Poison evil?
- Thread starter Locpik
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
I know that in 1st edition, good characters were not allowed to use poison and poison use was strongly associated in the rules with evil alignment.
I'm not sure how 3rd edition treats it, largely because it seems to do its best to avoid the question.
For myself, using or not using poison is something that I associate strongly with lawfulness not goodness. That is to say, I associate it strongly with codes of honor. A lawful good person might not consider it fair play, unless he lived in a society with rules governing how and when it could be used. If he did, he probably was living in a lawful evil culture. My favorite example of this is from Dune, where they have a whole culture built arround the honorable art of treacherous death. They even call it 'Kanly', and treat it as some sort of chivalrous sport. In a culture like that, even a Paladin could concievably use poison (provided he had legitimate cause for war, warned his opponent in the formal manner, and gave his opponent sufficient time to negotiate some other solution, etc.). Another example might be a primitive jungle culture which for good reasons used poisons on its weapons when hunting game. In this culture a CG person would certainly not blink an eye about using poison in warfare, and a LG person would have the justification of tradiation.
But on the whole, you want to avoid opening that can of worms. Generally this question is asked by players looking for shortcuts, min/maxing, powergaming, and uninterested in roleplay. If the player intends to poison his foes, he better darn well expect that his foes will retalitate in kind.
The simplest way to address this is using poison to murder or assault someone is murder or assault and THOSE are clearly not good acts. Other than that, just make poison use difficulties balance with the advantages (no real world army used poison extensively prior to WWI, and since then its use has been very rare. For one thing, the legal customs of war designed to minimize casualties forbid it.)
But, speaking of opening cans of worms, is anyone other than me bothered by the fact that most poisons are 100% gauranteed not to be lethal? It seems like over compensation for 1st edition to me. Shouldn't poisons that do WIS, DEX, or STR damage have some chance of killing thier target? People bit by a Funnelweb or a Black Widow (much less the monstrous equivalents of these), or stung by a Sea Wasp ought to have some chance of dying. Instead, 5 poisons in 6 (as it were) are gauranteed to at worst leave the person in a coma for a day. If the world really worked like that, you should be able to argue that poison use was a legitimate tool of pacifists. Maybe excess damage ought to go to CON, or maybe the secondary damage of any poison ought to be +1 CON damage (in addition to other effects). Maybe there should be save fumbles - roll a 1 on a poison save and you are allergic, take +1d6 CON damage in addition to any other effects. Maybe all three. What do you think?
I'm not sure how 3rd edition treats it, largely because it seems to do its best to avoid the question.
For myself, using or not using poison is something that I associate strongly with lawfulness not goodness. That is to say, I associate it strongly with codes of honor. A lawful good person might not consider it fair play, unless he lived in a society with rules governing how and when it could be used. If he did, he probably was living in a lawful evil culture. My favorite example of this is from Dune, where they have a whole culture built arround the honorable art of treacherous death. They even call it 'Kanly', and treat it as some sort of chivalrous sport. In a culture like that, even a Paladin could concievably use poison (provided he had legitimate cause for war, warned his opponent in the formal manner, and gave his opponent sufficient time to negotiate some other solution, etc.). Another example might be a primitive jungle culture which for good reasons used poisons on its weapons when hunting game. In this culture a CG person would certainly not blink an eye about using poison in warfare, and a LG person would have the justification of tradiation.
But on the whole, you want to avoid opening that can of worms. Generally this question is asked by players looking for shortcuts, min/maxing, powergaming, and uninterested in roleplay. If the player intends to poison his foes, he better darn well expect that his foes will retalitate in kind.
The simplest way to address this is using poison to murder or assault someone is murder or assault and THOSE are clearly not good acts. Other than that, just make poison use difficulties balance with the advantages (no real world army used poison extensively prior to WWI, and since then its use has been very rare. For one thing, the legal customs of war designed to minimize casualties forbid it.)
But, speaking of opening cans of worms, is anyone other than me bothered by the fact that most poisons are 100% gauranteed not to be lethal? It seems like over compensation for 1st edition to me. Shouldn't poisons that do WIS, DEX, or STR damage have some chance of killing thier target? People bit by a Funnelweb or a Black Widow (much less the monstrous equivalents of these), or stung by a Sea Wasp ought to have some chance of dying. Instead, 5 poisons in 6 (as it were) are gauranteed to at worst leave the person in a coma for a day. If the world really worked like that, you should be able to argue that poison use was a legitimate tool of pacifists. Maybe excess damage ought to go to CON, or maybe the secondary damage of any poison ought to be +1 CON damage (in addition to other effects). Maybe there should be save fumbles - roll a 1 on a poison save and you are allergic, take +1d6 CON damage in addition to any other effects. Maybe all three. What do you think?
Celebrim
Legend
Hong: I was merely pointing out that CON poison and only CON poison was lethal. If we were going to enumerate which poisons were lethal (a dose would kill 50% or more of all people on average) and which poisons could be lethal (a dose would kill some small fraction of otherwise healthy humans) we'd probably come down to much less than 1 in 6.
Take the afore mentioned spiders. Spiders apparantly do STR damage according to the MM. None of them are ever lethal. In fact, a cat sized spider does at MOST 4 STR damage (assuming both saves fail and damage is maximum), meaning that it only really does more than inconvience people who were nearly invalids any way. Of all the poisonous vermin, only giant bees are potentially lethal, and even they do on average with two failed saves 7 CON damage. Incidently, the toxin of a (Huge) 30+ foot long viper (twice as long and eight times as heavy as a big King Cobra), is no more venomous either. A first level character would probably survive any single bite without treatment. So would a dire rat! But even more worrisome is the fact that realisticly sized poisonous critters have ridiculously small (and predictable) effects under the rules.
Since your aussie you should appreciate this. If we were to be consistant, jellyfish should do DEX damage. So a character could tie a rope around himself and have himself lowered over the side of a dock into a swarm of box jellyfish and know that he could not die since the only thing that would really threaten him was drowning. Toxic shock is not an issue under the rules. I'm just saying maybe it should be.
Take the afore mentioned spiders. Spiders apparantly do STR damage according to the MM. None of them are ever lethal. In fact, a cat sized spider does at MOST 4 STR damage (assuming both saves fail and damage is maximum), meaning that it only really does more than inconvience people who were nearly invalids any way. Of all the poisonous vermin, only giant bees are potentially lethal, and even they do on average with two failed saves 7 CON damage. Incidently, the toxin of a (Huge) 30+ foot long viper (twice as long and eight times as heavy as a big King Cobra), is no more venomous either. A first level character would probably survive any single bite without treatment. So would a dire rat! But even more worrisome is the fact that realisticly sized poisonous critters have ridiculously small (and predictable) effects under the rules.
Since your aussie you should appreciate this. If we were to be consistant, jellyfish should do DEX damage. So a character could tie a rope around himself and have himself lowered over the side of a dock into a swarm of box jellyfish and know that he could not die since the only thing that would really threaten him was drowning. Toxic shock is not an issue under the rules. I'm just saying maybe it should be.
Celebrim said:
Your ability to make empirical statements about make-believe worlds is remarkable.
Yep. Recall the meeting of Sam and Frodo with Shelob, in the tunnels under Cirith Ungol. Frodo gets well and truly zapped, and yet he survives. Monstrous spiders in D&D follow that tradition.
Insta-kill effects are bad in a game. D&D already has enough of them (if not too many); no need to add more.
Spiders tend to have paralytic poison (str) while insects tend to have lethal poison (con) Nothing in nature (or fantasy) is an always/never situation.
You can make spiders with con poison and insects with str poison. Don't complain about the standard way because it doesn't mesh with your personal vision.
Repeated bites/stings will kill/paralyze anyone given enough time (you fail saves on a 1.) Once you are paralyzed you are as good as dead if someone doesn't help you. (ie the spider wraps you up in a web and eats you later)
You can make spiders with con poison and insects with str poison. Don't complain about the standard way because it doesn't mesh with your personal vision.
Repeated bites/stings will kill/paralyze anyone given enough time (you fail saves on a 1.) Once you are paralyzed you are as good as dead if someone doesn't help you. (ie the spider wraps you up in a web and eats you later)
0-hr
Starship Cartographer
Those are some very good points about the non-lethality of poison. What might be a good solution (without new rules) would be have the critters do coup-de-gras once the person is helpless.
So one bite from a spider can't kill you. But if the first one paralyzes you (0 STR), then the second one might. Or to look at it another way, that big old spider has to keep his fangs in you for 12 seconds rather than 6 seconds to finish you off.
For a tank full of jellyfish, if you are getting stung a dozen times a round, you will run out of DEX pretty fast. Now you are getting coup-de-gra'ed a dozen times around. That's going to hurt in a very permanent way.
From the critter's point of view, they are doing the same thing (biting or stinging) each round. But you, as the DM, change their technical action from a bite/sting to a coup-de-gras once the victim is helpless.
So one bite from a spider can't kill you. But if the first one paralyzes you (0 STR), then the second one might. Or to look at it another way, that big old spider has to keep his fangs in you for 12 seconds rather than 6 seconds to finish you off.
For a tank full of jellyfish, if you are getting stung a dozen times a round, you will run out of DEX pretty fast. Now you are getting coup-de-gra'ed a dozen times around. That's going to hurt in a very permanent way.
From the critter's point of view, they are doing the same thing (biting or stinging) each round. But you, as the DM, change their technical action from a bite/sting to a coup-de-gras once the victim is helpless.
da chicken
First Post
Poison use in games I play in is generally considered both dishonorable and cruel. As a substance it is also generally illegal, so it is nearly impossible to purchase in an unknown city.
If you use poison, your intent would be seen as to maim or kill your opponent. Or at the very least to cause undue pain and suffering. No quarter would ever be given; your opponent would kill you to protect his well-being.
Think of it like making a dirty atomic weapon, or using biological or chemical weapons. From a strategic standpoint, war is not trying to kill your opponent but to make him cease fighting you. This means either making him unable to fight you (no weapons, no food, etc.) or unwilling to fight you (no morale). In modern terms, this is why we target weapons factories and munitions or fuel dumps. Notice we don't assign the civilian populace as a target (although they certainly do get killed).
Frankly, that is the difference between war and terrorism. Poison is a terrorist weapon. Using it in combat brings you to their level, and you will be treated as such by others. It doesn't necessarily matter even if you are using a sleep poison or other non-damaging venom. You are still trying to attack your opponent rather than his desire to fight you. That's why poison is considered "evil". It is a nondescretionary lethal weapon.
However, you need to remember this thinking only really applies to sentient beings. A spider, snake, or scorpion isn't evil because it uses poison. Neither is a carrion crawler.
If you use poison, your intent would be seen as to maim or kill your opponent. Or at the very least to cause undue pain and suffering. No quarter would ever be given; your opponent would kill you to protect his well-being.
Think of it like making a dirty atomic weapon, or using biological or chemical weapons. From a strategic standpoint, war is not trying to kill your opponent but to make him cease fighting you. This means either making him unable to fight you (no weapons, no food, etc.) or unwilling to fight you (no morale). In modern terms, this is why we target weapons factories and munitions or fuel dumps. Notice we don't assign the civilian populace as a target (although they certainly do get killed).
Frankly, that is the difference between war and terrorism. Poison is a terrorist weapon. Using it in combat brings you to their level, and you will be treated as such by others. It doesn't necessarily matter even if you are using a sleep poison or other non-damaging venom. You are still trying to attack your opponent rather than his desire to fight you. That's why poison is considered "evil". It is a nondescretionary lethal weapon.
However, you need to remember this thinking only really applies to sentient beings. A spider, snake, or scorpion isn't evil because it uses poison. Neither is a carrion crawler.
Celebrim
Legend
So what if your players want to use poison on spiders, snakes, or scorpions, or carrion crawlers?
We 'enlightened' types use poisons all the time on or enemies, be they rats, mosquitos, or bacteria. And poison isn't generally to hard to purchase (even arsenic).
But in general I agree with you. Poison should be a controlled substance in most campaign areas, and purchase of it should arrouse suspicion. Of course, the PC's could well have the skills to make thier own out of the spiders, snakes, scorpions, and carrion crawlers they kill. Still, the use of it should be considered dishonorable against other members of the same species, and should be clearly a statement that no quarter is to be given, and nothing will be refrained from in the pursuit of victory.
Most societies would probably see poison as unduly cruel, but then again, some societies might see it as merciful. Our own 'enlightened' society has chosen to see poison as a more merciful means of killing than physical trauma like hanging, electrocution, guiltines, and firing squads.
We 'enlightened' types use poisons all the time on or enemies, be they rats, mosquitos, or bacteria. And poison isn't generally to hard to purchase (even arsenic).
But in general I agree with you. Poison should be a controlled substance in most campaign areas, and purchase of it should arrouse suspicion. Of course, the PC's could well have the skills to make thier own out of the spiders, snakes, scorpions, and carrion crawlers they kill. Still, the use of it should be considered dishonorable against other members of the same species, and should be clearly a statement that no quarter is to be given, and nothing will be refrained from in the pursuit of victory.
Most societies would probably see poison as unduly cruel, but then again, some societies might see it as merciful. Our own 'enlightened' society has chosen to see poison as a more merciful means of killing than physical trauma like hanging, electrocution, guiltines, and firing squads.
Similar Threads
