this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
882 points (98.7% liked)

RPGMemes

10322 readers
419 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 169 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Back in 3rd Edition D&D there was a spell called "Holy Word" that could kill non-good creatures within a 40 foot radius of the caster, if the caster was sufficiently high level relative to the creatures. Good creatures were completely unaffected.

When tightly packed you can fit about 2000 people into a 40-foot-radius circle (total area is 5000 square feet). So one casting can deal with the population of a good-sized town. My gaming group speculated for a while about a society where it was a routine ritual to round up all the peasantry and nuke them with Holy Word to keep the population clear of evil. Never incorporated it into any campaigns, though. It's a bit of a sticky philosophical puzzler.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is a weird one because despite being a "good" spell, it entails the mass murder of innocent neutrals. It really doesn't seem like a good action to me.

It seems like anyone who was okay with this would fall to neutral or evil simply by virtue of being okay with mass murder, and in turn fall victim to the Great Neutral Purge.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Indeed, hence the sticky philosophical puzzler. I would think that the clerics themselves would start getting affected by the spell. Fortunately (for them), the effect of the spell when cast on someone of the same level as yourself is only deafness for 1d4 rounds. The Church could probably cover that up.

There was another interesting related situation that came up in an actual campaign I was in, involving the Blasphemy spell (a variant that only kills non-evil targets). My party and I were in our "home base", a mansion belonging to an allied NPC noblewoman, planning out our next excursion. A powerful demon we'd been tangling with attempted to scry-and-fry us, teleporting in and nuking us with Blasphemy. Unfortunately there were a lot of low-level NPC staff working in the noblewoman's household and the spell wiped them out instantly... except for one guy, who happened to be of evil alignment. He survived the encounter because of that.

Even though his alignment was evil, though, he'd never done anything wrong and didn't seem like he had any reason to do anything wrong in the future. So we weren't sure if we should fire him or what. It wasn't illegal to simply be evil, you had to actually do something evil before you could be punished. We just warned him we'd be keeping an eye on him, in the end, and kept him on staff.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jerkface 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I feel like there might be interesting ways to deal with it. Perhaps the mass killing of neutrals only ever happened the first time, which could have been many generations ago and under singular circumstances. Since then, only the odd one here or there ever dies during the purge. Perhaps it's been decades or centuries since anyone died to the purge, reinforcing belief in it's effectiveness as a basis for a pure society. It may have been so long that people wonder whether the purge is even real, or just a traditional ceremony carried out annually based on old myths. Then one year, it wipes out half the city. The party investigates?

[–] Godnroc 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The ritual could have been real, but was quietly faked so that a corrupt leader could avoid facing their fate.

Or, the ritual was always fake but used as a cover to assassinate specific targets without consequences.

[–] Jerkface 7 points 1 year ago

Yes! And the ambiguity means the DM doesn't have to decide which it is until the players have deduced certain facts.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

whoever is casting that spell into a crowd of peasants will definitely turn evil

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What is being good except having self-imposed restrictions to avoid doing something evil? This spell seems perfect. There will rarely be a time where a good aligned character could justify using it in an overpowered way. If it were inverted then you would see evil characters using it all the time. It's a self-imposed balance. You have a very powerful tool, but you must avoid using unless absolutely necessary.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah, but there is an evil equivalent, Blasphemy. It affects non-evil creatures instead of non-good creatures, and as such has no self-balancing properties. There are even equivalents for Law and Chaos, which are... worryingly abstract.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only good? What about neutral alignment? (if that was a thing)

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Here's the SRD entry for the spell. It definitely nukes the neutrals.

The evil equivalent is Blasphemy, which nukes all non-evil creatures. Yes, the neutrals get it from both sides.

Then there's Word of Chaos and Dictum, the Law and Chaos equivalents of those Good/Evil spells. Neutrals, believe it or not, death!

Pick a side, you neutral scum!

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Good.

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I have a sunny disposition that’s balanced out with depression. True neutral.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

All I know, my gut says maybe.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] VindictiveJudge 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Here’s the SRD entry for the spell. It definitely nukes the neutrals.

Which is kind of horrifying because most of the population of any given setting is supposed to be neutral. The average commoner isn't so greatly committed to following airtight moral codes that they'll ping on a detect whatever spell, whether that's good, evil, law, or chaos. Cast that on a crowd of randoms and you've probably wiped out three quarters of them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It was a bit different back in the 3rd edition days, "good" and "evil" were slung around a bit more liberally. I believe it wasn't until the 5th edition when they introduced the "unaligned" state, which is sort of "neutral but without the commitment", and assumed most average folk were unaligned.

Presumably before the high cleric casts Holy Word there'd be a festival ahead of time in which people are given plenty of opportunity to donate to good causes (ie, the Church) to crank up their good meters before being "tested."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Tell my wife I said... hello

[–] PunnyName 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Upvoted purely for the Futurama reference.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another aspect of the puzzle is that not every evil deserves death. A bum who does minor theft almost as a habit, a hateful bitter man who antagonizes everyone but obeys the law, a teenager, a greedy business person who employs half the town but makes everyone's life a bit worse, and so on.

Good should have the self restraint to not go straight to murder.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I'd say "kill 'big' evil, stun 'normal' evil" would be a better spell.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 116 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The sword's power changes with time, and as it racks up more kills. Soon, it gains a +1 to attack and damage. Then, it can become wreathed in flame as a bonus action. Then, it grants advantage to checks made to locate creatures. Then, its base power inverts and it can only kill non-evil creatures.

Do not tell the player about that last one. Insist to the player that it works exactly as you first described. The Paladin can kill innocent shopkeepers and little old ladies, but cannot kill this assassin working for the BBEG.

Will he question his own stab-first ask-later methods? Or will he turn evil without even noticing?

[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I personally hate this kind of twist. If you need to actively lie to your player, not just mislead with some clever wordplay, it always feels like you’re breaking trust.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Why explain it in meta, instead of the old trustworthy totally-not-a-witch saying it only affects evil?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tenchi 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also hate this kind of twist. There better be a great lore reason for this because it's a huge fuck your playstyle meta reason to do this.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The playstyle is stabbing random townsfolk on the off chance you kill a bad guy. Fuck that playstyle.

And for a lore reason, just have the sword be influenced by the morality of the wielder's actions. Stabbing random townsfolk is evil. The sword turns evil.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

If I were doing this, I wouldn't describe the effects exactly (except the +1). I would just tell them it misses every time they attack a non-evil character first, and describe it being wreathed in flames. Then for the swap just tell them who it misses or hits still, but they have to figure out both times what the effect is (or that it changed).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes perfect sense. The paladin found the exploit.

[–] learningduck 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Without lawyers, the kingdom was unable to resolve disputes and fell into chaos.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Although the number of disputes did fall pretty dramatically too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkybreakerEngineer 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, the sword kept nagging him.

"You should draw me, i bet that guy's really evil" OKAY FINE SWORD-NIMI YOU CAN EAT THAT OLD MAN

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Oh hi Nightblood. Where did Vasher go now?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Now throw him a good character with some magic immunity that negates the effect of the weapon.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean, that sounds very much like a paladin in unapologetic violation of one or more of their oaths.

[–] xkforce 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean... theyre not harming anything good so not really?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ajmaxwell 17 points 1 year ago

I could see a Vengeance Paladin justifying through divine will or whatever

[–] Omnificer 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yea, blatant murder and assault isn't justifiable to most good deities or codes of ethics, even if the target pings as evil. "Oh this shopkeeper is evil? Guess he dies."

At the least, it's highly illegal most places, so even if there aren't divine consequences there'd certainly be social ones.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Have him stab the mayor who's evil because he's greedy and selfish and borderline abusive in trade-deals with neighboring regions but is otherwise beloved (and has rewards heaped on him) because he's so good at actually keeping order in the town and keeping their goodwill (although probably at least a little bit through some passive-aggressive blackmail). That's always fun.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If one were to base their diet around moral responsibility, would eating only what the blade can cut be reasonable? Can it cut vegetables? Can animals be evil? Would training a cow to be evil in order to avoid starvation be morally justifiable?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Training a creature to be evil so you can kill it is definitely evil.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A paladin whose diet consists of roast demonflesh. Hm.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Make an evil dude who's just immune to stab wounds. Problem solved.

[–] GrammatonCleric 9 points 1 year ago

Can't find out without fucking around 😉

load more comments
view more: next ›