Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Shadow World => Topic started by: Hurin on February 27, 2021, 11:40:15 AM
-
So, I'm starting a new campaign in Shadow World and one of my players wants to use some of the Evil spell lists. This actually works well with the overarching plot of the game, so although the Evil lists can be very powerful, I want to try to figure out a way to balance his use of these lists. (I'm playing RMU by the way).
I've already said that he won't have access to all the Evil lists -- he's probably only going to have access to one or two, and will have to find teachers or scrolls for any further ones.
I remember some old ways of dealing with this, but they seem a bit impractical. I think there was one that you have separate PP for Evil lists, and the more you use them, the more you are dominated by the Unlife. That's cool as a general principle, but in practice... how do I make this work? I want him to realize that using these lists is slowly selling his soul... but also to learn, through the use of them, how horrific the Unlife is. So I want him to be able to use them occasionally, but with some sort of negative consequence that gradually reveals the nature of the Unlife.
Any thoughts?
-
Shadow world magic is visible and colour coded IIRC. Use of evil spell lists would be obvious to any observers, severely limiting their use (don’t let him learn Darkness).
I have been toying with the idea of an evil essence user recently but the RMU lists are quite potent so I think I will use the concept for a BBEG rather than a PC. Which lists are you thinking of allowing him to have?
-
Hurin:
1. Are you differentiating between evil lists that might be available via the Dark Gods of Charon and evil lists that come from the Unlife?
2. Another issue that has been raised in the past, how does the player continue with the PC when they lose any agency as a servant of the Unlife?
-
Which lists are you thinking of allowing him to have?
Evil Channeling: Wounding is the main one so far. He is playing a Druid who is fascinated by healing but also its opposite, kind of like Maester Qyburn in Game of Thrones, if that means anything to you.
The thing is: some of those Evil lists are not that much more powerful than normal lists. So I think this could work, so long as I control which specific lists he gets access to.
-
Hurin:
1. Are you differentiating between evil lists that might be available via the Dark Gods of Charon and evil lists that come from the Unlife?
Hmmm... I hadn't really thought of that. It might be a useful distinction if it allows this to work. But see next question's answer below:
2. Another issue that has been raised in the past, how does the player continue with the PC when they lose any agency as a servant of the Unlife?
Well, that's the whole issue. The previous mechanics seem to be all-or-nothing. You get these great new powers with their own pool of powerpoints, and use them until one day you essentially lose total control of your character, and that's it.
I'm hoping for a more granular option, where he suffers some more moderate penalties/drawbacks/downsides to using these spell lists right from the start. So the idea is he will be able to use them but at a balanced cost.
So maybe something like, he starts being partially affected by spells that detect/target/harm undead. Or he suffers constitution loss until he can get to a shrine or be blessed. Something specifically tied to how many powerpoints he's spending on his Evil spells would be especially good.
-
Well, the simpler route is just to have him get evil spells via a dark god. he/she will eventually "owe" the god allegiance, but you don't have the character being completely subsumed by the unlife
-
Well, the simpler route is just to have him get evil spells via a dark god. he/she will eventually "owe" the god allegiance, but you don't have the character being completely subsumed by the unlife
That's a pretty good idea. That might work.
I still would like to hash out a system for Evil lists tied to the Unlife if possible. I am thinking that maybe casting Evil spells cost hits equal to the level of the spell, to represent the toll the Evil takes on the life force of creatures.
Then I guess maybe once they reach thresholds -- say 100 hp lost (100 levels of Unlife spells), then 500 hp, etc. -- some special event would take place to show that there will be a greater cost... I'm just not sure what form that even could take.
-
I did a search(es) (that were not that helpful) as I remember this same question being asked about the Druid, Evil Spell Lists and Wounding Spell List but did not get the results that I remember discussing in various forums (RM all, General and RMU).
From past discussions:
Note: I know nothing about RMU: JDE so I cannot comment on those issues.
1) Evil Spell lists are more then just different spell lists and the various mechanisms in game (RM any) are really not for players. There are some rules spread out in various books and you need to do a deep dive in the books as info in often hidden in sections that are not titled appropriately.
2) I do not remember where the rule was but there was a rule that stated Healers could learn 3 versions of their base lists, ones printed in book, ones that affected others and ones that did the opposite of healing (ie damage).
3) The issue I and other have pointed out in the past is what does the divine being or other entity, think or do to give you the power and what effect does that have on the PC and you game.
My Past Experiences with Evil Spell lists and players:
I general I have played in games and allowed players to use evil spell lists at one time or another, and in general the outcome has been received poorly by the rest of the group.
The games have been with the same and different groups as well as having talked to others who have used evil spell list in their game.
In general in RM 1-2-C, RMSS/FRP it is best to either have an all evil group or no evil group.
In the past Druid notes:
1) I remember someone saying they thought the Druid lists were weak for their group and wanted a more damaging list. I remember that others and I recommended testing just swapping spell lists and/or using a spell list and just making it weaker then the other list, ie an evil spell at rank 2 would be at rank 3-5 for non evil (note in general depending on power of spell in question and vs other spells in the game).
MDC
MDC
-
Thanks for the perspective Mark.
I've made RMU versions of some old lists (Druidstaff, Insect Mastery, and Stone Mastery) precisely to provide the RMU Druid with some offensive punch. So that's not a problem. But he does still want to use an evil list or two, since it fits with his character concept, and in fact it really fits well into the plot of the campaign, so I'm going to try to make it work.
In regards to the general idea, I am leaning towards this: Casting an Evil spell will cost hit points in addition to power points. These hit points can be healed normally, but once the caster gets to certain thresholds of use (say 100 used, or equivalent of all his PP used), the hit points will stop healing, and the caster will have to go to a Cleric to get a Heal Life Essence spell cast on him.
-
Hits and PP for spells and abilities:
I think if you look at Star Wars D6 they used a rule like this and there was lots of comments about it.
The Life Essence may or may not be a big deal in the game. How easy is it to attain? Are their any social, magical and or other consequences? Can it happen more then once? Why can it happen at all?
In general when is he/she/they going to cast the evil spells?
Why, is this important?
People are going to notice as they effects are different, the spell casting hand, verbal and body motions generally are different from the normal Druids base lists.
How do they explain that they have a non evil list that is giving the same effects as a evil list?
>It is not just you do 1d10 damage and that is fine, spell effects generally have some visual and or magical residue associated with them and even if a spell does 1d10 from another list the reason is different. (examples; wounding d10: cut and or gash, fire d10 burn redness blistering, frost d10: burn, chill, etc) the damage is the same but how it is done and what it looks like is different.
So in general in most RM games I have played in and talked to others about, you have to disguise evil spell list casting and effects in some way. Also even things you might consider good effects such as healing come with hidden evil effects (corruption, soul damage, alignment shifts, reduced effects of good spells, etc)
There are some rules in The Shades of Darkness, IIRC that deals with some stuff like this but from memory I thought they needed more detail added to them.
The first time I remember this question was about a year after I heard the term "special snowflake" being thrown around a lot for a type of PC and or player who likes certain PC types and the issues that this can cause in games.
I see also that you adapted Druid Staff (RM2) and the other list I think I thought might be applicable was the Wyrd Bow from the GuildCompanion.com.
I do not remember but is the Druid a Channeling caster? If so why does their deity/power still provide spells?
MDC
-
I see also that you adapted Druid Staff (RM2) and the other list I think I thought might be applicable was the Wyrd Bow from the GuildCompanion.com.
Yep, I've adapted both of them.
I do not remember but is the Druid a Channeling caster? If so why does their deity/power still provide spells?
Yes, Druid is a Channeling caster.
Good question about the deity. I've always seen Druids more as worshipping nature rather than a big guy with a beard, and nature can be brutally indifferent... but the Unlife is inherently unnatural, true.
-
As I said I do not know RMU: JDE but...
It has been described in past editions of core rules that the list provides the mechanics and or frame work needed to cast the spell. So if a spell is on two different lists they are cast differently but the effects are the same.
If you are playing RM where their is little to no difference in the realms or if the base list idea is different in RMU: JDE then their maybe no difference and it may be tough to tell one wound from another.
But in general if a game is designed this way I have tended to see long term issues with play. Even if players ignore the information about the differences (in general) the designers not dealing with it in the design phase tends to affect other aspects of the system.
Where I have seen it not be as much an issue is in games that last 1-24 months (playing every week or two on average), longer then this I have seen the general lack of interest by players unless players have no issues having no control over their PCs. ie they have the illusion that they have control and options but they do not and are fine with that in their game.
MDC
-
Without looking up the details in RMSS, you can accumulate corruption points. When you encounter a sufficiently powerful evil entity, the percent chance you will be controlled by that entity is your number of corruption points. So a little corruption creates a small chance you will be controlled. Control might not be 100%, it might be that the PC sees that NPC as a friend and ally, like Charm Kind. Perhaps that entity's statements are treated as Suggestions as well. So you have a character that is increasingly at risk of being influenced by darkness, but not someone who simply flips over and becomes an evil NPC (which is not that interesting for the player).
You could also take that number of corruption points as the percent chance that the character will misinterpret good characters. Maybe if those rolls are failed, you describe the goodly character as looking at them and scowling, giving bad advice that is obviously malicious, etc. Twist their impressions of situations.
-
Again just to be clear I do not know anything about RMU:JDE so the info below may be unhelpful:
1) House Rules can have a huge impact on your idea.
In general nature can be described as harsh, unforgiving and bountiful but in your game if that is the same as evil and good then you can do anything.
Thinking about undead and necromancy from another thread, in RM (past) animating undead generally used energy that was harmful to life...but you can also use another method such as golems and automation (automatons) that use bone that use different energy and a different spell list (higher rank spells to do the same thing IIRC) to do the same thing as the necromancer.
The point above is that their are two different ways to do essentially the same thing but one has negative aspects in low rank spells and the other requires higher rank spells and not as many results (IIRC, the automation spell lists do not provide the numbers that low level create undead do).
MDC
-
So Markc reminded me (probably unintentionally) that I should take a look at what RMU actually says about this. There is an interesting suggestion in the Customizing Magic section of Spell Law (2.8):
One method to handle the Evil spell lists is to treat them as morally corrupting in the manner that follows. Each of the Evil lists is linked to a specific vice: greed, cowardice, disloyalty, spite, etc. Each list might be constantly tied to a particular vice: Darkness to dishonesty, Essence Twisting to arrogance, Disease to slovenliness, and so on. Alternatively, the associations might vary from individual to individual, with Faceless Jack becoming vain from his studies of Demonic Pacts, while his rival Mary Malice suffers gluttony as a result of learning that same list. Whenever an opportunity arises to express one of the vices that the character has as a result of delving into the Dark Arts, but the player of that character (or the GM on behalf of an NPC) wishes to declare some other action that does not express that vice, the character must make an RR (modified only by SD bonus and, possibly, circumstances) against the corrupting effect of the relevant list (treat ranks in the list as the level of the "attack") or act according to that vice instead.
So, rather than becoming increasingly controllable, you and the player could pick a vice that is related to the spell list, and they will become more and more prone to acting accordingly. In the case of the Wounding list, which is all about causing physical harm, an obvious choice might be sadism, but depending on where you feel like the power of evil magic comes from, it could be any quality that fits that source. And you could use NPCs who are more advanced in that magic as examples of what people are like when they go down that road.
That has a lot of roleplay potential, it doesn't make the character unplayable, and it can come up at any time rather than being dependent on encountering evil entities.
-
Thanks guys!
JDale: those are two great suggestions. I like them both!
The corruption points thing could maybe be applied as a penalty to any RRs vs. Evil magic or controlling magic from evil entities.
The character thing is fun and I like it better than just getting totally controlled, though the mechanics are a little more arbitrary than I would normally like (I like hard, crunchy numbers). But it definitely has some roleplaying potential.
Cool, I have some things to think about!
-
Good Deal. Sounds like the stuff in RMU-JDE has some information that is different then past versions of RM.
I also remember recently rdanhenry describing his RMU game or a RMU game in which all open and closed lists were in a big pool and their was only a central spell casting mod list and it did not vary by realm (past RM).
This is very different from many/most RM games but there was a couple of people RM2 and RMSS who said they just used the Everyman or Layman professions for all PC's and IIRC one played in a ShadowRun type game and the other was a traditional fantasy game. It seemed that they were not persistent rule changes just changes just changes for that setting/campaign.
I myself tried the one profession to rule them all in a 1-3 day kill everyone game that was interesting but not a lot of fun as IMHO there were things that were easily exploited by the rule change.
Bad Emotions for Evil:
I do not know about the rule but it sounds to me like it can be abused by players as being tough to enforce by GM's but again the proof is in the pudding or there needs to be a simple way to enforce it in game and not just words on a page or left up to every GM to enforce in a way they decide.
MDC
-
Personal stories with evil:
1) I had a player play almost the same PC, Healer that was a sadist and used a whip as a weapon, I explained before PC gen how I thought this might be a problem in game as well as how his actions in game could cause issues (the game/setting was very loosely based on Birthright using RMSS) and it killed the group, the only thing that saved the group was I allowed divine intervention rolls (IIRC it needed to be over 200+) and the other channeling player rolled a 270+, which saved the group and with an option to also save the PC who killed them all.
The player went on to kill the group.
2) A person I played with played but not that game, had a PC in which their goal was to defile and sacrifice the rest of the group. As you can imagine since this player was more familiar with the rules and setting he sort of took advantage of the rest of the players good nature and the goal of working together vs a hidden agenda everyone for themselves game.
There are other examples but I think I will leave it there.
The above are examples IMHO of the special snowflake problem as well as an common issue I will explain below. The special snowflake issue can be minor or major in the above cases and often take advantage of the fact below.
Common Unwritten Rule:
The Players are not their PC's and the PC's are not the players:
I like others I have seen, talked to and played with have fallen afoul of this simple rule. Basically most of the errors I and others have committed were the fact that PC's have knowledge that the players do not and how to provide that to the player. So in the OP case, PC's have knowledge about what lists each profession should have as well as what lists (and the relative effects of each list) should provide the players info even if the players do not ask about it.
Can there be cases where it is not as big an issue as in evil in the party but unless the group is informed that this is an issue it can cause huge problem. Another good example of this is if you suddenly allow a players character to steal from the group and not inform other players that this is a possibility, vs the often unwritten rule that you do not steal from the group.
In general I find when I deviate from players expiations of game play I explain exactly what those deviations are clearly before the start of PC gen as well as at times during the game.
Does that make sense?
MDC
PS. I have also seen the Piazo sin system in play and was not really enthused as to the effects on the group I was conversing with the GM about. That is just one case but it really tore the group apart and caused issues as well as bad or poor behavior.
MDC
-
Parents and Younger Players:
I know of a few parents that check what things they allow their kids to do and or monitor/watch for changes in their kids behavior (negative and positive) based on activities and allow or disallow those activities based on their children's behavior changes.
This can be a issue for any rpg game or other activity. For example I know a couple of parents that had to remove some cartoons from their kids watch list do to negative behavior generated by those cartoons, I also heard about some game stores seeing significant drops in org play during the sin cycle for Pathfinder or a drop in attendance do to parents finding out after the fact what their kids were participating in.
I understand as I said above how difficult it can be for game devs in this area but how many parents do you think might say "play this game instead of RMU-JDE because of this ruling?" How many new potential players can RMU-JDE lose because of this as the goal is to attract players and not prevent them from playing.
MDC
-
I appreciate the advice, but it should not be a problem for our group. We're all 40+ and have played together for more than 15 years. The player does not intend to subvert the group.
-
Thanks,
I was commenting more on the thoughts that rule seems to be that if you allow evil spell lists you ask the player to roleplay some negative aspects and how often parents may not want their kids to play games that have such rules.
I seem to remember in the past when this came up I mentioned that often games have mature supplements that deal with such matter, as well as the comment that there are time younger customers get their hands on the books then what the authors intended.
MDC
-
I also remember recently rdanhenry describing his RMU game or a RMU game in which all open and closed lists were in a big pool and their was only a central spell casting mod list and it did not vary by realm (past RM).
I recall that as well, except that the poster wasn't me.
-
I was commenting more on the thoughts that rule seems to be that if you allow evil spell lists you ask the player to roleplay some negative aspects and how often parents may not want their kids to play games that have such rules.
If you don't want your PCs to act evil, you shouldn't give them access to evil spell lists. Simple as that. I agree it's not for everyone.
-
Although it has been mentioned, the corruption point idea is what I was going to suggest. I didn’t realize that there were mentions of them in RMSS, but the MERP 2.0 books have some good details on them as well. IIRC, not only do they apply as a cumulative penalty against RR’s vs evil spells and control by evil entities, but the Spell Risk rules from MERP could be used as well, with evil spell usage attracting unwanted attention from those very entities. If you don’t have access to that book, let me know and I’ll dig it out of the closet and get some specifics. I too never had any good mechanics for “controlling” evil spell usage so I love that your exploring this concept.
-
That's a great suggestion Eladan. I did not know about the MERP rules (or had forgotten since I haven't played MERP since the mid-80s). I am assuming the RMSS rules were based on the MERP ones? Or did they originate from one of the RM2 Companions?
Does anyone remember if there is anything about corruption in the companions?
-
I don't know where they first appeared, but the corruption point and spell use risk optional rules appear in RMSR pp294-295. There are some expanded spell use risk tables in School of Hard Knocks. I'm not sure about where they are in RMFRP.
-
I also remember recently rdanhenry describing his RMU game or a RMU game in which all open and closed lists were in a big pool and their was only a central spell casting mod list and it did not vary by realm (past RM).
I recall that as well, except that the poster wasn't me.
Sorry about that the one in the last 6 months I thought was you the two cases from way back (before 2010 IIRC were other people).
MDC
-
Personal Experience with StarFinder (SF) game and nephews:
When SF came out I had a copy and my nephews were asking about it and had some questions, I posted their question under my name and got a less then helpful and professional response on the Paizo Forums (which also served as good example for them at that age). It made them not want to play the game and the older still has not played pen and pager games to this day.
My brother-in-law asked if that was standard forum behavior and I said it can be but not all forums are the same. I am fairly sure he talked to his kids about it and is a reason the have not been more involved in pen and paper games.
Game Reviews for Content:
In the past I have been asked many times if I new a good review site for rpg and or computer games for content, which I do not and sort of prefer not to be held responsible if a site has a shift in content standards, ie today this is fine and tomorrow there is a huge shift in another direction).
But I know a lot of parents screen the things their kids do and or are doing for reviews and information. And quite a few times have removed that activity do to content.
What I can see about this rule:
Parent 1 does not know a lot about RMU (P1): I had to stop my kid from playing RMU because to cast spells you have to act out negative personal traits.
Parent 2 knows more about game (P2): No you to cast evil spells your character has to act out negative social traits, normal spells do not have that condition.
P1: Well I have seen a change in my kids behavior as he likes to make the best possible character, so are evil spell lists more powerful then other spell lists?
P2: Yes they can be.
P1: So to be better you have to act out negative social things.
I can see the argument (and have had it with others in this type of discussion) in that killing monsters is much more problematic then "negative social traits" but I have also had people say that they have seen problematic changes in their kids behavior do to things on TV (cartoons, TV shows, computer games, social forums, etc) and had to remove that and other activities from their kids lives.
So quite simply, why have a rule that makes it easy for parents to not let them play RMU because they might have to act out (roleplay) negative social traits?
Again I want to state that every parent, GM and group have different tolerances for many game concepts and I have seen quite often a parent info site provide a review of a game that brought up a negative game aspect (even if small) and thus a parent not let their kids play the game. Quite simply they already have a lot to deal with and they do not want to run the chance of having to deal with anything more (ie they do not need any more on their plate with their kids).
Does that make sense?
MDC
-
I understand what you're saying Mark. I think that is why I prefer a more number-based solution (rather than the roleplay-based solution) that imposes penalties and vulnerabilities rather than encouraging players to act out negative traits.
Thanks JDale for the information about how RMSS and RMFRP handled this. I really like the title of the FRP chart, 'Distributed Evil Risk Chart' :)
I like the idea of tracking the Powerpoints the character has used on evil spells, possibly giving him an RR at certain thresholds to see if he has suffered any 'corruption'. That will then be a penalty to his RRs versus control spells from Evil lists. And once he crosses a higher level of corruption, he'll start to attract the attention of Evil forces, who will seek him out to recruit him for their Evil plans.
-
Personal Experience:
I have also experienced mature game rules that allow for fairly standard bad behavior and game store owners discussing with me and others on a way to handle problem issues and customers. In both of those areas around the same time they decided to have a store owners registry of common issues and problems and the solutions they have taken. So an extreme example if you steal in one store you can get banned in all stores in the area.
One of the issues was game rules, setting or players game style in which they said they could in game steal from other players and more problem issues of intimidating/insulting/other bad behavior players through character on character interaction. Some groups have no issues with it but in these retail settings and some home games it was a huge issue.
Some of the issues go so bad it caused the store to lose customers and close down.
If you want more info on the people in the past, I can say that a lot of them will not buy RMU anyway but I also know and have been asked by quite a few others in the last 4 years or so how and where to check is a game/book/software/etc many have issues and if I think an issue might be a problem for them.
It is much easier to just have an adult or mature themed book and bypass the issue directly before it can be a problem. And it is always harder to get people to try something after they have head of potential problems even if there is no problem to be gain with or the problem is one that would not affect their kids.
MDC
-
I started a new post as I thought I might time out,
An extreme example:
I know quite a few game groups that might not have a problem with requiring a player to drink a bear or have 1 shot of hard alcohol for every 25 points of damage they take or do, but those are adult gamers who like to drink a lot when they often play a little.
If you had that rule in your game or as an option I can easily see parents have issues even if you say younger players need to substitute water, milk or soda for alcohol.
I chose the above example to try and make it very easy to see issues and often problems can occur when rules are in a much more gray area.
MDC
-
Sorry had to take care of something real quick,
If you point is that is other games there are rules like that I agree but most of the ones I have seen are in what people would call mature audience games and from what I remember of RMU B1/B2 they wanted to get kids as young as 10+ to play and grow the game base.
Often a note of the cover of games of mature themes or if they ask a salesperson about that in a game it can make the difference in if the game is sold or not. Just as if I and or others want to play a more mature game I tend to look for that comment or look for info that says it is not for 10-14 year old's.
MDC
-
Note: I am not the person for the job below.
Thinking a bit more on this issue in general it might be a good idea to have someone or ones not associated with the product and is tied in to what parents of your various age groups are looking at today as guidelines for PnP RPG's and or computer games.
Why? I remember around here parents having issues with video game avatar gen and filterers and not violence and gore for not buying games.
Again I am not the person or know people for this task right now.
MDC
-
The part I quoted from RMU Spell Law is in the section about customizing your game. It's very open-ended and you would have to decide on your own rules for it. If we're worried about the impressions people will make with optional rules, personally I think it's better to have an optional rule that says for evil lists you need to be a terrible person, rather than simply opening things up and saying anyone can harness the power of evil without any personal cost whatsoever. Evil as self-destructive is a good thing. Evil without consequences is the wrong message.
Beyond that, these are house rules. I might make suggestions but ultimately everyone is going to decide how to run their own game. They don't need permission for that.
-
JDale
I read the snipit that you provided above, quickly and with other distractions. So I admit I do not have a lot of context and I would guess that the info is about 1/4 to 1/2 a page out of 900-2000 total pages (a guess on my part as I have not looked at the rules).
But in general that is enough to have some parents not buy they game, the more things like this in the total rule set the easier it is for parents to say no to the game and harder for the publisher to sell it.
In general things you should look at and unfortunately what is ok can change very quickly.
1) Writing Style
2) Concepts and rules
3) Art
4) Lately I have even seen publishers and or authors, ie they put out this product that I did not like for some reason so I will not like anything they ever do again.
5) One thing I have had trouble with at times is artful text. By that I mean text in the doc uses some unique font or that is included into artwork and that can make it harder to read.
MDC
-
Back to the OP, in addition to the corruption rules in RMSS mentioned by jdale, there are some good rules for corruption and divine grace in the RMSS ChannelingCompanion and a lot of good shadow world specific corruption rules for the unlife by cormac doyle in guild companion articles from 2000 june, july, and august.
While the additional risk factor charts in SoHK are great and I love using them, they are not really applicable to the unlife and corruption in my opinion.
-
Thanks Netbat. Those were some good references.
I still like the idea of tracking corruption points for PP spent on Evil lists, and then applying that as a modifier to control from Evil casters, but those articles were great knowledge bombs to give to my players about the nature of the Unlife and the Undead. I also like the physical manifestations of the corruption that they suggest, like headaches and things like that. I just don't like the idea of starting to penalize players SCRs (Spell Casting Roles) when they start to get corrupted -- that will pretty quickly make the character less viable.
But anyway, that gave me a lot of food for thought. Thanks!
-
If you really wanted to be evil to the player/character you could give the player the option of no scr if they use unlife to power the spell(with the increased corruption from using the unlife). The constant temptation of no penalties in exchange for increasing corruption...
You might also want to try making the character roll against their corruption to avoid using the unlife to power the spell in lieu of the scr. That may be a more useful option - fail the rr and gain more corruption.
you would have to have players capable of dealing with the issues of falling to evil and aware of the possibility the party may have to turn against the character when he was too corrupted.
-
Another thing you could do, though it becomes random is to use the rules casting Foul Changes in Companion IV which would erode your physical appearance, slowly turning into a demon or other hideous creature.
Or you could simply use each lvl of the level cast as a % for a roll on the Chaotic Gift table in Companion III.
Again these are random effects
-
Another thing you could do, though it becomes random is to use the rules casting Foul Changes in Companion IV which would erode your physical appearance, slowly turning into a demon or other hideous creature.
Or you could simply use each lvl of the level cast as a % for a roll on the Chaotic Gift table in Companion III.
Great ideas! I think I will use those in addition to the other things I mentioned.