Tell me Why? Topic One: Deception and Poison?

[Cel'Daren]

I am, apparently, failing to grasp the reasoning behind some things and why they're accepted as they are. So I want to ask everyone here on the forum about them, in an effort to truly understand.

First Topic in this line of Threads: Deception and Poisons, why are they considered inherently Chaotic and/or Evil in nature?

And I don't mean "Why does the server enforce them as such?" because the answer is simple there. Because it's pretty much accepted as such in the rules, both in the 3.5 PHB and the Book of Exalted Deeds. That's not what I want to know. I want to know the reasoning behind that.

Why is the use of Poison considered an evil act? Even in situations where the use of poison results in lives saved; even when the lack of its use can cause widespread disease and destruction, poison is for some reason considered an evil thing. Apparently straight against the face of nature as well, considering all the poisonous and venomous creatures nature has produced, which as we should know, are True Neutral in alignment under the 3.5 system. So why is poison considered evil despite the fact that is seemingly just another part of the system?


Why is Deception in all of its forms including Lying, Feinting, Hiding, Sneak Attack, Silent Omission, and any other form you can think of considered an inherently chaotic, and possibly evil, act? Animals LIVE on deception as a matter of course. Mountain Lions stalk through their territory, looking for an unsuspecting prey to fall on and deliver a critical blow to. Plenty of bird's have the "Broken-Wing Gambit". Combat in general, even that of sentients, relies on deception; feints, hiding, and sneak attacks. Now, I can understand if combat and violence in and of itself was considered chaotic or evil (in fact I'd expect a follower of Eldath to proclaim such things), but according to the rules they aren't. So why is Deception considered inherently chaotic/evil when violence itself isn't?


More topics to come, provided a healthy response and debate concerning this topic! (I don't want to start a bunch of flame topics, I want some healthy debate and sharing of ideas on the subjects) I look forward to your posts, everyone.

[DM Mouse]

Well, the Knights of the Shadowy Cloak may multiclass as Illusionists. I think you may have misinterpreted something somewhere.

As for poison, it brings suffering into the world when used against sentient life and it's an inhumane method of combat for intelligent beings to use against each other. You can not compare yourself to a scorpion as you are a higher life form, not a creature lacking personality and any meaningful intelligence. What you do you do with full knowledge of the consequences and feelings your victims will have befall them.

[Hoihe]

I'd like to point out that not all poisons are equal.

Sleeping poisons and poisons that merely temporarily incapitate someone in a more or less painless way are not evil to use. Especially if you use them to avoid having to kill someone f. ex: a frenzied berzerker in a frenzy that needs to be stopped, but is a friend. You poison him with a powerful sleeping poison, take away his weapon, secure him then tend to him as he recovers.

A poison that pretty much liquefies someone from within? Pretty cruel. (certain con poisons)

[Silver_Lining]

Even Paladins can be trained assassins 'for good'.

Companions of the Noble Heart

The Companions of the Noble Heart are aggressive knights in the service of Ilmater who have dedicated themselves to eliminating the evil of those who are known to enjoy the torturing and suffering of others. In particular, they oppose members of the church of Loviatar and destroy them and their temples whenever possible. When servants of the other members of the Triad crusade against Loviatar's servants, Noble Heart knights often join with them.

http://dndtools.eu/classes/noble-heart-paladin/

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/C ... oble_Heart

[Cel'Daren]

Well, the Knights of the Shadowy Cloak may multiclass as Illusionists. I think you may have misinterpreted something somewhere.

It's not my interpretation that I'm questioning. It's everyone else's. To me. Lying is not an inherently chaotic or evil act. To me it is simply another tool to be used. In an of itself deception doesn't have an alignment tied to it. However I keep getting told my a lot of people that Lying an deception is inherently chaotic, and I want to understand their reasoning behind that judgement.

As for poison, it brings suffering into the world when used against sentient life and it's an inhumane method of combat for intelligent beings to use against each other. You can not compare yourself to a scorpion as you are a higher life form, not a creature lacking personality and any meaningful intelligence. What you do you do with full knowledge of the consequences and feelings your victims will have befall them.

Not all poisons cause suffering. Drow Knockout Poison. Oil of Taggit. All they do is knock their target unconscious. Also, it could be said that sticking a sword in someone definitely causes them to suffer, but again, violence itself is not considered evil. A Lawful Good Rogue can use Sneak Attack on a badguy no problem, but if he laces his weapon with a lethal dose of Hemlock (a plant that's used for making a lot of medicines, especially in Medieval times, but which in raw or concentrated form was a powerful paralytic poison) to make sure they stay down it's suddenly an evil act?

Also, wait! Isn't there a Poison spell? Yup! Right there in the 3.5 SRD. There's no [Evil] descriptor on it either. So wait, now I can magically afflict someone with a "horrible poison" that damages their Con score, making it a highly lethal poison, and there's no intrinsic alignment adjustment with it... but I can't slather some Scorpion poison on a dagger and stab someone with it or I get evil points? Huh?

[DM Mouse]

For Paladins it falls under dishonorable combat to use poison. That is why you don't see the Poison spell on their spell lists.
And yes, there's horrible disfiguring, painful poisons that Eldath even granted to some of her followers.

It's not so much an Evil act as a decidedly Neutral one. But Neutral is still progressing away from Good which puts them closer to Evil without having to be Evil. Paladins do not make a habit of doing anything but striving to be Good.

Now you want the reasoning, not the rules. The Defenders of the Faith source book has this to offer: "Some parties may be leery of you because they would rather keep their options open: lying, cheating, and using all the weapons at their disposal, including poison. You know that these methods breed weakness in those who use them and, like any evil act, create future consequences that are ultimately harmful."

[Cel'Daren]

For Paladins it falls under dishonorable combat to use poison. That is why you don't see the Poison spell on their spell lists.
And yes, there's horrible disfiguring, painful poisons that Eldath even granted to some of her followers.

The Paladin Code is another beast altogether compared to the Alignment discussion, and while I do want to talk about that at some point, I want to keep this thread solely upon the Alignment based judgements considering Deception and Poison Use.

As for horrible painful poisons available to followers of Eldath, the self-expressed deity of peace, that only makes me more sure that Poison use in and of itself is not tied to any alignment by itself.

It's not so much an Evil act as a decidedly Neutral one. But Neutral is still progressing away from Good which puts them closer to Evil without having to be Evil. Paladins do not make a habit of doing anything but striving to be Good.

Defending yourself from a murderer is a neutral act, because it is merely self-defense. Eating things as a human is a neutral act, because it's a necessity as an omnivore. A Lawful Good person, including Paladins, perform neutral acts everyday of their lives, by the scores! Every act that doesn't specifically cause Good or Evil is Neutral. If Neutral acts actually pulled your alignment towards the Neutral Alignment, then no one would be Good or Evil, their Good and Evil acts crushed by the weight of their Neutral acts.

Now you want the reasoning, not the rules. The Defenders of the Faith source book has this to offer: "Some parties may be leery of you because they would rather keep their options open: lying, cheating, and using all the weapons at their disposal, including poison. You know that these methods breed weakness in those who use them and, like any evil act, create future consequences that are ultimately harmful."

This more or less appears to be the view of a singular person, which again automatically assumes that it is an evil act without providing their reasoning as to why it is evil.

[DM Mouse]

As for horrible painful poisons available to followers of Eldath, the self-expressed deity of peace, that only makes me more sure that Poison use in and of itself is not tied to any alignment by itself.

Since we're here it's a good time to speak a little on Eldath's Church.
For the sake of it possibly being taken as off-topic, I'll spoiler tag the body of this post, but I feel it's relevant for the display of behavior for a "Good" church. Plus that one spell at the end.

Hidden: show

Her specialty priests are known as the Peacemen and Peacewomen and Faiths & Avatars has this to say about the church:

"Given the limitations and goals of the specialty priests of Eldath, it should not be surprising that there are not many of them. Only some 10% of the priests of Eldath are specialty priests, called peacemen and peacewomen in the faith. The remainder of the followers are split between druids, clerics, a scant few mystics, and a relatively recently founded monastic order. Clerics, druids, mystics, and monks, while not as restricted as the specialty priests of Eldath, are encouraged to conduct themselves in a fitting fashion as put forth by their deity."

It goes on to also say this,
"Relations between the five branches of the faith are excellent, and both of the more militant wings of the faith are very supportive and protective of the specialty priests, mystics, and monks, who are more retiring."

The adventuring priests are known as Freewalkers.
There is one noted Paladin of Eldath in the FRCS but otherwise they are entirely unmentioned.
Here's one of my favorite spells listed as granted exclusively by Eldath to her priesthood:

Wheel of Bones (Transmutation)
Range: Personal
Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 round/clevel
Casting Time: 1 round
Area of Effect: Special
Saving Throw: None
This spell transforms bone fragments into a fast-spinning pinwheel of many bones that whirl about a limb of the caster chosen during casting. The caster cannot grasp anything with that limb or cast any other spell without ending the wheel of bones, which fades instantly into nothingness when it expires.
The caster can will the spell to end at any time.
  A wheel of bones inflicts 1d6+4 points of damage when a priest hits a foe with it by making a successful attack roll with the limb it surrounds. The wheel of bones can also fire bone shards once per round in addition to any melee attacks the caster may make.

And then we have:
Mold Touch (Transmutation)

Hidden: show

Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Special
Casting Time: 1 round
Area of Affect: One target creature
Saving Throw: Special
This spell empowers the casting priest to transmute its material components into brown mold spores without suffering personal harm. The first creature touched by the caster within six rounds of the casting is infected by brown mold. A successful touch attack roll is required to touch an opponent in combat or one who is not unaware or immobilized. If the caster cannot touch any creature, the mold spires vanish at the end of six rounds.
  The mold spores created by this spell cannot live on plant or inorganic material. All the spores are transferred to the first creature touched by the caster, thus, the caster can infect only one creature per spell. In the event of an accident, this could well be a friend or ally. A mold touch spell inflicts 4d6 points of damage upon the target creature, and half that if the victim makes a successful saving throw vs. spell.
  Brown mold spreads from the contact point rapidly, growing by absorbing body heat. In the process, it chills the victim. In the second round after the attack, the mold inflicts 2d6 points of damage and half that if the victim makes a successful saving throw vs. spell. On every round thereafter, the victim receives a saving throw vs spell. If the saving throw is successful, no damage is taken, and the spell ends. If the saving throw is failed, the victim takes 1d6 points of damage in that round.

[XyrisMourn]

To the OP:

Semantics. This will go around in circles unless you move away from the semantic difference between the various sources being referenced. You are comparing different folk using the term 'evil' in different ways to mean different things. In this instance, there is evil as a concept, which is a value-judgement and has no objective meaning. Then there is evil as a moral absolute in the form of an alignment system.

Lying, deception and poison use are only evil in the first sense. As such, they are subjectively considered by the majority of society to be dishonourable, or morally wrong. You personally may disagree, you are welcome to your opinion, but most would disagree.

HOWEVER, lying, deception & poison use are not evil in the second sense of having an impact on the points that contribute to an alignment system UNLESS THE DM SAYS SO. That means a subjective judgement (the DMs) is made and an objective outcome (more evil points) results.

In most instances only a Paladin would have those points applied, as they are held to be the embodiment of the secondary sense of good (ie morally absolute). Though, if a neutral ranger poisoned a lake and killed a village, there would be a strong case for evil points there too, eh?

Anyway. Try not to confuse an arbitrary and flawed system of absolutes with subjective and ephemeral moral concepts. Or if you do, at least start by reading the reams of material on moral relativism and associated theories that more intelligent folk then us have spent centuries pondering over... Frankly, any response posted here will be a pale imitation of a well-reasoned argument that a wiser person has already had... much like this one

Or just crack on! What people find interesting is subjective too...

[NegInfinity]

I keep ending in the conclusion that we shouldn't be using the alignment system to regard anything related to role play. It's just a petty, flawed and lacking-of-depth system to measure role play.

Er, no, you just need to learn how to cook it. It is actually amazing. You should, however, keep in mind that the world that uses alignment system is very different from ours.

Are you telling me all butchers are chaotic evil? I mean, they murder and slaughter pigs for monetary gain and do it through deception, they don't show the knife until the very last moment, otherwise the meat is stiffer and tastes worse.

If they're doing that for survival, it is neutral act.
If pigs are sentient (int 7+), it is evil act.
If the butcher sets off to murder every pig in the realm, it is also evil act.

I am, apparently, failing to grasp the reasoning behind some things and why they're accepted as they are. So I want to ask everyone here on the forum about them, in an effort to truly understand.

First Topic in this line of Threads: Deception and Poisons, why are they considered inherently Chaotic and/or Evil in nature?

Would be nice to know where you got that idea from, because it seems to me that you draw incorrect conclusions from "paladin of red" thread.

Why is the use of Poison considered an evil act? Even in situations where the use of poison results in lives saved;

The death is not the end in D&D world, there is afterlife, and good and evil deeds do not cancel each other out. A fiend may cause widerspread diseases just to corrupt the paladin, because act of abandoning one's vows may be more important that lives lost, and soul of recently-corrupted paladin may be worth more.

even when the lack of its use can cause widespread disease and destruction, poison is for some reason considered an evil thing. Apparently straight against the face of nature as well, considering all the poisonous and venomous creatures nature has produced, which as we should know, are True Neutral in alignment under the 3.5 system. So why is poison considered evil despite the fact that is seemingly just another part of the system?

Animals are true neutral, because they do not possess high enough judgement to make moral decisions. Anything with int lower than 3 does not have human level of intelligence, and just fends for itself. It is irrelevant to what your character can do.

Animals LIVE on deception as a matter of course.

What your character does has no connection to what your animal can do. Unless you're referring to a race of awakened mountain lions I never heard of.

Why is Deception in all of its forms including Lying, Feinting, Hiding, Sneak Attack, Silent Omission, and any other form you can think of considered an inherently chaotic, and possibly evil, act?

You need to take a look at bigger picture, and not just extrapolate stuff people told you regarding PALADINS.

Good in generally brings hope, values life, and attempts to ease pain of others. Described in book of exhalted deeds.
Evil in general brings suffering, does not values life and brings despair. Described in book of vile darkness.
Chaos means belief in personal freedom. Chaotic character does what she wants.
Law means belief in organized structur and tradition. Lawful character follows her duty and does what she has to.

Also, have you read Book of Vile Darkness (on Evil), Book of Exhalted Deeds (on Good), and player handbook (everything else)? If you haven't, you should.

Hidden: show

The Player’s Handbook says, “‘Evil’implies hurting,oppressing,and killing others.Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualm if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.”
....


INTENT AND CONTEXT
So, does the objective definition of evil imply that intent plays no part in determining what is good and what isn’ t? Only to a degree.

Consider the paladin Zophas.When climbing to the top of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues down the hill,crushing a hut full of commoners.Is Zophas an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good alignment?No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and responsibility. He might attempt to right the inadvertent wrong as best he can.

But what if Zophas’ s friend Shurrin said,“Don’ t climb up there,Zophas!Y ou might start a rock slide that will crush the hut!”Zophas goes anyway.Now is it evil?Probably.Zophas was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of hubris.At this point,Zophas isn’ t exactly a murderer,but he should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.

If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rock slide but climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the owlbears, that’ s clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act.It’ s a high standard,but that’ s
the way it is.

The foregoing text defines three levels of intent:accidental acts, reckless or negligent acts, and intentionally evil misdeeds.Sometimes,however,those categories are insufficient to determine evil intent.You are free to judge an act in the context of other actions.

A maniac puts poison in a town’ s water supply, believing (wrongly) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is that evil? Yes.A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed,so the character pours poison into the town’s water supply.Is that evil? Probably not—at least, not in the context of the rest of the character’ s actions and the circumstances involved. Still, good characters shouldn’ t commit even remotely questionable acts on a large scale unless they’re absolutely sure there’ s no other way to succeed. It’ s rarely a good idea to destroy a town of evil people,because there might be at least a few good people in the town as well.

But let’s make it even more complicated.Another character witnesses the good character about to put poison in the town’ s drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him?No.Again,the intent isn’t evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs—the
other choice the witness has—is far more evil than preventing the poisoning.

Whether deception is chaotic act depends on code being used. Lying is natural thing to do for chaotic or neutral (law/chaos axis) character because those do not concern themselves much with keeping their word. Lawful character, however, is expected to adhere to some kind of rules, and have some kind of honor. Deception can be acceptable for lawful character if their code permits to do so. Devils do that routinely. For follower of helm, whose dogma says "never betray your trust" deception will not be an option. For a banite, however, it will be different story. Deception is considered to be "less lawful" option because lawful characters tend to have habit of keeping their word.

Regarding poison. It would depend on poison. If the poison causes undue suffering (paralyzes you, puts you into state of perpetual pain, and cause you to slowly die by puking your guts out , when the whole process takes 2 weeks and cannot be stopped), it is not a "good" poison. Something that puts target into sleep, however, would be fair game.

It's not my interpretation that I'm questioning. It's everyone else's. To me. Lying is not an inherently chaotic or evil act. To me it is simply another tool to be used. In an of itself deception doesn't have an alignment tied to it.

"Another tool being used" is not a good-aligned way of thinking. When you're willing to use any tool you want to reach your goal, you're on the road to alignment shift, unless you're in CE square already.

Also, wait! Isn't there a Poison spell? Yup!

Erm. Your "tone" implies you're ticked off at something.

"Fireball" doesn't have evil description either. However it doesn't mean you can't use it to roast some peasants, which would be evil act. You can also grab a book with writings of lathander and kill people with it. The book won't be evil, either.

-----

The reason why people objected to deception and feinting in your previous thread is because you wanted to do that as paladin. You know, as a starry-eyed holy warrior of light that should bring hope to the land and right all wrongs. It simply wasn't something paladin would do. If you picked another class, however, it would be different different story. Divine champion, Rogue, Eldritch Knight, Blackguard, etc. Lie all you want.

[NeOmega]

Evil andd good are determined by consequence and motive.
Chaos and law are determined by method.
Deception is chaotic. A paladin would not lie under torture. He would just boldly announce it is pointless to try.
Poison is unnecessary.

[DM Ioulaum]

The short answer is that there exists a short set of principles which all Paladins are considered bound by. These cover situations described by D&D source books which BG:TSCC is based on, as a Forgotten Realms setting. But these rules are only an overlapping framework. There is for example no universal principle against Paladins performing sneak attacks / deceptions, or ambushes, though Paladins commonly take individual vows to avoid such acts. Because they are perceived as dishonorable.

The larger answer is that the use of poison and deception is permitted depending on the circumstances. For example on ones self to develop toxin immunity, or as medicine (becoming poison by degree). Depending on the effect of the poison it is considered dishonorable or even outright evil. It is generally accepted that Paladins should not be cruel, nor cause unnecessary suffering. The use of certain terrible poisons is therefore practically forbidden. In any case most paladins consider the use of poison in battle dishonorable and would have taken personal vows against its use to take down opponents.

Hidden: show

DM Mouse: Now you want the reasoning, not the rules. The Defenders of the Faith source book has this to offer: "Some parties may be leery of you because they would rather keep their options open: lying, cheating, and using all the weapons at their disposal, including poison. You know that these methods breed weakness in those who use them and, like any evil act, create future consequences that are ultimately harmful."

I would add to DM Mouse's citation that in-characterly a Paladin who deceives and uses poison ought to face scorn, wariness, and even ridicule from fellow Paladins, and potentially other folk. In order to join a Paladin order it is moreover commonly required that the Paladin applicant posses an unblemished reputation and impeccable sense of honor. The use of poison and deceptions are therefore likely to disqualify the applicant from joining an organization with higher standards, or may result in his disbarment if he had already joined prior to the dishonor.

Your other implied question was why poison isn't on the Paladin spell list. The answer to that is because Wizards of the Coast and Ed Greenwood feel it doesn't belong on their spell list. Just like they don't get the sneak attack feats either. This presumably reflects the view that the use of poison and sneak attacks is normally considered dishonorable, even if there is no framework rule against it per se. Blackguards for example do get the Poison spell and sneak attack feats, implying that their use fits dishonorable and evil characters. This is sensible because the Poison spell permits the use of some rather painful and cruel poisons, which it does automatically in NWN2.

As you have read the use of poison and deception is not universally forbidden. What is universally forbidden in any case is to willingly bring about evil, even for a supposed greater good, unless ordained by your deity (through a Dungeon Master!). The use of spells or items with the evil descriptor / effect is therefore a universal violation of the paladin code. As are cruelty, causing unnecessary suffering, cowardice, and disloyalty to the deity. The breaking of a personal vow means disloyalty to ones self as a servant of the deity and is therefore also against the code unless there are legitimate reasons, such as a command by your Deity. The consequences depend on the infraction. One wrong act is normally not enough to immediately become a fallen paladin, though consistent cruelty certainly would be. An exception is murder, which normally does mean the Paladin falls from grace.

(This is my personal interpretation, for a definitive answer refer to DM Maecius and DM Mouse)

[Karond]

HOWEVER, lying, deception & poison use are not evil in the second sense of having an impact on the points that contribute to an alignment system UNLESS THE DM SAYS SO. That means a subjective judgement (the DMs) is made and an objective outcome (more evil points) results.

I find it's the other way around. Poison and deception seems to have an absolute morality attached to it, which is why the OP framed his question the way he did. We're not debating why it's evil to use poison for this person but not for this other person, but instead why it's evil to use poison for all individuals. Then the DMs may reinforce the action or not with alignment points, but it doesn't change the fact of what the action is considered as.

I think some answers can be found in what chambordini mentioned, the fact that the alignment system is flawed. It seems static rather than dynamic, since all believable characters would probably perform actions that range across at least 6 of the 9 possible alignments instead of 1 and what they do the most could decide alignment. Now personalities seem forced into a more narrow path.

The alignment system assigns good values to certain things, like honor and truth-telling, so of course the opposite will turn evil (especially for a paladin code). But if speaking the truth has evil consequences? Is it good to remain dutiful and loyal to a mad and evil king? (think Jamie Lannister for a reference). These are problems caused by the alignment system that tends to be ignored or twisted for one's own purpose. Even something like generosity is deemed good, but it may not be so. If you're so rich that your donation is insignificant to you but alot to those who recieve the donation, it's easy to think that you did a good act. Yet beneath the surface we find that one motivation may be to feel better about oneself (ultimately a selfish act), or that you donate so that you'll get the apperance of a good character (done by RL people all the time) which is actually deception. Or worse, it can be viewed as buying a good reputation without any honestly good actions to back it up.

It's a very absolute way to view morality, with the exception being monster races. They're evil because, by and large it's said they kill people, but so do every PC attacking them (innocent or not) and such actions are not evil to them. Torturing a monster race NPC is however absolutely evil. It's one of those exceptions that makes no sense, but is there because of how the game is meant to be played.

[DM Golem]

Moved to Tips & Tricks as this is an RP question.

[Aelcar]

The alignment system is obviously oversimplified because, in spite of how much time we spent on it and how deep it goes at times, this is, in the end, just a game.

LAWFUL/GOOD does not mean that you never commit less than lawful and less than good actions: it just means that, at the end of the day (aka so far in the character's life), summing up all the points, LG is the resulting alignment. The number of points of shift an action grants is by no means fixed, it largely depends on the context, and ultimately that is why it's up to the DMs.

"Respect your father, protect the people, serve the king...but what happens when your father hates the king? What if the king wants to kill the people? Too many oaths..." (that was more or less Jamie Lannister's view on the matter). A Knight sometimes will drop one to uphold the other, with the alignment shifts of the case. A Paladin will not, but he/she generally does not have to: he can sense Evil, and is guided by his divinity.