Don't misunderstand me please I'm not talking about 'real world' Evil but in a game sense Evil like summoning Demons or casting Harm spells.
One of the characters in the campaign is a Duskblade and one of his spells 'Blade of Blood' causes the weapon to run with blood constantly. The spell grants certain damage bonus's because of the the nature of it. It's a Baleful( I think, could be Baneful though)damage spell with a Necromancy school. My character is a fighter( a brash good guy as it were) and when he described what his blade looked like running with blood I eventually decided I wouldn't be happy travelling with a person carrying a 'bleeding' weapon and told him so.
What I was wondering is whether the whole Baleful damage would count as evil?
The two party priests also were quite disturbed when they looked up the spell and expressed similar views.
What do people think?
I wouldn't say it's evil, on the contrary, it's an ability powered by self-sacrifice.
Also, necromancy isn't evil, in fact some of the best undead-destorying spells (Undeath to death for instance) is necromancy. Generally, unless the fluff of the setting is altered heavily, it's not an evil spell unless it has the "Evil" descriptor.
Edit: Though for your fighter, it would depend what he knows. If you make it clear IC that you're not happy with a "Bleeding" weapon, it'll be up to the Duskblade to explain why it's not evil. And even if not, it's understandable for someone to be uncomfrotable with a weapon that bleeds.
Agree on the subjective part. While a very unique damage descriptor it's still just a damage augment. Dripping venom or acid would be others.
How you roleplay it is a different matter. Having a helmet in the shape of a skull would mean different things to people viewing it. Of course the type of skull comes into play. But does the skull make the item an evil one? To some the answer would be 'yes', to others 'no'. But it really boils down to how you roleplay your character. That's the true flavor of the game.
Agree on the subjective part. While a very unique damage descriptor it's still just a damage augment. Dripping venom or acid would be others.
How you roleplay it is a different matter. Having a helmet in the shape of a skull would mean different things to people viewing it. Of course the type of skull comes into play. But does the skull make the item an evil one? To some the answer would be 'yes', to others 'no'. But it really boils down to how you roleplay your character. That's the true flavor of the game.
I think thats the problem, my character is a Half-Orc who hates Orcs\Evil things\cruelty etc ( basically a good guy if a bit brash) but the 'Style' given the Duskblade spells are Dubious at best and from my characters point of view 'stinks of something wrong( evil)' obviously this a subjective. In the past I would have liked to have had a character that had a weapon dripping blood but wouldn't have been suprised if the rest of the party were horrified.
The spell would look fine if being used by a follower of Hextor or Baal or Grumsh but in the hands of an elven warrior it just feels wrong.
Cheers for the feedback.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I can see it being distasteful to some characters, but an easy counterpoint is - "how does it really look all that different from your sword, after you hack your foes to bits? It drips with blood also, mine simply does a little earlier in the fight and helps me fight evil better because of it."
If it's in the descriptor it's easy to justify the distaste. Blood is the stuff of life. A self-bleeding weapon makes a dramatic statement.
How the party reacts to that statement depends on how they view their characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I can see it being distasteful to some characters, but an easy counterpoint is - "how does it really look all that different from your sword, after you hack your foes to bits? It drips with blood also, mine simply does a little earlier in the fight and helps me fight evil better because of it."Yes it drips blood BEFORE it even stab someone!!!
That is creepy. I would assume that was a pretty spooky nasty dark spell, if I was just some villager or soldier that didn't know much about magic. People fear what they do not understand. Certain things invoke certain reactions from people pretty much ingrained in them by the society we grow up in. Drinking blood is a no no in our culture but in other cultures not so much. Generally things like blood, shadows, bats and snakes, etc... are associated with evil its part of our culture. Sure blood transfusions help people but If I have a bottle of blood in my fridge at home....um im creepy and I doubt my friends would ask me to babysit.
"Obviously it's simply a sign of how good the sword is at drawing blood that it's covered with blood even before it strikes a blow."
I fully understand your point about people's sensibilities, but from the point of view of a fully magical world, yes, it's still a bit offsetting, and maybe distasteful, but really not that much more out there than flaming swords, summoning monsters that actually EAT their foes, using vampiric touch (another spell that doesn't have the EVIL descriptor) to suck the very life force from your enemy, etc.
In the real world, historical or modern day, I think most of us would be suspicious and creeped out by a blade that drips blood on its own, but in a standard D&D mid-to-high magic setting, I can see it being taken in stride. That being said, I know I would have a ton of fun as the duskblade explaning and justifying how it's perfectly normal and "just some magic" and not profane in any way. Keep your eye out for him (the duskblade or the player for that matter) actually drinking the blood from the sword, that might be a tip off that there's something else going on.
I can see it being distasteful to some characters, but an easy counterpoint is - "how does it really look all that different from your sword, after you hack your foes to bits? It drips with blood also, mine simply does a little earlier in the fight and helps me fight evil better because of it."Yes it drips blood BEFORE it even stab someone!!!
I fully understand your point about people's sensibilities, but from the point of view of a fully magical world, yes, it's still a bit offsetting, and maybe distasteful, but really not that much more out there than flaming swords, summoning monsters that actually EAT their foes, using vampiric touch (another spell that doesn't have the EVIL descriptor) to suck the very life force from your enemy, etc.
In the real world, historical or modern day, I think most of us would be suspicious and creeped out by a blade that drips blood on its own, but in a standard D&D mid-to-high magic setting, I can see it being taken in stride. That being said, I know I would have a ton of fun as the duskblade explaning and justifying how it's perfectly normal and "just some magic" and not profane in any way. Keep your eye out for him (the duskblade...
There I can't agree, even in a Fantasy world a person who has a sword that drips blood would be easily misunderstood as dire\evil use whatever terminology you like but in short distasteful. A person unsheathes a sword which is flaming or ice covered generally looks impressive but a sword which is running with black poison or acid would get a similar reaction from any good person. Having had little contact with magic wielders the character would have very limited judgement.
A mage might understand it even a good aligned one, even possibly priests but not a generally ignorant fighter.
It is certainly distasteful but I'm not sure it rises to the level of "evil".
I don't have the spell description handy- does the "blood" stick around? Is it a permanent effect?
If you stand still too long is there a puddle of blood at your feet?
I'm assuming that the "blood" is temporary and "evaporates" relatively quickly- much like an acid weapon's "effect" does. If so, then it's sort of "icky" but no real harm done.
I can see a commoner being disturbed by it- and may even some city guards- but PC's by and large could be educated to the true effects of the spell. Namely- that it's a spell effect rather than true blood.
(and as a spell effect, you don't have to have it active when you aren't prepping for combat and such).
-S
|
I don't think that Baleful damage is the same as evil damage, or would even count as evil. unless your player goes out of his way to inflict this kind of damage for the glee of doing so. it's somewhat similar, IMO, to spells like baleful polymorph, or spells that force someone to do something against their will. they aren't evil per se, but if the player was deliberately turning orphans into chickens for fun, then i'd say he was using it for an evil purpose. not sure if that helps any, but it's a difficult question in the first place. Incidently, this is also the reason that Vile damage was created. to distinguist between "evil" and not evil damage types.