Is poison use evil?

[ARandomGod]

Maybe I should have asked: "Is *lethal* poison used by sentient creatures evil?"

The question practically answers itself.
This situation is evil if any lethal action by a sentient creature is evil. If lethal actions used by a sentient is not an evil act in itself, then lethal poison use, being a lethal act by sentient creatures, is therefore not evil in itself.

Which is to say, it's no more inherently evil than any other way of killing someone, and many poisons can be significantly less evil.

That being said, let's turn to legal authority.
The US government has determined that euthanization is more morally accomplished by lethal injection. IE the lethal use of poison by sentient creatures.

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree with you on that, wilder, but I also find, personally, my own games to be more enjoyable by ignoring that rule from BOED: it doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't improve the story, and it doesn't improve the game, in my opinion. By the core rules, I believe that poison use is not evil, and that's how I prefer to play.

There's nothing wrong with coming up with a religious justification for poison's evilosity; if you do so, just make sure you can explain pseudodragons successfully, or leave them out of the game .

Daniel

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I agree with you on that, wilder, but I also find, personally, my own games to be more enjoyable by ignoring that rule from BOED: it doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't improve the story, and it doesn't improve the game, in my opinion.

I can dig it. I disagree, but that's groovy. I prefer to DM heroes, and heroes don't use poison, not even the scoundrels. (If Han Solo were a D&D character, he'd certainly never use poison. Nor does the Grey Mouser, or, actually, any hero -- as opposed to anti-hero -- I can think of.)

But that's just a difference in what we want from our gaming.


Jeff

 

[Garlak]

How can you explain to your player something you do not understand?

D&D morale breaks apart in complex situations anyway.

A Paladin under a Dominate spell kills someone with poison?

Is he EVIL? By your logic, or lack of, he his.
Are you going to make him Attone for failling a Saving Throw?
The EVIL one is the one who made it happen, the mage who cast Dominate.

A world without logic is a world where the players don't know what to expect.

Woosh!!

 

[Michael Morris]

I can dig it. I disagree, but that's groovy. I prefer to DM heroes, and heroes don't use poison, not even the scoundrels. (If Han Solo were a D&D character, he'd certainly never use poison.

No, BUT HE DID SHOOT FIRST LUCAS!!

Sorry, felt a need to interject that.

 

[iblis]

I don't perceive poison use to be especially evil in any given context.

Poisons hurt beings excessively? So do : swords and maces (these kinds of jolly 'murder-aid' tools will - on a regular basis - produce diabolically slow and agonizing deaths), burning alive (e.g. courtesy of a righteous CG wizard's Fireball spell), being partially eaten while still alive (e.g. by a NG Druid using Wild Shape), and so on. D&D (in the core rules) is rather bloodless, but - to me - that hardly seems the right 'colouring' for a system that is inherently extremely violent, and so for those who want a little pain with their gore...er, no, let me rephrase that...um, for those who enjoy some - token of course! - realism in with their fantasy gaming, adjustments must be made accordingly (or supplements purchased, alternatively). Anyway......

In the Book of Exalted Deeds, there are feats and Prestige Classes that specifically enhance and employ Sneak Attacks, respectively - so there go the 'dishonourable' and 'stealthy' versions of "Poison Use Is Evil", really.

As has already been stated a few times, various good-aligned beings utilise venom freely with (apparently) no pangs of guilt.

All in all, what will those bloody paladins think of next eh? First it's the poisons, next it'll be your daggers, mark my words. You'll be fighting with a good knife in a fair and honest duel someday, and mr. paladin will just step right up and rip your head off barehanded for the dishonour of using a weapon with 'less than lawful visibility'.

And that'll be the beginning of the end, truly.

 

[Pielorinho]

Is he EVIL? By your logic, or lack of, he his.
...
Woosh!!

Moderator's Notes:
Garlak, what part of the membership agreement do you not understand? What part of my previous warning was unclear?

Email me if you have any questions; as promised, you've earned this thread a closure, and earned yourself the evil eye. Especially since I was enjoying the discussion.

Clunk.
Daniel