Using Poison Evil?

[Norfleet]

I always wondered why using poison should be evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds says it is evil because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.

Causing undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent is eviloid. Poison CAN do this, but some poisons can be quite lethal and kill very quickly. This is why lethal injection is now used as the method of execution in several states, as opposed to methods like the electric chair, hanging, or firing squad. On the other hand, lethal injection has also supplanted the gas chamber, another method of execution, which also involves poisoning.

So what causes more suffering? A gut wound, or poisoning? Obviously, the ability to stoically inflict a certain amount of suffering on themselves is what fueled seppuku, the ritual suicide of the Japanese samurai, which involved an originally excrutiatingly painful process of dying from said gut wound (until partial decapitation was added, anyway). So is poisoning REALLY evil, or is it merely inflicting "undue" suffering....whatever that means.

So it comes down to, "how much suffering is considered to be undue suffering"? Clearly, anyone who doesn't die instantly suffers to some extent, but at what point do you deem the suffering to be "undue suffering"? Does this mean there's a concept of "due suffering", where some people warrant more suffering than others? Is suffering mind-affecting? Does this mean that anything immune to mind-affecting effects is also immune to suffering? Or is suffering physical, and therefore, anything lacking a physical form cannot be made to suffer?

And remember: Chest wounds suck.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Like many things in D&D, the evil nature of poison must simply be accepted as a matter of religion. When a player asks why killing someone with a sword isn't (necessarily) evil, but putting them to sleep with a poisoned dart is, the DM simply says, "Because that's what the gods of good have said." (Or, more generally, "Because everyone knows that using poison is evil.")

"But -- !" says the player.

"Does your PC believe the gods of good know what they're doing, or not? If so, then we have nothing to argue about. If not, then he's not really a follower of good, and you should feel free to have him use poison."

It's been difficult getting this across to my group, because we're composed of highly educated liberals. We're simply not used to accepting the "God said so" argument in real life, so it's very difficult to accept it in D&D. It's important, though.

(There are other solutions, of course, besides the dogmatic. The DM can decide to allow moral relativism to inform the argument, which will almost certainly lead to poison being allowed, but then one must re-balance the game in another way. Or the DM can get rid of alignment. And so on.)


Jeff

 

[Al]

The argument that 'poison is evil because it mights cause collateral damage' is clearly a nonsense.

Even if you accept that careless, collateral damage is evil, this means that poison is evil if and only if that collateral damage occurs. The fact that it might cause collateral damage does not make it inherently evil. Fireballs *might* cause collateral damage. Lightning Bolt *might* cause collateral damage. Even Holy Smite *might* cause collateral damage (if it hits Joe Neutral the commoner). Saying that something might cause collateral damage is not good enough. Nor is it right to say that just because something has a high propensity to cause collateral damage it is evil in all circumstances. If the circumstances of collateral damage do arise, by all means slap the 'evil' label on it. Yet if those circumstances don't, saying it's evil because they might is a non sequitur.

 

[Zad]

In my opinion, poison is no more evil than a sword. Is a sword evil? Or is it the hand that wields it?

If a local noble was notorious for poisoning his political enemies (assume he's evil), and the adventurers arranged to poison him, would that be evil? Or just ironic justice?

Now, as I read the thread, as soon as I saw the word "paladin" my mind went "ewwwww". I have to agree with Phillip - poison is probably better labled as "dishonorable" rather than evil.

Let's not ask the question of whether it's "honorable" to sneak into an orc lair and kill the orcs.

 

[youspoonybard]

But it's a Paladin!

Aren't Paladins specifically prohibited from using Poisons in their code?

Poisons are neutral. They are another weapon to be used.

Otherwise, vipers, amongst other animals, would be evil, as they depend upon this evil act for their survival.

That doesn't make too much sense with me.

And "Causing Undue Suffering"? In my experience, Con damage tends to kill people outright : P. It's not like you have to make checks for days, either, like you have to with Contagion, you make two checks, and you either shrug off the poison, or you take some ability damage (usually), and a few days rest will get you back up. Or you're dead, instantly.

This implies that a poison doesn't linger, but does its job and goes away. Ability Damage is harsh, but it's not evil. A sword, too, leaves it's mark, just as HP damage. Arterial Striking isn't evil. Geas Penalties aren't evil. Getting Fatigued isn't evil.

I don't really see how Poison is evil.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Like many things in D&D, the evil nature of poison must simply be accepted as a matter of religion. When a player asks why killing someone with a sword isn't (necessarily) evil, but putting them to sleep with a poisoned dart is, the DM simply says, "Because that's what the gods of good have said." (Or, more generally, "Because everyone knows that using poison is evil.")

"But -- !" says the player.

"Does your PC believe the gods of good know what they're doing, or not? If so, then we have nothing to argue about. If not, then he's not really a follower of good, and you should feel free to have him use poison."

"Thanks for the cheetohs, call me when someone else is running" says the player with self respect.

Wow. I mean, just wow. "the gods of good don't like it" and you can't be small g good without following their rules? That is the worst take on allignment I've ever heard of, and I've heard some doozies. Why not just skip the middle man and say "because I'm the DM" or "because the rules say so and I won't change them" instead? Its more honest, less bizare and doesn't invoke imaginary religious authority as a shortcut past actually thinking things through... And it saves some shred of respect for these supposed dieties and gives a chance at them actually being good rather than arbitrary and capricious.

This is coming way too close to real life ideas of what makes a god good vs what a god makes good. too bad.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Vaxalon]

The argument that 'poison is evil because it mights cause collateral damage' is clearly a nonsense.

It's not clear, or there wouldn't be an argument.

Even if you accept that careless, collateral damage is evil,

Don't you?

this means that poison is evil if and only if that collateral damage occurs.

So if you build a bomb in the shape of a brightly colored box, that will go off if the big red button on top is pressed, and bring it down to the local day-care center and put it in the pile of toys, it's not an evil act until the child pushes the button?

The fact that it might cause collateral damage does not make it inherently evil.

I don't agree with this statement at all.

Fireballs *might* cause collateral damage. Lightning Bolt *might* cause collateral damage. Even Holy Smite *might* cause collateral damage (if it hits Joe Neutral the commoner).

Spells don't go off without the intention of the wielder. That's the difference.

Saying that something might cause collateral damage is not good enough. Nor is it right to say that just because something has a high propensity to cause collateral damage it is evil in all circumstances.

Because of the relatively high risk of collateral damage, employing poison when more controllable means are available is reckless and inconsiderate of innocent life. Endangering innocent life is evil. I think the logic is pretty straightforward.

If the circumstances of collateral damage do arise, by all means slap the 'evil' label on it. Yet if those circumstances don't, saying it's evil because they might is a non sequitur.

I disagree.

As I see it, here's the logical chain:

• Harming innocent life is evil.
• A tactic that puts innocent life at unnecessary risk is evil.
• Using poison is a tactic that puts innocent life at unnecessary risk.
• THEREFORE using poison when less risky tactics are available is evil.

It appears that what you are arguing here is that the second item does not follow from the first. If that is true, then "reckless endangerment" would not be a crime.

http://www.tndagc.com/tnlaw/juryinst/6_03.htm

I'm not saying that this definition of reckless endangerment always applies to uses of poison. What I'm saying is that even if you don't actually DO any harm, you can do evil just by risking doing harm.

I would say that lethal traps also fall into this category, including spells that are "trap-like", in that they are not set off by the direct intention of the wielder.

 

[Vaxalon]

Aren't Paladins specifically prohibited from using Poisons in their code?

Paladin codes are not spelled out in the DnD rules.

Poisons are neutral. They are another weapon to be used.

Some weapons are more likely to cause harm to innocents than others.

Otherwise, vipers, amongst other animals, would be evil, as they depend upon this evil act for their survival.

Evil requires intention. Animals do not have intention.

and "Causing Undue Suffering"? In my experience, Con damage tends to kill people outright : P.

Have you ever taken any? "suffering" isn't just pain, either.

...Ability Damage is harsh, but it's not evil. A sword, too, leaves it's mark, just as HP damage. Arterial Striking isn't evil. Geas Penalties aren't evil. Getting Fatigued isn't evil.

I don't really see how Poison is evil.

A sword, arterial striking, and geas spells are all things that are relatively controlled. The wielder knows when and where the damage will happen. In the case of poison, this is less true.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Why not just skip the middle man and say "because I'm the DM" or "because the rules say so and I won't change them" instead? Its more honest, less bizare and doesn't invoke imaginary religious authority as a shortcut past actually thinking things through

You know, I was going to actually go step by step, pointing out how you repeatedly (and apparently deliberately) missed the point five or so times, but then I realized that you actually said, "It's dishonest and bizarre to invoke imaginary religious authority as in-character justification for a strange rule in a role-playing game."

Talk about "wow."


Jeff

 

[Vaxalon]

If you're going to let PCs use poison, the common folk should rightly fear them.

Adventurers are often feared in my game worlds, but a group known for using poison would be even more so.

"Erm, would it be possible for you to find another inn to stay at, sirs? I mean, we have children about here, you know, and I know you'd hate for an accident to happen... what with all the dangerous things you all carry. Not that we're theives, oh, know, but you know how children are..."