Is ghoul poison really poison?

For writers working on documentation, story prose, announcements, and all kinds of Wesnoth text.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
Wayirr
Posts: 88
Joined: February 11th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by Wayirr »

I have had a discussion with another Wesnoth player. My opinion is that ghoul's "poison" is really infection, rather than actual venom. It has same game mechanic as poisoned thrown knives and other similar stuff though, so separate weapon special wasn't introduced.

Also since this infection does not turn people into zombies, this is a different kind of infection from zombie plague ability.

My reasoning is based on the fact that ghouls apparently don't take any special measures to poison their claws, since they don't have enough intelligence to carry a bottle with poison or something like that unlike orcish and human assassins. And since this feature occurs naturally, there is question, where it comes from? Venom glands are fairly complex biological structures and they are unlikely to appear without specific effort put to add them there, and I don't think necromancers would care about it when they make regular ghouls.
But we know from the lore ghouls tend to feast on the dead bodies which are not necessarily fresh. So I think this is the reason why their claws produce ill effects on damaged units.

Also, Wesnoth is set in middle-age like time period. So I think that people there are not likely to know about bacteria and infection, so they will still call it poison if they see wounds from ghoul claws get inflammation and wounded person becomes ill.

What are your thoughts? Do you think ghoul poison is poison, infection or both?
User avatar
doofus-01
Art Director
Posts: 4121
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:27 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by doofus-01 »

I think it makes sense to just assume it is essentially bad hygiene. They claw through the bowels of some opponent, then they claw at you, and there is some infectious disease that gets passed on, like cat-scratch fever. They never clean off their weapons, unlike any other fighter, but they are (sort of) living, moist, and warm, unlike most other undead. Sometimes it's best not to overthink these things.
BfW 1.12 supported, but active development only for BfW 1.13/1.14: Bad Moon Rising | Trinity | Archaic Era |
| Abandoned: Tales of the Setting Sun
GitHub link for these projects
lovecrafts-cat
Posts: 14
Joined: August 19th, 2020, 11:18 pm

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by lovecrafts-cat »

it could be like botulism,an infection that the microbes make a toxin,
inuyasha35
Posts: 32
Joined: September 24th, 2020, 2:57 am

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by inuyasha35 »

it could be the same terminology as blood poisioning, that it's Really an infection but we call it poison
Computer_Player
Multiplayer Moderator
Posts: 178
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 6:39 am

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by Computer_Player »

Alternatively, it could be magical in nature and thus not analogous to any real life phenomenon. The process of creating ghouls are a mystery, perhaps close contact with this fell magic such as happens when they claw at victims comes into contact with blood/lifeforce disrupts the person's normal magical balance, slowly deteriorating health - but not enough to the point of death.

You could come up with alternate theories if you want to use it in a campaign, its vague enough and nothing is set in stone - at least so far as the details of poison mechanics.
User avatar
Pewskeepski
Posts: 378
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:24 pm
Location: An icy dungeon beneath Antarctica

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by Pewskeepski »

It spawns an interesting thought on what the presence of undead in a medieval setting would really do to people's health and hygiene. Makes me want to research what sort of disease and plagues could spread just by the mere presence of so many corpses (which is what the undead units are). Never mind that they're trying to kill people; their mere existence could cause serious problems.
"Everything is better with penguins."
Creator of Burning Souls, The Fall of Wesnoth (abandoned) and Adventures of Knighthood (now available on BfW 1.15!)
User avatar
egallager
Posts: 568
Joined: November 19th, 2020, 7:27 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by egallager »

Pewskeepski wrote: February 5th, 2021, 12:11 pm It spawns an interesting thought on what the presence of undead in a medieval setting would really do to people's health and hygiene. Makes me want to research what sort of disease and plagues could spread just by the mere presence of so many corpses (which is what the undead units are). Never mind that they're trying to kill people; their mere existence could cause serious problems.
You thinking of there being some sort of plague like in Warcraft III?
User avatar
Pewskeepski
Posts: 378
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:24 pm
Location: An icy dungeon beneath Antarctica

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by Pewskeepski »

egallager wrote: February 6th, 2021, 7:17 pm
Pewskeepski wrote: February 5th, 2021, 12:11 pm It spawns an interesting thought on what the presence of undead in a medieval setting would really do to people's health and hygiene. Makes me want to research what sort of disease and plagues could spread just by the mere presence of so many corpses (which is what the undead units are). Never mind that they're trying to kill people; their mere existence could cause serious problems.
You thinking of there being some sort of plague like in Warcraft III?
Yes, though I am ignorant to the details of how such disease and plague could be carried by corpses, especially ones that are multiple years old. But wouldn't it be interesting if an army of live humans defeated an army of corpses, only to have all their soldiers suffer from the diseases they received from engaging the enemy in such close combat... Hmm, story ideas! :Awesome:
"Everything is better with penguins."
Creator of Burning Souls, The Fall of Wesnoth (abandoned) and Adventures of Knighthood (now available on BfW 1.15!)
shevegen
Posts: 497
Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 4:35 pm

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by shevegen »

Perhaps it could allow for more subclassification, e. g. poison, disease and so forth. Some of that
may be different. So from that point of view I agree with the threadstarter.

However had, we should also consider that this may make things more complicated. I'd perhaps
think more generic grouping is ok, but we also should not, say, have +20 different diseases -
players may be confused when too many different concepts are in use.

> I don't think necromancers would care about it when they make regular ghouls.

They could simply infect targets by holding so many pathogens on their own - necromancers
may not necessarily DESIGN that to be the case. So I think that assumption is flawed.

I don't object the "poison versus disease" distinction though; that makes sense to me. It's
just that we have poison as an established game mechanic, so it may not be trivial to
modify that.
shevegen
Posts: 497
Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 4:35 pm

Re: Is ghoul poison really poison?

Post by shevegen »

Computer_Player wrote:

> Alternatively, it could be magical in nature and thus not analogous to any real life phenomenon.

I don't have a stake to hold here either way, and I gave alternative options above, but I think it
is also important to not speculate about something when it has not been established to be game
lore or anything. People can otherwise assume a lot, but these assumptions may not necessarily
be correct. Note: I don't refer about speculating either way, that part is fine. I am referring to
wanting to assume that this variant, or that variant, is the "official lore", when it has not (yet)
been established to be that way. I noticed this trend happening on an old text-MUD where
players all came up with "alternative facts", without anything reinforcing that notion. They'd
essentially make up the game and re-interprete everything to fit their own narrative. That's
why I think it would be important to establish something one way or another. Not that I am
saying it HAS to be done. I am fine just thinking about game mechanics as game mechanics,
and lore pertaining secondarily to that. :)

Pewskeepski wrote:

> Yes, though I am ignorant to the details of how such disease and plague could be carried by
> corpses, especially ones that are multiple years old.

There are examples of people or animals transmitting disease without ever being able to
fully heal from certain wounds infected by bacteria. Or persist for months and years before
finally either killing the host, or defeating the bacteria.

An example that was less deadly was "Typhus Mary":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mall ... 80%931938)

It's a short subsection but interesting to read.

I am just giving examples that undead may carry disease without that being a "design" process
necessarily, IF we go from fantasy-to-facts that is. :)
Post Reply