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

[Ovistavin]

Poisons are also in the Complete Adventurer under Craft (poisonmaking). Just thought I would mention this one since no one else had.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hijack In Progress

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

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.

Under this reasoning, using a sword to inflict harm on another would be evil. Kinda breaks the game. The use of a sword, weapon, spell, poison is not inherently evil, they are all tools used to accomplish an objective. The objective can be evil, but not the tool. Unless its [evil] in which case it is.

 

[pbd]

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

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.

So why would using a poison that "outright hurts" someone be evil, but sticking them in the kidneys with a sword, which would definately "outright hurt" them, not be evil?

By your logic, combat makes a character evil.

 

[Krelios]

Complete Adventurer also has a nice list of new poisons as well as rules to make them with Craft (Poisonmaking)... The ninja in my current campaign is enjoying that...

 

[werk]

So why would using a poison that "outright hurts" someone be evil, but sticking them in the kidneys with a sword, which would definately "outright hurt" them, not be evil?

By your logic, combat makes a character evil.

PBD and OVI, you are expounding on my statement and taking it out of context in an effort to make it untrue. Where a sword in the gut is not necessarily evil (but easily could be evil) rubbing your sword in pig droppings before sticking it in someone's gut so that they will die eventually due to infection would be directly evil. There is no way to ruthlessly or dubiously kill in a good way.

It's the difference between an honor duel and a knife in the back. While the end is important, the means are equally so.

 

[pbd]

PBD and OVI, you are expounding on my statement and taking it out of context in an effort to make it untrue. Where a sword in the gut is not necessarily evil (but easily could be evil) rubbing your sword in pig droppings before sticking it in someone's gut so that they will die eventually due to infection would be directly evil. There is no way to ruthlessly or dubiously kill in a good way.

It's the difference between an honor duel and a knife in the back. While the end is important, the means are equally so.

Werk, I wasn't taking you out of context. I was simply responding to your statement that any poison that "outright hurts" someone is evil; that is your wording, not anything about rubbing a sword in pig droppings to kill in a few days (that is in your next post), "outright hurts" is your wording. I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am just pointing out some of the ramifications of what you say.

I took that statement to the next logic step and will do so again; if a poison that "outright hurts" someone is evil, then any similar effect would be evil. Most poisons do ability damage, so any spell that does ability damage (ray of enfeeblement, touch of idiocy) would also be evil. In addition, since you state "outright hurts" this could be taken as meaning does damage, so any spell or effect that does damage would also be evil.

In addition, earlier in the post you say that "as a DM, I consider poison use/possession/purchase as evil", which is a pretty blanket statement. You add "depending" but don't explain further, leaving us to infer what you mean from the rest of your post.

I am just pointing out that I was not taking your post out of context and trying to make it untrue, it makes no difference to me personally if you make poison use evil in your campaign, I was just pointing out some of the possible ramifications of your statement.

 

[werk]

Werk, I wasn't taking you out of context. I was simply responding to your statement that any poison that "outright hurts" someone is evil.

I did not say that anything used to hurt anyone in anyway is evil, that's your generalization. I said POISONS that directly hurts (most poisons) are evil. Running someone down with your car is evil, but that does not make cars or heavy objects evil.

I think the pig droppings is a great analogy to poison. If you had a healer that used pig droppings to help heal an infected wound, and a fighter that rubbed it on his axe. The material itself is not directly evil, it's the use. That's what I was saying.

Since there are very few alternative uses for poisons other than hurting people...

 

[pbd]

Werk,

We seem to agree that poison is an inanimate object that cannot, by itself, be evil; any evilness would be a factor of how it is used. But you seem to be saying that any use of poison to hurt people has to be evil, simply because it hurts people.

I am mearly trying to point out that in DnD there are lots of things that hurt people and are not considered evil; so if that is the basis on which you are determining that poison use is evil, than chopping someone with a sword is also evil. Basically, if hurting someone with poison is evil than hurting someone in any way is evil.

We know in DnD that not everyone that cleaves someone in twain with a sword or turns them to dust with a disintigrate is considered evil. The same should hold true for poison use in that context, ie. say a halfling that uses a poisoned blade or arrows to help in defeating the giants that trying to turn him and his entire family to goo, is not inherently evil by using poison as a tool to that end. However, the assassin that poisons someone because they are paid to is considered evil, just as he would be if he stuck an unpoisoned knife between their shoulderblades.

Just because it may seem underhanded, does not make it evil in all contexts.

pbd

 

[werk]

The same should hold true for poison use in that context, ie. say a halfling that uses a poisoned blade or arrows to help in defeating the giants that trying to turn him and his entire family to goo, is not inherently evil by using poison as a tool to that end. However, the assassin that poisons someone because they are paid to is considered evil, just as he would be if he stuck an unpoisoned knife between their shoulderblades.

I think we're pretty much agreed. It really comes down to a judgement call depending on the situation/use.

Just because it may seem underhanded, does not make it evil in all contexts.

It may not make it evil, but it's definitely not good. If it's not good, that leaves evil and people of questionable morals.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

We seem to agree that poison is an inanimate object that cannot, by itself, be evil;

I disagree. Inanimate objects in D&D are Evil - with a Capital E! - all the time.

Why not poison?