Using Miracle or Wish to cast a family curse on a village or a family.

[Clistenes]

Let say a Cleric or Wizard gets pissed and uses Miracle or Wish to curse a group, be it a village or a family.

It take the form of a wizardess cursing a patriarchal tribe of murpillapers barbarians in a way that none of them can engender but girls.

Or a cleric cursing a ruthless warlord's family to have only weak children (low constitution score) for seven generations.

My question is, which scope do you think would be appropiate? If the curse is only against the current generation, how many people could affect at the same time? And if the curse is against a single guy and his descendants, how many generations should it last?

Thank you.

[Quietus]

I would be alright with either of those, though I'd possibly require a prevention clause. The ruthless warlord's family line might be cursed, say, "until Warlord Jerkhole's moral debt is repaid"; in game mechanic terms, I'd adjudicate that as being all living members subject to that curse being Good aligned, which would be a long road for the warlord.

[Heliomance]

Each lord of Ruddigore, despite his best endeavour,
Shall do one crime, or more, once, every day, for ever!
This doom he can't defy, however he may try,
For should he stay his hand, that day in torture he shall die!

[BWR]

It really depends. If this is one NPC cursing other NPCs, fine. Don't even need to spell it out (sorry) mechanically. It's a plot device.
If this is a PC cursing NPCs, I'd be far more wary. You are then setting a precedent that PCs can go about cursing multiple people with far ranging, generational effects.
If any spells can do it, it would be those two. But if I were to allow it in my game, I would also make it very clear that the PCs should be very careful about casting curses like that about or Bad Things might start happening to them. Ravenloft, for instance.
One or two in an entire campaign, against really appropriate targets (not necessarily deserving, but appropriate).

In short, what I'm trying to say is if it really works for the story, by all means, allow it. If it's just petty revenge with little intended consequence for the game, I'd disallow it.

[Morbis Meh]

If this is a PC cursing NPCs, I'd be far more wary. You are then setting a precedent that PCs can go about cursing multiple people with far ranging, generational effects.
If any spells can do it, it would be those two. But if I were to allow it in my game, I would also make it very clear that the PCs should be very careful about casting curses like that about or Bad Things might start happening to them. Ravenloft, for instance.
One or two in an entire campaign, against really appropriate targets (not necessarily deserving, but appropriate).
.

I would allow PC's to do it, then in the next campaign have them play as the cursed offspring of Warlod McJerkface, a lot of plot potential and maybe evena lesson learned on their part.

[Heliomance]

Also, look up the death curse rules in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think there specifically is a curse that is inherited down a family line. Maybe it's in Heroes of Horror?

oh wait. Familial geas is what I'm thinking of. Not quite the same thing.

I'll second the BoVD curses. Those rules were pretty cool.

[Rakoa]

Just use Familicide.


Oh wait, wrong forum...

[Clistenes]

Thank for the answers. And yes, the stuff from BoVD is pretty cool.

[CaladanMoonblad]

I would second the "get out of jail" aspect of such curses. All the really old school curses have some stipulation for their removal.

For instance, owning the Hope Diamond bestows the curse; thus, ridding yourself of it removes it. This is the method that D&D actually employs for its cursed objects (after a successful Remove Curse).

Some curses even have warnings, such as The Bjorketorp Runestone, which had inscribed runes (translation: I, master of the runes(?) conceal here runes of power. Incessantly (plagued by) maleficence, (doomed to) insidious death (is) he who breaks this (monument).)

Similarly, this is the translated inscription above King Tut's Tomb "Death comes on wings to he who enters the tomb of a pharaoh."


The point is, that a curse is a means to prompt action. The land is cursed until the people restore the rightful king/queen/etc. It is, in effect, a type of political terrorism. Magic User A wants Party B to do something that normal entreaties have failed; thus Magic User A curses Party B until Magic User A gets what they want.

As for using Miracle or Wish... that's a hefty price tag (5k xp). Still, most of the curses in earth's history required the death of the person doing the cursing (such as a witch being burned at the stake, and who in turn curses the people who are killing him/her). So yes, I agree with the above regarding plot devices, but I as a GM would seriously curtail the PCs doing such a thing without an "out" for the affected party.

[Joe the Rat]

From a story perspective (and the way magic likes to work in a lot of stories and settings), curses that have an out tend to stick better. From a gaming perspective, a curse with an escape clause should fly with less wish-twisting shenanigans from the GM on the effect, but should be open to lawyering the escape. Half of the point (and fun) of curse escape clauses is that they are exact-words clauses.

Wish and Miracle are both potent enough that they should be able to create a curse upon multiple generations.