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 Id make the disease bypass the paladins 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.
Im not getting the distinction here. Whats 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:
-
Temporary bld damage.
-
Lose a blood ability.
-
Lose all blood abilities.
-
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 dont know what the stats for a monster thats
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
dont see a lot of people running around with the blood of Azrais 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
