Is poison use inherently evil?

[Rantar]

I got into a discussion with some of my friends about poison. They thought that poison use should be considered an evil act, but personally I think poisoning somebody is no more evil than wacking them with a sword or hitting them with an arrow. This came up in the first place because I have an archer character taking the deepwood sniper class which will eventually give me poison use and I think I might want to shoot poison arrows, but my character has a good alignment. What are other people's opinion on this issue?

--Rantar

 

[Terwox]

Nay, I'd call that Law vs Chaos.
There's nothing inherently evil about using poison, it's a code of honor or somesuch.
Also, in my mind, some paladins could use poison, if it was not against their code.
I dunno. I just introduced a group of paladin/assassins in my game. I like how they're working.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I know in one of the core books, it says poison use is evil. I can never remember where though, so IIRC, by the rules it's an "evil act" with respect to alignment.

 

[TiQuinn]

The only place I recall poison use being called evil was in 1st edition PH. Good old EGG....

 

[reapersaurus]

unless you're playing a paladin, it shouldn't really be an issue.

End result is, you're killing someone.
Justifying the method is really only important to those with a code of honor.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Exactly. A sword slash must hurt a lot, I'm sure. So in a way, a painless poison is much more merciful. Depends on the point of view. If you're of the opinion that it's a coward's weapon, then that's your call.

 

[Psion]

Check out the "what's up with the monk" thread from page 5 or so on. There is a pretty deep discussion on this.

Final conclusion: not inherently, no. At least not according to the game. Frex, a poison spell doesn't have the "evil" moniker, and a dagger of venom doesn't cause good characters holding it to lose a level.

It may be against a lawful character's code of honor, but it's not inherently chaotic either.

 

[Greatwyrm]

It may also depend upon the type of poison. If you used paralytic or sleeping poisons to disable people so you capture them instead of killing them, I don't think that would be evil. Or if someone was being mind controlled and you had to save them from themselves, or some such thing.

Now that poisons do so much more than hp loss or instant death, the issue becomes much more interesting.

 

[Sejs]

The way I've always seen it is ~

No. Using poison on someone is no more evil or chaotic than sticking a 2 foot steel shank in someone's gut. Hell, if it's a debilitative poison, it could be a -less- evil or chaotic act that killing the poor slob.

 

[BlackMoria]

No. Not inherently evil. Just like a sword or gun is not inherently evil. It is the old clique - Guns Don't Kill People - People kill People.

IMHO, there is not much difference between gut stabbing a foe with a sword and having him die a painful death or poisoning a foe and having him die a painful death. The outcome - dying a painful death is the same, only the methodology differs.

So, why has poison got a bad rap? Because it is not considered honorable. Facing a foe with a sword who is likewise armed is considered honorable combat because you are at equal risk as your foe for death or injury - a level playing field so to speak.

Poison, on the other hand, allows one to kill without risk. Kill off your foe by having some minion poison his wine or food. Even a poison weapon is not considered honorable since you are considered 'stacking the deck' in your favor - your weapon has an advantage by making a minor wound potentially lethal due to the poison. Your foe, with armed with an unpoisoned similar weapon, does not have such an advantage.

Therefore, the use of poison is not evil but has moral implications pertaining to honor and fair play. As such, Paladins and others who subscribe to some honor code of what is considered 'fair play' or 'honorable' combat are going to frown on it.