Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 1252407" data-attributes="member: 2486">I think that it would be best to attack the chain of logic that Vaxalon has constructed.  If any one of his links in the chain are proven to be erroneous, it is reasonable to assume that his argument must crumble.'Harming innocent life is evil.'Agreed.'A tactic that puts innocent life at unnecessary risk is evil.'Being a pragmatist, I would diverge with you to some extent at this point.  If a tactic is riskier, but more likely to succeed, it may be less evil.  For example, if the only way to lure a rampaging demon into a trap is to use human 'bait', then that may be less evil than permitting the demon to attack the villages.  Greater good and all that.'Using poison is a tactic that puts innocent life at unnecessary risk.'Unlikely.  There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the simple one: it would not be unreasonable for one to assume that poisons are left safely stored, away from children and not mixed with potable drinks.  This is a simple matter of precaution.  Just because more precaution is required, this does not make it evil.  Having a loaded +5 Flaming Crossbow of Brilliant Energy lying around in playschool is going to be irresponsible, and probably cause death (guaranteed to kill any commoner/child it hit, can go through solid objects).  In these circumstances, deliberately leaving it there would be evil, and accidentally doing so would be criminally negligent.  However, this does not make the Crossbow evil.  It simply means that greater care must be taken with it; likewise with poison.Secondly, to pre-empt any argument about premature use, I'd cite the 'Dungeon Paradigm'.  Essentially, in a standard dungeon, all combatants are hostile.  Any collateral damage to innocents is thus unlikely, unless they have been specifically used as e.g. human shields.  In this case, a fireball is more likely to cause collateral damage in any event.  Poisons applied to weapons should never come into contact with innocents- there is simply no need.'THEREFORE using poison when less risky tactics are available is evil.'No, as I've demonstrated above.  Firstly, because some riskier tactics must be taken into order to guarantee a greater rate of success.  When your opponent is the leader of a vile cult, the commander of an undead army or a raging orc psychopath, it is not unreasonable to pursue means most likely to succeed (although I will concede that certain tools, e.g. torture, ought be avoided).  Secondly, poisons will not necessarily cause risk.  Have you encountered risk theory?  Risk theory states that the more dangerous a situation is, responsible people tend to be more cautious; in a more casual situation, carelessness is more the norm.  The oft-cited example is that the introduction of compulsory seat-belts did little to reduce road deaths in the long term since people drove more dangerously as a result (since they believed themselves to be safer and were hence more complacent).  With poison, a particularly dangerous substance, one would expect most people to take extra precaution; certainly, good adventurers would be expected to take precautions.  In the case that precaution is taken, poison is no more risky than any other weapon (and certainly not more so than e.g. loaded crossbows).Given that your two premises (riskier=more evil, poison=risky) are *both* wrong, your argument must fall.</blockquote>

Verification