Is poison use evil?

[Honest Tiefling]

I disagree, on the basis that I've never actually seen anyone take any side other than 'It's so obviously stupid that poison use is considered evil.'

I've seen players and DMs call posion evil. I agree with it being underhanded, but I could see situations where the poison is a underhanded but still good action.

Through I dislike the fact that assassins are evil, honestly. Maybe non-lawful, but that's probably another issue.

[ffone]

And completely defeats the whole fluff of needing training and skills and finesse and talent if the entry requirement is, knife the first person you see until they stop bleeding.

If an assassin is all about planning and contracted killings but the entry requirement is to be a brainless killbot... That's some serious disconnect and fluff fail.

No. The Evil alignment doesn't mean brainless killbot, nor does the 'must kill someone to join the assassins'.

In fact it's common in RL gangs for initiation to involve committing a crime whose profits go to the gang. It serves several anthropological purposes:

1. Complicity: now you can't rat on the gang to the cops, b/c they have dirt on you
2. Pyramid/ponzi (senior members profit from new members)
3. the usual 'job interview' reasons - measure your dedication, skill, loyalty, etc., Darwinian effect of people who are more likely to get caught being less likely to make it in in the first place

I see the Assassin req as a more upmarket case of this.

(I don't think Evil should be required for the class either - but the RP requirement does make sense for a hypothetical in-world organization of Assassins).

[Hirax]

That may very well be the implication. In fact, it rather justifies the alignment requirement as killing someone for such a petty reason is an eminently evil act in my books.

Remember, the class doesn't require you to be of a chaotic alignment. That doesn't make sense for lawful evil characters entering the class.

[Akal Saris]

Even if you go by the restrictive definition in the BoED Pg. 34-35, that still leaves a number of poisons that are probably acceptable for good-aligned characters to use.

I have a list in my handbook (below), though as with all things alignment-related, the list is subjective. I would allow Svakalor venom for a good-aligned character, for example, but perhaps the secondary ability damage is too evil for some DMs.

For my own 2C, I'll point out that the coatl deal ability damage, yet are exemplars of good. But compare this with over 100 evil monsters that deal ability damage, and that seems like a bit of a straw man.

For GOOD-aligned adventurers and crowd control: Sleep, paralysis, unconsciousness, and other non-lethal poisons listed by save DC
* DC 34: Svakalor Venom, Greater (Paralysis/1d6 Con) (Dungeonscape)
* DC 24: Svakalor Venom (Paralysis/4d6 Con) (Dungeonscape)
* DC 22: Eyeblast (Blindness) (C. Adv?)
* DC 20: Sssartisss (Paralysis 2d6 mins/Unconscious) (Serpent Kingdoms)
* DC 18: Scorcher Fumes (Lose the Scent ability) (A&EG)
* DC 17: Lizardfolk Sleep Poison (Contact, Unconsciousness 1d3 rounds/Unconsciousness 1d3 hours) (Serpent Kingdoms)
* DC 15: Oil of Taggit (0/Unconscious) (Core)
* DC 15: Good-bye Kiss (Exhaustion/Exhaustion, Fatigued on a successful save) (C. Scoundrel)
* DC 15: Sleep-Smoke (DC 15 Unconscious/Unconscious 1d3 mins) (Waterdeep, City of Splendors)
* DC 15: Coldrith Toxin (Paralysis/2d4 Con) (A&EG)
* DC 15: Retch (Nausea) (A&EG)
* DC 15: Wild Dwarf Knockout Poison (Slows for 5 rounds, then unconsciousness) (PGtF)
* DC 14: Homonculus venom (Sleep)
* DC 14: Pseudodragon venom (Sleep)
* DC 13: Carrion Crawler Brain Juice (Paralysis) (A&EG)
* DC 13: Sleeping Weed (Slowed/1d4 Dex) (A&EG)
* DC 13: Drow Poison (Unconsciousness/Unconsciousness) (Core)
* DC 12: Roach paste (Nausea for 1 round/Filth Fever)
* DC 12: Brain Dust (Confusion) (A&EG)
* DC 12: Darkeye (Paralysis 1 min, ingested) (Sharn, City of Towers)
* DC 11: Lockjaw (Can't speak) (A&EG)

[holywhippet]

It's up to you and your DM.

In my opinion, there is nothing evil about poison in the same way that there is nothing evil about a sword.

Not exactly the same thing. If someone wields a sword against you then you have the options of surrender, running away or fighting back using your own skill. If someone has used poison on you then it's too late for any such options.

[Themrys]

Should poison use be considered evil?

Ask yourself: If a child is abused constantly, and, one day, poisons the abuser...is this evil? Should the child have, instead, waited to grow up, taken fighting lessons and dueled the abuser?

In my view, poisoning the drink of someone who should have seen it coming is neither evil nor unhonourable if done by someone who doesn't have the means to fight "fair". If killing is okay, killing with poison is, too.
(Besides, some poisons don't cause more pain than some other methods of killing)

[Coidzor]

No. The Evil alignment doesn't mean brainless killbot, nor does the 'must kill someone to join the assassins'.

I apologize if my meaning was not clear. I was not talking about the Evil alignment. I was talking about that kind of strict(in my mind, insanely so) reading of the requirement "kill someone to join the assassins."

Which are quite different from a street gang in terms of how they're sold in fantasy fluff, generally speaking.

If the assassin requirement were an upmarket version of the street gang example you gave, then the prospective assassin would need to actually select a mark & plan out a hit. But if he uses any criteria for selecting a target to and actually plans an assassination of said person, then he violates the PrC requirements by the reading that Psyren gave.

Since it's impossible for an actor, rational or otherwise, to be truly random and it's impossible to use no criteria and remain an actor, the closest example I could think of to illustrate what kind of limitations this imposed when taken to the logical conclusion was that of a mindless, brainless killbot. Possibly with a pre-set kill limit. So that one could send wave after wave of one's men to be killed by them until they reached that limit and shut down...

edit:

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

If you read this strictly, then you're not allowed to use any selection criteria to choose your target. Or even kill a given target because the assassins told you to kill them in order to join them.

[Callista]

It's possible to go by RAW and say poison use is evil, but if you do, you end up with contradictions, so many of us houserule it as having no intrinsic association with alignment.

The main issues:

Poison isn't necessarily painful and can't be described as equivalent to torture.
Poison causes ability damage, and this is supposed to be painful. But ability damage from other sources isn't intrinsically evil, and there are some pretty painful attacks (Burning Hands, anyone?) which are not considered Evil. And non-painful substances, such as anesthetics (mental stat damage), paralytics (Dexterity or Strength damage), and alcohol, are also statted out as poisons.
Poison can be used to torture, but that doesn't make the poison evil; it makes the torture evil. Specifically designing or using a poison for its painful effects is probably evil.

Unlike diseases, poisons don't spread.
You can poison your enemy and not worry about contagion. So making poison equivalent to disease is not valid. (Using diseases usually is evil, because these do spread to people who don't deserve them. Even diseases which target only Evil-aligned people are borderline because not all Evil-aligned people deserve death.)

D&D poisons cannot easily be compared to a real-world equivalent.
In other words, it's not the same thing as attacking with, say, chlorine gas or something of that sort. Most poisons don't cause death, and those which do will cause death swiftly or else allow a full recovery. If you can in good conscience kill someone with a sword, killing him with poison is equivalent. Using inhaled fatal poison in an area populated by noncombatants can be considered evil--but nonfatal poison could even be used for riot control, and be much better than having the town guard go after the mob.

Poison is sneaky and dishonorable.
Often, yes, especially if used against someone who expects a fair fight or a duel, or if slipped into someone's food assassin-style. But that's Chaotic, not Evil. Sneakiness can be used for Good purposes, too. I think this is yet another example of people confusing Law with Good.

Poison can be used to capture someone alive.
Very useful for lawmen and such, and makes it possible to show mercy in some cases, and to restrain prisoners without repeatedly bashing them over the head. Poison use doesn't even have to be chaotic in this case.

All of this contradicts the PHB alignment definitions, so the only conclusion I can draw is that poison-as-evil is probably a tradition that comes from older editions and hasn't been seriously looked at since. It doesn't help that in real life, killing by poison has been traditionally used only by people committing murder and people using chemical weapons that more often than not are extremely painful, cause permanent damage, and affect civilians. But D&D poisons don't actually work like that, and the idea that they're evil doesn't fit into the alignment system. It's much easier to just houserule that poison isn't intrinsically evil than it is to arbitrarily add poisons to the list of evil stuff.

[JonestheSpy]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning;

Okay, it's like this: Poison is regarded as evil in the game because it was regarded as evil in real life. Historically, most combat did not end in death. People would fight until they ran away, until they surrendered, etc - whether you're talking big battles or personal duels. Granted, being wounded would often end in death because of infections, but that was later down the line and not seen as the direct fault of the guy who stabbed you. Also, combat was often seen as a case of "The better man wins" - the whole 'trial by combat' thing, with the victor being regarded as te one with Right on their side.

Poison messes all that up. Even a little scratch can mean death - no chance to fight til someone is disarmed or whatever. To put poison on your weapon means intent to murder, with no other option. AND it's cheating.

So that's real life. But in 3.x DnD, everything is actually completely reversed. In the game, almost all combat is to the death, by whatever means necessary, so the idea that poison is somehow more evil than fireballs or power attacking with your greatsword is just stupid.

In fact, one can make a very convincing argument that using poison can be a GOOD act. Aside from CON poison, none of them are lethal, and can all be recovered from eventually (except for a few of the weird ones). That means poison is one of the best ways to incapacitate foes without killing them. It's the perfect weapon for the superhero type vigilante who fights bad guys to bring them to justice without simply slaughtering them.

[Coidzor]

In fact, one can make a very convincing argument that using poison can be a GOOD act. Aside from CON poison, none of them are lethal, and can all be recovered from eventually (except for a few of the weird ones). That means poison is one of the best ways to incapacitate foes without killing them. It's the perfect weapon for the superhero type vigilante who fights bad guys to bring them to justice without simply slaughtering them.

Indeed, one of my favorite ideas related to this is to be deliciously cruel and evil in the most good way possible by taking BBEGs & the upper echelons of their posses alive & forcing them into a fate worse than death by taking their free will away and making them unable to act in an evil way and instead having to do good acts or even just Sanctifying the Wicked them once it becomes affordable.

[TheCountAlucard]

Personally, I'd say it isn't so much evil as dishonourable, by preventing a fair fight. When someone faces you sword to sword, they can reasonably know what to expect. If your sword is poisoned however, they can't know it just by looking, so it inherently makes the fight less fair.

By this logic, then, poison is no more evil than being higher-level than your opponent; generally they can't just tell by lookin' that your Base Attack Bonus is seven higher than theirs any more than they can tell that your weapon's coated in arsenic.

Not exactly the same thing. If someone wields a sword against you then you have the options of surrender, running away or fighting back using your own skill. If someone has used poison on you then it's too late for any such options.

Not true; for one thing, most poisons don't kill on their own (after all, a poison only directly kills you if it drops your Constitution to 0), and secondly, generally a poison only damages your ability to fight; even the best ones only have a good chance of taking the option of a fight away entirely.

My opinion clearly lies somewhere along the lines of what JonestheSpy and Callista said.

[Hirax]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning;

They don't use logic, they're taking tropes and turning them into rules.

[Ravens_cry]

Remember, the class doesn't require you to be of a chaotic alignment. That doesn't make sense for lawful evil characters entering the class.

A single act does not change ones alignment unless it is extremely so. Killing someone just to join an organization may be moderately Chaotic, but it is eminently evil.

[Bhaakon]

By this logic, then, poison is no more evil than being higher-level than your opponent; generally they can't just tell by lookin' that your Base Attack Bonus is seven higher than theirs any more than they can tell that your weapon's coated in arsenic.

It isn't. If poison is evil because it's sneaky, difficult to defend against, and provides an unfair advantage, then every casting class is evil as well. Use of poison carries a stigma which may have reputation repercussions in-game, but it's shouldn't have any more impact on a character's objective (for lack of a better word) alignment than using a beneficial magic item or beating up on low-level mooks.

[Talakeal]

Ask yourself: If a child is abused constantly, and, one day, poisons the abuser...is this evil? Should the child have, instead, waited to grow up, taken fighting lessons and dueled the abuser?

In my view, poisoning the drink of someone who should have seen it coming is neither evil nor unhonourable if done by someone who doesn't have the means to fight "fair". If killing is okay, killing with poison is, too.
(Besides, some poisons don't cause more pain than some other methods of killing)

I have heard a lot of arguments that the whole concept of honor is basically ensuring that people stick to fighting other members of their own social class, and thus if someone doesn't have the means to fight fair than they, by the rules of honor, don't deserve to win.


I have also heard an interview with Gygax where he was asked why he originally made poison evil. He said it was simply because killing an enemy was neither heroic nor fun in your standard sword and sorcery game, and he wanted to make it clear that it was not a tactic that the PCs should use.


As for assassins, I always have read it as they assign you your first job, but instead of paying you, you are rewarded with full membership. It proves that you are serious about wanting to join them and have the stomach and the skill for the job, as well as making you an accessory to their crimes before they share any secrets with you. You most certainly do not get to pick your own mark, not by alignment or by a d100 role. But, that's just my interpretation, it is a rather vague rule.

[Hirax]

A single act does not change ones alignment unless it is extremely so. Killing someone just to join an organization may be moderately Chaotic, but it is eminently evil.

LE characters aren't going to necessarily agree to kill randoms though. Assassins can refuse contracts, remember, and not all assassins guilds are the same. You're imposing a moral dilemma on someone in a situation where it isn't needed and doesn't make sense to do so.

[SuperFerret]

Poison use is neutral. It depends on what it's used for. Is a viper evil because it uses its venom in defense and to hunt? No. It's neutral.

[Talakeal]

Poison use is neutral. It depends on what it's used for. Is a viper evil because it uses its venom in defense and to hunt? No. It's neutral.

The animal type makes vipers exempt from rules concerning morality, they are always neutral regardless of their motives or actions by virtue of being an animal. Coatls on the other hand...

[Runestar]

I can never understand WOTC's reasoning; taking RAW as a whole is like grabbing a book filled with fortune cookie sayings and basing your life off of them.

Heehee, consider this sigged.

[horngeek]

Because everyone knows Assassins are Lawful Badass.

That man is the ultimate argument for the use of poisons by Good characters, and the fact that Assassins can be Good.

That said, I'd consider him Neutral or Chaotic Good. Probably the latter.

[Lord_Gareth]

You know what, I was going to weigh in, but the community has already covered this admirably, so I will only say this for those that don't want to read the whole thread:

TL;DR - WotC's fluff-writing department for 3.5 was run by drugged-up monkeys, do whatever for your games at home.

[Morquard]

And completely defeats the whole fluff of needing training and skills and finesse and talent if the entry requirement is, knife the first person you see until they stop bleeding.

If an assassin is all about planning and contracted killings but the entry requirement is to be a brainless killbot... That's some serious disconnect and fluff fail.

I always viewed this as going down like this:

Assassin:"So, you want to join our esteemed brotherhood? Well to show your talent and dedication to our cause, go and kill this man"
*assassin recruiter hands you a picture*
Player: "Who is he? Has he done anything? Is he a child-abusing, wife-beating psychopath?"
Assassin: "Who knows. Maybe he's a loving family father, and will be terribly missed. But I told you to kill him, so you either do it or not"

Basicly, you kill him for no reason other than because you've been told. If he deserves to die, or not, is simply not a decission an assassin makes. They get paid, and thats all the reason they need.

Simply going out in the street and shanking a random beggar is not what being an assassin is about.

[The Big Dice]

I have also heard an interview with Gygax where he was asked why he originally made poison evil. He said it was simply because killing an enemy was neither heroic nor fun in your standard sword and sorcery game, and he wanted to make it clear that it was not a tactic that the PCs should use.

He decided poison was Evil because he made up a bunch of crazy powerful poisons for some particularly nasty types in his game. Then the PCs realised how effective the poisons were and started using them on everything.

As for assassins, I always have read it as they assign you your first job, but instead of paying you, you are rewarded with full membership. It proves that you are serious about wanting to join them and have the stomach and the skill for the job, as well as making you an accessory to their crimes before they share any secrets with you. You most certainly do not get to pick your own mark, not by alignment or by a d100 role. But, that's just my interpretation, it is a rather vague rule.

That's more or less what I thought. And then a player took the Oblivion route of killing some insignificant individual rather than try to find the Assassins by more conventional means. And so was born an organisation inspired by the Dark Brotherhood.

[Serpentine]

Like most people here, I say no - with the possible exception of poisons that explicitly cause intense pain or permanent physical deformities. But that shares a very blurry line with the "it's how you use it that determines its alignment" angle.
I can see the "it's dishonourable" angle, but I also see it as the weapon of the weak, of women (noncombatant, that is) and children.

[Lateral]

Well, the rules imply that WotC thought so, but my personal opinion is that WotC is stupid. Nyah. What's so inherently bad about poison? Hell, the more fast-acting poisons are probably less cruel than beating somebody with a stick until they die.

[Feytalist]

Oh my, is it Morality Monday already? I love these discussions, because no-one ever wins.

My momma always said, poison is as poison does. Does it kill things (or facilitate killing, I suppose I should add)? Well, that's about as evil as stabbing someone in the spleen. And in D&D, that's pretty much accepted as a day in the life. Does it intentionally cause suffering without any other motive? Actually, I don't think there are any poisons that do this... are there?

Would a paladin use poison? Probably not, unless he wants to fall fast and far. Would an amoral rogue use poison? Probably, because I mean, from his viewpoint, who cares, right?

My point? I'm not quite certain, to be honest. The kind of people who routinely go around poisoning everyone are not the kind of people who would care about the morality of it all, I imagine.

[Serpentine]

Does it intentionally cause suffering without any other motive? Actually, I don't think there are any poisons that do this... are there?

There are a few whose fluff says they cause intense pain and one or two that cause physical disfigurement, but most of them are limited just to their mechanical effects.

[Feytalist]

There are a few whose fluff says they cause intense pain and one or two that cause physical disfigurement, but most of them are limited just to their mechanical effects.

Which usually boils down to Str/Dex/Con drain, lowered will saves or the like. Stuff that facilitates easier killing.

Although I suppose you could use it outside of combat, and just go "hur hur that guy is in agony hurr" but then, question answered as to your relative morality anyway.

Same with if your character routinely chooses the more horrific poisons over the relatively (fluffy-wise) harmless ones that have the same effect.

[Glarx]

In reference to ravages v. poisons,

Could it be that ravages, only affecting those with the Evil alignment or subtype, are considered Good by merit of bringing suffering only to the wicked, while poisons affect indiscriminately?

And then, here's something else: if it's the general consensus that poisons aren't Evil, then are drugs Evil, as described in the Book of Vile Darkness?

Finally, it seems strange to say that a sword and poison are synonymous in terms of morality because -- and yes, I'm going to ignore the mechanical effect of 'but it only deals ability damage and cannot technically kill you' -- you cannot slip a sword into your enemy's Cure Serious Wounds potion.

But as I play strictly Evil characters, I like to keep assassins and poisons where they belong.

[Psyren]

If you use any criteria for selecting someone to kill for the PrC, you've failed the stipulations that there can be no other reason besides "join the assassins," by that logic

Exactly. You're not supposed to care who you kill, therefore criteria are meaningless.

Think about it. You're an assassin - a living weapon. Your employers send you a picture, and you don't ask questions, you get out there and do it. That's what they want from you, none of this nonsensical "free will" and "thinking it over."


Here's another way to think of it:
If you kill them because they're corrupt, evil etc. then there are exactly two scenarios behind it. Either you think:
1) They are so evil and badwrong that they deserve death - in which case, that is why you are killing them, and you have failed the "no other reason" litmus; or,
2) They are NOT evil enough to deserve death - in which case, you've just committed cold-blooded murder rather than an execution.

Either way, you are now evil, and kpenguin is right. There is no daylight between these two.