Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kagus]

Okay, so inserting a shark into this situation certainly makes it more awesome, but does it actually change anything for the better?

The way I see it, it just turned a relatively safe--if somewhat dull--stalemate into a situation that risks spilling the cauldron and getting everyone there splashed to the point that they have no idea what they're doing there (if the dosage even lets them retain such things as a general sense of self, language, or how to walk).

Conclusion: Paladins are far more disruptive and destructive than rogues.

That shark's not gonna remember any of this

The shark is a paladin's celestial mount, so I think that any memory loss would only last as long as the summoning? Assuming that projection is vulnerable to such things in the first place.

S'pose that kinda depends on your interpretation of how the magic works. Does it summon a static specific celestial entity attached to/associated with that paladin, simply vanishing into the aether before being resummoned? Or does the summoning create a new shark every time according to a particular magical blueprint, with each iteration dissipating into nothingness when finished?

If it's the former, then the entity may very well lose their memory depending on the nature of the alchemy involved and how much that can "imprint" on the celestial spark the shark is formed around. If it's the latter, then it's definitely not going to remember any of this

[Egan_BW]

The way I see it, most creature-conjuring spells create a temporary physical body (or in the case of elementals, modifies some existing matter into a suitable vessel), then draws in an outsider from another plane to act as that body's soul. A paladin's mount "dying" in battle doesn't prevent that paladin summoning the same celestial soul back into a new body. They could even dismiss their mount and then summon it back to restore its HP and generally its physical condition. Because in general, creatures which die while on the prime material aren't annihilated just shunted back to their home. Demons back to hell, mortals to whatever afterlife they have coming.

So, unless that potion is potent enough to afflict a creature's very soul, its effect will only last for as long as the body in question is still there. Just like if you dismiss your mount and then summon it back to get rid of the poisoned effect.

[Mathel]

It's been established in #494 that paladin mounts persist between summoning. Otherwise Miko's question about Windstriker would make no sense.

The question is, where are memories stored? Since you get to keep your memories in the afterlife, I'd argue that memories are stored in the soul, so any memory wipe effect does indeed affect the soul and would wipe memories of a summoned creatures.

About the ultimatum, well, information would be nice, but right now they need to either kill Xykon, or warn him that if the gate gets destroyed, so will the world.

[Mobbstar]

The way I see it, it just turned a relatively safe--if somewhat dull--stalemate into a situation that risks spilling the cauldron and getting everyone there splashed to the point that they have no idea what they're doing there (if the dosage even lets them retain such things as a general sense of self, language, or how to walk).

I thought that, because it's a "poison", it only has an effect if ingested or inhaled.  But it seems D&D uses the word for contact-toxic substances too.

[Remalle]

If Serini gets splashed with/dunked into the memory acid vat, what are the odds she comes out mentally at the age she was in the Scribble era?

[Mathel]

The way I see it, it just turned a relatively safe--if somewhat dull--stalemate into a situation that risks spilling the cauldron and getting everyone there splashed to the point that they have no idea what they're doing there (if the dosage even lets them retain such things as a general sense of self, language, or how to walk).

I thought that, because it's a "poison", it only has an effect if ingested or inhaled.  But it seems D&D uses the word for contact-toxic substances too.

I thought poison was any toxin that did not require the skin to be damaged. (so ingested poisons, inhaled poison, contact poisons) As opposed to a venom, which does require puncturing the skin.

[Culise]

The way I see it, it just turned a relatively safe--if somewhat dull--stalemate into a situation that risks spilling the cauldron and getting everyone there splashed to the point that they have no idea what they're doing there (if the dosage even lets them retain such things as a general sense of self, language, or how to walk).

I thought that, because it's a "poison", it only has an effect if ingested or inhaled.  But it seems D&D uses the word for contact-toxic substances too.

I thought poison was any toxin that did not require the skin to be damaged. (so ingested poisons, inhaled poison, contact poisons) As opposed to a venom, which does require puncturing the skin.

Outside of D&D?  Biologically, it's any substance that causes death, injury, or harm to organs, tissues, cells or DNA. Medically and zoologically, differentiation is a bit more finely-tuned.  Toxins are harmful substances specifically produced by biological means, though definitions can be lax.  Venoms are animal poisons specifically delivered subcutaneously (hence not including poison dart frogs, which are absorbed through skin but not injected).  Poisons are sometimes not included in the previous two rather than being a superset and thus serve as a category of the excluded, in which case "toxicant" is used as a supercategory for any toxic substance.  On the adjective side, venomous animals are those that deliver venom via such means, while poisonous animals deliver either a toxin (if they produce it themselves or obtain it from other living things, as do poison dart frogs) or a poison (if they store it from non-organic sources, for which I don't have an example off-hand).  Venomous and poisonous tend to be considered mutually exclusive, and as noted, this occurs with venom and poison on occasion as well. 

So, for example, a snake's venom is also a toxin and a poison, but it is not considered poisonous (despite the fact that consuming its venom glands directly will give most people a bad time).  As noted in an aside, poison-dart frogs are poisonous, but not venomous.  Arsenic is a poison that is highly toxic, but it is not a toxin unless you're in a context where people refer to such things as inorganic or environmental toxins.

Behold the joys of multiple fields that have developed their own very specific meanings and their own very specific pedants.  We're the Internet; we have entire forests of pedantries.

[Shinziril]

In D&D 3.5e language, they just call it all "poison", but specify the type: contact, inhaled, ingested, or injury (the latter being what is otherwise generally referred to as "venom").

[hops]

And if another person ingests it and you die, it's called a buff potion.

[scriver]

Behold the joys of multiple fields that have developed their own very specific meanings and their own very specific pedants.  We're the Internet; we have entire forests of pedantries.

Lol, well put. And at the end of the day I will never accept the tomato ask anything but a vegetable

[Enemy post]

1251

[Kagus]

I can appreciate that even the comic just seems to forget about the forgetfulness juice.

[Rolan7]

What forgetfulness juice? 
I'd speculate that the cauldron just held her dinner (regeneration might require a lot of mass!) but Belkar surely would have been able to tell. I still don't completely believe her bluff but who knows, maybe it's simply acid.

[Egan_BW]

I foresee a dramatic moment where it's revealed that everybody who was in this room is forgetting something important...

[anewaname]

That...