DM Believes Poisons Are Evil

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
My DM believes all poisons are evil (because paladins aren't allowed to use them) and any usage is an instant-evil alignment.  Does anyone have any advice on how to convince him otherwise?  I wish to play a ranger and I think poisons (especially venoms) would be fitting for him.
I recommend arguing about alignment during the game until everyone throws away the concept of alignment. It's been done for years. There are some threads in the What's a DM to Do forums about alignment. There may be some good advice there. If not, perhaps a new thread in that section about your problem will get more attention.

What if you just let him have his way and play an evil ranger? When you have "evil" on your character sheet, that's like a power that lets you do whatever you want whenever you want. 
Point to poisons that do not kill, but have other effects, such as slowing a target, weakening them, etc. Also, I'm pretty sure I've read of real-world tribes that used poisons for hunting, so finding some articles on those might make him feel otherwise.

Chances are, however, you are not going to change his mind on the subject, so be prepared to change your character concept. That seems like such a minor aspect of the game, I wouldn't want to get into a shouting match over it.
Also, has he ever played the video game Skyrim? Poisons are not only common use, but very effective when fighting monsters and such. I still feel like a hero when I use Frostbite Venom on my bow to help take out an enemy. And I harvest that directly from the big mean spiders I kill. Win-win.
I think I read somewhere that poison could be considered Chaotic, for putting the emphasis on what happens rather than how it happens, rather than evil, as melee death can be much more brutal. Rule 0: all of the rule-books are merely suggestions.

I imagine that a paladin still wouldn't want to use poison, becuase:

If they feel that an enemy is so powerful and evil that he cannot be allowed to live, then he is probably the kind of person that would respond to a failed assassination attempt by burning villages to the ground until he finds his assassin and any accomplices.

If a hero is not smart enough to bring enough allies against this villain to make ABSOLUTELY certain that they will kill him, then the paladin would want the villain to know that, when he kills the paladin that tried to kill him, he does not need to punish everybody who might have been involved because there was clearly no one else involved if the paladin just attacked him outright.

On the other hand, if he survived being poisoned, then he has no idea who tried to kill him (except that there had to be more than one person involved) and wouldn't care who he killed/tortured trying to find out. If he was not the kind of person to raze villiages when he does not know who to punish specifically, then he probably isn't dangerous enough that heroes would be talking about assassination in the first place.

Again, the DM and party could agree on a house rule that poison use is chaotic, not evil, and the ranger shouldn't have a problem.

Another option:
easydamus.com/alignmenttracking.html&nbs...

Founder - but not owner - of Just Say Yes!

Member of LGBT Gamers

Odds are, if 4-6 people can't figure out an answer you thought was obvious, you screwed up, not them. - JeffGroves
Which is why a DM should present problems to solve, not solutions to find. -FlatFoot
Why there should be the option to use alignment systems:
Show
If some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan (RIP)
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.

 

I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?"

 

than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" -YagamiFire

My DM believes all poisons are evil (because paladins aren't allowed to use them) and any usage is an instant-evil alignment.  Does anyone have any advice on how to convince him otherwise?  I wish to play a ranger and I think poisons (especially venoms) would be fitting for him.



Paladins won't use poison because they have been bamboozled by the Anti-poison lobbyists into believing that it is the poison that kills people, and not the people using the poisons.

Seriously, for Paladins, it is just an honor thing. Poisons are seen as a dishonorable weapon, used by the sly and the weak. Paladins are supposd to be better than that.

That being said, In several editions of D&D, the use of poisons was considered an evil act, which would shift your alignment when used too often, with no regards to lethality. This, I believe, was ditched in 3.x, and is a non-issue in 4E because there are no mechanical effects for alignment in 4E.
My DM say that using poison 3 times changes your alignment to evil. I think I read somewhere that it is 5 times. Who is right?
My DM say that using poison 3 times changes your alignment to evil. I think I read somewhere that it is 5 times. Who is right?


Both.  Ever hear of houserules?

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
What is official rule on this? I see in the other alignment threads that everything is official and objective when it come to alignment. There must be an answer for this.
So what if it is evil? Let him change your alignment to evil, and then keep playing your character the same way you always have.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

So what if it is evil? Let him change your alignment to evil, and then keep playing your character the same way you always have.



Except there is an existing prohibition of Paladins not using poisons, which means he is playing "not 4E." In "not 4E," Rangers lose their powers if they are any non-Good alignment.

So what if it is evil? Let him change your alignment to evil, and then keep playing your character the same way you always have.

Except there is an existing prohibition of Paladins not using poisons, which means he is playing "not 4E." In "not 4E," Rangers lose their powers if they are any non-Good alignment.

Not in 3.5.

Still, I recommend the player call the DM's bluff on this. The DM makes him evil, the player shrugs and keeps playing how he was, sans powers, until the DM realizes that the character still is good and relents.




If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

My DM believes all poisons are evil (because paladins aren't allowed to use them) and any usage is an instant-evil alignment.  Does anyone have any advice on how to convince him otherwise?  I wish to play a ranger and I think poisons (especially venoms) would be fitting for him.



"So, I use a poison to knock someone unconscious so I don't risk killing them ... and that's evil?"  Not all poisons are lethal, or painful.

A poison is just a tool.  It is neither good nor evil, merely a thing.

If poison use is evil, why aren't poisonous snakes and insects evil?

Alcohol is a poison.  Are barkeeps all evil?

Water can be a poison in sufficient quantity.  Is the Earth evil, because it's 2/3rds water?
Ay dios mio, that is true! Now I don't feel bad about killing the barkeep the last time the party was at the inn. I thought he looked suspicious.

Also, I detect evil on the Earth. And technically if a person who has poison is on the earth, that mean the earth is guilty of possession. Possession is 9/10th of the law! I smite the Earth! 
My DM believes all poisons are evil (because paladins aren't allowed to use them) and any usage is an instant-evil alignment.  Does anyone have any advice on how to convince him otherwise?  I wish to play a ranger and I think poisons (especially venoms) would be fitting for him.



"So, I use a poison to knock someone unconscious so I don't risk killing them ... and that's evil?"  Not all poisons are lethal, or painful.

A poison is just a tool.  It is neither good nor evil, merely a thing.

If poison use is evil, why aren't poisonous snakes and insects evil?

Alcohol is a poison.  Are barkeeps all evil?

Water can be a poison in sufficient quantity.  Is the Earth evil, because it's 2/3rds water?

Paladins don't use poison because it is dishonorable to do so. Cart. Horse.

In the game, oil of taggit is the only poison that I can remember that does 0 damage and renders unconscious. I think it's also listed in the description as the only poison usable by good guys. Oil of taggit, works for me!

Yes, poison is a tool. It's use is considered an evil act because it eliminates the possibility of a fair fight, and generally causes needless suffering, etc.

Snakes and insects have a 2 or less intelligence. They don't know better. Except for black widow spiders. Those are evil as all get-out.

Since alcohol is digestible and has calories, it is technically a food, albeit an intoxicant. Its misuse is evil.

A LOT of water must be taken in to cause any damage. The damage is due to a bursting of cells due to a physical reaction, not a chemical reaction.

As DM, I try to discourage good characters from using poison. It's typically illegal. At any rate, I give less XP when poison is used, since poison generally eliminates much of the challenge. That's not to say I won't give role-playing bonuses to an evil character who dreams up a clever way to get close enough to a powerful enemy in order to administer the poison.

Why is your character REALLY interested in using poison? I think answering that question will tell you a lot about your character. Maybe your ranger IS somewhat evil, or at least neutral. He wants to use poisons and venoms. That alone makes me wonder how good he really is. He's a character in a story. If he's evil so be it. Don't some cultures use poison arrows for catching food? That would be more neutral than evil. If the DM dont' want you to use poison, all he has to do is make it unavailable. A better solution is to just let you play the ranger that way. Eventually he'll poison himself.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Ay dios mio, that is true! Now I don't feel bad about killing the barkeep the last time the party was at the inn. I thought he looked suspicious.

Also, I detect evil on the Earth. And technically if a person who has poison is on the earth, that mean the earth is guilty of possession. Possession is 9/10th of the law! I smite the Earth! 

POWER ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
My DM say that using poison 3 times changes your alignment to evil. I think I read somewhere that it is 5 times. Who is right?


Both.  Ever hear of houserules?

Whoever is DM at the time is correct.

At any rate, I don't think there should be some magic number of when the alignment changes. Looking for those magic numbers is why alignment debates exist.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Poison through history and myths does not have a good reputation of being used in honorable ways or having honorable results.

Good characters should avoid it.

Unless you're planning on using a sleeping posion to take someone alive and to prevent the deaths of others during a one time situation you're going to need a good explaination for doing so.

Poison through history and myths does not have a good reputation of being used in honorable ways or having honorable results.

Good characters should avoid it.

Even if they have no relation to or conception of our history and myths?

Unless you're planning on using a sleeping posion to take someone alive and to prevent the deaths of others during a one time situation you're going to need a good explaination for doing so.

Not if the DM understands "Yes, and...."

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Paladins don't use poison because it is dishonorable to do so. Cart. Horse.



And who is the adjudicator of what is honorable and dishonorable?  And who says my Paladin can't do dishonorable things?
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
My DM doesn't allow evil characters in campaigns--at all.  If they are evil, they are immediately sent their own way.
My DM doesn't allow evil characters in campaigns--at all.  If they are evil, they are immediately sent their own way.

He's got some major trust issues then. Here's the thing: from what I can tell, you didn't decide you were playing an evil character, he did. He's the one deciding that your character is evil. And if he'd decide that based on this, who knows what basis he'll pull out next time. Just let him do it, and make another character until you figure out what hoops you need to jump through to be allowed to play the game.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Poison through history and myths does not have a good reputation of being used in honorable ways or having honorable results.

Good characters should avoid it.

Even if they have no relation to or conception of our history and myths?

Unless you're planning on using a sleeping posion to take someone alive and to prevent the deaths of others during a one time situation you're going to need a good explaination for doing so.

Not if the DM understands "Yes, and...."




I'm unsure who's myths you are speaking of.

In Greek Mythology Herculese used poison to slay his foes. Romeo and Juliet used posion with unfortnate results do misunderstanding.  In Babylon 5 posion was used to control or eliminate rivals. Posion on the whole is not a postive thing in society.

Anyone can argue the use for poison in a game.  But in the end the DM has final say.  Unless you can create a good argument that the DM can relate to it's not going to work.

Perhaps you should specifically explain why you beleive poison should be used in yoru game so we can help you create a more convincing argument.

Paladins don't use poison because it is dishonorable to do so. Cart. Horse.

Dishonorable by some codes of conduct, but not others.  If you are talking about "fair fight" here, ok.  But if you are talking about inflicting a little pain as possible or something like that then the area gets fuzzier.

Yes, poison is a tool. It's use is considered an evil act because it eliminates the possibility of a fair fight, and generally causes needless suffering, etc.

Generally and always aren't the same thing.  Consider the Bail Bond enforcer who hunts down criminals and uses non-lethal poison to take them out without endangering the people around them.  Sure they could come up and challenge the person, but that might lead to a shoot out where innocents get hurt.  If a stray bit of sleeping poison gets into a bystander it is much less likely to be damaging than a stray bullet.

As DM, I try to discourage good characters from using poison. It's typically illegal.

Being illegal sounds like an ok thing, if that is in your game setting.

At any rate, I give less XP when poison is used, since poison generally eliminates much of the challenge.

That seems like an uneeded punishment for your players playing like they want to play.  But then again I think exp in general should be done away with so there are a lot of issues I have with this particular section.

That's not to say I won't give role-playing bonuses to an evil character who dreams up a clever way to get close enough to a powerful enemy in order to administer the poison.

Why not give that same thing to the good-aligned character?  Say they are trying to dethrone a corrupt king.  If the king is conscious when the PCs get there they will have to fight the guards and may kill/wound some or many of the guards who are just doing their duty.  If they instead find a way to poison him to make him lethargic and weak they can waltz in, dethrone him and take him away somewhere else while a new rightgeous king is crowned.  Seems pretty good to me.

Why is your character REALLY interested in using poison? I think answering that question will tell you a lot about your character. Maybe your ranger IS somewhat evil, or at least neutral.

Here is the important bit.  "Maybe" he is, but then again why not let him not be evil?  This can be a big point in the game where the player justifies his actions.  When people comment on him using venom from snakes to fight with he asks why the elf is using horsehair for his bow.  If it isn't evil for the wizard to summon a venomous spider to fight on their side and isn't evil for the druid to shapeshift into a spider to fight on their side why is it evil for him to use poison?

He wants to use poisons and venoms. That alone makes me wonder how good he really is.

Right, so you ask "I don't see it, but I trust you have a justification.  See if the justification flies.  If it doesn't fly with you, does the rest of the group seem perfectly ok with the explanation?

He's a character in a story. If he's evil so be it. Don't some cultures use poison arrows for catching food? That would be more neutral than evil.

Again, he pretty clearly doesn't want the character to be evil.  Also, why would "using poison to catch food" be evil at all?  Its like saying one group is evil because they use "pit traps" rather than shooting it with a bow.  Is snaring a rabbit more or less evil than hitting it with a stone from a sling?

If the DM dont' want you to use poison, all he has to do is make it unavailable. A better solution is to just let you play the ranger that way.

Wait, you might be on a train to better-DMing town.

Eventually he'll poison himself.

Nevermind.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Poison through history and myths does not have a good reputation of being used in honorable ways or having honorable results.

Good characters should avoid it.

Even if they have no relation to or conception of our history and myths?

Unless you're planning on using a sleeping posion to take someone alive and to prevent the deaths of others during a one time situation you're going to need a good explaination for doing so.

Not if the DM understands "Yes, and...."




I'm unsure who's myths you are speaking of.

In Greek Mythology Herculese used poison to slay his foes. Romeo and Juliet used posion with unfortnate results do misunderstanding.  In Babylon 5 posion was used to control or eliminate rivals. Posion on the whole is not a postive thing in society.

Anyone can argue the use for poison in a game.  But in the end the DM has final say.  Unless you can create a good argument that the DM can relate to it's not going to work.

Perhaps you should specifically explain why you beleive poison should be used in yoru game so we can help you create a more convincing argument.




Honestly, in a RP game with friends we should be able to play outside of common tropes.  If we can't that really limits the RP by a ton.

From my understanding it sounds like the character wants to use poison to be a person from the wilds who uses "every part of the animal".  The idea that he would have a tool like poison and not use it seems a complete waste of a good tool.  Even poisons that do nothing but cause a ton of pain have uses for a good guy. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
I'm unsure who's myths you are speaking of.

The myths the character is familiar with. I bet if we looked long enough, we could find a canon, non-evil deity who is associated with poison, possibly even a Chaotic Good trickster god. Nature gods certainly wouldn't have strictures against venom use for defense or hunting. That's just the sort of confusing canon that fouls up D&D's simplistic alignment rules. In any case, such a god is plausible, so the player could suggest the inclusion of such a god and if the DM isn't having any then the DM probably has other reasons for not wanting poison use.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I'm unsure who's myths you are speaking of.

The myths the character is familiar with. I bet if we looked long enough, we could find a canon, non-evil deity who is associated with poison, possibly even a Chaotic Good trickster god. Nature gods certainly wouldn't have strictures against venom use for defense or hunting. That's just the sort of confusing canon that fouls up D&D's simplistic alignment rules. In any case, such a god is plausible, so the player could suggest the inclusion of such a god and if the DM isn't having any then the DM probably has other reasons for not wanting poison use.



Poison's cause chemical reactions in the body.  Not all are necessary negative.  Using a plant to create a potion to save a life would revert a person's chemical reaction to normal but its still a chemical change.

As I stated Hercules used posion from the Hydra and he was considered by most to be heroic.

Here is an argument

A Paladin who wanted to stop evil monsters but ease their suffering would poison his blade under the idea that he hacks at the monster less and therefore quickens its end faster.



I'm unsure who's myths you are speaking of.

The myths the character is familiar with. I bet if we looked long enough, we could find a canon, non-evil deity who is associated with poison, possibly even a Chaotic Good trickster god. Nature gods certainly wouldn't have strictures against venom use for defense or hunting. That's just the sort of confusing canon that fouls up D&D's simplistic alignment rules. In any case, such a god is plausible, so the player could suggest the inclusion of such a god and if the DM isn't having any then the DM probably has other reasons for not wanting poison use.



Poison's cause chemical reactions in the body.  Not all are necessary negative.  Using a plant to create a potion to save a life would revert a person's chemical reaction to normal but its still a chemical change.
As I stated Hercules used posion from the Hydra and he was considered by most to be heroic.
Here is an argument
A Paladin who wanted to stop evil monsters but ease their suffering would poison his blade under the idea that he hacks at the monster less and therefore quickens its end faster.



This is a great argument, and one that should be allowed for similar reasons.  If the Ranger uses poisons that make the passing of his "prey" easier, especially if those poisons have painkilling properties it sounds pretty "Good" to me.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
My DM believes all poisons are evil (because paladins aren't allowed to use them) and any usage is an instant-evil alignment.  Does anyone have any advice on how to convince him otherwise?  I wish to play a ranger and I think poisons (especially venoms) would be fitting for him.



I asume 3.5?

What you need to point out to the DM is that a Paladin is Lawful Good, he is restricted from using Poison by his Code of Conduct and not his allignment. a Code of Conduct is a Lawful trait. He must fight with honor, not use poison and other dishonorable tactics. 

So if anything the use of Poison is dishonorable, and thus not somethign a lawful character would be inclined to do.

Also point out that in the description of Paladins it says they don't get along with Rangers (or is that in the description of Rangers) which isn't suprizing, Paladins are a disiplined soldier that follows a strict Code fo Conduct, and would see Rangers as undisiplined and Rangers tend towards the Neutral and Chaotic. A Paladin would favour meeting an enemy in the open rather then setting up an ambush with traps to catch them by suprise (although they aren't stupid)

Add to this that a Paladin is not the only one with a Code fo Conduct, so  does a Lawful Evil person,  "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life." who can have the same views on the use of poison.

Additionally Point out that Poison is really unaligned, it would only be it's particular use that would make it Evil. A disctinction between ingested and contact poison used outside of combat (poisoning food and drink as an example) and it's use in open combat, in which case it is only fighting dishonorably (unlawful)

The only thing you shoudl be cautious about is that Poisons may continue to effect your target after combat, harming those who surrender, although ussually the enemy is dead at the end of a fight, a Ranger shouls practice some due diligence in caring for captives who may be poisoned, if prisoners die due to being poisoned in a fight, then this could reflect on your character's allignment if you've done nothing to prevent this, so have some delay Poisons, antidotes or other treatment available would be reasonable.
Paladins don't use poison because it is dishonorable to do so. Cart. Horse.



And who is the adjudicator of what is honorable and dishonorable?  And who says my Paladin can't do dishonorable things?

No one says your Paladin can't do dishonorable things. He is free to become an ex-paladin. No one is stopping him from breaking his vows, which he once held sacred, and becoming yet another morally ambiguous warrior.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
I'm unsure who's myths you are speaking of.

The myths the character is familiar with. I bet if we looked long enough, we could find a canon, non-evil deity who is associated with poison, possibly even a Chaotic Good trickster god. Nature gods certainly wouldn't have strictures against venom use for defense or hunting. That's just the sort of confusing canon that fouls up D&D's simplistic alignment rules. In any case, such a god is plausible, so the player could suggest the inclusion of such a god and if the DM isn't having any then the DM probably has other reasons for not wanting poison use.



Poison's cause chemical reactions in the body.  Not all are necessary negative.  Using a plant to create a potion to save a life would revert a person's chemical reaction to normal but its still a chemical change.

As I stated Hercules used posion from the Hydra and he was considered by most to be heroic.

Here is an argument

A Paladin who wanted to stop evil monsters but ease their suffering would poison his blade under the idea that he hacks at the monster less and therefore quickens its end faster.




Glad you brought up Hercules.

As one of the early labors, Hercules acquires a deadly poison, but the labor doesn't count because Hercules had help in performing it. Adding injury to insult, part of the bounty of that labor led to Hercules' own demise... yep... died by the very poison he used.

Which reminds me of this conversation...
Wait, you might be on a train to better-DMing town.
Eventually he'll poison himself.
Nevermind.

And here are some synonyms for poisonous:
bad, baleful, baneful, corrupt, corruptive, dangerous, deadly, deleterious, destructive, detrimental, evil, fatal, hurtful, infective, lethal, malicious (wicked), malignant, malevolant (sinister), mephitic, miasmatic, morbid, vicious, viperous, virulent

And the ultimate trickster god, Loki... as PUNISHMENT for his most foul deeds, he was subjected to the most vile punishment the gods could imagine... he was bound beneath a serpent, which dripped it's vile venom onto him. Another case of the wielder of poison suffering from the poison he wields.


A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Again, refluffing is your friend.

If you wanna knock something out, and can't use 'poison' than have the local alchemist make you some ether or sleeping powder or something. Yeah, it may have the exact same mechanics as sleeping poison, but it isn't actually poison.
Ya see?
 
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
Again, refluffing is your friend.

If you wanna knock something out, and can't use 'poison' than have the local alchemist make you some ether or sleeping powder or something. Yeah, it may have the exact same mechanics as sleeping poison, but it isn't actually poison.
Ya see?

Excellent, yes. Good point. The poison could even be reflavored as an enchantment or spell of some kind. If it's weapon-based, maybe the "poison" is actually just some arcane consumable you apply to the weapon. If it's slipped into a meal, then just reflavor it as a ritual scroll (or in 3.5 some other magical item) that can affect the target from afar.

Just another example of the inconsistency of alignment. Poison: univerally evil. Magic: only certain effects, and not even all of the ones that could exactly duplicate the effects of a poison and be used without the target's knowlege. The Paladin's Code (also inconsistent, but oh well) could cover some misuse of magic, but alignment itself could not, or at least does not, that I've ever seen, outside of clerical alignment restrictions.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

My DM doesn't allow evil characters in campaigns--at all.  If they are evil, they are immediately sent their own way.

He's got some major trust issues then. Here's the thing: from what I can tell, you didn't decide you were playing an evil character, he did. He's the one deciding that your character is evil. And if he'd decide that based on this, who knows what basis he'll pull out next time. Just let him do it, and make another character until you figure out what hoops you need to jump through to be allowed to play the game.

These aren't necessarily trust issues. It takes a slightly different way of thinking to make adventures that evil characters will be interested in. An important skill to DM for evil characters is to let the player be proactive. With good characters, the DM can simply make a villainous plot for the heroes to foil. And seems like there's always a villainous plot.

With evil characters as PCs, the DM must often take a more passive role. This is sometimes nice, but it also goes against many DM's personal preferences. A different type of adventure evolves when evil characters are playing. As DM, I find the intrigues of an evil party fascinating, but also miss the teamwork that is more prevalent with groups of like-minded good guys.

It might be that spirit of cooperation that makes the DM only allow good characters.

There are an infinite number of good characters to be played. Rather than jump through hoops, pick some good character you might be interested in.

You might ask the DM to let you play an evil character on a trial basis to see if he enjoys DM'ing for a villain. It might not be what he expects. He may actually enjoy it once he sees how much fun the plotting and paranoia can be. Or his biggest fears... in-party fighting grinding everything to a halt. That would be up to the players, I suppose.

If all else fails, you could offer to DM. Let him play an evil character and show him by example how the DM can set up adventures that players of evil characters can enjoy.

Or save that awesome evil guy for another DM's world. Good luck!





A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
As I stated Hercules used posion from the Hydra and he was considered by most to be heroic.



Hercules was considered to be somewhat of a jerk in the legends, prone to fits of rage in which he killed people, including the cold blooded murder of his music teacher as a youth as well as throwing some people who angered him off his roof during a party. His enemy Hera used this tendency to get him into a blind rage in which he murdered his wife and children. His 12 tasks were penence for his brutal murder of his own family.


Anyways a Paladin's Code of Conduct: "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. "

At best using poison would make the Ranger a non-lawful alignment.
'Dishonorable' and 'evil' are not synonyms.
'Dishonorable' and 'evil' are not synonyms.



This.
What I don't get from this story is that it's implied that a single use of the poison will cause the DM to change the PC's alignment. This, regardless of anything else the PC may have done or do later, apparently. To my knowledge, there's no equivalent "good" act, for which the DM might tell an assassin, "Whelp, you've stepped in it now: you're good."

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

'Dishonorable' and 'evil' are not synonyms.



This.

DM: Describe your character.

Player: He's a cheating, corrupt, crafty, crooked, deceitful, deceiving, devious, dishonest, double-faced, felonious, fraudulent, hypocritical, immoral, insincere, prevaricating, traitorous, treacherous, turncoat, underhanded, unscrupulous, untrustworthy dishonorable, toxic, poison-using chap. A saint, really.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
"Not good" and "evil" are not synonyms.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

As I stated Hercules used posion from the Hydra and he was considered by most to be heroic.



Hercules was considered to be somewhat of a jerk in the legends, prone to fits of rage in which he killed people, including the cold blooded murder of his music teacher as a youth as well as throwing some people who angered him off his roof during a party. His enemy Hera used this tendency to get him into a blind rage in which he murdered his wife and children. His 12 tasks were penence for his brutal murder of his own family.


Anyways a Paladin's Code of Conduct: "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. "

At best using poison would make the Ranger a non-lawful alignment.

Actually, Grimli wrote that one. In the myth, he's not the he-man masters of the universe fellow fighting alongside Xena, warrior princess. On the TV show, if I recall, he used fire, but I don't recall if Kevin Sorbo actually used poison.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.