Is poison use evil?

[Talon5]

knew this one was gonna get someones panties in a bunch.

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...

People who want to stop hunters from killing Mountain Lions lack understanding of what it does to the eco system to have so many mountain lions running about.

Too my POV Paladins don't get the thought that animals use poisons to survive. Otherwise they would agrue see the use of knock out "poisons" as okay, while Wyvern poisons as evil (Commoners lack the Fort saves to survive a single hit from a poison 10 con no fort bonus until 2nd lvl and only a +6 at 20th, should one survive a single hit, he more then likely won't survive the fort saves. Hell a 10th lvl fighter with some bad dice rolls could die from the poison.)

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?

Depends on what they are killing. Hunting a band of Orcs and Knolls that have allied with a Necromancer and have "captured" allies and hold their corpses as undead. I don't see that pally as evil, I see him fighting for a just cause (defeating evil & freeing the souls of his friends).

A woman beaten, raped, and hearing her attackers talking about murdering her so she can't ID them in court, so lays under her bed in ambush with her husbands .357- that's not murder that's self defense (thou she might feel it was murder).

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

Mine is people that correct my spelling and bad grammer I know I don't spell so well and I can't get my wordage right to save my life. In places like this I don't bother to try.

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?

A highly trained killer vs a man that has never seen a dead person. I think that is enough or was that what you were looking for, personally I see it as completely obvious.

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?

By this statement it appears to me that you seem to just be looking for someone to argue with. I aplogize if I am incorrect, it just looks that way to me.

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?

I think what we need to to define what Paladin defines as a poison. I mean a Paladin would more then likely not see a P-Dragon as evil because it uses a stinger that puts people to sleep (its poison as you pointed out). What about the bug that bites another bug- should the Pally crusade against the evil poison using bug (they are everywhere- millions of the little buggers)? I think not, the Pally would be a joke in the Pally circles.

Just thought of a character- a Paladin/Wizard has a P-Dragon as his familiar. How would that work?

[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.

Ya, well the law is pretty narrow in its thoughts as it is, murder can been see in lots of differing lights-

Have a friend that is a Sniper in the Marines. He was ordered to take a shot on a man and did without question. The guy was very bad, responsible for lots of bad things, yet this man was not someone that could be brought before a court easily. My buddy has a real problem with having taken this shot- when we were talking about it he said a number of times- "I murdered him."

Later in Iraq he lead a group of non combatants againt a building that was loaded with soldiers. The non coms could hit nothing, so he told them to "shoot the building," while he fired a single shot from his M16 at each target. While we talked about it he said- "I killed them."

See the difference? Its in your own minds eye. He has lots of problems with the first dead and has some serious combat stress issues, but that is for another thread.

The woman I mentioned earlier. When all was said and done the DA brought charges against her. The judge threw it out- never got to court. The DA joined with the families of the two men and went after her- he was so dedicated to the thought that she had murdered these guys that he gave up his job to pursue her. (Eventually she won several dollars (I don't know the amount) from the DA and the two men's families.)

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.

Ya, there are a lot of stupid laws on the books.

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.

In most areas of the US the law is pretty clear on that- the dog gets no trial, just a death sentence.

Take nothing I said as an attack. I mentioned this before I think, I mean nothing by the words I am just looking to get thoughts rolling on something that I am trying to see others POV as I might need some of these agruements later while I play my Deepwood Sniper

 

[Destil]

2) Self-Defense; Non-Lethal Attack

You can defend yourself with a sword or staff by parrying and disarming your foe. This is never an option with poison. A man with a sword can be presumed to have an intent of self-defense. A man with poison must be presumed to have an intent to kill/ disable.

Actually, dropping someon's ability score to 0 (aside from Con) is one of the best ways to take them out of action without killing them. The paralysis poisons are even better, too....

 

[Talon5]

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.

Very true- its just the lead up to it. "He's out? Slice his throat."

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

Okay. I guess that is true 99.9% of the time.

Think of it this way- you're a 10 Con Commoner 2nd lvl. A (hold on a sec while I grab my MM- sorry for the delay, had to go downstairs) Viper bites you, rolls crap on the damage- say you take 1 pt of damage. mr Adventurer shows up and snake is dispatched, but you've already missed the Fort save and GM knocks off 6 of the 1d6 points of con then a minute later you miss again and you lose another d6 as you have failed the second roll- thats 12 gone- you had 10 to start with. You are very much dead- but it wasn't a "miss Fort or Die poison."

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

Poison wasn't mentioned in my example of the dog.

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.

I doubt that Amilor would attack his fellow party member, he's just to cool for something that... child like. Nah, I think he would explain why he must go, the others would talk about it, and the choice would be made to keep Amilor and tell Grayson that "its the road or the poison, your choice."

Grayson would normally go, but he has a serious love interest in the group, so he would turn about, and without telling anyone he would dispose of the poison. When asked he would say- "I am still here."

Defining a poison is something that I need to do. PDragons use a poison as defined by the D&D books, but they arn't evil. Animals use poisons, but Paladins don't crusade to kill them all off for their crime.

 

[AIM-54]

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

Actually I was being facetious, but I admit I didn't indicate it well, if at all. A downfall of this type of communication, but my bad nonetheless.
It just seemed that you were arguing that the rules are as written and having an interesting debate over them was pointless because "the rules are the rules".

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.

Not really at all. My understanding is that things like BOED etc are rules supplements, optional rules as it were, and therefore what it says there does not necessarily make it canon across the board. Maybe that's a false impression, but in that sense poison use is no longer automatically evil, unless one chooses to make use of that particular rule set. In that case, no house ruling is necessary, one just does not use said rules.

I really have no idea where you get that latter sense as I'm all for house-ruling and whatnot, finding straight D&D a little restrictive for my tastes. That's a personal preference and not a knock on D&D or any other system.

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

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

Yes, because as a player I prefer relatively (I stress this point!) logical progressions instead of arbitrary dictums from DM's. Over a debatable issue such as this, "because I said so" or "because the gods say so" would not cut it for me. Again, this is a personal preference, YMMV, as it clearly does.

 

[dead]

What is the "code of conduct" for a paladin anyway?

And does it say anything about "honour" in the Class description?

Indeed, is a Lawful Good PC honourable?

 

[Testament]

Is poison evil? Ahhh, one of those eternal debates. I my game (which is of course, my view) poison is considered a low-down, dirty and sneaky dishonourable tactic. A con-draining poison especially so. Despite that, the native people of the island use them is battle to weaken the enemy (ah, blowguns from the trees. Always fun) and the city guard use strength draining poisons to incapacitate fugitives.

In short, is it evil? No. Is it dishonourable? Yes, ergo Paladins cannot use it (owing to their code of hnour, my Paladins go by a variant of Bushido and thus consider poisons decietful). Its regulated and almost impossible to purchase legally, but is not evil.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It just seemed that you were arguing that the rules are as written and having an interesting debate over them was pointless because "the rules are the rules".

"Interesting"? Seriously? I just don't find it so. It's just too obvious:

"Is poison evil?" (1) Well, by RL morality, it's not any more evil than a longsword in a flat-footed orc's guts. (2) In D&D, per the BOED, it is. "Why?" Who knows? Only the gods.

The only thing I find interesting about the debate is that people still have it. (And before some smart-ass tries to point out that I'm debating it, look again. I'm not. All I'm doing is trying to present a solution whereby people can move on to genuinely interesting things.)

Not really at all. My understanding is that things like BOED etc are rules supplements, optional rules as it were, and therefore what it says there does not necessarily make it canon across the board.

I agree with you. I've tried to be very clear that I was speaking about the rules as written in BOED.

Yes, because as a player I prefer relatively (I stress this point!) logical progressions instead of arbitrary dictums from DM's.

But see, that's just it. It's not an arbitrary ruling from the DM. It's an arbitrary ruling from the gods, and like it or not, D&D is full of them. (So are many RL religions, past and present.) For just one other example, check out the deathwatch spell.

One of my players has a real problem playing a paladin. He doesn't understand why a paladin has to act, as he puts it, "like a retarded Boy Scout." He doesn't understand that a paladin must behave that way ... because the gods say so. He wants a logical explanation for why his paladin, who could do so much more good were he allowed to use deception and trickery, instead has to risk death by being straightforward and upright. And, unfortunately for him, there is no logical reason.

It's religion, and religion just doesn't have to be logical.

Players' insistence on overlaying RL modern morality and rationality on the game doesn't just make it hard to understand things like the D&D alignment system ... it also robs them of some really interesting RP.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Very true- its just the lead up to it. "He's out? Slice his throat."

Which has nothing to do with it - the act itself isn't murder, the same way as opening your mouth and waving your arms isn't murder - unless you happen to follow that with launching a fatal fireball at someone.

Think of it this way- you're a 10 Con Commoner 2nd lvl. A (hold on a sec while I grab my MM- sorry for the delay, had to go downstairs) Viper bites you, rolls crap on the damage- say you take 1 pt of damage. mr Adventurer shows up and snake is dispatched, but you've already missed the Fort save and GM knocks off 6 of the 1d6 points of con then a minute later you miss again and you lose another d6 as you have failed the second roll- thats 12 gone- you had 10 to start with. You are very much dead- but it wasn't a "miss Fort or Die poison."

Did I say save or die? No. I said lethal. Poisons which target con are lethal. Poisons which target other statistics are not.

Poison wasn't mentioned in my example of the dog.

You didn't make an example of a dog. You made an example of a scorpion, presumably to try to say poison=murder. What you were actually saying was intent+fatality = murder. Which is a basic dictionary definition.

I doubt that Amilor would attack his fellow party member, he's just to cool for something that... child like. Nah, I think he would explain why he must go, the others would talk about it, and the choice would be made to keep Amilor and tell Grayson that "its the road or the poison, your choice."

Only IF the rest of the party fall in line with him.

And of course what is it compelling you to take his choices? There's not really much to stop you from hanging around AND using the poison unless he's going to step up with some sort of threat.

Grayson would normally go, but he has a serious love interest in the group, so he would turn about, and without telling anyone he would dispose of the poison. When asked he would say- "I am still here."

Defining a poison is something that I need to do. PDragons use a poison as defined by the D&D books, but they arn't evil. Animals use poisons, but Paladins don't crusade to kill them all off for their crime.

Exactly. Poison use in and of itself isn't evil, no matter what the BOED says. It might not be exalted. It might be against the paladin's code. But it's not evil.

 

[Talon5]

Which has nothing to do with it - the act itself isn't murder, the same way as opening your mouth and waving your arms isn't murder - unless you happen to follow that with launching a fatal fireball at someone.

You must be a cop.

Did I say save or die? No. I said lethal. Poisons which target con are lethal. Poisons which target other statistics are not.

Nope- my mistake- your a lawyer. Leathal and "Save or Die" is the same thing as dead. So what the poison take 60 seconds to kill you instead of hit and your dead.

You didn't make an example of a dog. You made an example of a scorpion, presumably to try to say poison=murder. What you were actually saying was intent+fatality = murder. Which is a basic dictionary definition.

Ya, lawyer.

Had a lawyer try to nail me on the word "never," which means has never ever happened in the history of the universe.

Only IF the rest of the party fall in line with him.

They will. I know the players and the characters pretty dammed well. Hell We tried to get Amilor to lead us, but the GM refused to allow it. We argued that he was smart, honorable, kind, charismatic, and had a good sense of right and wrong.

And of course what is it compelling you to take his choices? There's not really much to stop you from hanging around AND using the poison unless he's going to step up with some sort of threat.

LOL- so you would hang out at a gaming table where you were uninvited? If everyone in the room was going to a party and you weren't invited you would go? Even when trying to get a ride someone told you- "you weren't invited."

Sorry I am not that dense and I play few characters that are.

Another reason- Grayson's first love disappeared eight years ago, he found a new love and she's in the group. She would follow him, but would want to have stayed and I- I mean, Grayson would not take her away from her love for his wounded pride. Besides he has done alright without poisons up 'til now. Poisons are just another weapon in his arsonal.

Exactly. Poison use in and of itself isn't evil, no matter what the BOED says. It might not be exalted. It might be against the paladin's code. But it's not evil.

The more I read the more I am changing my view towards evil.

I have been an NRA member for a few years and a gun owner all my life, guns are no more evil then cars. Poison is no more then a substance- hell poisons are around us every day, the mercury in your teeth is of lethal levels if you have more then three fillings (course it will take you 50 yrs to drop dead from it). Poison is a tool.

People of honor don't use it because they view it, as dishonorable, which I agree with after reading so many posts.

I think I need to ponder this subject more.

 

[tarchon]

Poisoning of arrows is by far the least treacherous of poison's uses (and I believe Hercules uses the blood of the Hydra to poison his arrows at one point in his story), but poisoning of melee weapons tends to bring to mind Claudius from Hamlet and his evil plans for the final act.

Poison is considered evil in fantasy because the thought of life-giving food and drink being somehow tainted and deadly was absolutely horrifying to the ancients from whose myths and legends we draw our stories. It's the main reason snakes were considered evil (apart from that story about Adam and Eve). It is a weapon of subtle murder, a tool of blackest treachery. In short, poison is the province of a villain.

It was usually considered to be an aspect of sorcery, basically black magic.