Poison and morality

[shroudb]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

shroudb wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Did you poison your teammates weapons or were you the only one to use poison?

we were high-ish level (10) so i had enough poisons to have the 1st strike of my allies attack in each combat with poison.

Apart from me there were 2 more martials (well 3... but 3rd one was a monk and you can't poion unarmed) so in first day that was only 6 poison attempts by them (3 encounters) and in second day 8 poison attempts (4 encounters)

although in 2 out of 7 of the encounters that meant that they were automatically wasted since we encountered undead and the allies didn't have the option to not use their main weapon just to preserve the poison on it.

That said, it was my own attacks that had the most chances of success to poison someone since the allies didn't have the -2 from pinpoint, making the majority of enemies save vs the poisons. I didn't count how many were saved and how many were succesful, but if i had to eye ball it i'd say that the poisons were usually succesful vs the mooks and i think both bosses didn't failed a single save vs them.

The problem why i say it was just an average experience was exactly because the mooks who were the ones that usually failed the saves didn't live long enough to actually capitalise from extended poison damage either way

THAT said:
it was just 2 sessions and 7 encounters in total, certainly not enough to have an absolute "average", it could well might have been that i was just unlucky.

(but since PF2 gave "succesful saving throw" to do something in most cases to alleviate such occurances, i don't get why we can't get at least something happening if the enemies make their saving throws for a poison focused alchemist, even "half stage 1 damage" would be enough to not make you feel like you are wasting resources doing absolutely nothing...)

I believe you still take full stage 1 damage on a hit (or double that on a critical), but the effect does not persist after that (such as if it makes you clumsy 1 or...

no, you only take the stage 1 effect if you fail the initial save

Quote:

When you’re first exposed to the affliction, you must attempt a saving throw against it. This first attempt to stave off the affliction is called the initial save. An affliction usually requires a Fortitude save, but the exact save and its DC are listed after the name and type of affliction. Spells that can poison you typically use the caster’s spell DC.

On a successful initial saving throw, you are unaffected by that exposure to the affliction. You do not need to attempt further saving throws against it unless you are exposed to the affliction again.

[AnimatedPaper]

This thread is bizarre.

I can think of at least one reason why characters in-game might consider poison use to be dubious: it is strongly association with Norgorber, a generally outlawed religion.

Other than that, my characters wouldn't bat an eye or consider it evil.

[SuperBidi]

shroudb wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Did you poison your teammates weapons or were you the only one to use poison?

we were high-ish level (10) so i had enough poisons to have the 1st strike of my allies attack in each combat with poison.

Apart from me there were 2 more martials (well 3... but 3rd one was a monk and you can't poion unarmed) so in first day that was only 6 poison attempts by them (3 encounters) and in second day 8 poison attempts (4 encounters)

although in 2 out of 7 of the encounters that meant that they were automatically wasted since we encountered undead and the allies didn't have the option to not use their main weapon just to preserve the poison on it.

That said, it was my own attacks that had the most chances of success to poison someone since the allies didn't have the -2 from pinpoint, making the majority of enemies save vs the poisons. I didn't count how many were saved and how many were succesful, but if i had to eye ball it i'd say that the poisons were usually succesful vs the mooks and i think both bosses didn't failed a single save vs them.

The problem why i say it was just an average experience was exactly because the mooks who were the ones that usually failed the saves didn't live long enough to actually capitalise from extended poison damage either way

THAT said:
it was just 2 sessions and 7 encounters in total, certainly not enough to have an absolute "average", it could well might have been that i was just unlucky.

(but since PF2 gave "succesful saving throw" to do something in most cases to alleviate such occurances, i don't get why we can't get at least something happening if the enemies make their saving throws for a poison focused alchemist, even "half stage 1 damage" would be enough to not make you feel like you are wasting resources doing absolutely nothing...)

My experience is currently not much bigger than yours (my Alchemist is still low level) but I think this is what is expected. 20% of the monsters are immune to poison, 1.4 encounters out of 7. And obviously mooks will fail more often than bosses.

In general, when I calculate poison damage (and persistent damage), I consider only the first round of damage. Monsters rarely survive more than a round when they are under focus fire.

[TwilightKnight]

Please forgive the wall of text. I was catching up and thought it better to put all my commentary in one post rather than a series of separate ones...

Cyder wrote:

any sneaky way of killing would be bad

For my paladin, THIS. You are welcome to sneak up on an unsuspecting enemy and assassinate them, but I won't. He views the use of poison the same way. Its an invisible attack that the target cannot see coming and cannot defend against. In his opinion, honorable combat is based somewhat on rules of engagement. You see me. You see my weapons. You see my armor. You see my technique. There is no surprise. You cannot see poison on my blade and therefore you cannot counter it.

This is just part of my paladin's personal code. You can disagree and you can do whatever you want with your character. I do not judge and I do not expect everyone to live up to my high standards. That this is a non-standard position to take and the fact that so many enemies do not hold true to the fair rules of engagement is why there are so few paladins who he would consider pure and true. He would rather live be example than dictate to others who to live. The core fundamentals of good vs evil in the multiverse are based on choice and personal responsibility. YMMV

Note that this is a character specific view and not a player view. Most of my other characters would at least not care about using poisons and my rogue would be eager to do so. In the game of live vs death in the adventuring world, any advantage I can get is a "good" one.

Captain Morgan wrote:

So while poisons aren't evil and rejecting them based on alignment isn't entirely rationally

Just don't assume that the rejection is alignment-based. My paladin is an example. While he would never use poison himself, he does not consider its use by others to be evil. If he did, he would choose not to adventure with those folks.

SuperBidi wrote:

So, my position is fine. Obviously, if I meet a lot of resistance and if I can't properly play my character I'll switch. But it's not because my character is bad but because other players behave wrongly when I bring it.

Interesting. So can you provide an example of when a player would politely refuse a "gift" from you and it would be considered to be "behaving wrongly?"

The Raven Black wrote:

Should Paladins fall just for using Thievery?

It doesn't have to be a matter of anathema. It can just be that the particular character, paladin or otherwise, feels its against their personal code. If a character's backstory indicated their significant other was beheaded in their presence and now refuses to use slashing weapons, you wouldn't force them to use one would you?

Again, this all comes down to player agency. If they tell you their character thinks poison is bad, dishonorable, or even evil, it doesn't matter what the rules or any of us say, for that player's character it is true.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

It seems silly and people are only applying this logic to poison because of their own subconscious biases.

A lot of things people do are silly and based on their personal bias, but its still their prerogative to do so. Like it or not, we do not get to tell other people how to play their character.

SuperBidi wrote:

Which is not what I was planning with this character

Not all characters are universally good at all tables. If one of the other players is running a necromancer or a demon-summoning sorcerer, etc. I am not going to bring my paladin. He will not mix well with that and I'm not going to impose my character's biases on another character. I'll switch to something less controversial.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

And as noted, Paladins are allowed to poison now.

Allowed, yes. Required, no.

[SuperBidi]

TwilightKnight wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

So, my position is fine. Obviously, if I meet a lot of resistance and if I can't properly play my character I'll switch. But it's not because my character is bad but because other players behave wrongly when I bring it.

Interesting. So can you provide an example of when a player would politely refuse a "gift" from you and it would be considered to be "behaving wrongly?"

First, you can refuse, even politely, a gift and still be rude. If you refuse a present at your birthday, people may find that rude. A gift is not one sided, it's a ritual.

Also, it's not a gift, it's my contribution to the fight. You can refuse someone else's contribution to a fight, but the person has the right to complain about it.
Also, I would love if people don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere in this discussion I've ever said I would force someone to use poison or that someone has to use poison because I bring it to the table.

TwilightKnight wrote:

You see me. You see my weapons. You see my armor. You see my technique. There is no surprise.

So you don't use magic items unless their effect is obvious? You refuse the bonus when the bard casts Inspire Courage as it's not clearly visible on you?

I strangely have doubts...

TwilightKnight wrote:

This is just part of my paladin's personal code.

Anyway, "My character is like that, deal with it." is rude, even if you state it politely. The proper way of handling an incompatibility between 2 characters is to discuss to find a solution satisfying for both parties, not to impose your position on the other one.

[Ubertron_X]

SuperBidi wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

This is just part of my paladin's personal code.

Anyway, "My character is like that, deal with it." is rude, even if you state it politely. The proper way of handling an incompatibility between 2 characters is to discuss to find a solution satisfying for both parties, not to impose your position on the other one.

I think by now this issue should mostly be settled.

You asked if there is any "official" reason to not accept the use of poison and the overwhelming majority in the threat and apparently also the Paizo point of view seem to be that this isn't the case. Given that knowledge it seems only appropriate to be allowed to question fellow players stances, especially if they decline the use of poison, because it may very well be that they simply do not know that it is not "evil" anymore and that it's use has been fully sanctioned by Paizo.

Nonetheless you will be dependent on the others players consent insomuch as even with this new knowledge players may still decline the use of poison based on personal or character belief. So if you ever find yourself in a party entirely consisting of devote followers of Iomedae, and despite reassuring them that poison use is fine in PF2 every single player's ideal of honorable combat is to not use poison then I think that there is few that you can do about it.

Nothing wrong with wanting your character to be mechanically and thematically viable, however the problem with peoples ideals is that there isn't always a satisfying solution, or to quote an infamous movie character: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon!"

[SuperBidi]

Ubertron_X wrote:

Nothing wrong with wanting your character to be mechanically and thematically viable, however the problem with peoples ideals is that there isn't always a satisfying solution, or to quote an infamous movie character: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon!"

Clearly, I don't care if some players refuse my poison. The problem I have right now is that too many players are refusing my poison, to the point of affecting my pleasure of playing this character and I think (or hope) that some of them are still in the PF1 mentality of poison being evil. If I can just convince half of them to accept my poison, it would be ok for me and I'll have no more issues playing my Alchemist.

[shroudb]

It's not "PF1 mentality" that a lot of people dislike poison.

As you can see from this thread and from people saying that their characters "personally" dislike it, it's a simple matter of fact that poison is in general viewed negatively.

Similarly, the PF2 "assasin" archetype is not "evil", you can be a perfectly Good Assasin in this system.

But it similarly invokes negative feelings from some people to associate with an assasin.

Some societal norms of the modern era are to be expected to trickle down inside the fantasy world since we have, after all, grown as such.

Such characters that may appear controversial, like poisoners, assasins, and etc "outside the societal norm" archetypes are better served in a housegame where you know who you will be playing with, or played with the thickest skin you can muster so as to not let the views of others affect you.

[SuperBidi]

shroudb wrote:

It's not "PF1 mentality" that a lot of people dislike poison.

Yes, I used PF1 mentality as a shortcut. But it's true it's not only about D&D games but more general.

Anyway, I hope to convince people that poison can be accepted, the same way Goblins have been accepted (I don't find Goblins to be disruptive in my PFS table and from a thread in these boards it looks like it's what other players experience).

[Ubertron_X]

SuperBidi wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

Nothing wrong with wanting your character to be mechanically and thematically viable, however the problem with peoples ideals is that there isn't always a satisfying solution, or to quote an infamous movie character: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon!"

Clearly, I don't care if some players refuse my poison. The problem I have right now is that too many players are refusing my poison, to the point of affecting my pleasure of playing this character and I think (or hope) that some of them are still in the PF1 mentality of poison being evil. If I can just convince half of them to accept my poison, it would be ok for me and I'll have no more issues playing my Alchemist.

Sounds fine to me!

[Zapp]

shroudb wrote:

Some societal norms of the modern era are to be expected to trickle down inside the fantasy world since we have, after all, grown as such.

Yes, except a player doesn't need to explain him- or herself.

It's totally fine to just go "no thank you".

[PossibleCabbage]

I think part of this is a PFS or "pick up game" problem. It's fine to have a character that for narrative reasons absolutely refuses to use poison. It's fine to have a character for whom "I can supply poisons to everybody" is a big part of their kit. In a home game where people know each other, you probably realize that you shouldn't put these characters at the same table and you work something out.

It's much like how you wouldn't want to play a superstition barb in a party with a bard, a warpriest, and a champion.

I wonder if some concepts, though totally and thematically appropriate, are just bad choices for "I have no idea who the rest of the party is going to be" games.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if some concepts, though totally and thematically appropriate, are just bad choices for "I have no idea who the rest of the party is going to be" games.

Yep, when you aren't sure who your Dm or fellow players might be, it's not wise to play something that has built in table variation.

[The Raven Black]

Talking with people to clarify possible misunderstandings and explain your point of view is not forcing them to do anything and using "No means no" in this context is beyond the pale to me.

[The Raven Black]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Please forgive the wall of text. I was catching up and thought it better to put all my commentary in one post rather than a series of separate ones...

Cyder wrote:

any sneaky way of killing would be bad

For my paladin, THIS. You are welcome to sneak up on an unsuspecting enemy and assassinate them, but I won't. He views the use of poison the same way. Its an invisible attack that the target cannot see coming and cannot defend against. In his opinion, honorable combat is based somewhat on rules of engagement. You see me. You see my weapons. You see my armor. You see my technique. There is no surprise. You cannot see poison on my blade and therefore you cannot counter it.

This is just part of my paladin's personal code. You can disagree and you can do whatever you want with your character. I do not judge and I do not expect everyone to live up to my high standards. That this is a non-standard position to take and the fact that so many enemies do not hold true to the fair rules of engagement is why there are so few paladins who he would consider pure and true. He would rather live be example than dictate to others who to live. The core fundamentals of good vs evil in the multiverse are based on choice and personal responsibility. YMMV

Note that this is a character specific view and not a player view. Most of my other characters would at least not care about using poisons and my rogue would be eager to do so. In the game of live vs death in the adventuring world, any advantage I can get is a "good" one.

Captain Morgan wrote:

So while poisons aren't evil and rejecting them based on alignment isn't entirely rationally

Just don't assume that the rejection is alignment-based. My paladin is an example. While he would never use poison himself, he does not consider its use by others to be evil. If he did, he would choose not to adventure with those folks.

SuperBidi wrote:

So, my position is fine. Obviously, if I meet a lot of resistance and if I can't properly play my

...

So, if the poison being on the weapon was obvious (say shining brightly), would it be OK for your Paladin?

[AnimatedPaper]

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if some concepts, though totally and thematically appropriate, are just bad choices for "I have no idea who the rest of the party is going to be" games.

Yep, when you aren't sure who your Dm or fellow players might be, it's not wise to play something that has built in table variation.

Hopefully though the change in how poison is seen in setting will percolate through the playerbase. PFS seems like a good avenue for that; a venture captain that is a poisoner could offer players some poisons as consumables for a mission.

Just poke the bear fully and see where it all settles down. It is one thing if your fellow player is offering you poison, it is somewhat different if it is your superior with the tacit support of the foundational faction for players.

[graystone]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if some concepts, though totally and thematically appropriate, are just bad choices for "I have no idea who the rest of the party is going to be" games.

Yep, when you aren't sure who your Dm or fellow players might be, it's not wise to play something that has built in table variation.

Hopefully though the change in how poison is seen in setting will percolate through the playerbase. PFS seems like a good avenue for that; a venture captain that is a poisoner could offer players some poisons as consumables for a mission.

Just poke the bear fully and see where it all settles down. It is one thing if your fellow player is offering you poison, it is somewhat different if it is your superior with the tacit support of the foundational faction for players.

IMO, the poison gifter build is a set-up that runs into table variation [in party composition] even if you cause a shift in perspectives. Lets say your random group ends up being a monk and a barbarian using a maul and two pure casters and you: Who can use the poison other than you? Unarmed and blunt weapons can't use it and the casters will likely be casting so who it the poison getting passed to? So you poison off weapon in hopes they will use them?

[AnimatedPaper]

That is a very good point. But at least it would be one less thing to worry about.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm not sure about PFS, but if I was going to show up at a table where I don't know party composition I would bring two characters- the character I most want to play, and a backup character in case that character clashes with the rest of the party, is redundant, etc.

So "hey, if I play this toxicologist who gives out poisons to use, will that work for y'all" seems reasonable, but I can understand why it would be irritating for people who would benefit from this, and don't have a pre-existing narrative reason otherwise, just keep saying "nah."

So like if your archer ranger is turning down free poison, it might be worth digging down on why. Since it's not like "poison arrows" do not feature all throughout history and mythology, even being used by heroic figures like Heracles and Odysseus.

[SuperBidi]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if some concepts, though totally and thematically appropriate, are just bad choices for "I have no idea who the rest of the party is going to be" games.

The thing is: Most concepts may end up being bad choices in the wrong party.

All the concepts with anathemas: you play a Cleric of Sarenrae, there's a Necromancer in the party. You play a Paladin, the whole party is chaotic neutral and prefers unlawful solutions.
All the concepts tied to a divinity, especially a neutral one. For example, there's a PFS adventure where you fight cultists of Groetus... You can play a Cleric of Groetus in PFS.
Actually, a Paladin of Shelyn can meet a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon,
a Chelaxian a Shoanti, etc...

So, if you play in PFS, you know that, one day, you'll have to deal with a situation. In general, people speak and find a suitable solution. If there isn't, they just don't play the aspect of their character that is causing issues. It won't be a game you'll like, but you can't charge the Cleric of Zon-Kuthon just because it's your roleplay (actually, you can't per the PFS rules, too).

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not sure about PFS, but if I was going to show up at a table where I don't know party composition I would bring two characters- the character I most want to play, and a backup character in case that character clashes with the rest of the party, is redundant, etc.

But you need a character of the proper level. At low level, it's easy, as you can create a level 1 character whenever you want (or take an iconic character). But above level 6, you sometimes can't. And that's without taking into consideration that sometimes you want one of your character to play a specific adventure because it is tied to its roleplay or because it's the follow-up of another adventure you played with this character.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

SuperBidi wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if some concepts, though totally and thematically appropriate, are just bad choices for "I have no idea who the rest of the party is going to be" games.

The thing is: Most concepts may end up being bad choices in the wrong party.

All the concepts with anathemas: you play a Cleric of Sarenrae, there's a Necromancer in the party. You play a Paladin, the whole party is chaotic neutral and prefers unlawful solutions.
All the concepts tied to a divinity, especially a neutral one. For example, there's a PFS adventure where you fight cultists of Groetus... You can play a Cleric of Groetus in PFS.
Actually, a Paladin of Shelyn can meet a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon,
a Chelaxian a Shoanti, etc...

So, if you play in PFS, you know that, one day, you'll have to deal with a situation. In general, people speak and find a suitable solution. If there isn't, they just don't play the aspect of their character that is causing issues. It won't be a game you'll like, but you can't charge the Cleric of Zon-Kuthon just because it's your roleplay (actually, you can't per the PFS rules, too).

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not sure about PFS, but if I was going to show up at a table where I don't know party composition I would bring two characters- the character I most want to play, and a backup character in case that character clashes with the rest of the party, is redundant, etc.

But you need a character of the proper level. At low level, it's easy, as you can create a level 1 character whenever you want (or take an iconic character). But above level 6, you sometimes can't. And that's without taking into consideration that sometimes you want one of your character to play a specific adventure because it is tied to its roleplay or because it's the follow-up of another adventure you played with this character.

To be fair, Evil solutions, characters, or behaviors aren't PFS legal either, meaning your typical Necromancer or thief or what have you won't be in the party. In fact, the most "Evil" thing you'd come across in PFS is leaving someone bleed to death from fighting you, or dying from poison, and yet that's decidedly neutral because that's the consequences of fatal battle.

It definitely means Poisoners can be in PFS, since poison isn't Evil, though it's usually the unsavory types who dabble in that stuff. Types that maybe those who are on the clean side don't want to deal with, even if it is helpful mechanically.

It's actually the same reasoning why I, as a Champion, can't use a Demon Mask.

[The Raven Black]

A Champion can use a Demon mask. I see no anathema broken there. I think any pathfinder can make the difference between the image of a demon and a real Fiend.

[TwilightKnight]

SuperBidi wrote:

Anyway, "My character is like that, deal with it." is rude, even if you state it politely. The proper way of handling an incompatibility between 2 characters is to discuss to find a solution satisfying for both parties, not to impose your position on the other one.

That is a misapplication of the "this is just what my character would do" fallacy.

You ask, I politely decline. You explain your position, I explain mine and politely decline. That does not impose anything on you whatsoever. No player gets to overrule the agency of another player, period. We are not talking about a paladin wanting to destroy your necromancer's undead army here. If your character is Rahadoumi and my character offers magical healing, are you rude if you decline? No, of course not.

The idea that a player politely declining a gift (or whatever you choose to call it) is rude is ludicrous.

SuperBidi wrote:

The problem I have right now is that too many players are refusing my poison, to the point of affecting my pleasure of playing this character and I think (or hope) that some of them are still in the PF1 mentality of poison being evil. If I can just convince half of them to accept my poison, it would be ok for me and I'll have no more issues playing my Alchemist.

As stated upthread, not all characters are universally playable at all tables. I occasionally find myself changing PCs at the table once I see what everyone else is playing and I have at least one character from PFS1 that I retired entirely because it did not mesh well with most tables (though it would have worked fine in a home campaign where the other players could have characters built to accommodate its "uniqueness").

SuperBidi wrote:

Anyway, I hope to convince people that poison can be accepted, the same way Goblins have been accepted

Its trending, but not universal. There are still players who refuse to play a goblin and treat them with cautious apprehension at best. I've seen a few cases of a player leaving the table because of a goblin character even though the others present did not see it as disruptive. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that it exists and its certainly a player's prerogative to play or not play with whomever they want.

The Raven Black wrote:

A Champion can use a Demon mask. I see no anathema broken there. I think any pathfinder can make the difference between the image of a demon and a real Fiend.

Yeah, I think it would be better to say "won't use" as opposed to "can't use." I would certainly agree with the former, but by RAW the latter does not seem to be accurate. I know my paladin has specially chosen not to wear a demon mask. At one point another character offered me theirs and I politely declined.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

The Raven Black wrote:

A Champion can use a Demon mask. I see no anathema broken there. I think any pathfinder can make the difference between the image of a demon and a real Fiend.

An Evil Champion could, and most certainly would. But a Good Champion would at the very least be hesitant to don the visage of something they set themselves out to defeat and destroy. If not decline or think that it's a problem to do so, which is a more likely conclusion.

I'm still waiting for an alignment-neutral item of the same type to come online and not have it be tied to Barbarians or Druids.

[Themetricsystem]

How is this discussion still going on?

Oh right, moral arguments... why don't we just start talking about Alignment...oh wait.....

[TwilightKnight]

I try to think of the Demon Mask more of a convenient title than a specific one. More along the lines of a mask that depicts a scary face like an Oni or a twisted clown, etc than one that is specifically demonic. I'm not sure if the designers intended for it to be demonic in nature or that was just a convenient name to use to describe it. I'd like to think it was meant merely to be a tool to boost Intimidate. Its not like they intended Elven boots and cloaks to only be worn or crafted by elves. I know it says "elf hand" in the description, but does a Hand of the Mage absolutely have to be the mummified hand of an elf? Wouldn't an elf be discouraged to wear it then? A Hat of the Magi isn't just for magi after all. Just thinking out loud.

If my character/s ever decide to acquire a Demon Mask, I will likely ask the GM how they adjudicate it. If they think it truly is demonic, than my paladin would not use it. OTOH, if they feel its just a tool, then all's good.

[PossibleCabbage]

One thing I think that might be worth considering is that while a character might balk at using poison on another human or anything else they can easily empathize with, there should be less of a reason to eschew it when you're fighting something bigger, stronger, meaner, and with more teeth than you.

Like diagetically, if you're trying to take down a dragon you should probably take every single advantage you can, since it's a dragon and you're not.

[Zapp]

TwilightKnight wrote:

That is a misapplication of the "this is just what my character would do" fallacy.

You ask, I politely decline. You explain your position, I explain mine and politely decline. That does not impose anything on you whatsoever. No player gets to overrule the agency of another player, period. We are not talking about a paladin wanting to destroy your necromancer's undead army here. If your character is Rahadoumi and my character offers magical healing, are you rude if you decline? No, of course not.

The idea that a player politely declining a gift (or whatever you choose to call it) is rude is ludicrous.

A good post, thanks. Yes, this is obvious, and yes, thinking otherwise is completely ludicrous.

I call it the "player entitlement" disease.

It's when a player loses sight of basic civility and only watches the world from the narrow lens of "if I don't get to maximize my character, you are holding me back".

Posts like your help bring back polite humane reasoning to our little corner of the world. Again thanks.

[SuperBidi]

TwilightKnight wrote:

You ask, I politely decline. You explain your position, I explain mine and politely decline.

It's a bit better than Zapp's "No thanks" position, but it's still rude. Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it's fine to do it without taking others into account.

If your neighbor bangs at your door because you wake his 2-year-old son, answering "The volume of my music is not high. Have a nice day." is rude. You have the right to do it, but you're still dismissing the issue which is that you wake his boy up.

Same goes with a character handing you poison. You have the right to refuse. But it would be better to discuss with him what poison means for him. If it's an important part of his character, discussing of a potential other solution is way more decent than just dismissing his feelings and following your character agenda.

[graystone]

SuperBidi wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

You ask, I politely decline. You explain your position, I explain mine and politely decline.

It's a bit better than Zapp's "No thanks" position, but it's still rude. Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it's fine to do it without taking others into account.

If your neighbor bangs at your door because you wake his 2-year-old son, answering "The volume of my music is not high. Have a nice day." is rude. You have the right to do it, but you're still dismissing the issue which is that you wake his boy up.

Same goes with a character handing you poison. You have the right to refuse. But it would be better to discuss with him what poison means for him. If it's an important part of his character, discussing of a potential other solution is way more decent than just dismissing his feelings and following your character agenda.

I have to say, for myself a simple 'no thanks' should be the end of it. I'd find it rude if someone kept trying to get my to change my mind on it. It doesn't have to be an integral part of my character or a whim at the moment, a no is a no. There need be no solution part not taking the poison. The only issue would be to continue asking for reasons why.

As to the example, it's you should be you giving something and the other person not wanting it so it's more like YOU saying 'how about I turn up the music on' and the neighbor saying 'no thanks'... Doesn't sound so rude that way does it? Does he need to say why?

[SuperBidi]

graystone wrote:

I have to say, for myself a simple 'no thanks' should be the end of it. I'd find it rude if someone kept trying to get my to change my mind on it. It doesn't have to be an integral part of my character or a whim at the moment, a no is a no. There need be no solution part not taking the poison. The only issue would be to continue asking for reasons why.

And if we ever play together, or if I play with Zapp, I won't insist after the "no thanks". Because I'll be respecting your feelings and you made it quite clear that you would dislike if I go beyond your "no thanks". It still doesn't make the "no thanks" decent.

graystone wrote:

As to the example, it's you should be you giving something and the other person not wanting it so it's more like YOU saying 'how about I turn up the music on' and the neighbor saying 'no thanks'... Doesn't sound so rude that way does it? Does he need to say why?

It depends on the context. I don't say that "no thanks" is never an acceptable answer. But it can also sometimes be a rude answer and that has to be taken into account.

Around a gaming table, you are telling a story with all the players. If there is a conflict between 2 stories, it's better to try to find a story both players want to play than to force your story on the other one.
In the case of my Alchemist, the fact that too many people are refusing my poison affects me (by reducing my pleasure). I even opened a discussion on these boards to speak about it. So, an answer of "Deal with it" or "Play another character" is rude. And answering "no thanks" to a player contribution without even trying to know how it affects him is rude.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

TwilightKnight wrote:

I try to think of the Demon Mask more of a convenient title than a specific one. More along the lines of a mask that depicts a scary face like an Oni or a twisted clown, etc than one that is specifically demonic. I'm not sure if the designers intended for it to be demonic in nature or that was just a convenient name to use to describe it. I'd like to think it was meant merely to be a tool to boost Intimidate. Its not like they intended Elven boots and cloaks to only be worn or crafted by elves. I know it says "elf hand" in the description, but does a Hand of the Mage absolutely have to be the mummified hand of an elf? Wouldn't an elf be discouraged to wear it then? A Hat of the Magi isn't just for magi after all. Just thinking out loud.

If my character/s ever decide to acquire a Demon Mask, I will likely ask the GM how they adjudicate it. If they think it truly is demonic, than my paladin would not use it. OTOH, if they feel its just a tool, then all's good.

Again, I disagree. It's not generic like a +1 longsword or a +1 full plate, it's a specific item with a specific description. A Hand of the Mage is an enchanted mummified elf hand. A Demon Mask is crafted in the visage of a Demon, a type of Fiend.

It doesn't have Evil descriptors because the items themselves aren't Evil like, say, an Unholy weapon. But for those who have anathemas against those types of things, I imagine they probably won't use it or be hesitant to wear them too because of what they represent.

Most people don't have qualms with wearing mummified elf hands or hats intended for Magi, but some do, such as Spirit or Superstition Barbarians.

[Staffan Johansson]

SuperBidi wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

You ask, I politely decline. You explain your position, I explain mine and politely decline.

It's a bit better than Zapp's "No thanks" position, but it's still rude. Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it's fine to do it without taking others into account.

If your neighbor bangs at your door because you wake his 2-year-old son, answering "The volume of my music is not high. Have a nice day." is rude. You have the right to do it, but you're still dismissing the issue which is that you wake his boy up.

Same goes with a character handing you poison. You have the right to refuse. But it would be better to discuss with him what poison means for him. If it's an important part of his character, discussing of a potential other solution is way more decent than just dismissing his feelings and following your character agenda.

Your simile is inappropriate. A person playing loud music is actively intruding on his neighbor's life, which is very different from a person refusing to partake in a gift. A more appropriate simile would be handing a neighbor a mix tape of heavy metal songs, and demanding a discussion when your neighbor replies that he's more into dance music.

[shroudb]

SuperBidi wrote:

graystone wrote:

I have to say, for myself a simple 'no thanks' should be the end of it. I'd find it rude if someone kept trying to get my to change my mind on it. It doesn't have to be an integral part of my character or a whim at the moment, a no is a no. There need be no solution part not taking the poison. The only issue would be to continue asking for reasons why.

And if we ever play together, or if I play with Zapp, I won't insist after the "no thanks". Because I'll be respecting your feelings and you made it quite clear that you would dislike if I go beyond your "no thanks". It still doesn't make the "no thanks" decent.

graystone wrote:

As to the example, it's you should be you giving something and the other person not wanting it so it's more like YOU saying 'how about I turn up the music on' and the neighbor saying 'no thanks'... Doesn't sound so rude that way does it? Does he need to say why?

It depends on the context. I don't say that "no thanks" is never an acceptable answer. But it can also sometimes be a rude answer and that has to be taken into account.

Around a gaming table, you are telling a story with all the players. If there is a conflict between 2 stories, it's better to try to find a story both players want to play than to force your story on the other one.
In the case of my Alchemist, the fact that too many people are refusing my poison affects me (by reducing my pleasure). I even opened a discussion on these boards to speak about it. So, an answer of "Deal with it" or "Play another character" is rude. And answering "no thanks" to a player contribution without even trying to know how it affects him is rude.

The thing is, the "middle ground" between someone having something and someone disliking it, is indeed "use it however you wish but I won't be using it."

The "poison hating character" isn't asking you to dump your stash of poison. He already compromises. (because he doesn't have agency on what your character is doing)

Similarly, you are compromising by not insisting on him using it. (because you don't have agency on what his character is doing).

So, "no thank you" in this occasion is the polite thing to do/say. It shows respect, from both sides, for the each other character's choices even though one character disagrees with what the other is doing.

The rude thing is him telling *you* to not use poison and you telling him to use it.

[SuperBidi]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Your simile is inappropriate. A person playing loud music is actively intruding on his neighbor's life, which is very different from a person refusing to partake in a gift. A more appropriate simile would be handing a neighbor a mix tape of heavy metal songs, and demanding a discussion when your neighbor replies that he's more into dance music.

Your simile is also inappropriate because a group of players is supposed to interact. If I take your example, a more exact simile would be your neighbor and you are exchanging about the music you like, you hand your neighbor a mix tape of heavy metal songs so he can listen to what you like and he refuses the gift. Personally, I would find that rude and it would certainly definitely close the interaction about music with my neighbor.

shroudb wrote:

The thing is, the "middle ground" between someone having something and someone disliking it, is indeed "use it however you wish but I won't be using it."

The middle ground is a trap. If you want to punch me and I don't want, the middle ground of slapping me is not acceptable.

Another example: if you have a Paladin who's opposed to poison by conviction and let's say that my Alchemist poison weapons with a certain conviction. Do you think it's better for your Paladin to not poison his weapon and for my Alchemist to refuse your Paladin's Reaction on her or is it better for both character to acknowledge their difference and allow the other to do his thing?

Definitely, I would prefer both characters to do their thing, both as a player (as we could play our characters the way they are intended) and as a person, as I'm pretty sure I'd prefer such type of interaction with you than standing on my convictions and avoid interaction.

[shroudb]

SuperBidi wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Your simile is inappropriate. A person playing loud music is actively intruding on his neighbor's life, which is very different from a person refusing to partake in a gift. A more appropriate simile would be handing a neighbor a mix tape of heavy metal songs, and demanding a discussion when your neighbor replies that he's more into dance music.

Your simile is also inappropriate because a group of players is supposed to interact. If I take your example, a more exact simile would be your neighbor and you are exchanging about the music you like, you hand your neighbor a mix tape of heavy metal songs so he can listen to what you like and he refuses the gift. Personally, I would find that rude and it would certainly definitely close the interaction about music with my neighbor.

shroudb wrote:

The thing is, the "middle ground" between someone having something and someone disliking it, is indeed "use it however you wish but I won't be using it."

The middle ground is a trap. If you want to punch me and I don't want, the middle ground of slapping me is not acceptable.

Another example: if you have a Paladin who's opposed to poison by conviction and let's say that my Alchemist poison weapons with a certain conviction. Do you think it's better for your Paladin to not poison his weapon and for my Alchemist to refuse your Paladin's Reaction on her or is it better for both character to acknowledge their difference and allow the other to do his thing?

Definitely, I would prefer both characters to do their thing, both as a player (as we could play our characters the way they are intended) and as a person, as I'm pretty sure I'd prefer such type of interaction with you than standing on my convictions and avoid interaction.

i think you're viewing this with some bias towards the poisoner (understandable since it's your character) but to me your "punching->slapping" example sounds extremely close to what the Alchemist is doing:

After all, the one that's trying to make the other one "do something" (punch) is the Alchemist, and the compromise is that Alchemist still gets to do something that the Paladin dislikes (slap) not the other way around.

the "middle ground" you are proposing is the Paladin compromising with your ideals and you not compromising at all.

That's not fair to the Paladin in question.

As for the second example, if you have a problem with the Paladin's reaction by all means you can ask him to not use it on you.

And if the Paladin has a conviction issue with your poisons, by all means he should tell you that he wont be using them, BUT what he cannot tell you is YO?U not using your own poisons, or the other party members not using those poisons.

p.s. i don't havce any issue with poisons myself, if anything i like toxicologist and i've given him a spin, but to say that if someone doesn't want your poisons he's "disruptive" and "rude" is stretching it quite a lot.

[Megistone]

A little bit of discussion rarely hurts.
The reaction against poison could be a knee jerk one; when prompted to think about how it's not much different from other possible buffs, maybe the other player could change their mind.
Why should you never try to talk about these things?

[shroudb]

Megistone wrote:

A little bit of discussion rarely hurts.

The reaction against poison could be a knee jerk one; when prompted to think about how it's not much different from other possible buffs, maybe the other player could change their mind.
Why should you never try to talk about these things?

oh for sure. Discussion never hurts (until it becomes repetitive, or starts dragging on, and etc).

People can be jerks all the time, that's not what i'm saying. Personally i do not believe someone would reject something "just to aggravate you" or "just to be mean to you" and etc, i want to believe that the people playing in the same table as me are more decent than that.

That's why (i want to believe) when someone tells you that he doesn't want something, he has a reason why. Insisting that he should take it because that's what your character wants to do is the "rude" approach.

[SuperBidi]

shroudb wrote:

As for the second example, if you have a problem with the Paladin's reaction by all means you can ask him to not use it on you.

And if the Paladin has a conviction issue with your poisons, by all means he should tell you that he wont be using them

Reading your answer, I realize that maybe this whole discussion comes from different ways of interacting with people (as you seem to prefer the opposite version than the one I prefer).

I prefer to interact positively with people and make room for them even if it means sometimes acting slightly against my convictions.
But I can see people considering that sticking to their convictions is more important than interacting positively and who would dislike when someone tries to convince them to act differently.

[AnimatedPaper]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

You ask, I politely decline. You explain your position, I explain mine and politely decline.

It's a bit better than Zapp's "No thanks" position, but it's still rude. Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it's fine to do it without taking others into account.

If your neighbor bangs at your door because you wake his 2-year-old son, answering "The volume of my music is not high. Have a nice day." is rude. You have the right to do it, but you're still dismissing the issue which is that you wake his boy up.

Same goes with a character handing you poison. You have the right to refuse. But it would be better to discuss with him what poison means for him. If it's an important part of his character, discussing of a potential other solution is way more decent than just dismissing his feelings and following your character agenda.

Your simile is inappropriate. A person playing loud music is actively intruding on his neighbor's life, which is very different from a person refusing to partake in a gift. A more appropriate simile would be handing a neighbor a mix tape of heavy metal songs, and demanding a discussion when your neighbor replies that he's more into dance music.

Not even this goes far enough. It's giving the neighbor a link to your soundcloud and insisting they play it at their party that night. At a certain point, even as you are giving them something, they're doing you a favor by accepting it.

Which applies to this case. It's not exactly a gift if you didn't seek it out, and you shouldn't feel obligated to accept a gift that does little for you but helps the gift-giver.

As you say Superbidi, this is a collaborative game. Part of that collaboration is checking with the other players before you commit to an irrevocable course of action.

[Arachnofiend]

I think a character that would refuse the support benefits of a Core class is inappropriate for PFS. As has been previously stated, PFS is a setting where your teammates are effectively random. You can have moral hangups in home games but in PFS you need to be able to work with whatever PFS legal thing got brought to the table.

[graystone]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I think a character that would refuse the support benefits of a Core class is inappropriate for PFS. As has been previously stated, PFS is a setting where your teammates are effectively random. You can have moral hangups in home games but in PFS you need to be able to work with whatever PFS legal thing got brought to the table.

Work with is VERY different than agree to alter your character to accommodate them. There is NOTHING in the core class that requires others to use your items. A Toxicologist functions 100% by poisoning there own weapons and/or throwing poison bombs. Nothing in the class fails to work if another PC does not want what the alchemist is selling. It's much the same as someone not taking a mutagen from a mutagenist: If I play a PFS bard are you suggesting I'm forced to take a Silvertongue Mutagen from an alchemist and use it or I'm a bad player?

[SuperBidi]

Zapp wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

It still doesn't make the "no thanks" decent.

Your comment embodies the very definition of player entitlement.

Nothing more to discuss here.

If you could follow your own advice...

[Squiggit]

Megistone wrote:

Why should you never try to talk about these things?

Talking about things is fine, but the repeated implication that someone is a bad person if they're not interested in using poisons is more than a bit absurd.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

I'd say no to the poison as a martial not for a character reason but for a player reason. It's not a simple buff. If I say I hit with a poisoned weapon the GM is going to ask me the pertinent questions. So I need to know the DC of the poison. The Maximum Duration. And what each stage does for damage and other effects. If I wanted to do that, I'd buy on level poisons and do it myself.

It lessens my enjoyment of the game when another character insists I strap additional mechanics onto my character's mechanics.

No means no.