PDA

View Full Version : How do you deal with poison in your games?



Agrippa
2015-08-05, 05:40 PM
It is also likely that the DM will establish sanctions regarding the use of poisons on a continuing basis, i.e. characters of good alignment cannot use such toxic substances as it constitutes foul and unfair practice; or characters found with poisoned weapons will be immediately slain and their corpses burned and ashes scattered. In a similar vein, most communities view poisoning and poisons as highly undesirable due to the difficulty of protecting against ingestion of such fatal substances. Any individual (or group) making indiscriminate use of poison will have social pressure and/or legal action brought against him or her.

I've been inspired to ask this question after finding a quote from the 1st Edition AD&D DMG about the use of poison. One of the many tricky topics in D&D, and I presume other role playing games, is the subject of poison and how it's dealt with. Is poison regarded as an inherently shameful and depraved, or merely a tool, whose morality depends on how it's used?

LibraryOgre
2015-08-05, 05:52 PM
Poison is a tool and, depending on the poison and its intent, can be the best way to go about things.

That said, using poison in Hackmaster results in an automatic Honor hit, even for assassins and cleric/assassins.

Rakoa
2015-08-05, 06:04 PM
It always struck me as a strange thing that poisons should be considered Evil. Why would slowly shanking a bugbear with a dagger be more Evil than a single poke coated in paralytic poison? Even if you decide to follow it up with an coup de grace, you have the same end result with a whole lot less pain on the bugbear's end of things. Even constitution poison would bring him to his end faster and less painfully (depending on the exact poison, of course. No doubt some are excruciating).

It just seems strange to me.

5ColouredWalker
2015-08-05, 06:42 PM
Poison is a tool. It is however a tool that is widely viewed as a very bad thing to have on you, like an animated skeleton. Except I'd view poison as worse, it's only purpose is to develop protection or kill people, including potentially lots of innocents.

icefractal
2015-08-05, 07:14 PM
It's a tool. Causing collateral damage with poison, like poisoning a village well to kill a single person, is probably evil. And of course, killing someone at all could be evil, depending on the situation.

But in terms of "it's inherently dishonorable somehow" - that comes from the feudal system. Knights had better training and equipment, but poison bypasses that. Clearly unacceptable! But I don't consider the feudal system "good aligned", so their opinion on poison seems irrelevant in that regard.

TheCountAlucard
2015-08-05, 07:14 PM
Except I'd view poison as worse, it's only purpose is to develop protection or kill people, including potentially lots of innocents.Excuse me? :smallconfused:

That's just not true. First off, quite a few poisons have medicinal uses - some of them, you even use in the same dosage! Some also see use in, or are the byproducts of, various chemistry. Even substances that are somehow exclusively only useful for killing aren't necessarily going to get used for killing people. There's a reason police don't lurk around the pest control aisle, bristling at the opportunity to lock folks up for buying a box of rat poison, or cans of Raid.

Poison is a tool; also, you spelled "its" wrong.

Pluto!
2015-08-05, 07:22 PM
D&D alignments are stupid, so that part doesn't matter in my games.

As far as depravity or abhorrence, those go along with most means of murdering, and apply equally here.

TheCountAlucard
2015-08-05, 07:27 PM
D&D alignments are stupid, so that part doesn't matter in my games.That being said, Detect Evil doesn't generally ping poisons, nor do any of the other alignment-indicating spells. Obviously poison is Neutral. :smalltongue:

5ColouredWalker
2015-08-05, 07:45 PM
-Snip-
Poison is a tool; also, you spelled "its" wrong.
1: DnD, so not it isn't a medicine. At most it's a recreational drug [I.e. Alcohol, which is defined as a poison in DnD.]
2: Yes, it can be pest control, in a world that hasn't had that idea...
3: Thanks.

TheCountAlucard
2015-08-05, 07:55 PM
1: DnD…This is the board for general RPGs, not specifically limited to D&D. Even the OP brings up other systems as something open to discussion here.


…so not it isn't a medicine.The rules are an abstraction for the sake of the story the game is made to tell. Most games aren't about medicine, so the dearth of rules concerning overdosing on medicine or using a "poison" as a cure isn't an endorsement of their absence as a thing in the world.

There also aren't rules for water intoxication, but water is very much a lethal poison at a high enough dosage; it just so happens that most games don't feature PCs deciding to chug down two gallons of water in ten minutes.


Alcohol, which is defined as a poison in DnD.Alcohol is defined really inconsistently.


2: Yes, it can be pest control, in a world that hasn't had that idea...A world in which pest control has never even been conceptualized is probably bereft of humans. Pesticides as a concept are practically as old as civilization (humanity has records of their use from over 4,000 years ago); as long as we've lived in places, we've had to either get rid of things we didn't want there, or learn to live with them.

5ColouredWalker
2015-08-05, 08:26 PM
-snip-

A world in which pest control has never even been conceptualized is probably bereft of humans. Pesticides as a concept are practically as old as civilization (humanity has records of their use from over 4,000 years ago); as long as we've lived in places, we've had to either get rid of things we didn't want there, or learn to live with them.

Sorry, my standard assumption is DnD. Ok, things that are identified poisons as such, I consider in that manner, and for the purpose of games.

And I didn't know that last bit. Thanks for teaching me something new.

goto124
2015-08-05, 08:38 PM
Poison is Chaotic.

Duuuuuuuummmmm

Telok
2015-08-05, 08:46 PM
In SF and modern setting games "poison" and toxins are handled in much the same manner as in real life. Since most mushroom identification books contain bits about edibility and toxicity, the stuff grows wild, and dishes with mushrooms in them are pretty common, most poison control and/or law enforcement occurs after the fact. The sale, purchase, and transport tend to be rather more heavily scrutinized but that's more of a public safety thing because the uses of the vast majority of toxins is both legitimate and legal.

In fantasy games it depends on the cultures, magics, species, and other factors in the setting. Some cultures ban all poison, some allow non-lethal uses, some only prohibit it's use on citizens or in war, yet others encourage it's use. The availability of detection and curative magics influences this and some species don't care because they are immune or react differently because they are inherently poisonous.

Generally stuff like rat poison is unregulated. Apothecaries and alchemists are known to posses, use, and sell toxins. Poisoning someone civilized is murder while poisoning a monster is self defense. And of course dumping a hundred gallons of something toxic into the sewers to kill off the tribe of child-eating trogs and wererats is just good common sense.

dream
2015-08-05, 11:51 PM
I've been inspired to ask this question after finding a quote from the 1st Edition AD&D DMG about the use of poison. One of the many tricky topics in D&D, and I presume other role playing games, is the subject of poison and how it's dealt with. Is poison regarded as an inherently shameful and depraved, or merely a tool, whose morality depends on how it's used?
Depends on the group. Good characters should never use it, keyword should. Killing someone with a trad weapon is one thing, but poison-use is usually insidious and cowardly, imo. Now, evil characters should always have at least one good vial on-hand at all times.

goto124
2015-08-06, 12:06 AM
'poison-use is usually insidious and cowardly'

I don't get why this is the case?

Poison discrimination! =P

dream
2015-08-06, 12:08 AM
'poison-use is usually insidious and cowardly'

I don't get why this is the case?

Poison discrimination! =P
I so encouraged it for evils though: fair & balanced :smallbiggrin:

Necroticplague
2015-08-06, 12:53 AM
Poison is like a sword, it's inherently neutral, being unable to make any decisions at all. Poison works whether you use it to keep the rats out of the granary to make sure the village doesn't starve, or whether you lace the towns well with enough to kill everyone. Alot of the details as to how evil using a particular poison might be depend a lot on the poison itself. Some poisons are excruciating and slow, so using would could be considered akin to torture. Others are merely knockout substances, or kill fast enough to be practically merciful.

Nifft
2015-08-06, 01:04 AM
In a previous game, this was a relevant question -- we had a Paladin, and we had a Ranger who liked to use poison.

Our solution was to separate some conduct from alignment.

Wearing metal armor, for example, was not particularly "anti-Neutral", but Druids still can't wear any. That's a Conduct restriction which isn't tide to alignment.

Poison use, we decided, was a Conduct restriction for Paladins and Clerics.

The other thing was that most of the really fun poisons were sold by [Evil] people, so a Good character might not want to patronize their [Evil] businesses. That's a setting decision, of course, and other settings may vary.

Rockoe10
2015-08-06, 09:11 AM
In a previous game, this was a relevant question -- we had a Paladin, and we had a Ranger who liked to use poison.

Our solution was to separate some conduct from alignment.

Wearing metal armor, for example, was not particularly "anti-Neutral", but Druids still can't wear any. That's a Conduct restriction which isn't tide to alignment.

Poison use, we decided, was a Conduct restriction for Paladins and Clerics.

The other thing was that most of the really fun poisons were sold by [Evil] people, so a Good character might not want to patronize their [Evil] businesses. That's a setting decision, of course, and other settings may vary.

This.

Yes poison, like the sword, is natural and its the use of the poison that makes it evil or not, BUT some cultures or groups have 'Their Way'. Like the Samurai of our world, honor is important, or how about the knights of old. All of them had a way of handling situations that show skill and talent. Poison is like shooting someone or something in the back. Sure it gets the job done, and that person or thing could be extremely dangerous, but where is the honor?

Red Fel
2015-08-06, 09:21 AM
It's worth noting that, while a weapon may be used defensively or offensively, poison1 specifically connotes an intent to harm or kill. Many societies recognize this, and implement laws stating that use of poison is an indication of intent when it comes to violent crime or murder. Face facts: lots of people in RPGs carry weapons around, even the noblest of pure souls, but you would only use poison if you intended to harm or kill someone. (Note that in some settings, paralytic poisons exist; these would be an exception. But in some settings, "nonlethal" poisons accomplish their goals by causing ability damage or similar, which is pretty serious and lasting harm.)

That said, I agree that poison use, like weapon use, shouldn't be inherently Evil. And in many games, while "dishonorable," it isn't actually Evil per se. I'll agree, however, that it is dishonorable; it allows you to best an opponent not based on skill, but based on being able to score a single hit or being able to drug his food or drink.

Or being a Warforged Shaper Psion and creating clouds of toxic gas that you don't have to breathe.

1 For purposes of this thread, I'm defining "poison" as "toxic substance specifically designed to do harm," as opposed to "toxic substance which may serve a medicinal function." All medicines are poisons to a certain degree, but dosage control allows benefits to outweigh harms.

Nifft
2015-08-06, 09:29 AM
It's worth noting that, while a weapon may be used defensively or offensively, poison1 specifically connotes an intent to harm or kill. Many societies recognize this, and implement laws stating that use of poison is an indication of intent when it comes to violent crime or murder. Face facts: lots of people in RPGs carry weapons around, even the noblest of pure souls, but you would only use poison if you intended to harm or kill someone. (Note that in some settings, paralytic poisons exist; these would be an exception. But in some settings, "nonlethal" poisons accomplish their goals by causing ability damage or similar, which is pretty serious and lasting harm.) What you're saying sounds good, but it's not how poisons work in some editions of D&D.

For example, in 3.x, you'll often see poisons which put people to sleep, or do non-lethal ability damage.

2d6 Dexterity damage is far less likely to be lethal (by itself) than three feet of steel through one's face. And yet, the 2d6 Dex damage is Evil, while the steel is just doing business.

In earlier editions, things were different: the default behavior of poison was to force a save vs. immediate death. I bet it's not a coincidence that the behavior codes for poison were harsh, since they were originally drafted when poison's effects were harsh.


1 For purposes of this thread, I'm defining "poison" as "toxic substance specifically designed to do harm," as opposed to "toxic substance which may serve a medicinal function." All medicines are poisons to a certain degree, but dosage control allows benefits to outweigh harms.

Drow sleep poison, Pseudodragon sting poison, all the non-Con ability damage poisons... there are a lot of "harmful" poisons which are less lethal than a housecat.

(I'm not even going to discuss if houscats are Evil. We all know they are.)

icefractal
2015-08-06, 04:43 PM
That said, I agree that poison use, like weapon use, shouldn't be inherently Evil. And in many games, while "dishonorable," it isn't actually Evil per se. I'll agree, however, that it is dishonorable; it allows you to best an opponent not based on skill, but based on being able to score a single hit or being able to drug his food or drink.For some poisons. Injury poisons though, unless you're talking about something incredibly strong, are no more effective in practice than enchanted weapons. If a knight is so keen on displaying his pure skill, he should probably fight enemies without the benefit of any magic he didn't cast/craft himself.

I'd agree that you can have honorable/dishonorable as a separate thing from good/evil though. For example:
Honorable Evil - I covet one of my neighbor's lands, so at court I challenge him to a duel, following the proper procedure. I fight the duel fairly, and then after winning and thus taking control of his lands, I have anyone who retains loyalty to the old ruler executed, as is my right as lord.

Dishonorable Good - I find out that the duke is planning to (legally) sell his serfs to the Necromancer's guild as raw material, within the next few days. Not having time or political standing to oppose this officially, I invite the duke to a party, poison his drink, and use illusions to make it appear he got drunk and fell out a high window accidentally. Then I forge his signature on some documents to cancel the necromancy deal and instead give the serfs ownership of their land.

Necroticplague
2015-08-06, 05:22 PM
It's worth noting that, while a weapon may be used defensively or offensively, poison1 specifically connotes an intent to harm or kill. Many societies recognize this, and implement laws stating that use of poison is an indication of intent when it comes to violent crime or murder. Face facts: lots of people in RPGs carry weapons around, even the noblest of pure souls, but you would only use poison if you intended to harm or kill someone.

And you would only ever actually use a weapon if you want to harm or kill someone. Otherwise, it's just kinda hanging around, given that harming people is its primary purpose. Same with poison. Just having it around doesn't necessarily mean you want to kill someone, just that your prepared to (just like having your gun or sword on your person). Poison can have defensive uses to, like protecting yourself from wild animals, especially ones that bite. This can be especially useful in worlds where things that swallow you whole exist.

Berenger
2015-08-06, 07:42 PM
@: Necroticplague

I'm not sure you fully understood Red Fel's point. A sword can be used to defend yourself against an imminent unlawful attack. Because the danger is immediate, it can't possibly be remedied by calling upon society at large for help, conciliation or a proper trial to charge the transgressor with his crime. Because of this, most societies approve of self-defense. Self-defense, by the way, presumes that you stop when the attacker gives up or is so badly injured that he no longer poses a threat. A poison can't be stopped. There is no chance of reconciliation.

On the other hand, the only types of poisons that were around when western ideas on the disreputability and unlawfulness of poison emerged were of no use in the case of an imminent attack. They worked mostly by ingestion, had to be carefully prepared a short time before usage and / or were way too slow to save your skin in a fight. You would be dead hours or days before your attacker finally succumbed to the poison. So you had to use the poison preemptively, long before a fight could emerge, or some time after the fact in revenge. Both cases are not acceptable to civilised societies - unless you are immediately threatened and cannot possibly seek a lawful solution to your dispute, you are expected to do so instead of taking law into your own hands.

The reasoning behind this is the following; if you have enough time and freedom of action to wait for opportunity to poison your enemy, chances are you would also have enough time and freedom of action for the proper way of settling dispute, which is calling upon society. There may be rare corner cases in which this reasoning fails, but this would be the exception, not the norm. Using poison against wild, dangerous animals would probably be fine, at least prior to Protection of Animals Acts (I think peasants in europe used poisons to kill wolves that threatened their livestock) since settling your "conflict" with an animal in court isn't the norm in most societies, while settling your conflict with a human being definitely is.

Necroticplague
2015-08-06, 08:43 PM
@: Necroticplague

I'm not sure you fully understood Red Fel's point. A sword can be used to defend yourself against an imminent unlawful attack. Because the danger is immediate, it can't possibly be remedied by calling upon society at large for help, conciliation or a proper trial to charge the transgressor with his crime. Because of this, most societies approve of self-defense. Self-defense, by the way, presumes that you stop when the attacker gives up or is so badly injured that he no longer poses a threat. A poison can't be stopped. There is no chance of reconciliation.

On the other hand, the only types of poisons that were around when western ideas on the disreputability and unlawfulness of poison emerged were of no use in the case of an imminent attack. They worked mostly by ingestion, had to be carefully prepared a short time before usage and / or were way too slow to save your skin in a fight. You would be dead hours or days before your attacker finally succumbed to the poison. So you had to use the poison preemptively, long before a fight could emerge, or some time after the fact in revenge. Both cases are not acceptable to civilised societies - unless you are immediately threatened and cannot possibly seek a lawful solution to your dispute, you are expected to do so instead of taking law into your own hands.

The reasoning behind this is the following; if you have enough time and freedom of action to wait for opportunity to poison your enemy, chances are you would also have enough time and freedom of action for the proper way of settling dispute, which is calling upon society. There may be rare corner cases in which this reasoning fails, but this would be the exception, not the norm. Using poison against wild, dangerous animals would probably be fine, at least prior to Protection of Animals Acts (I think peasants in europe used poisons to kill wolves that threatened their livestock) since settling your "conflict" with an animal in court isn't the norm in most societies, while settling your conflict with a human being definitely is.

Except you guys are comparing the entire process of getting and using poison to the mere act of swinging a sword, when this is false. Poison doesn't take much time to use at all. If you have a dagger, then it's equally in the heat of the moment whether you've dipped it in snake venom or not beforehand. The fact poison takes forever to make and you have to spend some time applying it isn't analogous to carrying a dagger around, it's analogous to the process of forging a dagger. And, like that making of the dagger, it's done long beforehand in case it is needed. If you can make a dagger that has almost no use except killing people, what's wrong with increasing its effectiveness by covering it in a different substance that has almost no use except killing people?

You also mention the speed of poison. This makes the assumption the poison in the fantasy is acting as real life ones do. However, in almost all fantasy I've seen, poisons seem to act much faster, being quick enough to actually make a difference in a fight in the short term (with the exceptions of plot-based 'king is on his death bed slowly wasting away to leave some cryptic last words'). And even in real life, we have incredibly rapid poisons we can take from the animal kingdom (poison dart frogs have had excellent use as arrow poisoning).

Red Fel
2015-08-06, 09:30 PM
Except you guys are comparing the entire process of getting and using poison to the mere act of swinging a sword, when this is false. Poison doesn't take much time to use at all. If you have a dagger, then it's equally in the heat of the moment whether you've dipped it in snake venom or not beforehand. The fact poison takes forever to make and you have to spend some time applying it isn't analogous to carrying a dagger around, it's analogous to the process of forging a dagger. And, like that making of the dagger, it's done long beforehand in case it is needed. If you can make a dagger that has almost no use except killing people, what's wrong with increasing its effectiveness by covering it in a different substance that has almost no use except killing people?

Here's the thing. If you're carrying a sword around, you could be thinking, "I'm gonna kill someone," or you could be thinking, "This is for protection." Either one.

If you dip a dagger in poison, you're specifically intending to use the poison to cause harm. Nobody dips a weapon in poison, in the heat of combat, defensively. That's what I'm talking about. That's the intent - the specific, malicious desire to cause harm. That desire is not necessarily present if you're just carrying around a weapon; it is necessarily present if you apply poison to the weapon.

Or to food. Or to a water supply. Or to anything else. Poison is only used with the intent to harm. Even "nonlethal" poisons are used with that intent, albeit not necessarily an intent to kill.

And let's talk about that for a moment. People have mentioned D&D-type poisons which damage an ability score other than Constitution as a form of nonlethal poison. But what does that actually do? Well, damage to Strength or Dexterity results in severe physical frailty and possibly paralysis. It's further worth noting that this isn't a temporary paralysis; if your ability score drops to 0, you are completely paralyzed and helpless until it isn't 0 anymore. If the harm is ability damage, it recovers at a rate of 1 point per day, or 2 points for a day of complete bed rest. Consider that a housecat has 3 Strength; it would take you three days, or two of total bed rest, to be as strong as a house cat. If the harm is ability drain, on the other hand, it is permanent absent magical healing. Now, most poisons are damage, not drain; still, that's terrifying.

That's not something most mundane people can handle. It's not something from which they can recover. And that's the point. Even if it's not killing the target, it is crippling them severely; I can only imagine that it's also incredibly painful.

Now, there are special effect poisons. Things like unconsciousness, paralysis, or stunning are possible outcomes. And certainly, that's less dramatic than the ones that attack an ability score. All things considered, I'm a bit hard-pressed to see how using those is inherently Evil, or at least as cruel as using those other, crippling toxins. But again, using a poison bespeaks an intent that simply carrying a weapon does not.

D+1
2015-08-06, 10:49 PM
Might makes right. Poison, however, is cheating.

Berenger
2015-08-07, 12:14 AM
Perhaps it is necessary to discuss the difference between real poison and fantasy-poison. I mostly referred to real poison available in european cultures before the advent of modern chemistry and the resulting cultural attitude towards the use of poison in combat, since this attitude quite obviously transpires to the concept of poisons in role playing games (this applies to the designers of said games as well as the players). Another point of contention may be the difference between the rules-as-written and the rather vague fluff of fantasy-poison.

Unfortunately, I'm by no means an expert on that topic, but I assume some of the major differences are the following:

1. In D&D, at least half of the available poisons are well suited for combat. They can be delivered by injury [small blades, darts] or inhalation [gas bombs / "vials"]. They can be targeted at enemy combatants with reasonable accuracy. This was not the case with real poison. Most of it had to be ingested. This, in turn, meant that it had to be used out of combat - most commonly by poisoning the targets food or water supply. It also meant a high chance of collateral damage, e.g. killing the targets family, employees, guests etc.

2. In D&D, poison acts immediately and then again after one minute. This is a far cry from reality: in all likelyhood even the best poison would do nothing to stop an incoming attacker from harming you. Instead, he will suffer terribly hours and days after the fight, assuming he survives.

3. Also, real poison was totally not convenient to carry around. It was likely to have a short shelf life, would be really hard to apply to a blade (next to impossible in a real hurry) and carrying a pre-poisoned blade in a scabbard would be a mess, highly dangerous to the user during maintenance and the active component would dissipate after a short while - the "snake venom" you mentioned will spoil within hours, so you'll have to milk a snake every morning just in case.

4. Real poison can't be taken back. Fantasy-poison in D&D can be healed by magical antidotes or a mundane Heal check in mere seconds of treatment. Also, fantasy-poison, per the rules, is totally predictable in its mode of action. This is in no way the case with real poison, which, to the best of my knowledge, can't be reliably non-lethal, if only due to possible overdosage which is likely in the case of rushed combat-application. Those rules are, in my opinion, not only a gross simplification of real life conditions but also of ingame conditions, producing a conflict between fluff and rules that has a massive inpact on the ethical implications of the practice. Red Fel already painted a vivid picture of what "3d6 strength damage" might feel like for the victim.


I don't think this list is even remotely comprehensive, but maybe its a start.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 04:12 AM
Here's the thing. If you're carrying a sword around, you could be thinking, "I'm gonna kill someone," or you could be thinking, "This is for protection." Either one.

If you dip a dagger in poison, you're specifically intending to use the poison to cause harm. Nobody dips a weapon in poison, in the heat of combat, defensively. That's what I'm talking about. That's the intent - the specific, malicious desire to cause harm. That desire is not necessarily present if you're just carrying around a weapon; it is necessarily present if you apply poison to the weapon. "I'm going to do 2d6 Dexterity damage twice, and make him stop attacking me."

That's significantly more defensive than, "I'm going to take away all his hit points."

Poison EFFECTS in D&D are a valid non-lethal strategy.

Poison ETHICS in D&D hasn't caught up with this reality.


And let's talk about that for a moment. People have mentioned D&D-type poisons which damage an ability score other than Constitution as a form of nonlethal poison. But what does that actually do? Well, damage to Strength or Dexterity results in severe physical frailty and possibly paralysis. It's further worth noting that this isn't a temporary paralysis; if your ability score drops to 0, you are completely paralyzed and helpless until it isn't 0 anymore. If the harm is ability damage, it recovers at a rate of 1 point per day, or 2 points for a day of complete bed rest. Consider that a housecat has 3 Strength; it would take you three days, or two of total bed rest, to be as strong as a house cat. If the harm is ability drain, on the other hand, it is permanent absent magical healing. Now, most poisons are damage, not drain; still, that's terrifying.

That's not something most mundane people can handle. It's not something from which they can recover. And that's the point. Even if it's not killing the target, it is crippling them severely; I can only imagine that it's also incredibly painful. The thing is, this is not happening in a vacuum. The choice is never between poison or cookies.

The choice is between removing that guy's hit points by stabbing him with metal, painfully breaking bones, injuring internal organs, ruining his clothes with his own blood, carving a scar across his face which will make his wife cry every time she looks at the ruin of his formerly handsome features -- and 2d6 dexterity damage, or unconsciousness.

Poison is not fun, that's true -- but neither is stabbing and bludgeoning someone to death or unconsciousness, and don't even have good control over which way he ends up.

goto124
2015-08-07, 06:57 AM
The reasoning behind this is the following; if you have enough time and freedom of action to wait for opportunity to poison your enemy, chances are you would also have enough time and freedom of action for the proper way of settling dispute, which is calling upon society.

That's Chaotic, not Evil.

And that's assuming we're using RL poison, instead of DnD poison. That's already covered in the above posts.

With DnD poison, which is as much of a weapon as a sword or a Magic Missile, it really should be as neutral as a sword.

Berenger
2015-08-07, 08:07 AM
@goto124:

"That's Chaotic, not Evil." - Well, yes, if we talk in the terms of D&D alignment, this statement coincides with my own assessment. I can't see where I implied otherwise. The use of non-fantasy-poison is a kind violence that is not a valid means to the end of self-defense in an emergency. Assuming that self-defense is the only kind of unregulated violence that's tolerable to the society in question, the very use of poison aganst other humans implies disregard for the societies laws and values - that's clearly chaotic behaviour.

But I wasn't talking about D&D alignments, but about the origin of the negative image of poison and poison-users in pre-modern western cultures (which did not generally make any strong distinction between an "unlawful evil" and an "unlawful chaotic" act). I did so because I think that it is safe to assume that a lot of "standard" fantasy cultures (not limited to D&D) do rely heavily on said real cultures for inspiration and as a frame of reference.

You and other posters are right in pointing out that there is a severe discrepancy between the effects of real poison and many fantasy poisons (I'm going with D&D here, there may be systems that model the effects of poison in a more nuanced way). You can either view this as a shortcoming of the rules or embrace it and make poison in your games an entirely different thing than the real-world-equivalent. I you choose the latter option, this difference in effect may produce different ethical implications and a different cultural outlook. That's what I was trying to elaborate in my last posting and that's why I argued to make that distinction explicit.

NichG
2015-08-07, 08:09 AM
I'm not really interested in trying to tie poison use to social standards or character ethics in any particular way. But I do think that poison as it works in 3.5ed is really a strongly asymmetric thing. Its far more worthwhile for enemies to use against PCs than for PCs to use against their enemies, because of the large cost-per use, time delay to onset, and the fact that they're mostly a form of resource depletion rather than an effective in-combat tactic.

I tried to mess around with rules for designer poisons, which would let the PCs produce doses as class features (to avoid the 1000gp-per-swing kind of disincentive), customize the poisons, produce more interesting immediate status effects, and potentially buff the DCs beyond the very low values you get for stuff in the books. No one really tried it out though.

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 08:13 AM
Here's the thing. If you're carrying a sword around, you could be thinking, "I'm gonna kill someone," or you could be thinking, "This is for protection." Either one. Same with poison. You might have envenomed you blade because you intend to kill someone. Or it might be a precaution against someone attacking you. Poison is just a force multiplier for the lethality of the weapon that applied it.


If you dip a dagger in poison, you're specifically intending to use the poison to cause harm. Nobody dips a weapon in poison, in the heat of combat, defensively. That's what I'm talking about. That's the intent - the specific, malicious desire to cause harm. That desire is not necessarily present if you're just carrying around a weapon; it is necessarily present if you apply poison to the weapon. Just because you have a poisoned dagger, doesn't mean you intend to stab someone with it, just as having a normal dagger doesn't mean you intend to kill someone with it.



Or to food. Or to a water supply. Or to anything else. Poison is only used with the intent to harm. Even "nonlethal" poisons are used with that intent, albeit not necessarily an intent to kill. And this is different from other weapons.....how?


And let's talk about that for a moment. People have mentioned D&D-type poisons which damage an ability score other than Constitution as a form of nonlethal poison. But what does that actually do? Well, damage to Strength or Dexterity results in severe physical frailty and possibly paralysis. It's further worth noting that this isn't a temporary paralysis; if your ability score drops to 0, you are completely paralyzed and helpless until it isn't 0 anymore. If the harm is ability damage, it recovers at a rate of 1 point per day, or 2 points for a day of complete bed rest. Consider that a housecat has 3 Strength; it would take you three days, or two of total bed rest, to be as strong as a house cat. If the harm is ability drain, on the other hand, it is permanent absent magical healing. Now, most poisons are damage, not drain; still, that's terrifying.
And the alternative would be smacking him to the negatives, which would carry a good chance of him then bleeding out to death (as long as HP>-1, still capable of fighting back) which is far more permanent and horrifying than merely spending a day in an insensate coma.


That's not something most mundane people can handle. It's not something from which they can recover. And that's the point. Even if it's not killing the target, it is crippling them severely; I can only imagine that it's also incredibly painful.? You just listed how they recover. 1 point a day, 2 points if they get total bed rest.


Now, there are special effect poisons. Things like unconsciousness, paralysis, or stunning are possible outcomes. And certainly, that's less dramatic than the ones that attack an ability score. All things considered, I'm a bit hard-pressed to see how using those is inherently Evil, or at least as cruel as using those other, crippling toxins. But again, using a poison bespeaks an intent that simply carrying a weapon does not.
No, it doesn't. It speaks the same intent that carrying a weapon does. "If someone attacks me with lethal force, I will respond with lethal force of my own." A poison is just adding more lethal force to your .

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 08:19 AM
"I'm going to do 2d6 Dexterity damage twice, and make him stop attacking me."

That's significantly more defensive than, "I'm going to take away all his hit points."

Poison EFFECTS in D&D are a valid non-lethal strategy.

Poison ETHICS in D&D hasn't caught up with this reality.

The thing is, this is not happening in a vacuum. The choice is never between poison or cookies.

The choice is between removing that guy's hit points by stabbing him with metal, painfully breaking bones, injuring internal organs, ruining his clothes with his own blood, carving a scar across his face which will make his wife cry every time she looks at the ruin of his formerly handsome features -- and 2d6 dexterity damage, or unconsciousness.

Poison is not fun, that's true -- but neither is stabbing and bludgeoning someone to death or unconsciousness, and don't even have good control over which way he ends up.

Your GM can decide that 4d6 Dexterity damage is fun and harmless, but GMs I know (and myself) would state it would probably be fatal if left untreated. If it IS treated, it could leave the victim with bursts of shakings and lapses of confusion for years.

The fact that poison is unlawful is used for versimilitude, because most governments of most civilisations historically controlled and regulated poisonnous substances.

Contrary to what you are saying, you have really LESS control on what you are doing to your victim by using poison. Poison usage require strict control of the dosage (And that depends on the size and weight of your victim) to have intended effect. Not doing so will result in permanent damages and death.

And to make that clear: You can't use poison defensively.

"Oh my god this guy has a knife, I better get out my own knife and coat it in poison to paralyse him and not kill him" is a bit ridiculous as a defensive move.
or
"Oh my god this guy has a knife, I better throw a poisonnous gaz bomb to paralyse him, me, and the whole neighboorhood" doesn't seem that efficient.

The point Red Fel is making is that you can use a sword to protect yourself from a surprise attack.

You can't use poison to do that.

That means, poison has to be used with knowledge that you will harm or kill something soon. So it automatically implies malicious intent, never self defense.



Same with poison. You might have envenomed you blade because you intend to kill someone. Or it might be a precaution against someone attacking you. Poison is just a force multiplier for the lethality of the weapon that applied it. Just because you have a poisoned dagger, doesn't mean you intend to stab someone with it, just as having a normal dagger doesn't mean you intend to kill someone with it.

Yes if you have a poisonned dagger that means you intent to stab something with it...

Poison is not supposed to remain indefinitly. If you poison your blade, you intent on stabbing something soon enough, or else you would waste the poison. For the law, it implies malicious intent.

You could use a dagger to eat, you can't use a poisonned dagger for anything else than trying to harm someone.


And the alternative would be smacking him to the negatives, which would carry a good chance of him then bleeding out to death (as long as HP>-1, still capable of fighting back) which is far more permanent and horrifying than merely spending a day in an insensate coma..

Most people will flee if they see they are losing. Most of the time you won't have to smack down an attacker until he is unconscious. Plus, you have alot more control of what you are doing to him with a unpoisonned weapon. You STILL have to stab him if you use poison! You are just making your stabs even MORE damaging!


No, it doesn't. It speaks the same intent that carrying a weapon does. "If someone attacks me with lethal force, I will respond with lethal force of my own." A poison is just adding more lethal force to your

Yes you are right, and that's exactly why poison is different. Self-defense is no longer self-defense when you use excessive force. Poison is excessive force. Even more, it implies you started the fight. Why would your weapon be poisonned if you didn't intent on fighting?

That being said, of course your GM and your universe can treat poison as a valid non-lethal option, and a lawful and honorable tool, a harmless paralytic that doesnt hurt and doesn't do brain damages...

But some people like to emulate how real poisons work, so they consider poison, dangerous, difficult to control, unlawful, and it helps them establish versimilitude with real-life poison. It's not like they pull that out of nowhere, real-life societies treat it as such.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 08:45 AM
And to make that clear: You can't use poison defensively. You're clear, but you're also flat out wrong.

Blue whinnis is an inexpensive poison in the SRD which is much less deadly than a sword. Unlike a sword, it can't crit and kill anyone by accident.

Goodbye kiss is a splatbook poison which is also much less deadly than a sword. It causes no ability damage, nor any other kind of damage.


There is rather a lot of rule support for hit point damage causing death, and creatures will bleed out and die if untreated.

There is NO rule support for your position that non-lethal poisons need treatment or they result in death. That's just you making stuff up.

You're free to make stuff up in the games you run, but you need to be aware that you're not citing universal truths when you do so.

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 09:04 AM
You're clear, but you're also flat out wrong.

If i'm wrong, then tell me: How can you defend yourself from a surprise attack with Goodbye Kiss?

Additionnaly, you are ignoring most of my points, I already said: If YOU want to run non-lethal and easily used poison, YOU CAN. But other GMs can run it differently.

There ARE people who want to create a versimilitude with real-life poisons, which are NOT easily controlled. I'd argue most people like a dose of realism, pun intended. Real poisons have to be controlled and dosed according to the person (weight, size, age) you want to apply it to. Use not enough, and the person won't sleep. Use too much, and the person will die.

Finally, this thread is not even strictly D&D. As you can read from my posts, I am talking about "poisons at large".

Berenger
2015-08-07, 09:22 AM
Does anybody else have the impression that we are talking about two mutually exclusive concepts? On the one hand the desire to portray poison-use close to its characteristics and limitations in the real world and on the other hand the entirely separate concept of D&D poison-use where those defining characteristics and limitations are largely absent? I might be repeating myself, but I'd strongly suggest to make clear which of these two concepts (that are equally valid for different styles of RPG, by the way) we are talking about.

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 09:52 AM
If i'm wrong, then tell me: How can you defend yourself from a surprise attack with Goodbye Kiss?

Have it rubbed on your dagger ahead of time. If suprised, pull out dagger and use it as normal.

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 10:15 AM
Have it rubbed on your dagger ahead of time. If suprised, pull out dagger and use it as normal.

If you have it rubbed ahead to time, it's not a surprise attack...

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 10:26 AM
If you have it rubbed ahead to time, it's not a surprise attack...

Why not? You still didn't know the attack was coming, you were just prepared for any attack (just like how you prepared a bit by having a dagger, you prepare more by poisoning it).

Berenger
2015-08-07, 10:27 AM
The issue is that "Rubbing poison to a dagger and storing the dagger in a sheath until it is needed days or weeks later." is a completely reasonable course of action as per the rules of D&D and completely unfeasible to do in real life for a variety of reasons.

Tiri
2015-08-07, 10:27 AM
The issue is that "Rubbing poison to a dagger and storing the dagger in a sheath until it is needed days or weeks later." is a completely reasonable course of action per the rules of D&D and completely unfeasible to do in real life for a variety of reasons.

Nobody's talking about doing it in real life.

goto124
2015-08-07, 10:28 AM
Is that a realistic poison or a DnD 'instant effect' poison?

Because realistic poisons take time to do anything, which makes it useless for self-defense.

What Berenger said.

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 10:36 AM
Is that a realistic poison or a DnD 'instant effect' poison?

Because realistic poisons take time to do anything, which makes it useless for self-defense.

On this, I agree, for the most part. However, most fantasy I've seen has poison that works much quicker, with some exceptions.

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 10:44 AM
Why not? You still didn't know the attack was coming, you were just prepared for any attack (just like how you prepared a bit by having a dagger, you prepare more by poisoning it).

Except the poison don't last long. I remember reading it "Remains potent for 1 minute before drying." (Which I thought was stupidly short). I see your point if it lasts forever in your games, BUT:

In any case, you are STILL not defending yourself with the poison, you are defending yourself with the dagger, which you poisonned.

You STILL have to stab the guy, but then he'll be stabbed and sleeping... Which is worse than just being stabbed.

To be clear: I'm not saying that poison is evil. I'm explaining why most societies shun it, and why it is seen that negatively. That reason is that you can't defend yourself with it like a more conventionnal weapon.

Thrudd
2015-08-07, 10:46 AM
Is that a realistic poison or a DnD 'instant effect' poison?

Because realistic poisons take time to do anything, which makes it useless for self-defense.

What Berenger said.

There are real powerful animal poisons that can paralyze or kill someone almost instantly. They are very rare, but real. No reason a fantasy world couldnt have such poison more available, with all the crazy monsters and giant animals out there.

The 1e D&D default poison was save or die. This is why it would make sense to limit its use and availability to players somewhat, tying it to in-world consequences and restrictions. Only assassins, who have to be evil, know where to get it and how to safely use it.

I would say that the word "poison" also implies something which harms or kills. A substance which only puts you to sleep would probably not be called poison for this purpose.

TheCountAlucard
2015-08-07, 10:58 AM
The use of non-fantasy-poison is a kind violence that is not a valid means to the end of self-defense in an emergency.Pepper spray. :smalltongue:

[/facetious]

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 11:13 AM
Except the poison don't last long. I remember reading it "Remains potent for 1 minute before drying." (Which I thought was stupidly short). I see your point if it lasts forever in your games, BUT: under the system that poison is in, it remains potent once applied until used.


In any case, you are STILL not defending yourself with the poison, you are defending yourself with the dagger, which you poisonned. Obviously. How else do you expect an injury poison to be used. :smallconfused:


You STILL have to stab the guy, but then he'll be stabbed and sleeping... Which is worse than just being stabbed.

Actually its better. If he wasn't sleeping, I'd have to keep stabbing, and there's a very good chance he could end up dead.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 11:36 AM
To be clear: I'm not saying that poison is evil. I'm explaining why most societies shun it, and why it is seen that negatively. That reason is that you can't defend yourself with it like a more conventionnal weapon.

The thing is, you're not.

Societies shun poison because poison is the tool of women, of weaklings, of non-ruling-class losers whom the ruling class does not respect.

The ruling class preferred using tools like swords, and that's why swords were honorable. The ruling class were strong and well-armored individuals, therefore individual combat is honorable and "rabble mob" tactics are dishonorable.

This is a political distinction, not a practical one, nor one based on any inherent difference in lethality or other inherent moral value. You're chasing a fool's errand in trying to justify it in any other way.


Actually its better. If he wasn't sleeping, I'd have to keep stabbing, and there's a very good chance he could end up dead.

Exactly.

There's a reason why I keep making the point that "defense with weapon" means removing all of the target's hit points. With a normal weapon, you can't practically subdue a target unless you're risking the target's death.

A nice, non-lethal poison makes subdual much more practical, and much less risky for the target.

(Some few characters can deal significant non-lethal damage without taking a large penalty, but that's a rarity.)

Cealocanth
2015-08-07, 11:49 AM
Poison is not inherently evil in most of my games. The exception comes when it was created by evil gods for use by their evil clerics, in which case, yes, poison is evil in that setting. Most of my games are based on the real world, though, in which it is completely debatable whether or not murdering someone by stringing them up by their organs is evil. By that standard, poison is a quick and merciful death by comparison, so is in even grayer territory.

In settings where there is an honor system and most people still abide by it (ones based in Ancient Greece, Medieval Europe, the Colonial Americas, or Victorian Europe, for example), poison is considered less honorable then just stabbing or shooting the person. Anything that makes a fight less fair - meaning gives an edge beyond sheer skill and strategy - is considered dishonorable. In these worlds, poison is put on a level akin to traps, assassinations, snipers, and curses, and is often involved in many of those processes.

However, in settings where the honor system is so archaic that few observe it in any way, or where it's so impractical that no one observes it (such as the distant future, modern day, the Old West, and the Golden Age of Piracy) poison is considered nothing more than a tool, and a useful one at that. It can guarantee a kill where one was less likely before, whether that is killing pests, animals, or people. (Although hunting for food with some particularly nasty poisons is not recommended.) In these worlds, poison is no less evil than pretty much anything used to kill people, although in some modern-day settings poisons that cause permanent damage and torture are likely more illegal than the quick-and-painless variety.

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 12:36 PM
The thing is, you're not.

Societies shun poison because poison is the tool of women, of weaklings, of non-ruling-class losers whom the ruling class does not respect.

The ruling class preferred using tools like swords, and that's why swords were honorable. The ruling class were strong and well-armored individuals, therefore individual combat is honorable and "rabble mob" tactics are dishonorable.

Even modern democratic societies control medecine and drugs ALOT... And it's not because it's a "woman's weapon". It's because they are deadly substances that should not be available to everyone.

Mishandled, they can lead to deadly accidents, even common soporifics like sleeping pills.
In the wrong hand, they can lead to difficult-to-solve murders.

You probabbly heard of suicide by ingesting large quantities of pills...


This is a political distinction, not a practical one, nor one based on any inherent difference in lethality or other inherent moral value. You're chasing a fool's errand in trying to justify it in any other way.

This is not a political distinction. An axe can cut wood, a dagger can help you eat and cut ropes. Poison can only be used to harm another living being.

Even a sword, a tool created only for war, can deflect blows, serve as a lever, keep someone at safe distance, or dissuade someone from attacking you. These are ALL pratical differences.... No politic here.


There's a reason why I keep making the point that "defense with weapon" means removing all of the target's hit points. With a normal weapon, you can't practically subdue a target unless you're risking the target's death.

A nice, non-lethal poison makes subdual much more practical, and much less risky for the target.

(Some few characters can deal significant non-lethal damage without taking a large penalty, but that's a rarity.)

There are alots of ways to subdue some one without harming them... Dagger to the throat, breaking their knees, grapples, etc.

I don't know why you think letting them stabbed and asleep (One would guess there is a high probability of them bleeding to death) is less lethal than breaking their knee.

One (Guard, Judge) could easily think your soporific-dagger was meant to abduct some one... Another reason why poisons are often illegal.

You don't care about versimilitude... And it's ok. You have the right to play that way.

But in a universe that tries to be realistic, you should have more control over what you are inflicting upon your victim with a weapon, than with a poisonned weapon. OP wants to know our view on poison. I try to explain why it is often seen as unlawful and shameful.


Obviously. How else do you expect an injury poison to be used.

My points is, you couldn't defend yourself with the poison alone. You can't deflect a blow with poison, you can't put someone to sleep with just poison (You need a way to infect the victim... A cup of wine, a dagger). Poison is a offensive tool, it can only be used to afflict and harm some one. Inducing a forced state of sleep to anyone is also harming them

So yes, you can say you carry a sword to defend yourself. But carry poison without a sword and you just seems like a date-rapist.

I don't say a fictionnal harmless soporific like goodnight kiss cannot be used to minimise the damage you do to an attacker. I'm saying the society shuns the poison because it cannot be used for anything else than harming a living being, like putting it in a forced sleep... Which is not a power most society would agree to confer to anyone.

Telok
2015-08-07, 12:38 PM
Pepper spray. :smalltongue:

[/facetious]

In D&D using tranqualizer darts on wildlife in order to attach radio collars for study and conservation is evil. Likewise using a needle with knockout poison for self defense is somehow worse than setting someone on fire or dissilving their face with acid. And you can just call yourself an antipaladin if you spray huge swaths of land with species specific toxins in order to wipe out a disease like malaria.

People will also want to be careful with invoking real world history. The word "medeval" as it is genreally used covers hundreds of years and more than twenty distinct cultures.

Berenger
2015-08-07, 12:44 PM
Nobody's talking about doing it in real life.
Please read my earlier posts again and reconsider. I was talking expressly about reality vs. depiction in fantasy for quite a while and I stated that the comparison is imho relevant because some people like to model their games closer to real life than to the heavily abstracted system of D&D.



Obviously. How else do you expect an injury poison to be used. :smallconfused:
By anything but a dagger, frankly. I know its a staple of fantasy and I like my dagger-wielding black-cloak-wearing poison-using assassin type of character as much as the next guy, but a smooth metal blade is actually a horribly ineffecient and unreliable way of administering a substance to the blood stream, logistics wise. Thats why humans invented syringes and venomous animals developed a highly specialized syringe-like anatomy to facilitate application.



There are real powerful animal poisons that can paralyze or kill someone almost instantly. They are very rare, but real. No reason a fantasy world couldnt have such poison more available, with all the crazy monsters and giant animals out there.
That's true, but sans modern refrigeration and preservatives you'd have to actually keep those dangerous animals at hand for a steady supply of fresh stuff. Which, obviously, at the level of snakes or scorpions can be done by a dedicated teenage commoner with a terrarium, it's just not not terribly convenient for traveling adventurers.



This is a political distinction, not a practical one, nor one based on any inherent difference in lethality or other inherent moral value. You're chasing a fool's errand in trying to justify it in any other way.
Please don't take this personally, but while you have a valid point in saying that the political considerations of a ruling warrior class might well play into the issue, you do yourself and your standpoint a gross disservice by insisting on monocausality and dismissing other, equally valid reasons both without solid counterevidence and in a rather condescending way.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 12:55 PM
You probabbly heard of suicide by ingesting large quantities of pills... Ibuprofen and vodka, sure. Don't try that at home.


Even a sword, a tool created only for war, can deflect blows, serve as a lever, keep someone at safe distance, or dissuade someone from attacking you. These are ALL pratical differences.... No politic here. Poison can't dissuade someone from attacking you? Millions of years of snake and scorpion evolution will be very surprised.


There are alots of ways to subdue some one without harming them... Dagger to the throat, breaking their knees, grapples, etc. Um. Where do I even start.


I don't know why you think letting them stabbed and asleep (One would guess there is a high probability of them bleeding to death) is less lethal than breaking their knee. Because in D&D it is less likely to result in death.

If you have more than zero hit points, you cannot bleed out and die.

Subduing someone by stabbing them until they have no hit points is actually very dangerous (for them), except in 4e, where you're allowed to decide if you kill or incapacitate. In other editions, you roll the dice to see if the victim lives or dies.


You don't care about versimilitude... And it's ok. You have the right to play that way.

What I don't care about are all the rules-ignorant assertions you keep trying to drop as though they were facts.

People in D&D do not bleed out from wounds unless they have no HP left.

Subdual via swords means removing all their HP.

Guess what's dangerous?

(Hint: not poison.)

Knaight
2015-08-07, 01:18 PM
Same with poison. You might have envenomed you blade because you intend to kill someone. Or it might be a precaution against someone attacking you. Poison is just a force multiplier for the lethality of the weapon that applied it.

Just because you have a poisoned dagger, doesn't mean you intend to stab someone with it, just as having a normal dagger doesn't mean you intend to kill someone with it.
This isn't the D&D forum, and in every game which makes an attempt to model poison functionality at all, you generally need to apply poison to a weapon shortly before using it. That's not really doable defensively most of the time, with the obvious exception of defending an area from an attack you know is coming shortly.

With that said, one of the bigger uses of poison has been completely neglected, and that's hunting. Rainforest and jungle dwelling societies in particular often relied on hunting heavily, and if you've got a poison dart frog or similar then you can make sure that your shots with a bow or blowgun count for something, which is particularly valuable as the hunting conditions tend to give way fewer circumstances where you've got a clear and well lit shot to a vital area than less dense forests, let alone plains.


Even modern democratic societies control medecine and drugs ALOT... And it's not because it's a "woman's weapon". It's because they are deadly substances that should not be available to everyone.

The vast majority of them also control arms a lot. It's usually way easier to get ahold of rat poison than a handgun.

hymer
2015-08-07, 01:20 PM
Just putting out my 2cp:

At my table(s), players tend to use little poison. Many cultures make it illegal, it's usually pretty expensive, targets tend to die before the full effect comes in play, many creatures are not affected by it... And then there's the sense that it works best on mooks (where it's rather a waste), while the people you'd really like to poison tend to have defences against it.

That said, it happens that PCs pick up a vial of poison, usually for specific reasons. That's fine with me.

It seems to me that the (partially or entirely) delayed onset makes it far more effective for the losers. And my PCs win the vast majority of their fights outright. If the enemy has poison, it may add a little something to a fight the PCs are almost sure to win.

icefractal
2015-08-07, 01:21 PM
The problem I have with saying that poisons are bad based on RL effects that don't exist in D&D (lasting damage, potential of unexpected death, etc) is that if you follow that logic then a lot of things would count as evil.

Like Acid Fog. In the rules, it just does HP damage, no worse than a sword. If we were talking about what it would "realistically" do? A cloud of acid so thick it traps people inside it? That would be horrific. Extreme permanent maiming, at the very least. This applies to a lot of spells, and also to weapon attacks that specify targeting certain places.

As far as "unfairness" goes - poison is only unfair if you believe that the person with greater martial skill (and/or better equipment) is inherently the one who deserves to survive a fight. I don't consider that a "good aligned" viewpoint. Not even universally "lawful", although it might be for some cultures.

Berenger
2015-08-07, 02:18 PM
Like Acid Fog. In the rules, it just does HP damage, no worse than a sword. If we were talking about what it would "realistically" do? A cloud of acid so thick it traps people inside it? That would be horrific. Extreme permanent maiming, at the very least. This applies to a lot of spells, and also to weapon attacks that specify targeting certain places.

Im curious. How would you or your GM describe a person being killed or wounded by corrosive gas? Would they just fall down and move no more? Because, at my all GM's tables, the result would be exactly the horrifying mess one would expect. At one point a few years ago, our groups mage decided to break an enemy cavalry charge by using this funny black wand she stole from the BBEG and the graphic and noisy WWI-esque way in which those sixty enemy cavalrymen and their horses died amongst clouds of magic mustard gas was neither clean nor quick nor pretty and was disturbing enough to dissuade further pursuit of such highly effective spells.

hiryuu
2015-08-07, 02:40 PM
What I don't care about are all the rules-ignorant assertions you keep trying to drop as though they were facts.

People in D&D do not bleed out from wounds unless they have no HP left.

Subdual via swords means removing all their HP.

Guess what's dangerous?

(Hint: not poison.)

Well, then. Guess which of those things the rules say is evil?

You can't have it both ways.

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 02:48 PM
Well, then. Guess which of those things the rules say is evil?

You can't have it both ways.

If we want to get into that detail, the rules only say that poison is against Knight and Paladin codes, and poisons that cause ability damage are unnecessarily painful and thus Evil (ignoring ravages on the very next page, which also cause ability damage. And angels with naturally poisonous bites). Non-ability damage poisons are explicitly OK, like Goodnight's Kiss or Drow Sleeping Poison.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 02:50 PM
Non-ability damage poisons are explicitly OK, like Goodnight's Kiss or Drow Sleeping Poison.

It just makes you Drow-sy.

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 02:58 PM
Ibuprofen and vodka, sure. Don't try that at home.

Poison can't dissuade someone from attacking you? Millions of years of snake and scorpion evolution will be very surprised.

Yeah exactly! You are right, people can't know when someone has poison, because that person is not a snake or scorpion! If everybody knew at all time you had poison because you had a "poison halo", I'm sure alot more societies would tolerate it. Just like not all societies encourage to kill scorpions and snakes on sight, because everybody KNOWS they got poison... Much like anybody who looks at you can see you have a magic flaming halberd.


Um. Where do I even start.

By being less arrogant. You know perfectly what my point is.


Because in D&D it is less likely to result in death.

If you have more than zero hit points, you cannot bleed out and die.

Subduing someone by stabbing them until they have no hit points is actually very dangerous (for them), except in 4e, where you're allowed to decide if you kill or incapacitate. In other editions, you roll the dice to see if the victim lives or dies.

What I don't care about are all the rules-ignorant assertions you keep trying to drop as though they were facts.

People in D&D do not bleed out from wounds unless they have no HP left.

Subdual via swords means removing all their HP.

Guess what's dangerous?

(Hint: not poison.)

In D&D...

OP specifically referred to other systems too, meaning this is NOT a D&D discussion... But I already said that.

I don't see anything that makes me think OP wanted to talk about rules of D&D... So I don't know why you insist on speaking about the rules of D&D.

Of course my assertions ignore D&D rules, I'm not speaking about D&D rules and I never even pretended to! I'm speaking about poison, and why it is shunned in most societies.


The vast majority of them also control arms a lot. It's usually way easier to get ahold of rat poison than a handgun.

Yes, you are right. Guns (And Swords) are also iillegal in many modern democratic societies. Much like poison, their only real use is to harm. But, you could get away with a knife or axe or hammer, since they are also tools with a purpose other than harming living things.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 03:08 PM
Yeah exactly! You are right Of course I am.


By being less arrogant. You know perfectly what my point is. Your point is that you think breaking someone's knees is less harmful than giving that person a dose of sleeping poison.

What your point is, is wrong.

(And please stop trying to get personal. If you can't address the arguments, it won't help if you attack the posters.)


In D&D, OP specifically referred to other systems too, meaning this is NOT a D&D discussion... Again I have to repeat myself.

I don't see anything that makes me think OP wanted to talk about rules of D&D... So I don't know why you insist on speaking about the rules of D&D.

Of course my assertions ignore D&D rules, I'm not speaking about D&D rules and I never even pretended to! I'm speaking about poison, and why it is shunned in most societies.

Did you even read the OP?

Here's it is, for reference:

I've been inspired to ask this question after finding a quote from the 1st Edition AD&D DMG about the use of poison. One of the many tricky topics in D&D, and I presume other role playing games, is the subject of poison and how it's dealt with. Is poison regarded as an inherently shameful and depraved, or merely a tool, whose morality depends on how it's used?

It's specifically talking about the 1e DMG, and the morality presented in that book.

Then it talks about the fact that this is a tricky topic in D&D.

Did you really not notice this stuff the first go through?

The post is right there, at the top of this thread.

It's not a very long or complicated post.

This is why we all use D&D terms.

Because the OP is about D&D.

Hope that helps.

Flickerdart
2015-08-07, 03:11 PM
Because the OP is about D&D.

The OP literally says "other roleplaying games."

Nifft
2015-08-07, 03:16 PM
The OP literally says "other roleplaying games." Are you being misleading on purpose, or did you actually not notice the rest of the sentence which you're quoting from?

"One of the many tricky topics in D&D, and I presume other role playing games..."

Protip: check the bolded word.

cobaltstarfire
2015-08-07, 03:54 PM
I've been inspired to ask this question after finding a quote from the 1st Edition AD&D DMG about the use of poison. One of the many tricky topics in D&D, and I presume other role playing games, is the subject of poison and how it's dealt with. Is poison regarded as an inherently shameful and depraved, or merely a tool, whose morality depends on how it's used?

I see poison as a tool whose morality depends on how it is used, and the type of poison.

Like poisons that cause the victim to experience unnecessary prolonged pain probably won't be winning you any points with the good or neutral alignments.

AxeAlex
2015-08-07, 04:03 PM
Are you being misleading on purpose, or did you actually not notice the rest of the sentence which you're quoting from?

"One of the many tricky topics in D&D, and I presume other role playing games..."

Protip: check the bolded word.

In the same post, he talks about FIRST EDITION D&D, which specifically says that poison is unfair and that good people should not use it.

Different editions of D&D have different take on the matter, you say so YOURSELF when talking about 4rth edition and non-lethal damages.

The OP clearly talks about the way poison is perceived... If he was talking about the rules surrounding poison, this posts would belong in the D&D forum.

Until you get this thread moved, you arguments are flawed and don't have anything to do with either defining the role of poison in society and roleplaying games, or the moral/social implications of using poisons in general. (Because we are clearly not talking about any obscure "poison" that makes you happy and healthy, before you come up with one)

dps
2015-08-07, 04:43 PM
Might makes right. Poison, however, is cheating.

I'm not sure how seriously this was intended, but I think that, in game terms, it's exactly correct. In most games, the idea is to use your abilities (whether weapon skill, spell-casting, diplomacy, or whatever) to defeat opponents and overcome obstacles. Poison isn't an ability or skill (at least, not in most game systems), so using it is, in effect, cheating. But instead of simply banning its use, DnD went the route of penalizing its use by making it Evil to use (of course, this assumes that you consider having acts you commit deemed Evil is a penalty. In this regard, keep in mind that originally, DnD pretty much assumed that adventurers would be Good-aligned.)

icefractal
2015-08-07, 04:56 PM
In the same post, he talks about FIRST EDITION D&D, which specifically says that poison is unfair and that good people should not use it.

Different editions of D&D have different take on the matter, you say so YOURSELF when talking about 4rth edition and non-lethal damages.

The OP clearly talks about the way poison is perceived... If he was talking about the rules surrounding poison, this posts would belong in the D&D forum.The title of the thread is "How do you deal with poison in your games?

Well the only game I currently play that has a good/evil alignment system and has poison show up in play is D&D 3.x. And in that game, poison works a certain way. It doesn't cause long-lasting effects, it doesn't accidentally kill people, and while the painful-ness of it is left to personal judgment, there are a lot of other things that aren't marked as evil and would reasonably be as much or more painful.

I'm fine with extrapolating things beyond what the rules specify, of course. But saying "things really work almost opposite of how the rules are"? No, that doesn't even make sense.


From the other direction:

Well, then. Guess which of those things the rules say is evil?

You can't have it both ways.The core rules say that poison is not evil. Right here: Couatl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm). The BoED disagrees, but the BoED also says a lot of inconsistent and in some cases extremely objectionable stuff, plus it is a splatbook many people don't even use.

Muja
2015-08-07, 05:11 PM
A question to the posters, as I am curious: What are your positions on a character using poison that they themselves produce biologically? Such as a Snakeperson/Yuan-Ti with its bite or spitting on its blade, or a Druid turning into a Monstrous Scorpion?

goto124
2015-08-07, 10:17 PM
How do the non-DnD systems deal with poison? What are the poison mechanics there? Are those poisons closer to 'fantasy poison' or 'realistic poison'? Do they treat poisons as evil, if they bother with morality at all?

Nifft
2015-08-07, 10:35 PM
Yeah, and what is a non-D&D (and non-D&D-derived) system with both poison and objective morality?

Most other systems which I've played don't have objective morality.

goto124
2015-08-07, 10:39 PM
Yeah, and what is a non-D&D (and non-D&D-derived) system with both poison and objective morality?

Fixed(?)

Okay, maybe V:tM, which I heard draws a direct line from LG to CE. I'm not sure.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 10:57 PM
Fixed(?) Why do you think so?


Okay, maybe V:tM, which I heard draws a direct line from LG to CE. I'm not sure. V:tM is subjective morality: it's not about how good or evil you are, it's about how much of your own personal humanity you retain.

You can be a good person but utterly inhuman (though that's very unlikely), or you can be a bad person but bad in human ways, and still very human.

Berenger
2015-08-08, 07:31 AM
Yeah, and what is a non-D&D (and non-D&D-derived) system with both poison and objective morality?

Most other systems which I've played don't have objective morality.

The only one I know of that is not in some way derived of D&D (HackMaster is, isn't it?) is the older version of the Warhammer Fantasy RPG. However, the presence of D&D-style alignment is in no way necessary or even particularly useful for a setting to include a nuanced description of poisons and various cultures general moral outlook on its use. The Dark Eye would be the first example that comes to my mind. There doesn't have to be some universal and arbitratry "objective morality" to have a discussion about poison-use and its moral implications in a game.

Knaight
2015-08-08, 08:49 AM
How do the non-DnD systems deal with poison? What are the poison mechanics there? Are those poisons closer to 'fantasy poison' or 'realistic poison'? Do they treat poisons as evil, if they bother with morality at all?

It depends on the game. I can think of several (starting with REIGN) where poison is a major setting element with the mechanics to match, in which a lot of the poisons are of the variety where you slip it in someone's drink and they die over the course of several days, or at least several hours. Most of those games also have a much tighter focus on political intrigue though.

GloatingSwine
2015-08-08, 10:42 AM
D&D alignments are stupid, so that part doesn't matter in my games.


I think it's more accurate to say that the alignments of Good and Evil in D&D bear no relation to the real world moral principles they are named for, and if you did a find/replace on the two terms and replaced them with Cakes and Biscuits the rules would make more sense and be less ambiguous because of the lack of confusion with unrelated concepts.

goto124
2015-08-08, 11:43 AM
I prefer Bacon and Necktie.

Or Cheese and Chalk.

GloatingSwine
2015-08-08, 04:52 PM
I prefer Bacon and Necktie.

Or Cheese and Chalk.

But then you can't have the Jaffa Cake embodying neutrality, with the soft bite of cake but the convenience of a biscuit.

Nifft
2015-08-08, 06:06 PM
The only one I know of that is not in some way derived of D&D (HackMaster is, isn't it?) is the older version of the Warhammer Fantasy RPG. However, the presence of D&D-style alignment is in no way necessary or even particularly useful for a setting to include a nuanced description of poisons and various cultures general moral outlook on its use. The Dark Eye would be the first example that comes to my mind. There doesn't have to be some universal and arbitratry "objective morality" to have a discussion about poison-use and its moral implications in a game.

Sounds interesting, and I think the discussion about the relative absurdity of D&D's poisonous morality rules is pretty much nailed shut, so let's hear something new.

Would you mind talking about Dark Eye and what it says about morality?

noob
2015-08-08, 06:20 PM
In my games people are fed with poison.
The only thing to eat is poison.
People put bread or water on their swords to kill opponents.
And the vilest people use swords made of human chicken meat.

Berenger
2015-08-08, 10:30 PM
Sounds interesting, and I think the discussion about the relative absurdity of D&D's poisonous morality rules is pretty much nailed shut, so let's hear something new.

Would you mind talking about Dark Eye and what it says about morality?

I'd be able to give a more comprehensive answer when I have an opportunity to check my GM's books, but the gist of it is the following:

Many poisons are of the "fantasy" variety. Some can be applied to weapons, some can kill within minutes.

The authorities and most inhabitants of the Middenrealm (which is based in germany and other european countries ca. 14th-16th century) regard poison as insidious and despicable. Many poisons are outlawed (not all, of course, it's still legal to poison vermin and some highly poisonous substances are needed by healers and artisans). This is partly due to an aristocratic warrior ethos and partly due to the widespread worship of Rondra. Rondra is the goddess of combat. While she is also the goddess of war (and thus of great importance to an empire constantly threatened by orcs and other monster races) she has a strong emphasis on "honorable" combat which is, according to her ideal, single combat between trained individuals of roughly equal skill and equipment.

The Novadi, (in part nomadic) desert-dwellers, have a mixed perspective on the use of poison. Because it's cheap and easy to contaminate the only water supply of an entire tribe and condemn all of them to a slow and agonizing death, it's considered to be both a highly effective tactic and an unspeakable crime both in their and Rastullahs (monotheistic god) eyes. One of their leaders did once task our group of adventurers (being foreigners) with spoiling the wells in the way of an invading army, but he could not speak openly about the matter (we had to read his intention between the lines even in a private audience without any witnesses) and nobody but the dregs of their society could be enlisted as helpers.

In Al'Anfa, being a decadent slavemongering mixture of the worst aspects of the byzantine empire, the worst aspects of spanish conquistadors and the worst aspects of italian city states (aka The Quite Obviously Bad Guys, at least in the early editions), the use of poison is something like an art form. They have a lot of scheming nobles of questionable ethics and access to both the highly potent natural poisons of the nearby jungle and alchemical creations made by their influential guild of black mages. They may not openly talk about it, but if you've got coin, you can buy a lot of nasty stuff in Al'Anfa. And if you've got enemies, you want to take precautions.

The Moha, living in the jungles south of Al'Anfa, are modeled after the indigenous peoples of south america. They used poison to kill or paralyze game animals for centuries and have no cultural taboo whatsoever preventing them from using said poison, blowgun and ambushes to fight human intruders.

For other cultures, mostly the less civilized ones living on the northern edge of the world, poison just doesn't seem to be a thing. There are few plants and animals that are as dangerous as those in the south and their magic-users are mostly shamans, not the especially alchemically inclined guild mages.

Knaight
2015-08-10, 11:39 AM
Regarding poison ethics: One of the big differences between a number of RPGs and the real world is the presence of monsters of some kind, which are actually meaningful threats. There's D&D and its entire monster manual, there's the taint in Legends of the Five Rings and the associated corrupted wildlife and supernatural evil, so on and so forth. In the real world, the kinds of poisons being talked about are generally going to be used as murder weapons (other than in controlled doses where they have medicinal properties). That paints a less than ideal picture of both those who buy them and those who sell them (medicinal property uses excepted). In a world where a rampaging beast can bust through the walls and start ravaging a city, it's an entirely different matter. Suddenly it makes a lot of sense for someone to be carrying poison so that when that happens they can poison their weapon of choice and help out more, particularly in the case of archers. The people selling poisons go from underworld agents helping people murder to people selling tools that are really useful for defensive purposes against terrifying monstrosities which you might get some warning are impending. There's also the interaction with honor cultures - even if the idea of a fair fight is pushed heavily regarding conflicts between humans, when it's a human up against a twenty foot winged snake that spits fire, poison probably won't be seen as dishonorable.

Then there's the implications regarding adventurers in particular. These are people who may fight monsters as part of their lives, while away from civilization. They're likely to be facing bad numerical odds, and every monster they kill while anywhere near a settlement is one fewer that's liable to attack said settlement. These people having poison is, from a practical standpoint, not unreasonable at all.

TheCountAlucard
2015-08-10, 02:40 PM
How do the non-DnD systems deal with poison? What are the poison mechanics there? Are those poisons closer to 'fantasy poison' or 'realistic poison'? Do they treat poisons as evil, if they bother with morality at all?Exalted 2e had poison work thusly:

Once a dose of poison entered your system through one of its given vectors (inhaled for toxic fumes, drunk for alcohol, injected into the bloodstream for coral snake venom, really any vector for Yozi venom), you rolled Stamina + Resistance against a difficulty based on how hard the poison is to shrug off. If you failed, you'd take the full effect (generally damage, rolled one damage die at a time every "interval" based on how fast the poison acts), where if you succeeded, you'd go with a downgraded effect (which could still be damage, on some of the nastier stuff like coral snake venom). You'd also generally take a penalty to your other dice rolls based on how nasty the poison is.

Some poisons (alcohol, for instance) are easier for magical beings to resist than mere mortals, but others (Yozi venom, for instance) are just as deadly to gods and the Exalted as they are to peasants and animals.

Exalted doesn't have objective, proscriptive morality like D&D, though, so while some folks would see its use as cowardly or whatever, it's not gonna trip anyone's Evildar.

Necroticplague
2015-08-10, 03:09 PM
How do the non-DnD systems deal with poison? What are the poison mechanics there? Are those poisons closer to 'fantasy poison' or 'realistic poison'? Do they treat poisons as evil, if they bother with morality at all?

Lets seem, Mutants and Masterminds, poison would simply be a descriptor for a power, so it functions far closer to Fantasy Poison, given how you could slap the descriptor on a wide array of powers (Snare with Alternative Save: Fortitude for a paralytic, Affliction for something crippling, Strike for damaging).