PDA

View Full Version : Familicide! [Epic Spell]



Belial_the_Leveler
2009-03-20, 04:43 AM
Familicide

Necromancy [Evil]
Spellcraft DC: 110
Components: V, S, M, XP
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Unlimited
Target: up to 100 living creatures
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (see below)
Spell Resistance: Yes
Seeds: Contact (to contact familiar creatures) DC 23, up to 100 familiar creatures (+100 DC), allow unwilling creatures (ad hoc +10 DC), Dispel (to dispel possible protections) DC 19, +20 to the dispel check (+20 DC), Slay (to add negative levels) DC 25, +20d4 negative levels (+80 DC).
Mitigating factors: 10-minute casting time (-20 DC), requires expensive/unusual material component (a living or undead member of the family in question for the familiarity link, Ad Hoc -7 DC), 60d6 backlash (-60 DC), 8.000 xp cost (-80 DC)

An epic necromancer may cast this horrible spell upon the still living (or unliving) body of a vanquished enemy. The spell then contacts creatures the target is familiar with anywhere in the world... and slays them.
Familicide makes a dispel check (1d20+30) vs all protective magics the victims posess that might inhibit its work (including save-boosting spells and items or effects that confer immunity to necromancy). There's no save against this effect.
Then, the spell bestows 22d4 negative levels. A successful fortitude save reduces the number of negative levels by half.
Familicide affects the 100 closest family members of the target.



Designer's Note;
That is a relatively easy to cast epic spell intended for a 30th level buffed caster. The Familicide epic spell cast by V might as well be substantially more powerful. The above spell is given as an example of the cheapest reliable Familicide mechanics that don't use loops or unintentionally broken mechanics.

BobVosh
2009-03-20, 05:27 AM
What about range? Or does contact bypass that?

Also Vs is probably much stronger. No apparent backlash, definitly was a one action cast time.

Fan
2009-03-20, 05:29 AM
And people seem to forget that 21X3= 63+ at least 13= 75 caster levels.
Thats minimum, so you add in quite abit more.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2009-03-20, 05:35 AM
Too tired to think properly and rate it, but I just popped in to tell you this should be in the homebrew board.

Talic
2009-03-20, 05:38 AM
Also, the total number of dragons + eggs killed in OOTS 639 is 63. The total number of dragons/eggs V has destroyed since splicing is 64. Total Animated: 1.

BlueWizard
2009-03-20, 06:26 AM
Should also be CE to cast, but that's just me. This is one evil spell, regardless...:smalleek:

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-20, 07:39 AM
There's no reason for this spell to carry the [Chaotic] descriptor in addition to the [Evil] descriptor. What about it is chaotic?

Paramour Pink
2009-03-20, 08:54 AM
There's no reason for this spell to carry the [Chaotic] descriptor in addition to the [Evil] descriptor. What about it is chaotic?

Although I agree with you (why add the Chaotic alignment to the spell? You have to be bluntly Evil to even seriousily consider using it), I think Blue Wizard said that because of the sheer disgusting scale of unnecessary deaths involved. That kind of brutality takes a lot of hatred. Definitely right within the attitude of the stereotypical Chaotic Evil type.

Ascension
2009-03-20, 09:15 AM
Although I agree with you (why add the Chaotic alignment to the spell? You have to be bluntly Evil to even seriousily consider using it), I think Blue Wizard said that because of the sheer disgusting scale of unnecessary deaths involved. That kind of brutality takes a lot of hatred. Definitely right within the attitude of the stereotypical Chaotic Evil type.

Orrrrr Lawful Evil, or Neutral Evil (which, IIRC, is the necromancer's alignment). You're not causing any unnecessary deaths, you're merely delivering the ultimate punishment and doing so in such a way that it eliminates the possibility of a family member seeking revenge. Congratulations, you're Inigo Montoya proof. Given that V has already been hunted down by one member of the clan for killing another, s/he has every reason to think that it might happen again and, given the nature of the first dragon's planned vengeance, every reason to want to ensure that it cannot happen again. It's overwhelmingly evil, certainly, but it's a practical sort of evil, not a senseless sort of evil.

Sendal
2009-03-20, 09:55 AM
I don't know much about the epic spell casting rules, but surely you can get a discount for the DC by requiring a helpless yet concious member of the family in question. Not something that you often have access to. Could even specify that it only kills younger or lower hitdice relatives.


Also that save for half seems a bit generous. If your targeting 100 then you can expect about 5 to save even if the DC is insane. Though I suppose that still about level drain 20 on the low side of average. If we're dealing with dragons its not fool-proof though.


Is it possible to link epic spell power level to caster level? I guess not as thats what the spellcraft check is for...

Flickerdart
2009-03-20, 10:09 AM
If anything, the spell is Lawful. It doesn't kill the target's family and everyone around them or even just people the target values. It kills its kin. Thorough, methodical, precise.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-03-20, 11:27 AM
I don't think negative levels work at all for this spell, because then you'll get a 100 wights who are out to get you. Maybe you should go for CON damage instead.

TempusCCK
2009-03-20, 11:40 AM
No, you don't always get wights from negative levels. The only sure fire way to do that is to get allyour negative levels from another wight. Usualy negative levels just kills you.

Doug Lampert
2009-03-20, 12:50 PM
And people seem to forget that 21X3= 63+ at least 13= 75 caster levels.
Thats minimum, so you add in quite abit more.

Since when do caster levels add in a Gesalt or similar build? Since when do they even add in a straight multiclass unless one class is a prestige class that specifically says it adds?

If those three are caster level 21 (unlikely, they're probably higher) then V is now caster level 21/21/21/14 with four different sets of spells.

aarondirebear
2009-03-20, 01:07 PM
Should also be CE to cast, but that's just me. This is one evil spell, regardless...:smalleek:

And if the spell specifically targeted rapists and demons?
What then?

Saintjebus
2009-03-20, 01:12 PM
And if the spell specifically targeted rapists and demons?
What then?

Because regardless of your intentions, you are killing people that are simply associated with your enemy. They aren't your enemy. They haven't done anything to you(regardless of what they have actually done).


**runs away from the flames**

BizzaroStormy
2009-03-20, 02:06 PM
Since when do caster levels add in a Gesalt or similar build? Since when do they even add in a straight multiclass unless one class is a prestige class that specifically says it adds?

If those three are caster level 21 (unlikely, they're probably higher) then V is now caster level 21/21/21/14 with four different sets of spells.

Well V is a wizard, IIRC he got the souls of 2 wizards and a sorcerer. This means the two wizards' levels would stack with his own. Just like if you took rogue up until level 6, took 10 levels of assassin, then continued onto rogue.

Also, it was stated that the spell was a creation of the necromancer's so they'd all have to be VERY high level.

Fan
2009-03-20, 02:29 PM
Since when do caster levels add in a Gesalt or similar build? Since when do they even add in a straight multiclass unless one class is a prestige class that specifically says it adds?

If those three are caster level 21 (unlikely, they're probably higher) then V is now caster level 21/21/21/14 with four different sets of spells.

Because its the same class, and you can't count seperate things that represent the same thing as different. Thats like saying that if you have 2 pennies, but one has a higher copper precentage in it then the other that it's still not a penny. Even by your math since they ALL advance caster levels it's still 76.

Lost Demiurge
2009-03-20, 02:38 PM
And if the spell specifically targeted rapists and demons?
What then?

Then it'd still be evil.
#1: Indiscriminate killing of evil things strictly due to their species or crimes is evil.

#2: People can repent of their crimes, and even demons can turn over a new leaf. But for the purposes of a spell like this, it doesn't care. It'd take the good (or neutral) along with the bad.

I do not care to pursue this topic further, as the spell does NOT work in the way you hypothesize, and I don't want to derail the thread.

Occasional Sage
2009-03-20, 03:52 PM
I mentioned this is one fo the threads on the OotS board, but: what is the definition of "family"? For instance, what does the spell do when cast on an incapacitated minor aspect of Asmodeus?

Paramour Pink
2009-03-20, 04:39 PM
Orrrrr Lawful Evil, or Neutral Evil (which, IIRC, is the necromancer's alignment). You're not causing any unnecessary deaths, you're merely delivering the ultimate punishment and doing so in such a way that it eliminates the possibility of a family member seeking revenge. Congratulations, you're Inigo Montoya proof. Given that V has already been hunted down by one member of the clan for killing another, s/he has every reason to think that it might happen again and, given the nature of the first dragon's planned vengeance, every reason to want to ensure that it cannot happen again. It's overwhelmingly evil, certainly, but it's a practical sort of evil, not a senseless sort of evil.

Notice I said right at the start that I don't disagree with the idea that the spell shouldn't be classed as Chaotic. Regardless, yes, there were definitely unnecessary deaths. Unless you think the murder of the baby dragon and several unborn eggs were all fine and dandy because of the thin bloodline connection they possessed. So dragons that couldn't possibily care about the issue were killed regardless. The spell was brutally indiscriminate.

Which is what makes it so awesome. :smallbiggrin:

I hope that necromancer woman gets more air time. I like her the most. :smallsmile:

Berserk Monk
2009-03-20, 04:48 PM
Would resurrect work normally for any of the slain creatures?

BizzaroStormy
2009-03-20, 08:44 PM
The spell doesn't mention anything about the targets' souls being trapped so yeah, anyone with the motivation to rez one of the targets could easily do so.

Flickerdart
2009-03-20, 09:19 PM
I mentioned this is one fo the threads on the OotS board, but: what is the definition of "family"? For instance, what does the spell do when cast on an incapacitated minor aspect of Asmodeus?
Kills the aspect, I guess. An aspect doesn't have a family. What I want to know is how this spell affects Illithids, especially if you can find whatever it is they evolve from.

Also, I can totally see a villain engineering a marriage so he can take down more people with a scroll of this.

monty
2009-03-20, 09:24 PM
Also, I can totally see a villain engineering a marriage so he can take down more people with a scroll of this.

Can you make a scroll of an epic spell? To be honest, I never really understood the epic spellcasting rules very well. On the other hand, if the villain's an epic wizard, it would be trivial to mindrape the couple into getting married in order to do this.

Flickerdart
2009-03-20, 09:31 PM
Can you make a scroll of an epic spell? To be honest, I never really understood the epic spellcasting rules very well. On the other hand, if the villain's an epic wizard, it would be trivial to mindrape the couple into getting married in order to do this.
For the purposes of the plot, it's assumed that you can and that he isn't. But, does this work only on blood relation, or contract as well? Adopted children? Spouses?

Zeta Kai
2009-03-20, 09:32 PM
And if the spell specifically targeted rapists and demons?
What then?

Then it would be a different spell. :smallamused:

Saph
2009-03-20, 10:39 PM
From the D20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#energyDrainAndNegativeLevels) :


A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.

So I think the spell should be a Fort save-or-die, rather than negative levels. Otherwise the only result would be to create a huge and widely-spread number of wight dragons, which, while they're still technically dead, probably isn't quite what you're looking for. :)

- Saph

Waspinator
2009-03-20, 10:42 PM
And if the spell specifically targeted rapists and demons?
What then?

Then it's the Death Note spell.

kjones
2009-03-20, 11:43 PM
From the D20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#energyDrainAndNegativeLevels) :



So I think the spell should be a Fort save-or-die, rather than negative levels. Otherwise the only result would be to create a huge and widely-spread number of wight dragons, which, while they're still technically dead, probably isn't quite what you're looking for. :)

- Saph

It seems to me that if it was a Fort-save-or-die, then at least one of those dragons would have made their save... maybe we only see the ones that fail.

mikeejimbo
2009-03-20, 11:44 PM
Also, the total number of dragons + eggs killed in OOTS 639 is 63. The total number of dragons/eggs V has destroyed since splicing is 64. Total Animated: 1.

I assumed that there were many more that we just hadn't seen.

ShadowFighter15
2009-03-20, 11:50 PM
I assumed that there were many more that we just hadn't seen.

Considering how long dragons live for and how large their family would be by the time they're ancient; I think it goes without saying that what was drawn in the comic was only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

GoC
2009-03-21, 12:58 AM
You're doing some rule-breaking there. You can't cast spells through Contact.

You'll need to use Reveal if you want to cast spells on them.


Because its the same class, and you can't count seperate things that represent the same thing as different. Thats like saying that if you have 2 pennies, but one has a higher copper precentage in it then the other that it's still not a penny. Even by your math since they ALL advance caster levels it's still 76.

You know nothing about gesalt, right?

Estrosiath
2009-03-21, 02:20 AM
Did you even read the slay spell seed? Did you forget about that little, oh, +8 DC per creature past the first one affected?

Contact also doesn't allow you to target creatures with other effects through the link.

Seed: Contact

Divination
Spellcraft DC: 23
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: See text
Target: One creature
Duration: 200 minutes
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This seed forges a telepathic bond with a particular creature with which the caster is familiar (or one that the caster can currently see directly or through magical means) and can converse back and forth. The subject recognizes the caster if it knows him or her. It can answer in like manner immediately, though it does not have to. The caster can forge a communal bond among more than two creatures. For each additional creature contacted, increase the Spellcraft DC by +1. The bond can be established only among willing subjects, which therefore receive no saving throw or spell resistance. For telepathic communication through the bond regardless of language, increase the Spellcraft DC by +4. No special influence is established as a result of the bond, only the power to communicate at a distance.

Dervag
2009-03-21, 02:25 AM
I mentioned this is one fo the threads on the OotS board, but: what is the definition of "family"? For instance, what does the spell do when cast on an incapacitated minor aspect of Asmodeus?Asmodeus is probably powerful enough personally to resist the spell. And since Asmodeus is immortal, his family is quite likely to be large enough that you probably shouldn't be able to kill all of it.

My guess is that it works "unto the seventh generation" or something along those lines. That way the spell can have a finite effect, rather than killing off all life on Earth with one shot.

Talic
2009-03-21, 03:47 AM
You forget the D&D good and evil undertones.

The act of killing an evil creature is not, in and of itself, evil.

When killing one for selfless reasons (ridding the world of evil, etc), then it is a good act.

When killing one for selfish reasons (hoards, etx), then it is a neutral act.


So... A spell that kills thoroughly isn't necessarily good or evil, by D&D RAW. I mean, kobolds might consider a fireball spell evil (burning those of their kind alive).

Black dragons are inherently evil. Thus, using this spell to kill black dragons cannot be an evil act, unless the spell conveys undue torment or the like on them, or brings other evil into the world.

The case can be argued for the half dragons in the group. Those aren't inherently evil.

The real issue is that an elf just casually killed over 60 dragons. The reason is irrelevant. What do you think that the ramifications of this will be when other dragons find out? Will they react as V did, by using excessive force to end a potential future problem?

V's act wasn't selfless. He wasn't doing it for the greater good. He was doing it so that his family wouldn't potentially be hurt by others of the Dragon's line. There wasn't an evil act he was trying to stop. He didn't know who might do it, so he got them all, just to be safe.

While not guaranteed evil (if the half-dragons weren't evil, there's a bit of evil taint on the act), it's not good.

As for dragons passing saves? I believe the spell, as the OP had it, gave 1/2 the neg levels on a passed save, which, on average, would have still killed most anything.

BobVosh
2009-03-21, 05:15 AM
V's act wasn't selfless. He wasn't doing it for the greater good. He was doing it so that his family wouldn't potentially be hurt by others of the Dragon's line. There wasn't an evil act he was trying to stop. He didn't know who might do it, so he got them all, just to be safe.

I disagree. I think V did it to make her (ABD) suffer.

Talic
2009-03-21, 06:40 AM
I disagree. I think V did it to make her (ABD) suffer.

Those were the voices. V may have had that as well, a bit of revenga at being showed up. But a good D&D player knows that all it takes is a bit of good rationalizing to the DM, and you can mitigate most anything. :smalltongue:

Paramour Pink
2009-03-21, 06:50 AM
When killing one for selfish reasons (hoards, etx), then it is a neutral act.

Selfishness is defined as Evil, if we're speaking of the 3.5 alignment system. It's not Neutral.



So... A spell that kills thoroughly isn't necessarily good or evil, by D&D RAW. I mean, kobolds might consider a fireball spell evil (burning those of their kind alive).

If I were the kobold, I'd be more inclined to think whoever did it was Evil. Besides, we're speaking of a spell specially made by a Dread Necromancer, and so probably powered by negative energy. Pretty good odds that this specific spell is Evil.



Black dragons are inherently evil. Thus, using this spell to kill black dragons cannot be an evil act, unless the spell conveys undue torment or the like on them, or brings other evil into the world.

So it was fine to kill the unborn eggs and baby dragon, despite the fact that there was still a chance of them overcoming that "inherent" Evil? This is still ignoring all the black dragons that just wouldn't care (the Ancient Black Dragon was happy with her husband and son, so all the dragons likely to actually hunt V's family were out of the question) at all about their distant family, that were murdered anyway. Despite that all falling quite nicely under a complete lack of compassion, which is Evil, you're arguing that it wasn't? Have to disagree.



The case can be argued for the half dragons in the group. Those aren't inherently evil.

The real issue is that an elf just casually killed over 60 dragons. The reason is irrelevant.

So if someone had the means and went out hunting a particular race out of raw hatred (specism, technically, I guess)...which would again fall under the Evil alignment...that reason wouldn't matter? :smallconfused:


What do you think that the ramifications of this will be when other dragons find out? Will they react as V did, by using excessive force to end a potential future problem?

V's act wasn't selfless. He wasn't doing it for the greater good. He was doing it so that his family wouldn't potentially be hurt by others of the Dragon's line. There wasn't an evil act he was trying to stop. He didn't know who might do it, so he got them all, just to be safe.

While not guaranteed evil (if the half-dragons weren't evil, there's a bit of evil taint on the act), it's not good.


Again, the dragons that were likely to care were already dead. V learned that before casting the spell. It still didn't sway hir actions.

I think it goes really well with what the SRD mentions:


Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

V had no compassion for them. Casting one spell is very convenient. The act was completely Evil. :smalleek:

factotum
2009-03-21, 07:18 AM
Otherwise the only result would be to create a huge and widely-spread number of wight dragons, which, while they're still technically dead, probably isn't quite what you're looking for. :)


That just says they rise as a wight. "Wight" isn't some sort of template that can be added to an existing creature--it's an entirely separate type of monster. So, you're trading a whole bunch of flying, acid-breathing dragons with hundreds of hit points and spellcasting capabilities for a whole bunch of slow, melee-only ground-pounders with 26hp each. Which one would YOU rather face?

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-03-21, 08:06 AM
That just says they rise as a wight. "Wight" isn't some sort of template that can be added to an existing creature--it's an entirely separate type of monster. So, you're trading a whole bunch of flying, acid-breathing dragons with hundreds of hit points and spellcasting capabilities for a whole bunch of slow, melee-only ground-pounders with 26hp each. Which one would YOU rather face?

While true that wights aren't the strongest monsters in existence, there are hundreds of them, they might not be able to harm you, but if they gather and find out what happened, they might try to take revenge on those who can't defend themselves, you can't protect the whole world, there is only one of you around.

That being said what would you chose the face of against hundreds of wights, or to face of against ...nothing?

Flickerdart
2009-03-21, 09:24 AM
That being said what would you chose the face of against hundreds of wights, or to face of against ...nothing?
As a high-level adventurer, the former would be infinitely preferable.

zero
2009-03-21, 09:45 AM
Did you even read the slay spell seed? Did you forget about that little, oh, +8 DC per creature past the first one affected?

Contact also doesn't allow you to target creatures with other effects through the link.


Good point, the spell absurd range remains its most serious issue. Assuming the OOTS world is earth-like, we would need a range of at least 21000000 ft... As Slay has a base range of 300ft, we would need to apply the Range (or more likely, Area) factor 70000 times... this is no good...:smalleek:

Making it Destruction-based would mitigate it a bit (12000 ft range), but even that would bring the DC to about 10000...

Kobold-Bard
2009-03-21, 09:46 AM
Can you make a scroll of an epic spell? To be honest, I never really understood the epic spellcasting rules very well. On the other hand, if the villain's an epic wizard, it would be trivial to mindrape the couple into getting married in order to do this.

As I recall Epic Spells have to be engraved onto stone tablets instead of scrolls, and doing so increases the Spellcraft DC by x5.

Probably not going to happen.

hamishspence
2009-03-21, 09:54 AM
what about combination- using a high range Seed, plus the slay seed? Weather version of Energy seed has 2 mile radius. Ad hoc adjustments for "instantaneous" rather than "takes 10 min to manifest" and for combining 2 seeds.

The dragons are all slain by lightning from the sky.

Meserach
2009-03-21, 10:04 AM
what about combination- using a high range Seed, plus the slay seed? Weather version of Energy seed has 2 mile radius. Ad hoc adjustments for "instantaneous" rather than "takes 10 min to manifest" and for combining 2 seeds.

The dragons are all slain by lightning from the sky.

When combining seeds, you use the default range and area of the "base" seed. Says the SRD: "The seed most important to the spell’s overall purpose is the base seed".

For a spell called "Familicide", I really can't imagine the base seed being anything other than "Slay". Certainly the nature of the deaths seems to preclude "Destroy" being the base seed (the dragons don't turn to dust), and I kind of doubt this is elemental based damage from literal lightning - that just seems to me to be special effects. If it were literal lightning doing HP damage, that opens up whole new avenues of difficulties, including - how the spells gets around the many easily available protections against elemental energy, how it strikes lightning in areas where lightning shouldn't reach (indoors , underground), how we ensure the lightning is damaging enough to guarantee the deaths of all those dragons (probably boosting the DC to immense levels in the process)..

Toper
2009-03-21, 10:15 AM
You're doing some rule-breaking there. You can't cast spells through Contact.

You'll need to use Reveal if you want to cast spells on them.
This looks like the closest seed to me, too, for dealing with the range issue.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/reveal.htm

To cast any spell from the sensor whose range is touch or greater, increase the Spellcraft DC by +6; however, the caster must maintain line of effect to the sensor at all times. If the line of effect is obstructed, the spell ends. To free the caster of the line of effect restriction for casting spells through the sensor, multiply the Spellcraft DC by ×10.
So I guess you'd have to find the DC for an appropriate dragon-killing epic spell and then multiply the whole thing by 10? Unless you could cast it as two separate spells (reveal, then slay) -- it's not entirely clear to me.

Although even with this, you'd have to get around the restriction that

Distance is not a factor, but the locale must be known—a place familiar to the caster or an obvious one.

hamishspence
2009-03-21, 10:17 AM
True. Champions of Ruin slaying spells seem to be based on HD- Kill X HD of creatures with no save. Oddly, they do get spell resistance- how is that solved?

SinsI
2009-03-21, 10:18 AM
The spell you made is not a Familicide - it is a BlackDragonicide.

You guys are designing something that is not powerful enough to kill some of its intendent targets and is overkill for most of others.

I'd have designed this kind of spell like this:
raise the spirit of the [target], give it some vampire-like or wight-like powers that make its stronger the more enemies it kills, give it a power to teleport and detect its kin and send it to kill off its family.
Voila! A very low-level, almost non-epic spell that easily does everything described in the comc.

Lamech
2009-03-21, 10:28 AM
I would make the slaying into an area and add a transport seed. And then some ad hoc for teleporting negative energy. And some more for transporting something that wasn't you, (see nailed to the sky). And possibly some more ad hoc for having several exit points. As an added benifit You can designate the end points as "the X closest members of this person's family". You might want to throw in a create seed too...

P.S. Another way this mass kill could have been accomplished was saying "I wish the ABD's 104 closest relatives would be immediatly transported into the sun." three times, while casting wish; using the transport travellers function.

Estrosiath
2009-03-21, 11:08 AM
It just can't be done.

Or more precisely... It CAN be done, but you won't like the DC. No caster would be able to reach the DC without making this a ritual.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-03-21, 12:47 PM
As a high-level adventurer, the former would be infinitely preferable.

Why? If you need a wight for whatever reason, you can just kill anyone with negative levels, if you want more XP, I doubt even hundreds of wights would give you much of if, you'd be better of casting the epic spell again on another target. Only on the unlikely scenario that you need hundreds of wights, not necessarily near each other, would that outcome be beneficial.

wowy319
2009-03-21, 01:46 PM
I can see this working, especially since V was likely at an effective character level of almost 100, what with 3 epic-level casters spliced into him. In order to be able to cast it, the necro would have to be about 30+, and doubtlessly the others were at that level range. So yeah, I can see this working easily, even though epic spells confuse me to this day.

aarondirebear
2009-03-21, 02:06 PM
Because regardless of your intentions, you are killing people that are simply associated with your enemy. They aren't your enemy. They haven't done anything to you(regardless of what they have actually done).


**runs away from the flames**

So you support rapists and demons?
You WOULDNT kill them if you had the power?
Really who CARES if they didn't hurt YOU they hurt SOMEONE SOMEWHERE.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-03-21, 02:46 PM
Let's adress the rules issues here;

Range/Targets;
When making an epic spell, the most important seed determines range, targets and so on. In this case, the slaying isn't the most important aspect of the spell; finding and linking every member of the target's family is. Therefore, the Contact seed (used to link creatures the target is familiar with) determines range and targets. Therefore, range for the entire spell is unlimited and targeting depends on the Contact seed, not the Slay seed so we use that seed's specifications.

Sending spells through the link;
Here we aren't trying to send another spell through the link; we're combining the effects of the Contact seed, the Dispel seed and the Slay seed in a single spell. So, we don't need to use the Reveal seed to send spells through.

Theory behind the spell;
Essentially, we're using the Contact seed for its ability to link familiar subjects (and for the purposes of the plot and this spell, a blood relation would be familiar), its ability to easily get a large number of targets and its unlimited range and then we pile up the other effects.
We could have used the Destroy seed (huge range) but then we wouldn't be able to find familiar targets because we know nothing about them and we'd have problems adding a huge number of targets.
We could have used the Energy (weather) seed for its huge area of effect and with a reasonable +2000 DC we could have covered the entire world but then we would have problems in making the spell selective; as an Area spell, the spell would kill everything in the world.
The only way the spell can function (at least without ridiculous DC for the required effect-other ways can acheive the effect via 4000-5000 DC) is through the Contact/Slay combination.

Wights;
Only humanoids become wights. So, unless you use the spell against humanoids, you have no wight problem. And even if you do, they're just wights; CR 3 vs epic caster is not a problem.

Possible targets;
The Contact seed, which we use for targeting, forges contact between familiar creatures. In this case, we take that literally as creatures of the same family (blood). It would not affect spouses, friends, allies or otherwise known but not related but blood targets. And that is V's greatest problem; yes, he killed off the dragon's family. He didn't kill off their friends and allies and thus his enemies in the world are now vast in number.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-03-21, 03:03 PM
Only humanoids become wights. So, unless you use the spell against humanoids, you have no wight problem. And even if you do, they're just wights; CR 3 vs epic caster is not a problem.

emphasis mine.

Can I have either an SRD or a PHB/DMG refrence to back up that statement?

Starbuck_II
2009-03-21, 03:09 PM
emphasis mine.

Can I have either an SRD or a PHB/DMG refrence to back up that statement?

I think because under Wights it says:
Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds. Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death. They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.

And under negative levels: Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.


So only humanoids are wights this implies.

However, we have no knowledge that the wights will not be advanced wights: so maybe 8 HD.

GoC
2009-03-21, 04:30 PM
Range/Targets;
When making an epic spell, the most important seed determines range, targets and so on. In this case, the slaying isn't the most important aspect of the spell; finding and linking every member of the target's family is. Therefore, the Contact seed (used to link creatures the target is familiar with) determines range and targets. Therefore, range for the entire spell is unlimited and targeting depends on the Contact seed, not the Slay seed so we use that seed's specifications.

The contact seed does not have a listed range so you can't use it to define range.

Also:
The bond can be established only among willing subjects, which therefore receive no saving throw or spell resistance

No amount of ad hoc can change that. Might as well through out the epic rules and decide to modify the energy seed with +20 ad hoc (infinite range) +10 ad hoc (affect only creatures of your choosing) +20 ad hoc (makes damage infinite).:smallannoyed:

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-03-21, 07:07 PM
@GoC;

Official precedent. Soul Dominion uses the Contact seed to contact an unwilling creature. Soul scry does the same. Soul Dominion even allows for the control of the target (via the addition of the compel seed) even though the contact seed specifically prohibits any influence through such bonds. And those spells do not include an Ad Hoc factor for that change-merely add the effect of the additional seeds which do allow unwilling targets and assume that the entire effect allows for unwilling targets.

Contact does have a range entry of "see text". Precedent again; Soul Dominion uses the range entry of the Contact and Reveal seeds (which is "see text" and by the text inferred as unlimited) instead of the Compel Seed's range which is 75 feet.

Voyager_I
2009-03-21, 09:09 PM
You forget the D&D good and evil undertones.

The act of killing an evil creature is not, in and of itself, evil.

When killing one for selfless reasons (ridding the world of evil, etc), then it is a good act.

When killing one for selfish reasons (hoards, etx), then it is a neutral act.

I was under the impression that the whole "Having an evil alignment is a capital offense" theory had been very thoroughly debunked on this forum, at least when considering a campaign world with deeper morality than a Saturday morning cartoon.


The only issues I can see with Belial's spell is that V did not appear to take any backlash damage and 60d6 would be enough to kill her outright. It also appears to have a one-action casting time in the comic, but the event takes place out of combat where actions aren't so important and there would be no literary reason to point out a 10-minute casting time, so I won't contest that until we see V tossing one around in battle like a Disintegrate.

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-21, 10:41 PM
A lawful evil villain .... condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. - ye olde PHB

"Punishing someone for things that similar or related individuals are responsible for" is, like, a whole category of Lawful Evil behavior. It's quintessentially LE, like how beating random people up for fun is quintessentially CE. Doing it on a really large scale hardly seems inherently any more Chaotic or less Lawful. You could say that it's less precise, but you could also say that it's more consistent... at least in some cases, and that's certainly true here. "NO MERCY, NO EXCEPTIONS!"

"Kill the entire clan of the guy who killed your brother" is some seriously old school (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html) stuff, basically from back when people had figured out that cooperation amongst your group is essential for survival in a harsh, unforgiving world, but before they finally understood and decided to prevent the consequences of recursive disproportionate vengeance. This is the stuff that "an eye for an eye" was a big frelling step up from. I'm no prehistorian, but I'd guess that it predates actual formal government.

Remember: Honor, tradition, obedience, authority. These things are the essence of Law. Primitive doesn't imply Chaotic; if anything, an advanced, prosperous society is needed before individualism can truly flourish. Granted, some things, like orcs and barbarians, seem to have been written up by people who didn't understand this. (Orcs were LE is 2E, I think. Not completely sure.) No matter; the description of the alignment system is the primary text on alignment.


The spell was brutally indiscriminate.
Um, no? "Brutal" seems quite accurate, but the spell quite plainly discriminated based on bloodline.


Selfishness is defined as Evil, if we're speaking of the 3.5 alignment system.
Nope! Evil is all about harming others, not about benefiting oneself. As I have remarked before, were the latter the case, perfectly ordinary behavior like eating breakfast would be Evil. :smallwink:


V had no compassion for them.
We don't know that. We only know that Vaarsuvius's concern for V's family's welfare overrode any regard for the dragons' lives. "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." :smallsmile:


So you support rapists and demons?
You WOULDNT kill them if you had the power?
Um, dude. It's possible to neither support someone nor want to kill him. In fact, I would say that most sane people know people that they neither support nor would like to kill.


Really who CARES if they didn't hurt YOU they hurt SOMEONE SOMEWHERE.
How many people do you suppose have never hurt anyone in any way?

You sound a bit like perhaps you're viewing things in terms of some blatantly false dichotomies. Black and white don't exclude exclude all else, they exist as the extremes of a big ol' spectrum of gray.


Personally, I'm not convinced that Vaarsuvius killing all of those dragons was Evil. V united most of them in the afterlife where they'll be less of a nuisance to others. What's so bad about that? Yeah, I'm sure there'll be some inconvenience, but you have to weigh that against the inconvenience prevented, right? (How would killing be justified by anything but its benefits?)

Xesirin
2009-03-21, 11:20 PM
I dunno, if someone threatened someone I love, I'd be wanting to make them suffer. Badly. I'm standing by the theory that V was acting MOSTLY to save his family, and as far as I know, actions devoted specifically to your family, without consideration of morality, strikes as neutral, big-time.

We see a genocide (an undeniably evil act) on many many black dragons (evil creatures, therefore making that component a good act) enforced in the name of family. (always a neutral bearing)

So my analysis: Not an evil act. Neutral, easily, and many would question it, but declaring it evil is stretching the given bounds of morality.

Voyager_I
2009-03-21, 11:28 PM
We see a genocide (an undeniably evil act) on many many black dragons (evil creatures, therefore making that component a good act) enforced in the name of family. (always a neutral bearing)

So my analysis: Not an evil act. Neutral, easily, and many would question it, but declaring it evil is stretching the given bounds of morality.

Killing for personal benefit is evil, regardless of the alignment of your victims.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-03-21, 11:41 PM
Personally, I'm not convinced that Vaarsuvius killing all of those dragons was Evil. V united most of them in the afterlife where they'll be less of a nuisance to others. What's so bad about that? Yeah, I'm sure there'll be some inconvenience, but you have to weigh that against the inconvenience prevented, right? (How would killing be justified by anything but its benefits?)
Does the existance of an afterlife justify murder (perhaps the nature of the afterlife is relevant too, but one thing at a time)? And if we accept the existence of an afterlife, why should we not also accept "divine mandate" moral codes which hold that certain actions (such as murder) are evil because they just are?

I'm reasonably certain that casting Familicide constitutes an evil act. Even if it's justified or necessary or ultimately accomplishes a greater good, the means are evil. Of course, V just committed that one evil act, so his/her alignment remains (as I believe it) at True Neutral (pending further action under the Soul Splice and afterwards, of course).

Talic
2009-03-22, 12:13 AM
Selfishness is defined as Evil, if we're speaking of the 3.5 alignment system. It's not Neutral. My source for this was BoED. It states that killing evil creatures is not an evil act. Even if done for selfish reasons, it is, at worst, neutral.

Your source is rationalization, based on NON-RAW moral opinions.


If I were the kobold, I'd be more inclined to think whoever did it was Evil. Besides, we're speaking of a spell specially made by a Dread Necromancer, and so probably powered by negative energy. Pretty good odds that this specific spell is Evil. The beauty of DnD alignment is that it's completely seperate from the opinions of that kobold (who, incidentally, wouldn't exactly be an authority on the subject, most likely). It is absolute. And the perceptions of the kobold do not weigh on the truth of the matter.

As for odds, there's no need to gamble. Look at similar spells. Assuming the spell functions similar to the OP's post (seems reasonable, few other effects could reliably kill over 60 dragons), then the closest parallel is Enervation. Is that evil? No. Then by the closest parallel, neither would this be. It would be the use that determines good and evil. In this case, it's killing a host of evil dragons. Per above, that makes it non-evil, at least for those dragons that are <always evil>.


So it was fine to kill the unborn eggs and baby dragon, despite the fact that there was still a chance of them overcoming that "inherent" Evil? This is still ignoring all the black dragons that just wouldn't care (the Ancient Black Dragon was happy with her husband and son, so all the dragons likely to actually hunt V's family were out of the question) at all about their distant family, that were murdered anyway. Despite that all falling quite nicely under a complete lack of compassion, which is Evil, you're arguing that it wasn't? Have to disagree. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion.

Fact, however, states this:
Q> Is it a black dragon?
IF Yes> It is evil.

Q> Will it hatch into a black dragon?
IF Yes> It will hatch into an evil creature.

Since Alignment in D&D is absolute, your opinion is irrelevant, in the face of fact. It is not a chance they will be inherently evil. It is a certainty. That is what it means. Inherent. Water in its liquid state is inherently wet. You will never find it to be anything other than wet. Objects with great mass have an inherent gravitational pull. It always is. It is a defining part of what it is. Just as <evil> is a defining characteristic of a black dragon.



So if someone had the means and went out hunting a particular race out of raw hatred (specism, technically, I guess)...which would again fall under the Evil alignment...that reason wouldn't matter? :smallconfused:Raw hatred? Race? No, this was V's specific issue against a family. That all family members do belong to the same race is true, but not a part of the issue. This is not specism. This is finding a way to ensure a previous atrocity brought on by an evil creature doesn't occur again, when he is unable to deal with it. The end may be merciless, but that is not always evil.

Again, the dragons that were likely to care were already dead. V learned that before casting the spell. It still didn't sway hir actions. Likely. Check. Guaranteed? No. And also, based on the word of an admitted, and untrusted enemy. Hardly a 'reliable source'. His words were that he was "ensuring" that it didn't happen again. He wanted the guarantee. "Probably" wasn't enough when it came to protecting his family.



V had no compassion for them. Casting one spell is very convenient. The act was completely Evil. :smalleek:
And this is where all your above incorrect assumption and opinion morphs into an erroneous statement of fact.

GenocideAlive
2009-03-22, 12:58 AM
We see a genocide (an undeniably evil act) on many many black dragons (evil creatures, therefore making that component a good act) enforced in the name of family. (always a neutral bearing)

So my analysis: Not an evil act. Neutral, easily, and many would question it, but declaring it evil is stretching the given bounds of morality.
Correction: "We saw", not "we see". It matters, because you are looking at the ends, and not the means.

The dragon was dead, the threat to V's family was ostensibly ended. The claim that "other dragons of the bloodline could be a threat" is a very flimsy justification by Varsuvius. The unborn dragons in the eggs, whelplings, etc. are innocent of any wrongdoing or malintent regarding Varsuvius, and are largely harmless. That they are evil is completely irrelevant, as someone pointed out earlier, "being Evil is not a capital offense". Evil people can be redeemed, and can be helpful or beneficial to an overall good (Belkar).

Slaughtering sentient beings for the remote potential of threat is unquestionably evil, as was this spell. Getting into a battle with a father is no excuse to turn around and butcher his innocent kids with the caveat that they might come kill you someday. There is no end to murdering for the "potential of threat", and murdering for any reason short of defending someone from an active threat is Evil. Otherwise, we as a society should simply abandon prisons altogether and start gassing criminals instead.

Talic
2009-03-22, 01:18 AM
The dragon was dead, the threat to V's family was ostensibly ended. The claim that "other dragons of the bloodline could be a threat" is a very flimsy justification by Varsuvius. The unborn dragons in the eggs, whelplings, etc. are innocent of any wrongdoing or malintent regarding Varsuvius, and are largely harmless. That they are evil is completely irrelevant, as someone pointed out earlier, "being Evil is not a capital offense". Evil people can be redeemed, and can be helpful or beneficial to an overall good (Belkar).
Being evil isn't.

Being INHERENTLY evil is.

Demons, Chromatic dragons, Devils, Vampires... Always evil. Always. Their very existence brings evil and suffering to the world.

Their very removal prevents that.

Yes, in D&D, being evil can be its own capital offense.

You're trying to argue morality in a system which declares it good for noble paladins and clerics to kick down the doors of kobolds in their homes, slaughter them, and take their possessions.

You've got an uphill battle to justify an evil act.

Also note: Redemption is not mandatory for good creatures to attempt, before condemning evil to death. Otherwise, any adventurer that was good would have to carry one heck of a set of chains... long enough to hold hundreds.

As for the "other dragons of the bloodline" being a flimsy justification, may I remind you that it was that very reason that brought this dragon to his island? Not so flimsy, after all.

GenocideAlive
2009-03-22, 02:05 AM
Being INHERENTLY evil is.

Demons, Chromatic dragons, Devils, Vampires... Always evil. Always. Their very existence brings evil and suffering to the world.
Because a creature has an alignment does not give acts against said creature an alignment.

Also note: Redemption is not mandatory for good creatures to attempt, before condemning evil to death. Otherwise, any adventurer that was good would have to carry one heck of a set of chains... long enough to hold hundreds.
Please quote me saying redemption is mandatory.

As for the "other dragons of the bloodline" being a flimsy justification, may I remind you that it was that very reason that brought this dragon to his island? Not so flimsy, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness

I highly doubt 60-some odd Black Dragons were going to descend upon Varsuvius at any time soon, especially given that he was hitting dragons ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD. According to this logic, V is now in the clear to slaughter millions of Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, Ogres, Giants because she's killed some before and they may come seeking vengeance.

It is also quite counter-productive to slaughter a dragon bloodline when you are attempting to avoid reprisals, don't you think?

Talic
2009-03-22, 02:58 AM
Because a creature has an alignment does not give acts against said creature an alignment.Actually, in D&D, it does affect it. Don't believe me? Read BoED. Ridding the world of evil creatures is, by itself, a good act. Even when done with ulterior motives, it is, at worst, neutral. That's RAW. You can disagree all you like. It won't make you right, of course. But you certainly can.


Please quote me saying redemption is mandatory.Of course you didn't say it directly. But you implied it with your redemption as a reason not to destroy evil, whether you meant to infer it or not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness

I highly doubt 60-some odd Black Dragons were going to descend upon Varsuvius at any time soon, especially given that he was hitting dragons ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD. According to this logic, V is now in the clear to slaughter millions of Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, Ogres, Giants because she's killed some before and they may come seeking vengeance.
Drawing that out to absurd proportions, eh? I also doubt that 60 would. But one did. For the exact reason that V used to defend his course of action. He prioritized.

"My Family" > "Yours".

Your family risked mine, in the name of the death of kin. I've killed you, just as I killed your kin. I don't know all the details on your family, aside that they are, to a man, evil. I don't know which would attempt to strike at my family. I may not have the time to find out. But none will. Because I will prevent it. You have shown yourselves a vindictive group. You have shown yourselves willing to attack me by striking at my family. You have shown that when I best you, it is within your family's means, ability, and moral view to strike out at me. Perhaps not all. But there is sufficient risk for me to be unwilling to chance the lives of my spouse and my children.

I have one method at my disposal to end this. It is extreme. So I will use the very door you opened, when you attempted to strike at me through my children. But rather than strike solely to hurt you, rather than bind the souls of your family to me, I will strike to ensure my family's safety, and leave you and your kin to move on to the afterlife. Because I believe that the risk you provide to my family is too great.

It is also quite counter-productive to slaughter a dragon bloodline when you are attempting to avoid reprisals, don't you think?
When you are attempting to avoid reprisals to your family? Not at all. Any dragons that come? Will come for V. Not for spouse or kid. For V. They will, if halfway smart, research as the black dragon did. They will see how the black dragon had the chance, and let him go. And they won't mess around.

V may well die. But his family? It could be argued that they are safer now. And if V believes that? Well, then he killed evil creatures in the defense of others, using evil means (infernally granted power), I'd say that's not too awfully bad. He's on a slippery slope, but I don't think this specific act can be used to showcase his bad-baddyness.

Lamech
2009-03-22, 08:26 AM
Your family risked mine, in the name of the death of kin. I've killed you, just as I killed your kin. I don't know all the details on your family, aside that they are, to a man, evil. I don't know which would attempt to strike at my family. I may not have the time to find out. But none will. Because I will prevent it. You have shown yourselves a vindictive group. You have shown yourselves willing to attack me by striking at my family. You have shown that when I best you, it is within your family's means, ability, and moral view to strike out at me. Perhaps not all. But there is sufficient risk for me to be unwilling to chance the lives of my spouse and my children.
Err... V had no guarantees that the the whole family was CE. First off under the always entry in the MM it says that individuals CAN change alignment, albeit rarely; this is supported (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) in the OOTS world too. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, those half-dragons, may* not be always CE; and if they have had children those would not have to be CE either. V couldn't know that the ABD's whole family was 100% evil. V used a spell that could have killed innocents for no reason than having some black dragon blood, that makes V's action evil.

*Wizards has conflicting info on the subject, the example half-dragon has "often", but the template has "same as dragon"

Irreverent Fool
2009-03-22, 10:42 AM
For the purposes of the plot, it's assumed that you can and that he isn't. But, does this work only on blood relation, or contract as well? Adopted children? Spouses?

I think the idea is to get them to get married and have a child and then use the spell on the child to kill everyone in both parent's families.

obnoxious
sig

monty
2009-03-22, 11:53 AM
Demons, Chromatic dragons, Devils, Vampires... Always evil. Always. Their very existence brings evil and suffering to the world.

"Always evil" has exceptions. Dragons can be redeemed. Hell, there's even a succubus paladin.


You're trying to argue morality in a system which declares it good for noble paladins and clerics to kick down the doors of kobolds in their homes, slaughter them, and take their possessions.

Show me where it says that's a good act. I can say for myself at least that neither I nor any person I know has ever played a "Good" character like that.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 12:56 PM
Ah, but Murder (by BoED, BoVD, and Fiendish Codex 2) is an Evil act.

Which means, if the killing fits within definition of murder (not self-defence, not acting to prevent crime that is in the process of being commited, not legal execution- not fighting enemy soldiers in wartime) then its Evil.

mostlyharmful
2009-03-22, 12:56 PM
Whether it's Evil or not seems trivial to me compared with how boneheadly stupid it was. at least 69 newly dead dragons. All of them having family members unrelated to the reanimated dragon after Vs family and so untouched, everyone of them has family that now have a brand shiney new reason to hunt down the perpetrator and shishkebab him and his. Now, the only instance of balck fragon culture we've had is a propensity to go after anyone who murders their family members with viciousness and relentlessness so probably not a good move from a straight tactical sense as well as really really over the top.

The dragon was after Vs family and it knew exactly who they were, where they were, who they knew and whether their deaths would T anyone off before it made it's move.

Now, right at the minute this probably isn't a big problem for V and his thinking may be very very short term right now but in a few days or weeks the likelyhood is that there's going to be a lot of angry dragons decending on this little elf wizard, all of them with the foresight to go buffed and informed on what they're facing.

Nerdanel
2009-03-22, 01:23 PM
I think the proper version of Familicide would be a chain reaction of some sort, feeding on HD or spell slots. Thus if Familicide was cast on a human commoner it would run out of juice pretty fast and kill only a few or even no targets, but cast on an Ancient Black Dragon related to a whole bunch of other powerful black dragons it could genocide the entire black dragon race while half-dragons would have only a limited effect on the species of their non-dragon parents since that species would be unlikely to be very powerful.

If Junior had married that nice green dragon girl, Familicide might have wiped out the green dragons too, but cross-color breeding appears to be rare among dragons. And while Tiamat is the mother of all chromatic dragons, I don't think Familicide is powerful enough to kill her, even if it can force multiple saving throws if the first one fails (some of the dragons were hit more than once by the pink lightning), thus stopping the chain reaction to that direction.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 01:26 PM
I didn't see more than one bolt. It went in and out of the dragon often at weird angles, but was same bolt (often, 1 bolt for 2 dragons). Maybe in the mini pictures at the bottom?

aarondirebear
2009-03-22, 02:43 PM
"Always evil" has exceptions. Dragons can be redeemed. Hell, there's even a succubus paladin.


Yeah by means of powerful magic or cursed helmets..
And where was this supposed succubus paladin published?
Sounds more like soemone disregarding alignment in order to:

a) Be a munchkin by using the insane charisma bonus of the Succubus along with her other awesome abilities.

or

b) To create Fetish Fuel by making what is essentially a "gold-plated -plate-bikini wearing demon of illicit sex who happens to be a good guy".

The "charisma power" could have easily been duplicated with a nymph, but no, they had to go and ignore the fact that succubi are evil.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 02:48 PM
WOTC main site. Also, Planescape Torment game- Fall From Grace, mentioned in later sources- Dragon magazine, suggesting she's D&D canon.

There are several Evil Celestials- in Dungeon Magazine (at least 1 in a published WOTC book- Elder Evils) "Always Good" The missing link between Devil and Celestial- Evil Celestial.

If "always good" + Good subtype gets broken, regularly, it makes just as much sense for Always Evil rule to be broken as well.

monty
2009-03-22, 02:52 PM
Yeah by means of powerful magic or cursed helmets..

Or by simple redemption. The "Always" alignment specifically says there can be exceptions, just that such exceptions are rare, so there's not actually anything stopping an Always Evil creature from being neutral or even good.


And where was this supposed succubus paladin published?

On the WotC site (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), so go ahead and yell at them for disregarding their own rules.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 02:57 PM
while the ways in BoED don't work on Evil descriptor outsiders (Diplomacy, Sanctify the Wcked) there are others- wish, rituals from Savage Species, helms, etc.

Interestingly, in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, the Cambion is an Extraplanar Outsider wirth Evil descriptor, Often CE alignment, described as "usually evil" and also as "10% are Neutral or Good"

So Evil Descriptor may not mean that much.

Nerdanel
2009-03-22, 03:26 PM
I think when the target makes its saving throw, the pink lightning loops back and forces another save before continuing to the next target. Some of the dragons are hit three times by the same bolt. The most obvious cases of angling back are with the dragon reading the book and the partially submerged dragon.

Think of that aspect of the spell as something that works a bit like Chain Lightning, except with the restriction of hitting the same target twice removed.

I think some pseudocode might make things clearer:


FAMILICIDE:

while (target is still alive)
{
try to kill target
(decrease spell energy)
}
drain energy from target
(increase spell energy depending on target's power)
for (a number of targets depending on current spell energy)
{
automatically scry for target's closest living relatives
}
for (each living close relative)
{
do FAMILICIDE with relative as target and 1/new targets spell energy
}


Something like that.

The spell ends when all of its branches have run out of energy by wasting themselves on weak targets and/or wasted themselves by forcing saves on targets that can pass them consistently (like gods) or that just are consistently lucky.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 03:32 PM
I thought that was the bolt just bending a bit randomly- but it could be interpreted as extra hits rather than 1 hit.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-22, 05:03 PM
Um, no? "Brutal" seems quite accurate, but the spell quite plainly discriminated based on bloodline.

*narrows eyes*

Well, well, well, if it isn't Mister Devil's Advocate - I remember you. We argued a few months ago I think. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, my argument:

Um, yes. I know it only hunts those connected through the bloodline; I specifically said that in the same post you're quoting. That should imply I'm well aware of that, so try to understand what I mean by "indiscriminate". I meant it went after everyone.

The spell (and the caster) didn't care to kill only those that might have truely strong feelings about the issue, and so it didn't avoid murdering children and the unborn. It was indiscriminate in that it just didn't care who in the family would actually be hurt. And hey, it's magic, so don't tell me that V couldn't have tried to tweak and fine tune it (triple gestalt must have had a chance if a single piece of that splice came up with it). Falling back on the harsher option if it seemed impossible would have been more reasonable for a Neutral.


Nope! Evil is all about harming others, not about benefiting oneself. As I have remarked before, were the latter the case, perfectly ordinary behavior like eating breakfast would be Evil. :smallwink:

I'd actually like your opinion on this, seeing that I've always disagreed: if altruism is Good, how can it be *not* be Evil to do the exact opposite?

Btw, you're just being silly now. Animals are neutral, and they eat to survive just fine. I think we sentient races could get away with cereal, close moral call that it is. :smalltongue:


We don't know that. We only know that Vaarsuvius's concern for V's family's welfare overrode any regard for the dragons' lives. "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." :smallsmile:

The problem is, we do know V didn't have any compassion for them. V said he wanted the Ancient Black Dragon to suffer...and made good on the fact. If his family were the first concern, he wouldn't have waltzed past them (ignoring their wounds) to "resurrect" the dead dragon. It was his first priority to make her suffer. And the disproportionate amount of murder can't possibly be considered Neutral. V has become Evil.






My source for this was BoED. It states that killing evil creatures is not an evil act. Even if done for selfish reasons, it is, at worst, neutral.

Explain it to me: how can it be Good to be altruistic, yet somehow it lands squarely Neutral (in your opinion) to do the exact opposite (being selfish, as V is)? It doesn't make any sense for selfishness to be Neutral.



The beauty of DnD alignment is that it's completely seperate from the opinions of that kobold (who, incidentally, wouldn't exactly be an authority on the subject, most likely). It is absolute. And the perceptions of the kobold do not weigh on the truth of the matter.

Then why did you bring up the kobold at all?


As for odds, there's no need to gamble. Look at similar spells. Assuming the spell functions similar to the OP's post (seems reasonable, few other effects could reliably kill over 60 dragons), then the closest parallel is Enervation. Is that evil? No. Then by the closest parallel, neither would this be. It would be the use that determines good and evil. In this case, it's killing a host of evil dragons. Per above, that makes it non-evil, at least for those dragons that are <always evil>.

Fair point. On a slight side note, in my limited scope on spells, I think it would be better to call it akin to Finger of Death just because of the death effect. Anyway, about the argument:

Let's look at it with another way. A sword, much like the spell, is not undeniably Evil by itself (most of them, anyway). But if you butcher children and stab mothers through the chest (which is essentially what V did when the spell killed the baby dragon and unborn eggs), you become Evil. That wasn't Neutral.


Fact, however, states this:
Q> Is it a black dragon?
IF Yes> It is evil.

Q> Will it hatch into a black dragon?
IF Yes> It will hatch into an evil creature.


Sucubus Paladin, Wizard's site, ecetra. :smalltongue:

Always Evil, as will be said a lot of times when alignment is brought up, does not mean Always. So that's not any kind of justification for world wide murder. It was Evil and a flimsy justification doesn't make it Neutral.


Raw hatred? Race? No, this was V's specific issue against a family. That all family members do belong to the same race is true, but not a part of the issue. This is not specism. This is finding a way to ensure a previous atrocity brought on by an evil creature doesn't occur again, when he is unable to deal with it. The end may be merciless, but that is not always evil.

Page 104 of Player's Handbook:


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have
compunctions against killing the innocent

This was not a Neutral act. V did not have a compunction against murdering those that couldn't possibly care about the issue. That was not Neutral. It certainly wasn't Good. And it wasn't proportionate. V just murdered complete strangers for a flimsy reason; which is Evil.


Likely. Check. Guaranteed? No. And also, based on the word of an admitted, and untrusted enemy. Hardly a 'reliable source'. His words were that he was "ensuring" that it didn't happen again. He wanted the guarantee. "Probably" wasn't enough when it came to protecting his family.

Notice the ABD (I'm going to use this acronym from now on, too lazy to type "Ancient Black Dragon" all the time) was surprised. She isn't exactly going to be sharp every second of the day, not the least of which when she's pulled from the afterlife. So saying she's an untrustworthy enemy (which she is) doesn't dent how reliable she is in this instance. Hence a reliable source.

Anyway, your point that V thought hirself justified is moot. Just because V wanted the promise of his family being safe (which is really understandable), still doesn't make it Neutral. V still murdered an disproportionate amount of the ABD's family. Not even close to neutrality. Besides, you're also overlooking that V wanted to make the dragon suffer. So there was Evil as a motivation as well.


And this is where all your above incorrect assumption and opinion morphs into an erroneous statement of fact.

"No u."? Didn't know what to say here, so may as well go with a bland meme. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 05:23 PM
BoVD, not BoED- "Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not an evil act, though its not a good act. Such a justification only works for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"

However, since then "iredeemable" became a bit of a misnomer.

Selfish motive makes normally Good acts "at best neutral" according to BoED.


However, Altruism is not "always good" - exception would be when the altruistic motive is for an evil act, like murder (FC2- Evil). You have a gun are in boat with 10 others, only enough food for 8 people to reach land (assuming that at least 2 of the people are killed on eaten. You announce that two people must die for rest to survive, shoot one, then shoot yourself.

Altruistic, but still murder.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-22, 05:39 PM
BoVD, not BoED- "Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not an evil act, though its not a good act.

Again, V didn't murder for personal gain; he did it to make the Black Dragon suffer. It was his main (Evil) motivation. Your quote doesn't disprove anything.


Such a justification only works for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"

However, since then "iredeemable" became a bit of a misnomer.

Selfish motive makes normally Good acts "at best neutral" according to BoED.

Isn't it a shame, then, that the act itself wasn't Good to begin with? When you consider V's secondary priority was his family, which was a Neutral motivation. So if, "at best" a Good act would become Neutral, it makes equal sense that a Neutral act would shift toward Evil. Thus V is Evil.


However, Altruism is not "always good" - exception would be when the altruistic motive is for an evil act, like murder (FC2- Evil).

Oh come on, hamish, we both have a bad tendency to be lured into alignment threads. By now, we both know nothing is a constant (or "Always") anymore for DnD 3.5. We've both brought up the Sucubus Paladin before.

Anyway, just because altruism isn't always Good sure doesn't dent the idea that selfishness is usually Evil. It's a sorta interesting point you're making, but still a moot one. *shrug*

GoC
2009-03-22, 05:50 PM
@GoC;
*snip*

Well... Uh... I... Umm...
EPIC RULES ARE STUPID!!!!!:smallmad::smallmad::smallmad: :P

btw: Why is murder in D&D such an evil act? Surely it's the same thing as theft given that we have the true ressurection spell.

And isn't the afterlife a much better place to be? Killing people almost seems a *good* act when you look at it like that...

lsfreak
2009-03-22, 05:59 PM
btw: Why is murder in D&D such an evil act? Surely it's the same thing as theft given that we have the true ressurection spell.
Theft is evil too, though. You're depriving another person their right to their gained property (or their right to choose to live). Plus, it's not like a commoner earning 1 silver piece a week has a 25000gp diamond just laying around.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 06:02 PM
I'm inclinded to the view that what V was doing was murder, but BoVD, at least, doesn't support it very well.

On selfishness being Evil, I prefer to see both selfishness and altruism as shifting factors, and altruism as a weaker one.

(it won't turn Evil act to Neutral act, but selfishness will turn Good act to Neutral act)

EDIT: Main reason I raised it was- even if we had proof V was killing them all purely for altruistic reasons- still Evil.

(though selfish motivation is more Neutral than evil in most circumstances- most acts are Neutral and selfish motivation shouldn't make them Evil)

In my view, V's act wasn't evil just because it was selfish, but because it lacked "just cause" which is a requirement for non-evil violence, going by BoED.

And it lacked just cause, because V didn't know anything about the various family members- some could be strongly evil, some mildly evil, some even Neutral- didn't matter to V and the spell- it killed them all.

Just cause means you know what the crimes you're trying to prevent actually are, and you know of the crimes committed in the past. Executing a murderer- to prevent future murders, and as appropiate penalty for past murder, after proof of it.

V's killing of Kubota didn't fit "Just Cause" in my view, either.

GoC
2009-03-22, 06:17 PM
Theft is evil too, though. You're depriving another person their right to their gained property (or their right to choose to live). Plus, it's not like a commoner earning 1 silver piece a week has a 25000gp diamond just laying around.
That's why I'm saying it's like the theft of 25000gp. Plus "kidnapping" that basically involves a stay in heaven. I wouldn't mind a short break to the celestial plains for some time in the inn of infinite one night stands!:smallbiggrin:

In fact, why doesn't everyone just try and commit mass suicide?:smallconfused:

JoshuaZ
2009-03-22, 06:21 PM
Theft is evil too, though.

I'm pretty sure there's official material that labels theft chaotic rather than evil.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-22, 06:23 PM
I'm inclinded to the view that what V was doing was murder, but BoVD, at least, doesn't support it very well.

On selfishness being Evil, I prefer to see both selfishness and altruism as shifting factors, and altruism as a weaker one.

(it won't turn Evil act to Neutral act, but selfishness will turn Good act to Neutral act)

I don't see how they're shifting factors (I don't completely understand what you mean here) when it's mentioned altruism is an embodiment of Good. I'm also inclined to disagree, because it doesn't make much sense from how I see it. You can't have a factor (selfishness, in this case) that depletes a morally Good act into a Neutal one, yet just arbitrarily dismiss it when it's the opposite of a extreme that would make an act Good (altruism).

It seems like cherry picking. While fun, it leaves the rest of us with the sour stuff. Which is selfish...and so clearly Evil. :smalltongue:



EDIT: Main reason I raised it was- even if we had proof V was killing them all purely for altruistic reasons- still Evil.

Wait a second, that post before seemed like you disagreed with me...but this one says otherwise. Well, as long as we agree V is Evil (I've repeated this so many times, it may as well be a mantra)...goody. :smallsmile:


V's killing of Kubota didn't fit "Just Cause" in my view, either.

Please, hamish, don't bring that one up. I can only deal with one alignment-related headach at a time. :smallyuk:

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 06:36 PM
was quoting it (as the main source for people's "Evil = can always kill it" claims) and then, pointing out that rules have subsequently tended to supersede it.

There is a set of "always evil" acts (Fiendish Codex 2) but not a set of "always good" acts- so, all good acts can be corrupted to Neutral (BoED), but no Evil acts can be upgraded to neutral.

Hence my "selfishness has more influence than altruism" - its easier to be Evil than Good.

I don't, however, go so far as to say selfishness makes all acts Evil- the self-centred person that does not try to cause harm, is Neutral, not Evil, in my view.

and yes- we agree V's act was Evil, even if possibily for different reasons. Mine is "it was killing without just cause."

GoC
2009-03-22, 07:07 PM
There is a set of "always evil" acts (Fiendish Codex 2) but not a set of "always good" acts- so, all good acts can be corrupted to Neutral (BoED), but no Evil acts can be upgraded to neutral.

You know...
Thanks to True Ressurection and those memory alteration spells I don't think there really are any always evil acts. Anything can be undone given enough effort.

So D&D spells render morality obsolete in the same way that time travel renders morality obsolete, namely:No permanent consequences.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-22, 07:11 PM
was quoting it (as the main source for people's "Evil = can always kill it" claims) and then, pointing out that rules have subsequently tended to supersede it.

There is a set of "always evil" acts (Fiendish Codex 2) but not a set of "always good" acts- so, all good acts can be corrupted to Neutral (BoED), but no Evil acts can be upgraded to neutral.

Like I said earlier, I'm really not inclined to believe anything that says "Always" for DnD 3.5...

Anyway, I wasn't arguing that an Evil act can be upgraded into a Neutral one. I was arguing the exact opposite that selfishness turned a supposedly Neutral act into an Evil one. So I don't see anything here I'm arguing with.


Hence my "selfishness has more influence than altruism" - its easier to be Evil than Good.

So...we *also* agree that selfishness is more attuned to Evil than Good, instead of more likely being Neutral? If that's the case, you'd be the first person in this topic to say it isn't Neutral, besides myself. Times like this I wonder why you throw your quotes at me; we're arguing the same point.


I don't, however, go so far as to say selfishness makes all acts Evil- the self-centred person that does not try to cause harm, is Neutral, not Evil, in my view.

and yes- we agree V's act was Evil, even if possibily for different reasons. Mine is "it was killing without just cause."

I've never said or implied that selfishness makes all acts Evil, much the same way I've never said that killing can never be something a Good person does.

Anyway, to be clear, I've called V Evil for several reasons. The first being because of his lack of compassion (so many murdered), the second due to being outright sadistic (he wanted that ABD in particular to suffer), and thirdly, out of selfish pride (which Talic and Devil's Advocate disagree with me on; they claim it's Neutral, unless I'm misdunderstanding). So our reasons are roughly along the same lines, hamish. Either way, unless someone else stirs the topic again, I'll let the people trying to focus on building the spell...actually build the spell. I think we derailed it a bit. :smalleek:

Undead Prince
2009-03-22, 07:19 PM
I see you guys have been derailed by the dreaded alignment debate. The Familicide discussion continues here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107488); a solution (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5913561&postcount=1) was hammered out, independently of your discussion I might add, although when all is said and done, Belial the Leveler (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5903457&postcount=1) was certainly the first to come up with the Contact + Slay idea (too bad the discussion was so fragmented among several threads and two forums).

The Minx
2009-03-22, 07:22 PM
Then it's the Death Note spell.

No, the Death Note spell kills the person whose real name you write down and whose face you know.

Light/Kira merely used it against criminals, he could have used it against any one else (and sometimes did). Or rather, he used it en masse against people who were simply accused of being criminals on public television.

GenocideAlive
2009-03-22, 10:06 PM
Actually, in D&D, it does affect it. Don't believe me? Read BoED. Ridding the world of evil creatures is, by itself, a good act. Even when done with ulterior motives, it is, at worst, neutral. That's RAW. You can disagree all you like. It won't make you right, of course. But you certainly can.
I'm sorry, you're patently lying. According to you and your claim, a large-scale melee involving all Evil characters fighting over the right to rape a child will forcibly end with one of them having committed "Good, at worse Neutral" acts by killing other Evil men for the right to rape an innocent. This is not remotely neutral. You can stop giving me permission to disagree with your conundrums, I don't need it; especially since Rich obviously is not slavish to rulebooks. According to the rulebooks, Black Dragons are poor parents that care little about their offspring other than that they are located within the sire's lair.

Of course you didn't say it directly. But you implied it with your redemption as a reason not to destroy evil, whether you meant to infer it or not.
I cannot infer from my own writing. I know what I meant, so I have no deductions to perform. You inferred a fallacious argument and claimed it was identical to mine so you could neatly defeat it with a nice flourish. The argument was nothing I ever said, nor implied. You can cease telling me what I mean and address my point "Evil creatures can be redeemed, thus wanton murder of their alignment is not inherently Good", or simply accede that you cannot prove otherwise.

Drawing that out to absurd proportions, eh? I also doubt that 60 would. But one did. For the exact reason that V used to defend his course of action. He prioritized.
Poking holes in my logic, eh? How absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience.

You say that you can kill anyone you feel threatens your family with vengeance while not impacting your neutral alignment; you slaughter dozens of dragons. I reply that with said justification you could then likewise slaughter anyone and anything you've ever wronged. You call me absurd. If you think the logic is absurd, then don't use it, sir!

I don't know all the details on your family, aside that they are, to a man, evil.
OOPS! Except for those half-dragons I killed that obviously don't have the same alignment constraints that you do. What's that? A half-centaur? Oh well, I'm busy being "logical" by making hasty generalizations, ZAP! Now what? They have to die because they were sired by Evil creatures? The "core rules state creatures related to Evil creatures are grounds for offage by anybody trying to do Good in the world"? Not everyone V killed was a full-blooded Black Dragon, please pay attention if you are going to have the hubris to pass out permission for others to disagree with your obviously poorly-thought-out opinion.

I don't know which would attempt to strike at my family. I may not have the time to find out. But none will. Because I will prevent it. You have ...blah blah blah...the souls of your family to me, I will strike to ensure my family's safety, and leave you and your kin to move on to the afterlife. Because I believe that the risk you provide to my family is too great.
WOW. I didn't see any of this when V slaughtered all those dragons. I saw her taunt the dragon with lies she made up to inflict emotional pain on the dragon, and agree out loud with the Gestalts suggesting escalated torture. Good thing you inferred three paragraphs of fallacious text from an evil spell! By the way, if this one dragon is so vengeful and mean when its loved ones are killed, what do you think is going to happen when you kill 60? Whoops! Murder creates a vigilante, more murders creates...none?

V may well die. But his family? It could be argued that they are safer now. And if V believes that? Well, then he killed evil creatures in the defense of others, using evil means (infernally granted power), I'd say that's not too awfully bad. He's on a slippery slope, but I don't think this specific act can be used to showcase his bad-baddyness.
As the centaur and other half-dragons show, not everyone V killed was patently Evil. As I displayed by pointing out that murder creates vigilantes and murdering more would logically only generate more vigilantes, there was no good reason to ressurect a defeated dragon to butcher its family. And as is obvious to anyone that isn't a blatant sophist, a potential threat is not equivalent to immediate danger. Thinking about robbing a bank is not a jailable offense, and V was "defending his family" like the Nazis were defending Germany from the Jews.

You cannot arbitrarily punch someone because in the future they *may* punch you or your family. There is no end to this line of "defense of 'freedom from any and all harm'" reasoning, there is never any reason to stop killing. The "threats" continue as long as there is sentient relationship-forming life on Earth. Dragons have family, that family has mates, those mates have friends, etc. Biocide is the only thing that is any guarantee, and at that point I think we could abandon the farce that this is some "Good, at worst neutral" agenda.

Talic
2009-03-23, 12:49 AM
I'm sorry, you're patently lying. According to you and your claim, a large-scale melee involving all Evil characters fighting over the right to rape a child will forcibly end with one of them having committed "Good, at worse Neutral" acts by killing other Evil men for the right to rape an innocent. This is not remotely neutral.
Let's look at the above situation.
Many evil creatures slaughter each other, each with intent and ability to commit an evil act, if they survive.

Each individual that kills one member of this group has removed from the world one individual with the means, ability, and intent to commit said evil act. Mitigating factors include self-centered and evil motivation.

End Result: Many evil creatures with means, ability, and intent to commit this evil act are rendered unable to do it. Evil has been removed from this world. End result for alignment for the killing: Neutral.

Subsequent action: Survivors commit said evil act.

End Result: An evil act is committed, with evil means and intent as its goal.

End result for alignment for the following act: Evil.

Your error is combining two seperate actions into one, and trying to judge them as a whole. Take the killing as the killing, and take the following evil act as itself.
Also note: You keep referring to it as "my claim". It is not. It is RAW. It is the claim of developers of officially published Wizards of the Coast material.


I cannot infer from my own writing. I know what I meant, so I have no deductions to perform. <snip> The argument was nothing I ever said, nor implied. You can cease telling me what I mean and address my point "Evil creatures can be redeemed, thus wanton murder of their alignment is not inherently Good", or simply accede that you cannot prove otherwise.I reversed the usage of infer and imply. The bottom line is, whether you MEANT to convey the meaning that you did... You conveyed it. However, that is an artful dodging of the entire point, to argue semantics. Whether you agree with the point or not, the ability to redeem evil was a point in your argument that evil should never be killed simply for being evil. This implies a burden or duty on the part of good to redeem evil, and this is not true. My statement was meant to address your implication, and not to assert that you stated as direct fact that it is always the duty of any good creature in existence to attempt to redeem any evil, no matter how great or small. Once again, you seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of what I have said. Perhaps it is my fault, and I am not explaining it clearly. Perhaps it is yours, for not understanding the point. I'm not sure where the fault in communication lies, but a fault does exist, and it is not improved when you purposely dodge the message in favor of arguing semantics.

As for your point? RAW disagrees with it. Thus, for all your logic, all your reasoning, all your interpretation, the rules say you're wrong. You never beat the brick wall at a game of tennis.


Poking holes in my logic, eh? How absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience.Or... it's calling a spade a spade. If you point out the ridiculous for what it is... Well, whether or not an emotional reaction is attained... It's still true. And ridiculous? It's saying that the rules are wrong. Regardless of anything else, when you play a game, the rules are the definition of correct for that. Anything which disagrees with those rules is, by definition wrong. Your above statements disagree with RAW. Therefore, they are wrong. Doesn't make you a bad person. Just a fallable one. Welcome to the human race.


You say that you can kill anyone you feel threatens your family with vengeance while not impacting your neutral alignment; you slaughter dozens of dragons. I reply that with said justification you could then likewise slaughter anyone and anything you've ever wronged. You call me absurd. If you think the logic is absurd, then don't use it, sir!
What your statement is, is a strawman. I have asserted that the killing of Evil creatures isn't evil. You've stated that my statement is identical to slaughtering anyone and everyone who has ever wronged you.

The two are not identical, and therein lies your flawed logic. Again.


OOPS! Except for those half-dragons I killed that obviously don't have the same alignment constraints that you do. What's that? A half-centaur? Oh well, I'm busy being "logical" by making hasty generalizations, ZAP! Now what? They have to die because they were sired by Evil creatures? The "core rules state creatures related to Evil creatures are grounds for offage by anybody trying to do Good in the world"? Not everyone V killed was a full-blooded Black Dragon, please pay attention if you are going to have the hubris to pass out permission for others to disagree with your obviously poorly-thought-out opinion.What were you saying, again?

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience.

Really, if you're going to go so far as to be critical of this style of debate, the LEAST you could do is refrain from using it yourself. You can't be on a high horse while you're rolling around in the mud, friend. In addition, if you wish for me to not try to tell you what you're meaning and saying, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it yourself. Seems a bit much like a case of the pot and the kettle.

Thinking about robbing a bank is not a jailable offense, and V was "defending his family" like the Nazis were defending Germany from the Jews.I encourage you to read the forum rules and guidelines on posting, most notably the areas regarding discussion of real world politics and the like.

You cannot arbitrarily punch someone because in the future they *may* punch you or your family. There is no end to this line of "defense of 'freedom from any and all harm'" reasoning, there is never any reason to stop killing. The "threats" continue as long as there is sentient relationship-forming life on Earth. Dragons have family, that family has mates, those mates have friends, etc. Biocide is the only thing that is any guarantee, and at that point I think we could abandon the farce that this is some "Good, at worst neutral" agenda.
Reductio ad Absurdum. Just because an argument doesn't hold true at the most extreme stretches of possibility does NOT mean that it doesn't hold true for more reasonable/realistic sets.

The risk was demonstrated. The risk was present. V acted on it. There's an argument that his action was evil. There's an argument that it wasn't.

There's an argument that the spell is evil. There's an argument that it isn't. D&D RAW isn't exactly set in stone for what makes a spell inherently evil, other than the raising of the dead.

And as for creating more vigilantes? When you kill one person, you spark anger. When you kill 10, you spark outrage. When you snuff 50, with scarcely a thought? You spark fear.

Future attempts, at the very least, won't pass up the opportunity to kill V when they get the chance... As this dragon foolishly did, in the name of vengeance.

Fan
2009-03-23, 04:17 AM
You're doing some rule-breaking there. You can't cast spells through Contact.

You'll need to use Reveal if you want to cast spells on them.



You know nothing about gesalt, right?

Last I checked Wizard (with a MINOR class benefit change, just changing which schools are banned.) is the same class no matter what you tack on it.
The only actual difference would be the sorcerer as far as defined "Classes" go because he has Archmage, and sorc. I'm arguing that the SAME THING is counted as the SAME THING. Conjuration specialization a new class does not make GOC.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-03-23, 06:35 AM
No, the Death Note spell kills the person whose real name you write down and whose face you know.

Light/Kira merely used it against criminals, he could have used it against any one else (and sometimes did). Or rather, he used it en masse against people who were simply accused of being criminals on public television.
I think the point was that a hypothetical spell that murders evil people is morally equivalent to Light's actions in Death Note. In other words, pretty damned evil.

GenocideAlive
2009-03-23, 11:25 AM
Let's look at the above situation...
I've already stated Rich clearly isn't following rulebooks, and you continue to cite them. You obviously are neither listening nor thinking, this "conversation" is over.

Undead Prince
2009-03-23, 12:45 PM
Familicide

Necromancy [Evil]
Spellcraft DC: 110
Components: V, S, M, XP
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Unlimited
Target: up to 100 living creatures
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (see below)
Spell Resistance: Yes
Seeds: Contact (to contact familiar creatures) DC 23, up to 100 familiar creatures (+100 DC), allow unwilling creatures (ad hoc +10 DC), Dispel (to dispel possible protections) DC 19, +20 to the dispel check (+20 DC), Slay (to add negative levels) DC 25, +20d4 negative levels (+80 DC).
Mitigating factors: 10-minute casting time (-20 DC), requires expensive/unusual material component (a living or undead member of the family in question for the familiarity link, Ad Hoc -7 DC), 60d6 backlash (-60 DC), 8.000 xp cost (-80 DC)

An epic necromancer may cast this horrible spell upon the still living (or unliving) body of a vanquished enemy. The spell then contacts creatures the target is familiar with anywhere in the world... and slays them.
Familicide makes a dispel check (1d20+30) vs all protective magics the victims posess that might inhibit its work (including save-boosting spells and items or effects that confer immunity to necromancy). There's no save against this effect.
Then, the spell bestows 22d4 negative levels. A successful fortitude save reduces the number of negative levels by half.
Familicide affects the 100 closest family members of the target.



Designer's Note;
That is a relatively easy to cast epic spell intended for a 30th level buffed caster. The Familicide epic spell cast by V might as well be substantially more powerful. The above spell is given as an example of the cheapest reliable Familicide mechanics that don't use loops or unintentionally broken mechanics.

No, it's by far not the cheapest way to kill the dragons.

First, your spell would only reliably (i.e. on a successful save) kill 11 HD Black Dragons - i.e. Young dragons. Reliably killing Great Wyrms would require 74d4 negative levels - which would make the Slay effect cost 313 DC.

Second, we don't see V visibly suffering any harm, nor showing pain. 60d6 is 210 average damage, which would almost certainly kill V even if he got extra HP from the splice.

Third, there is nothing to suggest that significant time (to the scale of 10 minutes) passed between V starting to cast the spell and the effect taking place. There is rather solid evidence that the spell took just a standard action (V pointing and saying "Familicide").

Fourth, I doubt that the souls would be willing to sacrifice XP for V; and for V himself, a 13 or 14 level wizard, 8,000 XP is not something to be taken lightly. Better avoid it.

A far cheaper way would be to just use the Contact seed as base, and apply the Slay seed's killing effect twice. Since V/Haera already has a very high Spell DC, even Great Wyrms would be able to save only on a natural 20, and rolling two natural 20's in a row has a 0,25% chance of happening - i.e. only 1 dragon out of 400 may survive. Which is enough for Familicide (62 known kills). And it would only cost 25 DC.

Total cost for Contact + 2 Slays vs. 63 targets (62 known kills + Zombie head) + 5 DC increase to ascertain killing = 169 Spellcraft DC with no mitigating factors.

Undead Prince
2009-03-23, 12:51 PM
I've already stated Rich clearly isn't following rulebooks, and you continue to cite them.

Says who? So far, Mr Burlew's been following the rules pretty thoroughly, with very few serious exceptions. Hell, we've even devised a workable Familicide spell, and I for one first believed it would be impossible.


You obviously are neither listening nor thinking, this "conversation" is over.

It's always fun to watch someone bail out of a debate like that, not even dignifying the opponent's hard work with coherent answers.

And I would seriously warn you about your language in your posts above. The moderators aren't kidding around here, let me tell you.

Flickerdart
2009-03-23, 03:38 PM
Undead Prince, you are somewhat mistaken. The spell does not incur 22 negative levels on a failed save, but rather 22d4. 22 is the minimum, 88 the maximum. The chances of a natural 20, and 22 rolls coming up minimal are frankly ludicrous. On average, 2.5*22=55 negative levels, 27 on a successful save. The amount of things that have 27 hit dice is frankly not that much, let alone 55 hit dice.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-23, 04:42 PM
Total cost for Contact + 2 Slays vs. 63 targets (62 known kills + Zombie head) + 5 DC increase to ascertain killing = 169 Spellcraft DC with no mitigating factors.

Um, did you read the comic recently? It never killed the black dragon mother.

She was not killed. She was just leviated in the air as a focus to kill her family.

So it wouldn't be 63; only 62 kills. Undead (ghouls as the dragon can talk?) can't be killed by death spells or negative energy spells. No exceptions.

So final DC assuming your original tally was right: 159 spellcraft DC.

hamishspence
2009-03-23, 04:58 PM
Considering Naera is less than 1/3 the level of the V-Gestalt (assuming stacking caster levels) wouldn't it make more sense to build the "extra targets" bit in last?

Something like: Special scalable rule, for every point on Spellcraft check above the minimum DC, spell contact/slays 1 extra creature?

Having the "base DC" of the spell be low, but the effect be scalable based on the Spellcraft check, would make it work- used at low strength by Haera on her own, higher strength by the V-Gestalt.

also, I'd build in the dragon as the focus.

Something like- Target- 1 intelligent undead creature- spell Contact/Slays one creature familiar to the target. Mitigating factor- only familiar creatures related by blood to the target are affected.

bertrc
2010-04-08, 05:48 PM
I don't think that the 100 person limit fits. There must be more than 400 black dragons in the OotS world. I think it works better by generations:

For every 10 levels, you go up 1 generation, then, from those ancestors, for every 10 levels, you slaughter 2 generations down. To explain it differently for every 10 levels, you slaughter that many generations above and below the target (along with the target's own generation)

Example: the spell from a level 23 spell caster would go up to the grandparents -- 23/10 = 2 generations -- Then it would come tearing through the following 4 generations; ((23/10) * 2):

- Grandparents
- Parents, Aunts and Uncles
- The target, Siblings and First cousins
- Children, nieces, nephews and whatever the children of first cousins are called
- Grand Children, Grand-nieces, Grand-nephews and the grandchildren of first cousins

Now, normally, epic people are around 20 something level, but V had 3 soul splices. So when s/he cast the spell you are looking at 60 or 70 caster levels. Thus, the uber-charged familicide went up 6 generations, then, from that point, wiped out the following 12 generations.

Roland St. Jude
2010-04-08, 08:54 PM
Sheriff: Thread necromancy = don't.