Remove ads

General Exalted Thread

Reader mode
Kuciwalker said:
I mean, pretty much exactly that has happened to their real-world inspiration multiple times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think that comparison works well if these guys literally have a curse that blights the land if they stay there for a month and you can prove it empirically, is the thing. "Kill them", in that case, shifts from "irrational xenophobic reaction to outsiders" to "practical countermeasure to avoid starvation".
 
Genocide is not defensible. If you want to act in a morally defensible way, you need to use non-genocidal methods to solve your problems.

I would suggest holding people legally responsible for any damage their curse does. If you can do that, they'll have to take it upon themselves to manage their curse. Not a perfect or morally pure solution by any means, but at least it's not genocide.
 
Sanctaphrax said:
Genocide is not defensible. If you want to act in a morally defensible way, you need to use non-genocidal methods to solve your problems.

I would suggest holding people legally responsible for any damage their curse does. If you can do that, they'll have to take it upon themselves to manage their curse. Not a perfect or morally pure solution by any means, but at least it's not genocide.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Since we're talking superstitious peasants that don't have a robust legal system this means make them a perpetual underclass blamed for any random misfortune and likely purged every time something really goes wrong.
The difference between that and genocide is the difference between slavery and murder.
 
Sanctaphrax said:
Genocide is not defensible. If you want to act in a morally defensible way, you need to use non-genocidal methods to solve your problems.

I would suggest holding people legally responsible for any damage their curse does. If you can do that, they'll have to take it upon themselves to manage their curse. Not a perfect or morally pure solution by any means, but at least it's not genocide.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Genocide is not defensible under real world constraints. Such as "no, minorities won't cause mass starvation by sticking around."

When those constraints are removed it that statement is no longer absolutely true. If a group of people sticking around for a month causes massive crop failure and hence mass starvation you can't make such absolute statements because their prolonged presence causes a larger body count.
 
Ct613hulu said:
The bloodline Curse of the Rouheni might not be able to make life in a shadowland significantly worse but that is only because the average shadowland is usually already extremely inimical to human habitation.

On another note I would like to point out that the Rouheni could potentially be used as an extremely cheap weapon of mass destruction. All someone would have to do is arrange for a large enough number of Rouheni to stay in the same area long enough for environment of the region to be badly damaged. This could entail making a deal with the more immoral and mercenary Rouheni or simply capturing some of them to use as slaves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

... yes, but that not only kills their animals and the food they need too, but also gets them lynched. They are entirely used to pogroms. That's why they don't stick around.

No doubt that sort of thing happened a few hundred years back, but now the naibs of Taira know to make sure none of their slaves are Rouheni and to just free any slaves with the mark and hand them off to the nearest band. Or kill them.

(Yes, that does mean that some people try giving themselves silver marks on their body avoid slavery, but that's why I made sure the pin test was in)
 
So, how hard would it be to lift such a curse, at least from an individual? I assume an Exaltation would wipe it away like it gets rid of most negative effects. Sooner or later, one of them will be Exalted and look for ways of freeing at least his family, if not his entire people from the curse.
 
Hey, there was an essay on here that surmised what was possible for Charms at each Essence dots, but I can't find it. Can someone help with that?
 
Elero said:
So, how hard would it be to lift such a curse, at least from an individual? I assume an Exaltation would wipe it away like it gets rid of most negative effects. Sooner or later, one of them will be Exalted and look for ways of freeing at least his family, if not his entire people from the curse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

However DM would find appropriate? I mean, if I had more than one player I would weave it into overall arc for all players. If it would be campaign build around one player, I would make a whole arc out of it (... and then perhaps second out of "yeah, you destroyed whole way of life of your people. Congratulation!").
 
Last edited:
changeling said:
However DM would find appropriate? I mean, if I had more than one player I would weave it into overall arc for all players. If it would be campaign build around one player, I would make a whole arc out of it (... and then perhaps second out of "yeah, you destroyed whole way of life of your people. Congratulation!").
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Between "cure the curse that ruins their life" and "destroy their current way of life" I sure as hell know which one I would know, and I think most Rouheni would like to not walk around as wandering blights on the land.
 
Um...you can be travelers without a curse that mandates that. If it does destroy their way of life, that's only because they chose to not be wanderers.
 
Elero said:
So, how hard would it be to lift such a curse, at least from an individual? I assume an Exaltation would wipe it away like it gets rid of most negative effects. Sooner or later, one of them will be Exalted and look for ways of freeing at least his family, if not his entire people from the curse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on how much power you have to throw at it.

If you've got Adamant Circle Sorcery then it might be as simple as Countermagic. BUUUT that's Adamant Sorcery, the most powerful and flexible toolkit to exist.
 
changeling said:
However DM would find appropriate? I mean, if I had more than one player I would weave it into overall arc for all players. If it would be campaign build around one player, I would make a whole arc out of it (... and then perhaps second out of "yeah, you destroyed whole way of life of your people. Congratulation!").
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
ah yes, "releasing people from an ancient curse that has plagued their existence for centuries," a well-known ambivalent moral action that needs to be carefully handled with shades of gray
 
Is saving a few thousand people and their descendants of a bloodline curse worth potentially making a personal enemy of someone powerful enough to cast such long-lasting and widespread curse? An elder Lunar or even Luna herself are two of the potential options that immediately come to mind when I think about the power and thematic origin of the curse. Making an enemy of either of them could very well lead to the doom of the spell-breaker and their people.

The question of whether an Exalt should save the Rouheni allows the storyteller to present the moral question of whether helping people with no connection to you is worth making powerful enemies. It also allows the storyteller to give an explanation for why these powerful new enemies have chosen to oppose you.
 
Last edited:
Omicron said:
ah yes, "releasing people from an ancient curse that has plagued their existence for centuries," a well-known ambivalent moral action that needs to be carefully handled with shades of gray
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While I find your sarcasm entertaining, there's really no need for it. All he's saying is that no good deed goes unpunished; it doesn't stop it being a good deed.
 
Bugs said:
While I find your sarcasm entertaining, there's really no need for it. All he's saying is that no good deed goes unpunished; it doesn't stop it being a good deed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But "no good deed goes unpunished" is a stupid sentence.

Breaking the curse just breaks the curse. It doesn't inherently bring with it destructive consequences. It does not inherently call for negative consequences just so that you can... Make a point that the universe is, on some cosmic level, spiteful?
 
Omicron said:
But "no good deed goes unpunished" is a stupid sentence.

Breaking the curse just breaks the curse. It doesn't inherently bring with it destructive consequences. It does not inherently call for negative consequences just so that you can... Make a point that the universe is, on some cosmic level, spiteful?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There are negative consequences to everything, as well as positive consequences. Anything you do that causes ripples, good deed or not, is more than likely going to rock somebody's boat. Complaining that you've caught the attention of somebody you'd have rather not due to your actions is childish, because stuff like this is just a fact of life.
 
Bugs said:
There are negative consequences to everything, as well as positive consequences. Anything you do that causes ripples, good deed or not, is more than likely going to rock somebody's boat. Complaining that you've caught the attention of somebody you'd have rather not due to your actions is childish, because stuff like this is just a fact of life.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"Actions have consequences" is a basic design axiom of Exalted man, of course it'll have consequences but I don't really see the world where you can weight "fix the lives of millions of people who did nothing to deserve it" against "it might have consequences tho" and decide that the latter is more important. @Omicron is saying that breaking the curse is an action isolated from the consequences, if there are consequences they aren't a result of breaking the curse inherently, they're a consequence of someone not wanting you to break the curse in the first place.
 
Also, any statement based on this level of generalization is pretty much completely irrelevant. Saying that all actions have consequences, good and bad, has absolutely no heuristic value; there are no conclusions to be drawn from it, it is not in any way, shape or form revelatory, and empty phrases such as "no good deed goes unpunished" serve only to plunge this discussion even deeper into irrelevancy.
 
Sanctaphrax said:
I would suggest holding people legally responsible for any damage their curse does. If you can do that, they'll have to take it upon themselves to manage their curse. Not a perfect or morally pure solution by any means, but at least it's not genocide.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
100% behind this. Curses being held as a legal precedent for forcing someone to take responsibility for the damage their curse does is such a better plot development than literal genocide, honestly. Imagine: instead of trying to negotiate peace or something, an Eclipse has to navigate a labyrinth of red tape to defend a tribe of Rouheni.

Incidentally, do you think there's a culture of curses in the wider world? Like beyond superstitions, do you think some people try to rules-lawyer curses and find practical uses for them? Do you think the Rouheni occasionally get offered exorbitant amounts of money to stay in an enemy kingdom's location, offers which they then refuse because that's basically entirely against their moral codes?

Do you think there are curses that can be passed over to other people, or traded (something like this)? Do you think it'd be a viable concept for Creation in general? Like, probably less simple, requiring a sorcerer of at least Terrestrial level to trade them, but still something that the average person with money considers to get rid of inconvenient things on a personal basis?
 
ManusDomine said:
"Actions have consequences" is a basic design axiom of Exalted man, of course it'll have consequences but I don't really see the world where you can weight "fix the lives of millions of people who did nothing to deserve it" against "it might have consequences tho" and decide that the latter is more important. @Omicron is saying that breaking the curse is an action isolated from the consequences, if there are consequences they aren't a result of breaking the curse inherently, they're a consequence of someone not wanting you to break the curse in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Goku: But now I know what I have to do: I have to stop you! You're a heartless monster that kills everyone in his way... even children!
Freeza: Oh please, everyone's always on about the children. I've already tried leaving them alive, but all they do is grow up under my rule or dedicate their pathetic lives to revenge, usually both. Really, killing them is a kindness. I can retract that kindness if you wish, but then who's the villain?
Goku: Y-you.
Freeza: No, that was a rhetorical question.
Goku: And I gave you a rhetorical answer!
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top