So, yes, I consider that poison raised an issue far too often.Have you considered that you and your attitude might be the problem, and that both you and other players might benefit from you not playing an alchemist who needs other players to accept your poisons?
Cheers,
Zapp
And what will be the benefit?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll enjoy your PFS games a LOT more.
By not being able to play the characters I want, I hardly think so.
As a matter of fact, any Alchemist with enough Reagents should hand out poison to other players. It's a base ability from a core class, I think people should get to know it.
Also, from my 20 years of organized play experience, the most disruptive class has always been Paladin. Their strict code of conduct and the punishment if they don't follow it is a recipe for disaster when they end up in chaotic-aligned parties.
There's even a PFS2 adventure with a choice between chaos and law. And if the party goes for the chaotic choice, any Paladin in it would be good for an atonement.
So, I think any Paladin player should switch to a more acceptable character. Paladins are a scourge on our hobby.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll enjoy your PFS games a LOT more.By not being able to play the characters I want, I hardly think so.
By not being able to play a character you want. Unless the rest of your characters aren't ones you want to play?
And yes, I have switched away from my paladin before.
You'll enjoy your PFS games a LOT more.By not being able to play the characters I want, I hardly think so.
As a matter of fact, any Alchemist with enough Reagents should hand out poison to other players. It's a base ability from a core class, I think people should get to know it.
Let me ask you a question, and forgive me if this has been asked & answered before; how many people are at your table, and how many of them are refusing poisons? Is it a majority? Is it all of them? Or are there just a couple of hold outs?
Let me ask you a question, and forgive me if this has been asked & answered before; how many people are at your table, and how many of them are refusing poisons? Is it a majority? Is it all of them? Or are there just a couple of hold outs?
From upthread
Let me be sure I understand this correctlyIn 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).
Let me ask you a question, and forgive me if this has been asked & answered before; how many people are at your table, and how many of them are refusing poisons? Is it a majority? Is it all of them? Or are there just a couple of hold outs?From upthread
Let me be sure I understand this correctlyIn 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).
Thank you.
So I'm going to be choosing my words very carefully here when I give the following advice to SuberBidi; at every game discussed the majority of players accepted your help, therefore you contributed meaningfully to the game and were allowed to do what your build does. If one person refuses, accept it and move on. If you consider that refusal to be rude, accept it and move on. You do not need to poison 100% of the weapons to be contributing, and the game is not so tightly optimized that one person refusing your poison is going to hamper the team.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta admit my alchemist wouldn’t turn down the offer. But on the other hand he hardly even lands a hit with his gauntlets and more importantly wouldn’t be joining the party once I learned another alchemist was joining unless the rest of the table could work with two alchemists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just consider the refusal of using Poison as them using the X card and move on IE no questions asked, no judgment and no argument when someone refuses to use Poison.
|
|
I think any Paladin player should switch to a more acceptable character. Paladins are a scourge on our hobby.
If this is meant to be funny, i don’t get it. If it’s meant to be serious, then you’ve lost me and I honestly don’t care to discuss the issue with you any longer. I certainly hope it’s the former. Most of us have discussed this issue in good faith. This comment is anything but.
So, I think any Paladin player should switch to a more acceptable character. Paladins are a scourge on our hobby.
No argument from me... A paladin in a chaotic-aligned party is quite disruptive and should switch: if you're playing against the theme of the party, don't act surprised when there is friction. ;)
PS: paladin IS the class I've had the most issues with over the years. Met FAR too many lawful stupid ones over the years. :P
Paladin isn’t the problem. Players misplaying paladins and encroaching other players’ agency is the problem.
Somethings in games seem to encourage disruptive behavior. For instance, you weren't playing kender right if it wasn't disruptive and no one wanted to kill you at a by the minute rate. For me, paladin seemed to bring this out in people.
So in essence, problem players seemed attracted to paladins [that's how my character would act!] more than there was something that prevented a paladin to be played without issue. I will say I haven't seem this issue in pathfinder 2e much but I haven't played with a whole lot of them either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is pretty interesting, and it even made me consider my own stance on the matter.
If someone completely refuses to use poisons, I think that's kinda strange. It's essentially the same in my mind as refusing a bard's buffs. Were I the alchemist and someone refused my poisons, I'd certainly be confused, and think it strange.
That being said, my response to them refusing would be "ok". Like yeah, I'd have every right to think it's weird that they'd refuse, but they have every right to refuse, and the reasoning is none of my business. I think it'd be fair to ask why they refuse, but if they don't want to say then it's none of my business. You certainly shouldn't force it on anyone, in the same way they shouldn't force anything on you.
There's certainly an argument to be made in regards to people helping you achieve your character vision in being the poisoner, but you should also allow others to achieve their character's vision, even if that includes not using poisons. Ultimately, though I agree it's kinda weird to refuse without like a good in-character reason beyond "poison bad", it really isn't my place, nor is it anyone elses, to decide what others should or shouldn't do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is pretty interesting, and it even made me consider my own stance on the matter.
If someone completely refuses to use poisons, I think that's kinda strange. It's essentially the same in my mind as refusing a bard's buffs. Were I the alchemist and someone refused my poisons, I'd certainly be confused, and think it strange.
That being said, my response to them refusing would be "ok". Like yeah, I'd have every right to think it's weird that they'd refuse, but they have every right to refuse, and the reasoning is none of my business. I think it'd be fair to ask why they refuse, but if they don't want to say then it's none of my business. You certainly shouldn't force it on anyone, in the same way they shouldn't force anything on you.
There's certainly an argument to be made in regards to people helping you achieve your character vision in being the poisoner, but you should also allow others to achieve their character's vision, even if that includes not using poisons. Ultimately, though I agree it's kinda weird to refuse without like a good in-character reason beyond "poison bad", it really isn't my place, nor is it anyone elses, to decide what others should or shouldn't do.
My only disagreement is so many posts have implied the people who are annoyed about teammates not using poisons imply they're trying to take away their agency--which I haven't seen anybody say.
Oh, no disagreement there. I haven't seen anybody wanting to remove agency of others either, just people expressing a distaste for being unable to fully perform their role in the party.
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).
So you played in 5 sessions where using your poison was an option at all, in one of them every single player accepted your poison. In the remaining four at least one player turned down your offer. This means that other players still did accept the offer of your poison.
You've gone on at length about how the players in those remaining four sessions failed to take you into account, to consider your character, but I'm not sure that strong reaction jibes with the description you gave above.
Are you saying that for your agency to be respected 100% of players need to accept your poison 100% of the time? What is the threshold where you feel considered? 50% of the party? 75%?
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).So you played in 5 sessions where using your poison was an option at all, in one of them every single player accepted your poison. In the remaining four at least one player turned down your offer. This means that other players still did accept the offer of your poison.
You've gone on at length about how the players in those remaining four sessions failed to take you into account, to consider your character, but I'm not sure that strong reaction jibes with the description you gave above.
Are you saying that for your agency to be respected 100% of players need to accept your poison 100% of the time? What is the threshold where you feel considered? 50% of the party? 75%?
I've never said these people failed to take me into account. And clearly not "gone at length", as there is not a single post I've complained about them.
I can't give a proper number, but close to 50% refusal is too much. 25% refusal would be more manageable (I don't expect 0% refusal).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Here is one of your specific references toward the desire of being taken into account. My read on the references to this, and your repeated statements that you desire a conversation about poison when your characters poison is refused, and when you are not "taken into account" you feel that you are not being allowed to play your character fully.
My reference to you repeating this "at length" is based upon the number of pages we are into this thread with the original conceit of your issue still repeated by yourself. The mention of a complaint about those players is purely injected into the conversation by you as I did not use the word complaint at any point in my last post.
I can't give a proper number, but close to 50% refusal is too much. 25% refusal would be more manageable (I don't expect 0% refusal).
So in a group of four players, if one refused the poisoning of their weapons it is fine - but if two refuse the poisoning of their weapons then your player agency has been trod on?
In the four games where your poison was refused - what was the refusal percentage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is one of your specific references toward the desire of being taken into account. My read on the references to this, and your repeated statements that you desire a conversation about poison when your characters poison is refused, and when you are not "taken into account" you feel that you are not being allowed to play your character fully.
My reference to you repeating this "at length" is based upon the number of pages we are into this thread with the original conceit of your issue still repeated by yourself. The mention of a complaint about those players is purely injected into the conversation by you as I did not use the word complaint at any point in my last post.
It was not directed to the people who refused poison in my previous games, but to those who consider that a "no thanks" is enough and that asking questions about the reasons of the "no thanks" or trying to make my case is a toxic behavior.
Anyway, you're right that this debate went on length and shouldn't have been. I tried to explain myself but failed. I should have stopped it earlier. Actually, I shouldn't have accepted to enter in such a debate. If someone calls me a toxic player on these boards, I should just laugh and go on...So in a group of four players, if one refused the poisoning of their weapons it is fine - but if two refuse the poisoning of their weapons then your player agency has been trod on?
In the four games where your poison was refused - what was the refusal percentage?
The % was close to 50%. Because I don't ask the Wizard if he wants to poison his quarterstaff. On average, there are 2 poisonable weapons per game, so 1 player at least per game is actually a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was not directed to the people who refused poison in my previous games, but to those who consider that a "no thanks" is enough.
I see. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call your behavior toxic, but I would say that since your argument has been largely about expectations of politeness and consideration that you should receive - then accepting a "no thanks" without pressing would be the most polite response to provide.
Politeness and the allowance of player agency is a two way street.
The % was close to 50%. Because I don't ask the Wizard if he wants to poison his quarterstaff. On average, there are 2 poisonable weapons per game, so 1 player at least per game is actually a lot.
The defining of a threshold of the amount of people who should be allowed to refuse something you offer to them does seem to stray from a conversation about agency into a conversation about the prioritization of agency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was not directed to the people who refused poison in my previous games, but to those who consider that a "no thanks" is enough.I see. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call your behavior toxic, but I would say that since your argument has been largely about expectations of politeness and consideration that you should receive - then accepting a "no thanks" without pressing would be the most polite response to provide.
Politeness and the allowance of player agency is a two way street.
If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'll proceed in a way to make my case without pressing the other players. I want to be the least disruptive I can.
The defining of a threshold of the amount of people who should be allowed to refuse something you offer to them does seem to stray from a conversation about agency into a conversation about the prioritization of agency.
I think I missed the precise meaning of your sentence (I'm not a native english speaker).
I won't define a threshold. I'll just see how it goes. If it goes well (for me and the other players) I'll continue to play this character, if it doesn't go well I'll stop.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'll proceed in a way to make my case without pressing the other players. I want to be the least disruptive I can.
If you offer someone a choice and they respectfully decline, when you then proceed to make your case -- no matter how little you intend to be disruptive -- you are pressing the case. In your quest to achieve the agency to use your build, you are failing to respect the agency of their choice to decline.
I think I missed the precise meaning of your sentence (I'm not a native english speaker).
I won't define a threshold. I'll just see how it goes. If it goes well (for me and the other players) I'll continue to play this character, if it doesn't go well I'll stop.
My precise meaning is that by saying that 1 person refusing your poison is fine, but 3 people refusing your poison is "too many" is no longer about the existence of player agency but about putting a quantifiable number on whose agency is more important. If two people have to change the choices they make to align with the choices you want them to make in order for you to feel valid at the table, then you have prioritized your agency over theirs.
If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'll proceed in a way to make my case without pressing the other players. I want to be the least disruptive I can.If you offer someone a choice and they respectfully decline, when you then proceed to make your case -- no matter how little you intend to be disruptive -- you are pressing the case. In your quest to achieve the agency to use your build, you are failing to respect the agency of their choice to decline.
My precise meaning is that by saying that 1 person refusing your poison is fine, but 3 people refusing your poison is "too many" is no longer about the existence of player agency but about putting a quantifiable number on whose agency is more important. If two people have to change the choices they make to align with the choices you want them to make in order for you to feel valid at the table, then you have prioritized your agency over theirs.I think I missed the precise meaning of your sentence (I'm not a native english speaker).
I won't define a threshold. I'll just see how it goes. If it goes well (for me and the other players) I'll continue to play this character, if it doesn't go well I'll stop.
I'll make my case before the game starts. Which is disruptive, but not pressing.
And I will just see how it goes and then choose to go on with this character or not.Anyway, in this discussion, I feel that my case has been read extremely, like if I was really pushy. I know how to make my case without being a jerk. And I'll start with my close circle before doing it with strangers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll make my case before the game starts. Which is disruptive, but not pressing.
And I will just see how it goes and then choose to go on with this character or not.
Anyway, in this discussion, I feel that my case has been read extremely, like if I was really pushy. I know how to make my case without being a jerk. And I'll start with my close circle before doing it with strangers.
In the specific case of continuing to make your case after someone has already said no thank you, you are being pushy by not accepting their answer and letting it rest.
If someone says no thank you, that's it. It's over. You've made your offer and they declined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll make my case before the game starts. Which is disruptive, but not pressing.
And I will just see how it goes and then choose to go on with this character or not.
Anyway, in this discussion, I feel that my case has been read extremely, like if I was really pushy. I know how to make my case without being a jerk. And I'll start with my close circle before doing it with strangers.In the specific case of continuing to make your case after someone has already said no thank you, you are being pushy by not accepting their answer and letting it rest.
If someone says no thank you, that's it. It's over. You've made your offer and they declined.
I've never said I'd do anything like that. Even the opposite, as I've said I will avoid to make my case after a player has said no because it's pushy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never said I'd do anything like that. Even the opposite, as I've said I will avoid to make my case after a player has said no because it's pushy.
Your direct statement about the nature of the conversation included this phrase:
It was not directed to the people who refused poison in my previous games, but to those who consider that a "no thanks" is enough and that asking questions about the reasons of the "no thanks" or trying to make my case
Asking questions about the reasons for the "no thanks" is continuing after being told no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never said I'd do anything like that. Even the opposite, as I've said I will avoid to make my case after a player has said no because it's pushy.Your direct statement about the nature of the conversation included this phrase:
It was not directed to the people who refused poison in my previous games, but to those who consider that a "no thanks" is enough and that asking questions about the reasons of the "no thanks" or trying to make my caseAsking questions about the reasons for the "no thanks" is continuing after being told no.
I dont think that's fair. He should be allowed to get an idea of why they said no. That's not being pushy unless he tries to make it a huge debate after asking why.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He should be allowed to get an idea of why they said no.
Only if the person who said "no" wants to volunteer that information.
The person who says 'no' is not obligated to spend time explaining their decision. No one has a right to someone else's energy, emotional labor, or time.
The person who asks does not have a right for someone else to "help them understand". The person who asks does not have a right to judge whether the reasons are sufficient. There is no right to a conversation after someone has said 'no'.
"No." is a complete sentence. "No, thank you." is the polite form of that sentence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He should be allowed to get an idea of why they said no.Only if the person who said "no" wants to volunteer that information.
The person who says 'no' is not obligated to spend time explaining their decision. No one has a right to someone else's energy, emotional labor, or time.
The person who asks does not have a right for someone else to "help them understand". The person who asks does not have a right to judge whether the reasons are sufficient. There is no right to a conversation after someone has said 'no'.
"No." is a complete sentence. "No, thank you." is the polite form of that sentence.
Right. If they don't feel like explaining, they can just say they dont feel like explaining. But you're making it such a dramatic event as if hes trying to force poison down the person's throat. I think a lot of people have been attacking and vilifying him for wanting to feel like he can make use of his class feature, and portraying him as way more aggressive than he likely is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. If they don't feel like explaining, they can just say they dont feel like explaining.
Nope, they don't need to say anything more than 'no'.
the only way that conversation starts is if someone who has heard them say 'no' presses on and asks them for an explanation.
No need to respond that they don't feel like explaining. No need to have that conversation at all.
The error is in not taking 'no' for an answer and pressing for an explanation that they are not entitled to.
"No" is the end of the conversation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you cast Light so that I can see? No
Can you provide me with flanking? No
Can you wait for me to cast a buff spell? No
Can you tell us what the ancient text says? No
Works wonders for cooperation.
As Zapp said, better play a character who does not depend on others. But then, why play a TTRPG?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think SuperBidi has been scolded enough. Perhaps the initial comments were a bit more insistent but we have dialed that down and are all in relative agreement now. If we want to discuss the nature of the Poison itself, that might (or not) be productive, but continuing to bash SuperBidi isn’t very productive. YMMV
|
|
Right. If they don't feel like explaining, they can just say they dont feel like explaining.Nope, they don't need to say anything more than 'no'.
the only way that conversation starts is if someone who has heard them say 'no' presses on and asks them for an explanation.
No need to respond that they don't feel like explaining. No need to have that conversation at all.
The error is in not taking 'no' for an answer and pressing for an explanation that they are not entitled to.
"No" is the end of the conversation.
Then we will never know if the person who said No is willing to volunteer the reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then we will never know if the person who said No is willing to volunteer the reason.
You'll know if they do so. When someone volunteers information, I'm pretty sure the whole table will hear it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
better play a character who does not depend on others.
Another option is to play a character that offers gifts that other characters want to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this might just be an inherent issue with the alchemist- since the toxicologist and the mutagenist have a significant amount of their utility tied up in "other people in the party are willing to accept your help."
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Christ’s sake people, it’s not a personal insult to ask someone why if they refuse. It only becomes a problem if you persist after they either explain their position or decline to explain. In fact, I would say you have an obligation to follow up if the person who refuses includes the phrase, “poison is evil,” because that is inaccurate and they may be unaware of the 2E ruling on poison. However, that is patently different than saying that your character believes poison to be evil or dishonorable. That is an issue of roleplay morality and does not depend on game rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people have been attacking and vilifying him for wanting to feel like he can make use of his class feature, and portraying him as way more aggressive than he likely is.
I think a lot of other people are taking a statement about politeness as an attack or vilification when it isn't.
The OP has stated multiple times that they views players declining the offer of poison as being rude. Once the topic of rudeness and politeness enters into the conversation - then the other players deserve equal access to common courtesy.
Their polite declination does not need to be explained. They don't owe it to the OP to accept the poison or to explain why.
This isn't a situation where you're at a table among friends, this is PFS. A polite 'no thank you' should be the end of the conversation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it is an entitled attitude to expect an explanation.
Oh come on now. We’re playing a social game and sitting together at a table for four plus hours. Are we not allowed to communicate anymore? If politely saying “no” is okay, politely asking why is not entitled. Asking the question is not the same as demanding an answer. If you decline to explain, that’s fine. No one is saying you are obligated to answer, which is not the same as politely asking why. As I said up thread, I think there is too much assumption of tone influencing people’s personal bias.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
think they are
What divination tool did you use to look inside people's brains?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the people saying "no means no and you can't ask why" think they are being the better communicators, but they really aren't.
"Hey do want a Kit Kat?"
"No thank you."
"Why won't you let me give you a Kit Kat? The latest iteration of Kit Kat doesn't have the same context as prior iterations of Kit Kats. You're not really taking me into consideration by not taking the Kit Kat."