3. Cleric's rping spells.

Cleric's rping spells.

  • G

    @3b43fc0aa5=Syiedthebard:

    Well, then I will briefly restate my opinion on "poison is evil." Nonsense. It is irrational to make the blanket statement that "poison is evil." But then the gods aren't very rational.

    That's the thing. Poison is cataloged (sp?) as evil as far as I know in the D&D rules, so evil it is…regardless of intentions. D&D doesn't understand of logic in many many situations.


  • Well, then I will briefly restate my opinion on "poison is evil." Nonsense. It is irrational to make the blanket statement that "poison is evil." But then the gods aren't very rational.

  • D

    Thread Necromancy

    Agreed, for the better part of a year on another Server, I played a Swamp Witch who was Chaotic Good, she was blind, and had through her gifts, a strong link with the swamps, wich lead to her gifts with poisons, she used to coat her exposed skin with toxins she was immune to, and took care not to expose others to them if she didn't wish it.

    Poison is very much a case by case thing, Allot of Ed Greenwood's work depicted Nobanionite Clergy using poisons (all of wich are good.) as poisons can be controlled, and can induce sudden, and painless death (without suffering.) including slipping the target into sleep, then a coma.

    in that case, its being used for the explicit reason so that it -doesn't- cause suffering and does not mutilate the body.


  • There are instances of tribes useing poison on weaponry that dont kill the oponent they are fighting as well , poison can be used as a defence in many cases as well as traps to defend an area that are set with poisons.


  • @5d7b94ac6d=rei_jin:

    3. Poison cannot be used for defence. It is only and ever an offensive thing. You can fight defensively with a sword, fire off a spell as a warning, etc. You can't poison someone defensively, the only thing you can do with it is kill.

    This I disagree with. Blowfish. When it is known that attacking an entity who is protected by poison (ie. attacking them will cause you to be afflicted by poison), the blowfish can sit back and relax, and if attacked, will poison its attacker.

    Just as well, if -you- are attacked and you have poison, you can use that against your attacker. Hell, if it's a non-lethal, disabling poison, it might even allow you to escape while not slaying your attacker!


  • P.S. Seems to me that one of the problems here is that IG we all experience poisons as strength-stealing greeness briskly fixed by cleric or cup of potion. Unlike the horrors of Baldur's Gate poisoning as you inch, point by point, towards death - we mostly just shrug 'em off. In Narfell, we only seem to have non-lethal poisons, and what is the point in that? Hence, I'd say, the ambivalence! Think of them more as something almost bound to slay the unfortunate without divine interjection, and you can see the wickedness more clearly.


  • In regards to poison, there's a few reasons it is considered evil, regardless of how or why you're using it.

    1. Poison is a silent killer. You can be poisoned and never know (until you're dead), and never have to face the one poisoning you.
    2. Poison is not specific. If you poison a meal, the person you intend to kill may not eat it… his servant may.
    3. Poison cannot be used for defence. It is only and ever an offensive thing. You can fight defensively with a sword, fire off a spell as a warning, etc. You can't poison someone defensively, the only thing you can do with it is kill.

    Now, these reasons are based largely on RL understandings. Yes, in D&D there are poisons that put people to sleep (we call these anasthetic) and you can use poisons that will merely make people unable to move (paralysis, severe strength loss, etc).

    But eh... D&D isn't about subjective morality, it's about objective morality. A demon is evil, and will detect as evil, even if somehow he becomes good, because he is MADE of pure evil. Poison therefore, is evil. You may get more or less evil points from using it though, depending on HOW you use it.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a DM, just a rules junky


  • Poison isn't the only thing that does ability damage. Negative energy burst, ray of enfeeblement, enervation, curse, inflict disease. Would those be considered evil? Possibly. If I saw a mage casting only those necromancy spells, but not raising undead, I'd then guess on whether they're good or evil based on how they act when casting such spells. If they do it merely to torture and for the fun of it, evil. If they do it to weaken their enemies just in their own self-defense, more neutral. If they do it to weaken the tyrant so his companions can kill the evil tyrant more easily, then that's possibly good.

    Based on what I've read in this discussion, where "giving your enemy no possible chance to fight back" is possibly evil, then there are several folks on the server that are evil. Every time I use bigsby and then go to town on the held enemy, Ronan is apparently evil. Using hold person is the same. Confusion, daze, fear. My opinion is that if you dont cause suffering to someone on purpose, just because you want to see them in pain, then those types of spells (such as negative energy and hold spells) aren't evil if used in self-defense or defense of another. Poison causes suffering, whether it be nausia, fatigue, muscle weakness.. it's not a pleasent experience. But if a poison put someone peacefull to sleep where they died a painless death, would that be evil? Assuming, of course, that you have a good reason to poison them (IE, the evil tyrant.. not to assassinate a king to take the throne yourself).

    I think it depends wholly on the situation, and what god the person follows, if the spell has "evil" in its descriptor, and the reasons that the spell was used.

    A rock can be evil if you use it to smash someone's fingers, one at a time. All depends on how it's used.

  • 0

    Wouldn't negative energy that's in the world for but a moment and then gone be relatively inconsequential. Would it not apply more to things like animating dead things which are bound together by negative energy and thus keeping it in the world.

    Kind of like sunshine isn't bad in short doses. Sunshine that's concentrated and on you for four days straight can be down right deadly.

  • Legion

    Af far as poisons go - the fact that they are "Evil" is purely a flavour thing. Snakes and spiders, while technically "neutral" in D&D, are symbols of sinister evil in most cultures. The main reason for this is linked to their use of poison to kill their prey. There is also the higher level of suffering caused to the target by the use of poison, but that really depends on the poison. A poison arrow that make the target numb and paralysed isn't really making anyone suffer. It's more about what it looks like and what poisons represent in a fantasy world than it is based on the actual mechanics of them.

    As far as necromancy and "evil" spells, yeah mechanically Harm and spells like that aren't evil spells, and yeah a good cleric could use spells like that, but a cleric that casts that kind of spell all the time is going to come across as being a bit sinister, even if he casts it for "good" purposes. There are passages in the PHP and Book of Vile Darkness stating that channelling negative energy is an evil act, and that bring negative energy into the world makes it a darker an more evil place. So the way I see it casting spells like animate dead, neg energy ray or harm cause a form of spiritual pollution on the landscape. A neutral cleric would probably want to balance it out a bit by casting a bit of positive energy around the place maybe? A good cleric would probably avoid those spells if they could help it though. "Oh holy and good Lathander, wither this foe with your … soul draining glory?" - Just doesn't seem right to me.


  • @9516484c4c=Lagermane:

    Well, you have to remember that in FR you aren't dealing with relative or ultimate good or evil. You're dealing with CATEGORIES labeled Good and Evil. Frankly I wish they'd used less misleading terms. Let's do that right now for this post:

    Let FR Good = Burrito
    Let FR Evil = Nacho

    The gods of Burrito are not omnipotent or omnipresent or omnianything, and do not see every sparrow who falls, etc. To keep track of where everyone stands, they need a filing system to tell if someone is very good or very evil. Likewise the Nacho powers need a similar way.

    So they sort out all the things which are usually, by them, considered evil and file them under Nacho. That includes poisons. Using a cup of poison to kill a bad king may be an act of good, but it's also a Nacho act and you will get Nacho points for it. That's just how the divine system works. There's very few conditionals or rationalizations in it. In part this is to keep gods from poaching on each others' territory (if all acts can be reasoned as Burrito, the gods of burrito get stronger. If all acts can be reasoned as Nacho, the Nacho powers gain strength.).

    So where do the Quesadillas and the Enchiladas come into play?


  • Turns out that an expansion clarified the 3E stance. From BoED:

    @ba10addd58:

    Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and characters, implements of corruption and destruction. If snakes and vermin are associated with evil, as they are in many cultures, it is usually because of their venom that they are viewed in such a negative light despite their neutral alignment. Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness.

    D&D is so wacky.


  • Well, you have to remember that in FR you aren't dealing with relative or ultimate good or evil. You're dealing with CATEGORIES labeled Good and Evil. Frankly I wish they'd used less misleading terms. Let's do that right now for this post:

    Let FR Good = Burrito
    Let FR Evil = Nacho

    The gods of Burrito are not omnipotent or omnipresent or omnianything, and do not see every sparrow who falls, etc. To keep track of where everyone stands, they need a filing system to tell if someone is very good or very evil. Likewise the Nacho powers need a similar way.

    So they sort out all the things which are usually, by them, considered evil and file them under Nacho. That includes poisons. Using a cup of poison to kill a bad king may be an act of good, but it's also a Nacho act and you will get Nacho points for it. That's just how the divine system works. There's very few conditionals or rationalizations in it. In part this is to keep gods from poaching on each others' territory (if all acts can be reasoned as Burrito, the gods of burrito get stronger. If all acts can be reasoned as Nacho, the Nacho powers gain strength.).

  • M
    Legion

    @9f01a39299=LowerDenizen:

    Because when it comes to poisins, rather then delve into motivation and true consequence the assumption is instead that the person who is using the poisin is trying to do something or defeat something they could not otherwise deal with themselves.

    In essence, they are cheating. And cheating is wrong. Therefore, poisin is evil.

    Yeah… BUT ... the same could be said about divine powers.

    Couldn't we assume that a person is using the divine power of their god to defeat something that they couldn't otherwise deal with themselves?

    In essence, they're cheating and cheating is wrong. Therefore divine power is evil. 😉


  • Wouldnt the idea of calling it cheating by not allowing them to fight on equal grounds also make sneak attacks cheating? Or the use of a goblin grenade because all you have to do is toss and hope? Sneak attacks although are based on the skill of a person , tossing and hopeing the spash of a grenade though does not.

    But both still cause it to be "unfair". Also is it much different to use poison to throwing an acid bomb letting them be eaten alive? Wich last i checked use of such weapons is not evil.

    As a side note , as far as defeating something they could not overcome by them selves people tend to just bunch up and attack a single target that is to strong wich could also be called cheating if considerd to be unfair by it not being equal. Yet mobbing a single enemy is rarely looked down on.

    So im not sure why a single strategy should be seen as evil because it may not be fair in combat as we use many unfair and in some cases cruel ways to kill things and never think of them much.


  • Because when it comes to poisins, rather then delve into motivation and true consequence the assumption is instead that the person who is using the poisin is trying to do something or defeat something they could not otherwise deal with themselves.

    In essence, they are cheating. And cheating is wrong. Therefore, poisin is evil.


  • I think it's based on the concept of what we'd call nowadays "fair play".

    Fighting against an enemy with your skill against his, is a fair act per se, ignoring the motivations you have to do so.

    If you chop someone's leg while fighting, then you did so with your own skill. By using poison your taking advantage unfairly by crippling them, disallowing from fighting back in equal condition. Perhaps you're less skilled at fighting, but because your attacks cripple the rival, you're being unfairly unbalancing the fight.


  • Poison's a tricky one. Got into a long discussion about it on some forum once.

    As a 2E player I was on the side that it's evil. Going way back, using poison was counted an evil act because of the ability damage it does. Undue suffering and whatnot. But then you have stuff like Oil of Tagit - actually just puts someone to sleep - but is still a poison and its use still an evil act.

    The 3E people said that using poison is no longer evil by the rules as it was in previous editions, but added that the flavour text seems to imply that it's considered evil. Also had people plain out disagreeing, citing Ravages from BoED as proof (these do ability damage to evils).

    Then ofc the ic discussion - whacking someone with a sword hurts just as much as poisoning them.

    Using a poison arrow (1d2 dex or whatever) would indeed be an evil act.

    But how does that make sense when you'd be peppering them with arrows until they were dead in any case.

    There's an idea that in whacking at someone with a sword, they have a chance to fight back and they know who's attacking. That's not true of poison.

    Even looking at it from the pov that if the person who was poisoned lives and the attacker doesn't - why is it evil to leave someone with ability damage through poison and not evil to leave someone with ability damage from having hacked off their leg.

    Another one of these thorny d&d things.


  • @3fb3074b3d=Taerinn:

    As a note kids, NEVER Flamestrike orphans, puppies, kittens, or bunnies.
    Its just plain wrong.

    Speak for yourself 😉


  • @8ebfdeef50=Lagermane:

    Flame Strike doesn't have the evil descriptor either. But if you cast it on a group of orphans and puppies, it's an evil act and your goodly gods will be cranky.

    This reminds me of the Family Guy episode with the school full of bunnies that the plane crashes into Lager….which is most certainly E V I L.

    As a note kids, NEVER Flamestrike orphans, puppies, kittens, or bunnies.
    Its just plain wrong.*

    *Flamestriking gnomes however, has mixed results, try it at your own discretion.