What happens if Familicide encounters a bump?

[CaDzilla]

What happens if while in effect, it encounters an undead or a person with death ward? Will it keep killing their relatives?

[SavageWombat]

In lieu of an official answer -

I tend to reference M:tG when my D&D rules don't cover things well, so I'd say that - since Familicide can't "target" the individual due to the protection, it can't jump from them to another. (This assumes that a mere Death Ward can protect from Epic level magic, which I don't know.)

Any other DMs have a different perspective?

[Peelee]

What happens if while in effect, it encounters an undead or a person with death ward? Will it keep killing their relatives?

Since it stops at death, i would consider it still stopped. Undead died, and never came back to life. Ergo, that branch of the spell ends. And with it being epic, i would also assume it overrides death ward. Or if it doesnt, that branch ends.

[Steveio]

Considering the spell was cast on an undead target, I'd assume that it would not affect any undead that would be hit, but would continue down the bloodline regardless.

[Roland Itiative]

Considering the spell was cast on an undead target, I'd assume that it would not affect any undead that would be hit, but would continue down the bloodline regardless.

This makes sense, but I'd add that maybe it depends on the type of undead. The ABD clearly still had the original soul inside, which isn't the case for regular, "mindless" zombies (at least not according to RAW, maybe it's different in the comic, and they operate more like the vampires do).

[Jasdoif]

Since it stops at death, i would consider it still stopped. Undead died, and never came back to life. Ergo, that branch of the spell ends. And with it being epic, i would also assume it overrides death ward. Or if it doesnt, that branch ends.Indeed. The second step of Familicide only targets those killed by the first step; so if a relative of the target wasn't killed (either because said relative wasn't alive at the time, or survived the effect by some means), Familicide wouldn't branch out from that relative.

[Reddish Mage]

In lieu of an official answer -

I tend to reference M:tG when my D&D rules don't cover things well, so I'd say that - since Familicide can't "target" the individual due to the protection, it can't jump from them to another. (This assumes that a mere Death Ward can protect from Epic level magic, which I don't know.)

Any other DMs have a different perspective?

Since Girard was already dead when Familicide was cast, I assume death, as well as any other technicalities such as being undead or having deathward up, only prevents the Familicide taking effect on the individual, not their descendants or anyone who have shared descendents with their bloodline. Also, note that it was cast on the ABD when the ABD was undead, so clearly undead state doesn't prevent the targeting.

[Peelee]

Since Girard was already dead when Familicide was cast, I assume death, as well as any other technicalities such as being undead or having deathward up, only prevents the Familicide taking effect on the individual, not their descendants or anyone who have shared descendents with their bloodline. Also, note that it was cast on the ABD when the ABD was undead, so clearly undead state doesn't prevent the targeting.

For the first step, anything related by blood to the original target is killed. Undead cannot be killed; hence, it would not affect them (as evidenced by the fact that the undead ABD was not killed), but would still affect anyone with any shared blood with the original target. And the second step required a still-living link. which an undead would similarly fail, thus breaking the chain of the second step. See Jasdoif's linkage for reference.

[SaintRidley]

Taking the question specifically to the point on Death Ward, I think it would probably involve a caster-level check against the caster level on the Death Ward - epic magic has the ability to bypass nonepic magic that would otherwise stop it - see how epic magic interacts with an antimagic field, for instance.

[Porthos]

I think the "normal" rules of spell checks, spell resistance, and saves need not apply since we have seen literally no one live through it. Only the ABD has been seen not to snuff it, and for I know, maybe being undead was a necessary component. Evil Epic Necromancers can come up with crazy things, after all.

Does that make it Crazy Overpowered? Well, I thought that was a given. :smallwink:

Getting back to the specific case of Death Wards, given how paranoid the Draketooth clan was, I'd be a little surprised if at least some of them weren't Death Warded 24/7. Especially when one considers that undead be one of their areas of weakness. If one presumes they were Death Warded, you'd think one or two of them might have gotten lucky. Didn't appear to be so, though. :smallwink:

[goodpeople25]

I think the "normal" rules of spell checks, spell resistance, and saves need not apply since we have seen literally no one live through it. Only the ABD has been seen not to snuff it, and for I know, maybe being undead was a necessary component. Evil Epic Necromancers can come up with crazy things, after all.

Does that make it Crazy Overpowered? Well, I thought that was a given. :smallwink:

Getting back to the specific case of Death Wards, given how paranoid the Draketooth clan was, I'd be a little surprised if at least some of them weren't Death Warded 24/7. Especially when one considers that undead be one of their areas of weakness. If one presumes they were Death Warded, you'd think one or two of them might have gotten lucky. Didn't appear to be so, though. :smallwink:
I don't think the draketooths are the cleric/druid type let alone paladins, i suppose on their trips they could have got a death ward granting item, or found some way of getting the spell cast on the,. Is it possible to make death ward permament? But still seems a bit hard to get done or find in a lower level world like this one.
Also is it even possible to get deathward on an item.

[137beth]

The banana already linked to it, but several people seem to be (incorrectly) suggesting that it repeatedly 'braches' through relatives one at a time. So, I'll just explicitly quote the Giant in his explanation:


Step 1: Kill everyone with the original target's blood. This is a simple yes/no effect: Is a creature (the secondary target) related by blood to the original target at all, in any way? If yes, kill it. If no, move on. Number of generations or percentage of blood or direction doesn't matter.

Step 2: Kill everyone who shares blood with any of the people killed in Step 1. Think of it as killing everyone descended from (or siblings to) any and all still-living ancestors of each secondary target. So if Penelope had a grandfather on one side and a great-grandmother on the other side who were still alive, every person who could trace their blood back to either of those people would be dead, because Penelope's daughter carries both of their bloods. If a person can only trace their blood through (say) Penelope's already-dead great-great-great-grandfather, then they're safe. Thus cousins and second-cousins and the like are all dead, but more distant genetic relations are not. It is possible for some cousins to survive if all older generations were already dead, yes, but Vaarsuvius wasn't really likely to take the time to make that distinction while sobbing on a dungeon hallway floor.

(Source: see the banana's link up-thread.)

There are only two steps. The first one doesn't care who is alive and who is dead. The second step kills anyone related to those killed in step one, regardless of how distant or whether they were only related via a previously-dead mutual relative.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

If Familicide can't kill something, then Step 1 moved on to the next blood relative. However, Step 2 would not target their relatives who aren't related by blood to the original target. I imagine that Death Ward probably wouldn't be enough to protect from an effect like Familicide.

[Keltest]

To be clear, the Draketeeth were killed by step 1. They were all direct blood relatives of the ABD. Step one definitely does not care about death as an obstacle.

[halfeye]

To be clear, the Draketeeth were killed by step 1. They were all direct blood relatives of the ABD. Step one definitely does not care about death as an obstacle.
The interesting thing is that the originating dragon must have still been alive until V cast Familicide, else the Draketooths wouldn't have been affected.

[Lord Torath]

The interesting thing is that the originating dragon must have still been alive until V cast Familicide, else the Draketooths wouldn't have been affected.No. Step one checks every living thing on the planet for shared blood to the original target. Doesn't matter if the connecting relatives are alive or not. As long as the Draketooths share the blood of the ABD, they're toast.

[halfeye]

No. Step one checks every living thing on the planet for shared blood to the original target. Doesn't matter if the connecting relatives are alive or not. As long as the Draketooths share the blood of the ABD, they're toast.
If it's that overpowerful, why is there a second step at all?

Who did Haerta use this spell on? how many times did she use it?

Dragons are very long lived, so it wouldn't actually be that unreasonable for the one that started the Draketooth clan to still be alive since the clan had a list/chart of all their members.

[SavageWombat]

If it's that overpowerful, why is there a second step at all?

To take out your wife. You're not connected by blood, but she's very likely to avenge you. So, if you had children, it bounces off your kid to kill you.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

If it's that overpowerful, why is there a second step at all?

Remember that the ABD came after V for killing her son. If, for example, Penelope hadn't been included, she could have potentially come after V for revenge at the death of her child (or maybe convinced Tarquin to do it).

The second step is there to eliminate anyone trying to claim revenge by bloodline, and seriously dissuade anyone else from trying it.

[littlebum2002]

A lot of you are confusing the first and second step.

Let's assume the OP is right and familicide doesn't kill undead creatures.

Step 1: Kill everyone with the original target's blood. If one of the targets is undead, (as the OP has speculated) it doesn't share the blood of the original target and therefore doesn't die. But this does not protect any of the undead's family, as they still have the original target's blood. In other words, anyone who shares the blood of both the original target and the undead creature still die.

Step 2: Kill everyone who shares blood with any of the people killed in Step 1 The undead creature was not killed in step 1, so his family (those members of which who did not share blood with the original target) do not die. He was not killed in step 1, so it does not target his relatives in step 2.


However, we still do not know that Familicide does not kill undead creatures, because nowhere in the spell's description does it actually kill the original target. Why? Probably because this is a spell created by an insanely evil person who wanted the target to see their entire family die before killing them herself. (Such an evil act deserves a witness, does it not?)

[dancrilis]

However, we still do not know that Familicide does not kill undead creatures ...

It depends on the how you read panel 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html), assuming that the first part of the speech bubbles refers to step 1, the second part of the speech bubbles refers to step 2, and the third part of the speech bubbles is general conversation ... than Undead creatures would be fine.
However if the third part of the conversation is also part of the actions of the spell than Undead would likely be affected.

However I feel that part 3 was general conversation rather than part of the spell - otherwise the Dragon's adopted Uncle would also be dead.

It does make one wonder if Vaarsuvius and Inkyrius are related by blood for this to be the logic that Vaarsuvius adopts ... I guess that is just elven culture. Presumably the children are also directed related (and not adopted as some have speculated) as otherwise they would not be family.

[Keltest]

It depends on the how you read panel 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html), assuming that the first part of the speech bubbles refers to step 1, the second part of the speech bubbles refers to step 2, and the third part of the speech bubbles is general conversation ... than Undead creatures would be fine.
However if the third part of the conversation is also part of the actions of the spell than Undead would likely be affected.

However I feel that part 3 was general conversation rather than part of the spell - otherwise the Dragon's adopted Uncle would also be dead.

It does make one wonder if Vaarsuvius and Inkyrius are related by blood for this to be the logic that Vaarsuvius adopts ... I guess that is just elven culture. Presumably the children are also directed related (and not adopted as some have speculated) as otherwise they would not be family.

The children are explicitly adopted, per word of Giant, to allow for V and Inky to be a same-sex couple or otherwise incapable of reproduction.

[littlebum2002]

It depends on the how you read panel 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html), assuming that the first part of the speech bubbles refers to step 1, the second part of the speech bubbles refers to step 2, and the third part of the speech bubbles is general conversation ... than Undead creatures would be fine.
However if the third part of the conversation is also part of the actions of the spell than Undead would likely be affected.

Aaah, yes then undead creatures would definitely be excepted. I was just reading Rich's comments and not the spell itself, which was rather dumb. And yes, I agree adopted family probably doesn't count.


I do have a question though, this is Rich's quote:


Step 1: Kill everyone with the original target's blood. This is a simple yes/no effect: Is a creature (the secondary target) related by blood to the original target at all, in any way? If yes, kill it. If no, move on. Number of generations or percentage of blood or direction doesn't matter.

Step 2: Kill everyone who shares blood with any of the people killed in Step 1. Think of it as killing everyone descended from (or siblings to) any and all still-living ancestors of each secondary target. So if Penelope had a grandfather on one side and a great-grandmother on the other side who were still alive, every person who could trace their blood back to either of those people would be dead, because Penelope's daughter carries both of their bloods. If a person can only trace their blood through (say) Penelope's already-dead great-great-great-grandfather, then they're safe. Thus cousins and second-cousins and the like are all dead, but more distant genetic relations are not. It is possible for some cousins to survive if all older generations were already dead, yes, but Vaarsuvius wasn't really likely to take the time to make that distinction while sobbing on a dungeon hallway floor.

Now for some anticipated FAQs:

That's not exactly what Vaarsvuius said when the spell was cast, though.
First, Vaarsvuius is prone to poetic word choice and had no particular reason to include various exceptions or inclusions while in the middle of punishing the dragon. Second, as the author, I also had an interest in not necessarily giving away the twist that the Draketooths would be killed two years ahead of time (leading me to choose words that maybe implied one thing while allowing for another). In other words, don't try to parse the language too precisely.


Why does he say that last part? That pretty much is, exactly, what V said. What did V say that was different from Rich's description of the spell? I'm missing something.

[Jasdoif]

However, we still do not know that Familicide does not kill undead creatures, because nowhere in the spell's description does it actually kill the original target. Why?The initial target is necessarily a blood relative to their blood relatives. If anyone is killed by step one, then the initial target is part of step two.

If Familicide destroyed undead creatures, the undead ABD would've been destroyed by it. Since she wasn't, Familicide must not destroy undead creatures.

[dancrilis]

Why does he say that last part? That pretty much is, exactly, what V said. What did V say that was different from Rich's description of the spell? I'm missing something.

Vaarsuvius wording would mean that step 1 kills everyone related to the main target. Fine and good that is what step one does.
Vaarsuvius wording also would mean that step 2 kills everyone related to the secondary targets. Where the Giants makes it clear that this only occurs of a line can be traced to the cousin via living relatives.

i.e
Step 1 - kills your fifth cousin even if all your links to them are dead.
Step 2 - will not kill your niece unless their parent (your sibling) or one of your ancestors is still alive.

Or such is my reading.


The children are explicitly adopted, per word of Giant, to allow for V and Inky to be a same-sex couple or otherwise incapable of reproduction.

Really I have not seen that quote - is it handy or in the most recent book (or snip snails and puppy dog tails) which I don't have yet.

Still adoption does not prevent blood relation I suppose so Vaarsuvius might have still (by their own logic) have considered them family.

[Jasdoif]

Really I have not seen that quote - is it handy or in the most recent book (or snip snails and puppy dog tails) which I don't have yet.It's more significant that Vaarsuvius refers to "adopted progeny" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0631.html), but the quote is here.

[dancrilis]

It's more significant that Vaarsuvius refers to "adopted progeny" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0631.html), but the quote is here.

Thank you, now that it has been pointed out to me I do remember that strip answering some of the question about it that were appearing on the forum after they had been shown.

Still Vaarsuvius's logic implies that they are blood kin in some manner or that they are not family, perhaps a relative's child they adopted. Or I suppose of Elves have a single set of ancestors (such as Adam and Eve), in which case a single casting of Familicide would exterminate the species as they all share blood.

[Keltest]

Thank you, now that it has been pointed out to me I do remember that strip answering some of the question about it that were appearing on the forum after they had been shown.

Still Vaarsuvius's logic implies that they are blood kin in some manner or that they are not family, perhaps a relative's child they adopted. Or I suppose of Elves have a single set of ancestors (such as Adam and Eve), in which case a single casting of Familicide would exterminate the species as they all share blood.

Um... no it doesn't? V considers them to be family. That familicide would not affect them is ironic, perhaps, but not at all relevant to the statement V made with its casting. You do not mess with the people V cares about. Ever. It doesn't matter if theyre blood relations or not.

[dancrilis]

Um... no it doesn't? V considers them to be family. That familicide would not affect them is ironic, perhaps, but not at all relevant to the statement V made with its casting. You do not mess with the people V cares about. Ever. It doesn't matter if theyre blood relations or not.

Vaarsuvius: Anyone who could possible make a claim to be part of your family is gone now (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html).
Logical deduction: Given how the spell works this would mean that only people that or connected by blood, or which or connected by blood to one of those connected by blood to you can make a claim to be part of your family.

Vaarsuvius: But you made the mistake of involving my family in our conflict (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html).
Logical deduction: Vaarsuvius considers at least one of the three other elves present to be family.
Assumption: Vaarsuvius likely considers all three other elves present to be family.

Taking the logical deductions together - at least one of the other three elves present was connected by blood either directly or indirectly to Vaarsuvius.

Now it is possible that Vaarsuvius was merely not thinking straight about what family meant to them and how it could be equivalent to what it meant to dragons, but that requires additional unsupported assumptions.

[Keltest]

Vaarsuvius: Anyone who could possible make a claim to be part of your family is gone now (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html).
Logical deduction: Given how the spell works this would mean that only people that or connected by blood, or which or connected by blood to one of those connected by blood to you can make a claim to be part of your family.

Vaarsuvius: But you made the mistake of involving my family in our conflict (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html).
Logical deduction: Vaarsuvius considers at least one of the three other elves present to be family.
Assumption: Vaarsuvius likely considers all three other elves present to be family.

Taking the logical deductions together - at least one of the other three elves present was connected by blood either directly or indirectly to Vaarsuvius.

Now it is possible that Vaarsuvius was merely not thinking straight about what family meant to them and how it could be equivalent to what it meant to dragons, but that requires additional unsupported assumptions.

Youre doing exactly what that quote above warned against doing and reading too much into what V is saying.

[littlebum2002]

Vaarsuvius: Anyone who could possible make a claim to be part of your family is gone now (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html).
Logical deduction: Given how the spell works this would mean that only people that or connected by blood, or which or connected by blood to one of those connected by blood to you can make a claim to be part of your family.

Right, but remember:


First, Vaarsvuius is prone to poetic word choice and had no particular reason to include various exceptions or inclusions while in the middle of punishing the dragon.


If V instead chose to say: "Anyone who could possible make a claim to be part of your family is gone now. Well, unless they're adopted. Or related to you through a dead relative", then V would get XP points for killing the moment.


EDIT: Ninja'd!

[Storm_Of_Snow]

The initial target is necessarily a blood relative to their blood relatives. If anyone is killed by step one, then the initial target is part of step two.

Equally, if anyone could be said to be sharing the bloodline of the original target - it's the original target. :smallamused:


If Familicide destroyed undead creatures, the undead ABD would've been destroyed by it. Since she wasn't, Familicide must not destroy undead creatures.
Alternatively, Haerta may have created the spell with a specific exclusion for the original target - just to twist the knife that little bit more.

Or maybe the ABD did die again when Familicide was cast, then, while the spell effects were spreading out across the world and through the ABD's bloodline, V/Haerta cast a second Create Greater Undead to bring the ABD back again so they could experience the full horror of what was happening.

[SirKazum]

While we're at it, am I the only one who's bothered by the "shares blood" thing in step 1, and how poorly defined that is? Depending on how you define it, step 2 could be entirely redundant.

Let's say two people "share blood" if they have a common ancestor (that sounds obvious, even though one might possibly come up with other definitions). So, if, say, Penelope and Orrin have a baby, Penelope and the baby share blood, and the baby and Orrin also share blood. Would the transitive property apply there? From the lack of proper definition, it's unclear that it does! So Penelope and Orrin share blood, because both their "bloods" are shared by the baby.

Okay, I guess the transitive property does not apply to step 1, because applying that property is what step 2 is all about. But the logician in me is still crying for a proper definition, dammit! :smallfurious: How can you make a proper algorithm without clear, unambiguous definitions?

And as for the Draketooths (Draketeeth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbt74pHCmeU)?), if step 1 means "kill everyone who has a common ancestor with the target" and ignores whether any "links" are dead (only step 2 requires living links), then it does not matter that Girard was long dead - all the Draketooths had a common ancestor with the ABD, through the dragon that started the Draketooth clan.

[littlebum2002]

Let's say two people "share blood" if they have a common ancestor (that sounds obvious, even though one might possibly come up with other definitions). So, if, say, Penelope and Orrin have a baby, Penelope and the baby share blood, and the baby and Orrin also share blood. Would the transitive property apply there? From the lack of proper definition, it's unclear that it does! So Penelope and Orrin share blood, because both their "bloods" are shared by the baby.

No. Orrin does not share the original target's blood.

(assuming Penelope is related to the original target here)

I have 2 jars of paint, one red and one yellow. I take a scoop of paint out of each jar, put them in a third jar, and mix them. I now also have a jar of orange paint. Now if there was a contamination in the red paint factory or something (the factory being the original target) and someone tells me "throw away every jar with red paint in it" (step 1), I'm not going to throw away the yellow paint, because it doesn't have red paint in it. I only throw away the red and orange paints. Now, for step 2, someone says "throw away every jar of paint that was ever used to mix with paint which was thrown away in step 1", THEN I throw away the yellow paint.

[Jasdoif]

Equally, if anyone could be said to be sharing the bloodline of the original target - it's the original target. :smallamused:Depending of if one wants to argue that some definitions of "share" require giving from one to another....Which is why I sidestepped that angle, since the only time "relative of a relative" doesn't apply is if the target doesn't have any blood relatives, in which case, why would be the point of casting Familicide on them?


Alternatively, Haerta may have created the spell with a specific exclusion for the original target - just to twist the knife that little bit more.

Or maybe the ABD did die again when Familicide was cast, then, while the spell effects were spreading out across the world and through the ABD's bloodline, V/Haerta cast a second Create Greater Undead to bring the ABD back again so they could experience the full horror of what was happening.I think I'll take the Giant's description as true and complete, what with being responsible for the vision and implementation and stuff.


While we're at it, am I the only one who's bothered by the "shares blood" thing in step 1, and how poorly defined that is? Depending on how you define it, step 2 could be entirely redundant
....
Okay, I guess the transitive property does not apply to step 1, because applying that property is what step 2 is all about. But the logician in me is still crying for a proper definition, dammit! :smallfurious: How can you make a proper algorithm without clear, unambiguous definitions?Sounds like you're confusing a description of an algorithm with an algorithm. Maybe you need a proper definition for "proper definition" :smalltongue:

[SirKazum]

Sounds like you're confusing a description of an algorithm with an algorithm. Maybe you need a proper definition for "proper definition" :smalltongue:

Curse you, sound logic and proper algorithmic practices! *shakes fist*

[Lissou]

Now it is possible that Vaarsuvius was merely not thinking straight about what family meant to them and how it could be equivalent to what it meant to dragons, but that requires additional unsupported assumptions.

V was shocked to see a dragon have three children over time, because they hadn't considered the idea of a dragon settling down and having a family in such a way. Presumably, V also didn't think dragons would adopt, for similar reasons. If a dragon had genetic children, their mate would also die due to being related to the child. The only thing it means is that V didn't give the dragons' credit, didn't consider them "human-like" enough. V thought that for dragons, only blood would equate to family. That's not representative of what V believes is family, but what V believe others believe is family.

As for whether a dead or undead person would be a bump, maybe, but not necessarily a huge one. The first step of the spell, as I understand, doesn't jump from one person to the next. It kills everyone with any blood relation at all with the black dragon. The second one kills anyone related to those. Even if it doesn't kill people related to those who were already (un)dead (and we can't be sure that's the case), they might still be related to other people. So if for instance Tarquin's wife had already been dead, her siblings, parents, etc would die anyways, because her kid was related to them, too. And while the draketooth had a very unique way to spread their lineage, in many other cases, people would have siblings, so if one of the siblings died, it wouldn't really do much to stop the branching provided any of the other siblings were alive.

So if we say the spell doesn't affect the undead (no proof of that. The original dragon was fine, but one can make a case that as the source, she's not targeted by the spell in the first place) and even if it doesn't kill the family of those who were already dead when the spell hit (no proof of that either), it still wouldn't slow down the spell that much in the end. A few people here and there who would have died may not die, but that's probably it.