[3.5] Poison and Alignment related questions

[Thurbane]

Where can I find the rules on using poison and how it affects alignment? From memory, it's somewhere in the the BoED?

Also, would a Gehennan Morghuth-Iron weapon count as "using poison" for these purposes? I'm assuming so.

I might ditch the rules altogether, but I would like a read through them first (my all Good aligned party found a weapon made of this material).

Cheers - T

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

RAW, a NG Druid who worships a good-aligned deity can cast the spell Poison without any risk of altering his alignment or losing favor with his deity.

According to BoED page 34, under Ravages and Afflictions:

Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and
characters, implements of corruption and destruction. If snakes
and vermin are associated with evil, as they are in many cultures,
it is usually because of their venom that they are viewed in
such a negative light despite their neutral alignment. Using
poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes
undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an
opponent.

I would say that using poison precludes a character from an exalted status, but not a good alignment.

[atemu1234]

RAW, a NG Druid who worships a good-aligned deity can cast the spell Poison without any risk of altering his alignment or losing favor with his deity.

According to BoED page 34, under Ravages and Afflictions:


I would say that using poison precludes a character from an exalted status, but not a good alignment.

Even then, it isn't an absolute statement.

[JeenLeen]

I read or heard somewhere that paladins' code forbids poison not because it is evil but because it is dishonorable (like lying--the Bluff skill is not inherently evil in D&D). That would support poison being neutral, like how using a sword is neutral. However, I don't have a source to cite or RAW to back this up; anyone else remember something like this from an official source?

[sleepyphoenixx]

I read or heard somewhere that paladins' code forbids poison not because it is evil but because it is dishonorable (like lying--the Bluff skill is not inherently evil in D&D). That would support poison being neutral, like how using a sword is neutral. However, I don't have a source to cite or RAW to back this up; anyone else remember something like this from an official source?

It's from the paladin class description, under "Code of Conduct". That's seperate from the BoED though which says that "poison is evil because it causes undue suffering".

Considering the stance that "mind control is great as long as you make people do good things with it" in the same book i'd take that with a grain of salt though.

It's probably something you should clear with your DM before you make a build using it anyway.

[Geddy2112]

Poison in and of itself is not good or evil. While there are probably more evil uses for poison than good ones, morality is in the application and action, not the object.

Evil-poisoning a well.
Neutral-dart frog poison on arrows for hunting.
Good- using poison to mercifully end the suffering of a terminally ill creature.

[Telonius]

I believe that BoED carves out an exception for Drow Knockout poison, since that particular poison doesn't actually hurt the target.

[Keltest]

Poison in and of itself is not good or evil. While there are probably more evil uses for poison than good ones, morality is in the application and action, not the object.

Evil-poisoning a well.
Neutral-dart frog poison on arrows for hunting.
Good- using poison to mercifully end the suffering of a terminally ill creature.

Not that I disagree with your general statement, but I am having a hard time coming up with a scenario where you have both a painless near-instant poison and no other method for a quick and painless mercy kill.

[hamishspence]

Ghostwalk had an extremely low level insta-kill spell that could only be cast on willing targets.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I believe that BoED carves out an exception for Drow Knockout poison, since that particular poison doesn't actually hurt the target.

More accurately it says that using poisons that deal ability damage is evil. Other poisons are presumably fine.

[Ashtagon]

Ghostwalk had an extremely low level insta-kill spell that could only be cast on willing targets.

Perfect for those occasions when you lack a butter knife :smallconfused:

[Zaq]

Ghostwalk had an extremely low level insta-kill spell that could only be cast on willing targets.

That spell is a clear example of the designers forgetting a key part of how the rules work. It has no saving throw, but that's okay because it can only be used on willing targets, right? Then you remember that PHB pg. 175 specifies that for the purposes of spells, "unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing." So it's the perfect spell for assassinating someone in their sleep. No need to muck about with a messy CdG or anything (which, after all, has a chance of failing—they can always get a Nat 20 on their Fort save, if nothing else) . . . just use Painless Death, and they're outta there.

[thethird]

That spell is a clear example of the designers forgetting a key part of how the rules work. It has no saving throw, but that's okay because it can only be used on willing targets, right? Then you remember that PHB pg. 175 specifies that for the purposes of spells, "unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing." So it's the perfect spell for assassinating someone in their sleep. No need to muck about with a messy CdG or anything (which, after all, has a chance of failing—they can always get a Nat 20 on their Fort save, if nothing else) . . . just use Painless Death, and they're outta there.

Or bluff them into believing you are going to cast a buff on them. Your own party is never safe.

[hamishspence]

That spell is a clear example of the designers forgetting a key part of how the rules work. It has no saving throw, but that's okay because it can only be used on willing targets, right? Then you remember that PHB pg. 175 specifies that for the purposes of spells, "unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing." So it's the perfect spell for assassinating someone in their sleep. No need to muck about with a messy CdG or anything (which, after all, has a chance of failing—they can always get a Nat 20 on their Fort save, if nothing else) . . . just use Painless Death, and they're outta there.

Wasn't that rule introduced in 3.5 though? I read the 3.0 PHB (same section - Aiming A Spell), and it didn't mention that. Ghostwalk was 3.0 too.

[Zaq]

Wasn't that rule introduced in 3.5 though? I read the 3.0 PHB (same section - Aiming A Spell), and it didn't mention that. Ghostwalk was 3.0 too.

Entirely possible. I never played 3.0, so I'm not really sure what all changed between the editions. I guess that's just one more reason that Ghostwalk simply does not play well with others.

[Chronos]

Y'know, I'm not ordinarily one to complain about the alignment rules. I like it that D&D has objective, discrete alignments that have mechanical impact on the game. But even I say that "poison is evil" is a dumb rule, and nearly impossible to apply consistently. You want to say it's "dishonorable" and against the paladin code? Sure. Call it chaotic, or at least non-lawful? That's better than calling it evil, at least. But there's at least one always-good outsider with a venomous bite, and swords tend to cause a lot of suffering, too.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Y'know, I'm not ordinarily one to complain about the alignment rules. I like it that D&D has objective, discrete alignments that have mechanical impact on the game. But even I say that "poison is evil" is a dumb rule, and nearly impossible to apply consistently. You want to say it's "dishonorable" and against the paladin code? Sure. Call it chaotic, or at least non-lawful? That's better than calling it evil, at least. But there's at least one always-good outsider with a venomous bite, and swords tend to cause a lot of suffering, too.

Only ability damage poison. Though i doubt it's that much more painful than getting a few chunks carved out of you with a sword or getting an acid spell to the face.:smalltongue:
I'd assume that dex and strength poison causes numbness or partial paralysis, but my experience with getting poisoned is fortunately limited.
It's something to take up with your DM if you want to use a poison build. There's certainly cause for reevaluation imo.

Still, it's from the same book that makes mind control good (when used on evil). Someone obviously didn't think the ethical complications of the system they wrote up all the way through.
Especially considering the "totally not poison" ravages - which are explicitly fluffed as being extremely unpleasant.