Poison Questions I got

[kitcik]

I
First of all, why is poison use "evil"? I understand it hurts people, but so does the adamantine bastard sword you're swinging around.

Because placing poison on your weapon is a premeditated act to make whoever you strike with the weapon suffer delayed harm and misery.

And using poison you have decided to inflict that delayed harm and misery on the victim regardless of their further actions. Each attack with a poisoned weapon is a statement to cause further pain even if the foe relents, surrenders or becomes a noncombatant.

Let me tell you that a (non-poisoned) stabbing wound already inflicts delayed harm and misery, particularly if an organ is hit or a muscle (et al) severed. I am not sure I buy this argument. If you are trying to kill someone, and right is on your side, why not use whatever does it faster?

I can see torture, and using poison for that, as evil.

I can see using weapons that cause "collateral damage" as evil.

But poison straight up? I wish someone had poisoned Hitler 5 years earlier and I am definitely lawful good.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you are trying to kill someone, and right is on your side, why not use whatever does it faster?

That's the crux of the matter...

A real-life poison most of the times does it slower.
A D&D poison (3e at least) does it faster.

The real mistake is how poisons are treated mechanically. "Poison is evil" is an idea probably derived from historical use of poison. It could have been better to say "poison is dishonorable". But then again it all becomes a moot point if poison is not used for assassination but in battle like in D&D.

 

[Empirate]

I believe the negative connotations often associated with poison use can easily be traced historically, at least in the western world: in ancient Rome, and maybe even more in the European middle ages, the nobility lived in constant fear of poisoning. Poison was a simple, affordable, and (if done right) almost untraceable method of killing a rival. What's more, it was very hard to defend against.

The kinds of poison I'm referring to (and the kinds most feared) were ingested poisons, though, not the - in D&D - much more common injury or contact poisons. For this reason, the rich kept their salt in 'unicorn horn' shakers (narwhale tusk or rhinoceros horn), drank from goblets studded with amethysts, or wore talismans as a pendant.

'Evil' meant rather 'usable and affordable even by the poor, very likely to go undetected, and very likely to be fatal to nobles'. The very same reasons crossbows, and later, gunpowder weapons were considered dishonorable by the nobility.

A lot of what we take to be honorable has its deepest roots, not in ethical, but in social paradigms...

 

[Greenfield]

Poison is evil because it's not "fair". It's something you can sneak into a victim's food or drink, and kill them without them even knowing they're under attack, and without them getting a chance to fight back or defend themselves.

Similarly, a poison on a weapon is considered an insidious attack, one that allows you to kill with a single blow, denying the opponent a "fair" fight.

That being said: I know I posted a list of alchemical items I researched from a number of sources, all TSR/WOTC in origin. At least one of them was intended to raise the DC of a poison, while another added to a poison's effects.

Because this is official WOTC stuff, it kind of answers the question about applying more than one poison.

As a DM though, I'd not allow it except through such additives specifically designed to be mixed that way. The reason? The surface of a dagger is x number of square inches, no more. The surface area is what holds the venom, and trying to add more venom doesn't increase the blade's capacity to hold it. Even specially made blades with venom grooves etched into them have a limit. The capillary action can only hold so much venom, and the amount they're designed to hold is one "dose", no more. By trying to add a different poison you end up with a diluted blend of the two. Perhaps different effects, but still only one "dose".

Could you have a blade designed with extra venom capacity? More grooves, perhaps a hollow blade that works like a hypodermic? Could you use hollow arrowheads designed to break open when you try to pull the arrow out?

Sure you could, with DM's approval. They're not in the game, but the DM can allow whatever they want. But such weapons would be as illegal to own as the poison itself, as they'd have no legitimate purpose whatsoever, and would be readily recognizable because of their unusual and highly specialized design.

As a general note regarding the use of poison at high/Epic levels: We found that once the party Cleric reached the point where he/she could cast Hero's Feast as a matter of course, poison use fell by the wayside, since everyone in the party is immune to poison. It simply stopped being a real part of the game.

What's amazing to me is how few DM's, when faced with that prospect, fail to have the bad guys start with a Dispel Magic to try and take down that effect.

Still, the old favorite was the Periapt of Proof Against Poison.

 

[LiL KiNG]

kill them without them even knowing they're under attack, and without them getting a chance to fight back or defend themselves...an insidious attack, one that allows you to kill with a single blow, denying the opponent a "fair" fight.

Just reading that, it could be argued that Sneak Attack should be Evil then as it meets that description if done under the right circumstances . Just a thought.

But in regards to poison, yes I agree with your reasoning there.

Periapt of Proof Against Poison eh? Now is that all poison? or just natural poison? hehehe - don't answer that, I'm just being facetious!

 

[Ragmon]

Fair? So we are down 4 alignments that can use it now? (any non-good-lawful).
Lawful characters might use poisons too.
And what if you use the poison to weaken/stop a determined opponent who you don't actually want to hurt, or save him from hurting him self in the process.
How is using subdued dmg a better alternative...you have to cause pain...unlike some poisons.
And so its underhanded and not easily noticeable...how about magic then...then should all Enchantment and illusion spells be evil?
Or the Bard's fascinate+suggestion...how is that not evil and underhanded and unfair?

Maybe make a foot note that CON dmg poisons are not usable by Paladins and we are done...and the rest is free to use.

A CG character might want to outplay a Paladin by placing some Drow poison into the food he offers him (no harm done, the paladin is sleeping while you lie your way into a thief's guild or something).
Or one of your physically handicapped friend is forced to fight some one in an arena cause some local laws demanded it, and let say you don't want to see your friends skull being used as a chamber pot later on, but you are good and want to stop the slaughter even before it starts, so you sneak some STR and or DEX damaging poison into the opponents food...and you might even offer the opponent a Restoration potion after the fight.
And lets say what if poison is part of a Paladin Order when they dual or something, what then...does the game give use "the-blue-screen-of-death".
Does a Paladin tell a Devil he is using a silver weapon?
Does a LG wizard clarify that he will use dominate a person?
Lets not even start with good characters using Sneak Attack...like previously mentioned.

Like i like to say remove alignment form you D&D campaign and play freely, instead of within the confines of the alignment system, that just makes things complicated, questionable and one sided.

 

[kitcik]

Like i like to say remove alignment form you D&D campaign and play freely, instead of within the confines of the alignment system, that just makes things complicated, questionable and one sided.

You , sir, are evil.

 

[Ragmon]

You , sir, are evil.

And yet so right.

 

[Li Shenron]

And yet so right.

You can also solve the thread's problem by removing poisons from the game instead of alignment. I just don't think these are what the OP wanted to hear tho.

 

[Ragmon]

You can also solve the thread's problem by removing poisons from the game instead of alignment. I just don't think these are what the OP wanted to hear tho.

You should read my previous post, the only you quoted the bolded part from...i think i make my point there that poison should not be alignment based.