Using Poison Evil?

[hong]

On another note, "Poison Evil" sounds like a weird Paladin/Assassin class ability.

Nah, it's clearly a spinoff from Poison Elves. I still have a Parintachan Ebola card somewhere, I think.

Re the original topic: in by-the-book D&D, poison is always _illegal_, but whether or not that means _evil_ depends on the DM. There's a lot of dubious waffle in the BoED about good and evil and killing bunnies for Heaven and whatnot. I'd take most of it with a grain of salt.

 

[FCWesel]

Some small blind kobold child carrying a bucket of snails might stumble on it, and wind up being murdered by the paladin's actions.

Who cares about a kobold child, much less a blind one?

 

[DreamChaser]

In D&D? Poison and magic

All of the things that could make poison "evil" also make magic "evil." If you cast a fireball at the Big Bad, not knowing that his innocent 4 year old son is hidden near him, thus killing them both, you have done a bad thing. If you send poisoned food in from the kitchens for the Big Bad but his 6 year old daughter eats some too and dies, you've done a bad thing.

By the BoED, both of these would be evil acts. Evil done due to carelessness is still evil. Because it is dealing with a level of morality above and beyond that of the standard D&D game, the Book of Exaulted Deeds should not be applied to non BoED games.

Now about the question of Poison, Cloudkill, et al needing the evil descriptor: No absolutely not. They draw on the power of poison not the power of pure evil. Protection from Good is an Evil spell because it draws upon the forces of evil to keep good at bay. Finger of Death is not because evil is not drawn in at all, simply the power of Death, to snuff out the life force.

just my coppers

DC

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that poison is chaotic.

Hence, the reason it is often against the law.

It can indiscriminately injure or kill anyone who comes in contact with it.

Hence, it would typically not be evil for a Paladin to use it, it would be chaotic of him to use it.

In the real world, lower powered poisons (e.g. rat poison or insect poison) are legal, but their use is typically restricted to killing vermin. Hence, they are legal with a caveat. Higher powered poisons are illegal due to their danger factor.

I would think that the same would apply in a fantasy world. Poison would be chaotic and would only be used in legal society under certain guidelines. For example, some low powered poisons (e.g. lye) would probably be used by commoners to take care of vermin infesting their livestock or to assist in everyday tasks (like preventing pit latrines from blowing up). Although we as players would consider it poison, the NPC commoners and their lords in the game might not consider it as such. Alchemists might have a great deal of what are considered poisons, but their services might allow them to legally use them to perform specific tasks.

Other poisons (i.e. poison in peoples food or on weapons) should in most fantasy societies be considered illegal. So, potency and use might be the two factors to determine whether a substance is legal or not.

With regard to evil, our real world society considers using poison indiscriminately in combat to be immoral (e.g. mustard gas) if the poison is lethal, especially if there is a lot of suffering involved and the time it takes to die is lengthy (e.g. mustard gas often takes 4 or 5 weeks to kill someone). However, if the poison is merely mildly harmful or annoying (e.g. tear gas), it is considered moral to use it.


In a real world setting, poison is neither chaotic nor evil. It is an inert substance. The use of it is what is evil.

However, in a fantasy setting where the Gods of Oceans and Storms and Fire are often chaotic, I consider poison (and rivers and oceans where people can indiscriminately drown, or fire where people can be burnt) to be chaotic elements of nature.

So, poison is chaotic in a fantasy setting (IMO), the more powerful the poison, the more chaotic. Hence, using poison to attack someone is often but not always, a chaotic act just like using fire to attack someone is often but not always, a chaotic act (since fires can easily get out of control). Just like firing a bow indiscriminately into a crowd of combatants (both allies and enemies) would be considered a chaotic act (at least in my game where there is a fair chance of hitting anyone in the area if you miss the target).

But, the use of poison can also be evil depending on circumstances in a fantasy setting, just like in real life.

 

[Philip]

Thanx for all the responses, I have tried to summarize the reasons that use of poison is evil below:

1. It does not discriminate between friend and foe.
Unless someone treats a poison with great care it can hurt innocents. The stronger the poison, the greater the risk. In fact: the careless use of poison is evil, not the poison itself. In a fantasy setting this should be the same for spells like Fireball. Even then, as some posters indicated, its actually more chaotic than evil.

2. It inflicts suffering
Using a poison that causes someone to suffer needlessly is evil. But this is no different from like letting anyone suffer needlessly from anything else, like the blow of a sword or bite of a Melf's Acid Arrow. BTW, does this imply that Paladins should coup-de-grace fallen opponents at the earliest opportunity (put them out of their suffering, so to speak)?

3. It is dishonorable.
It is against the Paladin's code because it doesn't give an opponent 'a fair chance'. I think this school of thought is closely tied to the notion of chivalry, where you didn't attack an unarmed opponent, didn't attack from suprise and gave your opponent a chance to engage in combat. I think this only applied to upper class fights, not combat with commoners, let alone infidels. I certainly don't think it would apply to many monsters. Even then, its more chaotic than evil, because one breaks an unspoken code of conduct.

4. It is unbalancing
This is a holdover from earlier editions of the game, where poisons were not balanced against other means of killing, providing a role-playing counter balance to its unlimited use by PCs. This is no longer true in 3rd edition.

All in all, I think that when put to careful use against a selection of opponents, it wouldn't be evil for a Paladin to use it.

 

[Philip]

As a paladin I would always step back from methods which are morally questionable.

A paladin is special in his pursuit of good and should be in his strict code, which to others (who are 'merely good') might seem exaggerated.

I agree. But I am playing a Paladin/Sorcerer, and now that he is getting higher level I am wondering if I should choose Cloudkill as one of his 5th lvl spells. At first I never considered not choosing it because of the 'poison' thing. But when I read it again I began to wonder if my DM might object to its use purely on the fact that the word poison is in the spell.

I try to play my character as strong LG; he does not lie, has practically no use for his impressive Bluff skill, grants mercy to opponents that surrender, etc. etc.

But I did shy away from spells like Dominate Person, Magic Jar and Baleful Polymorph, because 'I' feel that they have the taint of evil. Much more so than spells like Fireball or Cloudkill. Even a spell like Melf's Acid Arrow would seem to cause much more undue suffering than say, Cloudkill.

And even the Paladin spell list has a questionable spell: Mark of Justice. Branding someone and then cursing/crippling him (Bestow Curse) when he crosses the line does not fit my conception of LG at all. More like LE, or LN at best. Or does anyone think Mark of Justice is a typical LG spell?

 

[Pyrex]

Mark of Justice is an excellent example of field justice. What do you do when you take a prisoner, don't want to kill them but can't spare the time to take them back to town?

Mark of Justice works pretty well in this case. At one point our party had taken a mid-level evil wizard prisoner. We couldn't just let him go, but couldn't drag him along either. I cast a MoJ on him with the trigger that if he ever cast an [Evil] or [Necromancy] spell the curse would trigger and he'd take a -6 to INT. I then gave him directions to the nearest temple of Pelor and sent him on his way.

 

[KarinsDad]

Mark of Justice works pretty well in this case. At one point our party had taken a mid-level evil wizard prisoner. We couldn't just let him go, but couldn't drag him along either. I cast a MoJ on him with the trigger that if he ever cast an [Evil] or [Necromancy] spell the curse would trigger and he'd take a -6 to INT. I then gave him directions to the nearest temple of Pelor and sent him on his way.

Not much of a deterrent.

All he needs to do is acquire the Break Enchantment spell or a scroll of it and he is back doing his dastardly deeds: assuming he acquires 9th level, or if higher level (has or) acquires the spell and makes the roll, or makes the scroll roll if lower level.

A DM might also force him to make a Spell Craft roll to know the method of removing the mark or do some research to figure it out.

 

[Scion]

innocents being effected?

psion - craft (poison) and minor creation

Make your deadly deadly poison, use it on your enemies, shortly thereafter it goes away.

something of a surgical strike, nearly no worries about innocents Go psions!

 

[Altalazar]

Poison is just another way to kill someone.

I think the fact that even a commoner could use it to kill the most powerful of kings is what makes it considered in common lore to be "evil" in a D&D type world. After all, we have to make sure the King maintains his power over all.

It could also be considered a "dishonorable" way to kill - Klingons consider it such, because it doesn't necessarily involve facing your opponent in battle. But then a poisoned blade might not be so bad in that respect.

Since there are so many spells that have "poison-like" effects, it seems tremendously difficult to justify giving any sort of generalization to the use of poison. I'd say it is 100% context dependant. Using poison to kill a group of children by poisoning their food is evil. Using poison to kill the king who was enslaving the children is good. Possible collateral damage really shouldn't be a consideration - a fireball could set on fire an adjacent building and burn down a hospital - even if it were used to kill a demon. So again, it is all context dependant.

If you want to kill someone and the only skill you have is poisonmaking, then that is your weapon - no better or worse than a sword or a gold purse given to an assassin.