Is poison use evil?

[Talon5]

There I was- all done with EnWorld for a little while and someone makes a comment (which was emailed to me) I just couldn't resist coming back to.

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.

Yes, as a matter of fact I am an idiot and very proud of it. I get ridiculed all the time.

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.

The example I have continued with is Grayson- does 1d8+4 with his long bow (+3 str & +1 magic). He does x4 on crits- maxed out that is 4d8+16= 48 pts top end. Doubtful he will kill anything CR9 but I think you will try to find something. A Wyvern poison could help a lot

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...

We asked him- he said no. The GM explained while we were getting dinner or while they (the GM and the other Players) were packing up to go.

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.

And a poison's primary purpose is? Oh, to knock out your target so you can tie him up. Have to remember to tell Mr Rattle Snake that he's suppose to tie Mr Mouse up and not kill him.

I have seen dozens of people killed by cars, hundreds of lives ruined by car accidents. Wittnessed things that I do not ever wish anyone to see.

I know a half dozen people who's lives have been saved by the presence of a firearm.

I do not have the time right now, but if you do I suggest you check the CDC site. Look at the statistics- look for deaths caused by guns and compare it to car accidents.

btw- never argue with an idiot, people watching the arguement won't be able to tell which is the idiot.

Take care, live in peace and harmony, its better then the alternative. Now I can head out on vacation feeling better.

 

[Sejs]

btw- never argue with an idiot, people watching the arguement won't be able to tell which is the idiot.

No, no - we've got a pretty good handle on things so far. Please, do continue.

 

[Garlak]

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.)

What the hell is your problem? Please explain to me how something that does not THINK can be EVIL when it can't do anything by itself.

The person using poison wants to hurt the guy, not the object.
The objects does not think and therefore cannot have moral character.
Are asteroids EVIL? One colliding with Earth could kill millions you know.

Please keep your insults to yourself.

 

[Li Shenron]

The 1st edition restricts poison use to assassins and evil thiefs.

The Book of Exhalted Deeds says that poison use is evil because it "causes unnecessary suffering". But then they introduce Ravages that are basically poisons that only effect evil people and for some reason this is OK. Isn't harming evil people with Ravages also causing "unnecessary suffering"? And doesn't a longsword in the guts cause "unnecessary suffering".

What's your opinion? If my PC uses arsenic in the evil bandit leader's food, am I evil?

The topic is at least controversial, and in fact it gets regular discussions every now and then...

The only thing I want to tell you is not to let published book define the ethical issues of your game, because as most (if not all) ethical issues they are different from people to people, and the authors' view is not better than your gaming group's on this kind of subject.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What the hell is your problem? Please explain to me how something that does not THINK can be EVIL when it can't do anything by itself.

Wow. You're quite the git.

It's a game. It's called Dungeons and Dragons. Within this game, there are many fantastical elements that can't be explained with real-world explanations. Among these fantastical things are dragons, wizards tossing around fuel-air explosions, and swords that are undeniably evil. Yes, that's right: evil swords.

What a strange game, huh?

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes: Okay, everybody chill out. Next insult gets this thread closed.

If we can discuss this peaceably and respectfully, that's great, but things are getting far too personal and insulting. And that's not what the ENBoards are about.

Daniel

 

[Garlak]

I know what D&D is.

My posts were about non-thinking objects.
They cannot be EVIL because they simply have no choice.
They do what people do with them.
The one doing the action is the one who is EVIL because he is the one who hurts people for his own gain. The object is a tool.
If you use one of your "evil swords" to kill the BBEG then it did good.
What you do with it is what matters.

Poison by itself cannot kill people, you need someone to use it.

I don't know what a git is and I don't care.
There is no need to insult me.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My posts were about non-thinking objects.

So was mine.

They cannot be EVIL because they simply have no choice.

Yet in D&D, they can be, and fairly frequently are.

In D&D, one can have an unholy sword that is objectively, verifiably, evil.

In D&D, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the use of poison is likewise evil.

How is it that you can accept fireballs and dragons, and jaunts to the Nine Hells, but you just can't quite grasp the concept of D&D morality being different from real-world morality? It's truly not difficult.

Zombies are mindless, and unless given orders to the contrary, harmless. Yet they're evil. It's not solely the act of creating them that is evil ... the creations themselves -- mindless and "no choice" and all -- are evil.

The object is a tool.

Yes, and in D&D, a tool can be evil in and of itself.

If you use one of your "evil swords" to kill the BBEG then it did good.
What you do with it is what matters.

Not to a little spell called detect evil, it's not.

Poison by itself cannot kill people, you need someone to use it.

Poison iself isn't evil in D&D. Poison use, however, is.

 

[Kemrain]

Mind you, it makes one wonder about using holy water on fiends. Does that hurt them?

Think chemecal burns. Exceedingly painful. Scars up nice, too.

The BoED says that poison use is evil. I can live with that, in campaigns that use the BoED. What I can't understand is the justification. How is Poison different than Ravages? How is it different than spells that damage stats? How can it be OK for an animal to use it, but not a person- There are sentient creatures with natural poisons, and some of them are good.

It was suggested in this thread that poison use was evil because of the pain it caused. Some poisons I can agree are very painful, and by design. However, there are plenty of other poisons that you wouldn't feel any pain at all from.

It just seems contrived to say that some stat-damaging methods are evil and some others are not, when they accomplish the same goal. If poisons are evil because they cause pain than causing pain should be evil, not poison. If poisons are evil because they leave you helpless, then hell, sleep is evil!

The Holy Water - Fiends example is a good one. It's very painful for a field to be splashed with holy water, but it's still a Good thing to do.

I don't get it.

- Kemrain the Confused.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't get it.

You can't get it. It's not rational. You're overlaying real-world logic, philosophy, and morality over a fantasy world where gods actually walk the earth (or could, if they wanted to).

Real-world logic, morality, and morality breaks many aspects of D&D. Thus you should, when necessary, ignore them. This is what I mean when I keep saying that poison use is evil because of "religion."

If you really want an in-game why, make one up: "In ages past, Hextor used the venom of medusae in a duel against Heironeous, nearly slaying him, though far outmatched in combat prowess. This shocked the deities, and ever since that long-ago day, they have declared the use of poison evil. But, gods being gods, there are a myriad of exceptions, including Ehlonna's beloved pseudo-dragons."

The point is that it doesn't really matter. If the heroes wonder about it, you can say, "Nobody really knows. But the gods clearly wish it so."