize if my meaning was not clear. I was not talking about the Evil alignment. I was talking about that kind of strict(in my mind, insanely so) reading of the requirement "kill someone to join the assassins."

Which are quite different from a street gang in terms of how they're sold in fantasy fluff, generally speaking.

If the assassin requirement were an upmarket version of the street gang example you gave, then the prospective assassin would need to actually select a mark & plan out a hit. But if he uses any criteria for selecting a target to and actually plans an assassination of said person, then he violates the PrC requirements by the reading that Psyren gave.

Since it's impossible for an actor, rational or otherwise, to be truly random and it's impossible to use no criteria and remain an actor, the closest example I could think of to illustrate what kind of limitations this imposed when taken to the logical conclusion was that of a mindless, brainless killbot. Possibly with a pre-set kill limit. So that one could send wave after wave of one's men to be killed by them until they reached that limit and shut down...

edit:

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

If you read this strictly, then you're not allowed to use any selection criteria to choose your target. Or even kill a given target because the assassins told you to kill them in order to join them.

[Callista]

It's possible to go by RAW and say poison use is evil, but if you do, you end up with contradictions, so many of us houserule it as having no intrinsic association with alignment.

The main issues:

Poison isn't necessarily painful and can't be described as equivalent to torture.
Poison causes ability damage, and this is supposed to be painful. But ability damage from other sources isn't intrinsically evil, and there are some pretty painful attacks (Burning Hands, anyone?) which are not considered Evil. And non-painful substances, such as anesthetics (mental stat damage), paralytics (Dexterity or Strength damage), and alcohol, are also statted out as poisons.
Poison can be used to torture, but that doesn't make the poison evil; it makes the torture evil. Specifically designing or using a poison for its painful effects is probably evil.

Unlike diseases, poisons don't spread.
You can poison your enemy and not worry about contagion. So making poison equivalent to disease is not valid. (Using diseases usually is evil, because these do spread to people who don't deserve them. Even diseases which target only Evil-aligned people are borderline because not all Evil-aligned people deserve death.)

D&D poisons cannot easily be compared to a real-world equivalent.
In other words, it's not the same thing as attacking with, say, chlorine gas or something of that sort. Most poisons don't cause death, and those which do will cause death swiftly or else allow a full recovery. If you can in good conscience kill someone with a sword, killing him with poison is equivalent. Using inhaled fatal poison in an area populated by noncombatants can be considered evil--but nonfatal poison could even be used for riot control, and be much better than having the town guard go after the mob.

Poison is sneaky and dishonorable.
Often, yes, especially if used against someone who expects a fair fight or a duel, or if slipped into someone's food assassin-style. But that's Chaotic, not Evil. Sneakiness can be used for Good purposes, too. I think this is yet another example of people confusing Law with Good.

Poison can be used to capture someone alive.
Very useful for lawmen and such, and makes it possible to show mercy in some cases, and to restrain prisoners without repeatedly bashing them over the head. Poison use doesn't even have to be chaotic in this case.

All of this contradicts the PHB alignment definitions, so the only conclusion I can draw is that poison-as-evil is probably a tradition that comes from older editions and hasn't been seriously looked at since. It doesn't help that in real life, killing by poison has been traditionally used only by people committing murder and people using chemical weapons that more often than not are extremely painful, cause permanent damage, and affect civilians. But D&D poisons don't actually work like that, and the idea that they're evil doesn't fit into the alignment system. It's much easier to just houserule that poison isn't intrinsically evil than it is to arbitrarily add poisons to the list of evil stuff.

[JonestheSpy]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning;

Okay, it's like this: Poison is regarded as evil in the game because it was regarded as evil in real life. Historically, most combat did not end in death. People would fight until they ran away, until they surrendered, etc - whether you're talking big battles or personal duels. Granted, being wounded would often end in death because of infections, but that was later down the line and not seen as the direct fault of the guy who stabbed you. Also, combat was often seen as a case of "The better man wins" - the whole 'trial by combat' thing, with the victor being regarded as te one with Right on their side.

Poison messes all that up. Even a little scratch can mean death - no chance to fight til someone is disarmed or whatever. To put poison on your weapon means intent to murder, with no other option. AND it's cheating.

So that's real life. But in 3.x DnD, everything is actually completely reversed. In the game, almost all combat is to the death, by whatever means necessary, so the idea that poison is somehow more evil than fireballs or power attacking with your greatsword is just stupid.

In fact, one can make a very convincing argument that using poison can be a GOOD act. Aside from CON poison, none of them are lethal, and can all be recovered from eventually (except for a few of the weird ones). That means poison is one of the best ways to incapacitate foes without killing them. It's the perfect weapon for the superhero type vigilante who fights bad guys to bring them to justice without simply slaughtering them.

[Coidzor]

In fact, one can make a very convincing argument that using poison can be a GOOD act. Aside from CON poison, none of them are lethal, and can all be recovered from eventually (except for a few of the weird ones). That means poison is one of the best ways to incapacitate foes without killing them. It's the perfect weapon for the superhero type vigilante who fights bad guys to bring them to justice without simply slaughtering them.

Indeed, one of my favorite ideas related to this is to be deliciously cruel and evil in the most good way possible by taking BBEGs & the upper echelons of their posses alive & forcing them into a fate worse than death by taking their free will away and making them unable to act in an evil way and instead having to do good acts or even just Sanctifying the Wicked them once it becomes affordable.

[TheCountAlucard]

Personally, I'd say it isn't so much evil as dishonourable, by preventing a fair fight. When someone faces you sword to sword, they can reasonably know what to expect. If your sword is poisoned however, they can't know it just by looking, so it inherently makes the fight less fair.By this logic, then, poison is no more evil than being higher-level than your opponent; generally they can't just tell by lookin' that your Base Attack Bonus is seven higher than theirs any more than they can tell that your weapon's coated in arsenic.


Not exactly the same thing. If someone wields a sword against you then you have the options of surrender, running away or fighting back using your own skill. If someone has used poison on you then it's too late for any such options.Not true; for one thing, most poisons don't kill on their own (after all, a poison only directly kills you if it drops your Constitution to 0), and secondly, generally a poison only damages your ability to fight; even the best ones only have a good chance of taking the option of a fight away entirely.

My opinion clearly lies somewhere along the lines of what JonestheSpy and Callista said. :smallamused:

[Hirax]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning;

They don't use logic, they're taking tropes and turning them into rules.

[Ravens_cry]

Remember, the class doesn't require you to be of a chaotic alignment. That doesn't make sense for lawful evil characters entering the class. A single act does not change ones alignment unless it is extremely so. Killing someone just to join an organization may be moderately Chaotic, but it is eminently evil.

[Bhaakon]

By this logic, then, poison is no more evil than being higher-level than your opponent; generally they can't just tell by lookin' that your Base Attack Bonus is seven higher than theirs any more than they can tell that your weapon's coated in arsenic.

It isn't. If poison is evil because it's sneaky, difficult to defend against, and provides an unfair advantage, then every casting class is evil as well. Use of poison carries a stigma which may have reputation repercussions in-game, but it's shouldn't have any more impact on a character's objective (for lack of a better word) alignment than using a beneficial magic item or beating up on low-level mooks.

[Talakeal]

Ask yourself: If a child is abused constantly, and, one day, poisons the abuser...is this evil? Should the child have, instead, waited to grow up, taken fighting lessons and dueled the abuser?

In my view, poisoning the drink of someone who should have seen it coming is neither evil nor unhonourable if done by someone who doesn't have the means to fight "fair". If killing is okay, killing with poison is, too.
(Besides, some poisons don't cause more pain than some other methods of killing)

I have heard a lot of arguments that the whole concept of honor is basically ensuring that people stick to fighting other members of their own social class, and thus if someone doesn't have the means to fight fair than they, by the rules of honor, don't deserve to win.


I have also heard an interview with Gygax where he was asked why he originally made poison evil. He said it was simply because killing an enemy was neither heroic nor fun in your standard sword and sorcery game, and he wanted to make it clear that it was not a tactic that the PCs should use.


As for assassins, I always have read it as they assign you your first job, but instead of paying you, you are rewarded with full membership. It proves that you are serious about wanting to join them and have the stomach and the skill for the job, as well as making you an accessory to their crimes before they share any secrets with you. You most certainly do not get to pick your own mark, not by alignment or by a d100 role. But, that's just my interpretation, it is a rather vague rule.

[Hirax]

A single act does not change ones alignment unless it is extremely so. Killing someone just to join an organization may be moderately Chaotic, but it is eminently evil.

LE characters aren't going to necessarily agree to kill randoms though. Assassins can refuse contracts, remember, and not all assassins guilds are the same. You're imposing a moral dilemma on someone in a situation where it isn't needed and doesn't make sense to do so.

[SuperFerret]

Poison use is neutral. It depends on what it's used for. Is a viper evil because it uses its venom in defense and to hunt? No. It's neutral.

[Talakeal]

Poison use is neutral. It depends on what it's used for. Is a viper evil because it uses its venom in defense and to hunt? No. It's neutral.

The animal type makes vipers exempt from rules concerning morality, they are always neutral regardless of their motives or actions by virtue of being an animal. Coatls on the other hand...

[Runestar]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning; taking RAW as a whole is like grabbing a book filled with fortune cookie sayings and basing your life off of them.

Heehee, consider this sigged. :smallcool:

[horngeek]

Because everyone knows Assassins are Lawful Badass. (http://images.wikia.com/assassinscreed/images/f/f2/Ezio_assassinates_Carlo.jpg)

That man is the ultimate argument for the use of poisons by Good characters, and the fact that Assassins can be Good.

That said, I'd consider him Neutral or Chaotic Good. Probably the latter.

[Lord_Gareth]

You know what, I was going to weigh in, but the community has already covered this admirably, so I will only say this for those that don't want to read the whole thread:

TL;DR - WotC's fluff-writing department for 3.5 was run by drugged-up monkeys, do whatever for your games at home.

[Morquard]

And completely defeats the whole fluff of needing training and skills and finesse and talent if the entry requirement is, knife the first person you see until they stop bleeding.

If an assassin is all about planning and contracted killings but the entry requirement is to be a brainless killbot... That's some serious disconnect and fluff fail.
I always viewed this as going down like this:

Assassin:"So, you want to join our esteemed brotherhood? Well to show your talent and dedication to our cause, go and kill this man"
*assassin recruiter hands you a picture*
Player: "Who is he? Has he done anything? Is he a child-abusing, wife-beating psychopath?"
Assassin: "Who knows. Maybe he's a loving family father, and will be terribly missed. But I told you to kill him, so you either do it or not"

Basicly, you kill him for no reason other than because you've been told. If he deserves to die, or not, is simply not a decission an assassin makes. They get paid, and thats all the reason they need.

Simply going out in the street and shanking a random beggar is not what being an assassin is about.

[The Big Dice]

I have also heard an interview with Gygax where he was asked why he originally made poison evil. He said it was simply because killing an enemy was neither heroic nor fun in your standard sword and sorcery game, and he wanted to make it clear that it was not a tactic that the PCs should use.
He decided poison was Evil because he made up a bunch of crazy powerful poisons for some particularly nasty types in his game. Then the PCs realised how effective the poisons were and started using them on everything.


As for assassins, I always have read it as they assign you your first job, but instead of paying you, you are rewarded with full membership. It proves that you are serious about wanting to join them and have the stomach and the skill for the job, as well as making you an accessory to their crimes before they share any secrets with you. You most certainly do not get to pick your own mark, not by alignment or by a d100 role. But, that's just my interpretation, it is a rather vague rule.
That's more or less what I thought. And then a player took the Oblivion route of killing some insignificant individual rather than try to find the Assassins by more conventional means. And so was born an organisation inspired by the Dark Brotherhood.

[Serpentine]

Like most people here, I say no - with the possible exception of poisons that explicitly cause intense pain or permanent physical deformities. But that shares a very blurry line with the "it's how you use it that determines its alignment" angle.
I can see the "it's dishonourable" angle, but I also see it as the weapon of the weak, of women (noncombatant, that is) and children.

[Lateral]

Well, the rules imply that WotC thought so, but my personal opinion is that WotC is stupid. Nyah. What's so inherently bad about poison? Hell, the more fast-acting poisons are probably less cruel than beating somebody with a stick until they die.

[Feytalist]

Oh my, is it Morality Monday already? I love these discussions, because no-one ever wins.

My momma always said, poison is as poison does. Does it kill things (or facilitate killing, I suppose I should add)? Well, that's about as evil as stabbing someone in the spleen. And in D&D, that's pretty much accepted as a day in the life. Does it intentionally cause suffering without any other motive? Actually, I don't think there are any poisons that do this... are there?

Would a paladin use poison? Probably not, unless he wants to fall fast and far. Would an amoral rogue use poison? Probably, because I mean, from his viewpoint, who cares, right?

My point? I'm not quite certain, to be honest. The kind of people who routinely go around poisoning everyone are not the kind of people who would care about the morality of it all, I imagine.

[Serpentine]

Does it intentionally cause suffering without any other motive? Actually, I don't think there are any poisons that do this... are there?There are a few whose fluff says they cause intense pain and one or two that cause physical disfigurement, but most of them are limited just to their mechanical effects.

[Feytalist]

There are a few whose fluff says they cause intense pain and one or two that cause physical disfigurement, but most of them are limited just to their mechanical effects.

Which usually boils down to Str/Dex/Con drain, lowered will saves or the like. Stuff that facilitates easier killing.

Although I suppose you could use it outside of combat, and just go "hur hur that guy is in agony hurr" but then, question answered as to your relative morality anyway.

Same with if your character routinely chooses the more horrific poisons over the relatively (fluffy-wise) harmless ones that have the same effect.

[Glarx]

In reference to ravages v. poisons,

Could it be that ravages, only affecting those with the Evil alignment or subtype, are considered Good by merit of bringing suffering only to the wicked, while poisons affect indiscriminately?

And then, here's something else: if it's the general consensus that poisons aren't Evil, then are drugs Evil, as described in the Book of Vile Darkness?

Finally, it seems strange to say that a sword and poison are synonymous in terms of morality because -- and yes, I'm going to ignore the mechanical effect of 'but it only deals ability damage and cannot technically kill you' -- you cannot slip a sword into your enemy's Cure Serious Wounds potion.

But as I play strictly Evil characters, I like to keep assassins and poisons where they belong. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

If you use any criteria for selecting someone to kill for the PrC, you've failed the stipulations that there can be no other reason besides "join the assassins," by that logic :smalltongue:

Exactly. You're not supposed to care who you kill, therefore criteria are meaningless.

Think about it. You're an assassin - a living weapon. Your employers send you a picture, and you don't ask questions, you get out there and do it. That's what they want from you, none of this nonsensical "free will" and "thinking it over."


Here's another way to think of it:
If you kill them because they're corrupt, evil etc. then there are exactly two scenarios behind it. Either you think:
1) They are so evil and badwrong that they deserve death - in which case, that is why you are killing them, and you have failed the "no other reason" litmus; or,
2) They are NOT evil enough to deserve death - in which case, you've just committed cold-blooded murder rather than an execution.

Either way, you are now evil, and kpenguin is right. There is no daylight between these two.

[SITB]

Could it be that ravages, only affecting those with the Evil alignment or subtype, are considered Good by merit of bringing suffering only to the wicked, while poisons affect indiscriminately?

So it's cool to harm anybody as long as he pings as evil on the Pally's radar? Are you arguing that torturing people is okay as long as they deserve it?


And then, here's something else: if it's the general consensus that poisons aren't Evil, then are drugs Evil, as described in the Book of Vile Darkness?

What does it mean that 'drugs are evil'? Trafficking drugs? Using drugs? The former could be constructed as evil, depending on a lot of variables, the latter probably isn't.


Finally, it seems strange to say that a sword and poison are synonymous in terms of morality because -- and yes, I'm going to ignore the mechanical effect of 'but it only deals ability damage and cannot technically kill you' -- you cannot slip a sword into your enemy's Cure Serious Wounds potion.


Sneak attack.

[Serpentine]

And then, here's something else: if it's the general consensus that poisons aren't Evil, then are drugs Evil, as described in the Book of Vile Darkness?Not in my opinion, no. Activities around the drug trade? Quite possibly. But... well, lets just say I'm heading rapidly into Forbidden Topics there :smallwink:

[Psyren]

A sapient being, exercising his free will to knowingly engage in drug use, isn't evil. BoVD has a very annoying tendency to equate "evil" and "squick" when they aren't the same thing... like, at all.

[NineThePuma]

For those who broach the subject of Assassins, might I direct you to check the Test Based Prerequisite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#assassin)? It's not very clear, but the fluff of the Assassin class very clearly indicates that you aren't trying to be an Assassin, you're trying to be a member of the Assassin's Guild of Evil Murderers. I've actually used the assassin class for certain ranger types, who were focused on killing their enemies.

[Coidzor]

Like most people here, I say no - with the possible exception of poisons that explicitly cause intense pain or permanent physical deformities. But that shares a very blurry line with the "it's how you use it that determines its alignment" angle.
I can see the "it's dishonourable" angle, but I also see it as the weapon of the weak, of women (noncombatant, that is) and children.

Which brings us to the question, are there any that do that in D&D to your knowledge in the first place that you feel that caveat is necessary?


Think about it. You're an assassin - a living weapon. Your employers send you a picture, and you don't ask questions, you get out there and do it. That's what they want from you, none of this nonsensical "free will" and "thinking it over."

Which is quite a different picture from the scenario you first set us upon anyway.

What with it being "They tell you" rather than "You get to choose but can't actually choose"


It's not very clear, but the fluff of the Assassin class very clearly indicates that you aren't trying to be an Assassin, you're trying to be a member of the Assassin's Guild of Evil Murderers.

Which is probably is related to the whole annoyance at WOTC thing, yeah.

Though telling them to kill & replace the court wizard is a pretty lulzy way to get PCs perma-dead, I'll admit...

[Psyren]

Which is quite a different picture from the scenario you first set us upon anyway.

What with it being "They tell you" rather than "You get to choose but can't actually choose"

Those are two different scenarios by design. The former is after you succeed at joining the assassins, the latter is while you're trying to qualify.

The logic of course being: "if he doesn't care who he has to kill now, he won't ever question his assignments." And not caring who you kill is of course evil as kpenguin said.

Do you have a response to the conundrum I posted after that?

[Coidzor]

Those are two different scenarios by design. The former is after you succeed at joining the assassins, the latter is while you're trying to qualify.

Do you have a response to the conundrum I posted after that?

Other than that you're not beholden to the assassins at all after you take your first level of the PrC, so the fluff is out of whack if the only guaranteed assassination opportunity is cheapened and played as just straight up stabbing some random guy in the face.

As for the conundrum you posted, I've gotta run out the door, but skimming it, the "for no other litmus" is failed in the second case because you killed them because it was easier to justify as an entry killing to get into the assassins. Which is similar to failing because "I chose him because he's prominent and it'd be more impressive/flashy to actually succeed in killing a batman wizard than some random barmaid."

[Serpentine]

Which brings us to the question, are there any that do that in D&D to your knowledge in the first place that you feel that caveat is necessary?I'm pretty sure I've seen poisons described that do them. Although the disfigurement bit I might be getting mixed up with diseases. I think the drow's favoured poison might be of the horrible pain variety, though?

[Lord_Gareth]

Ironically, no. The drow favor a painless sleep poison.

[Psyren]

As for the conundrum you posted, I've gotta run out the door, but skimming it, the "for no other litmus" is failed in the second case because you killed them because it was easier to justify as an entry killing to get into the assassins.

Right - which means you did it to get into the assassins. It thus passes the litmus and is valid. (But, makes you evil.)

My point is that the alignment requirement on the Assassin makes perfect sense with that fluff requirement in there.

As for "I killed Batman because it would impress the assassins" - that passes too. (And again, makes you evil.)

[Eldariel]

Which does nothing to explain why that requirement is actually there or mitigate the raw stupidity of it, even if that's what it actually was.

Assassin-class was originally used for a very specific organization of assassins hence the prerequisite. It's just presented in a general manner in DMG and thus the prerequisites seem kinda weird.

And no, obviously using poison is not evil. Poison is a tool, what matters is how it's used. Using a poison/sword/fireball to kill a Red Dragon? Fair. Using them to kill an innocent human child. Quite evil. Absolutely no difference between poison and other implements of death. Even the "fairness"-argument is kinda...casting Invisibility is no less underhanded than poisoning food. So, yeah.

[Shadowknight12]

Personal Opinion That Overrules Canon In My Games:

Poison is not evil. It's not chaotic, it's not dishonourable, and each paladin writes his own code (or adopts the code of a mentor), so it's not even unpaladinlike (not even unladylike, either). Why? Because basic college education has taught me that everything is poison. The only degree of difference is dosage. What we know as a "poison" is merely a substance that is toxic or harmful in very small doses. If we start looking at things a bit closer, even water can be poisonous.

[Serpentine]

You can OD on it...

[PollyOliver]

Personal Opinion That Overrules Canon In My Games:

Poison is not evil. It's not chaotic, it's not dishonourable, and each paladin writes his own code (or adopts the code of a mentor), so it's not even unpaladinlike (not even unladylike, either). Why? Because basic college education has taught me that everything is poison. The only degree of difference is dosage. What we know as a "poison" is merely a substance that is toxic or harmful in very small doses. If we start looking at things a bit closer, even water can be poisonous.

I think that's kind of beside the point though. We're talking about the conscious choice to use a harmful (or lethal) amount of that substance on someone. There's a world of difference between handing someone an apple and cracking open the seeds of hundreds of apples and purifying the cyanide out, and then giving that to a person.

I agree that poison shouldn't be evil (or rather, any more evil than any other form of killing), but I don't think this has anything to do with it.

[Shadowknight12]

I think that's kind of beside the point though. We're talking about the conscious choice to use a harmful (or lethal) amount of that substance on someone. There's a world of difference between handing someone an apple and cracking open the seeds of hundreds of apples and purifying the cyanide out, and then giving that to a person.

I agree that poison shouldn't be evil (or rather, any more evil than any other form of killing), but I don't think this has anything to do with it.

My problem is that "poison use" is hilariously stupid as a concept because, as I mentioned, everything is a poison. And this is without going into things like allergies, which something that further muddies the waters (Is it poison (and therefore evil) if I am captured by orcs and, instead of stabbing them all in the eye with a toothpic (à la typical action hero), I put almonds in their meals, fully aware that most orcs are deathly allergic to almonds?).

And what about the theoretical paladin who casts a compulsion spell that make targets hyperventilate to death (sustained hyperventilation causes metabolic alkalosis, which can be fatal, and physiologically indistinguishable from having ingested or inhaled a "poisonous" substance that produced the same effect)? That's, in a fashion, poisoning people to death with air. And why does he do that? Because this is basically painless. Instead of hacking into their soft flesh like the main character in a slasher flick, he kills them in a more humane way.

Or he challenges the BBEG to a drinking contest and kills him via alcohol poisoning. Why is that Evil? That should be Awesome Good instead.

[awa]

part of the problem with the assasin class is it is a prestige class prestige class were supposed to be tied to the champaign world and heavily subject to dm fiat but insteade pepole me included just treat them like classes with prequisites picked and choosen for mechanical abbilities almost never built into the setting in any meanigful way. So like has been said you werent just a killer you were part of the order of assasins and shure once they have taught you their super special killing techniques you could leave but then youve just left the order of master killers and now must fight against them or whatever.

[The Big Dice]

Personal Opinion That Overrules Canon In My Games:

Poison is not evil. It's not chaotic, it's not dishonourable, and each paladin writes his own code (or adopts the code of a mentor), so it's not even unpaladinlike (not even unladylike, either).
Oh dear.

Poisoning a weapon is cheating. It's taking away the skill of the person using said weapon and replacing it with chemistry. It's not noble, it's not skillful and it's not any kind of fight when you can incapacitate or kill the other guy with the lightest of scratches.

The question isn't "Should I use it?" The question is, "Would I object it if it were used on me?" And if I need to go into this any further, I have a feeling it wouldn't make any difference.

My problem is that "poison use" is hilariously stupid as a concept because, as I mentioned, everything is a poison. And this is without going into things like allergies, which something that further muddies the waters (Is it poison (and therefore evil) if I am captured by orcs and, instead of stabbing them all in the eye with a toothpic (à la typical action hero), I put almonds in their meals, fully aware that most orcs are deathly allergic to almonds?).

And what about the theoretical paladin who casts a compulsion spell that make targets hyperventilate to death (sustained hyperventilation causes metabolic alkalosis, which can be fatal, and physiologically indistinguishable from having ingested or inhaled a "poisonous" substance that produced the same effect)? That's, in a fashion, poisoning people to death with air. And why does he do that? Because this is basically painless. Instead of hacking into their soft flesh like the main character in a slasher flick, he kills them in a more humane way.

Or he challenges the BBEG to a drinking contest and kills him via alcohol poisoning. Why is that Evil? That should be Awesome Good instead.
Too technical. Too ludicrous. Get your classroom out of my RPG.

Poison makes things easier for you and harder for the enemy. But does it in a way that isn't clever, it's sneaky. It's not a tactical advantage or an ace in the hole, it's something that would have players screaming out about how unfair the GM was being if it were done to them.

In a place where morality can take concrete form and literally rip your lungs out, there is no argument that poison is evil.

[Psyren]

@ Big Dice - Poison being "cheating" does not equate to it being evil. Dishonorable maybe (and thus chaotic, if anything) but not evil.

Sure poison replaces my weapon skill with chemistry, but you could easily make that argument about almost any magic spell (e.g. Shivering Touch) which replaces my combat skill with physics.

I would object to a fireball being used on me too. Why aren't fireballs inherently evil?


Finally, every last one of your arguments applies to Ravages too. Yet they are good because... they only work on evil people? So, what about if I only poison evil people?

[Shadowknight12]

Oh dear.

Poisoning a weapon is cheating. It's taking away the skill of the person using said weapon and replacing it with chemistry. It's not noble, it's not skillful and it's not any kind of fight when you can incapacitate or kill the other guy with the lightest of scratches.

The question isn't "Should I use it?" The question is, "Would I object it if it were used on me?" And if I need to go into this any further, I have a feeling it wouldn't make any difference.

Too technical. Too ludicrous. Get your classroom out of my RPG.

Poison makes things easier for you and harder for the enemy. But does it in a way that isn't clever, it's sneaky. It's not a tactical advantage or an ace in the hole, it's something that would have players screaming out about how unfair the GM was being if it were done to them.

In a place where morality can take concrete form and literally rip your lungs out, there is no argument that poison is evil.

Oh that was funny. Thanks for that chuckle.

I actually had a thought-out argument to counter every single point you're making here, but then I realised that it wouldn't make a difference, since you're applying your morality to the game and no amount of logic or sound reasoning is going to change that; you're too emotionally invested into this argument. It would be like trying to tell someone who is convinced that paladins must be Lawful Good that it's okay to have a Chaotic Good paladin. No amount of reasoning is going to change their deep-seated convictions. So why try?

If you think poison use is evil, that's okay. You can run your game however you like! :smallsmile:

For the record: I wouldn't object to a DM using poison on my character. Why would I? It'd be just as silly as objecting to having been targeted by a Ray of Enfeeblement, Touch of Stupidity, Shivering Touch or a stat-draining attack from an undead creature (all together now: Shadows for Strength, Allips for Wisdom, Banshees for Charisma, Wraiths for Constitution, Forgewraiths (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041105b&page=6) for Dexterity, Dream Vestiges for Intelligence and Spectres for tasty, tasty levels!).

[Hazzardevil]

My opinoin is this.
Poison isn't honourable, its just another way of putting the other guy in the ground. An Orthodox Paladin waill not approve of poisons, because the way I view their code is they respect evil and will fight it fairly.
Which is rather odd, since that is what the code indicates and insunuates that evil isn't something which must be killed, more an enemy that must be defeated and do so with Honour.

The poison itself is evil depending on why you kill someone and who it is.

[The Big Dice]

I actually had a thought-out argument to counter every single point you're making here, but then I realised that it wouldn't make a difference, since you're applying your morality to the game and no amount of logic or sound reasoning is going to change that; you're too emotionally invested into this argument. It would be like trying to tell someone who is convinced that paladins must be Lawful Good that it's okay to have a Chaotic Good paladin. No amount of reasoning is going to change their deep-seated convictions. So why try?
Ok, let me put it this way. The game says poison is evil. The game also says that there are real, physical places made of good, evil, law, chaos and neutrality. And combinations of those ingredients. Therefore, in D&D morality isn't just a concept. It's entire worlds.

The game also says there are also creatures made of good and evil, law and chaos. So evil isn't just a concept, it's a living, breathing being.

In other words, evil is a real, tangible thing in D&Dland.

The game also says that Paladins must be Lawful Good.

Any other position is by definition homebrew.

Now, I don't see anyone arguing against the various good and evil planes, or against demons, devils, archons and so on. And yet people always argue against the evil nature of poisons. Why is this? And yes, ravages are stupid. But then so are most of the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. They should have been called the Books of Scooby Doo. Because that's the level of sophistication both deal in.

Here's the thing. D&D is a game of absolutes. It's also a game where a great many things are abstracted. Bringing philosophy or science into things makes a mockery of the entire structure of the game. After all, the rules tell me what I can do. They don't mention terminal velocity, so therefore if I fall, it doesn't matter what height I fall from. It could be ten feet or ten miles. I hit the ground immediately and take 1d6 per ten feet fallen of damage. There's no provision for terminal velocity and water counts as a soft surface for landing on.

D&D morality is exactly the same. Good and evil are real, concrete, measurable and quantifiable absolutes. They are places and creatures and they can be defined in precise degrees by the use of Detect Good/Evil. And claiming otherwise is simply sophistry and an attempt to justify your own opinion in game terms. The same with trying to say that you can't swim across lava because the temperatures involved would literally evaporate human flesh on contact. Even though the rules say you can swim in lava.

If the game says something is evil and you decide it isn't, you need to follow the chain of dominoes that choice causes to fall. Because the idea of evil as a living things is deeply embedded in D&D.

[Shadowknight12]

Ok, let me put it this way. The game says poison is evil. The game also says that there are real, physical places made of good, evil, law, chaos and neutrality. And combinations of those ingredients. Therefore, in D&D morality isn't just a concept. It's entire worlds.

The game also says there are also creatures made of good and evil, law and chaos. So evil isn't just a concept, it's a living, breathing being.

In other words, evil is a real, tangible thing in D&Dland.

The game also says that Paladins must be Lawful Good.

Any other position is by definition homebrew.

Quite correct you are. Which is why I prefaced my post with "personal opinion that overrules canon in my games." I understand what the game's canon says and I choose to utterly disregard it. If you completely missed that, despite it being plain there in the post you quoted, well... that's hardly my fault. :smallwink:


Now, I don't see anyone arguing against the various good and evil planes, or against demons, devils, archons and so on. And yet people always argue against the evil nature of poisons. Why is this? And yes, ravages are stupid. But then so are most of the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. They should have been called the Books of Scooby Doo. Because that's the level of sophistication both deal in.

Funny how you say that poison is evil and then disregard the books that say so. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't say anywhere in core that poison use is evil, only that paladins are not allowed to do so.


Here's the thing. D&D is a game of absolutes. It's also a game where a great many things are abstracted. Bringing philosophy or science into things makes a mockery of the entire structure of the game. After all, the rules tell me what I can do. They don't mention terminal velocity, so therefore if I fall, it doesn't matter what height I fall from. It could be ten feet or ten miles. I hit the ground immediately and take 1d6 per ten feet fallen of damage. There's no provision for terminal velocity and water counts as a soft surface for landing on.

Actually there are rules for terminal velocity. Relevant link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm). There's a 20d6 maximum damage no matter how high you fall. They don't call it terminal velocity, but that's pretty much what it is.

Other than that, I completely disagree. D&D is what I make of it. If I want to bring philosophy, physics or whatever into my game, I can. I just don't expect everyone to agree with me or see it from my point of view.


D&D morality is exactly the same. Good and evil are real, concrete, measurable and quantifiable absolutes. They are places and creatures and they can be defined in precise degrees by the use of Detect Good/Evil. And claiming otherwise is simply sophistry and an attempt to justify your own opinion in game terms. The same with trying to say that you can't swim across lava because the temperatures involved would literally evaporate human flesh on contact. Even though the rules say you can swim in lava.

If the game says something is evil and you decide it isn't, you need to follow the chain of dominoes that choice causes to fall. Because the idea of evil as a living things is deeply embedded in D&D.

Yes, I know. And I dislike that, so I changed it. I've also changed how Detect Good/Evil/etc works. And if I find anything I don't like, I change it. Simple as that. I never say that my changes are flawless, but I put some amount of thought into them, and so far, they've worked. They've improved my games.

If poison being evil improves your game, go for it! Just accept that others may change that part of the game without any negative consequences (so far).

[Psyren]

I agree it's RAW, yet so is drowning to heal. At some point you have to let common sense take a seat at the table too.

[Callista]

For those who broach the subject of Assassins, might I direct you to check the Test Based Prerequisite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#assassin)? It's not very clear, but the fluff of the Assassin class very clearly indicates that you aren't trying to be an Assassin, you're trying to be a member of the Assassin's Guild of Evil Murderers. I've actually used the assassin class for certain ranger types, who were focused on killing their enemies.Yes. I've house-ruled that prerequisite to be "any dangerous covert mission", so as to open the Assassin class to non-Evil. I don't see any mechanical reason why Assassins should be Evil other than that prerequisite, so why limit it? It's a perfectly good PrC and most games are Good/Neutral ones anyway.

[Psyren]

Yes. I've house-ruled that prerequisite to be "any dangerous covert mission", so as to open the Assassin class to non-Evil. I don't see any mechanical reason why Assassins should be Evil other than that prerequisite, so why limit it? It's a perfectly good PrC and most games are Good/Neutral ones anyway.

Correction: most PCs are Good/Neutral. Several PrCs are intended for NPCs: Witch Hunter for instance, or Red Wizard, or Necrocarnate, or Blighter. Assassin (and Blackguard) can easily fall into this camp.

[Talakeal]

By RAW cocording to the PHB poison is not good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. It is dishonorable. Paladins (and knights) are NOT allowed to make up their own code by RAW, must be honorable and therefore cannot use poison.

BoED and BoVD RAW says poison is evil. BoED and BoVD are right up there with the Monster Manual II as the worst written D&D books of all time, and I would suggest not playing with them.

A side question, is it house ruling, or violating RAW, or using rule zero, to decide which splat books are used in your game, or do you have to go with a "everything official is allowed" or "core only" position to be on the up and up?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Correction: most PCs are Good/Neutral. Several PrCs are intended for NPCs: Witch Hunter for instance, or Red Wizard, or Necrocarnate, or Blighter. Assassin (and Blackguard) can easily fall into this camp.

Don't forget Beholder Mage.

On poison:
Poison is a weapon, more potent than most, but still a weapon. Saying poison is evil is like saying swords, axes, fire, magic, etc. is evil. It's more that poison is dishonorable (which, by definition, is chaotic).

[The Glyphstone]

Not to disrupt a fascinating alignment debate, but this was quoted upthread:



* DC 34: Svakalor Venom, Greater (Paralysis/1d6 Con) (Dungeonscape)
* DC 24: Svakalor Venom (Paralysis/4d6 Con) (Dungeonscape)


Is that a typo, or is 'greater' Svakalor Venom only 25% as potent as ordinary venom?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Not to disrupt a fascinating alignment debate, but this was quoted upthread:



Is that a typo, or is 'greater' Svakalor Venom only 25% as potent as ordinary venom?

Heh, that's what I was wondering.

[Andmcmuffin2]

Looks like less potent, but incredibly more difficult to throw off. So the Greater Svakalor doesn't need the Con damage to its enemies?

[Psyren]

It is a typo. Standard is 1d4 con, Greater is 1d6 con. The DCs are correct.

(Dungeonscape 129)

[Talakeal]

It's more that poison is dishonorable (which, by definition, is chaotic).


So it is. That is bizarre. Now I need to rethink my whole concept of law / chaos.

[ffone]

I apologize if my meaning was not clear. I was not talking about the Evil alignment. I was talking about that kind of strict(in my mind, insanely so) reading of the requirement "kill someone to join the assassins."

Which are quite different from a street gang in terms of how they're sold in fantasy fluff, generally speaking.

If the assassin requirement were an upmarket version of the street gang example you gave, then the prospective assassin would need to actually select a mark & plan out a hit. But if he uses any criteria for selecting a target to and actually plans an assassination of said person, then he violates the PrC requirements by the reading that Psyren gave.

Since it's impossible for an actor, rational or otherwise, to be truly random and it's impossible to use no criteria and remain an actor, the closest example I could think of to illustrate what kind of limitations this imposed when taken to the logical conclusion was that of a mindless, brainless killbot. Possibly with a pre-set kill limit. So that one could send wave after wave of one's men to be killed by them until they reached that limit and shut down...

edit:


If you read this strictly, then you're not allowed to use any selection criteria to choose your target. Or even kill a given target because the assassins told you to kill them in order to join them.

I don't understand. It says "
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." So that must be your only motive (i.e. not part of some quest, not done for profit and loot, although it doesn't say you can't loot them anyway - i.e. as long as the DM or in-world senior Assassins believe in your motives it's fine). It doesn't say anything else about how you choose the person, or that they have to be 'random' in any statistical sense, or it can't involve planning, stealth, use of archetypical skills, etc. Or doesn't say that senior Assassins must pick the target for you, but it doesn't say they can't give you "suggestions" (and while killing someone else may meet the stated prereqs, there may be in-character incentives to go along with a 'suggestion' made by assassins).

[Coidzor]

Assassin-class was originally used for a very specific organization of assassins hence the prerequisite. It's just presented in a general manner in DMG and thus the prerequisites seem kinda weird.

Which just increases the aggregate raw stupidity of it, that they made something generic without actually making it generic.


The question isn't "Should I use it?" The question is, "Would I object it if it were used on me?"

Then everything fails that last question that isn't enough beer and wenching to last until the next adventure. :smallconfused:


I don't understand.

Psyren nixed killing someone powerful, evil, and notable because they're powerful, evil, and notable, and that's what I was reacting to when I was criticizing what I perceived to be an overly strict reading of the requirement.

I then proceeded to discuss how being that strict with one's reading would lead to the things I said. The reason one chose who one killed for the prerequisite is enough to prevent one from qualifying for the PrC by that kind of reading because it's an additional reason on top of doing it to join the assassins.

Is that more clear?

[jguy]

Question: Why isn't the spell Poison evil then? Also, if anyone has noticed, Druids have an incredible amount of CON damaging spells.

[Talakeal]

Question: Why isn't the spell Poison evil then? Also, if anyone has noticed, Druids have an incredible amount of CON damaging spells.

Because its a core spell, and the idea of poison being evil wasn't added until later, just like Coatl, a core monster, can using poison and be good.

[Psyren]

I then proceeded to discuss how being that strict with one's reading would lead to the things I said. The reason one chose who one killed for the prerequisite is enough to prevent one from qualifying for the PrC by that kind of reading because it's an additional reason on top of doing it to join the assassins.


It's actually easy to pass the "no other reason" litmus - just kill someone you don't know. Simple.

If I don't know you're a tyrannical despot who deserves to die, then that reason will never factor into my choice to kill you.

Another way to do it - kill someone you know doesn't deserve death, like a Mother Teresa figure. There would be absolutely no reason to murder someone like that - except to join the assassins.

Both of these work. And again, they are both Evil. (And thus, you would be too.)

[Coidzor]

It's actually easy to pass the "no other reason" litmus - just kill someone you don't know. Simple.

Which is stupid as a requirement to join a group of assassins for a variety of reasons, my least favorite being that somehow killing a faceless no-name is really worth teaching some two-bit rogue how to use magic.

[The Random NPC]

It's actually easy to pass the "no other reason" litmus - just kill someone you don't know. Simple.

Ah, but now you're killing them because you want to join the assassins, and because they are someone you don't know.

Like he said, that overly strict reading of the requirements causes you to be unable to kill anyone just to join the assassins.

[Thurbane]

I find it hilarious that under BoED’s oddball morals, poisoning enemies is eeeevil, yet it’s OK to bash, cut, puncture, burn (with fire or acid), electrocute, freeze, blind, deafen, terrify to death (Phantasmal Killer), turn to stone, paralyse, implode, render insane, telekinetically batter against a wall, use caltrops/spike stones against, and otherwise harm opponents. It’s an idiotic return to the 1E notion that poison is the tool of the cowardly and dishonourable.

[Fox Box Socks]

RAW, yes.

Thematically, it's less Evil and more Chaotic. It's only a dirty and underhanded tactic if you think that combat has rules that need to be followed.

[holywhippet]

That's more or less what I thought. And then a player took the Oblivion route of killing some insignificant individual rather than try to find the Assassins by more conventional means. And so was born an organisation inspired by the Dark Brotherhood.

Heh, Oblivion. It was kind of buggy when it came to the "kill someone innocent to join the Dark Brotherhood" check. I managed to trigger the required kill when fighting someone in the arena. I don't know why it considered them to be an innocent.

[Psyren]

Ah, but now you're killing them because you want to join the assassins, and because they are someone you don't know.

Totally incorrect. Them being someone you don't know is a means to the end of joining the assassins. As opposed to killing someone you know is evil, which has nothing to do with the assassins at all, instead serving the alternate motive of assuaging your own guilty conscience.

[Big Fau]

Heh, Oblivion. It was kind of buggy when it came to the "kill someone innocent to join the Dark Brotherhood" check. I managed to trigger the required kill when fighting someone in the arena. I don't know why it considered them to be an innocent.

Friendly word of advice: Don't trigger it in the Shivering Isles. Bad things happen when you do.

[Tanuki Tales]

Totally incorrect. Them being someone you don't know is a means to the end of joining the assassins. As opposed to killing someone you know is evil, which has nothing to do with the assassins at all, instead serving the alternate motive of assuaging your own guilty conscience.

You made it sound like you were killing them because you didn't know them and thus felt it would make joining the Assassins easier.

And this makes me curious. If a Golem is ordered to join the Assassins and to follow any orders from others to in order to follow the first order, does that pass the technical "only to join the Assassins" that is being argued here? Or is it invalidated because it is only doing it in order to follow its initial order to join the Assassins and thus isn't killing to only join the Assassins? Assuming that the orders aren't too complicated and the Golem can take the class.

[Coidzor]

Totally incorrect. Them being someone you don't know is a means to the end of joining the assassins. As opposed to killing someone you know is evil, which has nothing to do with the assassins at all, instead serving the alternate motive of assuaging your own guilty conscience.

Nah, at that point we're going out of RAW and more into rules as make some variable amount of sense.

Granted, the whole doing something to assuage a guilty conscience as opposed to the fact that famous evil people are going to be more famous as difficult to kill or unkillable is pretty silly.

[olentu]

Totally incorrect. Them being someone you don't know is a means to the end of joining the assassins. As opposed to killing someone you know is evil, which has nothing to do with the assassins at all, instead serving the alternate motive of assuaging your own guilty conscience.

You know if getting into reasons behind reasons then it is actually impossible to join the assassins unless you have absolutely no reason to want to join the assassins.

[Andmcmuffin2]

You know if getting into reasons behind reasons then it is actually impossible to join the assassins unless you have absolutely no reason to want to join the assassins.

And this is why we don't talk about Fightclub.

[Psyren]

You know if getting into reasons behind reasons then it is actually impossible to join the assassins unless you have absolutely no reason to want to join the assassins.

Which is why I wasn't getting into reasons behind reasons. :smallsigh:

[Tanuki Tales]

Which is why I wasn't getting into reasons behind reasons. :smallsigh:

But that's what you seemed to imply by saying that they were doing the hit because they didn't know the person as opposed to knowing them.

[Psyren]

But that's what you seemed to imply by saying that they were doing the hit because they didn't know the person as opposed to knowing them.

You're overthinking it.

Assassins say "go kill someone."
I throw a knife out the window.

What other reason could there have been for that besides, "to join the assassins?" Please, tell me.

[Tanuki Tales]

You're overthinking it.

Assassins say "go kill someone."
I throw a knife out the window.

What other reason could there have been for that besides, "to join the assassins?" Please, tell me.

I'm merely commenting on the point Coidzor is already making, which is that you made a bad choice of wording when making your point.

[Eldariel]

Which just increases the aggregate raw stupidity of it, that they made something generic without actually making it generic.

True to a degree, but it makes perfect sense when you consider the purpose of the PRCs in the book; they are, more or less, intended as examples for the DM. It was expected that DMs would mostly write their own PRCs and the DMG options mostly act as examples on how to. It goes from the generic ones (e.g. Loremaster or Arcane Archer) into the specifics (Assassin, Red Wizard of Thay) to showcase the different types of PRCs one could use.

I don't think those particular PRCs were ever really designed for use in Core campaigns, and I know the writers didn't expect for the splatbook writers to ride the PRC idea that hard. So, the odd prerequisites seem sensible, at least to me, when considering the environment DMG was written in. Of course, little turned out the way they expected.

[Taelas]

If you use the BoED instead of chucking it into a bin like the rest of us did, poison use is Evil. This is silly and contradictory to everything else in the game.

If you go by logic instead, poison use is dishonorable, but can be Good, Neutral or Evil depending on your intentions and whom you use it on.

[Psyren]

I'm merely commenting on the point Coidzor is already making, which is that you made a bad choice of wording when making your point.

Duly noted.

[Zaq]

True to a degree, but it makes perfect sense when you consider the purpose of the PRCs in the book; they are, more or less, intended as examples for the DM. It was expected that DMs would mostly write their own PRCs and the DMG options mostly act as examples on how to. It goes from the generic ones (e.g. Loremaster or Arcane Archer) into the specifics (Assassin, Red Wizard of Thay) to showcase the different types of PRCs one could use.

I don't think those particular PRCs were ever really designed for use in Core campaigns, and I know the writers didn't expect for the splatbook writers to ride the PRC idea that hard. So, the odd prerequisites seem sensible, at least to me, when considering the environment DMG was written in. Of course, little turned out the way they expected.

I would buy that argument . . . if we were talking about 3.0. By the time the 3.5 DMG was written, though, there had been no shortage of splatbooks with piles of PrCs in them. The whole PrC paradigm, or something close to it, was fully in place when the 3.5 DMG crawled out of R&D.

You could argue that they probably just copied what they had in the 3.0 DMG, but I think my point still stands. They may have been lazy, but they were in no way unaware of the fact that there would be many, many PrCs after the first batch.

[Ravens_cry]

Which is stupid as a requirement to join a group of assassins for a variety of reasons, my least favorite being that somehow killing a faceless no-name is really worth teaching some two-bit rogue how to use magic.
Honestly, I do not see it as stupid. If you treat taking levels in Assassin as joining an in-world group, a conceit common to many prestige classes, then ffones explanation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11204327&postcount=32) makes perfect sense. You don't like the idea of having a character killing someone merely to join a group but have the assassin abilities, then become an Avenger.
No, not that kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_%28comics%29). Nor that kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_%28TV_series%29). This kind (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a).

[The Random NPC]

Honestly, I do not see it as stupid. If you treat taking levels in Assassin as joining an in-world group, a conceit common to many prestige classes, then ffones explanation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11204327&postcount=32) makes perfect sense. You don't like the idea of having a character killing someone merely to join a group but have the assassin abilities, then become an Avenger.
No, not that kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_%28comics%29). Nor that kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_%28TV_series%29). This kind (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a).

I belive Coidzor's point is that on the one hand you have some guy that already knows how to kill people and wants to join your group, and on the other, you have a guy that shanked a starving street rat in some back alley who also wants to join. One of those is more worthy of joining, but mechanically they both get accepted. If they were trying to make the class an orginization, the orginization should be giving you your first assignment. If not, you shouldn't have to kill someone to join the class.

[Ravens_cry]

I belive Coidzor's point is that on the one hand you have some guy that already knows how to kill people and wants to join your group, and on the other, you have a guy that shanked a starving street rat in some back alley who also wants to join. One of those is more worthy of joining, but mechanically they both get accepted. If they were trying to make the class an orginization, the orginization should be giving you your first assignment. If not, you shouldn't have to kill someone to join the class.
Should? As ffones said, many gangs, and what is assassins guild or similar organization but a 'high class' gang, have initiations that make it hard, if not impossible, for the party to go to the authorities after without getting in trouble themselves. The skill requirements cover the technical requirements portion, albeit in an abreviated and abstracted way. The UA Test Based Requirements (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm) does it even better in my opinion for prestige classes based on in-world organizations. You didn't just kill some homeless drunk, you pulled off an intricate dance of subterfuge and murder. I would love to add this to a campaign.

[The Random NPC]

The point is a person could join by stabbing a homeless drunk or by pulling off an intricate dance of subterfuge and murder. One is easier, and the other is more deserving. If it is representing joining an organization, they should be giving you your first mission and forcing the dance.

[Taelas]

The mistake with the Assassin prestige class was calling it 'Assassin'.

[Feytalist]

The mistake with the Assassin prestige class was calling it 'Assassin'.

As opposed to what? Honour killer? Assassins are a fantasy staple, much like many other D&D classes and prestiges.

[Coidzor]

I don't think those particular PRCs were ever really designed for use in Core campaigns, and I know the writers didn't expect for the splatbook writers to ride the PRC idea that hard. So, the odd prerequisites seem sensible, at least to me, when considering the environment DMG was written in. Of course, little turned out the way they expected.

So instead they designed, published, and sold DMs on things that were never supposed to be able to work in the first place or ever actually be used? That's even worse.


Honestly, I do not see it as stupid. If you treat taking levels in Assassin as joining an in-world group, a conceit common to many prestige classes, then ffones explanation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11204327&postcount=32) makes perfect sense. You don't like the idea of having a character killing someone merely to join a group but have the assassin abilities, then become an Avenger.

Well, no, ffone's explanation does not make perfect sense or it would have won me over to seeing it that way. :smallwink: I see Assassins as being fluffed and sold in a way that is fundamentally different from common street gangs. Not as being merely a "high-class" version of them like the two of you believe to be appropriate.

Why is that by the way? None of the fantasy stories I've ever read or heard people talk about have treated them in such a manner.

Further, this is a group of assassins with some kind of mystical connection to magic so they can teach people who are otherwise useless at it how to do it & their entrance requirements are still "stab random street urchin."

[Taelas]

As opposed to what? Honour killer? Assassins are a fantasy staple, much like many other D&D classes and prestiges.

It implies all assassins belong to the prestige class, as opposed to what it is: a very specialized group of assassins.

They should have come up with a different name for it. Anything which changes it from the generic 'assassin' would have been good.

When you can say, 'All Assassins are assassins, but not all assassins are Assassins', something has gone wrong.

[The Big Dice]

You don't like the idea of having a character killing someone merely to join a group but have the assassin abilities, then become an Avenger.
No, not that kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_%28comics%29). Nor that kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_%28TV_series%29). This kind (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a).
That would be the April Fool post. That also requires you to kill someone to join up. So really, even ignoring the bad joke aspect, you're still in a position where you need to kill someone to join.

[Lord_Gareth]

That would be the April Fool post. That also requires you to kill someone to join up. So really, even ignoring the bad joke aspect, you're still in a position where you need to kill someone to join.

Well, first, it's a RAW April Fool's post. Second, let's take a look at the 'kill requirement', shall we?


Special: The character must have killed an enemy leader or champion in defense of his homeland or nation.

Emphasis mine. While the Avenger doesn't have a 'non-evil' requirement (indeed, their requirement is 'non-chaotic', they do have a requirement stipulating that they eliminate an active threat to their homeland or nation. What this means is that the 'kill requirement' is, at worst, an act of war during a pre-existing conflict or a strike against an outlaw or criminal. Is it possible that this is evil? Certainly! An Avenger working for Zhentil Keep may murder an active, good-aligned adventurer because, well, they're a threat to Zhentil Keep. But an Avenger might also bring down a necromancer that's been plaguing the outlying villages, assassinate an enemy champion during a time of war, eliminate a bandit king that's been plaguing the trade routes, or bring peace eternal to the mad king of an enemy nation.

The point being, that kill requirement is phrased much more reasonably and has a hell of a lot more room for non-evil occurrences with regards to its fulfillment.

Say it with me now, everybody: dishonorable tactics are not evil.

[SITB]

As opposed to what? Honour killer? Assassins are a fantasy staple, much like many other D&D classes and prestiges.

Err? The Hasashin (الحشاشين) existed in real life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin)

Mind you, The original Hashashin were a singular group, while the Assassin guild archetype is fantasy staple, but even then there are usually beings that constitute assassins and yet operate independently.

[Eldariel]

So instead they designed, published, and sold DMs on things that were never supposed to be able to work in the first place or ever actually be used? That's even worse.

PRCs were designed as something every DM would write uniquely for their campaign. Base Classes were intended to take care of the generic stuff and then PRCs cover any particular intricacies of your settings. Don't really see how that's "worse" TBH.


DMG is a guidebook for DMs with things like suggested encounter compositions, a small list of potential magic items, suggested encounter density, a few game world types (status quo vs. scaling, for one), different ways to run campaigns, a ton of potential alternative rules sets, rules for different eras and levels of magic availability, etc.

PRCs really fall right in that line of thinking and is pretty uniform with the rest of the book. Whether they shoulda made the guidebook is just a book of hard rules is a different matter but it's always been the underlying assumption in D&D that DM changes everything anyways so a book of hard rules for DMing wouldn't really work for that.

[Callista]

Which is stupid as a requirement to join a group of assassins for a variety of reasons, my least favorite being that somehow killing a faceless no-name is really worth teaching some two-bit rogue how to use magic.I always thought of it as something like being a made man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_man) in the Mafia--demonstrating your loyalty by killing someone for the organization. In D&D that would probably be a thieves' guild or a specific group of assassins. So it wouldn't be a faceless no-name; it'd be someone that a higher-up in the group wants dead. If you insist on Assassins as evil, that's actually a pretty cool way to go about inducting one. But since I don't like restricting that prestige class to Evil-only, I'll only use that particular requirement for Evil characters wanting to get in. Good and Neutral characters, if their mission involves killing, will be targeting people who deserve to die--enemy leaders in a war, tyrannical dictators, etc. Or they'll end up taking on some kind of covert mission, for example breaking out a prisoner taken by an enemy during war.

[The Random NPC]

Err? The Hasashin (الحشاشين) existed in real life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin)

Mind you, The original Hashashin were a singular group, while the Assassin guild archetype is fantasy staple, but even then there are usually beings that constitute assassins and yet operate independently.

He ment what else would you call the class? He didn't mean to suggest that Assassins didn't exist in real life, Hashashin or otherwise.

[The Big Dice]

Well, first, it's a RAW April Fool's post.
Remind me exactly how a post on the WotC website, and one that announces that it's an april Fool, is RAW again.


Second, let's take a look at the 'kill requirement', shall we?<snip>
All of which comes with exactly the same baggage and potential for problems as the original Assassin PRC. and all the blurb that goes with the Avenger makes it clear that they are an organisation. They aren't the metagame abstract that some people like classes to be. You want to be an Avenger, you join the ranks of the Avengers.

Face it, the Avenger is a bad joke. Change two sentences from the requirements, use a find/replace to remove the word assassin. The fact that it's an April Fool is a thumbing of the nose to people who like to refluff things.

Say it with me now, everybody: dishonorable tactics are not evil.
so, given the narrow and concrete morality (places, people and things are made of morality, remember) what exactly are dishonourable tactics? In an environment as precisely defined in terms of right and wrong as D&D is, where do dishonourable tactics fit on the scale?

They aren't Good. Nor are they Lawful. They can sometimes be sort of Neutral, but in a selfish way. In the ordered, everything has a place and there's a place for everything land of D&D morality, that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

So I ask again, exactly where do dishonourable tactics fit on the Alignment grid?

[Lord_Gareth]

Dice, I think it should be telling to you that no one else seems to think the Avenger is a joke - indeed, the article itself says 'let's take a look at when assassins go good-aligned'.

As far as "dishonorable tactics on the alignment grid", it goes like this: honor is a lawful concept, but not all lawful characters are honorable. Or, at least, not all lawful characters are chivalrous, which is not quite the same thing. Lawful characters may be compelled by loyalty, practicality, orders from a superior, or another source to use 'underhanded' or 'dishonorable' tactics like stealth, save-or-die spells, poison, Sneak Attacks, et cetera.

It's worth noting that while archons comport themselves with honor in their personal affairs, they too support rogues and even an organization of assassin-like characters (the Slayers of Domiel) that strike from darkness and engage in unfair combat. Guardinals and Eldarins don't even give that much of a courtesy, using whatever non-evil tactics are going to be effective in order to oppose evil in all of its forms.

All of this is to say this: Dishonorable tactics do not have an alignment. Anyone, barring those with a specific personal code (Knights, Paladins) can and probably will take advantage of them. Mages and rogues don't even think twice. Knights and paladins are forbidden these actions because they're supposed to fit a specific lawful archetype (as you'll note that even LE knights are forbidden); that is, they embody the Lawful ideal that sticks to honor even in warfare. However, it's perfectly within any alignment to believe that the only fair fight is the one you lose.

[Hiro Protagonest]

All of this is to say this: Dishonorable tactics do not have an alignment.

This is almost right. It really depends on the situation. Plenty of lawful evils use it, so in this case it's evil, because it is not lawful. Chaotic good might also use it, and in this case it's chaotic, because it's not good. Poison cannot be lawful or good, but it can be chaotic or evil, it doesn't have to be always evil. True neutrals also can use it because they are not lawful or good.

[The Big Dice]

Dice, I think it should be telling to you that no one else seems to think the Avenger is a joke - indeed, the article itself says 'let's take a look at when assassins go good-aligned'.
The article starts by saying "As befitting the spirit of April Fool's Day, we offer the following variant of an existing prestige class." And it was posted on April 1st 2007. The picture is a dodgy colour replacement job on the picture from the DMG.

The who article screams "Hurr hurr, assassins that aren't evil That's funny because it's not true!" I'm sure the guy who wrote it can't believe that people are still taking it seriously five years later.

As far as "dishonorable tactics on the alignment grid", it goes like this: honor is a lawful concept, but not all lawful characters are honorable. Or, at least, not all lawful characters are chivalrous, which is not quite the same thing. Lawful characters may be compelled by loyalty, practicality, orders from a superior, or another source to use 'underhanded' or 'dishonorable' tactics like stealth, save-or-die spells, poison, Sneak Attacks, et cetera.

It's worth noting that while archons comport themselves with honor in their personal affairs, they too support rogues and even an organization of assassin-like characters (the Slayers of Domiel) that strike from darkness and engage in unfair combat. Guardinals and Eldarins don't even give that much of a courtesy, using whatever non-evil tactics are going to be effective in order to oppose evil in all of its forms.

All of this is to say this: Dishonorable tactics do not have an alignment. Anyone, barring those with a specific personal code (Knights, Paladins) can and probably will take advantage of them. Mages and rogues don't even think twice. Knights and paladins are forbidden these actions because they're supposed to fit a specific lawful archetype (as you'll note that even LE knights are forbidden); that is, they embody the Lawful ideal that sticks to honor even in warfare. However, it's perfectly within any alignment to believe that the only fair fight is the one you lose.
This is avoiding the issue. What you're saying is, honour is aligned, but dishonour is perfectly acceptable behaviour for all alignments. In other words, honour is stupid. Because being dishonourable is better because you can use poisons, cheat, lie and steal and so on.

I'd like to see where it says that save or die, sneak attack and stealth are good. Because I'm fairly sure the PHB says "Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." and that doesnt sound like the kind of person who would use poison to me.

And considering that sneaking and ambushing are usuallt hallmarks of evil races in D&D, the case for them being Good in terms of alignment isn't strong.

and what this really does is shine a bright light on just how outdated Alignment really is. There's a reason it went out of fashion in the 80s. Only to be dragged kicking and screaming back into the light after the milennium.

[Lord_Gareth]

'Respect for life' means a lot of things, including that a good-aligned character, if they must take life, will generally try to do so in as painless a fashion as possible. Poison might be that method; so too might sneak attacks, death attacks, Finger of Death, et cetera. Good characters don't cause unnecessary suffering, but they can - and do - cause suffering.

Not every action in D&D is automatically aligned; you don't need to check with your DM to see how chaotic your Hide check made you today. Save or die attacks, likewise, don't normally have the [Evil] or [Chaotic] tags - indeed, they often have no tags at all! Stealth, cheating, trickery, deception, ambushes, overwhelming numbers, et cetera are all perfectly acceptable tactics for anyone that doesn't, again, have a specific code of honor forbidding them. I can pull up canon example after canon example of celestials, demons, inevitables, and other outsiders from all across the alignment chart doing these things if you really want me to. Hell, Couatls are [Lawful] [Good] beings with a pretty deadly poisonous bite!

Again, Dishonorable tactics have no alignment. Only the targets and scale of your action determine the alignment of what has been done. Ambush an enemy in wartime? Neutral. Ambush a merchant caravan to steal their possessions? Chaotic. Kill them in the process? Chaotic evil.

It's a pretty simple delineation.

[Shadowknight12]

This is almost right. It really depends on the situation. Plenty of lawful evils use it, so in this case it's evil, because it is not lawful. Chaotic good might also use it, and in this case it's chaotic, because it's not good. Poison cannot be lawful or good, but it can be chaotic or evil, it doesn't have to be always evil. True neutrals also can use it because they are not lawful or good.

Lawful Good rogues can use poison. And Lawful Good clerics can use the spell Poison. Lawful Good fighters can poison their weapons. And Lawful Good monks can apply poison to their monk weapons. And so can Lawful Good rangers.

[Lord_Gareth]

This is almost right. It really depends on the situation. Plenty of lawful evils use it, so in this case it's evil, because it is not lawful. Chaotic good might also use it, and in this case it's chaotic, because it's not good. Poison cannot be lawful or good, but it can be chaotic or evil, it doesn't have to be always evil. True neutrals also can use it because they are not lawful or good.

Plenty of evil people use swords, fireballs, finger of death spells, power word: pain, traps, ambushes, and Sneak Attacks too. All of those are methods of ending lives, many of them in the form of unanswerable strikes or cheap shots. Why is poison any different from slitting someone's throat as they sleep or ramming a spear into a guard's kidney when he isn't looking? From using finger of death on a warlord?

Weapons are neither good nor evil, and neither are most tactics (torture, rape, and extensive mental violations stand out as actions that degrade both the one who commits them and the victim, no matter how noble the purpose or how justified). Their users are. Does a sword choose to kill? No. Its wielder does.

[The Big Dice]

Again, Dishonorable tactics have no alignment. Only the targets and scale of your action determine the alignment of what has been done. Ambush an enemy in wartime? Neutral. Ambush a merchant caravan to steal their possessions? Chaotic. Kill them in the process? Chaotic evil.

It's a pretty simple delineation.
It's not simple at all. One side of the scales has an Alignment. The other doesn't. How is this conceptually possible? Unless it's to say that honour doesn't matter because by choosing to be honourable, you are choosing to be weaker.

The way D&D works is, everything has an Alignment. Everything. Some things have the free will to act in ways that will change their Alignment, others don't. Some places are literally made of Alignment.

Questions like, can good come about through evil means? These are the things that Paladins are made of. They are also the things that Evil characters are made of.

Ambushing an enemy during a war. That's not necessarily good. Were there survivors? Did you take them prisoner or execute them after the battle? What objective was served by the ambush? Was it a strategic need or was it simply to kill the enemy? Because you don't win wars by simply killing the enemy, you win wars by taking away the ability to or the reason for making war.

When it comes to ambushing a merchant caravan, how is that Good in any way, shape or form? For it to be an ambush, there would logically be some sort of armed resistance. Which would then have to be overcome by use of force. That sounds suspiciously like premeditated killing to me. that's not Good.

But mostly, what I want to know is, how can honour be Aligned, but dishonour not? In a game like D&D, that just doesn't make sense.

[Ravens_cry]

The point is a person could join by stabbing a homeless drunk or by pulling off an intricate dance of subterfuge and murder. One is easier, and the other is more deserving. If it is representing joining an organization, they should be giving you your first mission and forcing the dance.
I still don't see it. I like the UA idea, but even it is not your first mission, it is a demonstration of your willingness to kill for the group, to subvert your will to others. You are also now a murderer. You can't go to the authorities without dancing the hempen jig yourself.

Well, no, ffone's explanation does not make perfect sense or it would have won me over to seeing it that way. Sorry, should have added the qualifier "to me".
I see Assassins as being fluffed and sold in a way that is fundamentally different from common street gangs. Not as being merely a "high-class" version of them like the two of you believe to be appropriate.
And I myself do not see it.


Why is that by the way? None of the fantasy stories I've ever read or heard people talk about have treated them in such a manner.

Further, this is a group of assassins with some kind of mystical connection to magic so they can teach people who are otherwise useless at it how to do it & their entrance requirements are still "stab random street urch"
Well, it's like the Mafia. Movies like the Godfather created a mystique but in the end it's just a racketeering and exhortion gang, among other things, writ large. You can add all sorts of trappings, but unless it is explicitly legal in a setting, that doesn't change the fundamental aspect. Besides, an unskilled Assassin who kills the easiest target possible, even if they join up, won't last long as an Assassin. Survival of the fittest and all that. Again, I think the Unearthed Arcana requirements give us the best of both worlds.
But I think we disagree too fundamentally to change each others mind, so let us leave it at that.

[Kojiro]

In my opinion, at first glance poison seems, while not quite dishonorable, definitely not the honorable thing to do; however, thinking about all the other DnD things, poison is not really different from a lot of normal things. People went over all the ability score spells and whatnot, but something people mentioned is that it's a sneaky thing that people can't expect (which technically isn't unLawful by DnD standards, as you could be a Lawful Rogue, and Sneak Attack is, well, exactly what it says).

So are most magic items.

Seriously, a ton of dangerous magic things you can wield don't necessarily look magical; you can be fighting some guy and you won't know his sword is magical until he sticks it in your gut and you explode; even the less spectacular ones usually confer various advantages from sources other than skill or strength. Most magic items like this, and of course a lot of magic itself (again, ignoring that far too many mages try to look magical, there aren't usually visible signs saying "this person can destroy you with a thought"), which is also neither Evil nor Chaotic, are used by pretty much every adventuring party, including the Lawful Good can't-poison-people Paladins. Not only is all this just as impossible to know about as a poison (and before you comment on Detect Magic and such, there is a Detect Poison spell), there is no stigma attached to any of it, excluding the downright horrific uses of these things. A person who knows that there's a group of adventurers breaking into his tower, meanwhile, sure, he'd probably know that there are magic people in the party, but he also should at least suspect poison, unless he considers it a lesser threat than the guy who can behead him with a sword taller than he is, or the one who could incinerate him and everything else in the room, which is understandable.

Basically, unless Lawful and/or Good characters are required to either alert their foes to all their various abilities and not sneak around, or simply not use them, there is no functional difference between them and poison. It's a surprise; so are many other standard things the Good PCs can and will use, and ambushes are the same thing on a tactical level, either in small groups or in war, that most army leaders would not dismiss as evil. It can damage ability scores; again, there are other, far worse things that can do that. Someone mentioned that you could run from a battle, but that a poison injection was definitely fatal; this is amazingly untrue, what with both magic and the more mundane antidotes and medicines.

In short, in a world such as that of DnD, poison is an amazingly small thing to declare as absolutely evil, or even ignoble. It's arbitrary standards applied without thought to the setting as a whole.

[Coidzor]

PRCs were designed as something every DM would write uniquely for their campaign. Base Classes were intended to take care of the generic stuff and then PRCs cover any particular intricacies of your settings. Don't really see how that's "worse" TBH.


DMG is a guidebook for DMs with things like suggested encounter compositions, a small list of potential magic items, suggested encounter density, a few game world types (status quo vs. scaling, for one), different ways to run campaigns, a ton of potential alternative rules sets, rules for different eras and levels of magic availability, etc.

PRCs really fall right in that line of thinking and is pretty uniform with the rest of the book. Whether they shoulda made the guidebook is just a book of hard rules is a different matter but it's always been the underlying assumption in D&D that DM changes everything anyways so a book of hard rules for DMing wouldn't really work for that.

So because it's not a book of "hard rules," that justifies the designers not actually providing examples that would be workable if anyone used them? And you don't think that could be interpreted as bad? :smallconfused:

I don't think that's what you mean to be saying here, but that's all I'm getting from what you've said so far.

And I've read the DMG on PrCs and if that's what they wanted to convey with the example of the Assassin PrC, then they pretty much failed utterly at communicating it... :smallconfused:


So I ask again, exactly where do dishonourable tactics fit on the Alignment grid?

Well, fitting them on the Good Vs. Evil access doesn't really work universally.

Nor does Law vs. Chaos universally.

Some individual actions might ping on one or both though.

Mostly seems to be social taboos which the Alignment Grid isn't supposed to deal with very well.


Well, it's like the Mafia. Movies like the Godfather created a mystique but in the end it's just a racketeering and exhortion gang, among other things, writ large.

So a cartel that steals souls from the innocent while leaving no one the wiser, not even those being so robbed is exactly the same group of thugs as petty thieves and beatsticks for hire?

How is that satisfying in play to have every kind of criminal be exactly the same kind of person and antagonist? :smallconfused:

[Eldariel]

So because it's not a book of "hard rules," that justifies the designers not actually providing examples that would be workable if anyone used them? And you don't think that could be interpreted as bad? :smallconfused:

I don't think that's what you mean to be saying here, but that's all I'm getting from what you've said so far.

I'm just saying, I understand what they're coming from in giving an example of how to make a PRC specific for an organization that only exists in your campaign (though nothing stops you from running the organization of the DMG Assassins in your campaign, of course). Not saying if it's done well or poorly, just that I get the idea behind it and why it's there. Overall, that part I simply don't consider very major either way.


And I've read the DMG on PrCs and if that's what they wanted to convey with the example of the Assassin PrC, then they pretty much failed utterly at communicating it... :smallconfused:

This is very true; I don't think they mentioned that little detail until in some interview years later.

[Lord_Gareth]

But mostly, what I want to know is, how can honour be Aligned, but dishonour not? In a game like D&D, that just doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, because honor is a voluntary and unnecessary code of behavior that a being takes up willingly. A lack of honor doesn't necessarily indicate an active opposition to honor, it just indicates that you don't care about it. That's why honor is a Lawful concept; it's a being willingly taking on a code of restrictions and obligations in service to some manner of ideal. That's really, really Lawful. But NOT doing that isn't automatically chaotic. It's just neutral.

[The Random NPC]

It's not simple at all. One side of the scales has an Alignment. The other doesn't. How is this conceptually possible? Unless it's to say that honour doesn't matter because by choosing to be honourable, you are choosing to be weaker.

Two points, if you accept that being dishonourable is simply not being honourable, then while one would have an Alignment, the other would not. Similar to nothing really being cold, just less hot than other things.
Second point, choosing to be honourable is choosing to handicap yourself. Wars would be a lot easier if we didn't have to worry about the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement.

[Lord_Gareth]

Two points, if you accept that being dishonourable is simply not being honourable, then while one would have an Alignment, the other would not. Similar to nothing really being cold, just less hot than other things.

Second point, choosing to be honourable is choosing to handicap yourself. Wars would be a lot easier if we didn't have to worry about the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement.

This is such deep and resounding metaphysical truth that NPC should found an entire system of morality around it.

[The Random NPC]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by that. It is just flying over my head.

[Archwizard]

This is almost right. It really depends on the situation. Plenty of lawful evils use it, so in this case it's evil, because it is not lawful. Chaotic good might also use it, and in this case it's chaotic, because it's not good. Poison cannot be lawful or good, but it can be chaotic or evil, it doesn't have to be always evil. True neutrals also can use it because they are not lawful or good.

Damn this is... misguided. King says to his subjects: All executions must now be carried out using poison. Bume, poison use is now Lawful.

"it's evil, because it is now lawful." Uh, what? Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil is how the D&D spectrum is set up, not Law vs. Evil.

Anyway, people who later said the being honorable = being Lawful are not necessarily right. Following codes of conduct is not the same thing as being Lawful. Most societies would have them be the same, but it is not inherently true.

Take a RL doofy example:
On a date, the traditional "chivalrous behavior" (pardon the hetero-normative nature of the following text) is for the man holds the door for the woman, get her chair for her, and pay for the meal.

Now let's say that those actions, across the board, are illegal. Now chivalry and law are diametrically opposed.

Or how about a society where it's considered honorable to face one's accuser in an open duel to clear your name. Let's say important people (nobles, etc) are forbidden by law to endanger their lives in that way. So, as an accused noble, do you do the honorable thing and fight a duel to clear your name, or do you follow the law and not fight the duel?

[The Random NPC]

Lawful the alignment doesn't necessarily equate to following society's laws. While a Lawful Good person will likely follow the laws, they don't have to, especially if the laws contridict their own code of conduct. Contrariwise, a Lawful Good person might follow all laws even if it goes against their code.

[Lord_Gareth]

Lawful the alignment doesn't necessarily equate to following society's laws. While a Lawful Good person will likely follow the laws, they don't have to, especially if the laws contridict their own code of conduct. Contrariwise, a Lawful Good person might follow all laws even if it goes against their code.

This is why it's also important to define "internal" law (Lawful because of a strict code of ethics or behavior) and "external" law (Lawful because of a belief in and practice of political/religious laws), just like it's important to define "passive" chaos (does their own thing) and "active" chaos (tears down order wherever they find it).

[The Random NPC]

I wonder if all alignments have and "active" and "passive" state... perhaps adding them may help defray the alignment arugements? I don't quite see how Good and Evil might have them though.

[NineThePuma]

Is someone (say, a thief/rogue) who kills competitors more or less evil than the lich/ur priest who wants to destroy reality?

[The Random NPC]

Hard to say, is the thief limited by ability or desire? If ability, probably equal in evil. If desire, then probably less evil. There are those who would argue that since they both murder, they are equally evil regardless of the amount of murders involved. Others would say the lich is more evil because it kills so much more. Neither would be wrong, because it is a moral quandary that has no clear cut answer.

[Archwizard]

Lawful the alignment doesn't necessarily equate to following society's laws. While a Lawful Good person will likely follow the laws, they don't have to, especially if the laws contridict their own code of conduct. Contrariwise, a Lawful Good person might follow all laws even if it goes against their code.

In either case, Lawful means caring about those laws. Whether or not to obey is an important decision. Chaotic alignment wouldn't care.

{Scrubbed}

[Talakeal]

I wonder if all alignments have and "active" and "passive" state... perhaps adding them may help defray the alignment arugements? I don't quite see how Good and Evil might have them though.

I touched on this in last week's alignment thread. Basically a person who sacrifices to help others is more actively good than someone who merely helps others when it is convenient or doesn't cost them anything. Likewise someone who kills out of sadism is more actively evil than one who simply has no inhibitions about killing those who get in their way.

[The Big Dice]

Two points, if you accept that being dishonourable is simply not being honourable, then while one would have an Alignment, the other would not. Similar to nothing really being cold, just less hot than other things.
Second point, choosing to be honourable is choosing to handicap yourself. Wars would be a lot easier if we didn't have to worry about the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement.
If you accept that choosing and not choosing are the same thing, then by choosing to use poison and choosing not to use poison are the same.

The problem is, it's not a simple as choose not to use poison or use poison. Even though on the surface that's exactly the choice. It's a choice between actively choosing honourable behaviour, passively choosing behaviour that can be seen as honourable, even if it's not motivated by such concerns. Or actively choosing dishonourable actions.

So really, the issue is between not choosing to use poison and choosing to use poison. It's passive inaction versus active choice. And the choice to use poison has to be a cold one. Because first you have to obtain it, then you have to decide when it's time to apply it to your weapon of choice and then you have to use it. It's all rational and premeditated.

In other words, being dishonourable is not simply not being honourable. It's choosing to be dishonourable.

[Lord_Gareth]

Not, it isn't Dice. Being dishonorable is as simple as not caring about honor.

Is there any difference between poisoning your weapon and using the vorpal enhancement? How about the envervate or finger of death spells? Death touch domain power? Hold person followed up by a coup de grace? Sneak attack? Death attack? Party ambushes a dragon from the covers of silence and invisibility sphere?

No, there isn't. None of those behaviors are actively honorable. But unless you want to be the one to argue that they're all [Chaotic], then they aren't that either. They're alignment nuetral.

[The Big Dice]

Not, it isn't Dice. Being dishonorable is as simple as not caring about honor.
To be dishonourable, you have to care about not being honourable. You have to make several descisions that end with you holding a poisoned weapon, something good for a single blow against a single enemy.

In other words, you have to actively decide that you need an edge for just this one moment. You want to cheat. You want to do something that you would complain about if an enemy that didn't ping on the Paladin's evil-dar did it to your character.

Is there any difference between poisoning your weapon and using the vorpal enhancement? How about the envervate or finger of death spells? Death touch domain power? Hold person followed up by a coup de grace? Sneak attack? Death attack? Party ambushes a dragon from the covers of silence and invisibility sphere?

No, there isn't. None of those behaviors are actively honorable. But unless you want to be the one to argue that they're all [Chaotic], then they aren't that either. They're alignment nuetral.
So a bunch of necromancy effects, a weapon enhancement of dubious utility, murdering a helpless opponent and a dragon stupid enough to be caught napping?

And you're arguing that all this is honourable?

Exactly how is it honourable to claim an unfair advantage? How is it honourable to not give your enemy a fighting chance?

Face your enemy. Give him a chance to fight and die on his feet with his weapon in hand. Don't toy with your enemy. Don't fight those who aren't able to fight back. Respect those who deserve it and don't use your strength to oppress those weaker than you in combat.

That's honourable.

Sneaking around, hiding, bushwhacking, poisoning. All these and more are the actions of the weak and cowardly. And worse, trying to justify them as honourable and right is just sophistry.

[RPGuru1331]

To be dishonourable, you have to care about not being honourable. You have to make several descisions that end with you holding a poisoned weapon, something good for a single blow against a single enemy.
You don't have to be trying to rebel against honor to decide on the most expedient path to your goals.



In other words, you have to actively decide that you need an edge for just this one moment. You want to cheat. You want to do something that you would complain about if an enemy that didn't ping on the Paladin's evil-dar did it to your character.
Like a sword to the face?


And you're arguing that all this is honourable?
He's arguing it's not evil, and that it's not chaotic.

[Lord_Gareth]

You don't have to be trying to rebel against honor to decide on the most expedient path to your goals.

This.


He's arguing it's not evil, and that it's not chaotic.

And also this. Honor is an intentional handicap - that's the point. Choosing not to be handicapped is not evil, nor is it chaotic. Intentionally taking it up, though, is [Lawful].

[big teej]

-piling on-

I haven't read the whole thread, and somebody may have said this already
BUT

as far as I'm concerned, as a DM, Poison use is not so much "evil" more so "chaotic, if anything"

Poison use is certainly underhanded, but not exactly evil.

on a related note.
the Book of Exalted Deeds is the only thing my group has access to that is a prohibited work.
they get more access to the BOVD than to that monstrosity.

[Psyren]

I just wanted to chime in and say that BoED has some really cool stuff in it too. Yeah it was poorly edited and contradictory in places and the Exalted Feats suck, but let's not throw the baby/Saint Template out with the bathwater.

[SPoD]

Side discussion: I would argue that poisoning a drink or food actually is Evil, every time, regardless of how you feel about poison weapons. The reason? Anyone could consume that before your intended target gets to it. It's a callous disregard for the lives of anyone who might be killed by your indiscriminate weapon. Just like blowing up a building because you think someone you don't like might be inside (but so could any number of other people) would also be an Evil act.

I think maybe that's part of where the official WOTC view on poison came from, but it's still a terrible idea. Poisoning food hardly ever comes up in D&D except after the fact. I think it really came down to WOTC having this image of how they want the good guys to fight and working backwards to come up with an idea for how to make it happen.

-----------------

Also, to jump in on the most recent bit: "honor" is a human construct. Animals do not know what honor means. The leopard does not sneak up on gazelles because it is a dishonorable bastard, he does it because it works better. Therefore, one must choose to be honorable. Being dishonorable is the default for everyone.

Unless you are trying to posit some sort of innate decency of mankind which must be violated consciously, in which case your experiences and mine likely diverge wildly and there's little point in discussing it.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Side discussion: I would argue that poisoning a drink or food actually is Evil, every time, regardless of how you feel about poison weapons. The reason? Anyone could consume that before your intended target gets to it. It's a callous disregard for the lives of anyone who might be killed by your indiscriminate weapon. Just like blowing up a building because you think someone you don't like might be inside (but so could any number of other people) would also be an Evil act.

I think this is a poor analogy, personally. Explosions are, by their very nature, big and destructive, so the chance of catching somebody innocent in the blast is fairly large. Poisoned food, however, is probably only going to get more people if you do it poorly (poisoning a large dish that's going to be shared instead of a personal dish, or a pitcher of wine instead of a goblet).

I mean, if you're going to use that logic, then you could miss your target with your poisoned weapon and hit somebody else, so that should be evil too.

(This isn't to say that you're not allowed to say ingested poisons are evil, I just think the way you reach that conclusion is a bit flawed.)

[Shadowknight12]

Side discussion: I would argue that poisoning a drink or food actually is Evil, every time, regardless of how you feel about poison weapons. The reason? Anyone could consume that before your intended target gets to it. It's a callous disregard for the lives of anyone who might be killed by your indiscriminate weapon. Just like blowing up a building because you think someone you don't like might be inside (but so could any number of other people) would also be an Evil act.

Out of curiosity, would you consider area of effect spells as Evil? And what about martial manoeuvres or techniques that damage all creatures around them/in their path? Thrown weapons that deal splash damage? What if the DM implements a "more realistic" houserule so that whenever a ranged attack misses, the attack is rolled again at the creature nearest the original target? Are ranged weapons Evil in that case? What about traps? Are traps Evil? Mindless creatures that are told to attack anyone who tries to take a certain item in a locked room?

I just find it rather puzzling to say "This is Evil" when I can think of a dozen cases with the exact same premise.

[The Glyphstone]

Out of curiosity, would you consider area of effect spells as Evil? And what about martial manoeuvres or techniques that damage all creatures around them/in their path? Thrown weapons that deal splash damage? What if the DM implements a "more realistic" houserule so that whenever a ranged attack misses, the attack is rolled again at the creature nearest the original target? Are ranged weapons Evil in that case? What about traps? Are traps Evil? Mindless creatures that are told to attack anyone who tries to take a certain item in a locked room?

I just find it rather puzzling to say "This is Evil" when I can think of a dozen cases with the exact same premise.


It's not the object that's evil, it's the action. Fireball is not an [Evil] spell. If you cast Fireball to kill the monster when it's surrounded by innocents, you have done Evil. Likewise with your splash weapons and AoE maneuvers - if you knowingly use them where people other than your target will or could be harmed, it's as bad as if you were attempting to harm them.

Similarly, it's the use of poison in that large communal dish that's an Evil act, because after done, it's out of your control who ingests it and who doesn't. I (as mentioned) fall firmly into the 'Poison is inherently Chaotic, but not Evil' camp - but slipping black lotus into the pitcher of wine at a dinner to ensure you get the corrupt duke with it is both Chaotic and Evil. Even poisoning just his own goblet could be Evil, if you know he employs a food taster...a suitably slow-acting poison might get him after he has it tasted, but you've killed an innocent whose only crime was working for him in the process.

Oh, and the hypothetical DM is a moron, and should be beaten with his own DMG.

[The Big Dice]

Also, to jump in on the most recent bit: "honor" is a human construct. Animals do not know what honor means. The leopard does not sneak up on gazelles because it is a dishonorable bastard, he does it because it works better. Therefore, one must choose to be honorable. Being dishonorable is the default for everyone.
The gazelle also escapes 9 times out of 10. The same goes for most predator/prey animal pairings. Animals aren't a good point of reference for matters of honour.

What honour really is, is the moral high ground for violent people. It gives the ability to be seen as being the better person, or to be able to say that you were the better person. If you win or lose fairly, the honourable man can afford to be gracious and compliment his opponent. If you lose by dishonourable means, the honourable man comes across as the better person.

If you're going to act in a dishonourable way, you have to know that there is another option and then choose against it anyway. Otherwise you're just ignorant.

[Zale]

Doesn't everyone just love these alignment discussions?

I mean, It's not like this is about the moral and ethical system of a game or anything.


I would also like to point out that there is a fine line between honor and stupidity.

Going up to an angry dragon and challenging it to a duel is not honorable. It's suicidal.

I welcome you to try though. I'll watch from a safe distance with the more sane members of your adventuring group.

[Shadowknight12]

It's not the object that's evil, it's the action. Fireball is not an [Evil] spell. If you cast Fireball to kill the monster when it's surrounded by innocents, you have done Evil. Likewise with your splash weapons and AoE maneuvers - if you knowingly use them where people other than your target will or could be harmed, it's as bad as if you were attempting to harm them.

Then I expressed myself poorly. I was talking about the actions as well.

But that's what I wanted to know, actually. You would deem a wizard casting fireball into a throng of innocents to have performed an Evil act. That's consistent, which is what I was asking SpoD. So long as the rulings are consistent, my puzzlement disappears.

I completely disagree, of course, but I think that no two DMs have the same view on alignment, so I wouldn't say that such rulings are wrong.

[Worira]

Wait, you would disagree that casting Fireball into a crowd of innocents is Evil?

[Shadowknight12]

Wait, you would disagree that casting Fireball into a crowd of innocents is Evil?

I handle alignment differently in my games. Good, evil, law and chaos are all subjective (and not real, concrete things), and every individual decides what it is that they consider evil and all that. Spells and effects that depend on alignment also work differently.

As a DM, I accept what the player writes up as his character's views on good, evil, law and chaos. If the character believes that it is not evil to cast a Fireball into a crowd of innocents (or if the crowd into which he's casting the Fireball is not made up of 'innocents'), then it is not evil.

My personal beliefs on the subject are irrelevant. I asked the player to write me up a code of ethics and he's following it. As a DM, that's all I need to know.

Mandatory Caveat: I play with mature people. I am fully aware that my system fails spectacularly in the hands of someone who is actively out to "cheat the system." I would never recommend my system to anyone, just like I wouldn't recommend anyone to juggle flaming chainsaws. It's a risky endeavour and I accept the backfiring perils in exchange for the rewards.

[RPGuru1331]

Similarly, it's the use of poison in that large communal dish that's an Evil act, because after done, it's out of your control who ingests it and who doesn't. I (as mentioned) fall firmly into the 'Poison is inherently Chaotic, but not Evil' camp - but slipping black lotus into the pitcher of wine at a dinner to ensure you get the corrupt duke with it is both Chaotic and Evil. Even poisoning just his own goblet could be Evil, if you know he employs a food taster...a suitably slow-acting poison might get him after he has it tasted, but you've killed an innocent whose only crime was working for him in the process.
Why should the food taster be considered more innocent than the soldier who guards the duke's keep?

[Lord_Gareth]

The gazelle also escapes 9 times out of 10. The same goes for most predator/prey animal pairings. Animals aren't a good point of reference for matters of honour.

The failure of the predator does not alter its intent.


What honour really is, is the moral high ground for violent people. It gives the ability to be seen as being the better person, or to be able to say that you were the better person. If you win or lose fairly, the honourable man can afford to be gracious and compliment his opponent. If you lose by dishonourable means, the honourable man comes across as the better person.

If you're going to act in a dishonourable way, you have to know that there is another option and then choose against it anyway. Otherwise you're just ignorant.

Or, you see the other guy (the moron standing over there with the waving banner, no cover, and an imperious challenge) as an idiot. Or you learned a different cultural paradigm (like the Charr in Guild Wars, whose only concern is victory). Or....

That's the thing. Not every culture has, or cares about, honor. And the ones that do don't always agree on what 'honor' means (chivalry vs. bushido, for example). Oh, and getting better, all of those codes of honor were eventually abandoned!

What 'honor' is in a D&D context is an artificial code of behavior that a character of being takes up voluntarily. It is not the default. You don't check your behavior against tenets of 'honor' and then see where you fall on the alignment chart - you check your behavior against the alignment chart. Someone who wins a battle honorably might seem impressive, surely, but so might someone who wins a great victory through deceit or ambush or subterfuge.

Getting further, honor can be - and has been - used as a justification, thin or otherwise, for violence and brutality against those that don't deserve it. It's not a system of morality. It's a code of behavior. And it's [Lawful].

Now, at this point, I'd like to ask why you seem to be ignoring so many of my points, which you've either failed to address entirely or are otherwise misinterpreting (the internet being what it is, I'd totally understand the latter). There's large swaths of my arguments that have gone unaddressed, and it makes me feel a little insulted, y'know?

[Taelas]

The article starts by saying "As befitting the spirit of April Fool's Day, we offer the following variant of an existing prestige class." And it was posted on April 1st 2007. The picture is a dodgy colour replacement job on the picture from the DMG.
There's not much of a joke when you explain it in the first paragraph.

It isn't a joke. It was posted on April Fools because it wasn't serious, but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended as an actual class.

[Lord_Gareth]

Why should the food taster be considered more innocent than the soldier who guards the duke's keep?

He's not, but the death of an innocent isn't precisely the best thing ever. It really does come down to this pair of questions, though:

1. How many people will die if you poison the duke, assuming a worst-case scenario?

2. How many people will die if you wage general warfare upon the duke, assuming a worst-case scenario?

The second idea is undoubtably a more honorable solution that poisoning the duke or otherwise having him assassinated (dude's gotta sleep sometime) - one that will also cost many, many more innocent lives. This is one of those wonderful cases where doing the honorable thing is also doing the wrong thing.

[Kojiro]

Indeed. In fact, utilizing spies and assassins in war is not necessarily Chaotic, or even unLawful; arguably, the best course of action, and the most Good one, is to save the greatest amount of people with the least cruel or horrendous methods. Extra information from spies, as well as the death(s) of the (probably evil) one(s) ordering and leading their country in war, can accomplish this most effectively; as most assassination methods are quick and relatively painless, especially if you compare them to the many, many terrible things one can do in the DnD universe otherwise, and many of the most effective poisons can be painless, or at least far less painful than, say, a sword in one's gut or a fireball to one's face (and also the rest of the body).

Heck, it's not even necessarily dishonorable, depending on what sort of code of honor you hold; if you believe that, as above, it is better to kill one evil person quickly and effectively than to fight, and presumably kill, all his guards and various other people who get in your way, presumably so that you can tell him that you intend to kill him or something, then you are in fact acting honorably, as honor is by definition integrity to your beliefs; codes of honor and such are simply definitions on honor shared by and presumably believed in by multiple people and specific groups. (And please, don't respond with something like "well then an amoral person who believes anything is allowed is acting honorably when he goes around slaughtering innocents"; that's deliberately ignoring the point.)

Assassination isn't pretty, but that's because killing itself is a generally unpleasant thing. At worst you can call it "unfair", compared to other such things (although again that ignores the magic items, spells, and various other such things that create a far greater imbalance), and while fairness is arguably Lawful, I don't think that being unfair is instant disqualification from Lawfulness, especially for the Lawful Good people who would try to avoid as much death as possible. It seems, at least to me, more like an issue of personal beliefs (which, again, also applies to anything related to honor at all) as to whether it's dishonorable; there definitely is barely anything to back up it being Evil, Chaotic, or anything else.

[myancey]

Doesn't everyone just love these alignment discussions?

I mean, It's not like this is about the moral and ethical system of a game or anything.

Despite the fact that Playgrounders have never come to a consensus on alignments in general--discussions of such are a necessary aspect of the game, especially in DMing. And yes, it is a game--but a very complex one that incorporates an ambiguous moral/ethical set of rules.

The purpose of this thread, and others, is to share ideas. And yes, sometimes these threads serve only to entrench Playgrounders in their firmly held beliefs--but often, if you look closely enough, you'll find perspectives that present valid points. It's good for obtaining insight.


I handle alignment differently in my games. Good, evil, law and chaos are all subjective (and not real, concrete things), and every individual decides what it is that they consider evil and all that. Spells and effects that depend on alignment also work differently.

As a DM, I accept what the player writes up as his character's views on good, evil, law and chaos. If the character believes that it is not evil to cast a Fireball into a crowd of innocents (or if the crowd into which he's casting the Fireball is not made up of 'innocents'), then it is not evil.

My personal beliefs on the subject are irrelevant. I asked the player to write me up a code of ethics and he's following it. As a DM, that's all I need to know.


While this presents an interesting concept...what is the point of having the alignment system at all? You're actively inviting your players to defy the very definitions of alignment...no matter who you were, it would not be 'lawful good' to fireball a crowd of innocents.

The DM should be the one to interpret the alignment system. Alignments are defined by the societal majority--which the DM makes up through control of all NPCs. Player actions in this system simply reflect a particular aspect of the DM's various definitions of morality--because they're part of his society. Leaving the system up for players to decide seems too chaotic.

[Shadowknight12]

While this presents an interesting concept...what is the point of having the alignment system at all? You're actively inviting your players to defy the very definitions of alignment...

There is very little point in alignment labels, that's quite true. A character being Lawful Good merely means that he considers himself to be, or aspires to be, Lawful and Good, as he sees those concepts. However, the majority of effects that depend on alignment are still in use. A paladin smites evil all the same (though he must first use Detect Evil on his would-be target or his Smite Evil attempt is wasted), and heroes still fight for Good. The only difference is that Good (and Law, and Evil, and Chaos) is subjective now.


no matter who you were, it would not be 'lawful good' to fireball a crowd of innocents.

Actually, no. That's the entire point of the system. Actions are no longer aligned. Fireballing a crowd of people is no longer good, evil, lawful or chaotic. It simply is. One character sees it as evil, another character sees it as "neither good nor evil," another one sees it as good (In standard D&D, killing a fiend is always a Good act, so fireballing a crowd of fiends is, in fact, a Good act. One character sees the crowd as poor innocent souls and another sees it as a bunch of vile, irredeemably evil creatures whose murder is not only justified, but a Good act), etc.


The DM should be the one to interpret the alignment system. Alignments are defined by the societal majority--which the DM makes up through control of all NPCs. Player actions in this system simply reflect a particular aspect of the DM's various definitions of morality--because they're part of his society. Leaving the system up for players to decide seems too chaotic.

I respect your opinion and completely disagree with it. The creators of D&D had a certain set of beliefs and they made it so that their morality was not only the norm, but actual tangible forces of the universe. Just as I don't feel obliged to play in old Greyhawk or any "official" setting if I don't want to, and instead I feel free to create my own campaign setting, I feel just as free to do away with their objective morality and replace it with a subjective one.

Furthermore, from a metagame perspective, I have a DMing style where I treat my players as adults and accept that the game is just as "mine" as it is "theirs." Just like you don't chastise an adult for doing something in his own home, I don't tell my players that they're not allowed to do something in their games. If they want to do something, I sit down with them and work out a way to make it happen within the rules. And sometimes, if the rules must be bent or changed to allow for something the player really wants, I'll make it happen. What matters in my games is that everyone has fun. Curtailing personal freedom and creativity is not conducive to a fun game. I trust that my players will handle the freedom I give them with responsibility, and work towards everyone's fun. I've yet to be disappointed.

[RPGuru1331]

He's not, but the death of an innocent isn't precisely the best thing ever.
By what metric can any person in the corrupt noble's employ that is specifically tasked with protecting and perpetuating said corrupt noble's rule be termed an 'innocent'? I could see arguments of coercion.. but the same could be said of the duke's soldiers, and as far as I've seen, such people are considered fair game, if not priority targets, and understandably so.

[SPoD]

The gazelle also escapes 9 times out of 10. The same goes for most predator/prey animal pairings. Animals aren't a good point of reference for matters of honour.

You're basically agreeing that the leopard is justified in using "dishonorable" methods because the honorable ones don't work. By that logic, kobolds die at the hands of adventurers 9 out of 10 times. Therefore, when kobolds use poison, it must be OK, right?


What honour really is, is the moral high ground for violent people. It gives the ability to be seen as being the better person, or to be able to say that you were the better person. If you win or lose fairly, the honourable man can afford to be gracious and compliment his opponent. If you lose by dishonourable means, the honourable man comes across as the better person.

And if you care about who "comes across as the better person," well, bully for you. Not everyone does, not when life or death are on the line.


If you're going to act in a dishonourable way, you have to know that there is another option and then choose against it anyway. Otherwise you're just ignorant.

Ignorance is a valid character concept. A player is not required to make a character who is "better" than common people. Your argument basically boils down to, "And I wouldn't want to be that way." Well, other people disagree. A hero (who is not a paladin) is not required to be aware of what other people consider "honorable" and alter his behavior accordingly.

---------------------

@Shadowknight12: OK, the following answers obviously don't apply to your system, since you acknowledge that what you are doing is not the D&D standard:


Out of curiosity, would you consider area of effect spells as Evil? And what about martial manoeuvres or techniques that damage all creatures around them/in their path? Thrown weapons that deal splash damage?

If you know there are innocents in the area of effect? Yes, but then it's the act of targeting indiscriminately that is Evil, not the tool used to do so.


What if the DM implements a "more realistic" houserule so that whenever a ranged attack misses, the attack is rolled again at the creature nearest the original target? Are ranged weapons Evil in that case?

If that rule was in effect, then you would have the situation that you have in many movies: the hero can't take the shot because they're afraid of hitting the civilian. So yes, shooting into a crowd to hit a bad guy is an Evil act. But again, it's not ranged weapons that are evil, but the act of targeting without regard to who gets hurt.


What about traps? Are traps Evil?

Often, if they are set in a place where innocent people might wander by and trip them. If you place them in your own home where no one who is justified in being there could possibly trip them, then less so. But again, it's not the trap that is evil, it's the fact that you don't care who gets hurt.


Mindless creatures that are told to attack anyone who tries to take a certain item in a locked room?

If they're mindless, then they can't be told anything, and they're no different than a weapon. You putting a dangerous mindless creature somewhere that an innocent person is likely to meet it? Yes, Evil. If you release an elder black pudding in the streets of the capital city, that's an Evil act. If you have an elder black pudding in a room in your own castle, where everyone who is not an invader knows not to walk into that room? Probably not Evil, in the same way as the trap example above.

And if they aren't mindless, then the decision to attack is on their conscience, not yours.


I just find it rather puzzling to say "This is Evil" when I can think of a dozen cases with the exact same premise.

Then you're misreading the premise. There are NO attack forms that are inherently Evil (unless they use baby souls to be powered or something, but that's different). What is Evil is how you deploy those attack forms. If you deploy them in a way that has a reasonable chance of hurting an innocent, and you know that when you deploy them, then that's Evil. If you stab an innocent with a holy avenger, that's still an Evil act. If you stab a blackguard with a poisoned sword and save the village, that's a Good act. Intent matters, tools do not. Not unless the means of procuring those tools is itself Evil (i.e. spells that draw on the power of the Abyss or something).

And while I mostly agree with Glyphstone's interpretation of what I said, I don't think it needs to be a communal dish in order for the placement of poison to be Evil. Look at the end of Hamlet: That goblet was not communal, it was meant only for Hamlet, but Gertrude drank it anyway. By putting poison in the wine, Claudius killed a (relative) innocent.

[Shadowknight12]

@Shadowknight12: OK, the following answers obviously don't apply to your system, since you acknowledge that what you are doing is not the D&D standard:

If you know there are innocents in the area of effect? Yes, but then it's the act of targeting indiscriminately that is Evil, not the tool used to do so.

Okay, I see the logic in that. And as I told Glyphstone, I misspoke. I'm aware that you were talking about the action and not the object.


If that rule was in effect, then you would have the situation that you have in many movies: the hero can't take the shot because they're afraid of hitting the civilian. So yes, shooting into a crowd to hit a bad guy is an Evil act. But again, it's not ranged weapons that are evil, but the act of targeting without regard to who gets hurt.

All right, also sensical.


Often, if they are set in a place where innocent people might wander by and trip them. If you place them in your own home where no one who is justified in being there could possibly trip them, then less so. But again, it's not the trap that is evil, it's the fact that you don't care who gets hurt.

Wait, wait, detecting logical incongruence. So I can poison my own food (let's say, because I'm immune to poison and I like the flavour it adds to the meal) and if someone eats it then it's not Evil because it's not my fault they wandered into my house and ate my food?


If they're mindless, then they can't be told anything, and they're no different than a weapon. You putting a dangerous mindless creature somewhere that an innocent person is likely to meet it? Yes, Evil. If you release an elder black pudding in the streets of the capital city, that's an Evil act. If you have an elder black pudding in a room in your own castle, where everyone who is not an invader knows not to walk into that room? Probably not Evil, in the same way as the trap example above.

So if there's a skeleton set to kill whoever grabs my Pearl of Power off the shelf, and there's an earthquake that rips a hole on the vault's ceiling, and a little girl climbs down, picks up the shiny pearl and gets killed, what's the morality on that? Is setting up the skeleton-trap evil? Am I evil now because I got a little girl killed?


And if they aren't mindless, then the decision to attack is on their conscience, not yours.

Of course, mindless creatures are True Neutral and all that.


Then you're misreading the premise. There are NO attack forms that are inherently Evil (unless they use baby souls to be powered or something, but that's different). What is Evil is how you deploy those attack forms. If you deploy them in a way that has a reasonable chance of hurting an innocent, and you know that when you deploy them, then that's Evil. If you stab an innocent with a holy avenger, that's still an Evil act. If you stab a blackguard with a poisoned sword and save the village, that's a Good act. Intent matters, tools do not. Not unless the means of procuring those tools is itself Evil (i.e. spells that draw on the power of the Abyss or something).

Yes, sorry, I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that objects were evil, I was merely curious as to the difference between carelessly poisoning something and any other action with potential unintended harm to others.

[Zale]

Despite the fact that Playgrounders have never come to a consensus on alignments in general--discussions of such are a necessary aspect of the game, especially in DMing. And yes, it is a game--but a very complex one that incorporates an ambiguous moral/ethical set of rules.

The purpose of this thread, and others, is to share ideas. And yes, sometimes these threads serve only to entrench Playgrounders in their firmly held beliefs--but often, if you look closely enough, you'll find perspectives that present valid points. It's good for obtaining insight.

You're right about that. It's just that It annoys me to watch people try to cramp their own views into it. Morality is a complicated thing in real life, much more so than D&D.

I mean, I could argue that the majority of player characters are evil because most of them have killed sentient beings before. Most of the time, this is at least justified by those beings being evil themselves or something, but that doesn't change that they are both murdering and robbing other beings. What separates them from some random bandit on a lonely road? The fact that they are fighting for something? Or, "Goblins are evil, so slaughter away."?

It swiftly dissolves into senseless bickering.

[Burner28]

By raw, poison is evil. Technically, this even includes poisons used against evil creatures, and ravages, which are designed only to affect evil creatures.

Personally, I'd say it isn't so much evil as dishonourable, by preventing a fair fight. When someone faces you sword to sword, they can reasonably know what to expect. If your sword is poisoned however, they can't know it just by looking, so it inherently makes the fight less fair.

Dishonourable? Shouldn't it rather be considered a pragmatic form?

[Talakeal]

Then you're misreading the premise. There are NO attack forms that are inherently Evil (unless they use baby souls to be powered or something, but that's different). What is Evil is how you deploy those attack forms. If you deploy them in a way that has a reasonable chance of hurting an innocent, and you know that when you deploy them, then that's Evil. If you stab an innocent with a holy avenger, that's still an Evil act. If you stab a blackguard with a poisoned sword and save the village, that's a Good act. Intent matters, tools do not. Not unless the means of procuring those tools is itself Evil (i.e. spells that draw on the power of the Abyss or something).

Would that that was true by RAW, but it isn't. Killing a Blackguard with a poisoned sword is worse than watching the village burn according to the BoED / BoVD morality system.

[SPoD]

Wait, wait, detecting logical incongruence. So I can poison my own food (let's say, because I'm immune to poison and I like the flavour it adds to the meal) and if someone eats it then it's not Evil because it's not my fault they wandered into my house and ate my food?

Correct. If you really wanted to be on the safe side, you would make sure that everyone who worked with you knew that you did this.

To frame it in the real world, if I am eating a dish that contains peanuts, and someone who is deathly allergic to them eats my food when I'm not looking, I didn't do anything Evil by eating peanuts. They did something stupid by eating my food, but that's not my fault. I could have been extra careful and warned them immediately, but if it slipped my mind or I didn't know they were there, well, that's just an accident.

But if I deliberately put peanuts into a meal that I know that person will eat, then that would be Evil. In fact, that would actually be considered murder in the real world, even though peanuts are harmless to 99% of the population.


So if there's a skeleton set to kill whoever grabs my Pearl of Power off the shelf, and there's an earthquake that rips a hole on the vault's ceiling, and a little girl climbs down, picks up the shiny pearl and gets killed, what's the morality on that? Is setting up the skeleton-trap evil? Am I evil now because I got a little girl killed?

It's getting sort of shady here, but my best answer is "not necessarily," assuming that using a skeleton in the first place isn't Evil. It was an accident. If the local guardsman has a crossbow that he brings home, and his daughter sneaks into his bedroom to play with it and accidentally kills herself, owning a crossbow doesn't become Evil. Carelessness is not the same thing as disregard or indifference.


Yes, sorry, I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that objects were evil, I was merely curious as to the difference between carelessly poisoning something and any other action with potential unintended harm to others.

It's really a difference of your ability to predict the consequences of your actions. If there's a chance that an innocent could be hurt by your action if there were no other unexpected circumstances, then it's probably Evil. In the earthquake/skeleton example, you didn't know there was going to be an earthquake. In the poisoning your own food example, you didn't know anyone else was going to eat your food. Those circumstances radically change the threat level of the situation.

Conversely, if you set a trap at the front door of your house, then anyone knocking on your door could be killed. You can't reasonably control who walks up and knocks, so setting that trap is Evil. Likewise, if you poison food that you yourself are not going to eat and/or have direct control over the entire time, then you're taking the risk that someone else could eat it before it got to your target.

[Zale]

So if there's a skeleton set to kill whoever grabs my Pearl of Power off the shelf, and there's an earthquake that rips a hole on the vault's ceiling, and a little girl climbs down, picks up the shiny pearl and gets killed, what's the morality on that? Is setting up the skeleton-trap evil? Am I evil now because I got a little girl killed?

Part of me wants to say yes, but honestly, there's not much way to know an earthquake would happen.

If your character did not attempt to make some kind of amends to the grieving family, then he's are probably slipping on the good scale of things.

Strikes me more as an ill-planned act than an evil one, though just shrugging it off would be evil.

[SPoD]

Would that that was true by RAW, but it isn't. Killing a Blackguard with a poisoned sword is worse than watching the village burn according to the BoED / BoVD morality system.

I understand, but that was my initial position: That such an act is NOT evil, but poisoning food is. RAW doesn't matter to me at all.

[Big Fau]

Part of me wants to say yes, but honestly, there's not much way to know an earthquake would happen.

If your character did not attempt to make some kind of amends to the grieving family, then he's are probably slipping on the good scale of things.

Strikes me more as an ill-planned act than an evil one, though just shrugging it off would be evil.

It's a freak accident. There's nothing evil about it (aside from making the skeleton animate, usually), and ignoring the result is neutral at worst (neutral can be indifferent towards life).

[crazyhedgewizrd]

most medicines are poisons

[Shadowknight12]

Correct. If you really wanted to be on the safe side, you would make sure that everyone who worked with you knew that you did this.

To frame it in the real world, if I am eating a dish that contains peanuts, and someone who is deathly allergic to them eats my food when I'm not looking, I didn't do anything Evil by eating peanuts. They did something stupid by eating my food, but that's not my fault. I could have been extra careful and warned them immediately, but if it slipped my mind or I didn't know they were there, well, that's just an accident.

Huh. Okay, I see the logic in that, but you hinge a lot of the "Evilness" on whether the person is aware or not of the consequences of their actions and wilfully chooses to ignore them. What about characters of lesser intelligence? A character with Intelligence 3 is still playable, but you would be hard pressed to say that he's aware of what the consequences of his actions are when he casts fireball into a crowd. It might seem perfectly obvious to you, but to them, the idea that other people might be harmed by his actions honestly didn't even cross their minds. And this is a very obvious example. If they fathom the idea to put poison on the evil tyrant's food, it's perfectly possible that, in their simplemindedness, they never even considered that someone other than the evil tyrant might eat the food. That's not a wilful disregard of the consequences of an action, it's simply being unaware of them, just like my example with the earthquake and the vault.


But if I deliberately put peanuts into a meal that I know that person will eat, then that would be Evil. In fact, that would actually be considered murder in the real world, even though peanuts are harmless to 99% of the population.

What if the target is Evil? What if the target is a fiend who is bizarrely not immune to poison, and can be safely eliminated with that tactic with minimal risks to all involved?


It's getting sort of shady here, but my best answer is "not necessarily," assuming that using a skeleton in the first place isn't Evil. It was an accident. If the local guardsman has a crossbow that he brings home, and his daughter sneaks into his bedroom to play with it and accidentally kills herself, owning a crossbow doesn't become Evil. Carelessness is not the same thing as disregard or indifference.

Darn, I keep forgetting that standard D&D says that creating a skeleton is evil. Oh, well, replace that with "golem" or other mindless automaton.

Okay, I follow your logic there.


It's really a difference of your ability to predict the consequences of your actions. If there's a chance that an innocent could be hurt by your action if there were no other unexpected circumstances, then it's probably Evil. In the earthquake/skeleton example, you didn't know there was going to be an earthquake. In the poisoning your own food example, you didn't know anyone else was going to eat your food. Those circumstances radically change the threat level of the situation.

Again, while perfectly sound logic, it hinges heavily on the person knowing about the consequences of their actions. To you, an earthquake might be unpredictable, but an expert might see it coming weeks before it happens (or an architect might spot the place in the vault's ceiling that would obviously crack open at the slightest tremor). Conversely, to you, it's obvious that people other than the intended target might eat the poisoned food. To a person with an Intelligence score of 3, the tragic results might be just as unpredictable as the earthquake was to you.


Conversely, if you set a trap at the front door of your house, then anyone knocking on your door could be killed. You can't reasonably control who walks up and knocks, so setting that trap is Evil. Likewise, if you poison food that you yourself are not going to eat and/or have direct control over the entire time, then you're taking the risk that someone else could eat it before it got to your target.

And if I live in the middle of nowhere, where a visit is actually an incredibly rare circumstance, and I have every reason to believe (perhaps due to local demographics) that whoever wants to pay me a visit is likely bent on my death and horrible suffering?


Part of me wants to say yes, but honestly, there's not much way to know an earthquake would happen.

If your character did not attempt to make some kind of amends to the grieving family, then he's are probably slipping on the good scale of things.

Strikes me more as an ill-planned act than an evil one, though just shrugging it off would be evil.

Again, to you it might be a bizarre and inexplicable event. To an expert, it might be obvious with nary a glance.

Uh, why? If I am physically incapable of feeling (say, I've made the decision to have a super Calm Emotions spell made permanent on my person, or I have been cursed by a witch with an inability to feel), why is it evil if I don't care about the little girl's death? What kind of "amend" can I make up to the parents that can possibly make up for the fact that their little girl is dead (and let's assume, obviously, that she's perfectly happy in the afterlife and refuses a True Resurrection)? The only reasons to "make amends" are to assuage personal guilt or because one's personal ethics demand it so. If I don't feel personal guilt and my code of ethics don't demand that I make amends, then doing absolutely nothing is not evil, by any token of the word.

And also, that doesn't make me "not Good" either. If I understand that it would be culturally unwise to make amends (the parents might react in rage and be insulted by the very idea of anything compensating for their daughter's loss), then I shouldn't stop being considered Good because I choose to do nothing. And if I don't feel sad for the little girl (for whatever reason), that shouldn't make me not Good either. By RAW, feelings are not mandatory in alignment. If I choose to roleplay a warforged as a creature who cannot feel anything at all, that shouldn't prevent me from playing him as a paladin who upholds ethics and morality all the same.

[Zale]

It's a freak accident. There's nothing evil about it (aside from making the skeleton animate, usually), and ignoring the result is neutral at worst (neutral can be indifferent towards life).

It's not the accident itself, it's the reaction towards it. It may be neutral to be indifferent to life, but it's certainly not something (In my opinion) a good character would do on a regular basis.

If you think differently, then that is fine.



Uh, why? If I am physically incapable of feeling (say, I've made the decision to have a super Calm Emotions spell made permanent on my person, or I have been cursed by a witch with an inability to feel), why is it evil if I don't care about the little girl's death? What kind of "amend" can I make up to the parents that can possibly make up for the fact that their little girl is dead (and let's assume, obviously, that she's perfectly happy in the afterlife and refuses a True Resurrection)? The only reasons to "make amends" are to assuage personal guilt or because one's personal ethics demand it so. If I don't feel personal guilt and my code of ethics don't demand that I make amends, then doing absolutely nothing is not evil, by any token of the word.

That's a bit of a stretch with the magic, but understandable. And perhaps amends is a little strong..

I know saying this is going to bite me in the but somehow, but..

If you set up something in such a way that it could possibly kill some random innocent person, then you should at least admit it's your fault to some degree.

If not your fault, then at least poorly thought out.


And also, that doesn't make me "not Good" either. If I understand that it would be culturally unwise to make amends (the parents might react in rage and be insulted by the very idea of anything compensating for their daughter's loss), then I shouldn't stop being considered Good because I choose to do nothing. And if I don't feel sad for the little girl (for whatever reason), that shouldn't make me not Good either. By RAW, feelings are not mandatory in alignment. If I choose to roleplay a warforged as a creature who cannot feel anything at all, that shouldn't prevent me from playing him as a paladin who upholds ethics and morality all the same.

I thought that it was generally considered that compassion and caring towards other beings was Good.

Showing indifference towards life, or the fact that someone nearby has died strikes me as neutral but not Good.

Sure, there are exceptions, but still.

[Shadowknight12]

That's a bit of a stretch with the magic, but understandable. And perhaps amends is a little strong..

I know saying this is going to bite me in the but somehow, but..

If you set up something in such a way that it could possibly kill some random innocent person, then you should at least admit it's your fault to some degree.

If not your fault, then at least poorly thought out.

Admitting fault and feeling guilty are two different beasts. You can admit that you are responsible for a negative consequence and endeavour to make repairs as the damaged party sees fit, but that doesn't mean that you must feel anything at all.


I thought that it was generally considered that compassion and caring towards other beings was Good.

Showing indifference towards life, or the fact that someone nearby has died strikes me as neutral but not Good.

Sure, there are exceptions, but still.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

No compassion or caring. You can respect life, yes, but respecting life doesn't preclude you from building traps to protect yourself or engaging in violent actions. Otherwise paladins could not exist, because they are both Good and capable of inflicting grievous harm upon others. Good spellcasters, similarly, are able to cast AoE spells that damage indiscriminately. The potential for harm is there, but that doesn't preclude Good from using it.


the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

While both concern and devotion can be described as feelings, it's also possible to speak of them on a context devoid of emotional meaning. You can be concerned for and devoted to the welfare of others without actually feeling anything. Again, the warforged example comes to mind, along with good-aligned undead or elementals, if I choose to roleplay either as having lost (or never gained) the ability to feel emotions.

[Taelas]

Dishonourable? Shouldn't it rather be considered a pragmatic form?

Many pragmatic things are considered dishonorable.

[RPGuru1331]

If your character did not attempt to make some kind of amends to the grieving family, then he's are probably slipping on the good scale of things.

That would be neutral. It's uncaring. What would be evil would be dancing on the kid's grave.

The possibility of collateral damage does not itself make something evil. You should work to minimize it, but that's not the same as deliberately causing collateral damage. If the mere occurence of collateral damage on innocents automatically meant that your action was evil, if the corrupt duke had set up some sort of hostage retribution, and you didn't realize, or did realize but thought you had already taken care of it, and you sword him and the hostages are killed, the killing of the duke was evil and you're responsible for it. You'd have to go out of your way to increase collateral damage on the undeserving. Poisoning food isn't going to cut it. But poisoning the big community dishes is.

[Lord_Gareth]

By what metric can any person in the corrupt noble's employ that is specifically tasked with protecting and perpetuating said corrupt noble's rule be termed an 'innocent'? I could see arguments of coercion.. but the same could be said of the duke's soldiers, and as far as I've seen, such people are considered fair game, if not priority targets, and understandably so.

You'll note that I didn't say he was any more innocent than the soldiers, but the soldiers are often seen as more acceptable targets because they knew their job entailed risking death when they signed up (yes, I know, the same can be said of the food taster). What I said was that the death of an innocent person - or, at least, collateral damage - is a bad thing. I then later stated that invading the Duke's keep would be worse.

Does that clarify my point any?

[SPoD]

Huh. Okay, I see the logic in that, but you hinge a lot of the "Evilness" on whether the person is aware or not of the consequences of their actions and wilfully chooses to ignore them. What about characters of lesser intelligence? A character with Intelligence 3 is still playable, but you would be hard pressed to say that he's aware of what the consequences of his actions are when he casts fireball into a crowd.

On the contrary, I would say that a character with an Intelligence of 3 is still fully capable of determining that using a fireball where a person is standing will hurt that person. If they know that using a fireball can hurt their enemies, then they clearly know that a fireball can hurt someone. Ultimately, whether it "crosses their mind" or not doesn't matter. One could easily say that the reason a given low-Int person is Evil is precisely because this stuff doesn't cross their mind when they're doing their Evil acts—but that doesn't make them not Evil. If they're sentient, they're capable of basic determinations about what might happen if they throw fire into a crowd, and therefore are responsible for their own actions. The moment of crisis simply shifts from "Did they take an action that they knew would hurt an innocent?" to "Did they stop to think about their actions at all?"

If they can't understand the simple consequences of their action, then they're an animal or insane. I guess that's a difference in how we view the Intelligence scale, though. Int 3 does not mean mentally disabled in my estimation, it just means really, really stupid.

As far as the earthquake, experts in the real world can't predict earthquakes. You would need supernatural assistance to predict one in a D&D world, and I wouldn't call it Evil to not consult an oracle about every single thing you ever do. If the ability to perceive the possible danger is within the character's grasp, and they choose to ignore it, then Evil. If the ability to perceive the danger requires spells/magic items/class abilities that the character does not have, then it's not Evil. It's just beyond them.

A truly Good character wouldn't set a golem up to kill people who touched their stuff in the first place. At the very least, the golem would be set to restrain, not kill. So, setting the trap itself is in the grey area, hence the reason I said it was getting shady in my first response. If the person who owns the golem is a powerful wizard or cleric who could easily cast a divination to determine if anyone innocent would be killed by that golem and just didn't...well, then we're getting a little closer to an Evil act.

[SuperFerret]

Many pragmatic things are considered dishonorable.

It's kind of the definition of dishonorable, which is "not honorable" and being honorable requires setting up arbitrary rules in order to make yourself sit firmly in the "right" category.

[Taelas]

Those arbitrary rules can also cover pragmatic things. For instance, it is often pragmatic to tell the truth, which is honorable. (It is also often pragmatic to lie, which is not.)

[SuperFerret]

Yeah, but typically, being honorable means taking the hard road, such as when honor tells you to fight fair.

[Taelas]

Yes, but it does mean that something pragmatic is not necessarily dishonorable (even if it often is).

[Shadowknight12]

On the contrary, I would say that a character with an Intelligence of 3 is still fully capable of determining that using a fireball where a person is standing will hurt that person. If they know that using a fireball can hurt their enemies, then they clearly know that a fireball can hurt someone. Ultimately, whether it "crosses their mind" or not doesn't matter. One could easily say that the reason a given low-Int person is Evil is precisely because this stuff doesn't cross their mind when they're doing their Evil acts—but that doesn't make them not Evil. If they're sentient, they're capable of basic determinations about what might happen if they throw fire into a crowd, and therefore are responsible for their own actions. The moment of crisis simply shifts from "Did they take an action that they knew would hurt an innocent?" to "Did they stop to think about their actions at all?"

But what if they don't, in fact, know this? Depending on how you fluff your sorcerers' powers, there's nothing in the rules that says that a sorcerer must know the effects his spells are going to have before casting them the first time. If a sorcerer levels up, the player picks Fireball as his new spell known, and then has the sorcerer "reach into his inner power" to cast a spell for immediate self defence, it's debatable whether or not the sorcerer is fully aware of what the spell does. He might feel it evokes fire at an enemy, but he might be unaware of the area damage.


If they can't understand the simple consequences of their action, then they're an animal or insane. I guess that's a difference in how we view the Intelligence scale, though. Int 3 does not mean mentally disabled in my estimation, it just means really, really stupid.

This is where I think you're wrong. Intelligence 1 and 2 is animal-like. There is an ample spectrum of mental disability that is still above animal-like intelligence. In fact, you could say that people with intelligence from 3 to an arbitrary number (6, 7 or 8) are, in fact, mentally challenged. And as such, they have trouble fully apprehending the consequences of their actions.


As far as the earthquake, experts in the real world can't predict earthquakes. You would need supernatural assistance to predict one in a D&D world, and I wouldn't call it Evil to not consult an oracle about every single thing you ever do. If the ability to perceive the possible danger is within the character's grasp, and they choose to ignore it, then Evil. If the ability to perceive the danger requires spells/magic items/class abilities that the character does not have, then it's not Evil. It's just beyond them.

Actually, they can. That's why Seismology is a valid career choice and why we have incredibly sensitive equipment designed precisely for such a reason. In D&D, you could conceivably have creatures with Tremorsense aware of an impending earthquake days before other creatures notice it. Or, more mundanely, the wizard chooses to live in an area he fully knows is renown for its earthquakes. And anyone with a rank in Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) can pass the DC 10 check to tell that the vault has been shoddily built. Is there a difference in this scenario if the wizard passes the check and chooses to ignore the potential consequences and if he doesn't?


A truly Good character wouldn't set a golem up to kill people who touched their stuff in the first place. At the very least, the golem would be set to restrain, not kill. So, setting the trap itself is in the grey area, hence the reason I said it was getting shady in my first response. If the person who owns the golem is a powerful wizard or cleric who could easily cast a divination to determine if anyone innocent would be killed by that golem and just didn't...well, then we're getting a little closer to an Evil act.

Why not? Look at the paladin. He is meant to harm and kill. He is a living, evil-detecting weapon, with a meagre spell list, some healing, a mount and the ability to Remove Disease 1/week. If Good was against harming and killing, paladins would be completely different. At the very, very least, there would be a "no killing" part in their Code.

So, basically, you're saying that the more power the character has, the more he has to watch out for all the myriad ways things can go wrong?

And what about reality alteration? What if a wizard casts Wish or a cleric casts Miracle and reality is rewritten? What happens then? What happens if, unbeknownst to them, their reality rewrite "erases" some people from existence, or inadvertently causes someone's death? Is that evil? Or is it evil if they didn't cast a divination first to apprehend the possible consequences of their actions?

[LaughingRogue]

Not evil and I've home-ruled it as such in every game I've ever run and taken the evil prereq out of assassin (as well as the added stuff about killing some random person just to join the assassin's).