Inferlock Curse loop?

[DracoSuave]

Technically, if you're trying to kill yourself, your target is someone working towards the same goal as you, and therefore, not a threat.

You can only be your enemy when you're a threat, and to be a threat you have to act in opposition to your own actions, which is an impossibility.

Regardless if you have to resort to technicalities to oppose the bag-of-rats rule, then the bag-of-rats rule still applies. That's sort of the point behind the bag-of-rats rule.

 

[Voss]

What? Sharing a common goal doesn't mean someone isn't a threat! Watch any bad action film. Hero will work with villain from group A to stop group B, and the villain will be helpful for a while, then turn on the hero whenever its dramatically appropriate/most helpful to his/her own agenda.

Heck, two drunk people driving back to the same apartment after a pubcrawl could easily kill each other.

Your argument isn't remotely or technically true.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Bag'o'Rats...see page 40 DMG

 

[James McMurray]

Rocks fall, everyone dies, game explodes.
Unless someone can point to where errata fixes this by adding an additional category?

You may want to invest in a different hobby. Knitting perhaps.

 

[Oni]

Hey if you're willing to enter into pacts with devils and demons you're probably your own worst enemy.







It's munchkinism and I helped.

[sblock=The Downer]
If you accept yourself as a cursable enemy I think the only way to curse anyone else will be by swallowing them.
[/sblock]

 

[DracoSuave]

What? Sharing a common goal doesn't mean someone isn't a threat! Watch any bad action film. Hero will work with villain from group A to stop group B, and the villain will be helpful for a while, then turn on the hero whenever its dramatically appropriate/most helpful to his/her own agenda.

Heck, two drunk people driving back to the same apartment after a pubcrawl could easily kill each other.

Your argument isn't remotely or technically true.

Mentioning cases where the goals of said interests change murcurially is not a counter to the argument. In situation 1, they'd be allies until such a point where the allying ends. This isn't even difficult to explain.

And two people failing a skill challenge can, in fact, result in death without being in opposition. That isn't a case of opposition but a case of epic fail. We're not talking about epic fail here.

Neither of these cases are particularily relevant to the argument, which is attacking yourself to gain a benefit is a case of trying to take a non-threat and use your powers to exploit it as a target.

Bag.
Of.
Rats.

 

[malraux]

Bag'o'Rats...see page 40 DMG

Bag of rats applies to weak creatures that pose no threat. Clearly the warlock is not a weak creature unable to harm the warlock.

I think someone just won 4e.

 

[DracoSuave]

Bag of rats applies to weak creatures that pose no threat. Clearly the warlock is not a weak creature unable to harm the warlock.

I think someone just won 4e.

Harming the person does not always = threat.

A threat is someone who has the ability to oppose your aim. If your aim is to self-mutilate, your self-mutilation is not a threat to your aim.

 

[Oni]

What if the warlock had split personalities? Could he oppose himself then?

 

[Voss]

You may want to invest in a different hobby. Knitting perhaps.

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten ENworld's lovely community. Thanks for the reminder

@Dracosuave-
Really? We aren't talking about doctors making an incision to remove a tumor here. Just because someone wants to harm himself, it does not mean he is not a threat to himself. You are essentially arguing that suicide attempts are harmless, because suicidal people want to die.