Is poison use evil?

[Tiew]

Afraid I have to disagree with you wilder_jw. I don't think the taboo on poison use is religious at all. Can't think of any religious texts (real or fantasy) that have anything to say on the subject. Historically in many cultures it seems to have been considered dishonorable though.

My guess would be the taboo is simaler to the Geneva convention ban on unjacketted lead bullets. It's something that might give you an edge, but the possibility of having it used on you makes you willing to give it up. After all, an unpoisoned arrow or a jacketted bullet will still probably stop an enemy, but a poisoned arrow or a soft lead bullet is more likely to kill or permanently cripple. So if everybody can agree not to use it everybody is better off.

Of course, poison is a lot less effective in D&D than IRL. Seems like they carried over the taboo without carrying over the deadliness. Oh well, that's the way they wrote the game. Still I wouldn't say poison use is evil. Just likely to be frowned on by society.

Just my thoughts.

Tiew

 

[Talon5]

Me has a feeling I am gonna piss someone off with this- please, remember its not my intent. Just talking here.

It seems that people are not seeing poison as evil, and for the most part animals and insects use it to defend themselves and to get food. And most animals are Neutral (can't think of one that isn't and I didn't want to get side lined by some geek that has to point out that animal X is- just to lazy to look so chill).

I believe that Paladins are against the use of poison because it lacks honor and is believed to be only used in food, or drink by the paladins- they lack understanding that it can be a powerful weapon in the fight against evil (of course terrorism can be a powerful weapon against terrorists, but lets not get going down that road).

Humans have a choice, we have understanding of actions and reaction, we can chose to kill or not, we have a choice in the food we eat (kill and plant, or a cow for dinner) that ability to chose is what sets us apart from animals. Using poison is a deliberate act of murder, in using it one is making that conscious choice to kill no matter what.

Sneaking up behind someone and slicing their throat is murder. Now if you sniper someone with a bow from a hundred yards away using poison- its still murder, meaning its the same thing.

Send your pet scorpion to kill the same man- and your commiting murder.

Chanllange the man to a duel- fight fairly and its an honorable duel and that takes the murder out of it (unless he's a 1st lvl commoner and your a 20th lvl Fighter that gods fear).

I mean no offense here, I just wanted to lay a different view on the table. Remember I have a character that wants to use poison, but a paladin in our group will not be happy if my character does.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Afraid I have to disagree with you wilder_jw. I don't think the taboo on poison use is religious at all. Can't think of any religious texts (real or fantasy) that have anything to say on the subject.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that any RL religion says poison use is evil ... I'm saying that in D&D, the fact that poison use is evil is undisputed (if you accept the rules in BOED) and the only way to explain that is by attributing it to "religion" and letting it go.

It could just as easily be "eating jellybeans." D&D could have a rule that "eating jellybeans" is evil, and it would be pointless to have a real-world debate over whether or not eating jellybeans was actually evil. In D&D (Jellybean-Hatin' Edition), it's evil, and that's that. All you can do is chalk it up to "because the gods say so," and let it go.

It's not that hard to wrap your brain around it, once you understand that religion -- and the rules it makes -- don't have to be rational. Actually, for some people it is hard, and these are the people who invariably have tremendous difficulty understanding and using D&D's alignment system.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Of course, poison is a lot less effective in D&D than IRL.

What isn't? D&D makes it hard to incapacitate the heroes. Falling off a cliff, being run through with a sword, walking through smoke and flames... all are less effective in the game than in real life. On the other hand, some real-world people have proven exceptionally resilient (Rasputin and Blackbeard spring to mind).

 

[AIM-54]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that any RL religion says poison use is evil ... I'm saying that in D&D, the fact that poison use is evil is undisputed (if you accept the rules in BOED) and the only way to explain that is by attributing it to "religion" and letting it go.

It could just as easily be "eating jellybeans." D&D could have a rule that "eating jellybeans" is evil, and it would be pointless to have a real-world debate over whether or not eating jellybeans was actually evil. In D&D (Jellybean-Hatin' Edition), it's evil, and that's that. All you can do is chalk it up to "because the gods say so," and let it go.

It's not that hard to wrap your brain around it, once you understand that religion -- and the rules it makes -- don't have to be rational. Actually, for some people it is hard, and these are the people who invariably have tremendous difficulty understanding and using D&D's alignment system.

So D&D is inherently inflexible in that you must use the rules as written and any debate over the interpretation is pointless?

While I understand why poison is described the way it is in the rulebooks, I don't think there's any reason why one shouldn't be able to use it without "breaking" the rules or house ruling anything.

Evil "because the gods say so" is never a good path to go down, IMO. If the gods say so, there's probably a reason for it and I think most players will happily go along with it once they understand what that reason is (say some mythological type event where the favored of the gods was poisoned or some such).

 

[Felix]

I believe that Paladins are against the use of poison because it lacks honor and is believed to be only used in food, or drink by the paladins- they lack understanding that it can be a powerful weapon in the fight against evil

Paladins don't like poisons not because they lack understanding. They don't use it because it's against their code of conduct. Why? It's dishonorable apparently. Silly to accuse a class of lacking understanding...

Using poison is a deliberate act of murder, in using it one is making that conscious choice to kill no matter what.
*snip*
its still murder, meaning its the same thing.

If murder=murder=murder, then murder with poison = murder with sword = murder with spell. What conclusions do you draw about paladins that go around killing things with swords?

...your...

"you're". "You are". Sorry, pet peeve.

Chanllange the man to a duel- fight fairly and its an honorable duel and that takes the murder out of it (unless he's a 1st lvl commoner and your a 20th lvl Fighter that gods fear).

Why does that take the murder out of it? (I agree, I just want to see your answer.) And why does it make a difference who is more powerful? Is a 10-level difference still murder? How about 5-levels? 2?

Remember I have a character that wants to use poison, but a paladin in our group will not be happy if my character does.

I'm in the same position, and I don't have a problem. Remember that a poison is a foreign chemical or substance that alters the body's biology and functioning somehow. So a healing salve is technically a poison. Is throwing an Inhaled blindness inducing poison any more dastardly than throwing sand in someone's eyes? Does it make a difference if it's a medusa you're (you are ) fighting who can kill you with her eyes?

Meh.

Oh yeah, Couatils, Purple Worms, Pseudodragons and Wyverns are intelligent and know exactly what they're doing when they poison someone. Doesn't make them evil; does killing the victim make it murder?

[EDIT]
Every entry for "Murder" in the dictionary mentions it as an unlawful act. It doesn't matter if it's evil, good, from a distance, or whatever, as long as the killing is against the law, it's murder.

For instance, it is not murder to shoot a crossbow bolt from England into Whales and kill a Welshman. That law is still on the books. Killing that welshmen would not be murdering him.

Similarly, if there were a law stating "Animals are not allowed to kill humans", then if a mastiff mauled and killed someone, that animal (judgement or not) would have just comitted murder. There is no moral backing behind if something is murder or not (besides the basis for the law), rather only the Lawful-Unlawful aspect of it.

 

[Sejs]

Poison and evil are one of those horse/carts issues.


Poison and the use of poison is not evil.


However, evil people tend to use poison.



There are plenty of examples of non-evil poison use; animals or creatures with natural poison, using sleeping poisons on a guard so you don't have to kill them, etc, etc. Evil people tend to use poison because it's expedient, and reduces risk to themselves.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Using poison is a deliberate act of murder, in using it one is making that conscious choice to kill no matter what.

Unless it's a poison which targets an attribute that isn't con - you know, those poisons that just knock people out? If the guy isn't dead, it's not murder.

Sneaking up behind someone and slicing their throat is murder. Now if you sniper someone with a bow from a hundred yards away using poison- its still murder, meaning its the same thing.

Only if it's a killing poison, and only if it kills them. Most D&D poisons are not killing poisons.

Send your pet scorpion to kill the same man- and your commiting murder.

Send your pet dog to kill the same man, and it's murder. The poison is inconsequential. You're sending something to kill someone.

Chanllange the man to a duel- fight fairly and its an honorable duel and that takes the murder out of it (unless he's a 1st lvl commoner and your a 20th lvl Fighter that gods fear).

Or unless he or you use magic to unfairly benefit yourself. Or unless he's using poison. Or unless you just paralyse him and leave him alive. Using poison no less.

I mean no offense here, I just wanted to lay a different view on the table. Remember I have a character that wants to use poison, but a paladin in our group will not be happy if my character does.

My suggestion: if he make a hostile move on you, poison him with a nonlethal poison, and while he's paralysed or otherwise incapacitated, explain that you could have just as easily killed him, but that you didn't, because that would have been a nasty thing to do.

 

[Elf Witch]

There is difference between murder and self defence. And between murder and killing someone in battle.


I don't think it is murder to use your bow to take out the enemy at a distance nor do I think it is evil to have the bow tipped with poison. Dead is dead no matter how you do it.

It is also not mueder for the rogue to sneak attack an opponent in battle. That is called using your skills strategically.

Murder is when you take someone life for any other reason than self defense.

I have never agreed with the rule that using poison is evil. Poison is a tool like a sword. It is how you use it that determines if it is an evil act.

Ypu may have a tribe that uses blow guns with poison tipped darts as their main weapon. Why would that be more evil than hacking you up with an axe.

As for paladins not using poison because of there code that is something different. Clerics and paladins who follow the Valiant in the Kalamar setting are not allowed to use ranged weapons. It is against their code. And no one is saying that ranged weapons in of themselves is evil.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So D&D is inherently inflexible in that you must use the rules as written and any debate over the interpretation is pointless?

Geez, I dunno. Who in the world said that? (I mean, other than you?)

While I understand why poison is described the way it is in the rulebooks, I don't think there's any reason why one shouldn't be able to use it without "breaking" the rules or house ruling anything.

Well, because when you change the stated rule in the book (BOED) -- "poison use is evil" -- you're either breaking the rules or making a house rule.

There's certainly nothing wrong with doing so, although I have the odd feeling you think there is, but that's what it is.

Evil "because the gods say so" is never a good path to go down, IMO.

Gee, I guess that's why you're not a cleric.

I do hope you enjoyed your Strawman Waltz. Only a dime a dance!