"Whosoever gazes upon it shall die."

[Afgncaap5]

tl;dr - Even with the assumption that my players know that my 3.5 games have things that lie outside the standard rules, is it fair to canonically have a painting that insta-kills anyone who looks at it?

More in depth - My games often feature items and creatures that just "are" whatever they are, even if there's not a spell or rule or mechanic in 3.5 that easily explains how it works the way it does. My players have always seemed fine with it, but then again I've rarely had cause for such things to severely negatively impact players in ways that can't be undone.

For a given story, I'm pondering a painting that kills anyone who looks at it, with an unerring track record. It feels cheap to have that item and be in its proximity but also never actually, like... have it around. Having said that, the way it works would just cause death; no saving throw to resist, no traceable "magic" to be dispelled or nullified, and I'm even considering things like "not even Death Ward works to block it" though that might not be necessary for the story in particular...

Part of me thinks "Yeah, just have the creepy butler remind everyone a few times to never ever look at the painting because they will surely die", but there's always that one player who says "Nah, I've gotta see it..." and tries to come up with a way to get around that kind of thing. On the other hand, a player warned about it, who's never in a situation where they're forced to look at it, who then goes out of their way to see it, arguably has it coming.

So... what do you think? Put in the cursed painting that must hang in the manor and give the players a fair warning, or don't have this particular item-specific story?

[Nifft]

"Why do you even have a painting like that, let alone hang it in a place where it could possibly be seen?"

"We display the piece in the front hall to dissuade solicitors."

[Afgncaap5]

"Why do you even have a painting like that, let alone hang it in a place where it could possibly be seen?"

"We display the piece in the front hall to dissuade solicitors."

Ha! Nice. The way I've got it right now is that the painting has to take up a prominent place in a given hall in the manor, but that the residents have been keeping it turned around so that the actual image is never seen (with a potential moment in Act 3 when the things haunting the place turn it around.)

[Nifft]

Ha! Nice. The way I've got it right now is that the painting has to take up a prominent place in a given hall in the manor, but that the residents have been keeping it turned around so that the actual image is never seen (with a potential moment in Act 3 when the things haunting the place turn it around.)

Unless you're actively seeking to kill someone (e.g. solicitors), it kinda stretches credulity that you'd keep the thing in a place where it could kill someone you care about even by accident. I mean, what if it fell off the wall, and landed lethal-side up? Someone coming in and looking at the floor as they've been told to do would be dead, and that might be anyone in the manor.


My advice would be:

- It's in the attic. The PCs are told about it because they may need to go through the attic on their way to a rooftop chase, or to inspect the property from one of the towers, or something.

- The servants all know, and avoid the attic. This gives the ghost a safe, dusty place to hide.

- The lord of the manor is looking for a safe way to dispose of the thing. Nobody wants to keep it around, because it's an accident waiting to happen.

[Telonius]

As long as the players are sufficiently warned, I think it's generally fair game. Somebody, at some point, would have tried looking at the thing using a mirror, going Ethereal, entering the shadow plane, using Blindsight, and maybe another couple of other methods of rules-lawyering the curse. If any of that ended up killing someone, the butler should know about that and let the party know.

As for why it's around, the thing is clearly chock full of weird magic. The last person to try moving it out of the building died a horrible death. None of the workmen want to touch the thing now.

[Boggartbae]

- The lord of the manor is looking for a safe way to dispose of the thing. Nobody wants to keep it around, because it's an accident waiting to happen.

I like the implication that the only reason they would want it gone is because they don't want to pay liability.

As for the item itself, I would say that it's fair, as long as it never actually kills anyone. I would warn my players about it, and then the only effect it would have is that they have to avert their eyes, which would give their enemies concealment, or something like that.

Basically, as long as it's not just "you walk in the room and you die" (I'm not saying you were planning to do that) then I think it would be cool.

EDIT: the other option would be to give it a low save DC, but then make your players roll it every round they don't avert their eyes. That way it's scary to be in the room with it, and they can look at it if they want to temp death, but it's not an insta-die.

[Afgncaap5]

[QUOTE=Nifft;23388951]Nobody wants to keep it around, because it's an accident waiting to happen./QUOTE]

That's kinda the situation they're in, yes. Effectively, the family is very rich and very powerful, but they're assured their success is linked to the watchful spirit of the family founder who wishes to remain anonymous and within the lives of the descendants but, alas, the painting must never be seen. Their successes continue with the painting about, and a family-shattering curse will fall if the painting departs, or so they've been assured. They don't really "look down" all the time since the painting is turned around; why this satisfies the condition for keeping the portrait prominently displayed is up for debate, though they have noted that the wall the painting faces tends to develop rot and decay very rapidly and needs to be knocked down and rebuilt every few years. One uncle thinks they'd be even more successful if they just turned it around and that they should just get used to, as you put it, always looking down, but most people see that, as you also put it, an accident waiting to happen.

Locking up the painting and just getting by without any ghostly blessing is considered by some of the younger family members, thinking that this wouldn't necessarily invite a curse (what with it not being too different from just turning it around, after all) but the older family members seem to believe that this is a futile line of reasoning. It's a profoundly unhappy situation for a number of reasons, I'm afraid.

The one truly happy member of the family is the one who married and moved away, and he's only back in town to visit while the players would be about, protagging the way that players do.

[Cosi]

What do you think is going to happen if you tell a party of adventurers "this item kills anyone who looks at it"?

Because my first thought is "they'll try to weaponize it". It's like being a Medusa, except there's no save and you get a full suite of class features. All you have to do is accept the penalty for being blind until you can work out some alternate senses. That's likely to be pretty broken in most campaigns.

Obviously you could fiat reasons why whatever strategies for weaponizing the death painting the players came up with didn't work, but personally I would find that way more frustrating than having a death painting itself would be. On its own the death painting is an interesting piece of color for the setting. But if I can't use it to kill people, it rapidly starts to feel like the DM is screwing with me and the only reason the death painting exists is to tempt me into getting my character killed, which is stupid.

I think if you want a creepy painting, the better answer would be to come up with a creepy effect that is naturally tied to a single location (the manor where the painting is). Something like a painting that possesses anyone who looks at it and forces them to live out the daily routine of the reclusive owner of the manor before he died. That's plenty weird, and it doesn't turn the game into "kill everything with the death painting" because there's a natural reason why hauling the paining around doesn't cause you to win (since you can't be possessed into mimicking the dead guy in some random place he never visited).

[Fizban]

I'd say as long as you make it properly clear beforehand it's fine. If you've already had a conversation in which you told the players that your fiat effects could ignore saves, that's fine. Otherwise, making a point of the completely unblemished track record, including things with very high fort saves and hundreds of victims such that the lack of nat 20s is no statistical error, should do. Make the effects or lack thereof on undead and constructs known as well.

The easiest way to prevent weaponization is for it to have a drawback that also kills anyone trying to weaponize it. Like if it goes off while someone is carrying it, they're also dead. Or the last person who moved it dies along with the next person it kills. It could also only work if it's sufficiently backed up to a wall as if "hung" properly, and left there for a while. Allowing it to become active again after touching it could set your alignment to Evil permanently and condemn you to the hells as punishment for trying to profit from such an indiscriminate weapon, in the "no plot, quest, or loopholes accepted" way. It could just come with an unknown plot-tier curse that you've pre-written in your notes, and anyone who wants to try and exploit it can totally do so as long as they accept what you have planned.

Note also that kills gained from such an item have about the lowest credible expectation of xp, since you assumed no risk and did none of the work. You could have it annihilate all wealth of those killed as well so there's no rewards at all aside from the removal of the victim.

[Mechalich]

Because my first thought is "they'll try to weaponize it". It's like being a Medusa, except there's no save and you get a full suite of class features. All you have to do is accept the penalty for being blind until you can work out some alternate senses. That's likely to be pretty broken in most campaigns.

Obviously you could fiat reasons why whatever strategies for weaponizing the death painting the players came up with didn't work, but personally I would find that way more frustrating than having a death painting itself would be. On its own the death painting is an interesting piece of color for the setting. But if I can't use it to kill people, it rapidly starts to feel like the DM is screwing with me and the only reason the death painting exists is to tempt me into getting my character killed, which is stupid.

I think if you want a creepy painting, the better answer would be to come up with a creepy effect that is naturally tied to a single location (the manor where the painting is). Something like a painting that possesses anyone who looks at it and forces them to live out the daily routine of the reclusive owner of the manor before he died. That's plenty weird, and it doesn't turn the game into "kill everything with the death painting" because there's a natural reason why hauling the paining around doesn't cause you to win (since you can't be possessed into mimicking the dead guy in some random place he never visited).

This. You're creating an item that is stupid-powerful. This effect is equivalent to what, a constant Power Word, Kill with no HP limitation attack at any target who looks at it or something similar. That's clearly an epic-level item.

And really, this item is suitably devastating if you leave all the normal, non-fiat limitations in place. For instance, perhaps the painting simply casts Destruction on anyone who looks at it (perhaps limited to one individual per/round) as a reactive effect. That's still going to kill almost everyone who looks at it. Even should an individual manage to save, that 10d6 damage will still murder just about everyone without a handful of levels (ie. almost everyone in the game world).

The reality of d20 world-building is you need to except the effectively nothing works 100% of the time. The system is specifically designed to provide a 5% chance of 'nope' to almost everything. It would be understood by in-the-know people living in such a setting that nothing is going to work all the time. You can totally imagine an evil lord in the Forgotten Realms with this painting claiming 'whosoever gazes upon it shall die' to party guests and his wife whispering in the ear to a close friend 'except for that one time Manshoon stopped over.'

[Kelb_Panthera]

Let me make sure I understand this correctly; you want to bait your players into a "no save just die" trap. That seems pointlessly antagonistic, IMO. Give it a save, make it a death effect, give them -some- means to -not- die, even a difficult one, and it becomes a lot less bothersome.

And make it one of those massive main-hall portraits that takes 4 guys with ladders to hang so they don't just cart it off.

[Lapak]

I think if you want a creepy painting, the better answer would be to come up with a creepy effect that is naturally tied to a single location (the manor where the painting is). Something like a painting that possesses anyone who looks at it and forces them to live out the daily routine of the reclusive owner of the manor before he died. That's plenty weird, and it doesn't turn the game into "kill everything with the death painting" because there's a natural reason why hauling the paining around doesn't cause you to win (since you can't be possessed into mimicking the dead guy in some random place he never visited).Now here's a workable idea. The painting does a no-save True Mind switch on whoever looks at the painting and replaces them with the vengeful ghost of the original owner, who just wants to hang out in his mansion. When the new body dies the owner takes his painting back and annihilates the switchee. Switch anyone outside the manor and they will make it their top priority to A) murder whoever arranged for their painting to be removed and then B) return it. This makes it considerably more dangerous to weaponize, as you are replacing your problem with someone in the same body (but with ghost powers) whose only desire is to murder you horribly. It's got niche uses, but you don't cart it around and flash it at every inconvenient dragon. It also leaves a little wiggle room to try to fix things if someone does foolishly confront the painting; if they can figure out a way to switch things back before the PC's body dies they might be able to pull off a rescue.

EDIT: and it CAN be weaponized by a clever party against a threat *inside the mansion* safely, making it a proper two-way plot device and a Chekov's gun that can be satisfyingly fired by the party themselves.

[liquidformat]

Unless you're actively seeking to kill someone (e.g. solicitors), it kinda stretches credulity that you'd keep the thing in a place where it could kill someone you care about even by accident.

On the other hand you are already going killer painting so why not have it cursed to be indestructible and whenever it is taken off the wall where it is prominently displayed it reappears there very soon after. Like you need a ladder to reach it and by the time you get down the ladder it has disappeared from your grasp and reappeared on the wall. Similarly if you turn it around it mysteriously turns back around a moment later. Just have it in a big room that has fallen into disrepair and kept under lock and key so that no one is killed by it. Heck it could even make the whole room indestructible so the wall on which it hangs can't be torn down.

Even better have everyone who looks upon it die with a look of ecstasy and joy, so the owners of the house regularly have people requesting to see the painting because they are terminally ill or what not.

[Remuko]

Theres a lot of text in this post but if you want an idea of how to make it work, I believe the 3.0 Nymph had a chance to kill people who looked at it. See if you can find out how that worked and give the painting that same effect. It should be something that can be resisted with a proper save.

[Telonius]

Theres a lot of text in this post but if you want an idea of how to make it work, I believe the 3.0 Nymph had a chance to kill people who looked at it. See if you can find out how that worked and give the painting that same effect. It should be something that can be resisted with a proper save.

Link to the 3.0 SRD files here (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html). (The link goes to the site; the files are linked there in .rtf format).


Unearthly Beauty (Su): The nymph can evoke this ability once every 10 minutes. Those within 30 feet of the nymph who look directly at it must succeed at a Will save (DC 17) or die.

[Stelio Kontos]

I think this is a bad idea, if only because you don't want your party fighter to wave around a giant portrait in combat, instantly slaying any enemies in his path. And you know that's totally what's going to happen.

[Bastian Weaver]

It would be fun if the players actually needed to know what the painting looks like, and were warned about its deadly powers.

[JeenLeen]

In general, I agree with the others that this isn't a great thing to do, and their advice on moderating it seems good. However...



More in depth - My games often feature items and creatures that just "are" whatever they are, even if there's not a spell or rule or mechanic in 3.5 that easily explains how it works the way it does. My players have always seemed fine with it, but then again I've rarely had cause for such things to severely negatively impact players in ways that can't be undone.


It sounds like your players are used to this. I'm assuming they also enjoy your games. Thus, it's cool for your group.

I realize I'm also assuming this is for a gaming group you've worked with for a while. If it's not, I highly recommend OOC telling them some major items might not follow the rules. I think it's better if the warnings about the mirror come with an OOC note that this is such an item.

[PunBlake]

This painting reminds me of similar things from Tomb of Horrors. Thus, this effect is similar to something written by Gygax himself. However, he did write it to take his players down a notch or two.

I'd be tempted to make the frame of the painting trapped as well to prevent abuse. Have gems embedded in it with Magic Jar effects or poisoned spines... It's hard to look at the frame to avoid contacting them without also seeing the painting. And you can decide whether to tell players about this. The people moving it would obviously know to wear gloves, but do random adventurers need to know?

[Pleh]

Question: a lich looks at the painting. What happens? The lich is undead and immune to death effects. Does it destroy the lich's body? Then they would reform at their phylactery. Does it somehow destroy the lich and its phylactery? That seems WAY powerful. At that level of power, we're not talking of a creepy thematic tidbit, we're talking Deus Ex Force of Nature. I would reserve that level of power for something as old as the world itself, not a manmade painting. Maybe an ancient totem statue that predates known civilization (basically, a god who happens to be a statue).

But a haunted painting should have minimal effect on a lich wizard unless it's a major divine artifact specifically made to squish liches out of time and space.

So unless you plan to play E6, where you could say, "it kills everyone because it's a CR 17 trap in a game where creatures can't grow past ECL 6."

[Mehangel]

I agree with others here in that if given an opportunity to weaponize such a portrait, it WILL be weaponized. Whether it is animated via spell, carried by a summon, or wielded by a dominated npc; it will be weaponized, and there really isn't much that you can do to prevent such abuse.

[Nifft]

it will be weaponized, and there really isn't much that you can do to prevent such abuse.

There are plenty of ways to prevent such abuse. Here's one rather obvious idea:

DM: "Oh, awesome. After the 666th goblin in the goblin army falls down dead, the painting ruptures like the skin of a rotten fruit, and the rupture extends beyond the painting frame like a crack in the sky. A booming voice announces: THE SOULS OFFERED IN SACRIFICE ARE SUFFICIENT, AND I AM FREE."

Player who claimed there's nothing you can do: "Wait you didn't tell us it would do that."

DM: "You're right, I didn't tell you. Now roll initiative."

[Andezzar]

What do you think is going to happen if you tell a party of adventurers "this item kills anyone who looks at it"?

Because my first thought is "they'll try to weaponize it".Why only the PCs? I'd think the owner of this painting could have thought about that as well.

"Hey, neighbor look at that beautiful painting I just got." Repeat until enough riches are accumulated.

[Mehangel]

There are plenty of ways to prevent such abuse. Here's one rather obvious idea:

DM: "Oh, awesome. After the 666th goblin in the goblin army falls down dead, the painting ruptures like the skin of a rotten fruit, and the rupture extends beyond the painting frame like a crack in the sky. A booming voice announces: THE SOULS OFFERED IN SACRIFICE ARE SUFFICIENT, AND I AM FREE

Except you did not PREVENT abuse, you merely included a consequence for use.

[Nifft]

Except you did not PREVENT abuse, you merely included a consequence for use.

Actually what I did was put a cap on the abuse, which does in fact PREVENT further abuse.

Just set the cap lower and PREVENT as much abuse as you'd prefer.

[Mehangel]

Actually what I did was put a cap on the abuse, which does in fact PREVENT further abuse.

Just set the cap lower and PREVENT as much abuse as you'd prefer.

Even if you reduce the cap to single use, the PC's still have a single use consumable that can kill anything, bypassing immunities, saves, etc; and it will still be weaponized.

[Cosi]

I do not understand why anyone thinks "and then suddenly something terrible happens to you without warning because you did something I thought was unbalanced" is a good way to regulate PC power. If you don't want the PCs to use the death painting, don't put the death painting in the game or explain in advance that the death painting carries a terrible cost. Don't spring the terrible cost on them after they've already used the death painting a bunch without consequence.

This should be DMing 101 -- the PCs should feel like their choices are meaningful, and having consequences be revealed post facto is the opposite of that.

[Nifft]

Even if you reduce the cap to single use, the PC's still have a single use consumable that can kill anything, bypassing immunities, saves, etc; and it will still be weaponized. Or it only slays people associated with that specific household, since it's the result of a dying curse of revenge against that household. So it's quite effective in its native habitat (that specific household), but utter garbage when you try to munchkin it against an unassociated foe.

That makes it a weapon which doesn't perform as expected, and even when it does work it unexpectedly turns upon them so they're suddenly in a fight they didn't want.

Great weapon you've got there.

[Andezzar]

Or it only slays people associated with that specific household, since it's the result of a dying curse of revenge against that household. So it's quite effective in its native habitat (that specific household), but utter garbage when you try to munchkin it against an unassociated foe.

That makes it a weapon which doesn't perform as expected, and even when it does work it unexpectedly turns upon them so they're suddenly in a fight they didn't want.

Great weapon you've got there.then however the statement "Whosoever gazes upon it shall die." is false.

[Nifft]

then however the statement "Whosoever gazes upon it shall die." is false.

Yes, the person quoted was over-stating, presumably due to in-character ignorance.

The DM's provided information ("unerring track record" in its native environs) is accurate and true.

[liquidformat]

Yes, the person quoted was over-stating, presumably due to in-character ignorance.

The DM's provided information ("unerring track record" in its native environs) is accurate and true.

Or you could just go with my earlier idea, that it mysteriously (mystery since it isn't magic?) reappears in its original spot moments after being taken or moved away. By doing that the only possible way of abuse would be the pcs kidnapping people and placing them in front of the painting before unblindfolding them with no prewarning. Or maybe inviting them to a viewing...

That dramatically restricts the level of abuse, and honestly if they could kidnap someone they could kill them and if they would fall for the old I would like you to look at the 'killer painting' they are probably not plot sensitive npcs.

[Cosi]

Again, why is "because of hidden information you had no way of accessing or even knowing existed, the item isn't broken" better than just re-working things so the item isn't broken? Just make it a trap of a level-appropriate death spell (or mind control spell for something less lethal) and have done. Having it arbitrarily -- yes, not necessarily inherently arbitrarily, but arbitrarily from the PC's perspective which is what matters -- not work when they try to use it as a weapon is just creating a feel-bad moment for no reason.

If your first idea leads to bad consequences when the PCs behave rationally, it's probably a bad idea and you should find a new idea instead of adding epicycles to your existing one. You certainly shouldn't add hidden epicycles that are only revealed when the PCs break rules you didn't tell them were there.

[Mehangel]

That dramatically restricts the level of abuse, and honestly if they could kidnap someone they could kill them and if they would fall for the old I would like you to look at the 'killer painting' they are probably not plot sensitive npcs.

While this would curb the level of abuse, it should be remembered that the painting kills without a saving throw, bypassing immunities, etc. So, it could still be weaponized against enemies that they otherwise couldn't kill (but you are otherwise correct).

[Nifft]

Or you could just go with my earlier idea, that it mysteriously (mystery since it isn't magic?) reappears in its original spot moments after being taken or moved away. By doing that the only possible way of abuse would be the pcs kidnapping people and placing them in front of the painting before unblindfolding them with no prewarning. Or maybe inviting them to a viewing...

That dramatically restricts the level of abuse, and honestly if they could kidnap someone they could kill them and if they would fall for the old I would like you to look at the 'killer painting' they are probably not plot sensitive npcs.

Yep, that certainly could work.

Or do both -- it's not mobile, plus it's eating souls for a reason (and with a limit, and perhaps it's prejudiced about whose soul it eats).

I do like how your mobility-prohibition is as mysterious and absolute as the original painting's death-effect, and your mobility-prohibition would also answer the question I raised previously -- why isn't this painting already buried?

[liquidformat]

Yep, that certainly could work.

Or do both -- it's not mobile, plus it's eating souls for a reason (and with a limit, and perhaps it's prejudiced about whose soul it eats).

I do like how your mobility-prohibition is as mysterious and absolute as the original painting's death-effect, and your mobility-prohibition would also answer the question I raised previously -- why isn't this painting already buried?

Yep indestructible painting in an indestructible room that kills anyone who looks upon it and returns to its original position moments after it is moved from said location. And just to piss everyone off even more so and make people look at it the painting sits on the wall askew above a perfectly pane mantle and between two pillars/posts/corners of the wall perfectly perpendicular to the ground and ceiling.



Again, why is "because of hidden information you had no way of accessing or even knowing existed, the item isn't broken" better than just re-working things so the item isn't broken? Just make it a trap of a level-appropriate death spell (or mind control spell for something less lethal) and have done. Having it arbitrarily -- yes, not necessarily inherently arbitrarily, but arbitrarily from the PC's perspective which is what matters -- not work when they try to use it as a weapon is just creating a feel-bad moment for no reason.

If your first idea leads to bad consequences when the PCs behave rationally, it's probably a bad idea and you should find a new idea instead of adding epicycles to your existing one. You certainly shouldn't add hidden epicycles that are only revealed when the PCs break rules you didn't tell them were there.

The point is it is not explainable through magic, or at least magic the pcs posses why does it have to conform to your magical system? That is just giving the pcs' a baseline with which to achieve to look at it.


While this would curb the level of abuse, it should be remembered that the painting kills without a saving throw, bypassing immunities, etc. So, it could still be weaponized against enemies that they otherwise couldn't kill (but you are otherwise correct).

I disagree completely, the fact that it can't be moved from its location is the important factor here. Meaning the PCs would either have to lure the bad guy here to view the painting in which case they have already proven themselves capable of beating the bad guy since they can persuade them to come and look at it. Or they have to kidnap the bad guy and force them to look, in either case they have already proven themselves capable of beating said enemy.

[Cosi]

The point is it is not explainable through magic, or at least magic the pcs posses why does it have to conform to your magical system? That is just giving the pcs' a baseline with which to achieve to look at it.

Sure. That's not my problem. It doesn't matter if the rules are "it works like X spell" or "it works in this totally arbitrary way". What matters is that the rules are (reasonably) open and available to the PCs, so that they can make reasonable and informed decisions based on those rules. If the information you provide is "it's a magic death painting", then the PCs should be able to treat it as a magic death painting (e.g. use it as a weapon without risk of unleashing an imprisoned monster). If you want to do the imprisoned monster thing, you need to provide some opportunity for the PCs to know that risk and make an informed decision based on it (not necessarily a full explanation, but some hint that there's more going on). If you say "magic death painting" but the reality is "demon prison", the PCs are going to be justifiably upset if and when you go "ha ha! a demon comes out of the painting when you kill the 666th enemy with it!
".

[Mehangel]

I disagree completely, the fact that it can't be moved from its location is the important factor here. Meaning the PCs would either have to lure the bad guy here to view the painting in which case they have already proven themselves capable of beating the bad guy since they can persuade them to come and look at it. Or they have to kidnap the bad guy and force them to look, in either case they have already proven themselves capable of beating said enemy.

I disagree, it isn't difficult to boost Bluff and/or Diplomacy to levels that would persuade creatures far beyond their appropriate CR. At later levels, the PC's could purposefully scry the BBEG while in the room with the portrait and when the BBEG inevitability scry's back, they look at the painting and die.

[Nifft]

Sure. That's not my problem. It doesn't matter if the rules are "it works like X spell" or "it works in this totally arbitrary way". What matters is that the rules are (reasonably) open and available to the PCs, so that they can make reasonable and informed decisions based on those rules. If the information you provide is "it's a magic death painting", then the PCs should be able to treat it as a magic death painting

Why?

You want to remove mystery and wonder from the game, and the pay-off here is that the PCs will be permitted to break the campaign.

That's nothing good, and a lot of bad. It's purely negative in terms of what if costs and what it offers. It's a risk with no benefit. Why would anybody want to do something so obviously stupid and self-destructive to his or her own game?

[Cosi]

You want to remove mystery and wonder from the game, and the pay-off here is that the PCs will be permitted to break the campaign.

Arbitrary consequences for your actions don't promote mystery or wonder, they make roleplaying impossible. I'm not saying you have to make the drawback explicit and exactly spelled out from the get-go. Saying "the painting is cursed", and expecting that players will investigate that curse before trying to use the painting is fine. If they grab an item that they have been explicitly told is cursed and use it without trying to discover what the curse is, having the curse be a surprise is fine. But if you don't give them a chance to figure out what's going on, springing a penalty on them is unfair. Players should absolutely be allowed to make stupid choices. But if they don't have the information necessary to understand what's going on, they aren't making a choice at all.

It's the difference between the players failing the Spot check to notice an ambush and the DM declaring that the players get ambushed without offering a Spot check.


That's nothing good, and a lot of bad. It's purely negative in terms of what if costs and what it offers. It's a risk with no benefit. Why would anybody want to do something so obviously stupid and self-destructive to his or her own game?

The bad there is a result of including the magic death painting, not a result of refusing to have arbitrary consequences for using it your PCs can't anticipate. Having the painting "only" kill 666 enemies is already enough to wreck most campaigns. If each of those kills is one encounter, that's enough to gain dozens of levels (a little over 51 to be exact).

[zergling.exe]

Are we all just going to gloss over that the painting is owned by a successful (and presumably powerful) family that has a vested interest in keeping the portrait where it is, namely hanging facing a wall? Also there was mention of an "act 3" so presumably this is also part of a mystery investigation involving the house itself making the painting a plot item. It's entirely possible that the PCs just aren't powerful enough to be able to 'weaponize' the painting due to in universe reasons.

[Nifft]

Arbitrary consequences for your actions don't promote mystery or wonder, they make roleplaying impossible.

DM: "The painting kills people who look at it. So far it's 100% effective."

Bad Faith Player: "Tell me the exact mechanics or I can't role-play, by which I mean wreck your campaign."

Better Player: "I should avoid looking at the painting, but it makes my PC very curious. I know exactly how to role-play both of those things."



Saying "the painting is cursed", and expecting that players will investigate that curse before trying to use the painting is fine. If they grab an item that they have been explicitly told is cursed and use it without trying to discover what the curse is, having the curse be a surprise is fine. But if you don't give them a chance to figure out what's going on, springing a penalty on them is unfair. Players should absolutely be allowed to make stupid choices. But if they don't have the information necessary to understand what's going on, they aren't making a choice at all. I think the curse & ghost were mentioned already. If not, then sure -- that seems quite reasonable.



The bad there is a result of including the magic death painting, not a result of refusing to have arbitrary consequences for using it your PCs can't anticipate. Having the painting "only" kill 666 enemies is already enough to wreck most campaigns. If each of those kills is one encounter, that's enough to gain dozens of levels (a little over 51 to be exact). Some of the 666 souls were already consumed, which is presumably why the PCs got called in. They didn't count as encounters, and you don't know how may there were. Also, nothing says the PCs get XP for souls eaten by the painting -- the painting seems to have overcome the encounter, and it's actively consuming power (= souls), so maybe the XP that the PCs were hoping to farm got consumed as well.

I guess the upshot here os to not have any ironclad mechanic, so there's nothing for a bad-faith player to leverage against the DM.

That's a sad result, but it's what you get if you want to play with bad-faith players whose goal is to wreck the campaign -- of course the best answer might be to not play with jerks, including that particular sub-species.

[Cosi]

DM: "The painting kills people who look at it. So far it's 100% effective."

Bad Faith Player: "Tell me the exact mechanics or I can't role-play, by which I mean wreck your campaign."

Better Player: "I should avoid looking at the painting, but it makes my PC very curious. I know exactly how to role-play both of those things."

I would think that it should be obvious that "kills people who look at it" and "contains an imprisoned monster" are different things. If all the painting does is kill people who look at it, I have no problem with that being the only provided description.


I think the curse & ghost were mentioned already. If not, then sure -- that seems quite reasonable.

The post where you suggest this is quite explicit about the DM not providing the players with the relevant information.


Also, nothing says the PCs get XP for souls eaten by the painting -- the painting seems to have overcome the encounter, and it's actively consuming power (= souls), so maybe the XP that the PCs were hoping to farm got consumed as well.


The painting is gear. Do you not get XP for an encounter if you happen to have a really overpowered suit of armor?


I guess the upshot here os to not have any ironclad mechanic, so there's nothing for a bad-faith player to leverage against the DM.

That understanding of the power dynamic is exactly backwards. Hard mechanics exist so that players have a way to push back against arbitrary declarations by the DM. The idea that doing so is "bad faith" is a fundamental misunderstanding of why the game has rules at all.

[liquidformat]

Arbitrary consequences for your actions don't promote mystery or wonder, they make roleplaying impossible.

One man's arbitrary consequence is another's failed knowledge check. Just saying If dm is rolling knowledge checks behind the seen for a painting with epic level spells all over it so that it can't be moved, kills everyone that looks upon it with such a high save rolling is a moot point, and epic level nondetection, that releases an uber demon once x number of souls are sucked into it. Saying that the painting appears to not be magic and kills everyone that looks upon it is perfectly reasonable. The pcs do not currently have the competencies to know or understand more about the painting and won't for a very long time.

[Nifft]

That understanding of the power dynamic is exactly backwards. Hard mechanics exist so that players have a way to push back against arbitrary declarations by the DM. The idea that doing so is "bad faith" is a fundamental misunderstanding of why the game has rules at all.

Ah, here we have your actual problem.

You had a bad DM, and now you're having PTSD about some other game which has a decent DM.

You're experiencing flashbacks to your own (traumatic) game which color your perception of this game, where no trauma or abuse are going to happen.


You're exactly wrong though. Rules do not exist so that a player can push back against a DM. Rules don't exist so a DM can traumatize a player, either -- both the DM and the player are supposed to be playing together, not trying to obtain leverage over one another to win a power conflict.

[Cosi]

One man's arbitrary consequence is another's failed knowledge check. Just saying If dm is rolling knowledge checks behind the seen for a painting with epic level spells all over it so that it can't be moved, kills everyone that looks upon it with such a high save rolling is a moot point, and epic level nondetection, that releases an uber demon once x number of souls are sucked into it. Saying that the painting appears to not be magic and kills everyone that looks upon it is perfectly reasonable. The pcs do not currently have the competencies to know or understand more about the painting and won't for a very long time.

I mean, that sounds a lot like "an Epic WIzard decides to screw you over", a plot point that seems like obvious railroading to me. If you deliberately hide the relevant information from the PCs, you shouldn't be surprised when they don't act on it, and you shouldn't punish them for not doing so.

It also seems like people think using the death painting to kill your enemies is being a "bad player" that should somehow be punished. I don't get that at all. This isn't arguing an obscure rules point based on something that you saw a guy say about a Rules of the Game article that WotC no longer hosts. The DM said "this painting kills people", and you're using it to kill people. That's engaging with the world and thinking creatively -- exactly the kind of thing players should do. It's inappropriately powerful, sure, but that's the DM's fault for making it a death painting instead of a fear painting or a strength damage painting.

[Gullintanni]

I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here and say that while it's true that 3.5 is a game of rules, and that that's mostly a good thing, the ability to create narrative without adhering to rules is well within the purview of the DM.

Not everything that acts like a magic item must be explainable within the rules. The DM has two primary obligations:

1) Ensure the players have fun.
2) Run a fair game.

"Live by the rules", is not on the list. In most cases it's hard to live up to obligation 2 without a level playing field that arises from the rules, but...in this case, an Artifact painted by a death god, using dyes harvested in Hades and waters from the river Styx, needn't have rules or stats at all.

If it arbitrarily kills things that look at it. Make sure the players know that, and don't let it be moved. It's an Artifact, so it doesn't care about encumbrance, damage, strength scores, saving throws or dispels. If it's a property of the Artifact that it can't be moved, it can't be moved. If it can't be damaged by mortal means, it can't be damaged.

If the existence of the painting serves a purpose that makes the game fun for the players, and you're not using it in a way that makes the game unfair, then have at 'er

I would personally prepare lore and context that explains away the paintings' ability to be weaponized, and write some sort of quest around the painting but...that's just my 2 cp.

[Cosi]

You're exactly wrong though. Rules do not exist so that a player can push back against a DM. Rules don't exist so a DM can traumatize a player, either -- both the DM and the player are supposed to be playing together, not trying to obtain leverage over one another to win a power conflict.

Dude, read people's posts. Also, have the humility to assume that people could disagree with you for reasons other than psychological drama. You'll note that I didn't accuse you of holding your position out of a desire to go on power trips, even though that would have been exactly as substantive as your claims.

I didn't say "push back", I said "push back against arbitrary decisions". Those extra words are there because they're important. The point of having rules is to mitigate DM (and player, it's just that this scenario is about a DM's behavior) actions that are bad for the game. "Rocks fall everyone dies" is bad for the game, so there are rules for appropriate challenges that players can point to as a reason that the DM can't just say "you accidentally wake up Orcus because you short-circuited my plot point".

And "the powerful item I gave you that you've been using was a prison for a demon god despite me never giving you any hint about that" is exactly the sort of DM decision that the rules are structured to avoid. Because it destroys the players' ability to make coherent risk-reward evaluations. Should they go on a quest to seek of a legendary Holy Avenger for the Paladin? Maybe, but what if picking the Holy Avenger up results in an Angel arbitrarily declaring that they have to do a quest for it or die? Once you start down the road of ad hoc consequences, there's nowhere to stop.


I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here and say that while it's true that 3.5 is a game of rules, and that that's mostly a good thing, the ability to create narrative without adhering to rules is well within the purview of the DM.

I think there's a distinction to be made between "rules" in the sense of "the mechanics of the game as defined by various supplements" and "rules" in the sense of "consistent and understandable principles that govern the game world", and probably even "rules" in the sense of "the overall terms on which a gaming group operates". I don't have a problem with fudging the first set of rules, or even ignoring them largely or entirely (in small doses). But you go down a very dangerous road when you start putting in things that the PCs aren't supposed to be able to understand, and violating whatever the baseline rules of your gaming group are is just being a jerk.


"Live by the rules", is not on the list.

Sure. But the rules exist to facilitate those things, and are generally going to be better at it than a DM judgment call. Particularly an ad hoc judgment call. I will say that OP has definitely done the right thing by soliciting other people's input on this decision.


an Artifact painted by a death god, using dyes harvested in Hades and waters from the river Styx, needn't have rules or stats at all.

Disagree. It needs stats, at the very least, because those define how players interact with it. Things that operate by pure DM fiat and can only be interacted with by Mother May I have no place in D&D. There need to be answers to questions like "what counts as looking at it" or "what happens if you're undead/immune to death effects/have weird senses/scry on it". Because those things might come up. Those answers don't have to be a precisely defined mechanical specification, but they have to exist and once they exist you have what is basically a stat block.

[Nifft]

Dude, read people's posts. Also, have the humility to assume that people could disagree with you for reasons other than psychological drama. You'll note that I didn't accuse you of holding your position out of a desire to go on power trips, even though that would have been exactly as substantive as your claims. The fact that you disagree is NOT what displays your psychological issues.

It's because you're try to frame the discussion in terms of hoarding power for intra-personal conflicts that you show us your psychological issues -- and be honest, if you could see things in other terms, you'd be able to participate in this discussion in a far less disruptive, less destructive way. (And you might have better games, too.)

Have the humility to admit your own faults, because right now you're displaying them to such a degree that even strangers on the internet can't help but see them clearly. Again, it might help you have better games.



I didn't say "push back", I said "push back against arbitrary decisions". Those extra words are there because they're important. You're confusing "you don't know" with "it's arbitrary".

The fact is you don't know what's going on. You don't know in advance how the plot-hook will behave. Your assumption is that because you don't know, therefore it's a problem because you can't strong-arm the DM with your meta-knowledge -- you'd have to role-play in character to find out more information before you can make a solid decision. Oh, the horror.



"Rocks fall everyone dies" is bad for the game The DM ending the game is bad for the game? Uh, okay.

But the player trying to strong-arm the DM is equivalently bad for the game.



And "the powerful item I gave you that you've been using was a prison What item? I see a stationary plot-hook which needs to be avoided or resolved, an obstacle and not a resource.

Assuming that you can engineer any obstacle into an item for personal empowerment is purely your own misunderstanding -- and clearly it's not a useful misunderstanding in this case.

[Cosi]

You're confusing "you don't know" with "it's arbitrary".

"You didn't know because the DM decided post facto what was going to happen" and "you didn't know because the DM didn't give you any opportunity to find out" aren't different scenarios.


The fact is you don't know what's going on. You don't know in advance how the plot-hook will behave.

In the scenario you've described, the players don't know that it's a plot hook. Now you can say "well obviously it's a plot hook, it's a magical death painting, clearly it's super special and important". But from OP's description, it actually isn't. The magical death painting isn't a pivotal point on which the campaign turns, it's just a thing that's there. If you make interacting with it in a way that is in-character reasonable a bad idea without giving the PCs any warning, all that's going to happen is you're going to piss them off in that instance and you're going to teach them not to interact with the cool bits of background magic that you stick in later.


Your assumption is that because you don't know, therefore it's a problem because you can't strong-arm the DM with your meta-knowledge -- you'd have to role-play in character to find out more information before you can make a solid decision.

You were the one who suggested that the painting's curse should be dropped on the PCs without an advance warning. I've repeatedly said that providing hints that the painting's curse was more involved than just "death no save" would be a fine solution. I seems strange that you can so clearly deduce entirely bogus psychological speculation, but completely fail to observe things I have written in plain english, but I suppose that's my fault for not communicating clearly enough.


But the player trying to strong-arm the DM is equivalently bad for the game.

So to be clear, the players trying to exert influence on the game is exactly as bad as the DM taking his toys and going home. Those things are the same level of bad.


What item? I see a stationary plot-hook which needs to be avoided or resolved, an obstacle and not a resource.

As someone who owns multiple paintings I can assure you they're perfectly movable. Perhaps you're thinking of murals?

In any case, this is a bad argument. The death painting is a setting element. Players should interact with it in novel or unexpected ways, because interacting with things in novel or unexpected ways is why we play TTRPGs. If I wanted things to be cleanly divided into "obstacles" and "resources" and "enemies" and "allies", I'd play World of Warcraft. The idea that it's wrong to utilize the death painting simply because it's very powerful is just attempting to shift the blame for adding something imbalanced to the game from the DM to the players.

Again, this isn't a player saying "well if I take this 3.0 feat, and put ranks in this third party skill, while backporting this PF class, and using this interpretation of this spell, and grabbing these setting-specific optional rules, I can do something broken". It's a DM adding something to the game and then (in your suggestion) punishing the players when they use it too effectively. The death painting's existence and mechanics are 100% DM calls, any imbalance that arise from them are 100% the fault of the DM.

[liquidformat]

I mean, that sounds a lot like "an Epic WIzard decides to screw you over", a plot point that seems like obvious railroading to me.
How does not being capable of succeeding at a skill check equate, Epic Wizard is out to get you? Have you never played a game in an open world before. Epic plot hooks that you are incapable of triggering/purposely triggering are relatively common in open world design. Heck even ones that are initially presented as absolute death traps initially are very common. Why does it need to be either you give PCs all the info they ever need up front or it is a trap designed to ruine PC's day?

If they are too low of a level to even start thinking about attempting a quest line meant for Epic level characters why should they get any more information than looking at the painting kills you period. They don't have the understanding to even break the nondetection effect why would you tell them it absorbs souls after killing the victim?

[Zancloufer]

Mechanically wouldn't something like a Supernatural Symbol of Death + Power Word kill with some Epic Meta-Magic and/or ritual casting thrown at it accomplish this? Just say anyone who gazes at it with less than 6666 HP and isn't protected by Death Ward dies. Ofc the caster also put something like supernatural Magic Aura on it so it doesn't radiate magic and it's CL is so high that Disjunction doesn't work. Naturally being an (effectively) epic level magical item with it's aura suppressed makes it impossible to properly analyze.

Or it could just be an artifact that the head of the family generations ago made/acquired that is fueled by the deaths is causes and grants great fortune to the home it is hung in. Heck combine both ideas now it mechanically works, has a reason for it's placement and if the PC's try and abuse it all the loot and EXP just vanishes and is transferred to the family as per the power of the portrait.

Also makes for some great story hooks. Not everything in the world needs to be instantly understandable. As long as such items/events only happen rarely and are generally linked to a major plot point or character there really isn't any issue with having things beyond the PCs.

[Cosi]

How does not being capable of succeeding at a skill check equate, Epic Wizard is out to get you?

The point is that saying "you can roll a knowledge check, but you can't possibly pass" is kind of an empty gesture towards the idea of allowing player engagement, in much the same way that "if you had instead done <thing I wanted you do to> the Epic Wizard wouldn't have shown up to force you".


Have you never played a game in an open world before. Epic plot hooks that you are incapable of triggering/purposely triggering are relatively common in open world design. Heck even ones that are initially presented as absolute death traps initially are very common. Why does it need to be either you give PCs all the info they ever need up front or it is a trap designed to ruine PC's day?

Again, it doesn't have to be all the info. It has to be enough info to make an informed choice. You don't have to know what the plot hook is. You don't have to know what will happen if you do X or Y or Z. But you have to know that there is a plot hook. And you have to know that something might happen. Otherwise having something happen in response to you poking the thing in a particular way is arbitrary.


If they are too low of a level to even start thinking about attempting a quest line meant for Epic level characters why should they get any more information than looking at the painting kills you period.

How are the supposed to know not to engage with the painting? If "there's an undetectable plot hook on it" is an acceptable justification for jerking the players around, when does that ever end? Even if the players did have epic level detect magic, how could they guarantee that the actual plot hook wasn't concealed by an even higher level undetectable aura? If there's no hint that anything else is going on, you can't punish the players for assuming nothing else is going on.

[liquidformat]

The point is that saying "you can roll a knowledge check, but you can't possibly pass" is kind of an empty gesture towards the idea of allowing player engagement, in much the same way that "if you had instead done <thing I wanted you do to> the Epic Wizard wouldn't have shown up to force you".



Again, it doesn't have to be all the info. It has to be enough info to make an informed choice. You don't have to know what the plot hook is. You don't have to know what will happen if you do X or Y or Z. But you have to know that there is a plot hook. And you have to know that something might happen. Otherwise having something happen in response to you poking the thing in a particular way is arbitrary.



How are the supposed to know not to engage with the painting? If "there's an undetectable plot hook on it" is an acceptable justification for jerking the players around, when does that ever end? Even if the players did have epic level detect magic, how could they guarantee that the actual plot hook wasn't concealed by an even higher level undetectable aura? If there's no hint that anything else is going on, you can't punish the players for assuming nothing else is going on.

I am calling bs on your whole line of logic, introducing items that seem innocuous when first come across but later become super important clues to the over arching story is so common it isn't even funny. Granted this one isn't in any way innocuous but that is just part of its lexicon inside the game for the common folk.

Let's take harry potter as an example pretending no one has read the book and you as a character are going through the game module. You accidentally stumble into the room of requirement because hey that is just how it works. Walking through the room you see a broken old cupboard with the bust of some old ugly wizard with a crappy looking tiara that looks like someone's failed experiment. It takes a knowledge arcana check of 15 to identify the broken cupboard as a being a teleportation device, a dc 20 to tell that it is broken and a dc 30 to tell how it should work and 40 to tell how it is broken. The bust is a semi famous wizard requiring similar knowledge dcs as the cupboard to know about them. Finally there is the tiara which is actually ravenclaw's diadem but to identify it as being said diadem takes a dc 50 knowledge history/arcana check, to identify it is cursed takes a dc 55 spell craft check, and to figure out it is a horcrux takes a dc 75 spell craft check. You are a level 1 freshman with total mod of +4 to knowledge arcana, +5 in spell craft, and +2 for history. It isn't possible for you to identify jack about the 'tiara' on the statue, should the dm be hinting to you as the player that this is an important item? heck no that will ruin the whole story!

Well your pc decides they have taken a fancy to that tiara and will wear it because why not, should dm now refuse to let you, no dm is just going to move up the random npc Ginny Weasley possession to instead be your npc who is about to meet an untimely end and unleash a new horror upon the school instead.

For a similar example we could point to your friend's fat pet rat Scabbers, The Mirror of Erised or so on, the slithering symbol on the sink/Moaning Myrtle, and so forth. It is common place to introduce plot hooks that the characters have no way to know just what they are or even if they are important or just more random fluff when first introduced but end up playing a huge role later on. And according to you it is an 'an empty gesture towards the idea of allowing player engagement' to add these in but not give hints and clues to things they wouldn't know yet...

[TiaC]

I am calling bs on your whole line of logic, introducing items that seem innocuous when first come across but later become super important clues to the over arching story is so common it isn't even funny. Granted this one isn't in any way innocuous but that is just part of its lexicon inside the game for the common folk.
Yes, it's just like this common thing except for being completely different.

[Mechalich]

Let's take harry potter as an example pretending no one has read the book and you as a character are going through the game module.

The rules of narrative drama are not the same as the rules of TTRPGs!

In a narrative the author controls the characters and the audience is the reader. In table-top the GM explicitly does not control the PCs, they are collaborative participants in the emerging story. As a result, in narrative there can be an item or circumstance that would utterly an permanently murder the characters if they touched in a room and the author can just have the PCs not touch it. A GM can't do that in table-top (heck you can't even do it in a video game) because they can't control what the characters will do.

Inescapable consequences are bad adventure design generally, and should only be utilized as the culmination of a chain of events with many escapes and outs leading up to it.

[Andor13]

Part of me thinks "Yeah, just have the creepy butler remind everyone a few times to never ever look at the painting because they will surely die", but there's always that one player who says "Nah, I've gotta see it..." and tries to come up with a way to get around that kind of thing. On the other hand, a player warned about it, who's never in a situation where they're forced to look at it, who then goes out of their way to see it, arguably has it coming.

So? It's actually heroic (in the traditional sense, not the murder-hobo one) for someone to want to gaze upon certain death and live. Think of Ulysses tied to the mast so he can hear the siren's song and live.

As fas as weaponizing it, sure, they might try, although if they are bright enough to realize it bypasses normal mechanics, then they may realize they are already in GM fiat land, and it's a bad plan. At any rate I would have it not work, or go wonky once off the manor lands.

[ericgrau]

tl;dr - Even with the assumption that my players know that my 3.5 games have things that lie outside the standard rules, is it fair to canonically have a painting that insta-kills anyone who looks at it?

More in depth - My games often feature items and creatures that just "are" whatever they are, even if there's not a spell or rule or mechanic in 3.5 that easily explains how it works the way it does. My players have always seemed fine with it, but then again I've rarely had cause for such things to severely negatively impact players in ways that can't be undone.

For a given story, I'm pondering a painting that kills anyone who looks at it, with an unerring track record. It feels cheap to have that item and be in its proximity but also never actually, like... have it around. Having said that, the way it works would just cause death; no saving throw to resist, no traceable "magic" to be dispelled or nullified, and I'm even considering things like "not even Death Ward works to block it" though that might not be necessary for the story in particular...

Part of me thinks "Yeah, just have the creepy butler remind everyone a few times to never ever look at the painting because they will surely die", but there's always that one player who says "Nah, I've gotta see it..." and tries to come up with a way to get around that kind of thing. On the other hand, a player warned about it, who's never in a situation where they're forced to look at it, who then goes out of their way to see it, arguably has it coming.

So... what do you think? Put in the cursed painting that must hang in the manor and give the players a fair warning, or don't have this particular item-specific story?
Right off the bat this is an ultra symbol of death and an artifact level item. So (a) this must be a crazy important manor and (b) this item must be a heavily contested plot changing item (why hasn't this been weaponized again?) and (c) why isn't the painting covered? Anything less is pretty heavy handed DMing and deserves what happens. Be that PC death or a PC running off with the painting and using it to insta-kill most enemies.

So now if you want to take it seriously then say they ARE weaponizing it and this is the heavily guarded location where they keep it when not in battle. Enemies are constantly trying to get their hands on it and PCs might be there to track down someone who tried and nearly succeeded. Entire battle strategem revolve around ways to get the enemy to see it while not letting allies see it while not leaving it vulnerable to theft. Like well timed eye closing. Whereas if the enemy keeps his eyes shuts, well he's fighting blind. Or use lots and lots of undead with it.

Otherwise I wouldn't go so far and I'd just make it work like an ordinary symbol of death in painting form instead.

[NichG]

To prevent weaponization from taking over the game, the effect causes the one who looks at it to meet their end within the next month, without fail, and to know this to be true. But no actual immediate effect. It can be used for assassination, but it'd be useless in combat.

Even for assassination, it gives the target a month to procure someone to cast Raise Dead on their behalf.

[ericgrau]

To prevent weaponization from taking over the game, the effect causes the one who looks at it to meet their end within the next month, without fail, and to know this to be true. But no actual immediate effect. It can be used for assassination, but it'd be useless in combat.

Even for assassination, it gives the target a month to procure someone to cast Raise Dead on their behalf.

That's still great for causing mass death, especially in war where most can't afford a raise dead. Though it's true no matter how badly a PC screws up (and partly the DM for even making this thing), at least the PC can always be raised.

You could make the effect immobile and indestructible (except via some LotR level artifact destruction method) to prevent it from being anything but a local danger. Even then, why the heck is this painting not covered? Maybe the ghost of the guy in the painting messes with obstructions? And for that matter has preferences about the decor in the area around it?

[zergling.exe]

That's still great for causing mass death, especially in war where most can't afford a raise dead. Though it's true no matter how badly a PC screws up (and partly the DM for even making this thing), at least the PC can always be raised.

You could make the effect immobile and indestructible (except via some LotR level artifact destruction method) to prevent it from being anything but a local danger. Even then, why the heck is this painting not covered? Maybe the ghost of the guy in the painting messes with obstructions? And for that matter has preferences about the decor in the area around it?

Quotes by OP answer a number of questions people keep asking, if they'd read the thread:


Ha! Nice. The way I've got it right now is that the painting has to take up a prominent place in a given hall in the manor, but that the residents have been keeping it turned around so that the actual image is never seen (with a potential moment in Act 3 when the things haunting the place turn it around.)



Nobody wants to keep it around, because it's an accident waiting to happen.

That's kinda the situation they're in, yes. Effectively, the family is very rich and very powerful, but they're assured their success is linked to the watchful spirit of the family founder who wishes to remain anonymous and within the lives of the descendants but, alas, the painting must never be seen. Their successes continue with the painting about, and a family-shattering curse will fall if the painting departs, or so they've been assured. They don't really "look down" all the time since the painting is turned around; why this satisfies the condition for keeping the portrait prominently displayed is up for debate, though they have noted that the wall the painting faces tends to develop rot and decay very rapidly and needs to be knocked down and rebuilt every few years. One uncle thinks they'd be even more successful if they just turned it around and that they should just get used to, as you put it, always looking down, but most people see that, as you also put it, an accident waiting to happen.

Locking up the painting and just getting by without any ghostly blessing is considered by some of the younger family members, thinking that this wouldn't necessarily invite a curse (what with it not being too different from just turning it around, after all) but the older family members seem to believe that this is a futile line of reasoning. It's a profoundly unhappy situation for a number of reasons, I'm afraid.

The one truly happy member of the family is the one who married and moved away, and he's only back in town to visit while the players would be about, protagging the way that players do.

[ericgrau]

@^ This thread is TWO pages long? You want me to read that much? :smalltongue:

But seriously it's still artifact level. Even a stationary symbol of death isn't nearly this powerful. There still needs to be a billion and a half warnings from the family to the PCs telling them not to mess with it, including saying explicitly that all sorts of death wards, coverings and powerful beings have failed in the past. Heck let a PC die if he really insists and have a cleric conveniently located in town. There still needs to be enemies of the family looking to make it not prominently displayed somehow, if only for ransom.

[Jack_Simth]

Having read through the thread....

1) The painting can obviously be moved. Otherwise, they couldn't knock down and replace the wall every few years.
2) One of my first thoughts was "How to weaponize this?" And then digging up the Blindfold of True Darkness (Arms and Equipment Guide: 9k market, makes you blind, but gives you 60 foot blindsight in trade - Goggles slot).
3) My first thought on a testing path was "Dominate Person, get the mark to put on the blindfold, 'look' at the painting via blindsight, and see if he lives" - which would be easy, with it being in a prominent location.

Basically, for almost anyone with an optimization bent, this is a no-save-just-die gaze effect, and would be only a mild hassle to weaponize. Unless, of course, there's some form of "can't leave the manor" or "doesn't work elsewhere" stuff added in when someone tries (and of course, if it doesn't work elsewhere... well, you can see the painting, can't you?).

I've worked with quite a few parties that would look at it that way. Some would feel bad about taking away the families' source of power. Others not so much (depends partly on the family, for obvious reasons). Sure, there'd be some attempts at research on it... but "consequences are adventure" is sometimes a mantra.

So... think of several folks who'll have the various bits of info on the painting, as well as alternate ways to get to such information, and permit the PC's to seek the answers if they are curious. Questions you'll reasonably want to have answers for:
1) How did it come to be?
2) What happens if it gets stolen from the manor?
3) Why hasn't it been weaponized already (blindfold of true darkness, mount on a tower shield - possibly use a Permanent Enlarge Person to make it work well - is just the first thing that pops into my head, and is surprisingly inexpensive for the effect)?

... and make sure there's multiple possible sources for answers to each question (Knowledge(History) or Knowledge(Nobility and Royalty) because it's an old thing associated with a noble family; Gather Information because the local thieves' guild knows not to steal it (somebody DID seventy years ago; here's what happened, and another thief put it back the same night because it was JUST THAT BAD); casting Legend Lore or Vision (they've got it right there, so it's the easy form - be ready with a nice vision with tons of useful info); interviews with the family (have an old granny that knows all about it... and will tell you ... with a bunch of bits mixed in about her favorite cat white-socked, droopy-eyed cat who loved to chase mice and died in a rocking chair accident sixteen years ago when aunt Sally...); and so on.

[Andezzar]

As fas as weaponizing it, sure, they might try, although if they are bright enough to realize it bypasses normal mechanics, then they may realize they are already in GM fiat land, and it's a bad plan. At any rate I would have it not work, or go wonky once off the manor lands.So here is the crux of the problem. the players will refrain from an action (unwanted by the DM), not because the characters have reason to believe this action will have negative consequences, but because the players fear the retaliation of the DM for "derailing his story".

If there is any indication that the painting is anything besides a painting (i.e. you can move it) and kills anyone who gazes upon it, it is a totally different story. Then the characters can investigate further to make a better risk assessment.

PCs should interact with the game world as it is presented to them by the DM, not in ways that the players assume is the way not to anger the DM. If the DM puts restrictions or consequences to the PCs' actions that are unknowable to the PCs and appear arbitrary to the players, you will have a lot of bad feelings on both sides. In this case it does not matter if the DM wrote down "the painting really is a prison for a demon and the demon is freed as soon as the painting consumes three more souls" beforehand or made it up on the spot. It will feel like a gotcha moment for the players.

[NichG]

That's still great for causing mass death, especially in war where most can't afford a raise dead. Though it's true no matter how badly a PC screws up (and partly the DM for even making this thing), at least the PC can always be raised.

In practice, PCs will rarely be involved with decimating massed forces on a month timescale, so this is a good point to say 'yes, it can be used that way, and in fact that's why this family has a royal charter to safeguard the painting'. Or to have this act as a remembered silver bullet when the PCs find themselves dealing with exponentially self-replicating sand goblins or something.

It's a good day when the PCs get to feel like they got away with something...

[noob]

Why do people assume the adventurers are not going to carry the manor around and drop it onto opponents so that they get crushed and possibly also see the painting?

[Jack_Simth]

Why do people assume the adventurers are not going to carry the manor around and drop it onto opponents so that they get crushed and possibly also see the painting?
An entire manor is out of most folks' carrying capacity. Also, they tend not to have the structural integrity needed to pick them up.

[noob]

An entire manor is out of most folks' carrying capacity. Also, they tend not to have the structural integrity needed to pick them up.

Just cast some spells to make the manor tougher so that it fits in one piece while being carried.
Or maybe shrink the manor somehow.
Or do dimensional shenanigans to bring the manor in a demiplane then throw around the demiplane.
I am sure there is solutions to do that if we search a bit.

[Gullintanni]

The Cursed Canvas of Wee Jas:

This artifact, created by the stern lady, is a painting of untold beauty. Unfortunately, no one alive can describe the painting, as during it's creation, the goddess imbued her own essence, the essence of death, into the canvas.

Any mortal gazing upon the canvas is struck dead by her unearthly power. The bodies of those slain by the painting are protected from decay, as if under the effect of a permanent, non-magical gentle repose spell.

Some view this as a boon, and make pilgrimages to the site of the painting toward the end of their lives.

The painting also absorbed the essence of Wee Jas' vanity, and, as if sentient, jealously protects it's own existence through some manner of enchantment. Those seeking to destroy, or move the painting, must make a DC35 Fortitude save. Those who fail the save are rendered unconscious for 1d4 days. Those who succeed have their strength scores reduced to 0 until they abandon any attempt to move, or harm the painting.

Legend says that Wee Jas gifted the painting to a fanatical admirer within her cult, and that his descendents bear the cursed work to this day.

[noob]

The Cursed Canvas of Wee Jas:

This artifact, created by the stern lady, is a painting of untold beauty. Unfortunately, no one alive can describe the painting, as during it's creation, the goddess imbued her own essence, the essence of death, into the canvas.

Any mortal gazing upon the canvas is struck dead by her unearthly power. The bodies of those slain by the painting are protected from decay, as if under the effect of a permanent, non-magical gentle repose spell.

Some view this as a boon, and make pilgrimages to the site of the painting toward the end of their lives.

The painting also absorbed the essence of Wee Jas' vanity, and, as if sentient, jealously protects it's own existence through some manner of enchantment. Those seeking to destroy, or move the painting, must make a DC35 Fortitude save. Those who fail the save are rendered unconscious for 1d4 days. Those who succeed have their strength scores reduced to 0 until they abandon any attempt to move, or harm the painting.

Legend says that Wee Jas gifted the painting to a fanatical admirer within her cult, and that his descendents bear the cursed work to this day.
So this canvas protects the planet from being thrown in the sun and stops evil cultists from making giant asteroids fall on the planet.
It also protects against a bunch of lovecraft mythos allseeing monsters.
We have to thank wee jas for protecting the world.

[Gullintanni]

So this canvas protects the planet from being thrown in the sun and stops evil cultists from making giant asteroids fall on the planet.
It also protects against a bunch of lovecraft mythos allseeing monsters.
We have to thank wee jas for protecting the world.

"Those seeking to destroy or move the painting..."

Those seeking to destroy the planet seek to destroy the planet. Damage to the canvas would likely be catastrophic but ultimately incidental to the intent of the one seeking to destroy the planet. Intent matters.


EDIT: It's also worth noting that you do not have to play with an artifact that bears this level of power in your games, nor must any given DM rely on something I wrote in three minutes at 8 AM on a cell phone when common sense revisions might improve upon the execution of the concept. Treating homebrew like RAW is a bit like trying to clap with one hand: You can certainly attempt it, but you're not going to produce anything of value.

I wrote that description as an inspiration piece -- a starting point for the OP. ...and given that your starting point for pointing out problems is world ending calamities, the likes of which tend not to exist within RAW in the first place, I'm not convinced that you're not just being obstructive for the sake of it. No offense intended, I'm just not sure how else to interpret your reply.

[Schattenbach]

Regarding attempts to weaponize the painting and the pcs/npcs getting screwed over as a result ... To be fair, something that supposedly "kills everyone that looks at it" should only be approached with utmost caution. If the PCs do not do that despite all the obvious danger signs, it would be sensible for the DM to involve DC5 wisdom roll for all PCs involved to tell them that this is a bit too suicidal. If anything happens beyond that point, its their own fault. And as for abuse, that "cursed painting" is pretty much a Black Box that is, at best, some killer pseudo-artifact and at worse something that is way beyond the PCs ability to control and where the ability to kill anything that looks at it is only a small fraction of its power. And who knows if something "that powerful" isn’t sentient and simply kills people because it feels like it? So to sum it up, careless approaching it is completely irrational (at least use some goblin or something to test it out) and attempts to weaponize something that is completely beyond ones understanding - a complete black box - might always carry some form of risk.

[liquidformat]

Treating homebrew like RAW is a bit like trying to clap with one hand: You can certainly attempt it, but you're not going to produce anything of value.
I can clap just fine with one hand and have always found that idiom to be useless...

[Gullintanni]

I can clap just fine with one hand and have always found that idiom to be useless...

If it communicated the point I was trying to make, then then the idiom served it's purpose just fine.