Poison: Always Evil?

So I'm having a debate with a friend who wants to play an assassin in an upcoming game (3.5, if it matters). He wants to play an assassin, but doesn't believe the use of poison is always an evil act. I believe it is (I'm not the DM) due to the fact that consistent use of poison for a combat edge creates pain and suffering beyond what is needed to overcome an enemy. He sees it as utilizing an available tool, neither good or evil, and on the same level as using a sneak attack.

What do you think, Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm
d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I think you're retarded.

>dnd
>alignment thread

This is bait all right.

Only the GM's opinion on the subject matters, so shut up and deal with it.

Good =/= Nice.

Not every good character needs to be an upstanding knight of honour who only does battle and never catches his foe off guard. By your logic, ambushes shouldn't be done by good characters because they make their enemies scared before killing them.

There's a difference between sneaking up on somebody and hitting them with a dart that makes them shit out their intestines.

>every poison causes pain

Aside from that, plenty of casters routinely inflict far worse shit on unsuspecting victims, yet nobody thinks to label those spells as evil.

Yeah, just call them up and ask them if they feel better about being fucking murdered because it was slightly less painful for them to slip into the suffocating embrace of death before being tossed into Hell to suffer for all eternity.

Never change, Veeky Forums.

GM hasn't ruled, and of course I'll go with what he decides. This is outside of the game; just a debate about ethics.

Ambush =/= Sneak attack. I am talking about 'enemy is on the road, lets attack from the forest on both sides' ambushes, not 'hurr durr I use Sneak to backstab him'.