runestaves make you evil?

[geekintheground]

i was talking to a friend of mine who said that casting an "evil" spell from a runestaff counts as an evil act and would turn off any exalted feats. i dont think this is the case because, while you power the spell the staff is casting it. thats like saying a power plant is evil for powering a doomsday machine. sure, in this case i make a conscious decision, but what does RAW say?

[JellyPooga]

Do you honestly think any GM would let this fly as a legit way for an exalted character to cast [Evil] spells?

I can't speak for RAW, because I've never had much truck with the whole exalted/vile thing (I don't like extremist characters, as a rule), but if a player came to me in my game and tried it; Paladins would fall, Good Clerics would be looking for someone to cast Atonement on them, Exalted feats would cease to work and anyone of an even slightly on the Good end of the spectrum would be feeling distinctly unclean for using such an obviously unholy, corrupt item...

[Lord Vukodlak]

i was talking to a friend of mine who said that casting an "evil" spell from a runestaff counts as an evil act and would turn off any exalted feats. i dont think this is the case because, while you power the spell the staff is casting it. thats like saying a power plant is evil for powering a doomsday machine. sure, in this case i make a conscious decision, but what does RAW say?

When your casting a spell from a staff or a runestaff... your casting the spell.

By expending a prepared arcane spell or arcane spell slot, the wielder can cast a spell of the same level or lower from the runestaff’s list, as long as that spell also appears on the wielder’s class spell list.
Which should pretty much end any discussion right there.

And to use your own analogy, when the director of the power plant knowingly and willfully supplies power to a doomsday machine the director is complicit.

Do you know what you call a character who bends the rules and exploits loop holes for his own ends while at the same time using those rules to protect himself and his power? Lawful Evil.

[bot]

.... thats like saying a power plant is evil for powering a doomsday machine.

No, if you absolutely want to use that analogy, then it's like activating said doomsday device and say you're still exhalted since you didn't build it..

Fine with a RAW discussion, but there should otherwise be no doubt that it's evil.

[Drachasor]

As a DM, I'd personally have it depend on the spell, but that's only because some "evil" spells don't seem inherently evil at all. I would not consider casting them an inherently evil act.

[geekintheground]

:/ oh well. it was a nice dream but i didnt notice that part about you casting it. was too giddy about the loophole. thanks guys!

[Darth Stabber]

Even were it a normal spell completion item:

I don't believe that there is an actual defined rule for the alignment consequences of using a spell completion item containing an aligned spell. This is a case for GM adjudication, and I believe your GM came to a sensible solution. Evil spells have that descriptor for a reason, and that reason tends to be that those spells do aweful things. Unless you are activating blindly you are cognizant of the horrid effect you are unleashing upon your foe. I can't imagine palor cares whether you cast animate dead, or "the wand casts" animate dead, the dead were animated at your command, and that's terrible. Also note that having an exalted feat indicates that your character is of beyond unimpeachable virtue, and even if it wouldn't be a problem for a normal good cleric, you, as an exalted feat holder, are held to an even higher standard. If you were activating an item blindly I could see making a case, but since it was a runestaff you likely weren't. If you are going to reap what little benefits there are to being good then it is incumbent on you to stay on the straight and narrow. Were I your GM I would rule the exact same thing, as would most of the people here. Even were that 100% okay via RAW, I would still rule that it's an evil act, because that ruling is more logically consistant (I realize that D&D has always been bad at logical consistency, but where possible I add what I can).

[Drachasor]

Darth Stabber there have actually been many, many debates about whether making non-sentient undead is evil or not.

Forget that though.

What about a pit trap that contains a Magic Circle Against Good. This circle is there to PREVENT those of good alignment from getting hurt (They can't enter the area, so their fall is prematurely stopped). How's that evil?

There are actually a lot of very questionable good/evil spells. There are also many that aren't questionable. It becomes even blurrier when you compare some non-aligned spells.

Obviously the RAW is that casting an [Evil] spell is evil. It makes no sense, but that's RAW. On the other hand, we could talk a bit about what does make sense.

[Dark_Nohn]

On Drachasor's comment; iirc, there's a feat for turning spells with the [Evil] tag into non-evil forms of the spell, Sanctify Metamagic perhaps?

[Jeff the Green]

On Drachasor's comment; iirc, there's a feat for turning spells with the [Evil] tag into non-evil forms of the spell, Sanctify Metamagic perhaps?

I don't think so. There is a way to make them [Good], but they're still paradoxically also [Evil].

[Amphetryon]

Do you honestly think any GM would let this fly as a legit way for an exalted character to cast [Evil] spells?

I can't speak for RAW, because I've never had much truck with the whole exalted/vile thing (I don't like extremist characters, as a rule), but if a player came to me in my game and tried it; Paladins would fall, Good Clerics would be looking for someone to cast Atonement on them, Exalted feats would cease to work and anyone of an even slightly on the Good end of the spectrum would be feeling distinctly unclean for using such an obviously unholy, corrupt item...

Yes, as a DM I would let this fly. Unless the spell completion item (runestaff, wand, scroll, whatever), is being used for an evil purpose - not just an Evil descriptor in the spell - then I'd have no problem with an Exalted Sorcerer using it to combat evil. A spell that causes undue suffering/torture by its very nature qualifies as "for an evil purpose," by this metric, but merely having the [evil] descriptor doesn't indicate that such torture is an automatic function of the spell.

JellyPooga, would you cause a Paladin to fall for using a scroll of Deathwatch? It's got the [evil] descriptor, and all it tells you is which of the Paladin's allies is in most dire needs of a Lay on Hands. Why, or why wouldn't you cause the Paladin's fall in this case, and what - if anything - makes Deathwatch a special case?

[Drachasor]

Yes, as a DM I would let this fly. Unless the spell completion item (runestaff, wand, scroll, whatever), is being used for an evil purpose - not just an Evil descriptor in the spell - then I'd have no problem with an Exalted Sorcerer using it to combat evil. A spell that causes undue suffering/torture by its very nature qualifies as "for an evil purpose," by this metric, but merely having the [evil] descriptor doesn't indicate that such torture is an automatic function of the spell.

JellyPooga, would you cause a Paladin to fall for using a scroll of Deathwatch? It's got the [evil] descriptor, and all it tells you is which of the Paladin's allies is in most dire needs of a Lay on Hands. Why, or why wouldn't you cause the Paladin's fall in this case, and what - if anything - makes Deathwatch a special case?

For each person's status deathwatch brings an angel loses its wings?

It's that or synesthesia is evil or the gaze attack. Not sure.

[eggynack]

Yes, as a DM I would let this fly. Unless the spell completion item (runestaff, wand, scroll, whatever), is being used for an evil purpose - not just an Evil descriptor in the spell - then I'd have no problem with an Exalted Sorcerer using it to combat evil. A spell that causes undue suffering/torture by its very nature qualifies as "for an evil purpose," by this metric, but merely having the [evil] descriptor doesn't indicate that such torture is an automatic function of the spell.

JellyPooga, would you cause a Paladin to fall for using a scroll of Deathwatch? It's got the [evil] descriptor, and all it tells you is which of the Paladin's allies is in most dire needs of a Lay on Hands. Why, or why wouldn't you cause the Paladin's fall in this case, and what - if anything - makes Deathwatch a special case?
I agree with you that the evil descriptor is often applied ridiculously, but I don't think that has anything to do with runestaves. If an exalted character cast a vile spell (which I believe is actually possible), and did it for a good purpose, and that caused them to fall, the same should be true in the case of runestaves. If the same spell were cast and they didn't fall, they also shouldn't fall if runestaves enter into the mix. Thus, I would cause a paladin to fall for using a scroll of deathwatch, if and only if they would also fall for somehow casting deathwatch. Whether they would fall for casting the spell is likely dependent on the DM, but my claim is that this biconditional statement should hold universally true.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Disagreeing with a spell having an evil descriptor is entirely different then agreeing that a exalted character should be able to freely cast an evil spell.

[Drachasor]

Disagreeing with a spell having an evil descriptor is entirely different then agreeing that a exalted character should be able to freely cast an evil spell.

Disagreeing with casting an [Evil] spell being evil is also different from thinking everyone should be able to cast it. If you view it as manipulating [Evil] energies (like [Fire] is manipulating fire energies), then it would make sense for some people to not have access (Clerics of Good gods, for instance). But if manipulating those energies isn't evil itself, then casting such a spell wouldn't be inherently evil.

[The Random NPC]

I make it make sense by saying Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos) are creatures that have divided most all the actions between themselves. If an act has no real evil consequences but has the [Evil] tag, like Deathwatch, it is an action claimed by Evil. It doesn't matter what you cast that spell for, you are venerating and empowering Evil and thus the spell is evil. Now if someone went up to Good and asked why such a useful spell was [Evil], Good would probably reply with, "you aren't supposed to care which is most hurt, you are supposed to heal them all" or something like that. All four of them are pretty one dimensional and don't allow for failure.

[Jeff the Green]

Disagreeing with a spell having an evil descriptor is entirely different then agreeing that a exalted character should be able to freely cast an evil spell.

Agreed. Deathwatch is bizarre, because on the one hand its authors clearly intended it to be [Evil] ("Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range.") On the other, the effect benefits primarily healers and other authors clearly didn't think it was [Evil] (e.g. the Healer has it on its list).

However, an Exalted cleric shouldn't be able to use wands of desecrate and animate dead to create an army. The proper response is to redeem or destroy the items (so the wand of desecrate becomes a wand of consecrate and the wand of animate dead is consigned to the fire).

Edit:

Disagreeing with casting an [Evil] spell being evil is also different from thinking everyone should be able to cast it. If you view it as manipulating [Evil] energies (like [Fire] is manipulating fire energies), then it would make sense for some people to not have access (Clerics of Good gods, for instance). But if manipulating those energies isn't evil itself, then casting such a spell wouldn't be inherently evil.

Except that casting [Evil] spells is explicitly an Evil act.

[Drachasor]

I make it make sense by saying Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos) are creatures that have divided most all the actions between themselves. If an act has no real evil consequences but has the [Evil] tag, like Deathwatch, it is an action claimed by Evil. It doesn't matter what you cast that spell for, you are venerating and empowering Evil and thus the spell is evil. Now if someone went up to Good and asked why such a useful spell was [Evil], Good would probably reply with, "you aren't supposed to care which is most hurt, you are supposed to heal them all" or something like that. All four of them are pretty one dimensional and don't allow for failure.

Wizards casting spells aren't venerating anything. That's not how arcane magic works. It would make more sense as manipulating certain energies associated with particular types of outer planes.

And that "Good" sounds like [Stupid Good], which we should avoid at all costs. Not sure what you mean by "don't allow for failure."

[Drachasor]

Except that casting [Evil] spells is explicitly an Evil act.

Obviously disagreeing with that too is assumed.

[eggynack]

I've actually always thought that the least evil [evil] spell was Claws of the Savage, from page 88 of the BoVD. At least deathwatch has some flavor justification for its evilness. Claws of the Savage just gives you claws, and those claws are long. It's utterly ridiculous, and the only reason it's evil is because of the book it's in. Similarly stupid is Claws of the Bebilith, from the exact same page of the exact same book. That one has the slight justification of having a slightly evil sounding name, but the name change is apparently enough to justify a move from [evil] to corrupt. Neither spell has anything in its description that would indicate evil, and the effects have always seemed utterly neutral to me.

[Amphetryon]

I agree with you that the evil descriptor is often applied ridiculously, but I don't think that has anything to do with runestaves. If an exalted character cast a vile spell (which I believe is actually possible), and did it for a good purpose, and that caused them to fall, the same should be true in the case of runestaves. If the same spell were cast and they didn't fall, they also shouldn't fall if runestaves enter into the mix. Thus, I would cause a paladin to fall for using a scroll of deathwatch, if and only if they would also fall for somehow casting deathwatch. Whether they would fall for casting the spell is likely dependent on the DM, but my claim is that this biconditional statement should hold universally true.

I would call Vile spells a bit of a strawman here, as - so far as I can tell - they all fall under the "undue suffering/torture" descriptor I already indicated would be off-limits for an Exalted Character

[Spuddles]

giddy about the loophole.

That's not what Exalted is about.

[Drachasor]

That's not what Exalted is about.

Being Exalted just means using Loop Holes for the good of all the peoples. There's nothing inherently wrong with an exalted person gaming the system to heck and back.

[eggynack]

I would call Vile spells a bit of a strawman here, as - so far as I can tell - they all fall under the "undue suffering/torture" descriptor I already indicated would be off-limits for an Exalted Character
I wasn't doing the strawman deal, especially because my later example used deathwatch. If you can cast evil spells without falling, you can use evil runestaves without falling. If you can't cast evil spells without falling, you can't use evil runestaves without falling. These statements apply equally to corrupt spells, though the probability that they'll end up in the falling category is significantly higher. My essential claim is that your argument has nothing to do with runestaves. Also, as I mentioned in a later post, Claws of the Bebilith is corrupt (I always mix up the book name with the spell type), and that spell just gives you claws. They don't even seem to be particularly evil claws. It's a bit irrelevant to the core of what I'm saying, but it's certainly a thing of some kind, and it always amuses me.

[Spuddles]

Being Exalted just means using Loop Holes for the good of all the peoples. There's nothing inherently wrong with an exalted person gaming the system to heck and back.

That's actually the opposite of what exalted means.

[Need_A_Life]

1) I wouldn't let a runestaff give a character the ability to use a type of ability they're barred from without consequences. I wouldn't let the "Promise not to ever use fire magic" druid with such an ability cast fireball, without suffering the consequences, just because they're using an item.

2) I would let an Exalted character use [Evil] spells all day long, if they wanted, without necessarily losing their abilities. The tool is not the intent. As was mentioned above Magic Circle Against Good is excellent to keep Good-aligned creatures from falling into pit traps and Deathwatch may be [Evil] but it's not evil IMC.

3) Actions matter more than tools in the terms of morality. If I use Deathwatch so I can better perform triage for the dying citizens of a recently-sacked city my Exalted status is not in question. If I cast Holy Smite - a [Good] spell - at everyone I meet (letting those TN lvl 1 commoners go splat in a shower of holy goodness), then I am going to fall so quick that I'll leave cracks in the floor.
Are there edge cases? Yes. Sticking a Helmet of Opposite Alignment on the BBEG until he comes around to your thinking is a violation of his freedom of thought, but probably a lot less questionable than burning him to death.

[Drachasor]

That's actually the opposite of what exalted means.

Generally speaking, there's no reason an Exalted person can't game the heck and back out of the system. They just need to avoid evil acts and otherwise follow the principles of being Good -- nothing in those principles says "don't game reality."

[Psyren]

Disagreeing with a spell having an evil descriptor is entirely different then agreeing that a exalted character should be able to freely cast an evil spell.

This. Fix the individual spells, don't try and break the entire system.

[Darth Stabber]

Darth Stabber there have actually been many, many debates about whether making non-sentient undead is evil or not.


Fine then, how about avascular mass? I doubt that causing someone's veins to eplode from their body and strangle those near by is going to get the okay just because it's from a scroll. There are some evil spells that aren't really arguable. I brought up animate dead because the dread necromancer in my current game keeps trying to argue it's descriptor, and thus it sticks out in my head (mostly she wants to act CE and have her sheet say CN). And personally I have never seen why animate dead shouldn't have that descriptor, you can use evil means to achieve good ends, but they are still evil means, tainting your good ends.

[Amphetryon]

Fine then, how about avascular mass? I doubt that causing someone's veins to eplode from their body and strangle those near by is going to get the okay just because it's from a scroll. There are some evil spells that aren't really arguable. I brought up animate dead because the dread necromancer in my current game keeps trying to argue it's descriptor, and thus it sticks out in my head (mostly she wants to act CE and have her sheet say CN). And personally I have never seen why animate dead shouldn't have that descriptor, you can use evil means to achieve good ends, but they are still evil means, tainting your good ends.

Depends largely on how the culture treats the dead (see: Klingon death rituals), but that's neither here nor there.

[Darth Stabber]

Depends largely on how the culture treats the dead (see: Klingon death rituals), but that's neither here nor there.

I respect the people that disagree with me on the undead, I just don't understand their point, so long as they don't fight me on it when i'm gm'ing.

[JusticeZero]

Often times it isn't because the EFFECT of the spell is aligned; the effect should have already been counted in. The CAUSE and MECHANICS of the spell are, however, doing something inherently gruesome. Animating a corpse to work as a firefighter who saves lives might seem like a good thing. However, the original soul is trapped in the body through processes less than nice, and that act may be inherently evil either because it's "powered by burning orphans" so to speak or just because it arbitrarily disgusts the gods of Good.

[Drachasor]

Fine then, how about avascular mass? I doubt that causing someone's veins to eplode from their body and strangle those near by is going to get the okay just because it's from a scroll. There are some evil spells that aren't really arguable. I brought up animate dead because the dread necromancer in my current game keeps trying to argue it's descriptor, and thus it sticks out in my head (mostly she wants to act CE and have her sheet say CN). And personally I have never seen why animate dead shouldn't have that descriptor, you can use evil means to achieve good ends, but they are still evil means, tainting your good ends.

Well, I don't see how that is inherently worse than poison gas. Heck, the Real World thought poison gas was so horrible it's explicitly banned. Perfectly fine in D&D though. As is Animate Object on a dead body or entrails to kill other people. Disgusting and even depraved uses of magic aren't enough to qualify for the [Evil] tag. This is proof enough that the tag signifies something else.

Which is really where I'm going with how it makes more logical sense to consider it to be manipulating [Evil] energies (e.g. lower planes), much like [Fire] spells manipulate fire. Using [Evil] energies in and of itself isn't necessarily [Evil] though, imho -- but some [Evil] spells would still be evil acts just because of what they inherently entail.


I respect the people that disagree with me on the undead, I just don't understand their point, so long as they don't fight me on it when i'm gm'ing.

With non-sentient undead you aren't involving some sort of tortured soul or anything. You are just animating a corpse. There are cultures that view dead bodies as just empty husks to be discarded. Western Civilization isn't like that, so we have a cultural revulsion to messing around with dead bodies. That's as big why Animate Dead is [Evil], imho. (Not that I don't find it disgusting either...well, skeletons aren't so disgusting, rotting animated corpses are. I suppose any human culture is likely to find them smelly).

[hamishspence]

While some undead are explicitly ensouled by whatever makes them- it's less clear if zombies or skeletons are among those.

[Khedrac]

While some undead are explicitly ensouled by whatever makes them- it's less clear if zombies or skeletons are among those.
They may not be ensouled, but it still prevnts a single True Resurrection spell from bringing them back until the undead is killed...

As for some of the "Why is this [Evil]?" spells, it becomes very much a DM's decision. Usually (and it's easy to argue otherwise) the theory goes that the purest of good will not condone a minor evil act for a greater good - for example if by sacrificing a child an entire town can be saved (there are a lot of stories on that theme out there). However it is often not practical for normal people, which most definitely includes the rulers of a realm, to follow standards that high - in order to protect one's realm virtually every ruler must pick a path of expediency.

So what does this mean? This means that a normal follower of a good god can cast Deathwatch (or some other [Evil] spell) for a justifiable reason with no more than a "tut tut" from on high - go to confession or equivalent and try not to do it too often. Because it is a good cause, a alignment change is unlikely to result no matter how often this is done.
A priest of the good god is held to higher standards - they may not be able to cast the spell at all, or not without consequences (e.g. atonement). Sorry, but the expedient option is not acceptable here (even if necessary).
And an Exalted person is held to a much higher standard again - they cannot cast the spell without consequences. If they do so "because they think it necessary" then they are likely to get a sympathetic outsider (i.e. devil or demon) agreeing with their position and offering to "help"... The higher you are the easier it is to fall and the further you can fall.

As for the "Neutral" person who wants to be able to cast the spell because it is useful - do they really have a "good" purpose? Probably not which leads to the classic person who thinks they are neutral (or even good) because all they do is behave "rationally", however alignment is (to a large degree) defined by interaction with society, and they are deluding themselves - they are evil. Of course very few evil people think of themselves as evil as that really would be insane, no they are just "practical".

[hamishspence]

Oddly, Deathwatch is on the spell list of a Good-only class (Healer) and an Exalted prestige class (Slayer of Domiel).

[Lord Vukodlak]

Depends largely on how the culture treats the dead (see: Klingon death rituals), but that's neither here nor there.

According to Libris Mortis the reason that a skeleton or a zombie is evil but a flesh golem is not is thus. A Flesh Golem is animated by an elemental spirit while a skeleton or zombie is animated by an evil spirit. So how a culture treats the dead is irrelevant.

[Drachasor]

As for the "Neutral" person who wants to be able to cast the spell [Deathwatch] because it is useful - do they really have a "good" purpose? Probably not which leads to the classic person who thinks they are neutral (or even good) because all they do is behave "rationally", however alignment is (to a large degree) defined by interaction with society, and they are deluding themselves - they are evil. Of course very few evil people think of themselves as evil as that really would be insane, no they are just "practical".

You're kidding right? You're make a sinister evil out of Deathwatch and blowing it so out of proportion that they've turned themselves against society and are secretly evil, etc, etc? Ever heard of the slippery-slope fallacy?

Seems like an argument you could use about cutting people open with knives, and then point at surgeons as evil. "Do they really have a 'good' purpose?"

[Amphetryon]

According to Libris Mortis the reason that a skeleton or a zombie is evil but a flesh golem is not is thus. A Flesh Golem is animated by an elemental spirit while a skeleton or zombie is animated by an evil spirit. So how a culture treats the dead is irrelevant.

That presumes that your culture (and magic) adheres to the norms within Libris Mortis, as far as I can tell.

[Amphetryon]

Oddly, Deathwatch is on the spell list of a Good-only class (Healer) and an Exalted prestige class (Slayer of Domiel).

No doubt a Paladin/Slayer of Domiel should expect to fall for casting it. . . right?

[hamishspence]

I could see the writers of Miniatures Handbook and BoED (both very early 3.5 books) having not noticed the 3.5 change (Deathwatch had no Evil subtype in 3.0).

[Jeff the Green]

Well, I don't see how that is inherently worse than poison gas. Heck, the Real World thought poison gas was so horrible it's explicitly banned. Perfectly fine in D&D though.

No, poison is Evil in D&D.

[hamishspence]

Poison spell doesn't have the Evil descriptor though:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm

[Drachasor]

No, poison is Evil in D&D.

Cloudkill.

[Amphetryon]

I could see the writers of Miniatures Handbook and BoED (both very early 3.5 books) having not noticed the 3.5 change (Deathwatch had no Evil subtype in 3.0).

Their not noticing the change doesn't invalidate the change. So, a Paladin/Slayer of Domiel autofalls for using his Exalted Class features. . . right?

[Chronos]

Neutral characters can cast [evil] spells, or perform other evil acts, and remain neutral. Even good characters can do so. One action does not define your entire alignment: A person who performs a roughly equal mix of good and evil will be neutral, and a person who almost always does good but occasionally slips will be good. No houserules are necessary for, say, a CN character to cast Animate Dead.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, poison is Evil in D&D.

The actual rules regarding the alignment of the use of poison have so many caveats that this statement is an inaccurate oversimplification.

The actual rule is that it's evil to use a poison that does ability damage unless it is part of your natural arsenal.

Drow sleep poison: not evil.

Couatl's venom delivered via its bite attack: not evil.

Lich powder slipped into somebody's drink: evil.

[Drachasor]

The actual rules regarding the alignment of the use of poison have so many caveats that this statement is an inaccurate oversimplification.

The actual rule is that it's evil to use a poison that does ability damage unless it is part of your natural arsenal.

Drow sleep poison: not evil.

Couatl's venom delivered via its bite attack: not evil.

Lich powder slipped into somebody's drink: evil.

Yes, because disabling someone with ability damage that they'll recover from in a week or two is evil. It's far more civilized to bash their face in with a hammer!

A bit like evil spells, some things they define as "evil" don't really make a lot of sense. And by not making sense, I mean they don't mesh well with the alignment rules/guidelines given in the alignment section or elsewhere.

[hamishspence]

Their not noticing the change doesn't invalidate the change. So, a Paladin/Slayer of Domiel autofalls for using his Exalted Class features. . . right?

Unless the DM does a little homebrewing, yes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, because disabling someone with ability damage that they'll recover from in a week or two is evil. It's far more civilized to bash their face in with a hammer!

A bit like evil spells, some things they define as "evil" don't really make a lot of sense. And by not making sense, I mean they don't mesh well with the alignment rules/guidelines given in the alignment section or elsewhere.

I wasn't arguing that it made sense. I was simply correcting a rules error.

If you want the argument for why it makes sense, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13856253&postcount=245)

TL;DR version: it's more cruel to cripple than to kill.

[Amphetryon]

Unless the DM does a little homebrewing, yes.

And does this make any sort of sense to you, whatsoever, that the DM needs to modify the RAW with homebrew simply in order for the PrC to function?

[Drachasor]

I wasn't arguing that it made sense. I was simply correcting a rules error.

If you want the argument for why it makes sense, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13856253&postcount=245)

TL;DR version: it's more cruel to cripple than to kill.

Where there's life, there's hope. So I disagree with that general principle on moral grounds. Particularly if the crippling is temporary. But yes, it is good we agree -- I think we agree.

[eggynack]

I wasn't arguing that it made sense. I was simply correcting a rules error.

If you want the argument for why it makes sense, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13856253&postcount=245)

TL;DR version: it's more cruel to cripple than to kill.
The idea that crippling someone is an intrinsically evil act seems internally inconsistent. There's a good number of spells that cripple in a manner similar to poisons, like energy drain, shivering touch, and oddly, poison. None of these spells are evil, and they should be, if crippling is the evil part of poison. Moreover, ravages and afflictions deal ability damage, so if that's what makes poison evil, ravages and afflictions should also be evil. You contend in your post that there is some distinction between these, and there isn't. You can use poisons in an evil manner, but you can use just about anything in an evil manner. If it's always evil to poison someone, which is true even if the target is both evil and deserving, it's also always evil to ravage someone. Being magical shouldn't make any difference.

[hamishspence]

And does this make any sort of sense to you, whatsoever, that the DM needs to modify the RAW with homebrew simply in order for the PrC to function?

Yup. It's just another example of inadequate proofreading- nothing at all special in the context of D&D books.

I suspect Monte Cook might have been the one who gave Deathwatch the Evil descriptor- since he actually recommends giving it that, as early as BoVD.

[Drachasor]

The idea that crippling someone is an intrinsically evil act seems internally inconsistent. There's a good number of spells that cripple in a manner similar to poisons, like energy drain, shivering touch, and oddly, poison. None of these spells are evil, and they should be, if crippling is the evil part of poison. Moreover, ravages and afflictions deal ability damage, so if that's what makes poison evil, ravages and afflictions should also be evil. You contend in your post that there is some distinction between these, and there isn't. You can use poisons in an evil manner, but you can use just about anything in an evil manner. If it's always evil to poison someone, which is true even if the target is both evil and deserving, it's also always evil to ravage someone. Being magical shouldn't make any difference.

Or Blindness/Deafness, which is PERMANENT. Not evil though. I mean, taking away someone's main sense is just fine.

[Amphetryon]

Yup. It's just another example of inadequate proofreading- nothing at all special in the context of D&D books.

I suspect Monte Cook might have been the one who gave Deathwatch the Evil descriptor- since he actually recommends giving it that, as early as BoVD.

So you find it consistent and fair (in other words, "sensible"), within D&D's alignment framework, to provide a PrC that one cannot possibly use without failing its own Alignment requirements?

Could you explain how that's sensible?

[hamishspence]

"Makes sense" in this case means "Is not implausible given what we know about D&D writers"

A DM could remove the spell from the lists of the class and the PRC, or remove the Evil subtype, or do nothing.

[Karnith]

I suspect Monte Cook might have been the one who gave Deathwatch the Evil descriptor- since he actually recommends giving it that, as early as BoVD.
Would you mind giving a page number or general section on that? I don't remember it, and I should very much like to see the kind of logic that makes Deathwatch an Evil spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The idea that crippling someone is an intrinsically evil act seems internally inconsistent. There's a good number of spells that cripple in a manner similar to poisons, like energy drain, shivering touch, and oddly, poison. None of these spells are evil, and they should be, if crippling is the evil part of poison. Moreover, ravages and afflictions deal ability damage, so if that's what makes poison evil, ravages and afflictions should also be evil. You contend in your post that there is some distinction between these, and there isn't. You can use poisons in an evil manner, but you can use just about anything in an evil manner. If it's always evil to poison someone, which is true even if the target is both evil and deserving, it's also always evil to ravage someone. Being magical shouldn't make any difference.

Once again, it's -not- always evil to poison someone. Neither is it always evil to do ability damage, not even -with- poison (couatl example).

What's evil, in this case, is using a good that's been manufactured to cause undue suffering without regard to who it's used on. A couatl's poison isn't manufactured, the effect of a spell can't be stolen and doesn't carry over to scavengers if the target -is- killed, and; in the case of slipping someone a poison; poisoning's not an act of self-defense that would otherwise excuse reducing the enemy's ability to do you harm in turn.

No one factor of what a poison is and what it does makes its use evil, it's all of those things together.

For contrast:

Ravages and afflictions are discreet in their targetting and casting an offensive spell that causes ability damage -may- be an evil act, depending on circumstance (first strike against a potential enemy when a fight isn't necessary), but -always- alerts the target to a nearby enemy, especially on a passed save.

[hamishspence]

Would you mind giving a page number or general section on that? I don't remember it, and I should very much like to see the kind of logic that makes Deathwatch an Evil spell.BOVD Page 77:


Spells have the evil descriptor because they do one or more of the following things:
*They cause undue suffering or negative emotions
*They call upon evil gods or energies
*They create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters
*They harm souls
*They involve unsavoury practices such as cannibalism or drug use

Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.

By this definition, as a variant rule, the following spells from the Player's Handbook should be considered evil and have the evil descriptor: contagion, deathwatch, desecrate, doom, and trap the soul.

[eggynack]

Once again, it's -not- always evil to poison someone. Neither is it always evil to do ability damage, not even -with- poison (couatl example).

What's evil, in this case, is using a good that's been manufactured to cause undue suffering without regard to who it's used on. A couatl's poison isn't manufactured, the effect of a spell can't be stolen and doesn't carry over to scavengers if the target -is- killed, and; in the case of slipping someone a poison; poisoning's not an act of self-defense that would otherwise excuse reducing the enemy's ability to do you harm in turn.

No one factor of what a poison is and what it does makes its use evil, it's all of those things together.

For contrast:

Ravages and afflictions are discreet in their targetting and casting an offensive spell that causes ability damage -may- be an evil act, depending on circumstance (first strike against a potential enemy when a fight isn't necessary), but -always- alerts the target to a nearby enemy, especially on a passed save.
So, you're saying that if you poison a sword, and stab an enemy with it, that's not an evil act? I don't have a direct citation on this one yet, but I'm pretty sure that it is one. By my understanding, it's completely possible to use a ravage on an evil creature, even if they aren't fighting back. Thus, as long as you're using the poison against an evil creature, there's no distinction between poisons and afflictions.

[Karnith]

BOVD Page 77:
And now I'm more confused, because Deathwatch (at least, the 3.0 Deathwatch) fulfills none of those conditions. Per the 3.0 SRD (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html):

Deathwatch
Necromancy
Level: Clr 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: Quarter circle emanating from the character to the extreme of the range
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
The character can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range. The character instantly knows whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), undead, or neither alive nor dead (as a construct). This spell foils any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.
So far as I can tell, 3.5 not only added the Evil descriptor to the spell, but also the "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife" line, which is the only justification for the spell being evil.

[hamishspence]

So far as I can tell, 3.5 not only added the Evil descriptor to the spell, but also the "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife" line, which is the only justification for the spell being evil.

I've got the 3.0 PHB- the Daethwatch spell on page 191 has the "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife" line as well- so it wasn't 3.5 that introduced it.

[Karnith]

I've got the 3.0 PHB- the Daethwatch spell on page 191 has the "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife" line as well- so it wasn't 3.5 that introduced it.
Well, then that makes marginally more sense, though I do wonder why it was left out of the 3.0 SRD but put into the 3.5 SRD.

[hamishspence]

Maybe there's a higher proportion of flavour text for the 3.5 SRD in general.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, you're saying that if you poison a sword, and stab an enemy with it, that's not an evil act? I don't have a direct citation on this one yet, but I'm pretty sure that it is one. By my understanding, it's completely possible to use a ravage on an evil creature, even if they aren't fighting back. Thus, as long as you're using the poison against an evil creature, there's no distinction between poisons and afflictions.

Using a poisoned sword is an evil act, provided that the poison does ability damage.

The distinction between a ravage and a poison is a matter of what they are. A poison is a completely non-magical substance that does direct tissue damage in what is presumably a very unpleasant fashion. A ravage is a magical substance that turns the creature's own evil against it.

There's also the simple fact that the ravage just doesn't work if you're mistaken about the target's alignment; a thing that very much can happen, given that it's nearly impossible to determine alignment non-magically (only an epic level sense motive check) and magical methods can be decieved.

The small degree of mechanical difference (ravages can be used against creatures immune to poison and even undead) doesn't make the two substances equivalent.

[AstralFire]

The problem with Deathwatch, at its source, is that one creator looked at it and thought about it as a weird but interesting fluffy spell first (Monte Cook), and everyone else looked at it for its effects first (because that's how a majority of this edition ends up working) and fluffs it according to how it should be used.

I like a lot of the man's ideas but they really just don't belong in the creature that was 3E. Mr. Cook has a running theme of mediocre-to-bad mechanics but a creative mind.

[eggynack]

Using a poisoned sword is an evil act, provided that the poison does ability damage.

The distinction between a ravage and a poison is a matter of what they are. A poison is a completely non-magical substance that does direct tissue damage in what is presumably a very unpleasant fashion. A ravage is a magical substance that turns the creature's own evil against it.

There's also the simple fact that the ravage just doesn't work if you're mistaken about the target's alignment; a thing that very much can happen, given that it's nearly impossible to determine alignment non-magically (only an epic level sense motive check) and magical methods can be decieved.

The small degree of mechanical difference (ravages can be used against creatures immune to poison and even undead) doesn't make the two substances equivalent.
So, what you're saying is that ability damage is intrinsically evil. That's just a function of what it does to an enemy. However, that makes absolutely zero sense, because of all the things I listed. If I cast a spell that deals ability damage to a target, how is that different from hitting someone with a sword that deals ability damage? How is that any less evil? If you do something destructive to someone good, that's generally going to be evil in all circumstances. Poison should be good if you use them on evil folks, because in that case it''s actually just identical to a ravage. If you're using destructive stuff on a foe with unknown alignment, potential evil is a function of that rather than what you're using. If that's not what you're claiming, and you're saying that ability damage is just always evil, that's incredibly internally inconsistent.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, what you're saying is that ability damage is intrinsically evil. That's just a function of what it does to an enemy. However, that makes absolutely zero sense, because of all the things I listed. If I cast a spell that deals ability damage to a target, how is that different from hitting someone with a sword that deals ability damage? How is that any less evil? If you do something destructive to someone good, that's generally going to be evil in all circumstances. Poison should be good if you use them on evil folks, because in that case it''s actually just identical to a ravage. If you're using destructive stuff on a foe with unknown alignment, potential evil is a function of that rather than what you're using. If that's not what you're claiming, and you're saying that ability damage is just always evil, that's incredibly internally inconsistent.

That's not what I'm saying. (Though dealing ability damage to a target without either verifying the target as something that needs to be destroyed or as a matter of defending yourself from attack is -usually- an evil act.)

Also, using ravages is acceptable to good, not a good act in-and-of itself. Doing harm to living creatures is, with very few exceptions (pretty much just fiends and fiendish creatures) -never- a good act though it -is- often neutral.

E.g. killing duke von nastybadguy after determining that he's an evil tyrant with no intention of ever mending his ways may be acceptable, but it's not good. The goal that makes this acceptable is removing him from power so that evil's hold on the region is weakened. The Good thing to do would be to councel him away from evil or remove him in as bloodless a coup as is feasable (though a particularly lawful society or a terribly oppressed people might demand blood regardless of your good intentions.)

Good doesn't have to be nice but neither should it constantly be out for blood.

To paraphrase BoED; violence should never be a good character's go-to response.

[eggynack]

That's not what I'm saying. (Though dealing ability damage to a target without either verifying the target as something that needs to be destroyed or as a matter of defending yourself from attack is -usually- an evil act.)

Also, using ravages is acceptable to good, not a good act in-and-of itself. Doing harm to living creatures is, with very few exceptions (pretty much just fiends and fiendish creatures) -never- a good act though it -is- often neutral.

E.g. killing duke von nastybadguy after determining that he's an evil tyrant with no intention of ever mending his ways may be acceptable, but it's not good. The goal that makes this acceptable is removing him from power so that evil's hold on the region is weakened. The Good thing to do would be to councel him away from evil or remove him in as bloodless a coup as is feasable (though a particularly lawful society or a terribly oppressed people might demand blood regardless of your good intentions.)

Good doesn't have to be nice but neither should it constantly be out for blood.

To paraphrase BoED; violence should never be a good character's go-to response.
This is a rather simple thing. Is it ever evil to stab someone with a poisoned sword in a situation where it would not be evil to stab someone with a regular sword? There might be some corner cases in which it would be, but in most cases, I'd say that the answer is no. I'm pretty sure that in game terms, the answer is yes, and I don't think that makes sense.

[Amphetryon]

That's not what I'm saying. (Though dealing ability damage to a target without either verifying the target as something that needs to be destroyed or as a matter of defending yourself from attack is -usually- an evil act.)

Also, using ravages is acceptable to good, not a good act in-and-of itself. Doing harm to living creatures is, with very few exceptions (pretty much just fiends and fiendish creatures) -never- a good act though it -is- often neutral.

E.g. killing duke von nastybadguy after determining that he's an evil tyrant with no intention of ever mending his ways may be acceptable, but it's not good. The goal that makes this acceptable is removing him from power so that evil's hold on the region is weakened. The Good thing to do would be to councel him away from evil or remove him in as bloodless a coup as is feasable (though a particularly lawful society or a terribly oppressed people might demand blood regardless of your good intentions.)

Good doesn't have to be nice but neither should it constantly be out for blood.

To paraphrase BoED; violence should never be a good character's go-to response.
So, using a Ray of Enfeeblement in the Surprise Round on a target inside a defended keep, without first verifying that the target isn't a disguised ally on some super-secret mission the DM hasn't yet dropped any hints about, or an innocent who has been disguised by the Evil Illusionist, or. . .

Evil act, huh?

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, using a Ray of Enfeeblement in the Surprise Round on a target inside a defended keep, without first verifying that the target isn't a disguised ally on some super-secret mission the DM hasn't yet dropped any hints about, or an innocent who has been disguised by the Evil Illusionist, or. . .

Evil act, huh?

Probably. If you're going to kill him anyway, then why not simply use a lethal spell to begin with. You're making him suffer needlessly before you kill him, provided he doesn't simply flee if he's still able after which he suffers for days while his strength recovers -if- he's not killed by something he could've otherwise defended himself from.

If you're just trying to incapacitate him, a web followed by non-lethal damage will do the job (if you're worried about noise you should already be under a silence affect that you can move over him quickly or one of the beat-sticks can grapple and pin him until he loses conciousness). Again, you're making him suffer for days after you've moved on for no reason.

If, however, he's obviously of such monstrous strength that it is -necessary- to weaken him so you can subdue him, then it's acceptable but certainly not good.

If, when trying to kill him, you poisoned him instead then you'd also be poisoning any creature that feeds on his corpse. That doesn't happen with spells or ravages.

Edit: and it doesn't matter a lick, who he is either. Random guard number 251 is just as protected from needless suffering as any ally; known or otherwise.

[Amphetryon]

Probably. If you're going to kill him anyway, then why not simply use a lethal spell to begin with. You're making him suffer needlessly before you kill him, provided he doesn't simply flee if he's still able after which he suffers for days while his strength recovers -if- he's not killed by something he could've otherwise defended himself from.

If you're just trying to incapacitate him, a web followed by non-lethal damage will do the job (if you're worried about noise you should already be under a silence affect that you can move over him quickly or one of the beat-sticks can grapple and pin him until he loses conciousness). Again, you're making him suffer for days after you've moved on for no reason.

If, however, he's obviously of such monstrous strength that it is -necessary- to weaken him so you can subdue him, then it's acceptable but certainly not good.

If, when trying to kill him, you poisoned him instead then you'd also be poisoning any creature that feeds on his corpse. That doesn't happen with spells or ravages.
Disagree 100%. Attacking him won't ping Evil or cause a Paladin (or Exalted Paladin) any distress, but using a non-lethal method of dispatch can cause a Paladin to fall? Not buying it. At all.

Oh, and if attacking is also Evil? You've ruled out 80% of the game's structure and rules set as Evil.

[eggynack]

Probably. If you're going to kill him anyway, then why not simply use a lethal spell to begin with. You're making him suffer needlessly before you kill him, provided he doesn't simply flee if he's still able after which he suffers for days while his strength recovers -if- he's not killed by something he could've otherwise defended himself from.

If you're just trying to incapacitate him, a web followed by non-lethal damage will do the job (if you're worried about noise you should already be under a silence affect that you can move over him quickly or one of the beat-sticks can grapple and pin him until he loses conciousness). Again, you're making him suffer for days after you've moved on for no reason.

If, however, he's obviously of such monstrous strength that it is -necessary- to weaken him so you can subdue him, then it's acceptable but certainly not good.

If, when trying to kill him, you poisoned him instead then you'd also be poisoning any creature that feeds on his corpse. That doesn't happen with spells or ravages.
In that case, normally stabbing an evil guy should be evil. What if he gets away before you kill him? In that case, he could be running around for days at a quarter of his normal health, easy prey for any nearby predators. In reality, when I use poison on someone, it's because I'm probably going to kill him soon. This is especially true if I'm stabbing him with a poisoned sword, because the main goal of that would be weakening him. On the corpse thing, first of all you could just burn the corpse, and second of all you should post a citation for that rule. I haven't been able to find it yet.

See, the thing of it is, I don't think that you're right about why poison is evil. According to the BoED, it says, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." Thus, it is the very nature of ability damage that causes poison to be evil. I think that's stupid, because there's tons of stuff that deals ability damage and isn't evil. The poison spell isn't listed as evil, and regular poison is, and that is lacking in all logic. The same applies to afflictions and ravages.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Normal attacks don't hinder the creature's ability to defend himself until they reach the point leaving him bleeding out on the ground, at which point it becomes both merciful and prudent to finish up with one more attack or a coup-de-gras if it's at all possible.

I'd appreciate it if you'd both stop trying to put words in my mouth.

You want a non-lethal option, use non-lethal damage or something else that's binarily incapacitating or not, such as the sleep line (sleep, deep slumber, symbol of sleep.)

Ability damage is non-lethal in the same way that a mobster smashing your knee-caps with a tire-iron is non-lethal. It technically won't kill you and it'll get you out of the way. That doesn't mean it's something that a good character should be okay with.

[eggynack]

Normal attacks don't hinder the creature's ability to defend himself until they reach the point leaving him bleeding out on the ground, at which point it becomes both merciful and prudent to finish up with one more attack or a coup-de-gras if it's at all possible.

I'd appreciate it if you'd both stop trying to put words in my mouth.

You want a non-lethal option, use non-lethal damage or something else that's binarily incapacitating or not, such as the sleep line (sleep, deep slumber, symbol of sleep.)

Ability damage is non-lethal in the same way that a mobster smashing your knee-caps with a tire-iron is non-lethal. It technically won't kill you and it'll get you out of the way. That doesn't mean it's something that a good character should be okay with.
I'm saying that I don't see the difference between the two. Stabbing someone repeatedly actually does remove their defenses, until they hit negative one, and end up bleeding on the ground. It's something you can do, but it's not something you have to do. More importantly, shivering touch does this in the exact way that poison does, and it's not evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm saying that I don't see the difference between the two. Stabbing someone repeatedly actually does remove their defenses, until they hit negative one, and end up bleeding on the ground. It's something you can do, but it's not something you have to do. More importantly, shivering touch does this in the exact way that poison does, and it's not evil.

How?

The only differnece between full hit-points and 1 hit-point is how many times an enemy has to succesfully strike you to kill you. Your ability to avoid blows, deliver blows, cast spells (if you are able), concentrate on what you're doing, use skills that you've learned, etc are all completely unaffected.

Nevermind that HP loss doesn't necessarily mean taking a significant amount of actual physical damage. It can be fluffed as mostly dodging a telling blow to recieve only a minor scratch; deep enough to actually deliver injury poisons and ravages but otherwise not particularly harmful or even painful.

A barbarian that takes a dozen hits from a greatsword and is still fighting at full capacity, rather obviously hasn't had that sword rending huge chunks of flesh from his body. That makes even less sense than anything to do with alignment ever did.

[eggynack]

How?

The only differnece between full hit-points and 1 hit-point is how many times an enemy has to succesfully strike you to kill you. Your ability to avoid blows, deliver blows, cast spells (if you are able), concentrate on what you're doing, use skills that you've learned, etc are all completely unaffected.

Nevermind that HP loss doesn't necessarily mean taking a significant amount of actual physical damage. It can be fluffed as mostly dodging a telling blow to recieve only a minor scratch; deep enough to actually deliver injury poisons and ravages but otherwise not particularly harmful or even painful.

A barbarian that takes a dozen hits from a greatsword and is still fighting at full capacity, rather obviously hasn't had that sword rending huge chunks of flesh from his body. That makes even less sense than anything to do with alignment ever did.
It doesn't actually effect your fighting power directly, but it means that an attacking enemy will take you down pretty fast. If you're at one HP, you're like that until you rest, and it could be days until you can melee a local lion who you'd have an edge on at full HP. That's generally going to effect a fighter's combat prowess far more than sapping their charisma will. Still the point about spells like shivering touch seems far more pertinent, and spells like poison even have the incubation period factor.

[Drachasor]

Nevermind that HP loss doesn't necessarily mean taking a significant amount of actual physical damage. It can be fluffed as mostly dodging a telling blow to recieve only a minor scratch; deep enough to actually deliver injury poisons and ravages but otherwise not particularly harmful or even painful.

Yes, and that fluff means HP represents part of your ability to defend yourself. Less HP? Less ability to defend yourself. Ability damage is the same, just a different mechanism with different mechanical consequences. You can fully recover from both naturally.

More significantly, there's a lot of ability damage that has no chance of killing, unlike normal damage. So it is much safer.

[Chronos]

Quoth Kelb_Panthera:
Normal attacks don't hinder the creature's ability to defend himself until they reach the point leaving him bleeding out on the ground, at which point it becomes both merciful and prudent to finish up with one more attack or a coup-de-gras if it's at all possible.

Plenty of non-poison attacks do, in fact, do that. The Sleep spell does that. Color Spray does that. Enervation does that, and explicitly does it using negative energy. And yet, none of those are considered inherently evil. Heck, nonlethal damage, which the BoED actively encourages as an alternative to normal attacks, also hinders a creature's ability to defend itself and leaves it helpless. How is poison any worse than any of those?

[Kelb_Panthera]

It doesn't actually effect your fighting power directly, but it means that an attacking enemy will take you down pretty fast. If you're at one HP, you're like that until you rest, and it could be days until you can melee a local lion who you'd have an edge on at full HP. That's generally going to effect a fighter's combat prowess far more than sapping their charisma will. Still the point about spells like shivering touch seems far more pertinent, and spells like poison even have the incubation period factor.

Not all encounters are combat encounters.

Damaging even a fighter's likely low-ish charisma will impede his already less-than-stellar ability to talk his way out of a potential fight.

Let's get the poison spell out of the conversation now. Since the spell actually creates a poison inside the target (and why it's necromancy instead of conjuration (creation) I'll never understand) it's use -is- an evil act regardless of the fact it lacks the [evil] descriptor.

As for shivering touch and spells like it; again, they simply cannot be used on a target without that target becoming immediately aware of the need to defend itself, they don't linger after the target is dead, and in cases where their use is unnecessary (using shivering touch on a heavily armored dwarf, for example) it usually -is- an evil act to use such spells whether they have the [evil] descriptor or not. Ability damage is expedient and usually non-lethal, that doesn't make it automatically A-okay for good creatures to use. It's broken bones and damaged organs compared to normal damage's minor cuts and bruises.

WotC was -terrible- at assigning the proper schools and descriptors to spells. This is obvious in most sourcebooks, but particularly in core, 3.0, and early 3.5 works. See the absurdity of deathwatch being both necromancy and [evil] instead of the divination it's painfully obvious it should be.

[eggynack]

Not all encounters are combat encounters.

Damaging even a fighter's likely low-ish charisma will impede his already less-than-stellar ability to talk his way out of a potential fight.

Let's get the poison spell out of the conversation now. Since the spell actually creates a poison inside the target (and why it's necromancy instead of conjuration (creation) I'll never understand) it's use -is- an evil act regardless of the fact it lacks the [evil] descriptor.

As for shivering touch and spells like it; again, they simply cannot be used on a target without that target becoming immediately aware of the need to defend itself, they don't linger after the target is dead, and in cases where their use is unnecessary (using shivering touch on a heavily armored dwarf, for example) it usually -is- an evil act to use such spells whether they have the [evil] descriptor or not. Ability damage is expedient and usually non-lethal, that doesn't make it automatically A-okay for good creatures to use. It's broken bones and damaged organs compared to normal damage's minor cuts and bruises.

WotC was -terrible- at assigning the proper schools and descriptors to spells. This is obvious in most sourcebooks, but particularly in core, 3.0, and early 3.5 works. See the absurdity of deathwatch being both necromancy and [evil] instead of the divination it's painfully obvious it should be.
First of all, making a fighter look like a jerk for a few days probably isn't going to be a direct threat to his safety. More importantly, it's much more dangerous to go into a fight with very little HP than very little charisma. It's why charisma is usually a dump stat, and constitution is not. Second, casting poison is not an evil act, because it's not an evil spell. If it were evil, it would say that it's evil. A good cleric can absolutely cast it, as can a paladin (if he has the spell. Presumably this would be a prestige paladin or something). If you can find any evidence for your claim that ability damage in spell form is evil, you've yet to present it. As far as I can tell, good characters can cast poison all day long and never face an alignment shift.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Plenty of non-poison attacks do, in fact, do that.Yes, but not on nearly the same level.
The Sleep spell does that.And is utterly harmless in and of itself. The target will arise after less than an hour, completely unharmed, unless some intervening force prevents it.
Color Spray does that.For less than a minute. If you've got more than 2HD it's practically just a flash-bang.
Enervation does that, and explicitly does it using negative energy.Using enervation without great discretion usually is evil. Negative levels are an extreme form of attack. The lack of the evil descritpor doesn't change that.
And yet, none of those are considered inherently evil.They lack the evil descriptor and, except for enervation, cause no real harm.
Heck, nonlethal damage, which the BoED actively encourages as an alternative to normal attacks, also hinders a creature's ability to defend itself and leaves it helpless. How is poison any worse than any of those?

You've missed the point. It's not helplessness that's the problem, it's -days- of being partially incapacitated against everything life throws at you. Rendering a target helpless is perfectly fine as long as you don't inflict excessive harm in the process.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First of all, making a fighter look like a jerk for a few days probably isn't going to be a direct threat to his safety. More importantly, it's much more dangerous to go into a fight with very little HP than very little charisma. It's why charisma is usually a dump stat, and constitution is not. Second, casting poison is not an evil act, because it's not an evil spell. If it were evil, it would say that it's evil. A good cleric can absolutely cast it, as can a paladin (if he has the spell. Presumably this would be a prestige paladin or something). If you can find any evidence for your claim that ability damage in spell form is evil, you've yet to present it. As far as I can tell, good characters can cast poison all day long and never face an alignment shift.

Re-read the spell. It doesn't cause ability damage, it creates a poison in the target and the poison does ability damage. It's no different than using a poisoned dart. It's an evil act in the same way using poison created with the mundane method is an evil act.

"The description doesn't say it's evil!" isn't a valid argument. It's the same argument as saying the "dead" condition doesn't remove your ability to act just because the entry in the glossary doesn't explicitly say it does.

The fact that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act doesn't make the inverse, casting a spell without the evil descriptor is a non-evil act, automatically true.

[eggynack]

Re-read the spell. It doesn't cause ability damage, it creates a poison in the target and the poison does ability damage. It's no different than using a poisoned dart. It's an evil act in the same way using poison created with the mundane method is an evil act.

"The description doesn't say it's evil!" isn't a valid argument. It's the same argument as saying the "dead" condition doesn't remove your ability to act just because the entry in the glossary doesn't explicitly say it does.

The fact that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act doesn't make the inverse, casting a spell without the evil descriptor is a non-evil act, automatically true.
Fine, I guess. The fact that it doesn't say it's evil is incredibly important, because it means that good clerics can cast it as much as they want, as long as they're not using it for a separate evil thing, but it's better to use less complicated things anyway. Thus, I'll just default to shivering touch. Just make a mental list of all the ability damage causing spells that aren't evil, and that's the issue I'm arguing about. There's not that much point of arguing about minor stuff in one spell, when there's a gajillion of other spells that'll work just as well for my purposes. Also, afflictions, which are still problematic, despite your contention.

[Grimsage Matt]

I'm just going to say it turned into the following;

Good kills things, and does not disable them to take them prisioner to make sure they are evil or should be killed.

Evil captures them and decides to kill them or let them recover later.

Ya, you make "good" sound like classical evil. Or at least tryantical jerkwads.

[Drachasor]

You've missed the point. It's not helplessness that's the problem, it's -days- of being partially incapacitated against everything life throws at you. Rendering a target helpless is perfectly fine as long as you don't inflict excessive harm in the process.

That's ridiculous. Making someone helpless for a few days is EVIL but killing them is fine?

What alignment rules did you read?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fine, I guess. The fact that it doesn't say it's evil is incredibly important, because it means that good clerics can cast it as much as they want, as long as they're not using it for a separate evil thing, but it's better to use less complicated things anyway.A good cleric can stab an orphan in the face just because he's a murder-hobo in a bad mood too. That doesn't mean it's a thing he should ever do.
Thus, I'll just default to shivering touch. Just make a mental list of all the ability damage causing spells that aren't evil, and that's the issue I'm arguing about. There's not that much point of arguing about minor stuff in one spell, when there's a gajillion of other spells that'll work just as well for my purposes. Also, afflictions, which are still problematic, despite your contention.

Afflictions are to ravages as disease is to poison, the same thing but moreso. Afflictions can only affect evil creatures and have the added feature that they can be removed by the afflicted creature if that creature simply changes his alignment either by changing his behavior or being the target of an atonement spell.

As for the general point of ability damage as an acceptable tool for non-evil characters and good characters in particular, the alignment system's explanation of violence in the game makes it clear that it's only acceptable when it's used with discretion and proper scope. The scope in which ability damage is an appropriate degree of violence is a much narrower one than the scope in which attacks that do other kinds of damage are acceptable.

Note: that's acceptable, not good.

This is evidenced by the very poison rules themselves. Note also, that of the -four- spells in BoED that do ability damage, one is only useful against evil outsiders, one does so incidentally because it failed to kill the target outright, and the other two both harm only evil creatures and, except for the one that targets outsiders, they all do so by turning the creature's own evil against it.

[Leecros]

Fine, I guess. The fact that it doesn't say it's evil is incredibly important, because it means that good clerics can cast it as much as they want, as long as they're not using it for a separate evil thing, but it's better to use less complicated things anyway. Thus, I'll just default to shivering touch. Just make a mental list of all the ability damage causing spells that aren't evil, and that's the issue I'm arguing about. There's not that much point of arguing about minor stuff in one spell, when there's a gajillion of other spells that'll work just as well for my purposes. Also, afflictions, which are still problematic, despite your contention.

I'd argue that it's in the nature of how the effects of the ability damage takes place. Let's look at Shivering Touch.

On a successful melee touch attack, you instantly suck the heat from the target's body, rendering it numb.
The target takes 3d6 points of Dexterity damage.
Creatures with the cold subtype are immune to the effects of shivering touch.


I don't know if you've ever been numb(i'd assume so) but it's not really painful. In comparison Giant Wasp Poison would likely be extremely painful as your joints would forcibly lock up. I want you to clench your hand like you were grasping something and tighten your muscles and clench as hard as you can while doing all you can to not actually clench your hand into a fist. That's what it would likely feel like. It hurts.

There's arguments for others as well, a strength damage spell would likely make you feel weak, whereas a strength damage poison...that's not you feeling like you're weak, that's your muscles burning to the point where you can't lift things. Int damage would be giving you massive migranes to the point where you can't think, Con damage would be you doubled over and puking your guts out.

There's an issue i see a lot, players pay more attention to the effects of something more than how the effects actually emerge. There's several failures involved, mostly with WotC and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. There are certainly some spells that deal ability damage that should be evil to use and there are poisons that probably aren't incredibly painful. The biggest problem (barring certain spells) is the lack of descriptors for what exactly the poisons do and how the complications manifest. I'm sure people would be more inclined to say that poisons were evil if they were given a full description on how Ungol dust causes pustules to grow on the lip and in the throat, making it difficult to speak(cha) or the slow, burning paralysis of wasp poison(dex), or the blinding headaches Id moss gives people(Int). Perhaps if you were given details on how your poison caused the target to be doubled over in pain as he coughed up blood(con) or be less inclined to take advantage of someone under the effects of Striped Toadstools. The definition of "High on Shrooms"(wis/int). Or perhaps if your arms physically hurt from lifting that sword that you know and love(str).

Now i'm no Guru of D&D, i only have some books and i've hardly read through all of them, but those are my thoughts on poisons. As far as spells go, there are certainly ones that i would consider evil. Such as Poison which emulates...well, poison. There are also certain situations that i could see poison not being entirely evil. i could see someone slipping someone else Striped Toadstool as a joke(as an example) Or weakening a mass murderer. If WotC and RAW's were perfect, there would be no need for Imaginative DM's.

[eggynack]

A good cleric can stab an orphan in the face just because he's a murder-hobo in a bad mood too. That doesn't mean it's a thing he should ever do.
Sure, but that's my point. Stabbing isn't an intrinsically evil thing. If a paladin has an ability damage causing spell on their list somehow, they can cast that without danger of falling. That's not really true of normal paladins and orphan stabbing (unless the orphan is evil).



Afflictions are to ravages as disease is to poison, the same thing but moreso. Afflictions can only affect evil creatures and have the added feature that they can be removed by the afflicted creature if that creature simply changes his alignment either by changing his behavior or being the target of an atonement spell.
I might be missing the text, but where does the section on ravages and afflictions say any of this? It looks like you keep your ability damage, even if you turn into a paladin.



As for the general point of ability damage as an acceptable tool for non-evil characters and good characters in particular, the alignment system's explanation of violence in the game makes it clear that it's only acceptable when it's used with discretion and proper scope. The scope in which ability damage is an appropriate degree of violence is a much narrower one than the scope in which attacks that do other kinds of damage are acceptable.

Note: that's acceptable, not good.

Here's the thing I really don't get. Poison is just an ordinary debuff effect. Not everything a character does has to have the effect of instant death. Moreover, it seems way less evil to poison someone and leave them alive, because that gives them a chance for redemption and stuff. If you poison an evil guy, that's good. If you poison a good guy, that's evil. I don't see why the scope where ability damage is allowed would be narrower. Besides, I don't even think that enervation effects have anything in the books that would cause them to be evil, and that seems way worse than ability damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sure, but that's my point. Stabbing isn't an intrinsically evil thing. If a paladin has an ability damage causing spell on their list somehow, they can cast that without danger of falling. That's not really true of normal paladins and orphan stabbing (unless the orphan is evil).Except paladins -don't- have any such spells on their list. One or two of the spells I mentioned in my last post may be an exalted spell that a paladin could cast but they're spells that can only target evil creatures.



I might be missing the text, but where does the section on ravages and afflictions say any of this? It looks like you keep your ability damage, even if you turn into a paladin.You keep the damage that's already been dealt, but a change in alignment makes you an invalid target for the affliction, effectively curing you of the affliction and its associated behaviors.



Here's the thing I really don't get. Poison is just an ordinary debuff effect. Not everything a character does has to have the effect of instant death. Moreover, it seems way less evil to poison someone and leave them alive, because that gives them a chance for redemption and stuff. If you poison an evil guy, that's good. If you poison a good guy, that's evil. I don't see why the scope where ability damage is allowed would be narrower. Besides, I don't even think that enervation effects have anything in the books that would cause them to be evil, and that seems way worse than ability damage.

Negative levels have an even narrower scope of applicability than ability damage. Just about the only non-evil use for such a deleterious effect is to level it against outsiders and evil clerics. Even then, enervation has a much shorter duration than normal negative levels, making it marginally more acceptable.

The underlined statement is categorically untrue. Doing bad things to bad people is -not- good. It's merely acceptable under certain circumstances and with the right motivation. I think that this one is the point you're missing.

The other is that ability damage is a -severe- debuff. It's only one step below -permanently- crippling the target via ability drain.

Typical, as in more common, debuffs impose temporary penalties to specific checks.

Harsher debuffs apply penalties to multiple checks or an ability or inflict a status ailment like nauseated or dazed.

Serious debuffs apply penalties to multiple checks -and- one or more abilities or impose a major status ailment like blindness.

All of these are usually very temporary.

It's when you get into long-term debuffs like ability damage, ability drain, -permanent- blindness, etc that things start getting dicey.

Negative levels; creating a serious chance of regressing in ability; are on a level all their own.

That you see all of these as roughly equal effects is telling of why you don't get the problem with poison.

There's room for debate about what kind of debuffs rate as more or less serious but there's no convincing argument for the idea that they're all equal.

[eggynack]

Except paladins -don't- have any such spells on their list. One or two of the spells I mentioned in my last post may be an exalted spell that a paladin could cast but they're spells that can only target evil creatures.
Yeah, but you can have the paladin code, as well as an ability damage spell, and it'll work out alright. Offhand I was thinking of prestige paladin or sword of the arcane order.



You keep the damage that's already been dealt, but a change in alignment makes you an invalid target for the affliction, effectively curing you of the affliction and its associated behaviors.
I suppose, but that's not going to help out much against ravages. They're kinda a one and done affair, so there's not much room for alignment swapping. Poisons and ravages are pretty much the same in that way.





Negative levels have an even narrower scope of applicability than ability damage. Just about the only non-evil use for such a deleterious effect is to level it against outsiders and evil clerics. Even then, enervation has a much shorter duration than normal negative levels, making it marginally more acceptable.

The underlined statement is categorically untrue. Doing bad things to bad people is -not- good. It's merely acceptable under certain circumstances and with the right motivation. I think that this one is the point you're missing.

The other is that ability damage is a -severe- debuff. It's only one step below -permanently- crippling the target via ability drain.

Typical, as in more common, debuffs impose temporary penalties to specific checks.

Harsher debuffs apply penalties to multiple checks or an ability or inflict a status ailment like nauseated or dazed.

Serious debuffs apply penalties to multiple checks -and- one or more abilities or impose a major status ailment like blindness.

All of these are usually very temporary.

It's when you get into long-term debuffs like ability damage, ability drain, -permanent- blindness, etc that things start getting dicey.

Negative levels; creating a serious chance of regressing in ability; are on a level all their own.

That you see all of these as roughly equal effects is telling of why you don't get the problem with poison.

There's room for debate about what kind of debuffs rate as more or less serious but there's no convincing argument for the idea that they're all equal.
I don't really see any indication in the books that any of this is true. Permanence appears to have very limited correlation to evil. You seem to have your own ideas of how alignment works, but I don't think they're reflective of anything in the game. It looks like the reason why poison is evil is because it's painful, but that doesn't really make that much sense, given how much pain is caused by the typical adventurer.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Look, even if you won't accept that debuffs vary in severity (which, honestly, seems like willful denial of something that's very obviously true, no matter how you try to spin it), the fact that doing a bad thing to bad person isn't good very much -is- raw. BoED's section on violence makes this plain in its use of the term "acceptable" throughout those paragraphs, rather than the term "good".

As far as poisons go, it's as simple as this if you want RAW instead of logic: causing undue suffering is evil, RAW. Poisons cause undue suffering, RAW. For these two reasons, using poisons of the specified type (those that deal ability damage) is evil unless you meet the exception criterion (that it be produced and delivered as part of one of your natural weapon attacks). It doesn't have to make sense or match your moral outlook. That's the RAW, take it or house-rule it.

[eggynack]

Look, even if you won't accept that debuffs vary in severity (which, honestly, seems like willful denial of something that's very obviously true, no matter how you try to spin it), the fact that doing a bad thing to bad person isn't good very much -is- raw. BoED's section on violence makes this plain in its use of the term "acceptable" throughout those paragraphs, rather than the term "good".
I'm not disputing that debuffs vary in severity. I'm disputing that more severe debuffs automatically equate to evil debuffs. My contention is that debuffs are not evil, and big debuffs are also not evil. I get the thing about doing a bad thing to a bad person. I was just simplifying my case a bit. I was mostly summarizing my earlier claim, which was that in any situation in which stabbing a guy wouldn't be evil, poisoning them should also not be evil.



As far as poisons go, it's as simple as this if you want RAW instead of logic: causing undue suffering is evil, RAW. Poisons cause undue suffering, RAW. For these two reasons, using poisons of the specified type (those that deal ability damage) is evil unless you meet the exception criterion (that it be produced and delivered as part of one of your natural weapon attacks). It doesn't have to make sense or match your moral outlook. That's the RAW, take it or house-rule it.
I think that this is closer to the actual facts of why poison is listed as evil, and I'm aware that poison being evil is RAW. For some reason, there seems to be some distinction between hitting someone with a ray of idiocy, and poisoning someone with id moss, and it doesn't make much sense to me. There appears to be some kind of pain factor where poison is involved, and it seems rather arbitrary, because the end result is just about identical. A paladin will fall if they use poison, even if it's against some crazy demon, and they won't fall if they use ray of stupidity, even if it's against a neutral dinosaur. It just seems internally inconsistent. My view obviously doesn't match the RAW, because that's the whole point.

[Drachasor]

Look, even if you won't accept that debuffs vary in severity (which, honestly, seems like willful denial of something that's very obviously true, no matter how you try to spin it), the fact that doing a bad thing to bad person isn't good very much -is- raw. BoED's section on violence makes this plain in its use of the term "acceptable" throughout those paragraphs, rather than the term "good".

As far as poisons go, it's as simple as this if you want RAW instead of logic: causing undue suffering is evil, RAW. Poisons cause undue suffering, RAW. For these two reasons, using poisons of the specified type (those that deal ability damage) is evil unless you meet the exception criterion (that it be produced and delivered as part of one of your natural weapon attacks). It doesn't have to make sense or match your moral outlook. That's the RAW, take it or house-rule it.

If a poison's effect isn't specified to be extremely painful, you cannot assume it will be. It could just be some sort of long-lasting numbing agent (or heck, an unpleasant poison just mixed with a numbing agent). Even so, pain for a few days beats the heck out of DEAD FOREVER.

If we had something like that now, that could disable with no chance of death, we'd use it even if it caused a lot of pain. It would be a godsend to law enforcement if it was fast acting (and a great option even if it wasn't). Preserving life is hugely important. Death >> Vast Majority of Undue Suffering.

People experience horrible pain more than once in their lives. I have and I know plenty of others who have. They get over it without too much trouble. Pain you'd rate as often as 8-10 on the pain scale for a few days lacks the worst bit of torture -- the psychological component. Pain we handle just fine over time. It becomes but a memory. Not a fond memory, but a heck of a lot better than dying.*

So I don't really get the poison rules at all. Heck, Cloudkill has to be a pretty horrible way to die, but somehow it is perfectly find to use it! When the game tries to declare actions unconnected to context as evil, it makes a confused mess of itself. Poison use is an example of this.

*Now if it was something that caused moderate to severe chronic pain for the rest of one's life, then that would be something else.

[satorian]

Power Word Pain? Unlike poison, it explicitly causes pain. Indeed, if it is used on a low level creature, you are essentially torturing them to death. No ability damage, mind you. And of course not [evil], though it is probably nastier than many poisons. Where does that stack up for all the contenders here?

[eggynack]

Power Word Pain? Unlike poison, it explicitly causes pain. Indeed, if it is used on a low level creature, you are essentially torturing them to death. No ability damage, mind you. And of course not [evil], though it is probably nastier than many poisons. Where does that stack up for all the contenders here?
That's a nice one. I hadn't thought of power word pain, which you've gotta figure is pretty painful. We should make up a list of some kind. Presumably, it'd just be a bunch of stuff that's more crippling than poison is. Someone brought up blindness/deafness, which lasts forever. I can't really understand how that's justifiable. Also on the list are the piles of ability damage spells, as well as the energy drain ones.

[Wintermut3]

I think that morally and cosmologically it's pretty clear.

If you're a character of absolutes then just because your action didn't have an *immediate* evil effect doesn't mean it's not evil.


If you're going to get really rules lawyer on this you could use the legal "but for" test-- but for the character's action the evil spell would not have been cast, therefore he is responsible for casting it.


As to evil effects of non-evil spells and vice versa. I rather like how Ravenloft dealt with it: casting some spells is evil all on its own but using ANY spell to evil effect (even Heal if you could figure out how, maybe to torture a good-aligned archlich) is an evil act all its own no different than if you did it some other way.
In the above example using Cure Serious Wounds, to torture a good-aligned archlich would still be an act of ultimate evil if done just for funsies.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not disputing that debuffs vary in severity. I'm disputing that more severe debuffs automatically equate to evil debuffs. My contention is that debuffs are not evil, and big debuffs are also not evil. I get the thing about doing a bad thing to a bad person. I was just simplifying my case a bit. I was mostly summarizing my earlier claim, which was that in any situation in which stabbing a guy wouldn't be evil, poisoning them should also not be evil.If you've successfully delivered a meaningful stabbing, as in peirced an important internal organ, the guy's dead. Whether that's evil or not depends entirely on why you did it. If all you've done is cause a bit of HP damage all you've definitely done is broken the skin deep enough to make him bleed a little. You didn't even hit a major blood vessel, else he'd be taking bleeding damage. If you poison him, you're guaranteeing that he's going to suffer* unless it's a con poison that does an utterly ludicrous amount of con damage and you're also poisoning any carion creatures that should happen to feed on the corpse if you should manage to kill him after the poisoning.

Suffering doesn't necessarily equate to just pain. Loss of coordination, weakening of muscles, loss of cognitive or social ability, even dimming of awareness or decreasing stamina are all unpleasant and wholly unnecessary to defeat the opponent in the vast majority of cases. This is why -any- special attack that deals ability damage is close to the line. Poison crosses the line because you're guaranteeing that either the target will feel the effects for the full, several days period or that something else will be poisoned if he dies before the poison leaves his system.


I think that this is closer to the actual facts of why poison is listed as evil, and I'm aware that poison being evil is RAW. For some reason, there seems to be some distinction between hitting someone with a ray of idiocy, and poisoning someone with id moss, and it doesn't make much sense to me. There appears to be some kind of pain factor where poison is involved, and it seems rather arbitrary, because the end result is just about identical. A paladin will fall if they use poison, even if it's against some crazy demon, and they won't fall if they use ray of stupidity, even if it's against a neutral dinosaur. It just seems internally inconsistent. My view obviously doesn't match the RAW, because that's the whole point.Whether a paladin would fall for using ray of idiocy (which he can't even do by default) would depend largely on what he used it on and why. If that dinosaur wasn't threatening him or could've been scared off with a simple intimidation or better yet, a fear effect spell (also not available to a paladin by default) then it would constitute unnecessary cruelty and he -would- fall.

You insist on focusing on -only- the ability damage and that's not the whole picture.


If a poison's effect isn't specified to be extremely painful, you cannot assume it will be. It could just be some sort of long-lasting numbing agent (or heck, an unpleasant poison just mixed with a numbing agent). Even so, pain for a few days beats the heck out of DEAD FOREVER.I'm cutting you off here because this isn't necessarily true. D&D's cosmology has a very real afterlife. Death is -not- the end of existence, and it's not even particularly permanent past level 7. Even the evil afterlife isn't guaranteed to be an unpleasant one if you've been particularly useful and faithful to your patron (as long as you didn't get suckered by a demonic or devilish cult).


If we had something like that now, that could disable with no chance of death, we'd use it even if it caused a lot of pain. It would be a godsend to law enforcement if it was fast acting (and a great option even if it wasn't). Preserving life is hugely important. Death >> Vast Majority of Undue Suffering. Real world morality and D&D alignment are not intrinsically linked. Neither are Law and Good within the alignment system. The use of a poison being lawful (in either the common or alignment sense of the word) doesn't matter a whit to whether it's good or evil.

For whatever reason, the cosmic force that is Good in D&D puts causing undue suffering as less acceptable than quickly and cleanly killing. You don't have to agree with it, but it's part of the rules framework you have to deal with when discussing the RAW of alignment.


People experience horrible pain more than once in their lives. I have and I know plenty of others who have. They get over it without too much trouble. Pain you'd rate as often as 8-10 on the pain scale for a few days lacks the worst bit of torture -- the psychological component. Pain we handle just fine over time. It becomes but a memory. Not a fond memory, but a heck of a lot better than dying.*

So I don't really get the poison rules at all. Heck, Cloudkill has to be a pretty horrible way to die, but somehow it is perfectly find to use it! When the game tries to declare actions unconnected to context as evil, it makes a confused mess of itself. Poison use is an example of this.

*Now if it was something that caused moderate to severe chronic pain for the rest of one's life, then that would be something else.
That life means you will suffer some amount of pain has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's acceptable to be the cause of someone else's pain or just how much pain it's acceptable to cause when it's necessary.

Power Word Pain? Unlike poison, it explicitly causes pain. Indeed, if it is used on a low level creature, you are essentially torturing them to death. No ability damage, mind you. And of course not [evil], though it is probably nastier than many poisons. Where does that stack up for all the contenders here?

Again, lack of the evil descriptor doesn't mean the use of an effect isn't evil. You said it yourself, this spell amounts to torture and, for lower level creatures, being tortured to death. It probably -should- have the evil descriptor and the guideline in the beginning of the magic chapter of BoED would have you apply it to the spell in-spite of its lack in RoD.

I honestly can't see any non-evil use for this spell.

[eggynack]

If you've successfully delivered a meaningful stabbing, as in peirced an important internal organ, the guy's dead. Whether that's evil or not depends entirely on why you did it. If all you've done is cause a bit of HP damage all you've definitely done is broken the skin deep enough to make him bleed a little. You didn't even hit a major blood vessel, else he'd be taking bleeding damage. If you poison him, you're guaranteeing that he's going to suffer* unless it's a con poison that does an utterly ludicrous amount of con damage and you're also poisoning any carion creatures that should happen to feed on the corpse if you should manage to kill him after the poisoning.
I'm really going to need a citation for this thing about corpses carrying poisons. I've never seen that in a book, and it doesn't make sense for many of the poison types. I also don't really see how a guy that's reduced to zero hit points isn't suffering. It seems to qualify under any definition I'm aware of.



Suffering doesn't necessarily equate to just pain. Loss of coordination, weakening of muscles, loss of cognitive or social ability, even dimming of awareness or decreasing stamina are all unpleasant and wholly unnecessary to defeat the opponent in the vast majority of cases. This is why -any- special attack that deals ability damage is close to the line. Poison crosses the line because you're guaranteeing that either the target will feel the effects for the full, several days period or that something else will be poisoned if he dies before the poison leaves his system.
There are a ton of effects that last for awhile and aren't evil. Additionally, I don't see how debuffing can ever be considered unnecessary. The only way that a poison could ever be considered unnecessary in a fight is if it's ineffectual, and that's more of a condemnation of our hero's tactical acumen than one of his morality. Another thing I don't understand is why our hero keeps leaving the target alone after poisoning him. That makes about as much sense as leaving an enemy alive after they're reduced to one hit point. Poison grants a tactical advantage, and it doesn't make sense not to take advantage of that advantage after you've created it. Finally, I don't understand why killing an enemy is better than causing them pain for awhile. Others have brought this up, and I agree with them.



Whether a paladin would fall for using ray of idiocy (which he can't even do by default) would depend largely on what he used it on and why. If that dinosaur wasn't threatening him or could've been scared off with a simple intimidation or better yet, a fear effect spell (also not available to a paladin by default) then it would constitute unnecessary cruelty and he -would- fall.

You insist on focusing on -only- the ability damage and that's not the whole picture.
See, that's exactly my point. I don't think that a paladin would fall for casting ray of idiocy on a threatening dinosaur, but let's leave that aside for a moment. Casting ray of idiocy isn't an intrinsically evil act. It's just not. There are many situations in which the paladin can cast it and not fall. This is not true of poison. There is literally no situation in which the paladin could use poison and not fall, because something about poison makes it intrinsically evil. There could be a demon that's running around killing babies, and if the paladin stabs it in the face, he falls. This isn't true of ray of idiocy, or blindness/deafness, or even energy drain (though I don't know how that last one's getting on our list. Presumably you're playing a sorcadin of some kind). This makes no sense to me.



I honestly can't see any non-evil use for this spell.
Really? What if there is an enemy, and you think power word pain would kill them, so you cast power word pain? That seems pretty clear cut to me. It looks pretty similar to creeping cold, when you get past everything else.

[Darth Stabber]

Why do people think that D&D morality is anything rational? D&D morality is arbitrary and irrational.

[hamishspence]

Again, lack of the evil descriptor doesn't mean the use of an effect isn't evil. You said it yourself, this spell amounts to torture and, for lower level creatures, being tortured to death. It probably -should- have the evil descriptor and the guideline in the beginning of the magic chapter of BoED would have you apply it to the spell in-spite of its lack in RoD.

I honestly can't see any non-evil use for this spell.

BoVD- but yes- those guidelines would encourage it.

[Amphetryon]

Is attacking a guard who heard you coming, accepting his surrender when he's been battered near unconsciousness (1 HP, which took - to pick a random number - 5 hits from a 2d6 damage, +1 weapon in the hands of someone with 16 STR), and leaving him at his current health and tied up so as not to alert others an Evil act? He'll be considerably less able to defend himself, and will quite possibly be injured for days if he manages to avoid further fights.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm really going to need a citation for this thing about corpses carrying poisons. I've never seen that in a book, and it doesn't make sense for many of the poison types. I also don't really see how a guy that's reduced to zero hit points isn't suffering. It seems to qualify under any definition I'm aware of. To the underlined: how so? If you have poison in your blood then your blood is poisonous. If your body can't filter it out because it's no longer functional, that poison remains there until it breaks down naturally, something manufactured poisons are intentionally stabalized against.

To the HP thing: I've already noted, more than once, that the abstraction of HP damage and its interactions with poisons, bleeding, and basic anatomy strongly suggest that it represents only minor scratches and cuts until you actually push the target to 0 or lower. At lower than zero hp's it's almost certain that the target will die but a good character -should- deliver a final blow, preferably by coup-de-gras to -prevent- unnecessary suffering. Either way, the target won't be concious of the pain unless he's so lucky as to not die in-spite of heavily stacked odds.



There are a ton of effects that last for awhile and aren't evil. Additionally, I don't see how debuffing can ever be considered unnecessary. The only way that a poison could ever be considered unnecessary in a fight is if it's ineffectual, and that's more of a condemnation of our hero's tactical acumen than one of his morality. Another thing I don't understand is why our hero keeps leaving the target alone after poisoning him. That makes about as much sense as leaving an enemy alive after they're reduced to one hit point. Poison grants a tactical advantage, and it doesn't make sense not to take advantage of that advantage after you've created it. Finally, I don't understand why killing an enemy is better than causing them pain for awhile. Others have brought this up, and I agree with them.The underlined is the source of the problem. Debuffing is -not- necessary by default. It's, rather, unnecessary unless you'd stand a good chance of losing the battle without it. Even so, there are a multitude of debuffs that are completely binary in their results; either the enemy is incapacitated, because the debuff is in place, or he's not, because it failed or wore off. These are seen in a negative light when being viewed strategically but from a moralistic stand-point they're prefereable to debuffs that do long-term or permanent harm to the target's ability to function normally.

As for the suffering is better than death stand-point, that's real world morality being applied to a place where it's specifically contradicted by the rules. The rules say a clean death is a less objectionable thing than surviving in pain; accept it or houserule it.



See, that's exactly my point. I don't think that a paladin would fall for casting ray of idiocy on a threatening dinosaur, but let's leave that aside for a moment. Casting ray of idiocy isn't an intrinsically evil act. It's just not. There are many situations in which the paladin can cast it and not fall. This is not true of poison. There is literally no situation in which the paladin could use poison and not fall, because something about poison makes it intrinsically evil. There could be a demon that's running around killing babies, and if the paladin stabs it in the face, he falls. This isn't true of ray of idiocy, or blindness/deafness, or even energy drain (though I don't know how that last one's getting on our list. Presumably you're playing a sorcadin of some kind). This makes no sense to me.It's also not accurate. A paladin can't use a manufactured poison that does ability damage because it's an evil act. Any poison he naturally produces or any poison that has some other kind of effect is acceptable, depending on how you define honor. If he coats his blade in sleep poison it's fine; perhaps even preferable, providing his honor code (a set of social rules that varies with society, as opposed to the universal rules of alignment) allows for it.



Really? What if there is an enemy, and you think power word pain would kill them, so you cast power word pain? That seems pretty clear cut to me. It looks pretty similar to creeping cold, when you get past everything else.
Power word pain explicitly causes pain and does its damage over an extended period rather than all at once. There are a virtually nothing else but spells that can kill the target much more quickly and with less pain when it comes to direct damage spells.

Once agian, lack of the evil descriptor doesn't mean that using an effect is automatically a non-evil act.

BoVD- but yes- those guidelines would encourage it. Thank you for the correction.


Is attacking a guard who heard you coming, accepting his surrender when he's been battered near unconsciousness (1 HP, which took - to pick a random number - 5 hits from a 2d6 damage, +1 weapon in the hands of someone with 16 STR), and leaving him at his current health and tied up so as not to alert others an Evil act? He'll be considerably less able to defend himself, and will quite possibly be injured for days if he manages to avoid further fights.

As I've already pointed out, in this very reply no less, those hits don't necessarily, or even probably, mean that you've hewn 5 large chunks of his flesh away. He's definitely suffered at least 5 minor lacerations, but any further damage to his body is being assumed because you don't -want- the ability damage/ hit-point damage comparison to make sense, since that's the conclusion you've already come to.

His surrender could be entirely based on the fact that he's realized he's outclassed. Being bound, while humiliating, doesn't actually render him incapable of normal function except for while he's actually bound. Remove the ropes and he's perfectly fine except for being a bit banged up.

[Drachasor]

Kelb, I think you are assuming we're arguing about what RAW means. We aren't. We're arguing over whether RAW is internally consistent.

For instance, if my handshake naturally causes people to get get level-drained and turned into undead under my control, does that make it non-evil to use? Yet somehow natural poison is not evil to use if it is natural, yet the same thing is evil otherwise? This does not make sense. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it doesn't have the same ethical implications -- ESPECIALLY if ethics have absolute standards.

Yes, it is RAW, but it does not make sense. Ethics in RAW tends to stop making sense when they declare contextless acts as evil. This is a problem because the ethical standards in the Alignment section have context as important.

[eggynack]

To the underlined: how so? If you have poison in your blood then your blood is poisonous. If your body can't filter it out because it's no longer functional, that poison remains there until it breaks down naturally, something manufactured poisons are intentionally stabalized against.
I was thinking of anything other than ingested poisons. It's rather irrelevant, because the rules don't say that it works as you claim, at least in any place that I'm aware of. If you can find an actual RAW source to this, we can have a fancy conversation about the theoretical effectiveness of lighting corpses on fire, but as is, this seems like a house rule thing.



To the HP thing: I've already noted, more than once, that the abstraction of HP damage and its interactions with poisons, bleeding, and basic anatomy strongly suggest that it represents only minor scratches and cuts until you actually push the target to 0 or lower. At lower than zero hp's it's almost certain that the target will die but a good character -should- deliver a final blow, preferably by coup-de-gras to -prevent- unnecessary suffering. Either way, the target won't be concious of the pain unless he's so lucky as to not die in-spite of heavily stacked odds.
This is also not really indicated anywhere. It's one of many theories about how HP damage works, but they're only theories. The main point is, HP damage can often leave you at a level of disability that is similar to that of poisons. In any case, if you're poisoning a character and then killing them, or reducing them to zero HP and then killing them, what's the difference? As long as you kill them in the end, it should be roughly equivalent.


The underlined is the source of the problem. Debuffing is -not- necessary by default. It's, rather, unnecessary unless you'd stand a good chance of losing the battle without it. Even so, there are a multitude of debuffs that are completely binary in their results; either the enemy is incapacitated, because the debuff is in place, or he's not, because it failed or wore off. These are seen in a negative light when being viewed strategically but from a moralistic stand-point they're prefereable to debuffs that do long-term or permanent harm to the target's ability to function normally.
It's just as necessary as most tactics that you use. You didn't have to lead your enemy into difficult terrain to gain an advantage, but it's the little things that make a difference. Besides, if we're going with poisons with binary effects for some reason, then the poison's obviously an integral part of the battle plan. Otherwise, it's just an extra ingredient in the tactical stew that is a well constructed battle plan. Granted, it's more of a garnish than a main course, but I don't think the gods are going to cause our paladin to fall for using ineffective tactics. In any case, I can't really see any book based tie between long duration debuffs and evil. It seems like the only reason that poison is evil is the ability damage thing.



As for the suffering is better than death stand-point, that's real world morality being applied to a place where it's specifically contradicted by the rules. The rules say a clean death is a less objectionable thing than surviving in pain; accept it or houserule it.
Does it actually say that anywhere? I don't think I've ever really seen it, and you can't always assume that the enemy is going to get a raise dead. Moreover, if we're talking about leaving enemies defenseless, effectively hitting them with a negative level seems pretty bad.



It's also not accurate. A paladin can't use a manufactured poison that does ability damage because it's an evil act. Any poison he naturally produces or any poison that has some other kind of effect is acceptable, depending on how you define honor. If he coats his blade in sleep poison it's fine; perhaps even preferable, providing his honor code (a set of social rules that varies with society, as opposed to the universal rules of alignment) allows for it.
This just seems pedantic. We've been mostly talking about manufactured and ability damage based poisons, because those are the only relevant thing. Unless I specifically say otherwise, you can probably replace "poison" with "manufactured, ability damage causing poison", every time, and nothing will go wrong. The basic principle of what I said is accurate.



Power word pain explicitly causes pain and does its damage over an extended period rather than all at once. There are a virtually nothing else but spells that can kill the target much more quickly and with less pain when it comes to direct damage spells.

Once agian, lack of the evil descriptor doesn't mean that using an effect is automatically a non-evil act.
I don't really see any indication of this either. It looks like you can cast power word pain in every encounter, and maintain exalted feats. This seems like a distraction, but your objection to power word pain not being evil is similar to my objection to poison being evil. In other words, we both disagree with the RAW. However, power word pain doesn't really make that much sense as an evil spell, because hitting repeatedly for small amounts doesn't appear to have any negative RAW connotations. It just seems to be a regular damage spell. Blindness/deafness seems much more interesting.

[Amphetryon]

As I've already pointed out, in this very reply no less, those hits don't necessarily, or even probably, mean that you've hewn 5 large chunks of his flesh away. He's definitely suffered at least 5 minor lacerations, but any further damage to his body is being assumed because you don't -want- the ability damage/ hit-point damage comparison to make sense, since that's the conclusion you've already come to.

His surrender could be entirely based on the fact that he's realized he's outclassed. Being bound, while humiliating, doesn't actually render him incapable of normal function except for while he's actually bound. Remove the ropes and he's perfectly fine except for being a bit banged up.
It matters not whether hunks of flesh were hewn from his body; there was no indication given - nor intent shown in my post (if you disagree, quote it to prove me wrong) - that the guard was attacked with non-lethal damage. In fact, that's very much the point. Down to 1 HP in D&D doesn't mean "a bit banged up," it means "a hit away from Disabled or Unconscious and possibly Dying." This is true whether you've "hewn 5 large chunks of his flesh away" or battered him with a club or pierced him with a spear. Lethal damage is lethal damage is lethal damage. All that I get from your quoted statement, above, is that you're choosing to pretend it's non-lethal because it supports the argument you've been making.

So, if you don't pretend we're talking about non-lethal damage - a specific game concept - how do you rationalize attacking with deadly weapons as less Evil than doing Ability damage?

[Elderand]

It matters not whether hunks of flesh were hewn from his body; there was no indication given - nor intent shown in my post (if you disagree, quote it to prove me wrong) - that the guard was attacked with non-lethal damage. In fact, that's very much the point. Down to 1 HP in D&D doesn't mean "a bit banged up," it means "a hit away from Disabled or Unconscious and possibly Dying." This is true whether you've "hewn 5 large chunks of his flesh away" or battered him with a club or pierced him with a spear. Lethal damage is lethal damage is lethal damage. All that I get from your quoted statement, above, is that you're choosing to pretend it's non-lethal because it supports the argument you've been making.

So, if you don't pretend we're talking about non-lethal damage - a specific game concept - how do you rationalize attacking with deadly weapons as less Evil than doing Ability damage?

Every peasent is roughly one hit (from a housecat) away from disabled of Unconscious or possibly dying. Therefore it would be evil to keep them like that rather than just outright kill every peasents you come accross.

Burning down villages, because it's an act of mercy.

[eggynack]

Every peasent is roughly one hit (from a housecat) away from disabled of Unconscious or possibly dying. Therefore it would be evil to keep them like that rather than just outright kill every peasents you come accross.

Burning down villages, because it's an act of mercy.
Even the non-sarcastic parts of this seem to be a joke, but the same logic would apply to poisons. It shouldn't be a problem to take a mighty fighter from 18 strength to 10 strength, because that's the general average for a commoner. I do love the logic that it'd be an act of mercy to kill peasants. I need to find more contexts where that crazy brain logic is applicable, just so I can use it.

[Amphetryon]

Every peasent is roughly one hit (from a housecat) away from disabled of Unconscious or possibly dying. Therefore it would be evil to keep them like that rather than just outright kill every peasents you come accross.

Burning down villages, because it's an act of mercy.

Their "roughly one hit (from a housecat) away from disabled" etc. does not represent - for a peasant - an atypical state of affairs brought about by damage from a hostile combatant, though.

[Elderand]

Their "roughly one hit (from a housecat) away from disabled" etc. does not represent - for a peasant - an atypical state of affairs brought about by damage from a hostile combatant, though.

So we have to kill everyone whose HP goes lower than a certain % of it's total then ?

This is patently ridiculous, a guard who has 1hp must be more careful than one at full HP certainly, but he isn't any less capable.

DnD is a binary system when it comes to HP, you're either in the negative or you are just as able to move around and live your life.

HP is a weird thing representing morale, ability to roll with the hits and partly physical resilence, but there isn't such a thing as a life threatening wound until you get in the negative.

[Deophaun]

As far as poisons go, it's as simple as this if you want RAW instead of logic: causing undue suffering is evil, RAW.
And here is the problem: What is "undue?" If delivering a poison to the BBEG is the method that has the highest chance of success in stopping him from burning an orphanage to the ground and killing all inside, or limiting the amount of civilian casualties by weakening an orc army about to attack a village, then it is hardly "undue."

This is the big problem with the "poison is always evil" RAW: the absolute statement hinges on a relative term. Poison probably shouldn't be a good character's go-to solution, but if poison is the best way to limit harm, then it's no longer inflicting undue suffering and thus the reasoning behind the prohibition looks silly.

[Drachasor]

So we have to kill everyone whose HP goes lower than a certain % of it's total then ?

This is patently ridiculous, a guard who has 1hp must be more careful than one at full HP certainly, but he isn't any less capable.

DnD is a binary system when it comes to HP, you're either in the negative or you are just as able to move around and live your life.

HP is a weird thing representing morale, ability to roll with the hits and partly physical resilence, but there isn't such a thing as a life threatening wound until you get in the negative.

A Guard with 1 HP is less capable of defending himself than a guard with 10 hp -- that's what HPs are!

A 1st level commoner with full health is different then a guard at 1/4th health even if they have the same HP though. While in some ways their ability to defend themselves is the same, that doesn't mean the guard isn't hurt.

Low hit points by themselves aren't going to kill you of course. Then again, low ability scores (save perhaps Con) isn't going to kill you either. Both of them might play a role in you dying, however. Reducing either is making you less capable and generally making you easier to kill. Just because HP is more abstract doesn't mean it isn't a measure of what sort of life-or-death trouble you can handle. It's not the only measure, but it is a measure.

[eggynack]

So we have to kill everyone whose HP goes lower than a certain % of it's total then ?

This is patently ridiculous, a guard who has 1hp must be more careful than one at full HP certainly, but he isn't any less capable.

DnD is a binary system when it comes to HP, you're either in the negative or you are just as able to move around and live your life.

HP is a weird thing representing morale, ability to roll with the hits and partly physical resilence, but there isn't such a thing as a life threatening wound until you get in the negative.
As I noted previously, this essentially means that you're in agreement with me. The exact logic that you're using here applies equally to poisons. It's ridiculous to mercy kill every peasant whose intelligence is abnormally low, so it's reasonable to assert that killing a wizard that you've dropped to the same intelligence with poison doesn't require a mercy killing. The HP system is effectively binary, but HP is still a resource that you use to protect yourself from death. In this way, there's no real difference to the argument you're making here, and the argument I have about poisons.

[Chronos]

The Book of Exalted Deeds also introduces a new weapon mod, Enfeebling, which deals strength damage on a successful crit. It's not a ravage-- It affects anyone hit by it who's subject to crits. Presumably, its placement in Book of Exalted Deeds is an indicator that it's meant to be used by good characters, because disabling enemies is preferable to killing them.

So how is an enfeebling weapon any different than one dipped in str poison?

[Amphetryon]

The Book of Exalted Deeds also introduces a new weapon mod, Enfeebling, which deals strength damage on a successful crit. It's not a ravage-- It affects anyone hit by it who's subject to crits. Presumably, its placement in Book of Exalted Deeds is an indicator that it's meant to be used by good characters, because disabling enemies is preferable to killing them.

So how is an enfeebling weapon any different than one dipped in str poison?

It's clearly a clever trap, designed to trick Paladins and Exalted Characters into using it due to its placement within this particular supplement, since any sort of debuffing, or attacking with a weapon for that matter, is obviously an Evil act that will cause a Paladin or Exalted Character to fall or otherwise lose their moral compass.