Why is poison use "evil"?

[skunk3]

I don't understand why poison use is deemed 'evil' by D&D standards. What if you only use poisons to debuff/assassinate bad guys exclusively? How is using poison any different than preparing some magic missiles and barraging the crap out of some baddies? I don't understand this. The Avenger PrC, while being a bit of an April Fool's joke, does exist and it doesn't require a PC to be evil, unlike the Assassin... and poison use is a class skill. To say that all poison use is inherently evil is just too binary for my tastes. Is it unreasonable to postulate that poison use should be permissible so long as the intent / goal is to rid the world of evil? I can also think of a bajillion spells (lacking the 'evil' descriptor) and other abilities in the game that could be construed as evil if you don't factor in how and why they are used.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I don't understand why poison use is deemed 'evil' by D&D standards. What if you only use poisons to debuff/assassinate bad guys exclusively? How is using poison any different than preparing some magic missiles and barraging the crap out of some baddies? I don't understand this. The Avenger PrC, while being a bit of an April Fool's joke, does exist and it doesn't require a PC to be evil, unlike the Assassin... and poison use is a class skill. To say that all poison use is inherently evil is just too binary for my tastes. Is it unreasonable to postulate that poison use should be permissible so long as the intent / goal is to rid the world of evil? I can also think of a bajillion spells (lacking the 'evil' descriptor) and other abilities in the game that could be construed as evil if you don't factor in how and why they are used.Poison is "bad," so you should feel bad for using it.

D&D morality logic at its finest in a nutshell. If it's pretty, it's good. If it's not, it's evil.

It's entirely fallacious, but the writers were hardly intelligent philosophers.

[Venger]

I don't understand why poison use is deemed 'evil' by D&D standards. What if you only use poisons to debuff/assassinate bad guys exclusively? How is using poison any different than preparing some magic missiles and barraging the crap out of some baddies? I don't understand this. The Avenger PrC, while being a bit of an April Fool's joke, does exist and it doesn't require a PC to be evil, unlike the Assassin... and poison use is a class skill. To say that all poison use is inherently evil is just too binary for my tastes. Is it unreasonable to postulate that poison use should be permissible so long as the intent / goal is to rid the world of evil? I can also think of a bajillion spells (lacking the 'evil' descriptor) and other abilities in the game that could be construed as evil if you don't factor in how and why they are used.
because you forgot to call it a "ravage" first. shame on you.

it's not. it's just the designers being stupid as usual. poison is a tool. it's how you use it that makes you good or evil.


Poison is "bad," so you should feel bad for using it.

D&D morality logic at its finest in a nutshell. If it's pretty, it's good. If it's not, it's evil.

It's entirely fallacious, but the writers were hardly intelligent philosophers.

well said.

[zergling.exe]

Because traditional poison use was a tool of assassination, typically causing the target to suffer for days, weeks, months, or even years before they finally died from repeated application. Now, this isn't typically the type of poison described in the books, but it's likely where the thought process of poison being evil came from.

[Zanos]

Poison is "bad," so you should feel bad for using it.

D&D morality logic at its finest in a nutshell. If it's pretty, it's good. If it's not, it's evil.

It's entirely fallacious, but the writers were hardly intelligent philosophers.
Wow, the amount of vitriol that alignment discussions bring out in a single post is staggering.

Poison use is considered Evil because poisoning someone is generally a prolonged death full of suffering, which i suspect is what the developers had in mind when they first put that to paper, and then most poisons turned out to not work that way. I also think that there was a conflation with honor and Good, although to be honest it is kind of hard to imagine a Good character watching their foe succumb to poison.

Mechanics aside ends not justifying means is kind of a staple for Good in 3.5 land. If you use Evil means to remove Evil you better be ready to remove yourself at the end.

[Obscuraphile]

This is a carry over isn't it? I don't recall poison use being specified as evil past 2nd ed.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Wow, the amount of vitriol that alignment discussions bring out in a single post is staggering.

Poison use is considered Evil because poisoning someone is generally a prolonged death full of suffering, which i suspect is what the developers had in mind when they first put that to paper, and then most poisons turned out to not work that way. I also think that there was a conflation with honor and Good, although to be honest it is kind of hard to imagine a Good character watching their foe succumb to poison.

Mechanics aside ends not justifying means is kind of a staple for Good in 3.5 land. If you use Evil means to remove Evil you better be ready to remove yourself at the end.Ravages are a thing, though. "Good" not-poisons that act exactly like poisons for those things not immune to it, except they're not poisons. Somehow.

Most evil monsters are ugly, and most good monsters are pretty.

D&D is pretty rife with that kind of bunk.

[torrasque666]

Because using evil tools to fight evil is still using evil. And given how the typical use of poison is not in straight combat, but is instead makes the target suffer over a period of time, its not good. its cruel.

[Venger]

Wow, the amount of vitriol that alignment discussions bring out in a single post is staggering.

Poison use is considered Evil because poisoning someone is generally a prolonged death full of suffering, which i suspect is what the developers had in mind when they first put that to paper, and then most poisons turned out to not work that way. I also think that there was a conflation with honor and Good, although to be honest it is kind of hard to imagine a Good character watching their foe succumb to poison.

Mechanics aside ends not justifying means is kind of a staple for Good in 3.5 land. If you use Evil means to remove Evil you better be ready to remove yourself at the end.

it's almost like alignment is terrible and people don't like it or something.

poison doesn't work like that, though, and has never worked like that in 3.0.

not if they call it a "ravage" first. then it's a-ok.

to the best of my knowledge, the arbitrary assignment of poison use as an evil act is ultimately from the paladin code:


Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

This arbitrary list of acts will give the gm who's been sharpening his knife the whole campaign an excuse to make your paladin fall, but until boed was excreted, it wasn't considered an Evil act for non-paladin characters, the same as most of the other things on that list, like lying. Unless your gm is a deontologist, I don't think any character is going to get forcibly slammed with an Evil alignment for telling lies.

Poison is a tool. it's how you use it that makes you good or evil. it's not different from dealing ability damage with crippling strike or similar abilities.

[Feantar]

I don't understand why poison use is deemed 'evil' by D&D standards. What if you only use poisons to debuff/assassinate bad guys exclusively? How is using poison any different than preparing some magic missiles and barraging the crap out of some baddies? I don't understand this. The Avenger PrC, while being a bit of an April Fool's joke, does exist and it doesn't require a PC to be evil, unlike the Assassin... and poison use is a class skill. To say that all poison use is inherently evil is just too binary for my tastes. Is it unreasonable to postulate that poison use should be permissible so long as the intent / goal is to rid the world of evil? I can also think of a bajillion spells (lacking the 'evil' descriptor) and other abilities in the game that could be construed as evil if you don't factor in how and why they are used.

Because D&D morality comes from absolute athority. D&D evil and good have nothing to do with the commonly held morality of today. Poison use is evil because the book said so. It is similar to religious morality in that it's authority stems from itself - the book says it is evil and therefore it is evil. Burn the witch. (which, one must admit, is pretty faithful to the, somewhat false, perception of dark age morality in fantasy settings)

You are free to ignore this by the way, just make sure to be consistent in doing so. If you're going by modern morality multiple spells need to be seen as not evil as well, and some other weird actions might actually be seen as good (for example, showing mercy to an evil outsider is not good in D&D - since they can actually be redeemed I'd argue it should be). On the other hand, if you keep it as is, you can have interesting cases in which an individual who pings as EEEEEVIL is actually a kind soul who, in this case for example, uses poison to apprehend suspects instead of killing them on the spot as a D&D guardsman ought to.

[Venger]

Ravages are a thing, though. "Good" not-poisons that act exactly like poisons for those things not immune to it, except they're not poisons. Somehow.

Most evil monsters are ugly, and most good monsters are pretty.

D&D is pretty rife with that kind of bunk.
right. ravages literally are just poisons. calling them "ravages" makes them Good, so just call stuff "ravages" when you use it. now you're Good too!

yeah, D&D's always had a problem with physiognomy, unless the monster's sexualized (which is a problem too)


Because using evil tools to fight evil is still using evil. And given how the typical use of poison is not in straight combat, but is instead makes the target suffer over a period of time, its not good. its cruel.
1) no it's not. tools are tools. what you do with them is what makes you good or evil. as boed says, there's nothing inherently Evil about casting fireball, even though you can hurt and kill people with it

2)where are you getting this idea? hit and run tactics don't really work in D&D. poison is most commonly used in the first rounds of combat to soften up opponents' saves for later effects. using poison like characters do in movies and plays isn't really that well simulated by the poison rules we have


Because D&D morality comes from absolute athority. D&D evil and good have nothing to do with the commonly held morality of today. Poison use is evil because the book said so. It is similar to religious morality in that it's authority stems from itself - the book says it is evil and therefore it is evil. Burn the witch. (which, one must admit, is pretty faithful to the, somewhat false, perception of dark age morality in fantasy settings)

You are free to ignore this by the way, just make sure to be consistent in doing so. If you're going by modern morality multiple spells need to be seen as not evil as well, and some other weird actions might actually be seen as good (for example, showing mercy to an evil outsider is not good in D&D - since they can actually be redeemed I'd argue it should be). On the other hand, if you keep it as is, you can have interesting cases in which an individual who pings as EEEEEVIL is actually a kind soul who, in this case for example, uses poison to apprehend suspects instead of killing them on the spot as a D&D guardsman ought to.
Right. That's why I find it helpful to clarify terms in all these alignment threads people never seem to stop posting:

[Good] = the descriptor for spells
Good = good as in alignment
good = common parlance

since the terms are basically unrelated and often contradict each other.

honestly, just ignoring alignment descriptors for spells is probably a good idea. it prevents you from slapping people with Evil alignments for casting deathwatch too much

pinging on detect evil is something that's actually discussed in D&D splats. due to the alignment system not having degrees, it suggests paladins not run around committing hate crimes on everyone with an Evil alignment since an innkeeper who waters down his beer and an actual demon lord will both ping Evil without further context.

[Obscuraphile]

1) no it's not. tools are tools. what you do with them is what makes you good or evil. as boed says, there's nothing inherently Evil about casting fireball, even though you can hurt and kill people with it

2)where are you getting this idea? hit and run tactics don't really work in D&D. poison is most commonly used in the first rounds of combat to soften up opponents' saves for later effects. using poison like characters do in movies and plays isn't really that well simulated by the poison rules we have

I would just point out that only Con poisons actually kill. Every other type of poison has the potential to put the victim in a pretty horrific alive but completely helpless state.

[Venger]

I would just point out that only Con poisons actually kill. Every other type of poison has the potential to put the victim in a pretty horrific alive but completely helpless state.

Right, I know that. That's why I agree with you.

[torrasque666]

1) no it's not. tools are tools. what you do with them is what makes you good or evil. as boed says, there's nothing inherently Evil about casting fireball, even though you can hurt and kill people with it

The BoED also directly describes any poison that deals damage as evil. That same BoED also states that using evil to fight evil is still evil. Therefore, using any poison that deals any form of damage (HP or Ability) is evil, no matter your reasons.

Poison use is also seen as cheating in most societies (even in societies where cheating is encouraged), something that the BoVD directly states as evil.

[Obscuraphile]

Right, I know that. That's why I agree with you.

I was actually addressing that mostly to the idea that there's no such thing as an evil tool. Something that can only kill or horribly trap its victim inside a prison made of their body seems kinda evil. Now I don't believe that the rules say poison use is evil anymore, and I would say that ravages are pretty horrible too, but in a world where good and evil objectively exist, to the point that there are creatures literally made of the stuff, maybe there could be an evil tool. For example: An Imp that is a wizard's familiar.

Edit: Oh, well ninja'd. But still removing subjective morality from the equation and looking at it from the base cosmology, I could see the reasons. Not in our world, but then that's why they call it fantasy.

[Venger]

The BoED also directly describes any poison that deals damage as evil. That same BoED also states that using evil to fight evil is still evil. Therefore, using any poison that deals any form of damage (HP or Ability) is evil, no matter your reasons.

Poison use is also seen as cheating in most societies (even in societies where cheating is encouraged), something that the BoVD directly states as evil.
unless of course you call it a ravage


I was actually addressing that mostly to the idea that there's no such thing as an evil tool. Something that can only kill or horribly trap its victim inside a prison made of their body seems kinda evil. Now I don't believe that the rules say poison use is evil anymore, and I would say that ravages are pretty horrible too, but in a world where good and evil objectively exist, to the point that there are creatures literally made of the stuff, maybe there could be an evil tool. For example: An Imp that is a wizard's familiar.

Edit: Oh, well ninja'd. But still removing subjective morality from the equation and looking at it from the base cosmology, I could see the reasons. Not in our world, but then that's why they call it fantasy.

you mean like sanctify the wicked?

[Obscuraphile]

you mean like sanctify the wicked?

If good and evil are real things that you can point to in the sense that they are in D&D, which is very different than how it works in the real world, there is nothing wrong with sanctify the wicked. It won't work on good creatures and it will fix what is wrong with bad ones. Because that's how D&D works. It's simple, black and white. Now a lot of people don't play it that way because it's difficult to achieve that level of immersion where our actual morality doesn't kick down the door and pee in the punch bowl.

In D&D evil is evil. It's not different. It's not misunderstood. It is pure, distilled bad and wrong, the eradication of which is by definition good. Not the eradication by any means necessary, which would introduce new evil, just the destruction of existing evil.

[torrasque666]

unless of course you call it a ravageSomething that has the explicit supernatural ability to discriminate between targets and brings holy power against evil creatures? Not quite the same as an indiscriminate poison.

[MeimuHakurei]

Poison, if spells are any indication, are not an evil act per se as the Contagion (Disease spreading) spell has the evil descriptor while the spell Poison does not. Still, it is an underhanded method that can cause undue suffering and is therefore not suitable for a paladin. Ravages are indeed a different in that they turn the target's own evilness against them (and most evil creatures you'd want to use a poison effect against are immune to that). Diseases as evil is more understandable due to how easily the effect can spread and catch innocents, again unlike Afflictions who only affect evil targets.

[Florian]

If good and evil are real things that you can point to in the sense that they are in D&D, which is very different than how it works in the real world, there is nothing wrong with sanctify the wicked. It won't work on good creatures and it will fix what is wrong with bad ones. Because that's how D&D works. It's simple, black and white. Now a lot of people don't play it that way because it's difficult to achieve that level of immersion where our actual morality doesn't kick down the door and pee in the punch bowl.

In D&D evil is evil. It's not different. It's not misunderstood. It is pure, distilled bad and wrong, the eradication of which is by definition good. Not the eradication by any means necessary, which would introduce new evil, just the destruction of existing evil.

Very well said and straight to the point.

[Obscuraphile]

Poison, if spells are any indication, are not an evil act per se as the Contagion (Disease spreading) spell has the evil descriptor while the spell Poison does not. Still, it is an underhanded method that can cause undue suffering and is therefore not suitable for a paladin. Ravages are indeed a different in that they turn the target's own evilness against them (and most evil creatures you'd want to use a poison effect against are immune to that). Diseases as evil is more understandable due to how easily the effect can spread and catch innocents, again unlike Afflictions who only affect evil targets.

Well in the publication history of 3.5 the Poison spell and poison use were not evil at the time of release. Once the Book of Vile Darkness came out it retroactively made inflicting ability score damage via poison an evil act. Now we have the issues of Primary Source, Is the Poison spell a poison, and is Drow Poison evil.

[Necroticplague]

Poison, if spells are any indication, are not an evil act per se as the Contagion (Disease spreading) spell has the evil descriptor while the spell Poison does not. Still, it is an underhanded method that can cause undue suffering and is therefore not suitable for a paladin. Ravages are indeed a different in that they turn the target's own evilness against them (and most evil creatures you'd want to use a poison effect against are immune to that). Diseases as evil is more understandable due to how easily the effect can spread and catch innocents, again unlike Afflictions who only affect evil targets.

It's possible for casting a spell to be an Evil act without the spell being [evil]. For example, creating a Curst is Evil (as per BoVD), despite neither of the spells used to making it being [evil], because it's bringing undead into the world. Similarly, Poison not being [evil] simply means it doesn't rely on Evil forces, and doesn't stop it from being an Evil action to cast.

[Mordaedil]

I see a lot of people having problems with alignments getting stuck on "the ends justify the means", but seem to not grasp that generally in reality and in fiction, that is a pretty evil outlook.

Poison, by definition, is extremely cowardly, giving oneself an unfair advantage, causing extreme pain that debilitates before it kills. It strips away any sort of semblance of control you thought you had, wrists it away and exposes you for how fragile you really are.

This is why poison is evil. Doesn't matter if you save the orphanage if you firebombed city hall.

[MeimuHakurei]

I see a lot of people having problems with alignments getting stuck on "the ends justify the means", but seem to not grasp that generally in reality and in fiction, that is a pretty evil outlook.

Poison, by definition, is extremely cowardly, giving oneself an unfair advantage, causing extreme pain that debilitates before it kills. It strips away any sort of semblance of control you thought you had, wrists it away and exposes you for how fragile you really are.

This is why poison is evil. Doesn't matter if you save the orphanage if you firebombed city hall.

Yep - "The ends justify the means" most strongly leans towards Neutral Evil. A lot of people here try every possible explanation for their "good" deed before admitting what they did is evil, be that using poisons, animating undead, using Evil/Corrupt spells or binding fiends.

[Vizzerdrix]

Poison use is evil to prevent inn keepers from using it to get rid of all the rats in their basements instead of hireing new adventurers.

Poison use is evil so paladins can fee non guilty about smiting the occasional farmer.


Thise should be blue, but that is a hassel to do on my tablet :smallyuk:

[eggynack]

The BoED also directly describes any poison that deals damage as evil. That same BoED also states that using evil to fight evil is still evil. Therefore, using any poison that deals any form of damage (HP or Ability) is evil, no matter your reasons.

Poison use is also seen as cheating in most societies (even in societies where cheating is encouraged), something that the BoVD directly states as evil.
What specific part of poison are you saying is evil? If it's attacking people sneakily, why isn't tipping your arrows with poison and shooting the enemy straight up evil, and why is sneak attack not-evil? If it's dealing damage over time, then why isn't creeping cold evil? If it's the ability damage, then why is the spell literally called poison non-evil? If it's that you're theoretically capable of using poison on good people, as opposed to ravages, then why is it evil if you only use poison on evil targets?

The basic reality is that there really isn't much in the way of a self consistent ethical system defining how alignment works in D&D. That poison is evil is a necessarily arbitrary thing, because, for every one of its traits, there exists some non-evil object that has that trait. We could talk about trait combinations, but then we get into some ridiculously twisted logical positions. Like, it's fine to sneak attack someone, and it's fine to do something that deals ability damage (as long as it's not poison), but it's not fine to sneak attack someone with something that deals ability damage. And this is just poison. There's a ton of other weird and twisty crap in the alignment system.

Edit:

Poison, by definition, is extremely cowardly, giving oneself an unfair advantage, causing extreme pain that debilitates before it kills. It strips away any sort of semblance of control you thought you had, wrists it away and exposes you for how fragile you really are.
None of these arguments make any sense. Sticking poison on your sword is giving yourself an unfair advantage, but putting a ton of magical enhancements on your sword, or just broadly doing any number of far more effective things, is not. Causing extreme and debilitating pain is evil, when it's poison, but when it's the spell poison with its identical combat effect it's just fine. Poison strips away control somehow, but charm/dominate person is totally non-evil.

Hell, we don't even have to go that far. There's roughly a bajillion spells out there that render the target essentially powerless. Let's be maximally ironical and go with constricting chains, a frigging sanctified spell, one that can target good creatures just fine, which renders the target totally immobile and deals them non-lethal damage every turn. In a single sanctified spell, we have an effect more powerful and unfair than nearly any poison could hope to be, given that it's entirely lacking in a save and very difficult to escape, painful and debilitating (and the fact that this spell doesn't kill by itself is not pertinent given that a lot of poisons do not kill either), and it removes control from the target way more than some ability damage does. How is poison more evil than one of the most good spells in the entire game?

[denthor]

This is a carry over isn't it? I don't recall poison use being specified as evil past 2nd ed.

In 2nd edition it stated that only evil priest would ever use poison. One of the times a fourmite even went so far as to take a picture of the players handbook to show the quote.

[Telonius]

The stupid part of it is the inconsistency about what makes it [Evil] as opposed to achieving the same result in a different way.

Suppose a Wizard has a crossbow with a poison-tipped arrow, Small Centipede Poison, that would do 2d2 dexterity damage on a hit and a save. He also has Shivering Touch prepared, which does 3d6 dexterity damage. Even though the Shivering Touch is inflicting far more suffering (it could end up doing 9 times more damage than the Centipede poison), the poison is supposed to be always evil and the Shivering Touch isn't.

That's not even getting into the ridiculousness of trying to parse out how "Always Lawful Good" Couatls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm) get a poison attack.

If anything, I'd label some Poison use as Chaotic (and maybe not always that) if it's not part of a creature's natural weaponry. Generally seen as dishonorable, against the laws of war or local norms. It's possible you could have a society where it's supposed to be normal.

[Psyren]

It's not hard to tweak this into something resembling coherence. Rather than applying morality to the poison itself, apply it to causing ability damage and death. Poisons that do that would therefore be morally questionable, while poisons that don't would be generally all right.

One of the major problems is that Sleep Poison, something that should arguably be a tool of Good-aligned nations due to its ability to incapacitate foes humanely, is a D&D sacred cow for Drow slavers. Slaughtering that cow would be a necessary step in realigning (pun intended) the poison rules.

[zlefin]

I don't understand why poison use is deemed 'evil' by D&D standards. What if you only use poisons to debuff/assassinate bad guys exclusively? How is using poison any different than preparing some magic missiles and barraging the crap out of some baddies? I don't understand this. The Avenger PrC, while being a bit of an April Fool's joke, does exist and it doesn't require a PC to be evil, unlike the Assassin... and poison use is a class skill. To say that all poison use is inherently evil is just too binary for my tastes. Is it unreasonable to postulate that poison use should be permissible so long as the intent / goal is to rid the world of evil? I can also think of a bajillion spells (lacking the 'evil' descriptor) and other abilities in the game that could be construed as evil if you don't factor in how and why they are used.

to reiterate others succinctly:
the DnD rules on alignment morality are not well written. You don't really need to understand why they did what they did, as it's often incoherent anyways. [and it probably has more to do with narrative tropes than anything; in most fiction it's the bad guys who use poisons]
It's totally fine to houserule it away, it won't cause any problems.

[BowStreetRunner]

None of these arguments make any sense. Sticking poison on your sword is giving yourself an unfair advantage, but putting a ton of magical enhancements on your sword, or just broadly doing any number of far more effective things, is not. Causing extreme and debilitating pain is evil, when it's poison, but when it's the spell poison with its identical combat effect it's just fine. Poison strips away control somehow, but charm/dominate person is totally non-evil.
In fact, in the historical societies that established the morality that poison use is evil, witchcraft and magic were also considered evil. The relevant morality was established under a warrior-caste nobility that considered strength to be a virtue and therefore accepted that dominating the weak with martial prowess was acceptable but undermining authority with cunning and subterfuge was dishonorable and wicked. Poison and witchcraft were equally invalid methods to victory.

[eggynack]

One of the major problems is that Sleep Poison, something that should arguably be a tool of Good-aligned nations due to its ability to incapacitate foes humanely, is a D&D sacred cow for Drow slavers. Slaughtering that cow would be a necessary step in realigning (pun intended) the poison rules.
That actually isn't a problem. Drow sleep poison is already explicitly mentioned as a non-evil poison in BoED, in spite of its associations.

Edit: Which, come to think of it, instantly negates any argument that isn't, "It deals ability damage." Oh, wait, I haven't yet negated the part about it being damage over time. The fact that dragon bile lacks secondary damage and is still evil is what negates that part. Blue whinnis also, given that the secondary effect is not ability damage. So, I guess all the other arguments, about this being unfair or control removing, are irrelevant. Not like falling unconscious is any less hazardous to your health in a battle than taking a couple points of constitution damage is. Thus, the only thing needed to negate the argument that poison being evil makes sense is that there's a ton of stuff that deals ability damage which is not evil.

[HighWater]

In fact, in the historical societies that established the morality that poison use is evil, witchcraft and magic were also considered evil. The relevant morality was established under a warrior-caste nobility that considered strength to be a virtue and therefore accepted that dominating the weak with martial prowess was acceptable but undermining authority with cunning and subterfuge was dishonorable and wicked. Poison and witchcraft were equally invalid methods to victory.

Quoted for truth, with the added exception for Divine Magic performed by the state-sanctioned religious organs. Of course, they were two peas in a pod (and generally from the same families)...

@OP: The question is really: Do you want to abide by the strict, internally inconsistent and regularly conflicting Rules of Objective Morality as written, or do you want to find your own path applying a more flexible, more consistent relative morality with little guidance from the books. Be warned, both paths make for rocky to travels.

In the first, poisons are Evil, because they are and you shouldn't be asking these kinds of questions lest you be judged a Heretic!
In the second, its not just the dose, but also the situation in which it is used, that makes the poison.

[BowStreetRunner]

...Do you want to abide by the strict, internally inconsistent and regularly conflicting Rules of Objective Morality as written, or do you want to find your own path applying a more flexible, more consistent relative morality with little guidance from the books. Be warned, both paths make for rocky to travels...
It's really going to depend upon the DM and Players. There are some groups with which I would just throw out 'that's what's in the rules, just go with it' to avoid headaches, and other groups with which I would definitely feel comfortable employing a more nuanced morality.

[Andor13]

In fact, in the historical societies that established the morality that poison use is evil, witchcraft and magic were also considered evil. The relevant morality was established under a warrior-caste nobility that considered strength to be a virtue and therefore accepted that dominating the weak with martial prowess was acceptable but undermining authority with cunning and subterfuge was dishonorable and wicked. Poison and witchcraft were equally invalid methods to victory.

This, although even then, it's a fairly modern notion. Hercules, the literal embodiment of martial strength in the ancient world, is also famed for using incredibly deadly poison. (Of course he also 'died' from that same poison being applied to him, so...)

[SimonMoon6]

I believe (without proof) that this is the reason why poison is Evil in D&D:

In first edition, all poison was save or die. Weak poisons (like giant centipede poison) gave you a bonus to your save, but it was still save or die.

That's incredibly powerful, right? Well, obviously that's too powerful to let PCs have. You don't want PCs flinging "save or die" attacks all the time (unless they're spellcasters of course). So, how can we prevent PCs from using poison? We can call it "evil". And no PC will ever use "evil" stuff. So, problem solved.

There's no real reason why it should be evil in 3rd edition except for this legacy.

Even back in the day, this was silly. Killing someone with a sword? Fine. Killing someone with poison? Oooooh, what a terrible person you are.

I could see it as being "dishonorable" (and therefore against a paladin's code), but I can't understand it being evil when racial cleansing ("Kill all orcs") is perfectly acceptable.

[Nifft]

I believe (without proof) that this is the reason why poison is Evil in D&D:

In first edition, all poison was save or die. Weak poisons (like giant centipede poison) gave you a bonus to your save, but it was still save or die.

That's incredibly powerful, right? Well, obviously that's too powerful to let PCs have. You don't want PCs flinging "save or die" attacks all the time (unless they're spellcasters of course). So, how can we prevent PCs from using poison? We can call it "evil". And no PC will ever use "evil" stuff. So, problem solved.

There's no real reason why it should be evil in 3rd edition except for this legacy.

Even back in the day, this was silly. Killing someone with a sword? Fine. Killing someone with poison? Oooooh, what a terrible person you are.

I could see it as being "dishonorable" (and therefore against a paladin's code), but I can't understand it being evil when racial cleansing ("Kill all orcs") is perfectly acceptable.

Actually there was a table for who was allowed to use poison (and even who was allowed to use oil).

Killing someone with a sword was a class ability -- some classes didn't get access to swords.

Killing someone with poison was also a class ability -- some classes didn't get access to poison.

Killing someone with a spell was obviously a class ability -- some classes didn't get access to spells.


It might have been silly to silo those different styles of murder, but it wasn't particularly unfair in that context.

[RoboEmperor]

Man v.s. Man, sword and shield v.s. sword and shield, this is an honorable fight that pits the two man's strength and skills to their absolute limits to determine who is the better.

Poison = Cheap shot. It robs its opponent to pit their strength and skill against you since a slight scratch will kill them, or if you put it in their food. Therefore it is evil.

Not in d&d where poison is easily resisted, but this is the gist of good/evil mentality/morality in medieval times.

"Evil" people use things that let them kill things vastly stronger than them using cheap shots like poison against an army general or political manipulation to jail/exile/execute said general forever. "Good" people challenge them to a 1 on 1 duel.

[BowStreetRunner]

Man v.s. Man, sword and shield v.s. sword and shield, this is an honorable fight that pits the two man's strength and skills to their absolute limits to determine who is the better.

Poison = Cheap shot. It robs its opponent to pit their strength and skill against you since a slight scratch will kill them, or if you put it in their food. Therefore it is evil.

Not in d&d where poison is easily resisted, but this is the gist of good/evil mentality/morality in medieval times.

"Evil" people use things that let them kill things vastly stronger than them using cheap shots like poison against an army general or political manipulation to jail/exile/execute said general forever. "Good" people challenge them to a 1 on 1 duel.
Yep. Medieval morality always did favor strong, skilled bullies pitting their strength and martial skills against weak, untrained peasants and laborers. Anything that could level the playing field in favor of the weak (like poison) was obviously immoral. Peasants were also frequently barred from having weapons, too.

[Kish]

Something that has the explicit supernatural ability to discriminate between targets and brings holy power against evil creatures? Not quite the same as an indiscriminate poison.
Yes, this.

If I, personally, wanted to kill someone, I wouldn't put poison in their food because I'd consider the risk of an innocent person eating that food unacceptably high.

If I had a poison that was enchanted to only affect my target, or only my target and other people who needed killin', I'd go right ahead and put that in my target's food.

[AvatarVecna]

Poison is evil because it's extremely debilitating at best or lethal at worst. Murder isn't okay unless a handsome man in polished armor riding a muscular horse is doing it.

[eggynack]

Yes, this.

If I, personally, wanted to kill someone, I wouldn't put poison in their food because I'd consider the risk of an innocent person eating that food unacceptably high.

If I had a poison that was enchanted to only affect my target, or only my target and other people who needed killin', I'd go right ahead and put that in my target's food.
How does this criteria distinguish between using an arrow tipped with a poison and using an arrow tipped with a ravage? The evil thing isn't using a poison. It's taking some arbitrary action which shows a disregard for some consequence that could befall innocents. I could name a ton of non-evil spells which could plausibly hurt random bystanders. Doing evil things is evil. Various tools can be better or worse at doing evil things, but, broadly speaking, tools are not intrinsically evil.

[Venger]

well, he called his poison a "ravage" first, so he's covered

[hamishspence]

Anything that could level the playing field in favor of the weak (like poison) was obviously immoral.

It still is heavily frowned on - being barred by conventions like the Geneva Convention.

This, although even then, it's a fairly modern notion. Hercules, the literal embodiment of martial strength in the ancient world, is also famed for using incredibly deadly poison. (Of course he also 'died' from that same poison being applied to him, so...)

Hercules is usually portrayed as having died from centaur blood smeared on his shirt, not hydra venom. That said, I've read versions of the mythos in which one of his friends got injured in the process of retrieving the arrows from the bodies of the slain, and died.

[Venger]

Hercules is usually portrayed as having died from centaur blood smeared on his shirt, not hydra venom. That said, I've read versions of the mythos in which one of his friends got injured in the process of retrieving the arrows from the bodies of the slain, and died.

Nessus told Megara to do Hercules's laundry in his blood to make him stay faithful. She did, and the hydra poison in Nesuss's blood years later, even diluted in the washwater, burned Hercules's skin like acid and he flew into a rage and in the process of taking off his cape, killed his family and had to do the labors. He didn't die, but he was definitely harmed directly and indirectly by the poison. Narratively, he wasn't punished for using poison to kill monsters, he was punished by Hera, who engineered all this, for his crime of being one of Zeus's bastard children.

[hamishspence]

Nessus told Megara to do Hercules's laundry in his blood to make him stay faithful. She did, and the hydra poison in Nesuss's blood years later, even diluted in the washwater, burned Hercules's skin like acid and he flew into a rage and in the process of taking off his cape, killed his family and had to do the labors.

Not in the version I read.

In that, it's Hercules's last wife, Deianira, who does so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deianira

Some versions say Nessus's blood was made poisonous by hydra venom, but some, I think, have suggested that centaur blood is naturally poisonous.

[Mordaedil]

None of these arguments make any sense. Sticking poison on your sword is giving yourself an unfair advantage, but putting a ton of magical enhancements on your sword, or just broadly doing any number of far more effective things, is not. Causing extreme and debilitating pain is evil, when it's poison, but when it's the spell poison with its identical combat effect it's just fine. Poison strips away control somehow, but charm/dominate person is totally non-evil.

Hell, we don't even have to go that far. There's roughly a bajillion spells out there that render the target essentially powerless. Let's be maximally ironical and go with constricting chains, a frigging sanctified spell, one that can target good creatures just fine, which renders the target totally immobile and deals them non-lethal damage every turn. In a single sanctified spell, we have an effect more powerful and unfair than nearly any poison could hope to be, given that it's entirely lacking in a save and very difficult to escape, painful and debilitating (and the fact that this spell doesn't kill by itself is not pertinent given that a lot of poisons do not kill either), and it removes control from the target way more than some ability damage does. How is poison more evil than one of the most good spells in the entire game?
I mean, killing things is kinda evil at the base of things. Most morality for adventuring is rooted as a last resort of violence perspective. We just very easily skip past most steps to get to the violence for convenience of it also being a game.

Unless you think killing and murder is just, in which case, uh, welcome to neutral evil territory. Please pick up our gifts basket and tribute card. The hypocracy is free of charge.

[tterreb]

I mean, killing things is kinda evil at the base of things. Most morality for adventuring is rooted as a last resort of violence perspective. We just very easily skip past most steps to get to the violence for convenience of it also being a game.

Unless you think killing and murder is just, in which case, uh, welcome to neutral evil territory. Please pick up our gifts basket and tribute card. The hypocracy is free of charge.

Thank goodness. Most places charge for the hypocrisy.

[Venger]

I mean, killing things is kinda evil at the base of things. Most morality for adventuring is rooted as a last resort of violence perspective. We just very easily skip past most steps to get to the violence for convenience of it also being a game.

Unless you think killing and murder is just, in which case, uh, welcome to neutral evil territory. Please pick up our gifts basket and tribute card. The hypocracy is free of charge.

I mean, if D&D had started out as a self-contained setting instead of just being lotr, I really don't think people in-universe would have the same attitude towards being killed. When it's easily undone with a dozen or so spell effects, and adventurers are hardly in short supply, I don't think it'd be nearly as serious of a crime as it is in real life, when you can't raise the dead. There would still be laws against it, and people wouldn't love it if it got done to them, but I envision it as being somewhat like robbery in the eyes of the law and in public opinion:

Judge: "You killed this guy who didn't deserve it?"
Murderer: "Yeah"
Judge: "Ok, pay the money to get him rezd, go to prison for a while as a slap on the wrist, seeya later"

[Obscuraphile]

Judge: "You killed this guy who didn't deserve it?"
Murderer: "Yeah"
Judge: "Ok, pay the money to get him rezd, go to prison for a while as a slap on the wrist, seeya later"

That assumes a certain prevalence of 10th level clerics which is not really supported by the city generation rules in the DMG. Plus somebody could have too low a Con to be raised, simply not wish to come back, and/or there could be no chance to reach a population center large enough in time. I think in most parts of a standard fantasy world people still see death and murder as significant events

[Venger]

That assumes a certain prevalence of 10th level clerics which is not really supported by the city generation rules in the DMG. Plus somebody could have too low a Con to be raised, simply not wish to come back, and/or there could be no chance to reach a population center large enough in time. I think in most parts of a standard fantasy world people still see death and murder as significant events
You only need to be a 9th lvl cleric to cast raise dead (or 7th lvl druid for reincarnate, assuming you don't live in a racist community) Well, if one doesn't live in your city, get one from somewhere else. Fast travel is all over the place in this system, as is mass communication. He can't charge any more for casting the spell than anyone else, so unlike in real life, it's not like it'll cost you more. Even assuming some kind of dystopia where no one takes pc levels, since normal commoners have cons of 10 or 11, even at the oldest age categories, it's gonna take a couple of rezs to get to con 2.

If people are passively suicidal and don't want to be rezd, I feel like they'd communicate it to their loved ones, like with DNR bracelets used in our world for similar purposes. You probably wouldn't want your family to waste a bunch of money on diamonds if you weren't gonna use them.

Unless you're living in a cave by yourself, your town's gonna have a cleric who can do gentle repose and you can walk your loved one into town on a wagon, like we did in History, assuming your town doesn't have a communal bag of holding to gunnysack your loved one in a vacuum, so they can't rot.

But yeah, people are still probably eaten alone in the woods by bears because they couldn't make their nature checks and stuff all the time.

[Mordaedil]

I assumed the average meant that people as an average had a score of 10, not that every commoner had a score of 10. So people in the outskirts would possibly have 12-14 con, while somebody in inner cities would maybe have 6-8 con, due to pollutants and others. Or to put a different way, commoners are generated using 3d6 model instead of 4d6 discard lowest.

[Venger]

I assumed the average meant that people as an average had a score of 10, not that every commoner had a score of 10. So people in the outskirts would possibly have 12-14 con, while somebody in inner cities would maybe have 6-8 con, due to pollutants and others. Or to put a different way, commoners are generated using 3d6 model instead of 4d6 discard lowest.

Nah. When you read the bits on statting towns and such, you assume commoners have 10s or 11s in their stats. I guess if you generate npcs by rolling, then you could get a bunch of people with terrible con from birth, but that's not the default method of generation for large populations.

[skunk3]

My character is going to be true neutral or possibly chaotic neutral. My levels for the near future will be Rogue 2 / Fighter 2 / Avenger 9, and then possibly Arcane Trickster (but not set in stone) to bump my assassinate save DC higher along with items and feats to enhance death attack. I also want to use poison (since it is a class skill and I've never messed with it before) but I will of course only be using poisons on evil enemies... so my DM and I can argue about it if she wants to push the matter. :)

[RoboEmperor]

My character is going to be true neutral or possibly chaotic neutral. My levels for the near future will be Rogue 2 / Fighter 2 / Avenger 9, and then possibly Arcane Trickster (but not set in stone) to bump my assassinate save DC higher along with items and feats to enhance death attack. I also want to use poison (since it is a class skill and I've never messed with it before) but I will of course only be using poisons on evil enemies... so my DM and I can argue about it if she wants to push the matter. :)

Doing evil just means you can't be good alignment. You are Neutral at best. If she is forcing you to play an evil alignment or banning "evil" altogether then she is wrong.

[MeimuHakurei]

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. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness. Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil to use.

I can personally see that poison use specifically is comparable to allying with evil creatures - you can do this as a good character, but you must take utmost care not to permit any evil actions or to cause unnecessary harm to happen. And yeah, I think they could've implemented a paragraph better explaining why ravages/afllictions are more acceptable than poison.

Still, I wholeheartedly agree with the book's stance on "evil deeds for good ends":


Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

[tterreb]

By this logic would that mean feats such as disemboweling strike (reduce sneak attack by 4d6 in order to deal 1d4 con damage) are evil as well?

[Venger]

By this logic would that mean feats such as disemboweling strike (reduce sneak attack by 4d6 in order to deal 1d4 con damage) are evil as well?

no. not even boed is dopey enough to say all forms of ability damage are Evil.

[tterreb]

no. not even boed is dopey enough to say all forms of ability damage are Evil.

It's not the ability damage so much as the "causing undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." I've never been disemboweled before, but I don't imagine it would be much better than being poisoned. Some poisons could be downright pleasant as they killed you.

[Acanous]

Yeah the best way to approach this is that the D&D cosmology is independent of our own. They have a deist universe where the gods are physically present and human-like for the most part. Those gods hold a monopoly on the afterlife and basically split into “teams” who decide what sort of people they want in their afterlife bubble.

In recent years, and by that I mean the last two decades, Wizards has avoided current political trends and real-world parallels as much as possible. They’re experimenting with adding some left-friendly stuff to published adventures and MTG now, and that’s getting heavy push back.
(Not weighing in on one side or the other here, merely stating what has occurred, plz no banhammer)
On that same note, they have grandfathered in alignment systems first coined by the old Cheeto-stained grognards with antisocial tendencies that first brought D&D to life from the bones of Chainmail.

Much is left to the DM, including tweaking alignment, but as written, well, it’s a reflection on the outlook of social hermits from fourty years ago. With how much our society has shifted in morality since then, is it really any wonder we find the alignment system flawed and not representative of our current values?

Part of the fun of immersive role play in a world where gods walk around and witches actually do curse farmers is seeing the differences in outlook that those people would have.

Imagine how a lawful good god of fertility and the harvest would feel about homosexuality, birth control or abortion, or how a chaotic good god of luck would feel about socialized health care, government safety nets, or tiered taxation. Lawful Evil gods would be all for drone strikes, while L/G war gods would find such things dishonourable. The values these gods hold may conflict drastically with our own, match, or be somewhere in between, but they actually have the power to declare stuff objectively good or evil, (or lawful or chaotic, though that’s usually less cared about) and magic that interacts with objective good and evil then agrees with the decision.

Mortals can’t really argue, though they get some leeway to disagree (like the one-step off rule for clerics) without being punished for it in most cases. The closer to embodying your gods values you are, the more power can be made available to you, but the more rigidly you are held to that god’s personal dogma.

In the case of poisons vs ravages, for example, the entire thing is completely arbitrary and hypocritical, but that’s ok because the gods are flawed and probably got mad that team evil had all the poisons but couldn’t walk back that decision.

[Mordaedil]

Nah. When you read the bits on statting towns and such, you assume commoners have 10s or 11s in their stats. I guess if you generate npcs by rolling, then you could get a bunch of people with terrible con from birth, but that's not the default method of generation for large populations.

I've always used that as a quick-hand rule, not a determined one, if a bunch of villagers needed to be generated at once I'd make their stats 10's and 11's to speed up play, but if they became significant enough to actually factor into the game, I'd roll their stats.

Otherwise, you have the case of commoners actually being statistically more fit than your adventurers in certain things.

Doesn't really hurt anyone, but I tend to prefer more variety in my characters if they have to interact with the world. Usually doesn't matter though as eventually they get incinerated by the dragon's breath. It does mean that if you are using a point-buy system, you are giving NPC's 15 points to spend.

[eggynack]

I mean, killing things is kinda evil at the base of things. Most morality for adventuring is rooted as a last resort of violence perspective. We just very easily skip past most steps to get to the violence for convenience of it also being a game.

Unless you think killing and murder is just, in which case, uh, welcome to neutral evil territory. Please pick up our gifts basket and tribute card. The hypocracy is free of charge.
My issue with the alignment system is not strictly that poison is evil. Theoretically there could be a system where poison is evil, and I'd be totally cool with it (and not even that theoretically, cause I'd be far from surprised if such a system existed out there already). Instead, the problem is that poison being evil is not self-consistent within the system, given how various other things are labeled. If you want killing or murder to be always evil, that's just fine. If you want any source of ability damage to be evil, that's fine too. All I seek here is a self-consistent ethical structure serving as the foundation for the alignment system. Doesn't even necessarily have to be a structure I agree with, so long as it's there. The issue is that such a structure does not exist in this game. There could absolutely be a good argument for poison being evil. There is no good argument for poison being evil in this game, given the other things they've made evil/not-evil.


I can personally see that poison use specifically is comparable to allying with evil creatures - you can do this as a good character, but you must take utmost care not to permit any evil actions or to cause unnecessary harm to happen. And yeah, I think they could've implemented a paragraph better explaining why ravages/afllictions are more acceptable than poison.
Why, precisely, is allying with evil creatures evil? How can whatever reasoning is used to answer that question apply to poison?


Still, I wholeheartedly agree with the book's stance on "evil deeds for good ends"
Regardless of ones opinion of this stance, it still requires that you justify that poison use is a necessarily evil deed if you want to prove that a given good end type poison use is evil.

[Mordaedil]

Now that I can agree with. But it is not as if they label animals with natural venoms as evil just because of what they are born with. It is mostly an evil when employed by people to assassinate other people.

But I am a bit confused now, does using poison actually affect alignment or this a concern more with that classes that are evil only get access to the feat "Use Poison"? Cause Assassin's and the like are more of a faction than they are a strict choice of occupation, hence the entry requirement requiring you to kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

[eggynack]

Now that I can agree with. But it is not as if they label animals with natural venoms as evil just because of what they are born with. It is mostly an evil when employed by people to assassinate other people.
Yeah, but there's not much of a reasonable basis for poison as assassination tool being evil either, except insofar as a given assassination itself might be evil.


But I am a bit confused now, does using poison actually affect alignment or this a concern more with that classes that are evil only get access to the feat "Use Poison"? Cause Assassin's and the like are more of a faction than they are a strict choice of occupation, hence the entry requirement requiring you to kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.
Poison itself is straight up evil according to BoED, and thus would affect alignment.

[hamishspence]

And the reasoning behind it was "it causes excessive, unnecessary suffering".

So - you could scale it to other examples of causing unnecessary suffering, to get an idea of how serious an evil act it might be, depending on the poison.

[Segev]

Wouldn't it be interesting to see some poisons developed mechanically that actually do cause prolonged suffering and ultimate disability/death, but are not particularly useful in combat because their effects take time to build up? Something that would actually justify the "evil, because it causes needless suffering" argument, at least a little?

[Zanos]

Much is left to the DM, including tweaking alignment, but as written, well, it’s a reflection on the outlook of social hermits from fourty years ago. With how much our society has shifted in morality since then, is it really any wonder we find the alignment system flawed and not representative of our current values?

Does poisoning people being Evil not line up with your morals? I think an argument for self defense poisoning is possible, but kind of specious. Even people who carry weapons for defense don't generally coat them or their ammo in poison to get an advantage.

Ravages are dumb, though.

I agree in general. Good and Evil are loosely associated with the real world definitions of the terms, but a medieval-esque fantasy universe where gods are real and hell is a physical place is going to have somewhat different standards. I think it's fine, you have to have some leeway either way to have a game thats mostly about killing. On the whole though, I think almost everyone sane on this board would rather be around Good.

The inconsistencies arise mostly from multiple authors with different outlooks over many years rather than idiocy or deliberate intent. Theming is a big part of alignment, and the original intent was probably to prevent LG characters waiting for their enemies to succumb to poison, which isn't a good look. Poison in media is almost always associated with Evil. Same with undead from the other thread. Then someone else came along later and contradicted it.

[ryu]

Why would I want the good alignment in real life? That comes with connotations, expectations, duties and so on. True neutral for life. Not seen as a target by anyone, and no duties.

[Segev]

Why would I want the good alignment in real life? That comes with connotations, expectations, duties and so on. True neutral for life. Not seen as a target by anyone, and no duties.

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
-Zap Brannigan, Captain, DOOP.

[ryu]

The answer, as pretty clearly stated, is a mixture of laziness and a lack of desire for combat in a universe where combat on a daily schedule doesn't lead to being a god in a month or two. Even in D&D true neutral makes most conflict opt-in which gives me strategic level initiative.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Because the only good way to kill someone is to gore and decaptitate them with weapons in full view of their family. None of this “quiet assassination” villainy

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Poison use really shouldn't be an issue of good and evil at all, BoED/BoVD stupidity aside, since it's been well-established in this thread that poison can be used for both good (like taking out people nonlethally) and evil (like causing undue suffering). It's much more an issue of law and chaos, really, since the issue is basically "Why is poisoning someone any different, morally, than stabbing or fireballing someone?" and that's a matter of ethics.

If lawful behavior means upholding traditions, obeying laws, following personal moral codes, and other deontological sorts of things, and chaotic behavior means bucking social norms, choosing goodness over legality, doing whatever gets you the desired outcome, and other consequentialist sorts of things, then poison use leans pretty strongly chaotic. As Races of War puts it:


The concept of honorable combat is pretty fishy when you look at it carefully. Your goal is to painfully kill another sapient being with a deadly weapon, and the other guy is attempting to do the same to you. Why then, would any rational person take time to consider the "honor" of whatever horribly painful and potentially lethal act they were intent upon inflicting on another?

The answer is: The Long Term. The concept of honor in War is incredibly ancient, and the ideas of what is and is not an honorable act have varied unrecognizably over that period. But one thing has remained the same throughout: the idea of what is honorable in warfare has always been inextricably linked to the needs of the powerful. In olden days, the powerful had superior nutrition, superior training, superior equipment and came in really small numbers. So naturally of course, the rule was that you didn't gang up on people or use poison. In modern days, bullets go through pretty much anything, but powerful people have more troops and helicopters, so the rule is that you don't assassinate people in honorable combat. The penalties for being dishonorable have remained pretty static over the generations – you get kicked out of the rosters of the powerful and other power blocs attempt to band together to crush you.

Now, this doesn't mean that poison is dishonorable or that chaotic people can't be honorable, just that different alignments have different ideas of honor and D&D books (BoED and BoVD especially) tend to be written from a "law = good, chaos = evil" perspective, consciously or not. Paladins refuse to use poison, not because poison is evil but because paladins are lawful and the specific code they follow prohibit it, and they find that honorable; lawful tribal warriors might feel free to use poison against outsiders but strongly condemn use of poison against tribe-mates, and find that just as honorable because their belief system places family and tribe over anyone else.

A LG hero probably won't use poison because it's Just Not Done, but might make an exception for nonlethal and painless poisons if their personal code places a higher priority on taking enemies alive or the like; a CG hero might or might not use poison depending on whether they think the outcome is worth it, leaning towards not using it because that's a slippery slope or that might spark an arms race or whatever; a LE tyrant might or might not use poison depending on whether that goes against their personal morals, leaning towards using it when necessary, but perhaps not if they see themselves as a "gentleman criminal" or "dictator for their own good" or the like; a CE tyrant will use whatever means are necessary to keep himself in power, no matter the cost, and won't bat an eye at poisoning a town if that's what it takes.

So when the BoED authors basically said "poisons are evil, ravages are good and totally not poisons, and stabbing someone is *mumble mumble*," what they should really have said is "Ravages are poisons, but paladins can use them because they're specifically engineered to avoid the concerns that paladins have with using poisons such as causing undue suffering and possibly harming innocents, and paladins of freedom and other CG characters can use poisons if doing so would be less painful and violent than killing evildoers the normal way."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

<Snip>Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?

[Necroticplague]

Does poisoning people being Evil not line up with your morals? I think an argument for self defense poisoning is possible, but kind of specious. Even people who carry weapons for defense don't generally coat them or their ammo in poison to get an advantage.

That's because poisons generally expire fairly quickly, aren't very fast to take effect (in relative terms), and are rather hard to actually get to take effect without specialized organs (i.e, fangs). In DnD, none of these are true.

[fallensavior]

BoED is a silly book, designed (IMO) to push alternative playstyles. Disregard what it says about poison and there is no conundrum. Poison is not inherently evil in the core rules, Paladin CoC merely calls it out as specifically dishonorable.

Now as far as real-world morality goes, yes, "don't poison people" is just as good a maxim as "don't stab people in the back". Both are at least hypotehtically justifiable via epicycles of circumstance, but...come on.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?

I'm free this weekend; we can grab a coffee and discuss the application of Peter Singer's "Expanding Circle of Altriusm" theory of moral philosophy to the Outer Planes of D&D. :smallamused:

Also, I'm totally sigging that.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm free this weekend; we can grab a coffee and discuss the application of Peter Singer's "Expanding Circle of Altriusm" theory of moral philosophy to the Outer Planes of D&D. :smallamused:Nessus is a bit of a commute from here, I'm afraid.

I guess I'll just have to pine from afar.

Well, wood is involved, at least.


Also, I'm totally sigging that.I'm honored.

[zlefin]

pair o dice:
your point about poison use being chaotic rather than lawful doesn't hold up.
because that would depend entirely on the norms of the society in question, rather than being true in general. the society could easily have a norm that poison use (at least for combat) is fine and maybe even proper, in which case using poison would be lawful.

[atemu1234]

Poison is evil because it's extremely debilitating at best or lethal at worst. Murder isn't okay unless a handsome man in polished armor riding a muscular horse is doing it.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-080c6573e9ede053e7ea679510631e23-c

(For a given definition of both 'handsome' and 'muscular' and 'polished armor')

[Darth Ultron]

The concept of "Poison = Evil" is a holdover from the game's 1st edition days.

But this hold over if from when poison was very, in modern terms, unbalanced.

In 1E a dagger of venom killed anyone hit with it that failed a save, and held six doses of posion, and could be refiled no problem. 3.5E that same weapon only does temporary Constitution damage, and has a super low DC, once a day.

In 1E, and even in to 2E, most poisons did paralysis, damage or death. In 3.5E they do mostly ability damage.

In 1 or 2 E, it was easy to take out a powerful foe with poison. Too easy. So the easy way to prevent this was to simply say ''using poison is evil'', so the good heroic characters can't do it.

Poison goes outside the whole D&D combat...it does not matter if your character has 100 hit points(and it should), one touch of poison and your chatterer is dead.



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.

[skunk3]

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.


Once again, I think that is really dumb. I can see what they were going for, but we have so many examples within the larger D&D world (so to speak) that are basically exactly the same. Would anyone say that a character who enhances a weapon with the Wounding property is evil? That's 1 point of CON damage per attack. There's many, many examples, from weapon enhancements to spells to feats that all are just as 'evil' by the same arbitrary standards... yet they aren't deemed so. If I ever run a game a house rule of mine will be that poison use doesn't affect alignment at all and the only thing that matters is how and why you use the poisons.

On a related note, I cannot wait to eventually get the Assassin's Dagger (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Assassin%27s_Dagger) with the Assassination, Toxic, Virulent, and Fleshgrinding enhancements. :D *stab stab*

[ericgrau]

Ok so there's a big long debate about why poison use is evil in D&D, but... I can't find the rule that says poison use is evil. Where is it? I did an SRD search for "poison" and "evil" and came up dry.

I do remember reading a rule about it often being illegal to buy poisons, so it might be unlawful.

Also the spell contagion is [Evil] but the spell poison is not.

[Venger]

Ok so there's a big long debate about why poison use is evil in D&D, but... I can't find the rule that says poison use is evil. Where is it? I did an SRD search for "poison" and "evil" and came up dry.

I do remember reading a rule about it often being illegal to buy poisons, so it might be unlawful.

Also the spell contagion is [Evil] but the spell poison is not.

poison use is against the paladin code. people extrapolated from this that it was Evil.

then boed came out and said using poison to deal ability damage is Evil because of reasons.

beyond that, the rules don't explicitly mention it much, but often take it as a given.

in eberron, certain poisons and drugs are treated as controlled substances and their sale is limited or restricted in certain areas depending on local laws, because eberron is a good setting. rules are discussed in dragonmarked, sharn city of towers, and city of stormreach

[torrasque666]

then boed came out and said using poison to deal ability damage is Evil because of reasons.
Its also mentioned multiple times in the Book of Vile Darkness as Evil multiple times.

[hamishspence]

It has a section in BoVD - not quite the same thing. After all, execution also has a section - and BoED specifically calls out execution as not always evil.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Nessus is a bit of a commute from here, I'm afraid.

I guess I'll just have to pine from afar.

Well, wood is involved, at least.

Oh, don't worry, it's just a simple plane shift away. I promise to keep the kytons away from the arrival zone...unless you're into that sort of thing. :smallamused:


pair o dice:
your point about poison use being chaotic rather than lawful doesn't hold up.
because that would depend entirely on the norms of the society in question, rather than being true in general. the society could easily have a norm that poison use (at least for combat) is fine and maybe even proper, in which case using poison would be lawful.

All right, hold on to your hat, ethical philosophy lecture incoming!


I noted the difference in standards of honor between lawful and chaotic societies in my previous post already, but to reinforce that: "Lawful" does not mean, and has never meant, "follows the laws of whatever society you're in." Otherwise a paladin walking into an Evil Empire would have to turn himself over to the duly appointed legal authorities, and then where would the party be? :smallwink:

"Lawful," rather, means not that one blindly follows the rules, but that one believes that the act of following a certain set of rules is moral. This can mean following the law of society, but could also (or instead) mean following religious laws, tradition, a personal code, oaths to one's superiors, or the like. "Do what the gods say and you'll go to heaven" and "I'm right because I'm your parent!" and that sort of thing. A cleric who disobeys the law because it conflicts with his god's teachings is still plenty lawful, he's just giving his religion's laws precedence over society's laws. In real-world ethical philosophy terms, this maps to deontological or "rule-based" ethics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics).

Citations:


Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world--and the whole of the universe--is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.


“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

So: order, shared precepts, predictability, and the like are good, and adherence to societal laws is not mentioned at all. The bit about societies where every person can expect other people to act in the same way resembles Kant's categorical imperative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), one of the most famous bits of deontology, and says (drastically simplified) that everyone should act in a way that they want others to act as well, similar to the Golden Rule.

Chaos, meanwhile, is not insanity, randomness, or the like, but rather the ethical opposite: consequentialism or "outcome-based" ethics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism), which is concerned not with "Does [rule] say that [action] is good or evil?" but with "Is the outcome of [action] good or bad?" On the Good side, this leads to "For the Greater Good!" (stealing to help an innocent person, lying to let a slave go free, and other things that break the rules but have a better outcome than not breaking the rules); on the Evil side, this leads to "The ends justify the means!" (murdering people to secure power, hoarding valuables for oneself, and other things that disregard moral considerations as long as the person gets what they want in the end).

Citation:


“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

"Unfettered personal freedom" meaning, in this case, not having to follow rules, either normal rules and laws and such or deontological imperatives.

(Ethical neutrality maps to virtue ethics, but that's another topic.)


So, why is the use of poison chaotic rather than lawful? Well, actually, you'll note I didn't say it is chaotic, but rather that it leans strongly towards chaos. Let's look at what different deontological systems might have to say about poison use:
Kant's categorical imperative: "If it is right for me to use poison against someone, it is right for everyone to use poison against everyone else. As that would be immoral (and I don't want to be poisoned), it must not be right."
Divine command theory: "My patron god has decreed that poison use is wrong, therefore it is wrong." (This is the case for most, but not all, D&D gods.)
Rule utilitarianism: "As a general heuristic, the use of poison has a greater chance of causing harm to innocents than other means of inflicting violence, and on the whole inflicts more suffering, so it is to be avoided."
And so on (again, these are drastically simplified). Most lawful systems hold poison use as being against their moral codes, the exception being divine commands from gods that find it perfectly fine to use, but those are in the minority as not all evil or chaotic gods would find it acceptable.

Looking at the slightly fuzzier insular clan example from before, you can view their treatment of outsiders in two different ways. The lawful way is that there are strong traditions, teachings from elders, oral laws, and the like that formalize "You cannot do A, B, or C to anyone; you cannot do D, E, or F to non-clanmates, but it's fine to do it to outsiders," and D/E/F includes "poison them." The chaotic way is that there's no formal framework of what things are acceptable to do to clanmates or outsiders, there's just the general principle "the clan comes before outsiders" and whatever rules of honor, tradition, hospitality, etc. that the clan holds sacred among themselves can be broken regarding outsiders if the end result is better for the clan.

The second scenario is much more likely; to use the romanticized Medieval code of chivalry as an example, you won't ever see something written down like e.g. "A knight shall not stab a fellow knight when his back is turned, but it's totally okay to stab peasants in the back if you get the chance," but you will see something like "It is dishonorable for a knight to stab an honorable enemy in the back!" and the "(...but only other knights are honorable)" bit is left implicit.

So while there are theoretically possible arguments for lawful systems that permit poison use, lawful systems that prohibit poison use, chaotic systems that permit poison use, and chaotic systems that prohibit poison use (because deontological, virtue, and consequentalist ethics are not mutually exclusive and are all trying to make similar moral judgments), taken in aggregate poison use is much more acceptable from a consequentialist standpoint than a deontological one and therefore more from a chaotic standpoint than a lawful one.

[eggynack]

Kant's categorical imperative: "If it is right for me to use poison against someone, it is right for everyone to use poison against everyone else. As that would be immoral (and I don't want to be poisoned), it must not be right."
Is it wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else? I'ma be more specific. Is it any more wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else than it is for everyone to stab everyone else? It may arguably be the case that all combat is intrinsically chaotic, but that strikes me as a weird position to take.

Rule utilitarianism: "As a general heuristic, the use of poison has a greater chance of causing harm to innocents than other means of inflicting violence, and on the whole inflicts more suffering, so it is to be avoided."
If you poison a well or a plate of food, sure, there might be some sort of innocent harm, but this framework does not seem to apply to the most obvious use of poison, just frigging stabbing your opponent with something that has poison. So, some subsets of poison use may indeed be intrinsically chaotic, but a lot of poison use is going to be not remotely chaotic. I'm not going to call fireballs intrinsically chaotic just because you can indiscriminately toss one at a group of people.


So while there are theoretically possible arguments for lawful systems that permit poison use, lawful systems that prohibit poison use, chaotic systems that permit poison use, and chaotic systems that prohibit poison use (because deontological, virtue, and consequentalist ethics are not mutually exclusive and are all trying to make similar moral judgments), taken in aggregate poison use is much more acceptable from a consequentialist standpoint than a deontological one and therefore more from a chaotic standpoint than a lawful one.
In the real world, this is the case. There are enough distinctions we can draw between poisoning and straightforwardly lawful acts that we can fairly call poisoning chaotic. We can probably call it evil as well. However, in D&D, poison is so crazy similar to not-poison that it strikes me as really hard to argue that the substance has any kind of alignment weight.

[Telonius]

Is it wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else? I'ma be more specific. Is it any more wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else than it is for everyone to stab everyone else? It may arguably be the case that all combat is intrinsically chaotic, but that strikes me as a weird position to take.

For Kant, an action is more of a binary. It's either right, or it's wrong, X or not-X, with no gradations in between. You can have a degree of evil in your will (he gave three - frailty, impurity, and perversity), but one evil act is neither more nor less evil than another. (There is a reason I'm not a Kantian).

[zlefin]

i was already aware of that stuff pair o dice; and it simply doesn't hold up as an actual basis to push it toward chaotic;
and there's a number of flaws in your analysis, mostly based off of unfounded assumptions you're making. at any rate you're getting too far into real world ethics imho so I don't want to take any risks discussing in more detail with you.

[eggynack]

For Kant, an action is more of a binary. It's either right, or it's wrong, X or not-X, with no gradations in between. You can have a degree of evil in your will (he gave three - frailty, impurity, and perversity), but one evil act is neither more nor less evil than another. (There is a reason I'm not a Kantian).
Sure, but my issue with this is that such an extreme position necessarily paints a lot of the game as evil/chaotic. Poisoning could be evil within this framework, but if stabbing is equally evil then we suddenly have every character evil, almost regardless of what specific thing they're doing. Even relatively non-violent classes like the healer are acting in support of an evil system, and would thus be evil themselves. The categorical imperative is obviously a self-consistent ethical framework, but it's equally obviously not one that we can reasonably apply to D&D.

[ericgrau]

poison use is against the paladin code. people extrapolated from this that it was Evil.

then boed came out and said using poison to deal ability damage is Evil because of reasons.

beyond that, the rules don't explicitly mention it much, but often take it as a given.

in eberron, certain poisons and drugs are treated as controlled substances and their sale is limited or restricted in certain areas depending on local laws, because eberron is a good setting. rules are discussed in dragonmarked, sharn city of towers, and city of stormreach

I always thought the paladin code thing against poison was a lawful thing rather than a good thing, because poison is usually illegal. Sounds like BoED and BoVD are to blame.

When I searched the SRD I couldn't even find something that implied it might be evil, but maybe I skimmed too quickly?

[fallensavior]

Part of the disconnect here is that most common method of poison use in-game (put it on a weapon and stick 'em) is the least common method IRL. And even when that method is used, it is still cold-blooded murder (ricin-tipped umbrella, anyone?) rather than anything that resembles combat in-game.

And vice versa. The most common method of poison use IRL (secretly lace their food/drink) is the least common use in-game. Ain't nobody got time for that.

[HighWater]

Is it wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else? I'ma be more specific. Is it any more wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else than it is for everyone to stab everyone else? It may arguably be the case that all combat is intrinsically chaotic, but that strikes me as a weird position to take.

Hmm, it is not really that weird now, is it? At least for non-state sanctioned combat, this definitely holds true in real life society. You can't just go about murdering (or even just beating up) people who oppose you. That holds even if they are murderers and even if you acted in self-defense (you must have exhausted all other options in most societies and will definitely be investigated)... Even for state-sanctioned combat this often holds true (there are suchs things as illegal wars and war crimes).

I think you can safely argue that flat-out intentionally killing something intelligent/sentient that is not explicitly Outside the Law (or part of your Lawful Duty-job description) is very Chaotic indeed, as it circumvents a fair trial where the other person can defend themselves.

So, Paladins who don't try to apprehend the criminals they are fighting are not acting Lawfully, unless those criminals are explicitly Outlaws.
Heck, if they ARE Outlaws, nobody cares if you killed them with Poison. That doesn't making poisoning them a Lawful act, but it's not explicitly Unlawful.

[Necroticplague]

(there are suchs things as illegal wars and war crimes).

No there aren’t. Those are things made up by winners to further punish the losers of a war. Never have I heard of war crimes being levied against the winners.

[BowStreetRunner]

No there aren’t. Those are things made up by winners to further punish the losers of a war. Never have I heard of war crimes being levied against the winners.
There have been numerous instances of individuals from the winning side being convicted of war crimes. There may not be as much pressure to pursue such criminals, but as a former military police officer myself I can assure you it does still happen. (Check out Allied war crimes during World War II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II) for some examples.)

In game terms a lawful society would pursue justice against war criminals on either side, while non-lawful societies would be more free to pursue justice only against those they chose.

[eggynack]

Hmm, it is not really that weird now, is it? At least for non-state sanctioned combat, this definitely holds true in real life society. You can't just go about murdering (or even just beating up) people who oppose you. That holds even if they are murderers and even if you acted in self-defense (you must have exhausted all other options in most societies and will definitely be investigated)... Even for state-sanctioned combat this often holds true (there are suchs things as illegal wars and war crimes).

I think you can safely argue that flat-out intentionally killing something intelligent/sentient that is not explicitly Outside the Law (or part of your Lawful Duty-job description) is very Chaotic indeed, as it circumvents a fair trial where the other person can defend themselves.

So, Paladins who don't try to apprehend the criminals they are fighting are not acting Lawfully, unless those criminals are explicitly Outlaws.
Heck, if they ARE Outlaws, nobody cares if you killed them with Poison. That doesn't making poisoning them a Lawful act, but it's not explicitly Unlawful.
In reality, sure, running around and stabbing people is a chaotic thing. However, that's kinda just what the game is, to a large extent, and the game certainly doesn't think that everyone is chaotic. I don't think I particularly need to go through the effort of finding canonically lawful characters who enter into combat. They exist. The game expects even highly lawful characters to stab "monsters" sometimes, and most players would agree with that.

Moreover, the question here is one of means, not of overall action. The claim being made is that even if your combat were wholly state sanctioned, legal by the narrowest possible definition, stabbing someone would still be chaotic. You say that no one cares if you poison the outlaws, but that's simply not true. The argument of the game is that doing so is evil, and the claim I was arguing against was that doing so is generally chaotic. I disagree with these things.

[Nifft]

Sure, but my issue with this is that such an extreme position necessarily paints a lot of the game as evil/chaotic. Poisoning could be evil within this framework, but if stabbing is equally evil then we suddenly have every character evil, almost regardless of what specific thing they're doing. Even relatively non-violent classes like the healer are acting in support of an evil system, and would thus be evil themselves. The categorical imperative is obviously a self-consistent ethical framework, but it's equally obviously not one that we can reasonably apply to D&D. Yeah, D&D is a game where lethal force must be a morally unproblematic response to a broad swath of problems, which makes it very different from the real world.


There have been numerous instances of individuals from the winning side being convicted of war crimes. There may not be as much pressure to pursue such criminals, but as a former military police officer myself I can assure you it does still happen. (Check out Allied war crimes during World War II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II) for some examples.)

In game terms a lawful society would pursue justice against war criminals on either side, while non-lawful societies would be more free to pursue justice only against those they chose. Mostly agree.

Rule of Law means something -- and it's not at all the same meaning as Vae Victis.

But I think a Chaotic Good society might be more vigorous in pursuing same-side war criminals -- they've got no particular attachment to the current shape of their army, and they don't hold position to be inherently worthy of respect.

IMHO the LG archetype would be a good cop, but the CG archetype is the plucky reporter.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Is it wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else? I'ma be more specific. Is it any more wrong for everyone to use poison against everyone else than it is for everyone to stab everyone else? It may arguably be the case that all combat is intrinsically chaotic, but that strikes me as a weird position to take.

If you poison a well or a plate of food, sure, there might be some sort of innocent harm, but this framework does not seem to apply to the most obvious use of poison, just frigging stabbing your opponent with something that has poison. So, some subsets of poison use may indeed be intrinsically chaotic, but a lot of poison use is going to be not remotely chaotic. I'm not going to call fireballs intrinsically chaotic just because you can indiscriminately toss one at a group of people.

I didn't say I agreed with any of the deontological arguments myself; Kant isn't particularly helpful in a lot of cases unless you really start slicing things pretty finely to cover shades of gray. Those snippets were just meant to show how their thought process works to demonstrate why poison might fall afoul of their ethical systems.

And yes, like you said there are finer gradations than just "Stabbing, Y/N?" and "Poison, Y/N?" Without getting too far into real-world territory, moral and ethical philosophers debate about various gradations of killing people (killing in self-defense vs. unintentional killing vs. murder with malice aforethought and so forth), and you can have similar degrees of debate for spells (fireball with its agonizing burns and large radius of collateral damage vs. lightning bolt with more burns but less collateral damage vs. finger of death which is theoretically painless but hinders resurrection and so forth) and poison (nonlethal poison vs. poisons that disable to make stabbing easier vs. poisons that kill on their own and so forth). Fireballs don't have to be intrinsically lawful or chaotic any more than poison, but they can lean in one direction or the other.


In the real world, this is the case. There are enough distinctions we can draw between poisoning and straightforwardly lawful acts that we can fairly call poisoning chaotic. We can probably call it evil as well. However, in D&D, poison is so crazy similar to not-poison that it strikes me as really hard to argue that the substance has any kind of alignment weight.

The main differences between poison and a fireball or sword blow in D&D are that (A) compared to HP damage, poisoning is harder to heal (1st-level combat-time cure light wounds vs. 2nd-level out-of-combat lesser restoration) and much rarer to be able to heal (adepts get CLW at 1st like clerics, but don't get lesser restoration and can't cast restoration until 12th level), (B) poison impairs your ability to continue fighting and makes you easier to kill where HP damage does not, and (C) a single dose of non-Con poison isn't going to kill a low-level character but a single stab very well might. So while the relative lethality of poison vs. swords is reversed in D&D compared to real life, there's still a noticeable difference in outcomes that can given them different ethical weights.


Sure, but my issue with this is that such an extreme position necessarily paints a lot of the game as evil/chaotic. Poisoning could be evil within this framework, but if stabbing is equally evil then we suddenly have every character evil, almost regardless of what specific thing they're doing. Even relatively non-violent classes like the healer are acting in support of an evil system, and would thus be evil themselves. The categorical imperative is obviously a self-consistent ethical framework, but it's equally obviously not one that we can reasonably apply to D&D.

So, let's go back to that RoW quote for a moment. D&D has a fairly Iron Age moral setup; "heroes" aren't people who rescue the innocent and refuse to kill their enemies out of a belief in the sanctity of life, Batman- or Superman-style, they're people who go out and kill monsters before the monsters can eat their home towns. The people setting the traditions and making the laws are powerful leveled characters who are looking out for their own interest at least a little bit, and divine decrees are probably keeping in mind that the god's own (powerful and leveled) servants are important pawns individuals who should be protected.

Stabbing a demon, a marauding orc, a peaceful orc, and a fellow citizen of your town are all very different ethical propositions, and if the categorical imperative is not "I shouldn't stab creatures, because creatures shouldn't stab other creatures" but rather "I should stab evil monsters, because all evil monsters should be stabbed" then stabbing designated targets isn't evil at all. It's entirely possible in the D&D milieu for most stabbing and spellcasting that civilized humanoids engage in to be lawful behavior (while criminals might engage in more chaotic stabbery) and for most poison use to be chaotic without that being contradictory.


i was already aware of that stuff pair o dice; and it simply doesn't hold up as an actual basis to push it toward chaotic;
and there's a number of flaws in your analysis, mostly based off of unfounded assumptions you're making. at any rate you're getting too far into real world ethics imho so I don't want to take any risks discussing in more detail with you.

I know we want to avoid real-world discussions as much as possible here, but it's pretty disingenuous to say "I think you're wrong because of unfounded assumptions but I'm not going to even try to explain them due to the forum rules." If you can point out flawed assumptions without committing the chaotic act of running afoul of the rules (:smallwink:), that'd be appreciated.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't understand why poison use is deemed 'evil' by D&D standards. What if you only use poisons to debuff/assassinate bad guys exclusively? How is using poison any different than preparing some magic missiles and barraging the crap out of some baddies? I don't understand this. The Avenger PrC, while being a bit of an April Fool's joke, does exist and it doesn't require a PC to be evil, unlike the Assassin... and poison use is a class skill. To say that all poison use is inherently evil is just too binary for my tastes. Is it unreasonable to postulate that poison use should be permissible so long as the intent / goal is to rid the world of evil? I can also think of a bajillion spells (lacking the 'evil' descriptor) and other abilities in the game that could be construed as evil if you don't factor in how and why they are used.

Because poison causes excessive pain and suffering while administering it's mechanical effects.

Ravages and afflictions do not.

[ryu]

Literal pain spells whose entire purpose is causing pain aren't evil to my knowledge so any argument involving pain can get right out.

[Doctor Awkward]

Literal pain spells whose entire purpose is causing pain aren't evil to my knowledge so any argument involving pain can get right out.


Only a few spells in the Player ’s Handbook have the evil
descriptor, but almost all the spells in this book have the
evil descriptor. Spells have the evil descriptor because they
do one or more of the following things.
• They cause undue suffering or negative emotions.
• They call upon evil gods or energies.
• They create, summon, or improve undead or other evil
monsters.
• They harm souls.
• They involve unsavory practices such as cannibalism or
drug use.

Rules are rules.

[eggynack]

I didn't say I agreed with any of the deontological arguments myself; Kant isn't particularly helpful in a lot of cases unless you really start slicing things pretty finely to cover shades of gray. Those snippets were just meant to show how their thought process works to demonstrate why poison might fall afoul of their ethical systems.

And yes, like you said there are finer gradations than just "Stabbing, Y/N?" and "Poison, Y/N?" Without getting too far into real-world territory, moral and ethical philosophers debate about various gradations of killing people (killing in self-defense vs. unintentional killing vs. murder with malice aforethought and so forth), and you can have similar degrees of debate for spells (fireball with its agonizing burns and large radius of collateral damage vs. lightning bolt with more burns but less collateral damage vs. finger of death which is theoretically painless but hinders resurrection and so forth) and poison (nonlethal poison vs. poisons that disable to make stabbing easier vs. poisons that kill on their own and so forth). Fireballs don't have to be intrinsically lawful or chaotic any more than poison, but they can lean in one direction or the other.
My issue here is that I don't think there's much in the way of gradation systems that would render poison evil/chaotic without rendering a whole lot of other things evil/chaotic. Poison is just really similar to a lot of things.



The main differences between poison and a fireball or sword blow in D&D are that (A) compared to HP damage, poisoning is harder to heal (1st-level combat-time cure light wounds vs. 2nd-level out-of-combat lesser restoration) and much rarer to be able to heal (adepts get CLW at 1st like clerics, but don't get lesser restoration and can't cast restoration until 12th level), (B) poison impairs your ability to continue fighting and makes you easier to kill where HP damage does not, and (C) a single dose of non-Con poison isn't going to kill a low-level character but a single stab very well might. So while the relative lethality of poison vs. swords is reversed in D&D compared to real life, there's still a noticeable difference in outcomes that can given them different ethical weights.
I mean, I was just using the least similar to poison options there are. It's pretty trivial to do better. Obviously the spell poison is going to bare a lot of similarity to non-spell poisons, but there're other tools that meet some or all of those criteria. Bestow curse is an obvious one, not only meeting these standards but, to some extent, exceeding poison on all of them. After all, it's harder to remove, often better at stopping the target from fighting, and even worse at killing the target. Something as silly as entangle can hit the second two criteria, as can, say, tripping.

Really, the only criteria that makes any sense, given that the other two include any BFC effect in existence, is the first. So, is that where we are? The primary moral dimension associated with poison is the fact that it's a bit harder to heal? That strikes me as a pretty strange construction, given that durability of effect is so rarely associated with evil in the game. Maybe at some extreme levels, but going away after a few days or requiring a second level spell doesn't strike me as all that extreme.



Stabbing a demon, a marauding orc, a peaceful orc, and a fellow citizen of your town are all very different ethical propositions, and if the categorical imperative is not "I shouldn't stab creatures, because creatures shouldn't stab other creatures" but rather "I should stab evil monsters, because all evil monsters should be stabbed" then stabbing designated targets isn't evil at all. It's entirely possible in the D&D milieu for most stabbing and spellcasting that civilized humanoids engage in to be lawful behavior (while criminals might engage in more chaotic stabbery) and for most poison use to be chaotic without that being contradictory.
I think it is fundamentally contradictory. There is simply not sufficient distinction between poison and other methods of dealing out harm to generate this big change in the alignment of the act. Unless you're going to claim that stabbing is close to the only lawful means of inflicting harm, anyway. Stabbing itself is kinda different from poison, even if something as similar as grappling isn't, and even if various spell effects are way "worse".

[Venger]

Rules are rules.

Yep! That's why power word pain, crushing despair, manifest death, stone bones, and sanctify the wicked, have the [evil] descriptor, and deathwatch doesn't.

[ryu]

Rules are rules.

The book of vile darkness says pretty much everything is evil and is outright hinted to have been written by devils as a scam by which to obtain more souls. No source authority.

[Doctor Awkward]

The book of vile darkness says pretty much everything is evil and is outright hinted to have been written by devils as a scam by which to obtain more souls. No source authority.

Your opinion of the Rules As Written does not supersede them.

[ryu]

Your opinion of the Rules As Written does not supersede them.

Primary source does though. You say excessive pain is evil. The literal pain spells are not evil. Therefore pain is not evil. End of argument.

[eggynack]

Your opinion of the Rules As Written does not supersede them.
But this piece of RAW clearly has literally no functioning. That list of criteria is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a given spell being evil. There are spells that have one or more of these qualities that are not evil, and there are spells that are evil that do not have any of these qualities. Venger has already provided examples, but there are always more.

[Doctor Awkward]

Primary source does though. You say excessive pain is evil. The literal pain spells are not evil. Therefore pain is not evil. End of argument.


But this piece of RAW clearly has literally no functioning. That list of criteria is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a given spell being evil. There are spells that have one or more of these qualities that are not evil, and there are spells that are evil that do not have any of these qualities. Venger has already provided examples, but there are always more.


All of these statements are based on the on the assumption that all spells with similar mechanical effects should be mechanically identical in how they function.

"X spell does hit point damage and is not tagged as evil, so Y spell that also does damage should also be tagged as evil or the rules don't work."

If you want to run games like that, then fine. If you think the rules that say otherwise are dumb, then don't use them.

But for the purposes of mechanical discussions, those rules still exist.

[skunk3]

^

Exactly, which is why I am going to rule that poison use (and drug use, for that matter) is not strictly evil because in this case the RAW is stupid.

[ryu]

It's even still RAW. Primary source states that if a book contradicts another book with higher primacy the lower primacy is wrong. Core is the highest primacy and includes pain spells that aren't evil. Therefore a book stating that all excessive pain is evil is wrong. Live by RAW. Die by RAW.

[King of Nowhere]

The "official" reason is that poison causes a lot of suffering.

this is quite a bit of cherry picking. Being poisoned isn't worse than being impaled, sliced, or bludgeoned to death. Furthermore, some poisons act peacefully, you sleep and you don't wake up. Some cause prolonged suffering over prolonged exposure -although they are difficult to administer, as they need to be used regularly.
Similarly, sometimes a weapon bashes your skull and you're dead before you notice, and sometimes a flesh wound will kill by gangrene over weeks of pain. So no, that reasoning can be discarded: killing by poison is no different than by weapon.

The real reason is that D&D morality is based mostly on medieval chivalry code and folklore, with a bit of modern sensibilities mashed in. According to that code, killing should be done in the open field, face to face with the enemy. Using poison was dishonorable, but so was using ranged weapons or attacking from the back, all things that a lot of classes do without problems.
Same thing as undead being evil because of myths of undead always portraying them in negative light. People coming back from the dead, unless it was a miracle by god, was a rebellion against mortality. God made us mortal, so we should not try to avoid death. Which also doesn't hold much sense: god made us naked, but it's not a sin to use clothes. nobody ever claimed we are hairless because we were meant to suffer cold and clothing is a rebellion against this state.

Luckily, people don't have to take the manual at face value. Using poisons is no different than using any other weapon under any DM I've known (I didn't know many, but still). raising undead is more debated, some say that it causes an undefined backlash of negative energy that causes bad stuff to happen, but others see it as just a tool. I've never seen someone arguing something is evil "because it's written in the manual".
EDIT: except in forums

[eggynack]

All of these statements are based on the on the assumption that all spells with similar mechanical effects should be mechanically identical in how they function.

"X spell does hit point damage and is not tagged as evil, so Y spell that also does damage should also be tagged as evil or the rules don't work."

If you want to run games like that, then fine. If you think the rules that say otherwise are dumb, then don't use them.

But for the purposes of mechanical discussions, those rules still exist.
The text does not say that spells with these qualities are evil. Instead, it says that spells that are evil have one or more of these qualities. There are exactly two ways this rule could have mechanical impact. It could take spells that are evil and lack these qualities and provide them with one or more of these qualities, or it could render those spells not evil. As there is no stated mechanism by which spells would be changed, the first reading is ludicrous, thus leaving us only with the second reading.

That second reading has several problems though. First, it does the exact opposite of what you want the text to do. You appear to be arguing that a certain type of spell, excessive pain spells, are evil, but, instead of expanding what evil is, this reading would retract it. Second, as Ryu notes, the text is inevitably going to fail to accomplish this task almost every time, because it does not have primary source authority with regards to spells in other books. Third, while the thing I'm saying would happen is clear, the book never says that this happens. It's a kinda logical consequence, but not one that's explicitly laid out.

Therefore, using literally no spell comparisons whatsoever, I think it's fair to conclude that this text is essentially meaningless. The only thing it could possibly do is take an evil spell from BoVD and make it not evil, and even that is a bit of a stretch. So, I guess claws of the savage might not be evil anymore, or something.

You say in your post that, "X spell does hit point damage and is not tagged as evil, so Y spell that also does damage should also be tagged as evil or the rules don't work," as a representation of the position opposed to you. An essentially identical rules construct would be that, if Y is currently evil, then it should not be evil. Thanks, I suppose, for, in the absolute best case scenario of this operating as meaningful rules text, lending mechanical credence to this position.

[Florian]

As a side note, people participating in this kind of discussion and arguing with "But, RAW" or "But, Primary Source...." should take a critical view about what has been written here about deontological morality....

[ryu]

As a side note, people participating in this kind of discussion and arguing with "But, RAW" or "But, Primary Source...." should take a critical view about what has been written here about deontological morality....

We can argue rules or we can argue reasonable moral positions. Either way evil poisons are stupid/not RAW supported.

[Doctor Awkward]

The text does not say that spells with these qualities are evil. Instead, it says that spells that are evil have one or more of these qualities. There are exactly two ways this rule could have mechanical impact. It could take spells that are evil and lack these qualities and provide them with one or more of these qualities, or it could render those spells not evil. As there is no stated mechanism by which spells would be changed, the first reading is ludicrous, thus leaving us only with the second reading.

That second reading has several problems though. First, it does the exact opposite of what you want the text to do. You appear to be arguing that a certain type of spell, excessive pain spells, are evil, but, instead of expanding what evil is, this reading would retract it. Second, as Ryu notes, the text is inevitably going to fail to accomplish this task almost every time, because it does not have primary source authority with regards to spells in other books. Third, while the thing I'm saying would happen is clear, the book never says that this happens. It's a kinda logical consequence, but not one that's explicitly laid out.

Therefore, using literally no spell comparisons whatsoever, I think it's fair to conclude that this text is essentially meaningless. The only thing it could possibly do is take an evil spell from BoVD and make it not evil, and even that is a bit of a stretch. So, I guess claws of the savage might not be evil anymore, or something.

You say in your post that, "X spell does hit point damage and is not tagged as evil, so Y spell that also does damage should also be tagged as evil or the rules don't work," as a representation of the position opposed to you. An essentially identical rules construct would be that, if Y is currently evil, then it should not be evil. Thanks, I suppose, for, in the absolute best case scenario of this operating as meaningful rules text, lending mechanical credence to this position.

You have it backwards.
Spells that are tagged as evil, by RAW, are ones that cause excessive undue suffering over the course of their effect.

It is this way because the rules say that's what evil spells do.

Simply causing someone pain is not enough to warrant an [Evil] tag. It has to be excessive and undue pain. Just because, in your opinion, Spell X should cause similar amounts of "undue" pain as Spell Y, doesn't mean it actually does.

And you know it doesn't because not being tagged as [Evil] is the rules telling you it doesn't.

What's happening with virtually everyone who is complaining about this "dysfunction" is that they are assigning their own personal opinion towards how they think spells should function, and then accusing the rules of not working appropriately.

If you are of the opinion that certain spells are improperly tagged, then there is nothing wrong with reassigning spell descriptors to suit your preconception about how you want the spells to work in games that you run.

But what is not okay is saying, "I think pain should function like this and the rules say it doesn't and therefore RAW is incorrect."

There is nothing wrong with RAW. The problem is your interpretation of RAW.

[eggynack]

You have it backwards.
Spells that are tagged as evil, by RAW, are ones that cause excessive undue suffering over the course of their effect.
Indeed, the text says, "If a spell is evil, then it does one or more of these things." I ask you now, what precisely is the rules consequence of this? Name any single solitary thing that we should understand differently because of this "rule".


Simply causing someone pain is not enough to warrant an [Evil] tag. It has to be excessive and undue pain. Just because, in your opinion, Spell X should cause similar amounts of "undue" pain as Spell Y, doesn't mean it actually does.
Why does this matter? The text does not say, "If a spell does one or more things, then it is evil," so it's not actually relevant whether, say, the spell poison causes sufficient harm. At least with regard to this rule. The only thing that could possibly be pertinent to this rule is a spell that doesn't do anything on that list, and yet is listed as evil.



And you know it doesn't because not being tagged as [Evil] is the rules telling you it doesn't.
Actually, it's not. A spell can fit every single one of those requirements and still not be tagged evil, if we're solely going by that rule. The text does not, after all, say, "If a spell is not evil, then it does not do any of these things."



What's happening with virtually everyone who is complaining about this "dysfunction" is that they are assigning their own personal opinion towards how they think spells should function, and then accusing the rules of not working appropriately.
You are mistaken here, separately. BoED, in its poison section, explicitly says that poison which deals ability damage causes undue suffering. The spell poison explicitly states that it inflicts the target with a poison that deals ability damage. Thus, the spell poison, by RAW, inflicts undue suffering. Of course, again, the BoVD text doesn't care about this fact, as spells that deal undue suffering aren't necessarily labeled [evil], but this spell absolutely meets this criteria.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I always saw it as being more non-lawful than non-good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison):


Price

The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources.

Of course, I also see compulsion effects as more lawful / non-chaotic than I see them evil / nongood (robbing someone's free will to conform with your/society's own; can be used for both good or evil intentions).

Too many things get defined on the good/evil axis.


Part of the disconnect here is that most common method of poison use in-game (put it on a weapon and stick 'em) is the least common method IRL. And even when that method is used, it is still cold-blooded murder (ricin-tipped umbrella, anyone?) rather than anything that resembles combat in-game.

And vice versa. The most common method of poison use IRL (secretly lace their food/drink) is the least common use in-game. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Well, poison gas is also a pretty common method IRL and would be quite popular in D&D if there were any good inhaled poisons for the price (since it's so powerful, is probably why it's almost never worth it of course).

But yeah, I think injury-based poisons are way less vile than poisoning someone's food/drink or indiscriminately unleashing poison gas. They really shouldn't all be treated the same, morally.

[Doctor Awkward]

You are mistaken here, separately. BoED, in its poison section, explicitly says that poison which deals ability damage causes undue suffering. The spell poison explicitly states that it inflicts the target with a poison that deals ability damage. Thus, the spell poison, by RAW, inflicts undue suffering. Of course, again, the BoVD text doesn't care about this fact, as spells that deal undue suffering aren't necessarily labeled [evil], but this spell absolutely meets this criteria.

Where does it say in the description of Poison that the spell causes excessive pain and suffering?

[Psyren]

Where does it say in the description of Poison that the spell causes excessive pain and suffering?

The part where it's evil :smallbiggrin:

Kidding aside, we all agree that poison having a morality is a misstep on BoED's part. It's an ethical issue; if you want to keep it out of the paladin's toolkit, that's the way to go.

Though I could see an argument for all poisons that cause ability damage also causing pain/suffering.

[eggynack]

Where does it say in the description of Poison that the spell causes excessive pain and suffering?
It doesn't, and I never said it did. What poison says is that it inflicts a poison that deals ability damage. BoED explicitly states that poisons that deal ability damage cause undue suffering. Therefore, the spell poison causes undue suffering. Straightforward logic.

[Venger]

It doesn't, and I never said it did. What poison says is that it inflicts a poison that deals ability damage. BoED explicitly states that poisons that deal ability damage cause undue suffering. Therefore, the spell poison causes undue suffering. Straightforward logic.

Yep! That's why the poison spell has the [evil] tag, like all those other ones.

[hamishspence]

Keep in mind the PHB was published before BoED.

[Doctor Awkward]

It doesn't, and I never said it did. What poison says is that it inflicts a poison that deals ability damage. BoED explicitly states that poisons that deal ability damage cause undue suffering. Therefore, the spell poison causes undue suffering. Straightforward logic.

Except it's not.
Poison itself is not inherently evil in nature. If it was then every creature or animal that had poison as part of its natural attacks would also have an evil alignment.

It is specifically the use of poisons with the intent to kill or debilitate your opponents that makes their use an act of evil. It's exactly the same way that fireball is not an evil spell, but indiscriminately firing one into a crowd of noncombatants because your target is somewhere inside it is still an evil act.

Using a poison to debilitate your opponent without causing undue suffering is not an evil act, as is explicitly noted with oil of tagget and the drow knockout poison.

BoED says that using "poison that deals ability damage cause undue pain and suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent", and then makes oblique references to manufactured poisons.

The poison spell does not use manufactured poison, and so there nothing in RAW to indicate it functions in the same way.

[Venger]

Except it's not.
Poison itself is not inherently evil in nature. If it was then every creature or animal that had poison as part of its natural attacks would also have an evil alignment.

It is specifically the use of poisons with the intent to kill or debilitate your opponents that makes their use an act of evil. It's exactly the same way that fireball is not an evil spell, but indiscriminately firing one into a crowd of noncombatants because your target is somewhere inside it is still an evil act.

Using a poison to debilitate your opponent without causing undue suffering is not an evil act, as is explicitly noted with oil of tagget and the drow knockout poison.

BoED says that using "poison that deals ability damage cause undue pain and suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent", and then makes oblique references to manufactured poisons.

The poison spell does not use manufactured poison, and so there nothing in RAW to indicate it functions in the same way.

So snakes and scorpions and whatnot aren't trying to kill their prey when they attack it with their poison?

[ryu]

So snakes and scorpions and whatnot aren't trying to kill their prey when they attack it with their poison?

Venom. Offensive natural attack based bad juju is Venom. Defensive natural don't eat me bad juju is poison. Kinda makes what we call poisons a bit of a misnomer.

[Venger]

Venom. Offensive natural attack based bad juju is Venom. Defensive natural don't eat me bad juju is poison. Kinda makes what we call poisons a bit of a misnomer.

I am aware of the distinction in real life scientific taxonomy, which is why we have poisonous mushrooms and venomous snakes, but this is not a real meaningful rules distinction in D&D. monsters have poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/snake.htm) not venom.

[eggynack]

Except it's not.
Poison itself is not inherently evil in nature. If it was then every creature or animal that had poison as part of its natural attacks would also have an evil alignment.
Poison itself is not inherently evil. However, poison that deals ability damage does inherently cause undue suffering. And, if you're claiming that spells which cause undue suffering are evil, then poison should be evil. Animals do not, generally speaking, have spells which cause undue suffering.


Using a poison to debilitate your opponent without causing undue suffering is not an evil act, as is explicitly noted with oil of tagget and the drow knockout poison.
The spell, unlike those two poisons, does deal ability damage, which means that it causes undue suffering.


BoED says that using "poison that deals ability damage cause undue pain and suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent", and then makes oblique references to manufactured poisons.

The poison spell does not use manufactured poison, and so there nothing in RAW to indicate it functions in the same way.
The text says that quote you just said, about ability damage poison causing undue suffering. Talking about manufactured poisons does not magically render that text manufactured poison specific. The quote in question states that this is a quality of all poisons that deal ability damage. Nothing whatsoever in the text makes any specification on that claim. The degree to which this argument of yours has no basis whatsoever in RAW is honestly kinda ridiculous, given how much you've been talking RAW up.

And, I gotta point out, this particular argument is a bit irrelevant. Its pertinence to the topic of this BoVD quote is reliant on a flagrant misreading of that quote. Even if you were to prove conclusively that the spell poison does not cause undue suffering (or at least prove that my proof is flawed), and you cannot, it wouldn't stop your basic arguments about the quote from being fallacious. We can still talk about it, if ya want, but it is not particularly capable of helping your overall position.

[Doctor Awkward]

So snakes and scorpions and whatnot aren't trying to kill their prey when they attack it with their poison?

Is a poison dart frog trying to kill the thing that is eating it? Or is it trying to be left alone?

[ryu]

I am aware of the distinction in real life scientific taxonomy, which is why we have poisonous mushrooms and venomous snakes, but this is not a real meaningful rules distinction in D&D. monsters have poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/snake.htm) not venom.

Of course you realize I'm now contractually obligated bring up this pedantry every time a "poisonous" animal shows up right? It's the rules of the internet.

[Venger]

Is a poison dart frog trying to kill the thing that is eating it? Or is it trying to be left alone?

Don't move the goalposts.

When a snake or scorpion attacks its prey, is it trying to kill its prey? Yes or no.

[Necroticplague]

So snakes and scorpions and whatnot aren't trying to kill their prey when they attack it with their poison?

They are, but, being animals, they lack any proper understanding that they're inflicting needless harm. As a result, they can't be held culpable for that action.

[Doctor Awkward]

Poison itself is not inherently evil. However, poison that deals ability damage does inherently cause undue suffering. And, if you're claiming that spells which cause undue suffering are evil, then poison should be evil. Animals do not, generally speaking, have spells which cause undue suffering.


The spell, unlike those two poisons, does deal ability damage, which means that it causes undue suffering.


The text says that quote you just said, about ability damage poison causing undue suffering. Talking about manufactured poisons does not magically render that text manufactured poison specific. The quote in question states that this is a quality of all poisons that deal ability damage. Nothing whatsoever in the text makes any specification on that claim. The degree to which this argument of yours has no basis whatsoever in RAW is honestly kinda ridiculous, given how much you've been talking RAW up.

And, I gotta point out, this particular argument is a bit irrelevant. Its pertinence to the topic of this BoVD quote is reliant on a flagrant misreading of that quote. Even if you were to prove conclusively that the spell poison does not cause undue suffering (or at least prove that my proof is flawed), and you cannot, it wouldn't stop your basic arguments about the quote from being fallacious. We can still talk about it, if ya want, but it is not particularly capable of helping your overall position.

Wait, I'm confused.

Are you complaining about why the poison spell isn't tagged as [Evil]? or why using it isn't evil?
Because it absolutely would be an evil act, based solely on the rules in BoED.

As to why it isn't tagged that way, who knows?
Probably because poisons themselves are not inherently evil. Just the act of using them with the intent to kill or debilitate an opponent.

[Venger]

They are, but, being animals, they lack any proper understanding that they're inflicting needless harm. As a result, they can't be held culpable for that action.

Well, obviously that's the answer you or I or anyone else gives when using even the slightest bit of common sense.

But according to Tonymitsu, since he thinks the fluff sections of boed are raw, using poison to kill opponents is an Evil act. So I'm waiting to see what his response is.


As to why it isn't tagged that way, who knows?
Probably because poisons themselves are not inherently evil. Just the act of using them with the intent to kill or debilitate an opponent.

So as long as you don't mean to kill someone, then it's not Evil in your mind to use poison that deals ability damage, huh?

[eggynack]

Wait, I'm confused.

Are you complaining about why the poison spell isn't tagged as [Evil]? or why using it isn't evil?
Because it absolutely would be an evil act, based solely on the rules in BoED.

As to why it isn't tagged that way, who knows?
Probably because poisons themselves are not inherently evil. Just the act of using them with the intent to kill or debilitate an opponent.
The latter, though I wouldn't precisely call it a complaint. You said that we were just imposing our opinions of how these spells function, creating undue suffering where it couldn't possibly exist according to your incorrect reading of this rule. You are wrong. Non-evil spells sometimes, by RAW, produce undue suffering. This quality of the spell is in the text. Not all spells with these qualities are tagged [evil].

[Necroticplague]

Well, obviously that's the answer you or I or anyone else gives when using even the slightest bit of common sense.

But according to Tonymitsu, since he thinks the fluff sections of boed are raw, using poison to kill opponents is an Evil act. So I'm waiting to see what his response is.

Not just common sense, but the SRDs section on alignment.


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

[Venger]

The latter, though I wouldn't precisely call it a complaint. You said that we were just imposing our opinions of how these spells function, creating undue suffering where it couldn't possibly exist according to your incorrect reading of this rule. You are wrong. Non-evil spells sometimes, by RAW, produce undue suffering. This quality of the spell is in the text. Not all spells with these qualities are tagged [evil].

well said.


Of course you realize I'm now contractually obligated bring up this pedantry every time a "poisonous" animal shows up right? It's the rules of the internet.
Well, this is a D&D board, if no one was ever pedantic for its own sake, what would we post about all day?


Not just common sense, but the SRDs section on alignment.

Right. I'm aware of this, which is why I agree with you.

[sage20500]

Yeah the best way to approach this is that the D&D cosmology is independent of our own. They have a deist universe where the gods are physically present and human-like for the most part. Those gods hold a monopoly on the afterlife and basically split into “teams” who decide what sort of people they want in their afterlife bubble.

In recent years, and by that I mean the last two decades, Wizards has avoided current political trends and real-world parallels as much as possible. They’re experimenting with adding some left-friendly stuff to published adventures and MTG now, and that’s getting heavy push back.
(Not weighing in on one side or the other here, merely stating what has occurred, plz no banhammer)
On that same note, they have grandfathered in alignment systems first coined by the old Cheeto-stained grognards with antisocial tendencies that first brought D&D to life from the bones of Chainmail.

Much is left to the DM, including tweaking alignment, but as written, well, it’s a reflection on the outlook of social hermits from fourty years ago. With how much our society has shifted in morality since then, is it really any wonder we find the alignment system flawed and not representative of our current values?

Part of the fun of immersive role play in a world where gods walk around and witches actually do curse farmers is seeing the differences in outlook that those people would have.

Imagine how a lawful good god of fertility and the harvest would feel about homosexuality, birth control or abortion, or how a chaotic good god of luck would feel about socialized health care, government safety nets, or tiered taxation. Lawful Evil gods would be all for drone strikes, while L/G war gods would find such things dishonourable. The values these gods hold may conflict drastically with our own, match, or be somewhere in between, but they actually have the power to declare stuff objectively good or evil, (or lawful or chaotic, though that’s usually less cared about) and magic that interacts with objective good and evil then agrees with the decision.

Mortals can’t really argue, though they get some leeway to disagree (like the one-step off rule for clerics) without being punished for it in most cases. The closer to embodying your gods values you are, the more power can be made available to you, but the more rigidly you are held to that god’s personal dogma.

In the case of poisons vs ravages, for example, the entire thing is completely arbitrary and hypocritical, but that’s ok because the gods are flawed and probably got mad that team evil had all the poisons but couldn’t walk back that decision.

This, if you look at the two main gods of war in the d&d setting you can totally see this in play.


Kord is the chaotic good God of war who wants nothing more than to see one giant army square up against another giant army and clash together in a giant melee until one side overpowers the other. Tbh from a modern perspective only idiots who care about honor and glory would ever want to follow this guy's teaching.

Bane on the other hand, sure he's lawful evil, but what he wants is for his people to win at all costs. Sneak attacks, black ops, traps, using strategy and tactics, psychological warfare, poisoning the enemy; honestly for our standards Bane is the person anyone who is smart would want to follow since his anything goes ideology can ultimately lead to less deaths in battle and possibly less casualties among bystanders in the long run.

[Doctor Awkward]

Non-evil spells sometimes, by RAW, produce undue suffering. This quality of the spell is in the text. Not all spells with these qualities are tagged [evil].

Can you give some examples?

[eggynack]

Can you give some examples?
I don't really have one besides poison that I can prove unequivocally. Venger did list few that probably cause undue suffering without being [evil], though.

[Venger]

I don't really have one besides poison that I can prove unequivocally. Venger did list few that probably cause undue suffering without being [evil], though.

I did at that, (plus they also cause negative emotions, call upon negative energy, improve undead creatures, and harm souls) and they were unsurprisingly ignored. I advise you don't waste your time coming up with more examples, he'll just dismiss them.

But toxic tongue, blood to water, parboil, and mind poison are some more examples.

[tyckspoon]

I don't really have one besides poison that I can prove unequivocally. Venger did list few that probably cause undue suffering without being [evil], though.

There's a couple in Spell Compendium that are pretty decent examples.

Bonefiddle: Expressly operates by 'intense pain and anguish'. Play your victim's skeleton like an instrument. Intensely cruel, creepy, not [Evil].

That One Spell Whose Name I Can't Remember: (Blood Creepers or something similar, I think.) Causes thorned vines to rip out of your opponent's blood and root them to the ground. I can't imagine this being anything other than intensely painful, and an unnecessarily vicious means of achieving the desired effect. Not [Evil].

Avasculate: Halves the victim's HP by way of causing their blood vessels to burst out of their skin and entangle them in a bloody web. Actually is [Evil].

[Evil] spells have a lot less to do with any consistent morality or traits and a lot more to do with whether or not the writers thought it was something an Evil Necromancer or Evil Vizier sort of character would enjoy using.. which is why such a large proportion of the [Evil] spells are also Necromancy.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't really have one besides poison that I can prove unequivocally. Venger did list few that probably cause undue suffering without being [evil], though.

I didn't thoroughly read the entire thread, but the only list I could see after my first post was "power word pain, crushing despair, manifest death, stone bones, and sanctify the wicked, have the [evil] descriptor, and deathwatch doesn't."

Crushing Despair
I'm not entirely certain I'd place making someone feel sad on the same level as, say, one that slowly peels the flesh off their body, or one that boils their heart to ash from the inside.

Stone Bones
...Uh... the... Tome of Battle maneuver?
You might as well argue at this point that all forms of melee combat are inherently evil.

Manifest Death
Channeling negative energy has never, by itself, been an act of evil. And seeing as you can only cast the spell by first inflicting damage to an undead target (which are always evil), I'm not sure how this spell qualifies as being solely used to inflict excessive pain and suffering on a living creature.

Sanctify the Wicked
I remember this being brought up in another thread as an example of how good and evil are exactly the same and therefore alignment is stupid.
Regardless, I don't find anything in the description of that spell stating that it causes any sort of pain or suffering at all.

Power Word: Pain
Much like Manifest Death, causing pain in and of itself does not automatically translate to an inherently evil act. It must be excessive or disproportionate pain. If a spell does not specifically state or otherwise indicate it functions that way, then it simply doesn't.

Deathwatch
This spell being evil has nothing to do with inflicting pain or suffering. Those aren't the sole requirements. Spells which call upon profane or wholly evil energies also do so. Which, according to the description of the spell, deathwatch does.

[Venger]

Crushing Despair
I'm not entirely certain I'd place making someone feel sad on the same level as, say, one that slowly peels the flesh off their body, or one that boils their heart to ash from the inside.
As I said, this causes negative emotions



Stone Bones
...Uh... the... Tome of Battle maneuver?
You might as well argue at this point that all forms of melee combat are inherently evil.
Yeah, clearly that's what I'm talking about. No thanks, I'll leave that to you.

No, the one from spell compendium that improves undead.



Manifest Death
Channeling negative energy has never, by itself, been an act of evil. And seeing as you can only cast the spell by first inflicting damage to an undead target (which are always evil), I'm not sure how this spell qualifies as being solely used to inflict excessive pain and suffering on a living creature.
For the millionth time, undead aren't always evil.

You argued it was in the other thread, but I don't want to derail this one with you repeating all your talking points on exalted actions since the topic here is poison use.



Sanctify the Wicked
I remember this being brought up in another thread as an example of how good and evil are exactly the same and therefore alignment is stupid.
Regardless, I don't find anything in the description of that spell stating that it causes any sort of pain or suffering at all.
It harms souls by imprisoning them. Not in any way what I actually said in that thread, but cool strawman. See above, there's no need for you to rehash your views on exalted alignment.



Power Word: Pain
Much like Manifest Death, causing pain in and of itself does not automatically translate to an inherently evil act. It must be excessive or disproportionate pain. If a spell does not specifically state or otherwise indicate it functions that way, then it simply doesn't.
Wow, I can't even see those goalposts anymore! You're quick! So, when I give an example of a spell that inflicts pain in order to contradict you, you'll just say that it doesn't specify that it's undue pain, a term nonexistent in the rules and which you and your objective opinions are the sole arbiter of? That's convenient.



Deathwatch
This spell being evil has nothing to do with inflicting pain or suffering. Those aren't the sole requirements. Spells which call upon profane or wholly evil energies also do so. Which, according to the description of the spell, deathwatch does.
that's... my entire point. You do understand that I was being sarcastic, and that none of those spells have the [evil] tag, and that deathwatch does, right?

You have been touting this particular part of bovd's fluff as raw and it says that if a spell has the [evil] descriptor, then it does one of the things on that bulleted list. Deathwatch does not do any of those things, yet it has the evil tag. This should let you know this bulleted list is not raw.

[eggynack]

I advise you don't waste your time coming up with more examples, he'll just dismiss them.
Maybe, but this whole argument is pretty weird. Kinda wanna see where it goes.


But toxic tongue, blood to water, parboil, and mind poison are some more examples.
I've been looking for spells that are explicitly ability damage poison and non-evil, cause it's the closest I have to exactly this by RAW. In addition to the two on your list that fit those exact criteria (toxic tongue and mind poison), I've so far found cloudkill, cobra's breath, poison vines, prismatic everything, quillfire, red tide, serpent arrow, snake darts, snakebite, spider poison, urchin's spines, and water to poison. I've included most things that are just like, "Immunity to poison renders you immune to this, and also this is clearly poison," and excluded things that just kinda make poisonous creatures or make someone into a poisonous creature.


I didn't thoroughly read the entire thread, but the only list I could see after my first post was "power word pain, crushing despair, manifest death, stone bones, and sanctify the wicked, have the [evil] descriptor, and deathwatch doesn't."
That is, in fact, the list I was referring to. Turns out I could generate a fancy list after all, however.


Crushing Despair
I'm not entirely certain I'd place making someone feel sad on the same level as, say, one that slowly peels the flesh off their body, or one that boils their heart to ash from the inside.
Doesn't have to be on that level or whatever. Your list includes the production of negative emotions. I'd say crushing despair does so.


Stone Bones
...Uh... the... Tome of Battle maneuver?
You might as well argue at this point that all forms of melee combat are inherently evil.
Looks like he was referring to the spell compendium spell. It improves undead, which is a thing on the list.


Manifest Death
Channeling negative energy has never, by itself, been an act of evil. And seeing as you can only cast the spell by first inflicting damage to an undead target (which are always evil), I'm not sure how this spell qualifies as being solely used to inflict excessive pain and suffering on a living creature.
This one improves undead and maybe calls upon negative energies.


Sanctify the Wicked
I remember this being brought up in another thread as an example of how good and evil are exactly the same and therefore alignment is stupid.
Regardless, I don't find anything in the description of that spell stating that it causes any sort of pain or suffering at all.
Dunno about that, given that you're destroying someone's very nature.

So, yeah, largely a pretty objectively accurate list, when it comes to proving that explicitly having various things from the BoVD list is not sufficient for [evil]. That said, again, I now have a huge list of spells that do the thing I said they would. And I must note, yet again, that this fact is kind of irrelevant. Is there a point here at which you admit that this BoVD list has no real rules function, because of basic aspects of its construction? The only thing I could see this "rule" ever doing is making claws of the savage, a spell which has no qualities from that list whatsoever, non-evil.

[Venger]

Maybe, but this whole argument is pretty weird. Kinda wanna see where it goes.
Fair enough, I just thought it would be nice to warn you.


So, yeah, largely a pretty objectively accurate list, when it comes to proving that explicitly having various things from the BoVD list is not sufficient for [evil]. That said, again, I now have a huge list of spells that do the thing I said they would. And I must note, yet again, that this fact is kind of irrelevant. Is there a point here at which you admit that this BoVD list has no real rules function, because of basic aspects of its construction? The only thing I could see this "rule" ever doing is making claws of the savage, a spell which has no qualities from that list whatsoever, non-evil.

Yep. Thanks. Indeed, because that section of bovd is fluff, and does not claim to put forth new rules on how game mechanics work, so it's okay if they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

That point will never come, he'll just move the goalposts again and insist that fluff is raw.

[Psyren]

Yep! That's why the poison spell has the [evil] tag, like all those other ones.

And Deathwatch does, what's your point? Tags aren't absolute.

[Venger]

And Deathwatch does, what's your point? Tags aren't absolute.

that is, in fact, my point. Tonymitsu is insisting that all evil spells do one of the things on the bulleted list in bovd. This is demonstrably false. For example, deathwatch.

[eggynack]

that's... my entire point. You do understand that I was being sarcastic, and that none of those spells have the [evil] tag, and that deathwatch does, right?
I think his argument regarding deathwatch is that it calls upon evil energies.


Yep. Thanks. Indeed, because that section of bovd is fluff, and does not claim to put forth new rules on how game mechanics work, so it's okay if they got a bunch of stuff wrong.
Well, that too. More interesting, in my opinion, is that, even if we interpret that text as strict rule meat, it would not do what Tonymitsu seems to want it to do. Its only possible value would be to contract the spells that are evil. It is logically incapable of expanding the list of evil spells.

Edit: For the record, claws of the savage does not apparently call upon evil energies. While deathwatch is cool from a ridiculousness standpoint, claws of the savage has the advantage of being perhaps the blandest, most neutral, least justifiable as [evil] spells ever. The only reason it has that descriptor is because it's in BoVD, which actually ultimately helps the argument, cause that's where the rules text is.

[Nifft]

Dunno about that, given that you're destroying someone's very nature.

But the nature being destroyed is always evil.

[eggynack]

But the nature being destroyed is always evil.
Yeah, but that's not part of the criteria. If we're inexplicably reading this as things sufficient to render something [evil] (or if, more reasonably, we're reading it as a list of things that tend towards [evil]), then it doesn't matter whose soul you're harming. Harming souls, whether good, evil, or neutral, is evil. Similarly, causing undue suffering is evil, even if the target is evil. Which is why ravages are dumb. While I disagree with a lot of how this text is being interpreted, this is a thing I do not disagree with. If we're classifying a tool as intrinsically evil, then why would using it on evil creatures remove that quality? Evil beings are still beings. They still have lives and souls and minds. Stab them if you like, or even poison them (cause I stand by the idea that this should not be evil), but twisting their mind against itself until they're just a shell of their former selves, rendering them still with personhood but always missing what they once were, that's messed up.

[Venger]

Yeah, but that's not part of the criteria. If we're inexplicably reading this as things sufficient to render something [evil] (or if, more reasonably, we're reading it as a list of things that tend towards [evil]), then it doesn't matter whose soul you're harming. Harming souls, whether good, evil, or neutral, is evil. Similarly, causing undue suffering is evil, even if the target is evil. Which is why ravages are dumb. While I disagree with a lot of how this text is being interpreted, this is a thing I do not disagree with. If we're classifying a tool as intrinsically evil, then why would using it on evil creatures remove that quality? Evil beings are still beings. They still have lives and souls and minds. Stab them if you like, or even poison them (cause I stand by the idea that this should not be evil), but twisting their mind against itself until they're just a shell of their former selves, rendering them still with personhood but always missing what they once were, that's messed up.

plus you destroy their body and imprison them in a diamond for a year (or more depending on how Good you feel)

[Nifft]

Yeah, but that's not part of the criteria. If we're inexplicably reading this as things sufficient to render something [evil] (or if, more reasonably, we're reading it as a list of things that tend towards [evil]), then it doesn't matter whose soul you're harming. Harming souls, whether good, evil, or neutral, is evil. Similarly, causing undue suffering is evil, even if the target is evil. Which is why ravages are dumb. While I disagree with a lot of how this text is being interpreted, this is a thing I do not disagree with. If we're classifying a tool as intrinsically evil, then why would using it on evil creatures remove that quality? Evil beings are still beings. They still have lives and souls and minds. Stab them if you like, or even poison them (cause I stand by the idea that this should not be evil), but twisting their mind against itself until they're just a shell of their former selves, rendering them still with personhood but always missing what they once were, that's messed up.

But if it turns you Good, then the suffering wasn't undue.

It's exactly what was due.

[eggynack]

But if it turns you Good, then the suffering wasn't undue.

It's exactly what was due.
I don't think that the destruction of a person's self can ever be due. Just stab the dude and get it over with. Also, one of the big criteria it runs up against is the soul harming one, which doesn't care how due or undue the suffering is.

[Nifft]

I don't think that the destruction of a person's self can ever be due. Just stab the dude and get it over with. Also, one of the big criteria it runs up against is the soul harming one, which doesn't care how due or undue the suffering is.

But it's not your self, it's just the evil bits.

You're still you, just minus some evil.

No sane person would choose evil.

Therefore by definition you'll be fine.

Get in the box.

[Doctor Awkward]

As I said, this causes negative emotions

First, since when is sadness an inherently negative emotion?
When a paladin holds a funeral service and grieves for a fallen comrade, is he committing an evil act and violating his code?

Second, you are talking about a spell that didn't even exist at the time Book of Vile Darkness was written.
Crushing Despair was a single effect pulled out of the spell emotion which, in 3.0, could create six entirely different effects that were all split into their own spells in 3.5.
Within the context of the 3.0 rules, which Book of Vile Darkness was written around, in order for a spell to be up for consideration for the [Evil] tag, the sole purpose of it had to be inflicting excessive misery upon someone else. Because, as the BoVD introduction explains in excruciating detail, intent matters when adjudicating if someone's actions are evil. This is why the emotion spell was not be eligible for the evil tag (as hope and friendship were options upon casting it). It's also why the spells sorrow and waves of grief, whose sole functions are doing exactly what you think they do, are tagged as evil.

Should crushing despair also have been tagged as evil with the 3.5 update?
Possibly. But because the caster's intent matters you can argue it either way. Casting it on a helpless captive in order to revel in their abject terror? Yeah that's probably an evil act. Casting it on an evil cleric who just sacrificed a helpless captive in an ritual in order to evoke intense feelings of regret at what he has just done? You're probably fine.

As an aside, it might also be worth noting that the concept of calling upon "evil energies" also doesn't seem to have really existed in 3.0 before the Book of Vile Darkness. Desecrate is not an [Evil] spell in 3.0, despite being tagged as such in 3.5 because of course it is.



It harms souls by imprisoning them.
Sanctify the Wicked isn't just a [Good] spell on account of the effect of redeeming an evil creature. It's also because of the massive personal sacrifice required to cast it.

If you feel that this process is the same thing as "harming" the soul, you have every right to feel that way.
But the Rules as Written don't run on feelings.

BoVD discusses many spells with regards to purpose and intent, noting that you cannot always judge a spell based solely in its effect, but also on approach and execution. This is one of the few times where it explicitly states it is discussing variant rules, and specifically notes that when running a game this way, Trap the Soul should be be considered an [Evil] spell as well.
You'll note that Trap the Soul basically does the same thing as Sanctify the Wicked, except the approach and execution are completely different.
...also it's forever, and you don't get to be reformed while inside it.


You have been touting this particular part of bovd's fluff as raw and it says that if a spell has the [evil] descriptor, then it does one of the things on that bulleted list. Deathwatch does not do any of those things, yet it has the evil tag. This should let you know this bulleted list is not raw.

:smallconfused:


• They call upon evil gods or energies.

Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife, ...
Did you even read the spell description of deathwatch?



No, the one from spell compendium that improves undead.


Hm. Curious.
So after doing my research I noted that Stone Bones was also printed in Ghostwalk, and before that in Magic of Faerun. The description is the same throughout so apparently nothing was lost in translation.

I have no explanation for this.
Though I would suggest that declaring the entire book invalid on account of a single spell that was came from an entirely different book which was written a year before the Book of Vile Darkness, and also one that Monte Cook (the sole author of BoVD) had nothing to do with, is a little extreme.

Incidentally, despite the fact that there is no specific defintion for what constitutes "improving" undead, there are two other spells that I can find in the Spell Compendium that arguably meet this criteria:

The first is Undead Lieutenant, which allows the targeted intelligent undead to take over some of your control pool, and it is not tagged as [Evil]. And it's original source is also Magic of Faerun

The second is Vile Death, which gives the targeted undead the fiendish template. This one first appeared in Savage Species, which was printed four months after BoVD, and is tagged as [Evil].

Weird.

[eggynack]

But it's not your self, it's just the evil bits.

You're still you, just minus some evil.

No sane person would choose evil.

Therefore by definition you'll be fine.

Get in the box.
The box is very comfortable. I have a completely separate objection to this line of reasoning regarding sanctify the wicked, however. That being, why are we considering the end result at all? If the final output matters at all to whether suffering is due or undue, then why is poison supposed to be intrinsically evil? What if you poison someone over and over again until they're not evil anymore? The game would classify this as undue suffering, cause the text is right there, but by your logic, if it brings about the end of some evil, then the suffering is necessarily due. The game's argument is that output doesn't matter at all, at least in evaluating the evil of tools, and if that argument applies to poison, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to sanctify the wicked.

Man, the alignment system is silly as hell.



Second, you are talking about a spell that didn't even exist at the time Book of Vile Darkness was written.
I have to ask you again. What does this rule do? You say that there's this rule, and that rules are rules. Name a single solitary thing in the entirety of the game that would be different than it is now were it not for the presence of this rule. Literally anything.

[Nifft]

The box is very comfortable. I have a completely separate objection to this line of reasoning regarding sanctify the wicked, however. That being, why are we considering the end result at all? If the final output matters at all to whether suffering is due or undue, then why is poison supposed to be intrinsically evil? What if you poison someone over and over again until they're not evil anymore? The game would classify this as undue suffering, cause the text is right there, but by your logic, if it brings about the end of some evil, then the suffering is necessarily due. The game's argument is that output doesn't matter at all, at least in evaluating the evil of tools, and if that argument applies to poison, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to sanctify the wicked.

Man, the alignment system is silly as hell.

It definitely is, and BoED can make even an eager transhumanist shudder a bit in horror.

There's an idea that evils is extrinsic, so you can sever the evil from a person and retain the person as such.

That's apparently even true for things which are literally made from planes of conceptual evil, their evil-ness is extrinsic and can be permanently excised without any symptoms of brain damage.


The verbal component to Sanctify the Wicked has always been a Roger Waters lyric:


You raise the blade, you make the change
You rearrange me ' till I'm sane

You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me

[Doctor Awkward]

I have to ask you again. What does this rule do? You say that there's this rule, and that rules are rules. Name a single solitary thing in the entirety of the game that would be different than it is now were it not for the presence of this rule. Literally anything.

The text from BoVD about the evil descriptor? It's a clarification. It's explaining to you why spells that are [Evil] are tagged as evil. A spell that is tagged as evil does one of the things on that list, even if that fact is not made clear by the spell's description.

You said earlier you didn't see why claws of the savage is an evil spell because there doesn't seem to be anything evil about it just from the description. Well, because it is tagged as evil, it fulfills one of those criteria. Probably the one regarding channeling "evil energies". Probably because the spell is in a clerical domain associated with bestial savagery and wanton destruction, whose followers despise civilization and love to smash things.

Removed entirely from the context in which it appears, yeah, I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense that that spell would be evil.

[Venger]

Zoom go the goalposts! I think they're on Mars now.


Sanctify the Wicked isn't just a [Good] spell on account of the effect of redeeming an evil creature. It's also because of the massive personal sacrifice required to cast it.
Corrupt spells require sacrifice too. Engaging in self-harm to cast a spell is not a unique feature to [Good] spells


If you feel that this process is the same thing as "harming" the soul, you have every right to feel that way.
But the Rules as Written don't run on feelings.
No, they run on your feelings, apparently.


BoVD discusses many spells with regards to purpose and intent, noting that you cannot always judge a spell based solely in its effect, but also on approach and execution. This is one of the few times where it explicitly states it is discussing variant rules, and specifically notes that when running a game this way, Trap the Soul should be be considered an [Evil] spell as well.
Make up your mind. Do you think spells getting an [evil] descriptor is deontologist or consequentialist?

Does a spell being [evil] depend on whether it does something "inherently" evil, such as, in your view, causing ability damage, or does the caster's intent somehow make a non[evil] spell [evil] or prevent an [evil] spell from being [evil]? You can't have it both ways.


Hm. Curious.
So after doing my research I noted that Stone Bones was also printed in Ghostwalk, and before that in Magic of Faerun. The description is the same throughout so apparently nothing was lost in translation.

I have no explanation for this.
Though I would suggest that declaring the entire book invalid on account of a single spell that was came from an entirely different book which was written a year before the Book of Vile Darkness, and also one that Monte Cook (the sole author of BoVD) had nothing to do with, is a little extreme.

Incidentally, despite the fact that there is no specific defintion for what constitutes "improving" undead, there are two other spells that I can find in the Spell Compendium that arguably meet this criteria:

The first is Undead Lieutenant, which allows the targeted intelligent undead to take over some of your control pool, and it is not tagged as [Evil]. And it's original source is also Magic of Faerun

The second is Vile Death, which gives the targeted undead the fiendish template. This one first appeared in Savage Species, which was printed four months after BoVD, and is tagged as [Evil].

Weird.
At last. You admit that there are many spells that do things on that bulleted list you're so enamored of that aren't tagged as [evil] and don't try to argue about how they're not really [evil] so they don't count.

Also, crushing despair used to be "emotion" in 3.0, and was published before bovd, so apparently it doesn't count, but stone bones's earliest version was published after bovd, so it doesn't count either. That's a neat trick. What counts?

Awesome strawman. Because my point this whole time has been that the entire bovd is invalid. No. What i and everyone else in this thread are vainly trying to educate you on is that bulleted list that you say is the definition of what is and is not an [evil] spell is demonstrably not raw.

Now do you admit that the list is not raw?


The text from BoVD about the evil descriptor? It's a clarification. It's explaining to you why spells that are [Evil] are tagged as evil. A spell that is tagged as evil does one of the things on that list, even if that fact is not made clear by the spell's description.

You said earlier you didn't see why claws of the savage is an evil spell because there doesn't seem to be anything evil about it just from the description. Well, because it is tagged as evil, it fulfills one of those criteria. Probably the one regarding channeling "evil energies". Probably because the spell is in a clerical domain associated with bestial savagery and wanton destruction, whose followers despise civilization and love to smash things.

Removed entirely from the context in which it appears, yeah, I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense that that spell would be evil.
Doesn't say anything about evil energies?
Probably channeling evil energies.

Flawless logic.


It definitely is, and BoED can make even an eager transhumanist shudder a bit in horror.

There's an idea that evils is extrinsic, so you can sever the evil from a person and retain the person as such.

That's apparently even true for things which are literally made from planes of conceptual evil, their evil-ness is extrinsic and can be permanently excised without any symptoms of brain damage.


The verbal component to Sanctify the Wicked has always been a Roger Waters lyric:

Transhumanism is cool. I will confess I don't see the connection between it and boed. could you elaborate?

Oh, so you were being sarcastic when you were saying you thought sanctify the wicked was good. Nice.

boed thinks of Evil as being shot with some kind of magic ray like on children's cartoons when the hero will get trapped in a machine that will "turn him evil" so you can just flip it on or off like they do at the end of the episode

[eggynack]

The text from BoVD about the evil descriptor? It's a clarification. It's explaining to you why spells that are [Evil] are tagged as evil. A spell that is tagged as evil does one of the things on that list, even if that fact is not made clear by the spell's description.

You said earlier you didn't see why claws of the savage is an evil spell because there doesn't seem to be anything evil about it just from the description. Well, because it is tagged as evil, it fulfills one of those criteria. Probably the one regarding channeling "evil energies". Probably because the spell is in a clerical domain associated with bestial savagery and wanton destruction, whose followers despise civilization and love to smash things.

Removed entirely from the context in which it appears, yeah, I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense that that spell would be evil.
Okay, so the claim is necessarily that this rule fundamentally alters the underlying nature of spells, the reading that I initially threw out for being ludicrous. I stand by it being ludicrous. We have just as much cause to say that the spell channels negative energy as we do to say that it harms souls, or that it involves drug use. It's completely arbitrary, and thus rather meaningless. The rule teaches us next to nothing about the functioning of these spells, particularly because the various items are so disparate in nature.

Moreover, even this incredibly broad and vague thing is not necessarily what the text tells us. The rule says that, if a spell has the evil descriptor, then it does one of the following things. Logically equivalent to this is that, if a spell does not do one of these things, then it does not have the evil descriptor. Thus, as we can identify none of these criteria within the text of the spell, a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that the spell is not [evil]. It is just as valid a conclusion as the spell randomly adding some hypothetical background flavor text.

Therefore, the if the rule has any function, then the following is that function. If a given spell with the [evil] descriptor does not meet any of this list of criteria, then at least one of the following is secretly true of the spell (shortened for space reasons, but assume that each thing is the whole version): It causes undue suffering, it calls upon evil gods, it does something with undead, it harms souls, it involves unsavory practices, or the spell is not actually [evil]. Because the spell itself necessarily lacks the text to support any of these things, any of these outcomes has equal likelihood.

Except, of course, the rule could only possibly function that way specifically in BoVD. As Ryu noted way back when, if the rule attempts to do any of those six things to any spell that is not exactly in this one book, then the spell will claim primacy and render the rule meaningless.

So, is this an accurate summary of what this rule does? If a BoVD [evil] spell does not have one of these qualities, then either one of these qualities will mysteriously be added behind the scenes, or the descriptor will be removed? Cause, gotta say, this isn't what you cited the rule to argue. Ryu was saying that pain causing spells aren't necessarily evil. This rule, even if we read it as permissively as possible, will never render a pain causing spell evil. Not even if that spell inflicts the most ridiculous and undue suffering that is feasibly possible.

[Nifft]

Transhumanism is cool. I will confess I don't see the connection between it and boed. could you elaborate? Sure, the idea that you can reshape a mind to remove undesirable aspects or implant desired traits is fundamentally transhumanist. The idea that you can use mental modification technology to impose virtue and thereby improve a subject's morality is not inherently objectionable, but when you're mucking about with minds you need to tread rather carefully, lest you become worse than what you'd intended to cure.

The BoED takes no such care.

The BoED's take on redemption reads more like a dark romance novel about Stockholm syndrome.


Oh, so you were being sarcastic when you were saying you thought sanctify the wicked was good. Nice. By definition it is good.

It's just that by that definition, good is rather horrific.


boed thinks of Evil as being shot with some kind of magic ray like on children's cartoons when the hero will get trapped in a machine that will "turn him evil" so you can just flip it on or off like they do at the end of the episode To be fair, though, we've had a Helm which does exactly that since oD&D.

BoED can't take the blame for that idea -- just for expanding upon it uncritically.

[Venger]

Sure, the idea that you can reshape a mind to remove undesirable aspects or implant desired traits is fundamentally transhumanist. The idea that you can use mental modification technology to impose virtue and thereby improve a subject's morality is not inherently objectionable, but when you're mucking about with minds you need to tread rather carefully, lest you become worse than what you'd intended to cure.
Oh, ok, so treating it like software, or like the luclidovo technique in "clockwork orange" or something. that makes sense.


The BoED takes no such care.

The BoED's take on redemption reads more like a dark romance novel about Stockholm syndrome.

By definition it is good.

It's just that by that definition, good is rather horrific.

To be fair, though, we've had a Helm which does exactly that since oD&D.

BoED can't take the blame for that idea -- just for expanding upon it uncritically.

That's a lot of romance novels.

Ah, ok. Whenever I'm in an alignment thread, I personally like to stick to:
[Good] = spell descriptor
Good = alignment
good = normal use of the word

so you agree sanctify the wicked is Good, and raw it's [Good] but it's obviously not good

you can see how I got a little mixed up upthread, even before taking sarcasm into the mix.

Well, sure we've had the helm, but you can just put it on, then fix it. it's not saying that your actual behavior and mind and stuff is like that based on your deeds like boed does. that's, at the very least, dumb, and more likely as you said, horrific.

[Doctor Awkward]

Okay, so the claim is necessarily that this rule fundamentally alters the underlying nature of spells, the reading that I initially threw out for being ludicrous. I stand by it being ludicrous. We have just as much cause to say that the spell channels negative energy as we do to say that it harms souls, or that it involves drug use. It's completely arbitrary, and thus rather meaningless. The rule teaches us next to nothing about the functioning of these spells, particularly because the various items are so disparate in nature.

Moreover, even this incredibly broad and vague thing is not necessarily what the text tells us. The rule says that, if a spell has the evil descriptor, then it does one of the following things. Logically equivalent to this is that, if a spell does not do one of these things, then it does not have the evil descriptor. Thus, as we can identify none of these criteria within the text of the spell, a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that the spell is not [evil]. It is just as valid a conclusion as the spell randomly adding some hypothetical background flavor text.

Therefore, the if the rule has any function, then the following is that function. If a given spell with the [evil] descriptor does not meet any of this list of criteria, then at least one of the following is secretly true of the spell (shortened for space reasons, but assume that each thing is the whole version): It causes undue suffering, it calls upon evil gods, it does something with undead, it harms souls, it involves unsavory practices, or the spell is not actually [evil]. Because the spell itself necessarily lacks the text to support any of these things, any of these outcomes has equal likelihood.

Except, of course, the rule could only possibly function that way specifically in BoVD. As Ryu noted way back when, if the rule attempts to do any of those six things to any spell that is not exactly in this one book, then the spell will claim primacy and render the rule meaningless.

So, is this an accurate summary of what this rule does? If a BoVD [evil] spell does not have one of these qualities, then either one of these qualities will mysteriously be added behind the scenes, or the descriptor will be removed? Cause, gotta say, this isn't what you cited the rule to argue. Ryu was saying that pain causing spells aren't necessarily evil. This rule, even if we read it as permissively as possible, will never render a pain causing spell evil. Not even if that spell inflicts the most ridiculous and undue suffering that is feasibly possible.


The only function an [Evil] spell has within the rules is being an evil act.
This only matters for alignment purposes.
And in the case of exalted characters, is grounds for losing exalted status.

That is the beginning and end of RAW on the matter of [Evil] spells.

[eggynack]

That is the beginning and end of RAW on the matter of [Evil] spells.
And yet, you are insisting on this BoVD text as acting as RAW on the matter of [evil] spells. So, unless you agree with me that the text has no function, you clearly don't think this thing you're saying right here.

[Nifft]

so you agree sanctify the wicked is Good, and raw it's [Good] but it's obviously not good

I can't say that.

The nature of ultimate, objective good is honestly pretty alien to me.

I can talk about my visceral reactions, my emotional objections, but maybe that's just the voice of a depressed man who refuses to take his meds.

Maybe invasive, compulsory re-education really is what's best for me, and for the world at large. But by hell I'm not going to that good ending quietly, nor would I expect my rebellion to be unusual.


I can't say the BoED is wrong.

I can say that it's repulsive.

[Venger]

I can't say that.

The nature of ultimate, objective good is honestly pretty alien to me.

I can talk about my visceral reactions, my emotional objections, but maybe that's just the voice of a depressed man who refuses to take his meds.

Maybe invasive, compulsory re-education really is what's best for me, and for the world at large. But by hell I'm not going to that good ending quietly, nor would I expect my rebellion to be unusual.


I can't say the BoED is wrong.

I can say that it's repulsive.

fair enough. I can certainly agree with that.

[Doctor Awkward]

And yet, you are insisting on this BoVD text as acting as RAW on the matter of [evil] spells. So, unless you agree with me that the text has no function, you clearly don't think this thing you're saying right here.

...
The text is a clarification on the nature of [Evil] spells.

Clarifications to rules are still rules.

[eggynack]

...
The text is a clarification on the nature of [Evil] spells.

Clarifications to rules are still rules.
You created a list of qualities of evil spells that you claimed was complete. Beginning and the end of what [evil] spells are. Nowhere on that list was, "Needs to have at least one of these qualities that are listed in the BoVD." Either this rule generates one of those qualities for spells that don't have one (or removes the [evil] tag), or it does literally, absolutely, 100%, nothing. If the former, then that massive post I wrote up on how absurd that is applies. If the latter, then who cares? The game would be identical without the text.

[Doctor Awkward]

You created a list of qualities of evil spells that you claimed was complete. Beginning and the end of what [evil] spells are. Nowhere on that list was, "Needs to have at least one of these qualities that are listed in the BoVD." Either this rule generates one of those qualities for spells that don't have one (or removes the [evil] tag), or it does literally, absolutely, 100%, nothing. If the former, then that massive post I wrote up on how absurd that is applies. If the latter, then who cares? The game would be identical without the text.

It's the middle one.

If a spell is tagged as [Evil], then it contains one of the qualities on the bulleted list. It contains this quality even if this is not made obvious by the spell description, because that's how evil spells function.

The problem with your massive post is this:

Logically equivalent to this is that, if a spell does not do one of these things, then it does not have the evil descriptor.

That's not equivalent at all. The logical equivalence would be, "If a spell contains none of these things, then it does not have the evil descriptor."

Furthermore, this clarification does not work in reverse. It doesn't retroactively assign the [Evil] tag to spells that might meet one or more the criteria, because causing similar effects does not automatically make a spell evil (just like having an effect that is nice, like neutralize poison or good hope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/goodHope.htm)*, doesn't automatically make a spell good). The [Evil] tag is for the worst of the worst; effects that literally cannot be used for any other practical purpose except to spread misery, pain, and undue suffering across the world.

*And just like the Book of Vile Darkness suggests variant rules to tag some PHB spells as [Evil], Book of Exalted Deeds suggests tagging this spell and shield other as [Good]. While it's not unreasonable to assume that, had BoVD been written around the 3.5 ruleset, Crushing Despair might have gotten similar treatment, speculating at author intent is not very helpful to a RAW discussion.

[eggynack]

If a spell is tagged as [Evil], then it contains one of the qualities on the bulleted list. It contains this quality even if this is not made obvious by the spell description, because that's how evil spells function.
Okay, so my arguments there were applicable, about how there's no basis for determining which quality gets added, rendering this rather useless as rules text.


That's not equivalent at all. The logical equivalence would be, "If a spell contains none of these things, then it does not have the evil descriptor."
The sentence that you have replaced my sentence with is the same sentence. The notion of a spell containing none of these things, and the notion of a spell not doing at least one of these things, are identical. I suppose I needed to toss an "at least" into that post, but I feel it was implied. Suffice to say, this thing you're saying here does not counter the idea that removing the [evil] tag is one of the many possibilities opened up by this rule.


Furthermore, this clarification does not work in reverse. It doesn't retroactively assign the [Evil] tag to spells that might meet one or more the criteria, because causing similar effects does not automatically make a spell evil (just like having an effect that is nice, like neutralize poison or good hope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/goodHope.htm)*, doesn't automatically make a spell good). The [Evil] tag is for the worst of the worst; effects that literally cannot be used for any other practical purpose except to spread misery, pain, and undue suffering across the world.
Never said it did. My argument does not rely on this idea to any extent, and, In fact, I have expressed the exact opposite idea a number of times.

[HighWater]

In reality, sure, running around and stabbing people is a chaotic thing. However, that's kinda just what the game is, to a large extent, and the game certainly doesn't think that everyone is chaotic. I don't think I particularly need to go through the effort of finding canonically lawful characters who enter into combat. They exist. The game expects even highly lawful characters to stab "monsters" sometimes, and most players would agree with that.

Moreover, the question here is one of means, not of overall action. You say that no one cares if you poison the outlaws, but that's simply not true. The argument of the game is that doing so is evil, and the claim I was arguing against was that doing so is generally chaotic. I disagree with these things.

I am on your side, man. :smallbiggrin: I was merely reinforcing your point by arguing that the arguments that poison is likely chaotic can just as easily be applied to the rest of the murderhobo-shtick that D&D characters generally have going. Yes, that flies directly in the face of how D&D tends to play, which makes alignment restrictions on poisons extra weird.

The claim being made is that even if your combat were wholly state sanctioned, legal by the narrowest possible definition, stabbing someone would still be chaotic.
Not quite true if the starting position is "It's wrong to stab people that are protected by the law, because it is wrong if I am stabbed while under protection by the law." Outlaws are suddenly fair game (and historical precedent is bountiful on how this is actually how law and even lawfulness works), while those who are under protection of the law are not. Then again, that flies for poisons just as well.

It highly depends on how the DM frames his story and the combats he orchestrates, whether the PC's have moral and/or lawful motivation for the behavior that D&D generally necessitates. Actually, now that I think about it, most of the opposition I field against my players this campaign turns out to fall into the evil & outlawed category, where meaningful distinction between law and chaos falls away and stabbing is always a legal option... In the encounters where this was not clearly the case, the players (and their characters) actually acted with restraint.

There is another component to the "Poison is Evil"-dogma that is surprisingly overlooked (unless I missed something). Declaring poison Evil in 3.5 takes away one of the few ways Martials can improve their options of doing something else than "just hp damage". And not all martials, no, PC-martials in particular while not necessarily restricting their opposition. (Yes, there is such a thing as the Evil Party vs the Good World, but it's far less common than the players being the "good guys".) As has been pointed out, there are plenty of spells that replicate poison's results and methods without being slapped Evil, so we could quite easily frame this subject in the "Martials can't have nice things"-trope.


Exactly, which is why I am going to rule that poison use (and drug use, for that matter) is not strictly evil because in this case the RAW is stupid.

Yes, the RAW is stupid, it happens more often than you would hope*. Glad you got your answer! :smallsmile:

* We have to cut the designers some slack, being completely logical, consistent, fair, balanced AND in line with fantasy tropes while also matching changing real world insights is not just hard, it's impossible.