valiantcosmos
September 12th, 2016, 23:43
I'm a sucker for questions like "Is a 10th level monk, with Ki that renders him immune to disease and poison, immune to necrotic damage or the effects of alcohol?" (a member of our group got us started on this question before we had even created our characters!) but only to the extent that they lead to more general discussions of a quasi metaphysical nature. So I would try to understand this question in terms of more general principles, for example one might try to base one's criteria for making such judgements around the nature of the causal chain that leads to the damage.
Here’s how such an approach could go. If the poison or disease's damage is a result of a causal chain that involves bodily processes like metabolism or the binding of proteins that might render white blood cells ineffective (I’m shooting from the hip here, but hopefully you get the idea -- I'm no biologist/physician) then I would say the monk’s Ki can be supposed to control his bodily processes in such a way as to interrupt that causal chain and prevent the damage. I think this type of causal chain would at least cover all of what we usual label as natural, non-magical poisons and diseases (and I would include alcohol in this list). Things that directly cause damage without relying on a domino like chain of internal physical processes leave no room for the Monks Ki to intervene. Thus the monk’s Ki can't prevent the wound from a sword. Can it prevent necrotic damage? My understanding of necrotic damage is that it is NOT the result of some chain of internal physical processes; rather it is more like direct damage from a sword (or cold/fire spell). So there would be no way for the monk's Ki to interrupt the causal chain and prevent the damage.
But in the natural world, if you look deeply enough, there are no sharp lines here (there is not even a sharp line between what is a physical and what is a chemical process) so we should expect some borderline cases. Could one try to argue, on this theory, that acid is sufficiently like poison that our hypothetical 10th level monk's immunity should cover acid damage as well even though the rules seem to explicitly distinguish between acid damage and poison? And maybe there are some magical poisons that, once ingested, lead to damage without creating an internal causal chain of bodily physical processes (is dragon poison a natural or a magical substance? How does it work?). Can the monk's Ki defend against such magical poisons if they exist?
So if we try to resolve such questions by referring to more general principles like the type of causal chain involved, the GM will have to make subjective decisions about what type of causal chain is in fact involved. Can we instead just look to what is categorized as a poison by the rules as written? I don’t think so. The GM will still have to make subjective decisions about what substances not explicitly categorized by the rules as poisons should in fact count as poisons (Alcohol? Ajax cleanser? venom from a new magical beast that does necrotic damage?), and on what basis?
Thoughts?
Here’s how such an approach could go. If the poison or disease's damage is a result of a causal chain that involves bodily processes like metabolism or the binding of proteins that might render white blood cells ineffective (I’m shooting from the hip here, but hopefully you get the idea -- I'm no biologist/physician) then I would say the monk’s Ki can be supposed to control his bodily processes in such a way as to interrupt that causal chain and prevent the damage. I think this type of causal chain would at least cover all of what we usual label as natural, non-magical poisons and diseases (and I would include alcohol in this list). Things that directly cause damage without relying on a domino like chain of internal physical processes leave no room for the Monks Ki to intervene. Thus the monk’s Ki can't prevent the wound from a sword. Can it prevent necrotic damage? My understanding of necrotic damage is that it is NOT the result of some chain of internal physical processes; rather it is more like direct damage from a sword (or cold/fire spell). So there would be no way for the monk's Ki to interrupt the causal chain and prevent the damage.
But in the natural world, if you look deeply enough, there are no sharp lines here (there is not even a sharp line between what is a physical and what is a chemical process) so we should expect some borderline cases. Could one try to argue, on this theory, that acid is sufficiently like poison that our hypothetical 10th level monk's immunity should cover acid damage as well even though the rules seem to explicitly distinguish between acid damage and poison? And maybe there are some magical poisons that, once ingested, lead to damage without creating an internal causal chain of bodily physical processes (is dragon poison a natural or a magical substance? How does it work?). Can the monk's Ki defend against such magical poisons if they exist?
So if we try to resolve such questions by referring to more general principles like the type of causal chain involved, the GM will have to make subjective decisions about what type of causal chain is in fact involved. Can we instead just look to what is categorized as a poison by the rules as written? I don’t think so. The GM will still have to make subjective decisions about what substances not explicitly categorized by the rules as poisons should in fact count as poisons (Alcohol? Ajax cleanser? venom from a new magical beast that does necrotic damage?), and on what basis?
Thoughts?