Temptation and Corruption domains

[Patlin]

I wasn't intentionally ignoring the proposal... I commented earlier, and my position hasn't really changed. I've mostly returned because the proposal seems to be in limbo.

I really, really, really utterly despise effects that change a characters alignment. In my opinion, changing my characters alignment to evil would be a thousand times worse than killing the character. That's really my major reluctance with the proposal... what you see as an ability that does almost nothing and is just for flavor, I see as a complete gamekiller.

Here's an alternate suggestion. It's quite a bit different, but I'll throw it on the table in the spirit of compromise. It's still nasty, maybe even more so, but it doesn't completely change the personality of the target... which is even more cruel, if you think about it. All of the terrible remorse!

Granted Power: Curse of Corruption
The cleric's very touch can corrupt and warp anything around her that lacks a mind strong enough to resist. Once per day, she may expend a rebuke undead attempt to use her curse of corruption on any creature. If the victim fails a Will save DC 10 + 1/2 the cleric's class level + the cleric's Charisma modifier, it becomes subject to the curse. Once per day at a time chosen by the DM, the character is filled with an overwhelming urge to do evil. The presence of a vulnerable good or innocent creature will normally trigger the curse if it hasn't been previously triggered on that day. At such a time, the character is entitled to an additional saving throw at the original DC. If this saving throw is failed, the character acts in a viscous and malevolent manner -- an otherwise kindhearted person might drown a puppy, push a stranger off a ledge, or coup de grace a trusted friend whom he had been intending to heal. Like the bestow curse spell, the curse is permanent but can be removed by sufficiently powerfull magic. The curse bestowed by this power cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.

This ability may be used on 1 cubic foot per level of water or food instead, in which case the water becomes befouled and undrinkable and the food spoils and rots.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I really, really, really utterly despise effects that change a characters alignment. In my opinion, changing my characters alignment to evil would be a thousand times worse than killing the character. That's really my major reluctance with the proposal... what you see as an ability that does almost nothing and is just for flavor, I see as a complete gamekiller.

Hmm, I don't disagree with you in the vein of 'forcing your hand in telling you how to play your character', but I think you may be missing something--remember, this effect can never change your character's alignment. It is completely flavour because it cannot possibly affect you. It affects NPC babies. It is totally a background ability--the BBEG can't even target your PC with it; you aren't a valid target.

As to your proposal, I don't think it neuters the ability--in fact, it actually makes it more powerful. I don't care for the flavour though. It is evil, definitely, but very blatant.

Hmm---let me know if you missed that bit above!

 

[Patlin]

She may expend a rebuke undead attempt to use her corrupting touch on a docile animal, a baby, a young child (generally age 7 or younger, GM's discretion applies), or even a pregnant woman (in which case the touch affects the unborn child).

Well, I didn't entirely miss it. I guess I hadn't entirely understood it either, though. You're saying this cannot effect an adult human under any circumstances, regardless of how helpless, intoxicated, drugged etc. the person may be.

I suppose that does eliminate my main concern, but it's still quite a blow to the general concept of free will.

Looking back earlier in the thread, I see this:

It's a great evil thing, but when a good 80-90% of the population has no access to anything like this, over the course of 100 years, entire nations will be corupted.

...and I also note your comparison to a fire cleric and a village of Azers.

The fire cleric's turning power would only allow him to dominate a certain number of HD of creatures at any time, with others slipping the bonds if he dominated something new. How about a limitation along those lines, and/or the effect ending on the death of the corrupting cleric?

Makes a good adventure seed... "The Demon Children of Hampton Village: Who could be turning the children of this peacefull village feral and cruel? Join the adventure to find and destroy the source of the corruption!"

 

[Rystil Arden]

You're saying this cannot effect an adult human under any circumstances, regardless of how helpless, intoxicated, drugged etc. the person may be.

Yep. I suppose that if they were struck by something of a level of power with the Feeblemind spell that leaves you with no significant mind left (or the old 2nd-edition 7th-level Cleric spell Curse of Yondalla that turns you irreversibly into an infant), then maybe, but when you're Feebleminded, also being Evil doesn't make much of a difference and finding an Atonement should be child's play.

Makes a good adventure seed... "The Demon Children of Hampton Village: Who could be turning the children of this peacefull village feral and cruel? Join the adventure to find and destroy the source of the corruption!"

Exactly!--I wanted it to be a good adventure seed in exactly those lines! I'd say that since it is a much lesser effect than the domination (and remember that a Water Cleric in a village of Azers with decent Charisma could just destroy huge numbers of the Azers per day), the HD limit is probably unnecessary. However, having the 'killing-the-cleric-ends-the-effect' restriction is interesting and helps in that sort of adventure at low levels. Good thought!

 

[Patlin]

All right, with the stipulations that under no circumstances can the corruption domain power be used to change a PC's alignment and that the death of the Cleric reverses the corruption he has spread, I'll vote yes to the proposal. All of it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Stipulation added! That looks like three YES votes, so we should be good in 48 hours. Thanks for helping refine this Patlin!

 

[orsal]

These domains now officially exist in LEW. However, that doesn't mean that any god actually has them. I guess Espranachtis has the Corruption domain, because her text in the pantheon record says "(Corruption--if I make one)". I don't believe there are any deities with the Temptation domain, until we pass another proposal giving it to them. After all, giving a new domain to an existing deity amounts to amending a proposal already duly passed, and so should only be done by another proposal.

So -- what existing gods should have each of these domains? Temptation, for example, would be right up Amphousa's alley.

 

[Rystil Arden]

These domains now officially exist in LEW. However, that doesn't mean that any god actually has them. I guess Espranachtis has the Corruption domain, because her text in the pantheon record says "(Corruption--if I make one)". I don't believe there are any deities with the Temptation domain, until we pass another proposal giving it to them. After all, giving a new domain to an existing deity amounts to amending a proposal already duly passed, and so should only be done by another proposal.

So -- what existing gods should have each of these domains? Temptation, for example, would be right up Amphousa's alley.

Yeah, this changed between my musing in the other thread and the actual proposal. Amphousa should definitely have both domains. Disnomia also (she tempts through different means). Espra embodies corruption, darkness, and evil, so her too. Even Urdiga might want one of these.

 

[Knight Otu]

I've added the domains to the triumphirat of darkness, as that was the intention behind them. For any other deities, I feel that should be a proposal.

 

[Knight Otu]

Rystil, is the subschool for Taste of Evil supposed to be compulsion? I'd assume so, but it's saver to ask.