Odraude |
So was pondering a bit through different Latin American folklore and I wanted to see what people felt about this.
Would you allow a character (player or NPC, doesn't matter) to cast Bestow Curse on a victim to curse them with Lycanthropy? Would you feel Major Curse would be better? Why or why not?
Personally, I'd allow it as a GM since it's a big part of different lycanthropy folklore. But I want to see what others feel about this from different viewpoints.
Thanks for any and all comments.
Zhayne |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, and no.
Two reasons:
1. That's way beyond the sample power level of Bestow Curse, and Major Curse doesn't actually increase power, just cranks up the save DC.
2. It's only a curse in folklore. Most martial characters would be more than happy to be 'cursed' with enhanced stats, DR, and natural weapons.
Odraude |
Isnt lycanthropy crazy hard to get rid of? Like good chance you will die to get rid of? I would probably come up with an easier way to treat lycanthropy if I were to make this change. From a flavor stand point I love it.
It's funny, but lycanthropy becomes easier to get rid of after three days of the initial infection. After the three days, you can use remove curse or break enchantment.
In Classic Horrors Revisited, though, it states that the remove curse and break enchantment spells only work on the night of the full moon. Which is thematic and at least makes it about as difficult as grabbing a level 12 cleric. Though I'd imagine that since this is transferred via curse and not bite, the heal/remove disease wouldn't work. Course, this is all setting specific (for Classic Horrors) and house ruling (for the latter).
Odraude |
No, and no.
Two reasons:
1. That's way beyond the sample power level of Bestow Curse, and Major Curse doesn't actually increase power, just cranks up the save DC.2. It's only a curse in folklore. Most martial characters would be more than happy to be 'cursed' with enhanced stats, DR, and natural weapons.
I don't see an issue with power gaming, since the player would lose complete control over their character when they transform. Especially for a frontliner, who will be making saves every time they are injured. Trust me, I had a player that thought being a weretiger was awesome until he killed his cohort after he transformed.
Silent Saturn |
Whenever we used lycanthropy at our tables, we also rule that the victim loses control over their actions, unless they can succeed at three DC25 Will saves in a row. Since the characters who most benefit from hybrid form are martials and thus have the poorer Will saves (typically), this means that it truly is a curse.
For a PC to inflict that on somebody would definitely be an incredibly evil act, because it effectively unleashes a powerful, ravening monster onto society. The change isn't even instantaneous, so you can't use it to deny a spellcaster their ability to cast, unless for some reason you need to make sure in advance that they can't cast a spell during the next full moon. And since said monster would likely go after them at its first opportunity, one wonders why a PC would even want to do this.
Odraude |
Whenever we used lycanthropy at our tables, we also rule that the victim loses control over their actions, unless they can succeed at three DC25 Will saves in a row. Since the characters who most benefit from hybrid form are martials and thus have the poorer Will saves (typically), this means that it truly is a curse.
For a PC to inflict that on somebody would definitely be an incredibly evil act, because it effectively unleashes a powerful, ravening monster onto society. The change isn't even instantaneous, so you can't use it to deny a spellcaster their ability to cast, unless for some reason you need to make sure in advance that they can't cast a spell during the next full moon. And since said monster would likely go after them at its first opportunity, one wonders why a PC would even want to do this.
Those are all good points. Folklore-wise, I'm unsure about the act being evil, as it was used as a punishment as often as it was used to be evil. But certainly, losing control over your character every time you change can be very detrimental.
Silent Saturn |
Those are all good points. Folklore-wise, I'm unsure about the act being evil, as it was used as a punishment as often as it was used to be evil. But certainly, losing control over your character every time you change can be very detrimental.
My rationale for considering it "an evil act" is that you are causing a monster to come into being, knowing full well that this monster is incredibly powerful and will violently attack people but without knowing where or when that monster will manifest or how many people will die before it can be successfully subdued.
If you're casting this on a willing ally, you don't know how long it will be before your ally is capable of controlling the change. Until then, he's a danger to society and a liability to the party.
If you're casting this on an enemy, that's an overt act that tells your enemy where you stand, but doesn't actually hinder his ability to retaliate against you... and may incidentally give him a powerful weapon to use against you. At best, you've turned the society against your enemy, at the cost of an unpredictable number of innocent lives. At worst, you've turned society against yourself, while your enemy is seen as a victim and the local authorities are able to provide a cure.
Odraude |
Good points. I was looking at it from the view of some stories about a prideful person treating a witch like crap, then being punished by lycanthropy. I agree.
For an afflicted lycanthrope, while you can force the change at will with a Constitution check, you still can spontaneously change from either a full moon or injury. So an afflicted lycanthrope can never truly control the beast.
Of course, at some point, maybe the victim won't want to after a while. And that can be super dangerous to the party :)
Pan |
Pan wrote:Isnt lycanthropy crazy hard to get rid of? Like good chance you will die to get rid of? I would probably come up with an easier way to treat lycanthropy if I were to make this change. From a flavor stand point I love it.It's funny, but lycanthropy becomes easier to get rid of after three days of the initial infection. After the three days, you can use remove curse or break enchantment.
In Classic Horrors Revisited, though, it states that the remove curse and break enchantment spells only work on the night of the full moon. Which is thematic and at least makes it about as difficult as grabbing a level 12 cleric. Though I'd imagine that since this is transferred via curse and not bite, the heal/remove disease wouldn't work. Course, this is all setting specific (for Classic Horrors) and house ruling (for the latter).
I see I must have had it backwards. I thought within three days you could cast remove curse and break enchantment or else its no choice but wolfsbane. Its not that bad and you also seem to have a good handle on PCs with lychantropy.
Silent Saturn |
It's also worth pointing out that the idea of lycanthropy being "contagious" is actually a fairly new addition to werewolf mythos. In a lot of the older stories, especially the ones you mentioned where it's a punishment, the victim can't accidentally create new ones because it's not a disease, it's a curse placed specifically on you.
The 3.x version of lycanthropy was probably the best example of folklore not being able to decide if it's a disease or a curse.
Lincoln Hills |
If you decide that a custom spell that inflicts lycanthropy fits your campaign, have a look at the APG spell moonstruck to determine the sort of level it should have.
Incidentally, a plot centered around what seems to be a lycanthropic outbreak, but is actually "field testing" for a spell intended to create super-soldiers, would be a very interesting adventure. (I wonder how many innocent victims of circumstance the PCs will kill before they realize the horrible truth?)