Wardens and the Deathcurse

[Team8Mum]

I'd play it out as a negotiated consequence that changes and Aspect.- GM says "How about....X"
Player(s) come back with "Interesting, but lets give is a twist of... X+Y, I could work with that."
If all agree that is what goes down.
e.g. Harry gains the Aspect "Die Alone" instead of another aspect that has served its time, or been resolved by taking out the wizard.

[paul_Harkonen]

Actually this supports the whole hood prevention but in a weird roundabout way. The caster has no thematic link to anything at that point. I would think that actually having the target nearby would count, but with the hood....

Mostly though I'm with Sanctaphrax and Wookinstien on this one. They don't get death curses unless they are interesting to the story like "Die alone!" Otherwise it's just bad form to tell the PC's "You've taken him out, he explodes and you all die (or are severely injured or messed up in some way)."

First of all, I would think that the wizard in question could always link to him or herself.  (for example, call down lightening on him or herself, or turn into a burst of flames, or whatever devastating explosion they felt like).  I think the two biggest protections that Wardens have is their experience and encasing the entire event inside a circle.  The circle limits the power a Wizard has access to and limits potential targets to just the wardens in place, and the experience and power of the wizards present probably allows them to defend themselves from any potential attacks.

In game terms, I would say, as pretty much everyone else NPC wizards do get a death curse, but I would treat it as the opportunity for plot hooks rather than the ability for the taken out wizard to deal massive damage to the party.  Figuring out what curse is now hanging over their head, dealing with the demon called up at the last minute, or coming to terms with a new aspect applied to one or more characters are all sparks for good storylines, and are probably the best use of the death curse.

[Tedronai]

I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't help me.

I mean, obviously you don't grant privileges to NPCs. You can't. Unlike the players, they don't exist. So they can't control any scene, no matter what.

I feel as though someone asked me for proof that the sky was above the ground.

NPCs don't exist.
And neither do PCs.

Players do exist.
And so does the GM.

The privilege is granted to the players, and from my reading, to the GM

[Richard_Chilton]

Let's ask Jim Butcher what he thinks about Death Curses... Oh wait, some already has.  See http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,1221.msg22003.html#msg22003 for his reply to a discussion on death curses.

Important parts:
However, while taking your killer down with you might be the most immediately gratifying thing to do with a death curse (assuming that they haven't up and prepared to defend against that kind of magical retaliation, which only a real moron *wouldn't* do if they knew they were off to murder a wizard), it might not be the SMARTEST thing you could do with it.

(Note: I added bold.)

So a death curse can be defended against - unless it's really sneaky.  Even when it's not a direct attack I've got the feeling that if Harry had been at the top of his game (not battered and half dead) when he was hit by a sorcerer's curse he might have shrugged it off and not be hit with "die alone".  He was ready for a death curse when he took on a certain black court vampire - a death curse but not a flame thrower.

Which makes me think that Wardens know how to deal with curses, especial those from untrained insane warlocks.

Richard

[Becq]

So, basically y'all are asking something similar to: "Hey, why aren’t there more death curses messing everyone up given the Council’s history of taking down rogue sorcerers?"

And if the game designers were to answer your question, I think the answer might be something along the lines of: "Two things prevent that.  One, the Wardens have gotten very good at preventing them.  Two, most bad guys are too arrogant to assume anyone will ever manage to kill them.  No foresight, no planning, no curse."

(YS282 sidebar, if anyone cares.)

[Sanctaphrax]

Oh, I see. That makes considerably more sense then I thought it did.

By my reading, the GM can narrate the deaths of NPCs as he wishes. So he can give them death curses. But "can" often won't translate into "will".

[Becq]

Oh, I see. That makes considerably more sense then I thought it did.

By my reading, the GM can narrate the deaths of NPCs as he wishes. So he can give them death curses. But "can" often won't translate into "will".

I think that's a very fair way of looking at it.  Basically, a death curse amounts to a plot device.  For a PC, it's their last hurrah, and is therefore worth doing.  For an NPC, it's up to the GM to decide whether or not it adds to the storyline.  Myself ... I think I'd probably have dying NPC wizards do *something* in terms of a Death Curse.  After all, Death Curses are supposed to be scary stuff -- the thing that largely prevents Wizards from going around trying to blow each other up willy-nilly, and also the thing that makes other things that go bump in the night at least think twice before going after a Wizard.  (Yeah, I know, that plan always works *so* well in the novels.)

[Richard_Chilton]

So, basically y'all are asking something similar to: "Hey, why aren’t there more death curses messing everyone up given the Council’s history of taking down rogue sorcerers?"

You mean look to the rule book for the answer? No, that would make too much sense.  Much better to reverse engineer the issue.

Richard

[JustinS]

Interestingly enough, I'm playing a Warden who took a Death Curse pre-game.
It is a major part of his backstory, is involved with 2 of his aspects, and was the major explanation of why a 100 year old Wizard was back down to our game's starting refresh of 8.

From a narrative perspective, a death curse should either make the story more interesting, or be the predictable consequence of doing something significant.