Combining Extended Lifespan with Self-Destruct [Basic]

[AlexanderHowl]

Here is a question, can you have a racial template that combines Early Maturation 5 [0], Extended Lifespan 5 [10] and Self-Destruct [-10]? Such a race would reach adulthood at age 18, live normally until its aging threshold of 800 years and would then die very quickly after their 800th birthday. I think that would be legal by RAW, but I was just wondering if I was missing something.

[Aldric]

Should be legal, if odd. And they're also a combination of advantages and disadvantages with little influence on actual games, which may end up as "features" in a lot of games.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I think that would be legal by RAW, but I was just wondering if I was missing something.

...a motive?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

...a motive?

"I want my character to live a really long time, but don't want to spend any points on it" isn't a sufficient one?

Most aging modifications are color traits anyway, so zero net cost is probably about where they all should be. Either all the characters in the campaign are going to be required have them, or they are never going matter in play because the campaign plan covers a narrow enough range of time they are not going to come up.

Any competent GM should be able to figure out that a plan where some of the party die of old age mid-campaign and others outlast multiple generations is at best a pretty specialized taste, and going to be really hard to balance so old-guy doesn't overshadow all the replacement characters by the end of it.

[Celjabba]

It is rules legal, I think.

My first instinct however would be to say "No", there is some potential abuse I don't see but I feel is hidden... but it may be baseless suspicion.

On the other hand, outside of games with ageing attacks, racial lifespan-related traits could/should probably be features.

So ... I would say it is a perfectly valid 0 points feature for a race (Tolkien Numenorean were close, iirc, or various fiction Robots).

[Willy]

In the early age of human genetics some scientists advocated something like this, because it would limit the resources of society to care for the elderly, which may live otherwise very long... . A motive can be that people wanted to live healthy a long time and care more about quality of live than the lenght of it. Another similar idea was that everybody was allowed to live as long as he wanted, but to avoid overpopulation everybody had a implant that once triggerd during a pre definid time span randomly released a deathly poison. The implant was triggered the moment the person got children. This are some of the most odd ideas I ever read, but maybe it helps you in your scenario.

[Overheat]

B120 says that you cannot take disadvantages that your advantages would mitigate or negate. This combo definitely looks like heavily mitigating of the Self-Destruct disadvantage- although if one accepted this line of reasoning, then they would have to say that either of Longevity/Extended Lifespan wouldn't be allowed with Self-Destruct, which doesn't make much sense, since Self-Destruct only starts at 50 because the baseline is human norms. So RAW, I think you are in the clear if the rules allow Self-Destruct and Extended Lifespan on the same character at all.

This combo of traits is definitely in the realm of munchkinism, although for a trait that usually doesn't matter in a campaign. The issue is that Self-Destruct basically sell back your old age years for a flat price, but for that price you can get many years of youth beforehand.

All this said- this package makes for an interesting flavor trait for a GM-designed race. If a player wanted to buy this set for their character, I would probably charge a perk just to acknowledge that this is certainly better than the human norms.

This combo is also worse vs percentage-of-lifespan aging attacks. If they are absurdly common in your campaign, then this might be worse than the standard human aging.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Overheat

B120 says that you cannot take disadvantages that your advantages would mitigate or negate. This combo definitely looks like heavily mitigating of the Self-Destruct disadvantage- although if one accepted this line of reasoning, then they would have to say that either of Longevity/Extended Lifespan wouldn't be allowed with Self-Destruct, which doesn't make much sense, since Self-Destruct only starts at 50 because the baseline is human norms. So RAW, I think you are in the clear if the rules allow Self-Destruct and Extended Lifespan on the same character at all.

This combo of traits is definitely in the realm of munchkinism\

Maybe the best compromise is something like taking Self-Destruct like a Temporary Disadvantage, so it only provides a discount rather than a separate reduction?

-10% on a pair of traits totalling [10] is basically a quirk

[AlexanderHowl]

The two traits do not seem incompatible. Extended Lifespan increases aging threshold and Self-Destruct prevents life after aging threshold. Now, Longevity/Unaging and Self-Destruct would be incompatible (the former because it would be meaningless and the latter because it negates Self-Destruct).

You could not have a Temporary Disadvantage on Extended Lifespan because you cannot turn off Extended Lifespan (for the limitation to be valid, the ability must be switchable). You could take Switchable, +10%, but that would be silly, as you would be effectively taking an inferior form of Extended Lifespan for the same price as the normal form. The fact that the combination would be 0 CP suggests that every long lived template should take it.

For example, imagine a race of dwarves with the combination that becomes fairer as they grow older. When they reach the age of 800, their body starts to metamorphosis into marble, leaving a marble statue of the dwarf behind as their corpse. I imagine that many older dwarves would be careful to take a dignified pose when they felt death coming on, so their corpses could be eternally displayed by their descendants. Destroying such a statue would be a grave insult to their descendants and would likely be considered an act of war if the dead dwarf was revered enough by a dwarves nation.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

For example, imagine a race of dwarves with the combination that becomes fairer as they grow older. When they reach the age of 800, their body starts to metamorphosis into marble, leaving a marble statue of the dwarf behind as their corpse. I imagine that many older dwarves would be careful to take a dignified pose when they felt death coming on, so their corpses could be eternally displayed by their descendants. Destroying such a statue would be a grave insult to their descendants and would likely be considered an act of war if the dead dwarf was revered enough by a dwarves nation.

I like this example. Though I can picture a dwarf who really just had to go, and so was "on the pot" when the time came. Or perhaps one who just had to have a go with his latest concubine...

I imagine that these statues (if the dwarves were important enough) would be in a private room so that the dignity of their descendants wasn't offended.