Is poison use evil?

The 1st edition restricts poison use to assassins and evil thiefs.

The Book of Exhalted Deeds says that poison use is evil because it "causes unnecessary suffering". But then they introduce Ravages that are basically poisons that only effect evil people and for some reason this is OK. Isn't harming evil people with Ravages also causing "unnecessary suffering"? And doesn't a longsword in the guts cause "unnecessary suffering".

What's your opinion? If my PC uses arsenic in the evil bandit leader's food, am I evil?

Maybe I'm going crazy... but I read that as "Is it poison to use evil?"

Aaanyways, my opinion lies with BoED, for the printed reason. IMO, using evil means to a good goal is a neutral act, so neutrals are safe.

If a good character uses poison in such a way, I would penalize him as if he... say... abused the take-a-penny leave-a-penny tray (i.e. not a serious offense).

I'm not too sure if this is a Troll Brand Worm Can or just a No Name Worm Can.
Either way, I'll bite.

Poison, Acid, Fire - all will cause pain of varying intensity or in the case of poison: perhaps not. As such, the classical approach to poison in D&D has always appeared a little contrived to me.

I'm a firm believer that poison was given the short straw for game balance issues. If you could easily defeat the bad guy with poison, what fun would that be. This of course assumes that most players play non-evil characters which is most likely true but obviously not universal.

Either way, I think poisons can be a lot of fun to use against PC's, particularly when they have unusual effects rather than the vanilla attribute loss. Why not allow the same thing for PC's for variety?

There are better ways of restricting poison other than "a good person would not do that".

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

If poison use is evil, then it's going to be pretty hard for psuedodragons to remain neutral good.

Herremann the Wise said:

I'm not too sure if this is a Troll Brand Worm Can or just a No Name Worm Can.
Either way, I'll bite.

Click to expand...

It's a Purple Worm Brand Worm Can. Those evil, oversized, slugs . . . neutral my ass! Them's things use poison.

Maybe I should have asked: "Is *lethal* poison used by sentient creatures evil?"

I remember back in my 2E days using poison regularly. My rogue players had it for their hand crossbows, while my druids used herbalism to make them. I don't remember being particularly concerned about the moral implications, it was just a smart force multiplier (and yes, that's the way I think about this stuff). I don't recall ever allowing any really deadly stuff, but honestly it's not a bad tactic.

Whether it fits into your particular game/character is another matter, but I don't see anything more evil about it than hacking someone up with a longsword or blasting them to bits with magic.

Although I haven't had a character use poison in 3.x in previous editions I also had a druid who favoured the use of sleep, paralysis or confusion poisons. I just called them herbs/drugs/infusions and this let me get past most of the bias against poisons.

If a poison is really a drug that person inflicted enjoys along with taking INT/WIS/CHA damage, then is it evil? If it is, then aren't all bartenders evil as mass dispensers of poison? Should Paladins walk into bars and attack all bartenders on sight?

Yes, Im dodging the consent issue in the above paragraph. But most people don't consent to having a sword run through them either and a hangover is arguably better than a hospital visit.

I think that the idea of poison being evil may come about because it is considered a coward tool and not an honorable thing to do. If you base good on what knights codes are thought to be then not allowing your enemy a chance to defend himself was considered an act of dishonor.


Also poisons were used by assassins to kill. Commiting murdr is not a good act.

Now in game I don't see it bad to use poison that saps strength or dex on your weapons against someone who is trying to kill you. For example using it on bows to attack a giant who is going to make mincemeat of you because of their size.

dead said:

Maybe I should have asked: "Is *lethal* poison used by sentient creatures evil?"

Click to expand...

Lawful good couatls never had any problem with using their own natural poison.

Personally speaking, I never really bought into the whole "poison use = evil" line of thinking. If a CG ranger or barbarian wanted to bottle up a few vials of venom from some poisonous dead critter, I (as the DM) never had a problem with it. However, if the PC's wanted a steady supply of poison, they had to get it from some really undesirable fellows back in the city, and none of players wanted to do *that*.

Between the lack of availability and the whole "strictly forbidden in polite society" thing, my players rarely (if ever) used it anyways, even when not strictly forbidden by the rules of the game (for good aligned characters).

dead said:

The Book of Exhalted Deeds says that poison use is evil because it "causes unnecessary suffering". But then they introduce Ravages that are basically poisons that only effect evil people and for some reason this is OK. Isn't harming evil people with Ravages also causing "unnecessary suffering"? And doesn't a longsword in the guts cause "unnecessary suffering".

Click to expand...

Well apparently ravages make characters feel: sickened, cold, and/or
"Wracks their bodies" with the physical corruption that their moral corruption has become. So either "they had it comin'", which seems an odd excuse, or "it don't really hurt that bad (not as bad as, say, poison)". I think BoED goes with the latter.

Mind you, it makes one wonder about using holy water on fiends. Does that hurt them?