Just a request folks, but if you are asking about a specific feat, spell, skill, ability, item, or class feature please put the text for it in a quote in your post. It saves a lot of time for people trying to hunt it down.
I understand not having all relevant rules posted with it or what not but having an idea where we are starting really helps everyone get to the meat of the problem faster.
School divination [evil]; Level alchemist 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, witch 2
CASTINGCasting Time 1 standard action
Components V
EFFECTRange touch
Target one dead spellcaster
Duration 24 hours
Saving Throw none; Spell resistance noDESCRIPTION
By consuming 1 pint of blood from a spellcaster killed within the last 24 hours, you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster (this must be a spell on your spell list); you gain the knowledge of this spell for 24 hours. During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source. Once you have learned it, you may prepare the spell normally.
Probably the profiting off of death combined with stealing from the dead.
A bit like how you don't have to kill someone to bring them back as undead but doing so is still evil.
In that case Speak with dead should be evil as you also cast spell on dead body to also take some information. Just happen to be other form of information.
Speak with dead allows a saving throw. It also doesn't require the drinking of a dead person's blood, while offering the temptation of killing a person for more magical knowledge.
Though I could see a lich offering favors for a little over pint of blood from other spell casters. Sets something up so he knows the minute they die (probably a spell he researched specifically for that task) and then uses blood transcription to steal a spell from them after they pass.
Well let's look at this from the other direction -- why shouldn't it be evil?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well let's look at this from the other direction -- why shouldn't it be evil?
That is a terrible justification. It also does not affect whether or not it is considered evil (except in homebrew settings).
Things in the Pathfinder universe are evil because the universe says so and for no other reason.
Poison use? Evil. Doesn't matter if you're using knock-out poison so that you can avoid killing anyone, it's still evil. Better to just slaughter the bad-guys by burning them to death slowly (hey, you wouldn't want to use your high level spells!)
Using animate dead? Evil. Doesn't matter if those undead are made from the corpses of non-sentient animals that were slaughtered for food in the most humane way possible and will be used to defend the village from an oncoming army. Still evil. Might as well animate grandma.
Using protection from good? Evil. Doesn't matter if the party enchanter (who happens to be good) gets dominated and you want to protect yourself. Still evil.
I disagree vehemently that it should be so, and yet it is. (Obviously, this gets houseruled at my table.)
Now, as to why I disagreed with the assertion I quoted: Something does not have to be proven not-evil. It must be proven not-neutral. Otherwise all things are evil unless justification is given. The question really should be "why is this evil?" One possible answer answer: It requires death to be done, and there are very few cases where one can profit off of death and not be considered evil (old age death, self-defense kill, etc).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question really should be "why is this evil?" One possible answer answer: It requires death to be done, and there are very few cases where one can profit off of death and not be considered evil (old age death, self-defense kill, etc).
Darn, all those times players loot a slain enemy they're doing an evil act because they profited off the dead. Even going into a crypt taking the dead stuff is evil because clearly you're stealing from the dead.
I would think it's evil because it's not too often you stroll along, trip, look and see a freshly slain caster corpse. Thus, the typical way it's used is for you to kill the caster you want to use it on. The Witch's Cauldron hex allows for dead bodies to be cooked instead of live but it's still an evil act because you're consuming flesh and you can only profit from it by someone ultimately dying.
Actually, four things scream "Evil!"
1. The taboo against blood sacrifice.
2. The taboo against cannibalism.
3. The taboo against desecration of the dead.
4. The taboo against murder.
The usual use of this spell will be bumping off an enemy spell caster and gaining access to his magic via use of this ghoulish spell.
Of course, it's easy enough to contrive workarounds around the taboos, ranging from holy lamas wanting their acolytes to partake of their flesh a la Tibetan Buddhism to scenarios where the wizard has survived but not his spellbooks and he's surrounded by the corpses of his spell casting friends.
The easiest workaround, however, is to make the dead spell caster a dragon. The tradition of the hero bathing in dragon's blood gets around the blood sacrifice taboo. It also sidesteps the cannibalism prohibition, assuming the person drinking the dragon's blood is human or otherwise non-dragon. The prohibition against desecration of the dead also goes out the window when the rest of the party is making armor out of the skin and furniture and/or fashion accoutrements out of the bones. Finally, the taboo against murder? Assuming it's an evil dragon, everyone loves a dragonslayer. You're good to go.
That said, the circumstances where you get to de-evil the spell are relatively limited, so it's easier to just list it as an evil spell rather than say it's a neutral spell which is almost always used for evil applications.
Maho-tsukai!
I was wondering why is Blood Transcription evil? Nothing really screams evil.
(a) It's a flavour thing.
(b) There's not really any consistency over this sort of thing. For another example, Symbol of Pain and Pain Strike are [evil] spells, but the word-spell Torture and the witch hex Agony aren't evil.
I was wondering why is Blood Transcription evil? Nothing really screams evil.
Consuming the blood of a recently deceased intelligent being? You don't think that strays into the 'evil' territory at all?
When was the last time you killed someone and drank their blood?
Dahmer did it and most of the world was rather sure he was evil, insane or both.
Cannibalism is not a socially accepted practice. In Pathfinder it is considered evil. Part of the spell requires it so that makes the spell evil.
|
|
Oh hmmm... After reading the spell again, and reading response of the people here, I'm getting the impression you're drinking the blood. I was originally thinking take the pint of blood and use 'consume' it like a normal spell component. Seems kind of odd to include consume as eating/drinking when referring to spell casting, as other places it's used destroying the spell component.
Meh I'll still imagine taking pint of blood focusing spell energy into the blood to learn the target's hidden spells.
The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.
|
|
The question really should be "why is this evil?" One possible answer answer: It requires death to be done, and there are very few cases where one can profit off of death and not be considered evil (old age death, self-defense kill, etc).Darn, all those times players loot a slain enemy they're doing an evil act because they profited off the dead. Even going into a crypt taking the dead stuff is evil because clearly you're stealing from the dead.
Hey, I said "One possible answer" not "this is obviously why." I really don't think it should be inherently evil, but the PF universe says it is and so it is.
In my games I ignore the "inherently ____" aspect of spells and abilities and reserve it for actually ____ acts. But this isn't much to rely on, given that I've entirely rewritten alignment to be extremely simple.
The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.
Isn't that the definition of a focus? If you need to do X with Y, and you can't skip it even with Eschew Materials (despite the fact that there isn't a listed price for a pint of spellcaster blood) it sounds a lot like a focus.
There's also the possibility that an alchemist with the ability to drink a potion and spit it back up could do the same with a pint of caster blood--not in the RAW, certainly, but a logical extrapolation, and still just as gross if not more so.
|
|
Maho-tsukai!
"Originally it was simple black magic."
(People that hasn't played Legend of the five Rings will not get it.)
The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.Isn't that the definition of a focus? If you need to do X with Y, and you can't skip it even with Eschew Materials (despite the fact that there isn't a listed price for a pint of spellcaster blood) it sounds a lot like a focus.
There's also the possibility that an alchemist with the ability to drink a potion and spit it back up could do the same with a pint of caster blood--not in the RAW, certainly, but a logical extrapolation, and still just as gross if not more so.
A spell focus isn't consumed. This is a special requirement.
The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.Isn't that the definition of a focus?
No.
Magic chapter says:
|
|
The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.Isn't that the definition of a focus?No.
Magic chapter says:
I see what you did there ;p. Anyway yeah I overlooked the material component perhaps foolishly believing perhaps they forgot to include it, after all it's not the first time something like that has happened.
The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.Isn't that the definition of a focus?No.
Magic chapter says:
So the pint of blood is like the piece of flesh needed for the Clone spell: not a focus and not a material component, but necessary for the spell all the same and consumed in the casting.
Yep! Excellent example, thank you.