Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 297166" data-attributes="member: 172">Did I ever say anything to the contrary?A fighter can do it IF their ethics allow them too... likewise the monk. My point is only that there is no "alignment" to poison.I certainly never implied it was inherently lawful either, so I don't know the point of this part. In fact that statement drives home my position... that poison is not assigned an inherent alignment per the D&D system.Who said he didn't? The theoretical monks I purported would do such a thing.However, the implication that "external" is a requirement is, again, an attempt by you to pidgeonhole monks.As for what is "in concept" for monks, I think that is entirely a GM call. I think there are several realms in which it can be in concept for a monk:- A monkish warrior type character teach using finesse, patience and skill to gain an advantage over brute strength. That can include using poisons and drugs. Perfectly in concept.- Martial arts styles are often conceived as emulating certain creatures. An order whose art from snakes or spiders could use venom as one of their attacks.So if you think that poison is clearly out of concept for monks, I think you aren't considering all the possibilities.I'm not trying to convince you how to handle it in your game. I can perfectly see how a given game, the codes of honor would find such things abhorrent. My only point is that there is nothing about the game -- not one thing beyond your personal feelings on the issue -- to make it compulsory.</blockquote>

Verification