Poison: Always Evil?

No, you really are retarded.
Hacking someone apart is infinitely more painful than poison.
Adding poison to your hacking will make them die faster.
You grant them a swifter, more humane death.

That's just good strategy and allows the opponents a reasonable chance to defend themselves, rather than stabbing somebody in the back with a dagger that makes the heart seize.

So what you're saying is that if a woman killed Hitler with poison she would be evil?

I think that poison is just another tool in somoene's arsenal to kill their enemies. It's not evil if you don't kill an innocent person with it.

>proper ambush
>reasonable chance to defend themselves
u wot m8
>rather than stabbing somebody in the back with a dagger that makes the heart seize.
They are going to die no matter what, the poison is merely insurance. If they don't die immediately from the stab in the heart, then they will die from the poison. Guaranteeing your foe is smitten properly is not evil.

>So I'm having a debate
2 points.

1º-You're the gamemaster, if that discussion lasts beyond 5-15 minutes either you don't respect your own role or he does, either way tell him to suck dicks or be prepared to have this kind of discusion over a long time.

I'm not saying that you should silence debates, only that the gameflow is more important than interpretations(unless your group really like them) and that people have to understand that you have always the last word about how the game developes.
>consistent use of poison for a combat edge creates pain and suffering beyond what is needed to overcome an enemy

2º-A venom doesn't have to cause pain to be mortal, in fact you could say that the most painfull thing about venom is the lack of pain as your body starts to fade without you being unable to do anything.

On the other hand, a venom can be mixed with an anesthetic/stimulant. So a wound would pass unnoticed and a poisoned food would make the person euphoric before dying.

Either way the character needs somekind of medichal/biochemical knwoledge of the fundamental kind(no medieval/tribal interpretation of scientific knowledge) or a lot of trial and error to get the adequate proportions(or at least, have someone prepare it for you).

I think by RAW poison is evil.

This dates back to the older versions of dnd where there were only law and chaos.
Chaos was bad and only chaos used poison.

Look in any monster manual and it will show demons and evil shit using poison and no good things using poison.

Not OP, so don't hold it against him: he explicitly said he is not the GM. Read it all over again.

d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm

>To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

>Alignment
>Any evil.

>Skills
>Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.

>Special
>The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

The question seems irrelevant to this scenario given that 3.5 assassins are required to be evil jerks.

It's a cowardly, underhanded way to kill someone, mainly because there are few defenses against it outside of magic and oftentimes you don't need to actually be in the range of retaliation to kill someone with it.

It's why paladins aren't allowed to use poison.

...

Depends entirely on the poison. Some poisons are agonizing, more so than being chopped up and bleeding out. Some poisons are painless.

Poison is "underhanded," but no more or less evil than other forms of violence, such as attack spells. Fireball! Burning alive, pretty nasty. Phantasmal killer, terrifying someone to death isn't very nice. Oh, and Cloudkill, and other spells that are literally poison, those exist too and aren't inherently evil.

He wants to play an assassin, which does not automatically mean he wants to play using the Assassin class. People commonly fluff their Rogue as an assassin.

>Using poison that can be detected and doesn't just kill your enemy stone dead near-instantly.

Low-tier assassin.

The poisoning would be an evil act, but the net result would be a good thing. I wouldn't force an alignment change for it unless it became a go-to strategy.

>Look in any monster manual
>no good things using poison
d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm

Poison doesn't seem particularly evil if it just kills the guy quickly, no more than stabbing a fucker

What about ambushing the villain, is that evil too?

Or using shit like iron on fae?

Good is helping innocents at cost of yourself.
Evil is harming innocents to benefit yourself.
Law is playing by the rules.
Chaos is refusing to play by the rules.

Poison use is chaotic, not evil.

BTFO

Well shit I was wrong.

Disregard

"Rules"
In combat
Ok buddy

Poison is 'cowardly' (it's generally used by poisoning food and drink, so you're not using your own skill to defeat the enemy) but not evil as a form of execution unless it's deliberately painful beyond usual means.
Painless paralysis poison to coup de grace is a valid method of killing a target, but it usually doesn't prepare you for situations where you actually have to fight it out- which is why DMs tend to withhold XP for poison kills unless you're covering a weapon with the stuff.
It's also a titanic pain for a DM to regulate, so generally don't rely on it too much unless you want to start watching for poison everywhere when the DM gets sick of your overuse of one method and uses it against you or straight up introduces immunities to it.
Basically, if you're gong to turn it into a one-trick pony, expect a lot of Devils in your future.

Venomous animals are considered true neutral.

Detect Evil specifically doesn't detect harmful substances, and poison is given as an example.

The Cleric/Druid spell called Poison doesn't have the [evil] tag.

etc.

Burning someone to death is orders of magnitude more cruel and painful than all but the most sadistic poisons. Are offensive fire spells evil?

I'm not bothered which side you pick, but whichever you choose, just be consistent. If poisons are evil for adding unnecessary pain, then everything else that does likewise should be evil too.

Poison is not inherently evil any more than flaming arrows are, but setting a guy on fire and leaving him to burn to death is a pretty dick thing to do.

Poisons that cause someone to go into massive bone-breaking spasms (mechanicked as paralysis) or other forms of extreme suffering are not evil either, but using them could be an evil act due to being a form of torture.

One that paralyzes them allowing you to slit their throats is no different from gratuitous application of a heavy club to the grey.

To be pedantic, couatl are venomous. Though mechanically "poison" and "venom" are synonymous anyway.

I wouldn't really call daggers 'poisonous' since they are essentially artificial metal fangs you hold in your hand.

To also be pedantic, their stat block says they cause "poison" with their bite attack, even though that's not what being poisonous means.

That's literally what I said.

I guess I misread your tone there. My bad.

In 3.5, poisons are evil - as are assassins. However, if you want to be good and use poison, good for you, you have "ravages" described in the Book of Exalted Deeds. They are just like poisons, but using them is okay.

This is why I play 5E.

Poison is evil, wah wah wah. Don't use silver and wolf's bane to kill that werewolf. It might hurt. We can't do that it's unethical.

Poison is only as evil as what you kill with it.

>>depends on the setting

>Poison is only as evil as what you kill with it.
Poison is the inverse alignment of what you kill with it*

>consistent use of poison for a combat edge creates pain and suffering beyond what is needed to overcome an enemy.
I fail to see how stabbing a dude over and over again is any more good. It's still a pretty messy and painful way to die.

Poison is evil in the same way magic is evil to a ye'old point of view: it makes it easy to kill without taking responsibility. In most cultures magic is innately tied to poison and sneakiness. While sometimes deemed necessarily it's generally tasteless do to sowing paranoia in a time when trust means everything.

BUT that is from an olden'times perspective and most D&D games have an anachronistic system of ethics. If you want to use the original justification for making poison 'evil' you would be expected to treat rogues and magic in the same way. If you are not doing this then making poison evil is just sort of arbitrary.

poison being evil is mostly from the point of view from continental europe, in parts asia, australia, and south america, poison is a common hunting tool and fact of life, no more or less evil than the dart it coats.

the only things that imho can have an intrinsic good or evil qualifier to them are divine spells as they can be powered by the metaphysical concepts of good and evil

anything else is just a tool and its nature lies in its application

Is a scorpion or a snake evil for using the tools given to it? Do the gods blame man for every loaf of bread they eat to survive, crying tears for the harvested crop? No.

Poison is only cruel when excessive or used in situations where it is usually promised against, such as honor duels. There are many options that force unconsciousness or cause numbness, some of which could be considered acts of kindness. If it prevents you from needing to kill the target, stops the target from continuing to fight and ends the violence, or eases the suffering of one who would have died painfully then poisoning could be considered a wholly good act.

What i'm saying op is that 'it just depends on how and why they use it.'

>>Either way the character needs somekind of medichal/biochemical knwoledge of the fundamental kind(no medieval/tribal interpretation of scientific knowledge) or a lot of trial and error to get the adequate proportions(or at least, have someone prepare it for you)
I'd rather overdo it and have someone die from overdosing on happy pills

Using unholy water to poison good/neutral creatures and holy water to poison evil ones isn't technically an evil act? There's always loopholes, natch.

You cearly have not played a cavalier before; they make Paladins look sane with what retarded combat restrictions they've got, including not hitting a fleeing enemy - AKA, the one things cavalry is SUPPOSED to do.

how come poisoning someone is evil but punching someone or killing them with a blade isn't?

It depends. Think about it: In ancient Greece, the poisonous hemlock was used to kill prisoners sentenced to death (see e.g. Socrates). That's an absolutely lawful use.

Then it's not Veeky Forums

Lawful, not "good".

Killing a bad guy isn't evil, user.

No worse then power word pain to me

but in setting your probably never be considered a Hero if it's know you use it all the time and people will judge you

don't think it's Evil their probably think it's Cowardly, Weak or Dishonorable to use

But magic is Ok.

Because you can't slip a Fireball into someone's drink, walk away, and then have that guy die hours or even days later.

delayed blast fireball, your argument is invalid

So it's more a question of usage.
Poison coated sword is not evil.

>not putting explosive runes in library books

It's like you're not even a wizard.