D&D 3E/3.5 Do 3.0/3.5 rules specifically define poison use as evil?

[molonel]

Simple enough question. If so, according to the RAW, where? I've reviewed the 3.5 DMG pages 296-297, and it defines the manufacture/use/sales/ownership of poison as illegal. Arguably, that makes it chaotic, or unlawful.

But is it evil?

I'm looking for a direct ruling from the RAW, if possible.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm pretty sure this is stated clearly in the Book of Exalted Deeds. I don't have the book with me, though, so I can't give you a specific quote.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm 98% sure that the answer is no, poison use is not inherently evil. That conception is a carryover from previous editions that has no place in 3e.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm 98% sure that the answer is no, poison use is not inherently evil. That conception is a carryover from previous editions that has no place in 3e.

I agree... but I also have the vague memory that Desert Gled might be right as well.

Although it might not say that poison use is evil, just that it's non-exalted

Didn't they come up with a new type of looks-like-a-poison, smells-like-a-poison, acts-like-a-poison, but it's called something different! gimmick so that exalted characters could use poison without using poison?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I agree... but I also have the vague memory that Desert Gled might be right as well.

Although it might not say that poison use is evil, just that it's non-exalted

Didn't they come up with a new type of looks-like-a-poison, smells-like-a-poison, acts-like-a-poison, but it's called something different! gimmick so that exalted characters could use poison without using poison?

-Hyp.

The BoED states that using poison that cause ability damage is evil because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Only the "Oil of Taggit" poison is acceptable for good/exalted characters because it simply causes unconciousness. Drow poison is also not inherently evil.

The BoED also introduces "Ravages" which are nearly identical to poisons, except that they only affect evil creatures and being immune to poison doesn't protect you from a Ravage.

Afflictions are similar to diseases and only affect evil creatures as well.

 

[Particle_Man]

BoED makes poison use in general evil because it causes so much pain and suffering. Oddly enough, it explicitly says that there is a type of drow poison (the sleep poison?) that is not evil, presumably because being rendered unconscious is not painful.

Also, BoED has something that is like poisons, except a) It does not cause pain and suffering, and b) It only affects evil creatures.

BoED has something similar for "like diseases but not".

 

[Saeviomagy]

The BoED states that using poison that cause ability damage is evil because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Only the "Oil of Taggit" poison is acceptable for good/exalted characters because it simply causes unconciousness. Drow poison is also not inherently evil.

I think 'poisons are evil' was brought in from prior editions as a tool to stop PC's from using an especially effective weapon.

No, make that a ludicrously effective weapon.

You've never lived until you've used an athasian bard manufacturing poison type 'J' on darts (3 shots per round, each of them doing 20 points of damage on a successful save and instantly killing on a failed one). Especially in a world where you're likely to build up 20 or so doses of poison during travel time across the desert.

3rd edition's poisons aren't too bad - the ones which DO kill immediately (or have effects which are likely to kill immediately) are exhorbitantly expensive. Just like they should be.

And BOED can get bent. The poison spell in the PHB, who's sole purpose is to produce poison is not listed as [evil]. Poison seems just fine to me.

 

[Caliban]

I think 'poisons are evil' was brought in from prior editions as a tool to stop PC's from using an especially effective weapon.

No, make that a ludicrously effective weapon.

You've never lived until you've used an athasian bard manufacturing poison type 'J' on darts (3 shots per round, each of them doing 20 points of damage on a successful save and instantly killing on a failed one). Especially in a world where you're likely to build up 20 or so doses of poison during travel time across the desert.

3rd edition's poisons aren't too bad - the ones which DO kill immediately (or have effects which are likely to kill immediately) are exhorbitantly expensive. Just like they should be.

And BOED can get bent. The poison spell in the PHB, who's sole purpose is to produce poison is not listed as [evil]. Poison seems just fine to me.

*shrug* Hey, I was just answering Hypersmurf's question, since I happen to have the book.

I think of poisons as being "unlawful" as opposed to inherently evil, but definitely not something that an "exalted" style good character would go for. Also not something a paladin would go for, except in unusual circumstances.

 

[Oscar carramiñana]

uses poison are not inherent evil but a lot of evil related races prestige classes, can do use poison
The BoeD says what poison what do ability damage are evil...

 

[shilsen]

I think of poisons as being "unlawful" as opposed to inherently evil, but definitely not something that an "exalted" style good character would go for. Also not something a paladin would go for, except in unusual circumstances.

I agree. The only reference with a "moral" take on using poison in the core books is in the paladin description where it says their code requires that paladins "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)", which defines poison use as dishonorable, not evil.