Afflict Vow - consequences when broken

[Genesis]

Originally Posted by DavidSev

Doing a mitigator means you'll have to buy your affliction with a very long duration, and the victim will probably be able to stop the negative effect by stopping whatever bad behaviour triggered it (whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you).

I'd suggest you take affliction or innate attack, and then add delay. The +50% version of delay only covers very simple triggers, but I can easily imagine a +100% version that allows complex triggers, or you could add a +50% cosmic "ignore built-in restrictions" to allow more complex triggers.

Will probably end up costing more, although it seems fair that it should cost a lot more than the basic affliction would.

Maybe it's just me, but I think if you want to permanently curse your target with a geas, you should have to pay for the Permanent modifier. A variably-delayed IA seems like a pretty cheap trick to mimic what is really a permanent curse.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Genesis

Maybe it's just me, but I think if you want to permanently curse your target with a geas, you should have to pay for the Permanent modifier. A variably-delayed IA seems like a pretty cheap trick to mimic what is really a permanent curse.

Yeah, seems that way, doesn't it.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Genesis

Maybe it's just me, but I think if you want to permanently curse your target with a geas, you should have to pay for the Permanent modifier. A variably-delayed IA seems like a pretty cheap trick to mimic what is really a permanent curse.

Why would you involve Innate Attack? You stat up the curse as a disadvantage, stick the mitigator on it (which makes it a slightly less serious disadvantage) and Afflict your target with that. Whatever duration you select is how long the disadvantage lasts, you probably want permanent. The complication is deciding how much the mitigator is worth, which I suppose largely depends on how long the disadvantage lasts after you miss a "treatment" by breaking the geas, which is something the Mitigator limitation is rather vague about. I'd probably assume a day, which if you wanted you could buy Extended Duration a second time to modify.

Admittedly if you want to do direct damage for each violation it's unclear what disadvantage you would use, since there isn't one for take a bunch of damage right away. If you wanted, I suppose a delayed Innate Attack would work well enough, but of course would only zap you *once*. Doing it that way and adding Cyclic +10%, allowing it to hit you again the first time in any given day you break the geas seems fair enough if you have a reasonable termination condition, which I'd probably say any of traditional fairy tale cure could qualify for in this case.

[Genesis]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Why would you involve Innate Attack? You stat up the curse as a disadvantage, stick the mitigator on it (which makes it a slightly less serious disadvantage) and Afflict your target with that.

Yeah, we're in agreement here. I was responding to DavidSev's suggestion of an IA with Delay as being cheaper than paying for the appropriate duration on Affliction. Which I didn't like.

[Flyndaran]

Perhaps Dependency: Not breaking geas?

With time interval being how often you take damage from continuous breaking?

[Anders]

Hmm... I also want it to be able to inflict things like blindness and sterility

[PK]

Originally Posted by Anders

Hmm... I also want it to be able to inflict things like blindness and sterility

Do so, then. Anything not involving damage -- Blindness, Terminally Ill, etc. -- is a simple case of using Affliction (Disadvantage) to force consequences+Mitigator upon the target for the duration of the geas. Sterility is a special case, since it's a feature and thus not normally available for Affliction. In this particular case, I'd say that throwing a custom +10% enhancement on Affliction would be balanced for "if you break the geas you become sterile."

(And anything involving damage is most easily modeled as Innate Attack with a supernatural Delay.)

[Anthony]

The issue of mitigators is something of a pain. Let's say you have the ability to afflict a 100 point disadvantage, which the victim can avoid by taking the equivalent of a 10 point disadvantage, and the victim knows it. This can't possibly be worse than a 10 point disadvantage.

Actually, it seems like some sort of 'alternate disadvantage' scheme would be convenient. Maybe something like:

Alternate Disadvantage: you may choose between one of two disadvantages. Point value is for the lesser disadvantage, whichever it may be, with a limitation for the magnitude of the greater -- perhaps -20% for <2x value, -15% for <4x value, -10% for <8x value, -5% for more.