When do you consider poison use to be evil?

[R. Scott Kimsey]

A discussion my group is having at the moment, and I thought I'd throw
it out there. Historically, in my D&D games using poison has been at
least borderline evil in and of itself. It is definitely dishonorable.
I came across these three viewpoints online:

1. "Poison is a cowardly way out of a situation. It is best left to
those who wish to skulk in the shadows and strike from afar. It is
also good for those people who like to make sure their enemies suffer
horrible agonies before dying. Since poison is essentially a tool for
cowardly bullies and torturers, it is a proper tool of those of evil
alignment. Everyone else should stay as far from it as possible."

2. "The use of poison is not inherently evil, but, by the same token,
is not inherently good either. Thus people who wish to stay pure
should avoid its use, but any others don't have to worry much about
how they accomplish an end."

3. "Poison is a weapon, just like any other. Thus it can be used like
any other weapon, whether to strike down otherwise-unreachable fiends,
or to put an end to the overwhelming righteousness of a paladin, or to
have a political superior suddenly leave his position vacant for the
taking. Poison may be used in much the same way as a sword, but has
less of a chance of maiming and is thus possibly more humane! In any
case, poison is just the tool--it is the heart behind the action which
determines one's good or evil nature."

I fall somewhere between 1 and 2 myself. How about the rest of you?

Scott

[Chris Perkins]

Tough call... I also fall between 1 and 2, leaning towards 2. 

[R. Scott Kimsey]

Yeah...it's an interesting issue. I think if you adopt more of a
natural law view of ethics rather than a utilitarian one, you can come
out closer to number one.

The reason I incline to view #1 at all, though I am in between 1 and
2, if basically the nature of the fantasy milieu in which my games
take place. There is a certain sense the use of poisons is somehow
evil at worst, and at best cowardly and immoral (or dishonorable). I
think there is a reason when you read fantasy literature, particularly
if it is epic fantasy, that you rarely if ever see good characters,
the protagonists, using methods like poisoning, whereas they are quite
common among the the bad guys.

There seems to be something inherently immoral about not standing up
to a fair fight, but instead sapping the enemy's natural abilities
through use of a substance.

In my current campaign, most players are using the Norse Pantheon for
their Gods, and I would think that bringing poison into combat would
be particularly egregious for characters worshipping Norse gods,
because of how those gods view heroic battles and heroic deaths in
battle.

[Andrew Collas]

I lean in no direction but instead stand firmly on 1.

Poison that is used to kill makes you a murderer... murder is evil, in
my morality anyways.

Killing is another story, but outright murder is an evil act.

-=-=-=-=
"He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right
argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been
greater than the power of sense." — Joseph Conrad

[R. Scott Kimsey]

Suppose the poison is on a blade that you are using in a fight?

[Andrew Collas]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:30 AM, R. Scott Kimsey<rski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose the poison is on a blade that you are using in a fight?

Then we can add dishonorable to evil.

Though to be honest if they are the kind of guy/gal who uses a
poison blade, I doubt worrying about honor is high on their list of
priorities. ;)

--

[Guamae]

I play in Scott's games, and i remember my Hunter in the WarhammerFRP
game that we played found some poison on a skaven assassin, and used
the bujeeses out of that poison! It was so convenient to be able to
take an enemy out of the fight with the first arrow instead of having
to poke him 2 or 3 times. But either way, he ended up just as dead. In
fact, since getting shot with an arrow is a particularly painful
experience, minimizing that can be seen as a good thing.

If you haven't guessed, i sit between views 2 and 3 leaning towards 3.

My opinion on Andrew's post is:
Yes, using poison to kill makes you a murderer.
Yes, that makes it evil.
How is that different from using a sword/bow/fireball to kill?
All those things make you a murderer.
All those things are evil acts.
What would a C&C game be like if we were actually trying to be _Good_?

Combat and killing are second nature rpg games. _Good_ isn't really an
option (if you read Order of the Stick, look at the Slyph's actions
against the Thieves Guild.) so we only have "relatively good".

On Aug 12, 10:19 am, Andrew Collas <asl...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrew Collas]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Guamae<gua...@email.com> wrote:
>
> My opinion on Andrew's post is:
> Yes, using poison to kill makes you a murderer.
> Yes, that makes it evil.
> How is that different from using a sword/bow/fireball to kill?
> All those things make you a murderer.
> All those things are evil acts.
> What would a C&C game be like if we were actually trying to be _Good_?

There is a big difference between murder and killing.

By your definition every soldier in every war who took a life of an
enemy is a murderer. Right up there with the gang that took out
Rasputin.

My world has a few more shades of gray than that. Which is cool.

I find it interesting that I am black & white on the poison issue,
while I am shades of gray on what is murder.

[Guamae]

I'll admit, that random slaughter is worse than killing in war.
And when someone Must Be Stopped, it's very quick and efficient
(compared to other means).

But i'd never really say it's a "Good" thing.
Incompatible with the whole "turn the other cheek" and "love thy
neighbor" mentality. Of course, a Lawful Good Paladin has a different
"moral code" than a baker would, but that's more to make the game fun
and interesting than a philosophical issue, and i'm talking
philosophy. Based off of that, dead is dead and i don't think the
corpse make a bigger or lesser stink (ba-dum bum) depending on how it
got there.

[R. Scott Kimsey]

I agree that not all killing is murder. Societies make that
distinction in their laws, and for good reason.

I also think you can still be 'good' and have to kill at times.

When you translate this all into a typical fantasy milieu, I think you
end up in a situation where the good guys can certainly be involved in
destroying evil (by killing or other means), but where poison use is
going to be considered dishonorable by most 'good' people. Whether it
crosses over into evil may depend on the use.

As for Warhammer, I didn't really say anything about the party's use
of poisons in that game because the Warhammer universe is
significantly different than your standard heroic fantasy setting. In
the Warhammer world, the 'good guys' (i.e. the ones fighting chaos)
may be downright nasty or 'evil' themselves. Take Witch Hunters, for
example.

But in a typical heroic fantasy setting I think most of the
inhabitants of the world are going to have a bit of a different slant
on good and evil than what you find in Warhammer. And in our current
C&C game, as I pointed out before almost everyone (if not everyone) is
using the Norse pantheon, and I think that would be particularly
problematic in terms of poison use.

[Guamae]

Well i'm talking philosophy here. In the C&C game, i doubt my
illusionist would use poison just because he wouldn't want to take the
risk of cutting himself on his own dart, and anyways, Color Spray will
probably do me more good and be easier.
I should also look some on Baldur just to flesh-out the character
background ...

The question of 'honor', i think, wouldn't even be measured on the
good/evil axis, though my definitions might be a bit off... Honor is
best defined, in my opinion, by the Knight's Code of Conduct. They
even have an entry for "Honor" and it involves keeping one's word, not
attacking an unarmed foe, or one asking for mercy.
I could think of a Chaotic Good character, (possibly a King who lies
to his army of Paladins because it's the only way to keep the peace
and save himself from assassinations from the greedy and power-hungry
aristocracy) who wouldn't hesitate to use poison or his own assassins
to stave off a civil war, where a Lawful character would not
compromise his beliefs even in the face of total destruction.

[Andrew Collas]

hon·or (nr)
n.
1. High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem: the honor
shown to a Nobel laureate.
2.
a. Good name; reputation.
b. A source or cause of credit: was an honor to the profession.
3.
a. Glory or recognition; distinction.
b. A mark, token, or gesture of respect or distinction: the place of
honor at the table.
c. A military decoration.
d. A title conferred for achievement.
4. High rank.
5. The dignity accorded to position: awed by the honor of his office.
6. Great privilege: I have the honor to present the governor.
7. Honor Used with His, Her, or Your as a title and form of address
for certain officials, such as judges and mayors: Her Honor the Mayor.
8.
a. Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity.
b. A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that
was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of
arms.
c. A woman's chastity or reputation for chastity.
9. honors Social courtesies offered to guests: did the honors at tea.
10. honors
a. Special recognition for unusual academic achievement: graduated
from college with honors.
b. A program of advanced study for exceptional students: planned to
take honors in history.
11. Sports The right of being first at the tee in golf.
12. Games
a. Any of the four or five highest cards, especially the ace, king,
queen, jack, and ten of the trump suit, in card games such as bridge
or whist.
b. The points allotted to these cards. Often used in the plural.
tr.v. hon·ored, hon·or·ing, hon·ors
1.
a. To hold in respect; esteem.
b. To show respect for.
c. To bow to (another dancer) in square dancing: Honor your partner.
2. To confer distinction on: He has honored us with his presence.
3. To accept or pay as valid: honor a check; a store that honors all
credit cards.
Idiom:
honor bound
Under an obligation enforced by the personal integrity of the one
obliged: I was honor bound to admit that she had done the work.

[R. Scott Kimsey]

I think what you're putting forth is reasonable. And yeah, in C&C a
class that isn't an assassin is going to run a risk of poisoning
himself.

Baldur was, I believe, slain indirectly by Loki using mistletoe (the
one plant that hadn't sworn to do him no harm. Loki gets tortured
with poison because of it. The god who is prophecied to slay the
serpent at rangarok is killed by its foul poison (is that Thor?).
Anyway, I think a Norse god would be more apt to applaud a follower
charging into battle to certain death with a sword in his hands and a
cry on his lips than charging to victory with poison :)

[Deen Mor'iarty]

I guess my question is this: how is poison inherently evil when
BACKSTABBING is not? There are no alignment requirements to use a
thief's calling card combat move. How is poisoning someone any more
diabolical than sneaking up behind someone, already in combat no less,
picking out a nice kidney shot and stabbing them in the back?

I'm firmly on 3. Poison is nothing more or less than a tool that
achieves a similar result as the guy swinging a sword, chucking a
fireball or shooting an arrow from afar. Who would see poisoning
Hitler as "evil"? If situational caveats are necessary, since I'm
assuming no one thinks poisoning Hitler would have been evil, then by
default poisons are nothing more than a tool to be used according to
the motivation of the wielder. I mean, we can talk about
incapacitation and honorable fighting al day long but the CLERIC still
uses Hold Person, a mage uses Sleep, etc.

I'm fine with Palis and Knights and the like having class restrictions
on poison use... But when our own real history sees armies using
swords thrust in fecal matter to bestow infections to wounds
regardless of any kind of alignment conformation of the military at
hand I have to think that using lethal means to defend ones self
should not be limited to only "acceptable" methods. I hate to get all
Heston in here but poison, like guns, are a tool and not inherently
evil.

and yes, I play the thief in Scott's game.