PDA

View Full Version : Is Lycanthropy a real curse (or just to the Dm?)



TheElfLord
2007-10-24, 04:40 PM
Okay, so in the near future I'm going to be running my players into several repeated encounters with werewolves. The chances are that somewhere along the line a player will be bitten. It is also possible a character will (secretly) fail his save.

Now I would expect my characters to react to possible infection by working very hard to cure themselves. I also know players love to (either accidentally or purposfully) screw with the DM plans. This means my afflicted player may choose to endorse his condition and the benifits it gives him.

This idea is throwing up some flags as I worry about party balance and the providing suitable future encounters.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-24, 04:52 PM
That's why the template causes an alignment change. Tell the players, in advance, that if they ever fail the save against alignment change (or use Control Shape to willingly take animal form, changes alignment automatically), they become NPCs. If that seems harsh, just let them know that you will enforce the alignment change rules, and most players will try to avoid needing to make Will saves.

Vasdenjas
2007-10-24, 04:55 PM
Afflicted Lycanthropy can be pretty bad. If your PC's are primarily good, espcially if there's a Paladin, have them infected by an evil Lycanthrope. The first full moon, they change into that creature, and act in that alignment, causing great concern to those who cannot stray. Just have one person who has an alignment restriction (Monk, Bard, Pally, etc) infected by an opposing aligned Lycanthrope, and they will definitely want to cure it. (By the way, were wolves are Chaotic Evil).

Chronos
2007-10-24, 04:56 PM
Or even if you allow evil PCs, the other characters would be perfectly justified in kicking that character out of the group.

On the other hand, if you and your players are tolerant of having an evil character in the party... The afflicted character will get a significant power boost in the short term, but in the long run the level adjustment and racial HD will leave them lagging behind the rest of the party.

Miles Invictus
2007-10-24, 04:58 PM
Simple solution: Rule that whenever the afflicted character's alignment is forcibly changed (such as by changing into animal form), that character is treated as an NPC.

Note that voluntarily changing form causes immediate and permanent alignment shift, while involuntarily changing form causes an alignment shift while transformed. End result, they never get to enjoy the benefits of the condition. This gives them a big incentive to find a cure and punishes them for trying to exploit the situation.

I think it's a bit harsh, personally, but it'll make sure they don't purposefully get infected.

Crow T. Robot
2007-10-24, 05:38 PM
If your PC's are primarily good, espcially if there's a Paladin, have them infected by an evil Lycanthrope. The first full moon, they change into that creature, and act in that alignment, causing great concern to those who cannot stray. Just have one person who has an alignment restriction (Monk, Bard, Pally, etc) infected by an opposing aligned Lycanthrope, and they will definitely want to cure it. (By the way, were wolves are Chaotic Evil).

The only problem with that is that pallies are immune after 3rd level. At that point they are free to get up close and personal. This happened once.

GM: Oh boy, time to make you fort save.
Player: No.
GM: Yes
Player: <Flips through pages> No.
GM: Damn

The fight ended right after the smiting started.

But anyways, the alignment change for shifting might be limited only to the time of shifting. Afterwards things go back. Of course this means the werewolf is basically a monster (Possibly in control of the GM) and bodies are going to mount as a result.

raygungothic
2007-10-24, 05:54 PM
I've twice run games in which PCs became lycanthropes. It simply happens when they're off camera. They're in town, investigating the deaths and disappearances, and eventually they run out of spells and sleep. In the morning there are more deaths... clues that THEY are the perpetrators only happen later.

I've never tried to do this in a campaign that was intended to run for much longer, though. You might want to make it curable after a special quest.

Driderman
2007-10-24, 06:13 PM
In the end, I suppose it's up to you.
Personally, if I ran a story which involved a PC contracting lycanthropy, I'd do it the 'classic' way: Do the save rolls in secret, not letting the player know whether he's infected or not. Once the change comes over him, he becomes a DM-controlled NPC and, much like the werewolves of the classic tales, doesn't remember his heinous crimes when he awakes again.
Of course, should said player decide to voluntarily make use of his dark powers, a whole world of possibilities open up, the first of them being a permanent alignment change.
This doesn't necessarily mean the immediate end of the character as a PC, but unless the campaign is geared to tolerate a Chaotic Evil werewolf in the party, the character will probably have to be retired soon, either permanently by silver or by restraining him somewhere where People Who Know About Such Things will guard him/try to undo the curse.

A thought: For dramatic effect, the first time the player fails an involuntary save, have him leave the room and take over the character as he transforms and attacks his allies, only letting the player back in the room when his character comes to his sense. Alternately, if you think his teammates may actually kill him outright, just have him sit in the farthest corner and tell him that he's not allowed to say a word. That way he at least gets to witness his demise. Of course, if raise dead is easy to come by no reason to do that. Would be a rather fun scene, the last thing he remembers is getting angry and the next thing that happens is that he wakes up in some temple with a cleric muttering incantations over him, while his buddies are watching him apprenhensively, weapons at the ready.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-24, 06:21 PM
I think it might be best to review the core rules of Lycanthropy as an Affliction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#lycanthropyAsAnAffliction). Oddly enough, you'll notice that a high Wis score is actually a bad thing for a lycanthrope: Every time you are transformed involuntarily, you can make a Wis check to become "aware" of your condition. Before you're "aware," you become an NPC if you get involuntarily transformed, but you also don't need to make the Will save against permanent and irrevocable alignment change. Feel free to specify whether or not they can voluntarily fail the Wis check.

UserClone
2007-10-24, 06:39 PM
It's never made sense to me that a Werewolf would be Chaotic - Wolves are social pack animals with a well-defined hierarchy.

Prophaniti
2007-10-24, 06:58 PM
I never understood where they pulled these mandatory alignments for the different lycanthropes from anyway. I mean, why are werewolves CE but weretigers neutral? And why are werebears good? It just seems so arbitrary, espesially the mandatory hate for wolves, who will only attack humans in the rarest of circumstances. Lycanthropes should be neutral because animals are neutral. This isnt to say they wont attack people and eat them since, hey, some animals do that. And if an afflicted person becomes aware of their transformation, there would be a will save every time to mantain control while in animal form. Otherwise instinct takes over and its back to npc land!
That's my 2cp anyway.

Driderman
2007-10-24, 07:02 PM
I never understood where they pulled these mandatory alignments for the different lycanthropes from anyway. I mean, why are werewolves CE but weretigers neutral? And why are werebears good? It just seems so arbitrary, espesially the mandatory hate for wolves, who will only attack humans in the rarest of circumstances. Lycanthropes should be neutral because animals are neutral. This isnt to say they wont attack people and eat them since, hey, some animals do that. And if an afflicted person becomes aware of their transformation, there would be a will save every time to mantain control while in animal form. Otherwise instinct takes over and its back to npc land!
That's my 2cp anyway.

Well the depends on what approach you take to Were-creatures. The classical werewolf is a creature cursed by dark powers, which goes a long way to explain why it is chaotic evil.
Of course, if your approach to were-creatures is that they're just some sort of fleshy animal Transformer, alignment really shouldn't figure in to it.

Psionic Dog
2007-10-24, 07:33 PM
Think Diskworld here. Alignment is based not on how the creature behaves, but on what all those superstitious commoners think. Since the villagers fear the forests, have trouble with wolves eating their lambs, and tell horror stories about wolves at night, they believe wolves are the evil agents of devils and vampires. And belief asserts itself until it becomes fact. The few rangers and druids who know better aren't numerous to dispel this belief.

Any way, as a player who likes to play afflicted lycanthrops, I can say that a character has to spend considerable resources before the benefits outweigh the curse. Loosing humanoid form, speaking, ect is painful. If a player shows interest in keeping the 'curse,' peer-pressure by party member or the suggestion that the player won't gain any more class levels until the animal HD and LA have been paid off ought to make all but the most stubborn player reconsider. Until a player can buy ranks in control shape they will be helpless before the curse.

Lycanthros can make campaigns interesting, just try to time it so that a player won't gain a level while aware of their affliction. If PC's start investing in curse-coping then a cure could hurt them.

Jarlax
2007-10-24, 07:34 PM
read the section at the end of lycanthropy about "lycanthropy as an affliction" then go to the section that describes the control shape skill. these are your balancing factors.

first any PC afflicted will have to go on a CE rampage at least once before they can become aware of their affliction. they prefer family and friends so its likely that the party will have to put them down just to defend themselves. if they fail that DC15 wisdom check then it will be repeated any time they take damage or its a full moon.

second even if they become aware of the affliction they are subject to a DC25 control shape check (a skill they have no points in) every full moon or when they have lost 1/4 of their hit points and again for each 1/4. failing that check places them in animal form until the following dawn with no chance to retry the failed save. any caster or gear heavy PC will actually be restrained by their animal form, rather than improved.

finally to get the most out of their new powers they have to pass a DC 15 check to become hybrid form (which they have no points in yet). but they also need to pass a DC 20 check(meaning a natural 20 on the dice or at best maybe a 17 with +3 wis) to return to normal form. and if they fail that check they are suck in hybrid until the next dawn with no retry. this becomes a problem for the PC who then has to avoid contact with anyone, in case his affliction is discovered.

Mojo_Rat
2007-10-24, 07:39 PM
Lycanthropes represent the primal terrifying beast. They also represent the worst aspects of humanity come to the forefront in combination with that terrifying beast.

The nature of actual wolves is meaningless. As an example no one ever insists that Worg or Winter wolf should not have the alignments they do.

The Werewolf is intended to be the creature of legend the terror int he night that turns from human form and stalks its living victims be they old ladies small children or even grown men.

All the were creatures are at least somewhat on this theme representing negative ideals of either humans or the animal forms. That is why it is a curse. It works best for Were Rats and Werewolves. The Wereboar can really be the terrifying boar orf legend flying into a berserk rage that all the kings men and beasts cannot take down.

However youw ant to do it but the alignments they are given is suiable. Really the exeption is the werebear to the rule.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-24, 07:55 PM
However youw ant to do it but the alignments they are given is suiable. Really the exeption is the werebear to the rule.

Werebears bug me. I see no reason why all the paladins of the world wouldn't be lining people up to be bitten by werebears. Granted, you could make the same argument for CE Blackguards and werewolves, but werebears have the enforcement of Law on their side and the idealism of Good (People may have valid complaints about being forced to be Good, but any halfway decent propagandist can frame them as wanting "the right to harm their fellow man"). Besides, it's not much of a curse: For CE, it's quite easy to say that they give in to their violent nature and kill at random, but what do you do for LG? They give into their benevolent, orderly nature and found soup kitchens at random?

Turcano
2007-10-24, 08:08 PM
Well the depends on what approach you take to Were-creatures. The classical werewolf is a creature cursed by dark powers, which goes a long way to explain why it is chaotic evil.
Of course, if your approach to were-creatures is that they're just some sort of fleshy animal Transformer, alignment really shouldn't figure in to it.

Well, the RAW practically admits that lycanthrope alignments are completely arbitrary anyway; for example, I think that werebears are only lawful good because of Beorn (which still doesn't make sense -- he always struck me as a chaotic kind of guy).

Also, lycanthropy carries another curse as well. It's called "LA +2."

boomwolf
2007-10-24, 08:09 PM
Actaully there is a problem with werewolves.
While by the core books they are chaotic evil, wolves are not chaotic nor evil by nature (if you use DND defenition on real wolves.)
Actaully, the average real wolf is a LAWFUL NEUTRAL animal, not a chaotic evil. so the "werewolf" has very different alignment then wolves.

Besides, even then, there are exceptions. (a werewolf can be neutral good or something. it happens. jest like good drow and evil highborn elves.)

Besides, turn into NPC? thats dumb. really. you are still a PC, jest have a new alignment that you must follow.

About the "helpless before he levels up" you get skill points when turning werewolf, and you "class skill" is control shape. so high int char is ok.


all the lycanthropy system is flawed from the base. no point messing with it. the disadvantages are few and the advantages are high, you jest need to find the right lycanthrop to bite you.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-24, 09:48 PM
Actaully there is a problem with werewolves.
While by the core books they are chaotic evil, wolves are not chaotic nor evil by nature (if you use DND defenition on real wolves.)
Actaully, the average real wolf is a LAWFUL NEUTRAL animal, not a chaotic evil. so the "werewolf" has very different alignment then wolves.

I'd peg a werewolf as Neutral Evil, actually. Remember, you're not dealing with a regular animal: You're dealing with a creature with human intelligence consumed by animalistic instincts. When a pack of wolves hunts in the wild, it is neither good nor evil; it simply is. When a gang of humans succumbs to an urge to hunt and kill the weak, it is decidedly evil. As for ethical alignment: The pack dynamic is outweighed by the fact that werewolves are extremely unlikely to work with anyone outside the pack. Besides, Lawful lycanthropes have some disturbing implications (namely, their ability to work with established human governments means that, sooner or later, some government will intentionally infect its citizens with lycanthropy).


Besides, even then, there are exceptions. (a werewolf can be neutral good or something. it happens. jest like good drow and evil highborn elves.)

Drow don't need to make Will saves to avoid becoming Evil. Drow live in a society that encourages Evil; therefore, they are mainly Evil. Werewolves are completely consumed by their desire to do Evil. They are irredeemable as their curse prevents any sort of conversion. Even if you could reason with them, any progress you made would be undone the next time they took animal or hybrid form and felt the rush of their wolfish instincts take over.

Nor can they be cured once they've fully succumbed to the curse (unless it's been less than three weeks since they contracted lycanthropy, in which case a cleric can cast remove disease on them): The only cure essentially requires a willing target (the Will save can be failed voluntarily otherwise), and no lycanthrope that has failed the alignment shift will want to be freed. Essentially, the only way to cure a lycanthrope that has succumbed to his animal nature is to magically force him to accept the cure, either by magically changing his alignment (eg via a helm of opposite alignment) and curing him before he fails a Control Shape check and reverts to his original alignment, or by compelling him with a geas or dominate effect and ordering him to make the save (in which case, he'll likely be more than a little unhappy with you and will likely have to be imprisoned--he's still got the lycanthropic alignment, after all--but at least now there is some glimmer of hope).


Besides, turn into NPC? thats dumb. really. you are still a PC, jest have a new alignment that you must follow.

No, your very nature has been changed. I believe that such a harsh punishment is necessary, lest lycanthropy become a cool new set of toys. Besides, you just got a +4 boost to your ECL. It'll be a long time before you level up if you stick with your feeble human party, and in the meantime you'll be somewhat more powerful than anyone else.


About the "helpless before he levels up" you get skill points when turning werewolf, and you "class skill" is control shape. so high int char is ok.

True, there is that. You get two Animal HD, giving you 2x(2+Int) skill points. You can dump them all into Control Shape and suffer later (when everyone else has two more HD from superior class levels) if you wish.


all the lycanthropy system is flawed from the base. no point messing with it. the disadvantages are few and the advantages are high, you jest need to find the right lycanthrop to bite you.

Only if you treat lycanthropy as a suite of cool new abilities, rather than as a curse, disease, or affliction. If you don't enforce a drastic change in not only alignment nor even personality but also the very nature of the character, the bite of the werewolf transmits nothing more than +2 Wis, +2 HD, low-light vision, +2 natural armor, scent, DR/silver, and alternate forms for the cost of needing to keep track of Control Shape and an ECL boost. Again, taking away a character sheet and declaring someone an NPC may seem harsh, but the alternative is for players to look at the advantages of lycanthropy and actually consider it as a valid option. I wouldn't let a PC slain by a vampire return to play simply as a CE guy with +8 ECL (even if they killed the master vampire controlling him); how is lycanthropy any different?

DISCLAIMER: You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. If your campaign world works best when werewolves simply have controllable violent tendancies, or even are just misunderstood, that's fine by me: It's your world after all. Maybe the ECL penalties alone will convince people to seek healing, or maybe you have other ways of preventing this sudden spike in power.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 01:17 AM
I'd throw out the lycanthropy rules as written, at least as they pertain to alignment, and replace then with something more realistic and interesting. Wolves aren't chaotic evil; that's just stupid. As mentioned by another already, wolves are closer to lawful neutral. Felines are closer to chaotic neutral, and wouldn't you know it, the feline were is farther from chaotic than the lupine were in D&D. And werebears are lawful good for some reason. Why's that, exactly? "Um, er, uh ..."

No. No, no, NO. DUMB.

That does not mean you'd have to throw out the "change involuntarily and kill people in the night" thing, however. Think about it: wild animals do attack people sometimes, especially if they feel threatened -- such as if they find themselves suddenly in the midst of a city, surrounded by people. Would you like to run into a bear wandering down the city street where you live? I rather think not. I know I'd prefer not to! Of course, if it's the D&D idea of a werebear, I suppose it'll be running around helping little old ladies cross the street and giving money (held in its mouth?) to the poor ... good grief, see how stupid that is?

A werewolf should not be chaotic evil, but it should be scary just the same if uncontrolled, because you basically have a wild animal that acts like a wild animal popping up in the midst of civilization attacking livestock and, possibly, people. A werebear should not be lawful good, and it should be scary ... even more scary that a werewolf because it's a bear!

kpenguin
2007-10-25, 01:55 AM
Remember, lycanthropes aren't really hybrids of animals and humans. They are cursed creatures created by magic and they still retain their intelligence in animal form. Thus, they are separate from the animal's usual alignment.

This really the same thing as all magical beasts or monsters based on animals. Horses have no particular alignment, but their magical counterparts are chaotic good (unicorns & pegasi) and neutral evil (nightmares).

Werewolves seem to be based on the werewolves of legend, which are mostly chaotic evil. Werebears seem to based on Beorn from the Hobbit... or the werebears toys of the 80s.

Destro_Yersul
2007-10-25, 02:11 AM
My take on it is that it should be curable as long as you haven't ever tried to use it. Do the blanking out and that sort of thing, maybe have a few people show up dead...

Any self respecting good character is going to want to cure this sort of thing. So why not give them a way to once they figure it out, time delays be damned?

raygungothic
2007-10-25, 05:17 AM
Besides, Lawful lycanthropes have some disturbing implications (namely, their ability to work with established human governments means that, sooner or later, some government will intentionally infect its citizens with lycanthropy).

I love it. May I steal that someday?

It has a twisted logic to it. Lycanthropes are quantifiably superior. Ruthless lycanthropes therefore sieze power. Before long, citizenship requires lycanthropy, nonlycanthropy implies serfdom. Expansionist empire building ensues, as the Lawful-aligned werewolf citizen-soldiers of the Lycanthrarchy have an easy time massacring the human forces of neighbouring states. They're a bit Roman, a bit Fascist, and probably a bit more work needed to prevent them from becoming too cheesy. At least PCs who find themselves here would have to be very, very careful to keep a low profile rather than wading in blasting, so it should lead to some interesting adventuring.

This will probably have to happen on an alternate Prime Material or a convenient demiplane so that totalitarian Lycanthrarchy doesn't totally destroy my campaign world.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-25, 05:44 AM
My computer no work good today:smallredface: , please ignore.:smallsmile:

mostlyharmful
2007-10-25, 05:48 AM
Werebears bug me. I see no reason why all the paladins of the world wouldn't be lining people up to be bitten by werebears. Granted, you could make the same argument for CE Blackguards and werewolves, but werebears have the enforcement of Law on their side and the idealism of Good (People may have valid complaints about being forced to be Good, but any halfway decent propagandist can frame them as wanting "the right to harm their fellow man"). Besides, it's not much of a curse: For CE, it's quite easy to say that they give in to their violent nature and kill at random, but what do you do for LG? They give into their benevolent, orderly nature and found soup kitchens at random?

All hail Glorius Werebearia! It shall inherit the earth with its intergrated social dynamic, well regulated population and OVERWHEALMING MILITARY POWER!!!

Personally I don't get why it's damage reduction not regen, they should get hurt by everything but only be put down by silver and/or fire. I know the DR fluff is of a wound healing over instantly but it still doesn't sit alongside traditional werewolf stories and myths. I guess it'd be too powerful but then with 2 crappy racial hit dice and a +2 infected and +3!!! natural LA it already seems pretty handicapped on the long haul and over powered immediately

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 05:49 AM
Remember, lycanthropes aren't really hybrids of animals and humans. They are cursed creatures created by magic and they still retain their intelligence in animal form. Thus, they are separate from the animal's usual alignment.

Yes, but it's still just arbitrary and stupid. It's even worse than color-coded dragons, which also always bothered me on some level ("Boy, it's sure a good thing nature decided to color code all of the dragons according to their [required] alignments so we could skip alla that boring interaction stuff and get straight to the killin'!").

Like, hey, gold dragon, why are you lawful good? What's your motivation? What experiences, and what conclusions drawn from those experiences -- or what teachings passed down to you -- led you to that worldview? What, drawing from that experience or those teachings, could you tell me about why I should think the same as you do?

"Uhhhhnnnn ... duh ... Iunno ... I was written in the Monster Manual that way?"

*sigh*

Yes, I simply hate that kind of thing. I like my monsters a little more complex, more like they are in, say, World of Darkness ... and I see nothing wrong with bringing those expectations of complexity and depth over to D&D. The gamers all grew up, and gaming grew up somewhat, too. It's time for D&D to grow up.

kpenguin
2007-10-25, 05:51 AM
So... your complaint is with the way monsters are forced into certain alignments? I can understand that.

That's one of the many reasons I like Eberron: flexible and blurred alignments.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-25, 05:55 AM
On the Alignment issue:

The individual were-creature entries have an inflexible alignment for some reason. However the actual template gives as much leeway as needed.


Alignment: Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the alignment of the animal form can be arbitrarily assigned.

kpenguin
2007-10-25, 05:56 AM
Mmmm... given the template's description, how about a setting where a lycanthrope's alignment while in animal form is determined by the afflicted's personal view of the animal?

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 05:58 AM
So... your complaint is with the way monsters are forced into certain alignments? I can understand that.

That's one of the many reasons I like Eberron: flexible and blurred alignments.

That and the fact that the alignment choices are nonsensical to the point of incoherence in many cases.

At least a red dragon being chaotic evil can make ... some kind of vague, twisted sense, if only because there's no real-world analog for them. Dragons don't exist in the real world, even a little bit, so they can be whatever we want them to be on paper. Even if it is ridiculous.

Werewolves don't exist in the real world either, but wolves do. And it's kind of hard to overlook the resemblance of werewolves to, y'know, wolves. Not to mention that "wolves" is right in the name of the beast. So why are werewolves evil? Is it because wolves are evil? No, because wolves aren't evil. So is it that all weres are evil? No, because some are good, and in fact werebears are lawful good. Wait, lawful good?? Why are werebears lawful good?!!

Damned if I know ...

It's just silly to the point of being self-contradictory and utterly incoherent. It doesn't even make sense within its own reality, whereas at least color-coded dragons sort of do (even though it's still silly). Weres aren't automatically evil. Wolves aren't evil at all. But put the two together and POOF! EVIL! Why? Because they said so.

Psh.

kpenguin
2007-10-25, 06:01 AM
But you have no complaints about pegasi being chaotic good? Horses aren't good. Birds aren't good. When you put them together, though...

It's the same principle.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 06:10 AM
But you have no complaints about pegasi being chaotic good? Horses aren't good. Birds aren't good. When you put them together, though...

It's the same principle.

I have problems with fixed alignments for the most part, actually. I'm just particularly annoyed with the werewolf thing, I think because wolves have always gotten a bad rap for no good reason, and we really ought to know better by now.

But even with pegasi, at least they're listed only as "usually" chaotic good. I don't know, maybe pegasus society strongly encourages chaotic good ideals (like how drow society encourages evil ones). It's still arbitrary, but at least it isn't an arbitrary absolute.

Werewolves, though ... werewolves must be evil. In fact, if you turn into one willingly, or even unwillingly in some cases, you automatically change alignments forever. All of your ideas about what's right and proper, all of your beliefs, everything that makes up the person you are, goes POOF! because you've gained the ability to turn into a big doggie.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I don't think I could take it seriously in roleplay, if it ever came up for me. I'd either be extremely annoyed or laughing at the silliness of it, depending, but I certainly wouldn't take it seriously or be drawn into the drama of it. It's too dumb to take seriously, even taking suspension of disbelief into account.

kpenguin
2007-10-25, 06:12 AM
I think there are several accounts of brain damage or other trauma significantly altering a person's personality. I think lycanthropy could be roleplayed as something similar.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 06:19 AM
I still don't buy it, though. I can stretch it with pegasi and say, "Okay, maybe it's how their society is structured" (after all, again, that's how drow and many others work), but then I come to werewolves, and I'm faced with two problems:

One, even if intelligent wolves turned to evil as a society, they're still wolves -- wolves are fundamentally pack animals. Evil wolves would almost certainly be lawful evil.

Two, it isn't a societal structure thing, or you wouldn't just poof to a new alignment because you become one. It's built-in. So now we're back to the first question: why? Is it because weres are evil? No, they're not, necessarily. Is it because wolves are evil? No, they're not. Then why? Why would lycanthropy jump your alignment to such radically different values depending on the specific were-animal? All of the lawful good gods happen to like bears, and all the chaotic evil ones have a thing for wolves?

kpenguin
2007-10-25, 06:22 AM
Because a wizard did it?

Seriously, curses have to come from somewhere and if a wizard decided that he really didn't like wolves...

Nikolai_II
2007-10-25, 06:25 AM
Yes, I simply hate that kind of thing. I like my monsters a little more complex, more like they are in, say, World of Darkness ... and I see nothing wrong with bringing those expectations of complexity and depth over to D&D. The gamers all grew up, and gaming grew up somewhat, too. It's time for D&D to grow up.

Ever taken a look at Eberron, which works away from alignment in a fairly conclusive manner? (You never answered that question :smallwink: )

Anyway, bears are Lawful Good because Beorn (in the Hobbit) was Lawful Good (harkening back to the days when CG was a lot closer to evil than LG was - D&D is an old game that has gone through many iterations)

And yes, real-world wolves are not evil. However, wolves living together with humans tend to become evil - they are not dogs, they are wolves, but wolves that have lost all respect for humans and can hunt and eat them if they feel like it.

Finally - yes, as a DM every rule in the book, including mandatory alignments, is merely a suggestion to ease up the burden of having to make the whole game up from scratch. Something seems silly or out of place to your suspension of disbelief? Do away with it. I prefer the Birthright way with just about every monster being rare to the border of unique, while others like it so heavy with monsters and odd races that it is a rarity to find a human. The game is there for us all :smallbiggrin:

Bender
2007-10-25, 06:44 AM
If you don't like fixed alignment, don't play that way. But then a bitten character might not have a reason to do something about it and have some advantages later on.

Apart from the crunch reason, there are some good fluff reasons as well. There is no reason why werewolves have any behaviour in common with wolves. They probably originate from some cruel magical experiment anyway, which doesn't necessarily involve real wolves in any way.
Alignments are hard wired in D&D (if you choose to play that way), and have more meaning than in real life. There can be real forces of evil, taking control of a being. Don't you know what it is to be really hungry, you just have to eat, or itchy, or jumpy, like you have to run for half an hour to cool down. The alignment change might be something like that, but magically enhanced to be much stronger and impossible to suppress.

apart from that, I have question, since one of my PC's recently attracted lycanthropy: When do you change his stats? after the bite, after the first full moon, or after he becomes aware. Maybe only after he embraces his new condition...
And if the PC sees blood on his face and fingers and suspects something, shouldn't he get a bonus on his wisdom check to become aware?
Embracing the condition will be hard, since there is a paladin in the party who won't accept that. (except if he turns blackguard and it becomes an entirely different campaign, but that's ok too)

Psionic Dog
2007-10-25, 08:34 AM
About the "helpless before he levels up" you get skill points when turning werewolf, and you "class skill" is control shape. so high int char is ok.

Now if I was DMing that would be the one thing I would not do if I wanted the PC's to look for a cure. "Congrats, you've just been cursed with 2 bonus HD!" No. Either rule that the animal HD only grant animal class skills (No control shape), or, better yet, the curse forces the PC to take their next levels in animal until they have enough racial HD. When you have no ranks in control shape and you know your next two levels will be in animal, thats when a cure suddenly sounds appealing.


Edit @ Bender: By RAW probably whenever the character becomes aware of the condition. (If you don't know you have it, you can't use it.) However, dumping the full template on a character imediatly puts them at party level + 4, which even with the curse spells "more powerfull" I'd recomend giving them the free XP at the first full moon to match the LA, then forcing the 'cursed' player to take animal levels until they have enough natural HD. Also, I would not give ever give the character a bonus on the wisdom check. It is the fact of waking up naked, in a strange place, possible with blood, that allows the check. If they somehow managed to wake up in their bedroll unsoiled I'd give them a penalty.

Edit Edit: Go with the below.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-25, 08:43 AM
As part of the savage progression series WotC made a werewolf template (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040117a).

The covered several were-creatures (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/sp) during the series.

Tyger
2007-10-25, 08:47 AM
The argument that were-wolves becoming CE when changed has always bothered me too. But! There are very, very few references, either in fantasy literature, mythology or in movies (which are where most D&D monsters and monster ideals come from) where were-wolves are described as anything other than human-flesh eating monsters.

And that's why it "makes sense"... or not as the case may be. D&D is very rarely modeled on nature and physics. Those two concepts got thrown out the window in first edition. It is modeled however, on myth, magic and mystery. And for those, CE were-wolves make sense.

Fhaolan
2007-10-25, 09:28 AM
In the modern tree-hugging hippy-descended world where all animals are cute and cuddly and need mankind's protection, wolves are neutral or 'good'. Mainly because there aren't many left.

Previously, when there were a *lot* more wolves in the world, they were a lot braver when it came to confronting the pink monkeys that were interfering with their hunting of those obviously sick herd animals. Sick, because they don't run away quite as well, and don't fight back quite as much (being domesticated cows, pigs, whatever...)

Which put wolves, and other predators, in direct competition with humans for food. Which makes wolves evil. Talk to a cattle rancher near any of the wolf recovery zones in the US, and they still think of wolves as evil monsters.

I like wolves. I use a wolf-man as an avatar (when the server than I'm hosting the avatar is working.) However, I do not think of them as cute and cuddly. They are not good. They are wild predators, and will kill and eat anything that they think they can get away with.

There have been documented wolf attacks on people in the last few years. They were all people doing stupid things with caged wolves because they'd been brainwashed into thinking that wolves are cute and cuddly dogs.

Wolves are not dogs. Half-wolves are not dogs. They figure the odds differently. They test dominance in a more straightforward and brutal manner, and they are on average far more intelligent than dogs. You treat a wolf or a half-wolf like a dog, and you will get bitten. You will get savaged.

When dealing with predator animals, remember one very important fact.

You are made of meat.

sapphail
2007-10-25, 10:06 AM
In my experience, protracted lycanthropy-affliction campaigns tend to end up being a hassle for the DM. Either the plot gets sidelined while the characters run around looking for a cure (unless you intended an affliction-cure subplot, this can be annoying) or some smart alec decides lycanthropy sounds like fun. The way I dealt with it at the time was that whenever the player transformed I took their character sheet off them and ran it myself as an NPC. Players hate that. :smallwink: At the end of it the PC wakes up with no clue what happened and possibly in the middle of nowhere. Ultimately, lycanthropy plots have to be very carefully planned in order not to become more of a problem than you intended.

Bender
2007-10-25, 10:12 AM
Psionic Dog and Lord Silvanos: thanks a lot for the advice and the link.:smallsmile:
I'll probably have a couple of months to think things through before the next full moon, but now I have a good idea what to do.

Saph
2007-10-25, 10:32 AM
In the modern tree-hugging hippy-descended world where all animals are cute and cuddly and need mankind's protection, wolves are neutral or 'good'. Mainly because there aren't many left.

Previously, when there were a *lot* more wolves in the world, they were a lot braver when it came to confronting the pink monkeys that were interfering with their hunting of those obviously sick herd animals.

Hee. This post was hilarious, and very very true.

It's much easier to think of an animal as a noble, heroic beast when you aren't a potential item on its dinner menu. D&D's mythic roots come from a time when wolves weren't a protected species, they were something that would kill and eat you. Hence, CE werewolves.

- Saph

boomwolf
2007-10-25, 11:17 AM
Actually. the "color-coded" dragons makes much more sense.
Its not that the color of the dragon makes the alignment, its that the alignment makes the color (at least this is a way to look at it.)

But for lycanthrop? it seems like every type is uniform. and most of the uniforms are senseless.

Besides: to the guy that talked about "wolf attacks" that were recorded. do i have to mention we INVADE their territory, destroying it (urbanizing), killing off them and their food supply, and in most cases of wolf attacks the "victim" did something that was considered a threat by the wolf. when you look at it this way, the "victims" are the evil, and the wolves are good self-defenders.

So even that "must be evil" statement is completely false.

Fawsto
2007-10-25, 11:27 AM
That's because I play Pallys... No Magical Infections on me... Divene Health FTW.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-10-25, 11:34 AM
Sure, werewolves are cursed. They're just Cursed with Awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.CursedWithAwesome), like vampires or Zelgadis.

Fhaolan
2007-10-25, 11:51 AM
Besides: to the guy that talked about "wolf attacks" that were recorded. do i have to mention we INVADE their territory, destroying it (urbanizing), killing off them and their food supply, and in most cases of wolf attacks the "victim" did something that was considered a threat by the wolf. when you look at it this way, the "victims" are the evil, and the wolves are good self-defenders.

So even that "must be evil" statement is completely false.

Correct, yet completely irrelevant.

They attack when we invade their territory. Correct. And since there are so few of them left, their territories are very small in modern times. Which makes it an 'event' when we invade their territories.

When there were lots more wolves, their territories covered most of North America, Europe and Eurasia. It was impossible for us to *not* invade their territories, as their territories overlapped ours in major ways.

And, historically, humans view anything that thwarts them or attacks them as 'evil'.

Denying the accumulated mythology that revolves around wolves and werewolves because it's offensive to people exposed to popular Western culture of the last thirty years is just silly. Yes, demonizing wolves when they were just predator animals is also silly. However, it did happen, and D&D reflects those pre-modern attitudes.

Now, you can make werewolves all sweetness and light if you want. You can turn them into the great crusaders against the invading evil humans (like Werewolf: the Whining), but then you're altering the entire concept behind lycanthropy. It's supposed to be a *curse*. It's not just a change in physical form. The curse takes over your mind as well, turning you into the ravening bloodthirsty beast. It takes away all your inhibitions, all your cultural conditioning, all your fear of punishment. All that is left is your desires, your hatreds, your impulses, your hunger, and enough physical power to do whatever you want. If something hurts you, kill it. If something thwarts you, kill it. If something smells nice, kill it and eat it. You don't have to play nice, you don't have to pretend to care. In classic werewolf mythology, you're pretty much immortal and unstoppable. Or at least the werewolf *believes* he's imortal and unstoppable. That's part of the curse.

This is not a condition that produces a lot of Neutral Good daisy-dancing, tree-smooching hippy types. :smallsmile: It produces monsters.

And that's what a werewolf is *supposed* to be. A monster.

boomwolf
2007-10-25, 01:02 PM
The point is, why are werewolves CE while weretigers are TN (methinks) and werebears are LG?
The system makes no sense.
Whoever you look at it, the lycanthropy system in 3.5 makes no sense.

SoD
2007-10-25, 01:29 PM
Well, it does make sense, sort of. The MM says that the alignments for the lycanthropes is due to the way that people view a certain animal. Rat? Greedy little things, carrying desease, etc. CE. It also says (or at least strongly implies) that the alignments for them can be changed for the setting. If bears are considered to be ruthless coniving bastards, then they become, I dunno, maybe, LE? It's not what the animal is it's the way that it's viewed. Werewolves are evil. Well known fact, just the way that vampires are evil. And liches, can't forget them. A LG lich? Pff, that'll be the day. My problem with the alignment is when it says 'always' XX.

Green and Red
2007-10-25, 01:32 PM
This has been said in the thread before, but apparently ignored.
While the monster entry of the werewolf says always chaotic evil, the template lists it as "any" Yes, it says that "sinister creatures(whatever that means)" Tend do become evil, but it dosent say they always do. It even says that the alignment can be arbitrally assinged, which i would translate as dms choice. So if you want them to be cured, just turn it into an alignment they dont want/cant have, and if you want to give someone a chance to keep it, make it neutral or so.

SoD
2007-10-25, 01:40 PM
I would probably make them an NPC while under the influence of lycanthropy* until they found out about it, and, while in the other state, they change alignment. If they volentarily change, give them a will save to not change alignment (don't some magic items do that?), and, if they fail, hello NPC time! This should also stop them trying to take advantage of the other shape. But, if they make the save, then they need to continue to make the save every so often, as the personality surges up. For spellcasters, make the alternate personality bubling about a low level concentration check as well. Ever tried casting a spell while part of you wants to leap and rip out their throats?

And I know that my previous post was already mentioned, but nobody noticed it then, so maybe repition will make them notice. And I know that my previous post was already mentioned, but nobody noticed it then, so maybe repition will make them notice. And I know that my previous post was already mentioned, but nobody noticed it then, so maybe repition will make them notice.

And I know that my previous post was already mentioned, but nobody noticed it then, so maybe repition will make them notice.

*Just imagined being pulled over by a cop for a random breathaliser and being caught in a hybrid shape. The next day:
''Aww man, I can't beleive I got a DUI!''
''What?! What for?! Alcahol? Drugs?!''
''No. Lycanthropy.''

And I know that my previous post was already mentioned, but nobody noticed it then, so maybe repition will make them notice.

boomwolf
2007-10-25, 01:45 PM
Sorry, but DND alignment does not work on "how it is viewed by others" , moreso, if it was like it it was retarded because you don't turn into evil blood drinking monster because people think you are.

By what you said, wererats are CE because people THINK they are greedy? it makes no sense!
If people think you have green eyes your eye don't turn green.
Same thing, the fact people THINK you are evil does NOT make you so. people can THINK you are chaotic and evil, but you are still a very good and lawful werewolf. they can't look at your character sheet, and they fact they THINK something at you does not make it true.

"Werewolves are evil. Well known fact."? the fact people see werewolves as evil should not turn them into such. a paladin's detect evil should not read "evil" on them because people generally think they are evil.
Heck, a person's personality has NOTHING to do with how others see him.

Jest like a manupulative evil can be thought to be good, he is still evil. then a werewolf is not evil only because he is believed to be such.

SoD
2007-10-25, 01:53 PM
Sorry, my bad. The Well known fact bit was sarcasm, or irony, or something. Anyway, my mistake, it doesn't transfer well over the net. Anyway, the and I wasn't talking about the alignment system in general, but the lycanthropy alignment from the MM, page 178:

Alignment: Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the Dungeon Master can arbitarily assign the alignment of the animal form.

What would you do? ''OK, you've contracted lycanthropy.''
''Uh...what did it do to me? Am I going to go on a bloodthirsty rampage or something?''
''Do you want to?''
''...no.''
''OK, you don't have to if you don't want to.''

And I don't see you jumping down my throat for accusing vampires and liches for always being evil.

Fhaolan
2007-10-25, 02:04 PM
The point is, why are werewolves CE while weretigers are TN (methinks) and werebears are LG?
The system makes no sense.
Whoever you look at it, the lycanthropy system in 3.5 makes no sense.

Ah, because the monster entries are based on the RL mythologies around those creatures. In the same way that the Minotaur, the Chimera, and all the other classic mythological monsters are.

Werewolves are CE because the classic werewolf in legend and story is a bloodthirsty engine of either remourceless revenge or pure destruction. Nothing more, nothing less.

Werebears are LG because for some reason the original writers of the first verison of D&D thought Beorn from the Hobbit was LG. (I would have said NG myself, but I'm not one of the writers.)

Weretigers are TN.... I honestly don't know why, because I don't know the original myths that creature was based on very well. I'm aware they exist, I just don't know them well enough to judge.

Older versions of D&D, monster alignments were a lot more fixed than they are in general for 3rd edition. Lycanthropes seem to have retained that absoluteness while other monsters gained a bit of flexibility.

EDIT: Interesting thought, how about this as an idea: The werewolf is evil because the *werewolf* believes that werewolves are evil. It's not external perception, but the creature's own expectation that does it. Some guy gets infected, and is so convinced that werewolves are evil that he acts out those expectations when he transforms... He acts on all those impusles that he has that he wouldn't normally act on. Lycanthropy as an excuse, rather than a cause...

hewhosaysfish
2007-10-25, 02:10 PM
Sorry, but DND alignment does not work on "how it is viewed by others" , moreso, if it was like it it was retarded because you don't turn into evil blood drinking monster because people think you are.


I think the quoted text means "how they (the animals) are viewed by people in real life" not "how they (the lycanthropes) are viewed by people in the game"

EDIT:
Oooh Fhaolan, just saw your edit. I like that idea. Very Jekyll and Hyde.

Bender
2007-10-25, 03:13 PM
"Werewolves are evil. Well known fact."? the fact people see werewolves as evil should not turn them into such. a paladin's detect evil should not read "evil" on them because people generally think they are evil.
Heck, a person's personality has NOTHING to do with how others see him.
The problem here is causality: people see werewolves as evil because they are evil (almost always in almost any reference), not the other way around.


The point is, why are werewolves CE while weretigers are TN (methinks) and werebears are LG?
The system makes no sense.
Whoever you look at it, the lycanthropy system in 3.5 makes no sense.
Of course the system doesn't make sense, there is no system, why should there be a system, it's just the way they wrote it. If you look at it without needing a system, it makes as much sense as everything else in any rulebook.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 04:35 PM
Ever taken a look at Eberron, which works away from alignment in a fairly conclusive manner? (You never answered that question :smallwink: )

Sorry.

No, I actually haven't, but I think I may have to take a look at some point. :smallwink:


In the modern tree-hugging hippy-descended world where all animals are cute and cuddly and need mankind's protection, wolves are neutral or 'good'. Mainly because there aren't many left.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm not stupid. I know wolves aren't "good."


Wolves are not dogs. Half-wolves are not dogs. They figure the odds differently. They test dominance in a more straightforward and brutal manner, and they are on average far more intelligent than dogs. You treat a wolf or a half-wolf like a dog, and you will get bitten. You will get savaged.

When dealing with predator animals, remember one very important fact.

You are made of meat.

Mhmm. But the same goes for bears, doesn't it?

Let's not forget that humans are the ultimate predators -- Earth's premiere, number one, top of the heap, pinnacle of the food chain, predators. If killing and eating other beings makes you evil, hell ... you can't get more evil than human.

That'd probably make PETA members stand up and cheer, but it's silly, of course. Killing to eat and survive has nothing to do with evil. Of course. Which is why the fact that wolves do it -- even if they lose their fear of humans and do it to us -- does not make them evil. To say that a wolf that attacks humans has become "evil," you must assume that it's an evil act for any animal to attack a human, but for it to attack any other animal is a-okay. We're now actual holy beings, not just animals ourselves, with a special divine right, unique to us among all animals, to not be attacked.

Um, no.

boomwolf
2007-10-25, 05:47 PM
The problem here is causality: people see werewolves as evil because they are evil (almost always in almost any reference), not the other way around.

Thats what I said.
Someone claimed that werewolves are CE because wolves are thought of as evil.
So i said the fact people think of them as evil makes no sense, so it is wrong to do it like it.
So the question comes again-Why are they evil from the firstplace? if ALL lycanthrop were evil then its ok. if wolves were evil then its ok.
But as both statements are wrong, it makes you wonder. WHY are they CE from the firstplace?
WHY turning into a werewolf turns you into a CE while turning into a werebear turns you into LG?
The dumber part is that wolves are lawful animals in reality and bears are chaotic animals, so not only it has no connection to reality, it is opposite to it.

Jayabalard
2007-10-25, 06:32 PM
Thats what I said.
Someone claimed that werewolves are CE because wolves are thought of as evil.
So i said the fact people think of them as evil makes no sense, so it is wrong to do it like it.
So the question comes again-Why are they evil from the firstplace? if ALL lycanthrop were evil then its ok. if wolves were evil then its ok.
But as both statements are wrong, it makes you wonder. WHY are they CE from the firstplace?
WHY turning into a werewolf turns you into a CE while turning into a werebear turns you into LG?
The dumber part is that wolves are lawful animals in reality and bears are chaotic animals, so not only it has no connection to reality, it is opposite to it.it has nothing to do with the animals

Werewolves in D&D are chaotic evil because werewolves in the real world (ie: folklore, movies and books) act in a chaotic evil fashion .

Fhaolan
2007-10-25, 06:37 PM
Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm not stupid. I know wolves aren't "good."


Sorry, my post was only partially a reply to your original post, and went off on a tangent that your post did not warrant. Several people have approached me over the last few years wanting advice on how to raise wolf-dogs, or in one case pure wolves. You hit a trigger point on me, and I vented more than I should have. I apologize.



Mhmm. But the same goes for bears, doesn't it?


Yep. And it probably would have been that way in D&D as well, if it wasn't for Tolkien writing Beorn in the Hobbit. Werebears don't really show up in mythology much as such. At least not in the same way werewolves do.



Let's not forget that humans are the ultimate predators -- Earth's premiere, number one, top of the heap, pinnacle of the food chain, predators. If killing and eating other beings makes you evil, hell ... you can't get more evil than human.

That'd probably make PETA members stand up and cheer, but it's silly, of course. Killing to eat and survive has nothing to do with evil. Of course. Which is why the fact that wolves do it -- even if they lose their fear of humans and do it to us -- does not make them evil. To say that a wolf that attacks humans has become "evil," you must assume that it's an evil act for any animal to attack a human, but for it to attack any other animal is a-okay. We're now actual holy beings, not just animals ourselves, with a special divine right, unique to us among all animals, to not be attacked.

Um, no.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not talking about being reasonable. I'm talking about the natural human reaction to being attacked. The attacker is labeled 'evil' by the victim, whether or not the attacker actually is. The attacker can be completely mindless, like a storm or a volcano, and people will still anthropomorphize it (ascribe the event as a Djinn or something, for example) and declare it 'evil'.

Remember, though, a lot of humans did (and still do) believe that they *are* beings set above the animals by divine right, to use your own words. :smallsmile: (I'm not sure I can go further with this line of reasoning without triggering off Forum rules.)

It's all silly, and unreasonable. But humans are silly and unreasonable. And humans developed the myths and legends that the writers and editors of the D&D game used as a basis. In those myths and legends, werewolves are evil. So, werewolves are evil in D&D. The actual RL alignment of wolves and other animals is pretty much completely irrelevant to the alignment of the legendary (and fictional) creature called a werewolf.

Are there non-evil werewolves in fiction? Yes. My favorite werewolf story is Wolf Moon by Charles DeLint where the werewolf is the hero of the story, and it's the bard that is the evil villain. However, this, and many other 'good' werewolf stories all were written after Gygax and company first put werewolves in D&D and set their alignments.

BardicDuelist
2007-10-25, 06:47 PM
If you're worried about the power boost, have the party's wizard/sorc/etc. be bitten. The LA will suck and he will want it cured. From an RP prospective, the Wizard wants ultimate power, which he can achieve through arcane might and this curse is screwing him out of that power.

The fighters, barbarians, rangers, etc. will probably not care if they are evil, or evil-inclined, in the first place.

I always make Lyc. rolls in secret, as the discovery a month later can be really fun. Eventually, your players may even forget about that werewolf fight a few sessions back, and then be rather shocked when they turn.

Scalenex
2007-10-25, 07:16 PM
This thread asked about play balance and RPing, not on why certain lycanthropes have certain alignments.

As for werebears. Natural bears are most nurturing to their young than most mammals. Most Native Americans viewed Bear as a totem of healing. We have teddy bears and not teddy wolves. Also the Beorn thing. But I have a feeling the D&D creatures wanted some play balance.

Wolves were viewed as evil because of the medieval view that law and good went hand in hand. Wolves threaten livestock, livestock is the sign of order. Not only that but herders are good guys more often than not in Biblical stories. Abel was a herder, Caine a farmer. Also wolves have a scary howl. Wolves were turned into a satanic symbol by the medieval Catholic church. The first lycanthrope stories were witches (male or female) who sold their souls for animalistic powers. Note that witches are often blamed for harming livestock too. Werewolves are CE because of the whole threat to order thing I enumerated.

Tigers appear in Chinese mythology in both postive and negative roles, ergo Weretigers are neutral. Rats carry the plague and at best in mythology they are tricksters, hence their Lawful Evil alignment.

Boars are usually a special quarry in mythology (at least European myths). They are prey yet they are dangerous and wild. Neutral's not a bad fit but in my opinion they are the true filler material of the lycanthropes of D&D.

As for game balance, as long as the PCs have access to a friendly cleric of sufficient level to heal the affliction, I don't see a problem, though it may get expensive.

Bender
2007-10-26, 12:53 AM
If you're worried about the power boost, have the party's wizard/sorc/etc. be bitten. The LA will suck and he will want it cured. From an RP prospective, the Wizard wants ultimate power, which he can achieve through arcane might and this curse is screwing him out of that power.

The fighters, barbarians, rangers, etc. will probably not care if they are evil, or evil-inclined, in the first place.

I always make Lyc. rolls in secret, as the discovery a month later can be really fun. Eventually, your players may even forget about that werewolf fight a few sessions back, and then be rather shocked when they turn.

In my game it's the wizard that's bitten all right :smallsmile:, and he probably already forgot about it (our sessions are few and far between), so this will be fun. The savage progression seems to be great not to unbalance things.


Someone claimed that werewolves are CE because wolves are thought of as evil.
So i said the fact people think of them as evil makes no sense, so it is wrong to do it like it.
There is an important difference between in game and out of game reasons. In game, they are evil just because (a wizard did it, possibly a druid :smalltongue:); out of game, they are evil because that was the logical choice for the designers. The same reason that Medusa's are evil, but more so because the curse messes with the mind.


So the question comes again-Why are they evil from the firstplace? if ALL lycanthrop were evil then its ok. if wolves were evil then its ok.
But as both statements are wrong, it makes you wonder. WHY are they CE from the firstplace?
WHY turning into a werewolf turns you into a CE while turning into a werebear turns you into LG?
WHY does there have to be a reason? WHY should all lycanthropes be the same? That would be boring wouldn't it, different alignments allow for different possibilities.
Again, there is no system here, it's just a not quite random (reasons are already discussed) choice to offer some variety and don't push all lycanthropes in the same role.
If you don't like the mind-affecting nature of lycanthropy, don't feel obliged to play that way, it's your game.

SoD
2007-10-26, 02:43 AM
Also, if you would read the quote from the MM (in a previous post of mine), it gives the reason for why each lycanthrope is a certain alignment. The lycanthropes are evil because the animal is thought of as evil. No, this doesn't cause them to suddenly go, ''oh, he thinks I'm evil. Oh. Well. I guess I am then''. It's part of the curse, wolves are generally considered evil, so that makes werewolves generally evil. Don't have a go at me for that, that's what it says in the MM.

Khanderas
2007-10-26, 03:52 AM
<...>And yes, real-world wolves are not evil. However, wolves living together with humans tend to become evil - they are not dogs, they are wolves, but wolves that have lost all respect for humans and can hunt and eat them if they feel like it. <...>
I do not agree with you there. Real world wolves are not evil because they fear man. Once they don't fear man flips out, goes evil and are free to go on rampage ?
A stressed wolf in captivity could attack humans in self-defense. Not evil.
A wolf(pack) starved kills a human for food (something I am told hasn't happen for hundreds of years). Also not evil.
Killing for the fun of it [scrubbed myself] or greed. Evil. But that would be humans.

kpenguin
2007-10-26, 03:56 AM
Hold on... killing for religious beliefs is what now?

Khanderas
2007-10-26, 04:39 AM
Hold on... killing for religious beliefs is what now?
Perhaps Im skirting the posting rules for that. Ill edit it out.

A werewolf is evil, because it does evil things due to the disease. Killing farmers, friends and anyone for no reason but to draw blood. Even if its a compulsion due to the curse eventually this innocent blood will cause an alignmentshift and show up on a "detect evil" radar.

Bender
2007-10-26, 06:34 AM
Hold on... killing for religious beliefs is what now? Evil, it is evil.
This has not necessarily anything to do with anything but D&D religion.
Picture this, a neutral cleric of Erythnul is strolling around in the forest. He is raised in an evil tribe, but he himself has never harmed anyone and his role in the tribe is to heal. A paladin sees him and kills him, because he recognises Erythnul's symbol. If you ask me, that's already enough for the paladin to fall.
If a worshipper of Pelor kills anyone because he doesn't worship Pelor, it's so blatantly evil that there's just no discussion.

back on subject: I had an idea for more or less forcing the alignment shift: just pretend the PC has a permanent lesser geas on him that can't be dispelled. The instruction is to act according to his new alignment. It allows the player to remain in control, but the PC feels a strong urge to slaughter and faces severe illness if he doesn't give in.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-26, 10:14 AM
Lycanthropy is a sucky addition to a character anyway, whether you inforce an arbitrary alignment change, even if you include LA buy-off couse they'd still be carrying freaking animal hit dice! THE WORST IN THE GAME pretty much. So the more power arguement doesn't really work except for low level combat builds that don't use much equipment and don't suffer from alignment shifts? And if you don't like the specific alignments just change them, i would if only to shake up what my players thik they know about lycanthropy, and it's a really easy change around to make, shouldn't require more than a moments thought.

And I like the idea of a lesser geas to act as though you had animal instincts, it lets you be yourself when you need to and it keeps the wildness of the template and it doesn't completely rewrite a players character instantaniously.

Dullyanna
2007-10-26, 01:25 PM
@Khanderas:Feral dogs, if given the chance, will go on barnyard killing sprees, just for the hell of it (I'm talking about breeds of dogs that can actually pose a threat to livestock, like rotweilers or pitbulls). They even don't really care if you're made of meat. They just want to chase you down and tear at you till you stop breathing. If a pack of coyotes kill a sheep, they'll consume every edible part until there's just a pile o' bones. Feral dogs'll just maul whatever they catch and leave a pile o' gore. But then, wild mutts weren't as prevalent as wolves back in the days of yore.

Leliel
2007-10-26, 02:51 PM
I personally never understood the "werewolves are evil because people think they are" bit myself. Personally, I think lycanthropy should be inherently neutral, but I can understand Wot C's decision to effectively ban lycanthrope for players.

However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

It should also be noted here that when 4thEd. comes around, I personally am running an all-lycan campaign on this site. Inherent alignments not included.

Jayabalard
2007-10-26, 03:00 PM
@Khanderas:Feral dogs, if given the chance, will go on barnyard killing sprees, just for the hell of it (I'm talking about breedsWhat about less agressive breets, like Mastiffs and Great Danes? They're big enough to pose a threat to livestock, while not being dogs that have been bred for their viciousness...

Kaerou
2007-10-26, 03:10 PM
The alignment system in and of itself is silly, I always ignore 'racial alignments' in my D&D games I run.

Nothing but outsiders (demons, angels etc) have a set alignment in my games. Everything else is free to follow the fact it is an intelligent being and can follow its own thoughts.

Societies can be evil (such as orc society as an example) but individual creatures are not.

I think the best balancer to remember is that every culture in D&D is based in some way off various ancient human cultures. Form the evil slavers to the death pit gladiatorial arenas. Its all human. Yet humans are not evil, are they? I think of it in that way.

I use the alignments as a guideline for their societies.

Wulfram
2007-10-26, 03:16 PM
I personally never understood the "werewolves are evil because people think they are" bit myself.

Reverse the causation and it makes more sense to me.

Werewolves aren't evil because people see wolves are evil. Rather, lycanthropy causes you to turn into a wolf because people see them as evil.

The curse is the feral insanity. Turning into a wolf is a manifestation of that, not a cause.

Of course, the whole LG Werebear thing still doesn't make much sense.

SilverClawShift
2007-10-26, 03:32 PM
I think one thing that gets a little neglected in discussions such as this, is the question of what exactly lycanthropy is. The end result is that you have a lot of people arguing with no possible resolution, because they don't have a base that their arguments are originating from.

Are werewolves simply humans (or humanoids) who can tap into some natural (or supernatural) force that grants them great strength and wild prowess? Do they have the spirit of a wolf in them? When transformed into an animal or hyrib form of some kind, do they still retain most of who they are? Are they similar, but with wolfish instincts laid over their core personality?
In such a case, yes, of course, remove any alignment restrictions from lycanthropes. With that kind of description they're almost exalted warriors of nature, maybe feared and misunderstood, but certainly respectable.

But I don't think that's what the core werewolf in D&D was meant to be. In common myth and legend, lycanthropy is called a curse for a reason. One suffering from lycanthropic affliction loses their control, their inhibitions vanish based on the lunar cycle (something far beyond their control), and they quite simply go on a killing spree for raw thrill of violence.
In that case, the visceral imagery of the wolf, and the wolfman has little to do with the wolf itself. It's about rage, the wild uncontrollable fury and destruction that nature is capable of given flesh and face. It's not horrifying because it's a person that looks like a wolf, it's horrifying because underneath the fur and fangs it's still clearly a person. It's the hatred and capacity for violence buried inside all of us, with all the societal and personal locks and gates torn away.
It scares us because it makes us ask if it could be us. And the question is answered by the spreading of the curse onto survivors... yes it could be.

It's not about wether or not wolves are violent and vicious. It's about wether MANKIND is violent and vicious, far down, underneatht the rules and laws and agreements we make as a society.

So really, the big question about alignment in your game can't be answered until you decide exactly what lycanthropes are in your world. Are they powerful creatures with a kinship towards nature, and one specific animal in particular? Or are they the classic gothic legend of a poor soul who simply can't control themselves anymore?
You really gotta answer that before you let a player become a lycanthrope. D&D gives a blurrier answer than they should on the subject regarding the core lycanthrope, so it's really more of a springboard to one of the other two.

****************

VAMPIRES actually get the same treatment come to think of it. Are vampires creepy cool and tragic figures with power at a cost? Or are they dark and twisted versions of their former selves, all humanity stripped away until only the hunger, the blinding painful hunger that makes them see nothing but your throat and hear nothing but your heartbeat?

D&D tries to use them as both at once, sometimes, and there should be something differntiating the two.

EvilJames
2007-10-26, 11:46 PM
Of coarse it's a curse. Whenever it activates they go into npc mode

Bender
2007-10-29, 01:31 AM
You really gotta answer that before you let a player become a lycanthrope. D&D gives a blurrier answer than they should on the subject regarding the core lycanthrope, so it's really more of a springboard to one of the other two.
Maybe they gave a blurry answer to leave both options open. It doesn't have to be the same in every campaign. It gives a way out for a DM who wants his players to need a cure. Other than that, if the DM allows it, you can just drop the restrictions and play one.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-29, 02:02 AM
Nor can they be cured once they've fully succumbed to the curse (unless it's been less than three weeks since they contracted lycanthropy, in which case a cleric can cast remove disease on them): The only cure essentially requires a willing target (the Will save can be failed voluntarily otherwise), and no lycanthrope that has failed the alignment shift will want to be freed. Essentially, the only way to cure a lycanthrope that has succumbed to his animal nature is to magically force him to accept the cure, either by magically changing his alignment (eg via a helm of opposite alignment) and curing him before he fails a Control Shape check and reverts to his original alignment, or by compelling him with a geas or dominate effect and ordering him to make the save (in which case, he'll likely be more than a little unhappy with you and will likely have to be imprisoned--he's still got the lycanthropic alignment, after all--but at least now there is some glimmer of hope).


I'd just like to point out that anyone that's unconscious is assumed to be a willing recipient of a spell that allows a will save.

So one option is to simply beat your magically cursed friend unconscious so you can save his immortal soul with the spell.

Khanderas
2007-10-29, 02:42 AM
@Khanderas:Feral dogs, if given the chance, will go on barnyard killing sprees, just for the hell of it (I'm talking about breeds of dogs that can actually pose a threat to livestock, like rotweilers or pitbulls). They even don't really care if you're made of meat. They just want to chase you down and tear at you till you stop breathing. If a pack of coyotes kill a sheep, they'll consume every edible part until there's just a pile o' bones. Feral dogs'll just maul whatever they catch and leave a pile o' gore. But then, wild mutts weren't as prevalent as wolves back in the days of yore.
I agree, a fine and valid point. Those dogs are not wolves, they are genetically manipulated (from selective breeding) for agressivness and the version you describe sound like abused specimen. How this applies to Evil / not Evil wolves I can't really tell, but as anyone else, I assume you basically agree with me :smallbiggrin:

Khanderas
2007-10-29, 02:58 AM
I think one thing that gets a little neglected in discussions such as this, is the question of what exactly lycanthropy is. The end result is that you have a lot of people arguing with no possible resolution, because they don't have a base that their arguments are originating from.

<Cut for shortness>

But I don't think that's what the core werewolf in D&D was meant to be. In common myth and legend, lycanthropy is called a curse for a reason. One suffering from lycanthropic affliction loses their control, their inhibitions vanish based on the lunar cycle (something far beyond their control), and they quite simply go on a killing spree for raw thrill of violence.

Absolutly. Werewolves are evil, because it makes the cursed individual run on a killingspree, not because wolves (the animals) are rabid massmurderers.
The fall from Good -> Neutral -> Evil might be slowed since it is in some way magically induced (I wouldn't have a paladin fall on first transformation without chance of curing himself, yes I know they get immune pretty fast, it's an example) but the cursed will slide.

As for werebears, they dont get that rage, so they can keep whatever alignment they got before... Despite the fact bears kill far more humans then wolves.

Dullyanna
2007-10-29, 03:13 PM
What about less agressive breeds, like Mastiffs and Great Danes? They're big enough to pose a threat to livestock, while not being dogs that have been bred for their viciousness...

They're capable of it as well. But even feral dogs have personalities, so they might not (Pretty unlikely, though) pose a problem to farmers. A dog's breed tells you what his/her personality will most likely be like, but there are always exceptions to the rule. But yeah, guard-dogs are much more aggressive than other breeds, even especially if they're feral. That's what they're raised for, after all.

@Khanderas:I was actually comparing the "evil" of wolves to that of domestic breeds. But I have to go with the idea that lycanthropy brings out the worst of people, willingly or otherwise. Which is why a (Presumably) good player would want to get rid of it. What bugs me is that the whole alignment thing doesn't apply to every form of lycanthropy. If predatory instincts are something viewed as "evil" if found in people, than why are bears (Anally territorial and destructive) and eagles (They sometimes push their siblings out of the nest when they're hatchlings) "good" . Even if they're a country's symbol, they still represent man's ugly potential for evil.

Edit:I have to admit that my earlier post was kinda ... out of context.