Results 11 to 20 of 36
Thread: Birthright Diseases
-
12-01-2004, 11:41 PM #11
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
This whole divine disease concept just doesn’t set well with me. Scions have a portion of divinity imbued in them. I don’t see why they should be more susceptible to diseases than non-scions. At its simplest scions are semi-divine and those with higher strength being closer to “true divinity”, i.e., true bloodlines are 1 step removed since their formation was real close to how the “new” gods were formed.
Divine beings don’t get sick, they may cause sickness but they don’t get sick.
I can see a logic path for mere mortals rejecting divinity – but this isn’t a disease it more closely resembles an insanity or physical condition (e.g., manifestation of physical/mental problems). As an example I have Type 1 diabetes. This is an auto-immune system condition. I have physical effects due to this, e.g., frequent urination, requirement to take insulin, more susceptible to illness, etc. But it is not a disease.
A similar comparison to scions and their semi-divinity is elves and half-elves. Half-elves share the aspects of elvinity – that is they count as elven for things that matter (e.g., favored enemy, bane effects, etc.). They are not lesser than they were, they are lesser than a full elf.
Specifics:
Should some saving throws be a Wil save instead? For instance the wound corruption one might fit better as a Wil save.
What about the paladins divine health ability does it keep him immune to these diseases, since unlike his ability to remove diseases it specifically affects all types of diseases?
Is the saving throw modified by bloodline strength or score?
For effects that cause a loss of blood abilities it would be more accurate to state that the scion loses the ability to access his blood abilities due to the effects of the disease. Maybe a penalty to access them or something to reflect this instead might fit better mechanically.
Blood Delirium – this just doesn’t make sense to me. Why are scions more susceptible than non-scions? I can see how a non-scion could be affected due to their lack of a bloodline.
Bright Pox – I can see the logic here. Scions are affected differently.
Crimson eye – Only affects scions?
Echo Madness – I don’t understand the connection between the effects of this disease and how a regent loses the ability to spend RP and can lose all accumulated RP. I mean the main underlying effect is deafness and ringing in the ears how does that correlate to the RP effect?
Heartfire – understand the concept of scion rejecting bloodline. But this is not a real disease, more of a reaction issue. Probably best covered by any check made at bloodtheft, similar to checking to see if derivation is changed.
Ice blood – Why would the underlying effect cause the loss of blood abilities?
Ichor Leeches – not a disease. This is a monster and belongs there not as a disease.
King’s lung – Doesn’t affect non-scions but causes a scion to suffer Con damage and bloodline score loss? Back to the issue I have with scions being more susceptible to disease than non-scions. I agree that the effects can be different, but they shouldn’t be more susceptible.
Night fever – see comment on loss of access to blood abilities vice loss of abilities.
Red fever – no comment except the one on why are scions more susceptible than non-scions. Better, IMO to have scions suffer something like this when they are affected by a disease regardless of the cause. What I mean is a list of additional effects that scions have when sick rather than a set of diseases that only affect them.
Shadowsickness – Make halflings and other creatures native to the shadow world. Technically a halfling is a native to the shadow world who has moved. I’d also add those with elven blood being immune to reflect the tie to the Sie in their history.
Wound corruption – this is more like a poison than a disease. Doesn’t belong in the same category. I agree with the other comments that this parallels other mechanics that change bloodline derivation and is not really worthy of its own treatment. What I mean is that adding this cheapens the effects of those other methods.Duane Eggert
-
12-02-2004, 10:20 PM #12
At 12:41 AM 12/2/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:
>Scions have a portion of divinity imbued in them. I don’t see why they
>should be more susceptible to diseases than non-scions. At its simplest
>scions are semi-divine and those with higher strength being closer to
>“true divinity”, i.e., true bloodlines are 1 step removed since their
>formation was real close to how the “new” gods were formed.Divine beings
>don’t get sick, they may cause sickness but they don’t get sick.I can see
>a logic path for mere mortals rejecting divinity * but this isn’t a
>disease it more closely resembles an insanity or physical condition (e.g.,
>manifestation of physical/mental problems). As an example I have Type 1
>diabetes. This is an auto-immune system condition. I have physical
>effects due to this, e.g., frequent urination, requirement to take
>insulin, more susceptible to illness, etc. But it is not a disease.A
>similar comparison to scions and their semi-divinity is elves and
>half-elves. Half-elves share the aspects of elvinity * that is they count
>as elven for things that matter (e.g., favored enemy, bane effects, etc.).
>They are not lesser than they were, they are lesser than a full elf.
Scions should not necessarily be more susceptible to disease. The above
document, however, focuses on scion-based diseases, and how they affect
them. There should probably be a set of general Birthright diseases
(actually there should be more general D&D diseases rather than the rather
paltry set included in the DMG) but for the scope of this project is only
upon particular types of diseases that scions are vulnerable to alone or
that have additional effects on them. In the scope of a Birthright
campaign in which the PCs are often scions a focus on the diseases that
affect those characters is the focus.
I could give you several justifications for allowing bloodline based
disease, but the short answer is simply the one you present above viewed
from the other side of the equation. Scions are mortals who have a portion
of the divine. That divine power is valuable, but because they are
fundamentally mortal there are some drawbacks. Scions are not immune to
disease and their mortal bodies provide an opening for pathogens which the
gods may or may not be vulnerable. The mortality of scions gives the
pathogens a way into the scions` bodies, and once there the effects of
their divine connection makes for a different or additional set of
symptoms. More and more people are finding that the effects of diseases
and drugs on humans based on things like age and gender are more profound
than has been assumed in the health care industry. This could be viewed as
the Birthright specific version of that.
Cerilian elves and half-elves are only immune to natural, non-magical
disease, so in the case of several of the diseases I`d argue that they
could become ill, but I`d reserve that for a case by case basis. This
relates a bit to the issue of paladins` susceptibility (below) since the
elven version is actually less powerful than that of paladins.
When it comes to the technical definition of "disease" for the purpose of
BR, D&D or just in general, I think we can go with a broad one. For all
intents and purposes it really is the game mechanic that we`re talking
about here. Diabetes would probably be better portrayed in some other
method if one were going to do so in D20, since that was the example, but
it is a disease in the common vernacular. Game mechanically, it`d be
better as a sort of disadvantage rather than using the disease
mechanic. When it comes to portraying comparable things in BR, for
instance, there have been lots of discussion on various methods on various
things ranging from particular forms of insanity to different ways of
portraying awnsheghlien--which one could argue is a kind of magical
disorder. Lycanthropy, for instance, has its own rather extensive game
mechanical portrayal. The diseases (or infections) described in this
system just go better with the DMG`s disease mechanic than using some other
function.
I`m not overly-worried about the "disease" label. If the "Disease" section
of the DMG were renamed "Infections" it might be more palatable to the
semantically inclined, and I`d suggest that "infections" is a bit more
accurate to describe both this document and pp 292-3 of the DMG. Mummy
rot, for example, would not appear to really be a disease in the sense that
most people conceive of the term, and several others described in that
section are similarly defined in a way that is very vague.
>Specifics:Should some saving throws be a Wil save instead? For instance
>the wound corruption one might fit better asa Wil save.
I could see that argument. For wound corruption, however, I`d prefer to
stick with the standard saving throw (fortitude) since that is the mechanic
used for both poisons and diseases, so wound corruption should probably
stay a fortitude save. For nightfever I could see using a will save, but
it could go either way. Shadowsickness is probably the best candidate for
a will save.
>What about the paladins divine health ability does it keep him immune to
>these diseases, since unlike his ability to remove diseases it
>specifically affects all types of diseases?
Interesting. I`d again have to make this on a disease by disease
basis. As you note, several of the diseases aren`t really diseases per se,
so in a few cases I`d make the disease bypass the paladin`s divine
grace. As a general rule, I`d suggest that if it cannot be cured by Remove
Disease then it bypasses divine grace.
>Is the saving throw modified by bloodline strength or score?
It`s a standard save. One could make an argument that bloodline might
provide a defense, or one could argue that a stronger bloodline would be
_more_ vulnerable to a few of the diseases, so on the whole it`s easier to
just let it work per the normal saving throw rules.
>For effects that cause a loss of blood abilities it would be more accurate
>to state that the scion loses the ability to access his blood abilities
>due to the effects of the disease. Maybe a penalty to access them or
>something to reflect this instead might fit better mechanically.
I`m not getting the distinction here. What`s more accurate about saying
they lose the ability to access his blood abilities due to the effects of
the disease as opposed to saying "may lose a blood ability for the duration
of the infection if he does not make a DC15 fortitude save upon contracting
the disease" or "All blood abilities of infected scions are temporarily
lost until the disease has been cured or run its course"?
As for having a penalty to access them rather than losing them while
infected, there`s already a set of saving throws inherit to the system to
simply avoid the disease entirely, so having saving throws to avoid
penalties to access seems a bit convoluted.
>Blood Delirium * this just doesn’t make sense to me. Why are scions more
>susceptible than non-scions? I can see how a non-scion could be affected
>due to their lack of a bloodline.
It could be used for either scions or commoners if one wanted to have a
general disease effect, but since the effort is in describing diseases that
effect scions that one is just an example of a disease that effects ONLY
scions.
>Crimson eye * Only affects scions?
It affects both scions and commoners--commoners just don`t have bloodline
score to lose when the disease is done. I should probably include a little
text in that description noting that--or better yet put something in the
introduction that says all the diseases affect both commoners and scions
except as noted in the descriptions.
>Echo Madness * I don’t understand the connection between the effects of
>this disease and how a regent loses the ability to spend RP and can lose
>all accumulated RP. I mean the main underlying effect is deafness and
>ringing in the ears how does that correlate to the RP effect?
It`s kind of a pun of the kind that is fairly rampant in the magical
effects of D&D--mostly in regards to spell components. In this case,
orders and information given to the regent "falls upon deaf ears" thus
inhibiting his ability to act as regent. By and large the disease is just
a justification for the game mechanic--it could be used for some other type
of condition--but I found that interpretation amusing.
>Heartfire * understand the concept of scion rejecting bloodline. But this
>is not a real disease, more of a reaction issue. Probably best covered by
>any check made at bloodtheft, similar to checking to see if derivation is
>changed.
Since the game mechanic is pretty much connected to the disease game
mechanic I`d prefer to keep it in with the diseases, but there should be a
note in a bloodtheft text (if one were to incorporate the document into a
larger project) referencing the disease.
>Ice blood * Why would the underlying effect cause the loss of blood abilities?
It`s another pun. The effect of a blooded character who "froze his blood"
or whose "blood runs cold" being the inspiration. What I did was
brainstorm a list of possible game effects like this:
1. Temporary bld damage.
2. Lose a blood ability.
3. Lose all blood abilities.
4. Disease that effects only scions.
Etc.
Then came up with disease descriptions that fit those game mechanics. In
the case of #2 and #3 they became, along with other standard disease
effects, iceblood and nightfever. I`m not really all that worried about
the exact pathology if that`s what you mean in asking why the underlying
effect would cause the loss of a blood ability. Though I did try to have a
thematic connection with their game mechanics, the disease descriptions are
role-playing effects. Why does the DMG`s "blinding sickness" cause Str
damage to accompany the blinding possibility, or cackle fever cause
shrieking wisdom damage?
>Ichor Leeches * not a disease. This is a monster and belongs there not as
>a disease.
I honestly think it`s better off in a list of disease descriptions rather
than a monster write up. For one thing, the size category of a blood
parasite would be something smaller than "fine" which means we`d have to
delve into one of the D20 super hero system. Nobody is going to take a
sword to ichor leeches. I don`t know what the stats for a monster that`s
no bigger (at most) than a flea might be.... If someone wants to take a
stab at it, however, I`d be interested to read it.
>King’s lung * Doesn’t affect non-scions but causes a scion to suffer Con
>damage and bloodline score loss? Back to the issue I have with scions
>being more susceptible to disease than non-scions. I agree that the
>effects can be different, but they shouldn’t be more susceptible.
Both scions and commoners are susceptible. Scions lose bloodline score
points in addition to the con damage (per the disease description.)
>Red fever * no comment except the one on why are scions more susceptible
>than non-scions. Better, IMO to have scions suffer something like this
>when they are affected by a disease regardless of the cause. What I mean
>is a list of additional effects that scions have when sick rather than a
>set of diseases that only affect them.
Though there are a couple of diseases that effect only scions, most of the
diseases do effect both scions and commoners with additional effects on scions.
>Shadowsickness * Make halflings and other creatures native to the shadow
>world. Technically a halfling is a native to the shadow world who has
>moved. I’d also add those with elven blood being immune to reflect the
>tie to the Sie in their history.
The elven blood issue makes some sense, though I could go either way on
it. The Sidhe did, after all, choose the world of light rather than the SW.
>Wound corruption * this is more like a poison than a disease. Doesn’t
>belong in the same category. I agree with the other comments that this
>parallels other mechanics that change bloodline derivation and is not
>really worthy of its own treatment. What I mean is that adding this
>cheapens the effects of those other methods.
Just to reiterate: If the poison game mechanic worked to replicate this
kind of effect then I`d be happy to use it and categorize it appropriately,
but two saves to avoid potential primary and secondary damage just doesn`t
do the trick, so I can`t include it in a list of "Birthright Poisons"
instead. In this case the situation really needs to be able to function
for days on a more or less indefinite basis, so putting it in a poison text
would require recreating the game mechanic used for diseases in that
document which seems like a waste of time, space and effort.
As for wound corruption cheapening the effect of the other methods of
changing bloodline derivation, I don`t know what to tell you other than I
don`t think it really does that, and that existing methods of bloodline
derivation changing are not so unique and inviolate that they need be
protected from being cheapened. Aside from the fact that I really just
don`t see a lot of people running around with the blood of Azrai`s scions
in such quantities that it would be a major issue, I`d argue that it could
be used to explain the origins of several awnsheghlien whose corruption is
otherwise not supported by the rules. The idea does definitely need a
little fleshing out (per the previous posts) but there are plenty of things
in the original materials that imply at this kind of thing.
Gary
-
12-03-2004, 07:40 AM #13
Gary, once again you have presented fine piece of INNOVATIVE work. This is exactly what keeps me hooked to this game. Keep up the good work - and I`d love to see some poison-type effects for scions in the future.
Cheers
B
Cheers
Bjørn
-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------
-
12-03-2004, 09:40 AM #14
At 08:14 AM 12/3/2004 +0100, Bjørn wrote:
>Gary, once again you have presented fine piece of INNOVATIVE work. This is
>exactly what keeps me hooked to this game. Keep up the good work - and I`d
>love to see some poison-type effects for scions in the future.
Thanks and Oh, man, I have to write a BR specific poison doc now?!? :)
Gary
-
12-03-2004, 11:45 AM #15
Regarding the commoner-to-azrai blooded disease.
You are probably right, but you might consider INT dropping too or instead - lots of Awnsegh seem to have lost their intelligence as they gained physical power.
Rabies is pretty good comparison, you can go for all the hydrophobia and foaming at the mouth stuff.
I think what makes an idea like this good is that its flavour, and background is what I play BR for, not mechanics. If you had to have a rationale for diseases that acted on scions, just consider that if a chair can become blooded (and according to the rules it can be), what's to stop bacteria/parasites from becoming blooded? And once they became blooded, as living creatures they would be bound to gain some strange blood abilities eventually. Look a bloodhounds, for instance.
For some more ideas on diseases/blood disadvantages;
A disease that slowly breaks down Blood points into RP (nasty!
A disease that makes the scion think they are the god that contributed their Bloodline (the fragment of blood inside sort of "awakens" with a half-memory of what it once was and tries to exert control.) This could be quite a nice ongoing effect, as the regent argues with himself, and keeps declaring he is a god in public. The Will DC for the Scion could be equal to the DC of their typical Blood effect.
A shadow disease that makes a scion sufferer's shadow into a mini-gateway to the shadow-realm. Every now and again something slips out...
A disease that does no harm to the scion, but attempts to suck RP/Bloodline out of anyone they touch.
A disease that makes the regent sterile for the purposes of passing on bloodline. They can still have children, but those children will be born commoners, or their bloodline severely weakened."As soon as war is declared, it will be impossible to hold the poets back. Rhyme is still the most effective drum."
-
12-04-2004, 08:30 AM #16
In the interest of coming up with a more complete document does anyone have
ideas for Birthright specific diseases that aren`t related to
bloodline? That is, ones having to do with more "typic" things based on
the campaign itself? There are one or two examples in the above document
that are not really bloodline related. Shadowsickness, for instance, is
not really a bloodline-based disease in any way, and technically, blood
delirium could be made unrelated to bloodline entirely. (As conceived it
is a kind of bloodline version of rabies that only effects scions. At
least, that was the idea.)
One that needs to get included is Azrai`s Gift from the LotHK adventure
"The Gift of Azrai" and that`ll be in the next version of the document
along with a few of the ideas expressed so far in this thread.
Gary
-
12-06-2004, 12:58 PM #17
OK, folks, here's an updated version of the previous document incorporating a few new diseases and some clarification of the concepts originally presented based on the discussion that's taken place here. Thanks to all for the insightful commentary.
Just for fun I included some formatting and graphics in this PDF that is reminescent of the original BR materials. It's a bit much for a little 3-4 page document, but I just couldn't resist... and I was having some trouble making the table fit nicely in a columned format without putting it on the back cover a la the original BR texts.
Enjoy!
Gary
-
12-07-2004, 12:42 AM #18
Nice work, very impressive all round.
Let me claim your Birthright!!
-
12-13-2004, 10:20 AM #19
At 01:42 AM 12/7/2004 +0100, Raesene Andu wrote:
> Nice work, very impressive all round.
Thanks, glad you liked it. How about that Vinnie Van Gogh, huh? Gotta
love the use of one of the world`s greatest masters to the background of a
fan-produced supplements to an OOP campaign setting.... It`s enough to
make one lop off an ear.
OK, to continue on in a slightly related note, Bjeorn commented about a
poison document to which I replied with a little irony, but after a little
thought dang it if I didn`t sit down and start to work on just such a
piece. Two things occur to me on the subject, which is why I bring it up
in this thread:
Like the "Diseases" section of the DMG the concept of poisons could run
into a similar problem with classification. That is, the game mechanic
itself really has little or nothing to do with the concept as a whole. An
ongoing effect simply needs to have some sort of mechanic associated with
it that is going to last for days and the primary and secondary damage
effects of the standard poison game mechanic just doesn`t do the trick for
several of the described effects. In a like manner, some of the effects
that I`m going to be fiddling around with aren`t technically poisons in the
sense that they are in described in the DMG. Now, this is not the kind of
thing that has ever really worried me and I think people sometimes put too
much significance into the semantics of the terms used to describe various
rules in the game. I don`t mean to engage in that particular debate--I`m
just mentioning it to let people know that I`m aware of the concept and the
objections and will give the concerns of those who hold such opinions what
I consider their due consideration. That is, none. ;->
That said, I think the direction this is going to go is more along the
lines of "Birthright Drugs & Poisons." For those with access to the Book
of Vile Darkness, the drugs in that system use the same basic mechanic as
poisons, so the concept isn`t really a leap.
On the whole, however, what I`m looking to do are things like both
recreational and medicinal drugs, poisons that are the kinds of things that
might be employed by the aristocracy or in various intrigues, and anything
else that makes sense to have a primary and secondary damage mechanic. I`m
planning to write the document up much like this diseases document, with a
descriptive text for each poison/drug/whatever to accompany the standard
table. For instance, Black Lotus Pollen was a drug I mentioned in an
awnshegh description (the Imp of Adaba) a while back. That`s going to need
a write up. I`m picturing it being something like opium in effect, though
inhaled more like cocaine.
Anyone care to brainstorm a few drugs and poisons that might be appropriate
to the BR setting, particularly how the issue might effect bloodline,
awnsheghlien or the cultures of Cerilia?
Gary
-
12-13-2004, 02:55 PM #20
I've got an idea for one. I haven't read any of the novels, or much on the elves of BR, so it might already have an equivalent.
Caer-Root
A tuber that grows only in Caerbhaiglien sites. Elves occasionally chew it to receive visions. The effect is dicey - sometimes pointless hallucinations, other times violent illness. If it works properly, the land "speaks" to the person taking the drug - this is like a province-wide version of the Commune with Nature spell. It also allows the character to make Knowledge checks with a +5 modifier for any facts pertaining to the province, and to check as if the appropriate Knowledge was an untrained skill. This bonus lasts for 1 hour after awakening from the Caer-root trance.
At the GM's option, it may also allow the land to communicate with the character in a more meaningful fashion.
While in the grip of the drug, the character is insensible and helpless.
Fort save DC 17
Initial: 1d6 CON damage and Nauseated for 1d4 hours
Secondary: 1d6 WIS damage, unconscious for 1d4 hours
In order for the drug to be effective, the character must pass the first save (if they don't, they just vomit the root back up) then deliberately fail the second save. If they choose to resist the secondary effects, they gain no benefit from the Caer-root."As soon as war is declared, it will be impossible to hold the poets back. Rhyme is still the most effective drum."
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks