|
|
Post by Andy on May 21, 2009 18:12:25 GMT -5
While you've done a VERY good job with justifying your curse, I would still say that an LE cursing an LE for doing a perfectly LE act is DEFINITELY stretching. Calling the kettle black...! Sorry, Jeff, but to validly lay down a curse, you need to be harmed by the individual in question... I'd like to chat about this statement more. It seems to me that in the cursing that goes on in myth, legend and fairy tale there are indeed curses that are as revenge, in exchange for imenent death, discovery of loss, etc. I think that's what you're talking about above. However, there is also a very strong and prevalent curse-worthy condition that regularly exists, because a witch has merely been offended by the social situation she finds herself in, or because someone else has broken or disregarded something that the witch finds taboo. In these cases, often times the witch's wrath seems pretty odd or nonsensical to unbiased outsiders but of course there's typically a legendary reason behind that witch's behavior other than her just happening to be an crazy old bitch. How would you resolve this second situation? Aside from a few combat spells, it does seem to be a witch's ability to curse people that tend to give even seasoned adventurers pause before deciding to go screw around with a witch... |
|
|
|
Post by David on May 22, 2009 13:52:33 GMT -5
Howdy Elf,
EXCELLENT discussion!
Yes, I would say that a witch's ability to curse is second to none. Even gypsies are not as feared for their "magical revenge". That said, in myth and folklore, curses which were "unjust" tended to "boomarang" back at the curse-er and/or were proportionally potent to the amount of offense or injury given.
For example, Maleficent's curse at the beginning of Sleeping Beauty was because she was socially snubbed. Originally, Aurora was supposed to die and not even the three good fairies (Flora, Fauna, and Merriweather) could break the "justified" curse, but they could pervert it to "endless sleep". In a universe like Dnd where you can find multiple individuals in any major city who can remove curse, then there needs to be a mechanism to differentiate "casual" curses from "powerful, difficult-to-dispel" ones. Sleeping Beauty's situation would be one example of the later.
Sure, Kephalonia could curse Ajakstu to keep nodding off, but a simple remove curse -- even from himself -- should be able to take care of the problem.
On the other hand, let's say that Mikhail had the power to curse. Well, Ajakstu, Mordrammo, and their buddies have captured, tortured, harassed, followed, tracked, attempted to murder, killed his friends, etc the kid for doing nothing more than being himself (time-shadowed as he is). So, since the boy is ethically opposed to all of the above AND none of these actions were justified, then placing a curse (which just another form of divine justice in most mythological systems) to be constantly harrassed by every woodland being in the cosmos (as he was by Ajakstu and his minions) would be "just" revenge. Thus, the mage could wake up to find himself cocooned by moths and spiders while ants slowly use his body as their pantry, later find wolves and bears singling him out every time he hiked through the woods, later discover that all the birds use his head as target practice when they fly and poop, etc. None of these would be "killer" effects (since he and his allies never nailed Mikhail) but they would certainly get worse over time until he dies or finds some solution. Such a curse, since it's "valid" should require a certain "minimum level to remove" instead of just anyone tossing a third level spell and being done.
Does that make more sense?
In Keph's case, if she knew or was somehow related (in meaningful roleplay) to one of the victims BEFORE the capture, then I would certainly say she has the "right" to strike. But, while Hecate has a small part of her portfolio as the protection of children, since she doesn't have a personal connection, a "just and lasting" curse should be more like "any of the trappings of childhood shall do you harm" -- meaning that teddybears tend to fall on him and get all their moldy spores in his mouth, jack-in-the-boxes spring and cut him with sharp, rusty, tetinous-inducing edges, dollies on the shelf fall off and break loudly when he's hiding, he always seems to trip on puppet strings, he burns his hand on warm bottles, nipples squirt in his eye, all soccer balls are "face-seeking and nose-breaking" for him when kicked by kids, he gets food-poisoning with every Happy Meal, etc. Or something along those lines.
At least that's what I think. What do you all think?
|
|
