Goblin Squad Member
|
well Bringslite, wanna know how not to get poisoned? (by me anyways) Just hire me before anyone else. Plain and simple.But do you stay bought?
That depends on if you stay up-to-date on your "renewal payments". That goes with nearly every contract. If you "renew" it, then it stays active for another "term." I see whole bandit/assassin companies making a large amount of coin off of "repeat" customers. You want us to stay away from your caravans and cities....pay us a reoccurring fee and we will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been playing a game on my IPhone these past few days, Book of Heros, and the Rogue class makes extensive use of poison, and I'm really quite enjoying it.
What I would hope to see in PFO is a variety of poisons, from a variety of sources, crafted at a variety of tiers and delivered in a variety of ways. Most importantly, poisons should have a variety of effects: Burst damage; DOT damage; Debilitating effects, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That depends on if you stay up-to-date on your "renewal payments". That goes with nearly every contract. If you "renew" it, then it stays active for another "term." I see whole bandit/assassin companies making a large amount of coin off of "repeat" customers. You want us to stay away from your caravans and cities....pay us a reoccurring fee and we will.well Bringslite, wanna know how not to get poisoned? (by me anyways) Just hire me before anyone else. Plain and simple.But do you stay bought?
This 100%. If I have a contract with you, it would be very bad business to accept a contract against you. So, if assassinations last 1day (like bounties if its still the same, although I hope they make it longer, assassinations SHOULD take a bit of time) Then, all you have to do is rehire me. Even if our contract consists of " Heres a contract, Your target, anyone who tries to hire against me during this contract" and boom. Not only do I eliminate your enemies, but I WONT target you till the contract is over. So just keep the contract active :D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking the idea if paying not to be poisoned was tongue in cheek. Contracting not to be poisoned is a bit bizarre. Hiring a food taster is the usual route, or body guards to take that knife in the back.
But hey, I'll promise not to cast a lightning bolt at you, if you'll pay up front for that!
Again, you have departed from the point of the discussion.Actually no. If you look back, you'll see that my position is that poison is just another weapon. Exactly the same point in the post you quoted.
No. It isn't. You stated that I don't want to be poisoned, and then implied that was the reason that I was posting. This, even though I've stated MULTIPLE times that I don't mind poison in the game but simply want limits put on it to prevent a powerful tool being abused by powergamers and the jerks that overwhelm any MMO's general populace.
How it was because of the macho jock attitude that prevails in the U.S. because it wasn't 'fighting fair'.
I'm pretty sure I haven't been limiting my arguments to the US. I used the word 'jock' because I though it would be understood by the majority of readers as meaning an attitude where the only way to settle disputes is a stand-up fight. Sorry if that was unclear to you.
Now your calling me stupid. Again, I made a specific reference toward stabbing people in the back or poisoning them in a situation thating and could be construed as self defense. I find your implication annoying and insulting.
Drug use and poison use have always been considered evil in D&D and in Pathfinder.
That is not an argument for why, that is just a statement that 'we do it that way because we've always done it that way'. If that sort of attitude prevailed, we would still have good clerics raising undead (1st Edition AD&D allowed Good clerics to Animate Dead with no penalty).
The game is set in the Pathfinder RPG setting. The fact that poison use is considered evil there absolutely IS pertinent to the discussion about a video game BASED on said world!
You aren't even RESPONDING to what I've said.
To be frank, I didn't respond directly to what you said because it was all over the place. You were trying to build an argument based on what happened in the real world, but then carried the argument into game-only concepts, thus neatly countering your own point. I could have brought it up at the time, but decided that it was better to let it go past unremarked.
My argument hits multiple points as I'm trying to make a point from multiple angles. Again, you attempting to use insults to make your point instead of coming up with a cogent argument.
I don't have a problem with poison being in the game. Poison has always been a part of D&D and Pathfinder. It should be in PFO. My issue with you're argument is that it isn't evil, and therefore there should be no consequences to it's use and with some of the ways you have suggested it be employed.
Not 'no consequence'. Not some software-triggered automatic label. I would expect there to be as much consequence for a poisoner drugging a PC in a tavern as there would be for a warrior stabbing one in the back....
You want poison to be in the game. You want to be free to use it with no repercussions to yourself. I find it quite amusing that you have spent most of your time accusing me of the very things you yourself are guilty of. I don't mind a discussion, but stop insulting me. Being a jerk to someone isn't a very good way to make your point or change their mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At a price of 1 gold to never poison a particular character, you could make a killing.
I was thinking the idea if paying not to be poisoned was tongue in cheek. Contracting not to be poisoned is a bit bizarre. Hiring a food taster is the usual route, or body guards to take that knife in the back.
If you are referring to that post Mr Bluddwolf then you hit the nail on the head. It was supposed to be a joke that characters could pay an assassin not to poison them, but (the assassin) could still kill them a different way.
Lame, I am aware, but I was bored.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I reckon assassins could issue a menu of services to their prospective targets. Have a list of options which the target-to-be could rate in order of preference. A small fee would ensure that the assassination was performed using with the method of choice.
"I think the stiletto to the heart, if you don't mind. Can I get a two-for-one with strangulation in a fetid alley for my follow-up death? Here's a few gold for yourself, please make sure that the stiletto is clean."
It's so very Ankh Morpork Thieves' Guild.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things like this cannot be put in without thinking about the worse case scenario for it's use - because that IS how it will be used.
I'm pretty sure everybody understands that poisons are bad. Using them is a premeditated act and that they'll go chaotic and/or evil in doing so (excepting times of war, bounties, assassinations?, and a few other fringe cases).
That said, all of the horrible, despicable and reprehensible reasons you can think of are exactly why poisons should be in the game. Because they will be used that way, and that's great for us.
The second is that no one will go to these types of places after a while, unless it's required somehow, because they don't want to get drugged/poisoned.
That was my favorite part, it almost sounded like you were arguing for poisons right there. Factor in the implications of player alignment vs settlement alignment and how a place that had constant poisonings would likely be in a chaotic or at best neutral settlement and be fairly seedy to boot. The poisons couldn't kill people or it would have to be an evil settlement for the poisoner to be able to do this frequently and still walk around said settlement with impunity (unless they're disguised and assassinating people, but you already said this was okay).
A lot of poisoning isn't just about killing people. Reducing their effectiveness in combat could be a side effect, but reducing their effectiveness as the head blacksmith or bureaucrat would have a far greater impact without the need to go as far as murder to achieve your ends. No reason this would only need to be food/drink based either, no reason to avoid those seedy taverns. Contact poisons could be applied to a door handle, a work bench, a bed. It could be a gradual poison, it could be all sorts of poisons.
The last thing to consider is that, yes, everyone would have access to poisons, potentially. Everyone will have access to vorpal weapons eventually too, but you are only as effective as your training. So you will have to put in considerable time to be proficient with poisons as with any other skill. More if you want to be able to produce and use your own poisons.
This leads to more trade as most would probably want to acquire poisons rather than spend the extra time training. Which inevitably leads to more visits to seedy taverns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Darcnes
I would disagree in the case of bounties. Unfortunately a bounty hunters role in PFO is to be a hired killer, since there is no other resolution for combat. But, the use of poison is evil by any for purposes of AD&D / PFORPG based games. The warfare exemption for evil alignment shifts are exclusive to PFO.
"All is fare in love and war".seems to be the operative justification.
Things like this cannot be put in without thinking about the worse case scenario for it's use - because that IS how it will be used.I'm pretty sure everybody understands that poisons are bad. Using them is a premeditated act and that they'll go chaotic and/or evil in doing so (excepting times of war, bounties, assassinations?, and a few other fringe cases).
That said, all of the horrible, despicable and reprehensible reasons you can think of are exactly why poisons should be in the game. Because they will be used that way, and that's great for us.
The second is that no one will go to these types of places after a while, unless it's required somehow, because they don't want to get drugged/poisoned.That was my favorite part, it almost sounded like you were arguing for poisons right there. Factor in the implications of player alignment vs settlement alignment and how a place that had constant poisonings would likely be in a chaotic or at best neutral settlement and be fairly seedy to boot. The poisons couldn't kill people or it would have to be an evil settlement for the poisoner to be able to do this frequently and still walk around said settlement with impunity (unless they're disguised and assassinating people, but you already said this was okay).
A lot of poisoning isn't just about killing people. Reducing their effectiveness in combat could be a side effect, but reducing their effectiveness as the head blacksmith or bureaucrat would have a far greater impact without the need to go as far as murder to achieve your ends. No reason this would only need to be food/drink based either, no reason to avoid those seedy taverns. Contact poisons could be applied to a door handle, a work bench, a bed. It could be a gradual poison, it could be all sorts of poisons.
The last thing to consider is that, yes, everyone would have access to poisons, potentially. Everyone will have access to vorpal weapons eventually too, but you are only as...
Heh. So you want to not to be able to roleplay going into a tavern? I mean, every tabletop D&D game I've ever played in(the fun ones, at least) ends up with cool stuff happening in one. I'd love for a MMO to come up with an in game reason for crappy, dingy, smoky taverns to be visited regularly as an adventurer. Even more so, I'd like it if there was a reason to just stay there.
The problem is, the OP was advocating for it to be perfectly fine for a person to use poison in any settlement. They saw nothing wrong with poisoning and drugging everyone they could, at the drop of a hat. He tried to argue he wanted to use it in self defense, that poisoning someone in a tavern was okay because that mean guy he was poisoning was a 7' tall barbarian who could beat him up! My argument was that if the 7' tall meanie barbar was trying to whack him with his titanic battle axe, then poisoning him was ok as far as I was concerned. What they wanted to do is just be able to poison him, because he was in the same room with him and might, at some randomly determined future point, TRY to hit him with said axe. Maybe! Not only that, but he wanted it to be perfectly fine to do that, with no negative repercussions. They wanted to just walk into a bar, randomly poison total strangers and have it be fine. After, he tried to defend himself by saying he just wants to drug them, maybe weakening them or knocking them unconscious. THEN killing them afterwards with a different tool.
Cuz that makes it perfectly ok. Not premeditated murder, or evil in any way.
Then he tried to say that what adventurers do in every game by killing goblins and orcs was just the same. Not that, you know, usually in any decent game the adventurers are there to deal with some specific problem involving said goblins. Like them pillaging towns. Praying to ancient evil deities and summoning evil outsiders. Kidnapping children.
Because yeah, poisoning strangers is EXACTLY the same as killing a goblin tribe that is trying to bring about an invasion of demons and devils, or helping to conquer a country at the behest of dark powers of evil.
Totally the same thing.
I assume that you are capable of discerning sarcasm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Zanathos, rather than making things up that you think I have said, why not go back and actually read what I have written.
Your hyperbolic misrepresenting of my suggestions is not what I have argued at all, in the same way as your belief that I have been somehow insulting you at every opportunity is wrong.
If you wish to refer to things I have suggested then please read through my posts first, rather than making up what you believe I would have written.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This 100%. If I have a contract with you, it would be very bad business to accept a contract against you. So, if assassinations last 1day (like bounties if its still the same, although I hope they make it longer, assassinations SHOULD take a bit of time) Then, all you have to do is rehire me. Even if our contract consists of " Heres a contract, Your target, anyone who tries to hire against me during this contract" and boom. Not only do I eliminate your enemies, but I WONT target you till the contract is over. So just keep the contract active :D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If only we had some kind of underground forum to discuss the exchange of contracts so that if someone offers you a contract that contradicts one you already have, then if only you had some place to go to sell off that second contract and still make some profit off of it without contradicting your first one...if only...
Problem I have with this is, when I go there, this is all I see:
Total Topics: 6 - Total Posts: 13
Last Updated Topic: Baking at Gunpoint by thunderfrog (Apr 4, 2013, 8:29am)
Total Members: 30
Newest Member: bringslite
The sounds of Crickets and echoes is all I get there.... But to be honest, are we really going to talk about underworld governance and or cooperation, tactics and contracts openly?
We could perhaps have a forum thread, here on neutral ground, where we begin by standing up and saying:
"I am the leader of _________ this is the criminal focus of my group."
"This is in a very broad sense, how I think we can cooperate."
"This is a line I'm not willing to cross."
"This is what I'm willing to compromise on."
"Do we want to form some kind of an Underworld Council to govern all of the criminal interests of the River Kingdoms?"
Then we can get to questions of poison, banditry, assassination, slavery, drugs, smuggling, extortion, bribery and the illegal importation of Giraffes!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But to be honest, are we really going to talk about underworld governance and or cooperation, tactics and contracts openly?
Of course not. It's a place to post a contract with an anonymous ID, be it your contract or one you wish to pass on, and then further discuss that contract with someone who wants to buy it through PMs. This is all assuming there won't be an in game way to advertise contracts discreetly and anonymously.
"Do we want to form some kind of an Underworld Council to govern all of the criminal interests of the River Kingdoms?"
That's the role Tony's is going for. Not a governing council, but a place where reasonable limits be discussed and expectations set. I believe I've already suggested a similar thread be started on Tony's by someone who really wanted to discuss this by PM. Shame the author never followed up on that...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The sounds of Crickets and echoes is all I get there....
I admit Tony's is only a curiosity so far, but what can I expect with no game to speak of? When the game is going though, people will see the needs Tony is trying to meet. Then either people will use the tool I'm trying to set up or they will set up something similar.
I'm ok with either outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blaeringr, I'm glad you're around to head up these kinds of things. They will certainly be needed if the world as a whole is to operate smoothly.
Keep up your subtle prods, keep the idea and the name fresh in peoples' minds. =)
Ps. It makes me feel way better knowing at least one other person has these thoughts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no story worth the telling that bears no conflict. This is the weakness of true neutrality: it would be awful if you extremists weren't at each other's throat. If we were dealing with mechanical constructs neutrality would unfailingly be a bore, but while we have people in the world neutrality is the fulcrum by which to move the world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok Blaeringr or Tony or Aunt Tony or whatever name you like to use ;)
I have cleared some of the dust away, and silenced the crickets. I made a small contribution of dough for you to bake and chew on.
Most recently I've been going by Bluddwolf. And thank you for your interest.
In any case, Tony's may or may not end up having some redundancies with what can be done via the normal Goblinworks forums. It's merely an attempt to encourage a healthy underground, and whether it's more than is needed remains to be seen. Whether it's at Tony's shop or not, I'll be happy just to see a healthy underground.
Drug use and poison use have always been considered evil in D&D and in Pathfinder.
Really? Is that why ninjas, a class that can be "Any" alignment, have Poison Use as a class ability at first level?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Drug use and poison use have always been considered evil in D&D and in Pathfinder.Really? Is that why ninjas, a class that can be "Any" alignment, have Poison Use as a class ability at first level?
I believe all Clerics can use Raise Dead, but it's still considered an evil act.
I'm still for poisons being included, but maybe the type you use should have an alignment impact or training restrictions.
If they ever add the Witch class (which I hope they do, as it's a fav), they have a level 1 spell called Gift.
Gift compels someone to consume something you hand to them, which is often a delivery mechanism for poisoned apples, etc. I could see you equipping the spell and then attaching an item to it.
It's "Animate Dead", and no, all clerics can't. If a cleric worships a Good god, he is not of Any alignment—he must be Good. As such, he cannot cast Animate Dead without losing his powers.
The difference is that the cleric class specifically calls out aligned spells and specifically imposes limits on the cleric's alignment besides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's "Animate Dead", and no, all clerics can't. If a cleric worships a Good god, he is not of Any alignment—he must be Good. As such, he cannot cast Animate Dead without losing his powers.
The difference is that the cleric class specifically calls out aligned spells and specifically imposes limits on the cleric's alignment besides.
Yeah, you're right. A neutral cleric could worship and evil god and cast it all several times a day, but it'd still be an evil act.
The point stands that being able to do something doesn't mean it's accepted by your alignment.
And if it's not accepted by your alignment, your alignment changes.
Which is why a Lawful Good ninja being trained to use poison pretty clearly demonstrates that poison use is not inherently evil.
Also, the spell Poison? Kinda weird how there's no Evil descriptor...or mention of it being an evil act...
Find me the rule that says poison use is evil. It's not in the books.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poisons are planned as weapon coatings for Alchemists to make. They don't work yet (no consumables work, but those will probably be even later than potions and grenades since they're more complex tech). I hadn't expected to make them alignment-limited. More out of not wanting to limit a third of Alchemy's recipes to "evil" ends than any real ethical philosophy.
Though I do think that when you're talking about different delivery methods of poison you're talking about subtly different ethical spectra. There's notably a difference between making your stabbing more deadly so you can kill a victim faster and putting something in someone's food to make them die a slow lingering death.
But, in another frame, the only reason there's a difference is because warrior cultures declared killing with steel to be honorable but with chemicals to not be. Both leave a target dead in a potentially painful manner. Neither has any innate reason to cause damage to a target's psyche or soul (though deliberately using a slow and painful poison when a faster one would do is probably ethically similar to torturing someone to death with a weapon rather than giving a clean death).
All that said, I'm not a philosophy major. Unlike raising undead, I'm sure a lot of real world ethical discussion has revolved around the difference between poison and steel as a mechanism for killing, and I'm not in a position to look it up or refute it ;) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The poison itself, as a weapon of combat is not evil, dishonored at best. By RAW only Paladins aren't able to use it, because its code strictly say it.
But there are some uses of poison that are an evil act, like poison someone food or water supply.
EDIT: I was ninjaed! :/
:D
Good threads.
The second references it as a legacy rule because it was RAW evil in 1ed through 3.5ed (Book of Exalted deeds), which is why I've never had a Pathfinder DM allow it.I wasn't opposed to the idea, just the amusingly backwards logic that an any-alignment class should be a metric for determining something about a specific alignment.
It only seems backwards if you don't think it out. If I gave paladins an ability to summon demons, would you say, "Well, he doesn't have to use it"? Or would you say, "It must be some sort of special summoning that isn't evil"?
If the Poison Use ability was evil, the ninja class would be at least "Any Nongood" like the Dread Necromancer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It only seems backwards if you don't think it out. If I gave paladins an ability to summon demons, would you say, "Well, he doesn't have to use it"? Or would you say, "It must be some sort of special summoning that isn't evil"?
If the Poison Use ability was evil, the ninja class would be at least "Any Nongood" like the Dread Necromancer.
Let's ignore the straw man fallacy for a moment.
Having Animate Dead still hasn't made Clerics "any non-good," and that's RAW evil. Correct?
So, if poison was RAW evil, would it have changed the ninja's alignment?
Having Animate Dead still hasn't made Clerics "any non-good," and that's RAW evil. Correct?
There are three sections in the cleric's class abilities explaining that, yes, a cleric who casts Animate Dead is Any Non-Good. Three.
Let's ignore the straw man fallacy for a moment.
Ah, is that that fallacy where someone misuses the term "strawman fallacy" to make someone look dishonest?
Never been a fan of that sorta thing, myself. I vote we do ignore it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having Animate Dead still hasn't made Clerics "any non-good," and that's RAW evil. Correct?There are three sections in the cleric's class abilities explaining that, yes, a cleric who casts Animate Dead is Any Non-Good. Three.
Do you know who else has Animate Dead and is any alignment? Sorcerers and Wizards.
So, if poison was RAW evil, would it have changed the ninja's alignment?
The point is that a class that has a good or evil ability needs to have a realistic way to use that ability. Giving an Any alignment class an ability that only a rough third of its members will be able to use is ridiculous.
Wizards/Sorcerers, meanwhile, have a massive spell list. It would be lunacy to try to say "You can't be good" just because 5% of their spells happen to be evil.
The wizard or sorcerer is determined by the choices they make in selection, not their overall range of options. It's roughly closer to if Poison Use was a Ninja Trick—that's something that the ninja would choose to do, rather than a wasted class feature. Poison Use is a major ability almost unique to ninjas. It'd be like giving "Smite Babies" to a fighter and saying, "You can only use this if you're evil. If you're Good, there's no alternate ability—you just suck."
The same goes for Witches: Witches get dozens of hexes to choose from, and can opt to be a Good Witch rather than a Bad Witch. Poison Use isn't a Ninja Trick. It's not optional. It's a class feature they are expected to at some point make use of.
To make a more ordinary comparison, it'd be like if Barbarians were "Any Alignment", but the Rage was Chaotics-only. What's the point?