Why is poison considered evil?


3.5/d20/OGL


As everyone knows, Paladins are not allowed to use poison because it violates their code of conduct. So what is it about poison that makes it so bad? Some of you may say that it's bad because one's enemy doesn't necessarily know when one is using it against them, so it's a hidden advantage, and that makes it dishonorable. Others may say that it causes unnecessary pain or suffering, so that makes it evil. But I don't understand either of these arguments since many creatures use natural poisons simply for defense or capturing prey. Does that make them dishonorable or evil creatures? What if a Paladin were to use toxins for the same reasons? And if the use of posion is not permissable, why is the use of magic ok? Both can be hidden advantages, and both can cause several unpleasant effects on one's enemy. Whether you strike a foe with a sword that's enchanted to do extra damage or coated with poison to do extra damage, the intent and effect are the same. And since toxins could be used to incapacitate or capture an opponent without having to fight to the death, just as magic could, that would seem to make them a useful tool for a good and lawful character. What am I missing?


Most paladin spells are for defense and support... Note that a paladin can't use magic to cast CAUSE LIGHT WOUNDS either. So, poison is evil because it's vile and dishonorable (you were right), and for that matter so is "evil" magic.

"A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense; Never for attack."

Ultradan


A better answer might be found on Wizard's website in the column "Saving My Game".

This weeks column: Dealing With "Why"

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060106a

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The concept of "Poison = Evil" is a holdover from the game's 1st edition days. Personally, I find the concept laughable. Part of the thing is that poison, in many ways, is a coward's weapon. Like a gun. It takes relatively little effort to kill someone with poison or a gun, so it's a weapon of choice for cruelity.

Look at it another way though. If poison were evil, how do you justify creatures like the coatul or the guardian naga, both of whom are lawful good and both of whom who have deadly poison (Constitution damaging) attacks? I'm aware that the Book of Exalted Deads tries to explain this away by calling them "raptures" but that's retconning. In the core game; these lawful good monsters use poison, so the argument that lawful good PCs shouldn't be able to use poison simply cannot be defended.

Now, having a code of honor that forbids the use of poison is a different story. I've got no problem with paladin codes or cleric faiths that forbid the use of poison, just like I don't have a problem with religions that forbid the use of fire or duids that aren't allowed to wear metal armor.


Circumstance might be a key factor. Would a sleeping toxin be acceptable in a situation where an opponent might need to be captured alive? I know in Oriental settings, the use of poisons was pretty much restricted to secretive ninja-types, and the use of it was considered dishonorable.

BTW, the Book of Exalted Deeds brought up the concept of "Ravages" and "Afflictions" - poisons and diseases for the good guys. From what I recall, these ravages and afflictions only affected those with an evil alignment. The ravages gave the usual ability score penalties and afflictions are magical diseases that do things like cause intense drowsiness or prevent the *ahem* satisfaction of desires. It seems that the ravages and afflictions do everything that poisons and diseases do, but with the "justification" that it only works on evil creatures.

I'd be interested to see what other people's thoughts on this subject are.


I'm with James on this one. Poison is no more of an unfair advantage than magic. It should be a personal choice between the player and the DM whether or not using poison causes any alignment conflicts.


Eleazar wrote:
I'm with James on this one. Poison is no more of an unfair advantage than magic. It should be a personal choice between the player and the DM whether or not using poison causes any alignment conflicts.

You're right! In fact I think I'm going to go use some poison right now!

Hmm, tastes like Kool-Aid,
GG....


I think the use of poison to be more chaotic than evil, since it is "dishonerable", but even that's a stretch, since magic could be considered the same way, and lawful creatures (many devils) use it. I think in modern D&D, poison is poison. Alignment has nothing to do with it.

As for ravages and afflictions: I think they and the deathless creature type are both a waste of page space. The book talks about how bad poisons are for causing undue suffering, and how even suffering afflicted against evil creatures is bad, then makes a poison and disease system that targets them specifically! Just because it only works against evil doesn't make it good (and that brings to mind the spells like protection from evil, which has the good descriptor to it. So, priests of Erythnul combating Hextorites are out of luck? I'd like to change that. Detect evil isn't a "good" spell.)

And deathless? THEY'RE UNDEAD. There is nothing that says undead have to be evil. Most just are. The only exceptions I can think of are good-aligned ghosts. Yes, they're powered by negative energy and are thus inclined towards evil, blah blah. They don't ahve to be, so creating a whole new creature type just to counter an imaginary problem is dumb. I don't remember exactly, but I'm guessing that they are immune to turning and rebuking? Ahem... I don't like it. Just my opinion.


Hmmmm... trying to explain the alignment system...

As always, Rule 1: DM's choice.

Myself I would have no problem with a good player using posion for the right reasons. Sleep poison is the same as a sleep spell, right? I think that certain posions can be considered "evil" (those that might cause immediate death) because they are so damn dastardly.

Poison has been traditionally seen as evil because it's underhanded and sneaky. Just like wolves and snakes are typically seen as evil so their respective lycanthropes are evil. I think this is the origin of "poison = evil" rule.

I agree with James in that codes of conduct, religious practice, etc. should determine whether or not a pc could be able to use poison.

It's always important to keep in mind that good and evil seem like gray areas in the real world they are much easier to define in the game.


I suspect the 1e rules that have been preserved in vestigial form in 3e are derived from culturally specific views about the use of poison in warfare, to whit medieval Christian ones. That is to say, poison use is more of an honor issue than a good-evil issue.

That being said, the idea that poison is a "perfidious" weapon has been preserved to this day--international law of armed conflict continues to prohibit the use of poison as a weapon, even poisons like tear gas, which is an incapacitating agent.

Since it can be as painful and unpleasant to die of wounds from (name your weapon of choice) as to die from poison, I'm not sure that killing by poison is more cruel than killing with a weapon. However, poison can give an "unfair" advantage to the person who is less skilled in combat or less well-equipped. Hence, it is horrifying to those who rely on their superior training and equipment to win battles (knights, samurai, and other aristocratic warriors, e.g.) To these warriors, a "fair fight" is one in which the most skilled warrior has the best chance of winning--this is why codes of honor are necessary--to keep people who are less skilled and improperly equipped from winning battles.

Since the archetypal paladins are drawn from medieval European ideas, it makes sense that their honor code would prohibit poison use, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all LG characters would avoid it. It would depend on their particular cultural and religious background.


Good points--the only reason guns were considered cowardly when they first came out is the same reason that the pope outlawed the crossbow when it first surfaced--it allowed poor, relatively untrained peasants to punch neat holes into the armor of the nobility and aristocracy.....can't have the rabble armed now, can we??

If I was a peasant living in a D&D world, I would poison everything I could to get an edge....I would dip my crossbow bolts in my own waste in the hope that it would help take down that insufferable 9th level prick that keeps trampling my crops with his destrier....and then I'd go pray to Pelor with a clean conscience.


Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
Since it can be as painful and unpleasant to die of wounds from (name your weapon of choice) as to die from poison, I'm not sure that killing by poison is more cruel than killing with a weapon.

Actually it could be argued that dying from getting hit with a Holy Avenger (unless of course it lops off your head cleanly) is much more painful than majority of poisons...

Also I wonder what is the position on merely incapacitating but not deadly poisons? One character of mine used quite a lot of those to avoid nasty bloodshed since it was best for all parties that the person in the way should be throwing up in a fever for a day and then being quite ok instead of getting hacked to little pieces...


Can we agree that it's not the poison that's evil, but it's what it's used for that is (or could be) evil.

I would rule, that a good monk using poison to render guards asleep (instead of killing them) to rescue an innocent friend from a tribe of orcs would certainly not be evil.

On the other hand, using the same sleep poison to rob a local merchant of his shiny gold ring would, and should, be considered evil.

Obi-Wan "... there are alternatives to fighting."

Ultradan


Well, that's the same thing as any action-alignment question. You've effectively removed poison from the whole question. This is a good thing! Poison is just a combat tool, incapacitating or lethal, like any combat weapon. It's no more brutal, and certainly far less, than many other traditional parts of D&D that are kosher for the "good-aligned, " as has been said many times before already. The end resutlt: poison should be considered a weapon like any other, alignment has nothing to do with it.


It's a genre thing: poison generally isn't used by good guys in the books D&D was created to emulate. Obviously, if you want to emulate a different set of conventions, or to apply our-world logic, you may want to handle poison differently.


UGH.

I've gotten into numerous debates with my DM about poisons, the nature of good and evil, and all that crap. In the end, we just agree to disagree. In his games, poison use is neutral at best and isn't used by Good, upstanding folk. In my games, poison use is circumstantial.

Liberty's Edge

Well my views seem to be the minority/disenting view here but I think that the use of poison is seen as evil because when using poison the intent usually to kill the person on the receiving end. (Not always, but usually) I know that in DnD adventures kill hundreds if not thousands of enemies over the span of their careers, however being the good guys the PCs really should be killing people. (Trust me I know this isn't what happens...most parties slaughter wholesale!!! and are still considered good but usually against the 'bad' evil NPCs)

As a DM I don't think I would allow the PCs who are good aligned to use poison (excepting the sleep inducing kind)
Others view it different and thats their call.

Tallknight

Sovereign Court Co-owner - Battlegrounds to Board Games

I think the whole poison alignment theme stems from common folklore. Users of poison are typically viewed as scheming and evil and cowardly. Even creatures that use pison in nature are typically portrayed in a negative and somewhat evil light - snakes, spiders and scorpions definately have a negative stigma. In general I think this is why people fear and loathe them so much, just as they revile humans/humanoids who use poison. While I do not think poison use is strictly evil, it is definately not honorable(lawful) and therefore would not be usable by a Lawful Good Paladin(of Honor). I could see a chaotic good Paladin(of Freedom)using sleep and paralysis poisons without a conflict though because they do no harm to the target.


Xellan wrote:

UGH.

I've gotten into numerous debates with my DM about poisons, the nature of good and evil, and all that crap. In the end, we just agree to disagree. In his games, poison use is neutral at best and isn't used by Good, upstanding folk. In my games, poison use is circumstantial.

Here I think your getting toward a very important side issue which is play balance - in 1st and second edition poison was so dangerous that having players with access to it would throw off the whole game. I did not allow it when I played 1st and 2nd edition but with the more balanced poisons of 3rd edition I'm perfectly fine with it. Its usually not that devastating, its expensive and if you don't take the correct feats and skills you could end up poisoning yourself in the middle of combat. If my players are willing to put up with all that they can use it all they want. That said I had to rule that only the poisons the books existed - can't go down the road and pick Hemlock or anything in my campaign - if its not in one of the books then it just does not exist or at least the PCs don't know about it.


Tallknight1974 wrote:
Well my views seem to be the minority/disenting view here but I think that the use of poison is seen as evil because when using poison the intent usually to kill the person on the receiving end.

As opposed to when you're stabbing them with a sword? What's the intent behind that?

Liberty's Edge

Vegepygmy wrote:
Tallknight1974 wrote:
Well my views seem to be the minority/disenting view here but I think that the use of poison is seen as evil because when using poison the intent usually to kill the person on the receiving end.
As opposed to when you're stabbing them with a sword? What's the intent behind that?

Well technically speaking if your players are playing good they should be going for disarming or trying to get the bad guys to surrend versus outright killing them. I know that 99.9% of the time is isn't how it goes but If some is playing the LG paladin or stand up hero archtype they should be trying to disarm,etc etc.


And it seems you are forgetting the many, many nonlethal poisons.

Liberty's Edge

I speaking from a nonmechanical point of view. I wasn't referring to game mechanics necessarily but more from why a society deems the use of poison as evil. Myself I can't really imaigne a LG paladin justifing or sanctifing the use of a non-lethal poison as paladin are based on code of chivarly and the use of any poison is anatema to that, in my view.

Tallknight


Vegepygmy wrote:
Tallknight1974 wrote:
Well my views seem to be the minority/disenting view here but I think that the use of poison is seen as evil because when using poison the intent usually to kill the person on the receiving end.
As opposed to when you're stabbing them with a sword? What's the intent behind that?

Actually, I agree with this, insofar as a lethal poison goes. It is FAR more honorable and acceptable to defend yourself against the evil blackguard and ultimately kill him with your sword than it would be to pay a goblin servant to poison his goblet of wine, though both serve the same ultimate purpose. If the same scenario occured where the poison in question was incapacitating in nature, there would be little beyond good tactics involved - granted that the PC's didn't coup-de-grace the dude while he was asleep :)


Celric wrote:
Actually, I agree with this, insofar as a lethal poison goes. It is FAR more honorable and acceptable to defend yourself against the evil blackguard and ultimately kill him with your sword than it would be to pay a goblin servant to poison his goblet of wine, though both serve the same ultimate purpose.

"Honorable and acceptable" are irrelevant to the question of whether using poison is Good or Evil, though. Those are Lawful/Chaotic issues.

The point is this: if it's not Evil to kill a creature at all (like, with a sword, for example), it shouldn't be Evil to kill it with poison. Dead is dead. It doesn't really matter (as far as Good and Evil are concerned) how you get that way. (Law and Chaos might care, but not Good and Evil.)

And if it is Evil to kill a particular creature, it's Evil whether you kill it with a sword or by poison. So in as much as Talknight1974 suggests Good PCs should not be killing bad guys in the first place, that sheds no light on why poison is "evil" but swords aren't. (It also doesn't reflect the way anyone actually plays D&D.)


Vegepygmy wrote:
Celric wrote:
Actually, I agree with this, insofar as a lethal poison goes. It is FAR more honorable and acceptable to defend yourself against the evil blackguard and ultimately kill him with your sword than it would be to pay a goblin servant to poison his goblet of wine, though both serve the same ultimate purpose.

"Honorable and acceptable" are irrelevant to the question of whether using poison is Good or Evil, though. Those are Lawful/Chaotic issues.

The point is this: if it's not Evil to kill a creature at all (like, with a sword, for example), it shouldn't be Evil to kill it with poison. Dead is dead. It doesn't really matter (as far as Good and Evil are concerned) how you get that way. (Law and Chaos might care, but not Good and Evil.)

And if it is Evil to kill a particular creature, it's Evil whether you kill it with a sword or by poison. So in as much as Talknight1974 suggests Good PCs should not be killing bad guys in the first place, that sheds no light on why poison is "evil" but swords aren't. (It also doesn't reflect the way anyone actually plays D&D.)

Poison does not allow for surrender. Fighting with swords would. Now a good fireball also does not allow for surrender. If killing is murder, then it is evil. I think use of non-constitution damaging poison is fine for good characters. Constitution damaging could pose legal problems. I know it was mentioned before about a few LG creatures having constitution damaging poison, instead of thinking poison should be allowable for LG characters perhaps the poison should be changed to str or dex damaging for these creatures.


The Chazter wrote:
...So what is it about poison that makes it so bad?

Because, when an intelligent creature uses it, it's murder.

I can think of lots of exceptions, and so can everyone else, but the principle is so often valid that calling poison evil is (IMHO) reasonable.

Regards,

Jack


Baramay wrote:
Poison does not allow for surrender. Fighting with swords would.

How's that, exactly?

I have 15 hit points. You attack me with your sword and deal 14 points of damage. Now I have 1 hit point left. I can surrender if I want, but choose not to. You attack me again and deal 15 more points of damage. Now I'm dead.

I have Con 15. You hit me with a poison spell. I fail my save and take 9 points of Con damage. Now I have Con 6. I can surrender if I want, but choose not to. You hit me with another poison spell...


A strawman wrote:
...So what is it about a sword that makes it so bad?

Because, when an intelligent creature uses it, it's murder.

I can think of lots of exceptions, and so can everyone else, but the principle is so often valid that calling a sword evil is (IMHO) reasonable.


Vegepygmy wrote:
Baramay wrote:
Poison does not allow for surrender. Fighting with swords would.

How's that, exactly?

I have 15 hit points. You attack me with your sword and deal 14 points of damage. Now I have 1 hit point left. I can surrender if I want, but choose not to. You attack me again and deal 15 more points of damage. Now I'm dead.

I have Con 15. You hit me with a poison spell. I fail my save and take 9 points of Con damage. Now I have Con 6. I can surrender if I want, but choose not to. You hit me with another poison spell...

A fair question. With a sword you have other options. You can disarm, attack for non-lethal damage, or your opponent could just realize you are a much superior combatant(enough with the fight to the death already). Poison is meant to kill, in a historic sense. In DnD this is not always the case. Thus the reason for our quandry. DnD is based on real world myths and rituals, therefore that is the reason poison=murder=evil thought is prevalent. As mentioned earlier it is carried over from 1st edition.

In your example would not a failed second save with damage of 6+ result in death in one minute surrender or not.

If you are on an adventure and run into another adventuring party who tells you they were here first and you should piss off.(sorry for the lang, it's for effect) What do you do? If you attack and kill them returning to the town or village with their items you will most certainly be brought up on murder charges just as they would if they returned with your items.


A strawman wrote:
...So what is it about a sword that makes it so bad?
Vegepygmy wrote:

[Because, when an intelligent creature uses it, it's murder.

I can think of lots of exceptions, and so can everyone else, but the principle is so often valid that calling a sword evil is (IMHO) reasonable.

Touché. But I still think there's a difference; there's a premeditated quality to the use of poison that doesn't sit well with me, whereas swords can and often are weapons for self-defense.

Just my two cents. Vegepygmy's got me thinking I'm not going to be able to defend this argument too well :)

Jack


Baramay wrote:
In your example would not a failed second save with damage of 6+ result in death in one minute surrender or not.

Sure. But you have "other options," just as you do with a sword. You might cast neutralize poison or lesser restoration on the poisoned surrendee, for example.

The point is that in D&D, characters kill things all the time without it being deemed Evil. Also, in D&D, poison works pretty much like any other weapon or damage-dealing spell; it causes a certain amount of a certain kind of damage. So why should it be deemed "evil" while other methods of destruction are not? It simply makes no sense.


The point is that in D&D, characters kill things all the time without it being deemed Evil. Also, in D&D, poison works pretty much like any other weapon or damage-dealing spell; it causes a certain amount of a certain kind of damage. So why should it be deemed "evil" while other methods of destruction are not? It simply makes no sense.

My point is that characters should be able to use poisons, at least some. Use in and of itself is not evil. Use of poison can very easily lead to evil acts. I think fiends salivate at the thought of tricking mortals into murder.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
A strawman wrote:
...So what is it about a sword that makes it so bad?
Vegepygmy wrote:

[Because, when an intelligent creature uses it, it's murder.

I can think of lots of exceptions, and so can everyone else, but the principle is so often valid that calling a sword evil is (IMHO) reasonable.

Touché. But I still think there's a difference; there's a premeditated quality to the use of poison that doesn't sit well with me, whereas swords can and often are weapons for self-defense.

Just my two cents. Vegepygmy's got me thinking I'm not going to be able to defend this argument too well :)

Jack

So an Archer can use his arrows in self defense? How about a catapult? Fire is a cruel way to kill someone but alchemist fire is not evil.

Premeditated murder means that it is good to be the strong powerful type not the smart planning type. I personally feel it is more wrong to kill in passion of the moment.

It was once said that man is a rationalizing creature not a rational creature. it is easier to prove to yourself you were right in killing someone after the fact than before the fact.

Knowledge is Power
Power without Wisdom Corrupts


Poison is not evil. Nor is it an unfair advantage. Equipment is equipment. If a Fighter or barbarian goes up against an hill giant, they do not take it to town, buy it a nice fat sword and a suit of full plate, and then walk fifty paces and turn the next dawn. If you say that a "fair fight" is central to why poisions are evil then there is a huge problem outside of poisons. There is no fair fight. Anything other than fighters, barbarians, and paladins, are built around getting sneak attacks, picking off enemies from range, turning invisible, taking over someones body, teleporting away. None of these are seen as despicable, It is called survival. If a "fair fight" is one on one, no shots below the belt, then the biggest and strongest will win, and the cunning and tricky will lose. "Fair" fights are not "fair" because they give the brawny and direct an "unfair" advantage over people with different talents.

Should a paladin be able to use poision? No, their code of conduct forbids it. Does poision cause undue suffering? No, only one poison type is even capable of killing and all other forms are incapacitating. That is without adding in than many poisons are painless deaths. This is why people do not commonly commit suicide with daggers to the stomach. If your party likes to take prisoners fine. They won't use their poisions, just the same as they wouldn't use their lethal attacks and spells, but I'm guessing the party does not refuse to carry lethal weapons and prepare lethal spells.

If the player does not like poisons and will not use them, great, that is good roleplaying. Laws that prohibit poison use? Fine, completely realistic. Saying that poisons have inherent alignment issues, makes no sense.

The evil rouge stabs the knight with his blade and returns to the shadows and waits for the venom to do it's work. Evil man. Using a poison. Now if that was a good rouge stabbing a blackguard I would think the rouge is still doing "good". After all which is better, killing the evil murderer with hit and run tactics, or going head to head with him and getting slaughtered so that he continues his killing spree.

All just MHO

Grand Lodge

Ultradan wrote:
"A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense; Never for attack."

Maybe the crappy ones who lost their republic did, but the ones who earned that republic were all about the hadoken. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0RuR3FREFw

Link related.


Look, face the fact: using poison is evil. EVIL. Now forget all about it and get back to killing people and creatures in non-evil ways, like:

*stabbing them to death
*chopping them apart with an axe
*crushing their bones with a mace
*burning them to death
*melting their flesh with acid
*electrocution
*freezing them solid
*summon fierce creatures to tear them limb from limb
*inflict them with horrible diseases

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

...do I get credit for this thread necromancy?

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
...do I get credit for this thread necromancy?

Clearly Kais does. It's like hockey, if you link it you get credit for an assist.


Part of the explanation is making a distinction between creatures, or plants, that have poison as a natural attack, versus humanoid races using poisons extracted from plants and creatures to kill. Where the first may be considered the natural order of things, the later is more of a cowardly or deceptive route, and is considered evil by most societies.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kais86 wrote:
Ultradan wrote:
"A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense; Never for attack."

Maybe the crappy ones who lost their republic did, but the ones who earned that republic were all about the hadoken. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0RuR3FREFw

Link related.

Actually it's more along the case of ... George Lucas can't write dialogue to save his life.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The consideration of poison as evil is cultural. Poison is generally associated with deception, betrayal of trust, someone who kills his enemies unseen and unknown. That pretty much is the basis of it. Because historically the major use of poison has not been to envenom blades but to slip a toxin into someone's body unawares. And sometimes over time, as Johannes Kepler has been suspected of doing to Tycho Brahe in order to get his hands on Tycho's observation data.

Silver Crusade

Ive been arguing this for a long time. I was playing a Lawful Good fighter, who was aspiring to paladin hood. Half of the party was taken out by the big baddy, so I poisoned my blade with a type of poison that the rouge in our group was carrying, we found it when we were collecting equipment among body parts. When I faced the bad guy I saluted him in knightly fashion and warned him that the blade I held was poisoned and I would not allow him to kill anymore of my party members. WE fought the poison helped sap his strength and in fair combat he was defeated. My DM forced an alignment change and said I had fallen off the road of righteousness. Did I agree...no. Did I live with the decision?....Yes So Ill never understand this argument. As was pointed out raptures and poisons are semantics. I guess it would be up to the GM ultimately but sometimes in the pursuit of the greater story, you cant pull punches.

The Exchange

Ah yes...The evils of Poisons.

Then you get conundrums like this: Bob the Paladin is instructed by a Lawful Good Diety to assassinate the local Monarch using poison and establish a Commonwealth where Local Villages will be required to establish Local Parliaments where every citizen must vote (a very 'Points of Light' thing). The reason being that should the Paladin ask the Monarch to step aside for this, that both the Monarchy and the Church will oppose this change through open violence and many people will die in bloody violence.
So you the Paladin are to conduct a precise and surgical removal of the problem...for art though not the hand of thy diety?

Paladin says: Bugger you...my home this is!


I NEVER,EVER play LG so the problem has never arisen.

My party uses poisons to great effect and our DM uses them against us to great effect as well.

I argued that my N druid veiws poisons as nothing more than natures way of balancing things out. He has ranks in poison makeing,survival to gather the raw ingrediants and skill in alchemy to brew. He uses them only when needed but if your trying to stop a BBEG a posion tipped dart works very well when he out str the fighetr by 8-10 points.


To the issue of ravages that was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I would suggest people consider holy water. To everyone else holy water is just water, but to undead and evil outsiders it is like acid. Is holy water acid just because to some creatures it acts like it?

If ravages acts like poison to certain creatures but not to all others, then is it really poison?

Also, I'd point out that Couatl's do Str damage, not Con.


I thought it was not because poison is evil, but because by the default paladin code (and most others, likely) poison is dishonorable. It's about the dirty tricks and ruthless edges, and a paladin isn't supposed to do that. Paladins are the poster boys and girls of the LG faiths, and they have some responsibilities that go with that. It's just that a lot of DMs aren't nearly as keen on the rewards of their ranks, or of the responbilities of clerics and the like, since those aren't listed in such details in the rulebook.

Now, one part that I liked about 3.5 is the statement that paladins, barring evil acts and changing alignment, fall only for GROSS violations of the code, thus helping spirit of the law to prevail over the letter. A paladin who, for example, used drow sleep poison to subdue a foe without the need for harsher injury might (or might not) get a talking-to from the superior, but would probably not stripped of their powers.


yellowdingo wrote:

Ah yes...The evils of Poisons.

Then you get conundrums like this: Bob the Paladin is instructed by a Lawful Good Diety to assassinate the local Monarch

An obvious deception the Paladin should not believe. A Lawful Good Deity would not do that. Using poison is against the law that paladins live by - their code.

The Exchange

pjackson wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:

Ah yes...The evils of Poisons.

Then you get conundrums like this: Bob the Paladin is instructed by a Lawful Good Diety to assassinate the local Monarch

An obvious deception the Paladin should not believe. A Lawful Good Deity would not do that. Using poison is against the law that paladins live by - their code.

But apparently not by the code of a Lawful Good diety looking to minimize loss of life. While an LG Diety would prefer to have the Paladin confront the Monarch for the destiny of the State, it is more than likely going to realize that the Monarch and his/her supporters will got go without a civil war costing thousands of lives. A Paladin will sacrifice of themselves - because when this is done they will no longer be a Paladin - just a Responsible Citizen like the rest.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Why is poison considered evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL