D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[jgsugden]

In my experience, games work best when there isn't an answer to what is good and evil - it works best when there are multiple.

Some Gods and their followers may think that any use of poison is evil, as it is a Devil's tool. Others might be taught it is no different than using fire. Just as in the real world, there is no absolute answer to what is right and wrong - only subjective answers (with differing levels of agreement). This makes for a more relatable world and more interesting storytelling.

 

[Maxperson]

In my experience, games work best when there isn't an answer to what is good and evil - it works best when there are multiple.

Some Gods and their followers may think that any use of poison is evil, as it is a Devil's tool. Others might be taught it is no different than using fire. Just as in the real world, there is no absolute answer to what is right and wrong - only subjective answers (with differing levels of agreement). This makes for a more relatable world and more interesting storytelling.

Sure. Like I said yesterday(I think), D&D works just fine if you move away from the default objective good and evil and change it to relative. For many groups this will work better. It's all in what you prefer.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why is poison use evil?

It may have also been defined in the game world as evil as a balance measure. With the assumption of generally good-aligned parties, defining poison as evil would prevent or at least reduce its use.
IIRC the designers wanted to avoid the playstyle of - Party encounters dragon. Party discharges a hail of poisoned missiles. Dragon fails one of its saves and dies instantly.
I believe most poisons in that edition were basically save-or-die and the chance of saving was set by the creature being poisoned, not the poison itself. Thus using poison would be an easy way of killing a lot of threats (and thus gaining their treasure) without all the hassle of having to go through all those bothersome hit points first.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, but not a functional one. When it comes to setting, the difference is generally support. Official settings get support, your personal one won't. Official matters, but how it matter differs depending on what the official product is.

People care about semantical differences, yes. None of that matters for the point we were making, though. The point we were making is that regardless of whether a setting comes from WotC, myself or you, all three of those settings have deviations from the core rules that only apply to those settings. All three are functionally homebrew. Saying, "But, but! WotC settings are official!" is completely irrelevant to our point.

Incorrect. This is about how they function and literally nothing more. We made the point. You don't get to change the point and then say some irrelevant things are what "It's all about."

Okay, I think you are missing the debate here on this point because of the background noise of our general discussion on this thread.

You are misusing the word "homebrew". Now, previously, I chose not to challenge you on that, but someone else brought up the point, and I decided to get involved.

The word homebrew does not refer to functional differences in the rules. It just doesn't. It refers to the difference in the support and origin of the rules. You claiming that all settings are homebrew would be similiar to claiming that all american trucks are Fords or that all Fords are F150's. It doesn't matter if you can't find a meaningful, functional difference between them, it matters that you are misapplying the label.

Homebrew has a meaning. That meaning is not "any and all deviations from the core three rulebooks", no matter how much you talk about functional differences. You acknowledge there is a distinction made by the community between rules and settings from WoTC, from Third Party Distributors like Kobold Press, and from individuals with passion on the internet. That is the distinction the term homebrew is meant to talk about.

Yep. That sounds about right.


Absolutely. When good and evil are objective things, creating evil will always be evil no matter what. If you want D&D to be different, you have to change good and evil over from objective to relative.

Okay, with that being your position, I really don't know if there is more to discuss. If the very act of giving birth can be considered for an evil race, then what morality is there left to discuss. Good and Evil are just sides in the cosmic conflict and otherwise meaningless.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer I am not going to quote again.

You wanted lawful good use of spells, I gave you three and you decided to turn them into evil, perverting the intent by comparing a temporary solution that can be reversed to a permanent one (lobotomy).

Your choice. It seems that you so much want to be the ONE winning your point that you will find evil where there is none and that you will ignore evil where it is really there.

There are ways to avoid and go around a zone of truth. We both know that.

All your solutions requires a lot more money and investment than a simple casting that might not be available at all. Permanent anti-magic zones??? To get rid of them, my solutions only requires either a greater restoration or simple willingness to comply. Ishhh...

I compared it to a lobotomy because there is no other process I can think of to represent such a massive destruction of self and mental capacity. And even that lacks the true depth of the destruction. Lobotomies do not remove a person's ability to understand language, or to communicate. Feeblemind is mental trauma on a scale I'm not sure has a medical term, because it probably more commonly leads to death from the sheer amount of trauma inflicted.

Ah, but you want to claim that the fact it can be cured makes it less terrible.

You are familiar with the Regenerate spell, yes? 7th level so within the same realm we are talking about. It allows the regrowth of limbs.

Does that spell make it any less horrific to take a man, amputate his arms and legs, cauterize the wounds, and transport him as a torso? I mean, it isn't permanent, so then it is less terrible, correct?

Actually, death itself is easily reversible. Why not simply kill them, then bring them back to life for their court date? A dead prisoner can't cause any problems after all.

Would a true Lawful Good Society really accept such practices? If not, why would they accept the horror of destroying someone's mind on the same premise of "well, we can just fix it later"

And, I also direct your attention to the final protest you made. "All your solutions requires a lot more money and investment than a simple casting". This is not an argument on the basis of morality. It is an argument on the basis of convenience.

"It is just too expensive to keep criminals in a humane manner, why not simply destroy their minds and make them incapable of escaping. It is much cheaper and faster, and as a Lawful Good Society we should care more about doing things the cheapest way instead of the most morally correct manner."

No, it doesn't work like that. And many of the solutions I spoke of are actually lower level magic, making them easier to come across than a 7th level spell. Again, removing spellcasting foci, hallow and Private Sanctum for silence and turning off teleportation, then just a normal jail cell. A caster is not going to have much luck getting out of that, and their mind remains intact.

So, I deny that you provided a lawful good reason to utterly destroy a person's mind and personality.

I also notice that you made no claims to defend your usage of Geas. Which was also more about conviencen than any moral superiority.

As for the orc mothers.. Again your game your rules. But if that is how you want to see it, fine by me nothing in the rules prevents you to decide that.

That bold and underline "you" indicates you have a different opinion on how to see it.

So, how do you see it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

It may have also been defined in the game world as evil as a balance measure. With the assumption of generally good-aligned parties, defining poison as evil would prevent or at least reduce its use.
IIRC the designers wanted to avoid the playstyle of - Party encounters dragon. Party discharges a hail of poisoned missiles. Dragon fails one of its saves and dies instantly.
I believe most poisons in that edition were basically save-or-die and the chance of saving was set by the creature being poisoned, not the poison itself. Thus using poison would be an easy way of killing a lot of threats (and thus gaining their treasure) without all the hassle of having to go through all those bothersome hit points first.

Which really ties into why poison is seen as "evil" in the real world.

Because poison could strike anyone, no matter their personal power, while the rich could afford to buy armor and guards to protect them from things like a sword or a dagger.

It was evil, because it was powerful and dangerous. Not because of any innate morality.

 

[Helldritch]

The person attacking you with a spell, you see (usually).
The person attacking you with a weapon, you see (unless a sneak attack and you don't survive).
The person putting a fast acting poison and attacks you with a weapon you see (unless a sneak attack and you don't survive). (even I see nothing wrong in there, well... I do but I can understand. At least it does not inflict undue pain for any extended period of time.)

But here is the evil part of poison that has been there in fantasy, history and is still happening nowadays.
The person poisoning your food will look you in the eye. Smile and will continue to poison you until you die a slow painfull death all the while making you think that he/she is taking care of you. You think that this person is helping you. You think that this person loves you. You think that this person is a trusted friend/lover/family member. It is quite evil to do something like that. Claiming anything else is self delusion. But for the sake of simplicity, do as you want. If you find that this kind of action is fine and a good thing to do. So be it. This, is your game after all.

As for Chaosmancer.
Again, you put intentions in my words that are not there. A spell can be done for either good or evil. Almost every spells are considered tools. A tool is neither good or evil. Unfortunately for you, the only spells that are purely evil are animate dead and create undead. And this is only because they bring into existence evil undead. Now I told you again and again and again. All other spells are just a matter of perceptions and intentions. Where you see evil (by twisting the example so that you are right), I see good. You are the one perverting the intent of spells for a good use into an evil thing. And yet, you are advocating that creating evil creature is good??????? There is no logic in your arguments. Where you see logic in your arguments, I see sophism.

 

[Eric V]

So it's about-how- the poison is used.

I guess using fireball to ignite a person's house while they sleep is similar?

 

[Helldritch]

Just about it. Fireballing a house while the people are sleeping and waiting for them to die of burning is not a good thing to do.
Pitching a fireball into enemies is akin to throwing a grenade into your enemies.

As I said, a tool is neutral. A spell is neutral. It is how you use it and the intention in how you use it that makes you a good or an evil person. Only two spells in the books are purely evil and it is only because they bring into existence evil creatures. Using them, by definition, is creating evil. So using these spells is an evil act in itself. If a further core rule supplement introduces neutral skeletons and zombies then it would be another matter. Maybe a MM2?

 

[Maxperson]

The word homebrew does not refer to functional differences in the rules. It just doesn't. It refers to the difference in the support and origin of the rules. You claiming that all settings are homebrew would be similiar to claiming that all american trucks are Fords or that all Fords are F150's. It doesn't matter if you can't find a meaningful, functional difference between them, it matters that you are misapplying the label.

You're arguing semantics, which is pretty much a waste of time. I've been saying that they are equivalent, not that it's exactly a homebrew.

Okay, with that being your position, I really don't know if there is more to discuss. If the very act of giving birth can be considered for an evil race, then what morality is there left to discuss. Good and Evil are just sides in the cosmic conflict and otherwise meaningless.

You just said, "Good and evil are just sides in the cosmic conflict(has meaning) and otherwise meaningless." And that's not my position. That's the position of TSR, WotC and D&D. I'm just pointing it out.