A player in an upcoming campaign of mine wants to roll a Dhampir paladin/sorcerer with the sanguine bloodline. The sanguine bloodline has this ability:
The Blood Is the Life (Su): At 1st level, you can gain sustenance from the blood of the recently dead. As a standard action, you can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood. This ability heals you 1d6 hit points and nourishes you as if you’d had a full meal. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
This bloodline power replaces grave touch.
I have some views on this, but I thought I should gather some other views before making a GM call.
Do you reckon drinking the blood of a dead creature should always count as an evil action capable of causing him to fall? If not, under what circumstances should it not count as an evil act?
Under none.
Drinking the blood of the dead is evil in the common sense, period.
Now if you want to have some gritty campaign you could rule if he sanctifies the corpse each and every time beforehand you can let him go on. Could be a nice rp opportunity.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you reckon drinking the blood of a dead creature should always count as an evil action capable of causing him to fall? If not, under what circumstances should it not count as an evil act?
Drinking the blood of a dead person or creature is basically never an Evil act in and of itself, and shouldn't be a problem for a Paladin's code, either. Doing it to fallen comrades might violate their Code (seems dishonorable to me), though that might depend on their specific Code, but is still not Evil.
Doing it in such a way as to traumatize the dead individual's family or friends probably is Evil, though. And killing someone solely to drink their blood is the definition of Evil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it evil, though NPCs/PCs might react toward it in such a way depending on which creature's blood he's drinking (drinking the blood of a human in sight of other humans might for example not go over all that well, but it still wouldn't be an evil act).
Take for example a boar, how is drinking it's blood any more evil than cooking and eating the creature? In both cases you are consuming parts of the creature.
So I'd say it's equal to eating creatures. If you see eating intelligent humanoids as an evil act then drinking their blood would be too, but drinking the blood of an animal or beast would most likely be fine.
But if you only see cannibalism as evil then a human drinking the blood of a dead elf wouldn't be evil, though any elves watching the act would probably disagree.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
fun fact: people in the real world sometimes subsist mostly off of blood and milk. http://congocookbook.com/other_recipes/cow_blood.html
In all seriousness, the evil-ness of drinking blood will depend on the meta-physics of your world. If drinking a creature's blood is symbolic of consuming their soul and doing so to the recently dead impairs the progress of their soul to the afterlife, then that's evil. If the blood is just matter, and the soul is gone, then it is not evil.
Of course, commoners may not be so understanding and equate "icky" with evil. Then your paladin may have some explaining to do.
Also, you should figure out if defending yourself against a misguided pitchfork mod is evil or not...
Drinking the blood of the dead is alignment neutral in common sense, period. Just like using the corpse of the dead for meat, leather, and other materials. These things are always sociological in their matters of 'right and wrong', not 'law of the universe' alignment oriented. What is evil to one society, such as drinking or consuming the dead, could be considered good in another, where rather than desecrating the corpse, they're honoring it by using it in death.
The question here is does his DEITY have a problem with drinking the blood of the dead? That is the real key issue, and the only one that should cause him to fall when it comes to consuming blood.
Edit: +1 on what Deadman, Corodix, and Magenta said.
Also, a link to an old thread of mine you might find useful to read.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5i8h?Using-your-enemys-remains-Evil-or-no#1
Pretty much gets into this.
as good/evil in Pf seems to be based on basic fairy tale notions (in my opinion), I would say yes, it is evil.
Of course if you want it more realistic and based on modern logical thinking, it's not evil if the creature got killed for another reason and in the circumstances a peaceful rest isn't required (can't do it in town when the family or lawmen don't agree).
A similar example from a book (Snuff, discworld) would be that starving goblin mothers would eat their children, which is logical as only by surving would they have a chance to make further children, most humans however take this as proof of the evilness of goblins and ignore the explanation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the designers would agree with the commoners that "icky"=evil, as evidences by Blood Transcription. I find this silly, and usually just remove the [evil] descriptor from that and many other spells that really shouldn't have it.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable, as I can think of several hypothetical worldviews where drinking the blood of a fallen enemy signifies that you are honoring them as a worthy opponent rather than trying to interfere with their soul. I agree that drinking the blood of a dead creature, even a sentient one is not inherently evil, but a paladin might have an additional restriction as part of their code, like that they only drink the blood of creatures that they have personally killed in a fair fight or something along those lines.
When someone asks me, "Is this evil?" I point them to an article like this one. It's the most elegant explanation of good and evil I've found so far - evil characters have small moral circles, good characters have large ones.
So, is drinking blood evil? It depends on who it affects.
If it affects no one - the blood is freely given or harvested from animals in a humane manner - and has no effect on the soul of the donor or any other malignant properties, it is not an evil act.
If it is not freely given or has a malignant effect, then it is evil.
Harvesting it from the corpses of the slain sounds evil, though I do like an earlier poster's idea of sanctifying it as a workaround - basically dedicating the blood of the fallen to the greater good.
Even if drinking blood is not evil, it is one of those things that might lead to evil. Good for a tragedy, if nothing else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say drinking the blood of a sentient being could be called evil.
Drinking animal blood should be ok.
Drinking the blood of demonic creatures could have a corrupting influence.
If drinking blood from slain animals (for food) is evil, many cultures of today are evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sausage
;-)
It's not the blood itself that makes the act evil, it's how you got it... if your party hunts dinner (rabbit) and the dhampir decides to drink it's blood while the rest of the party eat it's meat, where's the problem?
Unless the world is buddhistic or strongly vegetarian because of beliefs, that Paladin didn't do anything wrong.
I think the problemativ part is: You can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood.
So envision you fight some bandits and as soon as the fight is over the paladin runs over to the most recently slain human, hacks off his arm and drinks the blood that is coming out.
Perhaps, if he took some wounds, he repeats it with the other dead bandits undtil his wounds are healed or he doesn't find a corpse that's less than a minute old.
Yes, that would very much be evil in my book.
The corps must be under one minute old. There is not much time for sanctioning or for filling up the blood into a cup to drink it in a civilized manner. No, he has to literaly jump at the corpse and feast on it, some of the blood running down his chin and soaking into his coat of arms.
only tiny damphirs will profit from drinking rabbit blood ;-)
the problem is with "fresh" and "at least the same size as you", if you imagine some humanoid bending over a deer carcass, his mouth all bloody, then you've either never seen a bad horror flick, or you know he's a villain/monster you'll have to fight sooner or later.
I'm willing to concede that if you get your blood from a butcher shop, it's not evil as it is within the law and socially accepted. If you go to the butcher and ask for blood and he calls the watch on you, well then it's evil and you should be afraid of pitchforks and torches.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So envision you fight some bandits and as soon as the fight is over the paladin runs over to the most recently slain human, hacks off his arm and drinks the blood that is coming out.
Perhaps, if he took some wounds, he repeats it with the other dead bandits undtil his wounds are healed or he doesn't find a corpse that's less than a minute old.
Yes, that would very much be evil in my book.
Why? They're already dead. How exactly is drinking some of their blood a moral problem?
I'm legitimately curious how drinking some blood from a dead guy is morally repugnant to you. I mean, disgusting, sure, but disgusting is not the same as evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So envision you fight some bandits and as soon as the fight is over the paladin runs over to the most recently slain human, hacks off his arm and drinks the blood that is coming out.
Perhaps, if he took some wounds, he repeats it with the other dead bandits undtil his wounds are healed or he doesn't find a corpse that's less than a minute old.
Yes, that would very much be evil in my book.
Why? They're already dead. How exactly is drinking some of their blood a moral problem?
I'm legitimately curious how drinking some blood from a dead guy is morally repugnant to you. I mean, disgusting, sure, but disgusting is not the same as evil.
This is where I fall as well.
Drinking an enemy's blood is the same as eating the meat from their corpse. Often it's gonna be gross, but it's hardly evil. It's not as if you're damaging their immortal soul or harnessing their life essence for your nefarious deeds- you're just sustaining yourself like any other living being, and you're doing it as a hemovore.
Equating drinking blood to being evil is the same as equating eating meat to being evil. If any part of the process is evil it's going to be the act of getting the corpse, not what you do with it.
Most societies have clear rules on what is acceptable and what not.
Cannibalism is clearly on the not ok side of the border. And as much as eating the flesh of a humanoid being would be cannibalism it would be drinking his blood, too.
So is everything that is unacceptable evil? Not, it's not. But if graverobbery is evil (and I think most would say it is) the defilement of a dead humanoid by drinking his blood should be, too.
And to go at it from a different angle: The rules say that the spell blood transcription is evil. I would say it is because you have to drink the blood of a dead person for selfish reasons.
Drinking the blood of a dead person to heal your own wounds is selfish as well and thus should be evil, too.
Do you really think it would not be evil if someone stopped at a car accident and started eating the dead people, killed in that accident?
Do you really think it would not be evil if someone stopped at a car accident and started eating the dead people, killed in that accident?
It would be undoubtedly gross, but why would it be evil?
To make it as simple as possible you should just look at the ability. Paizo has been pretty prolific with labeling anything that's evil, and this ability clearly isn't labeled as such. By the rules as presented the ability is gross but not evil.
|
|
Most societies have clear rules on what is acceptable and what not.
Cannibalism is clearly on the not ok side of the border. And as much as eating the flesh of a humanoid being would be cannibalism it would be drinking his blood, too.
Oh, it's certainly cannibalism, I'm just in complete disagreement with the idea that cannibalism is inherently evil.
So is everything that is unacceptable evil? Not, it's not. But if graverobbery is evil (and I think most would say it is) the defilement of a dead humanoid by drinking his blood should be, too.
Graverobbing isn't Evil. Hell, half of dungeons are somebody or something's grave. Disrespect to the dead is debatably non-Good, but who says the Paladin here isn't being respectful? He could easily do a whole 'Thank you for your blood, and I regret the necessity of your death.' ritual.
And to go at it from a different angle: The rules say that the spell blood transcription is evil. I would say it is because you have to drink the blood of a dead person for selfish reasons.
Spells don't have the Evil descriptor because they involve evil acts. Look at Blood Crow Strike (which is just an attack spell). They have the Evil descriptor because the magic used is, in and of itself, evil. The Sanguine Bloodline's power has no such descriptor.
Drinking the blood of a dead person to heal your own wounds is selfish as well and thus should be evil, too.
I disagree completely.
|
|
Do you really think it would not be evil if someone stopped at a car accident and started eating the dead people, killed in that accident?
Uh...no? In today's society they'd clearly be crazy (since there are easier sources of food, and it's illegal) but evil? Nah. And even if it is, it's not an equivalent situation.
So let's change it up: If you're starving and need the food to survive, is eating someone who you find dead Evil? I certainly don't think so, and (since the Paladin requires medical attaention, ie: eating these folks might save his life) it's a much closer analogy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is everything that is unacceptable evil? Not, it's not. But if graverobbery is evil (and I think most would say it is) the defilement of a dead humanoid by drinking his blood should be, too.
As a humanoid, I'd be way, way more worried about the defiling of my *living* body with his longsword, than by what the Paladin does to my corpse afterwards.
This isn't EverQuest PvP. I won't be shaking my fist at the monitor if my killer /emotehumps my corpse.
It might be illegal. It might be gross. It might freak the locals. It might even be dangerous (if the departed had a blood-borne disease or parasitic infestation, or is in some other way unsafe for human consumption). But you kind of have to do harm to someone to do evil to them, and a corpse is past harm (unless you resurrect him and *then* do something nasty to him...). It's dead, Jim.
For it to be evil, it would have to be harming someone (perhaps even non-physically, such as traumatizing his wife and kids, who are watching aghast from behind the woodshed as you mow down on pops).
But, as a Paladin, anyone you righteously killed *without* falling from grace, you can probably stab one more time for a pick-me-up after they hit the ground. At that point, you've already killed the fool, and your travelling companions are pulling off his boots and turning out his pockets to search them for hidden coin, so any pretense at giving him 'dignity in death' is a poor sad joke, at best.
If he deserved dignity in death, he probably deserved dignity in life, too, and not to have his face cloven in twain by your righteous blade.
And to go at it from a different angle: The rules say that the spell blood transcription is evil. I would say it is because you have to drink the blood of a dead person for selfish reasons.
It does not say why it has the evil tag, your reason for it's evil tag is your own.
Drinking the blood of a dead person to heal your own wounds is selfish as well and thus should be evil, too.
Selfish and evil are not the same thing.
so if stopping to drink the blood of car victim is crazy but not evil, what have we got?
everything that has a good reason is not evil, as there is a reason after all.
everything that hasn't got a good reason is crazy, and thus can't be evil as his action don't come from his character but from a mental illness.
this is why I think of good and evil in the fairy tale sense, else nothing and noone is evil, except demons who are axiomaticly evil it seems.
Torture, of course not evil, you want information and you can't think of a better way.
Vampire slays peasants, of course not evil, he has to survive, and a cow has just as much right to live as the peasant.
Sell someones soul you just captured to a demon, of course not evil, it's a free market after all and you got the soul fair and square.
I think of these scenario and picture them in a disney film, drinking blood of a person would only be done by the villain, and thus is evil, drinking blood of a cow could be the initation ritual or whatever and is neutral but leans toward evil as the hero is unlikely to participate in any such ritual. This is of course only my interpreation, but it helps me to have enough evil and enough good in the world so that alignment matters.
|
|
so if stopping to drink the blood of car victim is crazy but not evil, what have we got?
In the modern day? Yes. Because it's probably the worst way ossible to get simple food, not because eating people is inherently a mad act.
everything that has a good reason is not evil, as there is a reason after all.
Wrong. Many reasons are bad, and insufficient to excuse something from Evil.
everything that hasn't got a good reason is crazy, and thus can't be evil as his action don't come from his character but from a mental illness.
Also wrong. Evil and Crazy can totally go together. The Joker comes to mind, as do many real serial killers. My intent was never to say "It's not evil because it's mad." Madness and Evil can absolutely go together. The act in question was simply not evil.
this is why I think of good and evil in the fairy tale sense, else nothing and noone is evil, except demons who are axiomaticly evil it seems.
Completely untrue. Actual systems of morality are easily applied in-world to a Pathfinder game.
Torture, of course not evil, you want information and you can't think of a better way.
Still Evil. Effectiveness (which is debatable anyway) or having some 'higher goal' rarely excuse such a brutal violation of another living being in most moral systems.
Vampire slays peasants, of course not evil, he has to survive, and a cow has just as much right to live as the peasant.
Not according to any moral system that makes a distinction between sapient creatures and mere beasts. And particularly not if the Vampitre need not kill to feed (which is usuallt the case).
Sell someones soul you just captured to a demon, of course not evil, it's a free market after all and you got the soul fair and square.
This one isn't necessarily Evil, just dumb. Many moral people have sold their souls in desperation in fiction, aqnd they aren't bad people because of it, just completely screwed.
I think of these scenario and picture them in a disney film, drinking blood of a person would only be done by the villain, and thus is evil, drinking blood of a cow could be the initation ritual or whatever and is neutral but leans toward evil as the hero is unlikely to participate in any such ritual. This is of course only my interpreation, but it helps me to have enough evil and enough good in the world so that alignment matters.
That's the most ridiculous standard of a world's morality I've ever heard of. Does it look creepy? Must be Evil. Completely ignores any nuance or attempt to make things interesting, complex, or perhaps give people mistaken impressions, leading to misunderstandings. It also completely ignores all of the actual systems of morality you could easily apply.
And hell, even going by it, the eating of other intelligent creatures is totally endorsed in The Lion King.
Hey, I won a bet against myself.
As I typed my response I said to myself "I bet one of the first answers will be that cattle/animal blooddrinking is not evil."
It is obviously (usually) not and it is obviously not what the OP ment when asking.
Would it be an evil act, if another Paladin sees the Dhampir drinking the blood of a killed foe and kills him for being a cannibalistic monster?
Yes, of course it would be because the Dhampir drinks the blood only out of respect for his victim (your death shall not be in vain for it nourishes me) ;)
Would it be an evil act, if another Paladin sees the Dhampir drinking the blood of a killed foe and kills him for being a cannibalistic monster?
Yes. That is textbook Lawful Stupid, along the lines of "Evildar ping?! YAARRGH DIE EVIL BEAST!" to the starving peasant that just stole some food from a cart.
Yes, I know that technically Detect Evil doesn't ping on level/HD 5 or lower creatures, but it seems most people don't know or ignore that when it comes to a Paladin.
Edit: The above example IS something that I have personally witnessed someone do. Whilst I was playing an Inquisitor of his own church... An inquisition WAS indeed had, and great story fun was had by all... After the player got over his character being prodded with hot pokers to get a confession....
|
|
Would it be an evil act, if another Paladin sees the Dhampir drinking the blood of a killed foe and kills him for being a cannibalistic monster?
Yes. Indeed, killing anyone for such a petty reason is pretty much Evil.
And besides, avoiding this sort of thing is a large part of what Detect Evil is for, a Paladin who doesn't at least check before commiting murder is criminally irresponsible.
Yes, I know that technically Detect Evil doesn't ping on level/HD 5 or lower creatures, but it seems most people don't know or ignore that when it comes to a Paladin.
It's actually only less than 5. 5 is where everyone starts showing up.
And Evil Outsiders, Undead, and priests of Evil Gods (ie: real monsters) all pop up at 1 HD.
Well, ultimately, it's a form of cannibalism. Do you consider cannibalism evil?
On the other hand, the corpse isn't using the blood, and the dhampir... well, doesn't need it, but certainly could use it. It could also depend on the circumstances--if the dhampir just drinks the blood of every creature he kills, that's one thing, but if it's a rare thing where he does it only when he absolutely needs the healing. (Even if you considered it an evil act, if the act is rare enough, it will not cause an alignment shift usually.) I can see it being reasoned that under many circumstances it's an act of survival, not disrespect, and is a neutral act.
Also, how does the god of the dead feel about corpse desecration and the like?
Ultimately, you're the GM, it's up to you. I would consider the PC's intent, frequency, and general context in which the blood-drinking occurs.
It's weird when that's one of the first sentences you type in a day.
Ok, let's agree to disagree.
For me what the dhampir does is evil.
For me it would not be evil to kill someone like that when caught red handed.
Ok, let's agree to disagree.
Where's the fun in that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? I'm honestly curious what moral system causes this response.Ok, let's agree to disagree.
For me what the dhampir does is evil.
For me it would not be evil to kill someone like that when caught red handed.
For me the human body is sacred. Even when it is dead.
Something in me screams KILL IT! When I think about some humanoid creature eating/drinking from a recently slain, still warm human (humanoid).It's the same instinct that would make me hit someone hard who is willingly injuring a child or raping a woman.
And it is really shocking me deep within that everyone else here is so relaxed about it.
To respond to the OP:
The act of drinking the blood of a slain eneimes should be considered seperate from the act of killing them in the first place.
Once they are dead the act of drinking the blood is mostly netural in and of itself.
The next part is what about the paladin's church and god. How do they see this drinking of blood? Does the church regulerly scrafice animals to their god? or do they forbid such things? What about teh god its self? A god of war will have a different view then a god of comerance.
Now I am sure that many people that see the paladin doing this will act/ beleave that it is an evil act because they have been taught that it is. That may provide many amusing roleplay scenes for the paladin and his party.
Drinking the blood of a humanoid maybe, but drinking the blood of a freshly killed deer I have no problem with.
Medium to Large sized game animals would be fair game in my book.
A player in an upcoming campaign of mine wants to roll a Dhampir paladin/sorcerer with the sanguine bloodline. The sanguine bloodline has this ability:
The Blood Is the Life (Su): At 1st level, you can gain sustenance from the blood of the recently dead. As a standard action, you can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood. This ability heals you 1d6 hit points and nourishes you as if you’d had a full meal. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
This bloodline power replaces grave touch.
I have some views on this, but I thought I should gather some other views before making a GM call.
Do you reckon drinking the blood of a dead creature should always count as an evil action capable of causing him to fall? If not, under what circumstances should it not count as an evil act?
It's never evil unless your a veagan. :P
But seriously. You're drinking the blood of a dead thing. You not hurting anyone, oppressing anyone, killing anyone, etc; which are the things that make things evil.
If you killed a sentient creature to drink its blood, then the killing part would have been evil. If some orc was trying to take you apart and you ran him through with your sword, and then drank his blood after he died, no moral problem there.
Hell, he could be a Paladin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the human body is sacred.
Then why are you running around with a band of lunatics killing people?
Like many things, whether it's evil or not probably varies highly on where the Paladin's from. If he's Mayan, it's probably no big deal. If he's from Camelot, it's probably a pretty huge deal.
I don't know what campaign you're in, but in mine I'd make him justify it culturally, at the very minimum.
|
Are vampire bats evil?
Mosquitos?
Leeches?
Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.
Less ridiculously:
Drinking blood for sustenance is a big difference from doing it as a part of an evil magical ritual. And let's note that the evilness of drinking blood in an evil ritual is due to the evilness of the ritual, not the drinking of the blood itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the end its a matter of what constitutes 'people' and what you are eating. I dont think drinking the blood of an animal for instance is in and of itself evil. My grandmother insisted on drinking a bit of the blood of any animal we ate if it was possible as a matter of health (she felt it was good for you). There is nothing evil about that.
The part that makes this complicated is the line in pathfinder of 'people' vs animal is very very blurry. This has actually come up in my groups kingmaker game. What is or isn't ok to eat (with a clan of kobolds in our kingdom this is an important question). And I would say if you are ok eating it, then drinking it's blood so long as its not part of a ritual that adversly effect the soul of the slain, is neutral. The thing that has to be decided first, is if the creature is ok to eat.
|
I don't know about Good or Evil in regards to this...but I don't see very many societies or social groups where drinking the blood of a humanoid, dead or otherwise, would not be seen as CHAOTIC. This goes against the paladin's alignment just as much as an evil act. I can see the argument for it not being evil...but being lawful? Doubtful.
Just my opinion.
Are vampire bats evil?
Mosquitos?
Leeches?
Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.
Well, you'll also find spiders and mantis that kill their mate after mating. And bears that kill male cups to prevent future competition.
Whatever happens in the animal kingdom is probably not a good indication on, which actions are good or evil for PCs.
Are vampire bats evil?
Mosquitos?
Leeches?
Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.
You can't apply morality judgments to animals regardless of their activities, which means you can't use them as an example in this context. Dingos eat babies, and they're neutral, yet Paladins clearly can't eat babies.
Oh, by the way, there are some rules that clearly apply to this case in other regions of the rulebook. For instance, the Cook People hex (witch) clearly states that knowingly eating sentient individuals is an evil act. But the Blood Transcription spell (also witch) does NOT state that casting it is an evil act, and it involves drinking the blood of a dead spell caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A baby ate my dingo!