But the Blood Transcription spell (also witch) does NOT state that casting it is an evil act, and it involves drinking the blood of a dead spell caster.
Small, annoying correction, Blood Transcription actually has the [evil] tag, so casting it is an evil action.
|
The proposition that hunting an animal or cooking with blood is somehow equivalent for food and sustenance is in any way similar to a person approaching a still warm body and shoving their face into an open wound on a corpse is sheer ridiculousness. The killing is essentially irrelavent to this discussion. It's not about how they died, it's about someone committing a horrible act once there is blood and a corpse present.
Alignment is a subjective thing. It's judged on the basis of those commoners and bystanders that are watching it. Many people would say that following religious rites that are intended to prevent the world's destruction would not be evil, and yet, if we look at the Aztec practice of human sacrifice, it should be called evil. I don't care that it was sanctified, and that the victims were considered holy, and treated with honour or that the entire culture believed it was necessary (or even a good thing). By the subjective considerations of alignment, it's Evil. (And I will agree with beej67 that if it were in a culture other than the psuedo-European fantasy genre which is presumed for our game, it might not be evil. In an Aztec campaign, it might be totally acceptable. Again, Alignment is subjective to the culture or setting in which it is placed.)
The same is true of drinking blood. One can try to validate it by using a bunch of rhetorc and such, but, that doesn't make it not Evil. Think of it as a mental picture. If you saw a person kneel down next to a body, for any reason, in any scenario, and push their face into a body torn open by combative wounds and begin lapping and suckling the blood, whould you simply go "Okay, that's not sick and twisted in anyway." Would you pat them on the back and ask if they needed an handy-wipe to clean up? What if it were on "CSI" or "Criminal Minds"? If they showed someone who was gorging themselves on blood of corpses? Be it animal or human. It'd be considered criminal (and I'm not talking about like traffic tickets, here).
I entirely agree with Umbranus:
Something in me screams "KILL IT!" when I think about some humanoid creature eating/drinking from a recently slain, still warm human (humanoid).
It's the same instinct that would make me hit someone hard who is willingly injuring a child or raping a woman.
And it is really shocking me deep within that everyone else here is so relaxed about it.
I can't imagine myself walking up on a scene like that -rape,child injury,or licking blood from a corpse- and not wanting to rush over and punt someone's face like a 30-yard field goal attempt.
It would be the definition of evil if I personally saw it happen.
I have had a race of feaux-Elves in my world for 30 years now, whose society consists of an upper class of pseudo-High Elves that depend on increasing quantities of life force and blood and a beloved underclass of humans who voluntarily give up their life force and blood for the upper class. There is a strong paternalistic relationship and much RP fluff to go along with this, including bloodline bonding and such before the upper class can even accept the ritual 'boost'. Players are considered to be too young to need the boost, many being explorers looking for a cure.
A friend who was running based on my world put in an evil twist (no alignment campaign): A cabal of the underclass wanted to seize power by preventing a cure, letting the upper class waste away, leaving the comparatively weaker Humans to the cabal's tender mercies.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my tribe, we follow the traditions of the sun and moon spirits. They have taught us that taking the life of another living being (undead are certainly not living, and as to that status for outsiders, I will ask the nearest shaman to weigh in, as I am not well-informed on the matter) is a weighty and momentous decision. It should be undertaken only in the most extreme circumstances, when no other options are available.
In your story, the man you slay may just be one of ten faceless minions, but to that man, it is the final end of his story, his hopes, and his dreams. He was a son, and perhaps a brother, a husband, or a father. When you end another being, it is your duty to use every part and let nothing go to waste. It is your duty to take their hopes and dreams within you, through ritual consumption--if all of these dreams are evil, you need not pursue them, but try to find something in their story that you can continue, even if it is merely to locate their loved ones and inform them of their death. You must learn and remember their names, and respect that for your story to continue, theirs had to end.
In my adventures with the Pathfinder Society, thus far despite the extreme violence required, far more than suits my taste, I have managed to work with my comrades to prevent any fatalities on either side, but some day, I may not be so fortunate.
Your people call me a barbarian, a primitive, and with all the strange things you have in your civilization, I guess it must be so. But now you call me evil? I hold each life sacred and remember their loss. How many lives have you taken on an adventure and soon forgotten? In my tribe, this would be a great sin, but I do not judge you for it.
|
You can't apply morality judgments to animals regardless of their activities, which means you can't use them as an example in this context. Dingos eat babies, and they're neutral, yet Paladins clearly can't eat babies.Are vampire bats evil?
Mosquitos?
Leeches?
Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.
While what you say is true, it's also a non-sequitur. Animals aren't expected to act morally, because they lack the intelligence to HAVE morals.
Obviously, animals do not set an appropriate bar for the ethical behavior of PCs. Let alone Lawful Good PCs. Let alone paragons of Lawful-goodness (paladins).
That being said, the question on hand is this: Is drinking blood (no matter who you are, whether Paladin, Dhampir, or anyone at all) always evil?
Obviously, it is possible to drink blood and not be evil. So, the answer to the question at hand is "No."
Whether it is appropriate or compatable with a Paladin's class restrictions are two other questions entirely. Another poster mentioned the chaotic aspect of drinking blood- this goes against many cultures' rules about not desecrating corpses. THAT is a bigger hurdle for a Paladin than the question of whether or not it is an evil act.
|
|
Obviously, it is possible to drink blood and not be evil. So, the answer to the question at hand is "No."
I disagree entirely ... not on the basis of the answer, but on the basis of a question. It's not simply about drinking blood. Someone's grandmother can stand in the kitchen, and drain the blood of a pound of ground beef and drink it, and it's fine.
But, it's rather about lapping the blood from open woulnds from a corpse. That's the issue. "Is drinking the blood of a corpse always Evil?" The answer here should be "Yes."
Evil is culturally relative. Not all agree on which acts are "evil", which culture is right?
Small, annoying correction, Blood Transcription actually has the [evil] tag, so casting it is an evil action.But the Blood Transcription spell (also witch) does NOT state that casting it is an evil act, and it involves drinking the blood of a dead spell caster.
I did not realize that.
Thanks.
...
That being said, the question on hand is this: Is drinking blood (no matter who you are, whether Paladin, Dhampir, or anyone at all) always evil?Obviously, it is possible to drink blood and not be evil. So, the answer to the question at hand is "No."
Whether it is appropriate or compatable with a Paladin's class restrictions are two other questions entirely. Another poster mentioned the chaotic aspect of drinking blood- this goes against many cultures' rules about not desecrating corpses. THAT is a bigger hurdle for a Paladin than the question of whether or not it is an evil act.
>>
Like many things, whether it's evil or not probably varies highly on where the Paladin's from. If he's Mayan, it's probably no big deal. If he's from Camelot, it's probably a pretty huge deal.
I don't know what campaign you're in, but in mine I'd make him justify it culturally, at the very minimum.
Is blood drinking inherently evil? No. The problem comes from the drinking the blood of a recently slain sentient creature and gaining sustenance from it.
In my opinion if this isnt outrigh evil its pretty morally icky in an area a paladin should never go.
It would definitely depend on the deity and the culture of the game. In very civilized cultures, and very lawful, civilized deities, I would consider it a non-lawful act to drink the blood of a humanoid foe who you and your team-mates had had just slain in honorable combat. The only way it would be evil would be if there was some additional spiritual component to this such as if drinking blood stole some spiritual energy or something from the deceased's soul (i.e. Blood Transcription). There doesn't appear to be anything of that sort in this power, but one could certainly have it as a campaign element.
If this were in my current campaign, which is based on the Rokugan setting of L5R, where blood magic has a connection to the Shadowlands and the Taint, it would definitely be an evil act and actually put the person in question at risk of gaining Taint. That's because of the way that it's treated in the campaign world though. In the metaphysics of Rokugan, when blood is taken out of the body of a sentient and put to use by another, that's inherently evil.
If I were running a Golarian campaign, such a PC would be OK in my book if the deity he served was Neutral Good, or had affinity to the hunt or the natural world. If it were a lawful god, especially if very civilized, then the paladin would need to keep drinking from humanoids, outsiders, and other sentients to absolute necessity. Drinking from slain animals or nonsentient magical beasts, though, would be fine, whatever, knock yourself out there fang-face.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a witch who has used blood transcription in-game (actually, for the first time just this last weekend in convention play). The opponents our team had killed were not killed because "I wanted their blood", but because it was part of our mission as Pathfinders. As a spell caster for whom magic is a spiritual matter, if anyone had questioned what I was doing, I would have responded that preservation of knowledge is part of respecting the life we just took- imbibing this person's blood is akin to using every part of an animal that is slaughtered. Would you slaughter a pig just to take out the loin and let the rest rot? Why let this person's arcane knowledge disappear from the world when I have a means to preserve it?
So far, no one has accused me of perpetrating an evil act (although several players were a bit grossed-out at the table).
|
Depends on A LOT of things, but honestly, most actions involving a dead body (other than raising it as undead or somehow using it to harm others, obviously) don't really have an alignment attachment. It all depends on the circumstance, as the action in a vacuum has no alignment. The only possible reasons why it could be called evil is if you're doing it to gain some sort of weird dark power, or for evil rituals, or if you killed the person solely to drink the blood.
I actually kind of like the idea of a dhampir who honors his dead enemies by partaking of their blood after he kills them, to make sure that a part of them lives on in him, and to make sure that he (symbolically) never forgets those he had no choice but to put to the sword. Its weird, but no weirder than some other kinds of customs that exist in our world which could still be classified as LG.
Your only problem is that about 99% of people will, with our without context, react as if you HAD done something evil and probably attack you, but unless the god your worshipping specifically prohibits such action, you wouldn't lose paladin abilities for it...
Small, annoying correction, Blood Transcription actually has the [evil] tag, so casting it is an evil action.But the Blood Transcription spell (also witch) does NOT state that casting it is an evil act, and it involves drinking the blood of a dead spell caster.
You know, I just saw your edit and I didn't catch that it has the [evil] descriptor... so sure, maybe the method of doing Blood Transcription has a dark taint to it- similar to using Infernal Healing, but the morality of killing a sentient being is (IMO) a separate matter. Pathfinders kill sentient humanoids all the time... sometimes for trivial reasons... as part of their mission for the Society. How many Pathfinders "do the right thing" and bury that body properly afterwards?
For the record, my witch is a CN Teifling who struggles with her infernal side quite a bit... she uses questionable magic (Infernal Healing, Blood Transcription, etc.) because it comes easily to her by nature. She justifies her actions (healing the wounded, preserving knowledge) by way of "the ends justify the means"... but obviously that is not a very Lawful way to look at things (hence her alignment). She is torn between doing the right thing and doing the lazy, selfish things- a flawed creature who more often than not does what is in her own best interest.
A player in an upcoming campaign of mine wants to roll a Dhampir paladin/sorcerer with the sanguine bloodline. The sanguine bloodline has this ability:
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 bloodline power replaces grave touch.
I have some views on this, but I thought I should gather some other views before making a GM call.
Do you reckon drinking the blood of a dead creature should always count as an evil action capable of causing him to fall? If not, under what circumstances should it not count as an evil act?
As I often do when I read the title of these kinds of threads my first reaction was "Of course not, why would it be?"
No I dont think that drinking blood is inherantly evil. I think its inherantly creepy (as will NPCs) but that isnt the same thing. I think the idea of it being evil comes from the bible, specifically a passage that says (and Im paraphrasing here) "Dont drink the blood of another human being". Where that passage is and what it says exactly I cant say but I do know other religions have interpreted it to read blood transfusions as "Drinking" blood.
Looking at what Evil is, I fail to see how such an act is inherantly evil. A Dhampir who's thristy could just drink from his/her willing lover or party member without any reprecussions to the good/evil spectrum. Going out and forcing him/herself on someone to drink would be evil but only because we get into the idea of unwilling victims.
Without knowing your stance and the reasons on them its hard to say whether your right or wrong
okay, let's compare drikning the blood of a sentient creature (that died for whatever cause) to "cook people" a witch hex.
She cooks (much more sanitary) the meat, instead of drinking the blood of a freshly killed person, to gain very nice boni that can help her kill demons and protect the weak.
It's very clearly stated "Using this hex or knowingly eating its food is an evil act".
So my interpretation is that drinking blood is just as evil as eating from that hex, and anything other is houseruling (which is completly okay).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Oh, it's certainly cannibalism, I'm just in complete disagreement with the idea that cannibalism is inherently evil.
The game seems to think it is though (or at least that cannibalism corrupts the cannibal)--cannibalism is one of the ways ghouls spontaneously manifest. There's even a PFS scenario where you run across some pathfinders who got trapped by an avalanche, were forced to eat their dead to survive, and then returned as ghouls after their own deaths, so even necessary, non-murderous cannibalism has some negative effect.
|
|
I would say that in a culture in which drinking blood is acceptable it would be fine, but, drinking blood in a culture where this is not considered "honouring" them, but rather stealing their essence and not allowing those memories and knowledge to pass into the afterlife with them, should be considered Evil.
The dead deserve to not have their lives stolen from them after they are dead. Ripping their thoughts, ideas, and memories from their fresh corpses is kind of (in-character) morally repulsive. It's about perspective.
But, again, at the risk of reiteration: It's not about how the individual was killed, it's not about animal or human. Someone's grandmother can stand in the kitchen, and drain the blood of a pound of ground beef and drink it, and it's fine.
But, it's rather about lapping the blood from open woulnds from a corpse. That's the issue. "Is drinking the blood of a corpse always Evil?" The answer here should be "Yes."
I see absolutely NO reason why I would consider it evil at all. Evil generally involves harming a victim in some way: physically, mentally, even socially.
Most people give pause to drinking blood because there are few examples that they have been socially raised upon in which it isn't evil. Cultist rituals and vampires come to mind. However I would say that this is more about being misinformed than the viability of your "gut" reaction. If your gut tells you it's evil, I'd question your gut as to why. Being raised in the western world in which media portrays devil worship and vampirism in movies is most likely the true culprit.
The final and true aspect of the matter is, there is no harm. Literally nobody is getting hurt. The "body is irrelevant", and the soul is off to Pharasma already. Doing the act in front of people, well... that can create mental or social harm, as was pointed out if the family or friends of the recently deceased are watching.
I say the body is irrelevant mostly because all other signs in Pathfinder point to this being the case. Nobody complains about looting corpses for their magical items unless the city/town has laws against it. You can't fill a cup with blood, but your allies can start taking off his boots? Corpse desecration is not a one sided street. The only reason I'd say grave robbing is evil is because of the "robbing" part. Those items was buried by the church due to their beliefs and you shouldn't infringe upon that. If they believe "you can take it with you", then you're stealing from a soul. Also, you're technically stealing from the next of kin and family that wanted the item there. Exhuming a corpse for a murder mystery without the whole looting aspect? Not evil (but get permission from the keepers of the graveyard. This isn't your property).
Create Treasure Map - a spell in which you use the skin of the recently deceased to create a treasure map to their valuables. Not marked as evil. This spell is arguably more selfish than the damphir's goals.
In the end, this would be my interpretation. I would say that Pathfinder's interpretation may be different. Between the Cook People hex and the creation of ghouls as mentioned above by Benchak, it's possible that Pathfinder views this as evil anyway. This is a magical fantasy realm, and honestly all good and evil are perspective from the planes that rule it. It's more up to the gods (and developers) than our measly interpretations.
Drinking blood doesn't make you evil but it is most definitely not a good act either. In this circumstance of a dhampir paladin it is still something a paladin wouldn't do. Poison isn't inherently evil either but a paladin is specifically barred from using it since it is associated with evil. So while this wouldn't make someone evil it doesn't make them good either. Which leaves you with neutral. A paladin is expected to set a example of what is good which means specifically doing good acts. Not neutral ones. Simply not committing evil acts isn't good enough to be a paladin. He must actively seek to do good and not muddy himself with the gey area neutrality. Just my take on based on the paladin fluff in the core rulebook about the paladins code and what is acceptable.
|
|
This sorta came up in the old 3.5 books, vile darkness I think. There is a difference between cannibalism (eating the whole or part of a person, including blood), and just... well... eating people. Cannibals gain pleasure out of eating sentient life, it is similar to the joy of causing pain and suffering. But monsters eat sentient people all the time and are not cannibals because they do it to survive. It is a legitimate way to stay alive, no malicious intent included.
So if the player in question is doing this as a need to survive then it would not be cannibalism though it may be very taboo. If he is doing it to gain power or enjoyment then it is cannibalism and thus evil. This is as close to game mechanics as I can find. Others including paladins may see it straight up as cannibalism in a society sense meaning there can be some major RP situations but if he's honest and respectful about it he could, mechanics wise, avoid the evil issues.
Removed a post. Bringing real life political figures into advice threads might not be the best idea.
Selfish and evil are not the same thing.
I would argue that selfishness is at the core of evil. (see my earlier post about moral circles)
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others…
I realize that selfishness and having no compassion aren't exactly the same, but there is room for (much, much) debate there.
I'd say it's only evil if you kill with intent to drink the blood. Meaning you kill someone so you can drink their blood.
Removed a post. Bringing real life political figures into advice threads might not be the best idea.
You have to admit it was pretty funny though. :)
|
LG Couatls from Heaven eat sapient beings whole and sometimes alive.
Just throwings that outs theres.
edit-Homebrewed CG/CN orc culture in my Golarion has traditionalist chieftains ritualally eating the heart of the previous chieftain when he or she passes, as a way of passing on the strength and wisdom of the old. They also don't have too much of a cannibalism taboo if times are extremely lean, but take only from those who have fallen and done respectfully, owing to the history of their harsh exodus to their current home(which luckily is pretty good for crops and game, but freakishly harsh winters do happen). Adds to the values dissonance between them and their neighbors.
|
|
A lot of religious ceremonies are themed around the consumption of blood as a symbolic act. A good aligned character could see tasting the blood of a vanquished foe to be a sign of respect, a form of ritual to usher the soul of the fallen into the next world.
Ripping out the heart or otherwise mutilating the corpse would of course not be fine but a small taste with a ritualised prayer should be fine IMHO.
It is at the very least a very questionable act. A paladin may not decide to kill you for that alone, he would have to take into account your other actions, and how often you do it. Is this something you do occasionally when other healing isn't available, or is it something that you do at the end of every combat so that you savor the victory. There are a lot of ways to play, for instance what if it is an ability you use only in the most dire of emergencies, and you find it disgusting as a sign of your corrupt heritage. You could always be the brooding antihero constantly fighting off your darker hungers, like Blade but able to cast spells.
Assuming this is the one flaw in a otherwise good person, he would still feel the need to try to stop you probably. Either by hosting an intervention with the rest of the party, or perhaps just burning corpses at the end of every combat.
|
|
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.
|
|
Intent can transfer an act from morally neutral to morally reprehensible in very short order.
And I find it somewhat shocking to think that there are posters on here who are decrying the idea of drinking the blood of the dead, but would pitch an unholy fit if another character in their game prevented them from looting the body of a fallen foe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drinking blood is inherently emo.
CRAAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIN~
If I were the GM I would ask what the blood drinking was for. If it was to be or be like a Vampire that would be evil. If you are drinking the blood of a new born baby, then we would have a problem. If you were doing it after killing a boar (to eat) and needed the blood for something other than evil purposes I could make a ruling on that. It's all about intent and reason...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow another post on "is it evil to..." I'll give you the same advice I give everyone else who posts threads very similar to this based on alignment:
Talk it over with your group, make a decision based on what the group wants to do and go with it. Come up with your own set of alignment rules that everyone can live by and have fun playing at your table. Don't ask the peanut gallery (us forum posters) because you'll get a different answer based on each individual's own moral code and you'll be lucky if two people agree on the same thing.
Now if you still want my personal opinion I'll give it to you.
It will depend on what the situation is. If the paladin is killing things strictly to feed off them in the most animalistic and serial killer sense, then yes it's evil. (i.e. hunting down and killing innocents just to feed off them.)
If the character is doing this to fallen foes after purifying them with some sort of divine ritual, then no it's not evil. Besides, it's only the blood and they aren't being a cannibal and eating the flesh. (i.e. consecrating the ground on which the fallen foe has died, purifying the body with spells, rituals, or prayers, drinking their blood and then giving a decent burial.)
The other thing I think about in regards to this is that when someone dies IRL, their blood is drained from their bodies and replaced with fluids to preserve the body and slow down the process of decomposition, which isn't evil. The ancient Egyptians drained the blood and removed all the organs from bodies to preserve and mummify them, this isn't considered evil either.
HAve to agree with a lot of the other posters that context matters. Leaving aside the whole issue of how they were killed, drinking the blood of a sentient being just for fun is highly questionable, but doing it for sustenance/healing strikes me as pretty reasonable. Icky, certainly, but there's nothing inherently evil about preserving one's own life.
I'd say that in order to qualify as evil, you'd have to be causing harm to someone else. A corpse can't really be harmed, on account of being dead and all, so unless consuming blood does some sort of spiritual harm to the victim (which, unless I've missed something, it doesn't in the PF universe) then no harm is being done.
Why? I'm honestly curious what moral system causes this response.Ok, let's agree to disagree.
For me what the dhampir does is evil.
For me it would not be evil to kill someone like that when caught red handed.For me the human body is sacred. Even when it is dead.
Something in me screams KILL IT! When I think about some humanoid creature eating/drinking from a recently slain, still warm human (humanoid).It's the same instinct that would make me hit someone hard who is willingly injuring a child or raping a woman.
And it is really shocking me deep within that everyone else here is so relaxed about it.
I don't think anyone is really relaxed about it, rather used to this kind of theoreticals.
Would I consider it an evil act? The real question is how would the ordinary folks who saw you doing it react. I'd say highly negatively.Dhampir are joining Drow in the list of races that make me groan when I hear a player making one. Almost all of them are munchkin combinations like I'm sure this one will be.
Hmm, actually I find Dhampirs (along with Changelings) are one of two new races Paizo put out that are just...subpar mechanically. Dhampirs have a Con penalty, and you can't heal them without using negative energy. Except in a very very specialized party (such as all Dhampir with a Death Cleric or an Oracle of Bones), this will put the Dhampirs quite behind par. I've actually never seen someone playa Dhampir (or a Pathfinder Changeling) for "munchkin" reasonsas you've said--they've alwaysbeen heavily flavor-focused RP-lovers who care lessabout mechanics.
Now, granted, those same heavily flavor-focused players can still make annoying Dhampir characters who fit all the emo vampire tropes, don't get me wrong. And they may be going into it with a vampire fanboyism similar to the fanboyism for drow back in Forgotten Realms days. All I'm saying is that they almost certainly aren't doing it to mechanically optimize.
|
|
For me the human body is sacred. Even when it is dead.
Something in me screams KILL IT! When I think about some humanoid creature eating/drinking from a recently slain, still warm human (humanoid).It's the same instinct that would make me hit someone hard who is willingly injuring a child or raping a woman.
And it is really shocking me deep within that everyone else here is so relaxed about it.
Visceral reactions are often a very poor thing to base moral choices on.
I mean, is eating insects morally wrong? It's disgusting, it makes me uncomfortable to look at, but it's hard to argue it's actually wrong. Ditto cannibalism.
What if it were on "CSI" or "Criminal Minds"? If they showed someone who was gorging themselves on blood of corpses? Be it animal or human. It'd be considered criminal (and I'm not talking about like traffic tickets, here).
If it's on CSI or Criminal Minds, they probably killed the guy first (which is, of course, Evil), and even if they didn't, they're in the modern non-magical world, where doing so is pointless and likely a sign of severe mental illness. Also, illegal. But then, a lot of things are illegal in the U.S. that aren't in D&D, and people who say that a God talks to them in those shows are crazy and likely murderous, too. Are all Clerics and Paladins thus Evil?
You're applying non-magical standards to a magical ability.
Obviously, it is possible to drink blood and not be evil. So, the answer to the question at hand is "No."I disagree entirely ... not on the basis of the answer, but on the basis of a question. It's not simply about drinking blood. Someone's grandmother can stand in the kitchen, and drain the blood of a pound of ground beef and drink it, and it's fine.
But, it's rather about lapping the blood from open woulnds from a corpse. That's the issue. "Is drinking the blood of a corpse always Evil?" The answer here should be "Yes."
Given that my previous lover enjoyed drinking my blood whenever I got cut accidentally, because she liked the taste of it, and felt closer to me when she did it; I'm still going to have to say no, the act of drinking blood, sentient or not, is not inherently evil. She wasn't killing me to drink my blood. She didn't cut me open to drink my blood. But she was willing to drink my blood if it happened to be there for the taking with no other harm to befall me. Incidentally, I didn't mind either, and rather enjoyed the almost metaphysical bond that I felt when she did such things as well.
The question is clear. Good and evil have nothing to do with whether something seems gross or not. Some people can't imagine eating bugs without hurling, and yet eating insects or even giant cockroaches is something practiced by certain cultures. In D&D, alignment is very easy, but everyone tries to over complicate things.
Is drinking the blood of this dead sentient being oppressing it, hurting it, or killing it? It's already dead, so no in all cases. You are not oppressing it, hurting it, or killing it. It's not evil. The act of oppressing, hurting, and killing a sentient creature just to drink its blood would be evil, but evil is not a given just for the blood drinking bit.