Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist
Public (OOC) => Setting and Lore Discussion => Topic started by: ViktorYouFool on April 15, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
-
A poisoned blade is the definition of dishonorable, a thing that all proponents of Law and Good should abhor.
.. Why are varnishes better, morally/ethically speaking? They are both rub-on components to to make your weapon inflict greater harm on someone. If poisoning your sword prior to a fight is dishonorable, why is a fire varnish okay? Or an acid varnish?
-
I like these kinds of questions because they require some thought :)
After thinking about it, it seems to me a negative energy varnish would definitely be something a paladin should not use because of the means it uses to inflict harm.
Otherwise, however, I think there are generally two sources for "the definition of dishonorable": either the paladin's own code or external convention, custom, and law.
Because paladins are supposed to be lawful, I personally don't go with the "I have my own personal code I follow" and prefer the latter for determining lawful good, but that's another argument that would derail your topic. If one subscribes to the "personal" code, however, then an individual paladin could say poison itself is okay. But my answer is that the varnishes are okay the same way a magic sword is okay: if those are the customs and practices of "fair" combat generally understood in the milieu and in accord with the paladin's faith.
-
I think in this case it's important to take into account certain other properties of varnishes and poisons.
A weapon coated with a varnish is honest about what it will do, they all apply visual effects and give off light. They aren't subtle.
A poison is generally meant to be undetectable until it is too late, and then it continues to do its work even after the fight if one party retreats or if the one who applied the poison falls.
-
I think part of it is there's an element of deception and trickery with poison. Most blades aren't obviously poisoned. Great lengths are gone to to conseal poisons in food and drinks. While Paladin might not always be forthcoming to a fault, I feel they general don't engage in gross deceptions.
Varnishes are overt. You know exactly what his/her weapon is gonna do. Again, i think it's less additional damage and more about deceptions.
By the same token, would dark fire or holy sword not inflict more damage to someone?
-
After thinking about it, it seems to me a negative energy varnish would definitely be something a paladin should not use because of the means it uses to inflict harm.
Aren't all weapon varnishes meant to inflict harm? I mean. The weapon itself is also meant to inflict harm. That's what weapons are for.
-
Yeah, it's all about being honorable and not "cheating"; here's what the d20srd/PHB say about the general paladin code:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
-
Its also because the implication of a poisoned weapon, along with being hidden, is to kill the opponent slowly or otherwise with just a scratch rather than an honorable victory or defeat. Poisons cripple the opponent, creating an advantage that wouldnt exist before, and in an underhanded manner.
That and poison use is expressly stated as evil.
Also I wouldnt use a negative varnish as a paladin. I'm also reluctant about certain items and potions, if not outright disinclined to use them at all. Its not the fact they cause harm its *how* and what sort of harm.
-
After thinking about it, it seems to me a negative energy varnish would definitely be something a paladin should not use because of the means it uses to inflict harm.
Aren't all weapon varnishes meant to inflict harm? I mean. The weapon itself is also meant to inflict harm. That's what weapons are for.
"Because of the means it uses to inflict harm" (i.e., negative energy). We're trying to differentiate why some means of doing harm are acceptable and some aren't.
I think the points others have made about the nature of poisons (deceit, continuing to harm after the conflict, etc.) are all good.
-
I don't think it's the use of a substance we're talking about, but rather the nature of the substance. So, I don't know if poisoning a blade by NWN terms is necessarily considered ill-doing, but there's no good reason for you to do that anyways. I have a feeling it may be angled more towards killing through deception- Or, in other words- Poisoning someone's wine, an apple, etc, to trick them.
Varnishes are pretty easy to see.
-
In one way, you could approach it by assuming that poison doesn't actually kill (except Pit Fiend Ichor, but even that kills slowly if at all), while paladin doesn't seek to cripple or hurt an enemy; they seek to stop or destroy an enemy.
On the other hand, we may be putting a little too much modern interpretation to this. While paladins are more or less born, they still end up shaped by the culture and society around them. In almost all civilized regions, using poisons would be deemed dishonorable and underhanded. As such, a paladin wouldn't use it either. Part of the reason why paladin always acts honorably is because that code of honor is part of having a good, lawful society. If paladin broke any part of honorable conduct, he would be setting an example saying that it's alright to sometimes break these rules of the society. But paladin is Lawful Good, not Neutral or Chaotic Good. The cause does not justify the means.
Despite what the player's handbook says, I could see a paladin use poison if he came from a society where it's largely acceptable to use poison in duels and fights and hunts. However, should such a paladin be made, I would say that to maintain the spirit of the class and his alignment, one should probably come up with alternative codes of honor. Perhaps such a paladin would refuse to use ranged weapons, for example, seeing them as dishonorable.
-
It really depends on the society the paladin is from, the god they follow, and the order they belong to. If any of those conflict with the use of poison then the paladin should not make use of it without violating the law, their god, or their code.
Varnishes are different because they are the equivalent of a magically-enchanted weapon. A greatsword coated in an oily varnish and set ablaze is no different than a +1 fiery burst greatsword. If for some reason one of the three things above would conflict with the idea of using such a weapon then the paladin should not make use.
Note that I said should not, not cannot. A paladin can do anything. He just might get in trouble for that thing.
-
Well, I can tell you exactly what Lex says about varnishes : alchemy is blasphemous. *sage nod*
-
Actually it doesn't matter about culture whatsoever. As per the rulebooks, DnD settings which include Ravenloft are settings with Objective morality, which is not subjective - which is to say, cultural. Based on this, if a culture approves of poisons, that culture is evil, and a paladin in that culture would defy that convention and refuse it, or they would fall. Keep in mind that morality can still - and usually is - subjective for the individual in DnD. An individual can and will view certains acts as good or evil. However, their point of view does not override the overarching principle of Objective Morality, which we are playing in.
Also with the use of poisons in particular, use of poison is expressly listed as an evil act, in any situation. There was writing of exceptions to this, called Ravages - which only affected those of evil disposition, such as fiends, being of divine origin. But we are talking about poisons.
Varnishes are different to this, to a degree, by dint of the fact that they align in the category of spells such as greater magic weapon, bless weapon, deafening clang, and holy sword, which are all paladin specific and behave in a manner similar to a varnish (with the likely exception being a negative varnish, considering what it is derived from and what it is). Poisons are designed to win a fight in a dishonorable means, and are based around malice and spite as an action. Using one in such a manner, a cowardly manner overall, is an evil act for its baseness.
-
Also with the use of poisons in particular, use of poison is expressly listed as an evil act, in any situation.
Where is this stated?
-
As per Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness, it expressly states that DnD works off an Objective morality system rather than a real world Subjective Morality system. This is the basis for having such abilties as detect and smite evil/good, protection from good/law/chaos/evil spells. These would not exist in a subjective setting, or at least not in the same means.
Ah, an edit. On Page 34 of the Book of Exalted Deeds, it states the following, and involves a caveat I found surprising:
"Using Poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons listed in the Dungeon Masters Guide, only one is acceptable for Good characters to use: Oil of Taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness."
That's fairly clear as to why it is viewed as evil, and the exception explains why quite well.
-
As per Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness, it expressly states that DnD works off an Objective morality system rather than a real world Subjective Morality system. This is the basis for having such abilties as detect and smite evil/good, protection from good/law/chaos/evil spells. These would not exist in a subjective setting, or at least not in the same means.
Ah, an edit. On Page 34 of the Book of Exalted Deeds, it states the following, and involves a caveat I found surprising:
"Using Poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons listed in the Dungeon Masters Guide, only one is acceptable for Good characters to use: Oil of Taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness."
That's fairly clear as to why it is viewed as evil, and the exception explains why quite well.
So all poison is actually not evil, even by the book of Exalted Deeds.
It's also, in the end, questionable if supplement books needed to be treated as wholly canon when those books are given as purely optional. DM or campaign setting can easily rule otherwise. I think we have previously not been entirely into using stuff from The Book of Vile Darkness for example.
For Ravenlot, poison is not mentioned in the evil acts in regards of stuff that warrants DP checks. The section regarding the use of poison in Dungeon Master's Guide also doesn't say that poison was evil.
I also didn't say that morality needed to be subjective, however honor and what is lawful and what is not does depend on the cultural context, because laws and expectations change as well. Being lawful is about honoring these contracts and honoring the culture of a society unless this somehow contradicts with other beliefs of a character. So, in one culture, ranged weapons in duels might be considered dishonorable and by extension a paladin from that culture would be breaking this code of honor by using a ranged weapon in duel. Yet a paladin from another culture might not have such a problem in another context.
-
PHB is a core book and such books take precedence over other books unless explicitly contradicted. As such, since it’s indicated in the PHB, using poison would go against a paladin’s code and would cause a fall. There’s no subjectivity involved. A paladin is held to a higher morale/standard than the culture they come from.
Edit: Since it’s part of the paladin’s code, a paladin using poison would technically warrant a powers check, same as if they were lying or cheating. Not because it’s necessarily evil but because they are breaking their code.
-
PHB is a core book and such books take precedence over other books unless explicitly contradicted. As such, since it’s indicated in the PHB, using poison would go against a paladin’s code and would cause a fall. There’s no subjectivity involved. A paladin is held to a higher morale/standard than the culture they come from.
Edit: Since it’s part of the paladin’s code, a paladin using poison would technically warrant a powers check, same as if they were lying or cheating. Not because it’s necessarily evil but because they are breaking their code.
If I was running a campaign, I'd assume that the stuff inside the parentheses is examples of what is typically considered honorful/dishonorful, rather than hard rules. But either way, even if we take that paladin can never use poison without risking falling, there continues to be a question for why paladin wouldn't use poison. The paladin has to have a somesort of a reason for it. I think explaining it via his cultural background is the most feasible way to explain it for the paladin. I don't see it, in the end, as very different whether the paladin is using acid or poison, other than that one is dishonorable from some reason while the other is not.
-
Let's not forget that one of the Blackguard's abilities is Poison Weapon. Even if from a mechanical point of view, this definitely adds to the fact that poisoning a weapon is considered evil.
-
PHB is a core book and such books take precedence over other books unless explicitly contradicted. As such, since it’s indicated in the PHB, using poison would go against a paladin’s code and would cause a fall. There’s no subjectivity involved. A paladin is held to a higher morale/standard than the culture they come from.
Edit: Since it’s part of the paladin’s code, a paladin using poison would technically warrant a powers check, same as if they were lying or cheating. Not because it’s necessarily evil but because they are breaking their code.
If I was running a campaign, I'd assume that the stuff inside the parentheses is examples of what is typically considered honorful/dishonorful, rather than hard rules. But either way, even if we take that paladin can never use poison without risking falling, there continues to be a question for why paladin wouldn't use poison. The paladin has to have a somesort of a reason for it. I think explaining it via his cultural background is the most feasible way to explain it for the paladin. I don't see it, in the end, as very different whether the paladin is using acid or poison, other than that one is dishonorable from some reason while the other is not.
In an individual campaign, the DM has virtually unlimited flexibility interpreting the rules. Considering that two experienced, professional judges who have made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States often disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted, it's not surprising that we have disagreement when we have all these various sources that were not written (or proofread) nearly as carefully as most law.
In terms of POTM specifics, it of course comes down to how the Team interprets those rules.
It's nice to have something of a rational explanation, though, for why acid and poison are not the same. (And IMO several people have offered viable reasons.)
-
PHB is a core book and such books take precedence over other books unless explicitly contradicted. As such, since it’s indicated in the PHB, using poison would go against a paladin’s code and would cause a fall. There’s no subjectivity involved. A paladin is held to a higher morale/standard than the culture they come from.
Edit: Since it’s part of the paladin’s code, a paladin using poison would technically warrant a powers check, same as if they were lying or cheating. Not because it’s necessarily evil but because they are breaking their code.
If I was running a campaign, I'd assume that the stuff inside the parentheses is examples of what is typically considered honorful/dishonorful, rather than hard rules. But either way, even if we take that paladin can never use poison without risking falling, there continues to be a question for why paladin wouldn't use poison. The paladin has to have a somesort of a reason for it. I think explaining it via his cultural background is the most feasible way to explain it for the paladin. I don't see it, in the end, as very different whether the paladin is using acid or poison, other than that one is dishonorable from some reason while the other is not.
It's completely arbitrary if you want to get philosophical. Using a poison that weakens you is no more underhanded than calling upon divine energy to smite you harder, it's just assumed that your good god were prefer the latter. What is "honorable" is also subjective. Suicide for a medieval knight is not only dishonorable but a sin and probably an evil act, to a Samurai it's a totally different thing and in many cases quite honorable.
Good and evil are funny things, largely they are also cultural. In the end it's a game, and it has rules, and this is one of them.
Paladins on the whole are the most narrow minded and over thought class definitions going. What was essentially designed as a Grail Knight archetype has since been expanded to include much more but it seems to have always held the restrictions of that original archetype which is of course Christian and Western in origin. I don't agree with that and have had my share of debates on "honor" as a player of an Elven Paladin but this is one of those things that does not really seem worth the energy to battle over.
Still it's hardly an earth shattering restriction. It's not going to ruin most concepts.
-
I wonder if the move to NWN:EE would enable us to have the alternate paladin classes from Unearthed Arcane (Where there is version for each extreme alignment; Paladin of Freedom, Tyranny, and Slaughter).
-
Depends on the context and situation of using a poison.
What if a certain evil dragon can only be harmed by a particular poison? Would it be dishonorable to use his brains and avoid casualties by utilizing such?
The paladin could even be completely forth-right with his enemy about his blade's lining/coating. I wouldn't see that as dishonorable, example:
[Evil McGuffin]: "You cannot win this, Sir Goody Paladinson!"
[Goody Paladinson]: "But I am prepared for you this time, I have coated my weapon in a special treat for you."
-
Depends on the context and situation of using a poison.
What if a certain evil dragon can only be harmed by a particular poison? Would it be dishonorable to use his brains and avoid casualties by utilizing such?
The paladin could even be completely forth-right with his enemy about his blade's lining/coating. I wouldn't see that as dishonorable, example:
[Evil McGuffin]: "You cannot win this, Sir Goody Paladinson!"
[Goody Paladinson]: "But I am prepared for you this time, I have coated my weapon in a special treat for you."
In this instance you would likely see Sir Paladinson acting as the party's shield while someone else involved the poisoned blades. Even then, they may chastise party members for it or have to atone for permitting it for the sake of the greater good.
-
Depends on the context and situation of using a poison.
What if a certain evil dragon can only be harmed by a particular poison? Would it be dishonorable to use his brains and avoid casualties by utilizing such?
The paladin could even be completely forth-right with his enemy about his blade's lining/coating. I wouldn't see that as dishonorable, example:
[Evil McGuffin]: "You cannot win this, Sir Goody Paladinson!"
[Goody Paladinson]: "But I am prepared for you this time, I have coated my weapon in a special treat for you."
In this instance you would likely see Sir Paladinson acting as the party's shield while someone else involved the poisoned blades. Even then, they may chastise party members for it or have to atone for permitting it for the sake of the greater good.
I think the important part of the 'poison' is it's underhandedness. I wouldn't think that a paladin using a poison that kills undead, or an evil dragon, or some other equally abominable evil would be seen as something wrong, especially given the paladin announced his intention.
-
Actually its the 'undue suffering' part which makes it a no-no. Also poison won't affect undead. There 'was' a caveat made in Exalted Deeds for a thing called 'Ravages' which were designed to affect those of fiendish or truly evil nature. They're a bit odd though, frankly.
-
I am thinking what question about using varnishes(and alchemy in general) it is more about styles of paladins and how they like to fight with evil.
Does Sir Paladinson accepts modern view on alchemy/magic and accepts spells from wizard and uses alchemic varnishes?
Or Sir Paladinson can trust only and only to cleric of good and respectful deity to enchant his weapon?
Also it is need to add what I witnessed many times when paladins was refusing using negative energy varnishes.
Though varnishes is oil for weapon just like poison. I think if there was varnishes with bleeding/draining/poisoning effects, then they was not accepteble by paladins. But right now because they serve as cheap replacement of spells - I think this can be fairly used.
-
I wonder if the move to NWN:EE would enable us to have the alternate paladin classes from Unearthed Arcane (Where there is version for each extreme alignment; Paladin of Freedom, Tyranny, and Slaughter).
No. Unearthed Arcana is for a D&D 5e setting. It is a different set of rules. It is not required anyway with 3.5e rules as we have the Blackguard prestige class to fill that niche. And the Divine Champion class for any desired alignment.
-
I wonder if the move to NWN:EE would enable us to have the alternate paladin classes from Unearthed Arcane (Where there is version for each extreme alignment; Paladin of Freedom, Tyranny, and Slaughter).
No. Unearthed Arcana is for a D&D 5e setting. It is a different set of rules. It is not required anyway with 3.5e rules as we have the Blackguard prestige class to fill that niche. And the Divine Champion class for any desired alignment.
No? No. That's not correct. There is an edition of Unearthed Arcana from 3.5 (which is the book I am refering to).
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/410987606868754434/435792647882539018/unknown.png?width=221&height=300)
-
I thought you were referring to the 3.5 edition. Honestly though the 'any alignment' paladin is a horrific box of crappy worms. UA has some rather nonsense stuff in it tbh.
-
PHB is a core book and such books take precedence over other books unless explicitly contradicted. As such, since it’s indicated in the PHB, using poison would go against a paladin’s code and would cause a fall. There’s no subjectivity involved. A paladin is held to a higher morale/standard than the culture they come from.
Edit: Since it’s part of the paladin’s code, a paladin using poison would technically warrant a powers check, same as if they were lying or cheating. Not because it’s necessarily evil but because they are breaking their code.
BOOM! PWNED, OWNED, thanks very much, and goodnight everyone. Question answered without the need for all this wishy washy perspective nonsense, can we all go back to smiting evil dragons, and not using poisons with our paladins and have some fun.
-
Heh... I forgot the existence of that forgetable book. I will review it again see if I find anything of interest to add for the mod. But we are most unlikely to change restrictions on paladin's alignments.
-
I am not even sure why the poison topic is being debated. Paladins do not accept or condone the use of poison, it's an evil act - period.
PHB is a core book and such books take precedence over other books unless explicitly contradicted. As such, since it’s indicated in the PHB, using poison would go against a paladin’s code and would cause a fall. There’s no subjectivity involved. A paladin is held to a higher morale/standard than the culture they come from.
Edit: Since it’s part of the paladin’s code, a paladin using poison would technically warrant a powers check, same as if they were lying or cheating. Not because it’s necessarily evil but because they are breaking their code.
BOOM! PWNED, OWNED, thanks very much, and goodnight everyone. Question answered without the need for all this wishy washy perspective nonsense, can we all go back to smiting evil dragons, and not using poisons with our paladins and have some fun.
Now moving away from poisons, the question in the OP was about varnishes. This warrants a discussion in perspective and religion, and I think varies from Paladin to Paladin.
While I am sure if I had a paladin of Tyr who would embrace any advantage in warfare to serve the 'greater good', I have a paladin of the Creator who does not believe in the greater good, and whose faith and personal opinion finds the use of brains, hearts, guts, flesh, bones, and other body parts once belonging to a living creature abhorrent and evil. He has, since coming to ravenloft, made logical concessions to use varnishes made from non organ reagents - such as dust, ash, residue, and stone parts - But this is a tough angle to take, because you have to suspend FR paladins and the concept of the greater good, and realize that a man who believes power and purity is derived of all of creation is going to find alchemy evil or at the very least, iffy.
The greater good is a concept that suggests that it's OK to do something dark or evil if it serves the forces of good (like using body parts in a magical ointment on your weapon, or killing all the Jedi children in order to join the dark side and protect your wife and babies or whatever Vader's contrived reason was). however, if you believe there is never a free pass to do something dark or evil for the sake of good, and that there is a wrong path and a right path and you have to make hard choices (this is why you're a paladin and not a Divine Champion), then you're probably not going to use varnishes either if the very practice of using brains and guts blasphemies creation.
This is an example of how a culture or a religion can cause someone to view Alchemy like they view poisons. Like I started out, a paladin of Tyr would not agree at all. Being a paladin is not easy, and you have to make hard choices even if they are against your advantage in order to stay true to your paladin's unshakable faith.
-
Everyone is open to their own interpretation I suppose.
I would argue that poison use is not 'inherently evil' but in most cases it is underhanded and given the right circumstance would certainly be 'evil'.
I'm not sure why using a poison, announcing it, and the usage being focused on something like an evil dragon, or some other evil creature, would somehow end up being constituted as an evil act.
Whether or not it's honorable, is an argument that could be made, but I don't know if honor and pragmatism are completely exclusive.
Regardless, varnishes are by no way underhanded, and certainly have no inherent alignment usage. If you use good holy magic to kill innocents, it's still evil. Similarly, if you use 'negative' varnishes to kill evil beasts, it could not be in any way considered 'evil'.
-
Regardless, varnishes are by no way underhanded, and certainly have no inherent alignment usage. If you use good holy magic to kill innocents, it's still evil. Similarly, if you use 'negative' varnishes to kill evil beasts, it could not be in any way considered 'evil'.
This argument is a non sequitur because the proper treatment of innocent (good) creatures is distinct from the proper treatment of evil creatures. For example, torturing good creatures is evil; torturing evil creatures is also evil.
Freeing a falsely accused innocent from jail is good, yet imprisoning an evildoer on a false charge is still bad.
That starving a good person is wrong does not make either feeding or starving an evil person good.
From these and countless other examples, it's clear that one can't treat the two cases as some kind of mathematical inverse function.
If a substance or action is evil, using it against an evil beast does not then make it good. Negative energy, like necromancy, is in D&D terms associated with death and the undead--pretty dark stuff for a paladin (who turns undead and channels positive energy).
-
Everyone is open to their own interpretation I suppose.
I would argue that poison use is not 'inherently evil' but in most cases it is underhanded and given the right circumstance would certainly be 'evil'.
I'm not sure why using a poison, announcing it, and the usage being focused on something like an evil dragon, or some other evil creature, would somehow end up being constituted as an evil act.
Whether or not it's honorable, is an argument that could be made, but I don't know if honor and pragmatism are completely exclusive.
Regardless, varnishes are by no way underhanded, and certainly have no inherent alignment usage. If you use good holy magic to kill innocents, it's still evil. Similarly, if you use 'negative' varnishes to kill evil beasts, it could not be in any way considered 'evil'.
I don't think given everything I've read in the Book of Vile Deeds, or any core rule book, that using a negative energy varnish is inherently evil, in the same way that casting negative energy ray is not automatically an evil act, but what is important is not to confuse actions that require a dark powers check, and doing evil. You can still take actions that require a dark powers check in Ravenloft without doing evil, this is the slippery slope that all spellcaster have to be wary of. For example in Ravenloft casting necromancy spells still requires a dark powers check regardless of why your doing it, so a neutral wizard can cast negative energy ray on a goblin, according to the variant rule it would trigger a dark power check, but it's not evil, if your just dispatching a goblin with that particular spell, because it's a spell that's available to you. So I see no distinction between using a negative energy spell and using a negative energy varnish.
However I don't have any reason to think that using the varnish requires a dark powers check either, even if it is negative energy, that's important to state, but certainly things associated with negative energy for anyone who isn't a wizard or a sorcerer would be considered very taboo, since none spellcasters typically see little difference between spells of any kind without rigorous learning and the many years of study arcane magic (certainly for wizards) requires to comprehend and to learn.
-
Regardless, varnishes are by no way underhanded, and certainly have no inherent alignment usage. If you use good holy magic to kill innocents, it's still evil. Similarly, if you use 'negative' varnishes to kill evil beasts, it could not be in any way considered 'evil'.
Freeing a falsely accused innocent from jail is good, yet imprisoning an evildoer on a false charge is still bad.
That would be lawful vs chaotic
-
Regardless, varnishes are by no way underhanded, and certainly have no inherent alignment usage. If you use good holy magic to kill innocents, it's still evil. Similarly, if you use 'negative' varnishes to kill evil beasts, it could not be in any way considered 'evil'.
Freeing a falsely accused innocent from jail is good, yet imprisoning an evildoer on a false charge is still bad.
That would be lawful vs chaotic
I think knowingly punishing someone for a crime she didn't commit is evil, regardless of whether the defendant is a nice person or not. Would your position be the same if the punishment were execution, rather than imprisonment?
-
Doesn't have much to do with my personal opinion on things, but simply the way it goes in D&D. Getting someone you know has murdered people but you can't (for whatever reason) get nailed for that imprisoned for something else would be a chaotic act, not an evil one per D&D alignment.
-
Doesn't have much to do with my personal opinion on things, but simply the way it goes in D&D. Getting someone you know has murdered people but you can't (for whatever reason) get nailed for that imprisoned for something else would be a chaotic act, not an evil one per D&D alignment.
Cite?
In any case, nowhere was it stipulated the person in question had committed any murder.
The person is assumed only to be of evil alignment.
-
This argument is a non sequitur because the proper treatment of innocent (good) creatures is distinct from the proper treatment of evil creatures. For example, torturing good creatures is evil; torturing evil creatures is also evil.
I was not attempting to propose that all violent or harmful actions against evil creatures are good, and it is not really non-sequitor, it follows completely what we're talking about.
Usage of negative energy is not inherently evil, there really isn't any debate around that, it's just simply using the energy. My point follows concisely, that it matters how it is being used, or why it is being used, not what is being used.
Of course, I agree that for the layman Paladin, or goodly Cleric, they would probably assume negative energy is 'wrong-bad-thing' and never use it. That doesn't mean using it is actually evil, but that there is a connotation, or general assumption that it is 'evil'.
Freeing a falsely accused innocent from jail is good, yet imprisoning an evildoer on a false charge is still bad.
That starving a good person is wrong does not make either feeding or starving an evil person good.
From these and countless other examples, it's clear that one can't treat the two cases as some kind of mathematical inverse function.
I agree with all of these points, with the exception of pointing out that some of these examples are ambiguous, given that you did not mention whether the people knowingly wrongfully accuse, or starve a person.
If a substance or action is evil, using it against an evil beast does not then make it good. Negative energy, like necromancy, is in D&D terms associated with death and the undead--pretty dark stuff for a paladin (who turns undead and channels positive energy).
I have to completely disagree with you here, as I've previously stated it has very little to do with what is being used, but how and why. Of course, in a roleplay perspective there is nothing wrong with characters thinking "Negative is bad!" and "Holy is good!" but in reality, these do not in any way directly translate to the actual alignments. I reiterate again, it's about why and how it is being used.
-
What was a non sequitur was seeming to use treatment of a good or innocent person as being deterministic (or relevant) for judging how to treat an evil person:
If you use good holy magic to kill innocents, it's still evil. Similarly...
The two are disjoint, not similar.
-
I could easily see a paladin using a fire varnish. Fire is often seen as a cleansing agent. Negative energy, no, for obvious reasons. Acid also seems cruel by nature and thus a no as well.