-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Is the use of poison explicitly evil?
- Thread starter rom90125
- Start date
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Using poison is not explicitly an Evil act - otherwise the Poison spell would have the [Evil] descriptor.
However, many people who use poisons do so for Evil ends - which is likely why it is proscribed for Paladins.
However, many people who use poisons do so for Evil ends - which is likely why it is proscribed for Paladins.
Well put Crothian. So allow me to state my ruling, and then leave it open for debate if the lurkers so desire.
I decided to rule that the use of poison is not an evil act.
I based my decision on the fact that PCs commonly use magic to inflict pain and suffering on their opponents, and if the use of magic isn't getting the pally and her companions tossed into a dark cell, then the use of poison should not be any different.
With that said, I am aware that not all areas of our campaign world feel this way (about poison and magic) and there will be consequences when the PCs are in these areas.
I decided to rule that the use of poison is not an evil act.
I based my decision on the fact that PCs commonly use magic to inflict pain and suffering on their opponents, and if the use of magic isn't getting the pally and her companions tossed into a dark cell, then the use of poison should not be any different.
With that said, I am aware that not all areas of our campaign world feel this way (about poison and magic) and there will be consequences when the PCs are in these areas.
Last edited:
I think the BoED might have said that poisons were inherently evil because their only purpose was to inflict pain and suffering or some such. Whereas a fireball could just be used as a warning shot !
Of course then they spoiled the whole thing by introducing 'afflictions'. Ie. poisons that only work on evil people. Cause you know, inflicting pain and suffering isn't evil if you make sure to only do it to evil people. Go the moral high ground. Or something.
On a side note, poisons tend to be fairly illegal in most places.
Of course then they spoiled the whole thing by introducing 'afflictions'. Ie. poisons that only work on evil people. Cause you know, inflicting pain and suffering isn't evil if you make sure to only do it to evil people. Go the moral high ground. Or something.
On a side note, poisons tend to be fairly illegal in most places.
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
Poison's not evil. Just underhanded. The reason why a paladin avoids using poison is because it's essentially "dirty pool". But really, the main problem with poison is that it's a subtle and sneaky way of disabling or killing an opponent, often without even having to enter combat with that opponent. Contact and ingested poisons do nasty things if they're left lying around on food or on a sword's hilt. At least with spells you're standing and blasting someone, who has the opportunity for a counter-attack.
Using poison in combat is in essence enforcing a handicap on the enemy. You weaken your opponent, denying him a fair fight, so that you can beat him more easily. What's the difference between this and Ray of Enfeeblement? Semantics. The Ray applies a similar penalty, but does it without the baggage that goes with a poisoned knife. Besides, a wizard is supposed to be able to disable people with magic. It goes with the territory. But it also takes a certain special kind of person, who is already deserving of some respect. Any idiot can stab someone with a poisoned dagger, but magic is a pursuit that takes dedication and talent. Also, wizards don't have much else at their disposal for defeating foes, unlike a paladin.
So really, poison is considered undesirable because it's some kind of "coward's weapon," that throws off the results of an otherwise fair fight, or which is used to murder from a secret position. But in itself, it's just another kind of weapon, like magic, that hinders an opponent long enough to take him down.
Using poison in combat is in essence enforcing a handicap on the enemy. You weaken your opponent, denying him a fair fight, so that you can beat him more easily. What's the difference between this and Ray of Enfeeblement? Semantics. The Ray applies a similar penalty, but does it without the baggage that goes with a poisoned knife. Besides, a wizard is supposed to be able to disable people with magic. It goes with the territory. But it also takes a certain special kind of person, who is already deserving of some respect. Any idiot can stab someone with a poisoned dagger, but magic is a pursuit that takes dedication and talent. Also, wizards don't have much else at their disposal for defeating foes, unlike a paladin.
So really, poison is considered undesirable because it's some kind of "coward's weapon," that throws off the results of an otherwise fair fight, or which is used to murder from a secret position. But in itself, it's just another kind of weapon, like magic, that hinders an opponent long enough to take him down.
Torak Stoneweaver
First Post
ROM90125,
You are entirely correct.
There is one thing however, there are some poisons that are considered evil. Poison use iteslf is not evil but using the action of using poison depending on the way it is used or for that matter what poison is used couold change the descriptor of the act!
One mans opinion!
Torak
You are entirely correct.
There is one thing however, there are some poisons that are considered evil. Poison use iteslf is not evil but using the action of using poison depending on the way it is used or for that matter what poison is used couold change the descriptor of the act!
One mans opinion!
Torak
Chroma
Explorer
I feel that poison use should be looked at as a Chaotic act, not a Good or Evil one. It's kind of underhanded and/or sneaky, it doesn't seem to be "fighting fair"; it's usually looked at as dishonourable. *That's* why I don't think a paladin would use poison, but a Chaotic Good ranger might.
It's not just about Good and Evil...
It's not just about Good and Evil...
shilsen
Adventurer
I agree with Darkness. The description of the paladin code of conduct says that the paladin should "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)", so poison use is explicitly listed as a dishonorable act, not as an evil one. The DMG (pg.296) says that the "purchase and possession of poison is always illegal" but says nothing about it being evil. I don't think there are any other relevant descriptions of poison use in the RAW.Darkness said:
