Is poison use evil?

[NineThePuma]

Is someone (say, a thief/rogue) who kills competitors more or less evil than the lich/ur priest who wants to destroy reality?

[The Random NPC]

Hard to say, is the thief limited by ability or desire? If ability, probably equal in evil. If desire, then probably less evil. There are those who would argue that since they both murder, they are equally evil regardless of the amount of murders involved. Others would say the lich is more evil because it kills so much more. Neither would be wrong, because it is a moral quandary that has no clear cut answer.

[Archwizard]

Lawful the alignment doesn't necessarily equate to following society's laws. While a Lawful Good person will likely follow the laws, they don't have to, especially if the laws contridict their own code of conduct. Contrariwise, a Lawful Good person might follow all laws even if it goes against their code.

In either case, Lawful means caring about those laws. Whether or not to obey is an important decision. Chaotic alignment wouldn't care.

{Scrubbed}

[Talakeal]

I wonder if all alignments have and "active" and "passive" state... perhaps adding them may help defray the alignment arugements? I don't quite see how Good and Evil might have them though.

I touched on this in last week's alignment thread. Basically a person who sacrifices to help others is more actively good than someone who merely helps others when it is convenient or doesn't cost them anything. Likewise someone who kills out of sadism is more actively evil than one who simply has no inhibitions about killing those who get in their way.

[The Big Dice]

Two points, if you accept that being dishonourable is simply not being honourable, then while one would have an Alignment, the other would not. Similar to nothing really being cold, just less hot than other things.
Second point, choosing to be honourable is choosing to handicap yourself. Wars would be a lot easier if we didn't have to worry about the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement.

If you accept that choosing and not choosing are the same thing, then by choosing to use poison and choosing not to use poison are the same.

The problem is, it's not a simple as choose not to use poison or use poison. Even though on the surface that's exactly the choice. It's a choice between actively choosing honourable behaviour, passively choosing behaviour that can be seen as honourable, even if it's not motivated by such concerns. Or actively choosing dishonourable actions.

So really, the issue is between not choosing to use poison and choosing to use poison. It's passive inaction versus active choice. And the choice to use poison has to be a cold one. Because first you have to obtain it, then you have to decide when it's time to apply it to your weapon of choice and then you have to use it. It's all rational and premeditated.

In other words, being dishonourable is not simply not being honourable. It's choosing to be dishonourable.

[Lord_Gareth]

Not, it isn't Dice. Being dishonorable is as simple as not caring about honor.

Is there any difference between poisoning your weapon and using the vorpal enhancement? How about the envervate or finger of death spells? Death touch domain power? Hold person followed up by a coup de grace? Sneak attack? Death attack? Party ambushes a dragon from the covers of silence and invisibility sphere?

No, there isn't. None of those behaviors are actively honorable. But unless you want to be the one to argue that they're all [Chaotic], then they aren't that either. They're alignment nuetral.

[The Big Dice]

Not, it isn't Dice. Being dishonorable is as simple as not caring about honor.

To be dishonourable, you have to care about not being honourable. You have to make several descisions that end with you holding a poisoned weapon, something good for a single blow against a single enemy.

In other words, you have to actively decide that you need an edge for just this one moment. You want to cheat. You want to do something that you would complain about if an enemy that didn't ping on the Paladin's evil-dar did it to your character.

Is there any difference between poisoning your weapon and using the vorpal enhancement? How about the envervate or finger of death spells? Death touch domain power? Hold person followed up by a coup de grace? Sneak attack? Death attack? Party ambushes a dragon from the covers of silence and invisibility sphere?

No, there isn't. None of those behaviors are actively honorable. But unless you want to be the one to argue that they're all [Chaotic], then they aren't that either. They're alignment nuetral.

So a bunch of necromancy effects, a weapon enhancement of dubious utility, murdering a helpless opponent and a dragon stupid enough to be caught napping?

And you're arguing that all this is honourable?

Exactly how is it honourable to claim an unfair advantage? How is it honourable to not give your enemy a fighting chance?

Face your enemy. Give him a chance to fight and die on his feet with his weapon in hand. Don't toy with your enemy. Don't fight those who aren't able to fight back. Respect those who deserve it and don't use your strength to oppress those weaker than you in combat.

That's honourable.

Sneaking around, hiding, bushwhacking, poisoning. All these and more are the actions of the weak and cowardly. And worse, trying to justify them as honourable and right is just sophistry.

[RPGuru1331]

To be dishonourable, you have to care about not being honourable. You have to make several descisions that end with you holding a poisoned weapon, something good for a single blow against a single enemy.

You don't have to be trying to rebel against honor to decide on the most expedient path to your goals.

In other words, you have to actively decide that you need an edge for just this one moment. You want to cheat. You want to do something that you would complain about if an enemy that didn't ping on the Paladin's evil-dar did it to your character.

Like a sword to the face?

And you're arguing that all this is honourable?

He's arguing it's not evil, and that it's not chaotic.

[Lord_Gareth]

You don't have to be trying to rebel against honor to decide on the most expedient path to your goals.

This.

He's arguing it's not evil, and that it's not chaotic.

And also this. Honor is an intentional handicap - that's the point. Choosing not to be handicapped is not evil, nor is it chaotic. Intentionally taking it up, though, is [Lawful].

[big teej]

-piling on-

I haven't read the whole thread, and somebody may have said this already
BUT

as far as I'm concerned, as a DM, Poison use is not so much "evil" more so "chaotic, if anything"

Poison use is certainly underhanded, but not exactly evil.

on a related note.
the Book of Exalted Deeds is the only thing my group has access to that is a prohibited work.
they get more access to the BOVD than to that monstrosity.

[Psyren]

I just wanted to chime in and say that BoED has some really cool stuff in it too. Yeah it was poorly edited and contradictory in places and the Exalted Feats suck, but let's not throw the baby/Saint Template out with the bathwater.

[SPoD]

Side discussion: I would argue that poisoning a drink or food actually is Evil, every time, regardless of how you feel about poison weapons. The reason? Anyone could consume that before your intended target gets to it. It's a callous disregard for the lives of anyone who might be killed by your indiscriminate weapon. Just like blowing up a building because you think someone you don't like might be inside (but so could any number of other people) would also be an Evil act.

I think maybe that's part of where the official WOTC view on poison came from, but it's still a terrible idea. Poisoning food hardly ever comes up in D&D except after the fact. I think it really came down to WOTC having this image of how they want the good guys to fight and working backwards to come up with an idea for how to make it happen.

-----------------

Also, to jump in on the most recent bit: "honor" is a human construct. Animals do not know what honor means. The leopard does not sneak up on gazelles because it is a dishonorable bastard, he does it because it works better. Therefore, one must choose to be honorable. Being dishonorable is the default for everyone.

Unless you are trying to posit some sort of innate decency of mankind which must be violated consciously, in which case your experiences and mine likely diverge wildly and there's little point in discussing it.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Side discussion: I would argue that poisoning a drink or food actually is Evil, every time, regardless of how you feel about poison weapons. The reason? Anyone could consume that before your intended target gets to it. It's a callous disregard for the lives of anyone who might be killed by your indiscriminate weapon. Just like blowing up a building because you think someone you don't like might be inside (but so could any number of other people) would also be an Evil act.

I think this is a poor analogy, personally. Explosions are, by their very nature, big and destructive, so the chance of catching somebody innocent in the blast is fairly large. Poisoned food, however, is probably only going to get more people if you do it poorly (poisoning a large dish that's going to be shared instead of a personal dish, or a pitcher of wine instead of a goblet).

I mean, if you're going to use that logic, then you could miss your target with your poisoned weapon and hit somebody else, so that should be evil too.

(This isn't to say that you're not allowed to say ingested poisons are evil, I just think the way you reach that conclusion is a bit flawed.)

[Shadowknight12]

Side discussion: I would argue that poisoning a drink or food actually is Evil, every time, regardless of how you feel about poison weapons. The reason? Anyone could consume that before your intended target gets to it. It's a callous disregard for the lives of anyone who might be killed by your indiscriminate weapon. Just like blowing up a building because you think someone you don't like might be inside (but so could any number of other people) would also be an Evil act.

Out of curiosity, would you consider area of effect spells as Evil? And what about martial manoeuvres or techniques that damage all creatures around them/in their path? Thrown weapons that deal splash damage? What if the DM implements a "more realistic" houserule so that whenever a ranged attack misses, the attack is rolled again at the creature nearest the original target? Are ranged weapons Evil in that case? What about traps? Are traps Evil? Mindless creatures that are told to attack anyone who tries to take a certain item in a locked room?

I just find it rather puzzling to say "This is Evil" when I can think of a dozen cases with the exact same premise.

[The Glyphstone]

Out of curiosity, would you consider area of effect spells as Evil? And what about martial manoeuvres or techniques that damage all creatures around them/in their path? Thrown weapons that deal splash damage? What if the DM implements a "more realistic" houserule so that whenever a ranged attack misses, the attack is rolled again at the creature nearest the original target? Are ranged weapons Evil in that case? What about traps? Are traps Evil? Mindless creatures that are told to attack anyone who tries to take a certain item in a locked room?

I just find it rather puzzling to say "This is Evil" when I can think of a dozen cases with the exact same premise.

It's not the object that's evil, it's the action. Fireball is not an [Evil] spell. If you cast Fireball to kill the monster when it's surrounded by innocents, you have done Evil. Likewise with your splash weapons and AoE maneuvers - if you knowingly use them where people other than your target will or could be harmed, it's as bad as if you were attempting to harm them.

Similarly, it's the use of poison in that large communal dish that's an Evil act, because after done, it's out of your control who ingests it and who doesn't. I (as mentioned) fall firmly into the 'Poison is inherently Chaotic, but not Evil' camp - but slipping black lotus into the pitcher of wine at a dinner to ensure you get the corrupt duke with it is both Chaotic and Evil. Even poisoning just his own goblet could be Evil, if you know he employs a food taster...a suitably slow-acting poison might get him after he has it tasted, but you've killed an innocent whose only crime was working for him in the process.

Oh, and the hypothetical DM is a moron, and should be beaten with his own DMG.

[The Big Dice]

Also, to jump in on the most recent bit: "honor" is a human construct. Animals do not know what honor means. The leopard does not sneak up on gazelles because it is a dishonorable bastard, he does it because it works better. Therefore, one must choose to be honorable. Being dishonorable is the default for everyone.

The gazelle also escapes 9 times out of 10. The same goes for most predator/prey animal pairings. Animals aren't a good point of reference for matters of honour.

What honour really is, is the moral high ground for violent people. It gives the ability to be seen as being the better person, or to be able to say that you were the better person. If you win or lose fairly, the honourable man can afford to be gracious and compliment his opponent. If you lose by dishonourable means, the honourable man comes across as the better person.

If you're going to act in a dishonourable way, you have to know that there is another option and then choose against it anyway. Otherwise you're just ignorant.

[Zale]

Doesn't everyone just love these alignment discussions?

I mean, It's not like this is about the moral and ethical system of a game or anything.


I would also like to point out that there is a fine line between honor and stupidity.

Going up to an angry dragon and challenging it to a duel is not honorable. It's suicidal.

I welcome you to try though. I'll watch from a safe distance with the more sane members of your adventuring group.

[Shadowknight12]

It's not the object that's evil, it's the action. Fireball is not an [Evil] spell. If you cast Fireball to kill the monster when it's surrounded by innocents, you have done Evil. Likewise with your splash weapons and AoE maneuvers - if you knowingly use them where people other than your target will or could be harmed, it's as bad as if you were attempting to harm them.

Then I expressed myself poorly. I was talking about the actions as well.

But that's what I wanted to know, actually. You would deem a wizard casting fireball into a throng of innocents to have performed an Evil act. That's consistent, which is what I was asking SpoD. So long as the rulings are consistent, my puzzlement disappears.

I completely disagree, of course, but I think that no two DMs have the same view on alignment, so I wouldn't say that such rulings are wrong.

[Worira]

Wait, you would disagree that casting Fireball into a crowd of innocents is Evil?

[Shadowknight12]

Wait, you would disagree that casting Fireball into a crowd of innocents is Evil?

I handle alignment differently in my games. Good, evil, law and chaos are all subjective (and not real, concrete things), and every individual decides what it is that they consider evil and all that. Spells and effects that depend on alignment also work differently.

As a DM, I accept what the player writes up as his character's views on good, evil, law and chaos. If the character believes that it is not evil to cast a Fireball into a crowd of innocents (or if the crowd into which he's casting the Fireball is not made up of 'innocents'), then it is not evil.

My personal beliefs on the subject are irrelevant. I asked the player to write me up a code of ethics and he's following it. As a DM, that's all I need to know.

Mandatory Caveat: I play with mature people. I am fully aware that my system fails spectacularly in the hands of someone who is actively out to "cheat the system." I would never recommend my system to anyone, just like I wouldn't recommend anyone to juggle flaming chainsaws. It's a risky endeavour and I accept the backfiring perils in exchange for the rewards.

[RPGuru1331]

Similarly, it's the use of poison in that large communal dish that's an Evil act, because after done, it's out of your control who ingests it and who doesn't. I (as mentioned) fall firmly into the 'Poison is inherently Chaotic, but not Evil' camp - but slipping black lotus into the pitcher of wine at a dinner to ensure you get the corrupt duke with it is both Chaotic and Evil. Even poisoning just his own goblet could be Evil, if you know he employs a food taster...a suitably slow-acting poison might get him after he has it tasted, but you've killed an innocent whose only crime was working for him in the process.

Why should the food taster be considered more innocent than the soldier who guards the duke's keep?

[Lord_Gareth]

The gazelle also escapes 9 times out of 10. The same goes for most predator/prey animal pairings. Animals aren't a good point of reference for matters of honour.

The failure of the predator does not alter its intent.

What honour really is, is the moral high ground for violent people. It gives the ability to be seen as being the better person, or to be able to say that you were the better person. If you win or lose fairly, the honourable man can afford to be gracious and compliment his opponent. If you lose by dishonourable means, the honourable man comes across as the better person.

If you're going to act in a dishonourable way, you have to know that there is another option and then choose against it anyway. Otherwise you're just ignorant.

Or, you see the other guy (the moron standing over there with the waving banner, no cover, and an imperious challenge) as an idiot. Or you learned a different cultural paradigm (like the Charr in Guild Wars, whose only concern is victory). Or....

That's the thing. Not every culture has, or cares about, honor. And the ones that do don't always agree on what 'honor' means (chivalry vs. bushido, for example). Oh, and getting better, all of those codes of honor were eventually abandoned!

What 'honor' is in a D&D context is an artificial code of behavior that a character of being takes up voluntarily. It is not the default. You don't check your behavior against tenets of 'honor' and then see where you fall on the alignment chart - you check your behavior against the alignment chart. Someone who wins a battle honorably might seem impressive, surely, but so might someone who wins a great victory through deceit or ambush or subterfuge.

Getting further, honor can be - and has been - used as a justification, thin or otherwise, for violence and brutality against those that don't deserve it. It's not a system of morality. It's a code of behavior. And it's [Lawful].

Now, at this point, I'd like to ask why you seem to be ignoring so many of my points, which you've either failed to address entirely or are otherwise misinterpreting (the internet being what it is, I'd totally understand the latter). There's large swaths of my arguments that have gone unaddressed, and it makes me feel a little insulted, y'know?

[Taelas]

The article starts by saying "As befitting the spirit of April Fool's Day, we offer the following variant of an existing prestige class." And it was posted on April 1st 2007. The picture is a dodgy colour replacement job on the picture from the DMG.

There's not much of a joke when you explain it in the first paragraph.

It isn't a joke. It was posted on April Fools because it wasn't serious, but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended as an actual class.

[Lord_Gareth]

Why should the food taster be considered more innocent than the soldier who guards the duke's keep?

He's not, but the death of an innocent isn't precisely the best thing ever. It really does come down to this pair of questions, though:

1. How many people will die if you poison the duke, assuming a worst-case scenario?

2. How many people will die if you wage general warfare upon the duke, assuming a worst-case scenario?

The second idea is undoubtably a more honorable solution that poisoning the duke or otherwise having him assassinated (dude's gotta sleep sometime) - one that will also cost many, many more innocent lives. This is one of those wonderful cases where doing the honorable thing is also doing the wrong thing.

[Kojiro]

Indeed. In fact, utilizing spies and assassins in war is not necessarily Chaotic, or even unLawful; arguably, the best course of action, and the most Good one, is to save the greatest amount of people with the least cruel or horrendous methods. Extra information from spies, as well as the death(s) of the (probably evil) one(s) ordering and leading their country in war, can accomplish this most effectively; as most assassination methods are quick and relatively painless, especially if you compare them to the many, many terrible things one can do in the DnD universe otherwise, and many of the most effective poisons can be painless, or at least far less painful than, say, a sword in one's gut or a fireball to one's face (and also the rest of the body).

Heck, it's not even necessarily dishonorable, depending on what sort of code of honor you hold; if you believe that, as above, it is better to kill one evil person quickly and effectively than to fight, and presumably kill, all his guards and various other people who get in your way, presumably so that you can tell him that you intend to kill him or something, then you are in fact acting honorably, as honor is by definition integrity to your beliefs; codes of honor and such are simply definitions on honor shared by and presumably believed in by multiple people and specific groups. (And please, don't respond with something like "well then an amoral person who believes anything is allowed is acting honorably when he goes around slaughtering innocents"; that's deliberately ignoring the point.)

Assassination isn't pretty, but that's because killing itself is a generally unpleasant thing. At worst you can call it "unfair", compared to other such things (although again that ignores the magic items, spells, and various other such things that create a far greater imbalance), and while fairness is arguably Lawful, I don't think that being unfair is instant disqualification from Lawfulness, especially for the Lawful Good people who would try to avoid as much death as possible. It seems, at least to me, more like an issue of personal beliefs (which, again, also applies to anything related to honor at all) as to whether it's dishonorable; there definitely is barely anything to back up it being Evil, Chaotic, or anything else.

[myancey]

Doesn't everyone just love these alignment discussions?

I mean, It's not like this is about the moral and ethical system of a game or anything.

Despite the fact that Playgrounders have never come to a consensus on alignments in general--discussions of such are a necessary aspect of the game, especially in DMing. And yes, it is a game--but a very complex one that incorporates an ambiguous moral/ethical set of rules.

The purpose of this thread, and others, is to share ideas. And yes, sometimes these threads serve only to entrench Playgrounders in their firmly held beliefs--but often, if you look closely enough, you'll find perspectives that present valid points. It's good for obtaining insight.

I handle alignment differently in my games. Good, evil, law and chaos are all subjective (and not real, concrete things), and every individual decides what it is that they consider evil and all that. Spells and effects that depend on alignment also work differently.

As a DM, I accept what the player writes up as his character's views on good, evil, law and chaos. If the character believes that it is not evil to cast a Fireball into a crowd of innocents (or if the crowd into which he's casting the Fireball is not made up of 'innocents'), then it is not evil.

My personal beliefs on the subject are irrelevant. I asked the player to write me up a code of ethics and he's following it. As a DM, that's all I need to know.

While this presents an interesting concept...what is the point of having the alignment system at all? You're actively inviting your players to defy the very definitions of alignment...no matter who you were, it would not be 'lawful good' to fireball a crowd of innocents.

The DM should be the one to interpret the alignment system. Alignments are defined by the societal majority--which the DM makes up through control of all NPCs. Player actions in this system simply reflect a particular aspect of the DM's various definitions of morality--because they're part of his society. Leaving the system up for players to decide seems too chaotic.

[Shadowknight12]

While this presents an interesting concept...what is the point of having the alignment system at all? You're actively inviting your players to defy the very definitions of alignment...

There is very little point in alignment labels, that's quite true. A character being Lawful Good merely means that he considers himself to be, or aspires to be, Lawful and Good, as he sees those concepts. However, the majority of effects that depend on alignment are still in use. A paladin smites evil all the same (though he must first use Detect Evil on his would-be target or his Smite Evil attempt is wasted), and heroes still fight for Good. The only difference is that Good (and Law, and Evil, and Chaos) is subjective now.

no matter who you were, it would not be 'lawful good' to fireball a crowd of innocents.

Actually, no. That's the entire point of the system. Actions are no longer aligned. Fireballing a crowd of people is no longer good, evil, lawful or chaotic. It simply is. One character sees it as evil, another character sees it as "neither good nor evil," another one sees it as good (In standard D&D, killing a fiend is always a Good act, so fireballing a crowd of fiends is, in fact, a Good act. One character sees the crowd as poor innocent souls and another sees it as a bunch of vile, irredeemably evil creatures whose murder is not only justified, but a Good act), etc.

The DM should be the one to interpret the alignment system. Alignments are defined by the societal majority--which the DM makes up through control of all NPCs. Player actions in this system simply reflect a particular aspect of the DM's various definitions of morality--because they're part of his society. Leaving the system up for players to decide seems too chaotic.

I respect your opinion and completely disagree with it. The creators of D&D had a certain set of beliefs and they made it so that their morality was not only the norm, but actual tangible forces of the universe. Just as I don't feel obliged to play in old Greyhawk or any "official" setting if I don't want to, and instead I feel free to create my own campaign setting, I feel just as free to do away with their objective morality and replace it with a subjective one.

Furthermore, from a metagame perspective, I have a DMing style where I treat my players as adults and accept that the game is just as "mine" as it is "theirs." Just like you don't chastise an adult for doing something in his own home, I don't tell my players that they're not allowed to do something in their games. If they want to do something, I sit down with them and work out a way to make it happen within the rules. And sometimes, if the rules must be bent or changed to allow for something the player really wants, I'll make it happen. What matters in my games is that everyone has fun. Curtailing personal freedom and creativity is not conducive to a fun game. I trust that my players will handle the freedom I give them with responsibility, and work towards everyone's fun. I've yet to be disappointed.

[RPGuru1331]

He's not, but the death of an innocent isn't precisely the best thing ever.

By what metric can any person in the corrupt noble's employ that is specifically tasked with protecting and perpetuating said corrupt noble's rule be termed an 'innocent'? I could see arguments of coercion.. but the same could be said of the duke's soldiers, and as far as I've seen, such people are considered fair game, if not priority targets, and understandably so.

[SPoD]

The gazelle also escapes 9 times out of 10. The same goes for most predator/prey animal pairings. Animals aren't a good point of reference for matters of honour.

You're basically agreeing that the leopard is justified in using "dishonorable" methods because the honorable ones don't work. By that logic, kobolds die at the hands of adventurers 9 out of 10 times. Therefore, when kobolds use poison, it must be OK, right?

What honour really is, is the moral high ground for violent people. It gives the ability to be seen as being the better person, or to be able to say that you were the better person. If you win or lose fairly, the honourable man can afford to be gracious and compliment his opponent. If you lose by dishonourable means, the honourable man comes across as the better person.

And if you care about who "comes across as the better person," well, bully for you. Not everyone does, not when life or death are on the line.

If you're going to act in a dishonourable way, you have to know that there is another option and then choose against it anyway. Otherwise you're just ignorant.

Ignorance is a valid character concept. A player is not required to make a character who is "better" than common people. Your argument basically boils down to, "And I wouldn't want to be that way." Well, other people disagree. A hero (who is not a paladin) is not required to be aware of what other people consider "honorable" and alter his behavior accordingly.

---------------------

@Shadowknight12: OK, the following answers obviously don't apply to your system, since you acknowledge that what you are doing is not the D&D standard:

Out of curiosity, would you consider area of effect spells as Evil? And what about martial manoeuvres or techniques that damage all creatures around them/in their path? Thrown weapons that deal splash damage?

If you know there are innocents in the area of effect? Yes, but then it's the act of targeting indiscriminately that is Evil, not the tool used to do so.

What if the DM implements a "more realistic" houserule so that whenever a ranged attack misses, the attack is rolled again at the creature nearest the original target? Are ranged weapons Evil in that case?

If that rule was in effect, then you would have the situation that you have in many movies: the hero can't take the shot because they're afraid of hitting the civilian. So yes, shooting into a crowd to hit a bad guy is an Evil act. But again, it's not ranged weapons that are evil, but the act of targeting without regard to who gets hurt.

What about traps? Are traps Evil?

Often, if they are set in a place where innocent people might wander by and trip them. If you place them in your own home where no one who is justified in being there could possibly trip them, then less so. But again, it's not the trap that is evil, it's the fact that you don't care who gets hurt.

Mindless creatures that are told to attack anyone who tries to take a certain item in a locked room?

If they're mindless, then they can't be told anything, and they're no different than a weapon. You putting a dangerous mindless creature somewhere that an innocent person is likely to meet it? Yes, Evil. If you release an elder black pudding in the streets of the capital city, that's an Evil act. If you have an elder black pudding in a room in your own castle, where everyone who is not an invader knows not to walk into that room? Probably not Evil, in the same way as the trap example above.

And if they aren't mindless, then the decision to attack is on their conscience, not yours.

I just find it rather puzzling to say "This is Evil" when I can think of a dozen cases with the exact same premise.

Then you're misreading the premise. There are NO attack forms that are inherently Evil (unless they use baby souls to be powered or something, but that's different). What is Evil is how you deploy those attack forms. If you deploy them in a way that has a reasonable chance of hurting an innocent, and you know that when you deploy them, then that's Evil. If you stab an innocent with a holy avenger, that's still an Evil act. If you stab a blackguard with a poisoned sword and save the village, that's a Good act. Intent matters, tools do not. Not unless the means of procuring those tools is itself Evil (i.e. spells that draw on the power of the Abyss or something).

And while I mostly agree with Glyphstone's interpretation of what I said, I don't think it needs to be a communal dish in order for the placement of poison to be Evil. Look at the end of Hamlet: That goblet was not communal, it was meant only for Hamlet, but Gertrude drank it anyway. By putting poison in the wine, Claudius killed a (relative) innocent.

[Shadowknight12]

@Shadowknight12: OK, the following answers obviously don't apply to your system, since you acknowledge that what you are doing is not the D&D standard:

If you know there are innocents in the area of effect? Yes, but then it's the act of targeting indiscriminately that is Evil, not the tool used to do so.

Okay, I see the logic in that. And as I told Glyphstone, I misspoke. I'm aware that you were talking about the action and not the object.

If that rule was in effect, then you would have the situation that you have in many movies: the hero can't take the shot because they're afraid of hitting the civilian. So yes, shooting into a crowd to hit a bad guy is an Evil act. But again, it's not ranged weapons that are evil, but the act of targeting without regard to who gets hurt.

All right, also sensical.

Often, if they are set in a place where innocent people might wander by and trip them. If you place them in your own home where no one who is justified in being there could possibly trip them, then less so. But again, it's not the trap that is evil, it's the fact that you don't care who gets hurt.

Wait, wait, detecting logical incongruence. So I can poison my own food (let's say, because I'm immune to poison and I like the flavour it adds to the meal) and if someone eats it then it's not Evil because it's not my fault they wandered into my house and ate my food?

If they're mindless, then they can't be told anything, and they're no different than a weapon. You putting a dangerous mindless creature somewhere that an innocent person is likely to meet it? Yes, Evil. If you release an elder black pudding in the streets of the capital city, that's an Evil act. If you have an elder black pudding in a room in your own castle, where everyone who is not an invader knows not to walk into that room? Probably not Evil, in the same way as the trap example above.

So if there's a skeleton set to kill whoever grabs my Pearl of Power off the shelf, and there's an earthquake that rips a hole on the vault's ceiling, and a little girl climbs down, picks up the shiny pearl and gets killed, what's the morality on that? Is setting up the skeleton-trap evil? Am I evil now because I got a little girl killed?

And if they aren't mindless, then the decision to attack is on their conscience, not yours.

Of course, mindless creatures are True Neutral and all that.

Then you're misreading the premise. There are NO attack forms that are inherently Evil (unless they use baby souls to be powered or something, but that's different). What is Evil is how you deploy those attack forms. If you deploy them in a way that has a reasonable chance of hurting an innocent, and you know that when you deploy them, then that's Evil. If you stab an innocent with a holy avenger, that's still an Evil act. If you stab a blackguard with a poisoned sword and save the village, that's a Good act. Intent matters, tools do not. Not unless the means of procuring those tools is itself Evil (i.e. spells that draw on the power of the Abyss or something).

Yes, sorry, I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that objects were evil, I was merely curious as to the difference between carelessly poisoning something and any other action with potential unintended harm to others.