Hello everyone,
I've had a recurring problem lately: I play an Alchemist in PFS, and poison is one of her main tools. As such, at the beginning of sessions, I ask who has piercing/slashing weapons so I can poison them. And I got a lot of players/characters straight up refusing poison. Even a Rogue...
Poison is a basic tool of the Alchemist in PF2 and there is no indication of alignment restriction or whatever around its use. So, I wanted to have the community point of view (and ideally Paizo's) about the use of poison, injury poisons more specifically as these are the only ones I use.
Are injury poisons bad/evil/chaotic and only used by sketchy characters?
Or are they a tool that even paladins could use if they have an Alchemist in the party?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see worshippers of Gorum and maybe Paladins not being comfortable with it, but aside from that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be okay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fear there can't be a universal answer as the acceptance of poison as a weapon is as much a personal choice as well as it may be restricted by class and by belief (and not so much by alignment).
A follower of Gorum (CN) might not use it because it may fall under the Anathema of "don't win a battle using underhanded tactics". A follower of Iomedae (LG) might not use it because he firmly believes doing so would dishonor himself.
On the other hand followers of Gozreh (N) or Erastil (LG) may very well use it. Nature uses poison very often, so why shouldn't they?
A Paladin might conceive the use of poison under "not acting with honor" or "cheating" which would then directly clash with his tenets.
And even an atheistic (vanilla) Fighter with neutral alignment may disregard the use of poison for personal reasons or a personal code. Perhaps a dear one was once killed by poison and he now hates poison and all those who use it with a passion?
And even an atheistic (vanilla) Fighter with neutral alignment may disregard the use of poison for personal reasons or a personal code. Perhaps a dear one was once killed by poison and he now hates poison and all those who use it with a passion?
That's obvious. Any character can have personal reasons. I'm not focusing on this one.
But I had a Barbarian (Gozreh) and a Rogue refusing to use poisons. So, I was kind of puzzled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's obvious. Any character can have personal reasons. I'm not focusing on this one.
But I had a Barbarian (Gozreh) and a Rogue refusing to use poisons. So, I was kind of puzzled.
Apart from belief or tenet anathema most reasons will be personal reasons.
And even going away from beliefs it can easily be a regional thing. A nobleman Fighter from Taldor used to doublecrossing may very well accept poison whereas a peoples hero Fighter from Andoran may not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poison generally has always had a reputation as being a cruel and underhanded weapon for cowards - this isn't always logical, but it is a taboo as old as the use of poison itself.
I imagine most barbarians would consider it dishonourable as it robs otherwise strong warriors of their chance to have a fair fight.
Not all rogues are okay with using poison - most soldiers who fight primarily using stealth today (special forces) do not use poison despite being okay with cutting the throats of sleeping soldiers.
I would consider non-evil characters who are happy to use poison to be the exception rather than the rule - they do exist, but are not the norm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
most soldiers who fight primarily using stealth today (special forces) do not use poison despite being okay with cutting the throats of sleeping soldiers.
Just about this point: Poison doesn't work for such use in our world. The fastest poisons are killing in a couple of minute. And poison is hard to use because of conservation issues. There is not much reason for a real world fighter to use poison on a weapon.
If the poison is in your weapon and you apply it through a puncture wound, is it venom?
In all seriousness I think poison is particularly cruel and sadistic. It's slow, painful and gives little opportunity for redemption or surrender. Even in a world where poison can be cured by some simple magic it's kind of sadistic to poison someone and then only cure them on surrender. Feels like withholding and antidote to coerce someone into doing what you want. Same reason I don't take intimidation on liberator champions. It feels ethically dubious
If the poison is in your weapon and you apply it through a puncture wound, is it venom?
Yes, Injury Poisons are mostly venom.
And they don't have the effects you describe. They rarely last more than 6 rounds.I also find the slow killing poisons unethical. But my Alchemist doesn't use these ones. They are in general ingested and as such not much usable in combat. Combat poisons have very immediate effects and don't last a minute.
If the poison is in your weapon and you apply it through a puncture wound, is it venom?Yes, Injury Poisons are mostly venom.
And they don't have the effects you describe. They rarely last more than 6 rounds.I also find the slow killing poisons unethical. But my Alchemist doesn't use these ones. They are in general ingested and as such not much usable in combat. Combat poisons have very immediate effects and don't last a minute.
Yeah I get your point but to me it's like how everyone in jojo looks crazy and what have you, but we know that this isn't necessarily the factual reality. The poisons last according to our fictionalized concept of rounds as a sort of codification into mechanics for the purposes of balance and so on, but assumably in the actual world they inhabit they are much like poisons in our reality. There is a sort of disconnect we agree to when we play these games so that they can both function as a believable world and as a balanced game which is enjoyable to play
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real world fighters have used poison on their weapons.
It's lack of use may be due to logistics & finances more than honor. Our romantic notions of chivalry have few real world corollaries. Ideals expressed were seldom met.
Some armies would smear feces on their weapons, aiming to inflict diseases which can't immediately kill. Speaking of diseases, those were commonly exploited when soldiers were able to.
And for single target kills, i.e. assassinations, adding poison on top would be helpful if one were thwarted but wounded the target.
Hamlet featured lots of poison, including on weapons, though I can't remember the internal commentary (if any) on it by the characters.
That said, in RPGs poison has fluctuated in its acceptance, nearly always being portrayed as an evil, illegal act. In PFS, only anathema (as some gave examples of above) would prevent use by Lawful or Good PCs, but I'd double-check because some GMs may flat out think it's evil to use and doesn't need to be specifically called out since it's poison (!).
I'd like to point to the Quetz Couatl, which is an exemplary paragon of Lawful Good yet uses poison. So using poison cannot be innately wrong even if subjectively wrong to many.
Sometimes, I think in renaming it "alchemical weapon enhancer" because its effects are ok (after all, it's just some kind of persistent damage, like the one Flaming Rune is doing).
I don't care of people using or not using poison per se, what annoys me is that they reject my characters abilities at the same time. How would a Paladin feel in a party not accepting his Champion's Reaction or a Cleric in a party not accepting his healing?
Well, annoyed, at least...
Sometimes, I think in renaming it "alchemical weapon enhancer" because its effects are ok (after all, it's just some kind of persistent damage, like the one Flaming Rune is doing).
I don't care of people using or not using poison per se, what annoys me is that they reject my characters abilities at the same time. How would a Paladin feel in a party not accepting his Champion's Reaction or a Cleric in a party not accepting his healing?
Well, annoyed, at least...
I think your feelings are valid, but I also think your comrades' feelings are valid. In this circumstance communication about how you feel and how they feel would be important to get to a better understanding, including working with the GM to reflavor the ability to something the party is cool with and your comrades find acceptable for their characters
I think your feelings are valid, but I also think your comrades' feelings are valid. In this circumstance communication about how you feel and how they feel would be important to get to a better understanding, including working with the GM to reflavor the ability to something the party is cool with and your comrades find acceptable for their characters
Yes, but as said above: It's a PFS character...
So, I'll have to see with each GM before each session if I can rename it to avoid morality issues. So, it takes time that we don't have in a 4-hour slot.
Real world fighters have used poison on their weapons.
You're right, I've checked on Wikipedia, and it looks like poison has been used on weapons more often than I thought.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah real warfare is about winning and living, so being honorable is stupid and could get you killed or mangled
My warpriest of Milani uses lethargy poison on his hand crossbow bolts, but he avoids using damage-based poisons.
Poison should be fine for most characters. Paladins won't use it, Redeemers may not, and I can see followers of Gorum and a few other specific deities rejecting it.
Anyone else rejecting its use is unusual and demands an explanation.
In any game from PF1 on back, it could be simple prudence. Most of these games have rules on poison use that make it more likely that you will accidentally poison yourself than gain a tactical advantage by poisoning your foe, or that the benefit from using poison won't justify the expense. Such rules are among the main reasons that none of my player characters have ever used poison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two separate issues here.
The first is whether there's an in-game problem. And I don't think any character says there is (not even Gorum worshippers, see below). There are certainly no explicit restrictions, plus, many other classes apply poison damage (e.g., dragon barbarian's breath weapon) or status effects equivalent to poison (e.g., Goblin Pox).
I would argue that injury poison is not "underhanded" (precision damage is arguably more underhanded than poison), and it's not magical (and thus not "indirect magic"), and not even a cleric of Gorum would trigger an anathema.
The second is whether there's an out-of-game problem. And I think some players are reluctant to poison because of the historical association with anonymous or indiscriminate killing, and its subsequent relationship with dishonor. But the alchemist's injury poisons aren't like that at all - the poisoner is facing their opponent in combat, and making their hostile intentions known. Killing someone with an injury poison applied to a greatsword is really different from slipping a poison into a prepared feast and killing every feast attendee.
I wouldn't force any ally to take poison, but I'd definitely question why they wouldn't. If it's a misunderstanding or out of game hangup, I'd definitely point it out.
The only exception that I can think of is any character that primarily deals non-lethal damage with the intention of reviving enemies - but even then, I would have only a few more hangups about persistent poison than about persistent fire (persistent fire is probably easier to put out after they go unconscious, so therefore less likely to kill someone).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all rogues are okay with using poison - most soldiers who fight primarily using stealth today (special forces) do not use poison despite being okay with cutting the throats of sleeping soldiers.
I think that is more of a pragmatic problem rather than moral (sure, a lot of poisons are banned, but the international agreements on that would have seen far more push back if poison was super effective).
Poisons have a wide variety of issues with range, speed of activation, and friendly fire. Guns often have a better range than most contact poison or small scale gas launching methods, and "shooting a guy in the leg" is already a pretty powerful "Status effect" in real life. So a long range sniper might have more effect than many poisons.
And the poisons that can show immediate effect and have decent range are also the ones with serious problems with friendly fire. While you could pick something you could avoid with masks... an enemy army could also just get masks in that case. So it is mostly effective against civilian populations or poorly armed militias.
However, medieval style combat is much more conducive to poison use. It can be applied to arrows or blades. Such battles would often have people fighting in close quarters for several minutes at a time. You are also more likely to have the ability to safely flee for a bit- which is time that you could wait for poison to run its course.
Even just making your sword really dirty (ie- go to the latrine) could be an effective method in long term skirmishes. Imagine trying to chase down a group of bandits for 50 miles, but then half your men have to be left behind because they caught tetanus after they got minor cuts in the first engagement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in a world where it's OK to kick down the door, kill all the goblins, and take their stuff... it’s not OK to use poison alongside your swords?
In a world where it’s OK to enchant your sword with the Flame or Wounding rune it’s not OK to use poison?
In a world where it’s great if the cleric casts Bless to make you a more effective killer it's not OK to use poisons?
I think the other players are being pedantic.
There is an official stance from Paizo on this issue, by the way. The Evil trait exists. Any feat, item, spell, etc. that does not have the Evil trait? It’s not Evil. Plain as day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an official stance from Paizo on this issue, by the way. The Evil trait exists. Any feat, item, spell, etc. that does not have the Evil trait? It’s not Evil. Plain as day.
Well, not inherently so anyway. Some uses of it may well still be. Just using poisons for their intended purpose on people attacking you pretty much can't be one of them, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In some older versions of D&D, poison use was mostly restricted to evil characters, and was on the list of things that a paladin would leave a party over. I could see some players still having that sort of holdover if they started in those games, even though they no longer apply.
In some older versions of D&D, poison use was mostly restricted to evil characters, and was on the list of things that a paladin would leave a party over. I could see some players still having that sort of holdover if they started in those games, even though they no longer apply.
I'd say this is it. Poison's had a pretty bad reputation in most games. I can even see this as an in-character discussion.
'My noble sword needeth not thy foul potions!'
'What's the difference between my concoctions and outright shoving acid into their blood?'
'Uh ... '
Dishonorable I could see. I don't think Mora's have anything to do with it.
Worst comes to worst poison your own crossbows and get quick draw so you can shoot and drop
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a big difference, ethically speaking, between "poisoning someone at a nice dinner by putting something in their drink" and "poisoning someone in a melee where people are trying to hack each other apart with axes".
If it's a fight, and "I'm going to non-consensually shove a big piece of sharp metal into them until they stop twitching" or "I am going to set them on fire repeatedly until they are naught but ashes" are not ethical lapses, then "I'm going to put poison on my crossbow bolts" really shouldn't be either.
If nothing else, it's a much less horrific way to die than via axe or fireball.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When is poison Evil? When it can hurt innocent people. So, poisoning a dish would be Evil. But poisoning your blade is not.
When is poison dishonorable? (Not even sure dishonorable = Chaotic BTW)
When it makes a fight no longer fair. Because it gives a hidden advantage.
So, if you advertise that you have poison on your blade, for example by making it luminous green, I do not see it as dishonorable, though it might depend on a character's culture.
Looking at my 2 PFS2 characters, Barbaroch, the LN Dwarven Barbarian, would have nothing against using it, except if his Pahmet culture frowns on it. And Bran Noldo, my LG Elven Paladin of Torag, likewise, especially if the presence of poison on his blade is obvious. Indeed, as a crafted tool that can be used against the enemies of his people, poison seems quite desirable unless Torag forbids it.
Truth be told, I feel that not using something that your fellow pathfinder gives you goes against the Cooperate part of the society's motto. So Lawful characters should think nothing of using it unless their home culture is firmly against it or using poison would break an anathema.
The main problem I see is how the GM sees poison use. I can imagine a huge table variance on this and I would not want my Paladin to fall because he used poison. So unless the GM cleared it first, my Paladin would not use it, but only for metagame reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a case where your character will cause some friction regardless. While poison isn't overty evil in 2e, there is a long legacy of games preceding it where poison is outright evil or taboo for the players, and most players will have their view shaped by this. Even PF1e, while it had no outright rule against poison use, had every attack made by a poisoned weapon and the application of poison itself be subject to a 5% chance of accidental self-poisoning, which while minor, is still a direct punishment for daring to use poison outside of a few dedicated classes and archetypes.
Also, through a lot of popular media, poison is presented as the tool of ruthless, if not outright evil characters. Most players have their views on what makes a righteous hero stem from this kind of thing, meaning they will see their Good-aligned PF2 character as above this, even if they have no anathema against it.
And while there are a few good-aligned poison-using creatures (Quetz Couatls and Anadis, as well as Iruxi PCs) in 2e, the vast majority of poison users in 2e are either unaligned wild creatures, or evil beings, with the most famous humanoid poison users still being the Drow. Even when you look at dragons, poison is the only type of breath that no metallic dragon uses.
Overall, there is a definite trend of poison being portrayed as evil ingrained pretty deeply in popular culture, meaning it would take a lot for people to change their mind, so any character which depends on their teammates to use poison is definitely at least slightly disruptive, even if it shouldn't logically be.
Of course, it is not as disruptive as some other character options like Laws of Mortality followers or Superstitious barbarians, but it still is something that will inevitably cause some friction at the table. It's the kind of thing I'd ask my party and GM if they were okay with me playing beforehand, meaning it's definitely not the kind of thing I'd take to PFS.
Well...do we play gritty reality or heroic fantasy? And I guess in most fantasy novels that people have ever read poison is almost exclusively used against the heroes not by them.
P.S.: I would definitely use poison in PF2 depending on my character, however I can easily see why many people woudn't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing says poison is some evil or cowardly act, this is deliberate, there's a reason the 1e paladin code doesn't mention it while the 3.5 one does, Paizo don't buy into that nonsense, it's not worse than burning people alive or hacking them to bits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing says poison is some evil or cowardly act, this is deliberate, there's a reason the 1e paladin code doesn't mention it while the 3.5 one does, Paizo don't buy into that nonsense, it's not worse than burning people alive or hacking them to bits.
To stick to the real life examples others brought up, using chemicals in warfare seems a lot worse than just using guns, grenades or even a flamethrower. So if there is nothing to it I wonder why usage of those is banned by most civilized countries.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing says poison is some evil or cowardly act, this is deliberate, there's a reason the 1e paladin code doesn't mention it while the 3.5 one does, Paizo don't buy into that nonsense, it's not worse than burning people alive or hacking them to bits.To stick to the real life examples others brought up, using chemicals in warfare seems a lot worse than just using guns, grenades or even a flamethrower. So if there is nothing to it I wonder why usage of those is banned by most civilized countries.
Collateral damage, and long lasting damage.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Collateral damage, and long lasting damage.Indeed. Neither of which apply to alchemical poisons in Pathfinder. Or not most of them anyway.
In fact, even in real life, most such restrictions apply to poisonous gases, rather than all poisons.
Also, non-poisons that fit those criteria - such as land mines - are also frowned upon. So it's truly less about poison itself and more about collateral damage and persistent threats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is that "poison" is sort of ambiguous to define in a diagetic sense (which is where stuff like "this god is against it" lives). Like there are a lot of "poisins" that basically have the effect of "you are knocked unconscious and stay asleep fora while" which has a really different ethical character depending on whether what follows the administration of said poison is closer to "and then we perform life-saving surgery" versus "and then we stab them a lot".
A lot of the poisons that do damage have some kind of effect like "they damage your liver" (i.e. the body's filter) but this also describes things like "alcohol" and "certain mushrooms".
Also, we would expect (though the mechanics don't reflect this) that some things are poisonous to certain creatures and not poisonous to others. So it's conceivable that something like "Goblins find death cap mushrooms delicious, and seem to suffer no ill effects" could be the case (reportedly they are very tasty, per people who ate them by accident.) So "this poison affects humans, orcs, otyughs, dryads, oreads, dragons, etc. in the same way" seems like a gamey kludge more than anything.
But the perspective of someone making moral choices should be rooted in the game world they live in. It's less of a "this is a [label], I should not use it" and more of "I should not use this tool for this purpose."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Collateral damage, and long lasting damage.Nothing says poison is some evil or cowardly act, this is deliberate, there's a reason the 1e paladin code doesn't mention it while the 3.5 one does, Paizo don't buy into that nonsense, it's not worse than burning people alive or hacking them to bits.To stick to the real life examples others brought up, using chemicals in warfare seems a lot worse than just using guns, grenades or even a flamethrower. So if there is nothing to it I wonder why usage of those is banned by most civilized countries.
And that collateral damage can be your own side. Which is one of the reasons why they accepted the ban and mostly respect it.
Of course, you can counter many poisons with proper equipment. And if you use a lot of poisons, then your enemies will make that equipment closer and closer to standard issue.
If it was safe and easy to use, then it is easy to counter by any proper military force you would fight. It only works well against poorly equipped insurgents and civilians. Which is another thing that damages the modern reputation of poisons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real world view of "poisoning your weapons is bad form" is rooted primarily in the fact that in historical combat most fatalities are from secondary effects (e.g. infections) from wounds that are not immediately fatal. Many cultures developed rituals to minimize the risk of "you die a month after the battle from a festering wound" through things like "duels to first blood" or "counting coup" (as an aside "total war" was fairly unheard of in the ancient world).
So when cultures have figured out ways to still decide things through force and skill at arms, while minimizing the number of people who actually die painfully as a result, you end up with things like "if you poison your weapon, you defeat the whole point of the duel being to first blood rather than to the death." Societies tend to frown on individuals who try to exploit the rules that societies have put there for a reason.
In a world where healing magic is honestly not that hard to come by, the number of people who die in the month after a battle from infected wounds, etc. is going to be a lot lower.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where healing magic is honestly not that hard to come by, the number of people who die in the month after a battle from infected wounds, etc. is going to be a lot lower.
You don't even need magic with the Medicine skill: anyone trained in it can Treat disease, poison and wounds with no special medicines needed like antibiotics or anti-venoms only needing a generic kit. This means that even the rank and file soldiers of a conflict can have the means to fix themselves and others and field medics are a thing in the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone,
I've had a recurring problem lately: I play an Alchemist in PFS, and poison is one of her main tools. As such, at the beginning of sessions, I ask who has piercing/slashing weapons so I can poison them. And I got a lot of players/characters straight up refusing poison. Even a Rogue...
Poison is a basic tool of the Alchemist in PF2 and there is no indication of alignment restriction or whatever around its use. So, I wanted to have the community point of view (and ideally Paizo's) about the use of poison, injury poisons more specifically as these are the only ones I use.
Are injury poisons bad/evil/chaotic and only used by sketchy characters?
Or are they a tool that even paladins could use if they have an Alchemist in the party?
In what way is poison more objectionable than fire/lightning/acid/cold wreathed weapons. Poison is a common hunting tool across many cultures for taking down larger prey.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where healing magic is honestly not that hard to come by, the number of people who die in the month after a battle from infected wounds, etc. is going to be a lot lower.You don't even need magic with the Medicine skill: anyone trained in it can Treat disease, poison and wounds with no special medicines needed like antibiotics or anti-venoms only needing a generic kit. This means that even the rank and file soldiers of a conflict can have the means to fix themselves and others and field medics are a thing in the system.
In fairness, doing this for poison or disease only provides a Save bonus (specifically, generally a +2 bonus to a single Save). It's helpful, but more on the level of using clean bandages, irrigating the wound with clean water, and other basic sanitation only discovered relatively recently in the real world (which is more or less what I'd assume they're doing, if treating an injury to handle poison or disease) than anything mystical.
Treat Wounds is legitimately just really impossibly impressive by real world standards, though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are injury poisons bad/evil/chaotic and only used by sketchy characters?
No...and Yes
Or are they a tool that even paladins could use if they have an Alchemist in the party?
Yes...and No
It doesn't really matter if YOU think its okay to use poison. It doesn't even matter if the rules say its okay to use poison. Some players simply won't use it for a variety of reasons. Role-play. Character background. Bad experience/phobia. Some even disagree that poison is bad even when the rules say otherwise.
The best solution is to start the session by explaining that you are an alchemist that specializes in poison production and you are happy to share the fruits of that labor. Determine who is okay with it and focus on providing all those fruits to them. If a player says they don't want to use poison, accept it. Maybe ask them why and if they seem open to a short discussion have at it, but if they are adamant that its ickybad, then leave it alone.
I think the other players are being pedantic
That's irrelevant. No one gets to take the player agency away from another player even if they are BadWrongFun. My paladin considers the use of poison to be dishonorable. It doesn't matter if the rules allow it for not, I won't allow it. If anyone else wants to use it, fine, go ahead. He does not hold other people to the same lofty ideas as himself. Its hard being a paladin.
To stick to the real life examples others brought up, using chemicals in warfare seems a lot worse than just using guns, grenades or even a flamethrower. So if there is nothing to it I wonder why usage of those is banned by most civilized countries.
Warfare can be a funny thing. I assume it still is, but at one time it was against the "rules of battle" to fire large caliber weapons at personnel. Course their equipment was perfectly fine.
Or it was against the "rules" to shoot at parachuting troops or for them to shoot before reaching the ground, but when your life is on the line who's gonna "fight fair" and wait until the other guy can possibly kill you first?
In what way is poison more objectionable than fire/lightning/acid/cold wreathed weapons. Poison is a common hunting tool across many cultures for taking down larger prey.
For some players, it just is. Their character, their choice.
It doesn't really matter if YOU think its okay to use poison.
It does. If everyone answers me that poison is evil, I can realize how wrong I was in playing a poison-based character. If everyone answers me the opposite, I can conclude I just got bad luck in my previous games.
Obviously, I won't force anyone to poison his weapon.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TwilightKnight, you are right, of course, it is far worse to force something on another player. Then everybody is upset.
But the ideal of PFS is cooperation... if my character worships Saranrae and specializes in fire magic, should I withhold from doing my thing because there is a character whose player decided they were afraid of fire, or maybe they worship the elemental lord of water?
I view poison like that. It’s just a tool in the box.
I guess, the deeper issue here is whether or not folks care to play ball with the nifty things other PFS players bring to the table. PF1 was a game where you did your own thing while others did their own thing, together. PF2 is a game where working together really leverages power, so I hope the culture shifts to “neat, let's share our strengths!”
And to SuperBidi... ultimately it may just depend on the folks in the circles you travel in.