Why is poison use "evil"?

[Venger]

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

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

[Nifft]

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

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

It's exactly what was due.

[eggynack]

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

It's exactly what was due.

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

[Nifft]

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

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

You're still you, just minus some evil.

No sane person would choose evil.

Therefore by definition you'll be fine.

Get in the box.

[Doctor Awkward]

As I said, this causes negative emotions

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

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

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

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

It harms souls by imprisoning them.

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

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

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

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

• They call upon evil gods or energies.

Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife, ...

Did you even read the spell description of deathwatch?

No, the one from spell compendium that improves undead.

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

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

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

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

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

Weird.

[eggynack]

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

You're still you, just minus some evil.

No sane person would choose evil.

Therefore by definition you'll be fine.

Get in the box.

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

Man, the alignment system is silly as hell.

Second, you are talking about a spell that didn't even exist at the time Book of Vile Darkness was written.

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

[Nifft]

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

Man, the alignment system is silly as hell.

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Doctor Awkward]

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

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

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

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

[Venger]

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

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

Corrupt spells require sacrifice too. Engaging in self-harm to cast a spell is not a unique feature to [Good] spells

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

No, they run on your feelings, apparently.

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

Make up your mind. Do you think spells getting an [evil] descriptor is deontologist or consequentialist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird.

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

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

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

Now do you admit that the list is not raw?

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

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

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

Doesn't say anything about evil energies?
Probably channeling evil energies.

Flawless logic.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[eggynack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nifft]

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

Sure, the idea that you can reshape a mind to remove undesirable aspects or implant desired traits is fundamentally transhumanist. The idea that you can use mental modification technology to impose virtue and thereby improve a subject's morality is not inherently objectionable, but when you're mucking about with minds you need to tread rather carefully, lest you become worse than what you'd intended to cure.

The BoED takes no such care.

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

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

By definition it is good.

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

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

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

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

[Venger]

Sure, the idea that you can reshape a mind to remove undesirable aspects or implant desired traits is fundamentally transhumanist. The idea that you can use mental modification technology to impose virtue and thereby improve a subject's morality is not inherently objectionable, but when you're mucking about with minds you need to tread rather carefully, lest you become worse than what you'd intended to cure.

Oh, ok, so treating it like software, or like the luclidovo technique in "clockwork orange" or something. that makes sense.

The BoED takes no such care.

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

By definition it is good.

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

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

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

That's a lot of romance novels.

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

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

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

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

[Doctor Awkward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eggynack]

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

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

[Nifft]

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

I can't say that.

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

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

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


I can't say the BoED is wrong.

I can say that it's repulsive.

[Venger]

I can't say that.

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

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

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


I can't say the BoED is wrong.

I can say that it's repulsive.

fair enough. I can certainly agree with that.

[Doctor Awkward]

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

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

Clarifications to rules are still rules.

[eggynack]

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

Clarifications to rules are still rules.

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

[Doctor Awkward]

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

It's the middle one.

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

The problem with your massive post is this:

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

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

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

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

[eggynack]

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

Okay, so my arguments there were applicable, about how there's no basis for determining which quality gets added, rendering this rather useless as rules text.

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

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

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

Never said it did. My argument does not rely on this idea to any extent, and, In fact, I have expressed the exact opposite idea a number of times.

[HighWater]

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

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

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

The claim being made is that even if your combat were wholly state sanctioned, legal by the narrowest possible definition, stabbing someone would still be chaotic.

Not quite true if the starting position is "It's wrong to stab people that are protected by the law, because it is wrong if I am stabbed while under protection by the law." Outlaws are suddenly fair game (and historical precedent is bountiful on how this is actually how law and even lawfulness works), while those who are under protection of the law are not. Then again, that flies for poisons just as well.

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

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

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

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

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