D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[Eric V]

In chivalric circles, poison was defined as a coward's weapon.

In 1e RAW poison use is explicitly noted as evil, which is nice and simple and therefore to my liking. Only Evil Clerics and all Assassins are freely allowed to use it, Paladins and non-Evil Clerics are banned from it, and for all other classes it's left open as - in part - an alignment definer.

I can understand that it's cowardly.

But why is it evil? Or, at least, any more evil than burning someone to death, reducing their mind to a vegetable, etc.

 

[Helldritch]

Because poison in the real world and in fantasy can take months to act. It can be a slow painful process where the victim will suffer greatly without knowing what is happening. The mental and physical duress of a poisoned victim is akin to someone with terminal disease. Some poisons are fast. Others are slow and painful.

Ho and in many instances the damage of the poison will be permanent. Even if cured the effects will stay on forever. Even in a magical world, you would need spell such as regeneration (if the livers and kidneys were affected and destroyed). Not a magic that you can easily come by in most setting.

 

[Eric V]

Because poison in the real world and in fantasy can take months to act. It can be a slow painful process where the victim will suffer greatly without knowing what is happening. The mental and physical duress of a poisoned victim is akin to someone with terminal disease. Some poisons are fast. Others are slow and painful.

Ho and in many instances the damage of the poison will be permanent. Even if cured the effects will stay on forever. Even in a magical world, you would need spell such as regeneration (if the livers and kidneys were affected and destroyed). Not a magic that you can easily come by in most setting.

All the poisons I have seen in the game operate quickly, and not "months to act." So, for poisons in the game, why would their use be more evil than burning someone to death?

 

[Helldritch]

Because they might not be in game, but they are implied. A player would not have any reasons to use such poison in game (except in strange scenarios but hey...) but they exist. The DMG does imply their existence.

 

[Eric V]

??!

Ok, a PC coats his weapon so that it does additional poison damage during the fight...is this evil? If so, what's the argument that makes it so?

 

[Helldritch]

Simple. Simply for simplicity's sake. Making exceptions for so many different poison would be a nightmare. So all poisons are evil. Nothing prevents you from houseruling something else.

 

[Eric V]

So, there's no argument to be made, then.

In real life, burn victims suffer for months, not much different from people suffering from poison.*

In the game, poison does +x damage. Fire does +x damage.

That's it. No further difference.

There's no sound argument that one should be evil and the other not.

*Heck, in real life, there are poisons that kill painlessly. Can't burn someone to death painlessly...

 

[Maxperson]

Question: If (1) the Animate Dead spell creates "non-Evil undead", such as 1e skeletons and zombies which are Neutral; (2) the spell has no negative consequences to the spirit which once inhabited that empty shell, e.g. it still proceeds happily off to the expected afterlife of its chosen faith; and (3) the necromancer is not using the resulting undead for a nasty purpose such as to harm/terrorize/traumatize innocent people but to help achieve a honourable goal -- then, is creating them still an Evil act?

Of course not. If you homebrew the spell to be non-evil like that, then use won't be an evil act. It's an evil act right now, because the game's default is the creation of evil undead.

 

[Maxperson]

All the poisons I have seen in the game operate quickly, and not "months to act." So, for poisons in the game, why would their use be more evil than burning someone to death?

It isn't. That's probably why later editions didn't state it was evil to use.

 

[Maxperson]

Simple. Simply for simplicity's sake. Making exceptions for so many different poison would be a nightmare. So all poisons are evil. Nothing prevents you from houseruling something else.

I'm with Eric on this one. There's nothing about any type of poison that isn't matched or exceeded by other damage forms like fire, acid, and such.