D&D 3.x Any 3.5 books that have a list of poisons in them?

[Len]

Not really. It doesn't even equal Chaotic, since the law of that land might be corrupt to begin with. At best, illegal = neutral.

So what does "lawful" mean then??

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So what does "lawful" mean then??

Lawful. And not, as you might suspect, "legal."

 

[werk]

You might look in Masters of the Wild, or the Complete Warrior, or even Song & Silence. I have none of those, however, so I can't say for sure. Just thinkin' out loud.

poison appears all over the place...add the book of vile darkess to the list too.

So, is buying poison an evil act? ...

I don't know, I just posted what was in the SRD. As a DM, I consider poison use/possession/purchase as evil...depending...

In 2e I had a paladin with the FR poison know as jet-eye. It was an anesthetic, and he used it as such, but it could just as easily have been used for evil.

I'd say any poison that outright hurts someone would be evil (insidious) and anything having to do with that poison would be evil (most of the poison list).
IMC I'd stick by the SRD statement unless a player had a good excuse for using poisons.

 

[Scharlata]

Lawful. And not, as you might suspect, "legal."

I must oppose!

Latin: illegitimus, a, um [illegal]: unlawful; not adhering to the law; against the law; forbidden; prohibited.

Kind regards

 

[Scharlata]

Duh, found in the back of the DMG... My other question is, how many doses does a vial of poison give?

Poison

• Arms and Equipment Guide, p. 38 (3.25)

• Savage Species, p. 48 (3.25)

• Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 35 (Ravages)

• Book of Vile Darkness, p. 44 (3.0)

• Book of Vile Darkness, p. 45 (3.0) (Psychic Poisons)

• Dungeon Master's Guide, p. 297

• Libris Mortis, p. 75 (Positoxins)

Be careful using poisons

 

[Len]

So what does "lawful" mean then??

Lawful.

Gee, that's useful.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Lawful means that the way the character acts has either a formality or regularity behind it that is important unto itself to the character, and following these rules that the character believes in is as important as the reasons behind the rules. Generally. Also, they tend to believe that rules are important the good of a group (not that they have to follow "the law" but that "the law" is something that helps society) and that a group is more important than the individuals who make up that group.

Contrary, a Chaotic character is one who might have an honor system they follow, but it will be based on the result that it is supposed to create (a Lawful character has rules because rules are important, a Chaotic character follows rules because of what the rules bring about). They also believe that the individual and the individual's choice should not be made for them by a group. Nor is the group more "right" or more important than any individual that makes up that group. Laws arn't as important to the Chaotic character in and of themselves. A Chaotic character would think of (true) Anarchist "government" or Communist Utopias as the best forms of government.

Those are in a nutshell. You'll find individuals break those confines, but for the most part, that is what I think of when I think of Lawful versus Chaotic.

 

[RuminDange]

Gee, that's useful.

Better to read the in game definitions to fully understand what Patryn is alluding too.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic

Hope that helps. Lawful is not legal or mean follows laws, but is sort of a misnamed aligment, same thing with Chaotic. One of the biggest misunderstanding in the history of the game.

RD

 

[Storyteller01]

I don't know, I just posted what was in the SRD. As a DM, I consider poison use/possession/purchase as evil...depending...

In 2e I had a paladin with the FR poison know as jet-eye. It was an anesthetic, and he used it as such, but it could just as easily have been used for evil.

I'd say any poison that outright hurts someone would be evil (insidious) and anything having to do with that poison would be evil (most of the poison list).
IMC I'd stick by the SRD statement unless a player had a good excuse for using poisons.

Might be a DM fiat thing. Poisons were used everywhere, and not just to kill humans. Sounds like it's based on intent.

 

[RigaMortus]

I must oppose!

Latin: illegitimus, a, um [illegal]: unlawful; not adhering to the law; against the law; forbidden; prohibited.

Kind regards

And remember, unlawful or against the law does not necessarily mean Chaotic...