Poison and morality


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

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.

Shouldn't the GM just ask the Alchemist player who presumably has all that information readily available on-hand? Just because it's your turn doesn't mean the GM can't talk to other people.

The same argument might hold for a spellcaster putting a buff on you, and when that comes up the GM is going to ask the spellcaster's player right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

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.

I leave the mechanical stuff up to the player who provided the poison; I even have them role the damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is every single GM going to do that guys? No. The GM may not even by paying attention to the player exchange about the poison.

I'm gonna say no every time. I don't have to come to a middle ground. Someone offers and if the end result is no, it's no. It's not rude to say no, as some profess.

And what a GM shouldn't ask a player on hand and what a GM can potentially do in any given moment don't always match up.

No means no.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

haha reading the replies makes me glad I never looked into PFS. You guys don't care about playing with other people apparently. It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore. As for it being complicated, it's really not. You just ask the details or let him answer any questions about the poison. It takes maybe 10 seconds and he's probably giving you the same poison the whole night, so it's easy to remember.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it's weird to assume that the GM is automatically incompetent, or that it would be some breach of etiquette to toss a specific numbers question to another player when prompted by the GM.

Something like:
GM: What's the DC on the poison?
Player 1: I don't know, [player 2] what's the DC on the poison?
Player 2: It's [whatever].

Does not seem to slow play very much.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have seen plenty of players who don’t care about the people they play with, yes. Usually by demanding the others do what they say, such as using poison when they don’t want to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I have seen plenty of players who don’t care about the people they play with, yes. Usually by demanding the others do what they say, such as using poison when they don’t want to.

Alright you should go play and refuse all buffs and heals from clerics! Those bastards expect to use their divine fonts and spell slots on other people.. how selfish of them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have done that, yes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
how selfish of them.

Yes, people that demand people play a specific way instead of the way they'd prefer to is truly selfish. It's a team game and EVERYONE should be polite and work with each other and that includes the alchemist working with people that DO NOT want their poisons. Again, must I accept and use a mutagen I don't want because the alchemist wants me to play in a way I don't want to? I don't think so. You shouldn't badger someone to explain themselves after they have said 'no thanks'. Should I badger the wizard to slot more hastes because that's how I want to play or try to force the cleric to cast heroism because I want it on my martial every combat? How is that different than forcing people to use my poison is that's not how they want to play?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Alright you should go play and refuse all buffs and heals from clerics!

There's a feat that encourages that.

Seen a couple people take it, even. In one case one player thought it was a really dumb decision, but left it at that. In another there was some good natured banter on the subject between the character who took the feat and the party cleric, completely IC though.

Nothing approaching the contempt you've displayed toward people who aren't interested in using poisons, though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, the best reason to refuse to use poison is “I don’t want it on my weapon where it could possibly harm ME instead”. Not from any ‘you accidentally poison yourself’ rules but simply from an enemy disarming you and striking you with your own poisoned blade.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People who refuse buffs are roleplaying a superstition barbarian without any of the mechanical benefits of that instinct.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
People who refuse buffs are roleplaying a superstition barbarian without any of the mechanical benefits of that instinct.

Not all buffs are made equal. A mutagen gives minuses with the buff and not everyone wants those minuses. Some also have baggage with them: For instance, I can imagine someone might think twice about a Ravening Maw cast on them even though it allows you to use a healing activity as it requires you to cannibalize an adjacent dying or dead creature.

It's disingenuous to put 'normal' buffs like bless in with them, though I could see reason where someone might not even want those kind either. In the end, it's up to the individual player to opt in or out for whatever reason they want.


ExOichoThrow wrote:
haha reading the replies makes me glad I never looked into PFS. You guys don't care about playing with other people apparently. It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore. As for it being complicated, it's really not. You just ask the details or let him answer any questions about the poison. It takes maybe 10 seconds and he's probably giving you the same poison the whole night, so it's easy to remember.

Well, I can give an in-lore answer, and did so upthread.

I don't disagree about the need to bend your RP to allow everyone else their characters, given the pickup nature of PFS, but I'm a little alarmed by how many feel they can demand that other people do that.

It's a game. Not really that serious.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, the best reason to refuse to use poison is “I don’t want it on my weapon where it could possibly harm ME instead”. Not from any ‘you accidentally poison yourself’ rules but simply from an enemy disarming you and striking you with your own poisoned blade.

Do you refuse a casting of Magic Weapon for the same reason?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Alright you should go play and refuse all buffs and heals from clerics!

There's a feat that encourages that.

Seen a couple people take it, even. In one case one player thought it was a really dumb decision, but left it at that. In another there was some good natured banter on the subject between the character who took the feat and the party cleric, completely IC though.

Nothing approaching the contempt you've displayed toward people who aren't interested in using poisons, though.

I have seen no contempt aimed at those who refuse poison.

I have seen some derogatory or disdainful posts against those who try to explain that poison are not some kind of absolute evil.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
People who refuse buffs are roleplaying a superstition barbarian without any of the mechanical benefits of that instinct.

Not all buffs are made equal. A mutagen gives minuses with the buff and not everyone wants those minuses. Some also have baggage with them: For instance, I can imagine someone might think twice about a Ravening Maw cast on them even though it allows you to use a healing activity as it requires you to cannibalize an adjacent dying or dead creature.

It's disingenuous to put 'normal' buffs like bless in with them, though I could see reason where someone might not even want those kind either. In the end, it's up to the individual player to opt in or out for whatever reason they want.

If the reason is a misunderstanding of what a poison actually is in PF2, what then?


The Raven Black wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, the best reason to refuse to use poison is “I don’t want it on my weapon where it could possibly harm ME instead”. Not from any ‘you accidentally poison yourself’ rules but simply from an enemy disarming you and striking you with your own poisoned blade.
Do you refuse a casting of Magic Weapon for the same reason?

There is a bit of a difference: 1 minute lasts a min and poison lasts forever until used. Also magic weapon can be dispelled while poison... well lasts forever until an attack gets rid of it.

Not that disarming and getting attacking with the weapon is a particular worry of mine, but I don't even think TOZ would even need to say why they don't want it: how good or bad the reason they have for not wanting it is besides the point.

The Raven Black wrote:
If the reason is a misunderstanding of what a poison actually is in PF2, what then?

Sounds like an issue with the presentation of poison in the game and the games messaging and not a problem/issue with those that don't want it. If people that have read the game feel that way, how is it wrong?

The Raven Black wrote:
I have seen some derogatory or disdainful posts against those who try to explain that poison are not some kind of absolute evil.

The following post fits IMO: not wanting to take time out of limited game time to debate poisons is painted as not caring about team play: why is the person getting the poison expected to do all the conceding and the person giving it doing none? I think it rude to try to force someone to take my poisons when they jusy want to sit down and enjoy playing the game.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
haha reading the replies makes me glad I never looked into PFS. You guys don't care about playing with other people apparently. It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, the best reason to refuse to use poison is “I don’t want it on my weapon where it could possibly harm ME instead”. Not from any ‘you accidentally poison yourself’ rules but simply from an enemy disarming you and striking you with your own poisoned blade.
Do you refuse a casting of Magic Weapon for the same reason?

Sure. You don’t have to clean magic off the blade later tho.

Silver Crusade

ExOichoThrow wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I have seen plenty of players who don’t care about the people they play with, yes. Usually by demanding the others do what they say, such as using poison when they don’t want to.
Alright you should go play and refuse all buffs and heals from clerics! Those bastards expect to use their divine fonts and spell slots on other people.. how selfish of them.

Oh if only you were around when Infernal Healing was a thing...

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Oh come on. Are you seriously trying to say that offering my paladin poison and being politely refused is the same as me playing my music too loud and waking up your kid and when notified I ignore you? They are not in the least bit equivalent. This is why hypothetical analogies are almost always a waste of time. There are almost never apples to apples.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore.

That may to true for some, but not all. I can only speak for myself and say that I have thought about this issue thoroughly and have very clear reasoning for my paladin. If you don’t agree with his logic, that’s an entirely different matter. And since my other characters are fine with poison, including my LG healer cleric of Sarenrae, it is clearly not a player issue.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
People who refuse buffs are roleplaying a superstition barbarian without any of the mechanical benefits of that instinct.

For some, yes, and they are entitled to do so regardless of our thoughts on it. There can be a big difference in role play between refusing magic weapon and refusing poison.

Liberty's Edge

Poison in PF2 is not the same as RL poison though.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Not sure that distinction matters.


The Raven Black wrote:
Poison in PF2 is not the same as RL poison though.

So?

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not sure that distinction matters.

Yep. I don't see why it matters why the person doesn't want the poison...

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe in letting other players decide how they want to roleplay their characters. That can mean choosing not to use poison.


This feels just quite similar to the Lazylord refusal of yore (as in personally I was strongly against them ordering my character around despite not even being the GM)...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This reminds me of an incident in a game I played a while back where one player kept getting annoyed because he insisted on not taking a share of the loot when divvied up & the player who took it upon themselves to divvy up the loot always just divided the gold total by the player total out of habit, but the person who refused was refusing because they didn't want their character to become over-encumbered even though our group explicitly didn't use encumbrance rules because we're lazy.


TwilightKnight wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:
It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore.
That may to true for some, but not all. I can only speak for myself and say that I have thought about this issue thoroughly and have very clear reasoning for my paladin. If you don’t agree with his logic, that’s an entirely different matter. And since my other characters are fine with poison, including my LG healer cleric of Sarenrae, it is clearly not a player issue.

Sure. If you can think of a specific in-character reason that's fine. But when its entire tables of diverse classes coming up with that reason, it's clearly something else going on.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if I just don’t want to use it?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
when its entire tables of diverse classes coming up with that reason, it's clearly something else going on.

In a world where some people will decline poison it is not impossible to experience an entire table that does so. Society-wide probably unlikely, but if you are playing with the same people game after game, the chances of repeat game bias appearing at the table goes up quickly. If the OP is experiencing a higher than normal number of people declining poison and they play with those people regularly, don’t be surprised when it occurs again. You have to adjust your gaming style if it is the outlier in a somewhat homogenous group whether that be thoughts about poison, alignment, social ques, etc. The alternative is to find a new group to play with.


TOZ wrote:
What if I just don’t want to use it?

Unless you fill out the 'why I don't want to use poison' essay in triplicate, it seems some would find it a personal insult to the poison creating character... Clearly it's a dastardly plot if a group of players don't want poison... :P


Personally I've been on both sides of the dilemma where on one occasion I'll be the person trying to be helpful & someone will, for reasons that seem incomprehensible to me, reject that help and, from my point of view, obstruct my ability to contribute, where as at other times I've been frustrated and annoyed by people insistently trying to impose help on me that I don't want.

Not one of my better traits.

Anyway, I feel the solution here is communication. Instead of trying to convince someone that they need to accept this thing you want to give them, explain that you want to find a way to help contribute to and support the group, and work with them to find a way to do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
TOZ wrote:
What if I just don’t want to use it?
Unless you fill out the 'why I don't want to use poison' essay in triplicate, it seems some would find it a personal insult to the poison creating character... Clearly it's a dastardly plot if a group of players don't want poison... :P

So does misrepresenting people's stances in an attempt to ridicule them make you feel better about life or what's the deal?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So not wanting to use it is fine?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:

Personally I've been on both sides of the dilemma where on one occasion I'll be the person trying to be helpful & someone will, for reasons that seem incomprehensible to me, reject that help and, from my point of view, obstruct my ability to contribute, where as at other times I've been frustrated and annoyed by people insistently trying to impose help on me that I don't want.

Not one of my better traits.

Anyway, I feel the solution here is communication. Instead of trying to convince someone that they need to accept this thing you want to give them, explain that you want to find a way to help contribute to and support the group, and work with them to find a way to do that.

I agree, I think the forum went into hyperboles.

When 2 players bring conflicting characters there is a conflict to settle. It's prior to the game launch, it's a fact. If one player wants to play a poisoner and one player wants to play a character who dislikes poison, conflict will happen.
I'll have a few words prior to the game and then accept players decision during the game because I think it's the least intrusive way of settling the conflict.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Outside of very narrow exceptions (e.g. the dominate spell) each player has autonomy over their character. Anyone who insists otherwise is not welcome at my table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:


When 2 players bring conflicting characters there is a conflict to settle. It's prior to the game launch, it's a fact. If one player wants to play a poisoner and one player wants to play a character who dislikes poison, conflict will happen.

There aren't two people having a conflict here.

Joe or Sue bringing a character who politely declines your offer of various boosts isn't having or starting a conflict. You can always play something else, something you feel doesn't rely on buffing others to feel useful and powerful.

Only if the poisoner player is unable to respect the decision of Joe or Sue do we have a conflict. A conflict best settled by the group telling the poisoner player "we do not want to play with you".

Cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


When 2 players bring conflicting characters there is a conflict to settle. It's prior to the game launch, it's a fact. If one player wants to play a poisoner and one player wants to play a character who dislikes poison, conflict will happen.

There aren't two people having a conflict here.

Joe or Sue bringing a character who politely declines your offer of various boosts isn't having or starting a conflict. You can always play something else, something you feel doesn't rely on buffing others to feel useful and powerful.

Only if the poisoner player is unable to respect the decision of Joe or Sue do we have a conflict. A conflict best settled by the group telling the poisoner player "we do not want to play with you".

Cheers

One people wants to poison a weapon, another one doesn't want, unless you find a way for a weapon to be both poisoned and not poisoned, there is a conflict.

The support Alchemist build is a perfectly valid one. Not wanting to have your weapon poisoned is also perfectly valid. So both players are right in there positioning. As such, you need to settle the conflict.

It's just your weird sense of morality that allows you to judge negatively the Alchemist and as such blame him for the conflict. But other people don't have such issues with it. And your morality is yours and only yours, unless you feel entitled to force it on others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the difference is the the "weapon" is not some abstract whole party resource.

the weapon and its use is the property of the affected character and noone's else.

by default, the Alchemist should first ask permission to do something to said weapon. And if refused permission he has to back down. There's no conflict there.

what you describe "there's a x object, one character wants to do something to it, the other character doesn't" is indeed a conflict from the get go only when the 2 characters have equal rights to that object (as an example something found in the open while adventuring)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

the difference is the the "weapon" is not some abstract whole party resource.

the weapon and its use is the property of the affected character and noone's else.

by default, the Alchemist should first ask permission to do something to said weapon. And if refused permission he has to back down. There's no conflict there.

what you describe "there's a x object, one character wants to do something to it, the other character doesn't" is indeed a conflict from the get go only when the 2 characters have equal rights to that object (as an example something found in the open while adventuring)

I'm not saying that both have equal rights on the weapon. If the conflict doesn't find a solution, the weapon won't be poisoned.

But having the power to ultimately decide doesn't make your choices more right than the ones of others.

Also, your standpoint doesn't work. I've never seen someone asking if he has the right to cast Magic Weapon on someone else's weapon. If the weapon is non magical, the casters casts the spell without thinking a second that the martial would object.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

One people wants to poison a weapon, another one doesn't want, unless you find a way for a weapon to be both poisoned and not poisoned, there is a conflict.

The support Alchemist build is a perfectly valid one. Not wanting to have your weapon poisoned is also perfectly valid. So both players are right in there positioning. As such, you need to settle the conflict.

It's just your weird sense of morality that allows you to judge negatively the Alchemist and as such blame him for the conflict. But other people don't have such issues with it. And your morality is yours and only yours, unless you feel entitled to force it on others.

Is this specific to the person you are replaying to? Because never once did I (or most) judge the alchemist at all. I have no problem with the build or their use of poison. Note, THEIR use of poison. I only object to MY use of poison. Your thread hold for the term “conflict” seems to be fairly low, so in that context it’s cannot be considered a negative thing. Personally, I have a higher threshold for conflict as I consider conflict to be negative. Two people disagreeing on the applicable of a game rule is not what I would consider as conflict, but of course YMMV.

The point is agreeing to disagree is a reasonable settlement of the conflict. You seem to be implying that by declining the offer of poison, there is some kind of morality judgement involved when there isn’t. That would only apply if in addition to declining the poison, the character insisted no one use it either. That’s not happening.

Maybe it’s just my reading of the text, which is certainly possible, but your own commentary seems to be in conflict with itself. You seem to indicate that both players are entitled to their positions on poison, but then indicate that anything short of accepting the poison makes the player rude and morally judgmental. You seem to set up the user of poison as morally superior to the denier and nothing short of them changing their position and accepting the poison is acceptable.

Or maybe this is just one of those situations where chat is a bad venue to relay the nuances of your commentary in which case the only solution seems to be to agree to disagree.


TwilightKnight wrote:

Is this specific to the person you are replaying to? Because never once did I (or most) judge the alchemist at all. I have no problem with the build or their use of poison. Note, THEIR use of poison. I only object to MY use of poison. Your thread hold for the term “conflict” seems to be fairly low, so in that context it’s cannot be considered a negative thing. Personally, I have a higher threshold for conflict as I consider conflict to be negative. Two people disagreeing on the applicable of a game rule is not what I would consider as conflict, but of course YMMV.

The point is agreeing to disagree is a reasonable settlement of the conflict. You seem to be implying that by declining the offer of poison, there is some kind of morality judgement involved when there isn’t. That would only apply if in addition to declining the poison, the character insisted no one use it either. That’s not happening.

Maybe it’s just my reading of the text, which is certainly possible, but your own commentary seems to be in conflict with itself. You seem to indicate that both players are entitled to their positions on poison, but then indicate that anything short of accepting the poison makes the player rude and morally judgmental. You seem to set up the user of poison as morally superior to the denier and nothing short of them changing their position and accepting the...

No, I'm not making any judgment on any of the two players. I've always said that both are right. You can read all my posts, I've never said it was bad to refuse the poison.

I'm actually saying that the Alchemist is right in proposing poison and the he's right if he wants to discuss it if the other player doesn't want.
What I'm saying is that the other player is rude if he refuses any discussion on the matter.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What’s the point in discussing it if there is no chance that their opinion will change? The other player does not owe you a discussion. They are certainly welcome to have one, but it’s not required. If anything, the poisoner is being rude if they insist in having a conversation when the other person doesn’t want one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
What I'm saying is that the other player is rude if he refuses any discussion on the matter.

That's the thing though: they don't owe you a debate on the matter. They can happily play the game and say 'no thanks' without that without any rudeness. It's not an insult to not want to have a rules/morality/ect discussion when you're just there to enjoy the game and run your character the way you want. IMO, the rude/inconsiderate one is the person that persists after getting a polite 'no thanks'. Another players choices shouldn't be up for debate and second guessed [assuming it's not bad/wrong behavior] because you want them to play another way.

Let me ask, how many times would you have to ask or how long would you need to talk about it before it isn't rude [in your opinion] before you'd feel fine with a 'no thanks'? 5 min? 10 min? Do you need a whole backstory? What proof do you need to see to believe that someone really doesn't want your poison?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

That's the thing though: they don't owe you a debate on the matter. They can happily play the game and say 'no thanks' without that without any rudeness. It's not an insult to not want to have a rules/morality/ect discussion when you're just there to enjoy the game and run your character the way you want. IMO, the rude/inconsiderate one is the person that persists after getting a polite 'no thanks'. Another players choices shouldn't be up for debate and second guessed [assuming it's not bad/wrong behavior] because you want them to play another way.

Let me ask, how many times would you have to ask or how long would you need to talk about it before it isn't rude [in your opinion] before you'd feel fine with a 'no thanks'? 5 min? 10 min? Do you need a whole backstory? What proof do you need to see to believe that someone really doesn't want your poison?

Dismissing others is rude. This is no question of time or whatever, it's a question of taking others into account. He doesn't owe me a debate, but he owes me consideration.

And I'm not asking a discussion about morality or rules, I'm asking him to take me into account and to understand that saying no impacts me.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And to be clear, if the denier says, “no, poison is evil,” I think you are certainly right to inform them it is not, by rule, evil. The difference being the player saying that poison is evil (which is wrong and should be corrected) and the character saying poison is evil which is a role-play morality issue and not wrong anymore than saying there is only one set of rules by which alignment works. We all know that to be untrue.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Dismissing others is rude. This is no question of time or whatever, it's a question of taking others into account. He doesn't owe me a debate, but he owes me consideration.

If you think that, you might want to prepare yourself to be disappointed. There are a lot of people who do not want to discuss game rules. They are not being rude to do so. The manner in which the refusal occurs is really the only thing that matters. A polite refusal should NEVER be evaluated poorly. The simple fact that they were polite shows they respect you. OTOH, if they say no with hurty derision and/or comment about your character being BadWrongFun for using poison, THEN they are infringing on your agency and that would be rude.

Setting has an impact on this. In your local lodge where you will be playing with those people on a regular basis, it’s probably more important that you have at least an understanding since it’s going to affect multiple games. OTOH, at a pickup setting or convention where you may only ever play with this person, or people once, we have to place more responsibility on our own choices than others. If they don’t want to discuss an issue and are polite about the decline, leave it alone. Worst case, pick another PC. I’ve done it numerous times when I though my character’s specific build might not mesh well with the others at the table.

301 to 316 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Poison and morality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.