Would you have a problem with a paladin which coated his weapons in poison?

Yes. Paladins are not just god-knights. They're meant to be paragons of virtue, chivalry, and honour. Poison is unchivalrous as fuck.

Which page?
elterritorio.org/resources/PH.pdf

You know what's also unfair? Using smite against outlaws without divine powers.

I think it's in 5e for the paladin of devotion

The D&D paladin is based quite plainly on the Arthurian romantic knight ideal.

Using weapons blessed specifically to fight evil isn't against their theme. Using toxins and such specifically designed to win against your fellow man through underhanded methods is against their theme.

Can you post page?

Regardless wouldn't that apply only to this oath?

I could see that being argued and a reasoning for a paladin to withhold on the common criminals.

Page 44 for 3.5e see code of conduct. I don't have PF but I would presume its similar.

>The D&D paladin is based quite plainly on the Arthurian romantic knight ideal.

But they weren't holy knights of the Church.

>Using weapons blessed specifically to fight evil isn't against their theme. Using toxins and such specifically designed to win against your fellow man through underhanded methods is against their theme.

So "it's ok when we do it".

Why is poison dishonorable but an enchanted blade is fine?

I dropped out of a game on session one because a GM proved himself to be incredibly autistic under a veneer of Rule of Cool.

He'd pitched the campaign as a pulpy-adventure story, where Players built their own weapons that reflected their beliefs and philosophies. It sounded a bit weeby, but speaking with the other players and the GM they assured me it wouldn't be the case. I wanted to play a Paladin using a flail, Diablo 3 style. Everyone seemed on-board and had similarly impractical but cool weapons. The Rogue had Spring-loaded Daggers, the Barbarian was hauling about a Totem Pole like a Tauren. All fun and games. I then said I thought it could be cool if my Flail had a Censer or something in it that splashed Holy Water as I fought, not a mechanical buff just flavourful.

This seemed to push everyone over an edge I didn't realise I was anywhere near. The GM said I would be at risk of changing Alignment to Evil for using Poison, the Rogue started ranting that I was stepping on his toes and using Poison when that was his job and the Fighter said if I wanted to use Holy Water then he should be able to set his Totem Pole on fire and use that as a weapon. I said I'd retract it then if it'd be a problem, but everyone suddenly seemed to think I was trying to powergame in a light-hearted adventure and wouldn't drop it.

...

>But they weren't holy knights of the Church.

Neither are paladins (though, most Arthurian romantic heroes were considered blessed by God). The idea that paladins are members of some templar order is actually pretty new - it's definitely not the default view of classic D&D. The average crusading DEUS VUUULT knight archetype isn't a paladin, it's a religious fighter.

Paladins are characters like Galahad, Breunor, Gawain, Jeanne d'Arc, etc. The important part of a paladin isn't that they serve a temple, it's that they are touched by a higher power and strive to embody the ideals of goodness, justice, honour and courage.

>So "it's ok when we do it".

If you can't see the difference between using a weapon that's extra effective against evil, and using an underhanded, deceptive means of weakening a mortal foe, you're either very dim or being intentionally obtuse.

Poison is deceptive.

If the blade is enchanted in a deceptive way, then it is also dishonorable. If it burns with obvious holy fire, then it's RIGHTEOUS MIGHT, and totally a-ok.

So Pale Justice ist actually a dishonorable weapon?

3.5 literally had a splatbook that had Paladin-issued 'good' Posion, had the picture of the Beholder dead, with it's tongue out, arrow in it- I recall

The important thing is intent, really. If you pick up a holy sword and swing it at your foe, you're not being dishonorable. If you go out of your way to coat your blade in a wasting poison with the intent to cause grievous, unwholsome effects upon their body, you're being dishonorable.

It's the difference between using a fine weapon that will remain sturdy in your hands and grant your foe a clean death, and dipping your weapon in the local latrine so it will inflict filthy, infection-prone wounds.

So, sword +1 is a no-no?

>If you can't see the difference between using a weapon that's extra effective against evil, and using an underhanded, deceptive means of weakening a mortal foe, you're either very dim or being intentionally obtuse.

Well, it all depends on good and evil, doesn't it? But lets assume there's absolute good and absolute evil. What's the difference with coating your blade with poison when fighting an evil man vs. coating your blade in silver to fight an evil monster? You're fighting evil in both cases and coating your weapon in a substance that weakens and kills your opponent. I mean, if you oppose to poison because it can be used to harm good people as well, then you might as well get rid of the sword entirely, because you can kill good and evil people with it just as well.

If you're playing 5e, consult the oaths.

I am, so my vengeance paladin's main combat strategy has been to run away and collapse a burning building on their opponents. You bet that guy will be using poisoned weapons ASAP- it's dishonorable to not use every advantage you can take in a fight, after all.

So it would be more ok if the blade is glowing green with evil spikes and that all? Paladin yelling "Poison the body, cleanse the soul" makes it ok?

Would it be ok to use poison and other dishonourable tactics againstbeast, demons and other beings that aren't moral agents?

No, because it is plain for reason of symbolism, not to deceive. You could use it deceptively, but that would be dishonorable on your part.

Exalted deeds. Fun stuff. Love the beholder picture. If I remember correctly "afflictions" only effect evil things which might be the Paladins main problem with Poison it effects everyone.

What if announce before each blade "tremble evildoers at the claymore coated with hydra poison!"?

what if you yell at your enemy that your weapon is poisoned?

For the sake of your group, please don't play a paladin. You're clearly not looking for second opinions, just reinforcement for your stupid one.

Yes, he's clearly retarded. Unless he's only using ranged weapon.

The whole fucking point is to be able to inflict a minor wound that will kill over time, while staying at a safe distance.

Trying to poison someone who is actively trying to hit you with a weapon is moronic in the extreme.

>rogues poison his dagger for extra damage
>somehow it's stupid if a fighter poison his sword
Why should I deal 1d6 when I can deal 1d6+1d4? Poison is cheap and literally free damage.

Plus some systems have crippling poisons which reduce stats.

+1 damage compared to masterwork isn't exactly a deceptive advantage, is it?

Evil spikes are kinda evil by definition? But yes, being upfront about what your sword is gonna do if you hit someone with it makes it more okay. Obviously not good if it's drenching them in acid-aids, and not necessarily honorable, but not exactly dishonorable either.

Also, isn't holy water kinda like demon poison?

Then it depends on the poison. If it's unusually cruel or painful, it would still be evil for those reasons. And a lot of poisons are. If not, I'd be okay with it.

Look, if you can't explain your reasoning, then that's fine. Just don't get all pissy about it.

>Afflictions
Are poisons, and the authors' pretense that they aren't is a load of bullshit.

Eh, you're brandishing a blade, Sure poisoning someone's food to smite them might be dishonorabu but having a specially-treated weapon is no less honorable than keeping the weapon sharp, wielding a silvered weapon, etc.

This is one reason I hate hitpoints as an abstraction. Why should you wield a greataxe instead of a greatmaul, in-character? Why use a crossbow over a sling? Rapier as opposed to a shortsword?

there isn't an in-character mechanism for any player character to know very clearly the granularity of damage. It bothers me a lot that quite often, players make weapon decisions in terms of damage dice off of a table, when in the game world, 1d6 slashing and 1d8 piercing might be pretty hard to distinguish. And 1d6 bludgeoning and 1d6 piercing should be basically impossible to compare. Nonetheless, players make decisions based on 2d6 vs 1d12 weapons and all sorts of weird out of character statistical differences.
I get that at a certain point, if you're going to have any stats this is inevitable, but it is a little unsatisfying.

Like maybe there are poisons in-setting that clearly and immediately show their effects within 6 seconds. But it's a little suspect as a move to just pile on more damage dice. Ask first if it makes sense for the character to consider that.

But sure, if you're just going for a big nova damage cheese-monkey game, have fun with your group that does that.

>D&D bullshit all over the place.

Why don't you people just play World of Warcraft and get it over with.

World of Warcraft is a pretty shit simulator for D&D-style rollplaying. I feel like Diablo-like ARPGs are a better approximation.

If it was a paralytic one so they could hit a guy and not have to kill him?
I'd honestly be completely on board.

this is very close to how i see paladins in context. essentially they exist as the pope's SWAT team, and should only act in according situations.

Bad guy response ranking:
if they are petty criminals, the town guard (fighters) can handle them, and the basic level celestial dickery is for mages and clerics, but when some asshole is calling up a fucking army of demons: call the paladins.

they exist to fuck shit up in a good way before you can fuck shit up in a bad way. they dont arrest purse snatchers, though they could, because you dont call SWAT for petty theft. you call SWAT for bank heists and hoatage situations.

>And 1d6 bludgeoning and 1d6 piercing should be basically impossible to compare.
Are you actually retarded
One is a blunt instruments like a cudgel, mace or hammer, the other is something like a dagger, Rapier or arrow. A character should be able to distinguish damage types inflicted

You're missing my point.

Very often, and I see this shit quite a lot, melee PCs will treat a club and a dagger as functionally identical because of their game stats.

If you find a random, mundane dagger and the club-using barb sees it, he doesn't think "Oh hey I can cut things/stab people with this. I'll pick it up" He says , Out of character "Oh, fuck that, it does as much damage dice as my club, who cares."

Except there's no way (because of the intuitive difference you mentioned) for the character to know that they deal a comparable amount of hitpoint damage. It doesn't make sense to be able to compare weapon damage when they deal disparate damage types.

Sound like you're just an idiot for not knowing how to roleplay hitpoints

Loads of fantasy stories have ridiculous ly fast acting poisons. Fuck off hipster.

I'm not sure what your problem is? PCs not using random bullshit they pick up off the ground?

How should I handle this then? I understand that I shouldnt treat them as 'meatpoints' but that still leaves the numerical comparisons that players readily make between gear as an even more ambiguous field of "it kind of got closer to damaging them more"

I just feel like weapon stats tend to take people out of the roleplay and into the math of the game.

it's the fact that he's comparing two totally different weapons that deliver damage in totally different ways, but because of their game statistics of rolling 1d6 for damage (as an example)the player decides to treat these items as functionally identical, even though their character has no in-setting access to the system's weapon stats.

>Very often, and I see this shit quite a lot, melee PCs will treat a club and a dagger as functionally identical because of their game stats.
I see. Though you could still argue that some mechanical aspects of weapons are evident through other factors than their stats (two handed weapons vs one handed ones, or crude versions vs refined ones, like a club vs a warhammer)

Yeah. I'm not as bothered by people trading out two-handed weapons over one-handed weapons, or simple for martial weapons because that may make intuitive sense, but sometimes the comparison comes down to "Oh that item on the list does 1d4 damage, and this other one does 1d6, why would i ever take the other one?" or "Hey I just found a Rapier, that does 1d8, fuck this 1d6 shortsword!"

I mean, i'd be a bit pissed when it does nothing on combat since shit is slow.
But then he puts cyanide on the Almond cake he had baked for the royal banquet and starts to roll persuasion to accuse the royal cook like a fucking cunt because 1:1 social is fair and balanced.

Hmm. Ok, so, a paladin who puts a strong paralytic poison on his arrows, and tells his enemies that they won't feel pain due to the poison, but they'll just fall into a deep sleep, and then their heart will stop.

Of course, if they surrender, he'll be able to give them the antidote, but that has to happen before they fall asleep, doesn't it?

Then he starts shooting the shit out of everyone, from a high up vantage point, while invisible.

How's that? You're not deceiving anyone, you're not causing undue pain (compared to cutting someone in two) and you're even allowing them to surrender. How's that for a poison using paladin?

The point of poison is to inflict debilitating conditions via small wounds, and thus be capable of defeating your opponent unfairly by staying out of their reach while the poison does its work. In D&D this is often abstracted as just more damage, but the in-universe application and purpose of poison is the same.

As such, poison is not befitting of a paladin's values.

Depends on the poison.

>In D&D this is often abstracted as just more damage
In which editions? I mostly played 3.PF but there's only one poison that actually deals hp dmg, then there's those that deal con dmg (and as such deal hp dmg more or less), but a lot of them deal Str/Dex and other ability dmg as well as specific effects like paralysis and sleep

except for Ravages and Afflictions from the Book of Exalted Deeds

>and thus be capable of defeating your opponent unfairly by staying out of their reach while the poison does its work
So... ranged weapons is out? If you're shooting at someone who can't get to you, then that's unfair?

>unfairly
Define a fair battle. I would say that a paladin hero attacking a goblin is unfair.

Paladins don't use poisons for the same reason they don't use garrotes or traps. Part of the knightly mythos is the idea that the winner of a fair fight had God's blessing.If you resort to unfair tactics, it's basically saying you don't believe your cause to be righteous.

I personally wouldn't play a paladin that way. Poison like nightshade, cyanide, etc. typically cause horrific pain and suffering before it kills the person. My personal view of paladins is that, yeah they smite heretics, undead, and other assorted filth, but they don't draw it out or be unusually cruel about it. Kill the unclean and punish criminals as quickly as possible, no need to drag it out with poisons or torture. And of course it is dishonorable, and could be the catalyst to leading the paladin down a darker path.

The Holy Water argument is a bit of a stretch. If you're talking from the perspective of Undead or demons, MAYBE that could be considered underhanded and dishonorable. But from the view of a paladin (or even clerics and more religious types), they aren't worthy of pity or remorse. They don't deserve a fair fight, especially if they aren't willing to fight fair themselves. And it doesn't harm those with good or even neutral alignments, so I doubt it could really be considered a poison in the regard that it harms everyone.