I'd really love it if Golarion (or Pathfinder rules) stuck with one theory of disease and worked off that.
With PF1, we have the germ theory, spirits, humors, and more.
But I always felt that the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't really fit well in Pathfinder worlds. You don't really see colds and the flu and random illnesses spread around the world. There aren't really mechanics for a character to just get sick for a few weeks. Some PCs fain immunities to disease, but it's never really explained why they can avoid bacteria and viruses and other causes of illness that's a part of the Germ Theory.
But a Supernatural Theory of Disease could work really well. If disease and sickness were always caused by spirits, demons, Gods, etc, then that creates an excellent adventure wherever disease is found. It also helps explain why paladins and other PCs are immune (can hold back the evil), and helps explain why it's so easy for magic to cure disease (expell the evil from the body).
If we could have one theory of disease be the correct one for the ruleset and/or Golarion, I think it would go a long way for explaining why related abilities work, and for improving the immersion factor for those of us who care about such things. :)
I've never really thought about it that much, so I wouldn't be surprised if my opinion shifts, but I actually think multiple theories of disease could work in the PF world. It's a world where we have both the normal vectors of disease (i.e. rats, dead things [or perhaps, Undead things], ect), as well as supernatural vectors of disease (including, but not limited to a literal daemon of pestilence). At least as it stands, I think I'm fine with germs being a thing at the same time that spontaneous generation of diseases can come from supernatural elements.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I am speaking for many when I say what the game needs now is: realistic wound infection rules.
Recovering from battle should be at least as difficult as the fight itself.
The roleplaying opportunities of gangrene that can only be gotten rid of by gnawing off your buddy's leg are priceless.
What prevents multiple theories from being true? It seems like it would not be out of the question for evil spirits to spread germs.
What prevents multiple theories from being true? It seems like it would not be out of the question for evil spirits to spread germs.
For now, the rest of the rules don't support Germ Theory. We don't have infections and random sickness that ranges from mild colds to devestating Ebola, nor do we see infections destroying things as small as fingers to as large as entire communities. That realistic aspect is not something people generally exore in games like these. And it's not fun to have your 15th level PC die of AIDS or influenza.
So if we abandon that entirely and move on to a more supernatural theory of disease, we can create a better game as a whole. You don't have to worry about random sicknesses, but instead when you see a sickness in a game you have an adventure ripe in the making!
And it also explains why various classes can be immune to all disease - they don't have asuper immune system, but rather have the power to expell negative supernatural influences from their own (or another's) body.
I know this isn't a topic most people care about. But for me, it's always bugged me that wound infection and random illnesses don't exist I'm the same world where the Germ Theory of Disease is also true (which is it in PF1). By removing it, not only do we completely remove that concern, but we also help create a fantasy world that just feels more fantastic and magical.
Agreed. It would be nice if we either had real epidemiology of infectious agents (e.g. wound infection, particularly if you're in a humid environment with lots of microbes, like a cave) or it was just completely magical (which would also be cool).
|
1st ed. AD&D had monthly cheeks for "fun" diseases (and the huecuva hit caused an acute cardiovascular-renal disease). Chance to be affected dependen on your syle of living, environment, kind of exposure and so on. Exposure to some kind of enemy or location caused extra checks.
Realistic, but not particularly fun. On the other hand it made some spell (no skill until very lae in the development of the game) way more interesting.
In a long campaign I am tempted to reintroduce that mechanic, but not in the typical AP that last a short time span.
What prevents multiple theories from being true? It seems like it would not be out of the question for evil spirits to spread germs.
For now, the rest of the rules don't support Germ Theory. We don't have infections and random sickness that ranges from mild colds to devestating Ebola, nor do we see infections destroying things as small as fingers to as large as entire communities. That realistic aspect is not something people generally exore in games like these. And it's not fun to have your 15th level PC die of AIDS or influenza.
So if we abandon that entirely and move on to a more supernatural theory of disease, we can create a better game as a whole. You don't have to worry about random sicknesses, but instead when you see a sickness in a game you have an adventure ripe in the making!
And it also explains why various classes can be immune to all disease - they don't have asuper immune system, but rather have the power to expell negative supernatural influences from their own (or another's) body.
I know this isn't a topic most people care about. But for me, it's always bugged me that wound infection and random illnesses don't exist I'm the same world where the Germ Theory of Disease is also true (which is it in PF1). By removing it, not only do we completely remove that concern, but we also help create a fantasy world that just feels more fantastic and magical.
Would these optional rules from Horror Adventures fit what you want?
Since they allow you to create a much wider range of diseases, they sort of eliminate the main problem you have with Germ Theory.
As for infections, while we don't have rules for those, we do have:
Which gives us an idea of the mechanical effect an infected wound would have. The problem I see trying to do normal infections of this kind would be ruling on a DC and also how/when you have to test. But it's doable, if that's something you want to run.
My first instinct was to agree because a singular disease theory would allow for easier adjudication of disease-related issues. But I think the issue will (and should) remain fuzzy because making a choice limits story options.
When the characters are immersed in the depths of the jungle, I might want germs galore rampaging through their systems due to fecundity with no connotations of evil spirits or foul humors (unless Zuggtmoy is around).
But I don't want my plague daemon's disease aura run, maybe ruined, by those rules, especially in alternative environments where germs wouldn't spread well or perhaps even survive. I don't want the witch's curse to require a vector other than the targeting of the magic itself.
And in a fantasy, I don't see how the theories can't intertwine. Our reality's Germ Theory of Disease can be the physical manifestation, while spiritually diseases might represent a soul's imbalance, and supernaturally they represent curses or evil forces. The latter two might just provoke the physical manifestation, much like spells can create poison.
I would like a rule of thumb for the spread of disease not just from the occasional scenario exposure, but from exposure to diseased folk. It seems strange that a PC having bubonic plague poses no risk to peers or villagers. Not that I want plagues erupting due to player error (or effort!), but some risk from exposure seems required.
Would these optional rules from Horror Adventures fit what you want?Since they allow you to create a much wider range of diseases, they sort of eliminate the main problem you have with Germ Theory.
As for infections, while we don't have rules for those, we do have:
Which gives us an idea of the mechanical effect an infected...
Thanks for the excellent suggestions!
While I think mechanical effects would be nifty, I'm not sure they would add to the overall enjoyment of the game for the majority of people.
My complaint that the current rules don't model infectious disease well isn't a complaint that says we need to add rules, but rather that we should dismiss the Germ Theory in it's entirety.
I believe that moving to a Supernatural Model, on the other hand, would increase the enjoyment of the game. For one, it's a bit simpler, and for two it makes it unique from our own world. It also reduces the work load on the devs. :)
For now, the rest of the rules don't support Germ Theory. We don't have infections and random sickness that ranges from mild colds to devestating Ebola, nor do we see infections destroying things as small as fingers to as large as entire communities. That realistic aspect is not something people generally exore in games like these. And it's not fun to have your 15th level PC die of AIDS or influenza.What prevents multiple theories from being true? It seems like it would not be out of the question for evil spirits to spread germs.
Germ Theory isn't theory about "random sickness". It might be that you don't understand what Germ Theory is?
A creature that eats feces. If it bites you, you have a good chance of contracting a disease. For the purposes of Pathfinder, that's close enough to Germ Theory to be pretty accurate. It's about as accurate as falling damage mimics real world falls.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how the germ theory of disease is incompatible with more magical causes. If monsters can have magical origins but still be flesh and blood, why can't germs have magical origins even if they are biological in some sense?
|
As long as we have multiple writers/developers in our game system, we will have multiple ways that disease works.
One set of writers/developers will be using the "evil spirits" Theory of Disease and then along will come another writer/developer who has a great idea for a "dirty" monster that lives in "filthy" conditions and so carries disease - because everyone KNOWS that Disease is caused by unclean conditions (see the notes on Dire Rats, etc.). Then we have BOTH the "evil spirits" Theory of Disease, and the "un-clean" Theory of Disease. Then someone will develop a monster that infects victims with a disease that is a curse (like Mummy Rot or Lycanthropy) and we get a third Theory of Disease... Until we have another form... etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Germs, uncleanliness, spirits, curses... the unifying principle must be that whatever the disease is caused by, it consists of an imbalance of the bodily humours!
Seriously, I don't see the basis of the thread. There ARE realistic disease in the game, e.g. bubonic plague. There ARE magical diseases in the game. Claiming "wound infectation doesn't exist" is silly, if you want every time a blood wound occurs you are exposed to disease, that uses existing Disease rules. No, the game doesn't FORCE FEED that to you, but it doesn't deny it either. So it is ultimately a matter of what gaming groups choose to focus on. Do we need the game to narrate the theory of gravity to us?