Oblivion talk:Chokeberry

Backwards?Edit

Should it be noted that in real life these plants are actually very healthy for you? They are rich in antioxidants, and are usually used in herbal teas. It's kinda weird that they are deadly in this game.--Blktiger0 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was used just for the name (choke). But I am not too sure it is enough to warrant a mention. –Elliot ^talk 22:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think they were only using it for the name. --Oblivion nerd 05:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

choeberry poisonEdit

actually if combined with poisoned apples they can create a poison with the same effect of eating a posoned apple.

Or if you are a Master of Alchemy, you can just use the one ingredient.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 19:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

UselessEdit

Should it be noted somewhere that they are essentially useless if the player has an ample supply of poisoned apples? Sure, they can be placed and picked up by an NPC just like an apple, yet can't be reverse pickpocketed. This means they serve no additional purpose. I think it would be handy to mention something like this, so that new players don't waste their time Corvus 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Useless" is your personal opinion. The article already contains all of the facts, which is all that belongs in a wiki article. --Nephele^Talk 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

plus they work really good at a gard house. put it into the place wre they get there food and put it in there. i find this works better then a poisen apple. (well really just the same)--GUM!!! 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK perhaps that they are an 'essentially useless addition' would be closer to the facts. I do not think that this is personal opinion, as they do not add anything extra. They do the same as the apples, but slightly less. My only request is that a section advising new users that apples are more effective would be useful. This doesn't constitute opinion. Corvus 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The fact that they essentially duplicate an existing effect does not make them useless. Apples are not more effective: once somebody is dead, it doesn't matter how they got there. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to explain my point better. Whilst they are not useless per se, they do not add anything that isn't already done better. My suggested change was to advise users that given a choice, it would be wiser to go with the apples because they have more functions. And I agree that it doesn't matter how they died if they are dead, but my point is that apples provide an extra way of getting them there, hence they are more useful Corvus 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no. I can think of several ways of killing somebody using a simple piece of string, and only one using a bullet, but I would have to say that a bullet is, usually, the better way to do the job. This isn't about opinions, it's about facts. The article already links to the poisoned apple page and people can click to find out more information.

If you want opinion, then I'll say that using a cursed, zero-weight item is better than either option because you get it back again afterwards. But that doesn't deserve a mention here either because assassination options are covered elsewhere. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at, but let me summarise. Poisoned Apples having more applications is not opinion, but fact. There should be little issue with stating the fact that chokeberries are the less efficient of the two, although perhaps not in the way I stated in the article. And I agree on the zero-weight items, but the argument is a non sequitur, as the efficacy of the apples in relation to the chokeberries is valid, pulling out an unrelated technique is not. Simply put, I think that stating that they have less applications is reasonable. Let's face it, on bare statistics the apples would be the logical choice between the two, every time Corvus 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Eating OrderEdit

NPC's eat available food in alphabetical order. But is that based upon the name (i.e. Chokeberry) or the FormID (i.e. LairVileChokeberry) ? Jadrax 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit by GKEdit

Seems to state exactly what I felt was needed, I'm glad a consensus has been reached :-) Corvus 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Script effect potionEdit

Will making a potion out of a chokeberry/poison apple, and placing it in someone's food cupboard, cause them to drink it? NPCs will consume the fruit, and logically they would consume a potion with the same effects, but I am not sure if this is correct. Can someone here give me an answer, or give me a place where I Can test this? 184.77.194.254 22:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No. NPCs will only drink something if it's marked as a "food item" - things like ale, mead, wine etc. Self-made potions don't get given that flag so NPCs will never drink them except in battle. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Removespell IDEdit

If you eat a chokeberry, the poison spell that damages you has a different ID from the fruit. The fruit is an INGR record, and the spell is a SPEL record. The removespell console command will only accept SPEL IDs as an argument. Therefore, the correct ID to use with removespell is that for the SPEL, which is 9BFF.

It's exactly the same as Poisoned Apple, where removespell requires the ID 9617, not the apple's ID of 918F0. --Nephele^Talk 20:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)