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.
As I said: "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."
And yes, I know lots of people won't have consideration for me. They are just rude (to me). That's just what I'm saying.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He doesn't owe me a debate, but he owes me consideration
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.
No, no, and no.
You offer a gift. The other person says "No". That's all they owe you: a yes or a no.
No one has the right to a discussion about someone else's decisions, or someone else's reasons.
They considered your offer. They decided to say no. They said "No" out loud where you could hear them.
That's polite. They didn't ignore you, they didn't refuse to answer.
Not liking an answer does not entitle you to someone's time and energy to let you change their mind. Not understanding an answer does not entitle you to someone else's emotional work to get you to understand.
"No" is a complete sentence and a complete discussion. "No, thank you" is the polite form of "no".
No, no, and no.
You offer a gift. The other person says "No". That's all they owe you: a yes or a no.
I'm not offering a gift. I'm offering a buff, which is part of my contribution to the adventure.
And as a side note, there are lots of rules around gifts, and you can rarely say no to a gift without being rude.Not understanding an answer does not entitle you to someone else's emotional work to get you to understand.
But sitting around a table does.
If the guy was a random guy I meet in the street, I'd be ok with you.But we all sit around the same table and as such people must be considerate of others. Dismissing others feelings around a table is rude.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where does this line of thinking end? Do I owe the rogue flanking? Do I owe the blaster to stay out of combat because all their spells are AoE? Do I owe the healer to remain within 30ft so they can reach me? Do I owe the archer, to tag out of their way to avoid soft cover? Certainly, tactics would suggest those are all good ideas, just like adding poison to you weapon is tactically sound, but it stops short of being compulsory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
No. The weapon not being poisoned is a solution to the conflict. It's not rude.
It is a valid resolution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does this line of thinking end? Do I owe the rogue flanking? Do I owe the blaster to stay out of combat because all their spells are AoE? Do I owe the healer to remain within 30ft so they can reach me? Do I owe the archer, to tag out of their way to avoid soft cover? Certainly, tactics would suggest those are all good ideas, just like adding poison to you weapon is tactically sound, but it stops short of being compulsory.
No. What you owe is taking the Rogue player into consideration, the blaster player into consideration, the healer player into consideration, the archer player into consideration.
If there's a big bunch of monsters, putting yourself in the middle of the potential AoE and say "no thanks" when the blaster asks you if you can avoid doing that is rude.
Putting yourself in a position where the Rogue can't have flanking and answer "no thanks" if the Rogue player asks you to just move 5 more feet is rude.
And so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been clear this entire time that I do t think anyone should be FORCED to take poison. Yet multiple people have insisted on talking down to me as if I'm requesting that GMs take you by the hand the to coat it. It's absolutely dishonest and frankly downright pathetic.
but I think that unless you have a good reason , you're a bad teammate and that its unkind as a player if you dont have a legitimate one or arent willing to make concessions for your teammates for the sake of the mission. If you were actually in a joint effort to commence an operation where everyone's life is at risk you absolutely do owe it to your allies to explain yourself when denying your entire party an advantage---you are quite literally reducing chances of success and therefore survival, so you had better have a reason.
Teams should absolutely be making compromises for the sake of a missions success, not saying things like "yeah but it's my right to refuse". Of course it is. It just makes you stupid and selfish in 90% of the cases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no, and no.
You offer a gift. The other person says "No". That's all they owe you: a yes or a no.
I'm not offering a gift. I'm offering a buff, which is part of my contribution to the adventure.
And as a side note, there are lots of rules around gifts, and you can rarely say no to a gift without being rude.Not understanding an answer does not entitle you to someone else's emotional work to get you to understand.But sitting around a table does.
If the guy was a random guy I meet in the street, I'd be ok with you.
But we all sit around the same table and as such people must be considerate of others. Dismissing others feelings around a table is rude.
Then why are you continuously dismissing other player's feelings? You are owed consideration, yes. But not a discussion.
Let people just play the game their way. If this is really a problem for you, I highly advise not playing this character. If other player's decisions have such huge effect on how much you enjoy playing, then it might be best to not play a character so dependent on other player's decisions.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, I know lots of people won't have consideration for me. They are just rude (to me). That's just what I'm saying.
Okay, let’s agree that we are not going to change you position on this issue nor vice versa. So where do we go from here? I will reiterate what I said above. You should prepare yourself to be disappointed because the simple fact is most people will not align with your thoughts on rudeness and agency. You can be sure that many people are going to refuse your offer of poison. You can also be sure that some of them are not going to want to discuss with you the whys or wherefores. So, knowing that, your best course of action is to be prepared for it. Either accept it and just play your poisoner anyway or have an alternative character ready to substitute.
If I were to sit with you, I would refuse the initial offering. If you were to ask why, I would tell you he believes poison to be dishonorable, but that he does not expect anyone else to live up to his lofty ideals so do what you think is right for yourself. That’s the end of the discussion. If you try to convince him otherwise, he will politely refuse the offer and walk away. If that is rude by your estimation, then it is what it is. At least you know what to expect and can decide what to do as a result.
Then why are you continuously dismissing other player's feelings? You are owed consideration, yes. But not a discussion.
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".
I respect others feelings, even if I find them rude to me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teams should absolutely be making compromises for the sake of a missions success, not saying things like "yeah but it's my right to refuse". Of course it is. It just makes you stupid and selfish in 90% of the cases.
Generally I agree (not the stupid/selfish party as that is uncalled for), but compromise is not, I give up my agency and you give up nothing. Sometimes, compromise is accepting that you each have different focuses. In the matter of poison, there is no compromise. Either you allow it or you don’t. There is nothing my paladin can do to compromise with you. He’s not going to use poison. IMO, the compromise is that he doesn’t object to you and other characters using the poison.
There is also a responsibility that players own their character’s choices. This is not just an idea about poisoner. I know my paladin has certain beliefs and therefore he has expectations that may create opposition at the table. Therefore, I as the responsible party take ownership of that. There will be times I cannot playthat character if I want to hold true to its ideas. I don’t travel with necromancer’s. I don’t travel with demon summoning casters. I don’t have any right to expect them to not do what their character does than they do in reverse. The poisoner is well aware, maybe not initially, but certainly now, that the character will not always be free to do what they were designed to do. To “force” that character into a table of characters to which it doesn’t mesh with is a much bigger example of rudeness than someone politely refusing to use the poison.
Okay, let’s agree that we are not going to change you position on this issue nor vice versa. So where do we go from here? I will reiterate what I said above. You should prepare yourself to be disappointed because the simple fact is most people will not align with your thoughts on rudeness and agency. You can be sure that many people are going to refuse your offer of poison. You can also be sure that some of them are not going to want to discuss with you the whys or wherefores. So, knowing that, your best course of action is to be prepared for it. Either accept it and just play your poisoner anyway or have an alternative character ready to substitute.
If I were to sit with you, I would refuse the initial offering. If you were to ask why, I would tell you he believes poison to be dishonorable, but that he does not expect anyone else to live up to his lofty ideals so do what you think is right for yourself. That’s the end of the discussion. If you try to convince him otherwise, he will politely refuse the offer and walk away. If that is rude by your estimation, then it is what it is. At least you know what to expect and can decide what to do as a result.
The discussion about what I will do is over since quite some time (page 2, if I remember well). But the discussion continues despite that.
To answer you: I'll start with a few words at the beginning of the adventure and don't say anything during the adventure, so I think it'll be the least disruptive way of handling it. Then, if I still find that too many players are refusing poisons, I'll have to stop playing this character.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He doesn't owe me a debate, but he owes me consideration.
Why do you assume that someone saying 'no thanks' hasn't given it consideration when they said it? I just don't get that. Why is there a need to follow up?
but I think that unless you have a good reason , you're a bad teammate and that its unkind as a player if you dont have a legitimate one or arent willing to make concessions for your teammates for the sake of the mission.
So lets reverse that once: how about I ask the poison maker to instead make healing and utility elixirs instead of poisons. Who concedes? IMO, you're a "bad teammate" when you don't take 'no' for an answer and try to enforce a particular playstyle on others. Is the poisoners 'fun' trumping everyone else's who's fun doesn't include poison? Why is it being painted that the people that don't want the poison are the problem and are the ones that need to make concessions?
I respect others feelings, even if I find them rude to me.
IMO, you would take them at their word then and not feel the need to have a consideration debate after a 'no thanks then.
Teams should absolutely be making compromises for the sake of a missions success, not saying things like "yeah but it's my right to refuse". Of course it is. It just makes you stupid and selfish in 90% of the cases.Generally I agree (not the stupid/selfish party as that is uncalled for), but compromise is not, I give up my agency and you give up nothing. Sometimes, compromise is accepting that you each have different focuses. In the matter of poison, thee is no compromise. Either you allow it or you don’t. There is nothing my paladin can do to compromise with you. He’s not going to use poison. IMO, the compromise is that he doesn’t object to you and other characters using the poison.
When you look for compromises, you realize there's more than you think.
Some people have said the issue is just the name "poison". That if it was called "Weapon Alchemical Enhancement" people would not have an issue about it. So, one solution (I don't say it's an ideal one) is to ask the DM if it's possible to just rename the poison so everyone can play their character the way they want.There is also a responsibility that players own their character’s choices. This is not just an idea about poisoner. I know my paladin has certain beliefs and therefore he has expectations that may create opposition at the table. Therefore, I as the responsible party take ownership of that. There will be times I cannot playthat character if I want to hold true to its ideas. I don’t travel with necromancer’s. I don’t travel with demon summoning casters. I don’t have any right to expect them to not do what their character does than they do in reverse. The poisoner is well aware, maybe not initially, but certainly now, that the character will not always be free to do what they were designed to do. To “force” that character into a table of characters to which it doesn’t mesh with is a much bigger example of rudeness than someone politely refusing to use the poison.
What would you do if in the middle of the adventure a character summons a demon?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming you play with more than just a regular group of players, I think you will find that most people will be happy to accept your poison so there should be no reason to stop playing it. It’s just a matter of managing expectations and having alternatives when things are not ideal for your character.
If you are playing with a routine group of players, I think it might be helpful to have the conversation away from the table. Maybe Facebook, or whatever social platform your group uses. There is value in making sure players are not making decisions based on rules errors like “poison is evil.” It won’t change character build choices, but it’ll assure that at least everyone is well informed. Plus, if someone else sees your poisoner signed up to play, maybe they chose a character that will welcome the poison and compromise without you even knowing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you were actually in a joint effort to commence an operation where everyone's life is at risk you absolutely do owe it to your allies to explain yourself when denying your entire party an advantage---you are quite literally reducing chances of success and therefore survival, so you had better have a reason.
At a home game, I would fully agree. There's time both in and out of game for these discussion to take place, for a full back and forth. Or at the very least, for you to not be surprised by the refusal and for you to know the person well enough to see if it is wise to push or leave it be without making them unhappy.
That kind of conflict can make for good RP and help develop both characters in relation to one another. The emotional labor CrystalSeas describes is also a bit more reasonable to expect when you're playing with the same person for weeks and months.
During a PFS game where time is limited, the dynamics are a bit different. There are 5 other people at the table; taking the time to go over what is an in character decision while they sit and wait can be a bit much. A simple "no thanks" in order to expedite things really is the best option there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I respect others feelings, even if I find them rude to me.IMO, you would take them at their word then and not feel the need to have a consideration debate after a 'no thanks then.
That's what I've done until now. But my pleasure of playing this character has been reduced to the point I think about giving up playing it. So I know that I'll negatively impact the other players by having a few words in the beginning of the adventure about poison.
The thing is: I think (or hope) that some players still think poison is evil. So, my words may help everyone realize poison is now a perfectly acceptable buff. If I'm right on that, these few minutes will help everyone know this rule, and I then expect the information to slowly spread in my circle.It's a little of time lost for a better understanding of the world of Golarion and more freedom in the builds people can play.
But if it doesn't work, I'll give up on the character, sadly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people have said the issue is just the name "poison". That if it was called "Weapon Alchemical Enhancement" people would not have an issue about it. So, one solution (I don't say it's an ideal one) is to ask the DM if it's possible to just rename the poison so everyone can play their character the way they want
Calling a great word a howitzer does not make it a howitzer, nor does it stop being a great sword. Poison is defined by the rules. It is what it is. Just because you want to call it ice cream does not make it so.
I could maybe agree with you in regards to a home game where you could house rule poison to be something other than what it is described as in the CRB, but the OP brought this up as it relates to PFS so that is the way I am framing it.
I respect others feelings, even if I find them rude to me.
That's fair enough. You can even privately consider them an idiot, as long as you're willing to take them at their word.
In light of that, I apologize for not fully understanding that distinction in your posts.
It's not what you think, or what they think, that has been what concerned me during this thread. It was the apparent need for further discussion from strangers that I looked at askance.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would you do if in the middle of the adventure a character summons a demon?
If the character in question was a summoner or conjuration caster, that wouldn’t happen since I would have asked about it at the beginning. If it did come as a complete surprise, I would simply ask the character if that was a one-off or if they summon demons on a regular basis or intended to do so again. If so, I would make note of it and not adventure with that character again. If they said no, and did it again, then they are in league with demons and a liar, neither of which he will tolerate. Fairly simple approach that hurts no one. I take all the responsibility onto myself and don’t expect the other player to make any change in how they play their character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I respect others feelings, even if I find them rude to me.That's fair enough. You can even privately consider them an idiot, as long as you're willing to take them at their word.
In light of that, I apologize for not fully understanding that distinction in your posts.
It's not what you think, or what they think, that has been what concerned me during this thread. It was the apparent need for further discussion from strangers that I looked at askance.
No worries. These boards are hard to follow. And there are lots of persons posting, so you easily take one comment for another person's if they are close.
And, yes, obviously, I'll avoid to tell directly to someone he's an idiot.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would you do if in the middle of the adventure a character summons a demon?If the character in question was a summoner or conjuration caster, that wouldn’t happen since I would have asked about it at the beginning. If it did come as a complete surprise, I would simply ask the character if that was a one-off or if they summon demons on a regular basis or intended to do so again. If so, I would make note of it and not adventure with that character again. Fairly simple approach that hurts no one. I take all the responsibility onto myself and don’t expect the other player to make any change in how they play their character.
You would start a session of PFS by telling people you would not adventure with a necromancer or a demon summoner? Because that's roughly what I want to do with my Alchemist: taking a couple of minutes to explain what I expect to be my character contribution.
|
|
You would start a session of PFS by telling people you would not adventure with a necromancer or a demon summoner?
No, if a character introduced themselves as a summoner or conjured, I would simply ask them if they did that. I don’t have to make a production about it, nor do I even need to tell them I won’t adventure with them. I just switch to a character that would “better mesh with the party.” It doesn’t have to be confrontational.
EDIT—it’s no different when I play my necromancer. If I notice goodly characters or a Pharasmin at the table I ask them if they have a problem with me employing undead labor. If so, I switch to another character. That maintains player agency. If I expect everyone else to accept the fact I am using undead, then I am corrupting their player agency and I won’t do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So lets reverse that once: how about I ask the poison maker to instead make healing and utility elixirs instead of poisons. Who concedes?
It's not about conceding. If a player asks my Alchemist to do a certain type of item and let's say I can't or don't want, I'll just apologize and explain him why I can't or don't want. I'll clearly not answer "no thanks" to someone who wants a positive interaction with my character (and as such me).
You would start a session of PFS by telling people you would not adventure with a necromancer or a demon summoner?No, if a character introduced themselves as a summoner or conjured, I would simply ask them if they did that. I don’t have to make a production about it, nor do I even need to tell them I won’t adventure with them. I just switch to a character that would “better mesh with the party.” It doesn’t have to be confrontational.
EDIT—it’s no different when I play my necromancer. If I notice goodly characters or a Pharasmin at the table I ask them if they have a problem with me employing undead labor. If so, I switch to another character. That maintains player agency. If I expect everyone else to accept the fact I am using undead, then I am corrupting their player agency and I won’t do that.
Ok, so back to the paladin.
Let's say now that the incident about someone unexpectedly summoning a demon (or raising an undead) happens a lot when you play your paladin, what will you do?It's roughly what happens with my Alchemist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I cannot see how that happens. Summoning demons and necromancy is almost by definition a rarity. So far, he’s level 7 and only twice has the subject come up. Once I found out during character introductions and I switched characters. Once during game, but it was from a scroll and when I asked, the caster said he had never done it before and doubted he would do it again.
I just do not think this is going to be an ongoing issue, with the caveat that you aren’t playing with the same players/characters every time. Poison issues will probably be a bit more common than demon summoning or necromancy, but still should be fairly rate. If this happened to you at multiple random tables, I think it’s more a matter of bad luck than there being a widespread aversion to poison. I get the impression that most people in this thread that have expressed their opposition, it’s not to the issue of the poison, it’s to the idea they are being rude. And even if they have a character that refuses poison, like me, I’d bet most of their characters don’t.
That's what I've done until now. But my pleasure of playing this character has been reduced to the point I think about giving up playing it. So I know that I'll negatively impact the other players by having a few words in the beginning of the adventure about poison.
For myself, I'd view you bringing up the aspect of poison not being evil first and then asking me if I'll accept your poisons in a better light than asking me is I want poisons, me saying no and then you try to change my mind then. The second way makes it feel like you're pressuring me while the first is just laying things out.
It's not about conceding. If a player asks my Alchemist to do a certain type of item and let's say I can't or don't want, I'll just apologize and explain him why I can't or don't want. I'll clearly not answer "no thanks" to someone who wants a positive interaction with my character (and as such me).
Myself, I don't think I'd need to explain, especially in a group of strangers. I m might depending on the situation but I think everyone should expect everyone else has independent ideas on what should be done and go in expecting that their request is denied: in PFS it's not like it's someone you've adventured with your whole life but someone you met up with for a particular mission. The greater the relationship between characters, the more inclined I am to give an explanation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I've done until now. But my pleasure of playing this character has been reduced to the point I think about giving up playing it. So I know that I'll negatively impact the other players by having a few words in the beginning of the adventure about poison.For myself, I'd view you bringing up the aspect of poison not being evil first and then asking me if I'll accept your poisons in a better light than asking me is I want poisons, me saying no and then you try to change my mind then. The second way makes it feel like you're pressuring me while the first is just laying things out.
Yes, that's what I will do, so people won't feel pressured. The drawback of speaking about it beforehand is that it may sometimes be absolutely useless if all characters would have accepted.
It's not about conceding. If a player asks my Alchemist to do a certain type of item and let's say I can't or don't want, I'll just apologize and explain him why I can't or don't want. I'll clearly not answer "no thanks" to someone who wants a positive interaction with my character (and as such me).Myself, I don't think I'd need to explain, especially in a group of strangers. I m might depending on the situation but I think everyone should expect everyone else has independent ideas on what should be done and go in expecting that their request is denied: in PFS it's not like it's someone you've adventured with your whole life but someone you met up with for a particular mission. The greater the relationship between characters, the more inclined I am to give an explanation.
Well, if there are time limits or anything pushing me to keep it quick, of course I won't go long about it. But anyway, I'll never answer "no thanks" unless there is a lot of time pressure. If the other player takes time to ask me, it's certainly because it's important to him (he may have a Moutain Monk and would love if I give him Drakeheart Mutagen, something that I'll easily understand).
I guess I cannot see how that happens.
As you may guess, I didn't see it happen with my Alchemist. So, for the sake of discussion, what would you do if it actually happens?
I just do not think this is going to be an ongoing issue, with the caveat that you aren’t playing with the same players/characters every time. Poison issues will probably be a bit more common than demon summoning or necromancy, but still should be fairly rate. If this happened to you at multiple random tables, I think it’s more a matter of bad luck than there being a widespread aversion to poison. I get the impression that most people in this thread that have expressed their opposition, it’s not to the issue of the poison, it’s to the idea they are being rude. And even if they have a character that refuses poison, like me, I’d bet most of their characters don’t.
I had a different reading of the thread. Many said Paladins shouldn't poison their weapons, even after Captain brought the fact that Paladins should poison their weapons, and there's even (at least) a contributor telling me I shouldn't play such a character. The proportion of players who refused poison in play seems close to the proportion I've seen refusing in this thread. So I think there's an issue.
|
|
Don’t take thread conversion to necessarily be a statistical representation of the greater community. It is often only a few small portion of the most dedicated and passionate players who chose to participate in the conversation. There are plenty of examples of threads being well out of touch with the community. I certainly got a different impression from this thread than you did.
I’m not sure what you want me to say about “what would you do if it actually happens.” If what happens? If players politely refuse your poison? I though I was fairly clear how I think that should go. Are you looking for confirmation that you should retire the character? I don’t think you’ll get that.
EDIT—this really should not progress passed the character intro stage. You are going to tell everyone you are a professional poisoner and offer to poison their weapons. If everyone is okay with it, no action needed. If some or all of them refuse, then you have to decide if the character has something else to do that is productive, switch characters, or bail on the table. There really isn’t anything else you have control of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand all this shyness about explaining character choices. It takes just a few more words than 'no thanks' to clarify why your PC doesn't like poison, and it's also a nice way to let the others know said PC a little better.
I’m not sure what you want me to say about “what would you do if it actually happens.” If what happens? If players politely refuse your poison? I though I was fairly clear how I think that should go. Are you looking for confirmation that you should retire the character? I don’t think you’ll get that.
Let's assume that you end up having people summoning demons and raising undeads quite often with your Paladin, once per adventure for example, without having characters defined as necromancers and demon summoners.
|
|
I still don't understand
It comes down to experience and how the question is posed. If this is the third table in a row someone is questioning my refusal of poison, I may just be tired of explaining myself and just want to move on. Or I’ve seen people SAY they asked politely when they actually didn’t. I’ve experienced that myself. When I said, no thank you, without any discussion, the other player said, “why? You have no reason to refuse. The rules says it’s not evil.” When the conversation came up later, they described their position as polite, despite literally everyone else at the table saying otherwise.
I am the first person to throw cooperation out in discussions (I often close posts and emails with explore, report, cooperate), but that cooperation should not supersede agency. Sometimes a player just doesn’t want to have a potentially lengthy conversation justifying their character’s actions. Sometimes a simple “no thanks” is suitable. If we are playing and you offer me a mountain do, am I obligated to explain why I am refusing? Are you entitled to an explanation if you ask why? If your job is working for a politician and your job is dependent on that politician getting re-elected and you tell me to vote for them, and despite us being friends I say “no thanks” do I owe you an explanation why. Of course these are not the same as poisoning, but it just goes to show that just because someone asks for an explanation as to why doesn’t mean they are always entitled to a reply.
|
|
Let's assume...
I am loathe to use hypotheticals to make decisions for me, but if that truly happened that I was encountering that at every table, or even most tables, then I would probably stop playing my paladin since it would be proving to be a bad fit.
So, let me ask this, how many times has poisoning actually been an issue at your tables and is it with a regular group of players or randoms like pickup games online or convention play? Let’s get away from hypotheticals and talk about what really is happening and how often.
I still don't understand all this shyness about explaining character choices. It takes just a few more words than 'no thanks' to clarify why your PC doesn't like poison, and it's also a nice way to let the others know said PC a little better.
I will avoid it when I think it'll lead to further questioning and angling to get me to change my mind. Generally, once I've made up my mind, it's set in stone so I don't want to leave the door open a crack and let some people think they can try to push it open. A plain 'no thanks' doesn't leave that opening.
Secondly, the reason might not be something they want to talk about: if your character's whole family dies from poisoning, it might not be something your character want to casually talk about.
Third, I just don't see it as needed. If you WANT to explain you can but I see nothing wrong with not doing so. I've had someone not want an elixir my alchemist made and I never had a burning desire to dig into why: I just moved on and gave other people the elixirs. I figure if they wanted to tell me they would: if there is a big reason for it, it'll either most likely come up in the game without me digging for it or it really wasn't that important.
Let's assume...I am loathe to use hypotheticals to make decisions for me, but if that truly happened that I was encountering that at every table, or even most tables, then I would probably stop playing my paladin since it would be proving to be a bad fit.
So, let me ask this, how many times has poisoning actually been an issue at your tables and is it with a regular group of players or randoms like pickup games online or convention play? Let’s get away from hypotheticals and talk about what really is happening and how often.
All the games but the one where noone had poisonable weapons. With players from my gaming circle and complete strangers alike.
Let’s get away from hypotheticals and talk about what really is happening and how often.All the games but the one where noone had poisonable weapons. With players from my gaming circle and complete strangers alike.
Let me be sure I understand this correctly
In 1 game:
no character had a weapon that could be poisoned.
In all the other games
at least one character had a weapon that could be poisoned.
And,
in 100% of those games, at least one character refused to allow your character to poison their weapon
Is that accurate?
Let’s get away from hypotheticals and talk about what really is happening and how often.All the games but the one where noone had poisonable weapons. With players from my gaming circle and complete strangers alike.Let me be sure I understand this correctly
In 1 game:
no character had a weapon that could be poisoned.In all the other games
at least one character had a weapon that could be poisoned.And,
in 100% of those games, at least one character refused to allow your character to poison their weaponIs that accurate?
6 games, 1 without poisonable weapons, 1 with all players accepting but one player hesitated, had to check and accepted only because it was a purely damaging poison (which is a rarity in the poison list) and 4 where at least one player turned down the offer. I even had a goblin rogue refusing poison (at least, that time, everyone got surprised).
So, yes, I consider that poison raised an issue far too often. Hence this thread (I don't create threads because one player turned down my offer).|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like your threshold is no one has a problem with poison vs someone has a problem. I think you would do better to shift the threshold to most players or something similar. If one or even two players don't want poison, that is less than half the table. I don't think most would say that infringes on your poisoning. If you sat at a table with 3-4 casters would you say that was a problem or just that it wasn't an ideal situation for your poisoner? Having one or two players that refuse the poison, is no different than having one or two players not have applicable weapons. If my paladin was the only player at the table who declined the poison, is that really any different than me playing my sorcerer who doesn't use weapons? How about the fact that he primarily attacks with his shield or fists. Does that mean your character is less effective?
You have to remember that your character is filling a somewhat narrow nitch in the party. Is poisoning the only thing you can do? If so, maybe you need to reconsider how its built. Sometimes I cannot shield bash everything into submission so I have to do other things.
Also, maybe you have just been unlucky, but six tables is a very small sample size. I've gone through streaks like that, but after well more than a thousand tables, I'm fairly confident your experience is an anomaly. Not to say its without merit, but that its not typical. I would be interested to hear from any players who ALL their characters are anti-poison. I can really only speak for myself and say that only one out of eight registered, and two other in build mode have an issue with poison. And to be fair, even the one with the problem very rarely uses weapons that would benefit from it anyway.
So it sounds like your threshold is no one has a problem with poison vs someone has a problem. I think you would do better to shift the threshold to most players or something similar. If one or even two players don't want poison, that is less than half the table.
5-6 player tables. Half casters half martials in general. One third of the martials use bludgeoning weapons. It means 2 weapons I can poison (I consider my Alchemist a caster). One character is half of the table. More than one character is the whole table.
I don't remember precisely the composition of all tables, but 50% is not far from the proper number (I think it's a bit less than that, but it's really high).If my paladin was the only player at the table who declined the poison, is that really any different than me playing my sorcerer who doesn't use weapons?
Yes, very different. If the party is composed of 2 Sorcerers, a Druid, a Cleric and an Alchemist, someone will switch for a martial. So, if you allow me this joke, I would far prefer if you played a Sorcerer instead of your paladin.
You have to remember that your character is filling a somewhat narrow nitch in the party. Is poisoning the only thing you can do? If so, maybe you need to reconsider how its built. Sometimes I cannot shield bash everything into submission so I have to do other things.
Of course not. But it's a big part of my contribution. More at low level as I don't have Elixirs of Life, which will be the second big part of my contribution once I'll hit level 5.
Also, maybe you have just been unlucky, but six tables is a very small sample size. I've gone through streaks like that, but after well more than a thousand tables, I'm fairly confident your experience is an anomaly. Not to say its without merit, but that its not typical. I would be interested to hear from any players who ALL their characters are anti-poison. I can really only speak for myself and say that only one out of eight registered, and two other in build mode have an issue with poison. And to be fair, even the one with the problem very rarely uses weapons that would benefit from it anyway.
Maybe, but unlike you my feeling is that this discussion showed similar numbers. And if you go through this discussion, many players said they are anti-poison and none of their character would use it (in general, the reason is that only evil characters should use it).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One character is half of the table
Okay, if that is how you evaluate the table, then I can see how you could be especially annoyed at the the way the tables have worked out. Honestly, I am not sure what to say about that other than to take ownership of the issue and not let other players dictate your fun. If they aren't playing characters that will benefit from your boosts, either determine what else the character can do to make you feel productive or have an alternative character ready to switch to so again, the other players are not affecting your ability to enjoy the game. No one wants a player to feel inadequate, but most players are not going to compromise fundamental aspects of their character to appease other characters. Let's not quibble over the right vs wrong of it since that is conjecture, but focus on knowing the situation and having workable solutions that is within our purview.
I would far prefer if you played a Sorcerer instead of your paladin.
What's the difference? If his primary weapon was a maul, nothing would change. If I was playing a monk, nothing would change. Neither character will benefit from your poison and depending on the party makeup and the mission at hand the paladin may be a much better choice. Character selection is rarely a single issue choice.
EDIT--of note, my paladin is hyper optimized even among champions which is widely viewed as one of the power powerful classes. Even without poison, he has much more to offer a party, especially from a cooperation perspective than my sorcerer does.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you go through this discussion, many players said they are anti-poison and none of their character would use it
For the sake of accuracy I did and I found only one player who said they would not use poison on any of their characters. The rest were merely making a case that it was a matter of choice and focused on the issue of agency over poison itself. It is certainly possible I missed another one, but considering its no more than 1-2 people out of 200+ posts, I would say the issue of poison is certainly a character over player issue and that most would be okay with it.
Okay, if that is how you evaluate the table, then I can see how you could be especially annoyed at the the way the tables have worked out. Honestly, I am not sure what to say about that other than to take ownership of the issue and not let other players dictate your fun. If they aren't playing characters that will benefit from your boosts, either determine what else the character can do to make you feel productive or have an alternative character ready to switch to so again, the other players are not affecting your ability to enjoy the game.
Easy to say, but hard to actually apply. There are tons of restrictions that prevent me to switch character that easily. The obvious one being level (and in PF2 with the challenge points system, you can screw the DM by changing character at the last moment unless both characters have exactly the same level), but there is also the composition of the table (most of the time, the composition is known beforehand, so if you switch at the last moment, you may imbalance the table or bring a second Wizard and we are back to reducing some people's fun). And there are some adventures you want to play with some characters, either because there is a story arc that you have already started with this character or because you really want to play the wilderness adventure with your Druid and the alchemical one with your Alchemist.
And there's also the "I want to play this character right now" part, because sometimes you want to play one character and not another one (this part is highly player dependent).So, in general, unless you're first/second level, switching character at the last moment is hard.
What's the difference?
You didn't catch my joke.
Yes, there's no real difference between your paladin or a maul user.
And if you go through this discussion, many players said they are anti-poison and none of their character would use itFor the sake of accuracy I did and I found only one player who said they would not use poison on any of their characters. The rest were merely making a case that it was a matter of choice and focused on the issue of agency over poison itself. It is certainly possible I missed another one, but considering its no more than 1-2 people out of 200+ posts, I would say the issue of poison is certainly a character over player issue and that most would be okay with it.
I think that the issue is mostly a knowledge one. I'm pretty sure for some players poison is still evil, as they were used to that. So, in my opinion, it's something that can change through discussion and explanation. But that's what I think, I don't have any proof of it.
|
|
If a player says poison is evil, I think it warrants at least a brief discussion as that is obviously an inaccurate statement. However, we need to be cognizant of the difference between the PLAYER saying poison is evil and the CHARACTER feeling it is icky-bad. It’s a very important distinction. There are a lot of roleplay reason for a character to avoid poison and it’s just as valid as characters that eagerly use it.