Using Poison Evil?

[Kahuna Burger]

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."

*shrug* looks like I don't have a monopoly on missing the point around here, doesn't it? To say "the gods of good say so" on a subject where the issue is not in fact morally or ethically clear is to open the judgement of the gods of good to question on the subject of good. Unless you really want a party of agnostics wandering around, I find it a bizare way of doing things. Why make gods more arbitrary and capricious than they need to be then expect the players to actually follow them or consider them a guideline of good behavior? To take an "I said so" situation and cloak it in a silly rationalization about the "goods of good" which all good people must by definition be following is intellectually dishonest, and as a player I would expect a better response, even if its just "I'd rather keep it this way".

Anything else I can explain to you, or do you want to actually justify your stance rather than counter wowwing me to death?

Oh, and the use of the words "actually said" should be followed by a correct quote or short and accurate synopsis, and definitly not your own slanted synopsis in quotes. The alternative is what we call "actually dishonest" as opposed to merely intellectually dishonest.

Kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

more so than a group known for having magic items? Or alchemal solutions? I'm skeptical. In real world terms, its as though a person would fear someone who carried poison laced gernades more so than someone who carried the regular "blow you to bits" variety... why? If I thought for a moment my kid would drink from an adventurer's unmarked flask or draw and touch their weapons, I wouldn't let the adventurers stay... the fact that I'd heard of them using poison wouldn't make me "moreso" because there's nowhere more to go... (that and my kid could probably survive a swig of poison (with healing administered before the secondary effect) better than a swig of alchemist fire... which is apparently ok for paladins to use )

oh, in terms of game balance issues, isn't that what the chance of poisoning yourself is for?

Kahuna burger

 

[Jeff Wilder]

*shrug* looks like I don't have a monopoly on missing the point around here, doesn't it? To say "the gods of good say so" on a subject where the issue is not in fact morally or ethically clear is to open the judgement of the gods of good to question on the subject of good.

That's absurd.

Look, stating a dogmatic "the gods of Good (or the accepted understanding of Good) prohibit(s) the use of poison" is no different than stating "your god requires you to wear red when you pray for your spells, otherwise you don't get them."

Does it make sense? No. It's religion. It doesn't have to make sense. Yet it still must be adhered to by the characters, if not the players.

You seem to be of the very strange opinion that "arbitrariness" is something odd in religion, when it's actually more the rule than the exception. Frankly, I have no idea how to open your eyes to that truism, and no real desire to continue trying.

Oh, and the use of the words "actually said" should be followed by a correct quote or short and accurate synopsis

And so they were.


Jeff

 

[Otterscrubber]

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.

Exactly, this is why poison is illegal, not for any overt concern for the rank and file of the land. At least in D&D worlds.

I agree that if an alignment needs to be assigned to poison it should be chaotic rather than evil. It is definitely dishonorable but whether that is evil or not will depend on the campaign. For a paladin I would think that such a dishonorable + chaotic factor might cause some problems though.

As far as it causing suffering that really depends on the type of poison being used. Many poisons kill you painlessly, some even relax you to the point of death. That is far better than most other ways one can die in a D&D setting.

 

[Vaxalon]

(regarding adventurers who use poisons being more feared than usual) more so than a group known for having magic items? Or alchemal solutions? I'm skeptical.

Moreso than a group known for having magical items? Yes.

Moreso than a group known for having magic items that can kill if you merely touch them? No. They both would have the same kind of reputation.

Moreso than a group known for using thunderstones or tindertwigs? Yes.

Moreso than a group known for using alchemist's fire or acid? Somewhat. That stuff usually looks or smells dangerous, whereas poison doesn't necessarily.

In real world terms, its as though a person would fear someone who carried poison laced gernades more so than someone who carried the regular "blow you to bits" variety... why?

Because a wand of fireballs won't kill you if you touch it, pick it up, fiddle with it, break it, or pretend to use it. It will only kill you if you actually know the activation word.

If I thought for a moment my kid would drink from an adventurer's unmarked flask or draw and touch their weapons, I wouldn't let the adventurers stay... the fact that I'd heard of them using poison wouldn't make me "moreso" because there's nowhere more to go...

Most of an adventurers tools aren't dangerous just lying there. Noxious substances, of which poison heads the list, are an exception.

As an aside, I would say that walking around town with alchemist's fire hanging from your belt is also an act that is recklessly endangering of innocent life.

(that and my kid could probably survive a swig of poison (with healing administered before the secondary effect) better than a swig of alchemist fire... which is apparently ok for paladins to use

Considering that the alchemist's fire is going to burst into flame when the kid opens it, I doubt he'd drink it.

IMC alchemist's fire and acid flasks are sealed, and must be broken to be used, for this very reason. It makes them less dangerous to the merely curious.

oh, in terms of game balance issues, isn't that what the chance of poisoning yourself is for?

I'm not talking about game balance in this discussion.

 

[Conaill]

So let's see... sleeping gas is Evil, but throwing acid or alchemist's fire is just fine?

Suuure....

 

[Conaill]

PS: my previous post wasn't a response to the posts directly above it. Just a general observation about this thread. I hadn't even read those last posts yet. Great minds think alike, I guess...

IMC alchemist's fire and acid flasks are sealed, and must be broken to be used, for this very reason. It makes them less dangerous to the merely curious.

Moot point. Any poison will likewise be kept in a closed container, or the user is bound to have a very short life span.

On the other hand, there are plenty of published poisons which are much less dangerous than acid or alchemist's fire, regardless of how they're being stored. And if they're injury-type poisons, they will be less likely to cause collatoral damage than a splash weapon...

 

[Vaxalon]

Moot point. Any poison will likewise be kept in a closed container, or the user is bound to have a very short life span....

Closed isn't the same as sealed.

On the other hand, there are plenty of published poisons which are much less dangerous than acid or alchemist's fire, regardless of how they're being stored. And if they're injury-type poisons, they will be less likely to cause collatoral damage than a splash weapon...

I've already said that splash-type weapons are related, in dangerousness, to poisons. IMC, they are packaged in such a way that that danger is reduced, whereas poisons cannot be.

I wouldn't count paralytics, anaesthetics, and other 'innocuous' poisons as being evil.

Part of the problem with DnD poisons is that on the one hand, the mechanic is not very much like the real world, in that poisons stop doing damage very quickly, and that sleep poisons are safe and effective. Even our most modern technology cannot produce an incapacitating gas that doesn't have a risk of fatality.

On the other hand, the ethic is very much based on the real world, where any sort of poison is a very dangerous thing, and people who use them are rather widely reviled. The only exceptions I can think of are some of the stone age cultures that use poison (curare, frex) in hunting.

An interesting side note: cultures that use curare in hunting don't use it in war.

 

[Elvinis75]

I think that we are all needing to take a step back. Lets look at some more possibilities.
If we assume that poison is evil because its danger lies with accidents that are possible when others find and unknowingly using / drinks from the container. Then it is clear that poison is only dangerous when it interacts with living being. So is the basis for evil the danger inherent in objects. I think that is ill proved. Any weapon it not handled with care poses the potential for causing harm. Children in the D&D realm that find a dagger and has no reason to believe that the weapon is going to harm his sibling might stab them in play and do real damage. The kid of damage that could dispatch a child. As my wife always says, kids are stupid. Using a D20 or modern analogy what about a gun? What if the PC always labels the bottle of poison clearly? Is it evil then?
If it is about pain then in my mind burning is one of the worst way to go.
What if the poison is none lethal?
I think that in a D&D game there are items that are evil. Why? Because the book says so. Views on other objects are at best subjective. Usually it is clear that non-intelligent non-magical objects are neither good nor evil. The law doesn’t tell you if it is evil.
Now all of that aside in the previous versions of the game it was clear that it’s use was evil. I always thought that was BS but it was stated. I fail to see how using a posion that causes sleep was evil but hey. Muddy Water I guess.

 

[Vaxalon]

If we assume that poison is evil because its danger lies with accidents that are possible when others find and unknowingly using / drinks from the container. Then it is clear that poison is only dangerous when it interacts with living being.

Yes, as far as good and evil are concerned, the health and welfare of living beings is very important.

Note that the question here isn't whether poison is evil, it's why using poison is evil.

So is the basis for evil the danger inherent in objects.

No, the basis for evil inherent in objects (rather than in their use) is based on magical effects.

I think that is ill proved. Any weapon it not handled with care poses the potential for causing harm. Children in the D&D realm that find a dagger and has no reason to believe that the weapon is going to harm his sibling might stab them in play and do real damage..

Any illiterate peasant understands that a dagger is capable of causing harm, including a child. The idea that a child could actually stab another with enough force to kill him in PLAY is ludicrous. Now if he were throwing it at, say, a door, and someone suddenly opened it, yes, that could indeed be a lethal accident. But a dagger won't hurt you beyond a scratch if you are just sitting with it, fiddling with it.

As my wife always says, kids are stupid. Using a D20 or modern analogy what about a gun? What if the PC always labels the bottle of poison clearly? Is it evil then?.

Define "labeled clearly". Using writing that an illiterate child can't read, or a symbol that an illiterate child can't understand?

What if the poison is none lethal?.

To my mind, that's another kettle of fish, but as I've said before, completely safe nonlethal poisons are completely fantastic and real-world experience doesn't teach us much about them.

...it is clear that non-intelligent non-magical objects are neither good nor evil. The law doesn’t tell you if it is evil.

The object itself may be neutral, but using it may be evil.

Say, for example, you have a device which has just one function. You put a baby in it, push a button, and 10 gp comes out... and one time in a hundred, the baby dies. I think we can all agree that using this machine would be evil, because it has a side effect that risks innocent human life.

The machine itself, being nonmagical, isn't actually evil, and neither is its primary function (making money) but using the machine WOULD be evil.