# Magical Artefacts



## Creed (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello everyone. I'm just wondering about your opinions on the use of magical artefacts (specifically weaponry). 
I have a problem with most magical artefact-weapons in fantasy. Because one of the characters has one and there's this tense situation where I might actually be worried for the well-being of the character and then POW they whip out their magical sword or whatever and they're undefeatable. I hate it when someone's impossible to kill, even if they are the good guy. Actually especially if they're the good guy.
The only example I can think of was in the Night Angel Trilogy, but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about. Anomander Rake had Dragnipur, but that worked very well and it certainly didn't make him a cocky idiot. I'll say no more on that subject, as I don't know how to use the spoiler thing yet. 
So what do you think about using magical artefact-weapons?


----------



## JCFarnham (Sep 30, 2012)

The magic system at the centre of one of my settings relies almost solely on magical artefacts. The background being that since humans aren't magical beings and only magical beings can work magic directly, the only loop hole is contracting Fae to make them artefacts. Non-magical wizards? Pretty much. So I have people who use rings, magical cards (tarot, playing cards, and more), there's even the magical projectile route (aka, exploding deodrant cans/money/whatever they want)... in fact I have trouble deciding what to do some times, but it allows for many stories in the setting so I'm happy.

There should be absolutely no excuse for an "artefact" becoming deus ex machina in any story, by _any_ author. And having one doesn't mean you'll definitely end up pulling out some deus ex.

I _could_ end up with deux ex machina but if I plot correctly then it doesn't have to happen. I'm not going to chuck this whole setting in because a few people get worried about seeing an magic weapon in fantasy.

(Maybe me writing urban fantasy helps cover up those kind of issues... I don't know.)


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 30, 2012)

My WiP involves quite a few magic "artifacts", but I wouldn't call any one of them a deus ex machina. Machina ex deus would be more accurate. The artifacts aren't plot coupons, save-the-world puzzle pieces, or get out of jail free cards. They're literally what the name implies: artifacts with magical properties. Specifically, they are divine gifts, or objects imbued with divine power, intended to aid their users in performing a specific task, but they don't make their users invincible. My most prominent magic artifacts are:


The Sword of Glass, a sword of crimson crystal passed down through the line of Mavarian kings and queens. It is indestructible and extremely sharp, but aside from that it's only magical quality is that it acts as a divination or cleromancy device. It has no real combat applicable powers except the exceptional quality of the blade and its increased effectiveness against evil entities.
...
The Crown of Ice, a crystal helm that imparts several magical abilities to one of my supporting characters. The helm is more notable for what it symbolizes in-story than the actual powers it grants, which are not unique, only slightly more powerful than the "standard" version.
...
The Armor of Runes, a suit of armor forged from a metal that acts as a conductor for "sparks" of divine magical energy that the user is endowed with (for reasons that would take too long to explain here), that has been carved with runes of the Kazai people. Suits of magic armor like this are common among the Kazai, but the Armor of Runes is the most powerful in existence and is worn by the Kazai leader (the "Lord of the Sword"), who is democratically elected. The way in which the runes are inscribed binds the armor to the will of the Kazai people, meaning that (in theory), their leader is able to draw on their strength to augment his own powers. This is a two-edged sword however, because it also means that the Kazai can completely withdraw support from their leader if they choose, rendering him completely unable to use the armor at all, and thus mostly powerless. In short, the armor is a system of checks and balances between the Kazai and their leader.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Sep 30, 2012)

It's a question of what the artifact actually does. A sword that can cut through anything is great against an opponent with a shield, but it may not be much use against an archer. A shield that draws projectiles to it can protect against that archer, but it won't do much good against someone who attacks from behind. A ring that glows when enemies are near makes ambushes less likely, but it won't do much good against someone who charges while wielding a sword . . . You get the idea.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 30, 2012)

My vampire novel has a couple of magical artifacts -- specifically two sets of enchanted bagpipes, one owned by the villain and the other by the hero. The villain's set has the power to manipulate others' actions, and the hero's set has the power to summon people to him. The villain originally owned both, but the hero's grandfather stole one set from him out of spite after losing a bet, and passed it down to the hero before he died, never knowing about its magical properties.


----------



## Creed (Sep 30, 2012)

> A sword that can cut through anything is great against an opponent with a shield, but it may not be much use against an archer. A shield that draws projectiles to it can protect against that archer, but it won't do much good against someone who attacks from behind.


 I think that's an important aspect of giving someone a magical artefact- they may an unparalleled warrior in all the land, but a stray arrow (or for great irony, a disease) can bring them thrashing down. 
I think that if you're going to give a character something that makes them more powerful, there should always be a price. For example, an artefact like the One Ring kind of works in this scenario. Or for those Malazan fans who've made it through V. 8 Toll The Hounds- you know what I'm talking about (And if you haven't I highly recommend them, just make it to Book 3 and your definition of epic fantasy/high fantasy will never be the same). Anomander wielded Dragnipur, but that scene where he put it into the stone made him the greatest character I've ever read of. Nothing is free, least of all power. 
Ominous, but cool… I think I'll use that line!


----------



## Saigonnus (Sep 30, 2012)

I think giving a character a magical weapon is the same as giving them a random magical talent; it should give them an advantage, but not make them so powerful to overwhelm any opposition. The way I see it, the protagonist(s) should be of relative strength or even weaker than the antagonist(s) when they finally meet face-to-face so the readers will get that sense of accomplishment when the protagonist(s) defeat the villain by exploiting some flaw in the villain's character.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Sep 30, 2012)

In my story one of the main storylines is centered around five extremely powerful magical artifacts/weapons. But like how Mindfire put it, the objects aren't just "get out of jail free cards". Sure, they're dangerous and can potentially be used like that if it was in someone's possession (you have a godly weapon and you're in the sticky situation...hmm, I don't know...), but it most certainly doesn't mean the character wielding it is invincible. Quite ironically, the one character who doesn't have such a weapon is actually the invincible one. 

Their main function in the plot is more as leverage - bargaining tools, if you must. It's an advantage to have one to win the war, yet they're also the things that made the war pretty much happen. A powerful temptation as well, but not one that's easily controlled. A symbol of intimidation even. Whatever the case, the magical weapons in my story are hardly used as deus ex machina tools.

On the topic of magical weapons/artifacts in general, I have nothing against them as long as they aren't something that make the protagonist invincible. Heck, I actually would like it if an antagonist has such an artifact because then it gives room for the protagonist to grow and improve enough to defeat the antagonist. But of course, with any magical artifact, it should almost always have a weakness. Edit, *always* have a weakness.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 1, 2012)

Artifacts can have different limits. It might be the specific nature of the item (sword can't stop arrows, or more exotic tricks like pipes of charming that can't control the deaf, etc.), and it might also just the strength of the thing-- not every "magic sword" is going to slash through all armor and instakill its target, often it's only so good and no better.

Another thing is that almost all artifacts have one inherent weakness in common: they're artifacts, and anyone who can just steal them has eliminated the problem. Worse, any enemy (or even a friend with a desperate cause) who hears about the thing will *be* tempted to come and take it, "easy come easy go."

For examples of all-powerful but specialized items and their limits, try looking at Fred Saberhagen's _Swords_ series. But the thing I really recommend is _InuYasha_, because in about the first 80 episodes (going by the anime's count) it uses what might be every basic category of magic weapon plot wrinkle.


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 1, 2012)

I like my magic with a serious flaw. In one piece I am working on magic is an almost non-renewable resource. If used too often it is possible to find your sword/staff/amulet will stop working mid battle or be unable to heal the sick. For me there are three or four magical artefacts that affect the story directly. I want / need incredible feats but have to keep away from with-a-leap use. I want to destroy a city in an instant but not make it the modus operandi for my MCs. That would be kind of dull.


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 1, 2012)

And then of course there is this...
xkcd: Metallurgy


----------



## Helen (Oct 1, 2012)

Creed said:


> Hello everyone. I'm just wondering about your opinions on the use of magical artefacts (specifically weaponry).
> I have a problem with most magical artefact-weapons in fantasy. Because one of the characters has one and there's this tense situation where I might actually be worried for the well-being of the character and then POW they whip out their magical sword or whatever and they're undefeatable. I hate it when someone's impossible to kill, even if they are the good guy. Actually especially if they're the good guy.
> The only example I can think of was in the Night Angel Trilogy, but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about. Anomander Rake had Dragnipur, but that worked very well and it certainly didn't make him a cocky idiot. I'll say no more on that subject, as I don't know how to use the spoiler thing yet.
> So what do you think about using magical artefact-weapons?



My heroes and villains have fantastic weapons but there is always some limitation which prevents their total dominance or use of weapons. Usually, the story is about either side trying to overcome those limitations and when they do, it's all out war (the final scenes). Usually my good side wins. I'm traditional in that way.


----------



## Telcontar (Oct 1, 2012)

Personally I do not tend to write worlds where large amounts of magical doodads exist. I prefer to keep it more limited so that magic does not become too commonplace (both for the readers and the full-time inhabitants of the world).

When somebody does get ahold of something magical, though, it should make a real difference. The normal example is a magic sword - on the one hand, it doesn't need to make you an unstoppable god of slaughter. Perhaps it could just give you an edge (hee hee). I generally prefer to lean more towards the Big Difference, though. Then you get all sorts of fun adjuncts to the situation - keeping it out of the hands of bad guys, responsibility for using it well, jealousy of others who might think they deserve it more, etc.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 1, 2012)

Interesting. I go the complete opposite direction. My magical artifacts tend to be thief-proof. The Sword of Glass will vaporize anyone who tries to touch it without divine approval. The Crown of Ice is bound to a certain person until his death, won't work for anyone else, and as a bonus, even if you take it from him he doesn't lose his powers unless he _consciously chooses_ to give them up. And the Armor of Runes is bound to the will of the Kazai people so obviously it's impossible for an enemy to use it against them. 

But, this is balanced by the artifacts having fairly limited power by fantasy standards. The Sword of Glass was only ever used as an actual weapon by one ruler in the entire history of Mavaria. The Crown of Ice is more a symbol than a weapon and the powers it grants emphasize cleverness rather than force. The Armor of Runes is indestructible, but it's still only armor. It has gaps that can be exploited, and it does nothing for your face.


----------



## shangrila (Oct 1, 2012)

Generally, I've been staying away from this kind of thing. Magical swords and amulets have just never done much for me.

But I have been working on a story where people own decks (really just handfuls, but decks sounds better) of magical cards that give specific powers. For example, the MC owns the Deck of Madness, which has a card that induces hallucinations, another which allows him to split his own or another's personality, another that lets him see the future (albiet through a disturbing and confusing dream), etc. I had several more of the Decks mapped out but it appears my computer hates me and deleted the excel file


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 1, 2012)

Creed said:


> I have a problem with most magical artefact-weapons in fantasy. Because one of the characters has one and there's this tense situation where I might actually be worried for the well-being of the character and then POW they whip out their magical sword or whatever and they're undefeatable.



Eh, this only happens when the writer doesn't know what he's doing. Giving your protagonist access to any artifact or power that makes him "undefeatable" is a bad idea. (Unless doing so happens to be a plot point, as opposed to just making your hero awesome in a fight.)

I find that magical weapons work best either as plot devices or as a way to raise the caliber of the battles - say there is a dragon, against whom no normal human would ordinarily stand a chance. But if you give the hero the right magical equipment, suddenly he can fight evenly with the dragon. Key word being "evenly" - if he outclasses the dragon, you are doing it wrong. 

A good example is the Sword of Gryffindor from Harry Potter, because it works both as a plot device and as a way to give the hero a fighting chance during extraordinary circumanstances - when it first appears, it lets Harry defeat an opponent he normally wouldn't have stood a chance against, and later it is revealed to be one of the few things that can destroy horcruxes. 

Another good example: The Master Sword from Legend of Zelda. It's pretty iconic as far as magical swords go, but it doesn't actually have a lot of special powers. The one reason you always need to get it is because it counters dark magic and vanquishes evil beings that normal weapons cannot harm. Rather than making it impossible for the hero to lose, it makes it _possible_ for him to _win._

The only magical sword in literature that actually makes its wielder invincible, that I can think of, would be Sikanda from The Neverending Story. (Because it was basically a sentient lightsaber that fought on its own with the skill of a master.) And even then, the point about that was that Bastian was basically turning himself into a Mary Sue character and forgetting who he was, so him being unbeatable in a fight was part of the conflict - it made him arrogant and ultimately led him down the path of tragedy. 

So, again, you want the artifact to suit your plot, or balance it against the level of adversity your protagonist has to deal with. In my case, if the heroes have magic swords, I usually make a point of giving the villains magic swords as well.


----------



## Creed (Oct 1, 2012)

Some very interesting thoughts here.
I'm giving a character a sword known as _Amokazz_ (rough translation into World's End, or Endtime) and so far I haven't given it any applicable powers, as such (i.e. shoots lightning or dispels magic). It's really only a *medium* for the Wielder- the more blood it feasts on, the less the Wielder is a man, and more the sword. A little complicated, but I promise it makes sense.
Which brings me to something I was thinking about. I always enjoyed those little moments in LOTR whenever the Ring seemed to have a mind of its own. So I think I'll give _Amokazz_ a personality, in a strange way. It only wants release- which is like a few billion years of history that makes the background development of my plot. I'll have to consider the motives of the sword now. 
Other encounters with sentient artefacts, anyone?


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 1, 2012)

I ran a gaming campaign a long while ago that was centered around a cavalier that found a powerful and ancient weapon in an unknown crypt. The axe had belonged to a paladin and was exceptionally powerful, but it had the essence of a demon inside (the demon that was his final adversary; the one that had inflicted the death wound he never healed from), and it had been there so long, it had made the weapon sentient. This cavalier was a goodly character, but slowly began to change alignment to become evil; such is the power of the sentient creature. He betrayed his companions and became the villain of the story and it was such a act that the characters wanted vengeance and sought him out. That was the downside to the weapon, that it tended to contol the user; make them commit acts they ordinarily wouldn't. Also it caused an "addiction" to the weapon, rendering the wielder incapable of ridding himself of it for very long. The plus side was that in the hands of an evil character (which one would eventually become simply using the sword; it was almost the opposite to a paladin's "avenger" sword; dealing extra damage to goodly aligned creatures and healing injuries for all damage inflicted. 

Sentient weapons or artifacts aren't really that common in the fantasy I have read; though Crenshinibon comes to mind; from "the Icewind Dale" trilogy from R.A. Salvatore. A crystal shard that wants nothing more than to be used and controlled by evil creatures.

I think any magical weapons, they should give the character a benefit, and maybe even a penalty depending on how powerful it is to offset the potentially vast power it gives them. In my world hand-held magic items just don't exist as such, so I have nothing to worry about in that regard; though some use obelisks in central locations to amplify their power or specific locations that are exceptionally magical for certain things.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 1, 2012)

Creed said:


> I'm giving a character a sword known as _Amokazz_ (rough translation into World's End, or Endtime) and so far I haven't given it any applicable powers, as such (i.e. shoots lightning or dispels magic). It's really only a *medium* for the Wielder- the more blood it feasts on, the less the Wielder is a man, and more the sword. A little complicated, but I promise it makes sense.
> Which brings me to something I was thinking about. I always enjoyed those little moments in LOTR whenever the Ring seemed to have a mind of its own. So I think I'll give _Amokazz_ a personality, in a strange way.





Saigonnus said:


> I ran a gaming campaign a long while ago that was centered around a cavalier that found a powerful and ancient weapon in an unknown crypt. The axe had belonged to a paladin and was exceptionally powerful, but it had the essence of a demon inside (the demon that was his final adversary; the one that had inflicted the death wound he never healed from), and it had been there so long, it had made the weapon sentient. This cavalier was a goodly character, but slowly began to change alignment to become evil; such is the power of the sentient creature. He betrayed his companions and became the villain of the story and it was such a act that the characters wanted vengeance and sought him out. That was the downside to the weapon, that it tended to contol the user; make them commit acts they ordinarily wouldn't. Also it caused an "addiction" to the weapon, rendering the wielder incapable of ridding himself of it for very long.



You know, thinking about it, I'd kinda want to do the opposite of this - a villanous character get a hold of an enchanted artifact that slowly starts to have a _good _influence on him over time, making him more honorable and heroic.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 1, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> You know, thinking about it, I'd kinda want to do the opposite of this - a villanous character get a hold of an enchanted artifact that slowly starts to have a _good _influence on him over time, making him more honorable and heroic.



That is an awesome idea, and you should totally do something with it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Oct 1, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> You know, thinking about it, I'd kinda want to do the opposite of this - a villanous character get a hold of an enchanted artifact that slowly starts to have a _good _influence on him over time, making him more honorable and heroic.



Sounds like the "hero title" in _Disgaea 3_.


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 1, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> You know, thinking about it, I'd kinda want to do the opposite of this - a villanous character get a hold of an enchanted artifact that slowly starts to have a _good _influence on him over time, making him more honorable and heroic.



Sounds like a plan, could be a great premise for a plotline or story of itself. You'd just have to figure out what type of item it is and what sort of powers it has. The only thing I forsee is that if the "villain" gets ahold of the item and become good... the type of motivation he has would either have to still be valid as a "good" person as he was as "evil". (He would just use different methods to accomplish the same goals); twist the circumstances to some other goal... or just abandon the goal, which is a bit anti-climatic.

Edit: A thought I just had is that perhaps it creates a split-personality if the villain is particularly strong mentally; so he will be conflicted within yet still carry out those bad deeds at the same time his alternate personality is trying to have him be good.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 2, 2012)

Hi,

Personally I like magical weapons and artifacts. I think they add flavour to a book, and since in most cases the people using them are wizards who are generally not considered to be huge bulging muscle warrior types, they often don't really make them invincible so much as keep them in the fight. As for the relative power thing, that's in the plotting. Clearly you don't want any weapon to be so overwhelming that it removes the sense of suspense.

Oddly its one of the things I've always found confusing about LOTR. The ring, this uber powerful artifact. And what can it do? Corrupt the bearer's soul and turn him invisible. The first is absolutely not an advantage to the wearer, and the second is a nice little party trick, but not a defeat all your enemies in seconds type mega weapon.

And at the same time I like Excaliber for much the same reason. As a sword it isn't really going to defeat an army. It might get stuck in a stone from time to time, and it may inspire and annoint the rightful king, but in the end, winning and losing the battles came down more or less to the wielder.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 2, 2012)

The balance of power must be reasonable.
If you have a device that makes your character so much more powerful then anyone else,
why would he not use it to rid the world of the enemy(good or bad), what would keep them from taking over.

My personal magic is fairly weak, powerful magic requires more energy then a person can produce, which could knock them out, put them in a coma, or kill them.  Thus they must bank their energy into objects(batteries basically), draw from a magical creatures larger resource, or as in necromancy, draw power from other living creatures to their demise.
My magic items are more powerful then the individual but still must not over power the character.

If the item protects the person so as to make them impervious to weapons, or allows them to kill so fast no one could harm the user, then they have little to fear, and they can take more risks then the average person.  More risks, more power in the conquest.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 2, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> Sounds like a plan, could be a great premise for a plotline or story of itself.



Well, I wouldn't say it's enough for a whole story. Might make a fun subplot, though.



> You'd just have to figure out what type of item it is and what sort of powers it has.



Right off the top of my head, I was thinking a sword that literally makes you more virtuous and enhances your sense of empathy and justice. Maybe it's angelic in nature or something.



> The only thing I forsee is that if the "villain" gets ahold of the item and become good... the type of motivation he has would either have to still be valid as a "good" person as he was as "evil". (He would just use different methods to accomplish the same goals); twist the circumstances to some other goal... or just abandon the goal, which is a bit anti-climatic.



I'm pretty sure there is no rule that says a character has to stick to the same motivations from start to finish. I just think it would be interesting to see him go from villain to anti-villain, then to anti-hero, then to full-on hero.

Would probaby work best with an Evil Liutenant-type villain.



> Edit: A thought I just had is that perhaps it creates a split-personality if the villain is particularly strong mentally; so he will be conflicted within yet still carry out those bad deeds at the same time his alternate personality is trying to have him be good.



Honestly, this feels a bit like a cop out to me, kinda have your evil cake and eat it. No wishy-washyness, says I! You'll never write good character development if you can't commit.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 2, 2012)

I'm not sure I get the whole "artifact of goodness makes you good over time" thing. You can get away with the reverse with evil artifacts because that's how evil works: it corrupts, subverts, infects. But you can't do the same thing with goodness because it's nature is different and it doesn't use those methods. I think the best you could manage would be to have the artifact cause him to feel remorse or guilt for his past actions, eventually leading him to a change of heart.


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 2, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Honestly, this feels a bit like a cop out to me, kinda have your evil cake and eat it. No wishy-washyness, says I! You'll never write good character development if you can't commit.



Not necessarily;it could add a depth to the character if such a plot device was used. Imagine the alternate personality having more and more influence as it has more interaction with the psyche of the villain. Maybe at the beginning, he still does what he wants and shrugs off the influence the object has, but it becomes more difficult until he can't always shrug it off; like a forcible alteration to the psyche. Later it could be all-but impossible to do those things he really wants to (those evil deeds) and is forced to find a way to do it that is still within his moral compass. Like fighting against himself and losing himself to the power of the device.


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 2, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I'm not sure I get the whole "artifact of goodness makes you good over time" thing. You can get away with the reverse with evil artifacts because that's how evil works: it corrupts, subverts, infects. But you can't do the same thing with goodness because it's nature is different and it doesn't use those methods. I think the best you could manage would be to have the artifact cause him to feel remorse or guilt for his past actions, eventually leading him to a change of heart.



What if said artifact is necessary to accomplishing the ultimate goal of the story? i.e. the sword that kills the chief antagonist. What if the only person available/capable to use the sword is himself evil (a family heirloom needing a member of the bloodline for example)? An unwilling hero as it were. Would a truly sentient sword needing to accomplish this goal not use it's influence in this manner to subvert the evil anti-hero so he could do what is needed? Wouldn't it be considered one of those times that it is simply the easiest way to accomplish the task instead of merely "hoping" he'll have a change of heart? The greater good and all that...


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 2, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> What if said artifact is necessary to accomplishing the ultimate goal of the story? i.e. the sword that kills the chief antagonist. What if the only person available/capable to use the sword is himself evil (a family heirloom needing a member of the bloodline for example)? An unwilling hero as it were. Would a truly sentient sword needing to accomplish this goal not use it's influence in this manner to subvert the evil anti-hero so he could do what is needed? Wouldn't it be considered one of those times that it is simply the easiest way to accomplish the task instead of merely "hoping" he'll have a change of heart? The greater good and all that...



Well in that case, the artifact isn't really an elemental force of good, it's just using it's owner to accomplish an end, which somewhat defeats the point of making it a "good" artifact. At best you could make it a "lawful" or "neutral" artifact, to borrow alignment terms.


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 2, 2012)

I would think it's possible. Would an "angel" (for lack of a better word); trapped inside a sword and wanting desperately to get out use such a tactic against a demon that initially banished them to the sword? I would think it would if all other avenues of influence were ineffective.

I do agree that perhaps with a very limited situation it wouldd be possible, but generally you are correct.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 2, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> I would think it's possible. Would an "angel" (for lack of a better word); trapped inside a sword and wanting desperately to get out use such a tactic against a demon that initially banished them to the sword? I would think it would if all other avenues of influence were ineffective.



Why wouldn't the angel just will the sword into the hands of a more suitable bearer? And where's God during all of this? I think this discussion will be most productive if we keep it in as general terms as possible. Otherwise we have to address the issue of plot holes.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 2, 2012)

Hi,

Actually the whole artifact of good idea could work. It'd be tricky, but many characters (and probably people) are unable to do bad things simply because they know it would cause harm, pain etc. As Mindfire says that could be partly based on ideas of remorse and guilt, but if you dig underneath that you get another set of emotions - empathy, sympathy, love. So what if your artifact worked on these? What if it awakened all those positive feelings in a person so that they couldn't say kick a dog to death because they'd simply look into its innocent trusting eyes and know that it would simply be too horrible to contemplate.

Oddly enough this would be a form of subversion and corruption, but instead of the natural goodness in a person being attacked it would be the natural evil.

You could write this very well actually, doing a twist on the entire good versus evil tortured soul thing, but from the other side. The dark, selfish soul wanting so badly to go out and steal and murder etc, but finding himself torn as he also has this desperate need within him not to harm anyone, but instead to help them and bring them comfort. Imagine if Robin Hood say, were written this way. A bad man, a thief and killer, given an enchanted bow of goodness. It could work well.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 2, 2012)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Actually the whole artifact of good idea could work. It'd be tricky, but many characters (and probably people) are unable to do bad things simply because they know it would cause harm, pain etc. As Mindfire says that could be partly based on ideas of remorse and guilt, but if you dig underneath that you get another set of emotions - empathy, sympathy, love. So what if your artifact worked on these? What if it awakened all those positive feelings in a person so that they couldn't say kick a dog to death because they'd simply look into its innocent trusting eyes and know that it would simply be too horrible to contemplate.
> 
> ...



Interesting idea, Psy, and it could work, but only if the villain wasn't a complete monster. The problem being that if they are, if they're just pure evil, then there's not even any residual empathy or love left to work on. The artifact would have to inject some into a heart already hostile to it, and forcing it's way in is against the nature of goodness. HOWEVER, if you had a villain who still had even a speck of humanity left to work on, you'd be in business. In short, this trick would work on Darth Vader, but not Emperor Palpatine.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 2, 2012)

Hi,

You mean Emporer Palpatine the puppy lover?

I agree, but I think it's very hard to find a bad guy who doesn't have at least some spark of goodness in him somewhere. And if you do find one, he's likely a very one dimensional character.

Cheers, Greg.


----------

