| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| krappleby12-15-04, 02:57 AM | Hi All, i have a question one of you may shed light on. I have player in my table top campaign that wishes to play a werebear characer within the eberron campaign setting, now.. I need to check a couple of items, In the ECS it states that the paladins of the silver flame, destroyed all but a few of the lycanthorpes. Now i am at the moment taking this as a general all rounder. However, The player seems to think or imagine that the paladins would only go for the Evil aligned version of the lycanthorpe. and thus as the Werebear is a lawful-good alignment would not fall into this catagory. Now.. what do you think personally i believe that the order of the silver flame, destroyed all but a few of the lycanthorpes becasue of the sour sole, so to speak, the fact that the body has been infested as such.. (note the player wishes to be full lycanthorpe) I have already told the player, about the possibilities of another silver flame member in the party. Any way, depending on the outcome. i will decide his entrance into the campaign.. cheers for your help |
| TranquilDarkness12-15-04, 03:38 AM | The Church of the Silver Flame, or at least some reperesentatives, considered lycanthropy as a whole Evil. Especially those who could transmit the Curse, be it good ot evil-aligned. As a result ALL were-beings were hunted and killed. The very few that remain still cannot expose themselves. |
| Neofish12-15-04, 04:41 AM | THe Silver Flame didn't care if the lycanthropes were good or evil, they hunted them down reguardless. I wouldn't let your PC be any were-creature, that's just bad news... |
| Kid SixXx12-15-04, 09:31 AM | Read through the Dragonshard articles on the Church of the Silver Flame. They will make things much clearer: Part One (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a) Part Two (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a) |
| Gurv12-15-04, 11:49 AM | Not only did the Silver Flame go after all lycanthropes, but you are forgetting the reason why. Alignment is not set in Eberron. Lawful good red dragons, chaotic evil blink dogs, remember? There are no evil version of lycanthropes in Eberron. Although the attitudes of the various species of lycans might result in a general trend, it is impossible to see a werebear and go "Oh, wait! Those ones are ok!" Heck, there are enough people in the world that would shoot a normal bear because they assume it was dangerous. |
| rwarner370112-15-04, 01:54 PM | added to the confusing alignment is the whole witch hunt mentality. They hunted any trace of lycanthopy so they would be able to eradicate it completely. this wnet so far as to kill the Shifters until they realized they were innocent as a whole at birth. all it took was a pointed finger, and the church would go hunting them to destroy the horror that they saw in lycanthopy although you could do it, you would need him to show some act of selfless good before we was even considered as something other than evil by the paladin. Some heroic action could help to keep him safe long enough to plead his case to whatever Silver Flame official happens upon the scene. |
| Gurv12-15-04, 02:04 PM | Why does he want to play a lycanthrope at all in Eberron, if he doesn't want to deal with the anti-lycan sentiment? I hope he isn't looking to be a werebear just for the mechanical advantages. |
| krappleby12-15-04, 02:13 PM | Well i have read the dragonshards silver flame, and found it very informing, thanks for all you help.. |
| Ramius_Mordale12-15-04, 02:40 PM | Hmm....actually how I read it they only killed those lycanthropes on khorvaire so on the other continents they are very much alive and well. But if I were your friend and wanted to play a werebear I would probably play in human form the whole time. Which if he is going to play in human form the whole time he might as well just be a human. Or if he really wants to be a werebear he can always be a shifter and go for the weremaster prestige class. Personally, I'm a fan of the werewolf or wererat templates myself, but I've never played as them. Besides, just show your friend some dragonmarks of some of the standard races and show him the siberys (sp?) versions and that'll cure his breaking heart, especially if he chooses the right class to compliment it. Regardless, if you are willing to let him play a lycanthrope, I (if I were DMing) would ask why he wanted to be one and what his story. If all he can do is say, "Uhh, well, uhh" then he just wants the template for the power not for the roleplaying experience. It could be an interesting roleplaying decision but I find most people just want the template to be uber powerful without having to earn it, but that's just my opinion on the matter. Anyways, best of luck to ya. -Ramius- |
| LachlarlanIII12-15-04, 02:54 PM | The alignments listed for the lycanthropes in the MM aren't set in stone. They are typical for the race. Like trolls are USUALLY CE. Natural lycanthropes (those that were born lycanthropes) may be of any alignment. LG Werewolf for example. Turned lycanthropes (that that were bitten) are the same alignment as the lycanthrope that turned them. CE Werebear bites a LG Fighter. LG Fighter is CE while in animal and hybrid forms. |
| edveal12-15-04, 04:59 PM | I have a question about where this puts shifters. I am playing a shifter and there is a pladin of the siver flame in my party. We have not addressed this as of yet. Any thoughts? Ed |
| polt12-15-04, 05:15 PM | Well, at the moment the Church doesn't have a problem with Shifters, but of course there are Knights of the church out there who thinks that shifters and lycans should all die in painful ways. |
| Flack Jack12-15-04, 05:22 PM | I would like to add a related thought to this thread conserning the flames urgency in the xenocide of these off shoot races we call were critters. Eberron has twelve moons. That means twelve full moons a month, and about one full moon every 3 days. Ouch. |
| LachlarlanIII12-15-04, 06:13 PM | Actually, the 12 moons coincide with the planes. When a plane is coexistant its material equivalent moon is full. When the plane is remote, the moon is new. I may be getting those backwards, but the same principle applies. |
| Gurv12-15-04, 06:18 PM | Actually, the 12 moons coincide with the planes. When a plane is coexistant its material equivalent moon is full. When the plane is remote, the moon is new. I may be getting those backwards, but the same principle applies. Uh. No. The moons have standard cycles in days. Some take longer than our moon, some take fewer. |
| Just another user12-15-04, 06:20 PM | The alignments listed for the lycanthropes in the MM aren't set in stone. They are typical for the race. Like trolls are USUALLY CE. Natural lycanthropes (those that were born lycanthropes) may be of any alignment. LG Werewolf for example. Turned lycanthropes (that that were bitten) are the same alignment as the lycanthrope that turned them. CE Werebear bites a LG Fighter. LG Fighter is CE while in animal and hybrid forms. While I agree that LG werevolves are possible I'd rule that the curse push them toward the "correct" alignement (i.e. CE for werewolves) and only with willstrength and dedication they can remain lawful good. Personally I've some problem to imagine a evil character that turn good because bitten by a werebear, (sadly I've no problem to imagine a good character turning evil if bitten by a werewolf) at best I'd say that is good while in Bear form but still evil when human, else it would be the perfect way to redeem a criminal. :). Shifter and Paladin can work together even if with some uneasiness, one of my potential character is a Shifter paladin of the silver flame (even if from the Demon Wastes branch of the religion). |
| zerotkatama12-15-04, 07:27 PM | Y'know, it says in the in the MM (or SRD) Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the alignment of the animal form can be arbitrarily assigned |
| Solarious12-15-04, 10:51 PM | I assume that when they said that a lion was 'noble', they didn't know that lions who just won (conqured, if you will) a pride from another lion, one of the first things that they do is kill off the cubs of the looser. But we're not here to discuss animal morality (of which they are incapable of having), but lycan alignments. If you want a cannon example of a non-evil (well, it's not listed, but nearly impossible for it to be) werewolf, please turn to page 174 of your ECS, and read the description of the thorp of Wolf's Paw. Throntuft is in all probability a Good werewolf, and doesn't go all feral in animal/hybird form, since it says that he's careful not to spread his curse. The point is pretty much proven (and lynched several times over), but I wanted to point that out. :) |
| Sarlax12-15-04, 11:32 PM | The 3.5 MM (and 3.5 SRD) contradicts itself regarding alignment in the lycanthrope entry. We have this: Alignment: Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the alignment of the animal form can be arbitrarily assigned. But we also have the individual alignment entries for the lycanthropes that are fully described, and these always have the "always" note for their alignments. Weretigers are listed as "always neutral" and werewolves are "always chaotic evil" and wererats are "always lawful evil." In Eberron, I suspect this played much looser. If the lycanthropes went by the MM, then some types actually would have caused a "plague of good." Werebears, for instance, are always lawful good according to their MM entry. If it worked that way in Eberron, then there might be people who would have sought to infect massive of people to make them werebears. Once they had kids, everyone would be natural werebears with full control of their powers, and they'd all be lawful good! For a zealous member of the Silver Flame, this might be a very difficult idea to pass up. Of course, alignments being loose in Eberron, it probably could not have occured that way. I suspect that being a lycanthrope doesn't change one's alignment at all by itself. Being a natural lycanthrope would be a problem at all. The problem comes with the infected lycanthropes. Even if the curse doesn't automatically make them evil, they still become powerful impulsive killing machines while under the effect of the curse. That's a big enough problem. And if the afflicted person becomes aware of his condition and avoids curing himself even understanding that he may kill innocents during the full moon, he'll shift to evil, as he's allowing himself to be a deadly danger to others. |
| Ch@pel12-15-04, 11:33 PM | To the original poster, check out the Weretouched Master PrC in the ECS. Thats one fairly good way to get around the SF's lycnathrope purge, and it should satisfy your player. It also forces him to EARN that status as a (pseudo) lycanthrope, which gives you time to get him into some RPing about why he wants to be closer to his ancestors. It will also give you a chance to expose him to NPCs who would probably kill him on site if he does complete his objective, making it all the more exciting when he does. |
| Hellcow12-15-04, 11:40 PM | I assume that when they said that a lion was 'noble', they didn't know that lions who just won (conqured, if you will) a pride from another lion, one of the first things that they do is kill off the cubs of the looser. This is the key point about lycanthropes - especially afflicted lycanthropes. They are not natural creatures. Their behavior does not reflect the natural behavior of the animal in question. It's the role of the creature in the collective minds of the culture - basically, Aesop's Fables are more relevant than National Geographic. The werewolf is drawing on the archetype of the Big Bad Wolf - while the werelion is drawing on the whole noble King of the Jungle thing. If you want a cannon example of a non-evil (well, it's not listed, but nearly impossible for it to be) werewolf, please turn to page 174 of your ECS, and read the description of the thorp of Wolf's Paw. Throntuft is in all probability a Good werewolf, and doesn't go all feral in animal/hybird form, since it says that he's careful not to spread his curse. Indeed. Just as you can have a good vampire in Eberron, you can have a good werewolf. However, my feeling is that this would be more likely to occur with natural lycanthropes - and that in general the lycanthropes will tend towards the indicated alignment (just as vampires still lean towards evil, due to the corrupting influence of negative energy). It's magical influence at work, and especially in the case of afflicted lycanthropes, it's not a matter of choice - it's the curse overriding the personality of the individual. Just to restate something I've said elsewhere, my take on things is that prior to the purge, afflicted lycanthropes were capable of spreading the curse; in addition to fighting lycanthropes, the Church was also striking against the curse itself. The power of lycanthropy has been weakened, which is why afflicted lycathropes are weaker in the modern age. And yes, the purge only covered Khorvaire - the Church didn't break into Riedra to catch lycanthropes there. On the other hand, the Inspired run a pretty tight ship of their own, so Xen'drik might be your best bet. |
| Hellcow12-15-04, 11:54 PM | But we also have the individual alignment entries for the lycanthropes that are fully described, and these always have the "always" note for their alignments. Weretigers are listed as "always neutral" and werewolves are "always chaotic evil" and wererats are "always lawful evil." The short form is that there is no "always" in Eberron. Regardless of what is listed in the MM, "always" should always be downgraded to "usually" (if that). In the case of lycanthropes, I'd definitely go with "usually", because there is a magical force at work pushing the alignment in a particular direction. If the lycanthropes went by the MM, then some types actually would have caused a "plague of good." Werebears, for instance, are always lawful good according to their MM entry. If it worked that way in Eberron, then there might be people who would have sought to infect massive of people to make them werebears. Once they had kids, everyone would be natural werebears with full control of their powers, and they'd all be lawful good! For a zealous member of the Silver Flame, this might be a very difficult idea to pass up. I beg to differ! A plague of good is still a plague. It destroys the original personality of the victim and replaces it with one defined by the curse. In the eyes of the Church (specifically the Keeper of the time), the behavior of the lycanthrope is a secondary concern - he still carries a curse that can destroy the souls of its victims. Obviously this is open to debate, but it's the line the Church took at the time. And it's worth noting that good lycanthropes do not become crusaders - they simply "seek to avoid settlements or travelers and non-natural environments... they may hunt the natural prey of their kind, but avoid attacking good or neutral creatures." The typical werebear isn't a superhero, he's a recluse who just wants to make sure he doesn't hurt anyone... as opposed to the nuetral lycanthrope who messes with whatever gets in her way and the evil one who actively seeks out people to kill. It all comes back to good and evil covering a wide range of behavior. A lawful good paladin and a lawful good werebear blacksmith are not going to react the same way to every situation. I suspect that being a lycanthrope doesn't change one's alignment at all by itself. As it stands, it still does. That was the entire basis of the purge - the fact that the curse destroys the original personality (and according to the church, the soul) of the victim. I would rule that natural lycanthropes can go in different directions, but still have a strong urge towards the particular directions. The good werewolf has overcome his instincts, and he has the power to do that - but many natural werewolves will simply follow their feelings. |
| Solarious12-16-04, 12:19 AM | The good werewolf has overcome his instincts, and he has the power to do that - but many natural werewolves will simply follow their feelings. As reflected by the existance of The Dark Pack (page 166 of the ECS kiddies :)). Gah! Must... resist... decending... into... total geekdom... Feh. Whatever. *joins the infamous dork-orgy* |
| Gilganarz_the_reporter12-16-04, 01:42 AM | I have a question about where this puts shifters. I am playing a shifter and there is a pladin of the siver flame in my party. We have not addressed this as of yet. Any thoughts? Ed As said, the Church has no probs with shifters. Also, it depends on the attitiude of the paladin. The lycanthropic purge was like the Spanish Inquisition. Not every follower (in fact, probably few followers) was a rabid anti-lycanthrope. The paladin probably treats the shifter with respect (unless it has given him reason not to). |
| krappleby12-16-04, 03:01 AM | ok. Thanks to everyone for your comments they are really helping.. I am still debating what to do. but i do have a plan If i allow the character to play. The background the character wants to use, is more of a I dont know what i am background, and i have never seen that side of me before. He was abandoned, and left to a farmer who brought him up as his own. However never knew about his werebear form.. Until he got into a fight, and ended up transforming, (this all takes place in aundairun(i think thats how its spelt) lol.. anyway, to cut the story short, if i allow him to play, i was going to force him to leave, when the paladins of the silver flame, hear of the goings on, and go to investigate.. However there is another question Can a paladin/follower of the silver flame tell this character would be a lycanthorpe, Ie like a detect evil (form of spell) or would they have to have suspicion first... Cheers again for all your help.. Your comments as always are welcome |
| Just another user12-16-04, 03:04 AM | Thanks to everyone, this thread helped me make the were-alignment question more clear. |
| Just another user12-16-04, 03:09 AM | Can a paladin/follower of the silver flame tell this character would be a lycanthorpe, Ie like a detect evil (form of spell) or would they have to have suspicion first... No, unless they've developed a "detect 'were" spell (and it could even be a possibility) they can't recognize a Lycantrope at sight, AFAIK. Does the Were DR/silver active even in human form? Because if it is so a test should be easy to come up with. |
| Aelryk12-16-04, 07:00 AM | The DR/Silver is only active while in hybrid/animal form. Would be an interesting test otherwise. I wonder however, what the Church would think about finding a fully developed Weremaster? Would they bother listening once seeing the Weremaster transform? Would it also spur another "Crusade"? I've got a player going the down that line, and plan on having him encounter some ... issues... with the Church if he transforms around other people. |
| Hellcow12-16-04, 12:50 PM | I have a question about where this puts shifters. I am playing a shifter and there is a pladin of the siver flame in my party. We have not addressed this as of yet. As has been noted, the Church as a whole has no problem with shifters. Shifters are not lycanthropes, despite having lycanthropic heritage - as long as you aren't carrying the curse you're good. There are certainly prejudiced individuals on both sides - followers of the Flame who dislike shifters and shifters who despise the Church as a result of the purge - but overall both sides are neutral (with probably slightly more shifters who hate the Flame than who support it). Actually, a number of shifters allied with the church during the purge and helped the Flame track down lycanthropes; you might even have a shifter paladin of the Flame, which is what I first thought you were saying your character was. |
| Hellcow12-16-04, 01:01 PM | I wonder however, what the Church would think about finding a fully developed Weremaster? Would they bother listening once seeing the Weremaster transform? Would it also spur another "Crusade"? Well, Jaela is Keeper of the Flame in this day and age, and I don't see her supporting such a thing. Remember, there are members of the church who feel that it was an overzealous act, just as the church of our world doesn't hold up the Spanish Inquisition as a shining moment. Druids change shape. Weretouched shifters are not unheard of. The common folk - especially those who follow the Silver Flame - may be afraid of the character. But you're not going to trigger an instant slaughterfest or another purge. However, certainly I would expect a templar to investigate the situation. It doesn't work in human form, but if the character transforms, the templar could demand a test of blood; all he has to do is cut with a steel knife and see if the wound heals (or fails to cut, depending how you represent lycanthropic DR in your game). And actually, I would suspect that the church HAS come up with a detect lycanthrope spell over the generations, given that I've said that they were mystically fighting the curse itself. However, I'll have to think about the form this would take. It might be a general spell, but it might be something that is limited to a "werehunter" PrC, or something that is only found in item form - the latter two options allowing it to be something that isn't available to the common cleric. |
| Solarious12-16-04, 11:44 PM | However, certainly I would expect a templar to investigate the situation. It doesn't work in human form, but if the character transforms, the templar could demand a test of blood; all he has to do is cut with a steel knife and see if the wound heals (or fails to cut, depending how you represent lycanthropic DR in your game). The problem is that there is such a feat known as Shifter Defence and Greater Shifter Defence. Maybe that's a little metagaming, but that particular test isn't foolproof. Would make for interesting situations, no? :smirk: |
| Hellcow12-16-04, 11:47 PM | The problem is that there is such a feat known as Shifter Defence and Greater Shifter Defence. Maybe that's a little metagaming, but that particular test isn't foolproof. Would make for interesting situations, no? :smirk: Sure, though the difference between DR 1 and DR 5 or 10 is significant. In the one case it's hard to hurt you with a steel dagger; in the other it's (virtually) impossible. But yes, a shifter with Shifter Defense may be more likely to be mistaken for a lycanthrope! |
| Solarious12-17-04, 12:07 AM | Sure, though the difference between DR 1 and DR 5 or 10 is significant. In the one case it's hard to hurt you with a steel dagger; in the other it's (virtually) impossible. But yes, a shifter with Shifter Defense may be more likely to be mistaken for a lycanthrope! On the other hand, what shifter would let someone slash their hand enough to deal 5+ damage? |
| Hellcow12-17-04, 12:33 AM | On the other hand, what shifter would let someone slash their hand enough to deal 5+ damage? This assumes that the individual in question is either helpless or cooperating. You'd begin by scratching with the knife. If that is ineffective, employ greater force. If you cannot injure the character with a dagger, you're definitely dealing with a lycanthrope. Personally, if the victim is willing or unconscious, I would allow the PC to set maximum damage - "I'm going to carefully poke his hand, but I don't want to do more than 3 points of damage" - it's not battle, it's a calculated act. (If you want to get picky, you could require 5 ranks in Heal or some sort of combat skill for a character to get to set maximum damage, reflecting skill with fine knifework.) And if the suspect won't cooperate, that's when you can get your witchhunt on and assume you're dealing with a lycanthrope. |
| Zucrous12-17-04, 12:34 AM | See this is a great forum and I am gad I have found it. I am pretty high level in Eberron standards (lvl16) and I am a wertouched-master. My character wants to bring an end to the persecution of shifters (well, just get them the respect the deserve) and bring back lycanthropes to Korvaire. Now how insane would it be to try to pull this off, and if she did, how would she? |
| Hellcow12-17-04, 12:51 AM | My character wants to... bring back lycanthropes to Korvaire. Now how insane would it be to try to pull this off, and if she did, how would she? This is obviously a very broad question, and perhaps other folks will have suggestions. One of the main issues is that werewolves and wererats are by nature evil; some natural lycanthropes can overcome this, but it's the rare one who tries. They aren't "always" evil, but they're certainly "usually" evil - and in the case of the afflicted, I'd keep it as "always." It's not a matter of cultural values, it's a question of the unnatural instincts generated by the curse. So given that werewolves are generally evil, and that someone bitten by a werewolf becomes a vicious killer whenever any on of the moons is full - even if people today think the purge was an extreme act, that doesn't mean they're going to welcome werewolves back into the world with open arms. Of course, one answer is to find people who WOULD welcome them back. The Daughters of Sora Kell might be more than happy to turn Droaam into a haven for the returning lycanthropes; after all, they already have the Dark Pack. But is giving the Daughters access to a host of lycanthropes really such a great idea? Of course, you could just focus on those lycanthropes who are good by nature - the plague of werebears discussed above - and try to convince people that they aren't a threat. One question there, though: will the lycanthropes WANT to come back? If I'm a werebear in Lammania, chilling in a world of primal nature, and you show up and said "How'd you like to come back to Eberron? I think I may possibly be able to convince people not to lynch you and burn your corpse... maybe." -- I'm not sure I'd take you up on that offer. Now, my friend the wererat misses the cities, and he's rubbing his hands together and cackling at the thought of coming back... but again, are you sure you want to take him back? His kin were trouble more often than not in the past... As for getting respect for shifters - being a legendary hero and a shifter is certainly a good start! |
| krappleby12-17-04, 02:26 AM | Hi all, thanks for all these posts, they really helping me to understand the character better, i do have one question though During a full moon, would a lycanthropic charcater auto change into his animal form, or would this be fully controlable?? |
| krappleby12-17-04, 05:34 AM | the last post went wrong and for some reason didnt register.. so here we go .. see last post |
| phantarch12-17-04, 11:40 AM | Check out the SRD under Lycanthtropes. Control Shape is a class skill for lycanthropes. CONTROL SHAPE (WIS) Any character who has contracted lycanthropy and is aware of his condition can learn Control Shape as a class skill. (An afflicted lycanthrope not yet aware of his condition can attempt Control Shape checks untrained.) This skill determines whether an afflicted lycanthrope can control his shape. A natural lycanthrope does not need this skill, since it has full control over its shape. Check (Involuntary Change): An afflicted character must make a check at moonrise each night of the full moon to resist involuntarily assuming animal form. An injured character must also check for an involuntary change after accumulating enough damage to reduce his hit points by one-quarter and again after each additional one-quarter lost. Involuntary Change Control Shape DC Resist involuntary change 25 On a failed check, the character must remain in animal form until the next dawn, when he automatically returns to his base form. A character aware of his condition may make one attempt to return to humanoid form (see below), but if he fails, he remains in animal form until the next dawn. Retry (Involuntary Change): Check to resist an involuntary change once each time a triggering event occurs. Check (Voluntary Change): In addition, an afflicted lycanthrope aware of his condition may attempt to use this skill voluntarily in order to change to animal form, assume hybrid form, or return to humanoid form, regardless of the state of the moon or whether he has been injured. Involuntary Change Control Shape DC Return to humanoid form (full moon*) 25 Return to humanoid form (not full moon) 20 Assume hybrid form 15 Voluntary change to animal form (full moon) 15 Voluntary change to animal form (not full moon) 20 * For game purposes, the full moon lasts three days every month. Retry (Voluntary Change): A character can retry voluntary changes to animal form or hybrid form as often as he likes. Each attempt is a standard action. However, on a failed check to return to humanoid form, the character must remain in animal or hybrid form until the next dawn, when he automatically returns to humanoid form. Special: An afflicted lycanthrope cannot attempt a voluntary change until it becomes aware of its condition (see Lycanthropy as an Affliction). |
| krappleby12-17-04, 12:58 PM | thanks for hte info |
| phantarch12-17-04, 01:16 PM | speaking of lycanthropes...does it bother anyone else that the term lycanthrope is applied to all were-creatures? It literally means "Wolf Man", but it is used in reference to the entire disease... Sorry, random thought. |
| polt12-17-04, 01:40 PM | Sure you got that right? "Were" means "human", therefore "werewolf" = "humanwolf" and so on. |
| phantarch12-17-04, 02:33 PM | OK, I wasn't sure what "were-" meant, but if it means human, then werebear would mean human-bear, wererat = human rat, and so on. I'm fine with that. But "Lycanthrope" is a combination of the greek Lycos, or Lukos, which means wolf, and anthrope, which means man. For instance, philanthropy is love of man, misanthopy is the hatred of man. I can't think of any other instances for Lycos (except the web browser). Also, when they came up with the "Entomanothropes", that nearly killed me. They totally butchered the suffix -anthrope. Sorry, I'm an **** retentive (graduated) english major. It's all neither here nor there, but it's been a pet peeve of mine for a while. |
| elecgraystone12-17-04, 03:00 PM | See this is a great forum and I am gad I have found it. I am pretty high level in Eberron standards (lvl16) and I am a wertouched-master. My character wants to bring an end to the persecution of shifters (well, just get them the respect the deserve) and bring back lycanthropes to Korvaire. Now how insane would it be to try to pull this off, and if she did, how would she? I found an interesting little feat in the savage species book. Assume supernatural ability. Curse of lycanthropy IS a supernatural ability. Meaning that ANY 5th level weretouched master with a wisdom of 13+ could regain this ability! Makes it easier to bring them back now! PS: also, as a shifter myself, I always go out of my way to oppose the silver flame in any way possible! I suggest to new players that it may not be in their best interest to worship IT! Can I be blamed if one of their clerics has a low dex and falls of on one of sharns towers? And I can be so forgetful with my torches and oil when I go to the church. I thought I HAD to bring them, we're burning someone at the stake, right? I just left it in the corner for a second! I was on my way to a cookout? I really have to stop smoking! ;) |
| polt12-17-04, 03:02 PM | OK, I wasn't sure what "were-" meant, but if it means human, then werebear would mean human-bear, wererat = human rat, and so on. I'm fine with that. But "Lycanthrope" is a combination of the greek Lycos, or Lukos, which means wolf, and anthrope, which means man. For instance, philanthropy is love of man, misanthopy is the hatred of man. I can't think of any other instances for Lycos (except the web browser). Also, when they came up with the "Entomanothropes", that nearly killed me. They totally butchered the suffix -anthrope. Sorry, I'm an **** retentive (graduated) english major. It's all neither here nor there, but it's been a pet peeve of mine for a while. Well, in the world of eberron, some wizard decidede to call them lycanthropes, and in the world of eberron, greek doesn't exist :D It could be Draconic :P |
| TricksterGod12-17-04, 04:20 PM | Sorry, I'm an **** retentive (graduated) english major. It's all neither here nor there, but it's been a pet peeve of mine for a while. Various editions of the Monster Manual have pointed out the fact that lycanthropy is more appropriately applied to werewolves, but that it's applied to all wereanimals, anyway. As such, it's never particularly bothered me. Generally I only get bothered by ignorance as opposed to knowing what something means and deliberately using it, anyway. Sadly, though, the flavor text from earlier editions of the Monster Manual has been greatly neutered in third edition, thus leaving out some of those details. I still reference my old second edition Monster Manual for some of the monster flavor that's been cut from third edition. |
| Kid SixXx12-17-04, 04:40 PM | OK, I wasn't sure what "were-" meant, but if it means human, then werebear would mean human-bear, wererat = human rat, and so on. I'm fine with that. But "Lycanthrope" is a combination of the greek Lycos, or Lukos, which means wolf, and anthrope, which means man. For instance, philanthropy is love of man, misanthopy is the hatred of man. I can't think of any other instances for Lycos (except the web browser). Also, when they came up with the "Entomanothropes", that nearly killed me. They totally butchered the suffix -anthrope. "Were" is derived from the old Saxon term "wer" which is derived from the Latin word "vir." All refer to the word "man" or more accurately "human." As others have said, lycanthrope is derived from the Greek words "lykoi" and "anthropos" meaning "wolf-man." From what I've read over the years, the term was applied to sufferers of schizophrenia or dementia, as it was a common superstition that the mad were actually possessed by the spirits of animals. The Norse also believed this, as it is the basis of a lot of myths about the Berserkers. The Greeks did not refer to shapeshifters as lycanthropes, though. The Greek term for beings able to take the form of an animal was "theriomorph." The Romans also had werewolf legends built into their mythology, but they refered to the creatures as the Versipellis, which means roughly means "changing skin." |
| Hellcow12-17-04, 04:49 PM | But "Lycanthrope" is a combination of the greek Lycos, or Lukos, which means wolf, and anthrope, which means man. Indeed, and as a fellow English major, I feel your pain - though as has been pointed out, the fact that Greek doesn't exist as a language in Eberron makes it a remarkable case of linguistic coincidence. ;) However, I'd argue that the werewolf is probably the most common werecreature in the world. Good weres actively seek to avoid spreading the plague. Neutrals don't seek to spread it. Wererats are lawful and prone to skulking in the shadows - there may be just as many wererats as werewolves, but this won't be as obvious to the commoner. But the werewolf - following the behavior descriptions from the MM - is the iconic ravager, who seeks to kill as many creatures as possible while afflicted, and thus is the most likely to arbitrarily spread the curse in the process. So I could see the case that when most people think of these creatures, the werewolf leaps to mind; it's possible the average farmer doesn't even know that there is such a thing as a werebear (why would he? They're recluses who avoid contact with others) but knows and fears the werewolf - thus lycanthrope is the primary term, with the others getting lumped into it. To this end, I'll reiterate that if you want to a shapechanger with a strong bond to the natural world - a peaceful creature like a selkie or a kitsune - then the lycanthrope isn't the creature you are looking for. The lycanthrope's behavior is defined by a magical curse, and reflects the subconscious fears or beliefs of humanity, not the true nature of the creature in question. The werewolf is an evil killer not because wolves are evil - as animals, they are neutral - but because of humanity's fear of the wolf and its role as a symbol of the lurking predator (just ask Red Riding Hood). Even a "natural" werewolf is still carrying the curse; he's not a natural creature, he's just more in touch with his lycanthropic nature. The werewolf is a killer, and while I will certainly allow rare individuals to overcome these instincts, that is again rare - "always" shifting to "usually". Looking back to Sarlax's post, I missed the note that the MM contradicts itself, saying "Any" in the template and "always" in the individual descriptions. My take on this is that the template has to say "any", because there is no one alignment that applies to all animal forms. All lycanthropes are not evil. But all werewolves are evil. The point is that when you create a new lycanthrope you need to decide what alignment should be associated with that form - at which point that form becomes "always (whatever)". The fact that the curse changes the personality of the victim as defined by that chosen alignment is one of the most fundamental aspects of the curse. Even if the victim IS the same alignment as his new form, that doesn't mean he doesn't change. The evil man may be a ruthless schemer but not given to random violence - but when the wolf takes hold he'll murder his best friend. Now, all of this is of course my view on things, so it's all up to your DM. If a DM wants to ignore the alignment effects of lycanthropy, fair enough. But this is my view and what will be reflected in future Eberron material dealing with lycanthropes, and it's the reasoning behind the purge: werewolves were both a deadly threat and unfortunate victims of a curse, and the Church acting it what it believed was the best interests of Eberron. There can be no question that it was a brutal act and that innocent lives were lost - hey, we all know those werebears weren't so bad - but the average commoner isn't mourning the dead werewolves. Again, there were even shifters who helped in the purge; an afflicted werewolf will kill anyone, "often killing their own family members and friends." They might shelter a natural werewolf who has overcome these urges, as shown by the example of Thorntuft in the ECS. But that doesn't mean that they are big fans of the murderous afflicted werewolves. Now, I hold to the idea that the power of the curse has been weakened. It is the case now that afflicted werewolves can't spread the curse. So perhaps there is room to reason with rational members of the church, such as Jaela. Perhaps the afflicted werebear - whose lycanthropic instincts are not evil, and who cannot spread the affliction - can find sanctuary in the church; I think it's idea with a lot of story potential. But I'll note that even that would be unusual behavior for a werebear, as most prefer to avoid human settlements. By strange coincidence, I'm currently playing the Morrowind "Bloodmoon" expansion for the PC. As part of the storyline, you can become a werewolf - but when you do, you have to kill at least one person each night (more if you follow your instincts) and you're hunted by the humans of the land. I do believe that Eberron is a world were exceptions are always possible, but for a werewolf that vicious behavior is the norm; the point is that the Silver Flame was organized enough to rise up and act decisively against this magical threat... albeit in a brutal and overzealous way. |
| Kid SixXx12-17-04, 04:56 PM | The fact that the curse changes the personality of the victim as defined by that chosen alignment is one of the most fundamental aspects of the curse. "Even a man who's pure in heart and says his prayers at night, Will become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright." God bless Universal Studios and Lon Chaney Jr. Hellcow is right in this. Even in the theatrical translations of the werewolf myth, there is always a line drawn, and a clear dichotomy exists between the person that is and the thing he becomes. Such lines have been muddled via gaming rules, especially when the notion of natural born lycan.... er... theriomorphs came into play. When in doubt, just stick to the basics as TricksterGod suggested. |
| phantarch12-17-04, 05:32 PM | mmm...theriomorphs...makes phantarch happy... Thanks for the info Kid SixXx. I wasn't familiar with that term, now I'll have to use it. :D Thanks Hellcow, too for all of your answers. I think you've written about 17 sourcebooks worth on these boards so far. |
| Sarlax12-17-04, 06:26 PM | All lycanthropes are not evil. But all werewolves are evil. The point is that when you create a new lycanthrope you need to decide what alignment should be associated with that form - at which point that form becomes "always (whatever)". The fact that the curse changes the personality of the victim as defined by that chosen alignment is one of the most fundamental aspects of the curse. This is a bit of a step back from one of the setting's core themes, isn't it? If good vampires might be running around, why not good werewolves? I certainly buy the idea that lycanthopy (which the 2E Monstrous Manual says is better named "therianthropy") can push victims to a particular alignment. But is it really that much stronger than vampirism? |
| Gurv12-17-04, 07:02 PM | This is a bit of a step back from one of the setting's core themes, isn't it? If good vampires might be running around, why not good werewolves? I certainly buy the idea that lycanthopy (which the 2E Monstrous Manual says is better named "therianthropy") can push victims to a particular alignment. But is it really that much stronger than vampirism? Who said it was stronger than vamprism? Being turned into a vampire generally makes you evil too. What Eberron does is changes this from a law into something "more like guidelines", to quote the pirate. Werewolves and vampires are supernatural evil. The transformation corrupts the mind and the soul. Those rare individuals who fight that corruption are exactly that: rare. Of course, since they are the ones who make for the best novels and stories, they're the ones you hear about the most! |
| Hellcow12-17-04, 07:11 PM | This is a bit of a step back from one of the setting's core themes, isn't it? If good vampires might be running around, why not good werewolves? *Sigh* If you read my posts, you'll see that I've stated multiple times that a good werewolf is possible. In the segment you quote, I was given my interpretation of what the MM means when it says "Any" - that it's "Any" because there is no one alignment that encompasses all animal types, but that all lycanthropes of a given type will possess the same alignment. To conclusively state my opinion on the alignment of lycanthropes, as I will be using in any Eberron material that I write: A particular animal form has an alignment associated with it. In the case of werewolves, this is "evil." With years of experience, a character may learn to overcome these animal instincts. Thus, a natural lycanthrope could go in any direction, and an afflicted lycanthrope who has lived with the affliction for many years may overcome it. However, in the early thoes of the affliction, there's no choice involved. It's not some subtle push towards a particular form of behavior - it's a complete and dramatic alteration of personality, with the goals of the beast completely superceding those of the victim. In the early stages, the victim doesn't even remember his actions while the beast is in control - so again, his beliefs are not even a factor. Given that the bestial alignment represents the beast taking control, in my opinion, when a voluntary change "immediately and permanently changes the character's alignment to that of the appropriate lycanthrope", this is NOT a subtle change. The victim is surrendering to the beast, and the person that he once was is lost. We're back to the fact that a werewolf will kill friends and family - his old values are compleely lost. So even if he was already chaotic evil, that alignment change represents a change in personality and a full embracing of the nature of the beast. By comparison, I feel that vampires are driven towards evil a) by the fact that they feed on the life force of others and b) because of the subtle and constant influence of the negative energy that sustains them. So, you can have a good vampire, but that doesn't mean the this vampire can't feel the call of evil - it means that he is choosing to resist it. The werewolf can do the same thing - but especially in the case of the afflicted, it will take time (and hey, the main way for the afflicted werewolf to maintain his alignment is to never willingly transform!). There's no "always" alignments in Eberron. But in these two cases, along with most outsiders, it's still "usually". Most vampires are evil. Most werewolves are evil. But you can't take for granted that they are, because there's always the chance that you're dealing with an exceptional individual who has fought the instincts of his nature. I'll also note that you don't have to be good to do good in Eberron, as shown by the actions of a certain vampire aristocrat - he has an evil alignment, but has nonetheless helped to promote peace and has been fighting the Emerald Claw. |
| Hellcow12-17-04, 07:13 PM | Who said it was stronger than vamprism? Being turned into a vampire generally makes you evil too. What Eberron does is changes this from a law into something "more like guidelines", to quote the pirate. Werewolves and vampires are supernatural evil. The transformation corrupts the mind and the soul. Those rare individuals who fight that corruption are exactly that: rare. Of course, since they are the ones who make for the best novels and stories, they're the ones you hear about the most! Gurv beat me to it, but I will echo this. The good vampire and the good werewolf are possible - but they are rare and noteworthy. |
| HuwJones12-17-04, 09:14 PM | One thing I would like to note. Lots of people have mentioned Silver Flame Paladins persecuting weres. As Paladins actually have to be LG, unlike most of the church (though a fallen Paladin attempting to hide the fact is an interesting idea), they are probably the least likely members to jump to conclusions and start laying about with their weapons. I see being a truly holy man very much about patience and wisdom. Do good, fight evil. Not just Fight Evil. That's the purpose of all the warriors and fighters and such who serve the Silver Flame, and thus get easily mislead by overzealous, or corrupt priests/cardinals. |
| Zucrous12-17-04, 09:52 PM | I found an interesting little feat in the savage species book. Assume supernatural ability. Curse of lycanthropy IS a supernatural ability. Meaning that ANY 5th level weretouched master with a wisdom of 13+ could regain this ability! Makes it easier to bring them back now! PS: also, as a shifter myself, I always go out of my way to oppose the silver flame in any way possible! I suggest to new players that it may not be in their best interest to worship IT! Can I be blamed if one of their clerics has a low dex and falls of on one of sharns towers? And I can be so forgetful with my torches and oil when I go to the church. I thought I HAD to bring them, we're burning someone at the stake, right? I just left it in the corner for a second! I was on my way to a cookout? I really have to stop smoking! ;) ****ing Brilliant!!!!!! Our DM doesnt like Savage species so I never thought of looking in there, but I might be able to take it with his permission. If I get a tome that raises my Wis. We did point buy and lets just say I wanted to be more combat based. As for the undermining the church OH YEAH. Our party is currently allied with them (without my approval) so I try all I can to make them realize that I dont exactly enjoy thrane. YAY!!!!!! See the forums are great thank you so much. I was thinking of more of an Eldrich machine that continuesly casts bestow greater curse (lycanthropy) over and over again. BUT THAT WOULD TAKE ALOT. This is rather simple. |
| Kid SixXx12-17-04, 11:36 PM | This is a bit of a step back from one of the setting's core themes, isn't it? If good vampires might be running around, why not good werewolves?? Actually it's not. I think what Hellcow is trying to say that just because something has the possibility of existing, doesn't mean that it's probable, much less the norm. There may be a good Daelkyr running around somewhere, but who wants to brave the Realm of the Insane and face off with them in the hope that one out of a thousand may have a golden heart? Alignment in Eberron is indeed blurred, but possible does not necessarily equate to likelyhood. Sure there could be the possibility of good werewolves, and there's also the possibility of tying an elephant's tail to a daisy and letting the critter dangle off the edge of a cliff without it falling to it's death. Are the above circumstances likely to happen? Maybe and maybe not. Naturally the commonality is left up to the DM. If he wants creatures like good werewolves to be extremely common, then they'll be extremely common. Honestly, I think that PC's should run into that one-in-a-million good werewolf from the outset in order to hold up another Eberron premise: that nothing is ever what it appears to be. |
| Hellcow12-18-04, 01:09 AM | ****ing Brilliant!!!!!! Our DM doesnt like Savage species so I never thought of looking in there, but I might be able to take it with his permission. If I get a tome that raises my Wis. We did point buy and lets just say I wanted to be more combat based. Of course, you'll also need polymorph or something similar. Assume Supernatural Ability lets you assume one of the abilities of the form you are in, so you'll have to become a werewolf in order to mimic its curse of lycanthropy. A DM might decide that the alternate form of a weretouched master counts as a werewolf for this purpose... but he just as easily might not. |
| Ramius_Mordale12-18-04, 03:34 AM | You know, you'd think people wouldn't argue with the person who made the setting. *Shrug* Maybe its just me but when the creator says it five or six times pretty much the same way, I think you'd just would take their word for it. I think the setting speaks for itself, lycanthrope characters (or animal shapeshifers) are not a very good choice to play in Eberron. Reason why I think the shifter race exists and for those who want to play dopplegangers you have the changlings. Now don't get me wrong werebeasts can be cool to play, but really I think Hellcow has been infinitely patient in the matter. I think the DMG quotes it well, which I will paraphase to save time. Basically, it's your campaign do what you like with it. If you want to play a pack of lycanthropes fighting against the Silver Flame, more power to you. If you are a Silver Flame werebeast killer go for it. That's the beauty of the game, and Eberron gives you more room to run with things than in other settings would be considered taboo or unheard of. I think the point has been danced around about four or five times already and came to the same conclusion. And really the whole conversation started with if it's alright if a werebear could function in a group with a member following the Silver Flame. I mean it really depends on the two characters' view points. If the werebear hates Silver Flame worshipers and the Silver Flame follower hates werebeasts with a passion and vows to kill them on sight, then probably not a good idea to have a werebear in the party. But let's say the werebear character was a follower of the Silver Flame (I think you said he was but I might be just imagining the original poster said that now) and then found out when he hit adolesnce (sp?) that he was a true lycanthrope werebear after he transformed accidently in a fit of anger and maybe the priest of the Silver Flame may take petty on the person for the other character's cruel fate he must suffer. Maybe the priest doesn't feel killing the person just because of their nature as being born a werebeast as the person fault and therefore seeks to try and help the other character find a cure for the curse or a way to surpress the ability to spread the disease completely. I usually make a rule that if there is going to be something that is going to cause a huge stir in the group and I'm DM and I'm not prepared or willing to deal with the problem, I just flat out don't allow it in my campaign I run. Again, I suggest people play shifters and go for the Weremaster prestige if they want to play such a creature. Plus you avoid a great deal of the problems you have to deal with, and really (from what I can tell) the Weremaster Prestige is better than being an actual werebeast if you choose your feats correctly. ***Warning shameless plug of character coming*** :D I mean I have a shifter character in Eberron and I was going for a Predator like character. I had claw bracers and a double-spear headed weapon and in one adventure I helped some Talenta (forgive spelling errors its late and I'm too tired to look them up :P ) halflings defeat this invading spiders of this town they were passing through, which were lead by an ettercap. Well I got a cool mask from them that gave me darkvision and heat-vision (yes another rip off me and my GM enjoyed doing), but I have to say before we ended the Jungle Boys (I think that's their name) in the King's Forest in Breland knew only of a "ghost" killing off their people left and right. Yeah, sorry for the side track note, but hey that guy turned out to become a full weremaster and takes the form of the weretiger. He's story has stopped for the time being, but I guess what I'm getting at is that you don't need to play a true lycanthrope when there are so many viable and more practical options available with a little creativity you can do anything. Well it's getting late for me so I think I'm going to call it a night. Sorry for the long post, but when I get tired I ramble. Good day to you all. :tiphat: -Ramius- |
| elecgraystone12-20-04, 02:42 PM | ;) Of course, you'll also need polymorph or something similar. Assume Supernatural Ability lets you assume one of the abilities of the form you are in, so you'll have to become a werewolf in order to mimic its curse of lycanthropy. A DM might decide that the alternate form of a weretouched master counts as a werewolf for this purpose... but he just as easily might not. First line from SRD(don't have eberron book for exact reading but I know it has the part about being like polymporh) Alternate Form (Su): A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. This ability works much like the polymorph spell, except that the creature is limited to the forms specified, and does not regain any hit points for changing its form. I'd be hard pressed to see how you could say that the FORM that you are taking is not that of a lycanthrope. The prestige class is about regaining your lycanthrope heritage! you gain same nat. attacks same nat. ac same bonus feats same skill bonuses you read everything right off the MM page. Can you tell me what form you could rule it is if it isn't that of a lycanthrope? And how would using a polymorph to take the EXACT same shape with the EXACT same powers (except stats) be any better? Now a DM can say anything he wants, but rules wise, I can see how he could. It would be better for him to say that he doesn't use the feat, rather than let the party wizard be able to use the curse of lycanthropy, but NOT the shifter weretouched master! PS: also, you can't normally take the shape of a template creature, so ONLY the weretouched master should be able to get the curse. To Zucrous, no problem! :D I was thinking the same thing as you. However, I was thinking of infecting Silver-flamers and letting their "friends" and fellow religious zelots kill them off! And since I wouldn't detect as a lycanthrope, they would have a hard time catching me! Nothing like genocide to turn a normally nice guy evil! ;) |
| krappleby12-20-04, 03:42 PM | Hi all, i am the original poster. and it was because i had some questions abotu the silver flame and the lycanthorpes.. i have created a new group of paladins, devoted to the killing of lycanthorpes, these paladins, are a special group of NPC's who are solely trained in tracking and killing lycanthorpes.. The player who is playing the lycanthorpe is ademant to play the lycanthorpe. he is a well hinged player, and knows his stuff. however can be a real pain at times. starting to winge, and moan, when he found out about the paladins.. basically i told him that if he wants to play the lycanthorpe in the setting then he will suffer the same fate as the lycanthorpe.. (i will not kill him off) but i will make his life hard.. what he does know ist hat there is a group of paladins investigating into the roumers that soemthing unhuman attacked and killed two people.. if he uses the ability in areas where there is a possibliliy of being seen, the paladins will show up a few days, later.. Of course, this could also work out in my favour in the future.. anyhow, I am allowing him to play the lycanthorpe, however he is having to be careful. The first session went well. without a winge or moan from him.. but i expect some later.. He did change once, however, it was in the middle of a forest, and he only half changed, as he told the other players (wiht a succesful bluff check :) ) that he was a shifter.. lol ok well i will see how it turns out. |
| elecgraystone12-20-04, 04:04 PM | Hi all, i am the original poster. and it was because i had some questions abotu the silver flame and the lycanthorpes.. i have created a new group of paladins, devoted to the killing of lycanthorpes, these paladins, are a special group of NPC's who are solely trained in tracking and killing lycanthorpes.. The player who is playing the lycanthorpe is ademant to play the lycanthorpe. he is a well hinged player, and knows his stuff. however can be a real pain at times. starting to winge, and moan, when he found out about the paladins.. basically i told him that if he wants to play the lycanthorpe in the setting then he will suffer the same fate as the lycanthorpe.. (i will not kill him off) but i will make his life hard.. what he does know ist hat there is a group of paladins investigating into the roumers that soemthing unhuman attacked and killed two people.. if he uses the ability in areas where there is a possibliliy of being seen, the paladins will show up a few days, later.. Of course, this could also work out in my favour in the future.. anyhow, I am allowing him to play the lycanthorpe, however he is having to be careful. The first session went well. without a winge or moan from him.. but i expect some later.. He did change once, however, it was in the middle of a forest, and he only half changed, as he told the other players (wiht a succesful bluff check :) ) that he was a shifter.. lol ok well i will see how it turns out. How would ANYONE know that he isn't a weretouched master 5th level? They may know as PLAYERS but not characters! Without a spell to detect lycanthropy, there is no way to tell! They look 100% the same! And, unless you are a silver flamer, who is going to run off and tell the church (even if you figured it out)? You'd have to be in a LARGE city to have any chance that someone will contact the silver flame. (assuming your not adventuring in silver flame land!) A farmer isn't going to run off and make a fuss if the "lycanthrope" isn't doing anything wrong! This also means that the lycanthrope should always be on his best behavior! When someone saves your village, are you going to rat him out? Don't give anyone a reason to think your an "evil" were-creature! PS: there is a problem with making paladins lycanthrope hunters. #1 they are LG and have to stay that way. #2 they can detect evil and will KNOW when they are murdering non-evil lycanthropes. I can't see a paladin keeping his status KNOWING that thier prey isn't evil and killing them anyway! You might have to change their detect good power to detect lycanthropes. That way they will not know how evil they are being! |
| krappleby12-20-04, 04:20 PM | That was the idea of the first post.. to ask if it was only evil lycanthorpes that the silver flame fought, or all lycanthorpes.. The answer i appear to have received, was that the silverflame, foudn the fact of the curse to be the reason to destroy the lycanthorpes and not the fact that they are good or evil.. the alighnment took no presidence in the masacre, only the fact that the lycanthorpes could spread a curse, which had to be stopped... |
| krappleby12-20-04, 04:23 PM | also, the idea is not to know he is a lycanthorpe. however to investigate, any thing that could be strewed as lycanthropy, as well as that there are many people who follow the silverflame, There are only a few places that the roumer would not spread.. but if someone sees a player, turn into a creature, then there is going to be roumers, and these paladins will seek out and investigate the roumers... Thus the continued presure on the character to only use his ability when he needs to.. Otherwise, he would use it for every battle, and that would be too easy, so i have managed to make him think about using the transformed version too much 1.How would ANYONE know that he isn't a weretouched master 5th level? They may know as PLAYERS but not characters! Without a spell to detect lycanthropy, there is no way to tell! They look 100% the same! And, unless you are a silver flamer, who is going to run off and tell the church (even if you figured it out)? You'd have to be in a LARGE city to have any chance that someone will contact the silver flame. (assuming your not adventuring in silver flame land!) 2.A farmer isn't going to run off and make a fuss if the "lycanthrope" isn't doing anything wrong! This also means that the lycanthrope should always be on his best behavior! When someone saves your village, are you going to rat him out? Don't give anyone a reason to think your an "evil" were-creature! ok 1. they wouldnt but that would not stop anyone investigating into the possibilities. especially if they are trained on the ways of lycanthropy. 2. No however, he may tell his son, he saw a man turn into a beast, his son might tell a frined, etc,etc, eventually someone will find out who is a follower of the silver flame, and roumers will spread. Eventually the Paladins will hear about a roumer of a man who changed into a beast. and go and investigate |
| aelryinth12-20-04, 04:45 PM | Also note that LG paladins killing LG werebears is an evil act, and they couldn't do it without losing their paladin hood. This comes down to letting them run for Xendrik or off the plane to the realm of the Beasts, or curing them, for the most part. That being said, if the paladin couldn't bring himself to do it, there were plenty of templars who had no problem with butchering any lycanthropes whatsoever. ==Aelryinth |
| motorfirebox12-20-04, 05:03 PM | not necessarily. alignment is a lot more fluid in Eberron, remember. if it would go against a paladin's code to kill someone who registers with the pala's detect evil, then it's fair to say that killing lycanthropes--even LG ones--is within the code of a paladin of the silver flame. |
| Hellcow12-20-04, 06:39 PM | I'd be hard pressed to see how you could say that the FORM that you are taking is not that of a lycanthrope. Simple. The Weretouched Master prestige class says that you may assume "the animal form... related to your lycanthropic heritage." Not only does it not grant you the powers of a lycanthrope, by the current errata it actually takes away lycanthropic traits such as Shifter Defense. So as a DM, it would be an easy decision for me to say "You're not assuming the shape of a werewolf - you're assuming the shape of a wolf" - and as such, could not gain the powers of a lycanthrope though Assume Supernatural Ability. Hybrid form is obviously similar in appearance to a werewolf, but still, it does not specifically say "You assume the form of a lycanthrope" - it says "You assume a bipedal form with prehensile hands and animalistic features." The fact that you lose Shifter Defense in this form is the strongest example for it not being that of a true lycanthrope. I see no reason to make a hard ruling on this. I think it's open to interpretation either way. But if a DM said "Sorry, your alternate form is that of an animal, not a lycanthrope" - I wouldn't argue with him. To look at it another way: A lycanthrope is a creature that can assume an animal form. He is under the effects of a curse that alters his behavior and forces him to assume this form under certain circumstances. A weretouched master is regaining the ability to shift his form, but with no trace of the curse. So he assumes the form of an animal, but it in full control. If you were in my campaign and demanded incessantly that you be allowed to use Assume Supernatural Ability to pick up the Curse of Lycanthropy, I might let you do it - and then take control of your character as an NPC while you were under the effects of the curse, just like any other afflicted lycanthrope. It would be better for him to say that he doesn't use the feat, rather than let the party wizard be able to use the curse of lycanthropy, but NOT the shifter weretouched master! PS: also, you can't normally take the shape of a template creature, so ONLY the weretouched master should be able to get the curse. Your second statement answers the first. As you point out, the wizard CAN'T assume the shape of a lycanthrope, as it is a templated creature. So I wouldn't let the wizard take the Curse of Lycanthropy, feat or no feat. When you look at a wolf, what makes it a werewolf instead of a wolf? By my ruling, the weretouched master is regaining the inherent ability to shift into the form of an animal. However, he is not becoming afflicted by the curse. So the form you shift into is that of an animal - and an animal has no supernatural abilities to assume. Of course, your DM is free to rule however he wishes. However, I was thinking of infecting Silver-flamers and letting their "friends" and fellow religious zelots kill them off! First off, remember that the purge was over a century ago and most members of the Church are human. So they didn't take part in it. Jaela would probably try to find a more merciful solution if the situation arose today. Do you torture people today because their ancestors took part in the Inquisition? Furthermore, if your victims are killed by their comrades, it would be because they are seen as a threat to innocent lives - since a werewolf is just that. So if they aren't killed by their comrades - or in the time between - there's a decent chance that other innocents will be killed. Furthermore, if they are just dealing with a single individual - someone they know to be afflicted and know to be a good person - there's a greater chance that they WILL go to the trouble to try to find a cure. The Church is capable of acting brutally to eliminate a threat - but a single lycanthrope can be dealt with more delicately than, say, a thousand of them. On the other hand, if they were unable to cure him and his form was evil, I have little doubt that they would kill him - and that he'd probably want them to. For a dedicated follower of the Silver Flame, little would be more repugnant than the thought of being used by an evil force to take innocent lives, death would be a preferable alternative. (Of course, a corrupt follower would be a different story.) So I'll at least agree with the you on the "evil" part... |
| Hellcow12-20-04, 07:14 PM | How would ANYONE know that he isn't a weretouched master 5th level? Without a spell to detect lycanthropy, there is no way to tell! Actually, this is discussed earlier in the thread. And personally, I'd go ahead and add detect lycanthropy as a first level spell for paladins and clerics of the Silver Flame, following the standard format for detect spells. Though I'd be somewhat more inclined to make a more complex spell that detects magical infection or possession, since lycanthropes are only one of the threats they deal with; they have been fighting demons and undead far longer than lycanthropes. You'll note that the PrC for the Silver Flame that is included in the book is an exorcist, not a werehunter. You'd have to be in a LARGE city to have any chance that someone will contact the silver flame. (assuming your not adventuring in silver flame land!) Actually, beyond Thrane, the Silver Flame is worshipped in Aundair, Breland, Q'barra, and Zilargo (and even the Demon Wastes, in an unusual form). It's not unlikely for a village to have a priest of the Flame (albeit an expert). A farmer isn't going to run off and make a fuss if the "lycanthrope" isn't doing anything wrong! I'd say the opposite! Remember that most people have no concept that there are "good" lycanthropes. That small-town farmer is more likely to be superstitious and afraid that the lycanthrope he sees will kill the village. In a large city, there's a fractional chance people will have more knowledge of lycanthropes, but also they'll have the security of a stronger watch - they don't need to race off and call for the templars, because if this creature does cause trouble, the guards will defend them. Now, that farmer can't tell the difference between a weretouched master and a lycanthrope, no doubt about that. But unless he lives in the Eldeen Reaches or an area with a high shifter concentration, what are the odds that he knows anything about weretouched masters? He's more likely to cry wolf at the shifter than say nothing about the werewolf. Remember that high-level characters are relatively rare - and a 5th-level weretouched master is going to be a fairly high-level character. People may have heard songs or stories about the shifter who can assume the form of a bear, and would be more inclined to give a shifter the benefit of the doubt because of this - but if they've never actually met a shifter, they may have never heard such tales. When someone saves your village, are you going to rat him out? Here, we completely agree. As long as the lycanthrope plays the role of a hero, he can hopefully earn the trust and goodwill of the people he interacts with - potentially, even followers of the Silver Flame (provided he is in full control of his actions and cannot spread the curse). PS: there is a problem with making paladins lycanthrope hunters. #1 they are LG and have to stay that way. #2 they can detect evil and will KNOW when they are murdering non-evil lycanthropes. I can't see a paladin keeping his status KNOWING that thier prey isn't evil and killing them anyway! You might have to change their detect good power to detect lycanthropes. That way they will not know how evil they are being! This has been discussed in exhaustive detail elsewhere. Motorfirebox has it right. In Eberron, "Good" is not simply "that which can be detected by detect good." If his actions serve the greater good, follow his code of conduct, and will save innocent lives, a paladin can certainly kill a person who is not evil (remember, paladins can at best say "not evil", not "good") without losing his status. If there is an opportunity to find a nonviolent solution, he should try to take it. If he cannot and must kill an innocent to protect even more, he should feel remorse and perform penance (even if he does not actually lose his powers). But provided that his actions clearly serve the greater good, the alignment of the target is not the final word on the fate of the paladin. Now, a paladin who kills a good person who was not presenting a threat to others (and bear in mind, carrying a deadly disease may constitute "posing a threat" even if the victim means well) without trying to find an alternative solution to the problem should definitely lose his status. The circumstances are more important than just alignment. In the case of your paladin werehunters, Krappleby, in an isolated situation where a lycanthrope seems to be acting to control its instincts and aid others, they might try to capture it alive and break the curse, allowing it to live a normal life - assuming that they had the numbers to attempt such a thing without undue risk. This isn't the age of the purge, and while the Silver Flame will act as ruthlessly as it must to defend the innocent (and to prevent lycanthropy from spreading anew), if they have a chance to cure a lycanthrope (at least, a lycanthrope who hasn't been permanently corrupted by an evil-aligned lycanthropic personality), they'll probably try to do it. In this day and age most followers of the Flame, however zealous they may be, are trying to do good - brutal violence is acceptable when necessary, but should always be a last resort. |
| elecgraystone12-20-04, 08:18 PM | All I have to say is that genocide is an EVIL act, even more so when the race (as a whole) isn't evil! A religion that commits genocide is as or more evil that the evil they were trying to stop! No matter how fluid the alignments are in eberron, killing a whole family (mother, father and children) is EVIL! :mad: Justifying it changes nothing! Your LG paladins would have to chop down any natural lycanthrope he finds. Newborns. Small children. Old people. crippled. Even if they were LG, productive people that never hurt anyone because they MIGHT! Have your paladin drown a baby and say with a straight face that he's still LG. :rolleyes: They can call themselves LG but I'll just laugh because I know better. Let them worship their radiant idol! ;) Just check out the sharn book and look at the alignments on silver flame priests! 1LG. 95% evil! OK enough of my rant! I just dislike the silver flame alot! |
| elecgraystone12-20-04, 08:38 PM | To the paladins looking for lycanthropes. How many druids and other spell casters (ones with alter/poly self ect.) do they plan on tracking down and investigating? There are a lot of classes and spells that can change you into an animal! Hope they have good walking shoes because they will need them! A druid gets wildshape at 5th level. Wizards get alter self at 3rd level. Even with the low level of NPC's, that's alot of possible lycanthropes! With the level of magic, such things shouldn't be unheard of. When someone changes into a bear, would your average eberron farmer thing they were a druid, a wizard or a lycanthrope? Most people think that there are no more lycanthopes so I'd say the first 2. Unless your were-creature is stupid, all he has to say is that. #1 I'm a 10th level shifter.(both animal and hybrid) #2 I'm a 5th level druid. (animal) #3 I'm a 3rd level wizard. (hybrid w/alter self, animal w/poly(need 7th level ) It also helps it he IS one or more of these things! Now the silver flame MAY have detect spells for lycanthropes, but they can't check everyone they meet! |
| Gurv12-20-04, 08:58 PM | All I have to say is that genocide is an EVIL act, even more so when the race (as a whole) isn't evil! A religion that commits genocide is as or more evil that the evil they were trying to stop! No matter how fluid the alignments are in eberron, killing a whole family (mother, father and children) is EVIL! :mad: Justifying it changes nothing! Your LG paladins would have to chop down any natural lycanthrope he finds. Newborns. Small children. Old people. crippled. Even if they were LG, productive people that never hurt anyone because they MIGHT! Have your paladin drown a baby and say with a straight face that he's still LG. :rolleyes: They can call themselves LG but I'll just laugh because I know better. Let them worship their radiant idol! ;) Just check out the sharn book and look at the alignments on silver flame priests! 1LG. 95% evil! OK enough of my rant! I just dislike the silver flame alot! Good, good. You've got the idea now. Genocide is an evil act. But people CAN do it "for a good cause" and keep a straight face. Its been done in the real world. You can disagree, and most likely be correct. But consider this: If a paladin (or anyone else) does something that they think is good, because someone they trust told them it was, and they really THINK it is the right thing to do, does their alignment change if it turns out they were wrong? And if so, do they lose their powers when they unknowingly perform the act, or when the come to realize that what they did was wrong? |
| Hellcow12-20-04, 09:54 PM | All I have to say is that genocide is an EVIL act I agree completely. even more so when the race (as a whole) isn't evil! True again. But how does this apply to lycanthropes? To begin with, as I stated earlier in the thread, the most common lycanthropes are likely to be werewolves and wererats, because they are most likely to actively spread the curse - either to further their influence (in the case of wererats) or simply because they are the most inclined towards violence. So percentagewise, not only is most of the "race" evil, it's supernaturally, murderously evil - an evil that would cause a man to murder his own family or friends. You talk about the Silver Flame killing the wererat family, and that is a tragedy - but what about the man bitten by the werewolf who kills his own family as a result? Where's the comfort for him? Secondly, you are characterizing lycanthropes as a race. In my mind this depends on the number of natural lycanthropes in existence. The Church certainly wasn't characterizing it as a race. They weren't fighting the lycanthrope nation, because no such thing ever existed. They were fighting a supernatural infection, and attempting to purge it from Eberron before it could harm others. This meant the tragic sacrifice of many innocents: but the people of the time weighed this against the harm that it could cause (in there eyes) and deemed this sacrifice to be necessary. This was a period when the Puritan faction held more sway than it does in the present day, and many today wonder how the purge could have gotten so bloody, and whether there was some better way to accomplish the goal - whehter the curse could have been eliminated without killing the bearers. But while many question the methods, even today few question the goal - you just won't find a lot of people saying "You know, I wish there were more werewolves around." A religion that commits genocide is as or more evil that the evil they were trying to stop! No matter how fluid the alignments are in eberron, killing a whole family (mother, father and children) is EVIL! And if that mother and father were supernaturally driven to murder other creatures, does that change the equation at all? And how does this compare to the afflicted lycanthrope who kills his own family? Your LG paladins would have to chop down any natural lycanthrope he finds. Newborns. Small children. Old people. crippled. Actually, the newborn is a good example of where a paladin would probably go out of his way to find an alternative, hoping that the child could grow to overcome the curse... and this is where you end up with your lycanthropes in Lammania. Even if they were LG, productive people that never hurt anyone because they MIGHT! I ask again, how does this apply to lycanthropes? Werewolves are supernaturally driven towards evil - and not simply evil, murderous evil. Yes, they can potentially overcome this, but few do. Furthermore, it sounds like you're envisioning large communities of lycanthropes, which I don't see as ever having existed; I'd see the Dark Pack as being one of the largest groups of lycanthropes known to history, and it was largely brought together by the purge (and held together because of the existence of the Silver Flame). I could imagine wererats forming reasonably large communities, but we're back to the supernatural drive to do evil. As for werebears, they by nature seek to "avoid settlements and... non-natural environs." They aren't going to spread the curse if they can avoid it. They are unlikely to form significant communities. Yes, they are good - but as a result of being good, they are also likely to be very rare. They are the few exceptions that get caught up in the fact that most people don't know enough about lycanthropy to know that there ARE good lycanthropes. And again, this is where you could see a paladin helping the werebear to escape to Lammania - and possible having to atone for that. Have your paladin drown a baby and say with a straight face that he's still LG. I wouldn't. First off, the paladin would look for another solution. He might consult with a priest to see if it was possible to break the power of the curse, or to raise the child in such a way as to overcome the curse. He might give him to werebears in Lammania. If there was no option but death, he would kill the child as quickly and cleanly as possible - and as I said, he would undoubtedly do penance for this act, seeking to cleanse this burden off of his soul. You're the one assuming that the paladins are itching to commit atrocities: in my opinion they should always strive to find other answers. However, paladins are rare; not all followers of the Flame will go to these extremes. Just check out the sharn book and look at the alignments on silver flame priests! 1LG. 95% evil! Having worked on both Sharn and the ECS, I'll point out that Breland is supposed to have the highest concentration of corruption within the church, and the church of Sharn is the most corrupt in Breland. Go to Flamekeep and you'll see vastly different demographics. But with that said: There's Faela in Fallen, who struggles to care for the wretched inhabitants of that district. There's Mazin Tana in High Hope, "who does his best to help those in need." And then, yes, there is Ythana Morr. Those who hold power in the Church of Sharn may be corrupt. But that doesn't mean that those in lower ranks - like Mazin and Faela - aren't acting for the good of Sharn. So unless I've missed something when writing the book, I'd challenge your 95%. OK enough of my rant! I just dislike the silver flame alot! Understood, and I hope you won't take my defense of the Church personally. The Church of the Silver Flame is supposed to be a complex force - an organization that can do great good and great evil. I simply feel that many people try to simplify it in on direction or the other - picturing the Church as a collection of bloodthirsty zealots and corrupt priests, when both of those groups are minorities. Many followers of the Flame regret the brutality of the purge. Jaela herself feels that it was the work of the dark voice - that the goal may have been a worthy one, but that there had to be a better way to achieve it. The followers of the Flame will continue to persecute lycanthropes because they continue to see lycanthropy as a dangerous supernatural affliction - just as they continue to persecute demons, undead, and monsters in general. But it would take a great threat - along with enough influence in the Council of Cardinals to override Jaela's moderate voice - for another act of brutality on the level of the purge to occur. With that said, undead are certainly abhorrent in the eyes of the church, and, say, conclusive proof that a nearby nation was ruled by a council of vampires is the kind of thing that could get that fervor going - and potentially something even Jaela would have to support. Zealotry is a frightening and dangerous force, and the Church is supposed to epitomize the fact that those driven to do good can be just as dangerous as those who scheme to do evil. But at the same time, for every puritan zealot, there may be a dozen followers of the Flame who quietly act to make the world a better place, through good works, kindness, and generosity. And these may be the people you target with your curse, hoping that a puritan zealot will strike them down. |
| Sarlax12-20-04, 09:59 PM | If a paladin (or anyone else) does something that they think is good, because someone they trust told them it was, and they really THINK it is the right thing to do, does their alignment change if it turns out they were wrong? And if so, do they lose their powers when they unknowingly perform the act, or when the come to realize that what they did was wrong? This depends on the nature of the "thing" they are doing. Is this a paladin in the middle of a blank room with a red button to push (which, unknown to the paladin, will cause a child to die), with a high priest of the Flame telling him that it's good to push that button? Or is it a paladin holding his +2 Flaming Burst Longsword over the neck of a wererat infant, with a high priest of the Flame telling him that it's good to kill that baby? The paladin in the former example won't lose his abilities because he had no idea of what was going on. In the latter example, the paladin falls. There's no way around it. He's about to knowingly murder an innocent creature. Detect Evil is right there for him to use to check if this baby really is horribly evil. Once he detects that the baby isn't evil, how can this be justified? Is it "for the greater good?" The "greater good" only needs to be invoked if you're knowingly committing what you believe is some kind of evil. The warriors, clerics, experts, commoners, fighters, rangers, and everyone else can go around killing innocent lycanthropes without worry. Paladins can't. They fall the very moment they commit an evil act. These are the guys who should be helping the lycanthropes hide and escape. Not only that, but they need to actively oppose the actions of the Church. A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents ... A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities. There's little room for interpertation. Not only must the paladin not participate in the genocide, he must also fight the Church in its actions. His opposition need not be overt, but he must persuade the leaders to end to genocide. Perhaps even sabotage attacks. And afterward, he needs to punish those who killed off innocent lycanthropes. I bet many paladins fell in this time. |
| Hellcow12-20-04, 10:06 PM | When someone changes into a bear, would your average eberron farmer thing they were a druid, a wizard or a lycanthrope? Well, alter self won't turn you into a bear. If you want to turn into a bipedal wolfman, I suppose you could, but then you're asking for trouble - do you WANT people to think you're a werewolf? What do you get out of assuming that particular form? Furthermore, do you use any components when you shape shift? How are you dressed? Do you preach any of the druidic traditions? Does your behavior match the expected behavior of the lycanthrope (remember, supernaturally driven to murderous evil)? Druids are actually quite rare beyond the Eldeen Reaches and the Shadow Marches, and in those two areas the farmer probably can recognize a druid. Now, if you're a lycanthopic druid, more power to you - you can probably go for quite some time without being detected, as even a templar of the Silver Flame may respect your druidic abilities. Likewise, in an area where people know shifters, a shifter lycanthrope can pose as a weretouched master. However, if you hurt someone in the village and a week later that person becomes a werewolf, they won't have forgotten you. And if you kill someone in the village, even if you ARE a druid the Silver Flame may come after you - an evil druid or wizard is just as bad as a werewolf, though they might at least try to capture you alive to see if you can be rehabilitated. |
| Hellcow12-20-04, 10:16 PM | Or is it a paladin holding his +2 Flaming Burst Longsword over the neck of a wererat infant, with a high priest of the Flame telling him that it's good to kill that baby? In the latter example, the paladin falls. There's no way around it. He's about to knowingly murder an innocent creature. Detect Evil is right there for him to use to check if this baby really is horribly evil. Once he detects that the baby isn't evil, how can this be justified? One problem here: the assumption that the wererat newborn WON'T be evil. As I've been saying before, lycanthropes are supernaturally driven towards a particular alignment. I'd argue that the natural lycanthropes begin at the alignment in question and must actively choose (and fight a difficult and constant mental struggle) to break away from it. It's not the same thing as a human child who has to learn moral values: it's Rosemary's baby. The wererat child will most likely be vicious and cruel, a sign of the curse that lurks within. You could make the argument that the newest newest newborn who isn't even aware of his surroundings couldn't possibly be evil. To which I can say a) Why not? This is the work of magic, not nature - and b) how often do you think this situation occured - and how often do you think a paladin was involved, as opposed to a random mundane templar? Again, I think we are seeing the situation very differently, in terms of the number of lycanthropes, the distribution of the alignments/species among the lycanthropes, and the level of "lycanthropic civilization." |
| Gurv12-20-04, 10:30 PM | Keith beat me to the "What makes you say the wererat newborn WON'T be evil" arguement. I'd say they are, and I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't stick their finger into the cradle to find out either, As far as paladins go, what if the paladin doesn't believe the newborn can overcome the curse, that he is doomed to be an evil creature that will harm and inflict others? If that is his belief, taught to him by his church, and he has no evidence to show that it is wrong (he doesn't get a DMG, PHB, or a MM), why would he lose his powers before being shown that he was wrong? |
| Sarlax12-21-04, 02:00 AM | One problem here: the assumption that the wererat newborn WON'T be evil. As I've been saying before, lycanthropes are supernaturally driven towards a particular alignment. I'd argue that the natural lycanthropes begin at the alignment in question and must actively choose (and fight a difficult and constant mental struggle) to break away from it. It's not the same thing as a human child who has to learn moral values: it's Rosemary's baby. The wererat child will most likely be vicious and cruel, a sign of the curse that lurks within. I suppose the block I have is this: What does it mean for Eberron to have blurred alignments? If we have good orcs who worship the same force worshipped by the Silver Flame, scheming gnomes, and a nation that largely embraces the use of undead, why are lycanthropes still so consistently evil? I understand that your position that lycanthropes are strongly driven towards their listed alignments and that some, with struggle, can change their individual alignments. But how is that different from the core rules? Creatures with "always" alignments, in the core rules, can have exceptions. You could make the argument that the newest newest newborn who isn't even aware of his surroundings couldn't possibly be evil. To which I can say a) Why not? This is the work of magic, not nature - and b) how often do you think this situation occured - and how often do you think a paladin was involved, as opposed to a random mundane templar? Regarding the first point, I agree that magic can make newborns evil. Even if absolutely all wererat babies are born evil (and they are, apparently), what about werebears, wereboars, and weretigers? None of these creatures are intrinsically evil. These natural lycanthropes aren't even suffering under the soul-breaking curse, either: this is how they were born. How did the Silver Flame justify the destruction of werebear children, of weretiger children? Regarding the second point, I doubt paladins were involved often, mostly because of the general rarity of individuals with PC classes. When I said that I believed many paladins fell, I meant it only in relative terms. With my remark about warriors, rangers, etc. I was indicating that most people wouldn't have to be concerned with these moral questions, at least not on the same level as paladins must be. I can't see anything that allows a paladin to participate in this. I can see plenty of explanations, many valid, that justify the attack from the view of a society, from species, or abstract religious principles. But that's not how paladins operate. They simply can't commit evil acts. They can't kill innocent creatures, and it seems especially terrible for them to allow the killing of creatures who are born lawful good. If the purge had sought only to eliminate the evil lycanthrope types, and if those types were always evil, and if there were no way to cure or contain the contagion, I can see paladins jumping into the act whole heartedly. But the purge went after the good just as much as it did the evil. Again, I think we are seeing the situation very differently, in terms of the number of lycanthropes, the distribution of the alignments/species among the lycanthropes, and the level of "lycanthropic civilization." I believe you're right. However, even if I begin with the premise that lycanthropes don't deviate much from their listed alignments, that only strengthens the idea that it was evil to destroy the lycanthropes who aren't born evil. |
| AvonRekaes12-21-04, 04:07 AM | I'm with Sarlax on the issue of Paladin's morality being a step above everyone elses. I've read Keith's posts about this elsewhere, but I just don't buy it that paladins belonging to an organization base "evil" off the opinion of the organization. The Church may have thought letting wereboars escape to lammania was wrong, but no true Paladin of the Silver Flame would have lost his powers over it. (At least, if I were the DM of a Purge-Era Eberron game.) Also the clause of the paladin's code of conduct that Sarlax points out is interesting. "Punish those who harm innocents". Now, lets take the senario away from babies for a moment. A fully adult natural wereboar has always made sure never to spread the curse. In fact he has not ever injured a humanoid(or giant) creautre in his life. But the templars of the Silver Flame bear down on his little hermit grove and kill him. He was innoccent. And this senario likely happened more than once. Isn't the Paladin now obligated by the Code of Conduct as per core DnD rules to punish the templars that killed the innocent? Regardless of his chosen god, a Paladin's CoC remains the same... |
| Wizardman12-21-04, 07:17 AM | I'm with Sarlax on the issue of Paladin's morality being a step above everyone elses. I've read Keith's posts about this elsewhere, but I just don't buy it that paladins belonging to an organization base "evil" off the opinion of the organization. The Church may have thought letting wereboars escape to lammania was wrong, but no true Paladin of the Silver Flame would have lost his powers over it. (At least, if I were the DM of a Purge-Era Eberron game.) Also the clause of the paladin's code of conduct that Sarlax points out is interesting. "Punish those who harm innocents". Now, lets take the senario away from babies for a moment. A fully adult natural wereboar has always made sure never to spread the curse. In fact he has not ever injured a humanoid(or giant) creautre in his life. But the templars of the Silver Flame bear down on his little hermit grove and kill him. He was innoccent. And this senario likely happened more than once. Isn't the Paladin now obligated by the Code of Conduct as per core DnD rules to punish the templars that killed the innocent? Regardless of his chosen god, a Paladin's CoC remains the same... Not necessarily. Given the circumstances of Eberron and the purge, he would definitely chastise them, and attempt to non-violently correct them, but unless presened with proof that this same group deliberately and knowingly wiped out such lycanthropes without even attempting to seek a cure, he would not attempt to punish them. On other matters: I really like this thread. It is relates to an idea I have for a paladin of the Silver Flame. I doubt that I can go into full details here, but... if a paladin of the Flame was given a choice, what would he do: send an infant werewolf to Lammania in hopes that the werebears could teach the child to resist his heritage, or raise the child himself and try to do the same? This child is the paladin's son. |
| motorfirebox12-21-04, 11:26 AM | I suppose the block I have is this: What does it mean for Eberron to have blurred alignments? If we have good orcs who worship the same force worshipped by the Silver Flame, scheming gnomes, and a nation that largely embraces the use of undead, why are lycanthropes still so consistently evil? because they're cursed as such. werewolves and wererats don't choose evil, they are afflicted with a curse that drives them to do evil acts. what this is really about, though, is the difference in philosophies between paladins of different religions. to a paladin of the SF, lycanthropes are a source of evil that must be destroyed at all costs; their destruction is part of the code of ethics he takes on, when he becomes a paladin. killing a wererat child might weigh on his conscience, but it doesn't violate the code that defines his actions. a paladin of dol dorn, on the other hand, sees lycanthropes as just one source of evil out of many. wiping out the curse would be nice; but it's an unrealistic goal, and the price to pay for doing it is too high. a paladin of dol dorn would not only be violating his conscience to kill a wererat baby, he'd be violating the code of ethics that his abilities and faith depend on if he did so without some immediate, pressing reason. that's what blurred alignments mean: not only is evil not always evil, good is not always good. |
| phantarch12-21-04, 12:40 PM | It seems that the point being overlooked in general is that Lycanthropy (shudders) is a mind and spirit altering curse, regardless of the alignment shift. A paladin, or any follower of the Silver Flame, would most likely look at the purge as a means of salvation. First of all, on the werebear, as that seems to be where most people have the hang up, is getting caught up in the LG alignment. As Keith has pointed out, werecreatures with a lawful good alignment just means that they aren't going to go out and kill indiscriminately, but rather are going to withdraw into the wilderness. Despite the alignment shift to lawful good, it is still a disease. Think about how it plays out. Joe Farmer is out plowing his field, supporting his wife and nine children. By some chance of misfortune, he comes across a werebear, gets in an altercation, and contracts lycanthropy. The full moon hits, and off he goes, running into the woods, leaving family behind. In the future, he has an overwhelming urge to run off into the woods, when at home, he has a vacant stare in his eyes, treats his family as if he doesn't know them, and fails in his work to support his family. Eventually, he abandons them altogether. In despair, the wife pursues him into the woods, finds him as he's shifting, and runs up to him. In his animalistic state, he no longer recognizes her, is overcome with his bestial senses, and mistakes her for a threat. Thinking it is in his own defense, he mauls her, and kills her. Now tell me that that family isn't going to support the concept of getting rid of lycanthropy. Lawful Good in this case does not mean that it turns him into a really nice guy. He is sick with a disease that causes him to lose his own will and mind, and be overcome with primal urges to the destruction of his own character. The man who was a loving husband and a kind father is destroyed by the disease, despite the fact that he now assumes a "Lawful Good" alignment. On another note, nobody seems to have a problem with a purge of other "afflictions". Vampirism is something that can be passed on to a multitude of people, causes alignement shifts, but also maintains an element of the persons own soul. Would a paladin be an evil person if he came across a child that had become a vampire and killed it? I don't think so, and in his mind, he'd be doing the poor thing a service. It no longer is human, but destroyed and tainted by magic. Another potential example. I haven't seen it yet, but the idea I get from the previews of The Stepford Wives, is that a bunch of wives get transformed (or replaced by robots or whatever), with smiling, happy facsimiles that cook and clean, and always are cheerful and happy. Technically, there alignment would be Lawful Good. They always do what's right, they are helpful and considerate...but their SOUL has been destroyed, and that is inherently evil. This is only one example, but there are many other stories out there of people's personalities being replaced with seemingly good ones, but when it destroys a person's will and choice, frankly, it always creeps me out, and is evil. Finally, as has been pointed out, a lycanthropic purge is NOT genocide. Lycanthropes are made up of a number of races. Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, etc. What about natural lycanthropes? Well, guess what? It's a genetic disease. A hereditary disease does not a new species make. Anyway, I thought I'd put my 2 cents in, but I think I just dumped a buck and quarter. |
| Hellcow12-21-04, 01:57 PM | OK, I'm spending far too much time on this thread, so this will be my last post here – continue to argue to your heart's content! ;) Phantarch, Motorfirebox, Gurv, and others seem to understand my position, so I'll leave it to them. But for one more... I suppose the block I have is this: What does it mean for Eberron to have blurred alignments? If we have good orcs who worship the same force worshipped by the Silver Flame, scheming gnomes, and a nation that largely embraces the use of undead, why are lycanthropes still so consistently evil? because they're cursed as such. werewolves and wererats don't choose evil, they are afflicted with a curse that drives them to do evil acts. Motorfirebox and Phantarch have hit it on the head. Lycanthropy is called a curse for a reason. I compared them to demons and vampires. An outsider (in my opinion) is in many ways the embodiment of an idea. It is possible for it to sway from its path – an angel can fall – but it is very rare. An outsider is much like a paladin: a pure distillation of one aspect of its alignment. Two outsiders of the same type will be much more alike in personality than two humans who happen to share the same alignment. A vampire is driven by the negative energy that sustains it. This will not necessarily instantly alter alignment, but it is a constant corrupting presence – and the fact that vampires feed on living creatures doesn't help. So for a vampire to avoid changing alignment is a slow, continuous struggle. I see it as less of a clear, defined type of behavior and more of a general corrupting influence – a slow dissolution of empathy with living creatures and drive towards a sociopathic personality. A lycanthrope is shaped by the curse. The alignment change is only part of it – its behavior is shaped by its animal persona. I reiterate, even the non-evil lycanthropes suffer a catastrophic change in personality as a result of the curse. A lawful good person who becomes a werebear is a very different person once the curse has fully taken hold (Phantarch does a good job of characterizing it). A wererat child is born shaped by the curse and nothing but the curse. As he grows, it is possible he can fight against the power of the curse, but this would be a constant struggle – and the lycanthrope would have to have a reason to try to change, which few do. By the Monster Manual, all of these creatures are always the alignment in question. Eberron allows for the possibility that a creature can overcome this force that directs its alignment. Nonetheless, this is rare. The common folk will be afraid of vampires, and rightfully so. It's just the case that as an adventurer, you may run into a good vampire – you can't be certain that every vampire is evil. As for the neutral and good lycanthropes: As I've said before, because these people seek to avoid spreading the curse, they will be few in number. According to the MM, even neutral lycanthropes "seek remote locations and avoid civilization, but might attack travelers or other folk abroad in the wilderness if the travelers are few in number." So they are still dangerous, and can still spread the curse in this manner. As they are few in number, few people understand that they aren't evil. What they do know is that they are cursed, that they can spread the curse to others, that the curse radically alters personality, and according to the Keeper and cardinals of the period - not Jaela, or any living elder of the church - destroys the soul of the victim. A paladin would know that a particular lycanthrope isn't evil - but paladins are far and few between, and as noted the paladins would be the ones who WOULD have acted to preserve the innocents. It's quite possible that paladins are the only reason lycanthropes did survive the purge, though some (especially the evil ones no paladin would spare) may have escaped through with and skill. So the neutral lycanthropes were a tragic casualty, and perhaps if the templars had a copy of the Monster Manual they'd have tried harder to find an alternative. But nonetheless, they are capable of spreading the affliction or killing innocents, and performing acts the original bearer never would. And I'll say again that in my view of the world, afflicted lycanthropes could spread the curse until its power was broken by the purge. The other major issue here is the view of both numbers and civilization of natural lycanthropes. A lot of people seem to have this view of peaceful werewolf (or wereboar) villages. I don't, and didn't when I created the idea of the purge in the first place. Wererats aside, most lycanthropes are driven away from civilization by their bestial instincts. Due to their murderous instincts, a village of werewolves, if such a thing could sustain itself, would prey on travelers and other nearby communities. Werebears and wereboars prefer to be isolated and away from people. I do see wererats as maintaining communities within cities - and preying on the people of those cities. So the werebear children are extremely rare - you're not talking about the slaughter of hundreds of werebear children as part of the purge. I'll say again: The point of the purge is to show that it is possible for an organization that seeks to serve the greater good to perform a brutal and horrible act. The end result of the purge was to break the power of a curse that could destroy people's lives - but in the modern day, only the puritans take any pride in how it was done. So my only point is that it is a mistake to assume that all followers of the Flame are brutal zealots who would perform this sort of slaughter at a moment's notice. The Church is a force that can do this sort of thing - but it also does do a great deal of good in the world, without this level of brutality. And the paladins of the Silver Flame are the least likely to do this sort of thing: the paladin is supposed to show compassion whenever possible, not to be a remorseless killing machine. Ultimately, the Church of the Silver Flame comes back to gray alignments: it's possible to do evil in an attempt to do good. |
| Euangelion12-21-04, 02:35 PM | The other major issue here is the view of both numbers and civilization of natural lycanthropes. A lot of people seem to have this view of peaceful werewolf (or wereboar) villages. I don't, and didn't when I created the idea of the purge in the first place. Wererats aside, most lycanthropes are driven away from civilization by their bestial instincts. Due to their murderous instincts, a village of werewolves, if such a thing could sustain itself, would prey on travelers and other nearby communities. Werebears and wereboars prefer to be isolated and away from people. I do see wererats as maintaining communities within cities - and preying on the people of those cities. So the werebear children are extremely rare - you're not talking about the slaughter of hundreds of werebear children as part of the purge. Another source of confusion may be the description of Wolf's Paw on page 174 of the ECS, a thorp that contains a werewolf that seems to have great control over its behavior even when "wolfing out." From your comments, I take this to mean Thorntuft is a singular exception, and the only reason he is still alive and well living in the Reaches is that he was the best ever of his kind at controlling his behavior. But if readers were to take his example as a rule rather than an absolutely singular exception, I can understand their confusion. Comments, anyone other than Hellcow? |
| Hellcow12-21-04, 09:10 PM | Another source of confusion may be the description of Wolf's Paw on page 174 of the ECS, a thorp that contains a werewolf that seems to have great control over its behavior even when "wolfing out." From your comments, I take this to mean Thorntuft is a singular exception, and the only reason he is still alive and well living in the Reaches is that he was the best ever of his kind at controlling his behavior. I apologize for commenting when the call was to "anyone other than Hellcow", and I'd also like to hear if this was the primary source of confusion for others. But I feel that the question itself implies another point of confusion - whether I'm saying that a natural lycanthrope behaves differently in animal form. A character who is not yet aware of his condition is entirely under the influence of the curse. In the long term - such as for a natural lycanthrope - this is not the case; the character remains in control of his actions. But his actions are governed by his lycanthropic alignment, which eventually applies in all forms. To quote the relevant passages, adding emphasis in a few areas: The character's actions during this first episode are dictated by the alignment of its animal form... Evil-aligned lycanthropes seek to murder as many intelligent creatures as possible, often killing their own family members and friends. They generally seek out places where such victims can be found. A character with awareness of his condition retains his identity and does not lose control of his actions if he changes. However, each time he changes to his animal form he must make a Will save (DC 15 + number of times he has been in animal form or permanently assume the alignment of his animal form in all shapes. An evil lycanthrope who is aware of his actions in animal form is not compelled to murder and kill indiscriminately, but he delights in bloodshed and will certainly seek out opportunities to slaughter intelligent beings, preferably those of his own race. Any voluntary change to animal or hybrid form immediately and permanently changes the character's alignment to that of the appropriate lycanthrope. To me, the "animal alignment" is the influence of the curse. An evil person does not necessarily seek out opportunities to slaughter other intelligent beings - an evil lycanthrope does. The Will save reflects the character fighting the power of the curse. But if he ever loses this struggle - or gives in voluntarily - the curse takes hold in all forms. So as I read this, once the alignment has changed (which I see as the natural state for a natural lycanthrope, who never has a human personality to fight the curse), there is no longer any difference in the personality of the character when he is in human form or animal form. The wererat is evil through and through. The werewolf delights in slaughter regardless of form. The werebear seeks to avoid killing good or neutral intelligent creatures but dislikes nonnatural environments and will seek out a solitary life in the wilds. This was the basis of people fearing even the non-evil lycanthropes - the curse still twists the original personality, and the victim is not who he once was, regardless of current and former alignment. And as for fearing the werewolf - someone who may kill his own family and delights in bloodshed seems like a reasonable thing to be afraid of! In any case, this is the principle on which the purge was based: Lycanthropy is an infectious curse that destroys the personality (and, it was believed, the soul) of the victim, and in the majority of observed cases results in the creation of a vicious killer. As for Thorntuft, the intention was not that he has remarkable control when he "wolfs out." He has remarkable control at all times. It is the nature of the werewolf to crave bloodshed. Thorntuft has fought that urge all his life. He's not the only one, and he's not the greatest in the world. But he is one of a handful, certainly the minority among werewolves as a whole. Again, my apologies for commenting, and I hope that I can make my Will save to resist commenting again (DC 15 + the number of times I've posted on this thread). I would certainly like to hear other people's thoughts on the matter, and if Thorntuft is at the heart of the issue or if it's larger than that. |
| Sarlax12-21-04, 11:41 PM | Motorfirebox and Phantarch have hit it on the head. Lycanthropy is called a curse for a reason. I compared them to demons and vampires. An outsider (in my opinion) is in many ways the embodiment of an idea. I agree here. A vampire is driven by the negative energy that sustains it. This will not necessarily instantly alter alignment, but it is a constant corrupting presence. Likewise, this is how I see vampires in Eberron. In other games, vampires are just automatically driven to evil, the negative energy causing a snap conversion. In Eberron, with a more nuanced view of alignments, it strikes me that vampires ought to be driven to evil as you describe. A lycanthrope is shaped by the curse. The alignment change is only part of it – its behavior is shaped by its animal persona. I reiterate, even the non-evil lycanthropes suffer a catastrophic change in personality as a result of the curse. A lawful good person who becomes a werebear is a very different person once the curse has fully taken hold (Phantarch does a good job of characterizing it). A wererat child is born shaped by the curse and nothing but the curse. As he grows, it is possible he can fight against the power of the curse, but this would be a constant struggle – and the lycanthrope would have to have a reason to try to change, which few do. This may be a point of disagreement, but what makes a natural lycanthrope cursed? Yes, they are bound to an alignment, but that doesn’t make them any more cursed than a couatl or an archon. By the Monster Manual, all of these creatures are always the alignment in question. Eberron allows for the possibility that a creature can overcome this force that directs its alignment. Nonetheless, this is rare. The common folk will be afraid of vampires, and rightfully so. It's just the case that as an adventurer, you may run into a good vampire – you can't be certain that every vampire is evil. Then, in this regard, there’s no distinction between Eberron and the core. Creatures with “always” alignments can already have exceptions. It’s meaningless to say that in Eberron, alignments are blurred (exampled with evil silver dragons and good vampires in the introduction), then maintain the exact same alignment scheme (regarding frequency of exceptions). The idea that Eberron has blurred alignments only has meaning if 1) there’s more nuance to the alignments (which I am seeing, so no problems here), or 2) there’s a change in the idea that certain creatures are always of a certain alignment. The introduction suggests that the second criterion is met, but this discussion of lycanthropic alignment is a counterproof. Again, saying that exceptions to the listed alignments can exist is no different from what is already core – exceptions to the “always” descriptor are already possible. Here’s the core question to this aspect of the discussion: By saying that Eberron has blurred alignments, does that mean that the frequency of alignments for particular creatures is different? That is, if a creature has the “always lawful evil” descriptor, are exceptions in Eberron still extremely rare, or are exceptions more common that the exceptions already allowed for in the core system? As for the neutral and good lycanthropes: As I've said before, because these people seek to avoid spreading the curse, they will be few in number. Whether or not they’re rare doesn’t affect whether it’s evil to murder them, does it? In fact, since they purposely avoid spreading the curse, isn’t it even more evil to kill them? They deliberately avoid infecting others, stay out of other’s business, and generally keep out of trouble. According to the MM, even neutral lycanthropes "seek remote locations and avoid civilization, but might attack travelers or other folk abroad in the wilderness if the travelers are few in number." So they are still dangerous, and can still spread the curse in this manner. In this sense, they’re certainly dangerous. However, for this part of the discussion, we must distinguish between the “old curse” and the “new curse.” The “old curse” (the 3.0 and previous version of lycanthropy) seems to be that the infected could continue to infect others, so even one careless attack by a weretiger could lead to thousands of people being afflicted by lycanthropy. Clearly, the old curse was dangerous. Somehow after the purge, lycanthropy becomes the “new curse” (3.5 version), in which only natural lycanthropes can pass the affliction to others. This is incredibly safe compared to the original contagion. In fact, it’s probably safer than many mundane diseases: since only natural lycanthropes can spread it, the only danger is of evil lycanthropes (and provoked good or neutral lycanthropes) attacking people three nights of the month. Compared to regular diseases, the death rate will be much lower. One of the arguments that justify the genocide is that the curse was so dangerous that killing off even naturally good creatures was acceptable to prevent its spread. Now that the curse can’t be passed by the infected, is it now more or less “socially evil” to kill off the lycanthropes? Maybe you can argue that it was acceptable the first time around now, but with a new, weaker curse, would it still be tolerable? Speaking of this, how did the curse change anyway? As they are few in number, few people understand that they aren't evil. Does that really matter? Genocide fueled by ignorance isn’t good. I can certainly understand the explanation of how this happened in the social context. But how can it be justified in a moral context, especially by a paladin? … and according to the Keeper and cardinals of the period - not Jaela, or any living elder of the church - destroys the soul of the victim. The current Church may be good and pure, but that says nothing about the degree to which evil overtook the past Church in the purge. Anyhow, the elders of the past were quite misinformed, weren’t they? The natural lycanthropes have souls. They are sapient, they can be resurrected, etc. And the afflicted lycanthropes have all the same traits. Not only that, but they can be cured! A paladin would know that a particular lycanthrope isn't evil - but paladins are far and few between, and as noted the paladins would be the ones who WOULD have acted to preserve the innocents. That’s been my exact point the entire time. Paladins can’t accept the destruction of any good lycanthropes, any neutral lycanthropes, and any innocent lycanthropes. And they can’t just be conscientious objectors, either. They must oppose the genocide. So the neutral lycanthropes were a tragic casualty, and perhaps if the templars had a copy of the Monster Manual they'd have tried harder to find an alternative. But nonetheless, they are capable of spreading the affliction or killing innocents, and performing acts the original bearer never would. Tragic casualty? That characterization might be fine for a Great Leap Forward or for imperialist war, but it can’t possibly justify the murder, not in a moral way. And I'll say again that in my view of the world, afflicted lycanthropes could spread the curse until its power was broken by the purge. What caused that change? How did the curse “break” and become the new curse? [quote]The other major issue here is the view of both numbers and civilization of natural lycanthropes. A lot of people seem to have this view of peaceful werewolf (or wereboar) villages. I don't, and didn't when I created the idea of the purge in the first place. I hadn’t really considered population. I see how it can affect the implications on the social level, but it doesn’t change anything about the moral weight of the act. Killing one wearbear who lives off in the mountains by himself is evil, just as it’s evil to kill a off a werebear metropolis, if such a thing could ever exist. I'll say again: The point of the purge is to show that it is possible for an organization that seeks to serve the greater good to perform a brutal and horrible act. The end result of the purge was to break the power of a curse that could destroy people's lives - but in the modern day, only the puritans take any pride in how it was done. So my only point is that it is a mistake to assume that all followers of the Flame are brutal zealots who would perform this sort of slaughter at a moment's notice. The Church is a force that can do this sort of thing - but it also does do a great deal of good in the world, without this level of brutality. I’ve never had such a perception of the Church. If it were this kind of entity, how could it possibly attract paladins? But for whatever reason, years ago, the Church became pervaded enough with evil that it carried out this terrible act that was mixed with pursuit of utilitarian good. And the paladins of the Silver Flame are the least likely to do this sort of thing: the paladin is supposed to show compassion whenever possible, not to be a remorseless killing machine. Not only are paladins the least likely to do this, they can’t do it. Rather, they can do it only once. Then they fall and are no longer paladins. They can’t get away with a single evil act. Ultimately, the Church of the Silver Flame comes back to gray alignments: it's possible to do evil in an attempt to do good. To summarize my own view, I never believed that the Church is presently an evil organization. I believe that it’s predominantly filled with good people who do good works. It certainly has its bad apples now and again, but even they are likely to turn their malice to a greater purpose. My objections are not over the present Church. They are to 1) the idea that paladins can participate in or even allow the killing of innocents, and 2) that killing innocents is ever a moral good, no matter what level of social good it can produce. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 01:25 AM | (Fails will save) (Excellent points, BTW) This may be a point of disagreement, but what makes a natural lycanthrope cursed? Yes, they are bound to an alignment, but that doesn’t make them any more cursed than a couatl or an archon. What makes them different? The couatl can't bite you and alter your personality. The lycanthrope can, and what it transmits to you is called a curse. On a more philosophical level, I don't think that the archon is driven to an alignment; it simply is the embodiment of a principle. When it falls - which is rare - it falls completely. A radiant idol is not plagued by a constant desire to do good. But a werewolf is plagued by the desire to do evil. A werwolf is a mortal whose behavior is being influenced by a magical force; an outsider is a magical force. Then, in this regard, there’s no distinction between Eberron and the core. Creatures with “always” alignments can already have exceptions. It’s meaningless to say that in Eberron, alignments are blurred (exampled with evil silver dragons and good vampires in the introduction), then maintain the exact same alignment scheme (regarding frequency of exceptions). Some have more exceptions than others. Personally, I don't see dragons have any predisposition towards an alignment whatsoever - so in dealing with a silver dragon, you can't have any expectations. Outsiders, lycanthropes, and negatively-charged undead are the three examples I can think of intelligent creatures that are strongly predisposed towards an alignment - in all cases because of the influence of magic. Outsiders are magic, and undead and lycanthropes are influenced by magic. In most other cases, I'd even be inclined to pull out "usually" alignments. Orcs aren't any more likely to be chaotic evil than humans are, and centaurs aren't usually neutral good. Speaking of this, how did the curse change anyway?... What caused that change? How did the curse “break” and become the new curse? I'd say something like this: Lycanthropy is the creation of the rakshasa rajah Bashalaera, a fiend with powers over the animal domain. Long ago, Bashalaera managed to reach beyond his bonds to infect mortals with his curse, causing them to succumb to murderous instincts - though a few noble souls were able to resist his influence and became the non-evil lycanthropes. As the lycanthropes spread the curse among the population, they also increased the power of the curse and the power of the rajah; in time, this would have allowed the rajah to break the bonds of the Flame. When it identified the source of the corruption, the church attacked it on two levels. The templars killed the lycanthropes themselves, and each death weakened Bashalaera and the power of his curse. The priests used prayer and faith to strengthen the bonds binding the rajah, isolating his ability to touch the world and further weakening the curse. For now, with so few lycanthropes in the world, those that are created are weaker. But if their numbers grew again, Bashalaera would gain greater strength, and the power of the curse would grow; eventually, afflicted lycanthropes would have the powers to match natural lycanthropes (and the powers of natural lycanthropes might be greater still). This is why the church fought even the non-evil lycanthropes - willing or not, knowingly or not, by their very existence they strengthened the curse. In fact, it’s probably safer than many mundane diseases: since only natural lycanthropes can spread it, the only danger is of evil lycanthropes (and provoked good or neutral lycanthropes) attacking people three nights of the month. Compared to regular diseases, the death rate will be much lower. You're forgetting the twelve moons. At a quick check, it's more like 19 nights out of the month. And that's not counting the influence on the involuntary lycanthrope. I maintain that the wererat who has adopted the alignment of the rat does not just do nasty things as a rat: the change of alignment represents that personality becoming dominant in all forms, driving that person to despicable acts of evil in all forms. Whether or not they’re rare doesn’t affect whether it’s evil to murder them, does it? In fact, since they purposely avoid spreading the curse, isn’t it even more evil to kill them? Absolutely. But it affects whether or not people even know of their existence, and therefore know that they aren't evil. Again, without the paladin on hand, most templars wouldn't be able to make this distinction - and if the paladin was on hand, he'd do something about it. But I'll also argue that in Eberron, a neutral person can still kill someone. Just because you aren't "evil" doesn't mean that you can't do evil. And following the story above, they pose a danger just by existing - though in very small numbers they do not present this threat, so perhaps that werebear paladin could receive the blessing of the Church. Does that really matter? Genocide fueled by ignorance isn’t good. No one said it was. Again, while they feel the elimination of lycanthropy was a noble goal, to many followers of the Flame the purge is the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. It's not a point of pride, and not something anyone (except overzealous puritans) would say WAS good. I can certainly understand the explanation of how this happened in the social context. But how can it be justified in a moral context, especially by a paladin? First off, the paladin would try to protect the innocent, as has been said time and time again. But, there is the case of protecting the greater number of innocents from the threat a wild wereboar may pose to them... and then there's the idea of needing to eliminate lycanthropes to break the power of the curse itself. Bear in mind also that paladins go where the cardinals send them; and after the first incident, the cardinals would make sure to send the paladins to deal with infestations of wererats and werewolf packs, not hunting for werebears. The current Church may be good and pure, but that says nothing about the degree to which evil overtook the past Church in the purge. Absolutely - or the degree to which evil could overtake it in the future. I'm not even saying that it is pure and good; corruption is a serious concern. But it's a concern to Jaela and many of the cardinals. It's something they are trying to address. So it's not that it's pure and good - it's that it's a force that can do great evil and great good, potentially doing one when trying to do the other. Anyhow, the elders of the past were quite misinformed, weren’t they? The natural lycanthropes have souls. They are sapient, they can be resurrected, etc. And the afflicted lycanthropes have all the same traits. Not only that, but they can be cured! Yes, they were. But bear in mind that the use of resurrection/raise magic is very rare in Eberron. Further, the statement was not that they didn't have souls - but that the curse destroyed the original soul, that what was left was forever tainted by Bashalaera. Thus, they believed in curing victims who had not yet given into the curse - but they felt that once the personality of the beast had infected the human form (the permanent alignment shift) - it was too late to save the victim. But, that's not an assumption that Jaela would make. That’s been my exact point the entire time. Paladins can’t accept the destruction of any good lycanthropes, any neutral lycanthropes, and any innocent lycanthropes. I disagree with you here, especially in regards to neutral. Much evil in the world is done by neutral people - and a paladin can't detect the difference between neutral and good, anyway. In my opinion, it is actions that count. In war, a neutral man in the opposing army may slaughter your children; it's an act of war, not something he would consider doing in a time of peace. But the paladin would certainly be justified in kiling him to protect the innocent. And again, there is the question of the damage one innocent may cause to a greater number of other innocents. Furthermore, there's the paladin's view of innocence, as defined by his belief system. But this is really a matter of personal preference for running paladins, and I'm sure that we could argue it until the end of time. I believe that paladins did try to protect innocent lycanthropes when possible, and that this may have been largely responsible for the continued existence of lycanthropes in the present day. But they also fought at the forefront against the evil lycanthropes who made up the greater part of the population. Not only are paladins the least likely to do this, they can’t do it. Rather, they can do it only once. Then they fall and are no longer paladins. They can’t get away with a single evil act. Until, of course, a priest casts atonement on their behalf - and needless to say, if they were following the orders of the church, this wouldn't be a difficult thing to come by. This wouldn't change the remorse of the paladin, and some might abandon the church instead - but it's not truly a "one strike and you're out" situation. My objections are not over the present Church. They are to 1) the idea that paladins can participate in or even allow the killing of innocents... It's all a matter of how broadly you define innocence. You clearly define it very broadly, and I respect that. I also believe that paladins should be held to a higher stadnard than others - but it seems I'm not as strict as you. and 2) that killing innocents is ever a moral good, no matter what level of social good it can produce. Certainly. The killing of innocents is never a moral good. It can be justified, but such justification will never make it a good act. Sometimes, however, it may be a necessary evil in the service of the greater good. Again, this does not change the fact that it is evil - but it may be something that an organization that generally tries to do good (not made up of people of as high moral virtue as paladins) feels that it has to do. We're also still on different pages with the characterization of it as genocide. It's a collection of people afflicted by a curse, the majority of which are compelled to do evil. It's not a recognizable ethnic group or a group with a culture or civilization of its own. It was an attempt to eliminate a curse from existence. They'd like to do the same thing to vampirism if they could - would the destruction of vampires (who can also be of any humanoid race, and who can be afflicted against their will) be genocide? But I will again state that in the present day, it would be far more common for the church to attempt to cure a lycanthrope it discovers, resorting to slaughter only if a cure is not an option; if you're facing a dozen members of the Dark Pack, survival will be the first concern. Likewise, I'd say that if in general a lycanthrope is presenting a clear threat and has already killed multiple people, killing it might be the first step. However, when dealing with a single lycanthrope that has not killed and seems to be trying to fight the curse, a good-aligned templar - and certainly a paladin - would probably try to take the victim alive and attempt to have him cured. Natural lycanthropes present a greater difficulty, since they can't be cured and can still spread the curse; death or imprisonment may be the only options, unless the church is somehow absolutely convinced the lycanthrope in question will not spread the curse. |
| krappleby12-22-04, 02:00 AM | Hi again all, Ive started a war here :) Ok.. Keith, i think you definately need to find something magical to help with your will saves.. ok.. so i want to mention something else here.. Eberron is a world where alignments are not what they seem, Ie silverdragon (evil) red dragon (good) etc.. SO.. here is the clincher PALADIN (????) cheers |
| Just another user12-22-04, 03:41 AM | This is a bit of a step back from one of the setting's core themes, isn't it? If good vampires might be running around, why not good werewolves? I certainly buy the idea that lycanthopy (which the 2E Monstrous Manual says is better named "therianthropy") can push victims to a particular alignment. But is it really that much stronger than vampirism? In my opinion, yes. Vampire turn evil because they need to drink human blood to "survive", I think is inevitable that they start to turn evil, even just if in the "Put your interest before other's" sense (that's also why I've serious problems when someone mention the possibilty of a good mind flayer, for example), but if a vampire can find ways to feed without seriously hurt anybody, then it is posible for him not to turn evil, or, less probably, even stay good. Werewolves, OTOH, turn evil because that is the effect of their curse, that turn them in blood-thirsty killers. |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 06:00 AM | I think that many things are being revealed as points of philosophical disagreements at this stage of the discussion, and I’ll try to avoid excessively beating at those. I’ll touch on other things. In most other cases, I'd even be inclined to pull out "usually" alignments. Orcs aren't any more likely to be chaotic evil than humans are, and centaurs aren't usually neutral good. This is what I got from the setting’s original text, and I assumed that it would tend to apply across the board to creatures that didn’t specifically natural features that drove them to particular alignments. For instance, I see no reason to make vampires automatically turn evil. If you start them at their original alignment, the secondary effects of their new identity should gradually turn them. The need to drink blood, the permanent crippling of those they feed upon, the ease with which they can control mortals, and their agelessness – all of these things could rapidly turn a normal person evil, with no need to invoke a supernatural compulsion to do evil. Few people could maintain a moral character as a vampire, not unless they were remarkably strict with their diet and their powers. Or if they destroyed themselves. Given the language of the ECS, I developed that kind of perception and applied it to lycanthropes as well. The need to feed on freshly killed meat while being overwhelmed with animal instinct, the incredible strength that comes, and the rush of adrenalin that comes with the power all could accelerate a path to evil. Lycanthropy is the creation of the rakshasa rajah Bashalaera, a fiend with powers over the animal domain. This is certainly an interesting origin story for lycanthropy. If it’s accurate and if the Church was aware of its veracity, then it puts the purge into an entirely different light on the social scale. But even then, it doesn’t excuse the selection of expedient killing over difficult curing. You're forgetting the twelve moons. At a quick check, it's more like 19 nights out of the month. Is that how it works? Hrm. I seem to remember reading in one thread of yours that lycanthropes only changed in response to one moon, not every moon every time its full. But I'll also argue that in Eberron, a neutral person can still kill someone. Just because you aren't "evil" doesn't mean that you can't do evil. Oh, I’m sure neutrals can kill. But how many times can you commit an evil killing before you’re actually evil? And following the story above, they pose a danger just by existing - though in very small numbers they do not present this threat, so perhaps that werebear paladin could receive the blessing of the Church. If this happened, then the actions of the Silver Flame can again be somewhat mitigated. If they take in the good and innocent lycanthropes, then wiping out the rest isn’t nearly so terrible. The next two statements need to be connected, so a bit of snipping is involved: Yes, they were. But bear in mind that the use of resurrection/raise magic is very rare in Eberron. Further, the statement was not that they didn't have souls - but that the curse destroyed the original soul, that what was left was forever tainted by Bashalaera. … Until, of course, a priest casts atonement on their behalf - and needless to say, if they were following the orders of the church, this wouldn't be a difficult thing to come by. Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no cost in experience points. Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. The Church was casting atonements to save paladins at 500 XP a pop to redeem them. If the Church has the power to cast Atonement (5th level) for this purpose, why couldn’t it have provided the afflicted lycanthropes with Remove Curse (3rd), then patch them up with an Atonement? If the Church is capable of providing atonements to fallen paladins, it certainly ought to be able to produce the low-level Remove Curse followed up with an XP-free Atonement. While the Church’s dogma of the time may have been that the afflicted were forever tainted, that’s not the case. They were only 2 spells away from redemption. While Remove Curse isn’t always successful, isn’t it worth a shot? The Church could have even picked up a Cloak of Resistance to boost the Will saves of the lycanthropes when they made the save to break the curse. It's all a matter of how broadly you define innocence. You clearly define it very broadly, and I respect that. I also believe that paladins should be held to a higher stadnard than others - but it seems I'm not as strict as you. To my knowledge, I’m going only from the text. If a paladin commits an evil act, he falls. He doesn’t have any room. If he ever kills an innocent being or does not try to prevent it, he’s committed an evil act. We're also still on different pages with the characterization of it as genocide. It's a collection of people afflicted by a curse, the majority of which are compelled to do evil. That’s only true of the lycanthropes which were infected. The rest are complete creatures – they’ve been shapechangers throughout their lives. If the evil types (werewolves, wererats, etc.) are almost entirely evil, then I see little harm in wiping them out. It’s the killing of the neutral and good types that pose the moral issue. |
| Just another user12-22-04, 07:18 AM | Keith, i think you definately need to find something magical to help with your will saves.. cheers I don't know how many level of Game designer have Keith, but he have for sure many levels of Gamer, and is notorious that the Gamer class have a almost negative Will save progression (Just look what happen any time a new D&D supplement come out. ;) |
| Just another user12-22-04, 07:24 AM | Is that how it works? Hrm. I seem to remember reading in one thread of yours that lycanthropes only changed in response to one moon, not every moon every time its full. Yes, but different lycantropes follows differents moons, this means there are 19 potentially dangerous nights every month. |
| Ramius_Mordale12-22-04, 08:31 AM | Well not that I'm sorry to see wererats get persecuted they used to be (at least from what I recall from 3.0 and 2nd Edition) that they used to be Chaotic Neutral, but I know, I know they are evil in 3.5 so I'll move on. To the real matter on hand, I think what Keith is trying to get at is that back when the Church of the Silver Flame did this is when they would have been in their Reniessance/Enlightment period of their world. In our world (if you use our history) people really did think bereskers were monsters and not men. If you have ever watched The 13th Warrior movie (it's based off of Beowulf if you need that reference) this Norse village somewhere in Germania is being assaulted by these "monsters" and feasted on men. Well eventually they got lucky and found out that these people were just humans dressed in animal skins and cannibalistic (sp?). I guess, what I'm trying to say is that people of the Church literally thought they were fighting a war against evil therefore, a paladin is resolved of his sins if he doesn't know what he is doing isn't for good, even if the creature is good. A paladin can still fight in wars against good people against foreign powers. Heck that's what the Last War was all about (well started out). Some people just got greedy and wanted the crown. Doesn't mean they were evil for wanting the crown, but its just human nature and look at what it got them. One land completely destroyed by magic, more demonic influences, the Inspired beginning to silently invade Khorvaire, and of course, the Houses still playing their pawns to gain the most advantage over the others all while staying completely "neutral". Now Sarlax, what I think you are getting at is what happened in the Colonial Powers/United States history of events with the Native Americans. The society called the Native Americans evil savages to justify killing them and taking their land from them. Granted not all wanted to see Native Americans dead but at the time people didn't really see them as human nor cared what had to be done to get rid of them. Needless to say it wasn't a proud moment for any country involved with the Americas. And many people did stand up against these insitutions coming to colonize the Americas and mistreating these peaceful people. Granted after the Native Americans knew the outside powers could not be appeased they fought back with avengence but both sides saw the other as evil eventually. Which is what happened in the Last War in Eberron. Not everyone saw the people as evil but once it came clear that neither was yielding tempers grew into rage, and when a society shares that mentality it doesn't listen to reason or common sense arguments. Maybe that's why the Church did what it did. Zealots controlled the majority of the upper ranks, the Lycanthropes went on a killing spree for a couple of years in a row just as an abnormal behavior, which caused the people to demand something be done about it. The Church took advantage of the situation and stopped the corruption of the "souls" of people of this curse. And they spinned propaganda to their Paladins that they were the evil scourge that would harm all they swore to protect. Now granted, a paladin could wise up to this and say, "Hey, this perticular lycanthrope isn't trying to kill anyone or hurt anyone. Heck, he seems to be a nice guy even in his hybrid form before me, while he is serving me tea and biskets." Then your right he would have to rethink things, which is why maybe some of the paladins started to help save these people or find alternate ways of treating the curse in general. Maybe they started speaking up and challenging the Church authorities and petitioned the end of the "Purge" seeing it as not needed anymore with so few of them left. It was simply not justified to kill anymore innocent to prevent the evil and maybe the paladins of the Flame decided to root out the corruption of the Church that had taken advantage of people's sympathies. I'm sure maybe innocent true lycanthropes got killed in the Purge, but as Keith has said it's a dark part of the history of the Church, when zealots and people drunk with power and ignorance of precieved righteousness reigned surpreme. It happens and good people, even the ones with the strongest moral fiber, can still be manipulated by the forces of evil to do it's bidding. Not even paladins are above falling to ignorance and become discompassionate in dark times. They are mortal, not immortal or beyond corruption. But just because they do something questionable, like killing an adult lycanthrope, that isn't doing anything wrong but just being a lycanthrope near an area that recently had some maulings (whether the werebeast did it or not) still wouldn't have to atone for the act if he actually believe the creature would harm the innocent. Now with the true lycanthrope baby, I disagree with Keith on that point. Even if he couldn't cure the baby of its true heritage of being a lycanthrope, I think he would allow the baby to grow and try to wheen it to be good, and to give it the chance of the choice of choosing to follow its instincts or following its knew found knowledge of what it is to be a good creature. A paladin wouldn't kill a baby, even if it was a vile demon baby with horns and radiating evil. Regardless of it will grow up to it still has the choice to follow its instincts or develop into a good creature if it is raised in that atomsphere, no matter how slim. Now why I know I'm playing devil's advocate here and I promise you I'm no lawyer (haha, okay sorry if I hurt your feelings lawyers, but you are all cursed! :P You must be smote to save your souls! haha, but I kid. :D ) I do agree with your reasons, Sarlax, of being strict with the paladin, but I'm more in the middle of both yours and Keith's examples of paladins. I'm the moderate here! Okay, that was just stupid, now I go atone for breaking my Code of Conduct for making a bad joke that made absolutely no sense. But enough of me trying (and failing) to be funny. I'm glad to hear someone takes playing a paladin seriously and not your typcial zealot-with-a-righteous-arrogant-strict-boarding-on-being-a-super-jerk (please insert your curse word to replace jerk if you so wish). I think I agree with a little bit of what both of you have stated though some I disagree with on some points, but few. I really can't give any better arguments then either one of you have given, but I just thought I'd let my voice heard plus it's been actually pretty entraining to read. And I think it gave me some ideas for character concepts in the future if I ever play a paladin or a member of the faith from the Silver Flame. Anyways, that's my two golds worth now pass me a mug of ale while I watch how this unfolds. :whatsthis :pint: |
| Romulus LoneWolf12-22-04, 10:06 AM | I had a different idea for the whole Lycanthrope/Silver Flame deal, inspired by Exalted's Lunars. What if Weres, instead of having set alignments, had a tendancy towards Chaos, and towards acting like their animal forms rather then as humanoids? The Weres, while not actually Evil for evil's sakes like the Rakshasas, would be savage and predatory, and might do some barbarian-style raiding of civilized villages in a regular cycle. As for the Werefolk themselves, I would see werewolves, werebears and weretigers as popular options, but I'd also see many more varieties: werehawks, werebats, werestags... Maybe even wererabbits, all of whom would've been near-decimated and reduced to small, scattered populations living in hiding... ...And swearing vengance on the Church of the Silver Flame for the slaughter. If I run an Eberron campaign, I'll probably alter the concept of Shifters, making them more into anthropomorphs in appearance, while keeping the standard mechanics. The Longstride Shifter trait would be good for Rabbit or Horse-like Shifters, for exemple. I might, however, add more Shifter Traits, along with optional Feats allowing for extra abilities, or even Savage Species templates like Feral, Reptilian or Winged, for special varieties of Shifters... |
| Kid SixXx12-22-04, 10:10 AM | This is what I got from the setting’s original text, and I assumed that it would tend to apply across the board to creatures that didn’t specifically natural features that drove them to particular alignments. For instance, I see no reason to make vampires automatically turn evil. If you start them at their original alignment, the secondary effects of their new identity should gradually turn them. The need to drink blood, the permanent crippling of those they feed upon, the ease with which they can control mortals, and their agelessness – all of these things could rapidly turn a normal person evil, with no need to invoke a supernatural compulsion to do evil. Few people could maintain a moral character as a vampire, not unless they were remarkably strict with their diet and their powers. Or if they destroyed themselves. Very well said. In popular culture there is sentiment to romanticize vampires, and arguably it all began with the writing of Dracula so long ago. The old folklore does not describe vampires in such romantic terms: they reek of death and feed on the blood of innocents. Arguably you could say that a vampire's abilities are not necessarily evil, but are merely in line with it's predatory nature to capture the beings it needs for prey, namely humans. Vampires are able to manipulate humans easily because few people would probably be willing to succumb to it's feeding, and a vampire needs those abilities in order to survive. The evil that vampires are associated with are most likely derived from your observations, as they are the same ideals I've also read about. Vampires view their victims as potential prey and little else, & some are sadistic enough to draw pleasure from the lives they destroy in the process of feeding. Given the language of the ECS, I developed that kind of perception and applied it to lycanthropes as well. The need to feed on freshly killed meat while being overwhelmed with animal instinct, the incredible strength that comes, and the rush of adrenalin that comes with the power all could accelerate a path to evil. ECS not withstanding, the thing about it is that werewolf folklore has nothing to do with the examination of animal instinct. Werewolves are not natural creatures and the bestial manifestation represents blood lust more than anything else. Werewolves do not become animals when the full moon shines: they become killers. This is certainly an interesting origin story for lycanthropy. If it’s accurate and if the Church was aware of its veracity, then it puts the purge into an entirely different light on the social scale. But even then, it doesn’t excuse the selection of expedient killing over difficult curing. There is an old Korean addage that you cannot save the drowning man that keeps diving to retrieve his change purse. Expedient killing had to be done because not all lycanthropes are willing to be freed from their curse, especially the evil ones. Some lycanthropes enjoy the "strength" that comes with the curse, and are just as ruthless and predatory as any vampire. Also, it's probably likely the the prevailing notion was that since the "cure" had more of a chance to fail than succeed, the only sure way to keep the curse from spreading would be to kill the lycanthropes. The exception would be good or neutral lycanthropes that actually wished to be cured, or kept to their own communities and did not spread the curse. As you said, that's no excuse for not trying, but we're all looking at this from a metagame perspective and not as insiders in the Church at that time. Matters like that take on a whole new meaning when you're personally involved in them. Is that how it works? Hrm. I seem to remember reading in one thread of yours that lycanthropes only changed in response to one moon, not every moon every time its full. Eberron lycanthrope is similar to that of the RPG Morrowind w/ the Bloodmoon EP enabled. Eberron has 19 moons, so most likely the different moons have some type of effect on the curse. In the game, Morrowind, the planet had two moons: one was normal and one was red in color. You would change into a werewolf if either moon were full, but supposedly you were a stronger werewolf if the red moon were full. If both moons were full, all bets were off. Oh, I’m sure neutrals can kill. But how many times can you commit an evil killing before you’re actually evil? Being Chaotic Neutral means never having to say that you're sorry - Old D&D saying. If the Church has the power to cast Atonement (5th level) for this purpose, why couldn’t it have provided the afflicted lycanthropes with Remove Curse (3rd), then patch them up with an Atonement? I'll have to take a look at the new rules for Remove Curse (3.5). I don't recall lycanthrope being affected by the spell. There are certain special curses the spell does not affect and IIRC lycanthrope is one of them. If it were so easy to remove the curse with that spell, there would have been no purges, yes? The dogma of the SF church is the clensing of the soul and the thwarting of supernatural evil, not the wanton slaughter of innocent beings. If defeating the curse was as easy as praying for a ranged attack version of Remove Curse and repeatedly casting it on lycanthropes, I'd have imagined that they'd have taken that option, as it would be a win-win situation. Those lycanthropes that reveled in the curse would no longer be a threat, as the curse would be lifted whether they wanted it to be or not, & the evil lycanthropes could no longer spread the curse to others. Those lycanthropes that wanted to be cured would be cured, and possibly grateful to the church to the point of becoming part of it's worshipping body. Since this avenue did not appear, it was not an available avenue, hence the church & it's members did what it felt necessary to stay faithful to it's teachings. The aim of the church in the Purges was to combat lycanthrope itself, not lycanthropes as living beings. I would think that if the organzation which arguably contains the most talented exorcists on the planet has a tough time breaking a curse, chances are its a very powerful curse, and I would also think they'd have had the sense to explore the exorcism-related options before pursuing a military campaign. That’s only true of the lycanthropes which were infected. The rest are complete creatures – they’ve been shapechangers throughout their lives. If the evil types (werewolves, wererats, etc.) are almost entirely evil, then I see little harm in wiping them out. It’s the killing of the neutral and good types that pose the moral issue. I'll have to disagree here, as werewolves are not complete creatures or a race unto themselves, IMO. The fact that some are born shapechangers is a testament to the power of the curse, and not natural ability. By your logic, I can make a case that heroin addicts or AIDS sufferers are a race unto themselves because they can transmit their condition along to their children, and we both know that logic is flawed. You cannot cure a human so that it is no longer a human, but you can cure a naturally-born lycanthrope so that it is no longer a lycanthrope. The only exception would be the Shifters whom are so tied to their were heritage that they're no longer attached to their original humanoid stock. Whatever they're decended from no longer enters the equation. The evidence of the curse trancending generations via natural birth is not an argument to make lycanthropes their own race, it merely means that curse is extremely pervasive, which makes the reasons for the Purges all that more clearer, and also brings light to the reasons why spells like Remove Curse were either not used, or were used and proved to be ineffective. If a curse can survive generations, then an on-the-spot casting of RC would be like peppering a tank with spitwads. One spell cannot hope to break a curse that strong. You'd need something either much stronger & more permanent, and the church chose silvered weapons which proved to be effective, unlike the uncertainty of curative magic, and the uncertainty of whether or not you could convince a lycanthrope to subit to such curative magic. In your assumption that curative magic would acutally work, as I said earlier, you're also assuming that lycanthropes universally want to be cured, and this might not be the case, despite of the alignment of the lycanthrope. Some lycanthropes (especially the evil ones) might actually enjoy the curse, and your neutral and good lycanthropes might have already run the gambit of trying to find a cure only to be foiled at every attempt (and therefore "live" with the curse), or simply have heard tales of how difficult a cure was and not even bothered with it. The only thing that is guaranteed to work is silver. |
| PsionicMonk12-22-04, 10:23 AM | Lycans in Eberron are pretty much taboo, but thats what the half Lycanth is all about, you can then say that Lycan's are a valid race cause the curse can not be spered by them |
| motorfirebox12-22-04, 11:08 AM | Paladins can’t accept the destruction of any good lycanthropes, any neutral lycanthropes, and any innocent lycanthropes. And they can’t just be conscientious objectors, either. They must oppose the genocide. i disagree with this on two counts. first: in Eberron, not all paladins hold to the same ethical code. what is evil to one paladin might be right and good (if distastful) to another. to a paladin of the SF, the curse of lycanthropy is evil, and it is a source of evil that must be destroyed. there is no Good, in Eberron, no overarching set of moral and ethical values against which one's actions can be judged. there is only what this person or that person believes to be good--paladins included. second: it's not genocide. lycanthropes are not a race, the way dwarves are a race or croats are a race. they are, at best, diseased; at worst, and in the view of the Church of the SF, they're inheritors and progenitors of an evil that no ordinary man can hope to stand against. even good werecreatures spread what the SF sees as an evil curse (despite the fact that good werecreatures tend to avoid spreading it, it's obvious that they do spread it, however infrequently; if they didn't, there wouldn't be any left). sarlax, you're also assuming that paladins and the good members of the SF know as much about lycanthropy as you do. some of the more experienced SF templars and paladins might know that werebears and wereboars are 'good', but a 1st-level paladin, freshly inducted into the SF? all he knows is what he's been told. and what he's been told is that some lycanthropes might not be, personally, evil--but all lycanthropes have evil in them. and that evil has to be stopped. Lycans in Eberron are pretty much taboo, but thats what the half Lycanth... which begs the question: are you a Lycan, or a Lycan't? |
| phantarch12-22-04, 12:12 PM | I'd like to start of this post by stating that what is written isn't necessarily my views, but are attempts to look at all of the possibilities in this situation. I think that motorfire box has a great point with Paladins and morality in Eberron (and others have made similar points, as well). Eberron has blurred morality, which is what started this whole discussion as it affects lycanthropes, but we do have to consider how it affects Paladins. Without an objective morality, I don't think that a paladin who thought he was doing everything right and good is going to wake up and suddenly go, "huh, that's wierd. I don't have any powers anymore." Remember, divine magic in eberron is NOT given directly from the gods, but instead is believed to stem from faith. If a Paladin's faith has remained unshaken, and in his view his oaths have not been broken, he will most likely retain his powers. Another issue that I think is going on here is a very Western, and specifically American, view of morality is being applied to the situation. As a nation born of rebels and individualists, we have applied these concepts to Good. In our movies and literature, we glorify the individualist who would fight against all odds just to survive. Througout history and in other cultures, this is not what is necessarily viewed as good. It is entirely possible to hold the "greater good" over the rights of the individual, if this is the pervasive thought of a society. It could be considered that if one were a lycanthrope, they would have an inherent obligation to turn themselves over to authority, hopefully for rehabilitation. If they do not do this, they are a criminal, and are willfully endangering society, which would be an evil act. Another possibility, as I mentioned in a previous post, that this is a matter of salvation. As is the case in a number of non-DnD werewolf and vampire myths, often it was viewed as duty to kill a loved one once they were cursed as such. This was done not only to protect society, but for the GOOD of the individual who was cursed. With the possibility of a soul being so corrupted, death could have been viewed as the only means of salvation for the individual, the only way to be freed from the curse. In short, a number of modern concepts are widely accepted as inherently good, which are far more cultural than we would like to admit. Concepts such as individual rights, "live and let live", survivalism, and so on are not necessarily inherently good. So, in answer to the question that seem to be the core concepts for this thread... Could a paladin have participated in the purge? Yes, depending on how you define good, and so long as the paladin's faith did not come into question. I could easily see two different paladins in the same situation going two different ways. One could be horrified with what he was doing, and as a result, lose his abilities, and need atonement to continue. The other very easily could believe that he was doing the only possible action in support of good, and walking away unscarred, with full certainty in his faith, and thus retaining his powers. Another interesting point is that it seems that people are saying that no paladin can kill another good person. And yet, in the Last War, I'd be certain to say that there were paladins fighting in a number of factions, probably sometimes fighting another paladin. Both in this case would be fighting for what they believed was the right course, and would most likely be killing good aligned people of the opposing force. All in all, this is proof that Eberron was a great design. Things like the Lycanthrope purge SHOULD cause strong debates and discussion, and morality should be drawn into question in this setting. There is no clear answer to this, especially in the setting. Nothing in the setting says "this was good" or "this was bad". It merely says, "this was". Which allows for more fighting in the future, with both sides believing they are fully in the right. |
| motorfirebox12-22-04, 12:35 PM | the crux of the anti-purge argument is that "paladins can't kill good people". the thing is, that's just not true in Eberron. good people, alignment-wise, can be fooled and misguided into supporting or otherwise advancing evil causes. for instance, there are lots and lots of good-aligned people throughout Eberron who worship the Blood of Vol because they believe that undeath is a way to escape an unfair afterlife. unlike many other settings, having a good alignment is not a get-out-of-being-killed-by-a-paladin-free card. if a bunch of good-aligned commoners who worship the Blood of Vol are guarding the entrance to a temple complex where an evil BoV priest is raising a powerful undead champion, a paladin can (assuming no other course of action is available) hack his way through them without fear of losing his paladinhood. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 01:35 PM | This is what I got from the setting’s original text, and I assumed that it would tend to apply across the board to creatures that didn’t specifically natural features that drove them to particular alignments. And this is where we both agree and disagree. This is exactly what I believe. But I believe that negatively charged undead and lycanthropes both have natural features that drive them towards specific alignments - or more specifically, supernatural features. On Eberron, people don't believe that red dragons are likely to be evil. But they know to be afraid of a werewolf. Again, you can play it however you'd like in your campaign. However, this is my belief, and the belief upon which the concept of the purge and the behavior of the Silver Flame has been based, and it's how you'll see lycanthropes presented in future Eberron material. For instance, I see no reason to make vampires automatically turn evil. So don't! I actually don't either. But to me, it's more than just the need to feed on the blood of living creatures: it is also the corrupting effect of being bound to negative energy. This is a supernatural effect that most natural creatures don't deal with, and it is something that a good vampire would need to fight in addition to taking lives to survive. Again, this is why I place vampires in this category - because there's a supernatural influence at work. Don't agree? Don't do it. But that's the basis of there being more evil vampires in Eberron than good ones, and why the Order of the Emerald Claw is generally an evil organization. I agree that being a vampire could turn a person evil without the need to invoke a supernatural force. I didn't invoke the supernatural force because I felt that it was the only way to justify their being evil. I did it because it's always been what I have believed: that negative energy has a corrupting influence on a human host. Given the language of the ECS, I developed that kind of perception and applied it to lycanthropes as well. The need to feed on freshly killed meat while being overwhelmed with animal instinct, the incredible strength that comes, and the rush of adrenalin that comes with the power all could accelerate a path to evil. So I gather, and I respect it. I'm just saying that it's not the direction I'm taking with them. I'm holding to lycanthropes being inherently unnatural creatures who are driven to a particular form of behavior. In my mind, this comes back to the fact that a werewolf does not have the natural instincts of a wolf, as wolves are neutral like all animals. A werewolf is driven to become a bloodthirtsy killer because it embodies humanities fears of nature. Anyhow, again, this is a philosophical difference and I encourage you to do things your way. But this is how I'll be doing things in the books I work on. This is certainly an interesting origin story for lycanthropy. If it’s accurate and if the Church was aware of its veracity, then it puts the purge into an entirely different light on the social scale. But even then, it doesn’t excuse the selection of expedient killing over difficult curing. I completely agree! Again, that's why the purge is something most members of the modern church are ashamed of, feeling that there was a better way. However, don't forget that they held the (mistaken) belief that once the victim had given into the curse, he couldn't be saved. Mistaken? Sure. An excuse to justify immoral beavhior? Absolutely. But it's the reason for what they did - just as religious beliefs that often seem silly in hindsight have driven humanity to do terrible things throughout our history. How many people today think that we should burn a few witches? And even during the height of the witch-burning era, witches couldn't be proven to be the clear threat that a lycanthrope would be when the moon turned full. Is that how it works? Hrm. I seem to remember reading in one thread of yours that lycanthropes only changed in response to one moon, not every moon every time its full. That was my original suggestion. However, the official, approved-by-WotC answer is that it's every moon. This is found in message 107 of the FAQ. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=287579&page=4) Oh, I’m sure neutrals can kill. But how many times can you commit an evil killing before you’re actually evil? Is killing in wartime evil? Can a paladin fight a neutral enemy soldier without losing his powers, provided that the cause he is fighting for is just? The Church was casting atonements to save paladins at 500 XP a pop to redeem them. If the Church has the power to cast Atonement (5th level) for this purpose, why couldn’t it have provided the afflicted lycanthropes with Remove Curse (3rd), then patch them up with an Atonement? First off, remember that paladins are rare. Provably innocent lycanthropes (since non-evil alignment is not the be-all end-all of innocence in my book) are rare. Thus, paladins encountering provably innocent lycanthropes are very rare. In the majority of those encounters, the paladins acting virtuously, as noted earlier, acting to try to protect the lycanthropes in question, which is where we get our lycantrhopes in Lammania. So the paladins falling from this would be extremely rare, and the church will act to save its champions. Curing, on the other hand, requires capturing the lycanthrope alive and casting remove curse during one of the (admittedly many) nights of the full moon, and the victim making a DC 20 will save. These days, it's what they'd do. But back then, they believed that once the victim had given into the curse it was too late to save him - even if lycanthropy was cured, his soul had been compromised. And bear in mind that with 19 days of forced change per month, and a save of 15 + number of transformations, it would be astonishing for an infected commoner to last even two weeks. While the Church’s dogma of the time may have been that the afflicted were forever tainted, that’s not the case. Actually, I can argue that. The description of lycanthropy states that when the victim finally gives in, his alignment permanently changes. Nothing in the description of curing states that the victim's alignment returns to its previous state - simply that lycanthropy is removed. You can argue that the change in alignment is a side effect of the curse and thus removed by the cure; I can argue that permanent means permanent. It's unclear. If the alignment change does remain, then it would be easy to see why the church elders would believe that the soul had been compromised. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 02:16 PM | Througout history and in other cultures, this is not what is necessarily viewed as good. It is entirely possible to hold the "greater good" over the rights of the individual, if this is the pervasive thought of a society. It could be considered that if one were a lycanthrope, they would have an inherent obligation to turn themselves over to authority, hopefully for rehabilitation. If they do not do this, they are a criminal, and are willfully endangering society, which would be an evil act. The Silver Flame certainly believes that the greater good must come before the rights of the individual, and this is something I tried to put forth in the Dragonshard about the Church. This is one of the things that should make them a frightening force, while still doing good - they accomplish things that help Khorvaire as a whole, but they will make terrible sacrifices to do it. Now, at the moment the puritans are not the dominant force in the church, so as a whole the church will act more rationally: but they will still put the needs of the many over those of the few. And personally, I would think that you're absolutely right here: a person who contracts lycanthropy should seek out aid. If a priest can cure him, they will; if not, he can at least be safely confined so that he cannot harm anyone. Doing otherwise is choosing to put others at risk. Certainly a devoted follower of the Flame should seek to be cured - and if for some reason he couldn't be cured, he would likely choose death over being twisted into a murderous killing machine. Greater good over personal good. Things like the Lycanthrope purge SHOULD cause strong debates and discussion, and morality should be drawn into question in this setting. There is no clear answer to this, especially in the setting. Nothing in the setting says "this was good" or "this was bad". It merely says, "this was". Which allows for more fighting in the future, with both sides believing they are fully in the right. I agree completely. |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 05:10 PM | i disagree with this on two counts. first: in Eberron, not all paladins hold to the same ethical code. what is evil to one paladin might be right and good (if distastful) to another. to a paladin of the SF, the curse of lycanthropy is evil, and it is a source of evil that must be destroyed. there is no Good, in Eberron, no overarching set of moral and ethical values against which one's actions can be judged. there is only what this person or that person believes to be good--paladins included. I can't find this to be accurate at all. At the level of the people of Eberron, this is certainly true. Elves are don't all have the same views. Clerics can disagree about dogma, etc. But if there's "no overarching set of moral and ethical values" in Eberron, why do alignment continue to exist at all? Why are the zakya rakshasa always lawful evil, if there's not really such a thing as lawful evil? To say in the introduction that a silver dragon can be evil if alignment isn't real is meaningless. "This is a chaotic evil silver dragon! He protects the innocent and donates from his hoard to orphanages every weekend." Blurring alignment by changing alignment designation doesn't do anything if it also means arbitrarily changing the actual nature of alignments to reflect whatever an individual believes is right. This goes into a broader discussion of what alignments are and what morality is, but consider this: If alignment is determined by your adherence to your own moral principles, wouldn't a significant majority of people be good? People probably act in accordance with their *own personal ethics* most of the time. Most people don't go through their lives feeling that they're acting in an evil fashion, and evil people are very unlikely to think this way. What we'd consider evil by D&D definitions many people can justify in one way or another by their own personal code. Hence, fluid alignment definitions will make almost everyone individually good or at least neutral. Few people embrace "evil" as a choice. second: it's not genocide. lycanthropes are not a race, the way dwarves are a race or croats are a race. they are, at best, diseased; The natural lycanthropes are not diseased. They can't be cured of lycanthropy because it's their nature. They can perpetuate themselves with simple reproduction - they don't need to infect others to keep existing. sarlax, you're also assuming that paladins and the good members of the SF know as much about lycanthropy as you do. Shouldn't they? Before exterminating an entire category of creatures, the moral burden falls upon the exterminators to learn as much as possible. And as an organization specifically devoted to eliminating supernatural evil, the Church of the Silver Flame ought to be very good at getting this kind of information. It ought to be the continent's leading authority on such creatures. |
| Kid SixXx12-22-04, 05:17 PM | The natural lycanthropes are not diseased. They can't be cured of lycanthropy because it's their nature. They can perpetuate themselves with simple reproduction - they don't need to infect others to keep existing. This statement contradicts itself by the fact that we all know what lycanthropy is. If the offspring were not diseased or cursed, they would not be lycanthropes any longer. Lycanthrope is not a natural occurance, therefore there are no natural lycanthropes. The offspring of lycanthropes are humanoid children who have inherited the curse by birth rather than by being bitten. The "nature" you describe is a societal issue. The children that are born as lycanthropes are taught to cope with the curse under the assumption that it cannot be cured, and a society forms as a result of that. |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 05:38 PM | This thread is powerfully addicting. Is killing in wartime evil? Can a paladin fight a neutral enemy soldier without losing his powers, provided that the cause he is fighting for is just? Well, I did note it as an "evil killing." By that I meant not killing in war generally, but neutral people killing individuals they knew to be good, such as paladins and other "in the know" people of the SF really ought to have known about creatures like werebears. First off, remember that paladins are rare. Provably innocent lycanthropes (since non-evil alignment is not the be-all end-all of innocence in my book) are rare. Thus, paladins encountering provably innocent lycanthropes are very rare. Encountering them? I tend to believe that for good people, the burden is on them to prove that a lycanthrope is guilty of something meriting death, not that the lycanthrope must show itself to be innocent or be obviously innocent to the Flamers who encounter it. Actually, I can argue that. The description of lycanthropy states that when the victim finally gives in, his alignment permanently changes. This connects well to your previous remark about the difficulty of curing, so I'll take them together. First, to curing, shouldn't a good organization take the more difficult route if that's what is more moral action? It certainly wouldn't be easy to capture lycanthropes for curing, and the Remove Curse effect isn't guarenteed (though the SF ought to have Will-boosting options available to it), but that this method is hard doesn't make the killing O.K. Second, to alignments: I specifically quoted the SRD on Atonement because Atonement restores the original alignment to a creature that has suffered a magical alignment change, and there's no XP cost to this - unlike a fallen paladin, for whom the caster would have had to pay 500 XP. Once a person is cured of lycanthropy, it's a simple matter for the Church to cast Atonement to bring the person back around. The Church, with a spell, can instantly restore a person back to their original state. Hence, the taint to one's soul isn't permanent, at least not for a Church willing to help. I know that the Church isn't likely to be loaded with 9th level clerics, but they could have produced scrolls, staffs, etc. with these effect to spread the burden of casting around a bit. Another issue: How many lycanthropes are we talking? It's been said several times that they didn't exist in huge numbers and that with the exception of wererats, they didn't even really have the numbers to become even sub-communities. If the lycanthropes existed in small numbers, what made a wide-spread effort to cure them so unfeasible? A final question (for this leg of the discussion): Given the possible rakshasa origin story, why create good lycanthropes like werebears? |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 05:44 PM | If the offspring were not diseased or cursed, they would not be lycanthropes any longer. Lycanthrope is not a natural occurance, therefore there are no natural lycanthropes. The offspring of lycanthropes are humanoid children who have inherited the curse by birth rather than by being bitten. Afflicted lycanthropes find this ability difficult to control (see Lycanthropy as an Affliction, below), but natural lycanthropes have full control over this power. Lycanthropy can be spread like a disease. Sometimes a lycanthrope begins life as a normal humanoid or giant who subsequently contracts lycanthropy after being wounded by a lycanthrope. Such a creature is called an afflicted lycanthrope. Other lycanthropes are born as lycanthropes, and are known as natural lycanthropes. Only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured of lycanthropy. There are natural lycanthropes. They are the lycanthropes who are born with these abilities. They have full control over their power. They don't change form when the moon(s) are full unless it's exactly what they want. The natural lycanthropes aren't cursed. This is who they are and they can't be anything else. The afflicted are cursed, but they can be cured. |
| motorfirebox12-22-04, 05:52 PM | But if there's "no overarching set of moral and ethical values" in Eberron, why do alignment continue to exist at all? okay, i misspoke here. what i meant to say was, there's no cohesive, single set of overarching moral and ethical values. there are actions and attitudes that are clearly 'good', and there are actions and attitudes that are clearly 'evil'. but there isn't a solid line between good and evil (or between good/neutral and evil/neutral), and one one moral/ethical code might allow a follower to act in greyer areas than another--even if both moral/ethical codes are still classifiable as, say, Lawful Good. i don't think natural lycanthropes are classifiable as a race, any more than people with inherited diseases are classifiable as a race. the fact that you're born with lycanthropy doesn't mean that you're a member of a new race, it means you've got a disability, or a disease, or a curse that you were born with. |
| Ramius_Mordale12-22-04, 05:54 PM | phantarch, the individual vs the community is not just a western ideal. It is universal, not saying western society doesn't support it more than most cultures, but Eastern society has also these stories, they just aren't more prominent in our Western history books as much. But regardless, back to the actual topic at hand. Honestly, in my personal opinion and being somewhat history incline into human behavior, I'd say this the many out weigh the few is at best works little if you want to make the Church of the Flame look like this good organization. With the Church having that mentality you have to take the good with the bad. It is more prone to corruption from within for it thinks it is correct no matter what course it takes, it simply justifies it later if it happened to make a mistake. Kid SixXx, I think calling lycanthrope AIDs or some other disease is a bit of an extreme versus Sarlax example. But as you noted, it is transfered to even the offspring of the infected. So here is a curious argument, do we have the right to kill those with HIV or any other STD or disease that is uncurable (at the present time)? Now don't take this as me attacking you or anything specifically, it's not meant to be, but merely to state a point I will be making shortly. I am reminded of the adventure for NWN when you are in the Helm's Hold castle and you summon the Guardian back, the Guardian gives you some choices but he offers his divine insight. In it's words are great wisdom, when you ask the question, "Can I achieve world peace?", the Guardian merely answers generally, that total peace can never be achieved until everything is destroyed and it would in the end be consider evil to try and achieve it. The Church of the Silver Flame went on a killing spree because they thought they were saving souls by doing it. But you could also say the Blood of Vol and the Undying Court are all saving souls by extending their life through magical means (examples: liches, vampires, ghouls, deathless, etc.). But what I think people are missing the point here that lycanthropy is some sort of a disease. It's a form of a disease but it is a curse not a regular contagin of any sort. Otherwise, you could cure it with remove disease. You can't cure a curse, because it is a curse. Just as vampirism is a curse not a disease. Granted, they spread like one if not put into check, but you will never really wipe out all vampires or lycanthropes. Which brings me to my point I made earlier about people with real world diseases, sure we could kill Joe and Jane Doe for having HIV or another disease, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. You're not correcting the problem that way, and it's just the cheapest and easiest way to deal with the problem when you don't understand it. Regardless how you spin it, it's wrong to kill the person if they are doing nothing wrong and not actively trying to spread the disease. Now a curse however is not the same. It is meant to be spread. The more it spreads the stronger the curse becomes and the more influence it has. For instance, let's say the Purge didn't happen. Well simple answering being Eberron would probably be the same just with more lycanthropes in it, or the worst thing being it spread far and wide during the Last War while soldiers fought each other and now everyone serves lycanthropes or Karrnath as undead worshipers or apart of its undead army. The Church of the Silver Flame utterly destroyed and the Rrakkassas' now rule the other chunk of Khorvaire or maybe they become such a major threat as to cause the Dragons to rise up again and attack along side the Undying Court. And judgement day ensues. As much as the Purge did kill most likely all evil creatures or people beyond the ability to simply remove the curse. They probably killed a lot of good people that just happened to have the unfortunate pleasure of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and got bit by a werebeast and survived. I'm not saying that it really didn't need to be done, but hey it happened. The powers at be decided a Purge was going to happened and therefore it happened. Luckily, they discovered that it wasn't the best way to deal with the problem since many could be brought back if they were just merely afflicted or that some merely didn't have the choice whether or not they wanted to be born a werebeast. And probably the first one to think there had to be another way was most likely a paladin of the Silver Flame after probably fighting and killing countless of werebeasts. He/She probably realized it was impossible to slay every beast and that doing so wouldn't really be any better than what the curse was doing. See here's the thing about curses. You can either let it continue, try to hold it at bay and remove it the best you can, or you can go out and kill every known one regardless of alignment or motives. If you do any of them the Curse wins. Their is no total victory or happy ending with it. You can't win, so the only best thing you can do is try and remove it as best you can without leaving a river of blood behind you. I think this is what the Church of the Silver Flame realized and feels sorry it was done, but has to accept it as one of their overall failures. Their quest is never ending no matter how hard they try to extinguish it unless they are willing to destroy themselves and everyone else in the process. At least, that's how I see things. -Ramius- |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 05:58 PM | By your logic, I can make a case that heroin addicts or AIDS sufferers are a race unto themselves because they can transmit their condition along to their children, and we both know that logic is flawed. AIDS sufferers don't have full power over their disease. They don't have specific personality types, and they probably won't be rounded up for extermination. Lycanthropes are more than creatures who spread a disease by biting. The naturals are born with a particular kind of personality. They have unique instincts and characteristics. And because they are born with these abilities, they don't suffer under a curse - only those they bite become cursed. The naturals have their own minds. You cannot cure a human so that it is no longer a human, but you can cure a naturally-born lycanthrope so that it is no longer a lycanthrope. No, you can't. As I posted earlier from the SRD: "Only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured of lycanthropy." If you're born that way, that's who you always are and always will be. In your assumption that curative magic would acutally work, as I said earlier, you're also assuming that lycanthropes universally want to be cured, and this might not be the case, despite of the alignment of the lycanthrope. The curative magic does work, as per the rules for curing lycanthropy in the SRD and the MM. While it's not 100% effective (requiring a DC 20 Will save by the lycanthrope), it's not impossible either. With it's Iron Will feat, even a first-level lycanthrope has at least a 15% chance of success, and the Church can easily boost this by passing around something like a Cloak of Resistance +5 to increase this to a 40% chance per casting of Remove Curse. In any case, curing a good number of lycanthropes ought to have been well within the power of the Church. |
| motorfirebox12-22-04, 06:02 PM | So here is a curious argument, do we have the right to kill those with HIV or any other STD or disease that is uncurable (at the present time)? the problem with this question is that you're assuming that the Church of the SF follows the modern standards of Western moral/ethical thought. they don't. they follow a relatively brutal, practical school of moral/ethical thought, in which the ends can very often--though not always--justify the means. this is where Eberron's variable morality comes into play; what qualifies as 'good' to one group does not always qualify as 'good' to another. The curative magic does work, as per the rules for curing lycanthropy in the SRD and the MM. While it's not 100% effective (requiring a DC 20 Will save by the lycanthrope), it's not impossible either. yes, but that doesn't address those lycanthropes that don't wish to be cured. for instance, a good-aligned werebear or wereboar might voluntarily fail the Wil save. |
| Ramius_Mordale12-22-04, 06:26 PM | the problem with this question is that you're assuming that the Church of the SF follows the modern standards of Western moral/ethical thought. they don't. they follow a relatively brutal, practical school of moral/ethical thought, in which the ends can very often--though not always--justify the means. this is where Eberron's variable morality comes into play; what qualifies as 'good' to one group does not always qualify as 'good' to another. Right, but I think the reason why Eberron is like it is today is because of the Purge and Last War as well as the Dragonmark Wars. They blended the lines so there is a gray area in the middle of good and evil, not just a straight line that divides the two. Which is why I think the Church of the Silver Flame is lead by a more moderate point of view now then an over-zealous one. But I agree with you for the most part it is a Pre-Enlightenment thought process more dedicated to Europe before more advance scientific methodes of reasoning were discovered or used widely. -Ramius- |
| phantarch12-22-04, 06:49 PM | Well Sarlax, we definitely agree on one thing. This thread is addicting. :D Personally, I have a problem with the idea of Lawful Good lycanthropes, anyway. I think that they should all be evil, and that would simplify everything. However, as that's not the case... You have an interesting point with the natural lycanthropes, there is no way to remove the curse, and they have full control over their forms. However, the fact that the alignment is set at birth for a natural lycanthrope is indicative of the curse, in my opinion. They may be able to fight those urges at a later point in time, but it is inherent in them. As Hellcow has pointed out, they are not outsiders, which would be the embodiment of an ideal, and (in Eberron), no other true breeding species instills an alignment at birth. This all leans toward the idea of the curse. My personal take on it is that once a lycanthrope is born rather than made, the curse is so infused with the rest of their being, that they cannot be separated from it, other than by death. The fact that they are able to pass the curse through their bite is proof again that the curse is just inherently stronger in them. Now, if you wanted to make a good argument for lycanthropy having racial tendencies rather than just being curse, you may want to bring up the shifters. How can lycanthropes through a process of interbreeding and breeding with other races come to the point of creating a new species? Are shifters truly a part of the curse? Or are they a true species? Also, Ramius, you bring up a good point that this is a curse and not a disease. They truly are different. I'd argue further about the origins of individualism, but it's not the point of this thread. ;) My only point in it was that there are different views of a morally appropriate way to handle things. Now, as I see it, we're looking for the various options available to the church. My only problem with some of the means of healing is the practicality of it. If lycanthropes were brought to the church, or willingly submitted to the church, I'd see this as a very viable option. However, the hunting and killing was of those who didn't submit to the church. With limited resources, it is far more difficult to capture and subdue a creature such as a lycanthrope, and then transport it to a high level cleric for "rehabilitation", than it is to fight and kill it. Especially, if you were going into its domain. It would most likely attack at the first chance, even a werebear. Now, a paladin goes into the woods, hunting lycanthropes, either to capture or kill. The lycanthrope, regardless of alignment, will most likely see the paladin as a threat and an intruder, and if cornered, would attack, rather than submit. The paladin would most likely be defending himself, and unfortunately would kill the lycanthrope. I see this as being a far more likely turn of events, than some willful slaughter of innocents. Perhaps a lot of ignorance involved, but not willful acts of evil. As for the curse, I somehow am having visions of some of the different zombie movies out there. When the curse spreads, it spreads fast, and when you are caught in the middle of it, you kill everything that drools and stumbles awkwardly, and ask questions later. You don't go, "Oh my, how dreadful. How can we cure these poor creatures?" Additionally, as cures go, sometimes there just isn't enough to go around. Who decides who lives and who dies? If there isn't the means to cure all of the lycanthropes, do you cure 10, and let 90 go free, running around and spreading the curse further? Also, there was probably no means of quarantine. It wasn't like they were all gathered in a nice little community that could be blocked off from the rest of society. The church probably needed an answer, and they needed it quick. Sometimes idealism has to be put aside for realism, and sometimes the reality of a situation is you have to act immediately. The point, in my mind, is that its a very complicated issue. I don't think it can be covered with a blanket statement that it was an evil atrocity or that it was entirely right and good. The end result, however, was that lycanthropy was severely weakened, so it wasn't an ineffectual slaughter. It damaged the curse, even if it didn't fully remove it. Good came from it. The real question is, was it worth the price? |
| motorfirebox12-22-04, 06:58 PM | Right, but I think the reason why Eberron is like it is today is because of the Purge and Last War as well as the Dragonmark Wars. right, the SF is more moderate now than it was during the purge. if you're transposing AIDS sufferers and lycanthropes, then the SF today would be more likely (on average) to try to cure the disease, instead of going straight to killing the diseased. during the purge, however, the SF would be more interested in expediency. a few innocent lives--innocent lives that have been tainted and corrupted by an evil curse--were seen as a small price to pay for the safety and well-being of Khorvaire as a whole. that's not evil, that's triage. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 07:23 PM | Sarlax, a question for you: Do you think I'm trying to say that the purge was a morally defendable action? You keep pointing out ways that it wasn't, and what they should have done instead. But who's actually saying that it was a good act? I've compared it to witch hunting and the inquisition. I've stated that the dominant forces of the modern church feel remorse for their actions. So, to a certain degree, what are we arguing about? Yes, if the elders of the time were perfectly enlightened people seeking to walk a path of idealized good, they should have tried to cure those who could have been cured. But they weren't, and they didn't. They were zealots who were blinded by fear and a religious doctrine which happened to be counter to the truth (the whole destruction of the soul thing). And unlike the witch hunts, they were fighting a threat with a clear, tangible physical manifestation: they were fighting creatures that, if they chose to fight back, were in fact deadly monsters. It's never been my intention to say that the purge was a morally defensible act. I've said repeatedly that Jaela would do her best to prevent such a thing from occurring under her watch. So I'm not sure why we keep arguing circles around it. Yes, it would have been better to seek to cure the afflicted – and yet, driven by ignorance, they did not do it. Thus, innocents died along with the murderers – and thus, the tragedy. Nonetheless, it did remove the threat of evil lycanthropes, and did weaken the power of Bashalaera. Thus the conflict; some level of good was accomplished, at a terrible moral cost. Shouldn't they? Before exterminating an entire category of creatures, the moral burden falls upon the exterminators to learn as much as possible. And as an organization specifically devoted to eliminating supernatural evil, the Church of the Silver Flame ought to be very good at getting this kind of information. It ought to be the continent's leading authority on such creatures. And yet, you have witch hunts. One assumes the Christian church was the leading authority on witches – and all of this information still led it to conclude that they should be burnt at the stake. Again, today the church may have broader knowledge – possibly, knowledge gained as a result of the purge itself. This is yet one more reason that the people today view the actions of the purge with regret. But Knowledge (religion) – the skill common to both priest and paladin – doesn't cover this, so the person in the field would be drawing his information from the threat most often encountered: the evil lycanthropes. Also, let's talk for a moment about imperfect knowledge. You have perfect knowledge at your fingertips: a guide that tells you exactly how to cure a lycanthrope, and among other things, that natural lycanthropes can't be cured but afflicted lycanthropes can. As we've said before, the church elders didn't have that knowledge. So imagine the first time they did capture a live werewolf and seek to cure him. First they try remove curse, but as it turns out, it's not a full moon, so it has no effect. Do they give up, or try again? Let's assume that they are diligent and dedicated, and try again. This time they do it on a full moon, but the target fails his will save. Do they give up, or try again? Let's say they keep going. This time… well, this time we get to the fact that this is actually a natural lycanthrope that they are dealing with and that it just plain will never be cured. How long will it take them to understand the difference between the two? The Church may be the foremost expert on these topics. Today, I believe that it does know how to cure lycanthropy. But that knowledge had to begin somewhere – and most likely begin with failure. And that sort of failure – along with the whispers of the dark voice, which delights in tricking good people into doing bad things - is what could lead a keeper to conclude that there is no salvation, which would be enough for the majority of his followers. As regards atonement, everything you have said is correct, but there is also another aspect: the second sentence of the spell, which states "The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds." The need to pay XP or not depends whether the creature performed the actions under compulsion or knowingly. But in either case, I don't see that this removes the burden of true repentance on the part of the subject. As I read it, you can't force a lycanthrope to take back his former alignment unless it is something he wishes to do. Some might; others might not. And this brings us back to "We tried it on a werewolf and it failed." Atonement allows for a swift change instead of a slow transformation – but it's not something you can force on someone. And don't forget, you can always choose to fail a Will save - so the lycanthrope who doesn't want to be cured can't be cured against his will. I tend to believe that for good people, the burden is on them to prove that a lycanthrope is guilty of something meriting death, not that the lycanthrope must show itself to be innocent or be obviously innocent to the Flamers who encounter it. It's a nice idea, but "innocent until proven guilty" is not a universal concept in the scope of history (especially when religion enters the picture). And we end up back at the "You may be innocent, but innocent or not, you pose a threat to far more people who are definitely innocent." Morally defensible? No. Possible within the scope of human nature? Certainly. A final question (for this leg of the discussion): Given the possible rakshasa origin story, why create good lycanthropes like werebears? If you check the story, Bashalaera did not intentionally create these people. He afflicted people with the curse – and a few had the strength of character to resist his influence and become the noble lycanthropes. In a sense, you could see them as unintentional mutations – but their presence still strengthens the curse as a whole. The natural lycanthropes aren't cursed. This is who they are and they can't be anything else. The afflicted are cursed, but they can be cured. They can't be anything else. They were never actively cursed. But they are nonetheless the bearers of the curse. It has shaped them from the moment of birth. Purely by the SRD, they possess an ability called "the curse of lycanthropy." They can transmit this curse to others. So it's a semantic issue. They had no life before being cursed, and the curse can never be lifted from them. But they are victims of it, all the same. They may have more control over their ability to shift forms, but the supernatural instincts – the werewolf's pull towards chaos and evil - are still there (in my opinion). Another issue: How many lycanthropes are we talking? It's been said several times that they didn't exist in huge numbers and that with the exception of wererats, they didn't even really have the numbers to become even sub-communities. If the lycanthropes existed in small numbers, what made a wide-spread effort to cure them so unfeasible? It's a good question. My argument is less that they lacked the numbers to form subcommunities, and more that they lacked the drive to do so. Werewolves are chaotic and murderous creatures. They enjoy preying on other intelligent beings. How does this attitude encourage the creation of a community? A small family group seems more likely, and also less likely to attract attention in the first place. But if I'm a werewolf who has been fully overtaken by the curse, settling down in a nice farming village and going to square dances isn't exactly my idea of a great time. I don't want a peaceful life: I want the thrill of the hunt. I suggested wererat communities because I see that as part of their nature – but I'm still not seeing happy little wererat villages; I mainly see larger subcommunities in big cities, preying on the people of the city. But again, both this and the preceding statement are my opinions. We're coming from very different positions, and I don't see either of us as being likely to change our minds. But this at least explains how I'll be dealing with them in my future material. Today sages have a better understand of lycanthropy, that all lycanthropes are not evil and that all of them cannot spread the curse. But should they grow in number – good, neutral, or evil - the strength of the curse could grow anew. |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 09:28 PM | the problem with this question is that you're assuming that the Church of the SF follows the modern standards of Western moral/ethical thought. they don't. they follow a relatively brutal, practical school of moral/ethical thought, in which the ends can very often--though not always--justify the means. this is where Eberron's variable morality comes into play; what qualifies as 'good' to one group does not always qualify as 'good' to another. That may be. Of course, that just puts them into the neutral or evil camp, if they follow a philosophy of brutal pragmatism. D&D has rather specific meanings for good and evil. You can read them in PHB Chapter 6. While a society is a vast, complex thing with many shades of gray, good and evil aren't so shady. yes, but that doesn't address those lycanthropes that don't wish to be cured. for instance, a good-aligned werebear or wereboar might voluntarily fail the Wil save. Good point. That does make this issue a bit trickier. On the moral level, I can see the Church being entirely justified in this course of action: It captures an afflicted werewolf and offers it the chance to be cured and restored to its original alignment or be destroyed. If the lycanthrope refuses, the Church is not guilty of an evil act if it destroys the werewolf. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 10:06 PM | That may be. Of course, that just puts them into the neutral or evil camp, if they follow a philosophy of brutal pragmatism. I would define the puritans of the Silver Flame as pragmatic altruists. My dictionary defines pragmatism as "A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems", and this certainly fits. Altruism can be defined as "Cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species." So, we come back to the issue of whether the rights of every single innocent outweigh the safety and security of the greater number of innocents. The puritans believe that they does not. They act to defend the innocent, but they are willing to make sacrifices in that process. The issue here is that some of the people killed could have been saved - that it was not a necessary sacrifice - but that again assumes that they had the knowledge and resources (which is to say, time and ability to distinguish natural and afflicted lycanthropes and capture the victims alive) required to perform the cure. I'll note also that many of them undoubtedly died in the process - that they were willing to give their own lives in pursuit of what they believed to be the defense of others. Again, this doesn't make their actions morally good from a purely objective standpoint: but it explains their behavior. D&D has rather specific meanings for good and evil. You can read them in PHB Chapter 6. While a society is a vast, complex thing with many shades of gray, good and evil aren't so shady. Which is why I've repeatedly stated on this board and in Dragonshards that those PHB alignment descriptors are not what the church uses to measure "good" and "evil": The Church does not define evil as "that which can be detected with detect evil"; as noted earlier, someone with an evil alignment may serve the greater good. The idea that good people can do evil and that evil people can serve the cause of good is a central theme of Eberron. The Church of the Silver Flame embraces this paradox. Its cause is noble. The majority of its followers are champions of the light. And yet it is possible that, with the best of intentions, they will become your enemies – or that in the service of the Church, you will be asked to do questionable things. What can be detected by detect evil is rigidly defined. But how two different lawful evil characters behave is open to debate (at least, it is in Eberron; if you disagree, run things your way, but that's the design philosophy). In the Dragonshard, I specifically point out that there are lawful evil priests in the Church of the Silver Flame who are not corrupt, who truly believe in the Flame and who have dedicated their lives to helping others - but who are willing to be ruthless in this pursuit of good, and who therefore are of evil alignment. This is why the paladin can't just kill the innkeeper for being "evil" - his alignment as it relates to detect tells you nothing about his actions, whether in the long run he is helping others, harming them, or simply observing the world. However, while "evil" can cover a spectrum, an evil lycanthrope does has a specific code of behavior: an inherent blood thirst and desire to kill other intelligent beings. It's not just evil - it's murderous evil. Now, all creatures do have a choice. Even a lycanthrope can choose to fight the curse. A werewolf can become good. But it's going to be a constant struggle for her. Which, in my mind, makes her a more interesting character. On the moral level, I can see the Church being entirely justified in this course of action: It captures an afflicted werewolf and offers it the chance to be cured and restored to its original alignment or be destroyed. If the lycanthrope refuses, the Church is not guilty of an evil act if it destroys the werewolf. I think that this makes a great deal of sense. However, it presumes that the Church understands the mechanics and limitations of curing lycanthropy. Today, I believe that they do; during the purge, they didn't. There's also the issue of the templar who stumbles upon a werewolf attempting to kill a group of commoners. He has no idea if the werewolf is afflicted or natural. What's his priority? Trying to take the deadly werewolf alive? Or protecting her intended victims, sparing the life of the werewolf if possible? The point I've been trying to make is that the Church will always choose the victims. If the templar is not powerful or well-equipped, an attempt to subdue a werewolf may be suicide - and if the templar dies, the commoners the werewolf was attacking will die as well. The templar knows that there is a chance that the werewolf is also an innocent victim, but if he cannot safely capture the werewolf, he will attempt to kill her - protecting the greater number of known innocents at the expense of one possible innocent. A puritan won't even stop to consider the innocence of the werewolf and will automatically go for the kill. A paladin should try his best to spare the werewolf - but not (in my opinion) if there is a serious chance that this will result in the death of the commoners. This is all still focused on the evil lycanthropes. The good and neutrals would, in this day and age, hopefully cooperate with the templars. Nonetheless, if the wereboar is attacking the travelers, the travelers will be the templar's first concern. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 10:16 PM | One thing that is worth noting is that if the curse is the influence of Bashalaera, it's possible that a lycanthrope in Lammania is cut off from its influence -- so that in Lammania you can find as many good werewolves as evil ones, but should they come to Eberron the killer instincts will begin to assail them. If this is the case, this would become the humane solution for dealing with good-aligned natural lycanthropes - gathering them together and finding a way to transport them to Lammania. Exile instead of death. |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 10:28 PM | Sarlax, a question for you: Do you think I'm trying to say that the purge was a morally defendable action? You keep pointing out ways that it wasn't, and what they should have done instead. But who's actually saying that it was a good act? That is close to the impression I was getting. Because the purge is typically described with phrases like “tragic,” “motivated by zealotry,” or, “serving the greater good,” I feel that the scale of the evil of the purge is being greatly downplayed. In part, my own perception that the purge was more evil than is normally indicated was conditioned by some of your earlier posts in this thread: Indeed. Just as you can have a good vampire in Eberron, you can have a good werewolf. However, my feeling is that this would be more likely to occur with natural lycanthropes - and that in general the lycanthropes will tend towards the indicated alignment. The short form is that there is no "always" in Eberron. Regardless of what is listed in the MM, "always" should always be downgraded to "usually" (if that). In the case of lycanthropes, I'd definitely go with "usually", because there is a magical force at work pushing the alignment in a particular direction. *Sigh* If you read my posts, you'll see that I've stated multiple times that a good werewolf is possible. All of these statements gave me the impression that variance in lycanthropic alignments were more common than “very rare.” With the MM putting “usually” at about 50 percent, it didn’t seem much of a stretch to me to think that even with werewolves, something like 10 to 30 percent of them might not be evil. With that concept in mind, the purge is extremely terrible. If, as you seem to have indicated earlier in the thread, lycanthropes are able to occasionally beat back their impulses, then it’s much more evil to destroy them, and it makes the Church of the time especially culpable for failing to consider this when they formulate their “Lycanthropy forever destroys the soul” dogma. Also, let's talk for a moment about imperfect knowledge. You have perfect knowledge at your fingertips: a guide that tells you exactly how to cure a lycanthrope, and among other things, that natural lycanthropes can't be cured but afflicted lycanthropes can. As we've said before, the church elders didn't have that knowledge. As regards atonement … you can't force a lycanthrope to take back his former alignment unless it is something he wishes to do. This is a fair point, and one I hadn’t before considered. I see the moral act as offering captured evil lycanthropes the choice to be restored or destroyed. If the afflicted is chooses to keep his bestial urges and risk (or with intention) bring death, then there’s no harm in destroying him. It's a nice idea, but "innocent until proven guilty" is not a universal concept in the scope of history (especially when religion enters the picture). Of course. But my objection has always been to the downplaying of the purge’s evil, not to how it’s explained in the social context. They had no life before being cursed, and the curse can never be lifted from them. But they are victims of it, all the same. They may have more control over their ability to shift forms, but the supernatural instincts – the werewolf's pull towards chaos and evil - are still there (in my opinion). If it’s entirely within them to behave this way, are they really cursed? Werebears are drawn to isolationism and acts of good; is that much different from the way a dwarf is drawn to structures of stone, or how the kalashtar are predisposed to good because of their shared quori spirits? Many things are in our natures that are beyond are control, but we don’t consider these to be curses. |
| Hellcow12-22-04, 10:44 PM | All of these statements gave me the impression that variance in lycanthropic alignments were more common than “very rare.” With the MM putting “usually” at about 50 percent, it didn’t seem much of a stretch to me to think that even with werewolves, something like 10 to 30 percent of them might not be evil. Ah! I didn't realize "Usually" translated to "50%". Yes, if I was saying that 50% of werewolves were good, that would definitely cast things in a completely different light. If "Always" does allow for the rare exception, then perhaps here they would still be "always" -- though following my previous message, in Lammania you might have no predisposition whatsoever. If it’s entirely within them to behave this way, are they really cursed? Werebears are drawn to isolationism and acts of good; is that much different from the way a dwarf is drawn to structures of stone, or how the kalashtar are predisposed to good because of their shared quori spirits? Many things are in our natures that are beyond are control, but we don’t consider these to be curses. I suppose it's a matter of extremes. To me, the werewolf should always feel that murderous impulse lurking at the back of his mind, struggling against his better nature. He should have to work to hold his rage in check... even if he has been raised in a happy environment and done happy things all his life. A dwarf raised in the Eldeen Reaches may find that he hates the caverns of the Mror Holds, which are so much more confining than his home. A werebear, on the other hand, will always feel a nagging discomfort in cities, even if he is born in a city and has never left it, even if he doesn't have the words to explain his discomfort. The kalashtar is a good example, but there again you have a creature being influenced by a supernatural force: an outside spirit that seeks to impose its values upon you. I'd say that this is exactly the same as the natural lycanthrope - but that for the lycanthrope the effect is magnified a thousandfold. The kalashtar can feel the presence of his quori spirit, but he can turn against it's nature; kalashtar are good more often than not, but I'd probably break it down around 60%/30%/10% for good/nuetral/evil. |
| Romulus LoneWolf12-22-04, 10:56 PM | I think we're looking at this from the wrong angle.. Something we should ask is "What was it that caused the Silver Flame to begin their Lycanthropy Pogrom?" Let's face it, if all the werewolves were doing was staying in their dark corners of the world, the Crusade would've lost steam long before they were near exterminated. Some big incident, or series of incident, triggered enough Were-hatred that the Crusade got itself some momentum... |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 11:09 PM | Ah. I'm glad that the average post length seems to be shrinking. This has been a fun discussion for me, but I'm beginning to want to get to other topics again The kalashtar is a good example, but there again you have a creature being influenced by a supernatural force: an outside spirit that seeks to impose its values upon you. I'd say that this is exactly the same as the natural lycanthrope - but that for the lycanthrope the effect is magnified a thousandfold. The kalashtar can feel the presence of his quori spirit, but he can turn against it's nature; kalashtar are good more often than not, but I'd probably break it down around 60%/30%/10% for good/nuetral/evil. That's the sort of frequency I was picturing for lycanthropes varying from their given alignments. If the kalashtar experience the same basic effect as werebeasts, I'd be inclined that the only thing that seems to make the lycanthropes "cursed" but not the kalashtar is the scale of the pressure one feels to act a particular way. Is that a fair reading? On another topic, since I probably still have your attention, how would dragonmarked humanoids react to being afflicted as a lycanthrope? Specifically, how would their marks be affected, if at all? I posted this on the "Classes, Races & Monsters" forum first. An emerging idea is that by the rules, templates that don't change one's type (like lycanthropes) won't affect the marks - the victim is still a Humanoid (gnome) of the Sivis lineage, so he gaining the Shapechanger subtype shouldn't stop him from using his Mark of Scribing. The idea is that his race hasn't really changed, so he still qualifies for the feat. This position is also somewhat justified by the setting by Erandis d'Vol, who, despite being templated, didn't lose access to her dragonmark until she became undead. The other position calls for a stricter interpertation of "Race" and calls for the loss of dragonmarks when one is changed at the physical level, whether or not it changes type. For the moment I'm leaning towards the first option: As long as you're still humanoid, a member of your original race, and alive, you're still able to manifest and use dragonmarks. But if you are altered in type (such as by being undead, deathless, or an outsider from a half-celestial template), you can't have or use dragonmarks, with Vol having once been an exception, specifically because she's a half-dragon with a dragonmark. |
| Gurv12-22-04, 11:16 PM | Lycanthropy is the creation of the rakshasa rajah Bashalaera, a fiend with powers over the animal domain. Long ago, Bashalaera managed to reach beyond his bonds to infect mortals with his curse, causing them to succumb to murderous instincts - though a few noble souls were able to resist his influence and became the non-evil lycanthropes. As the lycanthropes spread the curse among the population, they also increased the power of the curse and the power of the rajah; in time, this would have allowed the rajah to break the bonds of the Flame. When it identified the source of the corruption, the church attacked it on two levels. The templars killed the lycanthropes themselves, and each death weakened Bashalaera and the power of his curse. The priests used prayer and faith to strengthen the bonds binding the rajah, isolating his ability to touch the world and further weakening the curse. For now, with so few lycanthropes in the world, those that are created are weaker. But if their numbers grew again, Bashalaera would gain greater strength, and the power of the curse would grow; eventually, afflicted lycanthropes would have the powers to match natural lycanthropes (and the powers of natural lycanthropes might be greater still). This is why the church fought even the non-evil lycanthropes - willing or not, knowingly or not, by their very existence they strengthened the curse. This certainly puts a new spin on things! This means that lycanthropes represent a threat beyond merely turning others into bloodthirsty monsters; it is the method by which a rajah seeks to free himself! Yet another reason to take no chances by letting a potentially innocent lycanthrope off the hook: the more there are, the greater the risk. Rajahs have semi-divine power, and given a choice between saving a wererat baby and keeping this guy bound, I know what choice I would be making! Supports my long-lost arguement that doing the right thing can sometimes be a function of how well informed you are. |
| Sarlax12-22-04, 11:20 PM | I think we're looking at this from the wrong angle.. Something we should ask is "What was it that caused the Silver Flame to begin their Lycanthropy Pogrom?" Let's face it, if all the werewolves were doing was staying in their dark corners of the world, the Crusade would've lost steam long before they were near exterminated. Some big incident, or series of incident, triggered enough Were-hatred that the Crusade got itself some momentum... I was thinking about this during a break from writing arguments. I came up with something that's based on the suggested lycanthropic origins from the rakshasa. Prior to the 820s, lycanthropy existed in its current form: only natural lycanthropes could spread the curse. However, in 830, the lycanthropic population finally grew large enough that the curse's nature was changed: now it could spread from the afflicted. The sudden panic from this plague-potential pushed the Church to deal with it immediately. This idea suggests that lycanthropy, as a curse, comes in various levels of power, with power increasing with the population. Here's a suggested progression: 1st: There are only natural lycanthropes who can't spread the curse. They only increase their numbers with reproduction. 2nd: Natural lycanthropes can spread the curse, but the afflicted cannot (the present level of the curse). 3rd: Natural and afflicted lycanthropes can spread the curse (the level during the Inquisition). 4th: As 3rd level, but after a month, afflicted lycanthropes become natural and cannot be cured. 5th: As 4th. After a several decades of being natural lycanthrope, one changes into a native outsider, a type of Rakshasa. Like the other varieties, these creatures are modeled on animals (rats and wolves instead of tigers) and possess strong shapechanging powers. |
| Gurv12-22-04, 11:58 PM | 1st: There are only natural lycanthropes who can't spread the curse. They only increase their numbers with reproduction. 2nd: Natural lycanthropes can spread the curse, but the afflicted cannot (the present level of the curse). 3rd: Natural and afflicted lycanthropes can spread the curse (the level during the Inquisition). 4th: As 3rd level, but after a month, afflicted lycanthropes become natural and cannot be cured. 5th: As 4th. After a several decades of being natural lycanthrope, one changes into a native outsider, a type of Rakshasa. Like the other varieties, these creatures are modeled on animals (rats and wolves instead of tigers) and possess strong shapechanging powers. <swishes it around his mouth> Interesting flavor. Dark. Unexpected twist. And it makes me want to :censored: my pants. Definitely Eberron's style. |
| motorfirebox12-23-04, 12:18 AM | That may be. Of course, that just puts them into the neutral or evil camp, if they follow a philosophy of brutal pragmatism. i strongly, strongly disagree. you're trying to wash Eberron, and the purge-era SF, with modern western morality, in which there's nearly as much weight given to the value of the individual as there is given to the value of the populace. these standards don't generally apply in Eberron, and they certainly didn't apply to the purge-era SF. the purge-era SF didn't see itself as evil, and its paladins didn't consider taking part in the purge an evil act. the value of the individual lycanthropes were weighed against the value of the greater populace, and found wanting--wiping the lycanthropes out might have been distasteful, but it wasn't evil according to their standards. D&D has rather specific meanings for good and evil. not really. for instance, a Lawful Good character "fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation". is a wererat baby, infused before birth with supernatural evil and almost certain to grow into a murderer who spreads the curse to others, really innocent? what about a penitant man afflicted with lycanthropy, who fights the curse as best he can, but just can't quite muster the Wil save needed to take the cure--is he really evil? there's no single answer to questions like that. i could say yes to either one, and call you evil for saying no, and we could both be Lawful Good. |
| Hellcow12-23-04, 12:40 AM | If the kalashtar experience the same basic effect as werebeasts, I'd be inclined that the only thing that seems to make the lycanthropes "cursed" but not the kalashtar is the scale of the pressure one feels to act a particular way. Is that a fair reading? I'd say that's a fair assessment. Though the fact that the lycanthrope can pass its compulsion on to others is another thing that characterizes it as a curse as opposed to a pure aspect of race; the kalashtar can't bond you to his quori spirit, but the werewolf can infect you with his bloodlust. On another topic, since I probably still have your attention, how would dragonmarked humanoids react to being afflicted as a lycanthrope? Specifically, how would their marks be affected, if at all? My personal view on this is that becoming a lycanthrope would have no affect on a dragonmarked character's ability to use his mark. I know that I've discussed the issue of druids in wild shape with the other designers, and the ruling was that they can still use their marks. A slight twist on this is whether a natural lycanthrope of the appropriate race and bloodline can manifest the mark, or whether once you go into a second generation the mark will not manifest - you don't lose the mark, but can't pass it to a lycanthrope child. This could actually vary by mark, and this is one reason not to judge Erandis' mark to mean that any mark could be passed to a half-dragon; it could be that the mark of Death was uniquely accessible to elves and half-dragons, as the mark of Finding is available to both humans and half-orcs. So it might be that the Mark of Handling can be passed to a natural lycanthrope child, but the mark of making cannot. Now, for what it's worth, becoming undead does cause you to lose access to your mark. So Erandis had the mark as a half-dragon, but lost the ability to use it when she became a lich (an exceptional thing in itself, as half-dragons can't normally become liches). |
| Sarlax12-23-04, 12:46 AM | i strongly, strongly disagree. you're trying to wash Eberron, and the purge-era SF, with modern western morality, in which there's nearly as much weight given to the value of the individual as there is given to the value of the populace. these standards don't generally apply in Eberron, and they certainly didn't apply to the purge-era SF. the purge-era SF didn't see itself as evil, and its paladins didn't consider taking part in the purge an evil act. the value of the individual lycanthropes were weighed against the value of the greater populace, and found wanting--wiping the lycanthropes out might have been distasteful, but it wasn't evil according to their standards. And infanticide isn't evil by baby-killer standards. It doesn't matter how people in the world see particular acts. Good, evil, law, and chaos are specific and objective terms in D&D. Sure, I can call stepping on children's faces a good act, so it's good from my standards, but it's actually Evil. This is in the PHB. |
| Hellcow12-23-04, 12:46 AM | Prior to the 820s, lycanthropy existed in its current form: only natural lycanthropes could spread the curse. However, in 830, the lycanthropic population finally grew large enough that the curse's nature was changed: now it could spread from the afflicted. The sudden panic from this plague-potential pushed the Church to deal with it immediately. This is exactly what I was thinking - that the lycanthropic population determines the power of the curse, and that it reached a critical level in the 800s. Thus there is the possibility for the threat to rise anew, and for people to have to see if they can find a more humane way to deal with it this time around. I was pondering the "hybrid" appearance of the traditional rakshasa as well, so it's nice to see that some of the time we're on the same page! ;) |
| motorfirebox12-23-04, 12:56 AM | Sure, I can call stepping on children's faces a good act, so it's good from my standards, but it's actually Evil. This is in the PHB. no. what's in the PHB is the word "innocent". |
| Hellcow12-23-04, 12:57 AM | It doesn't matter how people in the world see particular acts. Good, evil, law, and chaos are specific and objective terms in D&D. Sure, I can call stepping on children's faces a good act, so it's good from my standards, but it's actually Evil. This is in the PHB. And this is where you get the lawful evil priest of the Silver Flame who's not actually corrupt. He's dedicated to making the world a better place, but believes that infanticide is an acceptable sacrifice to achieve this goal. So, an evil character using evil methods to accomplish something that in the long term may be good. Again, this does not justify the methods or change the fact that they are evil. But it goes along with the idea of an evil character in a good organization. As a slight side note, I never said that the paladin would participate in infanticide - I said "What makes you think the baby wouldn't be evil?" Whether the paladin can kill a child is an interesting question. What if the child is a vampire? Demonically possessed? 99% likely to be a doppelganger assassin concealed in the body of a child? Or in some other way a clear danger to others? Given the choice, a priest would be a fool to make such a demand of the paladin - the evil priest may be willing to make such sacrifices in the name of the church, but he should know that the paladin won't, or at the very least will seek alternatives. If the paladin does kill the child, I would base the consequences on the situation; in the case of the vampire child the paladin could be seen as showing mercy. Even the lycanthrope child, you can argue that the child has the potential to break the curse; I could argue that it's cruel to force him to live with that horror and the fear that he will harm innocents should his control lapse, and that it's more merciful to end his life if he cannot be cured. If the paladin considers the options, acts with compassion, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that death is the only solution, I might let him off with an act of penance; otherwise atonement would be called for. |
| Neofish12-23-04, 12:58 AM | as the mark of Finding is available to both elves and half-orcs. . You meant Humans right.? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, Say a prominant house member becomes infected with the curse, would he lose his house status.? What if a natural lycanthrope and a Dragonmarked member have a kid, If the kid is born cursed, no mark, right.? If the the kid is born free, able to produce mark.? What about Horrid lycanthropes.? Is that possible.? |
| motorfirebox12-23-04, 01:04 AM | let me back off a little bit. i'm not trying to say that a paladin can kill a wererat kid and not feel bad about it. i'm not even saying that a paladin of the SF can kill a wererat kid and not have to worry about his continued paladinhood. i am saying that, given a choice between killing a wererat kid and letting that kid murder and spread lycanthropy, the paladin who chooses to kill the wererat kid might not lose his paladinhood. it'd be a heart-wrenching act, one he'd regret for the rest of his life, one that would cause him to question his faith. but it wouldn't, in the eyes of his church and the ethos he follows, necessarily be evil. |
| Kid SixXx12-23-04, 10:08 AM | AIDS sufferers don't have full power over their disease. They don't have specific personality types, and they probably won't be rounded up for extermination. Please define this statement as you're losing me, especially the "personality types" issue. I'm praying that my interpretation of this statement is wrong. As far as AIDS sufferers not being systematically exterminated, I invite you to read more information from African news services. The situation is rather disturbing. Lycanthropes are more than creatures who spread a disease by biting. The naturals are born with a particular kind of personality. They have unique instincts and characteristics. And because they are born with these abilities, they don't suffer under a curse - only those they bite become cursed. The naturals have their own minds. Apologies for my earlier statements as the rules for lycanthrope have been radically revamped since even 3.0. The information from the SRD is indeed the accepted norm for 3.5 and my comments concerning natural lycanthropes were incorrect. The curative magic does work, as per the rules for curing lycanthropy in the SRD and the MM. While it's not 100% effective (requiring a DC 20 Will save by the lycanthrope), it's not impossible either. With it's Iron Will feat, even a first-level lycanthrope has at least a 15% chance of success, and the Church can easily boost this by passing around something like a Cloak of Resistance +5 to increase this to a 40% chance per casting of Remove Curse. You're losing me again. Why are you quoting chapter and verse from the SRD to settle a philosophical situation? Sure we as players know the rules but the NPC's know nothing about DC Will saves and the like. A Silver Fire cleric isn't going to say, "Well if I have our artificer craft a Cloak of Resistance +5, and I take the Iron Will feat next lvl, I should be able to cure this afflicted lycanthrope." Stats and percentages from the PHB and SRD can only countermand the situation from a statistics perspective, and not a philosophical or roleplay perspective. Such information does not address the story at hand. In short, the Silver Fire will be consulting their own texts and libraries in preparation for combating the lycanthropes, but none of the shelves will contain the 3.5 core rulebooks. And Remove Curse does not work on lycanthrope, IIRC, but I will check the PHB. In any case, curing a good number of lycanthropes ought to have been well within the power of the Church. From a metagame perspective this is probably true, but this can't be applied to the politics of the situation. What we know as players, the personalities involved might not know. We cannot claim to speak for them as Keith already has. Even so, this only addresses the afflicted. Since natural lycanthropes cannot be cured, they'd have to be killed, which pretty much puts us back at square one. |
| Sarlax12-23-04, 06:12 PM | Please define this statement as you're losing me, especially the "personality types" issue. I'm praying that my interpretation of this statement is wrong. It's a response to the idea that if lycanthropes are a "race" only for sharing a disease, then people with AIDS are also a "race." I disagree. By personality types, I mean that people who have AIDS don't share a common mind set the way lycanthropes do. They are extremely varied while lycanthropes all have common instincts and habits, especially within phenotypes. There's much more to lycanthropes than being "diseased." They are either born with or develop very different personalities than their base racial type. They can perfectly control or learn to control the manner in which they are cursed. Really, a high-level afflicted lycanthrope (with a +24 on his Control Shape check) also has perfect control over the "disease." People with AIDS aren't like this. They don't experience radical personality shifts. They don't become heartless killers or isolationist do-gooders. They can't control how terribly the disease affects them. They often can't live with the disease. Hence, the idea that people with AIDS are a race if lycanthropes are a race is false. Lycanthropy has much more to it than resembling a contagion. As far as AIDS sufferers not being systematically exterminated, I invite you to read more information from African news services. The situation is rather disturbing. Fair enough. I certainly hope no one's going to make the argument that killing off people with AIDS isn't evil. You're losing me again. Why are you quoting chapter and verse from the SRD to settle a philosophical situation? I'm not. I'm explaining that the Church had the means to cure many people who had the disease. Take my statements in context. If the Church is such a large organization of hunters of the supernatural, it ought to have the information necessary for fighting them. Ignorance isn't an excuse for murder. Since the means were available, the Church should have figured this out. While Keith fairly points out that experiments in cures would have frustrated early efforts, there's another spell that can help, and it's available, because it's the same level as the Atonement spell Keith has said was being used to redeem Paladins. Commune. They're yes or no questions, but that's helpful enough. "Can lycanthropes be cured of their condition?" "Would Remove Curse work? "Would Heal work?" Such questions can easily narrow the range of experimentation. The broad point is that the Church of the Silver Flame isn't absolved by it's ignorance. It had the means to cure afflicted lycanthropes and the means to discover the cure. Because of arrogance, panic, or stubborn clinging to dogma, it did neither. That's where philosophy comes in. Because there was a peaceful and non-murderous solution to (part) of the problem that the Church refused to fully explore, they are morally culpable. And Remove Curse does not work on lycanthrope, IIRC, but I will check the PHB. It does. Check the Lycanthrope entry in the MM. Even so, this only addresses the afflicted. Since natural lycanthropes cannot be cured, they'd have to be killed, which pretty much puts us back at square one. As has been said, lycanthropes didn't exist in large numbers, so killing them wasn't necessary, especially with good and neutral types. Those could probably have been persuaded to live elsewhere, as some werebears were to live in Lammania. As far evil types, that's a different story: it's morally acceptable to kill off creatures that only wish malicious death upon you if there's no other way to deal with them. Killing off people simply because they bear a dangerous disease is evil. It might be a social necessary or social beneficial evil, but it's still evil. We probably don't condone the murder of people with AIDS, right? |
| Euangelion12-23-04, 08:38 PM | (First time back to the boards in a couple of days) For the record, Hellcow, way back on page 3 I only said "anyone other than Hellcow" out of respect for your comment that you were done posting on this thread. It should in no way be interepreted that I didn't want you to respond or didn't care to know what you thought. Best Eberron thread ever! (Besides Ask Keith Baker 1 and 2) |
| motorfirebox12-24-04, 12:44 AM | By personality types, I mean that people who have AIDS don't share a common mind set the way lycanthropes do. They are extremely varied while lycanthropes all have common instincts and habits, especially within phenotypes. okay, take AIDS out of the picture, and insert a malady that people are born with that does alter the victims' behavior--say, Down's Syndrome. Down's Syndrome sufferers suffer a number of behavioral similarities. and, more, they even share certain physical similarities. there's no cure for it, either. but you wouldn't call sufferers of Down's Syndrome a "race". the only difference between Down's Syndrome and lycanthropy is you can't catch Down's Syndrome by being bitten. and, well, the whole sprouting-of-unsightly-hair thing. |
| krappleby12-24-04, 04:45 AM | I would like to point out that im sure some of the deligates of the silver flame, would possibly have the Wish spell available. and of course that would cure the disease. would it not |
| Ramius_Mordale12-24-04, 11:15 AM | I'm just going to assume few people have ever played Ravenloft here (just for the sake of argument) so here is the deal with a Curse being a disease. People only call the Curse a disease because it is like a cancer on any plane of existance. If you have ever played Ravenloft, you would know for a fact that the person Cursed with lycanthropy is probably not going to be a good person ever again. The same with a vampire, it's never going to be good. So really there is no question of whether it's good or evil to kill the person, you'd be doing them a great service to save them the pain of being such a creature, even if they do want to be one, even a paladin in Ravenloft can justify it and feel that he did the best for a person like that. Ravenloft is all about evil being more prominant then good, which makes being a good character even harder. Now with that side note done, Eberron allows for more room to run with the Curse. You can kill the person with the Curse, but unlike other campaign settings, you have a great deal of magic at your disposal to look at alternate avenues. But here's the kicker when you put Eberron vs Ravenloft in monsters with curses. In Ravenloft they have a guy that completely devoted his life to researching all the monsters of the night. Categoring every undead, lycanthrope, and monster as well as way to effectively combat them and then printed by printing press and sold to anyone that might want one. Now with Eberron, who has done that really? Probably so far, only undead is really known how to kill well since they were highly used during the war. Before the Last War however, I doubt many people had faced a great deal of undead or had many books written on how to combat them. Same with the Church of the Silver Flame, I doubt they had a written book on how to deal with lycanthropes or a way to remove the curse of lycanthrope. The easiest solution at the time was to kill them, and after killing them all and hunting them down people recorded different ways of killing them as well as finding out a few more open minded or more ambitious individuals found a way to remove the curse through trial and error through the use of magic and knowledge. But let me remind everyone in Ravenloft people used those tactics before the said person that wrote them down merely went around gathered all the sure methodes of killing creatures and wrote them down in his book that way he could spread the knowledge farther than through just word of mouth. Now with Eberron, I'd say the written word probably spreads a lot farther since they have a whole Dragonmark House devoted to that. I'm sure now everyone knows more ways of dealing with werebeasts, who to contact and their is probably a hotline you can call if you're dealing with one. Okay, maybe not a hotline, but you get my drift. Not saying the Purge was right just saying probably for Eberron's case, it was needed to gather the information needed to best combat these creatures and find alternate ways of defeating them via more humane means. But I must strongly say again, a Curse is a Curse. It isn't racial. Just because vampires are going around spreading their curse doesn't make them a race either. It's their way of spreading evil and corrupting society. Same with lycanthropy, it is spread by being bitten, just you can be born with it to spread it. Some might call a Curse a Blessing but they are merely deluding themselves and probably already turning evil, if they aren't already. If you have a problem of how a curse is viewed blame the people centuries ago that made up the myths, but it was for good reason that both vampirism and lycanthropy are both viewed as evil. Because it enslaves the soul of the person, eventually destroying their right of choice and free-will. They are forced to kill the innocent against their will usually until finally the curse takes complete hold of them and makes them into a rampaging killer that preys on the weak and seeks only to spread it's curse to others. Now I'm not saying someone with a strong enough will couldn't fight either of the curses, but I'd say a person with vampirism has it easier to do this than a lycanthrope character, mainly because a vampire needs to kill it's victim to spread the curse, while a lycanthrope has to bite and let his prey live which isn't their aim usually. Lycanthropes, for the most part, are rampaging killers and only occassionally happen to spread their disease unless it's a true lycanthrope that's evil then they are actively trying to spread it. At least, that's what I have read from books based on the myths of it or get the impression from with the MM on it. Which is why creature's with either Curse still being good is rare at best. It's just that in Eberron these rare exceptions are more possible, but only slightly more so, at least that's what impression I get from Keith's answers here. As I said before lycanthropy is not a disease it's a curse. It is very hard to remove this curse without killing the person outright considering the person if threatened, whether they want to or not, will revert to their animalistic form (or hybrid) and attack the creature. But if you could approach them, without provoking their alertness, to come with you peacefully and try and remove the curse then you can do it the more humane way. Or if your really skillful subdue them in either form and do it but most aren't. Maybe if you were a well trained hunter of lycanthrope creatures it would be possible but most people have trouble just killing them. And as it has been noted, most people aren't that high level in Eberron and even fewer people have heroic class levels. Regardless, I think, although the Purge was a tragic thing, it may have been necessary at the time or may not have been. As I said before, either way you have to deal with the curse, you'll never completely win. At least, that's how I view it. -Ramius- |
| Hellcow12-24-04, 11:50 AM | the only difference between Down's Syndrome and lycanthropy is you can't catch Down's Syndrome by being bitten. and, well, the whole sprouting-of-unsightly-hair thing. Well, and the murderous urge to kill other intelligent beings... ;) I would like to point out that im sure some of the deligates of the silver flame, would possibly have the Wish spell available. and of course that would cure the disease. I'm going to assume that you mean the miracle spell here. At the moment, the Keeper of the Silver Flame is the only person in the Curch of the Silver Flame with the power to cast miracle. The Keeper of that era was the primary reason people beleived that lycanthropes couldn't be saved, so he wouldn't have used it on their behalf - and it's possible, that being so misguided, he was not as close to the Flame as Jaela is and thus was unable to cast miracle. Further, I'd put miracle in the same camp as resurrection. Just because someone can alter reality doesn't mean that they are going to be eager to do so on a regular basis; it is, in a sense, challenging the will of divinity and asking fate to be changed, and I would think that they would think carefully before making such a request. Anyhow, it's off for the holidays for me! |
| elecgraystone12-24-04, 02:45 PM | This post has me running out to make up a shifter ranger/paladin! Since a lot of people on this thread think it's OK to cut a swath of destruction to "save the innocent" and just get an atonement later to fix things up later, I'm hunting silver flamers! Favorite enemy silver flame! :D I see the lycanthopes as "innocent" victims of the purge and that the church is a constant threat to the one's that lived through it! Just like the flamers saw the "curse" as a constant threat from lycanthropes, no matter their alignment! So to protect them, I'll kill every last one of the flamers!(they will not be safe until they all die) So some of them ARE good, two hail marys and a act of contrition later (atonement) and I don't have to worry about the killing of LG priests! (just like werebears of LG alignment!) I don't see that killing them is any more "evil" than the purge. The same logic that would allow a paladin to keep his status in the purge should allow me to keep mine! So anyone that wants to join me grab a torch and lets go down to the church! ;) Remember that there was someone posted that he was going to make a group of paladin of the silver flame in his campain to hunt down lycanthopes! My paladin is just as valid! As hellcow stated, a paladin can't kill someone just because they detect evil. The reverse should also be true. Just because they are not evil doesn't mean that you can't kill them! |
| motorfirebox12-24-04, 02:55 PM | minus the sarcasm, a paladin/ranger who views the SF as evil for the sins it committed during the purge, and who fights what little currently remains of their anti-lycanthrope agenda, isn't a bad idea. such a paladin could, concievably, kill a LG SF priest or paladin who is about to kill an "innocent" lycanthrope or shifter (say, the wererat kid we've been arguing about). i don't think this paladin/ranger would need to attone afterwards, personally. |
| elecgraystone12-24-04, 03:11 PM | minus the sarcasm, a paladin/ranger who views the SF as evil for the sins it committed during the purge, and who fights what little currently remains of their anti-lycanthrope agenda, isn't a bad idea. such a paladin could, concievably, kill a LG SF priest or paladin who is about to kill an "innocent" lycanthrope or shifter (say, the wererat kid we've been arguing about). i don't think this paladin/ranger would need to attone afterwards, personally. No sarcasm intended. This seems to be how some people think. And I was talking about hunting them down before they could try another purge of innocent lycanthropes! I believe that if they found out about any living lycanthropes, they would start all over again! The only way to make sure that the remaining lycanthropes are safe from any more purges is to destroy the church of the silver flame and as many of it's worshipers as can possibly be kill by one person! It's no different than the silver flame paladin in the purge justifying his slaughter of good lycanthropes! Some have said that "he just need an atonement and he's fine". I want the same for my sliver flame slayer! |
| motorfirebox12-24-04, 04:35 PM | i would disagree that getting atonement over and over again is a viable way for a paladin to live--SF lycanthrope killer or not. atonement requires that the subject be repentant; if he goes out and does it again the next day, he's not repentant. my argument has always been that a paladin of the SF during the purge would not require atonement for killing a good-aligned lycanthrope, because he's within the precepts of his order. paladins are not just good--they're lawful good. when lawful action and good action are opposed, the paladin has to decide which is more important: obeying the law, or obeying the good. in the case of the purge, a paladin might very well decide to follow the law (the SF's order to destroy lycanthropy) instead of the good (killing a good-aligned lycanthrope). |
| elecgraystone12-26-04, 11:50 AM | i would disagree that getting atonement over and over again is a viable way for a paladin to live--SF lycanthrope killer or not. atonement requires that the subject be repentant; if he goes out and does it again the next day, he's not repentant. my argument has always been that a paladin of the SF during the purge would not require atonement for killing a good-aligned lycanthrope, because he's within the precepts of his order. paladins are not just good--they're lawful good. when lawful action and good action are opposed, the paladin has to decide which is more important: obeying the law, or obeying the good. in the case of the purge, a paladin might very well decide to follow the law (the SF's order to destroy lycanthropy) instead of the good (killing a good-aligned lycanthrope). I All right! That's easier! I can go on that murder spree, killing every flamer with no atonement! Cool! Burn down churchs! Ambush them on the streets! Strangle them in their sleep! Drop flamer children off cliffs! Torture them to find out were more of them are! I can commit ANY vile acts imaginable as long as the church gave it's OK. And all I have to say is that I was just following orders! I think they tried that argument here in the real world. Nazi germany soldiers. Even if you wrap it up in nice paper and put a pretty bow on it, it's STILL EVIL! And ANY paladin that that commits evil knowingly loses his status. No questions asked, even in eberron. They are the one exception to the "moral fuzziness" allowed even priests. |
| Gurv12-26-04, 12:47 PM | I And ANY paladin that that commits evil knowingly loses his status. No questions asked, even in eberron. They are the one exception to the "moral fuzziness" allowed even priests. I think that is the kicker right there: "knowingly". A paladin character must do good acts and avoid evil ones. Hopefully, he rarely runs into a situation where the difference is unclear. When he does run into one that is unclear, he must turn to the guidance of church doctrine. If they direct him through an uncertain matter, and he follows through, it is unlikely that you can claim that he "knowingly" performed an evil act. The situation here does not seem unclear to us, because we know that werebears and such are not evil. We know that curing inflicted lycanthropes is possible. And we know that the Church of the Silver Flame was packed full of corrupt idealists. These things were not clear to the paladins of the time, who knew only what they had been told: that all lycanthropes were a danger to the people around them and that the only way to stop the killing was to destroy them. There were not as many paladins involved in this as some seem to think: they were not the majority but the minority. Although a few might have been mislead, it seems that many saw part of the truth and worked to aid whatever innocent lycans they could, when they could. I agree that they may be the exception to the moral fuzziness as well. But you have to consider the impact of living in a morally fuzzy world. A paladin in Eberron cannot simply kill someone because they have an evil aura. Likewise, there are many neutral creatures...some of which may need to be defeated. Paladins cannot sense good auras. So at best, they know when they are doing an acceptable thing by killing an evil creature. They have no special sense that tells them when they are doing wrong, by killing a good or neutral creature wrongly accused. For that they have to depend on the same things as the rest of us. And the 5 page thread makes it quite clear that the lycanthrope question is not a clear-cut issue. |
| elecgraystone12-26-04, 01:20 PM | Well, and the murderous urge to kill other intelligent beings... ;) This only aplies to lycanthopes that involantary change, meaning that a natural lycanthrope NEVER has these because they NEVER involantary change! Also is the lycantropes are not a race, how do we end up with shifters? I'll quote, "descended from humanoids and NATURAL LYCANTHOPES"! They breed true and can even create a hybrid race. If the natural lycanthropes are just people affected by a curse, they how do you "breed" it out? Now, here is some stuff from the SRD. The only lycanthrope noted as murderous is the werewolf lord. "Stronger, hardier, and more deadly than its lesser fellows, the werewolf lord is a murderous beast that delights in wreaking havoc." Now lets look at a natural lycanthrope. "CREATING A LYCANTHROPE “ The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal). This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore whose size is within one size category of the base creature’s size (Small, Medium, or Large for a Medium base creature)." Note that the lycanthrope doesn't need to kill or hunt. He just takes on some characteristics. They don't need raw meat. They could be a vegetarian! The only restriction in on the animal form, not on eating habits! "Curse of Lycanthropy (Su): Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy." Note that while a natural lycanthrope can give the curse of lycanthropy as a (SU) power, THEY don't have it and are not under it's affect! "Organization: Solitary or pair, sometimes family (3-4), pack (6-10), or troupe (family plus related animals)" Note under organization for those that thought that think that there aren't any villages or other gatherings of lycanthropes. Up to 10 at a time! As many as three families at a time. Not a village maybe, but three houses with three families! "Alignment: Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the alignment of the animal form can be arbitrarily assigned." As should be noted rats and wolves TEND to produce evil lycanthropes and that alignments for lycanthropes were arbitrarily assigned! All other stuff on "murderous rages" and such is under the heading. "LYCANTHROPY AS AN AFFLICTION" Meaning that it DOES NOT APPLY to normal lycanthropes! Also to Gurv. You are right, paladins can't detect good, they detect EVIL. When your paladin detects that the lycanthrope ISN'T evil and hackes they down it sounds evil! He detect no evil and they aren't doing anything evil (Or they would detect right?) If it's not OK for a paladin to kill someone that's evil then it should be even less OK to kill someone that's NOT EVIL! Let's review. LG werebear family farming they land. Paladin rounds them all up (mom, dad, and kids). Detects evil, none. Ok church said your evil. CHOP, CHOP, CHOP, CHOP. Let me put it another way. An evil outsider disguises himself as a high level priest of the order. Why detect evil, the church in infalible! He comands all the paladins to kill everyone in a village because they are evil and they will bring an end to the world. They go out and put the village to the sword because they were told to, ignoring their vows. (IE protect innocents, destory EVIL) If that's true, give me those paladins! ;) My CN necromancer needs some new bodies for his experiments! A polymorph spell and buff up my bluff skill and I could have an army! Any lie and they could commit endless evil acts and KEEP their paladinhood! As long as they don't question their superiors, no holds barred! Willfull ingorance is the same as knowingly commiting evil! It would never fly in any game I've ever played in! Killing non-evil creatures non-combatant that pose no current threat (let's say a lycanthrope child) is evil no matter how you slice it! ALso who is the church going to send out on a purge? The fighting arm of the chuch? Paladins maybe? I have a hard time seeing that they didn't send ALL of their paladins on this because, lets face it, they are a lot better in a fight than a cleric and who's going to be leading those men? The guy with leadership skills and can give them bonuses against fear? And you have that blind obedience thing too! A LG fighter might ask questions! :rolleyes: |
| motorfirebox12-26-04, 02:04 PM | I can commit ANY vile acts imaginable as long as the church gave it's OK. yes, because there is absolutley no difference between people afflicted by an supernatural curse, and people who go to church. SFers aren't carriers of a plauge that turns people into animals nineteen days out of every month, and there's a good chance that you might be able to turn a given SFer away from the purge, given a convincing argument. moreover, killing SFers in the name of lycanthropy is likely to set off another purge. i don't see how provoking a war against the people you're trying to protect as being a path to the greater good of anyone. They breed true and can even create a hybrid race. If the natural lycanthropes are just people affected by a curse, they how do you "breed" it out? people with Down's Syndrome breed true. people with Down's Syndrome share a number of behavioral patterns. people with Down's Syndrome share similar physical features. are people with Down's Syndrome a seperate race? All other stuff on "murderous rages" and such is under the heading. "LYCANTHROPY AS AN AFFLICTION" Meaning that it DOES NOT APPLY to normal lycanthropes! you're ignoring the fact that natural lycanthropes can and do pass on their curse to others--even, it seems, good lycanthropes. you're also ignoring the part where, in Eberron, all lycanthropes are (according to Keith Baker) descendants of and inheritors to the power of an evil, powerful being--one that gains strength from the simple existence of lycanthropes (natural and afflicted). all lycanthropes--good, bad, or possessed of a shotgun--feed power to an evil being of great supernatural power. |
| Gurv12-26-04, 02:19 PM | It sounds like you don't want to use lycanthropes in the role that the setting has placed them in. In Eberron, as it is written, lycanthropes are dangerous and misunderstood. If you don't want to run them that, that is fine. But the default for the setting is that people view them as highly dangerous. Whether lycanthropes are a race is easily debatable. You argue that the reproduce, but a disease-like curse can easily be spread from parent to child. It was different forms depending on how it is spread: you spend 9 months in the womb of a lycan, you get the 'natural' form; you get scratched, you get the 'inflicted' version. Shifters are another strange thing about the curse: maybe they come from people who developed a partial resistance to the curse-disease. I cannot explain the particulars of how a magical curse might work...if its not in the rules, then its merely my theories. In the case of the paladin rounding up mom, dad, and the kids, I'm pretty sure this is exactly the example of the time when the paladin should be looking up into the sky and saying "Something isn't quite right here...", and doing some serious questioning of the whole thing. In most cases, it didn't happen that way. The paladins, as you said, are the arm of the church, superior warriors than the clerics even. It is likely that they were the ones sent to deal with the werewolves and other dangerous lycans. Your own argument shows why the paladins would not be rounding up the werebear farming community: that task would fall to the lesser minions of the church. There are not enough paladins to waste them on such things, and therefore it would be rare for a paladin to be involved in the less acceptable parts of the purge. There were plenty of lycans rampaging around making themselves look bad for the church to keep the paladins useful and busy. If they were smart, they kept them busy with the evil lycans while dealing with the more innocent ones in a quieter manner. I am not sure at this point what the issue is anymore. Are we discussing whether paladins can be mislead by the church, or whether the rules require lycans to be dangerous? In the former case, my answer would be: "Yes they can, although they should do their best not to be", and in the latter my answer would be: "No, they don't, but sometimes they are and people see them that way anyhow". The alignments of the lycanthropes may have been arbitrarily applied, but they were applied; no one said it was fair. Werewolves were given an evil alignment, and so that is what they are. Reading into the word 'tend' doesn't change anything. Keith has already explained that it is a strong tendency, and that the tendency does not come from upbringing but from an instinctive urge to behave that way. It was a witch-hunt. Those who did nothing wrong got caught up with those who did. The people involved were zealots, and we can only hope that those who did wrongful deeds were unaware of them. Those [paladins] who did learn that what they were doing was wrong either lost their powers or altered their methods to protect the innocent. |
| Warlord12-26-04, 07:51 PM | A few questions, first can 5th level weretouched master shift to animal form as many times a day as he wants or is there a limit. Also can a shifter ranger pick worshiper of silver flame as his favored enemy.Thats my current character concept for the RPGA Eberron game. A shifter who's really ****** about the whole lycanthrope inquisition. |
| Hellcow12-26-04, 07:54 PM | Well, I'm just checking in on the road, and I don't have anywhere near the time it would take to respond to the recent posts in detail... or the inclination, really. All we're doing now is treading over old ground. EGS, you say that natural lycanthropes do not have a defined alignment. Allow me to point out that all of the lycanthropes whose statistics are listed - IE, the werewolf labeled as "always chaotic evil" and the wererat labeled "always lawful evil" are natural lycanthropes. Add to that, as Gurv has said,*I* am telling you that in Eberron - at least, in anything I write in the future - natural lycanthropes possess a strong involuntary pull towards the alignment in question... and have the tie to a rakshasa rajah lurking in the background. So, you may ignore this if you chose to, just like you can ignore anything in the ECS. But it's going to be there regardless. Shifters are not simply a hybrid race. If a lycanthrope and an unifected human have a child, you won't get a shifter. Shifters are a true-breeding race that have been in existence for hundreds of years, and how they first appeared and what their precise tie to lycanthropes is will be dealt with in the future. But they are not "half-lycans"; they are weretouched, with a trace of the lycanthrope in their heritage. Having actually created a few NPCs for testing purposes on my other computer, I'll further note that the challenge with curing a lycanthrope is going to be capturing it and keeping it safe. Let's say that the Church has heard that there are werewolves in the Shattered Forest, and send a group of templars there. Six templars are heading down the road when they come upon the following scene. A werwolf has emerged from the woods and attacked a passing wagon. The wagoneer is already dead, and the werwolf is threatening the three passengers. A werewolf can easily kill a 1st-level commoner in a single round. For a 2nd-3rd level templar to try to hit a werewolf with normal weapon to inflict non-lethal damage (taking the -4 penalty) he's going to need to roll an 18, 19, or 20. Assuming that the templar is wearing a chain shirt (to be able to pursue quickly on foot), carrying a buckler (to be able to switch from bow to sword), and has a +1 Dex modifier, the typical werewolf commoner can hit him on a 13 or higher. The werewolf has more hit points that the templar and can hit for more damage if he lands all of his attacks. And there's a chance that this is a natural lycanthrope who cannot be cured. So, what's the templar's priority? Try to do nonlethal damage, hoping that he and his companions survive? Or act as quickly and efficiently as possible in an attempt to save the three remaining commoners? Lycanthropes aren't pushovers. I made a 2nd-level natural lycanthrope werewolf ranger using the elite array, and he's got a +14 Hide and Sneak and a +9 attack with his bow - +7/+7 with Rapid Shot, thanks to his ranger levels. And low-light vision. And a 19 AC (compared to the 16 of the 15-point werewolf). So this werewolf stalker prowls through the Shattered Forest hunting intelligent creatures. Even if a templar team is sent after him, he can see better in the dark and is far more suited to stealth; he'll be picking them off from a distance, and again, if they ever catch up with him should they really take the chance that he might be afflicted and be able to be cured? Does it change anything if he's already killed 100 people - ten of them templars? And infected another dozen with lycanthropy? Lycanthropy is better understood now than it was then. It does not present the same threat now as it does then. If it is possible to capture a lycanthrope and attempt to cure him, I believe that this is what most would do. But I maintain that in the circumstances given above, the follower of the Flame's rightful concern will be the innocents who are in immediate danger, not the well-being of the person who is about to kill them. This may not apply to a non-evil lycanthrope - but if it doesn't, and the lycanthrope will cooperate with the church (accepting a cure, taking exile to Lammania, or what have you) then it's not an issue. "Curse of Lycanthropy (Su): Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy." Note that while a natural lycanthrope can give the curse of lycanthropy as a (SU) power, THEY don't have it and are not under it's affect! I wish I had time to address the other points, but I'll confine myself to this. I couldn't disagree with you more. The lycanthrope possesses a supernatural ability called "Curse of Lycanthropy". How exactly are you reading this as "he doesn't actually have the curse, he can just transmit it to others?" It's *because* he has the curse that he can transmit it to others. It's not called "Lycanthropic Vector" or something like that - it's called "Curse of Lycanthropy." Anyhow, all I can say, EGS, is that we have very different views of lycanthropy, and that would and will obviously have a considerable impact on the view of the purge. As has been stated numerous times, the purge is now seen as an overzealous and regretable act, similar to the inquisition or to witch-hunting. However, that does not change the fact that the spread of lycanthropy - at least the evil lycanthropes who were most prevalent at the time, and in sufficient numbers, even the non-evil lycanthropes - posed an increasingly dangerous threat, and that many innocents died in the decades before the purge occured. Should the situation arise again, I have no doubt that the Silver Flame would rise up against it: they would seek to act in a more humane manner, but they would still put the safety of the uninfected ahead of the infected; if forced to make a choice between the werewolf and the commoner - or the wereboar and the commoner - the templar will always choose the uninfected commoner, and do what he must do to save the commoner's life. |
| Hellcow12-26-04, 08:00 PM | A few questions, first can 5th level weretouched master shift to animal form as many times a day as he wants or is there a limit. It counts as a use of his shifting ability. Also can a shifter ranger pick worshiper of silver flame as his favored enemy. No. They are not a distinctive species. Most are human, so you can pick "Humanoid (human)". Thats my current character concept for the RPGA Eberron game. A shifter who's really ****** about the whole lycanthrope inquisition. Well, you're a century behind the times, but do what you've got to do. How do you feel about the shifters who fought alongside the Silver Flame during the purge? |
| Warlord12-26-04, 08:08 PM | Originally posted by Hellcow Well, you're a century behind the times, but do what you've got to do. How do you feel about the shifters who fought alongside the Silver Flame during the purge? They should burn Hellcow burn in Hell |
| krappleby12-27-04, 07:50 AM | well, this is definately a very informative post.. even using the advice people have posted, and only seeking lycanthorpes for curing, could be fun anyway. the character himself, has only read about the purge, and the act that destroyed most of the lycanthorpes, and the fact that the church still feels that they are evil.. This character will more than likely, if confronted by the followers, attack, or run instead of discussing, as he will only know about past events. which would make for a good folow up. Once he has already fought then it would sway the group to track to kill NOTE : i do not want to kill off hte character do not get me wrong, i just want him to think he is constantly being tracked, (for what he doesnt know exactly, but only thinks that they are comming to destroy him) The truth can be something else completely |
| Just another user12-27-04, 09:11 AM | 1st: There are only natural lycanthropes who can't spread the curse. They only increase their numbers with reproduction. 2nd: Natural lycanthropes can spread the curse, but the afflicted cannot (the present level of the curse). 3rd: Natural and afflicted lycanthropes can spread the curse (the level during the Inquisition). 4th: As 3rd level, but after a month, afflicted lycanthropes become natural and cannot be cured. 5th: As 4th. After a several decades of being natural lycanthrope, one changes into a native outsider, a type of Rakshasa. Like the other varieties, these creatures are modeled on animals (rats and wolves instead of tigers) and possess strong shapechanging powers. 6th: a bite is no more necessary, the simple touch of a lycanthrope can infect someone with lycantropy. 7th: The curse became trasmitted by air. As 6th, but now the simple presence of a lycanthrope is enough. About the attempt to cure a lycanthrope. Have you considered (not "you", Sarlax, I mean in general) the logistic behind it? You need a 9th level cleric (for Remove curse and Atonment) and even in the pre-Last War eberron those were rare, Then you need to capture a lycanthrope. Class levels are rare so it is probable you had to use men with npc class in higher number to compensate. In the ensuing fight is inevitable that many of these men will be wounded, and contract lycanthropy, now you have 3-4 or more lycanthropes to heal this assuming they can keep them costrained and that they don't go on a rampage on the remaining guards, before they had a chance to arrive where the high level priest is. and this assuming the lycanthrope want to be cured, about that, we know that a caster can fell if someone attempt to resist to a spell he cast (at least , I think there is a rule for that) but can a priest casting remove curse know that the lycanthrope is willingly failing his "saving throw" ? We could have the situation of a lycanthrope that lies, saying he want to be cured but actually resisting the spells. |
| Hellcow12-27-04, 08:14 PM | ALso who is the church going to send out on a purge? The fighting arm of the chuch? Paladins maybe? I have a hard time seeing that they didn't send ALL of their paladins on this because, lets face it, they are a lot better in a fight than a cleric and who's going to be leading those men? First off, clerics are part of the fighting arm of the church. Remembering that the typical priest is an adept or expert, a cleric specifically trained in the use of arms and armor to serve as a champion of the church. Further, they can be trained - a paladin must be called. Thus, the paladins are in my view the rarest of all. Certainly, the Church would send what paladins it had into the field. However, as has been noted, they would be sent into the "hot zones" - the places where the greatest numbers of deaths had been reported. They wouldn't be idly combing the forests hoping to find a reclusive werebear - they'd be leading the charge into the forest known to be infested by a pack of murderous werewolves. Also, it's worth noting that just because the Church made a concerted effort against the lycanthropes doesn't mean that it stopping dealing with other threats. The church was still fighting the Lords of Dust, incursions from the Byeshk mountains, and other deadly forces - all of which could call for the services of a paladin. And you have that blind obedience thing too! A LG fighter might ask questions! What blind obedience thing? We seem to be reading different threads. In my opinion the LG fighter is MORE likely to act in blind obedience to the orders of the priest. He doesn't have his detect-o-meter to tell him "Well, this lycanthrope's not evil" (not, as we've noted, that this clears things up as much as it might), and he doesn't have the strict moral code of the paladin. The paladin should be held to a higher standard than a fighter or even a priest. The paladin of the Silver Flame should seek to act with compassion whenever possible, which is why we've suggested multiple times that paladins did act to protect non-evil lycanthropes. The paladin should question orders, if they are clearly vile. Yet I still maintain that in the situations I described earlier - where he has the choice of portecting three innocents from one possible innocent - a paladin of the Silver Flame is within his rights to act decisively in the defense of the known innocents. But paladins are likely to be the *least* blindly obedient, not the most. The fighters (and remember, most are actually warriors) would be the ones doing the worst deeds of the purge. I'm really going to try to make this my last post on this thread, as fascinating and addictive as it is. So, two concluding thoughts: As I've said before, I am not trying to defend the purge as a "good" action. It did accomplish an important goal - saving the hundreds who were being killed by the outbreak of evil lycanthropes. However, it resulted in the persecution and death of innocents who might have been saved if things had been handled differently. From a design perspective, the goal was to show that an organization that seeks to serve the greater good - and which generally does so - can still end up performing a terrible act. It happens all the time in our world; people do evil while trying to do good. So my point is that it was never meant to be a simple black and white situation. It is something that is still argued today in Eberron, more than a century after it came to an end. So if you assume that all followers of the Flame support it and kill the woman feeding and clothing lepers, you're killing someone who is actively trying to do good, and who might, if she'd been alive then, have advocated a different solution to the purge. In which case you're the one doing evil... and not even in the cause of good, simply in the cause of vengeance. (Though with that said, the vengeful adventurer is certainly a valid story archetype...) Second: Throughout this thread, there has been much quoting of the SRD. But much of the SRD is open to interpretation. Lycanthropy is a curse - but where did it come from? Who were the first lycanthropes and how did the different breeds come into existence? How does the curse affect the personality and behavior of natural lycanthropes? How many lycanthropes existed in 830 YK, and what sort of threat did they pose? By the SRD, all of these things are open to debate... and of course, even if the SRD had a clear answer, it wouldn't necessarily apply to Eberron. Lacking an official answer to these questions, it is difficult to fully understand the circumstances that led to the purge. So, this is something you will see covered once and for all in a future Dragonshard - at which point, you'll have the official answers to these questions as they apply to Eberron, and can draw your judgments accordingly. Obviously, you can always run things any way you want, whatever I end up saying. But the past and future of lycanthropy in Eberron will be officially addressed in months to come. |
| stone_dog12-27-04, 11:45 PM | As a side note, I found a great word today. Theriomorph. It means something that takes the form of an animal. A nifty and clinical sounding term for were critters of all stripes. Just thought I'd share. |
| Indigo12-28-04, 12:12 AM | As a side note, I found a great word today. Theriomorph. It means something that takes the form of an animal. A nifty and clinical sounding term for were critters of all stripes. To play Devil's (Mockery's?) advocate, technically a druid would be a theriomorph. Or a selkie, or similar fey creature that can assume an animal form. While "lycanthrope" technically has "wolf" in its roots, in a D&D sense it has the specific meaning of a creature suffering under a curse - the curse of *lycanthropy*. Moving away from that term makes it easier to forget that werebear, boar, and wolf alike are all cursed - not just folks who happen to be able to assume animal form. Still, it's a nifty word. ;) |
| stone_dog12-28-04, 12:36 AM | True enough Indigo. Can't go mucking about with D&D terms. Arguments abound as it is! |
| Ricohard_Draconis12-28-04, 10:18 AM | actually a selkie wouldn't be a theriomorph since in mythology at least their animal, seal form, was their real one and they were able to assume human shape. homomorph perhaps? |
| phantarch12-28-04, 01:11 PM | Back on page 2 of this thread, there was a discussion on this term as well, and it was pointed out that the 2E MM said that lycanthropy was more acurately called therianthropy. You could use that as a distinction between a theriomorph and what the MM currently gives the misnomer of lycanthropy. |
| Wolfwood212-30-04, 11:53 AM | If you want a cannon example of a non-evil (well, it's not listed, but nearly impossible for it to be) werewolf, please turn to page 174 of your ECS, and read the description of the thorp of Wolf's Paw. Throntuft is in all probability a Good werewolf, and doesn't go all feral in animal/hybird form, since it says that he's careful not to spread his curse. I know I'm bringing this up from the first page, but I just wanted to say that I read the description of Thorntuft in a somewhat more sinister way than most of you seem to. Sure, most of the time he's content to lay around and bask in the sun and the presence of his descendents. But sometimes... sometimes the urge rises up within him, if only once in a very long while, and he finds himself compelled to go out and indulge his natural impulses. Sure, you could read 'hunting' as him just running down the game animals of the forest. But coupled with the comment about being careful not to spread the curse, and I read him as still going out and hunting down humanoids for the sheer pleasure of killing them. Probably not very often. Probably his descendants know nothing of these activities. And certainly he's very careful that all of his victims end up dead, lest they survive and contract the curse. (Thus bringing the Silver Flame down upon him.) Like I said, that's just my reading. But I think that's how I'd use him, if it ever came up in game. |
| elecgraystone12-31-04, 12:52 PM | They should burn Hellcow burn in Hell I've got the torch if you have the oil! |
| elecgraystone12-31-04, 01:08 PM | He doesn't have his detect-o-meter to tell him "Well, this lycanthrope's not evil What do you call his Detect Evil at will power? 1 standard action tells you if anything evil is in your detection cone? I'd think that before a paladin puts something to the sword, he'd hedge his bets and check. But then, I find getting atonements a pain! ;) |
| Hellcow12-31-04, 01:48 PM | What do you call his Detect Evil at will power? Reread my post, EGS, and you'll see that I was refering to the LG *fighter*. You said that the fighter would be more likely to ask questions than the paladin. I said that the fighter would be less likely to ask questions, since he doesn't have the innate ability to detect evil. But even that brings us back to the point that's been stated many times in this thread, that a creature that does not detect as evil can still be performing evil actions. |
| Neofish12-31-04, 03:34 PM | Reread my post, EGS, and you'll see that I was refering to the LG *fighter*. You said that the fighter would be more likely to ask questions than the paladin. I said that the fighter would be less likely to ask questions, since he doesn't have the innate ability to detect evil. But even that brings us back to the point that's been stated many times in this thread, that a creature that does not detect as evil can still be performing evil actions. Like Members of the Silver Flame.? |
| Hellcow12-31-04, 04:28 PM | Like Members of the Silver Flame.? Certainly, as I believe I've said in about half a dozen posts on this thread. "Doing evil while attempting to do good." And as I've also said before, there are many loyal (IE, not corrupt) members of the church who do possess an evil alignment, yet seek to serve the greater good. Alignment isn't everything. |
| Indigo12-31-04, 05:23 PM | One thing I find interesting is the heavy emphasis on "alignment = innocence" in this thread. In my opinion, if a neutral afflicted wereboar attacks a few passing peasants and a paladin comes along, that wereboar is not an innocent. it doesn't matter if he's not in control of his actions. It doesn't matter if he could be cured. He is about to kill harmless individuals who simply had the misfortune to cross his path, and it's the defenseless peasants who should be the paladin's concern. Likewise, good does not mean innocent. The soldier of the Silver Flame who performs an evil act - even when he does it unknowingly and with the full belief that he is serving the cause of good - is not an innocent, and the paladin who opposes him should not be penalized. If the paladin engages in needless slaughter when he could safely take the person in question alive, that's a different story; I do believe that compassion is supposed to be one of the virtues of the paladin. But as long as he uses necessary force - which in the case of the wereboar may be full force, if it's the only chance he has to save the peasants - I certainly wouldn't call for atonement. Go too far down this path and you get paladins who can't move, lest the slightest motion end up causing harm to an innocent somewhere. I think there's a considerable amount of leeway in the definition of innocence - I don't think "good = innocent and evil = never innocent" is in any way a safe assumption in Eberron. |
| Neofish12-31-04, 06:09 PM | Do you think any of the noble Lycans came to the chruch and offered to help, would they be imprisoned or killed.? I think that would truly be a tough choice for a paladin, if a lycan came and asked the paladin to end his life becasue he knew that he was a source of evil... |
| Streamweaver12-31-04, 06:15 PM | Do you think any of the noble Lycans came to the chruch and offered to help, would they be imprisoned or killed.? I think that would truly be a tough choice for a paladin, if a lycan came and asked the paladin to end his life becasue he knew that he was a source of evil... Probably depends on the paladin. Nothing says a paladin can't be an insensative bastard who works only in absolutes.... wait I think that's a requirement for the class. :D |
| Indigo12-31-04, 07:30 PM | Do you think any of the noble Lycans came to the chruch and offered to help, would they be imprisoned or killed.? From the examples given, it seems clear that most templars didn't realize that there was such a thing as a noble lycanthrope. So probably some would be killed out of fear or suspicion - "It's some sort of a trick!" Assuming that cooler heads prevaled, I would assume that they would be imprisoned and the church would attempt to cure them; if a cure was impossible but it was clear that they were noble, they might be exiled to Lammania. If even afflicted lycanthropes could spread the curse in the time of the purge, it seems unlikely that they would be accepted as full allies in the way that some shifters were, because one slip up and the curse has spread even farther. I think that would truly be a tough choice for a paladin, if a lycan came and asked the paladin to end his life becasue he knew that he was a source of evil... Why is this a difficult choice? It seems to me that if the victim absolves the paladin of guilt, acknowledges the danger that he poses and asks the paladin to kill him in order to protect those innocents that he might harm if left alive - seems pretty straightforward to me, especially for the Silver Flame who are used to the "salt the Earth" approach. If there is some chance that the lycanthrope could be cured, I can see a paladin saying "No, let use try to cure you!" but I wouldn't fault him for doing as the lycanthrope requests. Say that a paladin is accompanying a warrior. The warrior is bitten by a werewolf and contracts lycanthropy. With 19 full moons a week and a Will save of +2, there's a darned good chance that he's going to be consumed (switch to the lycanthropic alignment) within a week; and even if he resists, he'll still be turning into a werewolf five nights out of the week or so, and the paladin may not be able to restrain him during this time. Their horses were killed by the werewolves they encountered. It's going to be well over a week before they can find a priest who could cast remove curse. The warrior is concerned about the harm that he might cause, and he can't stand the thought of being taken over by the beast. He begs his friend to kill him before this can happen. "Let my soul join the Flame while it is still pure! Alive, I will be forced to serve the darkness - in death, my spirit can continue to serve the light." Would you really penalize the paladin for carrying out his friend's wishes? Remember, the followers of the Flame believe that noble souls join the Flame after passing through Dolurrh - so the victim will be going on to a (sort of) better place, and strengthening the Flame he served in life. |
| Gurv12-31-04, 08:14 PM | Would you really penalize the paladin for carrying out his friend's wishes? Remember, the followers of the Flame believe that noble souls join the Flame after passing through Dolurrh - so the victim will be going on to a (sort of) better place, and strengthening the Flame he served in life. No. I wouldn't punish a paladin. I would reward a player who roleplayed the soul-wrenching decision and made efforts to atone for the misdeed. Atonement is more than just a spell to fix things when you lose your powers. People atone for their misdeeds in real life all the time (although perhaps not as often as they should). It means to "To make amends for a sin or fault". I don't think a paladin should be doing things and then deciding whether he should atone based on whether he loses his powers or not. He doesn't need to go get the spell cast, but a symbolic gesture would be good roleplaying. Good and evil is partially the acts you do, and partial how you feel about doing them. The paladin can kill his friend to save others, but he should be fustrated at the world that required it to be done. |
| elecgraystone01-03-05, 01:26 PM | Reread my post, EGS, and you'll see that I was refering to the LG *fighter*. You said that the fighter would be more likely to ask questions than the paladin. I said that the fighter would be less likely to ask questions, since he doesn't have the innate ability to detect evil. But even that brings us back to the point that's been stated many times in this thread, that a creature that does not detect as evil can still be performing evil actions. Sorry, it seems that I misread your post. My bad. But I'd also like to say that you must have misread my post or I misspoke. All my comments on following orders were for the paladin. A fighter can perform ANY alignment actions with no problem, not so with the paladin. If I said what was in your post, then I would have to agree with you. A fighter WOULD follow orders more than the paladin. As a side note, how does that paladin act when the only evil he detects is from fellow church members and not from the lycanthropes they were hunting? And to your last point at the end of your post. How many evil acts does it take to switch your alignment to evil? Or at least non-good? Yes you don't have to be evil to do evil. And you don't have to be good to do good. My point has always been that commiting 50 evil acts (read purge) for the "greater good" makes you evil. (EI evil creatures do evil deeds) As an example, the paladin tortures a prisioner to get the location of bandits. Torture=evil Stopping bandits=good(maybe even a greater good) Does that good negate the evil done by the paladin? Isn't a paladin one step above everyone else in alignment? And for a creature to keep a non-evil alignment he can't keep doing evil deeds! So if the paladin detects nothing on his detect evil, he knows that this isn't one of those "slaughter the peasents" lycanthropes BECAUSE doing that all the time turns you EVIL! SO yes, non-evil CAN do evil once in a while, but the paladin should know that by NOT detecting evil on it that it doesn't do it all the time (or it would be evil!) So either the church lied to him (ie lycanthropes are evil and go on murder sprees) or his detect evil is broken (because a creature that goes on murder sprees all the time HAS TO BE EVIL). Now we take the drop in alignments (as per hellcow) from always to usually. At least 50% are the alignment given. So if we take 50% out and make an even spreed for the other alignment options we come out with 37.5% of evil lycanthropes ARE NOT EVIL. Now the reverse is true for the non-evil lycanthropes: 62.5% Now you could adjust the 50% up, but that just make the percent for the non-evil to go up, so the amount of evil lycanthropes would go DOWN. Now if we assume the population are around the same for the different lycanthropes and with 2 evil and 3 non-evil that makes the amount of total evil lycanthropes around 47.5%. This is with a 50% the same alignment, the MM said MORE that 50% so the percentage is really LOWER than 47.5%(more non-evil to evil), but with no solid number to go with I went with 50%. So over half were not evil, murdering, lycanthropes that the paladin could detect as such! Also I noticed that afflicted lycanthropes take on the lycanthrope template alignment when the change is involuntary, so only rats and wolves would rampage .(ie evil alignment) Ok, I'm out of here. Finally made my save and can log out! This board is better than a harpy! |
| Romulus LoneWolf01-03-05, 02:11 PM | My take on the whole Lycanthropy/Alignment issue is that becoming a Lycanthrope doesn't automatically alter your alignment/behavior. What it does is alter your outlook and behavior based on the instincts of the animal you're becoming. Werewolves, Wererats (and in my opinion, Weretigers) tend to become evil because they have fierce predatory instincts (even the rats) which, combined with human thinking, can lead some to become socipaths. While a good, decent amount of the Lycanthrope population would probably be nature isolationists, there might unfortunetly be enough of the vicious, predatory ones to warrant the negative image of the Lycanthropes as a whole. |
| Kid SixXx01-03-05, 02:15 PM | It's a response to the idea that if lycanthropes are a "race" only for sharing a disease, then people with AIDS are also a "race." I disagree. By personality types, I mean that people who have AIDS don't share a common mind set the way lycanthropes do. They are extremely varied while lycanthropes all have common instincts and habits, especially within phenotypes. Thanks for this clarification. I can accept the terms & definitions given, as it jives with my base of knowledge. Hence, the idea that people with AIDS are a race if lycanthropes are a race is false. Lycanthropy has much more to it than resembling a contagion. From a metagame stance I concur, but in the storyline sense, whether or not lycanthropy is more than a contagion depends on whom you ask, and how much information they have. The Silver Flame obviously didn't share this belief, otherwise they might have thought twice about the Purges. Ignorance isn't an excuse for murder. Since the means were available, the Church should have figured this out. I have to disagree here, as the Church did know that silver got the job done. Again, since not all lycanthropes can be cured and sometimes do not wish to be cured (and might attack & infect those that tried to cure them), the fact that the Church might have known of healing magics to break the curse is inconsequential. While Keith fairly points out that experiments in cures would have frustrated early efforts, there's another spell that can help, and it's available, because it's the same level as the Atonement spell Keith has said was being used to redeem Paladins. I can't really respond to this as it is again mixing metagame with the story, but suffice to say that perhaps the priests were more concerned with praying for spells to help their paladins attone than they were with praying for spells to cure the lycanthropes. After all, the lycanthropes were already being dealt with in the manner prescribed to the Paladins by the Silver Flame as interpreted by members of their own clergy, and that was silver weapons. Lycanthrope had been deemed to be spirtual corruption by the Silver Flame itself, and the paladins were fighting it. They're yes or no questions, but that's helpful enough. "Can lycanthropes be cured of their condition?" "Would Remove Curse work? "Would Heal work?" Such questions can easily narrow the range of experimentation. The paladins & clerics had been given an edict from the Silver Flame and were pretty much at war with the lycanthropes. It was a poor time for experimentation, although the paladins did manage to find alternatives to wholesale slaughter. The broad point is that the Church of the Silver Flame isn't absolved by it's ignorance. It had the means to cure afflicted lycanthropes and the means to discover the cure. Because of arrogance, panic, or stubborn clinging to dogma, it did neither. I have to disagree slightly as this all boils down to a "What did you know and when did you know it?" situation. We know from rulebooks that the Church did indeed have the means to cure lycanthrope, but we're being omnicient outsiders, and not the clerics or Silver Flame clergy that was personally involved in the situation. We already have the facts as given. Lycanthrope is a curse that is notoriously difficult to break, and in the case of the Naturals, it cannot be broken at all. The Silver Flame charged it's followers to combat lycanthrope and they did so in the manner that seemed beneficial to those not stricken with the curse. To suggest that the church should have been infintely wise enough to consider the feelings of the beings it had been charged to combat is slightly ludicrous, as this is not something that is done in real-life. No one goes into war with remarkable amounts of concern for the lives of the enemy: that is a self-destructive practice. Empathy for the enemy is a luxury we can afford when analyzing this situation from a distance, but it hardly comes into the picture on a more personal level, and I think it's kinda silly to ask the Silver Flame to do something you probably wouldn't be willing to do if you, yourself, were in their situation. Finally, and most importantly, I have to disagree with your rationale about the church's apparent evil due to lazy adherance to dogma. The Purges were a result of the divine Silver Flame itself speaking through Tira Miron and stating that lycanthrope was an affliction of the soul that needed to be fought. The church was perhaps misguided as to the means to combat lycanthrope, but the Word to deal with lycanthrope was handed down by the very entity the Church worshiped. It was not some arbitrary church policy. The fault certainly lies with strict vs. loose interpretation of the Word, but to question the Word itself would not have been merely questioning authority, it would have been heresy, and I seriously doubt that anyone at the time would have risked compromising their entire faith system over beings they'd been apparently charged by their deity to combat. That's where philosophy comes in. Because there was a peaceful and non-murderous solution to (part) of the problem that the Church refused to fully explore, they are morally culpable. Again, if this peaceful and non-murderous solution wound up putting clergy at risk of possible infection, then it was no solution. It's pointless to offer an olive branch to an enemy that may just as soon tear your throat out as look at you, and certainly the lycanthropes knew of the Purges via their own dwindling numbers and weren't likely to accept anything the Silver Fire clergy might offer them under possible flag of truce. As has been said, lycanthropes didn't exist in large numbers, so killing them wasn't necessary, especially with good and neutral types. The actual population of lycanthropes is irrelevant, as the edict to combat lycanthrope was handed down by the Silver Flame itself through it's mortal vessel, Tira Moran. If the actual divine essence saw the lycanthropes as a problem, then it's mortal followers would as well. There were good & bad interpretations of the call, but to question the call itself would be questioning the Silver Flame itself. Unlike Eberron's other "deities," the Silver Flame has a tangible physical manifestation. You may as well question The Bible while Jesus is sitting on your couch watching television. Those could probably have been persuaded to live elsewhere, as some werebears were to live in Lammania. If you want to be technical, the paladins that did this actually went against the dogma, as lycanthropy was supposed to be fought, not relocated. An out-of-sight lycanthrope is not made any less infected because he lives someplace else. This was indeed a show of obvious benevolence, but it could have been also interpreted as direct disobedience to the very being that gave the SF paladins their abilities in the first place. And why should the werebears wish to move, or be forced to move for that matter? Why would the Silver Flame church even bother to parlay with creatures they'd been charged to crusade against? As far evil types, that's a different story: it's morally acceptable to kill off creatures that only wish malicious death upon you if there's no other way to deal with them. I have to concur here. Since we've established that the ECS shaky alignment policy doesn't really address lycanthrope since the curse will dictate alignment, the Church would indeed know the benevolent lycanthropes from the evil ones if they did some folklore research. However, as I said before the Silver Flame itself decreed that lycanthrope itself was the enemy, not particular types of lycanthropes whether good or evil, so the morality point is moot. |
| Indigo01-03-05, 03:41 PM | How many evil acts does it take to switch your alignment to evil? I think the point all along is whether the character performing the act realizes that it is evil. A paladin simply cannot torture, regardless of the use of the information. The paladin who tortures cannot justify his action as somehow being good. Hellcow has specifically said that a priest of the Silver Flame who made use of torture in the cause of the "greater good" would need to have an evil alignment, even if he generally acted in the cause of good. However, the paladin who kills a non-evil wereboar that is threatening three non-evil peasants has not commited an evil act. He has protected innocents from a monster. Perhaps as a distant moral observer we can say "you could have pummeled the wereboar into unconsciousness and found a way to save him" - and as Gurv suggested, I think it would be admirable if the paladin RP'd his remorse over this. But I can't see how you can take the situations Hellcow described and call the paladin's actions evil. You seem to be frozen on this image of the helpless werebear begging for mercy and being hacked apart by an uncaring paladin - whereas it's been repeatedly stated that such situations would be extraordinarily rare and that if they occured, the paladin would do what he could to help the innocent. (Admittedly, there's that whole baby situation, but the argument there was that the baby was both evil and uncurable.) So if the paladin detects nothing on his detect evil, he knows that this isn't one of those "slaughter the peasents" lycanthropes BECAUSE doing that all the time turns you EVIL! Wrong. The wereboar is not performing an evil act. He is following his natural imperitives, as defined by the MM. He will not actively seek out innocents to kill, but he will kill unfortunates who cross his path. According to the MM, he can do this and still be "Always Neutral." Now we take the drop in alignments (as per hellcow) from always to usually. At least 50% are the alignment given. Wrong again: this is not "per Hellcow." if you look at message 117, Hellcow clearly states that he did not realize that the MM defined "usually" as "50%", and that with that in mind he'd shift it back to "always" - that variances from the indicated alignment were extremely rare. He acknowledged that if 50% of werewolves were not evil it would completely change the dynamics and that this was not the intent. |
| Sarlax01-03-05, 08:54 PM | I have to disagree slightly as this all boils down to a "What did you know and when did you know it?" situation. We know from rulebooks that the Church did indeed have the means to cure lycanthrope, but we're being omnicient outsiders, and not the clerics or Silver Flame clergy that was personally involved in the situation. Since this debate is not only about pragmatism but good vs. evil, I feel the need to make this point: Isn’t a good organization an organization that does good as a matter of course and not just when good is convenient? Remember what Commune does. It gives absolutely correct yes-or-no answers to questions in a matter of minutes. This isn’t a matter of years or even months of experimentation. It’s a matter of days – maybe a week if the Church of the Silver Flame is extremely bad at the game 20 Questions. To suggest that the church should have been infintely wise enough to consider the feelings of the beings it had been charged to combat is slightly ludicrous. I agree. You should note that I never said such a thing. What I said is that the Church should have taken a reasonable amount of time to explore its options. Asking for an hour of casting Commune isn’t ludicrous, is it? Empathy for the enemy is a luxury we can afford when analyzing this situation from a distance, but it hardly comes into the picture on a more personal level, and I think it's kinda silly to ask the Silver Flame to do something you probably wouldn't be willing to do if you, yourself, were in their situation. It is pretty silly for me to ask that of the Church. – I’m not a paladin. But if I were a paladin, I’d probably ask that the Church take a bit more time to consider its methods before implementing its policy of widespread killing. Finally, and most importantly, I have to disagree with your rationale about the church's apparent evil due to lazy adherance to dogma. The Purges were a result of the divine Silver Flame itself speaking through Tira Miron and stating that lycanthrope was an affliction of the soul that needed to be fought. Yes, they followed the Flame. This absolves them? No. “Believing” the Flame to be good and right isn’t anything unless you’re going to include belief in Stalin under this umbrella defense. It doesn’t matter if the highest authority hands down a command – a good creature won’t just follow orders. It will consider right and wrong and the lives of innocents. The Silver Flame can say anything it wants. This does not make its proclamations morally defensible. Additionally, even the ECS wonders aloud if the Voice of the Silver Flame is occasionally the demon and not always Tira Miron. If you want to be technical, the paladins that did this actually went against the dogma, as lycanthropy was supposed to be fought, not relocated. Yes, because they’re good. They don’t commit evil acts. If a paladin if given the choice of upholding lawful principles (obeying the Flame) and good principles (saving innocents), he’ll do the good or he’ll fall. This was indeed a show of obvious benevolence, but it could have been also interpreted as direct disobedience to the very being that gave the SF paladins their abilities in the first place. Absolutely. They chose to do good rather than to obey orders. And why should the werebears wish to move, or be forced to move for that matter? Because they’ve got it on good authority (the helpful paladins) that an army of Flamers is coming down to destroy every single one of them. Sure, they won’t be happy about it, but moving to another plane is certainly more attractive than total extermination. Why would the Silver Flame church even bother to parlay with creatures they'd been charged to crusade against? Because they’re supposed to be good. |
| Euangelion01-03-05, 09:21 PM | I'm asking this question straight out, Sarlax, no hidden agenda or meaning or looking for the "right" answer: How much do you believe should the Church of the Silver Flame, Year 998, be responsible for the actions (or lack of appropriate actions) that the church took 150 years before in a campaign? |
| Indigo01-03-05, 10:28 PM | Remember what Commune does. It gives absolutely correct yes-or-no answers to questions in a matter of minutes. I think you underestimate the difficulty of this. Let's look at the bassic question: Can a lycanthrope be cured? A natural lycanthrope cannot be cured. An afflicted lycanthrope can be cured. You can give the victim fresh belladonna within 1 hour of the attack, but you only get one chance and this may not succeed. Remove Disease or Heal will work on an afflicted lycanthrope, but only if administered within three days. Otherwise, Remove Curse or Break Enchantment can work, but only if cast on one of the days of the full moon, only if the victim wishes to be cured (and there's a good chance an evil lycanthrope won't), and only if he suceeds on a fairly difficult Will save. There's a lot of conditionals in there. So, I'm a priest. I don't know the difference between natural and afflicted lycanthropes. I know that werewolves come out of the woods and kill people, and that the survivors become werewolves themselves. I ask you, the DM, "Can a werewolf be cured?" What's your infalliable yes or no answer to this simple starting question? Why would the Silver Flame church even bother to parlay with creatures they'd been charged to crusade against? Because they’re supposed to be good. I don't think I've seen anyone answer Hellcow's question about the templars who encounter the werewolf about to attack the peasants. How does this fit into your moral compass? One being is about to harm other beings who clearly lack the ability to defend themselves, and who could be killed in seconds. Of course, there's a chance that the werewolf is afflicted and should be cured. So are you saying that the templars are evil for acting to defend the peasants instead of trying to talk down the werewolf or by endangering themselves and the peasants by trying to take the werewolf alive? I don't think anyone is trying to say that it was a good thing or handled well. But I think you're painting an awfully strict view of what it takes to be a good organization, especially in what is supposed to be a morally gray world. Asking someone who is already risking his life to save an endangered innocent to place himself (and the potential victim) in even greater danger to try to save the possibly innocent attacker as well doesn't seem like a requirement of good - it seems like a requirement for sainthood. |
| Sarlax01-03-05, 11:13 PM | I'm asking this question straight out, Sarlax, no hidden agenda or meaning or looking for the "right" answer: How much do you believe should the Church of the Silver Flame, Year 998, be responsible for the actions (or lack of appropriate actions) that the church took 150 years before in a campaign? Excepting for Church authorities who are exceptionally long-lived (dwarves, gnomes, elves) who were both members at the time of the purge and supported the purge, I wouldn't hold any member of the Church responsible. Having been born after the killings, it's impossible for them to be responsible in any sense. Now, there's a seperate question there, but it's not an issue I've been getting at: Is the Church itself (as some kind of entity beyond it's actual members) actually responsible? Well, yes, it's the same "entity." But that doesn't mean anything significant because bureacracies probably don't have alignments. It's only individual morality I've been concerned with. The final question is: How much is the Silver Flame itself (not the Church, the force worshipped) responsible? Entirely. Of course, if the flame occasionally speaks with the voice of Tira Miron and sometimes the demon, we can probably lay the Flame's (again, not the organization or individuals but the actual divine force) portion of the blame directly on the demon. |
| Sarlax01-03-05, 11:35 PM | <Discussion of conditions snipped> I ask you, the DM, "Can a werewolf be cured?" What's your infalliable yes or no answer to this simple starting question? “Yes.” Your test-question isn’t about lycanthropy. It’s about the very nature of language and whether answers actually exist. Via Commune, I could ask, “Can I read?” The answer’s going to be, “Yes,” even though I might suddenly be struck blind, die, or have every written item around me burst into flame. Conditional barriers only reduce the probability of success; they don’t make an event impossible. There’s a valid point about not knowing the difference between natural and afflicted lycanthropes. The Commune spell saves us the trouble though. If a simple yes or no would be misleading, then a short phrase of 5 words or less should be used, so we’d get, “Afflicted lycanthropes can be cured,” or maybe, “Yes, but not born lycanthropes.” So are you saying that the templars are evil for acting to defend the peasants instead of trying to talk down the werewolf or by endangering themselves and the peasants by trying to take the werewolf alive? No, I’m not saying that. Defending the weak and the innocent is in the nature of good beings. I wouldn’t hold any such person as having committed an evil act for fighting off the werewolf or even killing it if necessary to protect the peasants. But that’s not how the purge happened. It wasn’t a bunch of templars who kept accidentally running into peasants being attacked by werewolves. The Church took an extremely active position in destroying lycanthropes. I don't think anyone is trying to say that it was a good thing or handled well. Well, those are two separate ideas. I absolutely reject the idea that it was good. I argue that it was often evil. Was it handled well? Absolutely. Nearly every lycanthrope on Khorvaire was exterminated. Regardless of the morality of the act, if it was the Silver Flame’s command to eradicate all lycanthropes, the Church did an extremely “good” job. But I think you're painting an awfully strict view of what it takes to be a good organization, especially in what is supposed to be a morally gray world. I didn’t realize it was so strict. All I ask is that an organization that’s about to wipe out thousands of creatures take the time to figure out if there’s another option, especially when we’re talking about creatures who are potentially being controlled against their will (via supernatural alignment change). |
| Sarlax01-03-05, 11:49 PM | Ah, I've discovered something else about the Commune spell. In cases where a one-word answer would be misleading or contrary to the deity’s interests, a short phrase (five words or less) may be given as an answer instead. Note the bold text. There's an implication that your deity might actually lie to you if you use Commune to contact it. This opens up a new possibility (but doesn't change the act from good to evi on the whole, explanation to follow): If the demon bound into the Silver Flame ordered the purge, it could also intercept questions from Commune to specifically lie about the nature of lycanthropy. If this is the case, than the clerics could both carry out the purge and be good. If they explore all possibilities but the Silver Flame lies to them, they might be innocent. However, the whole act is still evil: it's just unknowingly carried out by good people. |
| Indigo01-04-05, 12:14 AM | The Commune spell saves us the trouble though. If a simple yes or no would be misleading, then a short phrase of 5 words or less should be used, so we’d get, “Afflicted lycanthropes can be cured,” or maybe, “Yes, but not born lycanthropes.” Excellent point. But that’s not how the purge happened. It wasn’t a bunch of templars who kept accidentally running into peasants being attacked by werewolves. Fair enough. But how did it happen? Hellcow has said that the vast majority of lycanthropes at the time of the purge were werewolves and wererats, that werewolves and wererats are strongly driven towards evil behavior, and that at the time afflicted lycanthropes could transmit lycanthropy. If there are an average of 19 nights that can force a change in a 28 day month, that's around 5 days out of each week. With the saving throw to resist alignment change being based on the number of transformations, we're talking about most people lasting a week if they're lucky, not a few months like you might get in a "3 nights a month" situation. So sure, they obviously weren't accidentally running into peasants being attacked. But what if they were intentionally running into peasants being attacks? What if the Eldeen Reaches (or wherever the primary lycanthrope population was concentrated) was one big bloodbath? While werewolves might live with those they have afflicted, I don't particularly see a reason they'd live in harmony with other bands of werewolves; they are chaotic evil killers, and I'd imagine that if they ran out of humans to prey on they'd start on rival packs. If the purge mainly involved the systematic obliteration of peaceful lycanthrope farming villages and killing helpless lycanthropes begging for mercy, I certainly agree with you. But is there any evidence supporting this? What if, instead, there was a catastrophic spike in lycanthropy that threatened to disolve an entire nation into chaos? The Silver Flame steps into defend the region, and galvanized by this falls into a witch-hunting fervor and concludes that to prevent such terror from ever happening again they had to eliminate lycanthropy completely? This still doesn't make it a good act, for many of the reasons you've mentioned. But it seems like the sort of overzealous mistakes humans can make. |
| Indigo01-04-05, 12:18 AM | This opens up a new possibility (but doesn't change the act from good to evi on the whole, explanation to follow): If the demon bound into the Silver Flame ordered the purge, it could also intercept questions from Commune to specifically lie about the nature of lycanthropy. Wow! Great idea! |
| Sarlax01-04-05, 01:04 AM | If the purge mainly involved the systematic obliteration of peaceful lycanthrope farming villages and killing helpless lycanthropes begging for mercy, I certainly agree with you. That's not how I pictured it, actually. I saw the mostly common unit as small families or gangs. The objection I have isn't so much about the scale of destruction as it is that the Church killed so many creatures who could have been saved and that they didn't bother to find out if salvation was possibly; they simply developed their "The soul is forever tainted" dogma and got to killing. This still doesn't make it a good act, for many of the reasons you've mentioned. But it seems like the sort of overzealous mistakes humans can make. Yep. Understandable in the social context. Not morally defensible. |
| stone_dog01-04-05, 03:05 AM | Let me see if I can sum up here. Just to make sure I am getting everything. 150 years ago there was a plague of a supernatural disease. Mundane means could only cure an individual within an hour of infection. Divine means are few and far between and almost certainly could not be applied faster than the disease could spread. Two strains of this disease made people into bloodthirsty creatures who delight in murder. Two strains of this disease made people into isolationists that probably wouldn't attack a large group, but might look to get a meal out of a lone wanderer or small group. One strain turns them into isolationists that try not to kill anything that isn't displaying evil behavior. The more violent strains spread the fastest (since there are more attacks) and caused a great deal of death and chaos. Even the less violent strains disrupted the lives of ordinary citizens to one degree or another often causing more misery. The personalities of these victims were totally changed and the Church decided it was time to step in. They declared war on the curse and sought to purge it from the world and largely succeeded. Reasons and justifications aside, is that about right? Talking about cures now. Belladonna is largely impractical. The timing is tricky, the effeciency uncertain (DC 20 fort, yikes!) the cure is a poison and has to be fresh anyway. Usefull for those expecting to run into one of these creatures, but still uncertain and dangerous. Magic is a bit better than belladonna, but still uncertain (DC 20 will, less than 25% chance of success for most people), taxing on the resources of the church (not many casters to move about to trouble spots) and pretty rare (fifth level cleric at the least, higher levels of bards, paladins, wizards and things). So what we have is a spreading curse that always changes the personality of the victim (unless they were like the werething before the infection), mostly causes violence and death and has very little practical way to combat it through medical or magical means. So, the Curch decides the only thing that it can do to stop this is to launch a crusade against the curse itself and wipe it from the face of Eberron by whatever means that it can muster. Curing what it can (barely any), sending some to another plane (hardly any) and killing those cursed who won't cooperate (most). Now, ignoring various atrocities on either side that seems to be the basic situation. It makes me think of Resident Evil. Your loved one just got bit and is about to go all bitey as well. A vial of serum is far away, expensive and might not work anyway. What you do have is a Glock and mere minutes to make a call. A bit more extreme than what the Curch was facing, but it was the thought that jumped into my head. That and the image of a zombie movie with werethings instead of dead things. It also makes me think strongly about WWII. Was it good that we had to go? No. Were only bad Axis people killed? No. Did the Allied forces always behave as good and decent people? No. Would something worse have happened if we didn't? Probably. In the long run it doesn't really matter if the Crusade was good or evil. It probably had to happen. Decent and virtuous people look back in sadness and try to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Bad people ... I don't even want to think about what they do right now. Been too long a day for that. Most people though just try to live their lives and hope it doesn't happen again. Maybe not my most useful post, but after more than six pages of this I had to type something. |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 04:15 AM | If a paladin if given the choice of upholding lawful principles (obeying the Flame) and good principles (saving innocents), he’ll do the good or he’ll fall. wholly, completely, absolutely untrue. a paladin is not a proponent of Good, with Law being secondary; nor is he a proponent of Law, with Good taking second place. he is a proponent of Lawful Good--Law and Good held in equal regard. at various times, one may outstrip the other in terms of importance, but neither is more important than the other as a general rule. someone who always chooses Good over Law is not Lawful Good; they're Neutral Good, maybe even Chaotic Good. a paladin who fails to uphold Law in his pursuit of Good will not remain a paladin for long; he'll suffer an alignment change, and fall. |
| Sarlax01-04-05, 04:22 AM | In the long run it doesn't really matter if the Crusade was good or evil. The Church of the Silver Flame's entire mission is to stop evil. Of course it matters. The Church isn't simply choosing between killing innocents to stop a plague and trying a very difficult system of cures to save those innocents. It's choosing between evil and good. The Church might stop the plague but at the cost of fallen paladins and an persistent taint throughout the faith. Who knows what subtler evils were able to go on undetected because the Church (at the time) had become so utilitarian in its views? |
| stone_dog01-04-05, 05:31 AM | :: shrugs :: I know full well that I am not about to convince you of anything. In the long run, it probably doesn't matter much if the Crusade was good or evil so long as it actually prevented a much greater evil from rising. I am a big fan of what I will call the "Silver Crusade vs Age of Demons" option. On one hand you have the slaughter of every werecreature that breathes. On the other you have one Rajah freed after another until the Age of Demons returns and the whole world is enslaved. Overly simplistic? Of course it is. It is 2:30 AM and I am thinking too much about fantasy. If I keep this up I'll start wondering things like why didn't the other three wizards show up if Sauron was all that and a bag of chips. I'm sure Radagast would have been handy against all those oliphants. Damn addicting thread. I knew I shouldn't get into this, but would I listen to me? Nooooo... |
| Kid SixXx01-04-05, 09:25 AM | Since this debate is not only about pragmatism but good vs. evil, I feel the need to make this point: Isn’t a good organization an organization that does good as a matter of course and not just when good is convenient? Naturally, but the focus of the Silver Flame church isn't just promoting good, it's combatting spiritual taint and preventing it's spread, and lycanthrope by it's definition pretty much fits that bill, as it is as much a curse as it is a contagion. The church does good as a result of it's mission (ie. it's mission will put the church at odds with obviously malevolent entities like the Daelkyr and the Dal Quori), not because it is particularly chummy organization. The political situation in Thrane should more than provide a hint that the Silver Flame church isn't the smiley, happy, "go in peace" religion. By the nature of it's mission, the church is probably more than a little philosophically militaraistic in it's views. Remember what Commune does. It gives absolutely correct yes-or-no answers to questions in a matter of minutes. This isn’t a matter of years or even months of experimentation. It’s a matter of days – maybe a week if the Church of the Silver Flame is extremely bad at the game 20 Questions. Again we're mixing metagame with storyline. The Silver Flame itself gave an edict and it's followers acted. Some interpreted the edict to mean the death of the lycanthropes, some interpreted it as an invitation to cure them, and the like. I agree. You should note that I never said such a thing. What I said is that the Church should have taken a reasonable amount of time to explore its options. Asking for an hour of casting Commune isn’t ludicrous, is it? The Silver Flame itself made the call and the followers responded. Apparently in the immediacy, there was little time for debate. Since no one cast Commune, I can only conjecture that the church decided that time spent debating the edict was time taken away from acting on it. As I said before, it's not hard to see that when the divine essence of the being you worship (much less providing you with divine magic) is a physical manifestation you can see at any time, dealing with the what if's when it gives you a direct word can be difficult. Also as I mentioned before, the mission of the church makes it naturally confrontational. Lycanthrope itself had been deemed a threat, which means that any carriers, good or evil, were also a threat. The Flame itself charged the followers with the task and they acted. The Flame said nothing about debating the task. It is pretty silly for me to ask that of the Church. – I’m not a paladin. But if I were a paladin, I’d probably ask that the Church take a bit more time to consider its methods before implementing its policy of widespread killing. In the meantime the lycanthropes are conducting business as usual and lycanthrope spreads, slowly but surely. The spiritual taint that you as a Paladin of the Silver Flame are supposedly sworn to be combat. That's why you have your powers & why you trained in the sword, right? Yes, they followed the Flame. This absolves them? No. “Believing” the Flame to be good and right isn’t anything unless you’re going to include belief in Stalin under this umbrella defense. Stalin wasn't a god, much less the divine being that probably granted the followers their spells and supernatural abilities in the first place. The Silver Flame can say anything it wants. This does not make its proclamations morally defensible. I agree, but who presumes to make judgment calls for a being worshipped as a deity? Additionally, even the ECS wonders aloud if the Voice of the Silver Flame is occasionally the demon and not always Tira Miron. Metagame again. This is something we as DM's & players know, not the church. Besides that, calling for the combat of all lycanthropes would naturally put the church in confrontation with evil being such as werewolves and wererats as well as the more benevolent lycanthropes. What greater evil would the demon hope to accomplish by this, especially given that the participants ultimately ended up not only destroying evil lycanthropes, the participants also tried to cure the good / neutral lycanthropes that wanted to be cured, killed those that couldn't and atoned for it, or in the case of the werebears, helped them relocate? If the demon planned to immediately supplant the church or totally corrupt it, the demon failed, given that the Silver Flame is a respected organization in present Eberron, and still enjoys a favorable, if stern, image and has remained so 125 years after the allegedly evil Purges. Yes, because they’re good. They don’t commit evil acts. If a paladin if given the choice of upholding lawful principles (obeying the Flame) and good principles (saving innocents), he’ll do the good or he’ll fall. Absolutely untrue. He'll obey the tenent of his entire alignment. As you mentioned the "good by convience" argument, I will retort with the fact that paladins cannot be lawful by convenience. They must adhere to the totality of their alignment. As the Dragonshard article showed, the paladins regretted the killing of the normally benevolent lycanthropes who could not be cured, hence the Atonement, but they still carried out their duty as a Lawful being would. Absolutely. They chose to do good rather than to obey orders. Which could be interpreted as a Chaotic act, which would still get them in trouble. Because they’re supposed to be good. They are supposed to be Lawful Good, not just Good. |
| Steven Snyder01-04-05, 11:34 AM | The Church isn't simply choosing between killing innocents to stop a plague and trying a very difficult system of cures to save those innocents. It's choosing between evil and good. Good is defined as a selfless act. Evil is defined as a selfish act. The Church's actions in the Lycanthropic Purge did not gain it anything, if anything it stopped a plague from spreading. So it cannot be defined as an Evil act in and of itself because the Flamers gained no wealth, pleasure, power or any other measurable benefit from the Purge. It is quite presumputious to assume that the Flamers could accurate tell the difference between natural and afflicated lycanthropes. It is even possible that some natural lycanthropes are unaware of their heritage and some afflicted lycanthropes do not remember or realize they were infected. This creates quite a problem when they are dealt with, leading to a situation where the Flamers realize that some lycanthropes respond to magical treatment and others do not. And how would you feel if you were told that your neighbor turns into a mindless killing-machine on a certain full moon (there are 12) and will likely slaughter you and your family for a midnight snack? But then you are told that a cleric has cast a spell on him that *sometimes* works to cure it. I don't know about you but I would be grabbing my torch and pitchfork and taking care of business. Speaking of that, what do you suppose is going to happen to that Paladin/Cleric who is in charge of these actions? Are you going to risk leaving a Slaughter-O-Matic (tm) in a town full of women and children? And expect to be replaced by a more competent (ruthless) replacement if your Slaughter-O-Matic happens massacre a village after you declared him *cured*. |
| Indigo01-04-05, 12:54 PM | Maybe not my most useful post, but after more than six pages of this I had to type something. Excellent post, Stone Dog. As things stand, we don't know how bad the situation was - and rapidly spread lycanthropy could be terrifying. In my opinion, for the church to rise up and take such an extreme action and commit such significant resources to the task, it wasn't just "Hmm, today let's start going door to door and murdering lycanthropes." The concept of a severe outbreak and mass deaths, or the imminent release of a demon lord seems more likely to trigger the purge. It's one thing to say "We've found a single lycanthrope, I wonder if we can save him" - it's another if a pack of 20 werewolves is about to rip your army of mostly 2nd-level warriors to shreds. |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 01:49 PM | wholly, completely, absolutely untrue. a paladin is not a proponent of Good, with Law being secondary; nor is he a proponent of Law, with Good taking second place. he is a proponent of Lawful Good--Law and Good held in equal regard. at various times, one may outstrip the other in terms of importance, but neither is more important than the other as a general rule. someone who always chooses Good over Law is not Lawful Good; they're Neutral Good, maybe even Chaotic Good. a paladin who fails to uphold Law in his pursuit of Good will not remain a paladin for long; he'll suffer an alignment change, and fall. No, no, a thousand times no! (Well, maybe not a thousand, but at least a lot.) A paladin does not smite chaos, a paladin does not detect chaos. They exist to fight and defeat evil, not chaos. They are good first, then lawful. In other words, if a paladin has to choose between supporting a chaotic good person and a lawful evil person, that both people are on equal footing in the paladin's eyes? That's absurd. If they have to make a choice, then they choose good over law. Will they fall if they choose good over law? Probably yes, because a paladin must remain good and lawful to retain their abilities. I wholeheartedly believe that the atonement requirements should be much lower (Edit: at least lower, maybe not much lower) for a violation of law than a violation of good. If in your campaign you want to hold paladins equally responsible to law as to good, then give them smite chaos and detect chaos as well. It's only fair. (And don't forget to update their spell lists as well.) |
| Kid SixXx01-04-05, 02:10 PM | In other words, if a paladin has to choose between supporting a chaotic good person and a lawful evil person, that both people are on equal footing in the paladin's eyes? That's absurd. Pray tell why is that absurd? Naturally a paladin will hold an evil person more suspect, but just because two parties are good doesn't mean they'll see eye to eye, especially if one adheres to the tenents of lawful society and the other disregards such structure. If anything, dealing with the CG person most likely will be more complicated than dealing with the LE one, simply because the paladin's spiritual abilities will let him know without a shadow of a doubt that the LE person is indeed evil. The paladin will have no such headstart on the bearings, alignment, or inclinations of the individual that is CG. The paladin will have to figure it out the CG person by deed if he does not have access to the Know Alignment spell. I suppose a good addage would be invoking the old vigilante comparison. Both a policeman and a vigilante have the ultimate goal of fighting crime or at least seeing to it that criminals are dealt with, but a vigilante will operate outside of the law ala Batman in order to accomplish his goal, and ironically may wind up a criminal sought by the very police force he believes himself to be aiding. Paladins & CG people may agree on the ends, but may disgree violently on the means. Add the religious angle in for the Paladin and the mix becomes even more volatile, as when you question a paladin's motives, you could also be accused of insulting his faith, and religious discussions are notoriously barbed ones. |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 02:26 PM | Pray tell why is that absurd? Naturally a paladin will hold an evil person more suspect, but just because two parties are good doesn't mean they'll see eye to eye, especially if one adheres to the tenents of lawful society and the other disregards such structure. I didn't mean "which one will the paladin agree with in a philosophical discussion," I meant "two people are pointing crossbows at each other, one lawful evil, the other chaotic good; if the paladin had to choose which one to help, which one would it be?" I suppose a good addage would be invoking the old vigilante comparison. Both a policeman and a vigilante have the ultimate goal of fighting crime or at least seeing to it that criminals are dealt with, but a vigilante will operate outside of the law ala Batman in order to accomplish his goal, and ironically may wind up a criminal sought by the very police force he believes himself to be aiding. To make this a "good comparison" in terms of my previous post, the cop would have to be someone who throws old ladies into jail for not using a turn signal and the vigilante would have to be someone who knows about it and lies in court saying that the ladies actually did use their turn signals. Lawful evil vs. chaotic good. Paladins & CG people may agree on the end, but may disgree violently on the means. Add the religious angle in for the Paladin and the mix becomes even more volatile, as when you question a paladin's motives, you could also be accused of insulting his faith, and religious discussions are notoriously barbed ones. When you say violently, do you mean that they will take up arms against paladins just because they're lawful? If so, that's not chaotic good at all. A good person who believes in freedom and a good person who values following the rules will not settle their argument with bloodshed, because that's not good. |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 02:57 PM | They exist to fight and defeat evil, not chaos. the SRD disagrees with you: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). note that it mentions both evil acts and their code of conduct. given a choice between supporting lawful evil and chaotic good--well, it depends. do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, in a given instance? if so, then the paladin would--reluctantly--need to support the lawful evil guy. if the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, then the paladin will support the chaotic good. just as a for-instance that has probably never come up in Eberron, a SF paladin might follow the commands of a LE templar, and kill a CG rebel who opposes the SF with violence because he believes the SF is evil. the paladin, through his Detect Evil ability, knows that the rebel is not evil, and he knows that the templar is evil. the paladin will very likely double-check anything the templar tells him, because he knows the templar is evil. but if the templar tells him to kill the rebel, the paladin will not be able to disobey--and likely won't want to disobey--without some sort of concrete reason not to. or, let's use your example: LE Bob and CG George are pointing crossbows at each other, and Paladin Steve has to choose who he's going to attack. well, why are they pointing the crossbows? maybe Bob is a city official, who--through totally legal means--stripped George of his home, wife, and life's savings. George, finding no recourse in the law, gets out his crossbow and goes hunting. Steve, knowing the situation but having been unable to keep Bob from lawfully seizing George's stuff, stumbles upon the pair just as the crossbows are being aimed. who's he going to side with? i say he'd side with Bob; Bob's acts were evil, but within the law. meanwhile, George's plan of action is outside the law, and not good (though not evil, as revenge is neutral). |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 03:09 PM | Oh, for crying out loud... Did I not propose that a paladin that made a choice of good over law would still need to atone? I just think that to atone for that choice will be easier than to atone for choosing to obey the law over doing good. Also, I don't want to get too nitpicky here, but it say "evil act", as in one, and "grossly violates the code of conduct." Does it not seem that there's just a wee bit more leeway with the code of conduct (the law) vs. evil acts (the good)? Finally, as for a concrete reason not to obey the LE templar, how about because killing the CG rebel would be an evil act? Instead of, say, putting him in jail followed by a fair trial according to the laws of the land? (under breath) Here we go again with Lawful Stupid paladins... |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 03:16 PM | i don't think a paladin should have to atone every time he's forced to choose between law and good, though. and, no, actually. specifying that the paladin must obey his code of conduct is more of a restriction. the code of conduct is a set of rules provided by the paladin's order; if the paladin simply had to obey "law", well, heck. almost everything is legal somewhere. and in places like Xen'drik, there's no law at all. "good", on the other hand, is poorly-defined and hard to pin down. an act might be blackest evil in one set of circumstances, but white as snow in another. |
| Kid SixXx01-04-05, 03:23 PM | I didn't mean "which one will the paladin agree with in a philosophical discussion," I meant "two people are pointing crossbows at each other, one lawful evil, the other chaotic good; if the paladin had to choose which one to help, which one would it be?" How does the paladin know the CG person is actually CG? He can detect evil but he cannot detect good & magic can be used to mask alignment. To make this a "good comparison" in terms of my previous post, the cop would have to be someone who throws old ladies into jail for not using a turn signal and the vigilante would have to be someone who knows about it and lies in court saying that the ladies actually did use their turn signals. Lawful evil vs. chaotic good. No one goes to jail for moving violations, and as much as I respect little old ladies, when their driving skills become suspect, they can be menaces to society. Failing to use a turn signal one day could be swerving into other lanes of traffic later on. If the policeman has to be stern to be kind to a little old lady so that she doesn't wind up killing someone on the highway because she's in denial about the deterioration of her driving skills, then the cop is doing his job and benefiting society. :) As for the CG person, lying in court is perjury, which is a serious offense, and in a magical world, I'd imagine that spells such as Detect Lie and Zone of Truth would be used to prohibit such behavior. :) If he lies to protect the little old lady and she winds up smashing into someone 6 months down the road because the turn signal incident was a symptom of the declining ability to operate a motor vehicle, has the CG person really done a good thing? When you say violently, do you mean that they will take up arms against paladins just because they're lawful? If so, that's not chaotic good at all. A good person who believes in freedom and a good person who values following the rules will not settle their argument with bloodshed, because that's not good. This is somewhat true, but it's also generic behavior, because it does not take individual characteristics like egos and tempers into consideration. If a LG paladin tries to stop a CG ranger from doing what he feels is right, or following a course of action open to someone that is CG but not necessarily one open to someone more lawful, the ranger is within his right to tell the paladin to get bent. If the situation escalates into violence, then the chips will fall where they may. Alignment is a barometer of behavior, it doesn't dominate behavior & most certainly does not have to define an individual. Good people can lose their tempers and evil people can still fall in love. |
| elecgraystone01-04-05, 03:34 PM | I think the point all along is whether the character performing the act realizes that it is evil. A paladin simply cannot torture, regardless of the use of the information. The paladin who tortures cannot justify his action as somehow being good. Hellcow has specifically said that a priest of the Silver Flame who made use of torture in the cause of the "greater good" would need to have an evil alignment, even if he generally acted in the cause of good. However, the paladin who kills a non-evil wereboar that is threatening three non-evil peasants has not commited an evil act. He has protected innocents from a monster. Perhaps as a distant moral observer we can say "you could have pummeled the wereboar into unconsciousness and found a way to save him" - and as Gurv suggested, I think it would be admirable if the paladin RP'd his remorse over this. But I can't see how you can take the situations Hellcow described and call the paladin's actions evil. You seem to be frozen on this image of the helpless werebear begging for mercy and being hacked apart by an uncaring paladin - whereas it's been repeatedly stated that such situations would be extraordinarily rare and that if they occured, the paladin would do what he could to help the innocent. (Admittedly, there's that whole baby situation, but the argument there was that the baby was both evil and uncurable.) Wrong. The wereboar is not performing an evil act. He is following his natural imperitives, as defined by the MM. He will not actively seek out innocents to kill, but he will kill unfortunates who cross his path. According to the MM, he can do this and still be "Always Neutral." Wrong again: this is not "per Hellcow." if you look at message 117, Hellcow clearly states that he did not realize that the MM defined "usually" as "50%", and that with that in mind he'd shift it back to "always" - that variances from the indicated alignment were extremely rare. He acknowledged that if 50% of werewolves were not evil it would completely change the dynamics and that this was not the intent. A paladin would know he's doing evil because of non-detection of evil. Continued evil acts turn you evil! Why would a neutral wereboar be attacking peasants? Since he isn't looking for them, they must have been looking for him! Even in an involuntary change, he's still neutral! And even if this happened, it's not the same as killing because it MIGHT attack peasants later. Like the purge. How many lycanthropes do you think were caught in the act of being evil when the purge caught up with them? As to the "always" alignment re-change, this makes the killing of neutral and good lycanthropes a 100% evil act since 99.9% WERE NOT EVIL! To your first point, you agree that torture is evil and you have to be evil to do it, even for the greater good. How is it different than killing something because of something it might do? Not because it's evil. (we know that with hellcows rechange, bears,tigers and boars are not) Not because it's doing evil. (it's ingrained, as per hellcows rechange) Because it's capable of evil! (the curse, not alignment because of hellcows rechange) So they are not evil, are not doing evil and will not be doing evil but can curse you so lets kill them? this is less evil than torture? |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 03:37 PM | i don't think a paladin should have to atone every time he's forced to choose between law and good, though. Okay. :) and, no, actually. specifying that the paladin must obey his code of conduct is more of a restriction. But it doesn't really say that. It says that a paladin who grossly (notice the modifier) violates the code of conduct will need to atone in order to regain their abilities. There's no modidier when it mentions "an evil act." No number, no "grossly." Nothing. the code of conduct is a set of rules provided by the paladin's order; if the paladin simply had to obey "law", well, heck. almost everything is legal somewhere. and in places like Xen'drik, there's no law at all. More than likely, part of a paladin's code of conduct will be something like "obey and uphold the laws of this land and any land you are traveling in." "good", on the other hand, is poorly-defined and hard to pin down. an act might be blackest evil in one set of circumstances, but white as snow in another. Which is the primary reason no paladin can afford to be "lawful stupid," going around blindly following orders just because they're orders. |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 03:49 PM | of course not. that's not what i'm trying to say. what i'm trying to say is that a paladin, and anyone else who values both legality and morality, is sometimes forced to choose between the legal and the moral. and, depending on the situation, the paladin may not always choose the moral over the legal. |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 03:50 PM | How does the paladin know the CG person is actually CG? He can detect evil but he cannot detect good & magic can be used to mask alignment. Let's just say for the sake of argument that he knows. We're talking about everything being equal here. No one goes to jail for moving violations, and as much as I respect little old ladies, when their driving skills become suspect, they can be menaces to society. Failing to use a turn signal one day could be swerving into other lanes of traffic later on. If the policeman has to be stern to be kind to a little old lady so that she doesn't wind up killing someone on the highway because she's in denial about the deterioration of her driving skills, then the cop is doing his job and benefiting society. :) I'm talking about the LE cop who really, really, really likes to put little old ladies in jail for minor infractions. :) As for the CG person, lying in court is perjury, which is a serious offense, and in a magical world, I'd imagine that spells such as Detect Lie and Zone of Truth would be used to prohibit such behavior. :) "Perjury, smergery. It's about freedom, man! Who cares about the rules?" says the chaotic person. If he lies to protect the little old lady and she winds up smashing into someone 6 months down the road because the turn signal incident was a symptom of the declining ability to operate a motor vehicle, has the CG person really done a good thing? If he knows that will happen, then obviously no. But who can tell the future? This is somewhat true, but it's also generic behavior, because it does not take individual characteristics like egos and tempers into consideration. Alignment defines individual characteristics like tempers and egos and how a person makes choices in life based on them. A good person and an evil person both might have a temper, but the good person will try to control it, the evil person will use it to strike fear into the hearts of others. If a LG paladin tries to stop a CG ranger from doing what he feels is right, or following a course of action open to someone that is CG but not necessarily one open to someone more lawful, the ranger is within his right to tell the paladin to get bent. If the situation escalates into violence, then the chips will fall where they may. But part of being "good" is not to let things escalate into violence, even if you disagree with the other person. |
| Kid SixXx01-04-05, 03:50 PM | Which is the primary reason no paladin can afford to be "lawful stupid," going around blindly following orders just because they're orders. This would be true if we were dealing with a totally military-based scenario, but we're not: there is a religious element you're not addressing. In defying the church, a paladin could possibly be betraying the very faith he's sworn to protect. The faith that reveres the deity that is (use of non-linkage for ECS deity vagueness) possibly responsible for granting him the ability to be a paladin in the first place. We're not just talking about not following orders, we're talking about implied disobedince to the Silver Flame itself, the very same Silver Flame that possibly gave you all of those nifty supernatural abilities so that you could carry out it's will. This is the difference between a soldier telling his superior officer to get stuffed, and Mohammed telling Allah to get stuffed. Let's just say for the sake of argument that he knows. We're talking about everything being equal here. Provided the paladin knows the CG person is CG, he'll naturally aid the CG person.... BTW, why are the CG and LE persons holding crossbows at each other in the first place? Did the good person steal something from the evil person? Is this a social setting? If so I'd imagine if this were in the streets of a civilized nation, the paladin would tell both of these gentlemen to stand down. I'm talking about the LE cop who really, really, really likes to put little old ladies in jail for minor infractions. :) Hopefully this is a LE society, otherwise such abuses of power will result in the LE cop not being a cop for very long. He'll get fired, or worse, end up in the same clink he tossed the old ladies into. ;) If he knows that will happen, then obviously no. But who can tell the future? The cop can, if he asks the right questions when he pulls the old lady over. If he can deduce that, for whatever reason, the old lady shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle, allowing her to keep driving will eventually cost someone (perhaps even the old lady) their life and it is the cops duty to protect and serve the public trust by removing her license. "Perjury, smergery. It's about freedom, man! Who cares about the rules?" says the chaotic person "Tell that to the family of the individual the old lady runs down with her car if she's not taken off of the road, or perhaps to her own family if she herself dies in the crash," says the Lawful Good person. Alignment defines individual characteristics like tempers and egos and how a person makes choices in life based on them. A good person and an evil person both might have a temper, but the good person will try to control it. Tell that to a good-aligned Dwarven Battlerager that relies on unbridled fury to allow him to survive battles. But part of being "good" is not to let things escalate into violence, even if you disagree with the other person. True enough, but assuming that every good person knows how to control their temper is folly. If the LG paladin bluffs a threat of violence (or perhaps does not bluff) and the CG ranger calls his bluff, then blows may be struck. The point is that just as Lawful Good does not necessarily equate to "Lawful Stupid, nor should it, Good does not necessarily equate to "friendly terms." |
| Indigo01-04-05, 04:13 PM | A paladin would know he's doing evil because of non-detection of evil. Feh. It's been repeatedly stated in this thread that a neutral person - and for that matter a GOOD person - is capable of performing an evil act, potentially without even knowing it. We're back to two neutral forces fighting one another during wartime. Can a paladin not participate in a war if he feels the cause of his country is just? The people he's opposing are neutral, not evil; they are following the orders of their king. But if they are not opposed, they will conquer the paladin's kingdom. Will the paladin - and every soldier involved in this war on both sides - become evil because of fighting non-evil opponents? Why would a neutral wereboar be attacking peasants? Read the Monster Manual recently? "Neutral creatures seek remote areas and avoid contact with civilization, but might attack travelers or other folk abroad in the wilderness if such travelers are few in number." Hence, the example. They're innocent travelers, merchants, gypsies, what have you. They happen to cross the path of the neutral lycanthrope; they are therefore designated as prey. The neutral lycanthrope doesn't actively seek to murder intelligent beings - but it also doesn't avoid it, like a werebear does. Thus, it is neutral - like most predatory animals. How many lycanthropes do you think were caught in the act of being evil when the purge caught up with them? I believe that's exactly the question addressed in earlier posts by myself and Stone Dog. What if the answer was "lots"? How do you know it wasn't? Even if you say the vast majority of the evil acts were committed by werewolves, all it takes is one peasant coming out of the woods screaming "Thank the Flame you're here! I was walking in the woods with my family, and a boar that walked like a man burst out of the thicket and gored my little Billy! My husband tried to fight it, but it tore him to pieces!" In that situation, I doubt the non-paladin templar is going to say "Well, ma'am, recent evidence shows that wereboars are actually primarily neutral, and only harm those who cross their paths in the wild. Sorry about Billy, but we're going to leave this fellow alone. Stay away from that part of the woods in the future." In my opinion, the templar is going to be concerned with the safety of the commoners, not the monsters preying on them. If the wereboar immediately comes out of the woods, throws himself on the mercy of the templar, and says "I wasn't in control of my actions! I didn't mean to kill the boy and his father! Please, help me!" then it may be evil for the templar to kill him. On the other hand, if the nearest priest who could help is over a week's travel away, and the templar has just barely survived a battle with a werewolf who claimed to be repentant and then turned on the captors when their guard was down, I can easily see him saying "I'm sorry, but I do not have the resources to help you, and while you remain alive you pose a risk to the people of this hamlet. I pray that you can forgive me for what must be done." As I've said before, is this the act of the moral paragon? No. In this situation, the paladin should find a better answer. But is it the action of most members of the church, good or not? Quite possibly. And just out of curiosity - though it seems fairly clear - elecgraystone, what's your answer to Euangelion's question? How much do you believe that the Church of the Silver Flame, Year 998, should be held responsible for the actions (or lack of appropriate actions) that the church took 150 years before in a campaign? |
| Sarlax01-04-05, 07:10 PM | A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities. The highest burden on the paladin is to be good. Read the text carefully. A person whose initial alignment in Lawful Good won't shift towards Neutral Good or Chaotic Good after a single chaotic act. Shifting away from law once or twice won't make a Lawful Good person cease to be lawful. But a paladin who "willfully commits an evil act" will fall. You don't get a grace period or any credit with evil if you're a paladin. You fall. Right away. The greater burden on paladins is to be good. This is reflected in their class abilities: Smite Evil, Detect Evil. They certainly believe in law and they won't give lawbreakers slack. But being good is a much higher priority. Notes on grossly violating the Code of Conduct: Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Ah, there's a nice review here: one evil act makes a paladin fall. One chaotic act isn't enough. The paladin must respect the legitimate authority of the Church, that's true. But if the Church makes a questionable order (ie, kill innocent lawful good werebears), the paladin's within his rights to disobey - he's remaining good at the cost of an act of chaos, which his code allows. The Church, if it orders the destruction of innocents, isn't acting with legitimate authority. To drive the point home, paladins must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." That doesn't exclude members of the same religion. To wrap up: Paladins are required to be good first and lawful second. |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 07:37 PM | The greater burden on paladins is to be good. This is reflected in their class abilities: Smite Evil, Detect Evil. They certainly believe in law and they won't give lawbreakers slack. But being good is a much higher priority. that isn't necessarily true. it's just as likely that the paladin is called to support law and good equally, but that the forces of evil tend to require stronger countermeasures than the forces of chaos. Ah, there's a nice review here: one evil act makes a paladin fall. One chaotic act isn't enough. that's not what it says at all. what it says is that grossly violating their code of conduct results in a fall from grace. i can think of any number of single acts that would qualify as gross violations. moreover, we're not talking about paladins who commit evil acts--we're talking about paladins who commit non-good acts, ie, neutral acts. paladins can--and often must--walk the line between good and neutral, just as they can walk the line between lawful and neutral with minor violations of their code of conduct. To wrap up: Paladins are required to be good first and lawful second. no. that's neutral good, not lawful good. two different alignments. |
| Indigo01-04-05, 08:27 PM | To drive the point home, paladins must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." That doesn't exclude members of the same religion. I won't argue this for werebears, who are specifically noted as seeking to avoid harming good creatures. However, a wereboar or weretiger will attack travelers that cross its path. So let's say my paladin arrives at the village, and is told "We lost three people when this horrible boar-like beast attacked a group hunting for venison." The paladin explores in the woods, and out pops a snarling wereboar. The paladin does not have good odds of subduing the wereboar with nonlethal damage. So, in your view, what's his moral situation? His code clearly states that he must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Intentionally or not, the wereboar has done that and may continue to do it in the future. On the other hand, there's that chance that this is an afflictee who could be cured. So does the paladin fall if he fights and fall if he doesn't? Or is he free to fight the wereboar because he is acting to protect the innocents who lack the power to protect themselves? |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 08:32 PM | I would say that a neutral good person is either one who intentionally balances freedom and responsibility or one who ignores issues of law and freedom when it comes to doing good. In another thread (or maybe it was earlier in this one) I argued that there are really two kinds of lawful good. The one is someone who believes that law and order is of utmost importance, and who believes that promoting goodness (meaning things like mercy and compassion) is the best way of achieving law and order. The other could be called Good Lawful, someone who believes that upholding goodness is the most important thing, but believes that promoting law and order is the best way to achieve and protect goodness. Therefore, by that criterion I would argue that paladins are in truth Good Lawful. Spoiler information follows: I also believe that this can be seen as well in the Church of the Silver Flame in terms of Lawful and Evil and the difference between High Cardinal Krozen, who seems to be focused on maintaining order within the nation and apparently believes that anything goes in maintaining that order including committing "evil," and Archierophant Morr, who is thoroughly evil and maintains order within the Church as long as it suits her needs, but really has no regard for "the law," either secular or ecclesiastical, in and of itself. Krozen is Lawful Evil, Morr is Evil Lawful, IMHO. This frames the whole Inquistion question in a different light. Was it a Lawful Good thing to do, or a Good Lawful thing to do? Were they killing Lycans because it was the Law or because it was Good? The bottom line seems to be that as a whole it was "good" because it severely weakened a force of pure malevolence, but as one get further into the details it becomes clear that innocents died, perhaps some even at the hands of paladins. In terms of achieving the goal it set out to do, it was largely successful. But what were the unintended consequences and what do they mean for the year 998 in your campaigns? Should the Church of the Silver Flame be wiped off Eberron in punishment for the Inquisition? Perhaps, but you might as well hand the world over to the Lords of Dust if that happens, since despite its faults the Church is one of the only things keeping them in check. Would that be a "good" thing or a "lawful" thing? |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 08:36 PM | i dunno. werebears still carry and transmit the curse of lycanthropy; i think that, in most cases, disqualifies them from being "innocent" in the SF's eyes. |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 08:50 PM | Tell that to a good-aligned Dwarven Battlerager that relies on unbridled fury to allow him to survive battles. Okay. "Dwarven Battlerager, you must control your fury in church. Use it only against evil." Done. ;) True enough, but assuming that every good person knows how to control their temper is folly. If the LG paladin bluffs a threat of violence (or perhaps does not bluff) and the CG ranger calls his bluff, then blows may be struck. I still don't understand why it has to come to blows? In real life, it might, true enough, but I don't believe anyone walking the Earth is purely good or evil. The point is that just as Lawful Good does not necessarily equate to "Lawful Stupid, nor should it, Good does not necessarily equate to "friendly terms." But it always means something like mercy or compassion or benevolence, otherwise it's no longer good. |
| Euangelion01-04-05, 09:00 PM | i dunno. werebears still carry and transmit the curse of lycanthropy; i think that, in most cases, disqualifies them from being "innocent" in the SF's eyes. I meant that there were some who were killed who weren't actually lycans, natural or afflicted, such as shifters or druids or the person around the corner that the mayor was ticked off at. |
| motorfirebox01-04-05, 10:17 PM | oh, sure. definitely. |
| Sarlax01-04-05, 10:38 PM | So let's say my paladin arrives at the village, and is told "We lost three people when this horrible boar-like beast attacked a group hunting for venison." The paladin explores in the woods, and out pops a snarling wereboar. The paladin does not have good odds of subduing the wereboar with nonlethal damage. So, in your view, what's his moral situation? If he is reasonably confident of the testimony of the villagers, I think he's morally safe. If the villagers have no ulterior motive, seem to be honest, etc. the paladin's freer to be hostile to the wereboar. He doesn't have the right to be judge, jury, and execution just yet, though. Now, any person who is walking along in the forest and is suddenly ambushed by a wereboar (or an orc or a dragon or a owlbear) has the right to self-defense. What's important here is that the paladin acts with a pretty complete picture when he goes out looking for the wereboar. When he arrives in the village and hears the please for help, he can't just rush off to kill. He needs to find out if the creature was provoked, if it's the first encounter, if the people were trespassing in land that was clearly claimed by the wereboar, etc. |
| Sarlax01-04-05, 10:44 PM | that isn't necessarily true. it's just as likely that the paladin is called to support law and good equally, but that the forces of evil tend to require stronger countermeasures than the forces of chaos. And how is that not a higher priority to good? If evil requires more work to fight, mustn't a paladin then work more against evil than chaos? A paladin can never take an evil path to fight chaos because he will instantly fall. But a paladin can take a chaotic path (briefly) to fight evil. no. that's neutral good, not lawful good. two different alignments. Neutral good balances law and chaos. They have no obligation to uphold lawfulness. A person who pursues both good and law but good first is Lawful Good. Neutral Good people pursue good regardless of law or chaos. |
| Sarlax01-04-05, 11:07 PM | The Silver Flame itself made the call and the followers responded. Apparently in the immediacy, there was little time for debate. Since no one cast Commune, I can only conjecture that the church decided that time spent debating the edict was time taken away from acting on it. First, the purge took 50 years (ECS 225). There was plenty of time to investigate alternatives, especially considering that lycanthropes didn't exist in very large number to begin with. Second, what actually indicates that the Silver Flame made the call to exterminate the lycanthropes, and if it did, what was its language? I searched through the book in the entries for Thrane, the Silver Flame, the history, and the lycanthrope entry in the monster chapter and I can't yet find anything that indicates that the divine force itself said, "Destroy all lycanthropes." If the force can communicate with such clarity, what is the Keeper of the Flame's job? Rather than specific messages, it seems that the Silver Flame actually communicates ideas to the Keeper. Going back to 832 (the year the purge began), did the Keeper go to the Flame, which said, "Eliminate all lycanthropes from Khorvaire," and then carry those exact words to the followers of the Flame? Or was it something more ambiguous? Did the Keeper instead receive a dream from the Flame, with images of the Rakshasa Rajah Bashalaera waving its backward hands over Khorvaire as men and women changed into beasts? |
| Wolfwood201-05-05, 12:38 AM | If he is reasonably confident of the testimony of the villagers, I think he's morally safe. If the villagers have no ulterior motive, seem to be honest, etc. the paladin's freer to be hostile to the wereboar. He doesn't have the right to be judge, jury, and execution just yet, though. Now, any person who is walking along in the forest and is suddenly ambushed by a wereboar (or an orc or a dragon or a owlbear) has the right to self-defense. What's important here is that the paladin acts with a pretty complete picture when he goes out looking for the wereboar. When he arrives in the village and hears the please for help, he can't just rush off to kill. He needs to find out if the creature was provoked, if it's the first encounter, if the people were trespassing in land that was clearly claimed by the wereboar, etc. Yes, because when I play D&D I see that all the time. I can't tell you how many times my party has stopped in a village and heard tales of terrible monster attacks, and the paladin whipped out his notepad and tried to find out if they had been asking for it. "The people involved, were they dressed provocatively? Did they know that was a bad part of the forest? I'd like to help, really, but I think you have to acknowledge the role your son played in his own gruesome death. I'm just not sure I can pass judgement on the creature that ate him." All right, sarcasm aside, what's a paladin's duty in this situation? I'm going to use the player character standard. What would I expect would be okay for me to do, as a guy playing the paladin in an actual D&D game? Lycanthropy is inherently dangerous, so a werecreature must always be confronted, especially if it has actually attacked someone, for whatever reason. If the attacks have been brutal and ongoing, such as will no doubt be carried out by were-rats and were-wolves, then the paladin will no doubt be justified in going out and attacking the creatures straight-on, from ambush if at all possible and using every means at the paladin's disposal to kill them. If there's a non-evil were-creature among them, it's their responsibility to surrender themselves at the first opportunity during the fight. If they were the first ones to catch a silver arrow in the throat, too bad, they shouldn't have been hanging with a bunch of murderers. That's the standard I as a player would use playing a paladin. Now in Eberron the were-creature hasn't been attacking people or the attacks have been intermittent, then the paladin must _still_ confront them because lycanthropy is a dangerous curse. In this case there will be no ambush, however, rather the paladin will ride out and call for the hairy one to come out and parley, using whatever ranks in Diplomacy he has purchased. If the creature comes out to talk, the paladin will explain that the threat of lycanthropy must be dealt with, and Mr. Wereboar must be cured or relocated off-plane or be eliminated as a danger in some other way. And yes, that may suck for Mr. Wereboar, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one for Lawful characters (that's the essence of being lawful in fact). This is a crucial point, here. The idea that lycanthropy must be eliminated from Khovaire is not evil in and of itself. The methods by which it is pursued may be evil, but forcibly restricting the freedom of good and neutral were-creatures who were just hanging out in the forest is in line with being lawful good. Lawful good believes sometimes you must restrict the freedoms of others to better serve the good and that 'freedom' is not a 'good' value in and of itself. And now, what if Mr. Wereboar refuses to go along with this? What if he refuse to leave the forest at Mr. Paladin's polite request or to come out and even meet with Mr. Paladin? Being chaotic neutral, this seems rather likely. Well, this is the point where Mr. Paladin must, however regretfully, back up his words with his sword. Allowing Mr Wereboar to surrender if he so chooses, of course. This is how I would handle the matter as a paladin player character, and how I expect most paladins handled the purge. Of course, for the actual church squad of Warrior 2's led by the Expert 2/Warrior 1 that answered the call in 99% of these situations, I'm relatively certain the archers just fired their silver arrows as soon as the beastman was in sight. And really, who can blame them? |
| motorfirebox01-05-05, 01:59 AM | And how is that not a higher priority to good? If evil requires more work to fight, mustn't a paladin then work more against evil than chaos? you're confusing the importance of a goodness/law with the relative difficulty in upholding them. just because a given task is easier than a second task doesn't make the first task less important. A person who pursues both good and law but good first is Lawful Good. Neutral Good people pursue good regardless of law or chaos. arguable. anyone who constantly values good over law is walking very close to an alignment change from lawful to neutral. however, it still remains that paladins are not, according to the SRD, more good-aligned than law-aligned. the idea that they are more good-aligned, based on their powers, is not the only possible conclusion that one can draw. |
| Sarlax01-05-05, 02:18 AM | Yes, because when I play D&D I see that all the time. I can't tell you how many times my party has stopped in a village and heard tales of terrible monster attacks, and the paladin whipped out his notepad and tried to find out if they had been asking for it. Even dismissing the foolish tone, it's clear you fail to understand my statements. Perhaps the fault lies with my own poor wording. I'll try to make the idea clear: A paladin can't just charge out and murder a creature because someone else told him it's an evil monster. He needs to find that out for himself. |
| Sarlax01-05-05, 02:31 AM | arguable. anyone who constantly values good over law is walking very close to an alignment change from lawful to neutral. How? If a person fights for good and for law, how does favoring good push him so strongly towards chaos? It's possible for a person to have multiple goals and favor one goal before another. A reasonable legislator in a modern goverment opposes both terrorism and crime, but there aren't always resources to deal with both. If the legislator hence decides to vote in favor of giving more money to fight terrorism (because he views it as a higher issue), it doesn't mean he's neutral on the issue of crime. In an idea world, a Lawful Good person wants everyone to be happy, healthy, and living in an ordered society. But in the real world, sometimes choices have to made between good and law. Most lawful good people can favor law a little bit or good a little bit or perfectly balance them both. A paladin never ever commits an act of evil without falling, but he can commit chaotic acts now and then without falling. Because evil acts always make a paladin fall, he automatically favors good over law. A paladin can range into chaos. He won't like it when it happens, but he'll still be a paladin with his powers. however, it still remains that paladins are not, according to the SRD, more good-aligned than law-aligned. the idea that they are more good-aligned, based on their powers, is not the only possible conclusion that one can draw. It's not based on their powers. It's based on the fact that a single evil act deprives them of their powers but a single chaotic act does not. |
| Kid SixXx01-05-05, 09:29 AM | Second, what actually indicates that the Silver Flame made the call to exterminate the lycanthropes, and if it did, what was its language? I searched through the book in the entries for Thrane, the Silver Flame, the history, and the lycanthrope entry in the monster chapter and I can't yet find anything that indicates that the divine force itself said, "Destroy all lycanthropes." My apologies. It was the Keeper of the Flame that made the call. Going back to 832 (the year the purge began), did the Keeper go to the Flame, which said, "Eliminate all lycanthropes from Khorvaire," and then carry those exact words to the followers of the Flame? Yes. The details are in Keith's first Dragonshard article on the CoSF. Relevant text below: In 832 YK, the Keeper of the Silver Flame declared that lycanthropy afflicted the soul as well as the body, since it could turn the noblest soul to a tool of darkness. Even those lycanthropic strains that were not inherently evil still force a change of behavior on the subject, and were thus suspect; the Keeper declared that these still imperiled the soul. If a single lycanthrope remained alive, it could pass the curse to others, and they could pass the curse to others, and within a generation the problem could arise anew. Thus all lycanthropes -- even those seemingly innocent and young -- must be destroyed. So you have your answer, which shows that the CoSF is much like any other religious institution. Such institutions do not act unless they feel they can fully claim the moral high ground, or at least justify their actions within their own code or mission. Not only was there rationale behind the Purges, it was rationale drawn from the tenets and core beliefs of the SF religion. The Purges were not some act of random violence. For all intensive purposes, it was a jihad. The presumption that the SF began the Purges simply for the sake of killing is false. As shown above, the SF worked under the premise that the end result of lycanthrope, whether it be benevolent or malevolent, was immaterial. Whether you are a werebear or a werewolf, the curse still compels you to act in one way or another. It influences your behavior and you have little say in the matter. You do not realize you're being compelled, but you are nonetheless, and such compulsion was deemed to be a chain around the soul. The "personality types" you referred to earlier aren't really personality types at all: werefolk, whether "natural" or afflicted, do what they do because of the influence of the curse, contagion, or whatever you wish to lable lycanthrope. |
| motorfirebox01-05-05, 02:21 PM | How? If a person fights for good and for law, how does favoring good push him so strongly towards chaos? uh, well, if you believe that good is more important than law, then at some point, you're going to have to weaken law in order to strengthen good. for instance, disobeying the SF in order to spare a werebear. that's the nature of the law-chaos/good-evil alignment set--at some point, your law/chaos is going to be at loggerheads with your good/evil. and weakening law equals strengthening chaos. |
| elecgraystone01-05-05, 03:24 PM | Feh. It's been repeatedly stated in this thread that a neutral person - and for that matter a GOOD person - is capable of performing an evil act, potentially without even knowing it. We're back to two neutral forces fighting one another during wartime. Can a paladin not participate in a war if he feels the cause of his country is just? The people he's opposing are neutral, not evil; they are following the orders of their king. But if they are not opposed, they will conquer the paladin's kingdom. Will the paladin - and every soldier involved in this war on both sides - become evil because of fighting non-evil opponents? Read the Monster Manual recently? "Neutral creatures seek remote areas and avoid contact with civilization, but might attack travelers or other folk abroad in the wilderness if such travelers are few in number." Hence, the example. They're innocent travelers, merchants, gypsies, what have you. They happen to cross the path of the neutral lycanthrope; they are therefore designated as prey. The neutral lycanthrope doesn't actively seek to murder intelligent beings - but it also doesn't avoid it, like a werebear does. Thus, it is neutral - like most predatory animals. I believe that's exactly the question addressed in earlier posts by myself and Stone Dog. What if the answer was "lots"? How do you know it wasn't? Even if you say the vast majority of the evil acts were committed by werewolves, all it takes is one peasant coming out of the woods screaming "Thank the Flame you're here! I was walking in the woods with my family, and a boar that walked like a man burst out of the thicket and gored my little Billy! My husband tried to fight it, but it tore him to pieces!" In that situation, I doubt the non-paladin templar is going to say "Well, ma'am, recent evidence shows that wereboars are actually primarily neutral, and only harm those who cross their paths in the wild. Sorry about Billy, but we're going to leave this fellow alone. Stay away from that part of the woods in the future." In my opinion, the templar is going to be concerned with the safety of the commoners, not the monsters preying on them. If the wereboar immediately comes out of the woods, throws himself on the mercy of the templar, and says "I wasn't in control of my actions! I didn't mean to kill the boy and his father! Please, help me!" then it may be evil for the templar to kill him. On the other hand, if the nearest priest who could help is over a week's travel away, and the templar has just barely survived a battle with a werewolf who claimed to be repentant and then turned on the captors when their guard was down, I can easily see him saying "I'm sorry, but I do not have the resources to help you, and while you remain alive you pose a risk to the people of this hamlet. I pray that you can forgive me for what must be done." As I've said before, is this the act of the moral paragon? No. In this situation, the paladin should find a better answer. But is it the action of most members of the church, good or not? Quite possibly. And just out of curiosity - though it seems fairly clear - elecgraystone, what's your answer to Euangelion's question? How much do you believe that the Church of the Silver Flame, Year 998, should be held responsible for the actions (or lack of appropriate actions) that the church took 150 years before in a campaign? 100% I've seen nothing to show me that they have changed. By looking at the sharn book, most of the priesthood is EVIL 998! Do they believe anything different now? Has their religion changed? I think they are just as likely to start a new purge as they were then! If their "god" told them that elves were evil because of their undead, they would be out there drowning elf babies before the sermon was over! :mad: And to what the MM said about neutral alignment, humans are also that alignment. It would be just as likely that it was the wereboar running away from the farmers! ;) That part is more for creatures of neutral alignment that don't have an intelligence, like animals! Or does every village of humans you stop in try to kill you? :rolleyes: Most adventuring groups fit your "travelers are few in number" criteria! I've never been randomly attacked by farmers because THEY had a neutral alignment and thought I was prey! :rolleyes: A wereboar would chase off farmers, but not attack them BECAUSE it's smart enough to know that people will come looking for they and it want to be left alone! Only with an involuntary change would it fall back to the animal neutral and might attack the farmers. I have a story for you. Werebear:"I was sitting in my cave when a group of farmers came by because they were looking to expand their farmland. I went out to let them know I lived here and they figured that it would be easier to kill me than look somewere else for land. They got torches and tried to burn me out of my cave. I knew if I killed them more would come and I might infect one so I ran. Oh, look over there, a paladin. He's a holy man, he'll help! Hack,hack!" Paladin:"I got that evil wereboar that attacked you!" Dead innocent wereboar! Just as likely since both the wereboar and the farmers are neutral! Evil act! |
| Kid SixXx01-05-05, 04:28 PM | 100% If their "god" told them that elves were evil because of their undead, they would be out there drowning elf babies before the sermon was over! :mad: While it's probably true that the SF church would regard most undead as abominations, I think the situation with the Deathless is not summed up as easily as you've tried to do. The SF church would not openly oppose the creation of the Deathless, as 1) The Deathless part of the cornestone of Aerenal faith, pose no viable threat, and cannot spread their undead condition to other victoms (like, say, vampires or ghouls can) and 2) The absence of souls in the Deathless precludes the dogma of the church. Since there is no soul to save or to corrupt, there is no need for the SF church to be at odds with the Aerenal practice. I would think that the church has it's opinions on the practice, but that would be a philosophical matter. The Keeper spoke out on the lycanthropes clearly and openly, so if the SF had an edict to deliver concerning te Deathless, I'd think it would have done so by now. |
| motorfirebox01-05-05, 05:19 PM | A wereboar would chase off farmers, but not attack them BECAUSE it's smart enough to know that people will come looking for they and it want to be left alone! i don't see any reason for that to be true, any more than it would be true on worlds besides Eberron. a wereboar might supplement his living by occasionally robbing travellers and raiding farms. on occasion, he might accidentally infect someone that he's robbing. |
| Sarlax01-05-05, 10:08 PM | So you have your answer, which shows that the CoSF is much like any other religious institution. Such institutions do not act unless they feel they can fully claim the moral high ground, or at least justify their actions within their own code or mission. Thanks for quoting the Dragonshard. I don't think it's too significant to the issue, however. Whether or not the killing was ordered by a divine being doesn't affect whether it was moral, no more than an order issued by a good human is guarenteed to be moral. Note that the Keeper declared, "all lycanthropes -- even those seemingly innocent and young -- must be destroyed" because "once the curse was set (via changing alignment), nothing could save the victim's soul." The purge wasn't simply to get rid lycanthropy as a curse. It was to specifically kill all lycanthropes, even if the afflicted had been cured. Once the Keeper declared that the soul was forever tained, curing was pointless. In fact, the dragonshard implies that the Church did know how to cure lycanthropes: A handful of paladins found alternatives. Some helped werebears escape to Lamannia, while others sought to cure the afflicted. Unfortunately, the process of breaking the curse is long and involved. For whatever reason, the Keeper decided the only path was death. Maybe he really believed that the curse forever changed the soul, or maybe he felt that the cure was just too difficult. In either case, he made a declaration that, if followed, led only to death, even of the innocent. The "personality types" you referred to earlier aren't really personality types at all: werefolk, whether "natural" or afflicted, do what they do because of the influence of the curse, contagion, or whatever you wish to lable lycanthrope. When I referred to personality types, I meant only the naturals. Here's how I justify my view of it: Suppose a small natural werebear group in the wilderness. They never come into contact with others. They only choose mates from among their own kind. Aside from the word "curse" in the Monster Manual entry, what indicates that these beings are cursed at all? They have total control over their shape-shifting, they don't suffer, and because of their isolation, they don't infect others. The only thing that makes a natural werebear "cursed" is that he's strongly pushed to be lawful good. If we extend that reasoning, the kalashtar are cursed because of the quori spirits they share that push them towards goodness, dwarves are cursed because their natural qualities push them towards mining, and all animals are cursed by their powerful desires to reproduce and stay alive. |
| motorfirebox01-05-05, 10:21 PM | The only thing that makes a natural werebear "cursed" is that he's strongly pushed to be lawful good. er, no. the thing that makes a natural werebear cursed is that he can spread lycanthropy to others, and the fact that his werebearhood is the result of a curse cast by an evil being of great power. if a given werebear lives in the wilderness and avoids spreading the curse, that's admirable, but it doesn't decursify him. if i have cancer, and it goes into remission, i still have cancer; just because it's not actively ravaging my body doesn't mean i'm cancer-free. |
| Sarlax01-06-05, 01:31 AM | er, no. the thing that makes a natural werebear cursed is that he can spread lycanthropy to others, and the fact that his werebearhood is the result of a curse cast by an evil being of great power. "He's cursed because he was cursed" by an evil being isn't an argument that the werebear's cursed. It's just tautology. That only leaves "naturals can afflict others." Being able to do that isn't a curse, though. It does curse the victim, but for the natural lycanthrope, it's an advantage: he can rapidly recruit new allies. Natural lycanthropes (especially werebears) aren't cursed in any way (no more than any other creature with instincts or creatures like kalashater), but they have the power to curse others. |
| stone_dog01-06-05, 03:07 AM | Okay, I've lost track. What in the Keeper's Lair is this argument about again? Was the Crusade a moral and just pursuit? No. That is pretty much the point of it. It would have been far less interesting if there wasn't a big ol blotch on their record. Was the Church justified in doing it? Maybe. That is pretty much the point of it. Obviously there are strong feelings about it in our world, imagine how divided people must be in Eberron! Sarlax, you mentioned that the Keeper of the Flame (creepy that one of the Dark Six and the leader of the Church share the same title... isn't it?) declared that death is the only option. True that the Keeper declared that the soul was irrevocably destroyed once the curse sets (and depending on whether or not you rule that the alignment shifts back when the curse is lifted that might be true...), but the other quote you cited says that a handful of paladins found alternatives. Do you think that those paladins (and probably a few other classes as well, mercy is not an exclusive trait of the paladin) were punished? I don't. They might not have been thrown a parade, but so long as they got rid of afflicting lycanthropes I think that they were doing their jobs. "Ah, I see you have returned from your mission. What is the status of Hommlet?" "There is no longer a lycanthrope presence in that hamlet your grace. The threat of the curse no longer hangs over those people." "Excelent work. Do you have anything to confess?" "No your grace." "Excelent. You have three days to rest, we need you in Cyre as soon as possible." "Yes your grace." Or "Excelent work. Do you have anything to confess?" No your grace." "Excelent. So you only had to slay murdering beasts?" "Ummm.. no your grace. I didn't have to slay anything." "... sent them to Lammania again did you?" "Well, I do have the contacts who are able and willing to do it." "You aren't burning time are you? No long quests for salvation or anything like that? We ARE at war you know!" "No Sir! Easy as breathing Sir. Druids know how to do this pretty easily it seems. Shame there aren't more of them willing to help us. Sir." "Don't call me Sir." "Yes your Grace." "You are not to take extreme measures to fight the curse, understand? We must win this war quickly and if you are off saving one werebear for a couple of weeks that is one less knight we have when a pack of murdering wolves decends on a village." "Yes your grace." "Good. Now head to Cyre as soon as you are rested. Things are bad in a small town there." "Yes your Grace." The Priest watches the paladin leave and shakes his head. "These idealists..." Do you really think that the people once cured of the actual curse were put to death? I don't. Even if the alignment change was irrevocable (at least, as irrevocable as alignment usually is) I can't see people being killed for having used to be cursed. Tried and imprisoned, yes. Perhaps House Jorasco even had special asylums for those who's minds were warped by the curse. I know the dragonshard says... Unfortunately, the process of breaking the curse is long and involved, and the Keeper of the Flame said that once the curse was set (via changing alignment), nothing could save the victim's soul. And so the templars relied on their silvered swords, cutting out the cancer and praying for forgiveness when innocents fell at their hands. But that is hardly testament to the entire act! I believe that those who had the chance to cure the Curse (without a slavering beast about to kill them or other such difficulties) did, but those folks were so few in number that they had no chance of changing the tide of the war. I am not trying to be an apologist here. I am not saying that horrible things didn't happen or that the world looks back at the Silver Crusade and says "Boy, thank goodness the Church of the Flame was here!" But I also think that it is a bit on the naive side to assume that the whole crusade across the face of khorvaire was handled the same way based on a few disjointed bits of essay and postings that probably don't even add up to a hundred words of cannon. I am hearing a lot about paladins killing werebears. This is .. what.. less than 5% of the active participants in the crusade? Maybe even less than 1%? Paladins who had to face werebears or wereboars or anything were that wasn't blatantly evil probably tried talking them down, getting them to Lammania and all manner of honorable and decent methods before using force and even then I can't see that they tossed aside mercy just because blades were drawn. Other paladins might never have encountered a werething that wasn't a slavering beast driven to bloodshed. Given that they are the rare and potent champions of the faith they are probably sent to the worst places. Places where whole villages are turned into murdering animals and such. They probably don't have much of a chance of helping non evil werethings until they learn that such creatures exist! I don't know where I am going with all this, but so long as I am hooked on the thread I might as well throw my ideas onto screen. |
| motorfirebox01-06-05, 03:54 AM | "He's cursed because he was cursed" by an evil being isn't an argument that the werebear's cursed. It's just tautology. that's not tautology, that's logic. if you were cursed, and nothing's removed the curse, you're cursed. lycanthropy is a curse; it's passed on as a curse, and inherited as a curse. that's part of the definition of lycanthropy. the fact that a given werebear doesn't spread his curse doesn't make him not be cursed. |
| Kid SixXx01-06-05, 09:35 AM | I don't think it's too significant to the issue, however. Whether or not the killing was ordered by a divine being doesn't affect whether it was moral, no more than an order issued by a good human is guarenteed to be moral. I tend to concur, but you are still failing to associate connotations of faith & religion with this, and this makes it indeed significant. After all, we're discussing matters related to a very-confrontational church that runs a theocratic nation. Regardless of the morality of the matter, the edict pretty much came from the deity itself, and mortals don't tend to question the moral culpability of the deity they worship. Ironically, the people that question the morality of faith, are usually the ones that have no faith at all, and they are not particularly concerned with finding faith, just questioning the faith of others that do believe. Here is a biblical allegory. Regardless of how you actually feel about Christianity, the allegory perfecly parallels the point I'm trying to make, which is that divine compulsion weighs much more that mortal compulsion, and it is rarely questioned. If it is, the messenger is sometimes questioned, but rarely is the deity itself called on point by it's own faithful. In the Bible, God himself spoke to Moses and told him to lead his people across the Red Sea. The message did not come to Moses from a human intermediary: it was from the divine source itself. Moses did not ask God how He was going to part the Red Sea. Moses accepted what God said based on his faith and did what he was bid to do. Moses probably knew that in order for God to save the Israelites, God was probably going to destroy the Egyptians that pursued them, yet Moses did not say, "Hey, God! Isn't killing wrong?" Moses took his people and fled, as God instructed him to do. The same with the SF church. The jihad against the lycanthropes was carried out because it was so decreed by the Keeper, who, from the ECS, is supposed to speak for the Flame itself. The church received the charge of faith and ran with the ball. Althogh you could interpret the migration of the werebears as disobedience, it may not be, as the Paladins could always return to attempt to cure the werebears at another time if they failed to do so the first time. If this is the case, then in a sense the Purges may still be going on in present-day Eberron. The article does not go into the motives of the Paladins after the relocation. I would not be surprised if the reason the Paladins had the werebears relocated was because if this occurred, the Paladins would know exactly where they were in order to possibly attempt to cure them later, or perhaps kill them if the curse was too difficult to remove. So, was this retreat for the werebears really a good thing? Is it a refuge as you claim it is, or is it a benevolent concentration camp or worse, a prison without walls? The purge wasn't simply to get rid lycanthropy as a curse. It was to specifically kill all lycanthropes, even if the afflicted had been cured. Once the Keeper declared that the soul was forever tained, curing was pointless. How are you drawing that conclusion? I think the set alignment probably refers to the alignment shift that occurs while the victim is still afflicted, but the wording is pretty vague. I'd like to think that once the afflicted were cured of the condition, the church left them alone, but stranger things have happened. From a metagame standpoint, having the Purges keep their tragic connotation makes them more interesting, IMO. Aside from the word "curse" in the Monster Manual entry, what indicates that these beings are cursed at all? I would think that the word itself would get the job done, but I'll follow your line of logic They have total control over their shape-shifting, They're better able to control the abilities that come along with the curse they were born with. This makes them less cursed? they don't suffer, Define "suffer." and because of their isolation, Meaning that the werebear knows that because of the curse he may not accepted into normal society and therefore secludes himself? Since when is exile, or becoming an outcast, a good thing, whether it is imposed by others or imposed on one's self? they don't infect others. On the contrary, they can infect others, they just chose not to do so. The difference between a gun in a holster with the safety on, and a gun drawn & fired: both are still dangerous, but one is actively dangerous, while the other is potentially dangerous. Even so, the curse still dominates these particular lycanthrope's behavior as stated by the logic of the article. The curse still compels them to act in ways they may not necessarily act if they were not lycanthropes. Their souls are not free, at least by definition of the church. If you are trying to argue that the church had no authority to judge the condition of a lycanthrope's soul, then that's an argument for a whole new thread. If your answer is "yes," then I concur, but again this is a metagame call, as we were not personally privy to the decision making that led to the Purges, nor involved personally in the war. That conclusion is drawn based on our own real-life personal beliefs, and may or may not be applicable to the situation we're discussing. The only thing that makes a natural werebear "cursed" is that he's strongly pushed to be lawful good. If we extend that reasoning, the kalashtar are cursed because of the quori spirits they share that push them towards goodness, dwarves are cursed because their natural qualities push them towards mining, and all animals are cursed by their powerful desires to reproduce and stay alive. The aptitudes of the Dwarves are not driven by a transmutable curse, and their skill at mining and smithing is imbedded in their culture. No Dwarf comes out of the womb able to mine a vein of ore: they are taught to do so if they chose to follow that profession. If the child grows up and decides to be a tailor instead of a miner or a smith (despite the fact that the natural aptitude for Dwarves skews to metalurgy), the child is free to do so. Furthermore, there is nothing in Dwarven society that compels a Dwarf's alignment to be one over another. Our Dwarf Tailor can be good, neutral or evil depending on his own personal bent. A natural lycanthrope comes out of the womb with lycanthrope. The curse dominates the infant lycanthrope's behavior as soon as it's born. It cannot chose not to be a lycanthrope because it is born cursed, and the curse cannot be broken with this particular lycanthrope. Being a natural lycanthrope means that the lycanthrope cannot be cured of the curse, and the support society of other naturals teaches it to either cope with the curse, or embrace it as a "strength" or a "gift." Depending on the animal form associated with the curse, eventually lycanthrope will drive the child to be good, neutral, or evil, and there will be no decsion about it. As for the Kalashtar, they are the sum of the combination of a planar being (whom we know can have absolute alignments) and mortal beings. Besides that, the simple fact, as mentioned before, is that lycanthropes by definition are cursed beings. Splitting semantics does not make lycanthropes any less cursed. Natural lycanthropes aren't cursed in any way, but they have the power to curse others. An illogical anomoly. How are they transmitting the curse to others if they are not cursed in the first place? The curse is being transmitted via a bite or scratch, not by spell, so this is not a case of a non-cursed being cursing another. |
| motorfirebox01-06-05, 02:15 PM | at the very least, they pass the curse on to their children. |
| Euangelion01-06-05, 03:50 PM | Look at it from the point of view of the Lords of Dust: Rakshasa #1: "So, either the Silver Flame ignores the lycans and thereby keeps one of our greatest at the height of his fiendish powers, or the Church begins a campaign to destroy the threat of lycanthropy in whatever form it takes, thereby rising to number one on everyone's s***list. Either way, we win." Rakshasa #2, tapping the tips of the claws on his tented paws together: "Excellent." Keeper of the Flame, scrying on the conversation: "D'oh!" |
| Indigo01-06-05, 04:04 PM | And to what the MM said about neutral alignment, humans are also that alignment. It would be just as likely that it was the wereboar running away from the farmers! ;) That part is more for creatures of neutral alignment that don't have an intelligence, like animals! Um, no, actually it's not. I was specifically quoting the section describing the behavior of neutral lycanthropes, from the MM entry on lycanthropes. So, by the MM, a wereboar is supposed to pose a threat to isolated travelers. |
| Sarlax01-07-05, 01:18 AM | Regardless of the morality of the matter, the edict pretty much came from the deity itself, and mortals don't tend to question the moral culpability of the deity they worship. Of course. I don’t object to that idea. As you say, it’s irrelevant to the moral considerations. People will tend to obey what they believe is divine, whether it’s a mission to help the poor or blow up people with car bombs. the allegory perfecly parallels the point I'm trying to make, which is that divine compulsion weighs much more that mortal compulsion, and it is rarely questioned. That point hasn’t been lost. It’s incredibly obvious. People obey what they believe to be divine commands. This is why many immoral acts are rationalized in religious terms. Althogh you could interpret the migration of the werebears as disobedience How is it anything else? The Keeper specifically declared that all lycanthropes must be killed. Helping any escape is disobedience. “Thus all lycanthropes -- even those seemingly innocent and young -- must be destroyed.” The Keeper specifically ruled out curing as being both too difficult and essentially pointless (because the soul was still tainted); curing lycanthropes isn’t an acceptable method of ‘destroying’ then. So, was this retreat for the werebears really a good thing? Is it a refuge as you claim it is, or is it a benevolent concentration camp or worse, a prison without walls? It seemed the best option to the werebears who escaped, it seems. I’d argue that it’s specifically immoral to force werebears to make that choice, but it was the templars carrying out the killing that pushed this upon them; the paladins who helped them escape were moral by giving them the best choice they could think of to survive. How are you drawing that conclusion? I get that idea from the Keeper’s assertion that the soul is forever ruined and the curing was too hard to bother with, anyway. If the Keeper rejects the virtues of curing and declares that all lycanthropes ought to be killed, it seemed reasonable to me that the Keeper wouldn’t find any reason to let live even those who had been cured. I admit that it’s not explicit, though. From a metagame standpoint, having the Purges keep their tragic connotation makes them more interesting, IMO. Absolutely. I like the idea of the morally gray church instead of a monolithic Justice League. But I think the tragedy is more interesting if it involves a harsher past Church that deluded its followers, as the Keeper certainly seems to have done. I would think that the word itself would get the job done That’s exactly my point. The word isn’t enough. It’s being used inappropriately. Imagine if we were talking about a doppelganger that could create new doppelgangers with the same mentality of the original. Is the natural doppelganger cursed? If yes, why? If not, then what makes a natural werebeast cursed? They're better able to control the abilities that come along with the curse they were born with. This makes them less cursed? Yes. Losing self control to a supernatural effect is a curse. Being born with supernatural powers that don’t harm you at all is an advantage. Even so, the curse still dominates these particular lycanthrope's behavior as stated by the logic of the article. The curse still compels them to act in ways they may not necessarily act if they were not lycanthropes. And human instinct compels us to act in ways we might not act if we were human. We’re all slaves to our instincts to some extent; lycanthropes just have a different range of behaviors than humans. If you are trying to argue that the church had no authority to judge the condition of a lycanthrope's soul, then that's an argument for a whole new thread. Actually, it’s been my position that the Church had the resources to make a true evaluation of the soul’s condition: they had Commune, Atonement, etc. The Keeper was either lying or was criminally ignorant. The dogma he established was false. As for the Kalashtar, they are the sum of the combination of a planar being (whom we know can have absolute alignments) and mortal beings. Besides that, the simple fact, as mentioned before, is that lycanthropes by definition are cursed beings. The kalashtar is a good example, but there again you have a creature being influenced by a supernatural force: an outside spirit that seeks to impose its values upon you. I'd say that this is exactly the same as the natural lycanthrope - but that for the lycanthrope the effect is magnified a thousandfold. The Kalashtar are just like the natural lycanthropes. If not for a supernatural presence that they can’t be rid of, they’d act like regular humans. They can also pass this condition on to their offspring. Would you be making these same arguments about the Kalashtar if their description included the phrase, “Curse of Kalashtarism?” An illogical anomoly. How are they transmitting the curse to others if they are not cursed in the first place? … The curse is being transmitted via a bite or scratch, not by spell, so this is not a case of a non-cursed being cursing another. Is there some sort of game rule being implicity cited here? I can’t follow your logic. If a person curses someone via a spell, that person isn’t cursed. I agree. If a person curses someone through a natural ability, that person is cursed? |
| motorfirebox01-07-05, 01:42 AM | he Kalashtar are just like the natural lycanthropes. If not for a supernatural presence that they can’t be rid of, they’d act like regular humans. They can also pass this condition on to their offspring. Would you be making these same arguments about the Kalashtar if their description included the phrase, “Curse of Kalashtarism?” if Kalashtar had been formed when an evil demigod cast them into the world in order to gain power for himself, and if infected Kalashtar had a greater than 50/50 chance of turning into a monster on any given night, i probably would. but Kalashtar were formed through a willing union, and they don't accidentally turn people into monsters. if anything, Kalashtar would be referred to as being possessed, not as being cursed. If a person curses someone through a natural ability, that person is cursed? well, yeah. where else would the curse be coming from? if Bob picks up a syringe full of the HIV virus and sticks it in Jane, that doesn't make Bob diseased. but if Bob was born with the HIV virus, and he swaps blood with Jane, Bob is diseased (and also a not-nice person). natural lycanthropes who bite normal people pass the curse of lycanthropy--which natural lycanthropes are born with--on to those people. |
| Sarlax01-07-05, 04:16 AM | If a person curses someone through a natural ability, that person is cursed? well, yeah. where else would the curse be coming from? if Bob picks up a syringe full of the HIV virus and sticks it in Jane, that doesn't make Bob diseased. but if Bob was born with the HIV virus, and he swaps blood with Jane, Bob is diseased (and also a not-nice person). natural lycanthropes who bite normal people pass the curse of lycanthropy--which natural lycanthropes are born with--on to those people. Then a covey of hags is cursed. Evil titans are cursed. Really, this doesn't make any sense. If Monster X can curse someone as a natural ability, why is Monster X cursed? |
| Kid SixXx01-07-05, 09:27 AM | That’s exactly my point. The word isn’t enough. It’s being used inappropriately. How so? Lycanthrope itself is a curse and is not a naturally occuring condition, so I fail to see the error in syntax or definition. Imagine if we were talking about a doppelganger that could create new doppelgangers with the same mentality of the original. Is the natural doppelganger cursed? But we're not. We're talking about lycanthropes and lycanthrope is defined as a curse. If yes, why? If not, then what makes a natural werebeast cursed? Because the parents have passed the curse on to their offspring. It a born lycanthrope. Lycanthrope being a curse.. If it were not for the curse being passed onto it, the natural lycanthrope would not have these supernatural abilities in the first place. Natural lycanthropes cannot be cured of their condition becaue the curse, which is already known to be extremely difficult to cure in the afflicted, is even stronger in the naturals, not because the curse is absent. Being born with supernatural powers that don’t harm you at all is an advantage. So what you're telling me is that you'd cheerfully accept the ability to change shape not knowing how painful the process itself might be (movie incarnations usually show the change as being extremely traumatic to the body), as well as having the source of this ability either drive you to be a merciless killer (if you're a werewolf or other evil lycanthrope), or cause you to seek isolation (if you're a good or neutral lycanthrope) for fear of being associated with evil lycanthropes and killed yourself? That hardly seems like an advantage, nor does it sound like the type of life a rational sentient would want to live. The price of this so-called advantage is to either be driven by bloodlust, or driven to seek seclusion, which does not make it seem like an advantage at all. And human instinct compels us to act in ways we might not act if we were human. We’re all slaves to our instincts to some extent; lycanthropes just have a different range of behaviors than humans. We've been over this a dozen times & the point has even been clarified by Keith on previous pages of this thread. The range of behavior exhibited by a lycanthrope is compelled by the curse. Lycanthropes don't act the way they do because of instinct: they do what they do because the curse dominates their behavior, whether for good or for ill. Humans can always combat their instincts. Werecreatures will always succumb to them because of the curse. Actually, it’s been my position that the Church had the resources to make a true evaluation of the soul’s condition: they had Commune, Atonement, etc. The Keeper was either lying or was criminally ignorant. The dogma he established was false. How was it false? The summations of what lycanthrope actually does to a living beings seemed to be on point, and traditionally the most direct route to deal with lycanthropes is silver weapons. As I mentioned before, your feeling that the SF church should have had an explosion of compassion for beings they were charged to combat in what amounts to a holy war, does not hold water with the way the church is described, or how they function. It does not address the "realities" of the the dynamics of the SF church at all. The SF church is confrontational to a fault. Action was called for and action took place. You should read the Dragonshard article on the SF church, as it will put everything in it's proper perspective. The Kalashtar are just like the natural lycanthropes. If not for a supernatural presence that they can’t be rid of, they’d act like regular humans. They can also pass this condition on to their offspring. The supernatural presence is that of a planar being merging with a mortal shell, and not born of a curse. The Kalashtar is a metaphysical gestalt, while a lycanthrope is the end result of a humanoid either being afflicted with a curse, or being born with one. This is comparing apples to oranges. As I said before, splitting definitions does not make a cursed being any less cursed. Would you be making these same arguments about the Kalashtar if their description included the phrase, “Curse of Kalashtarism?” No I would not, because unlike lycanthrope, "Kalashtarism" cannot be passed onto a non-Kalashtar regardless of whether or not he wants it to be. Is there some sort of game rule being implicity cited here? I can’t follow your logic. It's simple. The reason that natural lycanthropes can pass on lycanthrope is because they are cursed themselves. There is no spell involved and lycanthrope does not just poof out of nowhere. The dynamic of the curse is that it is either spread from one cursed being to a normal one, or you are born with the curse. Either way, the curse exists in bloodlines and is passed along. It does not just terminate from one lycanthrope to the next. If a person curses someone via a spell, that person isn’t cursed. I agree. If a person curses someone through a natural ability, that person is cursed? The curse itself does not occur naturally. Natural lycanthropes are called such because they are born and not made. Irregardless of the origin of the lycanthrope, it is still cursed and passes the curse along to others. That's the way lycanthrope works. |
| elecgraystone01-07-05, 10:01 AM | Then a covey of hags is cursed. Evil titans are cursed. Really, this doesn't make any sense. If Monster X can curse someone as a natural ability, why is Monster X cursed? This was a point I wa trying to make. That naturals are NOT cursed themselves. Glad someone else sees that! |
| elecgraystone01-07-05, 10:10 AM | While it's probably true that the SF church would regard most undead as abominations, I think the situation with the Deathless is not summed up as easily as you've tried to do. The SF church would not openly oppose the creation of the Deathless, as 1) The Deathless part of the cornestone of Aerenal faith, pose no viable threat, and cannot spread their undead condition to other victoms (like, say, vampires or ghouls can) and 2) The absence of souls in the Deathless precludes the dogma of the church. Since there is no soul to save or to corrupt, there is no need for the SF church to be at odds with the Aerenal practice. I would think that the church has it's opinions on the practice, but that would be a philosophical matter. The Keeper spoke out on the lycanthropes clearly and openly, so if the SF had an edict to deliver concerning te Deathless, I'd think it would have done so by now. I was using the elves as an example, not saying that they ARE going to do it! There are plenty of things for the church to go out and KILL! I'm sure they are making their list and checking it twice right now! Gonna find out who's naughty and who's MORE naughty! Then hunt them down and kill their children! I don't know who's next. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! COmmit genocide once, shame on them. Commit genocide twice, shame on ME! |
| Kid SixXx01-07-05, 10:14 AM | This was a point I wa trying to make. That naturals are NOT cursed themselves. They are the offspring of cursed beings, exhibit the symptoms of the curse, and can pass the curse along to others. Normally if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is indeed a duck, so I am really looking forward to a clear explanation of how being born with a curse, showing signs of a curse, and being able to pass a curse along to others does not make you a cursed being. |
| elecgraystone01-07-05, 10:17 AM | Um, no, actually it's not. I was specifically quoting the section describing the behavior of neutral lycanthropes, from the MM entry on lycanthropes. So, by the MM, a wereboar is supposed to pose a threat to isolated travelers. You must have more text in the MM than is in the SRD. I couldn't find it in the SRD. I'll check the MM next time I have access to it. |
| Kid SixXx01-07-05, 10:33 AM | I was using the elves as an example, not saying that they ARE going to do it! Why bring it up at all then, as it will only serve to further cloud the issues? :D This thread is 8 pages long because of all of the misconceptions about the SF church that need to be clarified. ;) |
| Indigo01-07-05, 01:00 PM | You must have more text in the MM than is in the SRD. I couldn't find it in the SRD. I'll check the MM next time I have access to it. I just checked the SRD, and yes, you're correct. The section that I am referencing describing the behavior of lycanthropes - stating that neutrals will attack travelers in small numbers, while evil lycanthropes actively seek to murder intelligent creatures, preferably of their own race - is in the Monster Manual but not in the SRD (which as a rule doesn't include a lot of the text about creature behavior, so that makes a certain amount of sense). |
| Indigo01-07-05, 01:09 PM | On the kalashtar front, Hellcow said back pages ago that the influence of a quori spirit on a kalashtar is far less extreme than the influence of the curse on a natural lycanthrope. So if you accept Hellcow's depiction of lycanthropes in Eberron, the reason you'd call it a curse is that a good werewolf always has to fight against the supernatural bloodlust surging in his soul - something he hates but can never entirely get rid of. From the previous answer it sounds like the kalashtar influence is far more passive; it's back to a "usually" alignment (in MM terms) instead of "always". So the natural lycanthrope doesn't simply have cool powers - he is being actively driven to behave in a particular way, which may not be the kind of person he wants to be. Combine that with the ability to transmit this to other people, and yes, that sounds like a curse to me. |
| Kid SixXx01-07-05, 01:34 PM | I'd like to take this time to say that I am enjoying taking part in what is honestly the most civilized debate I've ever seen on the Wizards forums, bar none. I don't think that Sarlax and & will ever see common ground, but it's enlightening to see an exchange of ideas take place for such a sizeable length of time without so much as one insult thrown. Kudos to everyone that has participated / is participating in this thread. |
| motorfirebox01-07-05, 03:06 PM | Really, this doesn't make any sense. If Monster X can curse someone as a natural ability, why is Monster X cursed? if monster X is a lycanthrope, the ability to curse others isn't really natural; it originates from a supernatural curse. it's the difference between getting sick because a snake bit you, and getting sick because a rabid dog bit you (granted that dogs aren't born rabid). lycanthropy originated as a curse, and it remains a curse even for those who are born with it. |
| Dragom01-07-05, 05:15 PM | I'd like to hope up and express my own views on the Lycanthrope in Eberron concept. Supposing that the Demon Lord within the Silver Flame can occaisionally recomend action to the Church with it's own wishes and intentions. A kind of 33.3% chance of getting screwed over listening to the wishes of the Flame. Now if this demon commanded the erradication of the Lycanthropes. Why? Daelkyr destroy worlds with armies, Quorl enslave the masses with dreams but demons destroy civilizations with schemes. How does a batch of Lycanthropes need to be brushed aside? How is a batch of disease riden beasts a threat to the asperations of an Immortal being of unhuman inteligence? Some lesser demons and devils are vulnerable to the silver claws of a lycan. I heard once that a Psionic Character once afflicted with Lycanthropy lost all thier Psionic powers. Most Abberations would find it difficult deal with a werewolf. So if we assume that the Lycanthropes where an unpleasent chaotic element in the fabric of the schemes. Maybe the dark lord found it unpleasent when the tavern owner he sought to kill and replace with a succubus shifted into a werebear and slew the succubus before she could complete even the first step of her mission? Maybe werewolves are immune to possesion? Maybe a Hero with Lycanthrope blood was fortold in ancient Prophecy and will rise and set great wrongs right in the world and usher in a golden age of prosperity where the schemes of a thousand demons for the past thousand years would have been for not? |
| Euangelion01-07-05, 11:25 PM | Man, I'm confused. I thought that the curse of lycanthropy is that if you bite another creature, you start a process within that creature that radically affects who it is to its very core. In other words, the ability to affect that radical of a change in another creature is the curse, instead of the curse being the condition of having been changed. Thus natural lycan=the curse, afflicted=the cursed. But then again, perhaps the actual scriptu- uh, I mean, source books ;) don’t support that viewpoint as clearly as I had once thought. Second, can we get a consensus that the Inquistion was good and evil; good in that it seriously weakened a powerful rakshasa rajah by destroying many, many dangerous and thoroughly evil creatures, but evil in that in the process many innocents perished? As others have said, isn't all that the point of having the Inquisition in the history of the Church anyway? Finally, quoting the MM and SRD is fine to a point, but many creatures have their own particular flavor in Eberron besides lycans. Can't it be enough that Hellcow says that the natural lycans are indeed cursed and have the matter settled? Otherwise, isn't it kind of like pulling out the MM and saying "Look, gold dragon, always Lawful Good, it can't be Chaotic Neutral?" |
| elecgraystone01-08-05, 09:08 AM | Why bring it up at all then, as it will only serve to further cloud the issues? :D This thread is 8 pages long because of all of the misconceptions about the SF church that need to be clarified. ;) Bacause when dealing with zealots and fanatics that go on a jihad of genocide. Just because something ISN'T guilty doesn't mean it will not get judged. In our own history, we had communist hearings were people that weren't communists were fingered. Witch trails. Because one person accused. With the amount of evil priests in the SF, what's to stop it from happening again? I too am enjoying this debate! I HAS been very civil. I've tried to be on my best behavior! ;) I can sometimes get very ...heated when debating when I think I'm right. And I usually think I'm right or I wouldn't be posting! :D |
| elecgraystone01-08-05, 09:53 AM | Finally, quoting the MM and SRD is fine to a point, but many creatures have their own particular flavor in Eberron besides lycans. Can't it be enough that Hellcow says that the natural lycans are indeed cursed and have the matter settled? Otherwise, isn't it kind of like pulling out the MM and saying "Look, gold dragon, always Lawful Good, it can't be Chaotic Neutral?" Bacause WOTC has a different view than Hellcow on several points. While he was it's creator, the final say isn't his anymore. That and he has house rules he runs his game with that color some of his responses. It would be really nice if he COULD say 100% how something works. Inquistion=evil. All that crap about "greater good" can't sugar coat genocide! Has the church made ANY moves against the rakshasa? They do this to weaken them, then let them regain their power? If it was their REAL motive, then they would have gone after them at their weakest. Right after thier jihad. But they went home and had tea and cookies! I can't understand how naturals are cursed. If I'm cursed into the form of a ghoul are my spawn cursed? No, just undead! The MM goes to great lengths to tell you what happens when someone IS cursed with lycanthropy. NONE of it applies to naturals. NO involuntary changes. No "wolf outs" if damaged in combat. The "always" alignment goes for lots of creatures, so nothing should be implied from it! Note that the section for those cursed with lycanthropy is called "LYCANTHROPY AS AN AFFLICTION", inplying that only those that aren't natural HAVE an affliction. Also, saying that naturals are cursed implies that they can be cured, which is false. Name a curse that has no escape clause and can't be dispelled? My understanding is that in eberron that the original lycanthropes were cursed into their forms. Like being changed into an new elf subspecies by a curse and being able to breed. The new forms could breed true. They have the power to duplicate the curse that changed the first lycanthropes, but not perfectly. Nowhere does it say that naturals are cursed after the first ones. Same with the MM and SRD. Until WOTC posts something that changes this I'm sticking with this and I'll agree to disagree with those that think otherwise. |
| Indigo01-08-05, 12:42 PM | With the amount of evil priests in the SF, what's to stop it from happening again? Among other things, because the current Keeper of the Flame is a noble and good person. Perhaps she'll die. But she's a far cry from the Keeper in the purge era. I completely agree with you one front: the Church of the Silver Flame is supposed to be an organization that has done terrible things, and followers of the Flame – especially the puritans – may do these in the future. But I disagree with the view that this is the predominant mode of behavior within the modern church, and that nothing has changed. Yes, there's evil priests in Sharn. However, Sharn is one of the most corrupt cities in a nation described as having the highest concentration of corrupt priests. And the alignment split among listed Silver Flame priests is a straight 33/33/33, not the 99.8 you keep saying. How are you doing good by killing Faela, who has devoted her life to caring for the wretches of Fallen? Even the evil priests mentioned are driven by greed instead of zealotry. Meanwhile, we are told that the church is a lawful good organization lead by a lawful good person that seeks to "protect the common people against supernatural forces of evil." We're told that they have been fighting demons and undead for centuries – I suppose this is also a bad thing? Jaela is described as a "caring and forceful leader" who guided Thrane through the peace talks and now seeks to eliminate corruption from the Church. Page 207 states that the dominant force within the church is the tolerant side embodied by Jaela, while the puritans continue to exist as a small but vocal minority. I don't argue that the church did and still could do evil – that's the beauty of it, it's a human religion instead of some fairy tale ideal. But I will certainly argue that in the modern day it does more good than evil. Thus, I cannot see any way to justify your goal of killing members of the Church – who are more likely than not innocent people who are trying to help others – as anything but vilest evil. While we're at it, let's look at that mission statement – "dedicated to protecting the common people against supernatural forces of evil" – not "dedicated to protecting all creatures". I reiterate my statements that once you've become a lycanthrope, the church's first concern is protecting the "common people" from you. If they can save you, great – but they shouldn't be putting the common folk at risk to do it. Bacause WOTC has a different view than Hellcow on several points. While he was it's creator, the final say isn't his anymore. True. Hellcow doesn't have the final say on Eberron. HOWEVER, this isn't the case of WotC saying that things are one way IN EBERRON and Hellcow saying another. The MM is a basic, generic resource. Many things in it (draconic alignments, the history of the couatl, orcs) have already been expanded upon or altered for Eberron. So where is the evidence that WotC disagrees with Hellcow's view of lycanthropy IN EBERRON? Just to point to one thing *in* the ECS and therefore clearly supported by WotC: page 305 "Since shifters do not spread the curse of lycanthropy, the Silver Flame has mostly left them alone." This implies three things: That lycanthropy is considered to be a curse. That (as Hellcow has said) the Eberron design team believes that at the time of the purge afflicted lycanthropes could spread the curse; otherwise, they would be in the same boat as the shifters. That some followers of the Silver Flame – most likely overzealous puritans – do persecute shifters. (See, I'm not trying to defend the church as the ultimate paragon of virtue.) My question, Elecgraystone, is what proof we have that WotC has a different view from Hellcow in this case. Inquistion=evil. All that crap about "greater good" can't sugar coat genocide! Certainly. And yet: what if the werewolves were killing hundreds of people every day, driven by supernatural urges they had no power over? Let's look back to the question of whether or not natural lycanthropes are cursed. It's bad enough if they are strongly predisposed towards a particular alignment. But now it's possible that they have a direct connection to a powerful fiend. If the church acted because that power was growing, who's to say the fiend wasn't able to exert direct control over them, afflicted or natural – driving them into murderous rages far beyond their usual behavior? Would that be enough to count as a curse? And if those lycanthropes were killing and infecting hundreds or thousands each day, should the Church have sat by and done nothing? We're back to the fact that we don't know what the situation was. In the witch trials and the Inquisition, the Church hunted down those who had no power to defend themselves. A werewolf not only can defend himself, he's a lot more powerful than a typical soldier of the church and can even infect soldiers of the church. I think the fifty year duration of the purge is just as likely to reflect a vicious on-going battle – as all the werewolf needs to do to replenish his forces is run into a village and bite everyone – than a long, drawn-out hunting down of innocents trying to hide. Genocide is never a good solution, and yet there's a big difference between hunting down helpless innocents and trying to exterminate a deadly foe who is also killing innocents. Has the church made ANY moves against the rakshasa? They do this to weaken them, then let them regain their power? What move would you have them make? We're talking about a rakshasa RAJAH. Entire nations of dragons and couatls couldn't destroy these. All that can be done is bind them. The key to the binding is the lycanthropes. So, once the church has destroyed the lycanthropes, returning the rajah fully to his prison – what do you expect them to do? I have no doubt that the Church of the Silver Flame would love to destroy the rajahs – but that's simply not possible. All that it can do is hold them in check, which is how the Silver Flame first came into being. I can't understand how naturals are cursed. Naturals are forced to behave in a certain way. If you take this enforced alignment to mean the same thing as the "alignment of the lycanthropic form", which the afflicted lycanthrope permanently assumes when he succumbs to the curse, it's far more extreme than the alignment can allow – the werewolf isn't just selfish, he's bloodthirsty. If you don't want to kill people, that's not going to be pleasant. You have the potential to pass this behavior to others. And if you do accept Hellcow's theory, you have a direct bond to a powerful fiend who may be able to influence your actions. Naturals aren't afflicted, because they can't be cured – but that doesn't make their existence any less cursed. If I'm cursed into the form of a ghoul are my spawn cursed? Certainly. We're now arguing semantics. In my opinion, being mystically forced into a miserable undead existence where I need to feed on the flesh of the living to survive… yes, I'd call that a curse. And like a natural lycanthrope, remove curse won't help. The MM goes to great lengths to tell you what happens when someone IS cursed with lycanthropy. No, it goes to great lengths to tell you what happens when someone is AFFLICTED with lycanthropy. It also lists natural lycanthropes – which all of the stat blocks are for – as having an "always" alignment and "curse of lycanthropy." The "always" alignment goes for lots of creatures, so nothing should be implied from it! What could possibly make you say that? So it "goes for lots of monsters" – like demons and undead. Unlike lots of creatures, the MM entry goes on to talk about what alignment means for a lycanthrope, and notes that one of the affects of affliction is being forced to permanently assume that alignment. The alignment is part of lycanthropy, and naturals "always" possess it because they are lycanthropes from birth. It also ties into the depiction of the werewolf in folklore: as a vicious killer. Why deviate from that? Beyond White Wolf, where do we see werewolves depicted as heroes in folklore or pop culture? Name a curse that has no escape clause and can't be dispelled? How about becoming a vampire? I think that the definition of curse as "that which can be removed with remove curse" is just as narrow as saying that a good-aligned character can do no evil. Until WOTC posts something that changes this I'm sticking with this and I'll agree to disagree with those that think otherwise. That's fair. Of course, remember that Dragonshard articles are sanctioned by WotC – so you may get your wish. |
| motorfirebox01-08-05, 03:50 PM | Inquistion=evil. All that crap about "greater good" can't sugar coat genocide! you keep calling it genocide, but it isn't. genocide is when you wipe out a race; lycanthropes--natural or afflicted--are no more a race than people with AIDS or Down's Syndrome are a race. The MM goes to great lengths to tell you what happens when someone IS cursed with lycanthropy. NONE of it applies to naturals. no, the MM goes to great lengths to tell you what happens when someone is afflicted with the curse of lycanthropy. the MM also says "lycanthropy can be spread like a disease," and calls that function "the curse of lycanthropy". you can't spread a disease if you don't have it yourself. those who are afflicted with lycanthropy manifest somewhat different symptoms from those who are born with it. in the case of natural lycanthropes, the curse has set in much more strongly. not only are their lycanthropic abilities more potent, natural lycanthropes are so strongly cursed that they get no chance to save against the alignment-changing effects of the curse--they're always the alignment listed. Name a curse that has no escape clause and can't be dispelled? please show where escape clauses and dispelling are discussed, in the definition of "curse". |
| Sorbeth01-08-05, 04:31 PM | I disagree with your saying that lycanthropes are not a race. Natural lycanthropes, those born that way, can not be cured. pg 219 MM "Only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured of lycanthropy." People who are bitten have a disease that can be spread; people who are born lycanthropes are a species that just has an additional (and much faster) way of 'reproducing'. If there were genetics in D&D, I think lycanthropy would effectively change someone on the genetic level. A baby natural lycanthrope is half its mom and half its dad, which just happens to mean it can go furry and make other people go furry. There isn't anything to cure. Therefore the CotSF was doing widespread genocide in trying to kill all lycanthropes, rather then *really* draconian nasty (and in my opinion evil) “quarantine” measures. Also in the Eberron setting with the loose alignments there could be a variety of alignments for a lycanthrope. :) |
| motorfirebox01-08-05, 05:02 PM | Down's Syndrome can't be cured. Down's Syndrome sufferers share physical, mental, and emotional similarities related to their condition. Down's Syndrome is inherited. but we don't call sufferers of Down's Syndrome a race. natural lycanthropy can't be cured. natural lycanthropes share physical, mental, and emotional similarities related to their condition. natural lycanthropy is inherited. and natural lycanthropes can pass on a diluted version of their condition by biting people. why do you consider natural lycanthropy a race? i mean, i was bitten by a korean guy once. i didn't catch koreanism from him. Eberron doesn't have loose alignments. creatures which are a given alignment in other campaign worlds have that same alignment in Eberron, unless specifically noted otherwise (such as in the case of dragons). what Eberron has is slightly looser definitions of those alignments. |
| Sarlax01-08-05, 06:03 PM | But we're not. We're talking about lycanthropes and lycanthrope is defined as a curse. Can’t you see that this is entirely circular? “Lycanthropy is a curse because it’s defined as a curse,” isn’t an argument. I’m asking for an explanation for why natural lycanthropes should be considered cursed. The only reason there is for even calling lycanthropy a curse (in the MM) is that natural lycanthropes have the power to curse others. Yes, I know it’s called “Curse of Lycanthropy” in the descriptions. Read carefully: it’s not a special quality of naturals. It’s a special attack. It’s a power they have: to inflict a curse on others. Naturals aren’t inherently disadvantaged in any way except for their more limited range of behavior. Everything else about being a natural lycanthrope (damage reduction, improved Will, better physical scores and Wisdom, etc.) is great. Again: I can read the word “Curse” that appears in their special attacks. I’m not misunderstanding it. I can read that afflicted lycanthropes are described as suffering from a curse. Here’s what I am asking: What basis is there for calling natural lycanthropes cursed, aside from the entirely circular answer “Because lycanthropy is called a curse.” So what you're telling me is that you'd cheerfully accept the ability to change shape not knowing how painful the process itself might be (movie incarnations usually show the change as being extremely traumatic to the body), It shouldn’t be necessary to say this, but nothing in the game indicates that any pain accompanies the change to hybrid or animal form. The only indication that transformation is painful comes from Second Edition, and not from the Monstrous Manual. It comes from Van Richten’s Guide to Werebeasts and it only applies to infected lycanthropes. Nothing in the current edition of the game indicates any pain from the transformation. You can house that pain happens, but that won’t bear on this discussion. We've been over this a dozen times & the point has even been clarified by Keith on previous pages of this thread. If you take Keith’s clarifications as valid, why did you ignore the very specific quote I provided? He agreed that the influence quori spirits exert on kalashtar is exactly the same as kind of influence exerted on lycanthropes – the only difference is the degree of influence. Humans can always combat their instincts. Werecreatures will always succumb to them because of the curse. This is incorrect. As is noted in the Monster Manual, in Eberron, and in this thread (by numerous individuals, including myself and Keith Baker) creatures with “always” alignments can have exceptions. A lycanthrope can resist his or her induced urges, just as a human or kalashtar can: it’s simply harder for them to do so. How was it false? The summations of what lycanthrope actually does to a living beings seemed to be on point, and traditionally the most direct route to deal with lycanthropes is silver weapons. The dogma that nothing can save the soul of the afflicted is false because the soul of the afflicted can be saved. Cure, then Atonement. Presto, the soul’s right back to where it was. Again, to reiterate: The dogma of the permanently ruined soul is false because the Church had the means to restore the souls of the afflicted. As I mentioned before, your feeling that the SF church should have had an explosion of compassion That’s not my feeling at all. It does not address the "realities" of the the dynamics of the SF church at all. Thank you for making the point: In reality, the Church at the time of the purge wasn’t compassionate or good or particularly wise. The SF church is confrontational to a fault. Absolutely. In the time of the purge, they were confrontational to the point of committing acts of evil. You should read the Dragonshard article on the SF church, as it will put everything in it's proper perspective. Again, I’ve read it. I’ve quoted the article several times in this thread. “You should read the” numerous statements I’ve made based on it. The article describes the behavior of the Church both present and touches on how the Church behaved in the time of the purge. It doesn’t describe anything that morally absolves the Church during the time of the purge. The Church’s only redeeming quality from that time is that a few paladins were members who had the moral fortitude to disobey the order to kill innocents (again, this is in the Dragonshard, and I’ve quoted it in the thread) and good lycanthropes. This is comparing apples to oranges. Again, if you accept Keith’s clarifications, I must refer you to the post he made in which he said that the kalashtar are influenced by quori in exactly the same way as lycanthropes are influenced by their own condition. Irregardless of the origin of the lycanthrope, it is still cursed and passes the curse along to others. You’ve provided only three “explanations” for how natural lycanthropes are cursed. First, you argue that natural lycanthropes “they are cursed because lycanthropy is defined as a curse.” This semantic circularity isn’t an explanation at all. Second, you argue that natural lycanthropes are cursed because “Werecreatures will always succumb to them <their lycanthropic urges> because of the curse.” This statement is incorrect; lycanthropes can resist their urges, but it’s harder for them to do so that it is for humans or kalashtar to resist their own urges. Third, you argue that having the power to curse others is itself a curse. This is like saying, “If you have the power to shoot others with a gun, you’re also shot with a gun.” Being able to change other humanoids into like-minded creatures isn’t a curse – it’s a weapon. Also, this argument of yours is reflexive on the entirely circular argument that “lycanthropy is a curse because it’s defined as a curse.” |
| Euangelion01-08-05, 09:05 PM | I'll try to restate more clearly a point I tried to make earlier. Natural lycanthropes aren't cursed, they are the curse. It's the world that's cursed by the presence of lycans, whether good or bad. The curse perpetuates itself when a natural lycan afflicts another creature, drawing it into the curse, or when a natural lycan gives birth to another natural lycan, or when an afflicted lycan gives birth to a natural lycan. The Inquisition was an attempt to remove the curse from Eberron, which meant all lycans had to go, even the good ones, or else the curse remained. This differentiates it from kalashtar in that lycans were deliberately created by a fiend in order to be a source of pain, suffering, and evil in the world. Somehow some managed to resist the evil nature of the curse to the point that a very small minority of the were-creatures are no longer naturally evil, but they're still part of the curse by their very existence. |
| Sarlax01-08-05, 10:37 PM | I'll try to restate more clearly a point I tried to make earlier. Natural lycanthropes aren't cursed, they are the curse. It's the world that's cursed by the presence of lycans, whether good or bad. I find this to be a rather fitting perception of lycanthropes. Given the appearance of the Rakshasa explanation for lycanthropy, it makes the purge a "necessary evil" in a very literal sense. Allow a rajah to be freed or murder innocent creatures? The thing that causes the purge it to remain evil in my opinion is that the innocence and goodness of particular lycanthropes was recognized by the Church (again referring to the Dragonshard on the Silver Flame) and they were still killed. It might be necessary to the extent that the Church simply wasn't powerful enough to destroy or fully contain the rajah, but this doesn't change the killing of innocents into a non-evil act. The current incarnation of the Church can't be held accountable for the actions of its past form (unless there's some old elf priest still around who pushed for the destruction of innocents). |
| motorfirebox01-09-05, 01:36 AM | What basis is there for calling natural lycanthropes cursed, aside from the entirely circular answer “Because lycanthropy is called a curse.” as i pointed out above, the MM and SRD both describe lycanthropy as something that spreads like a disease--a disease spread through a special ability of natural lycanthropes. you can't spread a disease if you're not infected with that disease yourself. ergo, the only way to be cursed with lycanthropy is to catch it from someone that already has it--either through a bite, or through inheritance. it's a curse because it's a supernatural effect cast with malign intent, to the detriment of the target. someone under the curse of lycanthropy changes into someone other than themselves--maybe not always for the worse, but you can't pick and choose and say "werebearism isn't a curse, but werewolfism is", since they all spring from the same source. even natural lycanthropes are not who they would have been, had they not contracted the curse from their parents. |
| Indigo01-09-05, 03:09 AM | The dogma that nothing can save the soul of the afflicted is false because the soul of the afflicted can be saved. Cure, then Atonement. Presto, the soul’s right back to where it was. I agree with you that the dogma is false. However, I still contend that your depiction of the ease of the cure is overstated. This cure can only work if the lycanthrope wishes to be cured, because otherwise it can always choose to fail the Will saving throw. If it's been taken over by the curse (which happens quickly because of all the moons) and become evil, there's a good chance it won't want to be cured. Unless you use zone of truth or something similar, you can't tell whether or not it's participating willingly, and even then all it has to do is change its mind at the last second - a DC 20 save is hard to make, and the failure can easily appear natural. The wererat says "Gee, shucks, I'm sure it will work next time." Meanwhile, you're building up a backlog of hundreds of prisoners to cure, all of which are deadly creatures who can pass their infection with a bite. Maintaining a normal prison is hard enough - imagine trying to keep order in a prison filled with wererats and werewolves! Curing an isolated case is one thing - capturing and curing a hostile army is another. (And if your thought is "Why would there be hundreds of them", why not? If I'm a wererat and the church has clearly got my number, why shouldn't I bite everyone I can get my hands on?) |
| Sarlax01-09-05, 06:54 AM | I agree with you that the dogma is false. However, I still contend that your depiction of the ease of the cure is overstated. While the particular statement you quote suggests that I view the cure as something simple, that's not actually my position. I used that tone only to briefly indicate the method by which the soul can be saved. Earlier in this thread (around 1400 pages ago, I think) I did say that if an evil afflicated lycanthrope is captured, the best course (read "moral") for the Church would be to offer it the cure and atonement, or death. The reason I hold this position is that the original personality isn't dead: it's buried into the mind of this new creature, which is the evil afflicted lycanthrope. But it can be restored, so the whole situation is much like demonic possession. It's difficult to end, but if you have even any hope of restoring the original person, the moral thing to do is offer salvation. Meanwhile, you're building up a backlog of hundreds of prisoners to cure, all of which are deadly creatures who can pass their infection with a bite. This point is certainly valid, and it goes a way to illustrating the kind of intellectual barriers that Church leaders could have suffered (or erected) when justifying the purge. Much has been made of Eldritch Machines in Eberron. Why not an Eldritch Machine to cure and restore afflicted lycanthropes? |
| motorfirebox01-09-05, 10:30 AM | eh, eldritch machines are purely plot devices (pun intended). the writers didn't want the plot to move in the direction of a peaceful, easy solution for the lycanthrope problem, so an eldritch machine that would create such a solution wasn't possible. |
| Romulus LoneWolf01-09-05, 11:17 AM | Just wanted to state how I wanted to handle Lycanthropy and it's origins in my next Eberron campaign.. Essentially, it was created by a rogue sub-group of Ashbound Druids who wanted to bring people back to nature by force. Thus, they created a plague/curse which could infect people and make them more animal-like. Multiple "strains" were created, and spread onto the world, creating the first Afflicted Lycanthropes. The children of those first victims became the first Natural Lycanthropes, thus creating an ever-growing reproductive cycle. The reason why the Silver Flame suddenly went up in arms against Lycanthropes was that they percieved the rise of Lycanthropy as a possible catastrophic end to human civilisation... |
| Indigo01-09-05, 11:58 AM | Earlier in this thread (around 1400 pages ago, I think) I did say that if an evil afflicated lycanthrope is captured, the best course (read "moral") for the Church would be to offer it the cure and atonement, or death. Absolutely. My point is that this is still a tricky line for a compassionate person to walk. I'm a werewolf. You say "Accept the cure or die!" I say "OK, of course I'll accept the cure!" You attempt the cure. It fails. Given that there's an excellent chance of the cure failing even if I am trying to go along with it, do you actually pull out the Zone of Truth to find out if I was lying (and hey, I can always resist that, and I do have Iron Will... ;))? If so, you're pouring a lot of spell power into each case. What if you use the zone, and I truthfully say "I was scared. I was going to go along with it, but at the last minute I panicked and fought it. I'll work with it next time." Is it too late, or being compassionate, do you give me another chance? How many? But it can be restored, so the whole situation is much like demonic possession. It's difficult to end, but if you have even any hope of restoring the original person, the moral thing to do is offer salvation. Again, I do agree with you in principle. The challenge is that in the case of normal possession, you can evict the demon against its will - in this case, you have to convince it to go along. For me, it all comes down to the matter of yes, in theory it is possible to cure them - but in practice, did the church have anywhere near the resources possible to do it? Let's say that my group of Templars finds a dozen wererats in Aundair. First we have to subdue a dozen lycanthropes, who may be tougher than we are - and anyone who gets bitten becomes a new prisoner to be cured. Then we have to transport them to a church with a 9th-level cleric, which is probably some distance away - do we have the tools to transport a dozen prisoners? How do we feed them without getting bitten? Once we get to the temple, what do we do with them? How many other lycanthropes are waiting to be cured? Was the temple really designed to hold dozens of dangerous prisoners? Now, it may be that your point is that you'd say "Cooperate or die!" and if the wererat tried to bite someone who was feeding it, killing it would be justified; this could certainly cut down the numbers. But I think capturing a large group of hostile lycanthropes alive in the first place is going to be a very difficult challenge. If you're snagging that lone lycanthrope out of a village and have numbers on your side, sure - but if you've got a dozen wererats to deal with, it's going to be tough. But yes, in principle I agree with you. It is basically the same situation as demonic possession, just more limited because the exorcist can't fix it on his own. Much has been made of Eldritch Machines in Eberron. Why not an Eldritch Machine to cure and restore afflicted lycanthropes? I'm with motorfirebox. It's up to the DM to decide what eldritch machines can be created. Just because an eldritch machine can do basically anything doesn't mean that a PC (or NPC) can simply decide "I want to make an eldritch machine that gives people thin thighs in 30 days!" The ECS specifically says "Someone who is building one must first discover the means (often through researching ancient manuals from Xen'drik or the Age of Demons) and then assemble the materials, which is likely to require travel across Khorvaire and beyond." So if the DM *wants* to create an eldritch machine that can cure lycanthropy, heck, you could make one that cures NATURAL lycanthropes! But there's nothing saying that such a machine can be made, so I don't hold the church at fall for not making one. Who knows, perhaps they had folks scouring Xen'drik trying to find some signs of anti-lycanthrope devices! |
| elecgraystone01-09-05, 08:09 PM | OK, indigo. The current Keeper of the Flame is a noble and good person. One that doesn't leave the temple. leaving the priests to pass out her words. By your count 33% are evil. 1/3 of a chance that whatever is said is taken in an evil light! I don't like those odds! I'm glad at least Sorbeth has my view about natural lycanthropes not being cursed. I agree 100% with his post (Gasp!, never thought possible on this thread!) ;) motorfirebox said it speads like a disease, so it should be a curse? And he forgets about typhoid mary, who carried a disease but wasn't affected by it. Like someone that can curse but isn't affected by one! To Indigo, you say that a ghoul spawn is cursed? Note that it isn't called that anywere. Spawn undead, cause disease, and curse may have similar effects but aren't the same thing! Also, lets look at something you said. "#1 That lycanthropy is considered to be a curse. #2That (as Hellcow has said) the Eberron design team believes that at the time of the purge afflicted lycanthropes could spread the curse; otherwise, they would be in the same boat as the shifters. #3That some followers of the Silver Flame – most likely overzealous puritans – do persecute shifters. (See, I'm not trying to defend the church as the ultimate paragon of virtue.)" #1 AFFLICTED LYCANTHROPES are cursed, nowhere does it say natural lycanthropes are cursed. #2 natural lycanthropes CAN curse people, only circular reasoning would get you the conclusion that naturals are cursed because they CAN curse. #3 All it takes is one of those zelots in a high position of power for it to start all over again! Again, I see that indigo and I are looking at this from different sides. |
| motorfirebox01-09-05, 09:02 PM | motorfirebox said it speads like a disease, so it should be a curse? And he forgets about typhoid mary, who carried a disease but wasn't affected by it. Like someone that can curse but isn't affected by one! since the ability that spreads the disease-like curse is called a curse, yes, it probably is a curse. and i didn't forget about typhoid mary. typhoid mary was a carrier--someone who is infected with a disease, and who can spread it, but who doesn't manifest any symptoms of it. like someone that can spread lycanthropy, but isn't afflicted with uncontrolled rages and the like. |
| elecgraystone01-09-05, 09:02 PM | I've been thinking about the "always" alignment of natural lycanthropes. They take on animal traits but wolves and rats are neutral? I can see why creatures like undead (infused with negitive energy) and outsiders (with alignment subtypes) would stay always in eberron. However, I fail to see why the always of lycanthropes is stronger than the always of these other monsters from the MM. :confused: DRAGON pseudo-dragon drider griffon (does make it to int 5, not animal int) phasespider sphinx grig nixie pixie unicorn (don't know if pagaron of good or serial killer!) ;) It's been said that PC's can't expect a gold dragon to be good. Why is a natural lycanthropes "always" so much stronger? :confused: Stronger than a unicorns good? :eek: I can't find a RAW answer to this. I know hellcow thinks it is but I really would like to know if it's one of his houserules or if it's what WOTC thinks. I can't see why one is set in stone and one isn't. :( |
| elecgraystone01-09-05, 09:32 PM | since the ability that spreads the disease-like curse is called a curse, yes, it probably is a curse. and i didn't forget about typhoid mary. typhoid mary was a carrier--someone who is infected with a disease, and who can spread it, but who doesn't manifest any symptoms of it. like someone that can spread lycanthropy, but isn't afflicted with uncontrolled rages and the like. As I've said, the only time "curse" is said is in the naturals ability to make others aflicted. Nowhere in RAW does it say that NATURALS are cursed, other than the first ones in eberron. Just because a square is a rectangle doesn't mean that a rectangle is a square! An apple is a fruit, not all fruit are apples! Just because I curse you doesn't mean I'm cursed! :eek: I wizard changes into a rat and gets the (EX) ability to inflict filth fever, is he diseased? :rolleyes: Is a viper poisoned? :rolleyes: Is a medusa stone? :rolleyes: This is the logic you are using! :rolleyes: They have the ability to "curse" others to change into creatures that have powers like thiers, but an aflicted can never be a natural and a natural can't ba afflicted. The cursed lycanthropes can't become un-cursed lycanthropes and the reverse is true. It's no different than the medusas ability to turn people to stone, in that it causes an involantary change in the victim. If you can quote or give page # and source of ANY place in ANY of the WOTC general rules books or ebberon books that states that ANY natural lycanthrope is cursed, please do so. It will stop this debate right now. All I see is the ability to curse others. It's NOT a disease (EX) but a natural magic power (SU). Nothing more can be infered from the MM text. Name one other creature that in always under the effect of one of it's OWN (SU) attack power? Bottom line if they were cursed then there should be someway to remove the curse, which there isn't because they aren't cursed. |
| motorfirebox01-09-05, 09:41 PM | no, that's not the logic i'm using. the logic i'm using is based on the fact that both the MM and the SRD say that lycanthropy spreads like a disease. in order for one person to spread a disease to another person, the first person must be infected with the disease himself. even if he's only a carrier, who doesn't suffer any negative symptoms of the disease himself, he's still infected. the curse of lycanthropy is spread like a disease; a person must be infected with a disease in order to spread it with a bite; therefore, the people who spread lycanthropy--natural lycanthropes--must be, themselves, infected with the curse of lycanthropy. you keep bringing up the fact that the MM and SRD never explicity say that natural lycanthropes are cursed. however, in almost every piece of fiction ever written, lycanthropes are cursed (all of them). if natural lycanthropes were not intended to be cursed, shouldn't the MM have explicitly stated such? what if the MM never explicitly stated that medusae have snakes for hair--would you assume that they have snakes for hair, even though all of the legends say they do? i'd like to submit for consideration the possiblity that the cursed nature of lycanthropes was, when the MM and SRD were written, so obviously assumed that they didn't bother spelling it out. it's only when people start going over the text with a fine-toothed comb in order to support arguments in an online forum that the thought even arises that they might not be cursed. if you can bring up any piece of text that explicity states that natural lycanthropes are [i]not cursed, contrary to 99% of the fiction written about them, i'll drop this. Bottom line if they were cursed then there should be someway to remove the curse, which there isn't because they aren't cursed. where in the world did you get this idea that curses can always be removed? show me any support for that in the text. |
| Sorbeth01-09-05, 10:46 PM | The curse of lycanthropy is listed under the special attacks section in the MM. This is the supernatural ability to curse someone with lycanthropy. The curse is having your type change to shapeshifter along with all the other changes that happen, including gaining the ability to curse a person with lycanthropy. After the next full moon, even an afflicted is not cursed anymore; they just are whatever they are. |
| elecgraystone01-09-05, 10:47 PM | no, that's not the logic i'm using. the logic i'm using is based on the fact that both the MM and the SRD say that lycanthropy spreads like a disease. in order for one person to spread a disease to another person, the first person must be infected with the disease himself. even if he's only a carrier, who doesn't suffer any negative symptoms of the disease himself, he's still infected. the curse of lycanthropy is spread like a disease; a person must be infected with a disease in order to spread it with a bite; therefore, the people who spread lycanthropy--natural lycanthropes--must be, themselves, infected with the curse of lycanthropy. you keep bringing up the fact that the MM and SRD never explicity say that natural lycanthropes are cursed. however, in almost every piece of fiction ever written, lycanthropes are cursed (all of them). if natural lycanthropes were not intended to be cursed, shouldn't the MM have explicitly stated such? what if the MM never explicitly stated that medusae have snakes for hair--would you assume that they have snakes for hair, even though all of the legends say they do? i'd like to submit for consideration the possiblity that the cursed nature of lycanthropes was, when the MM and SRD were written, so obviously assumed that they didn't bother spelling it out. it's only when people start going over the text with a fine-toothed comb in order to support arguments in an online forum that the thought even arises that they might not be cursed. if you can bring up any piece of text that explicity states that natural lycanthropes are [i]not cursed, contrary to 99% of the fiction written about them, i'll drop this. where in the world did you get this idea that curses can always be removed? show me any support for that in the text. #1 lycanthropy ISN'T a disease Nowhere that I know of is it refered to as such. So all of your disease arguments mean nothing. It's a supernatural attack transmitted by a bite. #2 fiction is fiction, rules are rule. One means nothing to the other. All of the "cursed" lycanthropes from fiction are aflicted, which I will agree ARE cursed. Medusas have a snake attack (SRD) and picture shows you where it is. Nuf said. If we just go by legend, then dragons only breath fire? In tolken, trolls turn to stone. Same in D&D? :confused: I can keep bringing up stories that don't jive with RAW, but why bother. My point is made. #3 why would I try to prove something that's not in RAW in a RAW debate? Why would I try to prove why somethine WASN'T said? Find something that isn't there? Like humans don't swim bladders. (the rules don't say I DON'T have it) Like elves have wings. (rules don't say I DON'T have wings) Do you know how long the MM would be if we listed off everything that monsters DON'T have? OK, I'll bite. As I said before afflicted are cursed. ALL stories are of cursed/afflicted lycanthropes. So I'll agree that all stories have cursed lycanthropes. However, that has nothing to do with NATURAL LYCANTHROPES! ALL the stories and movies I remember start with someone getting a bite and turning into a werewolf. (WOW just like a natural lycanthrope creating an afflicted lycanthrope!) Prove that the stories were about NATURAL LYCANTHROPES! Can you? Or it starts with someone being cursed by a person into a werewolf. Still no natural lycanthrope! They split the lycanthropes into 2 groups. naturals and afflicted. Only one is cursed by the RAW. I have RAW on my side and you have hollywood on yours. I've even given you a RAW reason why the movies/stories don't invalidate RAW, EVEN if I should chose to ignore it. I think I win in a rules debate! As to curses and removal. Curse implies that the posibility of removal. Else you should just call it a transformation or spawn creation not a curse. The curse of lycantropy comes from the old legends where gypsys "cursed" you with lycanthropy for misdeads against them. However, the old legends didn't have natural lycanthropes because it started with the curse. The gypsys were the "natural lycanthropes" because THEY could use the curse of lycanthropy! However the implication that curses can be removed or has a release clause is based on legend in part, however. It isn't raw, so I'll concede that one to you. However I still say that another word should be used to avoid confusion if you have a "curse" that can't be removed. |
| elecgraystone01-09-05, 10:53 PM | The curse of lycanthropy is listed under the special attacks section in the MM. This is the supernatural ability to curse someone with lycanthropy. The curse is having your type change to shapeshifter along with all the other changes that happen, including gaining the ability to curse a person with lycanthropy. After the next full moon, even an afflicted is not cursed anymore; they just are whatever they are. I'll have to disagree with you on one point. The afflicted are always cursed. They never have full control of themselves. They may no longer be able to get the curse lifted, but they still have it. |
| motorfirebox01-09-05, 11:17 PM | #1 lycanthropy ISN'T a disease Nowhere that I know of is it refered to as such. So all of your disease arguments mean nothing. It's a supernatural attack transmitted by a bite. i never said it was a disease, i simply quoted where the MM and SRD say it spreads like one. if it spreads like a disease, then it's being passed to others by someone who has it. I can keep bringing up stories that don't jive with RAW, but why bother. My point is made. no, your point has missed the point. the MM states clearly and specifically which dragons have what for breath; and Tolkien is not--by far--the definitive source material for trolls. i like your logic, though. i'll use it myself: nowhere, on pages 288-289 on the MM, does it say that monstrous spiders have eight legs. so, hey, that means they must not have eight legs, right? otherwise, they'd have mentioned it! |
| Euangelion01-10-05, 12:12 AM | I can hardly believe that the purpose in splitting lycanthropes into "natural" and "afflicted," (a distinction that is outside of the "public domain" view that that there's only one kind of werewolf, and if you get bit by one you become a werewolf and if you then bite someone they too become a werewolf) was to limit the designation of "cursed" to only the afflicted lycans. Instead I strongly believe that the true intent of the differentiation of the "natural" and "afflicted" was to prevent PC's from becoming afflicted on purpose so as to have the ability to afflict others (particularly the characters of the other people playing the game!), thereby upsetting the game balance. I find it very hard to believe the distinction was made so that "natural" lycans would not actually be cursed themselves. I also believe that the true intent of the line of reasoning that naturals aren't cursed is to add as much as possible to the case against the Church of the Silver Flame. There's plenty of things wrong with the Church; arguing semantics and trying to derive intent from silence in the MM is not the best way to go about finding them. |
| Indigo01-10-05, 02:33 AM | Again, I see that indigo and I are looking at this from different sides. That we are! OK, indigo. The current Keeper of the Flame is a noble and good person. One that doesn't leave the temple. leaving the priests to pass out her words. By your count 33% are evil. 1/3 of a chance that whatever is said is taken in an evil light! I don't like those odds! That's not remotely my count. You have said that the priests of Sharn were 99.8% evil. I noted that the priests of Sharn for whom we are given statistics – which are not many – are 33/33/33. With such a small sample I can't draw broad conclusions about the church in Sharn, let alone the church as a whole. Furthermore, I said that Sharn is said to be the worst city in a nation that is the center of religious corruption. Thrane is the center of the church, and according to 207-208 of the ECS, the dominant faction in the church is "embodied by the Keeper of the Flame" – who you agree is a noble and good person. The organization as a whole is described as lawful good. Yes, in Sharn, I'd be cautious. In Thrane, I think there's every indication that the vast majority of the followers of the Flame are good. To Indigo, you say that a ghoul spawn is cursed? Note that it isn't called that anywere. I'm well aware of that: in fact, that was exactly my point. Can you point to a creature that IS specifically said to be cursed? Even afflicted lycanthropes are "afflicted", not cursed. #2 natural lycanthropes CAN curse people, only circular reasoning would get you the conclusion that naturals are cursed because they CAN curse.. The fact that they can curse is only one aspect of the reason I consider them to be cursed. The more important factor is the enforced behavior: that "always" alignment that makes a werewolf – afflicted or natural – a bloodthirsty killer. I've been thinking about the "always" alignment of natural lycanthropes. They take on animal traits but wolves and rats are neutral? I can't find a RAW answer to this. While from my view, this is clearly defined by the RAW. It all ties to your belief that a natural lycanthrope is not cursed. The MM clearly states that part of the process of affliction is being force to permanently assume the alignment of the lycanthropic form. Do we all agree that this is in the RAW? It then says that all natural lycanthropes are always the alignment in question. Why could this be? Because they ARE lycanthropes, and one of the symptoms of lycanthropy is to be forced to behave in a certain manner. Natural lycanthropes do not fly into uncontrolled rages and lose their memories – any more than an afflicted lycanthrope does when he voluntarily shapeshifts. But his behavior is still defined by his form. A werewolf (or any evil lycanthrope) is still a bloodthirsty killer. Have you read the MM entry on lycanthrope alignment yet, or are you still just working from the SRD? As I read it, the alignment is the part of the curse that the natural lycanthrope can't escape from – and the part that shows that they are still influenced by a curse. They can control the abilities that come along with it, just as an afflicted lycanthrope can in time. But they can never escape the enforced behavior that is tied to their strain of lycanthropy. This also ties back to the fact that the alignment has nothing to do with the animal form because lycanthropes aren't natural. A werewolf is evil because it is under the effect of a magical curse – it's not a druid with the power to assume wolf form! In nature, all animals are neutral. The alignment of lycanthropes is based on humanity's perception of the animal – as noted in the RAW about making new lycanthropes. As for the medusa example, funny thing there: in Greek mythology, medusa IS cursed. However, looking back to D&D, we don't have any indication that medusas are anything other than a naturally occuring race, unlike ghouls, vampires, and lycanthropes. In addition to which, a medusa turns people into stone: a werewolf turns people into werewolves. The real key here is the change between 3.5 and the earlier editions of saying that afflicted lycanthropes can't spread the curse. Previously, the only difference was that the afflicted lycanthrope had to learn to control the transformation while the natural lycanthrope could do it automatically. Thus, the only difference was one of skill, and it was otherwise clear that the two were the exact same creature. The change to afflicted lycanthropes - which seems clearly to be a metagame decision to handicap power gamers - is the basis for this entire curse/not cursed argument. |
| Kid SixXx01-10-05, 10:36 AM | Can’t you see that this is entirely circular? It's not circular, it's self-evident. “Lycanthropy is a curse because it’s defined as a curse,” isn’t an argument. It is if you accept the definition, which you do not. You have no problems attempting to suppose away what you feel a curse is not. How about for once, you tell me what you believe a curse is, as well as explain why lycanthropy shouldn't fall into the category. Then maybe finally I can perhaps disagree (or perhaps agree) with you on points about lycanthropy, rather than categorically dismiss your suppositional tangents because they do not addresss the core definition as stated. “Yes, I know it’s called “Curse of Lycanthropy” in the descriptions. You quote the SRD handily and seem to accept most other definitions. Why not this particular one? Because it does not support your supposition that natural lycanthropes are not cursed, that's why. Natural lycanthropes are still lycanthropes, and lycanthropes are cursed beings as per their definitions in the MM. The only thing that distinguishes a natural lycanthrope from an afflicted one, is that the curse that gives a natural lycanthrope it's abilities cannot be broken. Without the curse of lycanthrope, there would be no lycanthropes at all, "natural" or otherwise. Therefore, the dynamic of the lycanthrope not only depends on the curse, it is defined by the curse. “Again: I can read the word “Curse” that appears in their special attacks. I’m not misunderstanding it. I can read that afflicted lycanthropes are described as suffering from a curse. Here’s what I am asking: What basis is there for calling natural lycanthropes cursed, aside from the entirely circular answer “Because lycanthropy is called a curse.” What more evidence does there need to be? The entire dynamic of werecreatures rests on the transmission of lycanthrope, which has always been defined as a curse. The curse does not stop with the naturals, and the only thing "natural" about them is that they have the curse via inheritance through bloodline, and are not bitten. As an aside, I have issues with the labeling of "natural" lycanthropes, as "natural," just as you have issues with lycanthropy being defined as a curse. Since lycanthropy is a curse not found naturally (established by MM definitions), there should be no such thing as a "natural" lycanthrope: this is a seemingly paradoxical statement. So-called "naturals" are lycanthropes for whom the curse cannot be broken. If an afflicted elf and an afflicted human had a child, the offspring should, by traditional definitions, be a half-elf with incurable lycanthropy and not some brand new race. Since we D&D folk are enamored with making the case that nearly any type of creature can be a "race," we run with the ball. The parents of the natural will still retain their original racial category: they will just be considered "afflicted." How the offspring magically evades such definition escapes me. The only difference between the offspring and the parents is that the curse cannot be lifted. “If you take Keith’s clarifications as valid, why did you ignore the very specific quote I provided? He agreed that the influence quori spirits exert on kalashtar is exactly the same as kind of influence exerted on lycanthropes – the only difference is the degree of influence. The degree of influcence is inconsequential. When Keith said "kind of influence" he referred to the compulsion itself, and the fact still remains that the simlarities end at the sources of compulsions. Kalashtar are not the victims of a curse, and lycanthropes are. “This is incorrect. As is noted in the Monster Manual, in Eberron, and in this thread (by numerous individuals, including myself and Keith Baker) creatures with “always” alignments can have exceptions. A lycanthrope can resist his or her induced urges, just as a human or kalashtar can: it’s simply harder for them to do so. And it is harder for them to do so why? Because of the curse. “The dogma that nothing can save the soul of the afflicted is false because the soul of the afflicted can be saved. Cure, then Atonement. Presto, the soul’s right back to where it was. If the cure is so "presto," then why does the article seem to stress the difficulty for curing lycanthropy? The article takes into consideration that the curing of lycanthropy is an ordeal, so curing a lycanthrope of it's condition appears to hardly be an instance of "presto." In the case of the naturals, there is no "presto" at all, and the naturals are still carriers of the curse which can either create other afflicted lycanthropes, or breed to produce so-called "naturals" which can in turn transmit lycanthropy by the same means the previous generation did. “Again, to reiterate: The dogma of the permanently ruined soul is false because the Church had the means to restore the souls of the afflicted. Afflicted what? Perhaps if the church had only decided to go after werebears, then your argument would have some merit. Since a jihad against lycanthropes also includes opposing werewolves, wererats, and other lycanthropes that would most assuredly rip apart any priests approaching with an olive branch in one hand and a cure in the other, knowing they had a cure, and having the opportunity to apply the cure without being torn to shreds by the beings they intended to cure are two different things. For once, let's not assume that werebears were the only type of lycanthrope that the SF church rallied against. That’s not my feeling at all. Then why do you seemingly continue to impose a supposition of beliefs that you don't believe yourself on the SF church? Thank you for making the point: In reality, the Church at the time of the purge wasn’t compassionate or good or particularly wise. I don't recall saying that the SF church,as a whole, was compassionate during the Purges. All of the evidence from the articles points to a grey area in between. As far as wisdom goes, it's not like the church was wrong about how lycanthrope functions, or that evil lycanthropes most certainly pose a clear danger. Absolutely. In the time of the purge, they were confrontational to the point of committing acts of evil. True, but again, I'd be convinced that the Purges as a whole were an incredibly dark chapter, if the SF church only went after werebears, but this was not the case. Tragedy occuring in a time of warfare is not a new thing. Again, if you accept Keith’s clarifications, I must refer you to the post he made in which he said that the kalashtar are influenced by quori in exactly the same way as lycanthropes are influenced by their own condition. And Keith only says that the influence itself is similar because of the supernatural aspect, as well as saying over and over again that the compulsion that lycanthropes have stems from the curse itself. It is not the end result of influence from another planar being as it is with the Kalashtar, or a humanoid that is possessed.. Ergo, the end result (influence or compulsion) is inconsequential. It's the source of the compulsion that distinguishes Kalashtar (planar gestalts) from lycanthropes (carriers of a curse they can give to others or to their own offspring). Your focus on the end result does not take the root cause into consideration. The root causes of said compulsion are the bones of contention between the Kalashtar & werecreatures, and the two causes are drastically different.. You, Sarlax, are a doctor prescribing Robitussin for any condition that produces a cough, without examining why the cough is being produced in the first place. I offer another allegory: a simpler one this time. 3+1=4 (2*1)+2=4 16 / 4 = 4 Does the fact that the answer for all of the above equations is "4," necessarily indicate that the means that the equations took to reach the answer "4" are identical? No, it does not. You’ve provided only three “explanations” for how natural lycanthropes are cursed. And they all fit within the context of lycanthropy as a curse. While I've attempted to stick to lycanthrope as per it's own definitions as well as deal with lycanthrope in association with other lycanthropes, you have instead attempted to provide suppostions on the nature of beings (dopplegangers, kalashtar) with nothing in common with lycanthropes in an attempt to convince me differently. First, you argue that natural lycanthropes “they are cursed because lycanthropy is defined as a curse.” This semantic circularity isn’t an explanation at all. It is circluar because you have personal issues with the definition. Other than that, it's a direct quote from the MM, as well as a definition which has direct linkages to the real-life folklore that werecreatures are based on. Second, you argue that natural lycanthropes are cursed because “Werecreatures will always succumb to them <their lycanthropic urges> because of the curse.” This statement is incorrect; lycanthropes can resist their urges, but it’s harder for them to do so that it is for humans or kalashtar to resist their own urges. And it is harder for them because of the curse. Third, you argue that having the power to curse others is itself a curse. This is like saying, “If you have the power to shoot others with a gun, you’re also shot with a gun.” Being able to change other humanoids into like-minded creatures isn’t a curse – it’s a weapon. Also, this argument of yours is reflexive on the entirely circular argument that “lycanthropy is a curse because it’s defined as a curse.” Werecreatures can curse others because they are carriers of the curse themselves: that was my line of logic, and it falls in sync with the definitions as given, as well as all logic concerning the nature of lycanthrope itself as a curse, and traditional werecreature folklore. Again, my logic seems reflexive to you because you cannot, or will not, accept the defined fact as per the MM that lycanthrope is a curse. If you did, my logic would not appear reflexive: it would be a recitation of information already printed in black & white in the MM. |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 11:36 AM | i never said it was a disease, i simply quoted where the MM and SRD say it spreads like one. if it spreads like a disease, then it's being passed to others by someone who has it. no, your point has missed the point. the MM states clearly and specifically which dragons have what for breath; and Tolkien is not--by far--the definitive source material for trolls. i like your logic, though. i'll use it myself: nowhere, on pages 288-289 on the MM, does it say that monstrous spiders have eight legs. so, hey, that means they must not have eight legs, right? otherwise, they'd have mentioned it! Not my logic. :rolleyes: You asked me to use that logic for lycanthropes. To point out where it states that that ARE NOT CURSED! To dragons, yes it points out different breath weapons bacause they have them. It does not, however point out what breath weapons that DON'T have. The thing with legends and the popular fiction is that no 2 are the same. Just because one said something, it's not law in a RPG! As I pointed out, most dragons of legend and fiction only have fire breath. Do we go with legend or RAW? If tolken isn't definitive source material, then who is? Maybe the fine folks at WOTC that picked what they wanted the truth in their game to be! And the disease part. You concede that it's not a disease yet still go back to the fact that someone with a disease passes in a disease. Not so with curses and (SU) powers! However, someone that can curse, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CURSED! Spreads like is different than is. I hope you see how silly it is to #1 ask what a creature DOESN'T have as opposed to what it has! #2 basing anything of of what legend or popular fiction! when talking about a RPG. You also didn't respond to my question. In all of the legends and fiction about lycanthropes (werewolves) you talked about, were the lycanthropes afflicted or natural? Since natural lycanthropes DON'T appear in any I know of, I'll take it that they were an invention of WOTC. It's always someone cursed with it (afflicted) or bitten (afflicted). Show me a werewolf legend about a natural lycanthrope! So again. #1 curse not disease, so PLEASE stop comparing it! Let me quote the SRD. "Curse of Lycanthropy (Su): Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy." SO it ISN'T like a disease, because afflicted can't pass it on! More like, I don't know,... A (SU) POWER! :eek: Replace contract lycanthropy to catches on fire in the above quote. Would the lycanthrope have to be on fire? #2 you dismiss one fiction (trolls) but say I should base lycanthropes off of another like a 1950's werewolf film? :confused: The only source we can look to for game anwers is WOTC. They don't say naturals are cursed. #3 don't ask why they didn't put in something! :mad: They only put in info you need. Unless they put out an errata, naturals are not cursed. If we go by your logic, assuming that the legends are true UNLESS WOTC tells us otherwise, then we rewrite the books. As pointed out, I could say trolls should turn to stone. Just as valid as all lycanthropes are cursed. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 12:07 PM | #1 curse not disease, so PLEASE stop comparing it! but it spreads like a disease. why are you having such a hard time understanding that? in terms of how it is spread, it works like a disease. neither the SRD nor the MM state that natural lycanthropes aren't cursed, and in order for lycanthropy to spread like a disease--which is the exact text from both the SRD and the MM--natural lycanthropes must be cursed. you're right, natural lycanthropes might be something D&D made up on its own. however, because natural lycanthropes are so strongly linked to afflicted lycanthropes--whom everyone agrees are cursed--don't you think it's just a little bit strange that the text doesn't mention an important fact like "natural lycanthropes aren't cursed"? that seems like a pretty important point, to me; if i were making a game that had lycanthropes in it, and i wanted one kind of lycanthrope to not be cursed, i'd probably go ahead and mention it. according to your logic, monstrous spiders don't have eight legs. that, in and of itself, should be enough to make you question that logic. As pointed out, I could say trolls should turn to stone. Just as valid as all lycanthropes are cursed. untrue. i can find any number of other stories in which trolls don't turn to stone when they die. there are lots and lots of conflicting stories about trolls. there are, however, very few stories about lycanthropes that don't involve them being cursed. |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 12:11 PM | As for the medusa example, funny thing there: in Greek mythology, medusa IS cursed. However, looking back to D&D, we don't have any indication that medusas are anything other than a naturally occuring race, unlike ghouls, vampires, and lycanthropes. In addition to which, a medusa turns people into stone: a werewolf turns people into werewolves. The real key here is the change between 3.5 and the earlier editions of saying that afflicted lycanthropes can't spread the curse. Previously, the only difference was that the afflicted lycanthrope had to learn to control the transformation while the natural lycanthrope could do it automatically. Thus, the only difference was one of skill, and it was otherwise clear that the two were the exact same creature. The change to afflicted lycanthropes - which seems clearly to be a metagame decision to handicap power gamers - is the basis for this entire curse/not cursed argument. I picked medusa for a reason. Yes, in legend they were curse, HOWEVER in D&D they aren't, they are a race. What is different about lycanthropes. Legend said they were both cursed. Both are born the way they are. (unlike ghouls and vampires!) Both are natural races and are presented as such. And the natural alignment. Again, what makes their "always" alignment so much stronger than dragons, sphinx's and unicorns? To the last part, you see no difference between afflicted and natural lycanthropes? It's the difference between a symbiosis and domination. It's the difference between unity and constant strugle! An aflicted has to have 20 ranks in control shape and a +4 wisdom to not have to roll for involuntary changes! 17th level! (19th with level adj) Something a natural is born with. They have a whole lifetime to temper the alignment of their animal soul. And they don't have to fight theirs! It only gives advice, doesn't control or force. (IE, no control checks) I see this as a much greater difference that the ability to curse others. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 12:20 PM | To the last part, you see no difference between afflicted and natural lycanthropes? the way i tend to see it, the curse has taken more strongly in natural lycanthropes. nothing makes that alignment any "stronger" than unicorns or sphinxes (dragons are an exception, since the ECS specifically details how dragon alignments work). but the source of that alignment--the curse of lycanthropy--is different. unlike afflicted lycanthropes, natural lycanthropes never get a chance at fighting their alignment, in terms of game mechanics; no will save, no nothing. sure, there are some lycanthropes that fight their alignment, but that's more of a plot mechanic than anything else. |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 12:27 PM | but it spreads like a disease. why are you having such a hard time understanding that? in terms of how it is spread, it works like a disease. neither the SRD nor the MM state that natural lycanthropes aren't cursed, and in order for lycanthropy to spread like a disease--which is the exact text from both the SRD and the MM--natural lycanthropes must be cursed. you're right, natural lycanthropes might be something D&D made up on its own. however, because natural lycanthropes are so strongly linked to afflicted lycanthropes--whom everyone agrees are cursed--don't you think it's just a little bit strange that the text doesn't mention an important fact like "natural lycanthropes aren't cursed"? that seems like a pretty important point, to me; if i were making a game that had lycanthropes in it, and i wanted one kind of lycanthrope to not be cursed, i'd probably go ahead and mention it. according to your logic, monstrous spiders don't have eight legs. that, in and of itself, should be enough to make you question that logic. untrue. i can find any number of other stories in which trolls don't turn to stone when they die. there are lots and lots of conflicting stories about trolls. there are, however, very few stories about lycanthropes that don't involve them being cursed. #1 if it worked 100% like a disease, the afflicted would be able to transmit it, and they can't. So stop treating it 100% like a disease! It's a (SU) power! #2 why say naturals ARE NOT cursed? They say AFFLICTED are. By NOT saying lycanthropes as a whole are curse and only saying afflicted are i think it speaks for itself. Again, it's your logic. It DOESN'T say that they are not cursed, so they must be! Not mine spider, yours. I think it's strange that you look for the text that tells you they ARE not cursed when all the text that exists said is that they can curse others! #3 again, none of the stories have NATURAL lycanthropes. Aplying legends about afflicted, only aplys to THEM. Again, please point out ANY legend about naturals. #4 everyone is lumping naturals together with afflicted for some reason when of nothing in wotc print does. One creates the other. They may look alike and have powers the same but they are different. The only mention of curse in MM is the naturals ability to make afflicted. The ability to curse others. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 12:37 PM | #1 if it worked 100% like a disease, the afflicted would be able to transmit it, and they can't. So stop treating it 100% like a disease! It's a (SU) power! the fact that the afflicted can't spread it is one specifically noted instance in which lycanthropy doesn't spread like a disease. in all other ways, it spreads like a disease, because that's what the text says. stop treating it like it doesn't spread like a disease, and claiming that the text backs you up--it doesn't; it says, in fact, the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim. #2 why say naturals ARE NOT cursed? They say AFFLICTED are. By NOT saying lycanthropes as a whole are curse and only saying afflicted are i think it speaks for itself. 1. neither the SRD nor the MM specifically state that natural lycanthropes are not cursed. 2. both the SRD and the MM specifically state that lycanthropy is spread in such a way that natural lycanthropes must, logically, be cursed. i really don't see how you can miss this. |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 12:39 PM | the way i tend to see it, the curse has taken more strongly in natural lycanthropes. nothing makes that alignment any "stronger" than unicorns or sphinxes (dragons are an exception, since the ECS specifically details how dragon alignments work). but the source of that alignment--the curse of lycanthropy--is different. unlike afflicted lycanthropes, natural lycanthropes never get a chance at fighting their alignment, in terms of game mechanics; no will save, no nothing. sure, there are some lycanthropes that fight their alignment, but that's more of a plot mechanic than anything else. Look at it from the other side. They have had thier whole life to change that starting alignment. That voice in their head listens to them (IE no control checks). They should have a BETTER chance at a different alignment, not worse! Always STILL allows for different alignments. How is this possible if their is no save, no hope? Afflicted have had only since their affliction to "fight their programming" so they just go to it. You seem to put great stock in the source of thier alignment. How does the source affect it's pull? Voices from nature, gods, or curses; what's the difference in strength? I'm trying to figues out why alignment is fluid for every source other that the lycanthrope. Assuming natural lycanthropes ARE cursed. I've still seen no evidence that they are. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 12:43 PM | Always STILL allows for different alignments. How is this possible if their is no save, no hope? right, "Always" alignments allow for different alignments. it's, what, a 95/5 percent split, with 95 percent of the population going with the listed alignment? that's quite a bit more than afflicted lycanthropes. the pull towards the listed alignment is stronger for naturals. i'm not saying it's irresistable, but it is stronger. |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 12:50 PM | the fact that the afflicted can't spread it is one specifically noted instance in which lycanthropy doesn't spread like a disease. in all other ways, it spreads like a disease, because that's what the text says. stop treating it like it doesn't spread like a disease, and claiming that the text backs you up--it doesn't; it says, in fact, the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim. 1. neither the SRD nor the MM specifically state that natural lycanthropes are not cursed. 2. both the SRD and the MM specifically state that lycanthropy is spread in such a way that natural lycanthropes must, logically, be cursed. i really don't see how you can miss this. Reread the SRD "Lycanthropy can be spread like a disease. Sometimes a lycanthrope begins life as a normal humanoid or giant who subsequently contracts lycanthropy after being wounded by a lycanthrope. Such a creature is called an afflicted lycanthrope. Other lycanthropes are born as lycanthropes, and are known as natural lycanthropes." This just tells you that naturals can make other into aflicted. Not go to curse of lycanthropy. "Curse of Lycanthropy (Su): Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy." This is how it can "spread like a disease", nothing more. Again, no different than a cockitrice having to peck you to turn you to stone! Now #1 neither does it say thay ARE cursed, and I think I'll by what is said NOT by what ISN'T said. #2 how? It gives them a (su) ability to curse others. that's it. It's spread by a bite that transforms. How do you get that the person cursing is cursed from that? |
| stone_dog01-10-05, 12:54 PM | Summing up again... So the Crusade was an attempt at stopping a greater evil, but evil was done it it's name. No argument there as far as I am concerned. Now the thread has moved to whether or not natural lycanthropes are cursed. Okay... fair enough argument. There is nothing to support it other than curse of lycanthropy being listed as a power that werecritters have. There is also nothing that I read that denies it. Nothing says that natural werewolves don't suffer behavior changes on the full moons. Personally I believe that they do. The official word from WotC through Keith was that every full moon affects a lycanthropes behavior and the more full moons there are, the greater the effect is. I would go so far as to say that this extends to ALL lycanthropes. Even a good werewolf gets short tempered during a full moon and if there are more than one it will get angrier and angrier until (if it wants to stay good) it must isolate itself or risk killing somebody over an insignificant slight. Even a werebear during the full moons might get a little... over zealous. If it is in a city it might go a bit nuts and start killing people for minor evils. "Help! He stole my purse!" "RAAAR!" "Help! That thing just tore that man in half!" "Rar?" "That will be one silver piece." "One silver for watered down ale?!?" "RAAAR!" Kinda like No-Face in Spirited Away. People might make them go crazy. That might be why they tend to avoid settlements and travelers. A few people have said something like "Just because it passes on a curse doesn't make it cursed itself." Personally I feel that it is rather like saying "Just because something kills you and makes you a vampire spawn doesn't make it a vampire," but it is a fair argument. Maybe something else CAN make you a vampire spawn. Who knows? Clerics can certainly curse without being cursed themselves, but then again that isn't their general flavor. A werecritter however is just about always depicted as being somehow messed up. Even natural werewolves in White Wolf games have a rough time of dealing with their condition now and again. But until there is an Eberron Under Glass or Dragonshard specifically defining the differences between the MM lycanthropes and Eberron Lycanthropes then we are just arguing personal tastes. Personally, I like my lycanthropes to be monsters. Inhuman in many ways. but if somebody else wants natural lycanthropes to just have powers and have to be careful who they bite then more power too them. |
| Indigo01-10-05, 12:57 PM | I picked medusa for a reason. Yes, in legend they were curse, HOWEVER in D&D they aren't, they are a race. What is different about lycanthropes. Legend said they were both cursed. Both are born the way they are. (unlike ghouls and vampires!) Both are natural races and are presented as such. Not quite. Medusas are a race. They come in one size and one shape. There is no template for creating a medusa: a medusa is a medusa is a medusa. The same is true of kalashtar, using an earlier example. Lycathropes, natural or not, are a different case. Any humanoid or giant can be a lycanthrope - natural or afflicted. In the MM alone, we have an example of human naturals and hill giant naturals. It's not a race, it's a template that can be applied to any race. How do you define such a polyglot population as a naturally occuring race? Where do you think all of these naturals come from? As I see it, a natural lycanthrope is the child of lycanthropes - afflicted or not. Once upon a time, the first werewolf was cursed. Let's say he was human. He bites a giant. That giant bites another giant. Those two giants are both afflicted, have a child, and that child is a natural because he is born with the curse already a part of him, and thus has control they do not. As has been said many times before, that's not a race - it's inheriting a condition from your parents. And the natural alignment. Again, what makes their "always" alignment so much stronger than dragons, sphinx's and unicorns? A dragon is an intelligent creature. Nothing in the MM actually explains why dragons have the alignments that they do. It may be cultural, it may be part of the magical nature of dragons. Eberron appears to have taken the stance that since no reason is clearly given, there's no reason for them to have an always alignment. The MM DOES explain where lycanthropes get their alignment - from lycanthropy and the human perception of animals - and specifically notes that lycanthropic alignments are extreme versions of normal alignments (the whole bit about how even when a werewolf is in control of his actions - as a natural is - he takes delight in killing other intelligent beings). It's the difference between a symbiosis and domination. It's the difference between unity and constant strugle! Which is exactly the point that we disagree on. You say that because he can control his shape-changing voluntarily, he's in complete control of his lycanthropy. I say that the "always" alignment proves that he's not in complete control, and I believe that this is the same thing Hellcow has said multiple times. They have a whole lifetime to temper the alignment of their animal soul. And they don't have to fight theirs! So you say. I say the fact that it forces them to remain a specific alignment - and if you follow the lycanthropic alignment descriptions in the MM, to behave in a extreme way within that alignment - shows that they don't have to fight only as long as they go along with the natural impulses of the curse. The RAW DO clearly show that lycanthropes suffer from enforced behavior. Naturals have an always alignment. The template describes the alignment of an animal as being defined by human perception of the animal. Instructions are given for how a lycanthrope of a particular alignment behaves. And the affliction forces a character to assume the alignment in question. As someone who values the RAW so highly, how is this unclear? |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 01:25 PM | Not quite. Medusas are a race. They come in one size and one shape. There is no template for creating a medusa: a medusa is a medusa is a medusa. The same is true of kalashtar, using an earlier example. Lycathropes, natural or not, are a different case. Any humanoid or giant can be a lycanthrope - natural or afflicted. In the MM alone, we have an example of human naturals and hill giant naturals. It's not a race, it's a template that can be applied to any race. How do you define such a polyglot population as a naturally occuring race? Where do you think all of these naturals come from? As I see it, a natural lycanthrope is the child of lycanthropes - afflicted or not. Once upon a time, the first werewolf was cursed. Let's say he was human. He bites a giant. That giant bites another giant. Those two giants are both afflicted, have a child, and that child is a natural because he is born with the curse already a part of him, and thus has control they do not. As has been said many times before, that's not a race - it's inheriting a condition from your parents. A dragon is an intelligent creature. Nothing in the MM actually explains why dragons have the alignments that they do. It may be cultural, it may be part of the magical nature of dragons. Eberron appears to have taken the stance that since no reason is clearly given, there's no reason for them to have an always alignment. The MM DOES explain where lycanthropes get their alignment - from lycanthropy and the human perception of animals - and specifically notes that lycanthropic alignments are extreme versions of normal alignments (the whole bit about how even when a werewolf is in control of his actions - as a natural is - he takes delight in killing other intelligent beings). Which is exactly the point that we disagree on. You say that because he can control his shape-changing voluntarily, he's in complete control of his lycanthropy. I say that the "always" alignment proves that he's not in complete control, and I believe that this is the same thing Hellcow has said multiple times. So you say. I say the fact that it forces them to remain a specific alignment - and if you follow the lycanthropic alignment descriptions in the MM, to behave in a extreme way within that alignment - shows that they don't have to fight only as long as they go along with the natural impulses of the curse. The RAW DO clearly show that lycanthropes suffer from enforced behavior. Naturals have an always alignment. The template describes the alignment of an animal as being defined by human perception of the animal. Instructions are given for how a lycanthrope of a particular alignment behaves. And the affliction forces a character to assume the alignment in question. As someone who values the RAW so highly, how is this unclear? #1 However, nowhere does it say naturals are born from afflicted. Might be, but not in the books. So there is no reason to assume that naturals are not born from naturals. Also take mongrel man from the races of destiny book. They come from ALL PHB races and can look very different from each other. A polyglot race. And are a natural race. Noone said they started out as a natural race. However they are now. Griffons anf hippogrifs may not of started out as a natural race, but are now. #2 you say that lycanthropes have an alignment because they are lycanthropes? Like dragons are born dragons and unicorns are born unicorns? Don't get your point. I know that they don't have "the curse of lycanthropy" because only afflicted have that. Naturals have the ability to GIVE the curse of lycanthropy. #3 so the guy that puts on a helm of oppisite alignment(sudden change like lycanthropy) has a better chance of changing his alignment than the guy that was born with it and has had a lifetime to change? And the RAW is very clear on the enforced alignment of AFFLICTED lycanthropes ans the behaviors lycanthropes TEND to do. How this affects naturals ability to change their alignment as opposed to a unicorn is beyond me! I also see nothing that forces them to stay an alignment more than any other "always" creature. The only thing I see is that AFFLICTED are forced to change their alignment. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 01:38 PM | you know, it never specifically says that natural lycanthropes give birth to natural lycanthropes, either. and, according to EGS's stance, you can't assume; therefore, natural lycanthropes must not give birth to natural lycanthropes. i'm not trying to be antagonistic, here. there are just some really big flaws with EGS's reasoning that he doesn't seem to be able to see; i'm trying to point them out to him with examples. same thing with the monstrous spiders--neither the MM nor the SRD state that monstrous spiders have eight legs. by EGS's logic, that means that they must not have eight legs. |
| Euangelion01-10-05, 02:40 PM | I once had a boss that if you were to present him with an idea he either liked it or disliked it on an emotional level immediately. The funny yet aggravating thing was to then watch him try to come up with reasons not to accept the idea, with the result that a lot of his reasons had serious errors in logic and fact. Deja vu all over again. EGS, it appears to me that you hate the Church of the Silver Flame, on a deep, emotional level. I believe that your strong emotions regarding the Church and the lycan purge have been clouding your judgements regarding the distinctions between natural and afflicted lycans, a distinction that only occurs in 3.5 to hamper power gamers, not to remove the curse from "natural" lycanthropes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get you to stop hating the Silver Flame. I'm just simply asking you to take a moment and ask yourself why it's so important to you to claim that natural lycanthropes aren't cursed with lycanthropsy. |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 04:05 PM | you know, it never specifically says that natural lycanthropes give birth to natural lycanthropes, either. and, according to EGS's stance, you can't assume; therefore, natural lycanthropes must not give birth to natural lycanthropes. i'm not trying to be antagonistic, here. there are just some really big flaws with EGS's reasoning that he doesn't seem to be able to see; i'm trying to point them out to him with examples. same thing with the monstrous spiders--neither the MM nor the SRD state that monstrous spiders have eight legs. by EGS's logic, that means that they must not have eight legs. You keep saying my logic. This started when you asked if WOTC said that naturals WERE NOT cursed. True, it doesn't say naturals are born of naturals. It doesn't say one way or the other. So we fall back to how it works with other creatures. elves give birth to elves. humans to humans. Natural lycanthropes to natural lycanthropes. The big logic flaw is saying that a creature is cursed and asking when it's said it wasn't! I'm only reading what's in the MM and what works with other creature in that book. Nothing about natural lycanthropes being cursed. And failing anything to the contrary, breeding like other creatures. You don't seem to get that saying that natural lycanthropes being cursed is like saying that mostrous spiders have ten legs. It doesn't say how many legs they have just like it doesn't say naturals are cursed. There is no RAW to support either. |
| Indigo01-10-05, 04:10 PM | #1 if it worked 100% like a disease, the afflicted would be able to transmit it, and they can't. So stop treating it 100% like a disease! It's a (SU) power! Sorry, EGS, but by the rules as written lycanthropy is a disease. If it worked 100% like a NATURAL disease, afflicted could transmit it. But it's not natural; it's magic, and magic doesn't have to obey natural laws. As it is a magical disease, it's a supernatural ability that will not function in an antimagic field. But by the RAW it's considered a disease nonetheless. Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatral and magical disease(such as mummy rot and lycanthropy). If you're just working off the SRD, you don't get those examples. But it's right there in the PHB. Lycathropy isn't just transfered like a disease, it is a magical disease. Heck, the simplest and safest way to cure an afflicted lycanthrope is for a 12th-level cleric (sadly rare in Eberron) to cast Heal or Cure Disease within three days of infection. Strange choice for something that's not acutally a disease. So again, there is lots of evidence in the rules as written to say that natural lycanthropes are the carriers of a supernatural disease and that they suffer from at least one of its symptoms (alignment change). You can keep saying "But it doesn't spell out word for word that this is the case" - but it is implied time and again. Where is ANY evidence in the rules as written to counter the examples I keep bringing up: It's a supernatural disease, which is clearly stated and also reflected by the fact that it is a template that can be appleid to any humanoid or giant (unlike, say, "Medusaism"); alignment is associated with a lycanthropic form and has nothing to do with the alignment of the actual animal; all natural lycanthropes possess that alignment; when a victim succumbs to the disease, he is forced into that alignment; and the behavior of lycanthropes is more extreme than alignment normally dictates. ALL of these are explicitly stated in the RAW. What evidence is there in the RAW that supports your ideas? You say that you won't accept it until WotC says that's how it is - but as I read the RAW they already have! What written evidence is there to counter all of these facts in the MM and PHB? #2 you say that lycanthropes have an alignment because they are lycanthropes? Like dragons are born dragons and unicorns are born unicorns? Dragons don't have the ability to turn people into dragons, with a supporting statement that says "once you are fully transformed into a dragon, your alignment is permanently changed into the alignment associated with your draconic form." Lycanthropes do. Dragons don't have a section saying "Evil dragons will go out of their way to kill intelligent creatures, particularily creatures of thir own race. " Lycanthropes do. By the RAW we don't know know why dragons have their alignment; we DO know why lycanthropes have an alignment ("This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself"). There's no comparison here. Again, the RAW are very clear. You're just choosing to ignore them because they aren't written in fifty-foot letters of fire. And for what it's worth, the text of "Curse of Lycanthropy" doesn't talking about "giving" the curse - it talks about "passing it on." You pass on something that you already possess. So, IN THE RAW, what is there to contradict any of these things that are stated in the RAW? |
| elecgraystone01-10-05, 04:32 PM | I once had a boss that if you were to present him with an idea he either liked it or disliked it on an emotional level immediately. The funny yet aggravating thing was to then watch him try to come up with reasons not to accept the idea, with the result that a lot of his reasons had serious errors in logic and fact. Deja vu all over again. EGS, it appears to me that you hate the Church of the Silver Flame, on a deep, emotional level. I believe that your strong emotions regarding the Church and the lycan purge have been clouding your judgements regarding the distinctions between natural and afflicted lycans, a distinction that only occurs in 3.5 to hamper power gamers, not to remove the curse from "natural" lycanthropes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get you to stop hating the Silver Flame. I'm just simply asking you to take a moment and ask yourself why it's so important to you to claim that natural lycanthropes aren't cursed with lycanthropsy. Wrong in part. I DO really, really dislike the SF. different issue. Even if every lycanthrope was evil and they were 100% justified in doing what they did, I'd still dislike them. Now setting that aside, my understanding of lycanthropes doesn't change. It's important to me because your logic is not RAW. Nowhere does it say that naturals are cursed. I disagree on your logic. I draw different conclusions from the MM, SRD and other books. My need to explain my point of view seems to be just as strong as yours to keep saying that natural lycanthropes ARE cursed even though it is stated nowhere in the 3.5 D&D game. I fail to see that anyone has proven a flaw in my logic. All I've seen is circular reasoning (they curse so they must be cursed),flawed reasoning (it acts like a disease (even though it's not)) and reverse logic (it doesn't say that they are NOT cursed, so they must be). All I'm doing is looking at the book. You and motorfirebox like to bring in stuff from outside the game to explain why they should be cursed. That's fine for houserules, but RAW doesn't change. Again, if you can point to ONE RAW source that states that lycanthropes (natural) ARE cursed, then debate over. If you can't, how can you call MY logic flawed? And to lycanthropy spreading like a disease. Read the SRD quote. It said "CAN spread like a disease" not it spreads like a disease. A big difference! Also the only difference in 3.5 is the lack of the cursing power in afflicted. In 3.0 naturals STILL were born and had full control of themselves. So even in 3.0 they were different. And in 3.0 they STILL never said that naturals were cursed! This really all falls back to the old werewolf movies. Are lycanthropes just like the movies? As I've said, the legends and movies deal with people that were cursed (afflicted). WOTC made a new class of lycanthrope that didn't exist in legend, the natural- born into his power. You can't apply what happens to an afflicte to the naturals. That existed in 3.0 too. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 05:23 PM | It said "CAN spread like a disease" not it spreads like a disease. A big difference! okay, explain exactly how lycanthropy is spreading like a disease, when--according to you--it doesn't spread like a disease at all. why do you accept that natural lycanthropes give birth to more natural lycanthropes, when it says nothing about it, but refuse to accept that lycanthropy can spread like a disease when it states that in black and white? the "can spread" part refers to the fact that afflicted lycanthropes don't spread the disease. in all other ways, lycanthropy spreads like a disease, and that means that the person spreading with the disease--or, in this case, the curse--must have it himself. flawed reasoning (it acts like a disease (even though it's not)) explain how this is flawed reasoning. it says, right there in the text, that it does act in some ways like a disease. the reasoning that seems flawed to me is the one that leads you to completely disregard what the text says, and base your entire point on what it doesn't speak on at all. |
| Indigo01-10-05, 05:36 PM | Again, if you can point to ONE RAW source that states that lycanthropes (natural) ARE cursed, then debate over. I believe I gave six examples, and I still haven't seen you refute them. 1. Lycanthropy is a supernatural disease. 2. Naturals have the ability to "pass on" this disease to their victims. 3. One of the symptoms seen when an afflicted person contracts the disease is a change in alignment, to a specific alignment associated with the animal form. 4. Lycanthropic behavior is far more extreme than the alignment normally allows. Evil lycanthropes aren't just selfish, they are killers. 5. Natural lycanthropes always possess this alignment. 6. We are specifically told the reasoning behind this alignment: that it is based on the way that the animal in question is percieved. It is not the result of any sort of choice on the part of the lycanthrope. Natural werewolves are not "always chaotic evil" because they're just bad guys - they are always chaotic evil because wolves are perceived as "sinister creatures" and this determines the effects of lycanthropy. This enforced alignment is clearly defined as an effect of lycanthropy and something that applies to both naturals and afflicteds. It is part of the lycanthrope template that can be inherited by naturals or acquired by afflicteds. So there you go: statements in the RAW. Looking at it yet another way, what are the symptoms of lycanthropy? The ability to change shape. DR. Being forced to assume a particular alignment. Lycanthropic empathy. The inability to perfectly control the shapechanging ability. The only one of these that doesn't apply to a natural is involuntary cahnge, which everyone agrees is a matter of the child learning to control its shape from the begining. In all other ways, the natural displays all the symptoms associated with the magical disease lycanthropy. Someone born blind is going to deal with it better than someone afflicted with a crippling injury late in life: they're still suffering from the same thing. On this note, I'll point out that BY THE SRD - looking to "Lycanthropes as Characters" - afflicted lycanthropes even possess the Curse of Lycanthropy special quality - they simply can't pass it on to others. (And again, "pass on" is the phrase used.) They specifically break out the DR for afflicted & natural, and could easily have moved Curse of Lycanthropy to natural only, but they don't. They possess all of the same qualities - which is to say, symptoms - they just don't work as well for the afflicted. This really all falls back to the old werewolf movies. Are lycanthropes just like the movies? As I've said, the legends and movies deal with people that were cursed (afflicted). And in these movies and stories, how are they afflicted? In all the ones I can think of, they're bitten by werewolves. By the RAW, that means they are dealing with natural lycanthropes, since an afflicted lycanthrope couldn't pass the curse. Likewise, in most of those movies, if they bite someone, that person gets the curse as well. (OK, in some of the old folktales, they are people who have made deals with the Devil and been given magic wolfskins that let them shift shape in exchange for performing evil deeds, but that's obviously another thing entirely.) WOTC made a new class of lycanthrope that didn't exist in legend, the natural- born into his power. And yet: both types are universally refered to as "lycanthropes" (natural and afflicted are generally only mentioned when the issue of controlling shape or DR specifically comes up). They don't get separate entries. Natural lycanthropes do NOT get a separate section describing their behavior in the MM; instead, an afflicted lycanthrope is ultimately forced into the behavior pattern of a natural. Both use the same template; the only difference is the reduced DR and the inablity to pass on the curse, and the reduced DR certainly implies that the inability to pass on the curse is because the strain is weakened in the transfer. For a "new class", they haven't put much effort into differentiating them. Again: They are carriers of a magical disease that can affect any humanoid or giant. They suffer from one of its important symptoms. They can be of any humanoid or giant race (IE, only the races that can suffer from the disease). All of this is in the RAW. What's unclear about this? And just to look at the (fairly pointless) comparisons to other creatures: Let's go back to vampires and vampire spawn. A vampire kills a victim. That victim becomes a less powerful vampire - a vampire spawn. As it is less powerful, it does not possess the power to transfer vampirism to those it kills. The power of vampirism decreases at every step from the source. But would you say that the vampire spawn is not fundamentally the same creature as the vampire - just a weaker version, as it's inherited only part of the power of the parent? A natural lycanthrope bites a human. That human becomes a weaker version of the lycanthrope that bit it. As it is weaker, it doesn't possess the power to create spawn of its own. As I said, I think these comparisons are fairly pointless. Vampires are not werewolves. Yet they are both templated creatures transformed by a magical force with the ability to transfer a weaker form of their affliction to their victims. If a natural lycanthrope and an afflicted lycanthrope are not the same, it's like saying that a vampire spawn and vampire have nothing in common - the spawn simply happens to also suck blood, assume gaseous form, possess all of the same weaknesses and many of the same powers. It's a wacky coincidence. And hey, unlike natural and afflicted lycanthropes, vampires and vampire spawn have entirely separate entries in the MM! And if you say "But vampires aren't cursed!" I'll say again: forced into hideous undead existence feeding on the living, forced to become evil - sounds like a curse to me. Just not one that can be cured, except by death. |
| Sorbeth01-10-05, 06:25 PM | I'll have to disagree with you on one point. The afflicted are always cursed. They never have full control of themselves. They may no longer be able to get the curse lifted, but they still have it. I will agree that becoming a lycanthrope is a rough hand, both for the afflicted PC and the party members. :) And in that sense, yeah I'd be calling it a curse if I were a part of the periodically furry. ;) Game wise I look at the curse as being somewhat like a stat or level drain. After the deadline to get rid of the loss is past you aren’t drained anymore, you're stuck with a negative. (The semantics may vary, but this is how I look at it.) I would like to say that I am enjoying the debate on this panel. I can see more about what the debates must have been like in the CotSF. :) |
| Sarlax01-10-05, 07:16 PM | I believe I gave six examples, and I still haven't seen you refute them. Note that EGS requested a specific RAW that defines natural lycanthropes as cursed. The following six arguments, while they may point to lycanthropy being a curse, aren't specific rules. Rather, they provide a way by which particular readers can potentially infer that lycanthropy is a curse. 1. Lycanthropy is a supernatural disease. This isn't specifically accurate (by 3.5 rules). There are two primary sources for this interpertation in 3.5, and Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts from 2.0 did rather specifically describe this as a disease. But here's why it's not a disease. Actually, I think we ought to be clear by what mean by "disease." I think that concept that most participants in this thread are working from is "contagion." We might also work from a broader medical definition, which refers to nearly ay physical or mental condition that can debilitate the victim. I'll try to argue from both, but in a D&D context. Using conceptual arguments, lycanthropy doesn't seem to me to qualify as a contagion, but it does qualify as a mental disease. It qualifies for me as a mental disease because it tends to limit the behavior of those who are affected by it, and a narrowed range of behavior is certainly a disadvantage. However, it doesn't qualify as a contagion because there's no possibility of third generation victims. Unlike fle or HIV, lycanthropy begin with a natural and ends with the afflicted. In rules terms, lycanthropy occupies a vague middle ground between disease and not-disease. I'll first present the pro-disease arguments, then the opposing arguments (again, in the rules). First in favor for disease is the Paladin class feature that renders one "immune to all disease (including lycanthropy)." Second is the lycanthropy entry under "Curing the Affliction," which allows for Cure Disease to work if cast in three days. Now, the opposing arguments. First, the spell "Remove Disease" specifically cures "all diseases" but is limited under the lycanthropy entry in the MM. The spell does not that certain diseases might resist the effects of the spell. There could be the implication that lycanthropy becomes too strong as a disease for a "mundane" magical cure to work, but the text leaves this vague. Or perhaps the "disease" transforms into a curse. Second, the MM never says lycanthropy is a disease. In fact, the entry "can be spread like a disease" seems to point towards lycanthropy not being a disease: if it were, why would it be necessary to point out that it spreads like something that it is? That sort of language is reserved for exceptional qualities, not given qualities. If a text book included a line like, "Mars orbits the sun like a planet," you might be inclined to think that Mars may not actually be a planet, but simply possess at least one planet-like quality. Now, let's asume lycanthropy is a disease, as some have already done. If it's a disease, why is it also necessarily a curse? The flu is a disease, but it's not a curse. Since this post was written as a response to EGS's demand for RAW indications that natural lycanthropes are cursed, the question of whether or not lycanthropy is a disease isn't important, because "disease" and "curse" are not equivalent terms. 2. Naturals have the ability to "pass on" this disease to their victims. This isn't an argument for or against natural lycanthropes being cursed (which was the point EGC was getting at). Certainly, many curses can be inherited, but curses aren't necessarily heritable conditions. Even if they were, that doesn't prove that any particular heritable condition is a curse. We could make the same argument that lycanthropy is a heritable set of genetic retroviral markers than can affect multiple species of creatures, and it might work in some games. But there's no indication in the MM for a genetic explanation. Likewise, the heritability of lycanthropy does not specifically indicate that it's a curse. 3. One of the symptoms seen when an afflicted person contracts the disease is a change in alignment, to a specific alignment associated with the animal form. Again, lycanthropy may or may not be a true disease, but it's not too important for consideration of this point. Remember, EGS asked for RAW proof that lycanthropy is a curse for natural lycanthropes. It's not disputed (as far as I can tell) that the afflicted are indeed cursed. Since this point specifically addresses the effects on people who are afflicted, it doesn't bear on natural lycanthropes. Still, we can try to apply it to natural lycanthropes, and this is where I think that the "disease" model has more merit. Because lycanthropy strongly compels a particular mode of behavior, it qualifies as a "mental disease." This could allow for it to be a curse as well, but nothing guarentees that: sociopathy and obsessive-compulsive disorder aren't curses, but they are mental diseases. 4. Lycanthropic behavior is far more extreme than the alignment normally allows. Evil lycanthropes aren't just selfish, they are killers. This point can be linked to the argument I made above. While compelled behavior can certainly be debilitating and hence qualify as a mental illness, it's not specifically a curse. The devils and demons aren't just evil, either. They are living archtypes of particular kinds of evil, just as certain lycanthropes are archtypes of particular kinds of violent evil. Natural lycanthropes do specifically suffer from a possibly dangerous limitation in behavior, but this isn't an indication of a curse any more than schizophrenia or bipolarity is a curse. 5. Natural lycanthropes always possess this alignment. This goes back to older arguments. Angels, fiends, and trees "always" possess particular alignments (always quoted because exceptions are possible for intelligent creatures). The simple possession of a dominant alignment isn't indicative of a curse. 6. We are specifically told the reasoning behind this alignment: that it is based on the way that the animal in question is percieved. It is not the result of any sort of choice on the part of the lycanthrope. Natural werewolves are not "always chaotic evil" because they're just bad guys - they are always chaotic evil because wolves are perceived as "sinister creatures" and this determines the effects of lycanthropy. There is some choice involved; we know this because lycanthropes can, through great effort, resist their given alignments. The degree of choice is very small, but it is present. Points 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all essentially the same: Natural lycanthropes are cursed because they have compelled alignments. The broad reply is that narrow compelled alignment isn't alone enough to qualify a person as cursed. Many beings in D&D have "always" alignments, but they aren't cursed: Angels aren't cursed. Titans aren't cursed. Animals aren't cursed. To rationally (not recursively) consider natural lycanthropes as cursed creatures, we can't consider alignment alone to be significant. |
| Sarlax01-10-05, 07:22 PM | you know, it never specifically says that natural lycanthropes give birth to natural lycanthropes, either. and, according to EGS's stance, you can't assume; therefore, natural lycanthropes must not give birth to natural lycanthropes. To be fair, there's little in the core that indicates humans give birth to humans or that plants grow from plant seeds. But I doubt anyone's going to seriously suggest that we should therefore assume that making such "assumptions" about D&D is invalid. Given that natural lycanthropes are described as humanoid (or giant creatures) that are born with lycanthropy, we can probably assume that it's safe to say natural lycanthropes are born to lycanthropic parents in the core rules. As far as Eberron specifically goes, the very fact that there's been great discussion earlier in this thread about lycanthrope families seems to reinforce this view, especially since Keith Baker didn't take objection by saying, "But in Eberron, natural lycanthropes don't pass on lycanthropy to their offspring." As far as 3.5 references for this, Races of Faerun (yes, I know it doesn't necessarily apply to Eberron) notes that the children of afflicted lycanthropes are natural lycanthropes. It's the only official declaration I can find in the current edition of the game that answers the question either way. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 07:29 PM | But I doubt anyone's going to seriously suggest that we should therefore assume that making such "assumptions" about D&D is invalid. indeed. that's exactly my point, actually--just because the text doesn't explicitly state something that most readers tend to assume anyway doesn't mean that it's not true. i guarantee that if you ask anybody who knows anything about lycanthropes, 99% of them will assume that, yes, lycanthropes are under a curse. it's something that is almost implicit in the very concept, the text doesn't specifically dispute it, and the text can be read to support it. i don't see how you can go any other way with it. |
| Indigo01-10-05, 08:25 PM | Note that EGS requested a specific RAW that defines natural lycanthropes as cursed. The following six arguments, while they may point to lycanthropy being a curse, aren't specific rules. Rather, they provide a way by which particular readers can potentially infer that lycanthropy is a curse. I feel that we are arguing semantics. I don't care if we call it a curse or a disease. What difference does it make? To me, the key issue here is "Are natural lycanthropes affected by the condition that they pass on to others, or not?" If it's a disease, are they carriers? If it's a curse, are they cursed? *Are natural lycanthropes and afflicted lycanthropes fundamentally the same, or are they entirely separate creatures – one with the ability to inflict a condition it does not suffer from on the other?* If the only argument here is over the word "cursed", I could care less. As I see it, EGS says that nothing in the RAW supports the idea that natural lycanthropes are themselves affected by the condition that they pass on to their victims. I have given six points from the RAW indicating that they are. Yes, they only imply it, not state it explicitly. But what, in the RAW, provides an equally strong argument for inferring the opposite? There are two primary sources for this interpertation in 3.5, and Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts from 2.0 did rather specifically describe this as a disease… Actually, I think we ought to be clear by what mean by "disease." I don't. I think your interpretation is very well thought out and scholarly. However, EGS' arguments have been entirely based on the RAW, not on academic definition of terms. The PHB specifically says "magical diseases (IE lycanthropy)" and allows it to be cured by remove disease (subject to the rules of remove disease, which notes in its description that it will not work on all afflictions). Thus, by the RULES it is a disease. Like I've said, I think your arguments are excellent. Do I think that lycanthropy behaves as a traditional disease? Not remotely. Do I believe that D&D defines it as a supernatural disease? Absolutely, and I've got the PHB backing me up. Since EGS is specifically relying on the RAW, where in the core rules does it say "lycanthropy is not a supernatural disease" to counter that PHB reference? And the key word here is supernatural. Your arguments all make perfect sense for the mundane world. But this isn't mundane. It's magic. A "magical disease". It can be affected by cure disease because it is a disease, but treatment is limited because it is magical in nature. Ditto for paladins vs. monks. A paladin is immune to all disease, magical and supernatural, and cannot become a lycanthrope. A monk is only immune to natural diseases and thus can become a lycanthrope. It's a disease, but not a natural one. But ultimately, who cares? I don't care if it's a curse or a disease. What I care about is whether the condition of being a natural lycanthrope is at its root, the same condition the natural passes to its victims. I believe that the RAW back me up, and when I'm told that they don't, I'd like to see a few quotes to back up the opposing argument. Heck, even you note that Van Richten's Guide and Races of Faerun have supporting material. So where are the countering arguments in the RAW? Even if they were, that doesn't prove that any particular heritable condition is a curse. So, let's lose the word curse and call it a condition. What if I say: Lycanthropy is a supernatural condition. It can be inherited from a parent or transferred by the bite of a lycanthrope. When the condition is transferred by bite, the victim contracts a slightly weaker version of the condition; he cannot pass it on to others by bite. Certain studies (see Races of Faerun) indicate that a lycanthrope with this weaker condition can still pass the condition to his offspring, and that they will inherit the more potent form of the condition. The effects of the condition include the ability to shift into a specific animal or hybrid humanoid form, a varying degree of resistance to injury, and the power to influence animals of a specific species. Behavior is also affected. The condition carries a powerful compulsion to behave in a certain manner, which appears to be based on the manner in which the animal form is perceived. For a victim who contracts the condition, this compulsion is often overpowering, and it can completely overwhelm him, forcing him to transform into animal form and act on subconscious impulses as directed by the condition. Someone born with this condition adapts to this and is able to fully control these physical transformations. However, he is still affected by the mental compulsion, and in an overwhelming majority of cases this causes his personality to be shaped by the condition. While it never overwhelms him completely, his behavior is still dictated by it; virtually all werewolves are driven to kill, though a rare few are able to overcome this compulsion. Would you agree that this is a logical interpretation of the rules as written? Natural lycanthropes do specifically suffer from a possibly dangerous limitation in behavior, but this isn't an indication of a curse any more than schizophrenia or bipolarity is a curse. As I said, I don't care if it's a "curse" or not. What I care about is that the natural lycanthrope suffers the same form of enforced behavior as an afflicted lycanthrope. The afflicted lycanthrope is converted to the alignment. The natural possesses it from the beginning because of the influence of the condition of lycanthropy. In both cases, the condition is what determines the behavior. There is some choice involved; we know this because lycanthropes can, through great effort, resist their given alignments. The degree of choice is very small, but it is present. Certainly – though this is not the case with afflicteds, who "permanently assume the alignment." As I said, the child born blind is better off than the person who becomes blind. That small percentage can overcome the mental effects of the condition. But do you think that this is because of their willpower and dedication, or because the condition doesn't actually predispose them to behave in a certain manner in the first place? Points 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all essentially the same: Natural lycanthropes are cursed because they have compelled alignments. Correct. The reason I listed them as separate points is because they are drawn from separate references in the RAW. Point 3 is from the description of lycanthropy as an affliction. Point 4 is from the MM section on lycanthropic behavior. Point 5 is from the listings for the lycanthropes themselves, and the template. Point 6 is from the template. It's only one real point – but it's four separate references, and EGS was asking for just one. So I'm saying, here's far more than one: give me actual rules references that make the opposite case. The broad reply is that narrow compelled alignment isn't alone enough to qualify a person as cursed. I don't care if they're "cursed", and if that's EGS's only bone here, we have no argument. All I care about is that natural and afflicted lycanthropes are affected by the same condition. Now, there is the fact that both natural and afflicted lycanthropes – as noted in the template and "Lycanthropes as Characters" section - possess the ability "Curse of Lycanthropy" (even though afflicteds can't actually use this ability in any meaningful way). If the entire meaning of "curse of lycanthropy" is "the ability to curse others with lycanthropy", why does an afflicted character possess it? But like I said, that's just semantics. I don't care if it's a curse or not: All I care about is whether the condition is the same. |
| motorfirebox01-10-05, 08:50 PM | it's possible that natural and afflicted lycanthropes share alignments and abilities for different reasons--but what reasons would those be? it's much simpler to infer that they share a condition, by combining the facts that a) one creates the other; and b) they share alignments and many abilities. the few difference between them are easily explained away as some sort of weakening effect incurred by transmission method. |
| elecgraystone01-12-05, 12:03 PM | Thanks Sarlax! :cheer: :clap: :dancin: :w00t: I see you understand what I was trying to say! I've been trying to get this across to them for quite a while now. Thank for saying it better than I could! For Indigo #1 there are movies were a person is cursed by gypsies and turns into a werewolf (afflicted). Also in dark shadows (old TV show) someone was cursed into a werewolf(not bitten) #2 just because cure disease can cure something doesn't make it a disease Example: from SRD,Xill "Implant (Ex): As a standard action, a xill can lay eggs inside a paralyzed creature. The young emerge about 90 days later, literally devouring the host from inside. A remove disease spell rids a victim of the egg, as does a DC 25 Heal check. If the check fails, the healer can try again, but each attempt (successful or not) deals 1d4 points of damage to the patient." Example of a supernatural disease: from SRD, mummy "Mummy Rot (Su): Supernatural disease-slam, Fortitude DC 16, incubation period 1 minute; damage 1d6 Con and 1d6 Cha. The save DC is Charisma-based. WOW, if they WANTED it to be a disease, all they had to do is add two words- Supernatural disease. ;) Now from paladin SRD "Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases." Just because lycanthropy is something tacked on with this power, doesn't make it a disease just like implant can be countered by cure disease! I still say that a lycanthrope is just as "cursed/diseased' as ALL always alignment monsters. dragons griffons pixies unicorns Nowhere can I infer that they are a primal natural force like devils/demons are a reflection of there planes. (IE they have alignment subtypes) Or infused with negative energy (from evil aligned plane). The 2 reasons I see for an always alignment in the fluid alignments of ebberon. All I see is that they have inherited personality traits, like any other always alignment! Just because you are born with your "always" alignment and tend to think like the rest of your race, doesn't make you cursed/diseased. Just like unicorns are LG and feel a need to help others doesn't make them cursed/diseased! ;) Now, if you wanted to talk about what behavior the natural lycanthrope is born with and how this effects this alignment and their ability to CHANGE that alignment, that's another topic from is lycanthropy a disease/curse! If that was the main thrust of your "they are cursed" argument", I suggest that we move to that topic. :D To motorfirebox Lots of monsters share entries. Elves Dwarves Yaun ti ect. If WOTC comes out with a new race of elves that are "cursed", do they have to SAY that no other elves are cursed? :confused: How does cursing someone to look, act, and think like me affect me? Way would the act of cursing, curse me? :confused: I'm making someone into my image. If a unicorn had the power to transform people into other unicorns, would the unicorn become cursed? :confused: Always alignment doesn't=curse. :rolleyes: Now even if we infer that they share a condition, by combining the facts that a) one creates the other; and b) they share alignments and many abilities. the few difference between them are easily explained away as some sort of weakening effect incurred by transmission method. How do we come up with the creator is cursed? :confused: I agree that one creates the other. I agree they share alignment, most abilities and that the difference between them is because of an imperfect copy being made. I disagree that this somehow proves the the creator was cursed somehow. |
| motorfirebox01-12-05, 01:06 PM | EGS and Sarlax, you're both continuing to ignore the plain fact that the text states lycanthropy spreads like a disease. disease are spread from a person who has the disease, which means that the curse of lycanthropy is spread from a person who has the curse of lycanthropy. until you address and somehow refute that, this argument isn't going to go anywhere. yes, there are specifically-noted ways in which lycanthropy doesn't spread like a disease--namely, the fact that afflicted lycanthropes can't spread it through bite. in all other ways, however, lycanthropy spreads like a disease because that's what the text states. all other arguments are basically irrelevant until you disprove this. i'm not saying that this line of reasoning proves beyond all doubt that natural lycanthropes are cursed. but it does strongly suggest it--and a strong suggestion is more than i've seen in the way of positive proof that natural lycanthropes aren't cursed. your basic argument is "the book never says that natural lycanthropes are cursed". my basic argument is "the book never says whether they are or are not cursed--but there's more evidence that they are cursed than that they aren't." |
| Indigo01-12-05, 01:47 PM | #1 there are movies were a person is cursed by gypsies and turns into a werewolf (afflicted). Good point. I was thinking of, among others, Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (along with its 4 sequels), The Werewolf of Washington, The Howling (along with its many sequels), Wolf, An American Werewolf in London, An American Werewolf in Paris, Ginger Snaps, Underworld, Van Helsing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Harry Potter. (J.K. Rowling herself in describing the character in question says "(He) has a condition which is contagious, of course, and so people are very frightened of him.") #2 just because cure disease can cure something doesn't make it a disease Certainly. But what about the PHB paladin reference that says that a paladin is immune to supernatural diseases (mummy rot, lycanthropy)? As far as I can see, using something as a specific example of a supernatural disease in the RAW pretty much means that the designers thought it was a supernatural disease. Given as how you were the one who said "If you can't find a reference in the RAW, the argument is over..." I've found one. Can you find a reference in the RAW that clearly states that it's not? If not, I think this argument is over. Now from paladin SRD "Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases." Just because lycanthropy is something tacked on with this power, doesn't make it a disease just like implant can be countered by cure disease! Does this ability say that it protects against implants? No. Neither does the Xill description. Thus, I'd assume a paladin is vulnerable to an implant, which despite being vulnerable to cure disease is clearly not a disease: it is a foreign body implanted in the body of the victim. The paladin's ability does not say "Immune to any condition that can be cured with remove disease." It says that it protects against DISEASE, and gives lycanthropy as a specific example of a disease. You yourself agree that mummy rot - the other example - is a supernatural disease. The reason that lycanthropy does not use the same format in its description is that it does not act like a normal disease (initial and secondary ability damage). But it is, nonetheless, specifically cited in the PHB as an example of a magical disease. Please find me something anywhere in the RAW that says "lycanthropy is not a magical disease." Nowhere can I infer that they are a primal natural force like devils/demons are a reflection of there planes. (IE they have alignment subtypes) Or infused with negative energy (from evil aligned plane). The 2 reasons I see for an always alignment in the fluid alignments of ebberon. All I see is that they have inherited personality traits, like any other always alignment! Let me try this again. The template states that lycanthropic forms have an alignment associated with them based on the way in which the animal is perceived. This template applies to both natural and afflicted lycanthropes. Thus, the RAW give a clear reason for why lycanthropes posess a particular alignment. When someone is afflicted with lycanthropy, he is forced to assume this alignment. A natural lycanthrope is always this alignment to begin with. What's unclear about this? It's far more clear that a dragon, or even a unicorn (which is easy enough to infer as having always been a magical symbol of purity). The behavior of a lycanthrope, natural or afflicted, is influence by his animal form, in a manner based on the way in which the animal form is perceived. And if you've read the MM as opposed to the SRD, it's clear that this alignment is more extreme than usual. Just because you are born with your "always" alignment and tend to think like the rest of your race, doesn't make you cursed/diseased. Agreed, though I think "tend" is a very weak term for "over 90%". And I am happy to ignore the phrase cursed for this moment. However, in this instance, the point is that the alignment is a symptom of the condition of lycanthropy (as shown by the template that applies to all lycanthropes). So what I'm arguing here is not the word "cursed": it's the fact that natural lycanthropes are affected in some way by the condition that they transfer to others. This is a supernatural compulsion to behave in a specific manner, not simply a "Eh, the other werewolves are evil, I think I'll be evil too." Now, if you wanted to talk about what behavior the natural lycanthrope is born with and how this effects this alignment and their ability to CHANGE that alignment, that's another topic from is lycanthropy a disease/curse! If that was the main thrust of your "they are cursed" argument", I suggest that we move to that topic. No, the main thrust of my "they are cursed" argument is "Both natural and afflicted lycanthropes possess an ability called 'curse of lycanthropy.' Natural lycanthropes pass this quality to their victims, along with all the other symptoms of this supernatural disease (as defined by the PHB). Afflicted lycanthropes possess the quality but cannot 'pass it on' to others. Therefore the argument that the entire point of this quality is the ability to curse others doesn't hold water, because if that were the case, afflicted lycanthropes just wouldn't possess it at all. The curse of lycanthropy is a condition, and one that the public percieves as a curse whether it is or not, hence the name; when it is possessed in sufficient strength, it is possible to pass that condition to others. However, both afflicted and natural lycanthropes possess this condition, and this condition is refered to as a curse by the MM/SRD, and thus seen in this way by the public at large." But, moving on to the second point, certainly. My belief is that natural lycanthropes are born with a strong strain of the condition of lycanthropy - one so strong it cannot be removed from them. It's in their blood and bones. Being born with it, they can resist one of its symptoms: involuntary change. However, this is merely one aspect of its mental effects, and it is much harder for them to resist the other - enforced alignment. Unlike an afflicted lycanthrope, they possess the ability to ultimately overcome this (since a tiny percentage can ignore an always alignment). However, the fact that it is both explained in the lycanthrope template as being a part of being a lycanthrope and that it is a symptom of lycanthropy the afflicted can struggle with but ultimately not resist, I see every reason to believe that breaking away from this alignment would be a difficult and constant struggle. How does cursing someone to look, act, and think like me affect me? Setting aside the RAW use of the "curse of lycanthropy" quality as something possessed by all lycanthropes, it doesn't. But, the issue here is how things are perceived by the people of Eberron: You are a human who can turn into a wolf. You like to kill people. It's very difficult for you to resist this unnatural bloodlust. When you bite someone, he becomes... a human who can turn into a wolf. At first, he kills without thought. Eventually, he comes to gain some control over this ability, but still likes to kill people and unlike you, has no ability to resist this unnatural urge. As outsiders, people think "Bob the farmer was a nice guy. He doesn't want to kill people. He must be cursed." Giving you the benefit of the doubt, they say "That guy who tried to kill Bob, but only bit him... he probably doesn't really want to kill people either. He's just like Bob. To bad the priest can't cure him. But let's pity him, because he's cursed too." So how 'bout that werebear? Well, remember that werebears are still driven to live away from civilization and such. Again, their behavior isn't just good - it's a narrower subset of good. They operate under restrictions that dragons and unicorns do not. So while it's less extreme, we're still back to bitten bob the bear wanting to move away from his family and live in the forest because he can't stand the city any more - which the public could easily see as a curse. I agree that one creates the other. I agree they share alignment, most abilities and that the difference between them is because of an imperfect copy being made. I disagree that this somehow proves the the creator was cursed somehow. Fair enough. But following the argument above, can you see how I, the farmer, consider you to be cursed? Which at the very least explains the name of that Curse of Lycanthropy quality you possess... |
| Sarlax01-12-05, 02:49 PM | I don't care if they're "cursed", and if that's EGS's only bone here, we have no argument. All I care about is that natural and afflicted lycanthropes are affected by the same condition. Then it's clear they don't. If we ignore semantics (as I tried to several days ago), then the only weakness naturals and the afflicted have in common is the alignment compulsion. Everything else is an advantage. Damage reduction, alternate forms, enhanced abilities, stronger willpower. These are all useful traits. The naturals and the afflicted share most of the same advantages, except the naturals tend to be better specimens who carry this condition. Naturals and afflicted don't have the same condition. The afflicted are creatures who gain a nice set of advantages at the cost of the warping of their original soul and the loss of all self-control for most of the month (or three days of the month in other worlds). The naturals gain a host of even better advantages over which they have total control. They have a different kind of soul than most humanoids, but they don't have some "original personality" that's been tainted. |
| motorfirebox01-12-05, 03:14 PM | prove that afflicted lycanthropes don't have a weaker form of the same condition that natural lycanthropes have. |
| stone_dog01-12-05, 03:27 PM | prove that afflicted lycanthropes don't have a weaker form of the same condition that natural lycanthropes have. Can they? Can we prove that they aren't right? No. The argument is all about preference. There is not enough evidence one way or the other to make an iron clad by the rules call. There is more detail about how the curse affects afflicted lycanthropes. Why? Because affliction is the part that the rules support happening to PCs? Probably. Because natural lycanthropes behave differently? Maybe, but why didn't they lay it down? You can easily say that natural lycanthropes are not affected by the curse at all, but instead just have the powers. Great. The rules do support that. You can easily say that natural lycanthropes are affected by the curse in a different, subtler way due to their innate grasp of their condition. Great. The rules don't tell you no. All we can say with certainty is that natural lycanthropes can infect people with lycanthropy with their bite attacks while afflicted lycanthropes can't. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 03:38 PM | Then it's clear they don't. If we ignore semantics (as I tried to several days ago), then the only weakness naturals and the afflicted have in common is the alignment compulsion. Everything else is an advantage. I'm not sure I follow. Did I ever say that the other symptoms of the conditions were disadvantages? All of the physical symptoms are benefits for both natural and afflicted lycanthropes (the reason many have been guessing that they placed limits on the afflicted in 3.5). The only drawback is the mental. This is far more serious for afflicteds than naturals, but possessed by both. So my premise is that afflicteds and naturals possess varying degrees of the same condition. The naturals, being born with it, are better able to resist its negative effects and make use of its advantages. But it's fundamentally the same condition. Common folklore perceives this condition to be a curse (and yes, this is entirely a semantic term, not in any way mechanically) because of the way that they see it affect their friends and because they assume that the werewolf would rather not be a brutal killer. Do this seem inaccurate? The naturals gain a host of even better advantages over which they have total control. They have a different kind of soul than most humanoids, but they don't have some "original personality" that's been tainted. Actually, the only better advantage is DR - and it's an advantage the others possess, just not as powerful. Shapeshifting is the SAME advantage, they just have total control over it. And actually, they DO have a disadvantage: they spread lycanthropy by bite. They have no control over this: they can choose not to bite someone, but if they bite someone, theat person can contract lycanthropy, and as we've seen, that's the thing that gets people hunting you down. How is this an advantage? As for the "original personality", that's also exactly the point I was making earlier. They don't have an original personality that's been tainted because they never had the chance to develop an original personality. Because of the effects of lycanthropy, their personality was magically dictated from the moment of birth. A human werewolf at some point presumably (at least, by Races of Faerun) had an ancestor born human. If the werewolf had been born human, he could develop whatever personality he wants. But, because he's born a werewolf, he has no choice: he is going to be evil, unless he is one of the rare few who can overcome that. This alignment is part of the template that's applied to both natural and afflicted lycanthropes. How can you say it's not part of the condition of lycanthropy? And while this has nothing to do with your argument, Sarlax, I just wanted to state again: The paladin's ability in the PHB does not say "immunity to all effects that can be removed with remove disease." It does not say "immunity to all conditions that can be spread like diseases." It says, immunity to all disease, and then specifically gives lycanthropy as an example. I'm more concerned with whether both types are affected by the condition than whether the condition is a disease. But I feel that the PHB make plain that the designers and the RAW consider it to be a (magical) disease. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 03:46 PM | You can easily say that natural lycanthropes are not affected by the curse at all, but instead just have the powers. Great. The rules do support that... All we can say with certainty is that natural lycanthropes can infect people with lycanthropy with their bite attacks while afflicted lycanthropes can't. Actually, we can say a few other things with certainty: A lycanthropic form has a particular alignment associated with it, and this alignment is based on the manner in which the animal is perceived. All lycanthropes of a particular form possess this alignment... though following the MM description of "always", there exists the chance for the rare exception. Thus, alignment is part of being a lycanthrope. We can argue whether natural lycanthropes possess the alignment because of being influenced by the condition they pass to afflicteds or not - but it is completely clear by the rules that lycanthropes of a particular form are, for whatever reason, "always" a particular alignment. Likewise, we can also state with complete certainty that all lycanthropes possess a quality called "curse of lycanthropy", as defined by both the template and "lycanthropes as characters" section. What exactly this quality is supposed to imply - particularly given that afflicteds possess it without it having any apparent use - is open for debate. But by the SRD, it is clear that they DO possess it. |
| motorfirebox01-12-05, 03:47 PM | All we can say with certainty is that natural lycanthropes can infect people with lycanthropy with their bite attacks while afflicted lycanthropes can't. you can say quite a bit more than that, actually. you can say that natural and afflicted lycanthropes share many, many similarities; that they're more similar than they are different--so similar, as a matter of fact, that they share stat blocks. you can say that natural lycanthropes create afflicted lycanthropes. you can say that they're called the same thing--"lycanthropes". everything in the text indicates that they're the same thing, with only minor differences. given that, why would anyone possibly assume that they're different? |
| stone_dog01-12-05, 04:17 PM | Okay fine... stat blocks. They have the same powers and the only difference listed in the rules is the whole infected thing. Nobody is really arguing stat blocks though, are they? They are arguing the nature of the curse and how, if at all, it affects the two types of lycanthropes. Why would anybody assume that they are different? Because the text doesn't describe them as the same as far as the curse goes. The text only defines identical powers with the exception that natural lycanthropes can turn people into afflicted lycanthropes and afflicted lycanthropes can't do that. It doesn't go into paragraphs describing how the curse affects the behavior of the lycanthrope aside from the "always" listed next to alignment. Afflicted lycanthropes are cursed to turn into beasts and have their personalities changed. If natural lycanthropes suffer any curse it is to infect others with a nigh uncontrollable version of their condition. Something they can avoid by not going all bitey. Now, I agree that having curse of lycanthropy on a stat block and saying that the thing isn't cursed with lycanthropy is a pretty weak argument, but aside from spreading the disease they don't suffer forced personality changes or change shape every time the (a) moon turns full. I can see how somebody doesn't want natural lycanthropes that are ravening monsters every full moon wandering unchecked just like their afflicted cousins. I can see how people would want natural lycanthropes to be fully realized expressions of the lycanthrope curse, embodying all the potency and personality of their afflicted kin, but being able to temper instict with thought once in a while. Personally I like my natural lycanthropes in Eberron to be swayed by the moons towards the were-archetype while they are full, but given free will to resist and do what they want the rest of the time. I like the phrase "Even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the moon is full and bright" to mean something across the board. |
| motorfirebox01-12-05, 04:33 PM | if the argument was that it's their game and they can play how they want to, i'd be fine with it. that's not what the argument is, though. the argument is that the root of an afflicted lycanthrope's lycanthropy is, by canon default, provably not related to the root of a natural lycanthrope's lycanthropy. i, obviously, disagree. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 06:04 PM | Another idea. Let's break down exactly what the SRD says (sadly, I don't have the MM on hand). Lycanthropes are humanoids or giants who can transform themselves into animals. OK. This is the basic definition. It applies to all lycanthropes. They didn't feel the need to say: Lycanthropes are one of two things – an evolutionary offshoot of humanoid or giant races with the ability to shift form, or a humanoid or giant who has been cursed by such a creature. Lycanthropes are one thing, requiring one entry: humanoids or giants who can transform themselves into animals. In its natural form, a lycanthrope looks like any other members of its kind, though natural lycanthropes and those who have been afflicted for a long time tend to have or acquire features reminiscent of their animal forms. So: the "natural form" of a lycanthrope is its humanoid or giant form. It looks like "any other members of its kind." "Its kind" appears to mean humanoids or giants – which again implies that lycanthropes are not a race, but a modification of any number of races. Natural or not, a hill giant wereboar is a giant first and a wereboar second. A lycanthrope in its humanoid (or giant) form uses whatever tactics and weapons are favored by others of its kind, though it tends to be slightly more aggressive. Again: no separation of afflicted or natural here. All lycanthropes draw on their "kind", but their behavior is affected – afflicted or natural (and for that matter, good or evil), they tend to be more aggressive. Lycanthropy can be spread like a disease. Sometimes a lycanthrope begins life as a normal humanoid or giant who subsequently contracts lycanthropy after being wounded by a lycanthrope. Such a creature is called an afflicted lycanthrope. Other lycanthropes are born as lycanthropes, and are known as natural lycanthropes. Just so we've got it out there. This is the big time to make a distinction. Here they could have said "Lycanthropy is a form of magical evolution. Any giant or humanoid race can produce lycanthropes; these creatures are in full control of their abilities and are known as natural lycanthropes. A natural lycanthrope can transform a victim into a weaker version of itself, known as an afflicted lycanthrope." They don't. They focus on it being like a disease, not a form of evolution. They present the afflicted lycanthrope first. Then they say "and if you're born with it, you're known as a natural." A lycanthrope in animal form fights like the animal it resembles, although its bite carries the disease of lycanthropy Hmm, take a look at that word: disease. Not just "like a disease," but disease. Right there in the SRD. Another point here: the fact that afflicteds don't transmit the affliction is the big change from 3.0 – and there is every indication that it was a last-minute afterthought. It is mentioned in ONE place: the Curse of Lycanthropy description in the *template*. No other description makes this distinction. All lycanthropes gain the Curse of Lycanthropy ability. The previous quote says "when bitten by a lycanthrope," not "when bitten by a natural lycanthrope." The section on "Lycanthropy as an Affliction" says "when a character contracts lycanthropy through a lycanthrope's bite," making no mention of afflicted or natural. Every stat block says "a humanoid or giant hit by a werebear/wereboar/wererat/etc's bite attack…" They could say "a natural wererat" and they don't. That's seven stat blocks – if I wanted to be a RAW stickler, I could argue "This proves that a normal werewolf can pass it on whether afflicted or not – it's only when you make a new unusual lycanthrope with the template that this rule applies." It seems entirely clear to me that the switch of the ability was not a carefully thought out "Let's make naturals a totally separate race with this power the others don't have" – it was a last-minute "Hey, let's take away the ability to spread the disease so PCs can't give it to all of their friends and turn whole towns into werewolf towns, because that's the sort of thing PCs will do" and they didn't even bother reviewing the other descriptions to make it consistent. Hellcow's even implied that the EBERRON DESIGN TEAM didn't know about this rule, because it's so buried. I do respect the RAW, and I do feel that since it says it in the template, it should apply to all lycanthropes. But if you pulled out the template description, there is nothing else in this section that limits the transmission of the disease to naturals – and eleven places that imply the opposite. A hybrid can spread lycanthropy with its bite, and it has the same damage reduction that its animal form possesses. Just reiterating that earlier point: why is this here if only naturals can spread lycanthropy? All naturals possess the same DR: 10/silver. This sentence implies that it refers to both natural and afflicted, which possess a different level of DR. But if you follow that one mention in the template, afflicteds can't spread it in any form. Like I said, the RAW clearly say in one place that afflicteds can't spread it, so afflicteds can't spread it. But this still seems like a last-minute addition – not a careful choice to make two completely different creatures that happen to share the same stat block. The base creature’s type does not change, but the creature gains the shapechanger subtype. So: Natural or afflicted, that elf werewolf is still an elf who also happens to be a shapechanger. For purposes of elf blood, favored enemy – she's an elf. So going back to "Naturals as a race" – well, there's no race that is "natural lycanthrope." They are modified versions of other races, close enough to be mechanically treated as members of those races for all other effects. If a medusa turned other people into medusas instead of stone, the elf would lose "elf" – medusas aren't elves or humans or dwarves, they are a unique race of their own. Lycanthropes are not: they are a modification of the existing races. Eberron also gives no indication of lycanthrope civilizations ever having existed: the best we get is the Dark Pack, which is supposed to be the largest group of werewolves around and created by the actions of the purge. What is the definition of race? They do not have unique physical traits: they possess the traits of their base race along with supernatural abilities that are (or mimic) the symptoms of a disease. As far as we know, they have never possessed a unique culture – unless you define things like "driven to murder other intelligent beings of their own race" as a form of cultural behavior. There's another point: that MM section specifically mentions that the preferred prey of an evil lycanthrope in control of its actions (IE natural or afflicted aware of its condition) is intelligent creatures of the lycanthrope's "own race". If naturals are considered a race, it would mean that werewolves are driven to kill other werewolves – not a great racial survival trait. Curse of Lycanthropy (Su): Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy. —Special Qualities (see above): Alternate form, lycanthropic empathy, curse of lycanthropy (in animal or hybrid form only). —Afflicted lycanthrope: damage reduction 5/silver (in animal or hybrid form only). —Natural lycanthrope: damage reduction 10/silver (in animal or hybrid form only). Once again, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to pull "Curse of Lycanthropy" out of the special qualities section and give it to naturals only, or to say "Afflicted lycanthropes do not possess this quality." But they don't. They just say that they can't pass it on. Frankly, I find it weird. BUT: if we accept that the one ruling that they don't pass it on over the eleven that say they do, we need to accept that all lycanthropes possess the quality, which is called "curse" and does not necessarily let you curse others (since afflicteds can't). Only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured of lycanthropy. As a minor point, what here implies that natural lycanthropes do not possess the same condition as afflicted? We know that it's a disease, stated both here and in the PHB. It can be inherited or passed through injury. It has a templated set of effects – symptoms of the condition, which both possess. What we are told is that only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured – not "Natural lycanthropes do not actually carry lycanthropy, and as a result they cannot be cured." They possess the same template. They possess the same TYPE: the afflicted and natural elf are both Humanoid (elf, shapechanger). It's just that as the template was added to one late in life, it can be removed, while for the other it's embedded in his nature. So, are naturals cursed? Beyond semantics, does it matter? They are not presented as a unique polyglot race: they maintain their existing subtype, and even behave like the base creature beyond alignment and aggression. They carry a disease that others have reason to fear. If evil, they are predisposed to murder, and if wolf or rat or similarly "sinister" creature, they are predisposed to evil. The ability to transform others into lycanthropes is as much a curse as a blessing: since it may take days to take effect, it won't help you defeat your enemies, so it's only really useful if you've kidnapped someone and are trying to convert them to your cause. What have I missed that shows that naturals are a unique race that happen to have the nifty ability to transform others into weaker members of their race, and would not be considered to be curse by the public at large? One more thought: I completely agree that the abilities of the lycanthrope are tremendous advantages. Physical power, enhanced senses and willpower, alternate shapes, resistance to injury, natural attacks – it's all awesome. The one drawback is enforced behavior – which is why, in my opinion, that enforced behavior is so strict, even for naturals (IE, all evil lycanthropes are bloodthirsty killers). If we suppose that afflicted lycanthropes can have natural lycanthropes as children (stated in Races of Faerun, and implied by the disease model and the fact that lycanthropes aren't their own race), and that the mental compulsion a natural lycanthrope deals with really isn't that bad – werewolves don't have to be evil, really, most just go with the flow – why the heck hasn't everyone become a lycanthrope? The only explanation why people would turn down this power for themselves and their children is that the mental impact is so great that it outweighs the benefits – that a human looking at a werebear says "I don't care if I'd gain amazing strength, I don't want myself or my children to be compelled to live a solitary life in the woods, shunning civilization," or "Wolves are cool, but I don't want to be a killer." Why else would people turn down the opportunity to become superheroes – let alone hunt down the source of this power? |
| Indigo01-12-05, 06:14 PM | The text only defines identical powers with the exception that natural lycanthropes can turn people into afflicted lycanthropes and afflicted lycanthropes can't do that. It doesn't go into paragraphs describing how the curse affects the behavior of the lycanthrope aside from the "always" listed next to alignment. No offense, but that's exactly what it does - it just doesn't do it in the SRD. If I recall correctly - and I certainly could be wrong, as I don't have the MM on hand and can't quote it - the MM has a long section on lycanthropic behavior. This includes a discussion of how a lycanthrope behaves when it is in control and aware of its actions, making no distinction between afflicteds and naturals. Thus, an evil lycanthrope likes to murder intelligent creatures of its own race, though it can choose its targets instead of randomly striking out at friends and family (as a raging afflicted lycanthrope will do). So: murderous killer? I'd call that a fairly extreme form of "always chaotic evil", and something that is attributed to being a lycanthrope. As with MFB, the issue to me isn't whether we all agree that natural lycanthropes are "cursed"; it's whether natural and afflicted lycanthropes all draw their abilities from the same condition, and whether the naturals are in some way adversely affected by that condition. The issue is whether the naturals are a carefree and unique race - or simply members of other races who have inherited a disease from their parents and are better able to control its symptoms. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 06:27 PM | On reflection, I am curious to hear what a RAW purist has to say on this subject. EGS, you're a big believer in the idea that if something isn't 100% spelled out in the RAW it is false - that even if lycanthropy is a disease and can be passed to victims by natural lycanthropes, because there is no sentence that actually says "Natural lycanthropes have inherited the disease" they may gain their powers from a completely different source. So: In the rules as written, the only place that says that afflicteds cannot pass on the curse is in the template. I only need the template if I am creating a new form of lycanthrope: otherwise I have been provided with full stat blocks. The full stat block for a werewolf says "Curse of Lycanthropy (Su): Any humanoid or giant hit by a werewolf’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy." Not "Any humanoid... hit by THIS werewolf's bite attack" or "Any humanoid hit by a NATURAL werewolf's bite attack" - simply any humanoid hit by a werewolf's bite. I can even take the "Lycanthropes as Players" section - it tells me that my character possesses the Curse of Lycanthropy ability and says nothing about not being able to use it. Following the rules as written, why should I believe that the template that tells me how to create a new form of lycanthrope overides the rules provided for the existing forms of lycanthrope? Like I've said, that template is the only place where this is mentioned. I believe that the fact it's mentioned in the template implies that it should apply to all, but I also believe that the fact that it's a disease should apply to all. If you take out the ability to draw inferences without 100% clear statements, where are you left in this particular situation? |
| motorfirebox01-12-05, 06:42 PM | wow. indigo, the thoroughness of your post floors me. |
| Sarlax01-12-05, 07:21 PM | So: In the rules as written, the only place that says that afflicteds cannot pass on the curse is in the template. I only need the template if I am creating a new form of lycanthrope: otherwise I have been provided with full stat blocks. Regarding this "SRD Purist" conception, a true purist would read the entire stat block and notice what's at the end of each lycanthrope's description: "The werebear presented here is a 1st-level human warrior and natural lycanthrope, using the following base ability scores: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8." "The wereboar presented here is a 1st-level human warrior and natural lycanthrope, using the following base ability scores: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8." "The weretiger presented here is a 1st-level human warrior and natural lycanthrope, using the following base ability scores: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8." Etc. All of the example lycanthropes are natural lycanthropes. That's why they are listed as having the power to inflict the curse on others. Now, read all of the stat blocks. Pay special attention to Special Attacks and Special Qualities, where you've pointed out something important: The natural lycanthropes only have the "Curse of Lycanthropy" trait when they are in Hybrid or Animal Form. It's not a Special Quality either; it's a Special Attack. If the naturals were really laboring under a curse, why is it that they aren't cursed while in their humanoid forms? They still have the power to change shape, animal empathy, scent, and the focused personality. All the traits of lycanthropy except damage reduction and the power to curse others are present. To be clear: the "curse" is simply an attack the naturals gain when they choose to. The argument that the bite is a disadvantage for naturals doesn't work because: 1. They have total control over their form: by always fighting in human form, they still have animal empathy, enhanced Wisdom, Iron Will, and extra hit dice. The bite will *never* come into play if the natural doesn't want it to, and they still have a lot of advantages. 2. They can simply fight with their claws or manufactured weapons in hybrid form. All the natural lycanthropes deliver their curse special attack through bite alone (except wereboars, who deliver it through gore attack alone). As long as they don't bite or gore, they will never deliver the curse special attack. A natural lycanthrope will only afflict others with the curse when he decides to (by biting or goring a victim). In the SRD, Lycanthropy is only connected to being "cursed" when it appears in the "Curse of Lycanthropy" special attack that is only possessed by natural lycanthropes and is under the full control of those natural lycanthropes. It's rightly described as a "Curse" in the Special Attack entry because those who get attacked by a natural's bite and fail their saving throw are cursed. There's only one inherently bad thing about being a natural lycanthrope: having urges that are harder to resist than the urges of most creatures. |
| Sarlax01-12-05, 07:34 PM | As for the "original personality", that's also exactly the point I was making earlier ... If the werewolf had been born human, he could develop whatever personality he wants. But, because he's born a werewolf, he has no choice: he is going to be evil, unless he is one of the rare few who can overcome that. "If he'd been human" doesn't really mean anything because we'd be talking about two entirely different people. If I'd been born female, or if I'd been born in ancient Egypt, or if I were born blind, etc. I'd be someone else. These kinds of musings don't really serve any purpose because were talking about fundamentally different beings. And given a long chain of causation, there's likely not even an option for most natural lycanthropes to "have been born human." For instance, if my grandfather was bit and sired my natural lycanthrope father who then sired me, the next natural lycanthrope, I probably couldn't have ever existed as a regular human. If my grandfather hadn't been bit, he'd have lived a different life and there's a chance he'd never have sired my own father. Even if he could have sired a son at the exact same time with the exact same genetic structure (ha!) despite not being a lycanthrope in this alternate history, the chance of my father doing the same thing to sire me is as close to zero as you can get. In this sense, lycanthropy is exactly the same as any other event in the long chain of events that lead to one's identity: any slight change (with greater weight the further into the past you make the change) will alter your personality and likely disrupt your chances of having ever been born, and change your genetic make-up. To summarize, a discussion about how lycanthropy changes who someone "might have been" can't change the idea of whether lycanthropy is fundamentally a curse/personal problem/etc. Anything that happens can change a future person's personality. But I feel that the PHB make plain that the designers and the RAW consider it to be a (magical) disease. As you note, the entry for lycanthropy in the SRD does say, "A lycanthrope in animal form fights like the animal it resembles, although its bite carries the disease of lycanthropy," so I acknowledge that by the design lycanthopy is a disease. And now that I reconsider it, it's method of transmission (if the afflicted sire natural lycanthropes) is similar to real diseases, like Bubonic Plague, which passes through different kinds of carriers. |
| Sarlax01-12-05, 07:39 PM | As with MFB, the issue to me isn't whether we all agree that natural lycanthropes are "cursed"; it's whether natural and afflicted lycanthropes all draw their abilities from the same condition, and whether the naturals are in some way adversely affected by that condition. I agree with this idea as well. Are natural lycanthropes disadvantaged by having their condition? The only disadvantage is a narrow, compelled personality. Now, if I were suddenly struck with such a condition, I'd probably be upset about it. But if it were part of my identity and built into my brain since the moment of conception, I probably wouldn't be because I don't know anything different. In that sense, a natural lycanthrope doesn't suffer. However, if that doesn't sell particular readers, remember that naturals gain a ton of other useful abilities, none of which are disadvantages at all. This isn't a "trade" because they were always this way, just as a regular human isn't trading intelligence for the ability to fly. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 08:12 PM | Regarding this "SRD Purist" conception, a true purist would read the entire stat block and notice what's at the end of each lycanthrope's description: "The werebear presented here is a 1st-level human warrior and natural lycanthrope, using the following base ability scores: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8.". Actually, Sarlax, I did notice this. I thought about spelling it out and decided not to. Instead I pointed out that the text does not say "this werewolf". It does not say "a nautral werewolf." It says "a werewolf." If either of the former statements were used, I'd agree with you 100%, but they weren't. An afflicted werewolf is just as much a werewolf as a natural werewolf. All of the example lycanthropes are natural lycanthropes. That's why they are listed as having the power to inflict the curse on others. Wrong. First, let's look at this quote from the SRD: "A lycanthrope in animal form fights like the animal it resembles, although its bite carries the disease of lycanthropy. It is preternaturally cunning and strong, and possesses damage reduction that is overcome only by silvered weapons. Finally, a natural lycanthrope (or an afflicted lycanthrope that has become aware of its affliction) can assume a hybrid form that is a mix of its humanoid and animal forms. A hybrid has hands and can use weapons, but it can also attack with its teeth and claws. A hybrid can spread lycanthropy with its bite, and it has the same damage reduction that its animal form possesses." Nothing here states that only the natural possesses this ability. Furthermore, the both the template and the "Lycanthropes as Characters" section clearly state that afflicted lycanthropes possess it, though the template explains that they can't pass it on. It's called a Special Quality under lycanthropes as characters. So they all possess it, and as a special attack, a natural lycanthrope can pass it on. However, it's in the SRD in black and white. All lycanthropes possess the ability "Curse of Lycanthropy". Naturals can use it as an attack, afflicteds can't. If the naturals were really laboring under a curse, why is it that they aren't cursed while in their humanoid forms? Because they don't have a bite attack, which is a requirement of the ability? There's only one inherently bad thing about being a natural lycanthrope: having urges that are harder to resist than the urges of most creatures. Certainly - which is why my point is: just how bad are those urges? And don't forget Ms. Rowling's point - you possess a contagious condition that terrifies those around you. YOU may not see it as a curse: they, however, may. Frankly, in D&D terms I don't even know what a curse is. I actually think that you are 100% correct: it's called curse of lycanthropy because the victim is cursed with this magical disease. However, I believe that the decision to take this ability away from afflicteds was a last-minute one that was not well thought out. As it is, afflcited lycanthropes have an ability - an attack even - called "Curse of Lycanthropy" that they cannot actually use. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 08:22 PM | To summarize, a discussion about how lycanthropy changes who someone "might have been" can't change the idea of whether lycanthropy is fundamentally a curse/personal problem/etc. Anything that happens can change a future person's personality. Certainly. My point is that a human being can have a different personality based on whether he's born in Egypt, raised by dwarves, beaten as a boy, and so on. A human werewolf is in many respects still human: he's treated as human for purpose of, say, bane weapons, and he behaves like a human in battle - though he's probably more agressive. Yet, regardless of whether he's born in Egypt, raised by dwarves, or beaten as a boy, he's got a 95% chance of being evil. To me, this implies that his personality is being shaped by something that overpowers these external factors. He does not have the opportunity to develop his personality freely as an normal, unmodified member of his race does. The child raised by dwarves may embrace the worship of dwarven gods and devote himself to good. He may decide that he hates dwarves and become an evil dwarf-thrower. Who can say? With a werewolf, you've got extremely good odds of saying "He's going to be evil, and probably kill a bunch of dwarves along the way." |
| Indigo01-12-05, 08:27 PM | I agree with this idea as well. Are natural lycanthropes disadvantaged by having their condition? The only disadvantage is a narrow, compelled personality. Now, if I were suddenly struck with such a condition, I'd probably be upset about it. But if it were part of my identity and built into my brain since the moment of conception, I probably wouldn't be because I don't know anything different. In that sense, a natural lycanthrope doesn't suffer. I agree completely. The evil werewolf who likes killing people isn't tormented by it. He likes it. He's always known he was a predator and others his prey. The hunt calls out to him, as it always has. The only time it's a disadvantage or a cause for suffering is if he wants to resist these urges - IE, to be good - or if he's in a place where his natural urges are going to make life very uncomfortable for him - like the werebear in Sharn. And the werewolf's urge to kill won't cause him to suffer - but if others track him down as a result of his murders, they'll make him suffer. However, if that doesn't sell particular readers, remember that naturals gain a ton of other useful abilities, none of which are disadvantages at all. This isn't a "trade" because they were always this way, just as a regular human isn't trading intelligence for the ability to fly. Again, I agree. Which is why I'm asking, why do you suppose everyone in the world isn't a lycanthrope? The only reason I can see is that that narrow personality is SO narrow that it is off-putting. That the werebear's distaste for civilization would keep him from participating in a modern society. And so on. |
| Indigo01-12-05, 08:33 PM | One more thought: If the change in alignment and personality isn't that severe, why not keep a werebear around and have him bite convicted criminals, forcing them to turn good? The only rationale I can see for avoiding this is that the alteration of personality is severe enough to be seen as cruel and unusual punishment. Or, of course, that idea that there's a demon gaining power from the lycanthrope population, I suppose... |
| Sarlax01-13-05, 12:18 AM | Again, I agree. Which is why I'm asking, why do you suppose everyone in the world isn't a lycanthrope? The only reason I can see is that that narrow personality is SO narrow that it is off-putting. That the werebear's distaste for civilization would keep him from participating in a modern society. And so on. As you say, werebears dislike civilization enough that they won't have the opportunity to afflict many. They are also lawful good, so they'll avoid spreading it. The evil types probably want to kill more than they want to spawn, and they might even kill the afflicted once their souls are "ruined." Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts also notes that lycanthropes need to eat large amounts of fresh meat. Too many predators depletes the food. This isn't 3.5 canon, of course, but it's handy explanation. |
| stone_dog01-13-05, 01:51 AM | No offense, but that's exactly what it does - it just doesn't do it in the SRD. If I recall correctly - and I certainly could be wrong, as I don't have the MM on hand and can't quote it - the MM has a long section on lycanthropic behavior. Okay, I see what you are talking about there. Most of that section is under Lycanthropy as and affliction and doesn't really go into the 3.5 versions of natural lycanthropes. There is a bit of flavor text at the begining of each heading, ("were rats prefer to use their dire rat shape for skulking and spying," "Werebears desire only their own company and seek out evil creatures to slay") but these are easily cast aside as a generalization. Again, not enough detail is going on here to really make a fully fledged 3.5 call in my book. Too much space to fill in. Another thing I would like to see about lycanthropes is when does a natural's abilities manifest? In puberty? Early adulthood? As a child throwing a temper tantrum does a natural sprout claws and teeth and go for the throat or is there a traumatic series of disturbing dreams, sleepwalking and strange thoughts seep into a childs mind when Lammania is drawing near to the Prime and Five Moons are full in the sky? That kind of assumtion will go along way to defining how much such a creature suffers. Sure they were born with the lycanthrope template already inherited, but perhaps they only get some benifits for a while like the wisdom bonus, a bit of low light vision and a general toughness that is the envy of their peers. Then the dreams come and their lives are changed entirely. Granted that is all houseruling, but still it would be very important to consider when you are designing your werething's place in the world. |
| Neofish01-13-05, 02:10 AM | I'd definatly run with the whole horrible nightmares as a child only to find out that these are the early signs of the infection manifesting itself, perhaps young lycanthropes go through the same thing afflicted do when they become bitten.? Unable to control thier change shape abilities at a younger age, perhaps this is when they're most deadly.? I sure it is truly a horrible thing to become afflicted, murdering your friends at night, living in fear in the day, unable to seek help for yourself in fear of retribution for you unwilling crimes.... |
| motorfirebox01-13-05, 11:45 AM | But if it were part of my identity and built into my brain since the moment of conception, I probably wouldn't be because I don't know anything different. In that sense, a natural lycanthrope doesn't suffer. i disagree. a natural lycanthrope suffers from a stunted or altered ability to develop itself and make its own choices. the fact that natural lycanthropes are unware of the stunting and alteration makes it more insidious, not less. i'd argue that the curse on an afflicted lycanthrope is lesser, compared to the curse on a natural lycanthrope, based on the fact that an afflicted lycanthrope has an easier time resisting the alignment change. your speculation about why the world isn't full of lycanthropes is, well, speculation. i'm not opposed to speculation as a general rule, but you can't expect people accept your arguments if they're based in speculation--especially if there's an alternative argument available that doesn't require any speculation at all. |
| Indigo01-13-05, 07:40 PM | It doesn't go into paragraphs describing how the curse affects the behavior of the lycanthrope aside from the "always" listed next to alignment. OK, now I've got my MM in hand, let's look at this again. The MM tells us the following things about lycanthropic behavior. From the template, all lycanthropes possess an alignment that is arbitrarily assigned based on the perception of the animal form - "sinister" animals are evil, "noble" animals are good (frankly, I'd make bears neutral then, but that's not the argument). This template applies to both natural and afflcited lycanthropes. A natural lycanthrope begins with this alignment because it begins life as a lycanthrope. An afflicted lycanthrope assumes this alignment when he fully becomes a lycanthrope - either when he finally fails his Will save or when he willingly transforms. Given that it is both part of the template and part of the disease, is there any reason to assume that the behavior of an afflicted lycanthrope who has been fully taken by the curse and a natural lycanthrope are different? They're both templated creatures using the same template. But wait, there's more! Let's look at the second paragraph of the Lycanthrope description: Evil lycanthropes often hide among normal folk, emerging in animal form at night (especially under a full moon) to spread terror and bloodshed. Good lycanthropes tend to be reclusive individuals, uncomfortable around large numbers of people. They often live alone in wilderness areas, far from villages or towns. This seems to me like a paragraph explaining how the curse affects behavior. ;) We're dealing with all lycanthropes here: this is the second paragraph of the entry, not buried far in or under a particular heading. What here gives any indication that there is any difference in behavior between afflicted and natural? This is how lycanthropes act. Natural lycanthropes act this way from day one. Afflicted lycanthropes act this way once they assume the alignment of the animal form - becoming evil or good lycanthropes. Looking further on... Any voluntary change to animal or hybrid form immediately and permanently changes the character's alignment to that of the appropriate lycanthrope. An evil lycanthrope who is aware of his actions in animal form is not compelled to murder and kill indiscriminately, but he delights in bloodshed and will certainly seek out opportunities to slaughter intelligent beings, preferably those of his own race. Now, these both come from the "Lycanthropy as an Affliction" section. But let's look at them. What we are told is that the afflicted character eventually has his alignment changed to "that of the appropriate lycanthrope," and that he then starts behaving in the manner described at the very begining of the "Lycanthrope" description - spreading terror and bloodshed, like all evil lycanthropes. Given this, why is there any reason to believe that there is a behavioral difference between the natural and afflicted? What we're told is that the afflicted character is now acting like "the appropriate lycanthrope" - and lycanthrope is a blanket term that covers both types. Again, I'm willing to dismiss curse semantics. If naturals are cursed, it's in the eyes of outsiders, though I think the werewolf who wants to be a paladin is going to be constantly fighting his "natural" urges. But here is what I believe: Lycanthropy is a supernatural disease. It is used as an example of a supernatural disease in the PHB, and the MM and SRD note that it can spread like a disease and that in animal form, the bite attack carries "the disease of lycanthropy." It's a very strange and unnatural disease, but in the eyes of the designers and RAW, its a disease. Both afflicted and natural lycanthropes are affected by this magical disease. It affects their behavior and grants them physical powers. It is more powerful in the natural; this results in the natural's ability to transmit the disease and the fact that he cannot be cured. The natural's behavior is defined by his associated animal form, as defined by the template. His behavior within this alignment is especially narrow - "Evil lycanthropes... spread terror and bloodshed." As per the MM Glossary, "The creature is born with the indicated alignment... It is possible for individuals to change alignments, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions." When a non-lycanthrope contracts the disease, the behavior enforced by the disease is at odds with his own, and takes over when he involuntarily transforms. Eventually, he will fail a Will save or choose to give in. At this point his alignment changes to "that of the appropriate lycanthrope" and he will now behave in the same manner as a natural lycanthrope of the same alignment. Reading over the MM entry, I see nothing to indicate that natural lycanthropes are supposed to be a unique species with nothing in common with the afflicteds - that while lycanthropy is a disease which they happen to carry and display the symptoms of, it's just a coincidence and they are actually a unique uninfected race. The vast majority of the entry refers to "lycanthropes" as a common group. It describes their behavior as a common group. It tells you how to deal with afflciteds specifically because it has to explain the process of change in case your character becomes afflicted. It doesn't have a section about "natural lycanthropes" because it doesn't have to - the section describing lycanthropic behavior at the very begining of the entry tells us all we need to know. Lycanthropes are humanoids or giants who can assume animal form. Here's how they behave based on alignment. It spreads as a disease, and you can either catch the disease or be born with the condition of lycanthropy. Anyhow, now I've actually been able to review the MM, I think that's all I have to say. The first three paragraphs of the MM entry and the template describe exactly what a lycanthrope is and apply to both naturals and afflciteds. It's pretty straightforward. Certainly, the rules exist for players and DMs to expand upon, and if people WANT to do something different with lycanthropes, great. But purely by the RAW, since that's been the thorn of the argument for me, what is there that contradicts this and indicates that natural lycanthropes are some sort of different species that behaves in a different manner from a fully afflicted (IE alignment-shifted) lycanthrope? |
| stone_dog01-13-05, 09:08 PM | Indigo, for the most part I agree with you. There are a few blurbs here and there that act as general guidlines. Little things are odd though, the Werewolf Lord vs the werewolf leaps to mind, but I can't quote what is wrong with it at the moment... something just niggles in the back of my mind. It just isn't enough for me to justify saying that anybody else is reading the rules wrong. I think that there is plenty of wiggle room in the RAW to go ahead and have different means of doing things without houserules coming into play. I am posting on my lunch break at the moment though, but I am satisfied in this thread. If not for it, then lycanthropes would not have the extra bits of detail that were inspired by these discussions. I don't think that I can get much else out of it though. |
| Indigo01-14-05, 11:23 AM | There are a few blurbs here and there that act as general guidlines. Indeed, though the two I'm using as examples are the initial paragraphs of the creature description and the template, not the scattered blurbs. The first paragraphs and the template are what define what the creature is. They describe lycanthrope behavior - "Evil lycanthropes... spread bloodshed and terror..." and say nothing about naturals and afflicteds behaving in a different way. Certainly, the whole point of the MM is that you can use it as you see fit. But I see nothing that implies that it was the designer's intent for the afflicteds and naturals to be two separate races that behave in different ways. If that was the goal, then what's the second paragraph about? In the first three paragraphs, we are told the different ways to become a lycanthrope - but nothing implies that they behave in different ways. Lycanthropes are like this, and here are two ways a creature can become a lycanthrope: affliction or inheritance. Little things are odd though, the Werewolf Lord vs the werewolf leaps to mind, but I can't quote what is wrong with it at the moment... something just niggles in the back of my mind. I was initially puzzled by the fact that the werewolf lord is large in hybrid form, but it's because he's based off a dire wolf instead of a wolf. The werewolf section says absolutely nothing about werewolf behavior, while the werewolf lord says: Stronger, hardier, and more deadly than its lesser fellows, the werewolf lord is a murderous beast that delights in wreaking havoc. As has been pointed out, this is a *natural* lycanthrope. Like all werewolves, his alignment is always chaotic evil. So, here we have a natural werewolf defined as a "murderous beast who delights in wreaking havoc." To my mind, this is completely in line with the behavior described in the second paragraph and the "lycanthropy as an affliction" section - "he delights in bloodshed and will certainly seek out opportunities to slaughter intelligent beings" - and he's clearly natural. The text for the natural werebear says that they "desire only their own company" - matching the second paragraph's description of good lycanthropes as "reclusive individuals... uncomfortable around large groups of people." So that second paragraph certainly seems to apply to natural lycanthropes, and from the information provided in "Lycanthropy as an Affliction", it applies to afflicteds as well. So again, where's any indication that naturals are supposed to be a unique race with a pattern of behavior completely unlike that of the afflicted? Behavior is a symptom of lycanthropy, and the naturals certainly seem to have it. |
| stone_dog01-14-05, 12:20 PM | So again, where's any indication that naturals are supposed to be a unique race with a pattern of behavior completely unlike that of the afflicted? There isn't. I'm telling you I agree with your position, personally. If anything I want to take a hammer and chisel and make the relief sharper, BUT I am just trying to point out that I can easily see how somebody could look at the extremely detailed descriptions of how the curse affects those afflicted, look back over at how there are no mechanical rules for the curse affecting the behavior of naturals aside from flavor text and "always" next to the alignment and take the view that naturals just have a series of powers and a natural inclination to certain types of behavior rather than a terrible curse that blights their soul (or whatever). I personally don't buy it. I think it is a wobbly argument at best, but the more I look at it the more (despite personal opinions) I just can't see them as being wrong in a rules oriented sense. It is like a meme I can't shake out of my head now. Maybe Transhuman Space (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/transhuman/) is right about that kind of thing.... |
| motorfirebox01-14-05, 01:00 PM | i know the rules don't specifically state the nature of natural lycanthropes, but--to me, at least--there are too many hints and references in the text to logically draw any other conclusion. in order to draw any other conclusion, you really have to twist the text around and make some assumptions that--while possibly valid--aren't supported or mentioned in the text at all. |
| Indigo01-14-05, 01:04 PM | ...and take the view that naturals just have a series of powers and a natural inclination to certain types of behavior rather than a terrible curse that blights their soul (or whatever). If it's not a curse, then they simply have extremely emphatic and uncotrollable urges towards a form of behavior that has no relation to the natural animal in question. I don't care if it's a curse. In fact, I think it's not a "curse", since we have no clear definition of curse - though it is clearly a supernatural disease. What I care about is the following: Natural Lycanthropes are - for whatever reason you care to believe - always born with a specific alignment, and only "unique or rare" individuals can break that alignment. This is defined by the MM glossary description of "always" alignment, the MM stat blocks, and by the lycanthrope template. Three solid, mechanical descriptions. Perhaps it's the curse. Perhaps it's a primal nature thing - though the template clearly states that it's based on the arbitrary perception of the animal and not on the nature of the animal itself. How that alignment affects the creature is clearly defined in paragraph two of the description of all lycanthropes. "Evil lycanthropes... spread terror and bloodshed. Good lycanthropes tend to be reclusive individuals..." "(Werebears) desire only their own company..." "... the werewolf lord isa murderous beast that delights in wreaking havoc." Afflicted lycanthropes are forced to assume this behavior by the curse. The curse makes them behave like the "appropriate lycanthrope", IE, the lycanthrope that afflicted them, IE, the natural lycanthrope that was the source of the affliction!. Perhaps the "always" alignment and bloodthirsty nature of evil lycanthropes is coincidence, and has nothing to do with the disease - though it is clearly unnatural. But what the disease does is make someone act like A LYCANTHROPE - and the behavior of lycanthropes is clearly defined in paragraph two. Between the MM telling you how this creature is supposed to behave, giving an always alignment and actually giving a reason for that alignment in the template - more than it does for creatures like dragons or unicorns - how are the rules failing to define the behavior of the creature? Are you saying that you don't think a natural werewolf is supposed to be a bloodthirtsy killer, or that you don't think the fact that a natural werewolf is a bloodthirsty killer is related to the fact that an afflicted werewolf is a bloodthirsty killer? Set aside the curse for the moment. Set aside the argument that werewolves are tainted. Do you agree that the rules show that a natural werewolf behaves in the same manner as an afflicted werewolf? Or are you saying that paragraph two and the template are not intended to apply to all lycanthropes? |
| stone_dog01-14-05, 01:47 PM | I am saying that lycanthropes behave in a certain way because the MM says they do. I believe that paragraph two applies to all lycanthropes. I also believe that these bits don't go far enough for my liking. So long as we are talking about that sort of thing, let me give you an example. You say that natural werewolves have their aligment and general behaviors set from birth. Now, I agree that the text says that naturals are born lycanthropes, but it doesn't say that the condition expresses itself from birth. X-Men are born mutants, but they don't start manifesting powers for a while. In order to showcase the horror of the lycanthrope condition I choose to make them "normal" humans for a while and then tear them from society in a traumatic transformation of body and soul. They are still BORN lycanthropes, but just don't lyc' out for a while. Others might choose to highlight the monster part of the creature and have them be, from birth, murdering bloodthirsty savages, sneaky conniving rats, good and grumpy slayers of evil or whatever the were form is. Seriously man. I AGREE with you on this. I SO got sidetracked back there. Was having too much fun trying to be the devil's advocate and almost forgot that I don't agree with that point of view. My ride is here. I have to go now. |
| Sharn Inquisitor01-14-05, 01:53 PM | If one of your players is considering being a Silver Flame, definitely don't allow the other player to be a Lycanthrope. I recently had one of my players find out that they are an afflicted lycanthrope and it's already caused problems with him being hunted by NPC Silver Flame folks. It's great for drama and tension, but not if it were internal to the party. However, I think Lycanthropy is far more commonplace in Eberron that the Silver Flame would like to believe. The Dark Pack in Droaam (P. 166, ECS) is just one example of many I'm sure. |
| motorfirebox01-14-05, 02:13 PM | unless the PC lycanthrope is running around murdering people, the SF as an organization shouldn't be hunting him down. the purge was hundreds of years in the past; the SF doesn't go around looking for lycanthropes to kill, nowadays, any more than the real-world catholic church tortures people anymore in order to discover whether they're jesuits. |
| Indigo01-14-05, 02:16 PM | You say that natural werewolves have their aligment and general behaviors set from birth. Now, I agree that the text says that naturals are born lycanthropes, but it doesn't say that the condition expresses itself from birth. True. The text does not say that it expresses itself from birth - which if it's a condition as opposed to a racial characteristic, is certainly a valid question. However, by the rules: Natural lycanthropes possess an "always" alignment. From page 305 of the Monster Manual: Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. Do I feel that the rules should come before a good story? No. Do I feel that the idea of having a person discover he's a natural lycanthrope late in life makes a good story? Certainly, and it's in keeping with the "Family Curse" folklore. However, do I believe that the rules say that naturals are forced to behave in a set manner from birth (regardless of whether they possess the condition or not)? Absolutely. You can say "Well, if I'm a natural but haven't manifested the condition, and alignment is part of the condition, I shouldn't manifest the alignment until I manifest the condition." I actually agree with this, and this in my mind still supports the disease model: alignment is a symptom of the lycanthrope template, and if you say that naturals don't gain the benefits of that template until a certain age, they won't have the enforced alignment either. However, nothing in the rules supports the idea of naturals gaining the template late in life. Instead, it says that the template is inherited, that it provides an "always" alignment, and that "always" alignment means set from birth. I'm all for people doing whatever they want to do or what they feel makes a good story. My issue all along has been being told that my beliefs are invalid because they are not spelled out by the rules, when in fact they either are spelled out by the rules or strongly implied. |
| Indigo01-15-05, 02:47 PM | So stepping back from rules for a moment to go back to philosophy, a few thoughts. The MM states that evil lycanthropes take pleasure in spreading bloodshed and terror, and that natural lycanthropes are born with their alignment and that while it is possible for an individual to change alignment, these individuals are "either unique or rare exceptions." Unique means "the only one of its kind." So we aren't just talking one in a hundred; we're potentially talking one in thousands, the odds of a baby turning out to be an Einstein. (Stone Dog, for the moment I'm setting aside your "When does lycanthropy take hold" question. While it's an intriguing one that can make for a good story, what we are told by the MM is that the template is inherited and that alignment is set from birth - so I'm basing this on the foundation that the condition manifests itself from birth, in lieu of anything implying otherwise.) Given this, at what point is a crusader justified in acting against a werewolf? Let's say a templar DOES find a litter of baby werewolves. They're evil already. Assuming that they possess the template - and again, there's no reason to assume they don't, if they are natural - they can already turn into li'l wolves and bite people, spreading the disease. And while the disease can be cured, that assumes you locate and identify the victim and get them to a 9th-level cleric, and how many people may these victims kill or infect before that happens? So, what SHOULD the templar do? In theory, it's just maybe possible that one of these li'l werewolves could turn out to be good. But the odds are about the same as finding a little demon and hoping IT might turn out to be good. We're not talking about societal pressures shaping these children: it's a supernatural effect madated by the template. Should the templar bring these children and raise them in the church, with muzzles and soft gloves on at all times to keep them from wolfing out and biting/clawing people, hoping one of them is that "unique" individual that ends up being good? What do you do with the others who remain evil throughout their lives, who will kill if they ever get the chance? At what age is it acceptable to say "Nope, this one's a failure" and give up - and bear in mind, it's going to take a lot of resources and brave people to raise this population of captive weres? What if we were talking about ghouls instead of werewolves? Just like a werewolf, a ghoul is "always chaotic evil." It's murderous by nature - but it has an intelligence of 13, higher that most humans (or werewolves), so it's not an animal. And it can turn others into ghouls. Technically, an "always" alignment means that it might still be possible for a ghoul to change alignments! So, is it morally wrong for a templar to kill a ghoul instead of bringing it back to the temple and trying to teach it the error of its ways? What if the GHOUL is a baby - which is to say, a baby killed by ghoul fever and reborn as a ghoul? Both ghoul and natural werewolf are always chaotic evil and delight in bloodshed. Main differences are that a werewolf can easily conceal its true nature, and that it is, well, alive. But while undead, the ghoul is a sentient and intelligent being (Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 12, compared to the listed werewolf's Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 8). Like the werewolf, it poses a threat to innocents and carries a dangerous disease. Why is the persection of werewolves more shocking and horrible than the persecution of ghouls? (I'm quite aware that this argument does not hold water for good and neutral lycanthropes - I'm simply trying to establish a foundation based on the evil lycanthropes.) |
| elecgraystone01-17-05, 09:51 AM | Just checking in. I reread the SRD and I haven't seen anything to change my mind in the posts since my last post. Some of the posters should look at the SRD and check out the differences between it and the MM. See what what important enouph to include for game designers and what could be cut out as fluff! Kudos to Indigo for finding the animal form carries the disease of lycanthrope. They change the wording for the "curse of lycanthropy" for every description, so it's hard to take it at face value. Rotten cut/paste for 3.0 to 3.5! Even If We assume that it IS a disease, what is different between the "curse of lycanthropy" power and having contagion as a (su) power? "Contagion Necromancy [Evil] Level: Clr 3, Destruction 3, Drd 3, Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched (replace with humanoid or giant bitten) Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Fortitude negates Spell Resistance: Yes The subject contracts a disease selected from the table below, which strikes immediately (no incubation period). The DC noted is for the subsequent saves (use contagion’s normal save DC for the initial saving throw)." Would the contagion (SU) power cause the user to get the disease? Don't think so! Later. |
| Indigo01-17-05, 12:57 PM | Some of the posters should look at the SRD and check out the differences between it and the MM. See what what important enouph to include for game designers and what could be cut out as fluff! Oh, please. This is the weakest argument I've seen on these boards. The SRD is the bare bones of the games. It intentionally strips away anything that has to do with behavior. Look at the description of, say, orcs or ogre magi. This wasn't the case of the designers carefully deciding "Oh, we made a mistake in the Monster Manual when we said that all evil lycanthropes behave in the same way;" That's what errata is for, and there is errata for the Monster Manual. It's simply that any sort of description of behavior has no place in the SRD. The Monster Manual, the Player's Handbook - these are ENHANCED VERSIONS of the SRD, not the other way around. By the WotC website, the SRD is "a comprehensive toolbox... compatible with the d20 System version of Dungeons & Dragons and various other roleplaying games from Wizards of the Coast." If you're just wanted generic rules, good for you. If you're actually planning on playing D20 Dungeons and Dragons, the information in the Monster Manual takes precedence. Again, EGS, if you want to do things differently in your game, that's fine. But saying that lycanthropes are not supposed to behave in a certain manner because that behavior was taken out of the SRD is a joke. Like I said, compare the description of orcs in the SRD and MM. Find me any creature that has a solid description of psychology or behavior in the SRD. Yes, this is fluff - but fluff is exactly what this argument is about. You're saying that a natural lycanthrope is not forced to behave in an evil manner because the SRD doesn't say so. But the SRD never discusses behavior. It gives an always alignment, and the Monster Manual - which does discuss behavior - clearly states how that is supposed to be interpreted. Even If We assume that it IS a disease, what is different between the "curse of lycanthropy" power and having contagion as a (su) power? The fact that a natural lycanthrope possesses all of the symptoms of the disease that he transmits, with two exceptions: he has a greater (yet not perfect, as shown by the enforced alignment) control of his behavior, and he can transmit the disease. It's like saying "Oh, there's a guy covered with red spots and he gave me chicken pox, but I'm sure that the fact HE had red spots had nothing to do with chicken pox whatsoever - he was a member of the unique race of chicken-spotted-men." The fact that afflicted lycanthropes possess this power but simply lack the ability to "pass it on" to others. Why do afflicteds have it at all, if it was purely intended to be an attack and nothing more? The SRD template and the SRD "lycanthropes as Characters" sections both show that afflciteds gain this "special quality": —Special Qualities (see above): Alternate form, lycanthropic empathy, curse of lycanthropy (in animal or hybrid form only). —Afflicted lycanthrope: damage reduction 5/silver (in animal or hybrid form only). —Natural lycanthrope: damage reduction 10/silver (in animal or hybrid form only). It may be a special attack for naturals, because they can use it in that way, but it's a special quality possessed by all lycanthropes, natural or afflicted. And the fact that it cannot be "passed on" by afflciteds implies that it CAN be "passed on" by naturals - IE, they give afflicteds a quality that they already possess. The fact that contagion is a voluntary action. A cleric can choose not to cast a spell. A lycanthrope can choose not to bite, but if it bites, its bite carries the disease. A lycanthrope cannot choose to bite someone and not spread the disease. Carrying the disease is an inherent part of being a lycanthrope. The fact that according to at least one WotC suppliment, afflicted lycanthropes can produce natural lycanthropes as offspring. The fact that all lycanthropes share the same template and entry, unlike, say, vampires and vampire spawn. Natural and afflicted lycanthropes possess the same template which they simply acquire from different sources. They are the same creature, the afflicted just has less DR, less control, and can't spread the disease. But the MM makes absolutely clear that in the eyes of the designers (which you are of course welcome to disregard in your own campaign) their behavior is the same. If you say that the SRD overides the MM, good for you: what that means is that you're not actually playing Dungeons & Dragons, you're playing a generic rules system designed to be applied to any setting. There's a reason they SELL the MM instead of the SRD, you know. But this still comes back to the previous question: if you found a nest of ghouls, would you try to capture them and find a way to teach them to overcome their "always" alignment? If not, why do you expect the templar to do the same for the natural wererat? |
| Hellcow01-17-05, 01:29 PM | Some of the posters should look at the SRD and check out the differences between it and the MM. See what what important enouph to include for game designers and what could be cut out as fluff! I must agree with Indigo: this is the most backwards interpretation of the SRD I have seen. As a D20 writer, the point of the OGL is that it provides the bare bones that become public property for everyone. Anything mentioned in the MM but not in the SRD has not been stripped away because it's irrelevant; it's been stripped away because that leaves it as the unique intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast. The same is true of any gaming company. Look at the Penumbra work from Atlas Games: anything that has to do purely with game mechanics is OGL, because it has to be: it's using the D20 mechanics. But anything that is flavor is kept out of the OGL material, because that allows the company to hold onto it. The SRD gives you the bare bones of a game system. The MM is where the designers take those bare bones and put flesh on them, creating what they see as the world of Dungeons and Dragons. Ignore it or reinterpret it as you see fit: Dungeons & Dragons is all about storytelling and creating your own vision of the world. The Monster Manual says that orcs are savage beasts and red dragons are always evil, and we've changed both of these in Eberron. But that doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of the designers who created Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, red dragons are always evil: we intentionally changed the clear original intent of how these creatures are supposed to fit into the world. Working off the SRD gives you all the tools you need to create your own world, and if that world includes natural lycanthropes who have nothing in common with afflicted lycanthropes, you're the DM. But the Monster Manual is where the designer's vision of D&D is presented. If the designers felt that they had made a mistake in the MM, it would be addressed in errata, not by omission in the SRD: the omission of material in the SRD is their way of encouraging you to by the Monster Manual, so you can find out how all these creatures are supposed to act, what their cultures are like, etc. But this still comes back to the previous question: if you found a nest of ghouls, would you try to capture them and find a way to teach them to overcome their "always" alignment? If not, why do you expect the templar to do the same for the natural wererat? Well, there is that whole "undead" thing. But it is an interesting question, given that the ghoul is smarter and wiser than a normal human (who knew?). If the ghoul is so smart, why can't it learn the error of its ways? A logical answer is that it is incapable of change - that as an inherently magical creature, its personality is defined by the force that sustains its existence (the general idea that negative energy disposes a creature to evil) - and thus you can fight it without guilt. But in my mind, this is the same argument for the natural lycanthrope: that it's alignment is shaped by a magical force beyond its control, and that it may be just as difficult for it to resist these urges as for the ghoul to change. Frankly, I think it would be a noble thing for a paladin to capture a ghoul and try to redeem it. But if the paladin is fighting 100 ghouls, I'd expect him to protect the living first and worry about redeeming the undead second. Anyhow, I don't have time to get into this further. Obviously it's a complicated question that gets into the overall morality of adventuring - grave-robbing, killing intelligent creatures who might be redeemed, etc, etc. One of the main purposes of the Heirs of Dhakaan is to have PC dungeon-crawlers realize "Hey, this cool magic sword I got is actually this guy's ancestral heirloom and an important part of his cultural heritage - do I keep it so I can beat things up - in which case I'm a common grave robber - or restore it to its rightful owners?" There will be a Dragonshard about the purge in the future, so at least these issues will be settled in Eberron - though as always, I encourage you to do what you feel makes the best story in your campaign, regardless of the official word. |
| motorfirebox01-17-05, 01:35 PM | if a character with the Contagion (Su) power showed as many symptoms of the disease they're spreading as natural lycanthropes do with Curse of Lycanthropy (Su), then yes--i would say that the creature with the Contagion power is infected with the disease they're spreading. |
| Marshall Stone01-18-05, 02:10 AM | [QUOTE=Indigo]So stepping back from rules for a moment to go back to philosophy, a few thoughts. The MM states that evil lycanthropes take pleasure in spreading bloodshed and terror, and that natural lycanthropes are born with their alignment and that while it is possible for an individual to change alignment, these individuals are "either unique or rare exceptions." Unique means "the only one of its kind." So we aren't just talking one in a hundred; we're potentially talking one in thousands, the odds of a baby turning out to be an Einstein. Given this, at what point is a crusader justified in acting against a werewolf? Let's say a templar DOES find a litter of baby werewolves. They're evil already. Assuming that they possess the template - and again, there's no reason to assume they don't, if they are natural - they can already turn into li'l wolves and bite people, spreading the disease. And while the disease can be cured, that assumes you locate and identify the victim and get them to a 9th-level cleric, and how many people may these victims kill or infect before that happens? So, what SHOULD the templar do? In theory, it's just maybe possible that one of these li'l werewolves could turn out to be good. But the odds are about the same as finding a little demon and hoping IT might turn out to be good. We're not talking about societal pressures shaping these children: it's a supernatural effect madated by the template. Should the templar bring these children and raise them in the church, with muzzles and soft gloves on at all times to keep them from wolfing out and biting/clawing people, hoping one of them is that "unique" individual that ends up being good? What do you do with the others who remain evil throughout their lives, who will kill if they ever get the chance? At what age is it acceptable to say "Nope, this one's a failure" and give up - and bear in mind, it's going to take a lot of resources and brave people to raise this population of captive weres? What if we were talking about ghouls instead of werewolves? Just like a werewolf, a ghoul is "always chaotic evil." It's murderous by nature - but it has an intelligence of 13, higher that most humans (or werewolves), so it's not an animal. And it can turn others into ghouls. Technically, an "always" alignment means that it might still be possible for a ghoul to change alignments! So, is it morally wrong for a templar to kill a ghoul instead of bringing it back to the temple and trying to teach it the error of its ways? What if the GHOUL is a baby - which is to say, a baby killed by ghoul fever and reborn as a ghoul? Both ghoul and natural werewolf are always chaotic evil and delight in bloodshed. Main differences are that a werewolf can easily conceal its true nature, and that it is, well, alive. But while undead, the ghoul is a sentient and intelligent being (Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 12, compared to the listed werewolf's Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 8). Like the werewolf, it poses a threat to innocents and carries a dangerous disease. Why is the persection of werewolves more shocking and horrible than the persecution of ghouls? [QUOTE] Normally, in the real world, simply existing is no..fault. You can't just kill a person for what they are without being a murderer. That's like killing someone for being Black or Gay or what have you. You can however kill a person for committing certain actions, like Treason, or Murder, etc. And it wouldn't be murder to do so, it be justified. But what about in a fantasy game? Well in the game it's possible for a being to not have an independent will, they must act in a certain manner no matter what. Either because they're cursed, like a werewolf, or thier an abomination that draws "life" from an evil source, such as an undead, as well as various other possible reasons for having a limited will. Such a being is not a person with a free will and intellect and it would therefore not be any more wrong to kill them then it would be to slaughter a cow. But, a Werewolf, and presumably a Ghoul, CAN change their alignment. Which would seem to indicate that they do have a Free Will and Intellect. If so, then they are a person, and it would be wrong to simply kill/destroy them without giving them a chance to Not act on thier innate impluses. Similar to being an alcoholic but not taking a drink. So yeah, if you were a Lawful Good paladin and you came across a den of newborn natural werewolves, who have not yet committed any act worthy of death, then I'd say it be your duty to arrest them then kill them. In the case of the ghouls, well once they attack you, and you know they will, you can kill them. The one ghoul that doesn't attack you and who convinces you won't attack others without due cause, he's the one you don't kill. |
| elecgraystone01-21-05, 12:34 PM | OK #1 My point has been all along that I don't understand why lycanthropes are still "always" alignment when the eberron setting has flexable aligmnents. The rulebook tells you that you can find good vampires? And you seem hell bent on looking at the evil lycanthropes by saying lycanthropy turns you evil. Becoming an aflicted WEREWOLF and WERERAT turns you evil. #2 the SRD is for every D20 game. The MM isn't. MM info may or may not apply to a setting. The eberron setting changes the normal alignment rules and does not single out lycanthropes as an exception. I may have gone to far calling info in the MM and not the SRD "fluff", however it only 100% valid without a setting. Adding a setting adds only as much of the MM extra info as the design team adds. (or doesn't take away) The design team added "shades of gray" into alignments, and didn't re-add anything about lycanthropes. It's not so much "unique intellectual property" as hellcow said but setting dependent. (IE generic D20 game) If the races book singles out the lycanthropes as far as alignment fine! I'd love to see a section on them. (even just background info!) As far As I see it in eberron, we have: 1= SRD 2= all MM info not changed 3= setting changes to MM(alignments) Don't you think behavior might be influenced by alignment? You know, the stuff cut out of the MM for the SRD? to motorfirebox. I see nothing I say will change your mind so I'll not say anything else about it. Whatever makes you happy. I'll know I'm right, you'll know your right and everythings allright! A draw. |
| Gurv01-21-05, 12:57 PM | to motorfirebox. I see nothing I say will change your mind so I'll not say anything else about it. Whatever makes you happy. I'll know I'm right, you'll know your right and everythings allright! A draw. At least motorfirebox can rest easy knowing that the rest of us know he is right too. :P Anyway. The Eberron changes in the normal alignment rules do not apply to lycanthropes in Eberron. We know this, because the person whose name appears on the front of the ECS says so. You can do whatever you like in your own game. In fact, you can have all the points you have made thoughout the entire thread to back you up. The point here is that although your arguements for lycanthropes of any alignment are certainly possible, and make sense in many ways, they are simply not the case here. You can argue that the rules say they can be any alignment, and use that in your game. But regardless of what the rules may say, the lycanthropes in Eberron are an exception to those rules, with a very interesting backstory containing the reasons why. So, a clear case of an exception to the rules, backed by the creators. Ignore that exception or not. Your choice. |
| motorfirebox01-21-05, 01:11 PM | Eberron does not have flexible alignments. the only case where a monster in Eberron has a different alignment from what's listed in the MM is dragons, and that's specifically noted in the ECS. in every other case, monsters in Eberron have the same alignment as what's listed in the MM. the MM is a core book that applies to all D&D games unless specifically noted otherwise. |
| Euangelion01-21-05, 01:58 PM | Eberron does not have flexible alignments. the only case where a monster in Eberron has a different alignment from what's listed in the MM is dragons, and that's specifically noted in the ECS. in every other case, monsters in Eberron have the same alignment as what's listed in the MM. the MM is a core book that applies to all D&D games unless specifically noted otherwise. That's not quite what the ECS says on page 8 under Ten Things You Need To Know item #2: "Alignments are relative gauges of a character or creature's viewpoint, and not absolute barometers of affiliation and action; nothing is exactly as it seems. Alignments are blurred, so that it's possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire." It doesn't sound to me that alignment blurring only applies to dragons or vampires, just that they're used as examples. For example, it may be that blink dogs still are "usually lawful good" as per the MM, but what that means for an individual blink dog is a lot less clear in Eberron than D&D in general. |
| motorfirebox01-21-05, 03:18 PM | point. however, that's still not carte blanche to have any monster have any alignment you want; good vampires are the exception, not the rule. the exception might be more common in Eberron, but it's still the exception. (dragons, i'm 99% sure, are specifically noted as having alignments that vary from the MM.) |
| RaidingPartyGames09-07-05, 03:43 PM | Iz a qwestion of predestination. Lots of random points follow, most of them not relating to shiny weapons. - "Any" iz listed in template cuz the template doesn't change yer alignment... it makes it theoretically inevitable if you keep the template, but gaining template alone won't do it. In fact, az read, you could say you end up going wolfy or beary or piggy or whatever alignment shift and then fight (RAR!) yer way back to yer original alignment... while you'll have a strong compulsion otherwise, you might still have reasons to change. (Friends, former class, promises to keep, vengeance to be had...) - "Always" has a general write-off of 1 in 20, and I actually roll these for random encounters. Granted, iz intended to be very rare, a la player characterz or intrsting NPCz, but iz still doable. When the alignment shift takes hold for naturals, or how strongly it drives character, depends strongly in what kind of story you have. Since Eberron has such a strong influence of certain kinds of beingz existing solely as aspex of an idea, Hellabulloo said 'thropes are pulled very strongly towardz that behavior. - Killing a pack of werewolf cubz is just mean. Yeah, they're anklebiterz, but they're just so kyoot! Honestly, would you kill the next goblin barbarian you saw? - But really, redeeming the evil is one of the paramot... para... biggest things about good (and vice for evil. Not versa, just vice), partly cuz it's so hard. Paladinz won't make stupid sacrifices (trying to do subdual to undead), but the holiest of holy will do wyrd stuff like trying to make goodiez out of baddiez. Large parts depend on whether such can be redeemed, and if they know they can. And yes, you get into the whole noir thing of whether it's moral to kill this that or the other, and finding out later that you killed the only witness, and lots of blahdeblah handwringing. That's what truly heroic good iz like in a noir setting. Suddenly reminded of that earth story, The Cold Equation. -Cursez izn't alwayz horrible thingz, az demonstrated in "Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl". Get cool new powerz, and while the pirates hated their condition, it was all flavour and didn't have any "in-game" drawbacks. -And finally, there can also be celestial humanz, which stay as humanoids. Humanz plus celestial humanz probably eqwalz half-celestial humanz... with all the other halvz running around out there, it makes me think of 'thropes as their own race, albeit one that can be transmitted. Part of the fear associated with all the spooky monsterz (vamps, 'thropes, bitey zombiez, flesh golemz) iz the idea of how they propagate by changing humanz into something else. -I think I'm done now. Let me jes go take care of the werecub playpen... EDIT: Not quite done, also wanted to say that berserk came from "Bear Shirt"... someone mentioned them earlier in the discussion as shapechangers of sorts, and they did believe they took on the qualities of the animals they wore. Also stories about human wizards and witches using wolf skins or, more frightening, wolves wearing human skins. |