Is poison use inherently evil?

[Numion]

In medieval time probably not evil. Morals change during the centuries, and nowadays using poison (chemical weapons) use has very negative implications. To the degree that chemical weapons are banned in most places.

Odd, if you think about it. It's ok to shoot, detonate and incinerate people but poisoning is not ok. In warfare, I mean

 

[Humanophile]

If you kill a justly sentinced criminal by beheading him with an axe, is that an evil act?

If you kill the same criminal by forcing him to drink hemlock, is the act any more or less evil?

As many other people have pointed out, the evil thing about poison is how well it lends itself to undetected use. Which makes it very attractive to evil people, but not necessarily evil per se.

If you enter a normal duel with a poisoned blade, you're cheating, but if you want to end a blood feud and both parties agree to duel with poisoned blades, again it doesn't strike me as any more evil than just hacking at each other until someone's in too many pieces to keep at it.

So while I see using poison as being distasteful to most good aligned characters, primarily because the other side doesn't know it until it's too late, I could see them being persuaded to use poisons that cause instant death (morally the same as an arrow of slaying), debilitation (morally equivalent to a sleep spell), hit point loss, or temporary ability damage (preferably not constitution damage, though). Using a poison to conceal one's cause in the death (usually by using a time-delay poison), to gain an unfair advantage in a supposedly fair fight, or to cause permanent ability damage all smack strongly of evil to me, though.

 

[Psion]

The way it is used is very important. Throwing the "tear gas" as decribed above might not be evil, but how many stories portray the antagonist as "EVIL" by having them poison the king.

So, would sending an assassin to replace one of the king's guards and twist a knife in the king's back not be evil? You are conflating intention with means.

 

[Kugar]

So, would sending an assassin to replace one of the king's guards and twist a knife in the king's back not be evil? You are conflating intention with means.

So what is the difference between the assasin sent to assasinate the king of an empire his culture determines "evil" and what the adventures do everyday. Obviously there is a difference. Is there? Look at Nercomancer's Maze series, the PCs are basically assasins themselves. Where is the line? If the game is all about the end and not the means you still can have a story, but when you look back at the protagonists are they really heroes?

Please tell me you can see the difference between
1) Walking up to the orc camp to try to parley and ending up taking on the whole camp.
2) Sneaking into camp to see who is behind all the raids and gathering information.
3) Sneaking into camp, poising the water supply and walking in a few days later to pick up the pieces.

Their is a real problem with the way poison is used, and part of the reason some people don't see it is the "video game" mentality of the players/DM. If the game boils down to - "See that camp of orcs over there, Kill them all!" Sure killing them with a sword is little different than poisoning them. But I have a problem with good adventures mowing down whole villages and hiding behind prejudices and reasoning.

Poison is not inherently evil, and there are some times that it will be used in ways other than normal, but I still see the basic concept in conflict with the assumptions we make when we play "heroes" and must be balanced carefully.

 

[LokiDR]

Socraties, the great greek philosopher, decided to perform his own execution by hemlock. This was not an evil act, as he was simply choosing his method of death and the trial was already over. In this case, the trial makes the use of poison legitimate. Governments have always been allowed to susspend laws, like "no killing" to do what it thinks is neccessary, like execution. The state has that right because they are in charge and official. Because most characters are not government officials with the right to susspend the law they can not use poison.

As far as the orc camp example, what if you poison the water, and the orcs get to their home the next day and water makes the whole tribe sick. Now you haven't really punished the guilty raiding party, because they are more likely to survive, but you have hurt the innocent: the women and children who stayed back at the camp. Also, what if the orcs discover the poison water and dump it into a stream. Where are you then? This is why poison and biological warfar has been outlawed. It is a horrible way to die and you can't control it.

In "Enemies and Allies" book includes a smuggler character who is identified with the following statement:

Poison is a coward's weapon, and only the worst sort of person would use it. I'll have a shipment in next week, but get here early as it goes fast.

As for the poison and contaign spells, they can be used as a weapon with no chance accidental use. "My church chooses to punish you by inflicting red ache on you." This is still an "official" kind of use, just by a church rather than a government. Also, this "poison" is lying around for others to use. I would call the use of contaign in combat evil. You are just trying to spite your enemy, not defeat him.

 

[barsoomcore]

Look, everyone knows that poison is for sneaky, snivelling cowards and swords are for hearty, bluff heroes. What's with all the soul-searching and breast-beating on this?

Spiking somebody's drink or sticking them with a drippy blade so's they go all rigor mortis and lurch about gasping and choking until with one final "Hrrrkkk!!!" they fall flat on their faces? Lame.

Winding up two-handed and opening their belly up with your razor-sharp blade so's their intestines spill out and they die shrieking in agony and terror? Sweet.

I can just see the next thread -- "Is laughing manically inherently evil?"

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

We can justify poison use eight way to sunday and at the end we'll agree that objectively using poison is no worse than using a sword.

But you'd be forgettig one thing; Using poison is perceived as being evil or immoral by most culture.

Pop quizz: the use of which weapon is defined as a crime of war by the geneva convention? Gun or Poison?

Poison are the chemical weapons of the medieval world; efficient but reviled weapons. They are associated with assassins and there is no way to free yourself from this stigma in the eyes of everyone.

You can rationalize the use of poison and you might even be right. But you'll still be preceived as a cruel bastard and unless your whole party is composed of modern rationalizers there will be tension.

As a final note; in some culture, the use of poison is indeed much more evil than the use of a sword. A Viking who dies by the sword goes to Valhalla but if he's poisoned while eating he'll be denied the right to enters the hallowed hall of Vallhalla and feast with his ancestors. Believe me that his sons, brothers and friends are going to be mightily pissed. And to them you will be seen as the lowest of the low.

 

[Voadam]

Mal,

I don't think your viking point is valid. You get to valhalla if you are a renowned warrior and die in battle. If you die by poison, you don't, just like when you die falling off a cliff, drowning, from the flu, or choking on a chicken bone. Hanging a man is the same as poisoning him as far as his getting into valhalla.

 

[LokiDR]

In most games, I think Mal has a very good point. Characters who consider themselves lawful just wouldn't concieve of poison. And rationalization is the first step to genocide. Anything can be rationalized, that doesn't make it right.

 

[Xeriar]

In most games, I think Mal has a very good point. Characters who consider themselves lawful just wouldn't concieve of poison. And rationalization is the first step to genocide. Anything can be rationalized, that doesn't make it right.

-THAT- line swings both ways, you know. Choosing not to be rational is considered insane.

Not all poisons kill. Sometimes, when they do, they give a kinder death than a festering sword wound.