Is the use of poison explicitly evil?

[shilsen]

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."

Forget the paladins and pity the poor druids. At 9th level they can't get drunk any more!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Forget the paladins and pity the poor druids. At 9th level they can't get drunk any more!

And they make the best moonshine, too...

 

[Demoquin]

quick question on poisoning prices. It seems that poisons are really expensive for such a low DC on their Fort save and a high DC on the actual crafting. If one were to make poison how much skill would you think to be adaquate. Int 16

 

[ARandomGod]

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

Yes. Dihydrous Monoxide is and has always been a clear evil and it's vile poisons are evident everywhere. It does more damage every year than ANY other poison. And yet our very government does NOTHING to ban or control it's use. When will it end! Do your part today in making dihydrous monoxide an illegal substance!

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I had to seriously look at poison use when writing Crimson Contracts, and deduced the following:

Poisons that cause suffering or death are possibly immoral.
Running up and blowing Dust of Timeless Sleep is OK.

So...

A knockout venom on a dart being used to capture an evil wizard who could inflict a LOT of damage, and keeping him woozy with said drug would NOT be against the paladin's code, nor would it be illegal.

Even if it is, the church could grant a writ of absolution for a paladin if necessary.

 

[VirgilCaine]

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."

BTW, Warlord Ralts, is your sig from real life?

 

[Telas]

The following is my opinion, and strictly for use in my campaign. However, you may wish to note my reasons for my opinion, and apply them to your campaign. <-- (My attorney made me say this.)

Poison itself is not evil, it is just a tool, as a lockpick set is "just a tool". And, just like a lockpick set, the evil lies in its use. Use of a lethal poison is an inherently evil act. "Lethal" describes any poison, that in normal doses, can damage ability scores to 0. (No, it's not quite lethal, but making someone that helpless often leads to death.)

Of all the poisons mentioned by name in the DMG, Drow Sleep Poison can be used by Good characters. Finding it can be difficult, since only the Drow hold the secret. There may be other nonlethal poisons out there, but that's generally the purview of magic.

On the other hand, almost all countries in the world have outlawed the possession or use of poison. For this reason, even Sleep Poisons are considered unlawful. Since poison is a traditional way of ending the current ruler's reign, poisoners are generally considered to be assassins of some sort.

"Ravages" don't exist in my campaign. Period. Taking the tools of your enemy is the first step towards becoming him. Or something like that.

Again, these are my opinions. I'm sure you've got your own. When I play in your campaign, I'll live and die by yours. Until then, my players will live and die by mine.

Telas

Edited to add: In my opinion, the reason to keep non-evil PCs from poison are not to preserve game flavor, but more to preserve game balance. (Poison = higher CR, IIRC.) Allowing a PC to use poison makes him much more powerful, and transforms many fights into "duelling saves". I'm trying to avoid that if at all possible. Anyone who's had powerful wizards face off against each other knows what I'm talking about; the first to fail a save loses. :\

And, as DM, I would hate having to keep track of all the changes necessary when my group of bugbears, hobgoblins, and goblins gets hit by two different kinds of poison. For the PC, it's easy; he's got one character to worry about.

T

 

[Joker]

So I take it a paladin can't use positoxins to slay the Biggest Panda Skeleton Ever (tm)?

 

[Nazerel]

I'd be careful associating poison use with any alignment. A mafioso can be the epitome of lawful evil, for example. It's not that such a person follows the law of the land (which he doesn't, otherwise he wouldn't be involved in organized crime in the first place) but the fact is he follows the (unwritten) code of his gang, guild, family, etc. or even his own code of ethics (however twisted they may be). Therefore, a lawful evil mob boss (or tyrant) poisoning a rival isn't unlawful by way of alignment, though it certainly can be by way of the judicial system in his homeland, city, or what have you. Lawful alignment does not mean you always follow the law of the land.

Poison use can be considered sneaky, dishonorable, or cowardly but it largely depends on the society and culture. Like another poster said, poison is merely a tool, just like a sword (or a gun, but let's not go there, heh) is merely a tool. A jungle tribe whose members make frequent use of blowgun dart poison for hunting and warfare wouldn't consider it dishonorable or a criminal act. Or for a more modern context, animal control officers use tranquilizers to subdue possibly dangerous beasties from harming the public, often in the hopes that the animals themselves don't come to harm. Are the officers evil by association with "poison" then?

Put it this way, it's all about perspective. Heck, at one point, archers back in the day were considered cowardly and dishonorable by some European societies. Shooting a man from a distance was seen as less noble than facing your enemy in straight up "honorable" hand-to-hand combat. Captured enemy bowmen would often have their fingers cut off as a result of this perception. Why? Because in a feudal system, the knights (armored and favoring melee tactics) were in charge. Those in power make the rules and write the history as they see fit. It's no less true today. Women make up a larger percentage of those convicted of poisoning their victims than men. What does that say? (Not that I want to get into a gender debate, but draw your own conclusions.)