Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific

[Gemini476]

Elemental burst has some weird things about it.

First, it is counted as an All elements spell, despite you only selecting one type when you cast it (the alternative would be varying descriptor depending on choice, I think this exists?) which means that a Wu Jen who has Elemental Mastery of Fire gets a +2 caster level when making a burst of water. Second, it can be used to make many shards of wood or metal from an object, but doesn't change the nature of that object, so this can be used to slowly generate lots of metal for free (at a lower level than minor creation). Third, the spell describes you as selecting a target composed of one of the five elements, but the spell description doesn't have a target, only an area. It's clear what they meant, but how is this resolved by RAW? Fourth, how are you to find an object composed of water? Does a container count, or not, because the spell doesn't describe breaking any container?

Separately, Decapitating Scarf, Entangling Scarf, and Iron Scarf are three spells that use a silk scarf as the focus. Because each involve flinging the scarf at the enemy, you need several silk scarves to cast any of these spells more than once. In fact, because each spell is instantaneous and has the scarf "assume ironlike hardness" you probably can't easily recover it or put it back in your bag, so you have to be constantly scarf shopping. Which is fine, because in the world of D&D silk scarves are free, so your bag is filled with them. Not really dysfunctional, just funny.

The Arms and Equipment Guide puts "Fabric, Fine" as 2-10gp per 50lb. unit - "Fabric, Unusual" goes for 11gp-25gp, and "Fabric, Exotic" for 25gp-50gp+. They don't list scarves specifically, but silk sashes go for 4gp each.

Beyond that, though, there's nothing that says that you can't recover the scarf and reuse it later.

[georgie_leech]

The Arms and Equipment Guide puts "Fabric, Fine" as 2-10gp per 50lb. unit - "Fabric, Unusual" goes for 11gp-25gp, and "Fabric, Exotic" for 25gp-50gp+. They don't list scarves specifically, but silk sashes go for 4gp each.

Beyond that, though, there's nothing that says that you can't recover the scarf and reuse it later.

I think it's more about instaneously (meaning, it persists after the spell end) becoming as hard as iron. Although if we're being RAW-y about it, that doesn't actually mean the scarf isn't reusable

[Sliver]

The silk scarf is a focus, and the target is a creature. I believe that it was often argued and discussed here that only targets of spells are affected by them? But that's not my point.

The spell says that "you seize a silk scarf and lash it toward one creature within range". A silk scarf, not the silk scarf you used as a focus. It doesn't claim that the flung silk scarf is the same scarf as the one used as the focus of the spell. Besides, since you are holding the focus as part of the casting, and seizing is described as part of a successful cast, I'd argue that it's even less likely that the flung scarf is the same scarf that used as a focus, since you are already holding it, and you only need one free hand for casting, so you don't aren't trying to seize the scarf from yourself... Unless you are tossing the scarf in the air as part of the casting?

Since the spell doesn't imply that it fails if you don't have another scarf to seize, I'd say that the spell conjures a scarf for you to seize, and the dysfunction is that the spell is labeled as Transmutation instead of Conjuration, but school-mismatch is common.

Though throwing scarfs at your opponent and then asking for the scarf back is rather amusing. And now you have an iron silk scarf that can be... Turned into iron again?

Edit: Though maybe I am wrong about how many free hands you need? You need a free hand for somatic components, and one for the focus, I assume, so you potentially could seize the scarf from your self after the somatic components were performed and the spell was cast... The rest still stands, I believe.

[Inevitability]

All creatures with the (goblinoid) subtype supposedly speak goblin, but Bhukas don't necessarily.

[Jormengand]

The silk scarf is a focus, and the target is a creature. I believe that it was often argued and discussed here that only targets of spells are affected by them?

Well, reach ghoul touch affects both the target and other creatures, discern lies targets other creatures and only affects you, and rouse targets creatures and doesn't affect anyone at all!

[The Viscount]

The Arms and Equipment Guide puts "Fabric, Fine" as 2-10gp per 50lb. unit - "Fabric, Unusual" goes for 11gp-25gp, and "Fabric, Exotic" for 25gp-50gp+. They don't list scarves specifically, but silk sashes go for 4gp each.

Beyond that, though, there's nothing that says that you can't recover the scarf and reuse it later.

Ah while silk certainly might have a cost, because these are listed as a focus for a spell, unless there's a cost written, it's trivial and something you're assumed to have.

[Inevitability]

Ah while silk certainly might have a cost, because these are listed as a focus for a spell, unless there's a cost written, it's trivial and something you're assumed to have.

This. Antimagic Field has 'a pinch of iron filings' as component. Iron has a cost, but that doesn't mean you have to buy the iron separately.

[zergling.exe]

Ah while silk certainly might have a cost, because these are listed as a focus for a spell, unless there's a cost written, it's trivial and something you're assumed to have.

This. Antimagic Field has 'a pinch of iron filings' as component. Iron has a cost, but that doesn't mean you have to buy the iron separately.

What about daggerspell stance, which has a pair of daggers as a focus?

[Inevitability]

What about daggerspell stance, which has a pair of daggers as a focus?

Daggers have a clearly defined cost (2 GP), so you'd need to buy those.

[Troacctid]

If you don't have two daggers, I'm not sure why you'd even want to cast daggerspell stance in the first place, seeing as it only functions when you're wielding two daggers.

[Jormengand]

The spell Explosive Cascade (SpC 85) contains this wonderful sentence:

"Anything along this path takes 1d6 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to all creatures and objects it touches."

Presumably, the fire damage is given to the creatures on the path, who then take it to the creatures they're touching?

[Troacctid]

Ha ha, what? Looks like the sentence got away from the editors about halfway through.

[Bucky]

The spell Explosive Cascade (SpC 85) contains this wonderful sentence:

"Anything along this path takes 1d6 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to all creatures and objects it touches."

Presumably, the fire damage is given to the creatures on the path, who then take it to the creatures they're touching?

Haha, that's awesome.

"You get hit by the beam and take 31 damage from your weapon, 27 damage from your armor, 37 damage from your backpack, 23 damage from each of your boots..."

[dhasenan]

Let's look at Hold Person and Hold Monster, which cause paralysis. (I thought for sure this would be recorded already, but it's not in the compendium.)

A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls.

When a crow sleeping on a perch is hit with Hold Monster, it falls.

Compare with the general rules for paralysis:

A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls.

Specific trumps general; Hold Person/Monster is better at making winged creatures fall than other paralysis effects.

Worse than that, though. If a crow is flying by means of a Fly spell and it's hit by some paralysis effect (not necessarily Hold Monster), it still falls out of the air. Conversely, a human or tarrasque in a similar situation would not fall.

[Inevitability]

Killing a demon is an evil act.

Think about it: an outsider's body and soul form one unit, so Disintegrating a demon's body also destroys its soul. It is evil to destroy a soul. Disintegrating a demon is, therefore, evil.

It gets better when you add in the 'allowing fiends to live is an evil act' bit. Now it's evil not to kill them, but also to kill them!


And funnily enough, this explains why demons and devils aren't Good despite killing evil outsiders all the time.

[Troacctid]

Do demons even have souls? I haven't read Fiendish Codex I all the way through, and I don't know the cosmology super well.

[Inevitability]

Do demons even have souls? I haven't read Fiendish Codex I all the way through, and I don't know the cosmology super well.

The outsider description says:

Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit.

That heavily implies demons have souls.

[Andezzar]

That heavily implies demons have souls.

Tt actually states that they have a soul - one that forms a single unit with the body.

[No brains]

Where does it say that destroying a soul is an evil act? I think I remember that from BoVD, but I'm not sure. Another thing that I think I remember is that when an outsider dies, its essence melds back with its home plane, but I can't remember the source of that either.

Technically what this means is that killing a demon might not be an evil act depending on where you kill it. If you kill it in the abyss and leave it to rot, it sort of gets destroyed, so it might be evil depending on how that works. If you kill a demon away from its home plane and preserve its body, then the soul is still more or less in one piece and might not count as 'destroyed'. I think the most evil thing about killing a demon is that it invites a mode of thinking somewhere between a meta-physicist and a serial killer.

Since a killing a sapient creature is already an evil act, I wonder if the destruction of the demon's soul is still accounted for in the moral taxes. Maybe killing a demon is still enough of a 'good act' to balance out the soul destruction. Either that or these clever jerks figured out how to promote evil even in death. Red Fel would be proud.

[Inevitability]

Where does it say that destroying a soul is an evil act? I think I remember that from BoVD, but I'm not sure.

This. It's in the section on evil acts, right at the beginning of the book.

[Jowgen]

Killing a demon is an evil act.

Think about it: an outsider's body and soul form one unit, so Disintegrating a demon's body also destroys its soul. It is evil to destroy a soul. Disintegrating a demon is, therefore, evil.

It gets better when you add in the 'allowing fiends to live is an evil act' bit. Now it's evil not to kill them, but also to kill them!


And funnily enough, this explains why demons and devils aren't Good despite killing evil outsiders all the time.

Destorying a fiend's soul is harder than just disintegrating it, for a Fiend reforms on its home-plane after a varying ammount of time if killed off plane (100 years for Baatezu, variable for Tanari, instant for the ones from Carceri). Your point still stands, but it's a tad more limited.

What I think makes this fun is that, right before the "allowing fiends to live" line, it clearly states: "Destroying a fiend is always a good act." It is, to my knowledge, the only "always good" act ever printed.

Other than the obvious moral paradox with destorying a fiend's soul, there are all sorts of other possible fun scenarios. You can...

Kill a redeemed Fiend. Kill a celestial you've polymorphed into a fiend. Kill a fiend that's been commanded to hold up the roof of a collapsing orphanage, inadvertedly killing dozens of innocents. Kill a Fiend envoy sent to negotiate a truce with the upper planes to prevent the apocalypse. And my personal favorite, take an unconscious balor into a crowded temple, coup de grace him, and watch all the faithful incinerated by its death throes.

... and they'll still all be good acts.

[No brains]

This. It's in the section on evil acts, right at the beginning of the book.

Okay, thank you.

[Telok]

That heavily implies demons have souls.

Actually since it's saying that an outsider's physical body is also it's soul that means that killing (rather than temporarily defeating, like a re-forming fiend) any outsider is destroying a soul. This includes all mephits, rakshasa, salamanders, etc.

You horrible soul destroyer you.

[Debatra]

On the subject of awkward morality; let's not forget such silliness as:

The Redeemery: How to reliably turn evil to good on a large scale

Disclaimer: This guide relies on rules on morality from the Book of Exalted Deeds. This book considers a Necromancy spell that rips out a creatures soul, traps it in an object for a full year and magically forces it to change in alignment to be of the highest moral standard. You have been warned.

[Jowgen]

On the subject of awkward morality; let's not forget such silliness as: The Redeemery

Oh you flatter me.

[PallentisLunam]

What I think makes this fun is that, right before the "allowing fiends to live" line, it clearly states: "Destroying a fiend is always a good act." It is, to my knowledge, the only "always good" act ever printed.

Other than the obvious moral paradox with destorying a fiend's soul, there are all sorts of other possible fun scenarios.

Actually this can be solved by applying specific vs general. Destroying a soul is generally an evil act but destroying a fiend, and by extension their soul, is a good act. Fiendish souls are a more specific category than souls.

To address some of your other points:

You can...
Kill a fiend that's been commanded to hold up the roof of a collapsing orphanage, inadvertedly killing dozens of innocents.

You killed a fiend: good act. You caused the death of dozens of orphans: evil acts, particularly if you were aware of the fiend's orders.

You can...
Kill a Fiend envoy sent to negotiate a truce with the upper planes to prevent the apocalypse.

You killed a fiend: good act. You caused the apocalypse: evil act.

You can...
Take an unconscious balor into a crowded temple, coup de grace him, and watch all the faithful incinerated by its death throes.

You killed a Balor: good act. You killed a temple full of worshipers, depending on the god, evil acts.

Killing a fiend is a good act but even good acts can have evil consequences and a single action can be the execution of multiple acts.

[Aimeryan]

You startled a cat causing it to run away, it heads to a nearby treehouse where, with just enough weight added, the treehouse falls to the ground killing all occupants: evil act.

[Andezzar]

You startled a cat causing it to run away, it heads to a nearby treehouse where, with just enough weight added, the treehouse falls to the ground killing all occupants: evil act.

Let's not make this thread about what constitutes an evil act and continue with actual dysfunctions instead.

[PallentisLunam]

Let's not make this thread about what constitutes an evil act and continue with actual dysfunctions instead.

If we are going to discuss the dysfunction of killing a fiend as being an evil act then we sort of need to get into what constitutes good and evil acts.

You startled a cat causing it to run away, it heads to a nearby treehouse where, with just enough weight added, the treehouse falls to the ground killing all occupants: evil act.

The only reason we can say "Killed fiend: good act" is because we are told that regardless of anything else killing a fiend is always a good act. The same doesn't apply for evil acts, they have to be analysed for the intentions and knowledge of their perpetrators. In fact, I believe that either BoVD or BoED addresses this exact type of scenario, using a paladin, a villain, and an unstable cliff overlooking a house, but the gist is that for an act to be evil it must be intentional and the perpetrator must have foreknowledge of the reasonable outcome.

In your example someone who was unaware of the tree house and inadvertently startles the house cat has not committed an evil act because they neither intended to cause harm nor knew that their actions were likely to. Someone who meant to startle the house cat but was unaware of the tree house has also not committed evil because although they intended to scare the cat it is a highly unlikely scenario for a startled cat to cause the death of others. Someone who was aware of the tree house, and its instability, but who startled the cat inadvertently, has not done evil because they lack the intent to do so. However, if someone knew about the tree house and startled the cat into the tree house with the express purpose of causing it to fall, killing the inhabitants then, depending on the nature of the inhabitants, which hasn't even been addressed, they may have committed an evil act.

[zergling.exe]

However, if someone knew about the tree house and startled the cat into the tree house with the express purpose of causing it to fall, killing the inhabitants then, depending on the nature of the inhabitants, which hasn't even been addressed, they may have committed an evil act.

Wouldn't this be murder, which is one of those always evil acts?