Poison evil?

[Ealli]

The DMG (on the bottom of page 80) says that poison is always illegal. [Gee, thanks for mandating how to run my campaign.] With that said, everything is always up to the DM.

Opinion section: I would probably say that for the most part poison is neither lawful nor good when used against sentient creatures. I would use justifications like illegal, neccessity of premeditation, and dangerous even without requiring training.

 

[Al]

The perennial favourite resurfaces: this is the third time I've seen this thread (I started one once) but I still feel obliged to post.

Poison is not evil. It is not lawful. It is not good. It is not chaotic. It is neutral. It is not even dishonourable. It is a tool. Asking whether poison is evil is likely asking 'is a sword evil?' or 'is a fireball evil?'

Okay...for those of you whom think poison should be evil/illegal/dishonourable/unlawful.

da chicken:

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.

Well, what about hitting him with an axe, or launching a magic missile? Surely the intent of chopping a guy's head off is to 'maim or kill your opponent'? And as for no quarter being given, this is a ludicrous notion. For the vast majority of poison, which do not do Con damage, you are MORE likely to capture your opponent and to spare him from dying vis-a-vis a sword or lightning bolt. Is a Finger of Death evil?

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).

Utter assertion. The 'dirty atomic weapons' would be large-scale blast spells. Non-Con poisons are effective in making your opponent cease fighting, and Con poisons can be ranked alongside any damaging weapon or spell. Attacking civilians with poison is evil (but so would shooting him with a crossbow), but attacking an opposing combatant is no more evil than hacking him with a sword or blasting him with a fireball.

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.

How is poison nondiscretionary? Unless you're talking about poison gas released over a civilian population, poison is very discretionary. You target an enemy and then use poison against him. How discretionary does one need to be? The terrorist comparison is pure assertion, btw.

Celebrim:

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.

Let me see...you can wander in to a weapon shop and buy a sword. You can probably saunter into a magic shop and buy a Fireball scroll. But you can't buy poison without arouses suspicion. It seems hypocritical. Either the purchase of ANY weapon causes suspicion, or the purchase of NO weapon causes suspicion: poison is just like any other weapon of war.

With regard to 'no quarter is to be given', again I disagree. For one, poison in DnD is about the most effective way of defeating a high-level enemy by non-lethal means short of disabling magic (subdual damage really doesn't have the same impact). Secondly, and more significantly, the 'no quarter' argument is more appropriate to magic. Is the use of death magics evil? The PHB certainly doesn't list as either [Evil] or [Chaotic], so by this token neither is poison. Poison is no more 'dishonourable' than any other weapon inherently - but if the society terms it as 'dishonourable', then so be it.

Ealli:

Opinion section: I would probably say that for the most part poison is neither lawful nor good when used against sentient creatures. I would use justifications like illegal, neccessity of premeditation, and dangerous even without requiring training.

Illegal? Depends on the campaign world (I freely choose to ignore the DMG's ruling). Necessary of premeditation? Is preparing a Fireball not premeditation of doing someone grievous harm? Dangerous without requiring training? Alchemist's Fire anyone? (besides, I disagree with the third being strictly neither lawful nor good- any weapon can be dangerous, even without training)

Ultimately, poison is like any other weapon: perhaps non-Con poison can be seen even to be more merciful. If a Fireball is evil, if a sword is evil, if a crossbow is evil- then so is poison. But if they are not, then why is poison. Tools cannot be inherently evil: the alignment is what it is used for, just as any other tool or weapon. Foul murder is evil, using poison or steel; defeating an evil orcish champion is (usually) good, no matter which weapon is used.

 

[hong]

Remember: fireballs don't kill people, failed saves kill people.


Hong "they can take away my fireballs when they pry them out of my cold, dead fingers IWKYIM" Ooi

 

[Bonedagger]

The question is not whether poison is evil or not. It is if the use of poison is honorable.

Or is not playing by certain rules when you fight for your life evil?

"Hey. Always tell me when you are gonna hit me with that sword bad orc. What! You did it again without telling me. YOU ARE EVIL!"

 

[2late]

Use of poison is not evil!

It's not fair*, but if you intend to kill your enemy anyways (which might be an evil intention) why should the use of poison be more evil than cutting him slowly into pieces with a dagger? The result is the same, the latter is just more gruesome.
Even if you don't intend to kill your enemy, using a lethal poison is not evil, it's just plain dumb.
If you belive that your players abuse poison, get the townguard here to see what illegal substances they have and roll for the 10% chance that a character poisons himself if he applies poison to a weapon. The players will not be happy for very long.

*Before we foget it: All's fair in love and war, a fight is a war on a smaller scale.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Insta-kill effects are bad in a game. D&D already has enough of them (if not too many); no need to add more.

Agreed.

Insta-kill poisons are generally inappropriate in a game with an ablative HP system. If two good stabs with a spear can't take someone down, why should a little bit of poison?

Resistance to ability damage scales up more slowly than resistance to normal HP damage. That is because saves (and bility scores) go up much more slowly than HPs.

 

[Zerovoid]

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.

How can you possibly make this argument? When you attack someone with a sword, I'm pretty sure you're attacking them. If your sword is poisoned, say to do str damage, then this poison will attack their ability to fight, rather than attack them directly. Like several others have said, in DnD, poison has a much better chance of subduing an opponent without killing them.

Terrorism? wft? I have a blowgun with poisoned darts, and that makes me a terrorist, but shooting people in the head with arrows is ok?

The only way it would be terrorism, and a "nondescretionary lethal weapon", would be if some PC decided to dump a barrel of black lotus poison in a good town's water supply to kill a single villian.

 

[Celebrim]

Al: Thank you for putting words in my mouth. You know, I like how you have to set up straw man arguements based on things I didn't say in order to put down my words however casual I may have been using them. Makes me feel like I have a pretty strong argument. So let's see:

"Let me see...you can wander in to a weapon shop and buy a sword. You can probably saunter into a magic shop and buy a Fireball scroll. But you can't buy poison without arouses suspicion. It seems hypocritical. Either the purchase of ANY weapon causes suspicion, or the purchase of NO weapon causes suspicion: poison is just like any other weapon of war."

Now first of all, I didn't say that wandering into a weapon shop and buying a sword wouldn't arouse certain suspicions. And I certainly didn't say that you could just wander into a magic shop and buy a fireball scroll. In point of fact, in my campaigns there are laws governing who can own swords (weapons with a blade above a certain length) or wear armor, and if you want to walk around the country side (and particularly cross into another desmanse) in either then you either need noble rank or a script with permission of someone (like the King) OR ELSE you are considered bandits and are subject to justice. And, not that there are alot of magic shops selling fireball scrolls to begin with, but where there are the purchase of such a weapon of mass destruction certainly causes note. However, even this aside, the purchase of a lethal poison causes even MORE notice and is probably illegal unless you have membership in a particular guild with the right to possess poison (the rat catcher's guild for instance). Poison is certainly not any other weapon of war. It is concealable, difficult to defend against, and as someone else pointed out resistance to it doesn't 'scale up' as quickly as other damage because saves (and abilities I should add) don't improve as rapidly as hit points (read combat ability). Finally, I think I can justify this difference in attitude toward poison vs. other weapons historically. Consider the story Romeo and Juliet (late 16th century). In it we find the following lines:

Romeo: ....'What, ho! Apothecary!'
Apothecary: 'Who calls so loud?'
Romeo: 'Come hither man, I see that thou art poor: Hold here is 40 ducats: let me have a dram of poison, such soon speeding gear as will disperse itself through all the veins, that the life weary taker may fall dead...'
Apothecary: 'Such mortal drugs I have; but Mantua's law is death to any he who utters him.'
Romeo: 'Art thou so bare and full of wretchedness, and fearst to die? Famine is in thy cheeks...the world affords no law to make thee rich; then be not poor, but break it, and take this.'
Apothecary: 'My poverty, but not my will, consents.'
Romeo: 'I pay thy poverty and not thy will.'
Apothecary: 'Put this in any liquid thing thy will, and drink it off; and, if you had the strength of twenty men, it will dispatch you straight.'
Romeo: 'There is gold, worse poison to men's souls, doing more murders in this loathsome world than these poor compounds that thou mayst not sell...'

Now consider, all throughout the story, Romeo and company have been going around with lethal weapons hanging from their sides, AND YET, the society they are in clearly treats poison as a more controlled substance and not merely any other 'weapon of war'. (For one thing, prior to the 20th century, it wasn't really a weapon of war, and in the 20th century it largely wasn't seen as 'just another weapon of war' anyway.) I would like to think that the above sort of conversation could occur in alot of places in my campaign world, if not so elegant, then at least in substance. Actually, come to think of it, it has. And I've made similar plees as PC's in others campaigns.

"For one, poison in DnD is about the most effective way of defeating a high-level enemy by non-lethal means short of disabling magic (subdual damage really doesn't have the same impact)."

Note the critical phrase 'in D&D'. You are making an argument based off game rules, not reality. I have said that one reason I modify the rules as frequently as I do (falling rules, poison rules, ect.) is I dislike players making 'game decisions' that differ significantly from the sort of decisions they would make if the world was real. Players shouldn't jump off 4 story buildings because they know the damage will be 'trivial'. Players shouldn't use poisons as if poison use was pacifistic. Have I not in this thread argued that every poison ought to have some small chance of killing its subject, especially if that subject is injured already? There are in reality very few strong poisons that are not risky to use, however differently the movies may portray this. Besides, rendering a person helpless is not necessarily proof of good and honorable motives.

"Secondly, and more significantly, the 'no quarter' argument is more appropriate to magic. Is the use of death magics evil? The PHB certainly doesn't list as either [Evil] or [Chaotic],"

No, the no quarter argument is just as appropriate to magic, and those that go tossing fireballs in town or attempting to charm its citizens better have unimpeachable justification. Is the use of death magics evil? Not necessarily, but societies are likely to see practisioners of death magic as evil whether they are or not. Fear is not a rational motivator, and necromancers shouldn't expect not to recieve distrust if thier trade becomes known. In some areas it may be flat out illegal.

"...so by this token neither is poison. Poison is no more 'dishonourable' than any other weapon inherently - but if the society terms it as 'dishonourable', then so be it."

Good. We agree on that part. I'm just suggesting that historically societies have seen poison as different than steel, and that there are reasons why they have done so. Of course, this is fantasy, and we are free to invent societies where they don't but we do so thoughtfully if we expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Darkness]

Something to consider (apologies if anyone already mentioned it):

The poison spell doesn't have an alignment descriptor. Thus, even an LG cleric has it on his list of available spells and could pray for it - and cast it - without any problem.

And the poison it creates is one of the nastier ones, too: 1d10 Con / 1d10 Con.

So I'd say that, alignment mechanics-wise, it's neither Chaotic nor Evil.

 

[Al]

Celebrim, I apologise if I misunderstood your position. Many of my assumptions (that of buying a sword not arousing suspicions etc.) were based on the standard DnD model.

If, in your campaign, weapons are difficult to purchase, arouse suspicions and the like, then good for you. I was arguing assuming the standard DnD parameters. However, you still hold to the notion that lethal poisons cause MORE suspicion. Your justifications for this is flawed.

'It is conceable'

As is a Finger of Death scroll.

'It is difficult to defend against'

As is a Finger of Death scroll.

'saves don't scale as quickly as HPs'

Same with a Finger of Death scroll.

You then proceed to quote a long passage from Romeo and Juliet. Unfortunately, whilst this adds colour to your argument, it adds no more conviction. Romeo and Juliet is set is Renaissance Italy, not DnD. There is no magic in R&J, there is in DnD. Indeed, you cite only one example (read anecdote) wherein poison is more difficult to come by, in a world with not only perhaps different social assumptions but even different parameters (magic vs. no magic). This anecdote is interesting but irrelevant.

With regard to the rules, you move the goalposts. How can we possibly argue a thread if you define the parameters. I had assumed (in the Dnd rules forum) that the parameters were defined as the standard DnD ones. If you use a different ruling, that's your choice- but please share it with us so our arguments can be coherent.

'Rendering a person helpless is not necessarily proof of good and honourable motives'.

But neither is it proof of evil or dishonourable motives. Each scenario must be taken in context, without empirical statements being made.

With regard to death magics, you have illustrated my point. The original question was 'Is poison evil?' Against that I juxtaposed the question 'Is death magic evil?' Your answer to the latter was 'only if perceived to be', as was your answer to the former. Since death magic is not listed as [Evil], the conclusion is neither is poison. Poison is not [Evil]. QED.