| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
eWizard
Acolyte
2 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 14:49:44
|
Hi folks,
I am new to this forum.
I am a long term roleplayer and am fighting with my consious at the moment over whether using a nine life stealer is OK or not.
This is my predicament...
I can across a Shortsword Nine life stealer some time ago, I now only have 2 "charges" left in it. I am in a strange situation at the moment where I have the oppurtunity to get it "re-charged" by a decidedly dubious character (a lich, its a long story :)
My question to you is:
Is it morally acceptable to get the sword "re-charged" and use it?
One side of me is saying "NOooooo! evil, evil, evil!, the other side is saying "Well a sword is made to kill right! This sword just does it better that most!"
The main underlining issue is that when you kill someone with a "normal" sword there soul / spirit skips of to which ever plane (depending on if they were good or bay boys), but killing someone with a life stealer destroys the soul / spirit (same as finger of death / death spell etc).
What do you think?
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 15:38:05
|
" This sword is evil, and any good character attempting to wield it gains two negative levels. "
In game terms it is evil to even hold the sword let alone use a charge.
As to morality out of game terms, distroying souls sounds rather evil. It is a double death because if soul is distroyed the character can not be raised. By the way I do not see any text in the SRD about it distoring the soul perventing the rasing of the dead.
If you do not kill the soul, it is just another weapon to be used, the quicker you kill a foe the lessor a chance that foe will kill you. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
eWizard
Acolyte
2 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 15:44:01
|
Hi Kentinal, thanks for the reply. I play AD&D 2nd edition, there is no mention of it actually being "Evil".
I wasn't looking from a rules / system standpoint.
In my heart I know you are right about it being evil. No good character could justify snuffing out another person / creatures soul.
I suppose I will just have to let it run out :(
|
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 16:12:54
|
Umm, well you could let it run out, or simply stop using it altogether. I mean, each use of it's soul-stealing ability is an act of un-mitigated evil and takes a step towards evil.
If I were GM'g, I'd definitely look at pushing a shift to a non-good alignment for ongoing use of such an item. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 16:32:08
|
Err I did take a look at 2nd, DMG and the sword appears to be less evil then described in 3rd.
"Sword+2, Nine Lives Stealer: This will always perform as a +2 weapon, but it also has the power to draw the life force from an opponent. It can do this nine times before the ability is lost. A natural 20 must be scored on the wielder's attack roll for the sword to function. The victim is entitled to a saving throw vs. spell. If this succeeds, the sword does not function, no charge is used, and normal damage is determined."
Nor do I see anything preventing a person being killed, from being raised back to life. Though there is a limit on how many times any character can be raised. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Beezy
Learned Scribe
USA
280 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 20:50:06
|
So if you roll a natural 20 and they dont make the saving throw it is an instant death?
Are there any benefits from drawing their life force? Like a HP siphon or anything?
I don't play AD&D so I have no idea. I read the novels and played a tiny bit of 2E something like 10 years ago |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 21:16:47
|
Nope, no fringe benefits except that whatever you just hit has a chance of simply falling over dead.
Course from a RP standpoint, your weapon just consumed their soul. This being the case, I could see some dieties/beliefs viewing such a weapon askance. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 21:21:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beezy
So if you roll a natural 20 and they dont make the saving throw it is an instant death?
Are there any benefits from drawing their life force? Like a HP siphon or anything?
I don't play AD&D so I have no idea. I read the novels and played a tiny bit of 2E something like 10 years ago
In niether 2nd nor 3rd writeups does the user gain any benefit except a dead foe. The 3rd Edition however does indicate the blade is evil to make the sword under 3ed this is what is required:
" Strong necromancy [evil]; CL 13th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, finger of death; Price 23,057 gp; Cost 11,528 gp 5 sp + 922 XP."
By game rules (3.X) the blade is evil because whom is required to make it, and using death magic. Having never played you should konw that most players consider any time an instant death occurs it was a evil act, *Grin* though mostly they blame the DM/GM for being evil rather then in game reasons for PC death. Even the underlaying spell to craft the blade is not listed as an evil spell. Finger of death, however does have {death} as a descriptor which many PCs consider evil when it happens to them *grin*
They do not worry all that much about when they kill the NPCs.
Also novels certainly can have described the blade indeed more like a soul stealer, caturing or distroying souls. I find nothing in game rules to support this.
The only other way such a blade could be considered evil would taking unfair advantage of the foe. Two 20 level fighters agree to spar with +2 swords, however one is life stealer. This would be an evil act because of hidden ability or at least chaotic, perhaps both. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 05 Dec 2005 21:25:42 |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 21:27:35
|
| As a player and erstwhile GM, I'd say that anything that falls under the Necromancy category would or reasonably could be considered evil. There are a handful of possible exceptions, but they are still treading the razors edge. (Example: A Necromancy spec mage who uses his knowledge to hunt down and undo the undead. Yeah he's killing the undead but his spells could easily be swayed to the dark side.) |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 21:37:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
As a player and erstwhile GM, I'd say that anything that falls under the Necromancy category would or reasonably could be considered evil.
*chuckles* That discussion/debate/argument belongs to another scroll (sans argument of course, those belong on the boards that are never to be named *wink*) |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 03:21:20
|
I would say, what is your character's alignment. If you as a person disagree with what choice you make, don't do it. In role playing terms, what would a character of similar alignment and in a similar situation react, and act accordingly.
In my job I deal with interpreting laws on a daily basis. one of the pieces of the laws I utilize have a portion in it that asks, what would a reasonable a prudent person do or react, under similiar circumstaces. this leads to what is the norm in society, which you would be able to transfer, using alignment.
My 2 cents |
|
|
|
The Cardinal
Senior Scribe
Canada
647 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 03:58:10
|
It's a character's own judgement call. And depending on how 'good' one is. As for ourselves we would jump at the oppertunity, since, while inherently, perhaps, evil to recharge a dark sword, the logic could displace that if you only use it upon those that commit evil then your sort of doing good (2 negatives = a positive), plus depending on how zealous a character, it might be seen as a blessing to 'keep up the good work'.
However the strife you are feeling is most likely strife that that character is going through (obviously), and thus you could also use that to RP benefit, after all, things would be boring if there was no conflict right? Of course... The Drow hold similar thoughts on the weapon being just better at killing, but that's neither her nor there, right 
We suppose the main question her is What alignment and what kind of character is the wielder of the blade? |
It has to be Certain, the Gods Hate Me. For whatever irrevokable Fate, I have been made the walking Joke. Either that, or Beshaba is overlyfond Of Me.
-Unknown |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 04:07:49
|
It realy is not an alignment question in game terms, the player was asking on a different level and already decided it would not be moral to recharge the blade.
Also remember the question was asked in context of 2nd Edition modified rules, or perhaps even late 1st Edition rules as the blade does not eat souls just kills quicker on a good hit and deciding this foe better die quick. At best it can be called dirty fighting which can be considered Evil in some eyes.
3rd Edition clearly makes even holding the blade an act of Evil, the rule set is clear on that.
Edit: A further thought, the use of poison is still considered often (if not always) as an inmoral act (or evil) and life stealing is very much like using death poison, thus many would consider use of the blade inmoral, let alone recharging the blade. *Grin* |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 06 Dec 2005 04:17:29 |
|
|
|
The Cardinal
Senior Scribe
Canada
647 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 04:10:42
|
Ah first edition, Where there was only Law, Chaos and that inbetween..
"Good. Bad. I'm the Guy with the Gun." |
It has to be Certain, the Gods Hate Me. For whatever irrevokable Fate, I have been made the walking Joke. Either that, or Beshaba is overlyfond Of Me.
-Unknown |
|
|
|
Vangelor
Learned Scribe
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 08:52:14
|
Returning a soul to the wheel of being, so that it may learn from its errors in a new life? Ethically shady, but excuseable under duress.
Taking a soul out of the cycle, forever? That's pretty evil. And Kelemvor isn't going to like that.
From where I am sitting anyway, no - you don't want to recharge that thing. You want to let a skilled, ethical mage unmake it.
Edit - Oh, and welcome to the Forums! |
Edited by - Vangelor on 06 Dec 2005 08:53:52 |
|
|
|
Beezy
Learned Scribe
USA
280 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 04:39:32
|
What happens to these souls. Do they remain inside the sword or does it basically eat or destroy the soul? Also is this sword sentient (spelling error?) or is it just a +2 sword with an added ability. Sorry for all the questions, I don't get to play the game and this sword interests me.
From the description I have read of this sword I can't see someone of a good alignment using this sword with the knowledge of what it can do. Someone of a more neutral alignment I could see using it.
|
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 04:59:17
|
| I have to see if I can dig up an old 1st Edition DMG. I could have sworn at some point in time the item description said that the sword actually traps the souls within the weapon itself, meaning that its not so much that the item has charges, but that it can only hold nine souls . . . I'll see if I can find one (my friend keeps everything). |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 05:29:16
|
1st Edition
quote:
Sword +2, Nine Lives Stealer, will always perform as a +2 weapon, but it also has the power to draw the life force from an opponent, and it can do so only for a total of 9 times before the ability is lost]. A natural 20 must be scored on the wielder's 'to hit' die roll for the sword to function. The opponent is entittled to a saving throw verus magic in such cases, and if it is successful the sword does not funtion, no charge is used, and normal damage is determined.
So at best the sword drew life froce from traget, nothing in this text says it keeps it or distroys it *wink* |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Morality of using a Nine Life Stealer
