Is the use of poison explicitly evil?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I feel that poison use should be looked at as a Chaotic act,

No, I don't think it's a Chaotic act, either. Again, if poison itself were an aligned act, the Poison spell would have an appropriate descriptor. It has no descriptors.

Going back to my favorite way of discussing alignments, the question isn't whether poison use is a Chaotic act (or Lawful, or what have you), but why would a person of a given alignment use it? And, given that they had chosen to use it, in what manner would they employ it? And why would they use such a method?

A Lawful Good individual might find that a particular act of poisoning is the best way to stop, say, a slaving ring - by poisoning the wine he's about to sell them with an additive that increases its intoxicating effects (i.e., Wisdom damage poison). Thus, the slavers are likely to be drunk out of their minds - and catatonic - when he enters their compound later that night to free the slaves. Poetic justice is served; the loss of self-control brought about by alchohol is enhanced, which allows the LG individual to place the slavers under his control. The potential collateral targets are limited, as the slavers are unlikely to share their high-priced wine with the slaves or with anyone else.

A Chaotic Evil individual might elect to employ the same methods, but his reasoning will probably differ significantly. For instance, getting the slavers riotously drunk and out of control might just seem viscerally funny to him - especially since the majority of them will be completely helpless when he comes sneakin' through their doors tonight. "Some guys just can't hold their arsenic, eh?" Maybe the slavers will share some wine with the slaves - but collateral damage can't be helped.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Using poison is clearly evil. After all, inflicting a temporary -3 Strength penalty on someone is CLEARLY more evil than chopping them in half with a great axe or burning them to death with a fireball.

Coating a weapon with poison is a sneaky and underhanded technique, while using a holy sword that has special abilities that cannot be detected by your enemies is just good tactics.

After all, paladins can only use obviously good techniques, like having the party cleric hold person on the BBEG so the paladin can then go in for the coup de grace. But use highly overpriced poison on his blade? Never! That would be wrong.

Clearly, CLEARLY the D&D prohibition is based on very sound principles.

 

[RuminDange]

No, I don't think it's a Chaotic act, either. Again, if poison itself were an aligned act, the Poison spell would have an appropriate descriptor. It has no descriptors.

Going back to my favorite way of discussing alignments, the question isn't whether poison use is a Chaotic act (or Lawful, or what have you), but why would a person of a given alignment use it? And, given that they had chosen to use it, in what manner would they employ it? And why would they use such a method?

Very good way to put it.

The way I see it and they way I tend to rule it is poison is the tool, no different than magic or a weapon. It is the why, who and how it is used that determines the alignment of the act. Difference IMO is I'd allow even a Paladin to use poison if the why and how was for the right reason. Such as knocking out a group of people to protect them from themselves or from being controlled by something / someone. That way he could go after the BBEG or artifact without having to fight and possibly kill such while trying to save them.


RD

 

[Diirk]

Er well seeing that poison is illegal, its probably pretty fair to say its unlawful

 

[Gez]

If poisons are evil, then anesthetics are evil (they're poisons, just tiny tiny doses). And alchemical or herbal drugs are poisons, too.

Everything is a poison and a cure, it just depends on dosage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Er well seeing that poison is illegal, its probably pretty fair to say its unlawful

SMACK!

Bad Diirk! Bad!

Lawful <> Legal! It can't! D&D alignments are absolute!

Unless, of course, you're joking, in which case ...

SMACK!

Bad Diirk! Bad joke!

 

[Corlon]

It's just a tool, I generally see it as being unlawful in the "you're not following the generally accepted societal law" lawful, but it all depends on what kind of lawful your lawful character is. Now if your good character is black lotusing all the evil merchants so he can take their stuff, that's probably not the greatest way to go about things for a good character. Poison is illegal in today's society, but then again, killing anyone is also illegal. I generally thought of it as illegal on the whole honor thing, as it doesn't allow for a fair fight.

I don't really like poisons cause they're ridiculously expensive and a lot of their saves are too low.

And Gez, the whole all things are poisons just in different doses, that's like saying both aspirin and speed are both "drugs." Whereas it's just really an umbrella term, which in this case is reffering to substances in a large enough dose to cause a belligerent affect.

 

[Terath Ninir]

If poisons are evil, then anesthetics are evil (they're poisons, just tiny tiny doses). And alchemical or herbal drugs are poisons, too.

Everything is a poison and a cure, it just depends on dosage.

You can die from drinking too much water. Is it evil? Is it evil to give someone a drink?

 

[Arkhandus]

Using poison in D&D isn't inherantly evil. Paladins can't use it because it's dishonorable and thus violates their code of conduct. But dishonorable doesn't equate to evil (Robin Hood was dishonorable but still a hero of the people, for instance). Poison is a dirty trick that's dishonorable and considered foul play, but it isn't really evil, just unfair usually.

Thus, at worse, poison use may be considered a mildly chaotic act more often then not, though methodical and diabolical lawful evil assassins and politicians may also use poison simply because it's strategically effective and efficient for their plans. A lawful neutral or lawful good character is less likely to accept the use of poison, but still isn't necessarily against it. I.E. a good-aligned character may use poison to take down an evil foe that's too strong for them to handle by themselves.

The only mention in official D&D rulebooks of poison being evil is in the Book of Exalted Deeds, I think, where it mentions that poison use is evil, so instead good characters use some exalted poison-like effects called ravages that only work on evil creatures. But ravages are just poisons with a different name and more limited focus. That Book doesn't really make much sense in that regard, and it's not a Core Rulebook anyway, so its content can all be handwaved and dismissed as a single author's baseless opinion. At least, that's what any sane, competent person would do. :^D Seriously, if you've ever looked at the BoED, you'd see some of the horrible design decisions they made with that book, and you'd know that it's something you really have to take with a grain (or rather, bucket) of salt.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Paladins can't use poison.
Alchohol is a form of poison.
Therefore, Paladins can't drink.



"Do you hear that Fezzik? That is the sound of ultimate suffering. My heart made that sound when the six-fingered man killed my father. The Dwarven Paladins make it now."