Hey everyone, I am looking for some ideas to challenge the party of the game I GM. I'll give you the party makeup and location that we're in so that you can offer opinions.
Party Members:
Nikolai - human monk 1/ rogue 6
Nikolai is the one who finds traps and disarms them, sneaks around and shoots from distance with a bow. Will occasionally get into combat but is more roleplay than roll play.
Tukol - half orc barbarian 1/rogue (ninja) 6
Tukol is similar to Nikolai in that he is more role than roll play. But he is alomst a secondary tank, wading into combat and wailing with his greatsword (I know...a ninja with a greatsword...but I digress)
Elias - half elf bard 7
Buffs and bonuses. He has a crossbow and will use it occasionally but mostly casts spells and uses his bardic performance. Also the face of the party in cities and when needed for social situations.
Bryn (and Revenger) - half elf summoner 7 and his eidolon (biped elven curve blade wielder with reach 10)
Bryn's PC is the most experienced player at the table and he GMs a lot (not pathfinder though). He isn't a powergamer or a munchkin player but does min/max more than anyone else in the party. He buffs his eidolon with mage armor and shield first two rounds every battle (understandable) and then will cast enlarge person on him if things get tough or he wants to control the battlefield. Uses grease and glitterdust very often also. Low HP but decent AC, tries to stay away from danger and lets his Eidolon do the work.
Jolomon - half elf gunslinger 7
Jolomon tries to stay away from close combat and still inside his first range increment for his pistols. Uses paper cartridges and has taken feats to reload quicker. Not overly powerful but when he crits it is incredible (I think this is a gunslinger thing though). Weak if he gets surrounded and his saves suck but he is also a bigger role player than roll player.
The party is well above WBL and is probably around APL 8-9 because of magic items (specific items they received from story ties).
The problem with the party and challenges is that the Summoner is much tougher because of the eidolon and I don't want to raise CL too much because it could cause a wipe to the rest of the party.
Location:
They are in the Darklands, having just trekked through Viperwall (rather they snuck through and managed to get underground very quickly. They are in Nar-Voth and just barely inside that area. They are on a quest to obtain an artifact for a specific person and are supposed to meet a contact of this man once they get into Nar-Voth. They have an item that will guide them to the contact.
So in Viperwall they encountered quite a few Serpentfolk, both degenerate and normal, and even a couple with class levels. They were able to get through the keep without too much trouble by sneaking around and getting in through a waterway. So there should be a few serpentfolk that they encounter I think but not mandatory.
I quoted the Large evolution and the spell Enlarge Person in another post above. My point is that when you cast enlarge person, the spell explicitly states that you gain base reach 10. Nothing says that it stacks, nothing at all. In fact I think it makes sense that the evolution says that reach stacks this because enlarge person DOES NOT stack.
You're missing the point. The reason that you have a reach of 10 is NOT because the spell gives you a base reach of 10, but rather it's because the spell increases your size category and since humanoids are tall creatures, they gain 5ft of reach every time their size increases.
Other than your opinion, which I certainly respect, I haven't seen any evidence of this. Even the chart you quoted earlier doesn't say that each size increase ups your reach by 5 feet. I have tried to find evidence of this but haven't been able to find anything like that. Honestly, that is the way that I've been ruling it in my games - you go up a size and you gain reach. I ask because there's nothing that says you gain 5 feet of reach every time you go up a size category. Enlarge person gives you a reach of 10 feet specifically and to me that means that it doesn't stack.
Eidolon is medium sized biped with reach of 10 (reach evolution). Summoner casts Enlarge Person on the Eidolon, now does the Eidolon have reach 15? I say no.
end of edit...
Except that if you read the Large evolution, it says:
"If the eidolon has the biped base form, it also gains 10-foot reach. Any reach evolutions the eidolon possesses are added to this total."
For the purposes of determining reach, there is no difference between casting Enlarge person on a Biped or giving the Biped the Large Evolution.
youtellatale wrote:
The problem with that chart is that there is no "long" or "large" modifier to the medium size. So say he goes from medium to Large...then his reach is 10 feet with that size upgrade. (also I don't see on that chart where it says biped is tall and quad is long, just as an aside). I still don't see where it increases his reach to 15 feet if he goes from medium to large, even if he had reach at medium size.
The rules don't explicitly say that Biped is Tall and Quad is Long, but if you read the rules from the Large/Huge evolution that I posted just above your post, you will see that when the medium Biped becomes a large Biped, it's reach goes from being a 5 to a 10 and when it goes from being a Large Biped to a Huge Biped, it's reach goes from being a 10 to a 15. This is exactly the progression of Tall creatures on the Size chart. Likewise, if you look at the rules for a Huge Eidolon, all other base forms gain 10 reach when they are Huge Size, this is identical to the reach progression for Long creatures. Therefore, while the rules don't explicitly say that one is Tall and the others are long, we easily and correctly infer this fact from the operation of the rules. Likewise, since we now know that a Biped is Tall, we know that if we increase it's size via Enlarge person, it will gain another 5 ft of reach. Also, we know from the ruling of the Large/Huge evolution that the Reach...
I quoted the Large evolution and the spell Enlarge Person in another post above. My point is that when you cast enlarge person, the spell explicitly states that you gain base reach 10. Nothing says that it stacks, nothing at all. In fact I think it makes sense that the evolution says that reach stacks this because enlarge person DOES NOT stack.
Your error here is that you missed the 1st part of the spell:
You quoted "A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed. "
but you forgot the 1st line: "This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creatures size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size."
If you look at This table you will see the following:
A Biped is a Tall creature and a Quadruped is a Long creature....
edit: going to rephrase the question...
Eidolon is medium sized biped with reach of 10 (reach evolution). Summoner casts Enlarge Person on the Eidolon, now does the Eidolon have reach 15? I say no.
end of edit...
The problem with that chart is that there is no "long" or "large" modifier to the medium size. So say he goes from medium to Large...then his reach is 10 feet with that size upgrade. (also I don't see on that chart where it says biped is tall and quad is long, just as an aside). I still don't see where it increases his reach to 15 feet if he goes from medium to large, even if he had reach at medium size.
@elamdri - That's interesting, I hadn't noticed that before. I'll have to agree that I don't think it was initially designed for weapon attacks but I allowed it at first and am not going to change it at this point (level 7 in a well established campaign and the Summoner and eidolon have a theme and backgrounds that tie into the story, as well as party roles).
Another interesting question for everyone here - say this eidolon gets Enlarge Person cast on it. Does his reach go to 15? I am about to rule no and I'll show you why (emphasis mine):
Large Evolution:
Large (Ex): An eidolon grows in size, becoming Large. If the eidolon has the biped base form, it also gains 10-foot reach. Any reach evolutions the eidolon possesses are added to this total.
Enlarge Person:
A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed.
To me, this means that Enlarge person does not add to reach, only makes it 10. I say this because the Large evolution specifically says that if you have reach, your reach increases again with being large. Am I reading too much into this?
The reach evolution says to pick one attack, not one type of attack. The claws evolution gives you two claw attacks. In order to get reach for both claws, you'd need to select the reach evolution twice, once for each claw attack.
This is what I was thinking, but can't really find any book evidence other than my own interpretation of that line. I am the GM of the game so I'll rule it this way until I hear otherwise from Paizo.
Whether or not a player can use the reach evolution to affect a weapon attack is suspect. I do not allow it in my game because I don't believe it is how the rule was intended.
At first I thought that the reach evolution was specifically applicable only to the Eidolon's natural attacks so I rechecked it and it mentioned "one attack", not "one natural attack".
So on the same topic...if the Eidolon wants the extra damage from 2 handed attack with the elven curve blade, does he have to take reach for the second arm? I lean towards yes, but would be curious as to what everyone else thinks.
Hey everyone, I've got a question. In a game I GM, there is a summoner PC with a biped eidolon who took the "reach" evolution for his elven curve blade attack. The eidolon does not use any natural attacks, just the curve blade.
Now, the question I have is: since an eidolon has to take the reach evolution for each natural attack (i.e. each limb) should the summoner's eidolon have to take "reach" again for the second arm in order to power attack from reach?
I am leaning towards yes because the way I see it is that one arm is longer than the other so the power attack couldn't function properly unless arms were of even length. I give him reach with normal attacks but with power attack idk.
Let me know what you guys think, and if I'm wrong then so be it, I honestly wasn't sure.
edit: for reference here's the power attack reference from the PRD
Power Attack:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Basically it seems as though my thoughts were confirmed. In the context of the battle it didn't make a huge difference, the NPCs were "kidnapped" and the PCs were returning them home. There's plenty more behind the story but I won't get into it, that's the gist of it. One NPC five foot steps and casts a spell, I get my marker and outline the area and knowing what color I use for darkness/deeper darkness spells the player figured it out and declared "he meant to use an AoO". This isn't a goofball, absent minded guy either, he's an experienced GM and player so I knew it was metagamey and cheese-tastic but like I said, it didn't disrupt the battle really in a bad way and didn't hurt the story. Plus, I didn't know any actual rule where he couldn't attack an ally, so ignoring timing I allowed it.
Thanks for the responses. I understand the timing of the AoO rule, that he should have had to declare his AoO intent as soon as the spell was being cast. I was lenient about the timing in that instance and shouldn't have been. It was an OOG and after the fact knowledge the the player used and shouldn't have. It didn't hurt the story at all but did sort of ruffle my feathers a bit because even if his PC had rolled his spellcraft check and made it, as was stated about he wouldn't know where the target was or anything along those lines.
@Lord Pendragon: I like your idea about declaring at the beginning of a round. The problem I could see arising is if there are more than two groups fighting and two groups don't see eye to eye on how to deal with another group. That's a rare problem though and I can GM around that for sure.
I guess I just don't see the moment when he declared himself an opponent. The PC waited until he saw the effect of the spell then declared he got an AoO. Maybe I should have specified that part.
So Gauss, as an honest question: can the PCs declare an ally an opponent then call them an ally again later?
I think the situation where a PC is controlled by a BBEG or enemy is a different situation than this one but I guess you could apply it.
So here's a situation I encountered in my game that I'm GMing: the PCs had two NPCs with them that they'd been fighting alongside and using the benefits of their spells and attacks and special abilities as allies. One of the NPCs casts deeper darkness and one of the PCs suddenly declares he is going to take an AoO to attack the NPC to disrupt the spell. He claims he can choose who is an ally and who is an enemy on a case to case and swing to swing basis. I didn't argue because I really wasn't sure about it but it sounded metagamey because his PC wouldn't know wtf was going on and I seriously doubt he would generally take a hack at someone who'd been buffing him the round before (and the PC bard had been counting as an ally for performance purposes).
Here's what the PRD says about it:
Rule Quote:
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle.
The first part that is the bolded part is interesting because it says opponents. The second part, which seems much more relevant as the actual action that provoked, does not say opponents. I am not sure if this was considered but it was something I was perplexed about. It doesn't prohibit it, but does that go into GM fiat or is it that PCs can attack any being, enemy or ally, that moves out of a threatened square?
Actually what he said was that if you want the bonus to apply when the eidolon is present, you need to read the tome/whatever when the eidolon is on you as a synth. Nowhere did he say that the eidolon can read the tome. I certainly respect SKR and I understand he created the game - with lots of help - but I would argue that since the eidolon is not a creature at all, merely an aspect of the creature brought to this plane by the summoner, that the eidolon cannot gain the benefit at all from tomes and whatnot. Just my 2 cents (and I won't lie, I do not like the class much so flame away).
I figured I could add in an item I made for one of my characters, it has a story tie in as well. (I made an item for each character in the party that has a tie in somewhere in the current story, whether distant or really close up).
The Key to Lastwall's Tyrant - You hold in your hands one of two keys to unlocking an evil overlord that the realms have not seen in many, many lifetimes. This bow, and only this bow can fire a flaming arrow that will fit the lock underneath the city of Gallowspire, or what remains of it. This lock holds the leader-lich Tar-Baphon, former ruler of Ustalav and terrorist of the realms. This bow was crafted from the bones of demons, blackened in white hot flame and sealed with layers of boiled tallow. Laquered with the resin of trees grown only in the Abyss and its torrential fires, the bow emanates heat at all times, not burning the wielder but creating a ring of fire around the owner. The handle's grip made from the rotted skin of Tar-Baphon himself. Forged in the fires of the Abyss by evil blacksmiths under threat of eternal punishment, this key was Tar-Baphon's last act before being captured and sent to his eternal (or so thought)prison under the province now known as Lastwall. The finely crafted bow is heavy for its size and silver runes dot the sides from tip to handle. Only thought to be a rumor, this tainted weapon holds strength and power beyond a normal bow, while not an intelligent weapon, it does have knowledge of many interesting things from the tyrant's rule... This bow has a sister weapon, The Song of Sweet Freedom, thought to have been destroyed by the Watcher-Lord Ulthun I, many years ago.
This bow cannot be held by paladins. When held, the bow creates a wall of fire dealing 1d4+1 fire damage to any character making a melee attack against the wielder, whether successful or not. Unfortunately the wielder takes 1 pt of damage per round that the power is activated unless he/she has some sort of fire resistance. It is a free action to activate or deactivate the ability. By activating the power, the bow's knowledge begins to seep into the hands of the wielder. +2 to hit dmg (1d8+2/x3 +1d6 fire dmg or +2d6 fire dmg on crit)
I do have a question...the shell is hemispherical, so what happens if you are attacked and flanked? It wouldn't protect both sides because it is only a half of a sphere, right? Just making sure I am reading this right. Basically if you're going up against one BBEG it's great but against several spread out and all around you, it isn't as good. Anyone else reading it this way?
A square room 5x5 or 6x6 or however big you want to make it. Each space is a pressure plate. Two doors - one where the party came in and one exit door. As soon as the last player is inside, both doors close (or you can arrange this however you like. Basically the puzzle is that no two players can be in the same column or row for the doors to open, there are statues on shelves on the wall (around 20 lbs each) around the room that can be moved to replace the party members that exit (so they'll have to have their strongest player in the room last). So as one member leaves the area the statue can be placed in a corresponding spot. Basically you need to have one person or statue in each row/column in order for the doors to open again. You can add a timer or enemies if you wish but I think it works pretty well.
@darth_gator - I agree 100% that it isn't evil, in fact I've never said it was evil. But piggy-backing off of that question I asked a follow-up that asked if it was chaotic and I think it is. Yes, the consensus feeling does determine whether people get in an uproar about something, so I say how people feel does matter, I guess we disagree here.
And because I know that people can pay to go into space doesn't mean that I know that people do it a couple of times a year and that it's the norm. It is highly unusual and expensive so I am not diluted enough to think that it's a normal event, only the very elite have the ability to do so and I would be surprised if it happened to someone I knew. Anyway, I think we disagree on this one as well.
I will say though that Pathfinder is an awesome game system and I like that everyone's game is a little different and they are all withing the rules of the game. Honestly, I think that's pretty freaking cool.
@darth_gator - I think with the legitimate authority thing, I was referring to laws as well as socially accepted norms, as in not drinking blood. Could be acceptable in some places...but not very many if I were to guess. Your paladin in Cheliax example is a unique one and honestly I really don't know what I would do as a GM in that example.
As far as the body being resurrected fairly easily I think that 99% of the population wouldn't have the means to see a loved one raised from the dead. Not exactly cheap and I don't think it's an everyday thing but I could be wrong. While adventurers might get killed and raised a time or two in their lifetime, the majority of people probably wouldn't be exposed to this. Again, could be way off base b/c I don't have anything to reference really haha.
I guess the thing is that I really don't know how people feel in Golarion about drinking blood but the world is based (loosely) on real world places and generalized feelings, I would assume, so it stands to reason that it isn't normal to see someone gulping down a large mouthful of dead guy blood. Could be wrong though.
1. I agree that drinking blood from a freshly slain corpse may be Chaotic. However, a paladin does NOT lose his paladin-hood for chaotic acts. Only evil ones. Just because a paladin is Lawful Good, he is perfectly free to engage in chaotic acts from time to time. It does NOT affect his paladinhood...I think too many of you are remembering 2nd ed paladins. This is Pathfinder, people.
So if a paladin repeatedly does things in such a way that they slide toward chaotic good, becoming Neutral or Chaotic Good and thus are no longer Lawful Good, what happens? Paladins must be Lawful Good, in my estimation and I don't think an argument can be made otherwise.
*edit* rephrase^
2. If you replace "drink blood" with "necrophilia" the answer to all the questions in my post will be the same. Because we're dealing with an object, not a living, breathing, being. Also if you replace "drink blood" with "urinate on", "draw obscene pictures on", "play charades with", or "sing to". You are acting upon an object, without alignment, sub-type, or feelings. It is not the same as desecrating an object consecrated to a particular deity, good or evil. No one has consecrated this corpse to anything. It's a pile of protein, calcium, and other assorted goo.
I think this can be chalked up as how you feel about this, and several other people as well. Nowhere RAW, as I have been told to show support from, does it say anything like this.
3. Resurrection has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. In the RAW, you can cast True Res on a pile of dust and bones and re-create the deceased's body. If you've done something to the corpse, it doesn't matter. The same goes for Resurrection. That being the case, I would argue that in a society where these feats are possible, the general public would care LESS about what you did to a corpse. Who cares what happened to Bob the Fighter after he died...we'll just pony up the cash to have him brought back good as new. Also, in a society where the presence of gods isn't some abstract philosophical debate, people are going to care less about the remains of the deceased because they already KNOW where the immortal soul rests. The body is just a dwelling, not the person.
Is this written anywhere or just conjecture? If it is written then I'd read it and change my opinion, but as I see it, the body is more than just a dwelling, it is a part of the person. I just don't see anywhere that this was RAW or RAI, but I could be wrong and will admit so if someone can show me where this is written.
4. The corpse is an object. I feel the need to reiterate this. It makes no difference that some cultures/societies view it differently. Some societies in Pathfinder probably believe certain animals are sacred and killing them is evil, or that touching a...
Responses in bold btw.
I think it goes down to how you feel about it personally because you and I feel differently about this.
I will say though, that on pg 63 of the CRB it states
CRB wrote:
"Additionally, the paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
This doesn't say that doing evil deeds is the only way that a paladin breaks their code, it says there are various ways to do it. Again, if a paladin changes alignment...do they keep their powers or are they no longer a paladin? I haven't heard a RAW or RAI answer other than "it isn't evil, so anything else doesn't apply."
Sorry if I am wrong on this, I don't want to upset anyone, I am honestly looking for an actual answer because I feel one way and apparently I am in the minority.
So we're back to there only being nine valid personality types in all of roleplaying?
No, but you cannot simply act however you want with any character. There is an alignment grid for a reason and it is set up for a reason.
It seems as though you're overgeneralizing what I am saying. There are restrictions on alignment, that's a fact. Otherwise we would not have alignment.
To me, what is being described is a chaotic neutral act. To you it is a neutral act. Brushing his teeth is a non-alignment act, like sleeping, eating, or going to the bathroom so that point is not really valid to me. I am not saying that the paladin has to be a saint but he certainly shouldn't brazenly ignore the laws and accepted traditions of another goodly land simply because he doesn't agree with them. He is a lawful good character, so if he adamantly goes against laws in place after place, shows he is better than the laws and the people that uphold those laws, and upsets the people of various lands I do not see him as following his paladin code.
The alignment grid is there for a reason and that reason is not so you can do whatever you want and say it is a "loose system." There are consequences to your actions, at least there should be. Otherwise you're just roll playing and not role playing IMO and you should focus on combat only RPGs. Just my 2cents.
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.
I wish you had more thoroughly read my posts. I very clearly said that I do not think it is inherently evil to do drink the blood of a dead body. I said that it is chaotic to do so.
Here's a quote from the CRB pg166 since you wanted RAW: the CRB roughly defines chaos as
Quote:
"freedom, adaptability, flexibility...can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority..." and "unfettered personal freedom"
To me, blatantly ignoring what most would say is the norm and illegal/immoral...aka not drinking blood...would be the definition of chaotic in my opinion. The book states that
Quote:
"a lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act."
Being a paladin isn't easy, and being lawful good isn't easy either. I think the character should be a cavalier, then this problem wouldn't happen but whatever. The CRB also says that alignment is up to the GM on issues such as this one so just go with your gut OP, IMHO.
@darth_gator: I liked the Q&A but there is something that some might find interesting that I can share. In Hugo Grotius' De Jure Belli ac Pacis (written in the 1600s an influential paper on war, battle and conduct before, during and after) there is much talk of the desecration of corpses. It was not legal then to do such things, and is not legal now.
Just some food for thought. Desecration of a dead body is not a new law and I think people long ago and long into the future will find something wrong with it. That doesn't make it evil at all but it does make it icky and weird and--to me--chaotic.
Lawful alignment isn't about always obeying the law, no matter how baseless and unjustified it might be. That's what Lawful Stupid alignment is for.
Plus, as mentioned previously in the thread, no character is required or expected to be to an absolute 100% perfect paragon on their alignment. A character who respects tradition and the social order 95% of the time, but thinks that there are a few wrongheaded and baseless traditions/taboos and refuses to follow them is still a Lawful character. Otherwise, we end up with nine per-defined cookie-cutter character personalities.
I completely agree that there is leeway in the alignment grid. But I also think that if you drink the blood of fallen enemies on a regular basis then you will find yourself being looked upon as less than lawful good. MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, whether imagined or real, would find drinking blood abhorrent, even from a recently killed body. Whether that is ritualized in your culture or not, however you spin it, most of the world won't find it okay. I don't think it's evil really, if I look at it in a certain way, but I do think that is it chaotic and I guess that's where you're in disagreement with me.
That's no problem, I just try to apply it to how I would see it in my game and that's how I should've phrased it I think.
I don't see this ever coming to a consensus about whether or not it is evil.
It certainly isn't good though, and that seems to be as important as whether or not it is evil.
I also don't see it as being overly lawful, at least in most societies. Yes there will be some outliers where consuming the life force (blood) of another creature, freshly killed or not, is okay but most would consider it abhorrent.
To me, the issue is moot because it is a chaotic neutral or true neutral act and that is two steps from being lawful good, which this character must be in order to be a paladin of Erastil. I would not allow it because of this, you can't pick and choose when to be lawful good and when to be true neutral, at least that's my opinion. If you are creating chaos by drinking the blood of sentient OR non-sentient creatures (I'd be freaked out by someone running up to a recently killed bear, tiger, boar, cougar or whatever and drinking it's blood, whether in game or out [especially out of game haha :P]) then you are headed for a fall from your paladin status.
I sense that it is very open to debate about whether or not it is evil to drink a fallen foe's blood and I personally am on the fence about it. But what I am not at all in doubt about is that it is chaotic. The paladin is as much lawful as he is good and performing neutral or chaotic acts certain isn't what I would consider proper action from a Paladin with an honor code.
Anyone want to tackle that side of it. I believe someone else posted something similar after my comment this morning.
Is it evil...no not under the right circumstances, IMO. Is it chaotic...I certainly think so because if I saw someone drinking a dead person's blood I would go crazy and not just laugh it off, especially from someone who is supposed to be a goodly and godly person. I guess I just see it as, well we are MOSTLY in a European styled culture and I don't see any evidence that this was ever okay and not frowned upon or inherently inciting panic, again all my opinion.
I don't know about Good or Evil in regards to this...but I don't see very many societies or social groups where drinking the blood of a humanoid, dead or otherwise, would not be seen as CHAOTIC. This goes against the paladin's alignment just as much as an evil act. I can see the argument for it not being evil...but being lawful? Doubtful.
