Using Poison Evil?

[Elvinis75]

Note that the question here isn't whether poison is evil, it's why using poison is evil.
So the book does in 3E define poison use as evil?

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

If this is the case then I submit that a child would play with the flask of Alchem. Fire and eventually break or drop a glass container as any parent will tell you. This kind of accident would kill the child 50% of the time.

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.

Maybe that is why so many parents leave there children to play with steak knifes. The truth is that kids do stupid things, running with scissors or the dagger in question or even a bunch of pencils in their mouth ( Space Ghost coast to coast). The truth is that with any adventurer that has a dangerous tool is responsible for its proper care.


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

A good old skull and cross bones is pretty universal.


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.

I agree with you that using this item is evil. Intent is almost everything. There is nothing else that that item can do? I think that it is a bad example. The item as listed is intended to be used with risk implied to an anothers life. Poison use only causes a risk to other innocents only when the person that uses it is careless. If the paladin that is using poison is leaving his pack in the nursery for the kids to play with then yeah he is commiting an evil act. The reason that it becomes evil is that it breaches the threshold of naivety. It starts to fall into the category of your box. I would go further to say that yes your box is evil because the only way that it works is by risking the life of an innocent.

Is it evil if he takes poison with and applies it before a battle and never has it around the other people?

 

[Conaill]

Well, personally I keep my poisons in my Handy Haversack, which is protected with a Stone of Alarm. That should be much more secure than a flask of acid with a wax seal. Besides, anyone dealing with noxious substances had damn well better use vials that are securely stoppered and sealed. To avoid accidental opening, spillage or leakage if nothing else. I see no good reason to seal a flask of acid any better than a flask of deadly poison.

So, what you're saying is that using poison is absolutely, incontrovertibly Evil... unless the flasks are sealed and labeled? That's getting just a little to ambivalent for me.

 

[youspoonybard]

3.5 PHB Page 44 -

"...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..."

It IS spelled out in the code : P.

I don't buy the "but it could hurt others" arguement.

Almost EVERYTHING the party has could hurt others. Indiscriminately.

And, 99% of the time, I'm delivering poison through a targeted touch spell.

 

[shilsen]

3.5 PHB Page 44 -

"...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..."

So is there any reference in the core books that says using poison is actually evil? The above is the reference that I always think of, and all it says is that it is dishonorable to use poison, not evil.

 

[Apok]

So is there any reference in the core books that says using poison is actually evil? The above is the reference that I always think of, and all it says is that it is dishonorable to use poison, not evil.

I agree with this interpretation. Poison, IMO, isn't evil per se, but the use of it is definitely dishonorable.

Of course, how one reconciles the concept of "honor" with the concept of "alignment" in D&D is anyone's guess, for there are no rules for it. However, the fact that a person can be honorable as well as evil makes me believe that poison use isn't an evil act.

 

[Al]

I think that it would be best to attack the chain of logic that Vaxalon has constructed. If any one of his links in the chain are proven to be erroneous, it is reasonable to assume that his argument must crumble.

'Harming innocent life is evil.'

Agreed.

'A tactic that puts innocent life at unnecessary risk is evil.'

Being a pragmatist, I would diverge with you to some extent at this point. If a tactic is riskier, but more likely to succeed, it may be less evil. For example, if the only way to lure a rampaging demon into a trap is to use human 'bait', then that may be less evil than permitting the demon to attack the villages. Greater good and all that.

'Using poison is a tactic that puts innocent life at unnecessary risk.'

Unlikely. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the simple one: it would not be unreasonable for one to assume that poisons are left safely stored, away from children and not mixed with potable drinks. This is a simple matter of precaution. Just because more precaution is required, this does not make it evil. Having a loaded +5 Flaming Crossbow of Brilliant Energy lying around in playschool is going to be irresponsible, and probably cause death (guaranteed to kill any commoner/child it hit, can go through solid objects). In these circumstances, deliberately leaving it there would be evil, and accidentally doing so would be criminally negligent. However, this does not make the Crossbow evil. It simply means that greater care must be taken with it; likewise with poison.

Secondly, to pre-empt any argument about premature use, I'd cite the 'Dungeon Paradigm'. Essentially, in a standard dungeon, all combatants are hostile. Any collateral damage to innocents is thus unlikely, unless they have been specifically used as e.g. human shields. In this case, a fireball is more likely to cause collateral damage in any event. Poisons applied to weapons should never come into contact with innocents- there is simply no need.

'THEREFORE using poison when less risky tactics are available is evil.'

No, as I've demonstrated above. Firstly, because some riskier tactics must be taken into order to guarantee a greater rate of success. When your opponent is the leader of a vile cult, the commander of an undead army or a raging orc psychopath, it is not unreasonable to pursue means most likely to succeed (although I will concede that certain tools, e.g. torture, ought be avoided). Secondly, poisons will not necessarily cause risk. Have you encountered risk theory? Risk theory states that the more dangerous a situation is, responsible people tend to be more cautious; in a more casual situation, carelessness is more the norm. The oft-cited example is that the introduction of compulsory seat-belts did little to reduce road deaths in the long term since people drove more dangerously as a result (since they believed themselves to be safer and were hence more complacent). With poison, a particularly dangerous substance, one would expect most people to take extra precaution; certainly, good adventurers would be expected to take precautions. In the case that precaution is taken, poison is no more risky than any other weapon (and certainly not more so than e.g. loaded crossbows).

Given that your two premises (riskier=more evil, poison=risky) are *both* wrong, your argument must fall.

 

[jgsugden]

I see a lot of real world logic. That logic is meaningless.

Why are demons evil? Devils? Undead? Why? Because the books say so. Because someone determind that in D&D fantasy settings, certain things are evil regardless of circumstances.

We're not talking about the real world. In the real world, things are not as 'black and white' as in a fantasy game. Everything falls somewhere in the middle. In fantasy writing and role playing, the middle is pushed towards one side or the other, but few entities straddle the middle ground.

Why is using poison evil in D&D? For the same reason that medium longswords do d8 damage. For the same reason that snow falls from the sky. For the same reason that red dragons breath fire. Because the people that built the game say that it is so.

Should the designers have made poison use evil? There are arguments for making it evil (see above posts) and there are arguments against making it evil (again, see above posts). Most people fall on one side or the other, but in the end, either position is reasonable. If both positions are reasonable, then selecting either was acceptable. They chose to make prepared poisons an evil of the world.

If you feel a need to house rule it so that poison use is not evil, feel free. It is your game. But if you want to stick to core rules, you'll need to accept that they made poison use evil as a small foundation of the alignment system. It is evil for the same reason that trolls regenerate: Because it says so.

 

[Apok]

I see a lot of real world logic. That logic is meaningless.

Why are demons evil? Devils? Undead? Why? Because the books say so. Because someone determind that in D&D fantasy settings, certain things are evil regardless of circumstances.

We're not talking about the real world. In the real world, things are not as 'black and white' as in a fantasy game. Everything falls somewhere in the middle. In fantasy writing and role playing, the middle is pushed towards one side or the other, but few entities straddle the middle ground.

Why is using poison evil in D&D? For the same reason that medium longswords do d8 damage. For the same reason that snow falls from the sky. For the same reason that red dragons breath fire. Because the people that built the game say that it is so.

Should the designers have made poison use evil? There are arguments for making it evil (see above posts) and there are arguments against making it evil (again, see above posts). Most people fall on one side or the other, but in the end, either position is reasonable. If both positions are reasonable, then selecting either was acceptable. They chose to make prepared poisons an evil of the world.

If you feel a need to house rule it so that poison use is not evil, feel free. It is your game. But if you want to stick to core rules, you'll need to accept that they made poison use evil as a small foundation of the alignment system. It is evil for the same reason that trolls regenerate: Because it says so.

Some of us like to attain some level of internal logical consistency in our game worlds, rather than just "it's that way because the book says so." For myself, I like my morality done in shades of grey; it's so much more entertaining.

 

[Vaxalon]

Some of us like to attain some level of internal logical consistency in our game worlds, rather than just "it's that way because the book says so." For myself, I like my morality done in shades of grey; it's so much more entertaining.

The fact is, morality in DnD isn't shades of gray.

You are either evil, or not; good, or not. A couple of first level spells will tell you your status.

Perhaps someone should make a list of all of the changes required to remove alignment from DnD.

 

[jgsugden]

Some of us like to attain some level of internal logical consistency in our game worlds, rather than just "it's that way because the book says so." For myself, I like my morality done in shades of grey; it's so much more entertaining.

Fine. But realize that you are using house rules to do so. The game is written with few 'shades of grey'. It is written with as much black and white as possible.

As for 'shades of grey' helping to attain some level of internal logical consistency, if carried to an extreme, you end up with the same problems that haunt many young authors that try to avoid the 'black and white' that most successful authors use: Everything that the protagonists do is ethically questionable and the players/readers never get a sense of satisfaction from doing/reading questionable triumphs. I've seen quite a few games derailed when players left a session depressed because they killed the orc chief and all his warriors, but were forced to either slaughter the orc women and children or leave the widows and orphans to be picked off by neighboring monsters. Fantasy settings where things are balck and white instead of 'shades of grey' often fall into easier logic than real world situations where there is no single right answer and a variety of answers that are different degrees of wrong.

Many DMs really enjoy giving their PCs 'real world' shades of grey in the campaign. In my experience (24 years of pretty solid role playing with dozens of different groups), this often is far more enjoyable for the DM than the players. Players enjoy the sense of satisfaction from besting a truly vile foe. They feel less happy when their heroic character is forced to battle to the death with a champion that is only trying to protect his tribe from people with conflicting goals. This is not true of all players, but even those that profess that they enjoy the moral quandries have shown themselves to really enjoy kicking the butt of a great evil.