Curses are normally placed on players, not creatures.

My brother made a set a while ago called Curses! if you're interested (or you can use a gatherer search)

I don't recommend using curses on creatures, because that's what auras are for. I don't know if the rules prevent it (they probably don't), but it's still better to separate the two.

Though, if you think that's necessary for the archetype, it could still be fine. I really like the flavor of this card, and it probably works rules wise.

Just giving you a heads up in case you want to find a change before you finish the set.

@Froggychum: I originally had every Curse in the archetype enchant a player, but found that the archetype was far too narrow to be competitive.

Allowing curses to enchant other targets besides players allows for Curse decks to be synergistic and slightly more versatile.

I agree you can't build an 'enchant player' theme, but that's what curses do. If you're looking for an 'enchant permanents' theme, you should just use auras (and have curses for player enchantments).

Flavorfully there's not much difference (an aura could be described as cursed even if it doesn't have the literal subtype), and it works better mechanically, too.

You're probably right, but at the moment I'd rather not change it. It would require a lot of work to rebalance the archetype, and I love the flavor that it provides right now (Gods cursing creatures/players with negative effects).

No worries :)

You're free to design your cards however you like, and I'm not offended by that :)

Regardless, this functions properly rules-wise (I'm pretty sure), so there's not any glaring issues with using curse like this.

Sounds good!