So If two Dhampirs breed, the result is a human? where does it say that, I must have missed it.
He's probably talking about this:
Some particularly zealous scholars even contest dhampirs' status as a unique race, instead viewing them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction. Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs' seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Hmmmmmm..........
You're aware dhampir aren't humans right?Half human, Half undead. When they breed, only the human side wins out.
Which quite frankly is a crap way of writing them up. That's not a race... that's a template
They're not human and they don't qualify for the feat you referenced. Which is really relevant anyway.
I'll no more say cannibalism is automatically evil anymore than the other things featured in the game that aren't considered automatically evil (killing). It may be that two adventurers are stranded on an island and one sacrifices himself to save the other by way of being eaten. (This is an actual event that has happened multiple times int he real world.) Are either of those adventurers evil? (or the real people who really did that?)
I seem to remember there being a word for it back in 3.5, but to say that something can be rule zeroed is NOT a solution to the problem or evidence of a lack of a problem. It especially lacks being a solution for people who can't house rule, such s in PFS.
There is a problem here, of unnecessary restrictions that add nothing. If Golarion (I didn't realize the feat or ARG were campaign specific, though I guess they must be or the feat would have said "...evil act in Golarion.") has moral absolutes, then why don't they cover killing and stealing or any other plethora of things that we would all agree are bad?
Waitwaitwait.
No. You do not get to pull this.
Yes, actually, I do.
You know why (or SHOULD know why) this is an evil act, and why you MADE it an evil act in this universe.
Drinking an intelligent enemy's blood to gain power is an evil act, and I shouldn't need to explain that to anyone. It should be obvious. You should know why it's an evil act, as a person, not just as a player.
If you were just going to come out with the equivalent of "Because I said so." why post a clarification at all? Your silence would have said the same thing.
There are dozens of threads where people assume that because there has been no official response contradicting Statement X by a player, therefore the designers must agree with Statement X. Unfortunately, that is a false assumption.
That's like saying that wanton murder is just fine...unless you're getting something out of it, like money, in which case it's evil.
Only if you equate "adventurers killing monsters who have been threatening or attacking villagers" with "wanton murder." Your premise is invalid.
Drinking an intelligent enemy's blood to gain power is an evil act, and I shouldn't need to explain that to anyone. It should be obvious. You should know why it's an evil act, as a person, not just as a player.
Let's go over this then:
Spilling an intelligent enemy's blood to gain power = GOOD
Drinking an intelligent enemy's blood not to gain power = CREEPY
Drinking an intelligent enemy's blood to gain power = EVIL
Vampiric Touch = NOT EVIL, maybe even GOOD
I sure am glad those morals are so absolute and not at all confusing.
And yes, you gain just as much power as this feat allows when you kill your enemy and take his +1 great sword. If that guy was evil, you are still counted as doing a good thing. This must be true since intent is obviously not being accounted for.
EDIT: It's also interesting that you keep saying that this should be obvious. As if stating that something is obvious makes it so. That way you don't actually have to justify it. I could say to you that killing is obviously evil and be just as right. That there can be a discussion about its obviousness I think show that it is not only obvious, but that there is enough room for discussion that perhaps it being an evil act shouldn't be in the rules.
Why Sean, do the rules allow GMs to use their judgement in deciding which kill and which theft is good and which is evil, but precludes them from doing that here? What sort of design decision led you to change gears in how you handle the morality of actions?
So now you're equating "I looted his body, so I've gained power" with "I drank his blood and siphoned the magic out of it to make myself physically stronger, so I've gained power."
Next up: "I had some coffee, it has caffeine, which is a stimulant, so I've gained power."
You know why (or SHOULD know why) this is an evil act, and why you MADE it an evil act in this universe.Drinking an intelligent enemy's blood to gain power is an evil act, and I shouldn't need to explain that to anyone. It should be obvious. You should know why it's an evil act, as a person, not just as a player.
No, it really isn't. I honestly don't see the difference between "Killing this enemy and taking all of his stuff so I'm better equipped (i.e. more powerful" and "Biting this enemy before/after I kill him to gain more power". There's no moral issue here that isn't already raised by having PCs be Judge, Jury, and Executioner in any area they arrive in, so the only explanation is that "It's magic, I don't have to explain it" which isn't really an explanation.
I'm asking because it's NOT obvious.
If you were just going to come out with the equivalent of "Because I said so." why post a clarification at all? Your silence would have said the same thing.There are dozens of threads where people assume that because there has been no official response contradicting Statement X by a player, therefore the designers must agree with Statement X. Unfortunately, that is a false assumption.
Fair enough.
That's like saying that wanton murder is just fine...unless you're getting something out of it, like money, in which case it's evil.Only if you equate "adventurers killing monsters who have been threatening or attacking villagers" with "wanton murder." Your premise is invalid.
No, I'm equating wanton murder with...wanton murder. In your scenario, Rolf is just fine drinking the blood, unless he gains something from it. That's pretty much exactly what you said:
If Rolf bites his attacker and decides to swallow the attacker's blood, that's just creepy and inappropriate.
If Rolf swallow's the attacker's blood and his eyes light up with joy and he gets stronger for doing so, that's evil.
That fits pretty well with my analogy, working from the same assumption.
Murder is an evil act. By your token of logic murder is not an evil act unless the murderer gains something from doing so. Does that make sense?
If the person can drink the blood, and that's just creepy (not evil), but if he gains something from drinking the blood, he's evil, then what changed? The only thing that changed is that he benefited from it.
So the precedent you're setting here is that evil things are okay (like murder)...but only if you don't get anything out of it. If you just feel like walking out onto the street and murdering someone because you felt like it, that's creepy and inappropriate, but if you ransack their house afterwards you're evil.
I just don't understand why killing someone (even an enemy, in combat) is so different from killing someone and gaining power from their blood.
Posted this as an edit and missed some stuff...
It's also interesting that you keep saying that this should be obvious. As if stating that something is obvious makes it so. That way you don't actually have to justify it. I could say to you that killing is obviously evil and be just as right. That there can be a discussion about its obviousness I think show that it is not only NOT obvious, but that there is enough room for discussion that perhaps it being an evil act shouldn't be in the rules.
Why Sean, do the rules allow GMs to use their judgement in deciding which kill and which theft is good and which is evil, but precludes them from doing that here? What sort of design decision led you to change gears in how you handle the morality of actions?
So now you're equating "I looted his body, so I've gained power" with "I drank his blood and siphoned the magic out of it to make myself physically stronger, so I've gained power."
Next up: "I had some coffee, it has caffeine, which is a stimulant, so I've gained power."
Oh I'm sorry, you took his belt of strength instead and made yourself physically stronger. Or you skinned the dragon you killed and made armor out of him to make yourself tougher.
And yes, the coffee thing is the same. You'll remember that you're the one who is equating gaining power with being evil. I'm the one not seeing the evil part and you're the one who keeps saying it over and over like it will just click. So why then is vampiric touch not evil? Because there is no actual blood? The moral absolutes allow blood drinking and they allow the siphoning of power from your enemies, yet you can't do both at the same time?
Murder is an evil act. By your token of logic murder is not an evil act unless the murderer gains something from doing so. Does that make sense?
I don't see how you get that from my statement at all. Let's go back to what I said:
Each sentence is building off the next. Therefore, the last sentence where Rolf is drinking his opponent's blood is still part of the first sentence's scenario where Rolf has to kill someone in order to defend himself. That's not wanton murder, it's self defense.
If the person can drink the blood, and that's just creepy (not evil), but if he gains something from drinking the blood, he's evil, then what changed? The only thing that changed is that he benefited from it.
If a guy breaks into your house and tries to kill you, and you end up killing him, that's defending yourself.
If you then take the money out of his wallet, and yank out his gold teeth to sell at a pawn shop, that's stealing. The only thing that changed from "just killing him in self-defense" is that you're benefitting from his death.Look, I get it. I get that the game expects you to kill intelligent creatures as part of being an adventuring hero. I'm just saying there is a line that you can cross, and that line is defined right in the feat ("feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act"). You may disagree with that line, and that's fine, but the game has absolutes, and I don't have to write essays explaining why each particular line in the sand is exactly where it is.
So now you're equating "I looted his body, so I've gained power" with "I drank his blood and siphoned the magic out of it to make myself physically stronger, so I've gained power."
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's the exact same end result, and the exact same means, except with one step tacked onto the end (or anywhere in the middle).
Even better, the effects of loot is permanent, making it a more lasting form of power, while Blood Drinker's effects are temporary.
So if we equate gaining power with evil, then gaining power for longer periods is MORE evil.
Next up: "I had some coffee, it has caffeine, which is a stimulant, so I've gained power."
Um, yes. Caffeine gives you energy (temporary energy at that, just like the blood in this scenario). You had to kill cocoa beans to do it.
You killed something (though not intelligent) and gained power from it. It's the same principle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now you're just being absurd. I'm done here.
Murder is an evil act. By your token of logic murder is not an evil act unless the murderer gains something from doing so. Does that make sense?I don't see how you get that from my statement at all. Let's go back to what I said:
Each sentence is building off the next. Therefore, the last sentence where Rolf is drinking his opponent's blood is still part of the first sentence's scenario where Rolf has to kill someone in order to defend himself. That's not wanton murder, it's self defense.
That makes even less sense.
We've determined that:
It's okay to kill in self-defense.
It's okay to bite people in self-defense.
It's okay to swallow their blood after biting them.
It's NOT okay to gain any sort of nutritional or magical benefit from the blood you swallowed.
If the person can drink the blood, and that's just creepy (not evil), but if he gains something from drinking the blood, he's evil, then what changed? The only thing that changed is that he benefited from it.If a guy breaks into your house and tries to kill you, and you end up killing him, that's defending yourself.
If you then take the money out of his wallet, and yank out his gold teeth to sell at a pawn shop, that's stealing. The only thing that changed from "just killing him in self-defense" is that you're benefitting from his death.
But in the world of Golarion, killing someone and taking the money out of his wallet, stripping him naked, and throwing him in the river to be eaten by crocodiles is not only accepted, it's EXPECTED, so that analogy is full of more holes than my colander.
Look, I get it. I get that the game expects you to kill intelligent creatures as part of being an adventuring hero. I'm just saying there is a line that you can cross, and that line is defined right in the feat ("feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act"). You may disagree with that line, and that's fine, but the game has absolutes, and I don't have to write essays explaining why each particular line in the sand is exactly where it is.
Yes, the game has absolutes, but it's absolutely baffling where the lines are drawn, since the lines do criss-cross applesauce all over each other at any given moment.
The least you could do to solidify the evil act thing is make the FEAT ITSELF limited to Evil alignment, but it's not. Any ol' Dhampir can take it.
Now you're just being absurd. I'm done here.
I fail to see how it's so absurd.
But fine.
Let's try this from another angle.
What repercussions are there if it's NOT an Evil act?
Also does this make intelligent humanoids/monstrous humanoids who consume the dead flesh of their foes for sustenance or mystical reasons after defeating them in battle - the wolfmen race of Fenrin in my setting, heavily based on the Lupin from Dragon Compendium, are known to do this; they very much espouse the idea of "waste nothing of a kill" and "honor a worthy opponent by consuming his flesh to gain his strength" - automatically evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a guy breaks into your house and tries to kill you, and you end up killing him, that's defending yourself.
If you then take the money out of his wallet, and yank out his gold teeth to sell at a pawn shop, that's stealing. The only thing that changed from "just killing him in self-defense" is that you're benefitting from his death.
k, but what about when an adventuring party is at the inn and someone breaks in and tries to kill them. Then after he's dispatched, "Oh look, he had a cloak of resistance. Dibbs." How is that not stealing? Why is that not evil?
Is there anything absurd about my question regarding vampiric touch? I'd really like an answer to that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys just keep playing around with the morality of it all but you guys are just being contrary. This is an evil act, killing in and of itself is pretty evil in pathfinder.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
From the CRB.
Now, drinking their blood infers a disrespect for life., inherently making it not good. Add up that you're killing a guy, profiting from it through the blood, and disrespecting life by consuming their body. You can argue all you want, but by the rules it's evil.
Sure you can argue for why good characters kill, loot, and so on. But those acts are neutral, at best, evil at worst. But as I've championed before, alignment is complex. Good character commit lesser evils to do good. They're sacrificing themselves to protect people from evil, but they kill and steal to do so. And that's okay, unless you're the type of person who thinks a single evil act makes you auto-evil.
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".
And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.
Waitwaitwait.
No. You do not get to pull this.Yes, actually, I do.
You know why (or SHOULD know why) this is an evil act, and why you MADE it an evil act in this universe.Drinking an intelligent enemy's blood to gain power is an evil act, and I shouldn't need to explain that to anyone. It should be obvious. You should know why it's an evil act, as a person, not just as a player.
If you were just going to come out with the equivalent of "Because I said so." why post a clarification at all? Your silence would have said the same thing.There are dozens of threads where people assume that because there has been no official response contradicting Statement X by a player, therefore the designers must agree with Statement X. Unfortunately, that is a false assumption.
That's like saying that wanton murder is just fine...unless you're getting something out of it, like money, in which case it's evil.Only if you equate "adventurers killing monsters who have been threatening or attacking villagers" with "wanton murder." Your premise is invalid.
Thank you for this.
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.
Plus OOoooooOOOOnnnnne! (in a singing pansy voice while dancing through a flowered meadow)
note grall and I usually dont agree...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.
How am I "playing with the terms of morality"? I've stated in multiple places where I think his logic is faulty in this case, and he hasn't said anything other than "That's the way it is". I KNOW that's the way it is, but why is it that way? It looks pretty arbitrary to me, because there's very little difference between how this works and the normal day-to-day of an adventurer.
And I very much doubt I "scared him off" he's probably just got better things to do.
That's what I was about to say, but I had to drive home. With all due respect, I think Sean is more frustrated with the discussion and wants to spend his time with more important things than actually "scared" of any of us. And I agree, his arguments seemed to stem more from tradition than actual justification. I've seen Sean debate, I know he can do it and do it well, and this - again, with all due respect - was not his best showing. I think by the time this discussion GOT to this point, he was already starting to get frustrated with the whole thing, leading to his ducking out.
In my own games I've houseruled away a great amount of this anyway, as well as "Undead are always evil" (see awesome arguments for that by Set and Mikaze and others in the "Why?" thread) and a few other things. So I know in regards to my own last question that no, wolffolk who eat their defeated enemies are not evil. Though I would say those who attack FOR THE PURPOSE of eating them, rather than eating a sack of meat left after defending themselves from an attacker or an opponent in war, would indeed be evil; I would make the same argument for Dhampirs: those who drink the blood of their enemies after they are dead, regardless of whether or not they gain a benefit from it, are not acting evilly, but those who attack enemies for the purpose of getting their blood would be. It's all in intent.
But we're not arguing about houserules here, we're arguing about the logic - or lack thereof - of the core rules.
I'll no more say cannibalism is automatically evil anymore than the other things featured in the game that aren't considered automatically evil (killing). It may be that two adventurers are stranded on an island and one sacrifices himself to save the other by way of being eaten. (This is an actual event that has happened multiple times int he real world.) Are either of those adventurers evil? (or the real people who really did that?)
Do we have Wendigo in a bestiary?
I still say you are confusing 'Doing something Evil'... with *BEING EVIL*
If your alone in the middle of a desert, and your the last surviver. Go ahead... Eat up. If you LIKE the taste, and keep going back for more when there are nice juicy cows around... THEN you gotta look at an alignment change. Because.. YEAH, Evil.
It's also interesting that you keep saying that this should be obvious. As if stating that something is obvious makes it so. That way you don't actually have to justify it. I could say to you that killing is obviously evil and be just as right. That there can be a discussion about its obviousness I think show that it is not only NOT obvious, but that there is enough room for discussion that perhaps it being an evil act shouldn't be in the rules.
Just because people debate things do not make them less morally obvious. Some people either A) just have twisted moral compasses... or B) like to act like they do.
See all the threads about the obvious 'good' benefits of torture, demon bargaining, child killing and anything else that tickles the internet's fancy...
Sometimes 'In this game... THIS is how it is.' Is really the BEST way to handle something. In THIS game... Undead are always Evil. Embracing your undead nature and feeding that unholy power... Is also evil.
If your game has a more fluid morality scale where it's perfectly fine for undead to be innocent bystanders, Paladins to lie and torture, and people to rip the throats out of a living opponent and absorb his power...
More power to ya ;)
Sometimes 'In this game... THIS is how it is.' Is really the BEST way to handle something.
Except it's illogical and makes no sense. The answer to "why is this thing evil?" is "because it is", but the answer to "why isn't this similar thing evil?" is "because it isn't". And when lucid, logical arguments are made in return, the best we get is "It's obvious". Which, again, it isn't, unless you already are biased in that direction.
In THIS game... Undead are always Evil. Embracing your undead nature and feeding that unholy power... Is also evil.
If that's the reason, it's equally illogical - hence why there's already a 5+ page discussion of very good reasons for most undead, especially the mindless ones, to not be evil - and following an "if X then Y" statement beginning from an illogical premise only leads to an illogical conclusion.
Also, please don't insinuate that the removal of the stipulation of one act or set of acts throws the entire moral compass of the game out of existence. It's simply not honest debate.
Can you have an evil character whose behavior is in every way indistinguishable from lawful good, except that he regularly drinks blood?
And if so, would a Paladin be justified in killing this person?
In answer to your first question, I would say, "absolutely." Especially if the laws of the society said character found him-/herself in condoned the drinking of blood for nourishment or survival. Additionally, if said character chose to drink animal blood as opposed to that of an intelligent being, then I also believe this could be justified. Thus, it's dependent on societal norms/laws (although I should ask, would one consider a society that accepts the drinking of an unwilling, intelligent being's blood good?) or the source of the blood in question.
In answer to your second question, I am of the inclination that a Paladin isn't justified in killing anyone without just cause. If said Paladin uses his detect evil ability and discovers that someone is evil, this does not mean the Paladin is justified in slaughtering said person. People can be evil in many different ways and not necessarily do anything wrong. Thus, if the Paladin detects said character as evil, but has not otherwise identified said character as having done anything wrong, then no, absolutely not.
However, if said character forces him-/herself onto another unwilling individual, cuts them open and begins to drink freely of their blood (even if the victim here detects as evil) . . . then, yes, absolutely yes that Paladin is justified in killing that character.
Can you have an evil character whose behavior is in every way indistinguishable from lawful good, except that he regularly drinks blood?
And if so, would a Paladin be justified in killing this person?
In answer to your first question, I would say, "absolutely." Especially if the laws of the society said character found him-/herself in condoned the drinking of blood for nourishment or survival. Additionally, if said character chose to drink animal blood as opposed to that of an intelligent being, then I also believe this could be justified. Thus, it's dependent on societal norms/laws (although I should ask, would one consider a society that accepts the drinking of an unwilling, intelligent being's blood good?) or the source of the blood in question.
In answer to your second question, I am of the inclination that a Paladin isn't justified in killing anyone without just cause. If said Paladin uses his detect evil ability and discovers that someone is evil, this does not mean the Paladin is justified in slaughtering said person. People can be evil in many different ways and not necessarily do anything wrong. Thus, if the Paladin detects said character as evil, but has not otherwise identified said character as having done anything wrong, then no, absolutely not.
However, if said character forces him-/herself onto another unwilling individual, cuts them open and begins to drink freely of their blood (even if the victim here detects as evil) . . . then, yes, absolutely yes that Paladin is justified in killing that character.
Erm thats mutually contradictive. in the above example, the ONLY reason this person is evil is the drinking of blood (also note a dhampir can't get any benefit from drinking the blood of animals, as such there is no reason to do it)
So youre saying the paladin should/can kill the damper for drinking the blood of an innocent, but cant kill him for detecting evil. But that's the only thing that he does that is considered "evil"
I would argue however that once someone become evil, there are other behaviors. He's not evil because he cheats on his taxes and embezzles from his job.... there is a package of behavior that goes with the alignment, IMO.
alignment is or should be a SUM of the persons deeds, not a defining moment or single action.
case in point: A paladin loses his powers if he willing commits an evil act. ok. His alignment hasnt changed yet, the offending paladin wont detect as evil, yet. If he atones he gets back his powers and moves on.
A neutral good guy could cheat on his taxes for years... he's not going to change alignment,
Perhaps this Dhampir is... Neutral, he then buys the feat and drinks his first blood, this is an evil act. He knowingly did it. So it falls under the same criteria as the Paladins evil act.
Except in the Dhampirs case there is no higher level of judgement, no power to lose.
But the single act hasn't changed his alignment, yet.
Now if he runs about and makes a habit of drinking blood.... he's going to become evil, as per RAW.
If it's the first time he's ever done it, and he gets accused of doing so, and a paladin runs over to detect evil on him, hes going to get a BIG FAT ZERO. Because he's not evil....yet.
Evil act is not the same as Evil alignment.
How often can he get away with it, and not become evil? I suppose that's up to the DM.
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.Plus OOoooooOOOOnnnnne! (in a singing pansy voice while dancing through a flowered meadow)
note grall and I usually dont agree...
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.
How rude of both of you. Did you miss the most important rule right below the reply box?
Frankly, I found this thread while trying to find a way to use the feat (it's literally unusable as written) with no concern for its evil status. It was only after seeing skr's replies that I became both confused and disgusted at his line of reasoning. I have no idea how one 'plays with the terms of morality' as morals Are subjective since we live in a society of reaaoning nor do I have any purpose to further by doing so. You should be feel ashamed of yourselves and I should probably report your posts for being so derogatory.
Morbius went for a few years in the comics only drinking 'the blood of the guilty'.
In game terms, it was still an evil act. He had years of this kind of activity and would have probably detected as a neutral Evil.
This does not necessarily make him eligible for a good smiting JUST because he's detecting Evil. There are many reasons person can be considered 'Evil' without doing stuff that is 'punishable by death'.
If a paladin comes across one who is actively stealing the blood of an innocent... That's a different matter.
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.Plus OOoooooOOOOnnnnne! (in a singing pansy voice while dancing through a flowered meadow)
note grall and I usually dont agree...
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.How rude of both of you. Did you miss the most important rule right below the reply box?
Frankly, I found this thread while trying to find a way to use the feat (it's literally unusable as written) with no concern for its evil status. It was only after seeing skr's replies that I became both confused and disgusted at his line of reasoning. I have no idea how one 'plays with the terms of morality' as morals Are subjective since we live in a society of reaaoning nor do I have any purpose to further by doing so. You should be feel ashamed of yourselves and I should probably report your posts for being so derogatory.
I agree the feat is literally unusable. (unless you are an evil character)
I already outlined something I would accept as a house rule (a ranger feeding on his favored enemy, that is already an evil race like goblins)
The additional feats are curious... like the one where you can feed on dead bodies... ummm so are they still unwilling, or are they dead? I mean... can I do it to dead bodies (by virtue of two feats?) and not be evil?
Report me to whom? SKR? for agreeing with Darth Grall (whom usually we dont agree) who agrees with SKR??
So If I agree with someone whose opinion you don't like.... I'm a jerk. got it. No agreeing.
Morbius went for a few years in the comics only drinking 'the blood of the guilty'.
In game terms, it was still an evil act. He had years of this kind of activity and would have probably detected as a neutral Evil.
This does not necessarily make him eligible for a good smiting JUST because he's detecting Evil. There are many reasons person can be considered 'Evil' without doing stuff that is 'punishable by death'.
If a paladin comes across one who is actively stealing the blood of an innocent... That's a different matter.
How would the paladin know if the "victim" wasn't a lover, they were role playing (because it's kinky) and the person is actually willing?
I mean in general, does a person kick or scream when blood is being consumed? The person needs to be pinned, incapacitated or willing....
SO it'd be kind of difficult for someone to happen on this person doing this act and KNOW if it was evil or not, EXCEPT by detecting evil.
What if this person is evil because like you pointed out... he has another reason to be? And in fact THIS act his is bard girlfriend letting share a little blood to heal him from the last battle??
How would the paladin know, maybe the Dhampir charmed the person and she IS a victim?
I would assume, if the PC comes around the corner, and GM says "You see a man drinking blood from the body of a woman" The Paladin is likely to go all nutzoid.
Not Sure I blame him.... but what did he walk in on??
The guy might be healing... from a willing partner, he's already low on HP (or he wouldnt be healing) and the paladin lets him have a Whap.
Now he's dead.
Have we done anything new or different, from the detect evil-smite scenario?
Detect evil is a form of perception. You're perceiving this person as evil.
Sight is a form of perception, can't always believe what you see.
So should the Paladin stop, Tap the lady on the shoulder and say excuse me miss, but do you require assistance??
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This escalated quickly. :(
Personally, I prefer a more nuanced approach to handling the morality of this feat.
I'd treat it the same way I do cannibalism. It might be evil. It might not be. It depends on why it's happening, and sometimes the how.
With blood drinking, if it's a matter of survival and the target is an enemy, it's creepy but not evil.
If the dhampir is doing it for the thrill or because he's hungry for more power for its own sake, it's evil.
Some acts I can easily see as Always Evil, but the blood drinking isn't really one of them, though it can easily fall into evil. But that's best handled on a case-by-case basis.
It's a very dark, gray area. But that's where Dhampir were designed to live it seems. :)
(I do like that consenting donation of blood didn't get caught with the evil label too though)
I'm sorry, I'm confused on what the difference between eating a cow and drinking someone's blood is.
Cows are delicious, but they are intelligent creatures able to understand their mortality.
If being Good requires me to eat rabbit food, let me be Evil :)
This escalated quickly. :(
Personally, I prefer a more nuanced approach to handling the morality of this feat.
I'd treat it the same way I do cannibalism. It might be evil. It might not be. It depends on why it's happening, and sometimes the how.
With blood drinking, if it's a matter of survival and the target is an enemy, it's creepy but not evil.
If the dhampir is doing it for the thrill or because he's hungry for more power for its own sake, it's evil.
Some acts I can easily see as Always Evil, but the blood drinking isn't really one of them, though it can easily fall into evil. But that's best handled on a case-by-case basis.
It's a very dark, gray area. But that's where Dhampir were designed to live it seems. :)
(I do like that consenting donation of blood didn't get caught with the evil label too though)
Well if the Dhampir is supposed to be gray... then the feat would allow some way to use it other than tapping your party member on the shoulder.... 'cuse me, care if I heal now?
It's a pretty blatant statement. boom, smack, it's an evil act.
like I said, I would have prefered to see some extenuating circumstance to it, like feeding off evil creatures etc etc.....
But then we would have blood feeding dhampir paladins nom noming on orc and that, I think is what the devs sought to prevent.
What's the difference between a cow and eating a sentient creature (like a man)?
Sentience. Independent thought/will free of instinct.
Cows don't practice religion or engage in philosophy. They're cattle.
But Vegans and some Hindus would disagree with that.
This escalated quickly. :(
Personally, I prefer a more nuanced approach to handling the morality of this feat.
I'd treat it the same way I do cannibalism. It might be evil. It might not be. It depends on why it's happening, and sometimes the how.
With blood drinking, if it's a matter of survival and the target is an enemy, it's creepy but not evil.
If the dhampir is doing it for the thrill or because he's hungry for more power for its own sake, it's evil.
Some acts I can easily see as Always Evil, but the blood drinking isn't really one of them, though it can easily fall into evil. But that's best handled on a case-by-case basis.
It's a very dark, gray area. But that's where Dhampir were designed to live it seems. :)
(I do like that consenting donation of blood didn't get caught with the evil label too though)
Well if the Dhampir is supposed to be gray... then the feat would allow some way to use it other than tapping your party member on the shoulder.... 'cuse me, care if I heal now?
It's a pretty blatant statement. boom, smack, it's an evil act.
like I said, I would have prefered to see some extenuating circumstance to it, like feeding off evil creatures etc etc.....
But then we would have blood feeding dhampir paladins nom noming on orc and that, I think is what the devs sought to prevent.
What's the difference between a cow and eating a sentient creature (like a man)?
Sentience. Independent thought/will free of instinct.Cows don't practice religion or engage in philosophy. They're cattle.
But Vegans and some Hindus would disagree with that.
If they don't practice religion, I would argue that they may be more intelligent than we are :)
From what I always understood, the religious connotation behind Hindus not eating cows was for practical reasons dressed as religious decrees, similar to why Jews and Muslims don't eat pigs.
I've always been of the assumption that the practicality of not eating cows in a place where the number of plowbeasts you owned could very well decide your fate was fairly obvious.
I also figured that it was decreed that "god said don't do it" because pigs harbor parasites and other nasties, and are unsafe to eat if you don't cook them thoroughly enough. What works better? "Don't eat this, you'll get sick", or, "Guys! God said don't do it!".
Years later I discovered anthropologist Marvin Harris spent most of his career with the same ideas, but then, he was a bit cracked and tended to make a lot of overgeneralized assumptions about a lot of things, so I don't know if naming him supports me or disparages me.
I'm still not convinced that feeding on something that is lesser than you is "Evil". I eat animals all the time, but I'm also the first one to speak up and tell you that animals are intelligent, and are capable of showing emotions, and have a capacity to understand where they are and what's gong on around them. I think that ending their lives just to eat them should be considered just as wrong. I just wish they weren't so darned tasty :)
And if you're wondering, I draw the line at cats; they make me happy and I would never eat one.
Hate to invoke it, but I agree with Lastat: vampires are the predators, humans are the prey. Vampires exist a step up from humans on the food chain, and thus they should be allowed to feed on them, because they need it to live. Sure, they could feed on rats, but we could eat grass, too, so eating an animal in a world with absolute alignments should be considered evil, or at least wrong, for us because we have an alternative, right? Because that's what the argument for it being evil sounds like to me.
Edit: Vampires supposedly see the world in ways that none of us can understand...isn't that the same as your argument that cows are dumb because they can't argue politics and religion? :)
Don't get me wrong, I hate vampires, and wish they'd all die, but that's because I'm a human and I would be their food :)
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.Plus OOoooooOOOOnnnnne! (in a singing pansy voice while dancing through a flowered meadow)
note grall and I usually dont agree...
I disagree, greatly, and I think the arguments already made by Rynjin and Davick are pretty solid, and it's disingenuous and dismissive to brush them aside as "just being contrary".And I greatly disagree with you. They're playing with the terms of morality for their own purpose and have even scared away the Dev. I suppose we're at an impasse.How rude of both of you. Did you miss the most important rule right below the reply box?
Frankly, I found this thread while trying to find a way to use the feat (it's literally unusable as written) with no concern for its evil status. It was only after seeing skr's replies that I became both confused and disgusted at his line of reasoning. I have no idea how one 'plays with the terms of morality' as morals Are subjective since we live in a society of reaaoning nor do I have any purpose to further by doing so. You should be feel ashamed of yourselves and I should probably report your posts for being so derogatory.
I agree the feat is literally unusable. (unless you are an evil character)
I already outlined something I would accept as a house rule (a ranger feeding on his favored enemy, that is already an evil race like goblins)
The additional feats are curious... like the one where you can feed on dead bodies... ummm so are they still unwilling, or are they dead? I mean... can I do it to dead bodies (by virtue of...
The feat is unusable regardless of alignment. It's ironic that were thorough enough to denote the alignment qualities of the feat, but not enough to make sure it even does anything to begin with.
I wouldn't report you for disagreeing, but for harsh statements about another individual and trying to villianize those who don't see things the way you do. And I would do it with the flag button at the top of your post.
Hate to invoke it, but I agree with Lastat: vampires are the predators, humans are the prey. Vampires exist a step up from humans on the food chain, and thus they should be allowed to feed on them, because they need it to live. Sure, they could feed on rats, but we could eat grass, too, so eating an animal in a world with absolute alignments should be considered evil, or at least wrong, for us because we have an alternative, right? Because that's what the argument for it being evil sounds like to me.
Edit: Vampires supposedly see the world in ways that none of us can understand...isn't that the same as your argument that cows are dumb because they can't argue politics and religion? :)
Don't get me wrong, I hate vampires, and wish they'd all die, but that's because I'm a human and I would be their food :)
I actually kinda disagree with this part. Dhampirs aren't vampires, they're not reliant on the sustenance of blood to survive, they CAN (have to, really) eat other food.
The problem I have with this is that I don't understand why it's not "Feeding on an innocent/non-hostile unwilling creature is evil" instead of "Feeding on an unwilling creature, even one that's trying to murder your face off with a rusty spork is evil".
The feat is unusable regardless of alignment. It's ironic that were thorough enough to denote the alignment qualities of the feat, but not enough to make sure it even does anything to begin with.
Unless you have a bite attack, and suddenly the feat is quite good, dealing con damage and healing yourself.
On the matter of morality, I think it is bad design to throw alignment restrictions into feats and abilities. Since situations (and groups) are different, whether or not an action is evil is subjective.
Apart from a few spells, the alignment system works in terms of 'it's what you do with your abilities', rather than 'it's what abilities you use'.
Drinking blood could easily be an evil act, but that is not really any different than casting vampiric touch.
Yea... Not seeing this as evil. You ask your ally and get permission to feed. Your ally takes a slight hit to Con, you gain some temps, both will recover. Who exactly is being harmed in your scenario?
Well if the Dhampir is supposed to be gray... then the feat would allow some way to use it other than tapping your party member on the shoulder.... 'cuse me, care if I heal now?It's a pretty blatant statement. boom, smack, it's an evil act.
I didnt say the permission part was evil.... It says drinking the blood on the UNwilling is, so by extension, drinking the blood of the WILLING isnt. Which means, buddies, girlfriends, followers, worshippers whatever, you can suck on them.
Hate to invoke it, but I agree with Lastat: vampires are the predators, humans are the prey. Vampires exist a step up from humans on the food chain, and thus they should be allowed to feed on them, because they need it to live. Sure, they could feed on rats, but we could eat grass, too, so eating an animal in a world with absolute alignments should be considered evil, or at least wrong, for us because we have an alternative, right? Because that's what the argument for it being evil sounds like to me.
Edit: Vampires supposedly see the world in ways that none of us can understand...isn't that the same as your argument that cows are dumb because they can't argue politics and religion? :)
Don't get me wrong, I hate vampires, and wish they'd all die, but that's because I'm a human and I would be their food :)
I actually kinda disagree with this part. Dhampirs aren't vampires, they're not reliant on the sustenance of blood to survive, they CAN (have to, really) eat other food.
The problem I have with this is that I don't understand why it's not "Feeding on an innocent/non-hostile unwilling creature is evil" instead of "Feeding on an unwilling creature, even one that's trying to murder your face off with a rusty spork is evil".
yes, i agree dhampirs dont NEED to feed on blood, however do PF Vampires need to either? Did I miss it in their write up... I cant find where they NEED to, just that they CAN?
The feat is a stunt for Dhampirs, and actually does something different than it does for real vampires.
But then there is the question, how many licks does it take to the get to the center of the evil tootsie pop?
If you use it once.... it doesn't make you evil immediately... it's an evil act. so let's say out of desperation you pop the ace out of your sleeve and drink off an orc or whatever. He WAS lying there bleeding anyway.....
So how many times can you get away with that without becoming, switching to evil?
but then is the feat worth a quick little heal once or twice if ever.... maybe not.
I just found a really trick way to use this feat.
For an NPC thou.
you could have Dhampir set up a mock "vampire cult" in the city, a bunch of pretenders/cultist types. The Dhampir could pull off a convincing vampire act, especially with the right feats. Have a bunch of followers and thralls and be dang hard to kill, especially if he was able to get away, he could just chew on people and heal.
Would be a goofy way to introduce a low power "vampire" to a gothicesque type campaign.
(where real vampires at appropriate level will eventually come into play)
What if a Dhampir with feats like this were to get killed and turned into areal vampire, would his dhampir powers still work?
Also why can any NON good character have a undead animal companion with a feat from this book, and remain not evil (just not good) but if the same character were to drink blood from an orc... he's evil.... but Ill send my undead pet to chew up that orc... that's ok!
Sorta kinda. It's like an addiction, and they're created with it:
“Hunger” is perhaps a misleading term to describe a vampire's lust for flesh, consciousness, or youth. As unliving things, they technically require no sustenance, and yet ravenousness is often considered a key characteristic of those who walk without life. In truth, this desire is driven not by need, but by psychological greed. Feasting grants the undead no physical nourishment, but does fill them with a pleasure and power they can't attain by any other means. For undead, the act of feeding can be likened to that of an addict satiating her inner demon.
The basest monsters pursue their addiction to the exclusion of anything else, but vampires and other greater undead are closer to functioning addicts—simultaneously managing their hunger and their more high-minded schemes. If denied living nectar for too long, however, even the sharpest creatures hurl themselves at whichever warm, soft parts of the living they most covet.
...
Where the living suffer physically from starvation, undead suffer mentally. After long enough without a “meal,” even the most arrogant vampire becomes a bestial creature of instinct. Withdrawal weakens the monster, and as its natural defenses fail, its behavior becomes irrational, particularly when it's around sources of what it is denied or has denied itself.
A carnivorous or otherwise life-draining undead may safely go a number of days equal to its Hit Dice without a dose of its preferred meal before it starts to feel the effects of hunger. Each additional day after this grace period, the undead must make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the undead creature's Hit Dice, + 1 for each previous check).
If the undead creature fails its save, it enters withdrawal and begins to take penalties according to the Withdrawal Penalties table (see page 23). It must continue to save each day until it feeds again. Additional failed checks increase the penalties as shown on the table. Feats and abilities that affect mortal hunger (such as Endurance or a ring of sustenance) do not apply to vampire hunger.
An undead that is suffering from withdrawal grows increasingly drawn and gaunt (or diaphanous and tattered, for incorporeal undead). Any attempts by the creature to conceal its undead nature with the Disguise skill are penalized as noted on the table.
An undead that suffers withdrawal is acutely aware of its unfulfilled addiction; if presented with the chance to feed, it might be compelled to do so, regardless of the consequences. Anytime it comes within 10 feet of a helpless creature that can sate its desire, it must make another hunger save at the current DC. Failure means it falls upon the helpless creature—whether friend or foe— and attempts to consume or drain it. Until the undead has fed, it can take no action other than to feed from this helpless creature or to enable itself to feed (such as a moroi grappling a creature so it can use its blood drain). During this feeding frenzy, the undead creature takes a –2 penalty to its AC.
Also why can any NON good character have a undead animal companion with a feat from this book, and remain not evil (just not good) but if the same character were to drink blood from an orc... he's evil.... but Ill send my undead pet to chew up that orc... that's ok!
I'd rather compare it to the Synthesist/Eidolon with swallow-whole.
Dhamphir drinking the blood of the orc is evil, but the eating the orc in its entirety is a-ok.
Sorta kinda. It's like an addiction, and they're created with it:
...“Hunger” is perhaps a misleading term to describe a vampire's lust for flesh, consciousness, or youth. As unliving things, they technically require no sustenance, and yet ravenousness is often considered a key characteristic of those who walk without life. In truth, this desire is driven not by need, but by psychological greed. Feasting grants the undead no physical nourishment, but does fill them with a pleasure and power they can't attain by any other means. For undead, the act of feeding can be likened to that of an addict satiating her inner demon.
The basest monsters pursue their addiction to the exclusion of anything else, but vampires and other greater undead are closer to functioning addicts—simultaneously managing their hunger and their more high-minded schemes. If denied living nectar for too long, however, even the sharpest creatures hurl themselves at whichever warm, soft parts of the living they most covet.
...
Where the living suffer physically from starvation, undead suffer mentally. After long enough without a “meal,” even the most arrogant vampire becomes a bestial creature of instinct. Withdrawal weakens the monster, and as its natural defenses fail, its behavior becomes irrational, particularly when it's around sources of what it is denied or has denied itself.
A carnivorous or otherwise life-draining undead may safely go a number of days equal to its Hit Dice without a dose of its preferred meal before it starts to feel the effects of hunger. Each additional day after this grace period, the undead must make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the undead creature's Hit Dice, + 1 for each previous check).
If the undead creature fails its save, it enters withdrawal and begins to take penalties according to the Withdrawal Penalties table (see page 23). It must continue to save each day until it feeds again. Additional failed checks increase the penalties as shown on the table. Feats and
This is new thou right, isnt that from Blood of the night, not in the Bestiary. I havent read that part yet, as I didnt buy the book to make a vampire that will quickly meet stabbity death MORE complicated than it actually is.
In fact I might note, I'm rather disappointed with the book. Too much focus on MORE vampire... did we really need more vampire feats? Did we need extra vampire races? sigh.
I wish they did more on the Dhampir and Vampire Hunters... Maybe a PrC every class could jump into... instead of just listing random archetypes that might make good vampire hunters.
I also dont like how kinslayer and vampire hunter archetypes don't mix. And a non-dhampir vampire hunter is better than a kinslayer.
I did buy the book hoping there would be a feat that would buy off the "cant be healed by positive energy" thing, and it was there... so good. So you can Have a Dhampir that can walk about in the day light and can receive some healing from positive energy... that's the whole book to me, right there.
The feat is unusable regardless of alignment. It's ironic that were thorough enough to denote the alignment qualities of the feat, but not enough to make sure it even does anything to begin with.Unless you have a bite attack, and suddenly the feat is quite good, dealing con damage and healing yourself.
On the matter of morality, I think it is bad design to throw alignment restrictions into feats and abilities. Since situations (and groups) are different, whether or not an action is evil is subjective.
Apart from a few spells, the alignment system works in terms of 'it's what you do with your abilities', rather than 'it's what abilities you use'.Drinking blood could easily be an evil act, but that is not really any different than casting vampiric touch.
You're right. If you have a bite OTHER than the one granted by the damper racial trait, it's usable.
I also don't like how the feat that discusses vampires and delves into dhampirs comes with rules for actual real hunger. It even has saves for being unable to resist. That means this feat can't handle the situation in which a character needs to drink blood because they biologically require it (making it a disorder no different than any other), and adding the restriction lacked the forethought to account for this. (Making it no different than punishing someone for eating steak when they could have had rice, and also they would die if they don't eat steak).
yes, that's it I would die if I didn't eat steak.... Im going to save that for the next vegetarian discussion..... I would die.... what will I call this..... musteatsteakism? It's a rare disorder.
Can Vampires die? What happens if you lock them in a room for 1000 years with nothing to drink off? Do they implode? They are already dead. I get you can destroy one, but can they actually starve to death, or are we talking about a psychological/spiritual/magical compulsion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First: If you take the fangs racial trait, you gain a bite attack. This is not evil. Bite away. But if you also take a feat to drink blood, that's evil. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Second: The definition of intelligent is one of those things that's conveniently easy when governed by rules but actually isn't. Would your party eat a dolphin? Or any animal that can be selected as an animal companion and taught tricks? Because guess what, that's evil. These are intelligent creatures.
Third: "OK," you say. "But if I eat a dolphin, it's not ALIVE when I eat it." Again, drinking blood is essentially a minor addendum to biting. The drinking itself causes no pain, just the bite. But biting by itself is not evil. Divide by zero anyone?
Fourth: The blood drinking rules provided by Paizo in general are pretty lame. I'd be more than happy to have a dhampir that kills animals and drinks their blood for health, or that feeds afterwards. But feeding on animal blood is, in Paizo's mind, impossible, and feeding on blood from a freshly dead creature requires an entirely new feat. Not to mention that you are required to take a feat for each separate humanoid type you want to feed on. So if you wanted to make this a useful mechanic you use, you'd have to blow somewhere around 8 feats collecting them all. I'm trying to get my GM to agree to some house rules, but IMHO, what blood-drinking for a dhampir should be is an easier way to regain HP for a class that gets dealt damage from positive energy and cure spells. In that regard, it completely fails.
OK, addendum: While rooting around another part of the forum, I found this, which is apparently a bloodline ability granted by the sanguine sorcerer bloodline:
"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 should have been the blood drinker feat. Just throwing that out there. Going to ask my GM if he'll agree to house rule this as a feat I can take with a dhampir character.