Is poison use evil?

[Pielorinho]

I actually think it's a good idea to have a rationale for why poison is evil, and I like Particle_Man's explanation a lot: poisons are horrifically painful.

Other explanations may include the simple (All the Good Gods got together and decided it was evil) or the complex (Death first entered the world when the Spider Queen Ixachiel bit and poisoned the beloved goddess Amasle, because the God Frank chose the goddess over the Spider Queen, and ever since, poison has been shunned by all right-minded creatures).

Paladins might avoid it because, while poison might not be evil in particular circumstances, the potential to use poison as a means of deception is too great a temptation, and paladins must strictly stay away from any such temptation.

Daniel

 

[Felix]

In D&D fantasy, poison is evil.

In D&D fantasy, we have things like Pseudodragons, who are both Good and poisonous.

If Poison=Evil, then please explain pseudodragons.

You mean ... poison use is evil because of religion? What kinda whack theory is that?

Wait, wait... you're saying that poison is evil? Ah, good. Well, then perhaps you can explain Pseudodragons. Or you can explain the Poison spell. If poison were evil, then surely this would be an [Evil] spell... but it isn't.

Contagion, which inflicts disease, is [Evil].
Symbol of Pain, which causes extreme... pain... is [Evil].
But Poison ain't.

And you're very clear on your source... the Book of Exalted Deeds does say poison is [Evil]. And as a supplimentary, optional, non-core book I would say that it provides a nice precident on how religions would treat poison, if you're playing in that kind of game. But what it doesn't do is overrule core material. And I believe there is enough core material to show that the use of poison is not necessairly [Evil]. And that's the way it should stay.

Poison should be a no-no for Pallys, and a red-flag warning for possible [Evil] for everyone else. But an [Evil] rubber stamp it ain't.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Okay, here's my take on this (not that anyone cares . . . ).

1) If I use bug spray to get rid of some wasps that might otherwise sting my kid and send him into shock and kill him, then I'm not evil--I'm being a concerned parent.

2) If I use mouse poison to kill some mice in my garage, because last winter they did $800 damage to my car, I'm not evil--I'm being fiscally responsible.

3) If a doctor uses an anesthetic to knock me out to do surgery (surely equivalent to a poison that causes unconsciousness), then he's not evil--he's being a good doctor.

So, whether in the real world or in D&D, I see that poisons aren't themselves evil. It's like calling a gun evil, or a sword evil. Poison is a tool. It has honorable uses and dishonorable uses.

If someone uses rat poison or an anesthetic to cause harm, then it's bad. But the poison isn't bad, it's the user's intent.

Dave

 

[Talon5]

Pardon me? You mean you thought someone was going to reply? Would you prefer to be ignored?

Wow- I can really see that you are looking to argue. I was simply stating that I knew someone would get upset by what ever it was I had to say, not that I would be surprised by a reply or that I was trying to get a reply just that I knew someone would get upset. For once I can see I was correct.

You misunderstand. The Paladin is a base class in a rules system. As such it lacks thought, understanding, or opinions. Any given character has these things, but the class lacks it completely. So saying "the rules set that is a base class lacks understanding" is silly. Only a character can have understanding. "The Paladin" isn't a character. Get my drift?

Nope. Thou I think what your saying is that- actually I don't see what your point is. Sorry.

My point is that Paladins are very narrow in their line of thought, that they see evil as evil and good as good. They tend to catagorize people into one or the other- use a poison and you'r evil, commit an evil act you're evil, fight evil and your good.

No, no. The code of conduct says "Paladin's don't use poison. They also don't do evil things. They cannot consort with evil creatures." It does not say "Paladin's kill anything that uses poison because poison is evil." See, poison is not necessarily evil, Paladins are banned from using it because it is dishonorable. I think any given paladin understands that creatures use poison to survive. Or perhaps you'd like to explain it to every paladin's player?

I am trying really hard to stay on track with knowing that poison is mirely a tool and not a classification to evil deeds. When I started this I was of the mind that it was just a tool, now after reading posts from guys like you and a few others I am coming to the conclusion that it is because people have to justify themselves in commiting an evil act.

"No, no, I had no choice, I had to poison them, it was my only choice," is what I am reading and it just seems to much like trying to justify yourself some how.

You were the one who said murder is murder. I have no problem with this argument, but it is inconsistent with your first post.

Yes, and I was trying to make the point that feeling like a murder makes you a murder. My sniper bud sees the sniper shot into his first kill as murder. He feels terrible about it and would rather have not done it. It felt like murder to him.

You dodged my question. What amount of extra training one combatant has will turn a fiar fight into an unfair one. You mentioned the example of a 1st level commoner vs a 20th level fighter. Ok, that's not fair, says you. I imagine a 10th level fighter vs another 10th level fighter is fair? So we have a range here. Unfair at one end and fair at the other. At what point does the unfair fight become fair? 10 levels of separation? 5? 2?

Okay- proof to point you love to argue.

Commoner 1 vs Fighter 20- that is what you would call a fair fight? Wow!

...was meant to have you think about how a paladin might react to this kind of poison use. Not as an argument, but rather as trying to be helpful to someone who says they have a problem.

I do and that is why I have not given up on you yet. You seem fairly intelligent so I am trying to not just go with my instincts. Please continue.

The definiton is not up to the Paladin. The game rules define what is and isn't a poison.

Originally Posted by Talon5
I think what we need to to define what Paladin defines as a poison.

What this means is- a paldin defines P-Dragons as using a poison, should a wiz buddy have a P Dragon familiar and the dragon stings an Orc to save the pally's life does that not come close to offending his moral code. I mean an ally used a poison to help him.

By defining what a Pally sees as a poison the Pally can pet the P Dragon and say "thank you, friend," without cutting the edge of his moral code.

I agree, but you assume Paladins don't use poison because it's evil. Not so. Paladins don't use poison because it's not honorable.

Something I thought I had said in the beginning of this whole thing (should I have the time I will try to look), but now (as I have stated previously) I am starting to see it otherwise.

The use of poisons is unhonorable on that we agree. Now should an alley use a poison does that offend the Pally's code of conduct? Because his alley is unhonorable.

No, it is not in your mind's eye. It is according to the law. Saying something is murder does not make it so. I could think you're a cucumber, and see you in my mind's eye that way, but it's not true. Murder is unlawful killing. That's it. There might be a disagreement on what is lawful and what isn't, but that's why we have courts: to interpret and apply the law, sentiment and morality aside.

Murdering someone (to me and those that I know who have killed) is the deliberate killing of someone when they are unaware of the attack or unable to defend themselves. The law defined the woman I mentioned previously as having killed the two men in self defense and thus it wasn't murder, thou she still feels that she laid in wait for them (she was waiting for them to find her). The Marine Sniper was incerted into a foreign country, moved into position and waited for a couple of days for the man to arrive- guy shows and he gets the final call. Those two examples- while both legal in the eyes of the law do not change how the individuals view the killings they commited. They have to live with those deaths, and they had never viewed themselves as killers before, and now they are.

And so what she did wasn't murder... because the judge threw the charges out, nothing more. Because that's the law. Had he convicted her, she would be a murderer.

Ya, the law says she isn't, but that doesn't change how she feels.

And that's the law. No court, just death. A trial does not a murderer make. The law defines a murderer, and since animals killing humans is unlawful, any animal that kills a human is a murderer. If the law were the same for humans as it is for animals, then any killing we did would be murder.

Murder is a state of laws- yes. Murder is also a state of mind. I have two friends that have killed lawfully, but feel that those three deaths (while justified) were acts of murder. Neither likes what they did, thou the world views their actions as justified and legal, in their minds it was not- it was murder.

That's easy, tell the paladin this: "My poison puts people to sleep just like the wizard's spell. So arrest the wiz and me together, or bugger off."

Grayson will argue that poison is a tool, like an arrow or a sword or a hammer, or a rope, or a chisel, or saw or etc. State the arguement that is placed here on this thread, but when push comes to shove- he will back down. Why? Because he will lose the popular vote and he knows that and he wants to be there, he wants to be with his love interest and he wants to be part of something again (a family).

It does not have to be that way. "He's out? Tie him up." is just as reasonable a follow up. The cutting of the throat, and not the rendering unconscious by poison, kills the fellow.

50/50- kill or tie up.

I believe Saeviomagy was referring to the fact that most poisons don't attack CON. Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha poisons won't kill you, just render you paralyzed or unconscious. If they don't kill you, they arn't lethal. Being made vulnerable to a cut throat does not make the poison lethal.

Con poisons will kill (DMG pg72)- it is the only stat that will, the others render you helpless. As far as being rendered helpless and the poison making you vunerable to the end of the battle whows- well....

Again with the poison=evil. It's bleedin dishonorable, but not necessairly evil. And paladins can associate with dishonorable folk as long as they don't jeapordize their code of conduct. And if the Paladin doesn't use the poison, then he's not jeapordizing his code of conduct. No reason for the Paladin to throw you out of the party. Easy peasy.

Actually I doubt that Amilor would say "get out," no, I think he would say something like- "I can't work with someone that uses poisons. I must go," the others would jump all over him- "your not leaving for Grayson's poison use. If anyone is going it's him."

And the DM has to decide if the BoED is part of the rules set. The book isn't core, so if the things in that book are not being used, then it should be discarded as a hard and fast rule. A precident, maybe, but not a rule.

So many House Rules that we have to post them on our group site. We use a lot of different rules for things- the GMs are both players and we see the whole- if I make this ruling here then its gonna be the same in his campaign type thing. We talk a lot about rulings, few times has the GM ever jumped on- "this is my campaign and this is how its gonna be!" band wagon, usually it- "what do you guys think- these are the ramifications and this is what it means."

Ponder away.

Still pondering. Thou I am starting to lean away from where I started towards the idea that poison use could be evil and that people that use it are trying to justify their use to it- no, of it.

Thank you for you're input.

 

[Felix]

Wow- I can really see that you are looking to argue. I was simply stating that I knew someone would get upset by what ever it was I had to say, not that I would be surprised by a reply or that I was trying to get a reply just that I knew someone would get upset. For once I can see I was correct.

I was referring to my apparent panties you mentioned.

Nope. Thou I think what your saying is that- actually I don't see what your point is. Sorry.

A rules set has neither opinions nor understandings.

The Paladin Core Class is a rules set.

The Paladin Core Class has neither opinions nor understandings.

Characters have opinions.

Notice the difference twixt characters and classes?

My point is that Paladins are very narrow in their line of thought, that they see evil as evil and good as good. They tend to catagorize people into one or the other- use a poison and you'r evil, commit an evil act you're evil, fight evil and your good.

Your paladin might feel this way. Another paladin might feel that all creatures deserve mercy and nothing should be killed. The class doesn't dictate opinions or characteristics.

...I am coming to the conclusion that it is [evil] because people have to justify themselves in commiting an evil act.

Yes, people must justify their non-evil acts when other people call them evil. Some folks said "Poison is evil" and we're saying "not necessairly".

"No, no, I had no choice, I had to poison them, it was my only choice," is what I am reading and it just seems to much like trying to justify yourself some how.

I have absolutely no idea where you got this from.

Yes, and I was trying to make the point that feeling like a murder makes you a murder.

No it does not. Murdering makes you a murderer. I stepped on a bug earlier to day and feel bent out of shape over it. I might call myself a scoundrel and a murderer, but I'm not a murderer.

My sniper bud sees the sniper shot into his first kill as murder. He feels terrible about it and would rather have not done it. It felt like murder to him.

I'm sorry he feels that way. Regardless, the law, which is what determines murder, says he isn't. So he isn't.

Okay- proof to point you love to argue.

Commoner 1 vs Fighter 20- that is what you would call a fair fight? Wow!

No, I did not call it a fair fight. You called it unfair. So we have:

Unfair................................/..................................Fair
20th v 1st.......................?????...............................10th v 10th

When does a fight stop being unfair, and start being fair? I'm not stating what is or isn't fair, simply trying to get you to flesh out your opinion on the matter.

What this means is- a paldin defines P-Dragons as using a poison, should a wiz buddy have a P Dragon familiar and the dragon stings an Orc to save the pally's life does that not come close to offending his moral code. I mean an ally used a poison to help him.

By defining what a Pally sees as a poison the Pally can pet the P Dragon and say "thank you, friend," without cutting the edge of his moral code.

Read the Code of Conduct:

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.

The paladin does not have to re-define anything. It's already laid out in the code of conduct. He does not use poison. He does not consort with evil people. Poison/=evil, so he absolutely may consort with poisoners as long as they remain otherwise not-evil.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about Paladins having problems with other people that use poison, nor is a paladin's morality necessairly offended by poison use. He holds himself to a higher standard, but doesn't necessairly require others to do so.

Except in the case of Evil people, with whom he will not consort.

Now should an ally use a poison does that offend the Pally's code of conduct? Because his ally is dishonorable.

It does not offend his code of conduct. The Code of Conduct only governs his own actions.

Murdering someone (to me and those that I know who have killed) is the deliberate killing of someone when they are unaware of the attack or unable to defend themselves.

Nope.

Murder
1. n, The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. vt, To kill (a human being) unlawfully.

Those two examples- while both legal in the eyes of the law do not change how the individuals view the killings they commited. They have to live with those deaths, and they had never viewed themselves as killers before, and now they are.

Sure, they're killers alright. Never had a problem with that. But murderers they ain't.

Ya, the law says she isn't, but that doesn't change how she feels.

And how she feels doesn't change what the word means.

Murder is a state of laws- yes.

Yes.

Murder is also a state of mind.

No.

I have two friends that have killed lawfully, but feel that those three deaths (while justified) were acts of murder. Neither likes what they did, thou the world views their actions as justified and legal, in their minds it was not- it was murder.

Nope. They can feel what they want, but it doesn't change the word, or the truth. Murder is unlawful killing. They didn't kill unlawfully. Therefore they didn't murder.

What was this tangent all about anyways?

Grayson will argue that poison is a tool, like an arrow or a sword or a hammer, or a rope, or a chisel, or saw or etc. State the arguement that is placed here on this thread, but when push comes to shove- he will back down. Why? Because he will lose the popular vote and he knows that and he wants to be there, he wants to be with his love interest and he wants to be part of something again (a family).

Have you ever considered talking to the paladin's player and the DM about this? Have them read the code of conduct, or this thread if they want to. This is all about a game, and you want to be a Sniper. Well, clearly the paladin can let that slide as long as you remain otherwise Good (or non-evil). If the player wants to be a stick in the mud then it will be a problem.

50/50- kill or tie up.

The point is, the killing decision is made after the poison is administered. The poison doesn't kill him, the knife does. The hand holding the knife does. The brain that tells the hand what to do does. But not the poison.

Con poisons will kill (DMG pg72)- it is the only stat that will, the others render you helpless.

That was our point.

As far as being rendered helpless and the poison making you vunerable to the end of the battle whows- well....

Well what? The poison didn't kill him. You could say something just as silly by saying "he killed himself because he made the decision to go to battle that day", and that is clearly nonsense.

Actually I doubt that Amilor would say "get out," no, I think he would say something like- "I can't work with someone that uses poisons. I must go," the others would jump all over him- "your not leaving for Grayson's poison use. If anyone is going it's him."

Then talk to the player and the DM. The DM should not penalize the paladin for allowing a poisoner in the group and the paladin shouldn't throw a hissy fit over something he doesn't need to.

So many House Rules...

As long as he's clear and consistent.

Still pondering. Thou I am starting to lean away from where I started towards the idea that poison use could be evil and that people that use it are trying to justify their use to it- no, of it.

Poison use can be evil. It can also be not-evil. There is nothing inherently evil about poisons.

Thank you for you're input.

Yup.

You love to argue.

You saying that's Evil?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wait, wait... you're saying that poison is evil? Ah, good. Well, then perhaps you can explain Pseudodragons. Or you can explain the Poison spell. If poison were evil, then surely this would be an [Evil] spell... but it isn't.

Actually, I said that "poison use" is evil. Looks like the band is playing the "Scarecrow Hustle" again!

Anyway, dude, you're asking the wrong guy. Go ask the Powers That Be in the various D&D worlds. They're the ones who set the rules, not me. All I'm doing is pointing out that there's a way, if they choose to take it, for the non-irredeemably hard-headed to accept the rules under which their characters must labor.

Unlike some -- apparently you, for example -- I can accept that D&D logic and morality is not congruent to real-world logic and morality. Im pretty okay with it, in fact, since in the real-world I'd have serious problems with militant Catholics -- for example -- kicking down the doors of sinners, killing them where they stand, and taking their color TVs and pocket change for themselves.

But I'm wacky that way.

There is nothing inherently evil about poisons.

No, a detect evil won't pick up a vial of poison. But, per the rules in The Book of Exalted Deeds, poison use is evil.

I know, I know ... you wanna rail against the injustice of it all, gnash your teeth, and keen your grief. That's cool ... but I can't help you if you won't let me.

 

[Talon5]

A rules set has neither opinions nor understandings.

The Paladin Core Class is a rules set.

The Paladin Core Class has neither opinions nor understandings.

Rules are flexable until the become law then they become unflexable.

Characters have opinions.

Ya they do, just like we do

Your paladin might feel this way. Another paladin might feel that all creatures deserve mercy and nothing should be killed. The class doesn't dictate opinions or characteristics.

Realize that, thing is it seems to me that Pally's code of conduct narrows their field down considerablely.

Yes, people must justify their non-evil acts when other people call them evil. Some folks said "Poison is evil" and we're saying "not necessairly".

Using poison does not make one evil, of that I have not stepped away from, thou I am getting closer to the line when it comes to poison=evil because of the way I am understanding your pov

I have absolutely no idea where you got this from.

The whole murder thing.

No it does not. Murdering makes you a murderer. I stepped on a bug earlier to day and feel bent out of shape over it. I might call myself a scoundrel and a murderer, but I'm not a murderer.

Once apon a time ago I wanted to be a writer. THought about it seriously, then I noticed that people didn't get/understand what I was trying to convay. Writing my ideas here I realize I should never kendal that dream.

When does a fight stop being unfair, and start being fair? I'm not stating what is or isn't fair, simply trying to get you to flesh out your opinion on the matter.

I can remember in junior high. There were 5 or 6 football players. They beat the crap out of me. For what? I don't know. That wasn't fair. A commoner1 vs Fighter1- thats unfair. When I met one of those guys six years ago we had a good laugh- I am just under six foot, at the time a little over 200 lbs, and pretty solidly muscled. He was five ninish- and dumpy. That would have been unfair.

Read the Code of Conduct:

The paladin does not have to re-define anything. It's already laid out in the code of conduct. He does not use poison. He does not consort with evil people. Poison/=evil, so he absolutely may consort with poisoners as long as they remain otherwise not-evil.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about Paladins having problems with other people that use poison, nor is a paladin's morality necessairly offended by poison use. He holds himself to a higher standard, but doesn't necessairly require others to do so.

Except in the case of Evil people, with whom he will not consort.

Thats a mighty thin line your cutting there.

Okay, so Grayson puts some poison on his dagger. In a fight later he throws it at an Orc and misses. Amilor grabs it up and sticks an Orc. He will lose his pally status for using the poison, but he didn't know it was on the dagger, it was the heat of the battle, if he hadn't grabbed the dagger he'd be dead now and so would his friends. How can Heironous make him an x pally for that? Cause he broke the conduct code. Unknowningly yes, he saw the dead Orc and saw the wound, made his Heal check and realized that the dagger was poisoned after the fact.

What was this tangent all about anyways?

Not sure- got lost in the arguement I think.

Have you ever considered talking to the paladin's player and the DM about this? Have them read the code of conduct, or this thread if they want to. This is all about a game, and you want to be a Sniper. Well, clearly the paladin can let that slide as long as you remain otherwise Good (or non-evil). If the player wants to be a stick in the mud then it will be a problem.

Amilor is an NPC. Rocking character thou.

Ironic note here- Grayson Noble was raised a Heironian, family line is loaded with Heironian paladins and clerics, his father joined him up and he was in the Greyhawk War. He learned to hate Heironous there.

Amilor is a Heironian Paladin

You saying that's Evil?

Felix it's been nice talking with you, but there are a few things that have happened recently in threads that have led me to believe my place is not arguing points here, its in reading other peoples. I have not the skill to write what I believe or think in a clear way. Its obvious to me that you missed half of what I was trying to convay and for that I can not fault you. I will stop making an ass of myself here for now.

(One reason is I am going on vacation in two days and I need to get ready.)

Take care, be a good person and be at peace with everything you do. Talon5- Out

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

And you appear to be an idiot. I just said - if the poison actually kills you, it's lethal. If it targets ANY STAT OTHER THAN CON, A POISON DOESN'T KILL THE TARGET. Therefore it's not lethal. Therefore it can't possibly be murder to use it without some other act designed to kill the target at a later date.

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

Like I said - you're appearing as an idiot. Your sequence was
Guy slits throat = murder. Fair enough - I doubt you can argue that you were slitting the guy's throat to subdue him.

Guy fires poisoned arrow = murder. There's two problems with this one - first is that if the poison isn't a lethal poison (see above for the quite obvious definition of this term, because you seem unable to grasp it), the target won't die from the poison, and the guy using the poison obviously didn't expect it to kill him. Next up is the fact that the arrow would be quite likely to kill the target anyway. So we could just take the "poisoned" section out of this - which defeats your entire argument.

Finally you had
Guy tells pet scorpion to kill target. To which I have the same objections as above - poison or no, attempting to kill someone and succeeding is murder. As an example I showed that if the scenario was "guy tells pet pit bull to kill target", it would still be murder.

At which point your brain gave out, and you seemed to think that the dog scenario was your own one, and you started up this bizarre argument...

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.

How did you 'try to get amilor to lead'? Don't you just follow him? Or does the DM state that you can't take orders from him or something...

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."

No, I wouldn't. But then I'm not a loner character who thinks nothing of others opinions and is in love with a member of the group that's supposedly going to get rid of me because they hold my own views in considerable contempt. Nor for that matter do I associate with paladins, wizards or crusading clerics. Or pit my life against deadly creatures.

...

I have been an NRA member for a few years and a gun owner all my life, guns are no more evil then cars.

With the sole exception that the prime purpose of a gun is to kill living creatures while the prime purpose of a car is fast transport.

 

[Garlak]

How many peoples have died from poison's evil intention? Not a single one.

Poison does not think, it cannot be evil since it as no intentions to kill.
It's a thing, it cannot do anything by itself.
It simply exist.

People are evil, giving moral character to an object is silly.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

People are evil, giving moral character to an object is silly.

You're so right! I mean, the idea of an "evil," well, sword, for example. How absurd! No way that could ever happen! That would just be -- well, you said it: silly!

(Sheesh.)