Sorry, but I have another question. What is the standing of good aligned thieves and the use of poisons? I've heard of things such as thieves (or characters in general) of good alignment should be careful of using "insert some nasty poison thing here such as a dagger of venom."
How do you look at the use of poison by a good aligned thief, or of any class? Would that be consideration for an alignment shift no matter what the circumstances?
Yes, I have a reason for this question. I am playing a thief who is neutral good. There is disenssion in the ranks of the evil cult her party has been pursuing. One evil slave trader we have had dealings with is having a bit of trouble with a another high ranking warrior in this organization and is in a bit of a quandry. He wants out of his dealings with them, but the afore mentioned warrior is in possession of something that keeps him working for them. We have come to an arrangement to retrieve this item from his rival so he can leave the organization in exchange for some valuable information and a bit of change as well.
This same warrior has in the past committed several heinous acts against newly found, and very dear friends of the PC's. We're talking really really nasty stuff, and my thief had already been plotting things against this particular man. Interestingly enough, this comes up, and she has been given the opportunity to slip some seasoning into this fellow's water/wine/whatever when she sneaks into his quarters to pilfer the object in question for the slave trader.
Of course my DM will not help me out with this one but has dropped a couple of hints such as...she should be careful with that, as some innocent could happen by and leave her responsible for their death, ie slave, servant etc. But after the brutal things this particular gentleman has done, I've already decided she has about a 99.9% chance of using the poison.
I suppose I should also note that the idea was her's to poison the man. The slaver made a crude suggestion about her poisoning a wood elf companion when she was complaining to the slaver on how horrible it would be to travel with the sylvan elf because of the proposed approach to the warrior's stronghold, which would involve much travel underground. She told him what he could do with that idea but said she may have opportunity to poison the warrior, and he provided her with a nasty Type J poison.
So I'm wondering what opinions on the matter are floating around out there.
I don't use alignment in my game, Tedge, but I can tell you what they say in the 3E Book of Exhalted Deeds.
They basically say that the use of poison is evil because it causes "undue suffering" to the victim. Now, this is a bit of a crappy explanation. A longsword can cause "undue suffering". Also, even after they've said poisons are evil, they offer the good PCs a selection of "Ravages". Basically ravages are poisons that only work against evil people. Still, this only complicates the matter because don't these ravage cause "undue suffering" to the evil people they affect?
But there are poisons that don't cause any "undue suffering". Look at drow poison, for example. That just puts you to sleep.
I don't think I can help you, though, because it really depends on what your DM views as "evil". Maybe you could use a poison that just induces sleep. This couldn't possibly be evil.
Interesting that you brought up drow poisons as this slaver is a half-elf of drow decent. So that makes things very interesting with two elves in the party. This entire little arrangement is a massive train wreak waiting to happen all over the place. The only thing saving the situation from blowing up in a pile of gore and innards is that the slaver happens to be a lot meaner than we are at the moment as past encounters have sorely proven. And I'm just wondering how other DM's would consider handling my thief's activities when the train wreak finally happens.
This is exactly why I don't use alignments. How can a character who specializes in sneaking up behind people and stabbing them in the back have a moral dilemna over the use of poison? It would seem to me that if a neutral good character can rationalize the killing of a particular individual, then he could rationalize using poison on that individual just as easily. If I recall correctly, you play 2e. Poisons that kill instantly on a failed save still exist in that version, I think. If you're going to kill someone anyway, the instant death method would seem the most humane.
As an alternative, you could always rules lawyer the wording of "undue suffering" and say this target is due a little hurt.
In 1st Edition it is very clear about the use of poison. The good cannot use it to kill. I believe this has become muddier. The bottom line when it comes to poison I my mind is that good aligned characters face their enemies rather than be sneaky and underhanded. A good aligned character would not kill a group of orcs with poison just because it would be easier their code of ethics would not allow it. But using a mild poison to render them unconscious so he/she could seek by, well that may be more legitimate (for a thief anyway).
I feel that using alignments is important for character development and giving a focus for decision of ethics but that is another can of worms.
I agree that the lame reasoning used in the Book of Exalted Deeds for not using poison is just that lame. What could cause more suffering, being consume by Phoenix Flames, being bludgeoned to death or a fast kill poison? The reason for not using poison or how it is being used depends on whether your character is a coward, courageous or some where in between. An example might be Robin Hood, a neutral good type, would he use poison? You can bet the Sheriff certainly would.
This is exactly why I don't use alignments. How can a character who specializes in sneaking up behind people and stabbing them in the back have a moral dilemna over the use of poison?
That's actually the problem really, because she isn't having a dilemna about it so I was wondering if her alignment might suffer eventually. But that is a very good point.
Quote:
I feel that using alignments is important for character development and giving a focus for decision of ethics but that is another can of worms.
That is my line of thinking, and I certainly didn't intend to open a can of worms. And as far as this whole alignment thing goes, I look at it this way. Its not written in stone somewhere that a person of any good alignment will never do anything that might be against their code of ethics for X reason. Good people do bad things for good reasons all the time. A mother stealing money from her job because she doesn't make enough to support her children. She's doing it for a good reason, but its still illegal. Its a different story though when a good alignment performs an evil act. Such as said mother locking her child in a foot locker for hours at a time because it spilled a glass of milk in the floor. Things like that add up and result in the mother eventually shifting from neutral good to something like neutral evil over time. (I can never remember how the alignment shifting thing works)
I guess that's what I was merely trying to find was other's opinion that use alignments, could this bad act be considered 'a bad thing done for a good reason' or would you place it on the list that could slowly begin shifting a neutral good alignment because its just an evil act outright.
This is the catch about alignments-they are not the be-all and end-all we might see in some games. As described in the 1E DMG, the alignments are, I think, very simple and broad statements, as EGG mentioned. What is important, IMO, is for the DM and/or the players to determine just what are the extents of good and evil, and how these things vary between cultures. Along with the broad statements one can make about alignment, there is room for a considerable variation in beliefs, I think.
Maybe a Lawful Good knight or paladin has contempt for the lowly peasants under his protection, and has no compunction about helping himself to some of their bread or turning away from a starving family if enemy raiders are actively engaged elsewhere. Maybe a Neutral Evil wizard refuses to conduct the same kind of twisted experiments another mage of his ethical and moral leanings would.
Good creatures can have their rivalries and hatreds, evil characters can have friendship and love. Alignments are just general statements, and these vary from person to person-given that each alignment can be interpreted in so many ways, they're actually rather fuzzy. I disagree with EGG when he mentions how there cannot be a "lawful chaos or an evil good"; what might be good to some people is evil to others.
In this specific example, if I were the DM, I'd ask the player to justify just why she would do this and whether it conflicts with her beliefs. In this case, role-playing considerations trump whatever the rulebooks say. If the character can live with herself doing it this one time, and only in this specific occasion, then I'd let her get away with it. If she keeps doing it, though, that's when things start to get ugly...
Remember too that this character is not devoted to a god for divine spells; she has no one to answer to but herself. Unless she's pledged to a deity that specifically forbids this sort of thing, I'd work it more into the development of the character as opposed to beating the player over the head for going off the beaten path. that
Depending on what edition you play Tedra, I'd suggest an alignment change. The desperate use of poison would be a good excuse to justify the change. It's not like you couldn't then repent thereafter. Good drama I say.
As for poisons vs weapons. A paladin would rather fight you sword to sword in an honorable way. Even a thief/rogue duelling may sometimes be honorable and allow his opponent to be armed. I also think backstabbing/sneak attacking a Paladin would be an evil act given their codes.
Now if the weapon of the opponent is also poisoned then that's a breach of ethics for many classes and alignments. Also consider poisoning from a distance. Snipers are already one of the most hated figures in a battle from past to present, throw in poison and you've gone from sniper to assassin. Some poisons are humane, some painful but in all cases it's about denying the target a fair chance to fight back.
One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big reasons in the 1st edition to limit poison use was to keep game play balanced. In the DMG and PH of this edition, it talked a lot about adventurers slaying dragons with a few poisoned arrows.
Nowadays, we take thing into account such as the size of the creature and type of poison used. "Undue suffering" certainly applies to some poisons but not all. Certainly the type of poison the takes a lot of time and causes a lot of pain would be immoral for all good beings to use. But some that only cause sleep or temporary paralysis may be OK. I suggest applying an experience point penalty for those who defeat their foes using poison, or perhaps fudging rolls that will kill the drama of a challenging combat scenario or epic struggle.
As far as alignments go, good may use certain poisons within reason. Neutrals have less qualms about it. Evil is more flexible (though some evil warrior groups may oppose poison for it kills the opponent without a test of combat, for example, or for personal distrust of relying on an uncertain tactic).
As always, the DM, as final arbitrator of all things, makes the final call.
In 3E there is also an inherent risk in handling poisons by characters which is offset by certain prestige classes like the Assassin which are clearly not 'good'.
Oh good God, we need less drama. I think we must be the biggest collection of drama queens and drama kings to ever hit a gaming table. I'm starting to refer to our base of operations as Port Charles instead of Valewood.
Oh good God, we need less drama. I think we must be the biggest collection of drama queens and drama kings to ever hit a gaming table. I'm starting to refer to our base of operations as Port Charles instead of Valewood.
Given your proximity to New Orleans, you could just as easily be dealing with drag queens at the table. Isn't drama better? ;)
Yes, I must admit, I love the drama. Which is why I was curious about opinions on what could possibly befall my thief. We're big on roleplaying with one another and NPC's, half the gaming session at times. And we have our own Drag Queens now thanks to the casinos. I hear the drag shows are just FABULOUS!
I'm not your DM, but even if I were, I still wouldn't be able to answer this question before the fact. It would all depend on how the character handled the situation. She's not lawful, so I don't think questions about rules or codes of ethics enter into it. What are the character's personal beliefs on the matter, though? Is she just generically neutral good or is it part of her religion? Is she devout enough that she'd ask herself a question such as, "What would Johydee do?" Would she be the type to think that the poisoning is inherently evil, but that the evil of it is vastly outweighed by the good of removing this evil slaver? Or has the guy pissed her off to the point she just wants him dead and the fact that it makes the world a better place is just a bonus? I think the answers to those questions are what determines whether it changes her position on the alignment chart and by how much and in what direction. Her actions during and after would have some bearing too, I think. Will she enjoy watching the poison kill him? Will she feel remorse over having inflicted this cruelty, no matter how necessary it was?
The drama does not even have to end there. If it is indeed considered an inherently evil act, will it affect the way the rest of the party views the character? Will it cause tension and mistrust? If she is devout, will she have to do penance of some kind to atone? Or will she refuse to ask forgiveness for doing something she felt was necessary and end up turning her back on her religion? Of course, it doesn't have to be that dramatic. It could result in as little as the DM moving her several points in the evil direction on the alignment chart(probably not enough to actually change the alignment), making a small notation in his journal, and going on with the game.
By this same reasoning, a good aligned thief would not be able to use her backstab ability.
Not necessarily. I think there is a difference between stealth and cowardice or other evil acts. Stealth by itself is neither good nor bad. A fast surgical surprise attack (backstab) to silent guards so the party can rescue a cleric of Ehlonna and minimizing the lost of life would be a good thing overall. A backstab is a tool that still requires one to "face" the enemy because you are there. It may go horrible wrong i.e. fumble one’s weapon. Poisons can be used in ways that allow the user to never see the victim.
Just because one is not lawful does not mean one does not have a code of ethics. The drow have their own skewed code of ethics even though they are not lawful.
I agree with CruelSummerLord that alignments are guidelines. In the games I play, we play characters with character flaws like gambling, miserly or hates elves yet these are still good characters. You could play a good thief that secretly desires to use poison as a character flaw. Play out the inner conflict, it might be fun, if you like drama that is.
I just have to say, excellent ideas and thoughts, guys. I really appreciate the input you've been giving. Only, my DM does visit CF! on a regular basis so you're probably all giving him really great ideas about what to do with me. I think he's the biggest drama king of us all.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
So that makes things very interesting with two elves in the party. This entire little arrangement is a massive train wreak waiting to happen all over the place. The only thing saving the situation from blowing up in a pile of gore and innards is that the slaver happens to be a lot meaner than we are at the moment as past encounters have sorely proven. And I'm just wondering how other DM's would consider handling my thief's activities when the train wreak finally happens.
And as far as this whole alignment thing goes, I look at it this way. Its not written in stone somewhere that a person of any good alignment will 
