Can a "Holy" Weapon have poison on it?

[Sims]

Just wondering since poison is usually evil. So would it cancel out the weapon enhancement?

[The Dark Fiddler]

Not unless the Book of Exalted Deeds or something more obscure added a rule to that effect, no.

[Keld Denar]

There is no rule that says it does.

Now, in the D&Dverse, apparently poison use is evil for some reason. That could cause some problems if your alignment drifts to evil and you are still holding a Holy sword. That's a function of your alignment and the weapon though, not a direct factor of the poison.

[calar]

Ya, I hate how D&D makes poison seem exclusively evil. Its a rather chaotic tactic, but I would hardly call it evil. Same thing with assasins to.:smallannoyed: In answer to the question, nothing says you cant put poison on a holy sword.

[faceroll]

Using poison is evil. Poison itself is not evil "Detect Evil" is not a "Detect Poison" spell. A chaotic evil assassin with sufficient ranks in Use Magic Device and a +1 Holy longsword will have no problem coating the blade in dragon's bile and stabbing a paladin in the back.

[TroubleBrewing]

\A chaotic evil assassin with sufficient ranks in Use Magic Device and a +1 Holy longsword will have no problem coating the blade in dragon's bile and stabbing a paladin in the back.

... No problems beyond the negative levels bestowed by the Holy weapon?

EDIT: Just re-read UMD. Yup, no problems. None at all. (Such a good skill.)

[calar]

Using poison is evil. Poison itself is not evil "Detect Evil" is not a "Detect Poison" spell. A chaotic evil assassin with sufficient ranks in Use Magic Device and a +1 Holy longsword will have no problem coating the blade in dragon's bile and stabbing a paladin in the back.Now THAT would be ironic. :smallbiggrin:

[Keld Denar]

... No problems beyond the negative levels bestowed by the Holy weapon?

I assume that's what the UMD roll was for, to emulate a non-evil alignment so as to not gain the negative level from wielding it.

[Zeofar]

Ya, I hate how D&D makes poison seem exclusively evil. Its a rather chaotic tactic, but I would hardly call it evil. Same thing with assasins to.:smallannoyed: In answer to the question, nothing says you cant put poison on a holy sword.

Chaotic how? I don't get it. Poison being evil makes a just little sense; one can, at least, understand what was intended. Poison being chaotic makes no sense at all.

[Psyren]

Chaotic how? I don't get it. Poison being evil makes a just little sense; one can, at least, understand what was intended. Poison being chaotic makes no sense at all.

Well, it's dishonorable and...

...Yeah, I got nothin'.

[IthroZada]

The use of poison being evil is rather silly. Yes, putting it in someone's drink and waiting for them to die is rather dishonorable, but so is just plain stabbing them while they sleep and swords aren't inherently evil, but putting it on a blade you are going to use in battle shouldn't be. For starters, you are already intending to lethally stab them. Secondly, you can set their face on fire with a Flaming enchantment. Or electrocute them... or freeze them... or all at the same time.. Good alignment forbid you should put a toxin in them as opposed to glitter-dusting them in the face.
Intent should count for a lot more than the connotations of something.

Edit: Granted we are talking RAW rules here, but if any such rule did exist I would houserule it out in a heartbeat.

[Vknight]

True but the fact is poison is a favored tactic for evil people and the designers didn't think that far ahead so it is simply a DM decision.

[Callista]

Most DMs have house-ruled poison as non-evil in most circumstances; the specific circumstances determine whether it's evil, just like with any other weapon. The idea of poison as evil just doesn't have anything to do with the definition of "Evil"; and since the definition of Evil makes sense and there's no real reason why poison should be evil, most DMs will drop the poison-is-evil idea to resolve the conflict.

Can a Holy weapon have poison on it? Yes. Definitely. I have in fact had a poison-using rogue coat her Holy Merciful rapier in Strength poison in order to bring down mook guards without killing them.

[Tokiko Mima]

Don't forget! Avengers can use poisons and be Lawful Good. So since Holy Avengers exists, poison is totally ok, and even recommended for Paladins. :smalltongue:

[Land Outcast]

Well... a Lawful Good cleric could craft a Holy blade which, adittionally, reproduces a Poison effect upon hitting.

/just tossing thoughts around

[Curmudgeon]

Most DMs have house-ruled poison as non-evil in most circumstances
Huh? That's not a house rule. Poisons aren't evil. The Cleric/Druid Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm) spell isn't tagged as [Evil]. The Book of Exalted Deeds, which is the rule source most down on poison use, says this:
Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. ...
Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil to use. Poison is never evil. Use of some poisons may be an evil act.

[Skaven]

Poison is not evil, it is a completely natural substance.

For some strange reason a D&D designer considered ramming three feet of sharpened steel into someones heart fine and good, but putting a substance on the lethal blade to make it a little more lethal (and in some cases less) while you do it is apparently bad.

[dgnslyr]

I'd say that poison use is an act that suggests chaotic evil tendencies, but only in a very minor way. It's vaguely chaotic, and mildly evil, but not overwhelmingly so.

[navar100]

Lawful Good Couatls use poison.

Book of Exalted Deeds quasi errataed it to affliction.

:smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

Yeah, that's one of my biggest beefs with BoED. Poison = Evil. It's idiotic.

Earlier editions of D&D (1E at least) did call out that using poison was an evil act, but 3E finally moved beyond that. And then BoED dragged it back into the dark ages. I mean, it's OK to attack an enemy with burning oil, or acid, or wickedly barbed morning stars...but poison? No, that's too much. And don't even get me started on "ravages". :smallyuk:

...now, I can see where a character with a personal code of honour, like a Paladin, or a (non-evil) Knight, might consider using poison inappropriate, but I can't see any reason why other good characters wouldn't consider poison a perfectly viable weapon in the battle against evil.

[Ravens_cry]

I can see how poison would be dishonourable, it gives an advantage in combat beyond ones skill,but evil, more evil then sticking a sword in others plumbing? I don't see it.
Technically, the Paladin code doesn't call poison use evil, it just lists it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) among acts it considers dishonourable.
And to answer the OP, no, no it wouldn't.

[Thurbane]

I think that part (most?) of BoED's reasoning for poison being evil is that it causes ability damage, which is construed as "causing suffering".

Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.
This is particularly moronic for (at least) two reasons:

One, think about the vast array of spells, items and class ability that inflict ability damage on an opponent. The vast majority of these are not labeled as evil.

Two, they go and contradict themselves with Ravages, which also cause ability damage. Oh, it's only to eeevil creatures, so that makes it OK.

Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure.

:annoyed:

[Erom]

Even "Ability Damage = Evil" is kind of dumb, since as Callista mentioned, ability damage is a good way to drop something without killing it - Str and Dex damaging poisons in particular would seem like good candidates for non-lethal ordinance for a good-aligned character to use, since they incapacitate without risk of death or damage to mind.

[Skaven]

"Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. "

As opposed to.. you know.. cutting them apart and killing them? Sometimes I wonder what authors are thinkiung when they write things.

So is a dagger evil because it takes more stabs to kill somoene with than a longsword?

It really makes no sense.. its purely a cultural stereotype. probably a remnant of the days when black and white movies had moustache twirling men pouring big smoking bottles in heroes drinks.

[Thurbane]

It really makes no sense.. its purely a cultural stereotype. probably a remnant of the days when black and white movies had moustache twirling men pouring big smoking bottles in heroes drinks.
Well, that kind of thing does seem to make up a lot of what the D&D alignment system was based on.

[Cuaqchi]

As everyone else is saying it really shouldn't be a problem. Personally, when I am DMing I rule that poison use is a Non-Lawful act (not 100% Chaotic) and that the source of the poison determines whether it is Non-Good (Natural toxins and venoms) or a minor evil (Manufactured toxins specifically designed to torture). It then is merely a matter of whether the person using the weapon is evil and suffers the appropriate penalty. A Neutral (Good) Druid using a spear tipped with scorpion venom is fine (so long as he isn't malicious) and given the chance to wildshape into a massive snake would have his own venom anyways.

[Ravens_cry]

Even "Ability Damage = Evil" is kind of dumb, since as Callista mentioned, ability damage is a good way to drop something without killing it - Str and Dex damaging poisons in particular would seem like good candidates for non-lethal ordinance for a good-aligned character to use, since they incapacitate without risk of death or damage to mind.
Still, there are sleep poisons that would probably work better.

[ericgrau]

Poison is not evil so it has no conflict with holy even in theme. Poison is usually unlawful, as it is usually against the law to buy and/or a dishonorable way to fight. The confusion probably comes from paladins who are both lawful and good and may not use poison.

Putting poison on an axiomatic weapon might be against the weapon's fluff but strictly speaking it's not against the rules. Well, except that the wielder might have to be non-lawful to get the poison, but he could still be neutral and wield the weapon without penalties.

[Thurbane]

Still, there are sleep poisons that would probably work better.
Except on Dragons, or other things immune to sleep effects.

[Callista]

I'd say that poison use is an act that suggests chaotic evil tendencies, but only in a very minor way. It's vaguely chaotic, and mildly evil, but not overwhelmingly so.It's not even that. It's llike having big, sharp pointy teeth and growling a lot, or being an ugly humanoid, or praying for spells at midnight, or collecting the skulls of your enemies... they're things that have an evil flavor but have nothing to do with actual evil.

[Vknight]

It all depends on the poison wether manufactured or used in the purpose of torture.

Natural Poison are no more evil or chaotic then anything else and should have no effect.

Manufactured Poisons are generally ment for torture so it will either draw the user to Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil depending upon the poison used.

[Ravens_cry]

Except on Dragons, or other things immune to sleep effects.
Yes, true, but their fort saves are so high as to make it likely to be failing only a one even for very expensive poisons.

[Thurbane]

Manufactured Poisons are generally ment for torture so it will either draw the user to Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil depending upon the poison used.
Not sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. Poison would usually be used much more often in combat or assassinations than in torture.

[Vknight]

A slow acting and painful nervous toxin that type of stuff for the evil side of manufactured. The stuff that makes you suffer or would if your not drugged. Such as things forcibly shutting down your heart.

Well there are plenty of neutral poisons that are manufactured purely for killing purposes.

[Callista]

Yeah. Plus, there are many things that hurt more than poison and are routinely done in combat--acid and fire spells, for example, kill you by giving you severe burns. And there's nothing about most poisons that specifies that being hit with them is painful; in the case of strength or dexterity poisons, you are most likely to get tremors, paralysis, loss of balance, etc.; in the case of mental-stat poisons, you get hazy consciousness, lack of awareness, etc. The symptoms of stat damage are not necessarily painful, and real-life poisons are not necessarily painful either, or at least, less painful than getting hit with a fireball or stabbed in the gut.

Now, I can see using diseases in a fight could be evil most of the time. That stuff spreads, and you can't predict whether your enemy will run and become Patient Zero of the D&D Black Plague. But poison doesn't do that; and unless you are using an airborne poison in a populated area, there's little risk of your exposing innocents.

[Ravens_cry]

Manufactured Poisons are generally ment for torture so it will either draw the user to Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil depending upon the poison used.
You don't use poisons for torture, you might kill your subject that way, and a dead subject tells you nothing without the use of magic.
I agree with Thurbane, poison is not a torture instrument. It could be used as such, I guess, depending on how painful you fluff it, but so could cure x wounds spell, much more so in fact. You bring them down, then you heal them up so you can keep working, and that is spell only good or neutral clerics can spontaneously cast.
I don't like how my mind works sometimes.
Poisons are better for assassinations, and for them the less pain they cause the better because that way the target don't go running to get it cured. For weapon use, it might very well be painful, but so is getting cut up by a sword or axe or getting your skull bashed in by a hammer or mace, and that is not described as evil by default.
Hmm, all this poison use makes me want to make a specific weapon called 'Mercy', a merciful weapon that inflicts a sleeping poison on the target.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I think part of the issue is intent here. Poison is generally used to kill someone without incriminating oneself. You want to kill the king, but you don't want to be caught with the bloody dagger, so you poison his drink and make it look like he just got sick and died. THAT'S using poison evilly.

If I were putting poison on my weapons, it likely wouldn't be for that purpose, because if I'm stabbing someone with my poison-coated weapon, they're gonna see it coming. In that case, the poison is used to ensure the kill is made quickly to minimize the enemy's chances of retaliating. I'd say that that counts as a non-evil use of poison. I'd also say that this is likely how most adventurers utilize poison, rather than its original method of application, which is how it earns its evil reputation.

[Lord_Gareth]

I think part of the issue is intent here. Poison is generally used to kill someone without incriminating oneself. You want to kill the king, but you don't want to be caught with the bloody dagger, so you poison his drink and make it look like he just got sick and died. THAT'S using poison evilly.

If I were putting poison on my weapons, it likely wouldn't be for that purpose, because if I'm stabbing someone with my poison-coated weapon, they're gonna see it coming. In that case, the poison is used to ensure the kill is made quickly to minimize the enemy's chances of retaliating. I'd say that that counts as a non-evil use of poison. I'd also say that this is likely how most adventurers utilize poison, rather than its original method of application, which is how it earns its evil reputation.

Now I'm using poison on an evil king so as to influence the succession with minimal loss of life.

There is no hard-and-fast 'evil' on poison.

[IthroZada]

Isn't strong alcohol technically a poison?

[Thurbane]

Now I'm using poison on an evil king so as to influence the succession with minimal loss of life.

There is no hard-and-fast 'evil' on poison.
Exactly - poison is no more inherently evil than any weapon or combat spell. Anything that can kill or incapacitate can be used for evil, but poison itself is nor more evil than a morning star or Fireball spell.

Isn't strong alcohol technically a poison?
Pretty much. As per the Arms & Equipment guide, it also causes Wisdom and Dexterity damage. So it must be evil...aka The Demon Alcohol!

WotC has some strange ideas about what is evil:

Being fat is evil (Willing Deformity:obese - vile feat).
Being skinny is evil (Willing Deformity:gaunt - vile feat).
Fetishises and addictions are evil (BoVD p. 10).

[Lord_Gareth]

The one that always confused me was masochism being not just evil, but Vile.

Villain: "AAAAAARGH! IT HURTS AND I LIKE IT, I'M SO EVIL!"

Paladin: "Clearly thou art most foul! Name your victims to me!"

Villain: "What victims? I torture only myself! PUNISH ME!"

*Paladin backs away slowly*

Villain: "PUNISH ME!" *advances on paladin*

Paladin: "Get away you freak!" *flees*

[IthroZada]

The one that always confused me was masochism being not just evil, but Vile.

Villain: "AAAAAARGH! IT HURTS AND I LIKE IT, I'M SO EVIL!"

Paladin: "Clearly thou art most foul! Name your victims to me!"

Villain: "What victims? I torture only myself! PUNISH ME!"

*Paladin backs away slowly*

Villain: "PUNISH ME!" *advances on paladin*

Paladin: "Get away you freak!" *flees*

I think you'd get a rather big kick out of the masochist villain briefly mentioned in Watchmen.

[Lord_Gareth]

I think you'd get a rather big kick out of the masochist villain briefly mentioned in Watchmen.

He was pretty funny.

[Callista]

Now I'm using poison on an evil king so as to influence the succession with minimal loss of life.

There is no hard-and-fast 'evil' on poison.
Yep. The use of poison described in the assassination on the king is not evil; it's chaotic, and rather strongly so. But it is exactly the way a CG character might get rid of an evil king who was tormenting the common folk and couldn't be ousted any other way.

It's the Evil/Chaos confusion again. Society usually disapproves of both, so people put them in the same category; but they are not the same thing. Good/Evil morality is not determined by society--nowhere in the alignment descriptions does it say that whether or not other people approve of an action has anything to do with whether it's good or evil.

I like this two-axis system because it's possible to do things that everybody disapproves of, and even thinks of you as a "bad person" for doing, but that are still morally neutral or morally good. Those are the Chaotic things, the things your society doesn't like, the things that go against the flow, against the general way people do things, against what's honorable or disciplined or against what you've been ordered to do.

Real-life Chaotic actions of this sort include:
--Breaking the speed limit (in a way that doesn't endanger someone else's life) is CN
--Cheating at a game is CN
--Covering for a fellow employee who has been breaking company policy (in a non-hurtful way) is CN or occasionally CG
--Telling a little white lie to help someone feel better is CG
--Refusing to call the cops when a friend breaks a law (in a non-hurtful way) is CN; if you are doing it because you know the penalty is too steep, probably CG
--Joining a resistance movement against a tyrannical dictator is NG or CG
--Helping a slave escape is NG or CG
--Speaking out against an unjust law is CN (if for personal reasons), CG (if free speech is illegal), or NG (if it is not illegal or if the unjust law is an outright Evil-aligned law)
--Speaking up for a minority group in an area where that minority group suffers heavy prejudice is NG or CG.

In many situations these acts are so strongly Good-aligned that going against society or custom is something even a LG person would do; in other situations they are weakly Good-aligned or not Good-aligned at all. LG in general will want to change society rather than simply rebelling against it because they like having a structured world around them.

Of course there's more to being Chaotic than breaking the law or breaking customs. Society is only one sort of restraint the world can place on you--honor, discipline, order, and predictability are others, and the Chaotic individual doesn't like these either.

I really do like the two-axis system; it allows for things that are unpopular, illegal, impulsive, or taboo without being Evil, and that's a lot more realistic than one axis on which everything chaotic either gets squeezed into Neutral or defaults to Evil.

[Vknight]

Ok we have gotten off track.
Lets remeber to stay with the train guys or they will come for us.

This is about poison and I believe we answered the Question Yes.

Wait no don't take me!!!................

[icefractal]

Poison evil? Or unlawful? As navar100 mentioned, the "Always lawful good" Couatl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm) would disagree.

Honestly, the concept makes little sense, being a somewhat convoluted chain from "poison makes peasants a big threat -> poison is unchivalrous -> Paladins are like knights -> Paladins are LG -> poison must be evil and/or chaotic".

I could certainly see "poisoning the water supply is evil", or even "secretly poisoning someone is un-lawful", but blade poison? In a world where disemboweling someone, surrounding them with acid, or permanently blinding them is no worse than neutral, getting upset about poison is pretty silly.

[Killer Angel]

WotC has some strange ideas about what is evil:

Being fat is evil (Willing Deformity:obese - vile feat).



Don't know... maybe they see it as a depravation of gluttony?

[hamishspence]

Poison evil? Or unlawful? As navar100 mentioned, the "Always lawful good" Couatl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm) would disagree.

And technically it's "purified couatl venom" rather than "couatl venom" that's the ravage.

So, a case could be made that the whole idea of poisons "causing excessive suffering" was a mistake and should be dropped. Considering that the Poison spell itself does not have the [Evil] tag.

[true_shinken]

Don't know... maybe they see it as a depravation of gluttony?
That's exactly it. Willing Deformity is not 'I'm fat', it's 'I heard devils whispering in my ears telling me I should be fat and I agreed'.

[Runestar]

You can already have a holy, unholy weapon, so... :smalltongue:

[Boci]

When reading BoED one can get the impression the writers were confusing poisons with diseases. I could see an argument for use of disease being assumed to be evil by default because of the danger of it spreading beyond the battlefield, and having good diseases with only affect those of a tainted soul, but it doesn't work with poison.

[MickJay]

If you use poisons that do not cause pain, they're not evil. Make your own and fluff them as not causing pain, and you're good (or neutral at worst) :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

or at least, not causing significant amounts of pain.

Like the difference between cobra-type venoms- and viper-type venoms- cobra-type ones are reputed to be not very painful, whereas viper ones are excruciating.

[Telonius]

I think part of the issue is intent here. Poison is generally used to kill someone without incriminating oneself. You want to kill the king, but you don't want to be caught with the bloody dagger, so you poison his drink and make it look like he just got sick and died. THAT'S using poison evilly.

If I were putting poison on my weapons, it likely wouldn't be for that purpose, because if I'm stabbing someone with my poison-coated weapon, they're gonna see it coming. In that case, the poison is used to ensure the kill is made quickly to minimize the enemy's chances of retaliating. I'd say that that counts as a non-evil use of poison. I'd also say that this is likely how most adventurers utilize poison, rather than its original method of application, which is how it earns its evil reputation.

This is about where I am with it, but also why I think it's more of a lawful/chaotic issue than a good/evil one. The alignment issue, at least for me, really hinges on the attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. If you're trying to hide the fact that you were the one who did it, it's probably (though maybe not always) a chaotic action. It's the difference between Brutus going up and explaining to the crowd why he really thought Caesar needed killin', and some random assassin shooting the king and running away before he could be caught. One is Lawful (he's following his own personal code and doing his best to reconcile his actions to the broader society) and one is Chaotic (yay, the king's dead and I got away with it).

[Ravens_cry]

You can already have a holy, unholy weapon, so... :smalltongue:
That sounds like a fun idea for an intelligent sword with multiple personalities. The Sword of Duelling Opposites, fluffed as the spirits of a Solar and Pit Fiend locked into a single pattern welded blade.

[Triaxx]

Think about it though, to use the Drow as an example, a Holy weapon that comes from Lloth might well be poisoned. She is a spider goddess afterall. Though it might be Holy Poison.

[Callista]

No; a weapon from Lloth would be Unholy. In D&D, "Holy" is not "Divine energy"; it's "Good-aligned divine energy." Evil-aligned divine energy is called Unholy. (Similarly: Consecrate/Desecrate, Holy/Unholy water, etc.).


You can already have a holy, unholy weapon, so... :smalltongue:It actually makes sense for the "militant neutral" druid or cleric... Difficult concept to play properly, but I can definitely see a character like that putting both enchantments on his weapon.

Regarding paladins, honor, and poison: A paladin in an honor duel would not use poison. But, if you can house-rule removing "Never using poison" from the paladin's code (and you should, if you are house-ruling "poison is evil" away too), then it makes a lot of sense for a paladin to use poison to subdue criminals. Poison which causes unconsciousness is most appropriate for this purpose, but strength or dexterity poison works too. For normal combat, in which you intend to kill your opponent, I have a feeling most LGs wouldn't like to use poison because it's sneaky, just like they wouldn't like surprise attacks or other kinds of deceptions. But there is a difference between a duel or a pitched battle and bringing down some bandits in order to drag them back to jail. Usually it's the rangers doing that sort of thing, but it's not at all unusual for a paladin to be tasked with it--they're not policemen, but they do care about keeping order, and it's not unusual for them to have to bring criminals to justice.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Poison: It's not what it is but how you use it.

[Ravens_cry]

Poison: It's not what it is but how you use it.
Indeed. Why, I would as DM allow the use of sleep poisons as anaesthetic, giving a bonus on heal checks because there is no thrashing around patient.

[Telonius]

Paladin of Hieroneous: "Poison? Only a lawless, evil person would ever use such a tactic."
Cleric of Hieroneous: "Really? Cause I cast Poison on one of Duke von Evil's men just a couple days ago. I'm pretty sure Hieroneous is cool with it."
P: "What! Surely our god would never do such a thing."
C: "He totally did! He even sent me a couple Summoned Monsters that have the poison ability. See, let me show you this Celestial Giant Bee, it's really neat!"
P: "But... but ..."

[navar100]

Yes, true, but their fort saves are so high as to make it likely to be failing only a one even for very expensive poisons.


Tee Hee

Reminds me of a 2E combat a long, long time ago. The thief jumped on a dragon's back and attacked with his poisoned dagger, the poison being save or die. The DM rolled a 1.