How do you deal with poison in your games?

[Agrippa]

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

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

[LibraryOgre]

Poison is a tool and, depending on the poison and its intent, can be the best way to go about things.

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

[Rakoa]

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

It just seems strange to me.

[5ColouredWalker]

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

[icefractal]

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

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

[TheCountAlucard]

Except I'd view poison as worse, it's only purpose is to develop protection or kill people, including potentially lots of innocents.

Excuse me?

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

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

[Pluto!]

D&D alignments are stupid, so that part doesn't matter in my games.

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

[TheCountAlucard]

D&D alignments are stupid, so that part doesn't matter in my games.

That being said, Detect Evil doesn't generally ping poisons, nor do any of the other alignment-indicating spells. Obviously poison is Neutral.

[5ColouredWalker]

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

1: DnD, so not it isn't a medicine. At most it's a recreational drug [I.e. Alcohol, which is defined as a poison in DnD.]
2: Yes, it can be pest control, in a world that hasn't had that idea...
3: Thanks.

[TheCountAlucard]

1: DnD…

This is the board for general RPGs, not specifically limited to D&D. Even the OP brings up other systems as something open to discussion here.

…so not it isn't a medicine.

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

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

Alcohol, which is defined as a poison in DnD.

Alcohol is defined really inconsistently.

2: Yes, it can be pest control, in a world that hasn't had that idea...

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

[5ColouredWalker]

-snip-

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

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

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

[goto124]

Poison is Chaotic.

Duuuuuuuummmmm

[Telok]

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

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

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

[dream]

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

Depends on the group. Good characters should never use it, keyword should. Killing someone with a trad weapon is one thing, but poison-use is usually insidious and cowardly, imo. Now, evil characters should always have at least one good vial on-hand at all times.

[goto124]

'poison-use is usually insidious and cowardly'

I don't get why this is the case?

Poison discrimination! =P

[dream]

'poison-use is usually insidious and cowardly'

I don't get why this is the case?

Poison discrimination! =P

I so encouraged it for evils though: fair & balanced

[Necroticplague]

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

[Nifft]

In a previous game, this was a relevant question -- we had a Paladin, and we had a Ranger who liked to use poison.

Our solution was to separate some conduct from alignment.

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

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

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

[Rockoe10]

In a previous game, this was a relevant question -- we had a Paladin, and we had a Ranger who liked to use poison.

Our solution was to separate some conduct from alignment.

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

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

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

This.

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

[Red Fel]

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

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

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

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

[Nifft]

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

What you're saying sounds good, but it's not how poisons work in some editions of D&D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[icefractal]

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

For some poisons. Injury poisons though, unless you're talking about something incredibly strong, are no more effective in practice than enchanted weapons. If a knight is so keen on displaying his pure skill, he should probably fight enemies without the benefit of any magic he didn't cast/craft himself.

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

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

[Necroticplague]

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

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

[Berenger]

@: Necroticplague

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

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

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

[Necroticplague]

@: Necroticplague

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Fel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[D+1]

Might makes right. Poison, however, is cheating.

[Berenger]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Nifft]

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

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

"I'm going to do 2d6 Dexterity damage twice, and make him stop attacking me."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[goto124]

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

That's Chaotic, not Evil.

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

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