So who killed Penelope?

[SlashDash]

I've been going over Blood Runs in the Family again.
I noticed that Elan thought Tarquin killed Penelope (his ninth wife) and Tarquin thought Nale did it.

So who do we think might have killed her? If it's neither of those two?

Or was that also a result of the familicide spell? I mean she didn't have "black dragon" blood but she was the mother of one?

[Sir_Norbert]

It was Familicide. It kills anyone who shares blood with the target, and then anyone who shares blood with any of the first-stage victims.

[Just Call Me J]

It was Familicide. It kills anyone who shares blood with the target, and then anyone who shares blood with any of the first-stage victims.

Doesn't it keep going, too? Down to the last cousin? And we're lucky she wasn't carrying a child of Tarquin's, because if she were, Familicide would have killed Tarquin, Nale, and more importantly Elan, too.

[GrayGriffin]

There's an image of it happening when Vaarsuvius realizes the full implications of their action in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html). Penelope's on the bottom-right of the "familicide storm" panel.

[Schroeswald]

There's an image of it happening when Vaarsuvius realizes the full implications of their action in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html). Penelope's on the bottom-right of the "familicide storm" panel.
“I am the one who slew Tarquin’s wife!”

[tawnyterror]

Doesn't it keep going, too? Down to the last cousin? And we're lucky she wasn't carrying a child of Tarquin's, because if she were, Familicide would have killed Tarquin, Nale, and more importantly Elan, too.

now that I'm aware that vaarsuvius was that close to having been responsible for the death of elan, a party member and friend.. it makes me imagine all the possibilities of a horrible timeline in which that did happen. nobody under the impact of the spell was particularly close to v, I imagine the additional toll it would have on them upon finding out it wasn't some freak accident that killed him, but instead a direct result of their selfish mistake.. would be quite grievous.

[Peelee]

now that I'm aware that vaarsuvius was that close to having been responsible for the death of elan, a party member and friend..

...it wasn't close at all though?

[woweedd]

...it wasn't close at all though?
How so? If she and Tarquin had had a child, that baby would have added Tarquin, Nale, and Elan to the list of targets.

[tawnyterror]

...it wasn't close at all though?

Did I read something wrong? I was pondering, based on other conversation in this thread, what would occur if Penelope had a child of Tarquins, (and therefore cementing the family ties) and the result it could have.

[Peelee]

How so? If she and Tarquin had had a child, that baby would have added Tarquin, Nale, and Elan to the list of targets.

I really thought that last comic would end this debate, but it seems like there's still a lot of confusion. So here goes:

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.


Penelope is not in step 1. Penelope is in step 2. If she had a child with Tarquin, that child would be in step 2, but Tarquin would not; he would not share blood with anyone in step 1. Children Tarquin had beforehand would not be in step 2, as they would not share blood with anyone in step 1.

[HorizonWalker]

Nale, Tarquin, and Elan still would not share blood with anyone with the blood of a Black Dragon. They'd have enough degrees of separation to avoid being killed off by Familicide.

[tawnyterror]

I see now, thank you for clarifying. I still had fun with my musings though.

[Peelee]

No worries, Familicide is notorious for having a ridiculous number of threads popping up on how it works and the logistics, and it's not uncommon for people to still get it wrong.

[Emperor Time]

Agree there safe but it might have been a different story if it had a third step in who it kills.

[Cazero]

No worries, Familicide is notorious for having a ridiculous number of threads popping up on how it works and the logistics, and it's not uncommon for people to still get it wrong.
Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).

[MesiDoomstalker]

Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).

It be a total genocide spell if it were; it have to kill anyone who'd ever want revenge on the original target. Repeat for all secondary targets. Repeat till no more targets. Usually because literally everything is dead.

[Peelee]

Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).

I dunno, nobody's come for V's head over that yet.

[Jannoire]

It be a total genocide spell if it were; it have to kill anyone who'd ever want revenge on the original target. Repeat for all secondary targets. Repeat till no more targets. Usually because literally everything is dead.

Sounds like "Eye for an eye, until everybody is blind" to me...

[factotum]

Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).

It was always obvious that was the case, because it didn't take into account friends and spouses of the spell's target, who might well be annoyed enough at their death to do something about it.

[ti'esar]

Heck, we know explicitly from the start that it wouldn't have worked on V's own family.

[Dr.Zero]

It was always obvious that was the case, because it didn't take into account friends and spouses of the spell's target, who might well be annoyed enough at their death to do something about it.

But might still be scared about the effect on their surviving relatives, enough to avoid to try to avenge who is dead. At the time I made a correlation with Mafia, which is famous to use a similar method to scare people ("We will not kill -only- you, but before that we will kill your family... and your little dog, too"). (Even if, basically, that was done by every single evil tyrant in the world, I'd guess).

So either the one who seeks vengeance must not care enough about his surviving relatives, or must be really sure to win that fight. Probably, since killing an epic necromancer requires a lot of resources, is a safer better to just resurrect all the people killed by that spell than endangering the surviving ones.

[Emanick]

But might still be scared about the effect on their surviving relatives, enough to avoid to try to avenge who is dead. At the time I made a correlation with Mafia, which is famous to use a similar method to scare people ("We will not kill -only- you, but before that we will kill your family... and your little dog, too"). (Even if, basically, that was done by every single evil tyrant in the world, I'd guess).

So either the one who seeks vengeance must not care enough about his surviving relatives, or must be really sure to win that fight. Probably, since killing an epic necromancer requires a lot of resources, is a safer better to just resurrect all the people killed by that spell than endangering the surviving ones.

In most cases, spending millions of gold on resurrection (Raise Dead can’t return a character who was killed by a death effect, which Familicide probably is) spells is probably about as difficult as killing an epic necromancer. Or at the very least, it’s just about the same level of difficulty, in that it’s essentially impossible.

[hroþila]

Personally I always thought Haerta intended that spell simply as a way to deliver disproportionate retribution, and the bit about making sure no one went after their family again was just V rationalizing their genocidal urges (or buying Haerta's pitch because it allowed them to rationalize said urges).

[The Pilgrim]

Personally I always thought Haerta intended that spell simply as a way to deliver disproportionate retribution, and the bit about making sure no one went after their family again was just V rationalizing their genocidal urges (or buying Haerta's pitch because it allowed them to rationalize said urges).

Pretty much this. Friends, non-blood relatives, vassals, lieges... are not affected by the spell and are likely to seek revenge.

I mean, if I am a Baron and someone slaughters my peasants left and right, I'm supposed to do something about it. Not just because it's my duty to protect the peasants, but also for economic self-interest. One commoner slain, okay, I am probably not going to mind about it. But if then the murderer obliterates half the villiage with Familicide, then I can't weasel off that one.

If the purpose of the spell had really been to prevent vengeance, then the effects would be more like a massive mind-wipe to make everybody forget about the target having ever existed. Cheaper cost and better performance.

[Xihirli]

Wait. Are you telling me Familicide wasn't well thought through?

[Riftwolf]

Wait. Are you telling me Familicide wasn't well thought through?

It could be a town-burner rather than a world-scourer. A small close-knit society has a lot of distant relations marrying, so hitting a first level commoner with it could probably cripple the village enough for you to finish it off with regular spellpower. It could also have been designed especially to target Kings and wipe out their family lines (which in a medieval setting where royal bloodlines were considered important, would be devastating to a whole country).
When designed, it probably wasn't intended to be used the way V did. Just because s/he didn't use it right doesn't mean it wasn't thought through enough. And from another perspective, it was thought through just fine; it did exactly what Rich wanted it to, nothing more or less.

[Dr.Zero]

In most cases, spending millions of gold on resurrection (Raise Dead can’t return a character who was killed by a death effect, which Familicide probably is) spells is probably about as difficult as killing an epic necromancer. Or at the very least, it’s just about the same level of difficulty, in that it’s essentially impossible.

Not every characater, the ones who the close-to-epic or epic avenger is interested. That requires just a bunch of gold. And, AFAIR, resurrection works for death effects' victims.


Pretty much this. Friends, non-blood relatives, vassals, lieges... are not affected by the spell and are likely to seek revenge.

I mean, if I am a Baron and someone slaughters my peasants left and right, I'm supposed to do something about it. Not just because it's my duty to protect the peasants, but also for economic self-interest. One commoner slain, okay, I am probably not going to mind about it. But if then the murderer obliterates half the villiage with Familicide, then I can't weasel off that one.

If the purpose of the spell had really been to prevent vengeance, then the effects would be more like a massive mind-wipe to make everybody forget about the target having ever existed. Cheaper cost and better performance.

Meh. It in that way you endanger your own surviving family members, that is a bit too risky. But, as I said at the time, I can grant that Mafia (I mean the RL, not the game; and a lot of RL tyrant, too) worked for centuries on that principle, with highs and lows, of course. It has shown to be pragmatically effective.

[Dr.Zero]

(deleted for double posting)

[woweedd]

Hereta's title was " Destroyer of Hope". I get the sense she made Familicide for no practical purpose other then sadistic torture. Think of it like Xykon, a man to whom I imagine Hereta was very similar: Did he NEED to do the bouncy ball? No. He's a Sorcerer. He could have blasted them all to death with Meteor Swarm without even entering the room. Did he want to? Oh, did he ever.

[CriticalFailure]

Hereta's title was " Destroyer of Hope". I get the sense she made Familicide for no practical purpose other then sadistic torture. Think of it like Xykon, a man to whom I imagine Hereta was very similar: Did he NEED to do the bouncy ball? No. He's a Sorcerer. He could have blasted them all to death with Meteor Swarm without even entering the room. Did he want to? Oh, did he ever.

To be fair, it's conceptually pretty funny.

[a_flemish_guy]

the main thing what people seem to stumble upon is the scope of familicide

if you'd follow the rules of familicide as written in our world then you'd kill everyone since everyone is sort of related to each other once you go far back enough
since that didn't happen they think that it has a limit of people it kills within a chain

except that isn't what happened in the OOTS's universe: the gods created a certain number of humans and those humans weren't related, just like tiamat created a certain number of black dragons who weren't related so there are still black dragons, only not so much

in our world V would have murdered the entire planet
and in the OOTS's verse if penelope had a child of tarquin then she, the child, tarquin, elan, nale and their mother would have died, if haley had been pregnant then both she, ian, geoff and jiminy would have died as well

[Peelee]

in our world V would have murdered the entire planet and in the OOTS's verse if penelope had a child of tarquin then she, the child, tarquin, elan, nale and their mother would have died, if haley had been pregnant then both she, ian, geoff and jiminy would have died as well

No? Penelope and Tarquin could have copulated like bunnies, and that would never make Tarquin a target for Familicide. Or Elan, Nale, etc. etc.

[Theshipening]

in the OOTS's verse if penelope had a child of tarquin then she, the child, tarquin, elan, nale and their mother would have died, if haley had been pregnant then both she, ian, geoff and jiminy would have died as well

That’s not true. As V says in 843, if Penelope had a child, only the child would have died. The reasoning is :
A Draketooth is blood related to the dragon, so he is killed as part of Step One. Penelope is related to him by blood, being his mother, so killed as part of Step Two. Her child, being his brother, is killed as part of Step Two too. However, Tarquin, Nale and Elan had no blood relation to a Draketooth and thus wouldn’t be killed.

[hamishspence]

As a reminder - this was The Giant's formulation:


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.

Wouldn't that spell kill everyone of the original target's species?
In our world? Maybe. The OOTS world is not ours, though. It was created fully populated, even with black dragons. So there could be 100 original black dragons who (as V noted) breed slowly over the relatively-short span of time the current world has been in existence, leading to one-quarter of them being wiped out. If it had been cast on a human first, it may well have taken half or more of the population with it, depending on how many Original Humans there had been and how much interbreeding had occurred. Good thing that's not what happened, right?

But if it worked like that, it would have [insert obscure effect proven with math]!
Yeah, well, it didn't. Why? I don't know. But it didn't. I guess that makes me a crappy writer because I didn't think of whatever implication you just thought of, but there it is. I'm not a biologist or a mathematician. If it makes you feel better, just assume that all the laws of heredity and genetics work differently because It's Magic™.

I hope this will end the endless debates. It's really quite simple, and if you're getting to a point where it seems utterly complicated or recursive or whatever, you're probably thinking about it more than I did.

[Dr.Zero]

That’s not true. As V says in 843, if Penelope had a child, only the child would have died. The reasoning is :
A Draketooth is blood related to the dragon, so he is killed as part of Step One. Penelope is related to him by blood, being his mother, so killed as part of Step Two. Her child, being his brother, is killed as part of Step Two too. However, Tarquin, Nale and Elan had no blood relation to a Draketooth and thus wouldn’t be killed.

Ha! If the debate was endless, there was a reason! This mechanic is soooo confusing and recursion, while being kicked out of the door, is ready to jump back in from the window.
Better to follow the author's suggestion and just handwave it. :D

[a_flemish_guy]

That’s not true. As V says in 843, if Penelope had a child, only the child would have died. The reasoning is :
A Draketooth is blood related to the dragon, so he is killed as part of Step One. Penelope is related to him by blood, being his mother, so killed as part of Step Two. Her child, being his brother, is killed as part of Step Two too. However, Tarquin, Nale and Elan had no blood relation to a Draketooth and thus wouldn’t be killed.

hmmh, I was under the impression that step 2 was recursive, that it would also kill those targetted by step 2, it doesn't even go through dead people, makes me wonder how it could even kill that many people

[factotum]

hmmh, I was under the impression that step 2 was recursive, that it would also kill those targetted by step 2, it doesn't even go through dead people, makes me wonder how it could even kill that many people

As V pointed out when asked by Blackwing, the Draketooth clan spent 60 years getting children by mating with random strangers and then disappearing with the child. Given how many people we saw dead in the pyramid that's going to be a lot of children, and because of step 2, the mothers and fathers of those children were all killed, along with any of their other family who were still alive. That's a lot of people no matter how you slice it.

[Cazero]

No? Penelope and Tarquin could have copulated like bunnies, and that would never make Tarquin a target for Familicide. Or Elan, Nale, etc. etc.
Actualy, in our world, yes, it totaly would have.
Step 1 registers long dead targets all the way to original protocells and mark all of those that had descendants (we're all very, very distant cousins, so all of them are related to anything alive today), then step 2 eradicates all still living descendants of those protocells, ergo all life on the planet.

[hroþila]

Actualy, in our world, yes, it totaly would have.
Step 1 registers long dead targets all the way to original protocells and mark all of those that had descendants (we're all very, very distant cousins, so all of them are related to anything alive today), then step 2 eradicates all still living descendants of those protocells, ergo all life on the planet.
But that means Step 2 would get them regardless of whether Tarquin and Penelope had a child. Which was the point.

[Cazero]

But that means Step 2 would get them regardless of whether Tarquin and Penelope had a child. Which was the point.
Pretty much.
Fortunately, OotS has creationism and life-making gods somehow don't count as living things.

[HorizonWalker]

Pretty much.
Fortunately, OotS has creationism and life-making gods somehow don't count as living things.

Freya may have created you and given you life, but unless she literally gave birth to you, she's not your mom and you two aren't related by blood.

[Peelee]

Actualy, in our world, yes, it totaly would have.



But no one said "Tarquin in our world." That's like saying that in Nightmare Before Christmas world, Tarquin Skellington would survive because it appears that they don't even have blood. True, but nobody was calling that out to begin with.

[The Pilgrim]

Meh. It in that way you endanger your own surviving family members, that is a bit too risky. But, as I said at the time, I can grant that Mafia (I mean the RL, not the game; and a lot of RL tyrant, too) worked for centuries on that principle, with highs and lows, of course. It has shown to be pragmatically effective.

Yes. But the Mafia also operated under the principle of not allowing anyone else to do that to the people under your "protection". A Feudal Structure is nothing but the biggest Mafia of all. You touch a peasant, the lord will send his knigths after you. You touch one of the knights, the Baron will come. You touch the Baron, the Count sends his men to tail you. You touch the Count, the Duke steps in. Then the King. Then other Kings. And the Emperor (if any).

I'm not talking hypotetically. Were I come from, there was a full feudal war in as late as the second half of the XVII Century, because two Joe Nobodies who weren't even landed nobles got into a brawl that ended bad, asked for help to their lieges, who in turn asked their own lords for help, and so on until the two Dukes of the Realm were involved in a full open turf war and the King had to step in, forced the Dukes to make peace, and killed both Joe Nobodies for good measure. And the King managed to stop the war cold because it was the late XVII cent. A hundred years before, the King would have had to bite it and wait until the dukes fighted it out and got tired of it. Like happened often through all Medieval Europe.

Applied to Familicide, it would be like if a lone wanderer got into town, killed a mafia goon, then slaughtered all his relatives. That doesn't ends well for the lone gunman, even if he is the protagonist of the movie.

[Dr.Zero]

Yes. But the Mafia also operated under the principle of not allowing anyone else to do that to the people under your "protection".

As long as that either didn't endanger too much the group or was needed for the group survival, I'd like to add.
Usually mafia wars starting because a low level gangsta is killed, are not started to avenge that low level gangsta (even if they are sold like that), but because the action is a threat to the whole group (like: "if we show ourselves weak here, our people will desert us, and WE -the bosses- will be killed easily.").

Granted, you have a point about the fact that that could happen even in retaliation for a Familicide, but if we are talking about people interested to keep their power, that could happen only if the Familicide can be seen as an indirect attack to the (power or prestige of the) big boss or that doesn't endager that same big boss more than inaction would be.

Now I digress a bit, here, with a real history fact, hoping that rules permit it, linking a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Mori which I deem worth to be read. Basically the war between some necromancers who will kill you and your little dog too, and between a lord, with even more power... whose practically did the same, adding to the list "and your whole town" (even if not specifically mentioned there, Mori in one occasion besieged Gangi, the village where some mafia's bosses were hiding, forcing 400 of them to surrender, eventually).
Which is an example that proves your point is indeed right, as long as one of my points is checked (in this case, being much stronger than "the Haerta" of the situation).

[The Pilgrim]

Which is an example that proves your point is indeed right, as long as one of my points is checked (in this case, being much stronger than "the Haerta" of the situation).

We seem to be more or less on the same page here. As you point out, I assume that between a King and a Necromancer, the King is the big dog there. If only because his court jester can hire an adequately-leveled team of adventurers in any random tavern of his realm to take on the Necromancer, specially if she is Epic Level.

I mean, Tarquin did once point out to Elan how extremely trivial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html) is to find adventurers of an adequate level to take on an Epic Necromancer.

The key to survival for a Villiain is to keep a low profile, like Xykon did for almost all his life, and like Tarquin has been doing.

[Dr.Zero]

We seem to be more or less on the same page here. As you point out, I assume that between a King and a Necromancer, the King is the big dog there. If only because his court jester can hire an adequately-leveled team of adventurers in any random team of his ream to take on the Necromancer, specially if she is Epic Level.

I mean, Tarquin did once point out to Elan how extremely trivial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html) is to find adventurers of an adequate level to take on an Epic Necromancer.

The key to survival for a Villiain is to keep a low profile, like Xykon did for almost all his life, and like Tarquin has been doing.

Yes, the distinctions seems to be more on how strong we think an epic character in OOTS. My bad, because I assumed, without stating it, that epic characters are extremely rare in OOTS world, and my whole point was based on that hidden assumption.

Well, now that seems a fine compromise! And I, for one, look forward to the possibility to be proven assuming too much in further discussions. After all, we are reasonable adults who can talk out their differences.

[The Pilgrim]

Epic-Level characters may be extremely rare in the world. But you do not need an Epic-Level hero to take down an Epic-Level villiain.

The problem with epic level villiains is that they operate alone*, instead of in teams of 4-6 characters of similar level whose skill sets compliment each other. That flaw makes them vulnerable to bands of high-level adventurers, who are a lot more common than epic-level characters, and are an easily available commodity for kings and equivalent rulers. After all, the main, perhaps the only, motivation for a band of high level adventurers, is to find a challenge big enough to let them win experience. So even if you are just a lowly baron being pestered by an Epic Level Necormancer, you can manage to attract high level adventures just by giving them the information. You don't even need to pay them, they will bring him down for you just for the XP and the l00t.

Epic Level adventurers do not fight Epic Level Villiains. They fight Evil Gods and other Cosmic Horrors.

* For example, take Team Evil. Xykon is the only epic level character there. And his relationship with Redcloak is getting more and more tense as Redcloak approaches the Epic treshold. The Vector Legion aren't Epic Level, but they are already operating splitted.
Even the Scribblers splitted up soon after hiting Epic, and they were Heroes, not Villiains.

[Roland Itiative]

Actualy, in our world, yes, it totaly would have.
Step 1 registers long dead targets all the way to original protocells and mark all of those that had descendants (we're all very, very distant cousins, so all of them are related to anything alive today), then step 2 eradicates all still living descendants of those protocells, ergo all life on the planet.
Not quite. Step 2 only affects people related to those killed by Step 1. So, all the ancestors of the target who are already dead will not propagate the "wave" of killing. If used on a world like ours, it'll go back two or three generations at most before stopping. Heck, if the target's direct ancestors are already dead, the spell will not even kill cousins or uncles.

The Giant specifically states that caveat in his explanation, even.

The Familicide spell, while still very obviously atrocious, is not as damaging as V's casting makes it appear to be, because he happened to target somebody with three traits that make the spell specially effective:

1- The target is from a very long-lived race, making the Step 1 go back a lot of generations.

2- The target's race is a particularly closed community, making a very high percentage of the entire species a target.

3- V unkowingly targetted a family that makes it a mission to spread their heritage through promiscuity, casting a wide net of Step 2 targets.

[hamishspence]

If used on a world like ours, it'll go back two or three generations at most before stopping. Heck, if the target's direct ancestors are already dead, the spell will not even kill cousins or uncles.

Step 1: "Is the creature related by blood to the original target, in any way? If yes, kill it"

And the Giant makes that point:


Wouldn't that spell kill everyone of the original target's species?
In our world? Maybe.

[Theshipening]

Not quite. Step 2 only affects people related to those killed by Step 1. So, all the ancestors of the target who are already dead will not propagate the "wave" of killing. If used on a world like ours, it'll go back two or three generations at most before stopping. Heck, if the target's direct ancestors are already dead, the spell will not even kill cousins or uncles.

As said above, you misunderstand. The spell also goes through dead people. Otherwise Girard’s family wouldn’t have been affected, since he was the blood link with the dragon’s family and was already dead.

In our world, your ‘blood’ goes back to great-great-...-great-grandparent, the first human, and by extension everyone is somewhat your cousin and shares an extremely small amount of your ‘blood’ and thus would be killed as part of step 1.

[a_flemish_guy]

seeing as how the spell spreads it could easily kill all life on earth IRL since we're all related to the first cell that swam around

[D.One]

seeing as how the spell spreads it could easily kill all life on earth IRL since we're all related to the first cell that swam around

Depends on how literal the need for having "blood" is...

Edit: Which leads me to the question. Suppose a vampire drinks someone's blood, but that person escapes and is immediately after killed by Familicide. Does the vampire counts as "sharing blood"?

[Roland Itiative]

Step 1: "Is the creature related by blood to the original target, in any way? If yes, kill it"

How can you kill something that is already dead (and I mean legit dead, not undead or anything similar)? That's right, you can't.

He did give a "maybe" on the other part, but that directly contradicts what was said right before, and he used it as grounds to explain another key difference between our world and the OotS world.


As said above, you misunderstand. The spell also goes through dead people. Otherwise Girard’s family wouldn’t have been affected, since he was the blood link with the dragon’s family and was already dead.

In our world, your ‘blood’ goes back to great-great-...-great-grandparent, the first human, and by extension everyone is somewhat your cousin and shares an extremely small amount of your ‘blood’ and thus would be killed as part of step 1.

Girard's family was targetted because they're all descended from (aka, share the blood of) the dragon. Your direct bloodline does in fact go back to the first living organism in the world, but it doesn't include any of the branches that didn't result in your birth, that's what Step 2 is for. And Step 2 only starts for a given target if Step 1 killed them (which can't happen if they're already dead).

[Schroeswald]

How can you kill something that is already dead (and I mean legit dead, not undead or anything similar)? That's right, you can't.

Just because you can’t kill the dead doesn’t mean anything, I share blood with my second cousins even though my great grandparents are all dead, if you cast familicide on me they would die, because they share blood with me, it doesn’t care about the dead relatives (in step 1), all my blood family is now dead, and since that applies to the whole human race, they’re all dead too.

[Theshipening]

Girard's family was targetted because they're all descended from (aka, share the blood of) the dragon. Your direct bloodline does in fact go back to the first living organism in the world, but it doesn't include any of the branches that didn't result in your birth, that's what Step 2 is for. And Step 2 only starts for a given target if Step 1 killed them (which can't happen if they're already dead).

First, what Schroeswald said.

Second, it is very likely Girard wasn’t a direct descendant of Moma Dragon, but rather of a who-knows-how-many-time removed cousin/nephew, thus proving that cousins count as step 1. It’s not about a direct bloodline, it’s about sharing blood. Otherwise siblings wouldn’t be affected by step 1, since they’re not part of your direct bloodline, and that would be pretty mental.

[HorizonWalker]

First, what Schroeswald said.

Second, it is very likely Girard wasn’t a direct descendant of Moma Dragon, but rather of a who-knows-how-many-time removed cousin/nephew, thus proving that cousins count as step 1. It’s not about a direct bloodline, it’s about sharing blood. Otherwise siblings wouldn’t be affected by step 1, since they’re not part of your direct bloodline, and that would be pretty mental.

One, the Dragon seems to be male- at least, the Dragon's wife is drawn with long hair and boobs.

Two, Girard is a grandson of the Dragon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html)

[Quebbster]

One, the Dragon seems to be male- at least, the Dragon's wife is drawn with long hair and boobs.

Two, Girard is a grandson of the Dragon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html)

Even Vaarsuvius noticed the human mother (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html), so it's a safe assumption.

[The MunchKING]

One, the Dragon seems to be male- at least, the Dragon's wife is drawn with long hair and boobs.

Two, Girard is a grandson of the Dragon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html)

Now that it's been pointed out, I like how all the women in the picture are drawn sideways so you can see they have boobs.

[brian 333]

I killed Penelope and I'll tell you why: she wore the dress I wanted to wear to the ball and it made me mad! Mad I say! So I killed her with the candlestick in the ballroom!

[Kardwill]

Meh. It in that way you endanger your own surviving family members, that is a bit too risky.

But the way the spell is designed, it will create people who just lost their entire family, and don't have anything left to lose : If your spouse was a stage one victim, then stage 2 just killed every one of your children, but left you alive.
Sounds nasty? Mutliply that for every stage one victim...
Then add friends, partners, associates, lieges, lovers.
It's a spell that will ensure that there are plenty of people out for blood.

We didn't see reprisals yet because people have to understand what the hell just happened (we know Tiamat knows the truth, but the IFCC were in a position to bribe/convince her not to intervene), find out who is responsible (some spellcaster noboby from a random adventuring party), find out were they are (and the OOTS moves A LOT), muster enough power to take them down without leaving them a chance to strike back (and yeah, going against a lv 17 adventuring party is an intimidating perspective), and then get their hands on them and exert vengeance or justice.

It's not been that long since **** hit the fan, so it's not that strange nothing happened yet. But seing reprisal (attacks, lawsuits or family feud) afterward would not surprise me. We've seen half-dragons, mages, adventurers and royal families in that familicide sequence.

[Peelee]

But the way the spell is designed, it will create people who just lost their entire family, and don't have anything left to lose : If your spouse was a stage one victim, then stage 2 just killed every one of your children, but left you alive.


No. If your spouse was a stage one victim, then stage 1 just killed every one of your children, and Stage 2 kills you. That's pretty much exactly how Penelope died.

[factotum]

No. If your spouse was a stage one victim, then stage 1 just killed every one of your children, and Stage 2 kills you. That's pretty much exactly how Penelope died.

Penelope is the poster child for why this leaves vengeful families behind, though, because sure, she got killed in stage 2 and if she'd had a child with Tarquin they would have died in that stage as well--however, Tarquin himself, and his other children (e.g. Nale and Elan), would *not* be affected, because they don't share blood with anyone killed in stage 1.

[Peelee]

Penelope is the poster child for why this leaves vengeful families behind, though, because sure, she got killed in stage 2 and if she'd had a child with Tarquin they would have died in that stage as well--however, Tarquin himself, and his other children (e.g. Nale and Elan), would *not* be affected, because they don't share blood with anyone killed in stage 1.

I dunno, I'd say that's an uncommon situation; the crafter of the spell probably assumed a large percentage of stable, monogamous relationships, it seems.

ETA: Not to mention that even Tarquin, renowned for his pettiness, ended up throwing his hands in the air about what happened.

[Jasdoif]

I dunno, I'd say that's an uncommon situation; the crafter of the spell probably assumed a large percentage of stable, monogamous relationships, it seems.And children too, apparently.

[Doug Lampert]

As I've pointed out before, we know that the ABD had good relations with one other dragon.

She mentions that she was visiting with her son's uncle when he was killed...

Assuming marriage and monogamy, there are 4 possible relationships that make someone your son's uncle.
1) Your brother.
2) Your sister's husband.
3) Your husband's brother.
4) Your husband's sister's husband.

Note that ONE and ONLY ONE of these is guaranteed to get the other dragon killed, and it's the one where you'd pretty well never say "I was visiting my son's uncle" since you have a perfectly good "I was visiting my brother" as an alternative which is shorter, carries all the same information, and carries substantially more information to boot.

So there's an excellent chance that the uncle wasn't killed unless there was a separate, second connection not mentioned.

I'm fairly sure she also mentioned "that nice green dragon" as a possible match for her son. Another dragon that wouldn't get killed by familicide.

As a method of preventing vengeance by killing everyone that might want revenge, Familicide is a disaster, "I'll just kill a bunch of uninvolved people based on rather arbitrary criteria and then hope/assume that none of THEM have relatives who'll want vengeance."

You've gone from maybe one dragon wanting revenge, to probably almost every surviving black dragon (and 3/4ths are estimated to have lived) wanting revenge. It would work fine in our world where it simply kills absolutely everybody, but in TOotS world it's completely useless for V's claimed intended purpose.

[Quebbster]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed Familicide was a well-designed spell. It filled its role in the story though.

[Theshipening]

I think someone said it already, but the spell clearly wasn’t designed to stop vengeance. That was at best V not thinking the spell through, and at worst V rationalizing their actions to themselves. Haerta “Destroy anyone who has ever slighted you” Bloodsoak Destroyer of Hope probably wasn’t concerned with vengeance, just with inflincting as much pain, suffering and crushing despair on the victim as possible.

[Fyraltari]

I

ETA: Not to mention that even Tarquin, renowned for his pettiness, ended up throwing his hands in the air about what happened.
If only there were some way of magically getting information. Like some people with a special connection to the gods who could answer any question about the future present or past. We could call them... oracles? Nah, doesn’t sound mystical enough. How about augurs?

[Rogar Demonblud]

How about Diviners?

[Peelee]

If only there were some way of magically getting information. Like some people with a special connection to the gods who could answer any question about the future present or past. We could call them... oracles? Nah, doesn’t sound mystical enough. How about augurs?

People who see the future can usually avoid people when they want (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html).

[Fyraltari]

People who see the future can usually avoid people when they want (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html).

And your point is?

[Peelee]

And your point is?

The fact that such people exist does not imply that a given person has access to them.

[Fyraltari]

The fact that such people exist does not imply that a given person has access to them.

True, true. But Familicide has a way of getting a whole lotta people involved.

[a_flemish_guy]

not to mention who else got involved

the only reason tiamat herself didn't go after V was because the IFFC managed to make a deal

familicide at this point is the equivalent of shooting a member of each of the mob families in town and a cop as well

[Peelee]

not to mention who else got involved

the only reason tiamat herself didn't go after V was because the IFFC managed to make a deal

familicide at this point is the equivalent of shooting a member of each of the mob families in town and a cop as well

I think Tiamat didn't get involved because gods can't directly act on the Material Plane.

[Grey Watcher]

...

Assuming marriage and monogamy, there are 4 possible relationships that make someone your son's uncle.
1) Your brother.
2) Your sister's husband.
3) Your husband's brother.
4) Your husband's sister's husband.

Note that ONE and ONLY ONE of these is guaranteed to get the other dragon killed, and it's the one where you'd pretty well never say "I was visiting my son's uncle" since you have a perfectly good "I was visiting my brother" as an alternative which is shorter, carries all the same information, and carries substantially more information to boot.

So there's an excellent chance that the uncle wasn't killed unless there was a separate, second connection not mentioned.

...

Wait, aren't TWO of those a a guaranteed kill, given how Familicide is described?

The first step kills everyone with whom you share a common ancestor or descendant, so your brother dies because you share ancestors (your parents) and your husband dies because you share descendants (your child). Note that this step can kill you even if the connecting people are already dead.

The second step kills everyone who shares a common ancestor or descendant with anyone killed in in the first step. So in that case, your husband's brother definitely dies because they share ancestors (their parents).

(Sister's husband and husband's sister's husband depend, I think, on who has or hasn't had children.)

But your overall point is still correct, that Familicide is a poor tool for V's stated goal of preventing revenge, since it completely ignores friendships, adoptions, childless marriages and relationships, beloved mentors and students, comrades-in-arms and all the other ways people relate to each other that have nothing to do with biological relation.

Also everything else that's horribly wrong with using that spell for any reason.

Also technically, it should be "Assuming marriage, monogamy, and heterosexuality" :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

Also technically, it should be "Assuming marriage, monogamy, and heterosexuality" :smalltongue:

....and progeny.:smallwink:

[Grey Watcher]

....and progeny.:smallwink:

Implicit in the phrase "son's uncle", which could refer to a hypothetical son anyway, so there!:smallcool:

[Peelee]

Implicit in the phrase "son's uncle", which could refer to a hypothetical son anyway, so there!:smallcool:

But adoption exists, as evidenced by V's family, so I felt that biological children was as much an assumption as heterosexuality, is all.:smallamused:

[Grey Watcher]

But adoption exists, as evidenced by V's family, so I felt that biological children was as much an assumption as heterosexuality, is all.:smallamused:

True, but in that particular sentence Doug's not talking about the effects of Familicide, merely defining "son's uncle" in preparation of said topic.:smallyuk:

[Doug Lampert]

Wait, aren't TWO of those a a guaranteed kill, given how Familicide is described?

The first step kills everyone with whom you share a common ancestor or descendant, so your brother dies because you share ancestors (your parents) and your husband dies because you share descendants (your child). Note that this step can kill you even if the connecting people are already dead.

Your husband is not a listed alternative for who your son's uncle is. It's your brother, your husband's brother, your sister's husband, and your husband's sister's brother.

And in any case, nope, the first step is if YOU share blood with them, it goes back to your most distant ancestor and then traces down to the present along all lines, that doesn't necessarily hit your husband.

[Jasdoif]

And in any case, nope, the first step is if YOU share blood with them, it goes back to your most distant ancestor and then traces down to the present along all lines, that doesn't necessarily hit your husband.Exactly.

While it's true that your son is related by blood to your husband's brother (your son's paternal grandparents are your husband's parents, so at least one of them is your husband's brother's parent), for it to cascade from there requires the son to have been killed by Familicide; which isn't the case in the comic (and thus certainly isn't guaranteed).

[Grey Watcher]

Your husband is not a listed alternative for who your son's uncle is. It's your brother, your husband's brother, your sister's husband, and your husband's sister's brother.

And in any case, nope, the first step is if YOU share blood with them, it goes back to your most distant ancestor and then traces down to the present along all lines, that doesn't necessarily hit your husband.

Forgive me, I may be misremembering, but I thought it had been established somewhere that "sharing blood" was defined as having a common ancestor or descendant; it goes up and comes back down as you describe, but simultaneously goes down and comes back up. Your husband dies not because he's an uncle (he's not, obviously) but because of the shared descendant (his and your son). And then, of course, the second wave comes and gets his siblings, meaning that #3 should be a definite kill.

Hey Banana Lady! Do you have a relevant quote in your bag of tricks?

Pelee, I think you were right about the "bit" part after all.:smallredface:

[Jasdoif]

Forgive me, I may be misremembering, but I thought it had been established somewhere that "sharing blood" was defined as having a common ancestor or descendant; it goes up and comes back down as you describe, but simultaneously goes down and comes back up.If you're treating both steps as one operation, yes; but then you have to add the stipulation that a common descendant must have still been alive.



I really thought that last comic would end this debate, but it seems like there's still a lot of confusion. So here goes:

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.

Wouldn't that spell kill everyone of the original target's species?
In our world? Maybe. The OOTS world is not ours, though. It was created fully populated, even with black dragons. So there could be 100 original black dragons who (as V noted) breed slowly over the relatively-short span of time the current world has been in existence, leading to one-quarter of them being wiped out. If it had been cast on a human first, it may well have taken half or more of the population with it, depending on how many Original Humans there had been and how much interbreeding had occurred. Good thing that's not what happened, right?

But if it worked like that, it would have [insert obscure effect proven with math]!
Yeah, well, it didn't. Why? I don't know. But it didn't. I guess that makes me a crappy writer because I didn't think of whatever implication you just thought of, but there it is. I'm not a biologist or a mathematician. If it makes you feel better, just assume that all the laws of heredity and genetics work differently because It's Magic™.

I hope this will end the endless debates. It's really quite simple, and if you're getting to a point where it seems utterly complicated or recursive or whatever, you're probably thinking about it more than I did.

So, just to be clear:

1.) The people created at the moment of the planet's creation were all unrelated to each other, or perhaps only related in small groups—a family of 5 or 10 might have been created, but with no relation to all the other families being simultaneously created. Why? Because.

2.) There is no reason to think that just because the comic shows something that it is statistically likely, or that the number of panels I draw of something is intended to be a statement about the frequency of such a thing. I do not draw the comic based on statistics or demographics, I draw it based on what looks good.

3.) Yes, the proof that not all humans have the blood of that specific black dragon is the fact that they didn't all die. Things aren't errors just because they don't support your preferred assumptions. It just means your assumptions are wrong.

4.) Explicitly, I am going to say that no black dragon, ever, in the history of the world, ever mated with any human being until Girard's grandparents. Some black dragons mated with other species, and some other colors of dragon mated with humans. But black dragons and humans? One time only in the history of OOTS-world. That's canon now. Done.

It's now impossible for any humans to have died other than the Draketooths and the families they intermingled with in the last 5 generations. And since Step 2 of the spell requires a LIVING link to keep the chain going, humans that have no living ancestors with those people are safe.

So, yeah. The spell works exactly as I explained, it's just the world that works differently than assumed. Which is exactly what I said the first time I explained how it worked.

[Peelee]

Peelee, I think you were right about the "bit" part after all.:smallredface:

I hope so, if I'm right on here one more time, the forum will finally unlock the smaller font size for me!

Fun fact, I tagged that as [SIZE=0] for the joke and it actually formatted!

[Grey Watcher]

If you're treating both steps as one operation, yes; but then you have to add the stipulation that a common descendant must have still been alive.

[Quote from Rich]

I think my confusion stems from this:


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.

The two bits I've highlighted would suggest to me that common descendants count as much as common ancestors, even before we get to the second wave. I... guess I could be completely misconstruing things, but I don't entirely grasp how? :smallconfused:

Eh, in any event, the overall point that Familicide is really a poor tool for preventing vengeance because people form all kinds of close bonds that have nothing to do with biological relation is still entirely accurate. Also, everything else that's horribly wrong with using this spell under any circumstances.

[Jasdoif]

The two bits I've highlighted would suggest to me that common descendants count as much as common ancestors, even before we get to the second wave. I... guess I could be completely misconstruing things, but I don't entirely grasp how? :smallconfused:Distant ancestors no one knows/cares about aside, I am not related by blood to my sister's husband's siblings; even though my niece and nephew are related by blood to them, to the same degree they are to me. And the Giant explicitly said no such distant ancestors exist for the OOTS-world case.


"Common ancestor" is a shorthand for "'related by blood' by definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/related%20by%20blood) means 'sharing biological ancestors', without regard to whether those ancestors are still alive."

"Common descendant" is an abstraction, to be able to holistically talk about "any number of ancestors, of any number of descendants" instead of having to talk about each ancestor and each descendant individually. But that doesn't even come into play until step two.

[factotum]

I think Grey Watcher is possibly getting confused over which step Penelope dies in. She isn't related by blood to the black dragon, only her lost child is--so the child dies in step 1, and then Penelope herself is killed in step 2 as being a direct ancestor of the dead child. Tarquin is not related by blood to said child, so he does *not* die. Any children he had with Penelope would be fair game, but step 2 isn't recursive--it won't seek out Tarquin to die just because one of his children was killed at that stage.

[Grey Watcher]

Distant ancestors no one knows/cares about aside, I am not related by blood to my sister's husband's siblings; even though my niece and nephew are related by blood to them, to the same degree they are to me. And the Giant explicitly said no such distant ancestors exist for the OOTS-world case.


"Common ancestor" is a shorthand for "'related by blood' by definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/related%20by%20blood) means 'sharing biological ancestors', without regard to whether those ancestors are still alive."

"Common descendant" is an abstraction, to be able to holistically talk about "any number of ancestors, of any number of descendants" instead of having to talk about each ancestor and each descendant individually. But that doesn't even come into play until step two.

Ah, I think I've figured out what happened here!

First, regarding the colloquial "sharing/related by blood" versus its use in the comic and discussions thereof: I'm obviously familiar with the expression, but I tended to disregard it in this case because it seemed to be a "specific supersedes general" kind of situation. Rich was posting specifically to clarify what was meant by "sharing blood with someone," so I assumed that (for purposes of discussing Familicide) what I read in the post took precedence over my prior knowledge of the broader usage. And the key misunderstanding of mine led to me to believe that, unlike the colloquial usage, this "sharing blood with" meant "ancestor or descendent" rather than just "ancestor."

And that key misunderstanding? I parsed "any direction" to refer to "up or down" aka "ancestors or descendants." But it seems the consensus (and an interpretation consistent with the colloquial expression) is that "any direction" meant "matrilineally or patrilineally" ("left or right," if you will).

So that's where I got the idea that, had he still been alive at the time, Mama Black Dragon's husband would've been a Step 1 victim rather than a Step 2 victim. (And then extrapolating out from that to all the discussions about uncles and such.)

EDIT: I guess, in the most pedantically specific sense, I took "any direction" to mean both "ancestors or descendants" and "matrilineal or patrilineal." But I'm so used to treating the latter as implicitly part of either of the former (unless explicitly stated otherwise) that it never occurred to me the language might be pointing to it.

[whitehelm]

So that's where I got the idea that, had he still been alive at the time, Mama Black Dragon's husband would've been a Step 1 victim rather than a Step 2 victim. (And then extrapolating out from that to all the discussions about uncles and such.)

Their son wasn't a Step 1 victim since he was already dead, so her husband wouldn't have been a Step 2 victim either.

[Grey Watcher]

Their son wasn't a Step 1 victim since he was already dead, so her husband wouldn't have been a Step 2 victim either.

I thought Step 1 (unlike Step 2) was not stopped by an already dead link in the chain? Otherwise wouldn't Girard being already dead have protected the pyramid residents (and by extension their various baby-mommas and -daddies)?

EDIT: This, of course, presumes my old assumption that would make him a Step 1 victim. If the mechanics work out to him as a Step 2 victim, his son's death would indeed protect him, per Rich's post.

It's been way too long a week. This is all making me dizzy.

[LadyEowyn]

Here’s how I understand it.

Step 1: Anyone who was a blood relation of the black dragon. That includes everyone descended from Girard, including the daughter that Penelope previously had with Orrin Draketooth.

Step 2: Anyone who was a blood relative of any living member of any of the above. (By which I mean: living at the instant before familicide was cast.) Since Penelope was a blood relative of her (disappeared) daughter, she was killed by Familicide; her parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc - and her unborn child - would also have been related by blood to her & Orrin’s daughter and thus would have been killed as well.

However, for example, Tarquin was not a blood relative of Penelope & Orrin’s daughter, so there was no chance that he would have been killed by Familicide.

ABD’s (predeceased) husband was not a blood relative of ABD (assuming a lack of inbreeding among black dragons), so, had he been alive, he would not have been a Stage 1 victim. If ABD’s son and husband had both still been alive (or if ABD had had any other kids with her husband), her kid would have been a Stage 1 victim, and her husband would have been a Stage 2 victim due to being a blood relation of his kid.

[Fyraltari]

Here’s how I understand it.

Step 1: Anyone who was a blood relation of the black dragon. That includes everyone descended from Girard, including the daughter that Penelope previously had with Orrin Draketooth.

Step 2: Anyone who was a blood relative of any living member of any of the above. (By which I mean: living at the instant before familicide was cast.) Since Penelope was a blood relative of her (disappeared) daughter, she was killed by Familicide; her parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc - and her unborn child - would also have been related by blood to her & Orrin’s daughter and thus would have been killed as well.

Step is more accurately described as "anyone who has a living common ancestor (themselves inculded) with someone in Step 1). Penelope being the mother of someone in step 1 so she dies no matter what, but her siblings would only die if at least one of her parents, grandparents or great-grandparents is alive.


Basically the spell climbs the family tree of the one it is cast on back to the beginning of the world and once it has reached the first generation it climbs down the family tree of everyone it reached and kills everyone still alive. That is Step 1. Then it climbs up the family tree of everyone it killed back to the beginning of the world and for everyone still alive it kills them and all of their still living descendants but it doesn't kill the descendants of those who were already dead at this step.

[D.One]

If only there were some way of magically getting information. Like some people with a special connection to the gods who could answer any question about the future present or past. We could call them... oracles? Nah, doesn’t sound mystical enough. How about augurs?


How about Diviners?

Let's just call them The Googles...

[ElderSage]

It be a total genocide spell if it were; it have to kill anyone who'd ever want revenge on the original target. Repeat for all secondary targets. Repeat till no more targets. Usually because literally everything is dead.

I mean, if you look at like Medieval Europe and things, where the kids had to swear vengeance if their parents were killed, but then the other side had to avenge their parents, etc. it usually ended with one or both of the lines completely dying out before the problem was solved.


Let's just call them The Googles...

Spiders, perhaps? Because they create webs...