OOTS #1165 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

By the same token smallpox virus ( that’s a virus, right?) doesn’t reproduce with descendants. And the spell probably has to target a Creature of more than miscropic size, else V would have missed the Dragon and killed ther skin bacteria.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

By the same token smallpox virus ( that’s a virus, right?) doesn’t reproduce with descendants.

It is (was) indeed a virus. And given that I'm sure that some monsters in D&D reproduce via budding or cloning or duplication (because there is examples of everything), I don't think magic would care about that detail either.

In any case, this is a hypothetical use of familicide for Good. If familicide could be used to wipe out a horrific infectious disease, that covers sufficiently your clause of "it can be used for something other than Evil". Bit confused about you picking this hill to die on, since you were clearly on the "magic isn't Good or Evil, you should judge on the use it is put towards" camp.

And the spell probably has to target a Creature of more than miscropic size, else V would have missed the Dragon and killed ther skin bacteria.

Again, magic. V intended it to affect the dragon, so it did. Spells that are targeted by touching don't fail to affect their target just because you only touch clothing that is not the actual individual.

Grey Wolf

[Paleomancer]

I don't think familicide cares. After all, the black dragon and the Draketooths probably had barely any blood in common with each other. We can say "blood", but the magic clearly targets family relations (bloodlines) more than, say, DNA or the physical blood itself.

Grey Wolf

Now you've got me wondering whether viruses count as sufficiently "alive" for the purpose of Familicide. In the modern biological sense, "life" as we know it depends on having a metabolism, hence why viruses are not considered "alive." Moreover, if viruses (and viroids, infectious strands of loose DNA or RNA that plague plants) are like prions (neural proteins) in being rogue cellular processes that never were functional cells, they may never have been alive. Would even an epic death effect have any effect at all on a virus? Since like an undead being, it isn't really "alive"? I suppose the biggest unknown is whether the spell targets anything "related," such as undead relatives or flesh golems containing tissue from relatives. I do get you are being delibrately facetious for the fun of it, but it is a genuinely interesting point.

Say... Isn't the Order infected with Sphinx Pox? Future plot point or throwaway joke about D&D disease conditions?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Isn't the Order infected with Sphinx Pox? Future plot point or throwaway joke about D&D disease conditions?

Only Mr. Scruffy. And it can be easily cleared by a Cure Desease anyway.

In fact, the biggest thing against Familicide smallpox, is that it seems the gods of desease can create deseases ex-nihilo, so even if it did work, there is no particular reason to think it would stay extinct.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

It is (was) indeed a virus. And given that I'm sure that some monsters in D&D reproduce via budding or cloning or duplication (because there is examples of everything), I don't think magic would care about that detail either.

Why do you say that? If you familicided, say, a slaad (no autocorrect, not a salad) theres no reason to think that its host's bloodline would be included in the spell, and im uncertain that even its parent slaad would be, as their reproduction is itself at least partly magical.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why do you say that?

Because epic magic is generally broken. Really, that's the long and short of it. Faced with non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, what do I think an Epic spell designed to eliminate everyone in any way related to the target? Why, eliminate everyone in any way related to the target, even if "any way" involves non-bi-sexual reproduction. Because Epic.

After all, dragon-human mating usually involves a polymorphed dragon, so magic was involved in the Draketooh reproduction ancestry, and the spell didn't seem to care about that either.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Because epic magic is generally broken. Really, that's the long and short of it. Faced with non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, what do I think an Epic spell designed to eliminate everyone in any way related to the target? Why, eliminate everyone in any way related to the target, even if "any way" involves non-bi-sexual reproduction. Because Epic.

After all, dragon-human mating usually involves a polymorphed dragon, so magic was involved in the Draketooh reproduction ancestry, and the spell didn't seem to care about that either.

Grey Wolf

The spell was specifically designed to go after bloodlines. A polymorphed dragon still creates a bloodline. A slaad parasite does not, at least not from the host's side, and im uncertain about the slaad's side. Just because its magic doesn't mean it automatically fills in any and all conceivable gaps in the logic of the person designing it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The spell was specifically designed to go after bloodlines. A polymorphed dragon still creates a bloodline. A slaad parasite does not, at least not from the host's side, and im uncertain about the slaad's side. Just because its magic doesn't mean it automatically fills in any and all conceivable gaps in the logic of the person designing it.

I'm not saying the magic fills in the gaps automatically. I'm saying I'd expect Haerta to have considered non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, because they are not uncommon in D&D monsters.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I'm not saying the magic fills in the gaps automatically. I'm saying I'd expect Haerta to have considered non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, because they are not uncommon in D&D monsters.

Grey Wolf

Ok, but presumably she wasn't planning on using it on random monsters. She's already epic level, its not like she's going to go out hunting monsters for loot and XP. She's conquering nations with armies of undead and using it on her rivals and enemies. If she needs to kill a Slaad or whatever, she has other tools for that. Familicide is a tool for dramatic effect.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ok, but presumably she wasn't planning on using it on random monsters. She's already epic level, its not like she's going to go out hunting monsters for loot and XP. She's conquering nations with armies of undead and using it on her rivals and enemies. If she needs to kill a Slaad or whatever, she has other tools for that. Familicide is a tool for dramatic effect.

And sometimes that dramatic effect needs to be applied to non-humans. In fact, by the time you get to Epic level, it seems that dramatically wiping out large chunks of humanity is probably not high on the to-do list (unless the old headcanon that she familicide'd herself by mistake is true). If you are devoting resources to create a spell that not only kills your target but everyone that they are related to, it seems weird it'd only work on standard bi-sexual relationships even when they involved polymorphing between species, but not regular non-magical non-bi-sexual reproduction which you probably have encountered by the time you are Epic enough to create the spell.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

She's conquering nations with armies of undead and using it on her rivals and enemies.

I'm not sure that's true. The fiends had a world-conqueror at their disposal, and they did not describe Haerta in the same terms they used to describe him. She is described as "casually end[ing] lives with but a thought," not creating armies of undead or conquering nations.

[Keltest]

And sometimes that dramatic effect needs to be applied to non-humans. In fact, by the time you get to Epic level, it seems that dramatically wiping out large chunks of humanity is probably not high on the to-do list (unless the old headcanon that she familicide'd herself by mistake is true). If you are devoting resources to create a spell that not only kills your target but everyone that they are related to, it seems weird it'd only work on standard bi-sexual relationships even when they involved polymorphing between species, but not regular non-magical non-bi-sexual reproduction which you probably have encountered by the time you are Epic enough to create the spell.

Grey Wolf

So what? Lots of weird decisions get made in the stickverse all the time. Maybe giving it a special separate effect when used on species that don't sexually reproduce raised the crafting costs higher than she was interested in. Maybe she decided that species that don't reproduce in a way that leaves bloodlines wouldn't be as bothered by a spell that targets them even if she could theoretically get it to work. Maybe she made it to intimidate a specific dynasty into doing what she wanted, and wasn't concerned about the actual applications of the spell beyond that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So what? Lots of weird decisions get made in the stickverse all the time. Maybe giving it a special separate effect when used on species that don't sexually reproduce raised the crafting costs higher than she was interested in. Maybe she decided that species that don't reproduce in a way that leaves bloodlines wouldn't be as bothered by a spell that targets them even if she could theoretically get it to work. Maybe she made it to intimidate a specific dynasty into doing what she wanted, and wasn't concerned about the actual applications of the spell beyond that.

Or maybe she did not.

I'm sorry, if your entire argument against it is "maybe Haerta didn't consider it", that has as much strength as my "maybe she did". I see no reason to think the spell only works on bi-sexual reproduction, because Epic can easily encompass all other forms, and I don't see a reason why Haerta wouldn't add the others.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Or maybe she did not.

I'm sorry, if your entire argument against it is "maybe Haerta didn't consider it", that has as much strength as my "maybe she did". I see no reason to think the spell only works on bi-sexual reproduction, because Epic can easily encompass all other forms, and I don't see a reason why Haerta wouldn't add the others.

Grey Wolf

Because it makes the spell harder to craft and cast. Adding new effects to an epic spell both increases the DC to actually create it, and the gold cost you need to put into it (which may well be trivial at that point, but is still a thing.) Perhaps more importantly, it also costs XP based on that gold cost, which can be difficult to come by at epic levels.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because it makes the spell harder to craft and cast. Adding new effects to an epic spell both increases the DC to actually create it, and the gold cost you need to put into it (which may well be trivial at that point, but is still a thing.) Perhaps more importantly, it also costs XP based on that gold cost, which can be difficult to come by at epic levels.

From what I recall when it was discussed, the spell is ludicrous. Limiting its effects in the way you suggest is hardly going to make a dent on the DC or cost, compared to everything else that goes into it.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

From what I recall when it was discussed, the spell is ludicrous. Limiting its effects in the way you suggest is hardly going to make a dent on the DC or cost, compared to everything else that goes into it.

Grey Wolf

/shrug

As you pointed out, we don't have a lot beyond speculation either way. From where im sitting, theres no support for your stance at all beyond "why not?" so I don't feel like I have a terribly large hurdle to overcome to have the stronger position.

[Fish]

While ingenious, I don’t think familicide would work on smallpox in the way one would hope.

1. The description by the Giant is that it affects all those related by blood “in any way.” Surely that includes replication.

2. However, it also requires a living link to pass along the effects of the spell. Viruses are, in some ways, pretty fragile; smallpox doesn’t survive well outside the body (less than 24 hours, I read). It’s altogether likely there would be vast populations of the disease remaining, cut off from the effect because a some crucial link or links have been cut somewhere.

[facw]

Only Mr. Scruffy. And it can be easily cleared by a Cure Desease anyway.
Grey Wolf

Hel says:

Thanks to my unholy power, every man and woman on that ship is now infected.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1081.html

Though you are right that the fact they currently have at least three clerics who if they are infected, were infected after they left the airship and so presumably would be symptomatic later greatly lowers the threat. Could be bad news for the airship crew though.

[Doug Lampert]

While ingenious, I don’t think familicide would work on smallpox in the way one would hope.

1. The description by the Giant is that it affects all those related by blood “in any way.” Surely that includes replication.

2. However, it also requires a living link to pass along the effects of the spell. Viruses are, in some ways, pretty fragile; smallpox doesn’t survive well outside the body (less than 24 hours, I read). It’s altogether likely there would be vast populations of the disease remaining, cut off from the effect because a some crucial link or links have been cut somewhere.

Nope, a living link is only required for the secondary effect where it goes after relatives of your bloodline. The primary effect where it gets your bloodline does not need a living link.

Cast familicide on any living thing in our world, and it probably eliminates all life on Earth. We're all directly related if you go back far enough.

Edited to add link to how the spell works.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmm.... On the subject of bad bard puns, would the sound of a chorus of bards be an achoired taste?

Puns like that are nearly sinphonic.

That's a waterslide and everyone here knows it.

I disagree. As the local health and safety officer, I approve of Durkon providing hand rails for the ascent via ramp to the window.

And of course, golems are also mindless, just like skeletons and zombies are; but golems are (True) Neutral.

While it can be argued that the evil (such as might accrue due to a golem being summoned) is laid at the feat of the golem's creator, that's a digression that does not further interest me. Just tossing that out there for your consideration.

Dominate Person and undead are equally evil.

I respectfully disagree. Here is why.
The undead raised by a spell caster using animate dead have (in ther basic description) the pursuit and slaying of the living.
Hard not to call that other than evil.
Dominate Person can surely be used for evil purposes (Durkula exhibited such cases a plenty) or, for a counterexample it could be used to stop Belkar from killing someone innocent. Thus the "good or evil" of Dominate person is solely in the hands of what the caster is doing with it - logical not to apply the not evil tag on that spell, versus the evil tag on animate dead. As noted previously about literary influences on the game since its inception, it takes a bit of trope torturing to out of one's way to cast animate dead and then go forth with some pure hearted mission of planting flowers with your zombie minions. (Or other "good" use of raising the dead from their rest and exploiting their labor/efforts).
That Fyraltari is doing his The_Weirdo impersonation in this thread strikes me as ... someone having too much time on their hands. (I suspect we are all a bit guilty on that score).

Well, the original question was why creating zombies (or skeletons) was called out as evil, when depriving someone of their mental autonomy was not.

See my answer to Fish.

I mean, I really don't know D&D but Dominate Person just reeks of mind violation. You literally can make people kill their own family members.

Or you can stop Belkar from killing an innocent. The spell is a tool, the caster's use of it is where you may wish to make a moral judgment on the spell's effects.

After all, dragon-human mating usually involves a polymorphed dragon,

Meme moment response:
pictures, or it never happened.

[AutomatedTeller]

I did not expect this thread to get into a discussion of the intricacies of familicide on various species, depending on how they reproduce. I would have guessed trying to figure out where Hilgya is in the mass of dwarves and how that choice shows/affects her alignment would be higher...

[KorvinStarmast]

I would have guessed trying to figure out where Hilgya is in the mass of dwarves and how that choice shows/affects her alignment would be higher...

Just look for the next flame strike. You'll find her.

[understatement]

Yeah, so if someone were to, let's say, command some undead to kill an evil person, then it's a [neutral] spell used for good!

...I'm really not sure where I'm going with this.

[Fish]

I respectfully disagree.

——> The Joke ——>



You

Warning: frog dissection.

Spoiler

Show

I have been unseriously lamenting, whistling past the graveyard as it were, the refreshing lack of a moral and ethical shouting match in this thread, given the recent tedious horse-beating about She Who Must Not Be Named Lest The Weirdo Start Up The Argument Again. I decided the likely topic for such a discussion would be the alleged sin of entering a building via the windows. The post you replied to is one of a series that attempts to relate all positions taken by anyone as a pro- or anti-windows position in order to forward the illusion that an argument about windows is, in fact, in progress.

I imagined the bit about the raccoon was a dead giveaway.

[Peelee]

——> The Joke ——>



You

Would you say the joke was thrown out the window?

[Particle_Man]

Another theory is that Animate Dead is like a gateway drug. Once you create Zombies and Skeletons, you hunger to create the more significant undead, who tend to be intelligent and evil. Eventually you hunger to *be* a significant undead, and that way lies lichdom.

The good gods noted this and decided to slap the "Evil" tag on the spell in order to discourage this trend among otherwise well-meaning non-evil necromancers.

[Jasdoif]

Would you say the joke was thrown out the window?

Stay glassy, my friend.

[thorr-kan]

The position in question would be that going in was wrong, though; so it'd be antifenestrative.

Except "we'll throw you back out the window if you try to come in the window" was funnier than trying to transmogrify the word "antidisestablishmentarianism", which I only remember because someone pointed out its length when I was in middle school decades ago (compare "sesquipedalian", which I stumbled across in a dictionary in high school)....Plus "defenestrative" could be unseriously construed as a form of "defensive", and that amused me.

RIP, Uncle Kandro.

"I'm not dead yet!"

Though it's certainly a trope-filled foreshadowing of coming death. But there are two dwarven bards who could recognize the situation and save him!

Let's see what happens...

[zimmerwald1915]

Another theory is that Animate Dead is like a gateway drug. Once you create Zombies and Skeletons, you hunger to create the more significant undead, who tend to be intelligent and evil. Eventually you hunger to *be* a significant undead, and that way lies lichdom.

The good gods noted this and decided to slap the "Evil" tag on the spell in order to discourage this trend among otherwise well-meaning non-evil necromancers.

Problem 1: the Good gods are not the arbiters of which spells get [Evil] tags, or of anything else related to alignment.

Problem 2: the gateway drug theory is largely bunkum even when it comes to real drugs.

[Peelee]

Stay glassy, my friend.

Your unending wit keeps shattering my expectations.