Paladin with Glamered Armor...yes or no. (3.5)

On 1 Jan 2009 06:44:38 GMT, "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.TakeThisOut@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:49:34 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>
>> On 31 Dec 2008 21:28:01 GMT, "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.TakeThisOut@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><Dishonourable weapon> is evil is a meme that has repeated itself many
>>>many times, (and probably got started with the first throwing spear).
>>>Almost every time <dishonourable weapon> turned out to be a good weapon,
>>>human society has found a way to recontextualize its use to eliminate the
>>>feeling that it is dishonourable. About the only exception has been
>>>nuclear weapons, (and _those_ have usability problems due to being _too_
>>>powerful).
>>
>> Poison has been around for so long that I doubt we'll see human
>> society "recontextualize its use" - if it's going to happen, it
>> already would have happened. The "poison weapons are evil" meme has
>> staying power, which already makes it different from the usual run of
>> "[dishonourable weapon] is evil" memes.
>
>I think you're missing my point: Poison, (on the battlefield), is largely
>ineffective so there won't even _be_ an attempt to recontextualize. If it
>actually worked, things would be different.

You're right. I did miss your point. In part because I disagree with
it. I don't consider poison gas "largely ineffective" on the
battlefield. Not super-effective, but not ineffective either.

More than than, people have stuck with the "poison is Evil" meme
despite having an exaggerated idea of how effective poison would be on
the battlefield. They believed it would work, and work very well. So
why didn't they attempt to recontextualize?
--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1.TakeThisOut@comcast.net

On Jan 2, 5:25 am, Allen Wessels <awess... DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <gjkgvq22... DeleteThis @news4.newsguy.com>,
>  "Rick Pikul" <rwpi... DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Also consider the special cases where poison gas does work well when used
> > in a 'legitimate' way.  (e.g. Less than lethal agents used in confined
> > quarters.) Does anyone call a police officer evil because he uses a weak
> > blistering agent to force out a gunman?
>
> We generally don't think of pepper spray as a poison gas.  And I don't
> think a non-lethal knockout gas would be considered evil, either.

But with 3e there are now a majority (all?) of poisons that are non-
lethal;
they only cause temporary ability damage and many of them do less
immediate damage with the rest a full 1 minute (10 rounds) later.

It hardly seems to be the thing that should ping Evil; I'd have
trouble
making it ping non-Good to use it---in fact, its use could actually
*save* lives since weakened foes are more likely to give up.

Of course, I think I'd still argue it is against the Paladin code of
honor as it has that "sneaky, not by own skills" feel to it.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:44:38 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:

> On 1 Jan 2009 06:44:38 GMT, "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.TakeThisOut@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:49:34 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>>
>>> Poison has been around for so long that I doubt we'll see human
>>> society "recontextualize its use" - if it's going to happen, it
>>> already would have happened. The "poison weapons are evil" meme has
>>> staying power, which already makes it different from the usual run of
>>> "[dishonourable weapon] is evil" memes.
>>
>>I think you're missing my point: Poison, (on the battlefield), is largely
>>ineffective so there won't even _be_ an attempt to recontextualize. If it
>>actually worked, things would be different.
>
> You're right. I did miss your point. In part because I disagree with
> it. I don't consider poison gas "largely ineffective" on the
> battlefield. Not super-effective, but not ineffective either.

For the lethal agents, you rarely have anything better than "forced enemy
to don masks" with one notable exception: Where it was the first
significant use and it was used against forces that were particularly ill
suited to withstand a gas attack. (2nd Ypres, note that while the French
Colonials broke, the later use of gas against 2 Canadian was a spectacular
failure.)

> More than than, people have stuck with the "poison is Evil" meme
> despite having an exaggerated idea of how effective poison would be on
> the battlefield. They believed it would work, and work very well. So
> why didn't they attempt to recontextualize?

Well, it was just the first few years so you only saw the early
justifications that don't bother trying to turn opinions around. German
justifications started out as "no, this isn't a nice weapon, but what we
are using is technically legal[1]," while the British and French response
was "that the Germans have descended to the point of using such vile
weapons means that we must respond in kind."


Also consider the special cases where poison gas does work well when used
in a 'legitimate' way. (e.g. Less than lethal agents used in confined
quarters.) Does anyone call a police officer evil because he uses a weak
blistering agent to force out a gunman?


[1] The text of the Hague Convention actually only banned gas delivered by
projectile, early gas attacks were done by releasing a gas cloud from
cylinders when the wind was right.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

In article <gjkgvq2225j RemoveThis @news4.newsguy.com>,
"Rick Pikul" <rwpikul RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote:


> Also consider the special cases where poison gas does work well when used
> in a 'legitimate' way. (e.g. Less than lethal agents used in confined
> quarters.) Does anyone call a police officer evil because he uses a weak
> blistering agent to force out a gunman?

We generally don't think of pepper spray as a poison gas. And I don't
think a non-lethal knockout gas would be considered evil, either.

- Allen

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:44:38 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt
<ErolB1.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 1 Jan 2009 06:44:38 GMT, "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.RemoveThis@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:49:34 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 Dec 2008 21:28:01 GMT, "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul.RemoveThis@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><Dishonourable weapon> is evil is a meme that has repeated itself many
>>>>many times, (and probably got started with the first throwing spear).
>>>>Almost every time <dishonourable weapon> turned out to be a good weapon,
>>>>human society has found a way to recontextualize its use to eliminate the
>>>>feeling that it is dishonourable. About the only exception has been
>>>>nuclear weapons, (and _those_ have usability problems due to being _too_
>>>>powerful).
>>>
>>> Poison has been around for so long that I doubt we'll see human
>>> society "recontextualize its use" - if it's going to happen, it
>>> already would have happened. The "poison weapons are evil" meme has
>>> staying power, which already makes it different from the usual run of
>>> "[dishonourable weapon] is evil" memes.
>>
>>I think you're missing my point: Poison, (on the battlefield), is largely
>>ineffective so there won't even _be_ an attempt to recontextualize. If it
>>actually worked, things would be different.
>
>You're right. I did miss your point. In part because I disagree with
>it. I don't consider poison gas "largely ineffective" on the
>battlefield. Not super-effective, but not ineffective either.
>
>More than than, people have stuck with the "poison is Evil" meme
>despite having an exaggerated idea of how effective poison would be on
>the battlefield. They believed it would work, and work very well. So
>why didn't they attempt to recontextualize?

Perhaps for most, the 'exaggerated idea' puts poison into the same
category as nuclear weapons - posessing usability problems due to
being (seen as) too powerful.

If one is fighting for plunder there's little motivation to
recontextualize a weapon that is seen as potentially spoiling the
loot. Which in some cases may even extend to enemy soldiers.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:25:14 -0800, Allen Wessels wrote:

> In article <gjkgvq2225j RemoveThis @news4.newsguy.com>,
> "Rick Pikul" <rwpikul RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Also consider the special cases where poison gas does work well when used
>> in a 'legitimate' way. (e.g. Less than lethal agents used in confined
>> quarters.) Does anyone call a police officer evil because he uses a weak
>> blistering agent to force out a gunman?
>
> We generally don't think of pepper spray as a poison gas. And I don't
> think a non-lethal knockout gas would be considered evil, either.

That's part of the point, (although I was thinking of the tear gases). In
1914, using tear gas was considered just as wrong as using chlorine or
phosgene.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)