You do realize that stone never mentions anything about being immune to toxins, right? And toxins never makes any mention of only affecting living things. Thus by your logic rocks should be affected by toxins because they are never specifically mentioned as being immune to toxins.

Edit: Wow, way more posts than I was expecting as I caught up and felt the need to comment on this one. Looks like the discussion has gotten far out of hand.

Rule Zero.
However your GM rules it, is how it is. If you're the GM, that's cool, what you say, goes.
Now, could we please try to halt the hostilities before admin has to step in and shut down the thread?

Psst. Guess what the "C" in "NPC" stands for.

Course, ignoring that, this now means drugs, toxins and compounds have no effect on any NPCs now! Yay!

Edit: Now that I think about it, this exception is awesome for NPCs considering how often the word "character" is used to describe rules. Phew.

That doesn't apply when discussing the rules on an open forum.

Rocks should be affected by toxins in general. If specific toxins were to specify that they affect certain biological processes that rocks do not have, then they do not.

I'm ok with the tone of the thread. I do not think any of the posts have yet to cross the TOS. I am actually glad the old man's got his blood up and has not yet suffered a stroke, though I think I'll give it a try. Just like in the old days.

You grossly mistake my vehemence at your stupidty as anger or being riled up. If anything, I'm getting a mild chuckle out of it. Though my eyes do hurt a bit due to some excessive rolling at your backpeddling.

Eh? I though I said drugs and such should work on spirits, unless another rule stated otherwise. It is right there in your quote even. The only things I said it shouldn't work on are vehicles because I have yet to come across rules that refer to vehicles as characters.

All right, my apologies....this was just starting to look like some of the , ah, "discussions" I have just about every time one of my players and I encounter one another, and I just wished to keep this informative, instead of it spiraling out of control into a flame war, as I've seen too often on the D&D forums. Y'all have a good one.

Dragons and reptiles have skin, it is under their scales. Never heard of crocodile skin handbags? Or dragonskin armor? Birds also have skin under their feathers. Insects would be up for grabs though, because they have carapaces, not skin, so they likely wouldn't be affected by contact toxins, which makes sense because carapaces don't allow things to pass through nearly as easily as skin does..

Oh, and going back up to the bug spirit thing for a moment. Note that is says that bug spirits are allergic to insecticides. That means that they have a particularly allergy to it, and thus a weakness that would supersede any immunity they might have. Kind of like how if a vampire is allergic to wood, then wood causes damage to it just by touch, which supersedes the fact that otherwise, touching wood wouldn't hurt it (Note I say touching, not getting stabbed by)

I have to agree with Dr. F overall about toturi's logic. [super sarcasm to the max!]In my next SR game I'm going to go around getting rocks and cars and drones high. I'll get trees addicted to novacoke and start charging them outlandish prices. They'll have to go to the shadows, killing other trees to get the money to afford their fix, it'll be great. I mean the rules never say anything about trees being unable to move, right? Thus there is no way to tell if they can or can't (Since it isn't in the rules and we aren't allowed to use the real world to base anything off of), but since they -can- become addicted to drugs, and they -can- be affected by toxins, it stands to reason that they can move around too. Man, I want to play a Spruce... or maybe a Douglas Fir. I guess I'll have to wait for the "Nature's Fury" source book to come out where it gives the rules for trees as PCs[/SSttM]

I was away from books and my PDFs. And my earlier posts did mention "unless another rule states otherwise" or to that effect. If anything, I would say, "I told you so". You could have save yourself quite a bit of vehemence if you or someone else had simply quoted the rules verbatim.

See! Even a totally rational individual like Karoline is slipping into the obnoxious sarcasm department. That says a lot about where this topic has gone.

If trees are refered to as NPCs or PCs, sure.

Interesting. Not even the target tree in Ghost Cartels has a published stat. Yet the target tree is not described to have moved around, even when the tree is being destroyed. I was hoping that it could, so that your wanting to play a tree that moves around has some canon basis. Maybe the devs will publish a book like you hope.
So? (And I have said this before, see my sig) I'm insane, what's your excuse? Well, technically I'm not just insane, but you get the idea.

You have to understand where Toturi is coming from. He plays the game using the rules EXACTLY as written. He does not extrapolate, he does not assume. If he were playing D&D, where the PHB lists whip damage as d33, he would go and buy a d33 for anyone who wants to use a whip, until that is errataed. He logically KNOWS a whip IRL does not do as much damage as a catapult, but he will refer to the book and say 'the book says d33. That settles it' and move on.

You guys are arguing on the basis that common sense rules all. Apparently that rule isn't written down anywhere. Toturi IS the computer GM.

Hey, Dr. Funkenstein, what happened after post #36 to rekindle your interest in this topic?

He might have been being sarcastic. Or maybe it was me that drew him back. I'm extra awesome like that

I imagine playing under toturi is like some kind of acid trip.

Also, I can't find any refrence that indicates that only characters can use drugs. The section on drugs simply goes on about the affects of drugs, and never once makes any mention of who can or cannot use drugs. Thus, applying rules only logic, anything in the universe can use drugs. Trees, rocks, the air, anti-matter. All of it can use drugs and get high, get addicted, have withdrawal symptoms.

Also, do the game rules mention the existence of gravity anywhere? No? Guess that means it can't exist either. Wheee!!!

All kidding around aside though. Everyone seems to be in agreement that spirits can't be affected by toxins, either by virtue of the fact that devs simply forgot to put that in the book (Because they thought it was so obvious), or by virtue of the fact that no vector can affect a spirit by virtue of them lacking/doing any of the things that a vector targets.

Edit: Oh, and actually, the game is impossible to play without using at least some common sense or real world basic assumptions. Nowhere in the rules does it list anything about glass being see-through and bricks not being see-through. Thus it is only by common sense and real world basings that you can determine that someone can see through glass and can't see through a brick.

I'm also fairly sure that the book fails to mention that inferred energy doesn't travel through glass, and thus purely by the rules, inferred vision can see through glass (Or can't, depending on how you rule the above). SR and any RP game is in fact impossible to play without making real world assumptions, and using only the rules to figure out everything in the world.

The game assumes that you bring some common sense to the table. Things like toxins not effecting rocks and cars and the existence of gravity is assumed because you can see it for yourself.

Whether it effects things like spirits is up for debate. You can't go and test it for yourself. To me mana is attached to the natural world and to life. Spirits may not have nerves and muscle, but toxins may be anathema to them because its anathema to life in a metaphysical sense.

I do like the basic idea of this.

So here your saying i can Wired Reflexes 3 my conjured spirit of man... right? Snap... I'm off to get my spirits cyberd I'll use my last task to tell them to "stand still" while i take it all out better yet all that muscle aug... and sinthacardium...and ohhhhh let me grease some joints to increase my spirits articulation.


*smacks head* even fireball logic dosen't work here.

Agreed. And it isn't exactly an "In your world" instance, but a "That's what the rules say" instance. Because yes, the rules say that spirits are pure energy, they have no skin, no metal, no cloth, no blood, no anything. They are just energy and forces that make the energy feel like what it looks like.

A spirit is no more made of flesh just because it looks like it has flesh than a painting is made of an entire city just because it looks like an entire city.

I love your Brain

But what happens if you inject a toxin into this 'matter'? Does it disturb it just becaus it's there? Imagine injecting a colorant into clear water. The colorant doesn't do any damage by itselfe. But now imagine there would be an astral image of the water that doesn't fit the colored water. Would the differnce between physical and astral form be able to cause actual damage?

Actually it does in the Astral Senses section. It mentions glass as being transparent, and at least implies that non-glass things are mostly opaque.

That's the real question.
CS and capsicum are chemical irritants. By that logic, they have just as much right as acid to disrupt a spirit's energy in the same manner they effect a fleshy person.

Personally I think its too hilarious to not allow hitting a giant pillar of flame with bear mace and watching it curse and roll on the floor as it disappears. If one of my players did that, I would let it happen. If only because the idea of bustin ghosts with pepper spray is piss-myself funny.

Probably not. Due to spirits being able to eat and drink (if they want to), I would assume that they would be able to confine the injected material in a pocket for discrete disposal later.

Many references in the Drugs and Brainbenders section refer to characters and in one instance people and in another metahuman. Thus applying rules only logic, only characters can use drugs. Does any of the rules in Drugs and Brainbender section reference in specific trees, rocks, the air, anti-matter? No. They do not.

I think the rules do mention the existence of gravity, and I think I'd pull those mentions out of my Arse - p165 Arsenal.

I was checking the spirit entries when I came across this business (hence my deathly aura vs. BC thread.)



Is that just because of the possession aspect, ya think?

Probably.

Feel free to run with it. It at least gives a framework for what can and can't hurt a spirit in a given setting. Its a little to arcane (for lack of a better word) for my tastes.

How my materialized spirits work in game fallows a totally different path. (Not saying better, just diffrent).

My logic goes:
1) Mana and life go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.
2) For there to be magic there has to be life (of some sort).
3) Objects do not have Aura's or Magic because they are not alive (unless someone forces the Mana into them).
4) So as spirits have Aura's and Magic they are living things.
5) When spirits materialize they are living organic creatures as that is how the physical laws work in plane of existence. Otherwise they could not work magic or have Aura's.

EDIT: Let me just make the addendum that they are at a subatomic level still made of energy (Technically so are we). However the basic building blocks of the universes are just different.

So I do tend to have biologically "based" materialized spirits, but just because of how I view magic in SR.

Unknown. There are other possession spirits that do not have such Immunities.

But, shedim posses corpses or people whose biological processes they would seek to halt. Toxins would only aid them in their goal of inflicting physical death on their Abandoned Vessel host while leaving the meat in tact.

The problem is this is a discussion about 1) whether or not spirits are immune to toxins by the rules and 2) whether that's actually intended or not.

The first aspect is pretty much agreed by everyone; no, the rules do not grant spirits the Immunity to Toxins power. That was stated numerous times early in the thread, including my very first post here. However, someone like Toturi has no business in any discussion about the second aspect if all they're going to do is whack-off mindlessly to the rules. No one gives a flip about that kind of asinine mentality. Anyone can read the rules as they're written and follow them blindly on their own.

So mocking him is about all there's left to do. Whee!

Oh, and the "arguing on the basis that common sense rules all" is a rule in pretty much every modern RPG, Shadowrun included. It's mentioned several times in the core rulebook alone. But we'll ignore that bit.

Hmmm... Shadowrun? Nope. But Changeling had one picture of a fey woman, in a diaphanous robe....

I expect water spirits to collapse into puddles in any game you run, fire spirits to burn out, and air spirits dissipate.

Uhmmm... My fire spirits are salamanders or devil/demon looking creatures, my water elementals look like merfolk or water creatures, earth look like gorgons or Obsidiman and Air spirits look like fairies or flying creatures.

Just so you know.

Just to be fair, as a reader, I did not get that sense, and I did not agree to that. Toturi seemed to be agreeing similarly - the rules are not clear. The only difference between him and me is I feel common sense is a suitable replacement for RAW. So you made an assumption that the issue was settled which, AFAIK, was false, until around page 3.

The rules are really clear. People just don't like them and house rule round them.

Per RAW:
The rules for spirits are in the Critters section, there are very clear rules about what powers they get and do not get. There is a power called Immunity to Toxins. Materialized Spirits do not get it.

If there wasn't a clear power called Immunity to Toxins in the same section and if Materialization did not specifically call out JUST ItNW you might have a leg to stand on claiming they don't take toxin damage. But RAW, they do. (Unless they errata it so that states Materialization gives Immunity to Toxins, ItNW gives Immunity to Toxins or that spirits get Immunity to Toxins. I just checked Errata 1.5 and its not in there.)

A lot of people think its stupid and will just house-rule around it because it contrasts with either the fluff or their world setting. There are also a ton of inconsistencies in the whole drug/toxin section that you can drive trucks through the loopholes.

Not to mention spirits being immune to most (all?) of the secondary effects (such as vomiting) due to lacking the necessary organs.

That's perfect for shamanistic traditions like NAN shamans, druids, norse magicans, etc., but what about the hermetic mage?

Hermetic mages tend to get creatures of myth and legend. More Faustian devils, water nymphs, gnomes, and pixies.

I usually print out a cheat sheet with 4-6 of each type so I know what they look like and what there names are.

Been lurking this post for while now and like most of these multi pagers I end up shaking my head. Personally I go the common sense route when it comes to my home games.

I like Brodda's definition a page or so back, discussing the disruption of the energy that makes up a spirit. I also can't rationalize letting a spirit to be effected by drugs/toxins.

Without getting some input from the powers that be these discussions just degenerate into two opposing arguments that people have already dug the trenches for. I can't help but imagine the people who could step in and make a ruling to quell the teeming masses must get a good snicker out of DS.

How do you explain the existance of spells though? A fireball or stunbolt exists without any biological system. It is mana that has no living counterpart. An astrally projected spirit is the same thing. It has mana but no living body.

And no, subatomically we are made of matter, not energy. It goes something like: We are made of organs which are made of cells which are made of organelles which are made of proteins which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of protons which are made of quarks which is the smallest form of matter know (Last time I checked). I may have missed a step in there, and I know some steps diverge (Organelles are made of more than just protein and atoms are made of more than just protons).

Spirits are only energy, so they lack quarks so they lack protons so they lack atoms so they lack molecules.... so they lack organs so they aren't biological.

QFT. You can go ahead and house rule differently at your table, but this thread is RAW.

QFT? I didn't mention a single house rule in my post.

No you didn't. But the quoter then goes ahead and extrapolates.

Matter and energy are all the same. Photons behave like particles and electrons behave like energy waves. We just don't know enough yet about quantum physics.



I see. I'm not sure if I'd handle it that way but it's okay.

Spells work because magic users gather mana from their environment (No magic in space) to create the spell effect. Mana comes from the life energy of living things. Its why space is a mana warp and casting spells in a space station requires a huge greenhouse.

Also lets re-frame the argument a little bit:
Spirits do not have Immunity to Toxins. What are the toxins (and drugs) that effect them?

Here are a list of some things that I use in game for toxins and drugs:

Fire: Toxins: Fire retardant, halon, asbestos. Drugs Propane, napalm and gasoline.
Water: Toxins: Desiccants, gelling agents and sewage. Drug: None yet.
Earth: Toxins: None yet: drug: none yet.
Air: Toxins: Vacuums, smog, and chemical fumes. Drugs: Blowers and fans.

All of the above are not biological toxins but would not effect them if they had the Immune to Toxins ability.

So you are saying that everyone agreed there is proof for no immunity because there is no proof saying they're immune? Considering on page 3 toturi got book quotes showing spirits ARE immune (because the lack of a vector), that would make everyone who 'agreed' wrong.

(i.e. - in short, just because the rule isn't where you expect to find it doesn't mean it isn't there, and it's very hard to prove that a rule isn't there because you need to look at ALL of the rules. So people like me who said 'well, they didn't find a rule, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist' did not agree with you or Dr. Funk, and had good reason.)

Sorry for confusing writing style. I'm under the weather today

Most agreed that they are affected by toxins per RAW, but we can't agree on how the mechanics would work due to the vectors. In other words just becasue they are not immune to toxins does not mean that all toxins work on them, it just means that they do not have the Immune to Toxin rules and benefits.

Then there is a matter of what types of toxins would and would not work. Do Awakened toxins work because they are magical in nature? What vectors work on them? That type of minutia that people will never agree on.

Hope you feel better soon.

Reading the shadowtalk in SM it seems possession/inhabitation spirits (Including those involved with Tempo) are given toxin, pathogen resistance simple because they end up with a nervous system. This would leave me to believe those with simply a materialized form would not require the resistance due to a natural immunity (ie no nervous system). It just seems like such a clear case of common sense. Theres also a case of spirits while not being affected by btl, pretending they are. Perception and assumption are a big part of SR's spirituality. I certainly could see a spirit mimicking the effects of a given drug or toxin.

Practically arguing:



I think that precision in Arsenal should overrule the Core book's vagueness. And spirits do not qualify as metahuman.

So even if toxins might affect spirits, there is no notion of what dosage you'd need. (Or what kind of dosage would affect a drone, etc.)
In the absence of information in RAW about what quantity of metahuman doses of toxin equals one spirit dosage, you cannot affect a spirit and claim true RAW.

An allergy against a substance does not prove that this makes you more vulnerable; it means you're vulnerable at all. I have an allergy to pollen; that doesn't imply all humans are vulnerable to pollen.

More in general:

Should the lack of immunity to toxins for spirits mean they're vulnerable? No; the lack of an explicit vulnerability should indicate that they aren't affected.
There is rarely only one way of interpreting a text; in natural languages it's often hard to prove which more valid - that's what common sense is for.
Unless something implausible is explicitly stated ("magic exists"), we should assume it's not so.

In only six or so books, it is impossible to use RAW to cover every possible situation in unambiguous language (which is too tedious to read or sell anyway). Common sense should always be used to fill in the gaps or deal with ambiguity; and common sense usually derives arguments from the real world.