I was googling about poisonous plants for my DnD campaign when I noticed that, in Chinese literature, the cure for the poison is usually something that actually exist, such as liquorice, honeysuckle, or mung bean, and there are detailed instruction on the amount to be used and how to mix them for the cure.
Obviously, I have no idea if those Instruction are accurate or not.
Meanwhile, in the West, the antidote...just works. While "Find the Cure" is a popular trope, I actually couldn't find any Western literature that depict mixing and creating antidote the same way Chinese literature does. There's no "Creation process" for the antidote, and if there is, it involves dropping some undefined, fantastic ingredient.
Or may be I just didn't look hard enough.
My Chinese friend said this is because ancient Chinese has a much more developed toxicology than the rest of the world during that time, citing books such as Shennong Bencaojing that existed way before the rest of the world have any idea about toxicology.
So...what gives? Is it really because the difference in medicine development?
You don't necessarily get 'antidotes' in Early Medieval English medicine, thanks to the general lack of venomous animals in the British Isles, but you absolutely do get herbology, in medical textbooks like Bald's Leechbook. For example:
For the bite of an adder, put betony that weighs three pennyweights in three bowls full of wine, give to drink.