|
My question here is not with the feats but with the description in the Blood Drinker Feat itself.
"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."
Why? I know my sister the Vegan could give me a hundred reasons, but really it is not that much different than any predator feeding on a prey creature. Why does being "intelligent" put you on some kind protected species list. Come on a guy has to eat right... some just have special needs. And haven't I seen people on the blogs asking about making a good aligned assassin. How is that any different? Feeding does not always mean killing, yet any adventurer worth his or her salt will kill dozens if not hundreds of "intelligent" creatures in the course of their adventuring career. That is quite a bit of wasted potential in the eyes of a dhampir.
So I say to all you playing a dhampir out there to make your voice heard. If the monk players can get flurry of blows changed by Zura we can get the Blood Drinker Feats changed as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feeding from an unwilling intelligent creature is cruelty and torture for selfish reasons. That's what makes it evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just feed on as many tiny, cute little kittens you can find, and keep your good alignment. Stick 6 of them in a container and call it a 6-pack. Moral crisis averted.
EVIL!!!
Greg :P
You didn't read? The cute creatures was added as an Errata.
Not really, but I'd probably not be ok with cute creatures having their blood sucked. That's just me.
Expect Table variation. Besides, why is this an issue?
If it's a blood-sucking paladin, people already claim they have that ability.
Feeding on a creature before giving it the mercy of death is a pretty class-A D-bag thing to do. Monsters that do that in my immediate memory are ghouls, vampires, and those nasty vaath. I can think of a few types of vermin who do so in the real world, but I can't think of many real world creatures which do beyond various insects and such. Mostly because it is rather stupid unless you have a paralytic agent in play, as wounded prey is dangerous prey.
Fighting an orc, I know that the brute is likely to eat me after he kills me. As unsettling as it may be, its nothing compared to the horror of the thought that a ghoul or dhampir might start feeding on me before he does so.
Get willing meals, or eat after combat. Thats what the dhampir in my Carrion Crown game has done.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An intelligent creature can legally give consent or withhold consent.
Inflicting harm on an intelligent creature without consent is a crime.
Intentionally inflicting physical harm on a creature that is refusing to consent to that harm is an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And will most likely get you kicked in your dhampir goonch by another player who doesn't like what is happening to them.
Just say this:
"Will this action make someone it affects want to kick me in the goonch?"
If the answer is yes and they are not a baddie trying to hurt you anyway, then what you are doing is probably naughty.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traveling Murder Hobos: The Justifying, coming to a game store near you. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man Nicos, it is not like the bad guy is going, "Hey, we're cool, you all leave me alone and I'll leave you all alone and we'll just chill and have a brew, huh?"
The bad guy is usually trying to eat your face or turn it into an object that opens a portal to another dimension full of things that also want to eat your face.
Yeah he is refusing consent to that harm because it impedes him from eating your face.
So it's totally okay to just straight up harm him because also he has my +2 longsword.
I put this with...
We are gonna kill him anyway, why don't we do it slowly and drag it out for the fun of it!
OR
Let's open up his brain box, scoop out parts and eat it before we kill him.
OR
Wait! Wait! Before we kill him, let me cut open and artery so I can slurp up some sanguinary fun!
The way one kills can be evil.
Greg
|
Actually it's Golarion, slavery is everywhere.
Find the worst slave merchant you can find, take a look at his wares, explain to the slaves that you could buy them and give them a life of comfort, but they will need to supply a pint of blood every now and then.
Chances are, the slaves will be delighted to get the hell out of there and will quickly get used to needing to be a blood donor every now and then. Hell, while the emancipated slaves are travelling with you, you could even teach a few of them how to swing a sword.
A GM would be hard-pressed to view this situation as evil. If anything, your blood dependence has saved a couple of people from a meaningless, cruel existence as a impoverished servant or worse. It's also given the GM some valuable recurring NPCs to flesh out.
It's evil because in Golarion there exists true moral absolutes. Even casting a spell with the evil descriptor for a good purpose (Such as infernal healing on a peasant who is dying) will eventually turn a player evil, or so I've been told by some developers before. I don't agree with it but then again there aren't physical manifestations of the abstract concept of Evil (re: Demons, Devils, Asuras, Daemons, Divs, etc) in our world, so it's hard to relate.
needing and/or Wanting to feed on the general populace is the #1 reason that it's ok to kill monsters.
If it's 'ok' for the PC to do it... then what is the justification to hunt down the vampires, ghouls and werewolves out there killing and eating people?
If the monsters are 'Evil' for eating people... then it's 'Evil' for you to do it too ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An intelligent creature can legally give consent or withhold consent.
Inflicting harm on an intelligent creature without consent is a crime.
Intentionally inflicting physical harm on a creature that is refusing to consent to that harm is an evil act.
Whipping him to shreds with a spiked chain doesn't seem to come with the "evil act" disclaimer. And I don't see it next to clubbing their face in until it's gooey. Or immolating them... or opening a pit to the netherworlds where they are tormented and terrified. And in a lot of cases isn't messing with people's memories or literally scaring them to death with Phantasmal Killer or trapping their soul in a jar, just as bad as any physical harm? Which again, could include beating them in the ribs with a board with nails in it until death. Or blasting them with lightning bolts. So you can kill in any way for almost any offense from the pick pocket to the dragon as gruesomely as you desire, but you can't drain some constitution and leave them alive without being evil?
What's up with that?
Whipping him to shreds with a spiked chain doesn't seem to come with the "evil act" disclaimer. And I don't see it next to clubbing their face in until it's gooey. Or immolating them... or opening a pit to the netherworlds where they are tormented and terrified. And in a lot of cases isn't messing with people's memories or literally scaring them to death with Phantasmal Killer or trapping their soul in a jar, just as bad as any physical harm? Which again, could include beating them in the ribs with a board with nails in it until death. Or blasting them with lightning bolts. So you can kill in any way for almost any offense from the pick pocket to the dragon as gruesomely as you desire, but you can't drain some constitution and leave them alive without being evil?
What's up with that?
Soooooo 'killing someone is ok'... Therefore so is Cannabilism.
I'd think it's evil because it's not something you do feed but to gain temporary hit points. So this is something you choose to do for the power of it not because you need to feed. I'd say that's what make it evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a dhampyr hits an opponent with his bite attack that opponent will bleed in his mouth. If the dhampyr spits the blood out it is not evil, if he swallows it is evil. This makes no sense to me.
We're not talking about eating animated objects made out of chocolate syrup, we're talking about the blood of the living. If you bite someone and swallow human blood, you're saying, "this creature is food to me, I will gain sustenance from drinking its blood." And if you're doing that to an intelligent creature, you're treating intelligent creatures as food. That's evil.
If Rolf has to kill someone in order to defend himself, we accept that.
If Rolf is attacked and has to resort to biting his attacker in order to escape or avoid being killed, we accept that.
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.
I doesn't matter if Rolf is a human, dhampir, half-orc, or gnome; gaining power from drinking a person's blood is creepy and evil.
It's an easy choice: If you're worried about drinking blood being an evil act, (a) play an evil character, or (b) don't take the Blood Drinker feat. Your character lives in a universe where there are absolutes for the alignments, and the physics of that universe says "Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."
I doesn't matter if Rolf is a human, dhampir, half-orc, or gnome; gaining power from drinking a person's blood is creepy and evil.
What about muppets?
That whole example I could only see Rolf the dog with fangs O.O
There's a new nightmare for me...
:D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whipping him to shreds with a spiked chain doesn't seem to come with the "evil act" disclaimer. And I don't see it next to clubbing their face in until it's gooey. Or immolating them... or opening a pit to the netherworlds where they are tormented and terrified. And in a lot of cases isn't messing with people's memories or literally scaring them to death with Phantasmal Killer or trapping their soul in a jar, just as bad as any physical harm? Which again, could include beating them in the ribs with a board with nails in it until death. Or blasting them with lightning bolts. So you can kill in any way for almost any offense from the pick pocket to the dragon as gruesomely as you desire, but you can't drain some constitution and leave them alive without being evil?
What's up with that?
Soooooo 'killing someone is ok'... Therefore so is Cannabilism.
If you are a dhampir and they are an orc, how is that Cannabilism? And it says nothing about killing an orc, then cooking and eating it being evil, which is a lot closer to cannabilism.
So Sean, why can't it be that Rolf swallows the blood because he's creepy and inappropriate and for biological reasons just happens to get stronger for doing so? Or drinks the blood of an orc so as to gain the temporary hit points he needs to survive the encounter with it so that he may kill it and defend himself? I just don't understand why it needed to be spelled out that this is evil, but not killing. We accept that there are times to kill in this game that are justified. Why not reserve judgement here as well? There are no moral absolutes for killing, stealing, lying, or sexual promiscuity? Why then, for such an obscure thing? You may as well say eating shellfish is an evil act, or boiling a goat in its mother's milk; yet be silent about doing the same to a cat.
You seem keen to take your moral absolutes and put them into a game played by lots of people and when their moral absolutes are different you effectively "pack up your toys and go home."
EDIT: Let me remind everyone, we don't just accept that rolf kills to defend himself. We accept that rolf goes into the orc den because they are a "threat" and he's making a "preemptive strike" by casting hold monster on all the able bodied warriors and then stabbing them in the face while the women and children watch. Then after cleaving through 4 orcs with a rusty blade and leaving them not dead but bleeding to death he intimidates the last remaining orc about where to find his kin so that he may repeat the process. he then gathers anything remotely valuable and claims it for himself before leaving.
This is GOOD
SUDDENLY, that last orc charges him from behind and scores a hit that brings rolf to exactly 0 hit points. In a desperate attempt to throw off his attacker without leaving himself stranded in a den of orc children who will surely kill and eat him, he bites the orc and drains him, causing the orc to fall to the ground and rejuvenating himself just enough that he may escape and rest.
He is now EVIL.
----
Traveling Murder Hobos: The Story of Every Game Of Pathfinder Ever Played*, coming to a game store near you. :)
*Except those weird ones where people are too into roleplay and political intrigue.
Well the 'Enemy' argument (or preemptive strike against a threat) is a poor example with lots of .... before it.
How does anyone know where the orc den is? How does anyone know there are even orcs in the area? Did they spot their agrarian farms? Did this Dhampir hunt them after finding them gathering berries?
the reason why there is a "preemptive strike" is almost always this: It's not preemptive, it's retaliatory. "Good Sirs, I am the mayor of this town, here our plea... orcs plague our community, they pilage our food stores, slay all who resist them and they come nearly every fortnight! Please can you help us"
At which point the orc hunt begins.
So, you might find a party who wants to try and negotiate with the orcs, ride out, find them and say, he dudes.... dont attack this village, it's under my protection. at which point orcs, laugh... and probably attack, because they have been challenged, and must rise to the challenge or be seen as weak.
Maybe the party could find some kind of compromise? "Here's 3500 gold peices, more than enough to finance your move out of this area, take you and your people and go, find an area where there is plenty of food and resources.
What would I do, if a group of four people, gave me and my band, 3500 gold, and rode off into the sunset... and I was evil......ummmm BUY weapons! Hire more thugs! Take control of ore territory!!
Sure, I could move my people and settle down.... buuuut, I'm an evil orc warrior.
SO that tactic USUALLY doesn't work.
Which means your above description inevitably comes to pass.
In the case where the LONE Dhampir has gotten to the final cave, I would say there was a brutal fight where he is the last of his group. Pretty nasty.
The Dhampir is fighting for survival, SKR clearly called this out as being different.
How often is this situation of the Dhampir getting to zero hp and an assailant being not only looming, but available for to be bitten ever going to come up? Just this once?
That's one of those situations that's border line, you let it go...warning not to make it a habit.
alignments shift not because of a single act (unless it's incredibly heinous) but a pattern of behavior.
Even righteous people have moments they arent particularly proud of.
In the case of this Dhampir (lets assume he's good) he has a physical condition (as the result of the players feat choices) that he has to curtail, fight off, not give into... the yearning for sentient blood.
Here's the real question, the feat doesn't allow him to eat himself, and he has to choose one race that it works on. So it doesn't work on everyone.
So here it goes, why NOT feed on orcs? Especially if you have identified said orcs AS evil?
This is like some movie/TV vampires that only feed on evil people.
What if this dhampir's player had chosen elves? Admittedly he would have a harder time finding evil elves to feed off, but... he would eventually find them.
Now take into consideration, the Dhampir does not NEED to use this feat to survive, it's an ability.
Now, Compared this ability to the Sin Eater Inquisitor archetype.....
all strange and curious...
Well the 'Enemy' argument (or preemptive strike against a threat) is a poor example with lots of .... before it.
How does anyone know where the orc den is? How does anyone know there are even orcs in the area? Did they spot their agrarian farms? Did this Dhampir hunt them after finding them gathering berries?
the reason why there is a "preemptive strike" is almost always this: It's not preemptive, it's retaliatory. "Good Sirs, I am the mayor of this town, here our plea... orcs plague our community, they pilage our food stores, slay all who resist them and they come nearly every fortnight! Please can you help us"
At which point the orc hunt begins.
So, you might find a party who wants to try and negotiate with the orcs, ride out, find them and say, he dudes.... dont attack this village, it's under my protection. at which point orcs, laugh... and probably attack, because they have been challenged, and must rise to the challenge or be seen as weak.
Maybe the party could find some kind of compromise? "Here's 3500 gold peices, more than enough to finance your move out of this area, take you and your people and go, find an area where there is plenty of food and resources.
What would I do, if a group of four people, gave me and my band, 3500 gold, and rode off into the sunset... and I was evil......ummmm BUY weapons! Hire more thugs! Take control of ore territory!!
Sure, I could move my people and settle down.... buuuut, I'm an evil orc warrior.
SO that tactic USUALLY doesn't work.
Which means your above description inevitably comes to pass.
In the case where the LONE Dhampir has gotten to the final cave, I would say there was a brutal fight where he is the last of his group. Pretty nasty.
The Dhampir is fighting for survival, SKR clearly called this out as being different.
How often is this situation of the Dhampir getting to zero hp and an assailant being not only looming, but available for to be bitten ever going to come up? Just this once?
That's one of those situations that's...
Without needing to address your questions, that you can question the scenario is evidence that this is not black and white.
Also this part
he Dhampir is fighting for survival, SKR clearly called this out as being different.
How often is this situation of the Dhampir getting to zero hp and an assailant being not only looming, but available for to be bitten ever going to come up? Just this once?
That's one of those situations that's border line, you let it go...warning not to make it a habit
.
That;s what I mean. We don't say killing is an evil act unless it's ok. We handle the SITUATION. I just don't know why this is different.
Oh i was neither confirming or denying.
I was just saying the orc fight isnt a great example of evil vs good comparison.
I am saying, in most cases, the orcs are inevitably going to be evil and continue raiding, but in any event, if the orcs have been identified as a legitimate and evil threat to innocents.... then is the act of healing off of them, evil?
You can kill evil as long as you dont kill the evil by eating it?
Is my animal companion with the 8 Int evil now?
My 2 cents:
It's not that doing something to sustain himself is evil, it's consuming intelligent creatures is an evil act on the good vs evil spectrem. You're denying their fundemental right to life by treating them as food and taking their essence by force, their life's blood. It simply is an evil act if they are unwilling.
Same goes for evil spells, it's built into the mechanics of the universe. Take Blood Transcription, you drink a casters blood to learn their spells. Sure, the dead guy may know a spell that you absolutly need to save the lives of your friends and family, but that doesn't make it not an evil act because of the simple nature of the act.
Now, that doesn't mean that context won't affect the impact of the act. And simply casting an evil spell or commiting an evil act won't immediately change your alignment. Most DMs I know, treat alignment shifts as a road built out of many actions. So what if it's quantified as evil? Really, the only time you'd get punished for this act is if you're a Paladin, whom probably shouldn't be drinking peoples blood anyways.
Well but in this case, or in most adventuring cases. you are already taking their life against their will at the point of a sword or spell.... and biting them isn't any more evil than attacking them with manufactured weapons or barbarians with animal fury and other races (or dragon disciples) that can kill with a bite would be evil....
So we are tracing the evility to the innate, born in power/ability to gain something MORE than the kill, from the act of biting?
So we are tracing the evility to the innate, born in power/ability to gain something MORE than the kill, from the act of biting?
No, it's the consuming of a sentient creature. You're EATING THEM with the intent to be nourished from their blood. While their ALIVE.
It's not just attacking with a bite attack. It's not killing someone and eating them. It's eating them while their alive that's torturous and by extention evil.
Take a look at the Blood Salvage Feat, you can feed from the recently dead. They are not living; therefore it is not an evil act.
My 2 cents:
It's not that doing something to sustain himself is evil, it's consuming intelligent creatures is an evil act on the good vs evil spectrem. You're denying their fundemental right to life by treating them as food and taking their essence by force, their life's blood. It simply is an evil act if they are unwilling.
You can treat them as evil incarnate with no knowledge of their individual act because of their associations. (The orc was only fighting you because he lived there, even though he despised the raiding parties himself or some such). But you can't treat them like food.... unless they're dead.
So we are tracing the evility to the innate, born in power/ability to gain something MORE than the kill, from the act of biting?
No, it's the consuming of a sentient creature. You're EATING THEM with the intent to be nourished from their blood. While their ALIVE.
It's not just attacking with a bite attack. It's not killing someone and eating them. It's eating them while their alive that's torturous and by extention evil.
Take a look at the Blood Salvage Feat, you can feed from the recently dead. They are not living; therefore it is not an evil act.
How is it more torturous when you could do the same thing but spit it out and not be evil?
Oh, and where is torture designated evil? I hear those Zon Kuthon types rather like it.
Here's the torture. domain, with nothing saying it's evil
Better question.
Why do we care if it's '[EVIL]' or not? If that's what you gotta do to survive the orc cave... go for it.
Good... Evil... What difference does it make? If that's the ONLY Evil thing you do, it shouldn't twist your alignment too much.
If your a Dhampir Paladin?? You don't bite. Ever.
I'm sure this feat is based off the Blade movies. Monsters drink blood... drinking blood makes them strong... if YOU drink blood and get strong.. then You = Monster. He CAN do it... If he NEEDS to, he WILL... but he HATES what it represnts.
If you are a dhampir and they are an orc, how is that Cannabilism? And it says nothing about killing an orc, then cooking and eating it being evil, which is a lot closer to cannabilism.
As I said in another thread. "If you can mate with it... don't EAT it." ;)
You can treat them as evil incarnate with no knowledge of their individual act because of their associations. (The orc was only fighting you because he lived there, even though he despised the raiding parties himself or some such). But you can't treat them like food.... unless they're dead.
I'm not saying a blood drink or the orcers are evil aligned, characters aren't so black and white unless they want to be. However, individual acts and spells are described as being so polarizing. Does it make them evil if they do it once? No. 100s of times? Maybe.
And it's not that feeding off them when their dead is much better imo; especially since there are spells that are evil too. Just they're strickly "willing" for the act when their dead so the act isn't evil by RAW.
As I said in another thread. "If you can mate with it... don't EAT it." ;)
SO dwarves are alright then? In fact, I don't know what a damper can mate with.
We care if it's evil because there is more than one way to play a character who drinks blood. Well, there should be. Just like there is a way to play a cleric without a deity. Well, there should be. It's adding a restriction to something that doesn't need it, serves only to hinder character ideas without adding anything.
No because that's not willing, thats dominated... hence the key word "make".
thats your will, not theirs.
The aforementioned barbarian, other races and AC's can all kill with a bite.
Being nourished from the bite is evil and torturous? cmon. The exact same thing happens.
The target is dead. It's not any worse for the target. Just the attacker receives healing from it.
It's also a choice of one race... what is the characters reason to feed on say.. Orcs? A Ranger favored enemy? Orcs and dingos ate my baby?
You can't run amok feeding on the universe, just this one race. WHY? there is more connection than that.
It's says you develop the taste for this one species why would anyone choose orc? when there are tasty halflings (who are easier to pin) or the nubile necks of an elf, anyway??
Then, suddenly by spending an additional feat.... feeding on dead people is no longer evil?? Someone tell the Ghouls! They can now be paladins! rejoice!
As I said in another thread. "If you can mate with it... don't EAT it." ;)
SO dwarves are alright then? In fact, I don't know what a damper can mate with.
NOPE!!! You can mate with Dwarves... They even have
Racial Heritage (Human)
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
It's rare, but Dwarves DO interbreed with other races too. Add in the crossblooded and draconic and every other thing Paizo has put out there... and just about ANYTHING can be in your bloodline.
It's best not to eat family
We care if it's evil because there is more than one way to play a character who drinks blood. Well, there should be. Just like there is a way to play a cleric without a deity. Well, there should be. It's adding a restriction to something that doesn't need it, serves only to hinder character ideas without adding anything.
Rule zero it then.
If you can convince your DM it's good and noble to suck the life force out of anyone you cross... more power to you. For a standardized world... I prefer certain restictions. Paladins are Good. Assassins are Evil. undead are evil... Half-undead lean towards neutral or Evil... Half-undead that ACT like Undead... are commiting evil.
The fluff of Dhampirs is this.
Most dhampirs succumb to the evil within their blood. They are unnatural creatures, and the foul influence of their undead heritage makes an evil outlook difficult to overcome. Those who struggle against their wicked natures rarely progress beyond a neutral outlook.
There's plenty of wiggle room in there to be the 'unique' Dhampir... but how do you justify killing monsters that feast on the living.... if you do it yourself?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a dhampyr hits an opponent with his bite attack that opponent will bleed in his mouth. If the dhampyr spits the blood out it is not evil, if he swallows it is evil. This makes no sense to me.We're not talking about eating animated objects made out of chocolate syrup, we're talking about the blood of the living. If you bite someone and swallow human blood, you're saying, "this creature is food to me, I will gain sustenance from drinking its blood." And if you're doing that to an intelligent creature, you're treating intelligent creatures as food. That's evil.
If Rolf has to kill someone in order to defend himself, we accept that.
If Rolf is attacked and has to resort to biting his attacker in order to escape or avoid being killed, we accept that.
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.I doesn't matter if Rolf is a human, dhampir, half-orc, or gnome; gaining power from drinking a person's blood is creepy and evil.
It's an easy choice: If you're worried about drinking blood being an evil act, (a) play an evil character, or (b) don't take the Blood Drinker feat. Your character lives in a universe where there are absolutes for the alignments, and the physics of that universe says "Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."
Waitwaitwait.
No. You do not get to pull this. That's a player's response. That amounts to "I don't know why but it's in the rules so there".
You know why (or SHOULD know why) this is an evil act, and why you MADE it an evil act in this universe.
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.
I understand creepy (though that's subjective). But evil? Why is it evil? Why is the line drawn at "Killing things is okay. Making them die painfully by ripping them to pieces with a spiked whip is just fine. Killing them horribly by sucking all the moisture out of their body so they painfully dehydrate and then turn to dust is 100% completely moral. But DRINKING THEIR BLOOD? F!%%ING EVIL!"
It just doesn't make any sense. And forgive me, but I think you know it doesn't make any sense, which is why you just threw up your hands here and said "Because".
And your specific example doesn't make too much sense either. So if Rolf swallows the blood just because...he's okay. It's kinda creepy to the other people around him but he's just fine. But if Rolf swallows the blood and it's helpful to him, it's suddenly evil? Why?
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.
It just raises too many questions.
if.... you feed on MONSTERS? yea yea yea... if there are good dhampirs there can be good hobgoblins... but the chance of finding them while out adventuring and saving the innocent towns folk from hobgoblins, is very unlikely to find GOOD ones.
I could be convinced of the fluff, by say a Dhampir shapeshifter ranger who turns into or gets the abilities of a wolf, who feeds on his hated enemy races (such as goblins) (resin jackal as wolf based on related vampire ability)
come to me with a build like that, and the explanation the character gained a taste for the blood of his enemies and it synergizes with his vampire ancestry.... fluff fluff and
i can see not shifting to evil.... I'm also going to expect that ranger to have favored enemy undead as well, and hunt vampires too....
If it were me, I'd allow that ranger to take diversified pallet and have it to apply to "any living agents of a vampire"
so i can see THAT flavor to a dhampir, with that type of build.
But not an exploit build and the "im chaotic neutral ploy"
As I said in another thread. "If you can mate with it... don't EAT it." ;)
SO dwarves are alright then? In fact, I don't know what a damper can mate with.
NOPE!!! You can mate with Dwarves... They even have
Racial Heritage (Human)
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
It's rare, but Dwarves DO interbreed with other races too. Add in the crossblooded and draconic and every other thing Paizo has put out there... and just about ANYTHING can be in your bloodline.
It's best not to eat family
We care if it's evil because there is more than one way to play a character who drinks blood. Well, there should be. Just like there is a way to play a cleric without a deity. Well, there should be. It's adding a restriction to something that doesn't need it, serves only to hinder character ideas without adding anything.Rule zero it then.
If you can convince your DM it's good and noble to suck the life force out of anyone you cross... more power to you. For a standardized world... I prefer certain restictions. Paladins are Good. Assassins are Evil. undead are evil... Half-undead lean towards neutral or Evil... Half-undead that ACT like Undead... are commiting evil.
The fluff of Dhampirs is this.
There's plenty of wiggle room in there to be the 'unique' Dhampir... but how do you...
Most dhampirs succumb to the evil within their blood. They are unnatural creatures, and the foul influence of their undead heritage makes an evil outlook difficult to overcome. Those who struggle against their wicked natures rarely progress beyond a neutral outlook.
You're aware dhampir aren't humans right?
They are also prevented, mechanically from eating themselves.... pretty hilarious.
Dhampirs can't be cannibals... lol
So ummm does anyone know...can a Dhampir be turned into a vampire? and if so, and he had all these creepy feats.... wouldnt he be MORE powerful as a vampire because he'd be a vamp and a half??
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
So If two Dhampirs breed, the result is a human? where does it say that, I must have missed it.