D&D 3.x Do 3.0/3.5 rules specifically define poison use as evil?

[Piratecat]

Boy, I sure don't agree with the BoED. This is one place where I'll stick with the core rules instead.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Simple enough question. If so, according to the RAW, where? I've reviewed the 3.5 DMG pages 296-297, and it defines the manufacture/use/sales/ownership of poison as illegal. Arguably, that makes it chaotic, or unlawful.

But is it evil?

I'm looking for a direct ruling from the RAW, if possible.

No; if it did, all the poisonous animals and vermin would be evil.

Geoff.

 

[Thanee]

Poison (usually) is evil according to the BoVD, but if you rename it, it becomes good according to the BoED.

So just pick another name, and you are free to go!

Bye
Thanee

 

[dcollins]

I agree that the core rules don't anywhere explicitly define poison as evil.

However, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it is probably still an expectation by the D&D writers. Monte Cook has gone on record in the BOED that way. I bet if you ask the Sage he'd say the same thing, possibly pointing to the Paladin language (Skip tends to see continuity between versions of D&D, not complete breaks). I bet other designers would respond similarly.

A bit speculative, but that's how I'd wager.

 

[Dimwhit]

Seems kinda silly to me for poison use to be an evil act. Especially when it 'lowers an ability score' because that causes undue suffering. So skewering a BBEG in the gut and letting him bleed to death isn't evil, but a poison that makes him lethargic and loses Dex is? (I know, weak examples, but hopefully it makes sense.)

 

[DarkMaster]

Seems kinda silly to me for poison use to be an evil act. Especially when it 'lowers an ability score' because that causes undue suffering. So skewering a BBEG in the gut and letting him bleed to death isn't evil, but a poison that makes him lethargic and loses Dex is? (I know, weak examples, but hopefully it makes sense.)

I was about to post the same thing. I personaly don't why the lawful good character cannot use the poison. If he plans on killing the evil Necromancer why not use poison, to ease the process. The end result will be the same the evil Necromancer is dead. As for poison causing pain and suffering. Using poison usually shorten the pain and the suffering. Poison enemy tend to die quicker therefore shortening their suffering.

Tell me how using delayed blast fireball is more lawful than using poison. Using a crossbow or a bow was actually considered unlawful in the middle ages, I never understood why the paladin could use a crossbow, but not poison. What if your character comes from a tribe that regularly uses poison and consider it as legit as we consider the sword?

 

[ARandomGod]

Poison (usually) is evil according to the BoVD, but if you rename it, it becomes good according to the BoED.

So just pick another name, and you are free to go!

Bye
Thanee

Ex Act Ly.

Or to say, no, of course poisons are not evil. And saying that it produces "unnecessary suffering" is a total justification and really not very bright. I can easily imagine (and point out real world examples of) poisons that produce pleasant effects. And a much larger number that cause numbness instead of any pain. Are pleasuable ones instead good? Are numbness producing ones neutral? Are these renamed evil only affecting poisons specifically designed to produce pleasant, or at least numbing effects?

For that matter, do poisons hurt say, a LOT less than having parts carved off with a sword? I mean, that does produce some unpleasant effects... as do bruises from blunt weapons... so we could easily say that weapons are inherently evil as well.

Additional note: Caliban suggested that he considers them to be "unlawful". I can only see this as true someplace where poisons are specifically against the law... and I've never really seen that. Although poisoning people is occasionally against the law, but generally so is carving them up with a sharp (or dull) stick of steel in those cases. So I can't really accept the idea that they're inherently lawful or unlawful either.
...

OK, fine:
" 3.5 DMG pages 296-297, and it defines the manufacture/use/sales/ownership of poison as illegal."
So it could be unlawful. At least there. OF course, seriously people, the DMG, BY DEFINITION cannot make up laws for campaign worlds. Only authors of those worlds can do that.
Obviously another justification....

And, as for the thought that exalted or lawful people wouldn't use them
this is likely true.
They'd use them by another name.

I call my substance "zarkrons" it's not poisonous, it's "zarkronous", so it's ok.

Of course, that does justify the label "lawful stupid", but then, a lot of paladins are....

(Editors note: This is not to imply stupidity on any individual poster here, or upon any paladin player in specific. More it is to imply that there is a generic steryotype of paladins... Oh, and it was indeed meant to malign the authors of those passages in the DMG and in the BoED. )

 

[reiella]

Boy, I sure don't agree with the BoED. This is one place where I'll stick with the core rules instead.

At least by the core, you only have to deal with Poison being considered unhonorable.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Given the context within the Paladin's code of conduct, it somewhat implies that poison use is in fact, not evil [the Additionally qualifier], although that's a grammatical nitpick.