Is poison use evil?

[Whimsical]

Here is a note that I added to my character creation guidelines for the last game that I ran:

*Cultural distinction: Use of poisons that don't damage or drain CON or cause permanent effects are acceptable for use against dangerous or criminal beings who need to be stopped or captured, even by paladins. In fact, they are preferable to lethal attacks for neutralizing such opponents. Otherwise, any poison is acceptable to use against monsters subject to destruction except poisons that are supernaturally evil.

 

[sellars]

Poison is often considered evil specifically because it has a tradition of being antithetical to honorable fights. Poison is the ultimate weapon of stealth and of dishonor.

I think you're right. This doesn't make it evil in the "detect evil" kind of way, but it is just looked down upon by people, who'll associate the poison user with the "shady side of town".

Of course it all depends (like you said ) on the circumstances and the kind of poison that is used. I consider a poison that causes unconsciousness without further side effects as less evil than poisons that do ability damage.

But is honor necessarily good? The Irish would sometimes refer to honor as a "damnable thing"--it had good men kill each other over matters that were not worth death.

I haven't heared that before. There's certainly a lot of wisdom in that statement Go Irish!

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm.... IMHO it depends entirely upon the type of poison used and the circumstances. Thus, I think you should go with your gut-feeling on when it's 'fair' to use poison and when not.

When concerned with over-use, we had as standard house rule that on a critical fumble (i.e. a natural 1 rolled on an attack), you stood a fair chance of hitting yourself or an ally. Thus, using poison as a standard procedure on melee weapons was not the smart thing to do. During the many combats, natural 1's came up too regularly to be worth the trouble.

Thus, poison used to be restricted to ranged weapons or under special occasions (i.e. poisoning the kettle with slop in the kitchen of the evil bugbear lair etc....), where we considered it smart use of resources to take out nasty enemies.

OTOH we never adhered too strictly to the good alignment, in the sense that most of our characters were CG at best, mostly LN/CN or even LN(E). The whole 'goody two shoes' act of paladins rarely came up in our games...

 

[Kabol]

Well - you have to take Animal poisions out of the mix to understand it ( for me at least ) - Animals use poisions to live, to hunt food. Its not done out of choice or malace, its simply how they are designed. So for them the use of poisions is not evil, because its innate - its how they are built.

For me, Poision use has always been a very grey area. I would say that poision use is - Not Good - . But, its very hard for me to see it as Evil, But there is a long standing presedent behind it being evil. I think... that its a pathway to darkness, when one embrasses questionable acts to dispose of foes, the steps toward "evil" acts becomes easier and easier. Poision is the "gateway" to the evil path.

... Maybe ...

 

[DragonLancer]

I have debated this on other messageboards, and in nearly every case the discussions have ended with the idea that poison by itself is not evil, nor is its use, but rather what you choose to do with it is.

 

[Hand of Evil]

This can get ulgy...

You can look at a number of ways:

The taking of poision is that of the person being poisioned, meaning the person makes a choice and knowledge does not matter. To drink or not? This way of thought means the person is only guilty if they are seen putting the poision into something, it is the act.

Coating of weapon to produce death or weaken a foe, eaning you are in combat and looking to make sure you win. While not honorable, winners write history and it is combat!

My soapbox define evil in your game! If cold blooded murder is evil, the first fits but not the second.

 

[Felix]

The Wyvern has perhaps the deadliest natural poison at a DC 18 2d6 CON/2d6 CON and they are Neutral. They are also intelligent. Not terribly intelligent, but they know what the stinger in their tail does.

So the virulity of the poison doesn't matter as far as good/evil goes.

 

[Mac Callum]

Poison, like a sword, is a tool. It can be used for Good & Evil ways.

That being said, there are several reasons why poison is perceived as "not as Good" as a sword.

1) Accountability.

Generally speaking, it is easier to avoid the consequences of your actions if you use poison instead of a sword. A Good combatant should have no reason to avoid the consequences of their actions, and therefore poison use is strongly presumptive of Evil intentions.

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.

3) Stealth

No one likes a sucker-punch. Most people don't have access to/ use Detect Poison at every meal.


It's all about Presumptions. A Swordsman can be presumed to only attack when it is just & reasonable, to accept the consequences of his actions, and to act in a way that his victim knows who is attaching him. In other words, he can be presumed to be Good. A Swordsman can later prove himself to be Evil, but he starts off with the benefit of the doubt.

The nature of poison lends itself so strongly to stealthy, unaccountable use that it is presumed to be Evil. It's just not worth the risk of having a poisoner living next door. The benefits of having alternative tactics available just don't outweigh the risk that he might "go bad" or that some thief will steal his supplies and poison the well.

And so we call it Evil.

 

[shilsen]

By the core rules, I don't think poison use in 3e is evil. The only real reference to its morality I can think of is in the paladin class description, which says that a paladin will act with honor and says "not using poison" as an example. So using poison is a dishonorable act in the core rules, but not evil, as far as I can see.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Poisons are also sometimes associated with disease and black magic in Western traditions -- things that are corrupted and bear the taint of evil.

I think of it as a "few bad apples" issue. It is not evil in every case, but there are sound reasons why they may get lumped together by most folk.

I would further note that wyverns, purples worms, couatl are all suspiciously snake-like or dragon-like from a historical Judeo-Christian perspective. The Christian Arthurian ideals are strong influences (among many others) on D&D.