Attack that only affects evil. Suggestions?

[M-3]

Allright, here's the problem:

 

For a fantasy campaign that I'm thinking about, I want to have this spell that causes damage to all evil creatures within a certain radius of the caster while having no effect on other creatures. There is objective "good" and "evil" in this setting so there's no ambiguity here as to what constitutes an evil target.

 

The problem here is how it should be designed. The spell is available only to good characters and it doesn't seem reasonable to let "only affects evil" be a limitation - since it's actually advantageous in most circumstances. (One could imagine some set of circumstances where a PC would want to harm some evil creatures around him but not others, but generally...). Taking the Selective Target modifier to Area Effect doesn't seem quite right. For one thing, evil creatures with good DCV would probably go unharmed. What I'm thinking of would be to fudge it a bit and simply let the limited effect be an advantage rather than a limitation.

 

Has anybody got any better ideas?

[badger3k]

Area effect NND, does Body, Defense is "not being evil"

 

Expensive perhaps, but it'll do the job. Something like that should probably be saved for either big effects (the Big JuJu Holy Smite Aura) or small things (Dart That Annoys Evil Beasties).

 

Other then that, I'd go with a +0 lim for only affects evil if it its not a limitation. For an advantage, at least for area affects, I'd push it to +1 maybe - that's a big advantage for an area effect that you can cast while surrounded by your buddies.

 

Another way is to buy selective, then area effect (one hex accurate) together, possibly multiple times making each target that gets hit the subject of the one-hex accurate attack. Kinda clunky and, while legal, is a pain to wrok out sometimes - the only time I've seen it done is for a spell that only attacks one target. Multiple targets might be tough.

 

That's about all I can think of now.

[M-3]

Originally posted by badger3k

Area effect NND, does Body, Defense is "not being evil"

 

Expensive perhaps, but it'll do the job. Something like that should probably be saved for either big effects (the Big JuJu Holy Smite Aura) or small things (Dart That Annoys Evil Beasties).

 

That's actually an excellent way of doing it. I feel kind of dumb for not having thought of NND myself.

 

And it's a big Juju sort of attack that nobody's going to be using lightly.

 

Thanks.

[farik]

You could also consider putting Usable By Others on the Personel Immunity portion of an area effect but that would really be better suited if the player could identify the good and evil with a linked detect. This is so clunky I doubt I'd even use it but thought I'd post it in attempt to promote lateral thinking.

[Snarf]

Area effect NND, does Body, Defense is "not being evil"

But defining NND with a lack of something is naughty . Better call the defense "being good."

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Snarf

But defining NND with a lack of something is naughty . Better call the defense "being good."

 

But if that were the case, neutral beings like animals would get harmed by it...

[Talon]

Since this attack could also be used to ferret out evil spies and the like, I would buy the attack as AOE Selective with a Must Target All Evil Characters Limitation (-1/2 to -1, IMO), plus a Linked Sense Evil, only for setting the AOE Selective (-1 to -2 IMO). Buy the PER roll on the Sense to 18- and either invoke the FH rule that it always works or rule that even magic isn't perfect.

 

Oops, didn't notice the comments about Selective. I'd allow straight AOE, only affects Evil (-0), if the sense was purchased along with the attack.

 

Otherwise, the character can cast it at 1 pip (or 1/2 d6 STUN, which is even better as it won't permanently hurt anyone) in a crowd and see who flinches.

[Killer Shrike]

[Outsider]

I might agree to "only effects evil" as a limitation on an attack that only hits one target at a time (though it would be a dandy evil-detector then), but on an AoE it becomes quite the advantage. It removes the downside of using it in a crowded, intermixed melee, effectively making the power Selective/Always Hits.

 

If something is (or will turn out to be) an advantage, it should cost points, not save them.

[Galadorn]

Re: Attack that only affects evil. Suggestions?

 

Originally posted by M-3

Allright, here's the problem:

 

For a fantasy campaign that I'm thinking about, I want to have this spell that causes damage to all evil creatures within a certain radius of the caster while having no effect on other creatures. There is objective "good" and "evil" in this setting so there's no ambiguity here as to what constitutes an evil target.

 

The problem here is how it should be designed. The spell is available only to good characters and it doesn't seem reasonable to let "only affects evil" be a limitation - since it's actually advantageous in most circumstances. (One could imagine some set of circumstances where a PC would want to harm some evil creatures around him but not others, but generally...). Taking the Selective Target modifier to Area Effect doesn't seem quite right. For one thing, evil creatures with good DCV would probably go unharmed. What I'm thinking of would be to fudge it a bit and simply let the limited effect be an advantage rather than a limitation.

 

Has anybody got any better ideas?

 

Try this: Only works vs. evil. You don't need any selective advantage, because the spell only works versus evil. You can even make is area of effect and it still won't effect anyone else because it only works versus evil. Get it?

 

This is not meant to be harsh, but only help you focus.

 

Only vs. Evil in Fantasy Hero Companion III (Second Edition) was a -1/2 limitation.

 

All this was address in the second edition FH - to a point. I am working on an system right now for my own campaign - which I may share in DH.

• 
  1. You have to standardize what evil and good mean in game terms. Is it a psych. limit to be good? Is it a new disadvantage?
   
  I made it a completely new limitation. It's called a "Moral Limitation." No, not a psychological limitation - just because a person "feels" good, does not make a person good.
   
  Having one degree in psychology and another in behavioral science, I can say psychology - with it's tendency toward subjectivism - is not a standard of morality. A person may feel good about killing, but does that make it right?
   
  So the bottom line is - "what does it mean to be good?" I tend to stick to the ten commandments in this regard.
   
  2. Secondly, standardizing limitations, powers, skills and all effects that might be deemed "good." All undead, demons, etc. would have a vulnerability and/or a susceptibility to "good" powers.
   
  Standarization is something Hero Games hasn't done well in regards to the "good" and "evil" dynamic; D&D has done it well. It is somewhat clear, in D&D, which monsters are effected by holy water or holy items, and just what that effect it (i.e. damage, prevention of regeneration, etc.)
   
  So every monster, of the supernatural evil type, should have this limitation.
   
  3. Option #3 is to give items powers instead "only usable versus evil." I think this is the most complicated and hard to handle method though - because you have to account for defenses.

 

Hope this helps.

[Outsider]

This isnt meant to be harsh either, but... read what he wrote. He says that the fact that the spell only effects evil will usually be advantageous in his estimation. One of the overarching concepts in Hero System is : If its not actually disadvantageous, you dont get a limitation for it.

 

 

 

What you -could- do is take it as a no point limitation* and figure that the bad guys can do the same thing to the good guys, so it all balances out. (this assumes that the bad guys will have a rough parity in spellcasters... if they dont, then "good for the goose, good for the gander" doesnt ameliorate things any)

 

 

 

 

*Reasoning being that the advantage of being able to throw it indiscriminately among your allies balances out the disadvantage of not being able to hurt, say, neutral attackers with it.

[Snarf]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

But if that were the case, neutral beings like animals would get harmed by it...

Errr animals are good. They sure taste good...

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Outsider

This isnt meant to be harsh either, but... read what he wrote. He says that the fact that the spell only effects evil will usually be advantageous in his estimation. One of the overarching concepts in Hero System is : If its not actually disadvantageous, you dont get a limitation for it.

 

What you -could- do is take it as a no point limitation* and figure that the bad guys can do the same thing to the good guys, so it all balances out. (this assumes that the bad guys will have a rough parity in spellcasters... if they dont, then "good for the goose, good for the gander" doesnt ameliorate things any)

 

*Reasoning being that the advantage of being able to throw it indiscriminately among your allies balances out the disadvantage of not being able to hurt, say, neutral attackers with it.

 

If its used as the defense in the NND, theres no advantage or limitation needed. The version I gave would not affect neutral creatures - the only beings affected would be those with a Disad that makes them "evil" (I use a version of DF like 'mutant' is used in champions).

 

Its the same as having a NND where the defense is self-contained breathing, and the party all wears power armor with life support. The NND does Body is a +2 advantage already. Adding in area effect raises that to +3 or more.

 

For other attacks I'd still give it a -1/2 limitation, unless everything the players will encounter is evil (or even if most things have that designator). Then it would probably be a +1/2 to +1, depending on how often they are encountered.

[Michael Hopcroft]

The problem with Elemntal Evil

 

I thought "only vs. evil" was one of those forbidden power constructions like "doesn't work against friends (or teammmates)". it removes the chance of accidentally hitting an innocent bystander with your attack, which encorauges you to throw powerful attacks around willyy-nilly.This is A Bad Thing.

 

I incidentallyalso have a problem with evil being somehow elemental in a fantasy game. As faramir said in the extended version of The Two Towers (in a scnee that blew me away) Sauron's servants did not believe they were serving evil incarnate. I doubt that even Staan himself belives himself to be evil. (In the theology of my religion, the reason Satan was expelled from Heaven was because he lost an argument with God over the value of human free will aka "Agency". Satan probably still believes he was in the right as he sits in the Outer darkness working his wiles.)

 

have you read your Milton?

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Outsider

This isnt meant to be harsh either, but... read what he wrote. He says that the fact that the spell only effects evil will usually be advantageous in his estimation. One of the overarching concepts in Hero System is : If its not actually disadvantageous, you dont get a limitation for it.

 

It's a disdvantage, I think. Go through the Hero Bestiary and count how many monters (undead, ordinary animals, etc.) could be term "good", and how many could be termed neutral or evil.

 

I think this exact thing for the Fantasy Hero Companion III (Second Edition) - if i remember correctly it was 24 "evil" - including orcs. hoibgoblins. etc. - 10 good and 26 neutral. Less then half the existing monsters were evil - sounds like a limitation to me.

 

Since most people seem to be visual learners here's visualization of why its a limitation:

Six grizzly bears charge up the rocky hill towards Aragon the Cleric. Aragon is in a tight spot and casts his holy cosmic superblast spell at the huge grizzlies.

 

A ball of light like the sun engulfs the grizzlies, angels sing a blaring chorus, lightning thunders down from heaven. When the light clears Aragon sees that the fur on the grizziles is not even singed, untouched, prisitine. The grizzlies continue their furious advance.

 

This is why "only works versus evil," is a limitation.

 

Secondly, I don't care what he said - it was implicit in my statements that I don't agree with what he said, since I didn't validate his statement.

 

What you -could- do is take it as a no point limitation* and figure that the bad guys can do the same thing to the good guys, so it all balances out. (this assumes that the bad guys will have a rough parity in spellcasters... if they dont, then "good for the goose, good for the gander" doesnt ameliorate things any).

 

That's only if you are running a straight-forward good vs. evil campaign. Sometimes the "bad" guys, are neutral-aligned grizzlies.

[Outsider]

Just counting writeups in the supplements to determine how disadvantageous something is doesnt work. It fails to take into account how common each critter is, and how often it is likely to represent a problem within the campaign envisioned.

 

The old AD&D Monster Manual spent 13 of its 98 pages of monster wrtieups on demons, devils, and dragons, but (at least in most campaigns) they didnt make up 13.25% of creatures people ran into.

 

 

 

 

 

Or, for the visually minded :

An army is attacking your stronghold. It has 10,000 members, all of whom are either Orcs, Men, or Hobgoblins, while your stronghold is manned by only 1000 folk of your own (all men). The Orcs form the bulk of the army, with the Men (well, Man) being the Evil Wizard who is controlling the whole deal, and the Hobgoblins, his bodyguard. The breakdown numberwise is 9900 Orcs, 99 Hobgoblins, and 1 Man. Having a spell that only effects Orcs isnt worth much (if any) disadvantage, since 99% of the targets -it will likely be cast on- will be orcs. Despite the fact that "orc" writeups represent only 1/3 of the "monsters" in the campaign bestiary.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Outsider

Just counting writeups in the supplements to determine how disadvantageous something is doesnt work. It fails to take into account how common each critter is, and how often it is likely to represent a problem within the campaign envisioned.

 

 

Ummmmmm I believe I said that.

 

Originally post by Galadorn

That's only if you are running a straight-forward good vs. evil campaign. Sometimes the "bad" guys, are neutral-aligned grizzlies.

 

This is where I referred to the relative nature of each campaign.

 

The old AD&D Monster Manual spent 13 of its 98 pages of monster wrtieups on demons, devils, and dragons, but (at least in most campaigns) they didnt make up 13.25% of creatures people ran into.

 

Do people listen nowadays? I didn't say pages, I said monsters.

 

Or, for the visually minded :

An army is attacking your stronghold. It has 10,000 members, all of whom are either Orcs, Men, or Hobgoblins, while your stronghold is manned by only 1000 folk of your own (all men). The Orcs form the bulk of the army, with the Men (well, Man) being the Evil Wizard who is controlling the whole deal, and the Hobgoblins, his bodyguard. The breakdown numberwise is 9900 Orcs, 99 Hobgoblins, and 1 Man. Having a spell that only effects Orcs isnt worth much (if any) disadvantage, since 99% of the targets -it will likely be cast on- will be orcs. Despite the fact that "orc" writeups represent only 1/3 of the "monsters" in the campaign bestiary.

 

Geesh, I wonder what percentage of the time that players encounter orcs?

 

To be explicitly clear, for those who don't seem able to follow: it depends on the campaign. But in many campaigns, at least the ones I have played in, quite often (say 50%) of the time players encounter non-evil monsters. Whether in the form of a pet of an arch-villian, or in the form of random encounters to spice things up, or in the form of a thrall of the Dark Lord Sauron - for example. 50% of the monsters encountered being non-evil, would justify a -1/2 limitation. But it depends on the particular campaign.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Outsider

Or, for the visually minded :

An army is attacking your stronghold. It has 10,000 members, all of whom are either Orcs, Men, or Hobgoblins, while your stronghold is manned by only 1000 folk of your own (all men). The Orcs form the bulk of the army, with the Men (well, Man) being the Evil Wizard who is controlling the whole deal, and the Hobgoblins, his bodyguard. The breakdown numberwise is 9900 Orcs, 99 Hobgoblins, and 1 Man. Having a spell that only effects Orcs isnt worth much (if any) disadvantage, since 99% of the targets -it will likely be cast on- will be orcs. Despite the fact that "orc" writeups represent only 1/3 of the "monsters" in the campaign bestiary.

You dont reconfigure the conditional limitations of a Spell on the fly, so using a single encounter to make an argument in either direction is specious. What matters is the prevelance of a particular state in the bigger picture of the setting.

 

If a spell ONLY AFFECTS ORCS in a setting where Orcs compose only 2% of the total world population of potential opponents its quite obviously going to be useless a large portion of the time.

 

 

If a GM allows you to load up on "Only Vs Orc" Spells and then constantly (or even just for a disproportionately large amount of encounters) uses Orcs as protagonists, this is more a fault of the GM not correctly challenging your character and/or not correctly controlling game balance during character creation/advancement.

[badger3k]

A question, since I'm lost here (trying to follow several very involved threads on another board, as well as ones like these here). The current argument is on a limitation or advantage to normal attacks, not the NND, right? I can see the one, but not the other. Just trying to make sure I'm reading the discussion correctly.

[Outsider]

Galadorn Quote #1

"It's a disdvantage, I think. Go through the Hero Bestiary and count how many monters (undead, ordinary animals, etc.) could be term "good", and how many could be termed neutral or evil." - Galadorn

 

Outsider Quote #1

"Just counting writeups in the supplements to determine how disadvantageous something is doesnt work. It fails to take into account how common each critter is, and how often it is likely to represent a problem within the campaign envisioned." - Outsider, in reference to Galadorn quote #1 (above)

 

Galadorn Quote #2

"Ummmmmm I believe I said that." - Galadorn, in reference to Outsider quote #1 (above)

 

 

Looks to me like you said EXACTLY the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Galadorn Quote #3

"I think this exact thing for the Fantasy Hero Companion III (Second Edition) - if i remember correctly it was 24 "evil" - including orcs. hoibgoblins. etc. - 10 good and 26 neutral. Less then half the existing monsters were evil - sounds like a limitation to me."

 

 

Outsider Quote #2

"The old AD&D Monster Manual spent 13 of its 98 pages of monster wrtieups on demons, devils, and dragons, but (at least in most campaigns) they didnt make up 13.25% of creatures people ran into."

 

 

Galadorn Quote #4

"Do people listen nowadays? I didn't say pages, I said monsters."

 

 

You're making an issue out of the fact that a counted pages as a shorthand method instead of counting indivudual monster writeups? Even if I go through and count writeups, your argument based on that is still not valid. The old AD&D MM has 347 monsters (including sub types rating their own stat column, but not subtypes that dont) of which 35 are dragons, demons, or devils. Thats 10.1% of the writeups, which is, as expected, about the same as 13%. The point I was trying to make is that how many writeups the GM has at his disposal has very little or nothing at all to do with how common the creatures so written up are in the campaign world, or how often they will come into conflict with the PCs.

 

 

 

Galadorn quote #5

"To be explicitly clear, for those who don't seem able to follow: it depends on the campaign. But in many campaigns, at least the ones I have played in, quite often (say 50%) of the time players encounter non-evil monsters. Whether in the form of a pet of an arch-villian, or in the form of random encounters to spice things up, or in the form of a thrall of the Dark Lord Sauron - for example. 50% of the monsters encountered being non-evil, would justify a -1/2 limitation. But it depends on the particular campaign."

 

Gee, to be explicitly clear, THE GM WHO STARTED THE THREAD expressed that, in his estimation, "only effects evil", would, in relation to AoEs in HIS CAMPAIGN, constitute an ADVANTAGE! He, presumably, has a lot more of a clue about how often bears are gonna show up in his own campaign, dont you think? If every other monster was going to be a bear, he -probably- wouldnt have said "Only Effects Evil" would almost always be an advantage! Dont you think?

 

 

 

 

PS : If you want to get on your high horse about sarcasm, you are the one who started it in this thread. Putting a after it doesnt make it all OK.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

You dont reconfigure the conditional limitations of a Spell on the fly, so using a single encounter to make an argument in either direction is specious. What matters is the prevelance of a particular state in the bigger picture of the setting.

 

If a spell ONLY AFFECTS ORCS in a setting where Orcs compose only 2% of the total world population of potential opponents its quite obviously going to be useless a large portion of the time.

 

I totally agree.

 

If a GM allows you to load up on "Only Vs Orc" Spells and then constantly (or even just for a disproportionately large amount of encounters) uses Orcs as protagonists, this is more a fault of the GM not correctly challenging your character and/or not correctly controlling game balance during character creation/advancement.

 

Exactly. But this, of course, depends on the GM forecasting what his campaign will be like ahead of time. It may be, for a time, that orcs are disproportionately represented in the campaign - and players may complain, since one player has a "kills orcs always" spell. But this may be true for only five sessions, then the campaign may go back to normal.

 

So it's over the total life of the campaign that we need to think about, not just a few play sessions.

[Outsider]

"...using a single encounter to make an argument in either direction is specious."

 

The example was merely intended as an illustration of the importance of how commonly one will encounter a given foe type. Perhaps I should have used the equally illustrative, but more time consuming example to follow :

 

 

 

The campaign world in question is one populated by many, many varieties of living creatures, including a large number of sentient ones.

 

Some years back, however, Necormancy was invented and has since got out of hand. The Necromancers converted themselves to liches (undead sentient spellcasters), converted their trusted warrior retainers to wights (undead sentient warriors) and massacred the population of their realms in an orgy of blood, raising all their peasants as zombies/skeletons (undead non-sentients, capable of simple labor/fighting) Once the transformation of their society was complete, the Necromancers burst forth onto the world stage from their formerly remote realm, draining the life-force from all living things in their path, and raising every sentient and animal they could kill as a new zombie to reinforce their undead horde.

 

As they sacrificed every sentient, every animal, every tree and bush, and everything else, down to the very microbes in the soil, their power grew great indeed. Great enough, in fact, that even the gods could not just squish them. Life itself was up against the wall, about to be snuffed out entirely. To prevent the end of all life, the gods put aside all their previous rivalries, and used their influence to forge what is called "The Great Alliance of the Living"

 

The Great Alliance includes EVERY living thing and has as its only goal : the elimination of necromancy and all of its products. All societies are focused on the goal. Every plant and animal's behavior has been modified by divine power such that it exists only to support the war, either by fighting directly, by the strength of its labor, or the usefulness of its very fibre in feeding or equipping the Armies of Life. Sheep dont need sheperds, for they will not stray. Lions dont need to hunt because their food delivers itself unto them. Trees dont even compete for sunlight, but instead grow in the most efficient manner to support the war. Its an odd world.

 

Anyway, the point is, that in this campaign setting, the living will pretty much never need an attack that effects another living thing. "Only vs Evil" (All Undead = evil, all Living = good, in this campaign world) on an AoE isnt a limitation of note in this setting. The only downside on it would be that it doesnt allow the attack to be used on the inanimate. And that is greatly outweighed by the fact that it makes it such that the AoE CAN be used without fear of hurting one's allies, even if they're completely intermixed with one's enemies.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Outsider

"...using a single encounter to make an argument in either direction is specious."

Anyway, the point is, that in this campaign setting, the living will pretty much never need an attack that effects another living thing. "Only vs Evil" (All Undead = evil, all Living = good, in this campaign world) on an AoE isnt a limitation of note in this setting. The only downside on it would be that it doesnt allow the attack to be used on the inanimate. And that is greatly outweighed by the fact that it makes it such that the AoE CAN be used without fear of hurting one's allies, even if they're completely intermixed with one's enemies.

And in such a setting I agree with that judgement completely. It is at most a -0 Limitation as the pros and cons balance out.

[Nuke]

I want to write up an attack that only affects neutral people...

 

"PICK A SIDE, DANGIT!"

 

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Nuke

I want to write up an attack that only affects neutral people...

 

"PICK A SIDE, DANGIT!"

 

 

Well, if you are on a certain school of moral philosophy, anyone who is not good is evil - period - there are no neutrals. Of course, this only affects those who have conciously chosen their moral direction - those who are "invincibly ignorant," are true neutrals.

 

Invincible ignorance is: you have not been told about good, or the path of good (i.e. what behaviors, intentions and thoughts are good). But if you have been told about what is good, and reject that good - you are now evil.

 

I'm not getting into a moral philosophy seminar here, but which neutrals are you talking about, the invincibly ignorant neutrals who don't know any better? Or the neutrals who know better, but just claim to be neutral?