Is poison use inherently evil?

[Buttercup]

I've never understood this either. Dead is dead, whether it was brought about by poison, lead shot, steel, or for that matter, a rock to the temple. I can understand that a character might have a code which forbade poison, or missle weapons, or bladed weapons, or some other thing, but that's different. My players are fussing with each other over the use of poison, and since it's all in character, and all in good fun, I let it go on, though I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[DDK]

I hate it how poison use is considered evil by most people. It's one of those instantaneous, reactionary opinions that most people have about pretty much everything. In other words, most people don't actually think through what it is they're saying, they just say it. It's a sheep-like mentality. Why think when you can just do what everyone else is doing?

So at the end of the day, I think that poison use is not inherantly evil, however that said, the use to which it is put, could be considered evil. For instance, putting poison in someones food could possibly be considered evil, as could dripping it down a silk thread into someones mouth whilst they're sleeping. But coating a weapon with poison is just a more effective way of killing someone.

If anything, bludgeoning someone to death, which takes ages(unless you get lucky and kill them in the first hit), or carving them into little bits is more evil than using poison...

 

[Sir Hawkeye]

The thing that makes poison use "chaotic" (and evil to some) is that poison is usually sneaky. A poisoned weapon can't always be identified as such, and even then the effects of a poison aren't apparent until a hit is scored. Sneakiness and "unfair" advantages are generally perceived as dishonorable, and therefore chaotic. Honorable poison use would have to be declared up front or used (as in the debilitating cloud) for subdual purposes.

 

[Vaxalon]

The thing that makes poison evil, to me, is the risk of harming someone you didn't intend to harm.

 

[Hammerhead]

And creating a Wand of Fireballs doesn't carry the same risk? Or even making a magical weapon that could fall into the wrong hands?

 

[Cullain]

Hejdun,
would these same knightly orders have the same compunction against using the sleep spell that they have against using a debilitating poison?

Would they have the same problem using magical weapons as they would using weapons with poison on them?

I'm not sure I see much of a difference, alignment-wise, from the use of poison than I do the use of magic. It might not be honorable to use poison on your broadsword, but is it less honorable that using you flame-strike broadsword?

Cullain

 

[Rantar]

No Pain

Lets not forget that DnD really doesn't have a concept of pain either. Does getting hit with a fireball for 20 damage hurt the same as a sword for 20 damage or as losing 8 Con at level five? It really doesn't say. I think one of the reasons that things such as poisons and biological agent are considered wrong is because they cause so much suffering before killing where as a bullet can be so much quicker. I did some research on WWI and read about some of the horrible effects of the poison gases they used during trench warfarer. Not the way you want to go if you get a choice. Now I've read that some poisons cause very painful deaths (I know some don't too) but I might consider those in some way evil because they cause so much more suffering before death. Just another idea about why culturally we seem to see poison as an "evil" way to kill somebody. (note: I don't like using "evil" in reference to the real world, because it many ways the world is a much more grey place that your standard black and white DnD game. Thats a whole different thread discussion about throwing your players in a very grey world and seeing how they react. I'll have to start that puppy sometime.) Well thats just one more idea I wanted to throw into the discussion.

--Rantar

 

[LokiDR]

The sword and the spell are considered honorable because it is something that you weild explicitly and with intent. Poison, on the other hand, is insidious as it takes time to course throught the body and kill.

Example: the dual at the end of hamlet (I can't believe I am useing real reference)

The king and the other dualist both intend to poison hamlet. The king with wine, the dualist by blade. The poison cup kills hamlet's mother by mistake, so the king was evil. The dualist looses the dual to hamlet, and would have died had it been more than a game of sport. Hamlet is doomed, though, because the poison will set in later, after the victory.

After a fireball goes off, that is the end of it and you died or you didn't. In the real world, poision makes you weak or kills you later. I don't consider tear gas or sleep gas (or any chemical that does these things) to be poison because they have temperary, abivilent effects. Any stat drain or death poison, however, has that lasting, nasty effect. Honor means victory or death. If both sides used poison it would be death or weakness.

 

[Saeviomagy]

First of all, lets ignore the fact that causing someone to catch a disease is not an evil act in D&D (the contagion spell lacks an [evil] descriptor). (Note that by directing you to ignore this, I've in fact introduced it to the discussion in the first place...)

In D&D terms, chlorine gas would be a poison which caused the loss of 1d6 permanent constitution points. Since it's so unlikely to cause death, while at the same time highly likely to cause permanent disability, I can see how use of it would be considered evil. In the real world, it's been considered evil for the same reasons - it's not an effective weapon, and it's legacy lasts far beyond the war itself. Likewise, I can see how using poison delivered via a friendly event (poisoned food, or a poisoned spike on a small ring etc) would be considered evil.

But a poisoned weapon? In a fight in D&D, both sides are doing all they can to make sure their opponent goes down first, and I can't see how cheap shots (sneak attacks) or the use of a magical weapon or potion can be considered any more honorable than poison.

 

[Johno]

My take is that the use of Poison is a NON-good act.

A point to consider:
The only core Classes that gain the Poison use ability (ability to apply poisons to a weapon without running the risk of poisoning themselves) are EVIL: Blackguard, Assassin.

So if you are CN, N, LN, LE, NE, or CE in my campaign, you may use poison.

Even in DnD, there are more shades than just Black and White...