|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 7:41AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 7:52AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 7:54AM
#3
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 7:56AM
#4
|
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 8:09AM
#5
|
|
|
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...
A character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it. -Unknown
An adventure is a DM's love letter to the players. If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it. -Centauri I'd love for input as to what it should be rather than arguments against why I shouldn't have it at all. -lialwyn Best defense that I've read in favor of having alignment systems as an option
Spoiler:
Show
However, 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
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!" because the former posits that improvement could be made...the latter only undermines the enjoyment of the person who is using alignment. -YagamiFire
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 8:26AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 8:32AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:36AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 10:00AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 10:01AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
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.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
