Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5770378" data-attributes="member: 6679551">The&nbsp; distinction occurs when you talk about things like Anti-Magic fields.&nbsp; So in this case it makes a big difference whether the effect is magical or not. &nbsp;I don't think the creation of the substance is material to the questions raised in this thread.&nbsp; I think the issue is the substance itself.&nbsp; Is it and the effect it has, magical or is it non-magical.&nbsp; Here's another way to think about it. What happens when Dispel Magic is cast on the poison?&nbsp; Is it dispelled or does it persist?&nbsp; For example let's&nbsp; compare the spell Poison to Create Water.&nbsp; When someone drinks the water from CW, do the suddenly get thirsty if they walk into an anti-magic field or have Dispel Magic cast on them? &nbsp;But is it really a poison at this point?&nbsp; What if the substance magically made you strong for six hours and then made you sick?&nbsp; Is that a poison?&nbsp; What if we reverse the process...sick first...then strong?&nbsp; &nbsp;The point is whether it's accurate to call what you made &quot;ice.&quot;&nbsp; There is no such thing as &quot;hot ice.&quot;&nbsp; You've created an entirely new object that is chemically and functionally different than ice.&nbsp; Putting the word &quot;ice&quot; in its name doesn't make it ice...it just allows you to say things immune to ice are not affected by it.&nbsp; But that's just a contrivance isn't it?A poison substance works chemically.&nbsp; A substance that works magically isn't really a &quot;poison.&quot;&nbsp; It could mimic a poison, just like a flashlight could mimic burning torch, but the flashlight isn't a burning torch.&nbsp; Sure, you're talking about creating the poison.&nbsp; There's no reason why poisons couldn't be created magically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5770378, member: 6679551"] The distinction occurs when you talk about things like Anti-Magic fields. So in this case it makes a big difference whether the effect is magical or not. I don't think the creation of the substance is material to the questions raised in this thread. I think the issue is the substance itself. Is it and the effect it has, magical or is it non-magical. Here's another way to think about it. What happens when Dispel Magic is cast on the poison? Is it dispelled or does it persist? For example let's compare the spell [I]Poison[/I] to [I]Create Water[/I]. When someone drinks the water from CW, do the suddenly get thirsty if they walk into an anti-magic field or have Dispel Magic cast on them? But is it really a poison at this point? What if the substance magically made you strong for six hours and then made you sick? Is that a poison? What if we reverse the process...sick first...then strong? The point is whether it's accurate to call what you made "ice." There is no such thing as "hot ice." You've created an entirely new object that is chemically and functionally different than ice. Putting the word "ice" in its name doesn't make it ice...it just allows you to say things immune to ice are not affected by it. But that's just a contrivance isn't it? A poison substance works chemically. A substance that works magically isn't really a "poison." It could mimic a poison, just like a flashlight could mimic burning torch, but the flashlight isn't a burning torch. Sure, you're talking about [I]creating[/I] the poison. There's no reason why poisons couldn't be created magically. [/QUOTE]

Verification