LN rogue using poison?

[Al]

I don't see any inherent problem with a LN character using sleep poison.

Assuming it is legal, then the only objection can be those of 'honour' and of 'morality'. The 'honour' objection is only a problem if the character subscribes to this notion of honour within his personal morality code. The 'morality' objection, again, is only a problem if the character *believes* that poison is evil.

To me, sleep poison is no more dishonourable or immoral than, say, a sleep spell.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Lets think about is the spell HOLD PERSON evil, ithink no.
But lets assume a mage uses hold person to render someone immobile to cut its throat.
And nobody could tell me that a sleep poison which is used to lets say sneak into a fortress is evil either.
In most cases you should consider, for what reason the poison is or will be used.

 

[LokiDR]

/me smacks LokiDR.

That's why I said IMPLIES!

/me ducks blow

I was writing while you posted buddy, and had not seen your post. You should lighten up

 

[LokiDR]

The D&D alignment system does not make a whole lot of sense when it comes to actions like poison. I can see a law enforcement using knockout gas or sleep poisoned arrows. But use of poison is normally an evil act. The only way to really play through this kind of ambiguity is to define how your character acts, and not to worry about alignment. Let your DM deside what your technical alignment is, since he will have to any way.

I would have no problem with a lawful good character using sleep poison so he can be merciful. It is more a judgement call than a rules call.

 

[Wippit Guud]

I always hated the whole "Poison - Evil" idea.... about 10,000 normal everyday animals use poison, and they aren't evil... which is why I like playing druids a lot, because it's 'natural' for creatures to use it.

 

[LokiDR]

The same can be said of chaneling negative energy, an evil act. So enervating an enemy untill they are no longer a threat is wholely evil, even if it is the most merciful course of action. The D&D alignment system needs to be revised.

 

[Corlon]

so, is it different for a paladin to charge in with his longsword and slaughter a horde of orcs, or a sorcerer blowing them up with a fireball, than a rogue using black lotus poison?

I say it's the character that decides what he does with the poison, and the reason it's illegal is becuase too many evil people get their hands on it.

 

[Apok]

so, is it different for a paladin to charge in with his longsword and slaughter a horde of orcs, or a sorcerer blowing them up with a fireball, than a rogue using black lotus poison?

I think the difference between the three is an implied sense of heroism, honor, and self-defense. What do I mean by this?

In the case of the charging paladin, it is heroic for him to charge into mortal danger, risking his own life to slay those who could very easily slay him in return. To fight one's enemy face-to-face is considered the "honorable" thing to do and is therefore not frowned upon. The sorcerer puts himself at risk by being on a battlefield for he is weak and easily hurt without his magic to protect him. He risks almost as much as the noble Paladin. In both cases, the enemy can also see the danger and face it. They know what's coming and they can choose to fight or flee as they see fit.

The problem with the poison using rogue is that the enemy will never see him (if he's competant at all) and won't be able to defend themselves nor recognize the threat before it's too late. Also, the use of poison is not considered to be brave, noble, honorable or in any way self-sacrificing. It is "the cowards weapon" and that is, IMO, the reason why poison use is typically frowned upon.

Now, from a completely pragmatic point of view, dead is dead and the rest is irrelevant. The means with which you destroy the invading Orc horde, weather through glorious battle or dark trickery, doesn't mean squat as long as you get the same results. However, and I've stated this before, in the D&D alignment system Good does not equal Pragmatic. Therefore, the use of poison which is highly pragmatic is not considered a Good act. Neutral, sure. Evil, definitely. As far as the Lawful part is concerned, it depends entirely on your character. If he has no personal code preventing him from using poisons then great. Just beause you are Lawful doesn't mean you obey the laws of your society, it just means that you strictly follow some kind of personal code.

 

[Corlon]

I think the difference between the three is an implied sense of heroism, honor, and self-defense. What do I mean by this?

In the case of the charging paladin, it is heroic for him to charge into mortal danger, risking his own life to slay those who could very easily slay him in return. To fight one's enemy face-to-face is considered the "honorable" thing to do and is therefore not frowned upon. The sorcerer puts himself at risk by being on a battlefield for he is weak and easily hurt without his magic to protect him. He risks almost as much as the noble Paladin. In both cases, the enemy can also see the danger and face it. They know what's coming and they can choose to fight or flee as they see fit.

The problem with the poison using rogue is that the enemy will never see him (if he's competant at all) and won't be able to defend themselves nor recognize the threat before it's too late. Also, the use of poison is not considered to be brave, noble, honorable or in any way self-sacrificing. It is "the cowards weapon" and that is, IMO, the reason why poison use is typically frowned upon.

Now, from a completely pragmatic point of view, dead is dead and the rest is irrelevant. The means with which you destroy the invading Orc horde, weather through glorious battle or dark trickery, doesn't mean squat as long as you get the same results. However, and I've stated this before, in the D&D alignment system Good does not equal Pragmatic. Therefore, the use of poison which is highly pragmatic is not considered a Good act. Neutral, sure. Evil, definitely. As far as the Lawful part is concerned, it depends entirely on your character. If he has no personal code preventing him from using poisons then great. Just beause you are Lawful doesn't mean you obey the laws of your society, it just means that you strictly follow some kind of personal code.

that's why I think it applies to his LN person

"one dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords at dawn."

"the more easily you can acomplish your goal and acomplish it with the least hazard, the better"

 

[Apok]

that's why I think it applies to his LN person

"one dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords at dawn."

"the more easily you can acomplish your goal and acomplish it with the least hazard, the better"

Yep, sounds like a pragmatist to me. LN would work just fine. Heh, I can easily see your character saying things like; "Look, bub, if you don't like my methods then why did you hire me for the job?" Sounds cool.