Poison...what's the deal...?

[Burrito]

Why do you have to be "evil" to use the really good stuff? Why is deadly poison evil? You can't stab someone with a knife that is coated in poison...but you can stab someone with a sword that does X d whatever in fire/acid/cold/etc damage? What the frick? I have always had a problem with this, I just never really fought it with DM. Seriously, considering the cost of everything else, a really good poison can really even out the playing field for lower level characters. It doesn't have to be deadly, constantly trying to vomit due to poison will compleatly incapacitate someone in battle. Anyway, just thought I would throw this out and see what others do.

[JellyPooga]

I dislike the Poison rules full-stop. I mean, one immediate effect and another exactly 1 minute later...and that's it. Uh, what? How many poisons do that? How many poisons have any effect at all within a single minute?

I totally agree with your sentiment about the whole alignment thing (though Ninjas get Poison Use and don't have to be evil)...what makes Poison any more Evil than a Sword (let alone a magical flaming sword)? Surely it's how you use a tool that has any moral implications...a 'poison' that knocks the 'victim' unconscious could just as easily be used in surgery as it could in combat...how is it Evil in that circumstance? According to the rules, surgeons either have to be Evil (or Ninjas) to not risk knocking themselves unconscious when doping a patient.

No, the Poison rules (like the trap-crafting rules), including the general inclination the game has towards using it being Evil, are something that I am working on discarding and replacing with something that actually represents what it's supposed to be.

[Counterpower]

I don't think that poison is inherently evil, just dishonorable. I have no problems with my players using it, and I'm not going to knock them to an Evil alignment for it. I wouldn't allow a paladin character to use it without falling, but I don't have any right now, so no problem. I think most of the Evil inclination that poison seems to have (note the "seems to", can anyone post core rules that suggest that it's evil?) stems solely from the fact that Paladins are barred from poison due to its dishonorable nature, and Paladins are the paragons of justice. In other words, I'm not really sure that the rules have any real preference on poison use's alignment connotations. Basically, in answer to your question, I say, "What makes you think the rules imply that deadly poison is evil?"

As for the mechanical aspects, I'm ambivalent. Really, I don't want to try to change them, and it's not like they're completely unworkable.

[JellyPooga]

"What makes you think the rules imply that deadly poison is evil?"

1)Paladins can't use it
2)Blackguards and Asassins get 'Poison Use' as class abilities (both require Evil alignment)

edit: as far as Core stuff goes anyway

[de-trick]

there is a feat forget the name and book but lets you use poison without a chance of poisoning yourself

[Bassetking]

I dislike the Poison rules full-stop. I mean, one immediate effect and another exactly 1 minute later...and that's it. Uh, what? How many poisons do that? How many poisons have any effect at all within a single minute?

I totally agree with your sentiment about the whole alignment thing (though Ninjas get Poison Use and don't have to be evil)...what makes Poison any more Evil than a Sword (let alone a magical flaming sword)? Surely it's how you use a tool that has any moral implications...a 'poison' that knocks the 'victim' unconscious could just as easily be used in surgery as it could in combat...how is it Evil in that circumstance? According to the rules, surgeons either have to be Evil (or Ninjas) to not risk knocking themselves unconscious when doping a patient.

No, the Poison rules (like the trap-crafting rules), including the general inclination the game has towards using it being Evil, are something that I am working on discarding and replacing with something that actually represents what it's supposed to be.

Surgeon AND a Ninja

[Counterpower]

1)Paladins can't use it

That actually doesn't indicate that poison use is evil. I did address this in my first post, actually. Is everything that Paladins are prohibited from doing Evil? Obviously not. Paladins are prohibited from using poison because it's dishonorable, not because it's evil.

2)Blackguards and Asassins get 'Poison Use' as class abilities (both require Evil alignment)

edit: as far as Core stuff goes anyway

That doesn't imply a relationship. So those classes get posion use...... so what? They like using poison. That doesn't mean it's an evil act. Oh, and you can dip outside of core if you'd prefer.

Really, what I'm saying is there's an underlying assumption to your questions that needs to be examined. You're assuming that the rules call deadly poison evil, but I'm pretty sure they do nothing of the sort. Rogues get special abilities, right? What if one of those abilities was poison use? It would make sense, for a freaking rogue to be able to use poison proficiently.

[JellyPooga]

I'm not saying that the rules explicitly call the use of Poison evil, I'm just saying that they imply that it is through those that they permit to use it without risk of harming themselves (i.e. those that train to use it). If you go outside of core, Ninja gets poison use and that's the only class/PrC that does that doesn't have a requirement of being Evil (that I know of anyway).

I'd be quite happy for Rogues to get Poison Use myself...but they don't. The implication is that only Evil Assassins use poison...which is another thing I dislike about D&D's approach to alignment...Assassins have to be Evil...but that's a different argument.

[Dervag]

There is a cultural consensus in most societies that poisoning people is wrong on a level that stabbing them is not. Now, I'm not saying that's a correct consensus, but let's look at the reasons why it exists rather than just saying it sucks.

Most poisons work by making the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat into weapons against you. They are very difficult to detect, and they can very easily kill someone other than their intended target.

Moreover, everyone needs to breathe, drink, and eat. There's no escaping it. Which means that everyone is vulnerable to poison. There's a mutually assured destruction aspect to the stuff, because I can't really stop other people from poisoning me any more than they can stop me from poisoning them.

The thought that your air, water, and food might be hostile and lethal agents that will kill you is very frightening. Look at all the food poisoning scares, let alone the panics that rumors of terrorists armed with chemical weapons can cause. Nobody wants to live in a world where air, water, and food cannot be trusted.

Hence, most people are reluctant to use or tolerate the use of poison. It undermines a sort of social contract that stabbing people does not.

Thus, while it may not be an evil act to use poison in and of itself, using poison against intelligent beings is most likely to be done by people who care more about personal convenience than about the social contract. In other words, people who are evil.

Now, I would argue that using a harmless, pseudo-toxic material (like anesthetics) is not an evil act because it isn't really a 'poison' in the sense that I use the word above. And using poison against unintelligent beings such as crocodiles or termites is not an evil act because intelligent beings cannot have a social contract with unintelligent beings.

But wherever some sort of social contract can apply, that contract tends to make attacking the air, water, and food of one's enemies off limits.

[AtomicKitKat]

BoVD went into this, I think. Poisons are "evil" in the same way that some Necromancy spells are "evil". Ability Drain/Damage don't kill your enemies(which would be "merciful", if they couldn't be rehabilitated), but inconvenience them, cripple them, etc.

[TheOOB]

Poison is a painful, nasty way to go, and it's considered very unfair, but it's not evil, nor does the rules even hint at it being evil.

Paladins can't use it for they same reason they can't lie, they have an anal code of conduct that has nothing to do with their alignment.

Assassins get the ability because it's useful to them. They are evil because they kill people for money.

Blackguards get the ability because paladins cant use it at all. They are evil because thats literally their job description.

[Fishies]

I wouldn't allow a paladin character to use it without falling

DM: The tavern has a rat problem they need you to take care of.
Paladin's Player: Let's put out rat poison!
DM: You fall.

[Serenity]

BoVD went into this, I think. Poisons are "evil" in the same way that some Necromancy spells are "evil". Ability Drain/Damage don't kill your enemies(which would be "merciful", if they couldn't be rehabilitated), but inconvenience them, cripple them, etc.

Now that's just total BS. Killing is good, subduing is evil? How in the world does that work?

You're up against a much stronger opponent, but you can count on getting a stab or two in. Normally, you'd be in trouble, but by applying the juice of a certain herb to your blade, that stab can cause them to falter and slow, or even knock them out. You level the playing field, or even perhaps have the chance to tie them up and cart them to prison alive. And this is evil, while cleaving skulls in twain with a +3 Icy Burst Battleaxe gets a free pass as long as they're goblin skulls?

[13_CBS]

Alternatively, one can consult the Book of Exalted Deeds for Ravages, which are basically "good" poisons that only work on evildoers.

[skywalker]

BoED actually specifically states(in the "ravages and afflictions" section) that using poison that causes ability drain is an evil act, because it causes undue suffering in killing or incapacitating the target.

There is nothing specifically in core about poison use being evil, and I agree, it's not particularly evil, but it's definitely non-good in most situations. It depends on the type and use of poison. You're certainly capable of doing good acts and having a good alignment while using poison(or traps, for that matter), but it's a more nuanced and complicated character than most D&D players are willing to play.

Batman does some rather "evil" things in the sake of good.

[AtomicKitKat]

Personally, I'd just drop the "evil" tag in the case of poisons that instantly kill/knock unconscious without ability loss in between. Since they don't "suffer" between being stabbed and being knocked out/dead(beyond the initial loss of HP, if any. Or inhaled), it should not be "evil".

[TigerHunter]

I would have thought that poison was more chaotic (read: dishonorable) than evil. It's a sneaky way of making sure that you win--even if your opponent kills you, they still get poisoned later, possibly killing you.
That's my interpretation on why paladins can't use it, anyways.

[Kyace]

A magical +1 sleep arrow costs 132 gp and when hit, forces the target to make a DC 11 will save or fall asleep.

An arrow with drow poison costs 75 gp and when hit, forces the target to make a DC 13 fort save or fall asleep.

:/

[Xefas]

I would have thought that poison was more chaotic (read: dishonorable) than evil. It's a sneaky way of making sure that you win--even if your opponent kills you, they still get poisoned later, possibly killing you.
That's my interpretation on why paladins can't use it, anyways.

I agree with this guy, and its how I'm running it on my tabletop game at the moment. Poison is illegal to craft, sell, buy, or use in any civilized society except in extreme circumstances (the equivalent of the SWAT team chucking in tear gas). But, that just makes it inherently chaotic, and not inherently evil, though there are, of course, evil uses for it.

The idea that just because an evil classes is proficient in it makes poison evil is...well...flawed. It'd be like saying punching people in the kidneys is inherently good because Slayers of Domiel get Sneak Attack.

[TheOOB]

Unless you are a paladin it doesn't matter if poisons are good or evil. Just because a fighter coats his weapon in black adder venom doesn't mean his alignment changes.

[Turcano]

BoED actually specifically states(in the "ravages and afflictions" section) that using poison that causes ability drain is an evil act, because it causes undue suffering in killing or incapacitating the target.

...As opposed to poking him with sharp bits of metal, which I hear is a quite pleasant way to go.

The "evilness" of poison, as far as I can tell, was basically grandfathered in from 2nd Edition, where, IIRC, it pretty much caused instant death. It makes no sense in the context of 3rd Edition rules, so it's best to just throw it out.

[Hunter Noventa]

Funny that this shoud come up, as I've been playing a character that uses poisons quite a bit and is neither good nor evil.

Basically for one, we came up with a feat that duplicated the Poison Use ability, and two I've barely had a chance to use any because even with Craft: Poisonmaking, it's very expensive to make.

But in my opinion, poisons aren't evil, it's how you use them. Just like how a sword or gun isn't evil (unless it's Unholy), it's all about how you use it.

[Callix]

The BoED stuff on poisons is just screwy. Stabbing the guy in the kidneys and letting him bleed to death won't cost you your Exalted feats, but slipping something in his tea to soften him up for Dominate Person will? I'm talking 1d3 Wis here. Nothing lethal, just a bit fuzzy-headed for a few days, and Dominate Person lets you interrogate the BBEG, dismantle his network, then let him go a few days later, completely unharmed. At which point you inform the local guard. Much less harm done than butchering him and all his cronies, but this path is "evil"?

IMO, poisons are evil because no hero ever uses poison, or at least none the developers knew about. It wasn't the sort of thing they wanted PCs to do, so they made it Evil. With a capital E.

[AtomicKitKat]

If you're resorting to Dominate Person, you're probably already on the path to Evil(PfE will block you from exercising control via DP).

And Sneak Attack isn't always about "stabbing the kidneys". It could just be a solid crack across the back of the skull(remember, in fantasy, nobody ever goes into a coma from a "light tap across the skull", nor suffers concussion, etc.), the classic "gut punch" to the solar plexus to short-circuit their bladder control, etc.

[Kurald Galain]

What's even stupider is that if you coat a blade with poison, you have a chance of accidentally stabbing yourself with said blade, thus poisoning yourself. Although assassins are immune to this. That is, like, totally ridiculous.

[Borogove]

What's even stupider is that if you coat a blade with poison, you have a chance of accidentally stabbing yourself with said blade, thus poisoning yourself. Although assassins are immune to this. That is, like, totally ridiculous.

Actually, that makes a certain amount of sense. You're only going to put either contact or injury poison on a blade, so, at the worst you have to nick yourself with the blade and you're poisoned. That doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility for someone untrained in the application of poison to weapons. With a contact poison, you don't even have to draw blood. So, not that impossible.

[KIDS]

I never linked poison to evil, though I'd forbid Paladins from using it (because it is dishonorable and etc.). But evil, no way. The fact that assassins get poison use and they're evil shouldn't mean anything - you can be a LG Ninja and use it just the same, and even as a move action!

Ravages and afflictions, while a nice conept, are in my mind just a hypocrisy - an attempt for the WotC to run away from its foolishly instituted "poison = evil" feel.

[OzymandiasVolt]

Indeed. Arguably ravages and afflictions cause just as much 'undue suffering' as poisons. Did you see that beholder? He didn't exactly look calm and relaxed.

[The_Werebear]

If you're resorting to Dominate Person, you're probably already on the path to Evil(PfE will block you from exercising control via DP).

PFE just blocks any mental effect. Protection from Good would do the same thing to Dominate Person.

[Swooper]

Consider this:
A paladin of Heironeous coats his sword with deadly poison, in preperation for combat against the minions of evil. Not having read the small print in his contract, he didn't realize this was wrong, but knows better now that he is stripped of his powers by his deity.

Meanwhile, his LG Cleric of Heironeous buddy happily uses the Poison spell to kill the same minions of evil, and up in the Seven Heavens Heironeous cheers.

Meh.