| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Geez - hope the Paladin never orders a medium-rare steak...
|
Catholics believe that they consume blood and human flesh each Sunday.
I see no reason to say that drinking the blood of the fallen is an inherently evil act. If done in the context of a religious ritual blessing the fallen I see no problem with it.
In contemporary society it's downright wrong but notions of good and evil change in a fantasy setting. If this is the practice of a well regarded sect then I see nothing wrong with it.
The difference is you kill the donor and then drink his blood. That is where the concept of evil kicks in. Again drinking the blood of appropriate sized animals I would say is not an evil act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is you kill the donor and then drink his blood. That is where the concept of evil kicks in. Again drinking the blood of appropriate sized animals I would say is not an evil act.
Antipaladin and Paladin fight. Paladin kills antipaladin. Paladin eats antipaladin's corpse and/or drinks his blood after he is dead. Paladin has not committed evil beyond killing the antipaladin for being evil. If Paladin doesn't fall for killing the antipaladin, then Paladin doesn't fall for drinking the juice out of that phat peach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then whats to say that you can just confront an evil intelligent humanoid who has not committed an evil act kill him and drink his blood. In effect you can, then try to point out that it is ok he was evil scum. Sorry but a Paladin needs to be better than that.
I draw the line at intelligent beings in my games.
Here are my thoughts at this point (after reading all the posts...oww that was alot of reading).
I lean towards drinking of the blood being an inherently neutral act, but agree that circumstances can render it evil. The reason most cultures today consider cannibalism evil is that the person is specifically killed so that he or she can be eaten. The reason it is depicted as evil in most media is that the people in those instances are specifically killed for their meat/blood.
Which is not to say that the paladin can drink blood with complete disregard for what other people think. As rightly mentioned before, the paladin should need to ascertain whether or not there are laws in the land against drinking blood from a corpse.
Furthermore, as one who seeks to be an example to others, a paladin needs to consider what kind of behavior he may be encouraging to those around him, especially if people around him knows he is a paladin.
At the moment, I'm inclined to go with the following ruling: drinking from beasts/animals is ok, drinking from corpses of sentient beings is by default ok, but the paladin needs to consider the impact he may have on anyone watching.
Oh and btw, he intends to use prestigitation to draw the blood from the wound and stream it into his mouth. I've adjudicated that he can do that at a range of no more than 2.5ft. I suppose it does reduce the ick factor a little.
|
Here are my thoughts at this point (after reading all the posts...oww that was alot of reading).
I lean towards drinking of the blood being an inherently neutral act, but agree that circumstances can render it evil. The reason most cultures today consider cannibalism evil is that the person is specifically killed so that he or she can be eaten. The reason it is depicted as evil in most media is that the people in those instances are specifically killed for their meat/blood.
Which is not to say that the paladin can drink blood with complete disregard for what other people think. As rightly mentioned before, the paladin should need to ascertain whether or not there are laws in the land against drinking blood from a corpse.
Furthermore, as one who seeks to be an example to others, a paladin needs to consider what kind of behavior he may be encouraging to those around him, especially if people around him knows he is a paladin.
At the moment, I'm inclined to go with the following ruling: drinking from beasts/animals is ok, drinking from corpses of sentient beings is by default ok, but the paladin needs to consider the impact he may have on anyone watching.
Oh and btw, he intends to use prestigitation to draw the blood from the wound and stream it into his mouth. I've adjudicated that he can do that at a range of no more than 2.5ft. I suppose it does reduce the ick factor a little.
I'd say that seems reasonable. If nothing else you can say that he's a paladin of Cayden Cailean-- I'm pretty sure there are various cultures that make mead or whatnot out of blood.
Also, the "prestidigitate it into his mouth" angle officially turns it from moral quandary into "too ridiculous to take seriosuly". I honestly burst out laughing when I read that.
Which deity?
Then whats to say that you can just confront an evil intelligent humanoid who has not committed an evil act kill him and drink his blood. In effect you can, then try to point out that it is ok he was evil scum. Sorry but a Paladin needs to be better than that.
I draw the line at intelligent beings in my games.
I have to question your logic. I said the Paladin and Antipaladin were fighting. The Paladin slew the antipaladin. The Paladin then ate/drank the antipaladin.
You don't get to change the scenario. I didn't say the Paladin randomly jumped the antipaladin to kill and eat him. The Paladin and AntiPaladin were fighting. Presumably because the AntiPaladin was doing the usual Anti-Paladin things like smoking cigars made out of babies and such.
Simply logic here. Paladin and Antipaladin were fighting. Paladin kills Antipaladin as a side effect of that fighting. If the Paladin does not fall from that, then eating or drinking the antipaladin's remains sure as heck won't do it, because you are not committing any evil by D&D standards (you are not hurting, oppressing, or killing a sentient creature; you are now consuming a sack of soulless flesh).
Also, I can't help but to grin at this comment:
just confront an evil intelligent humanoid who has not committed an evil act
Wow, and an antipaladin no less. He must be a sucky antipaladin, since he apparently just hangs out to get randomly jumped by good guys, having done no wrong or anything to warrant his evil alignment.
I needed a laugh. :P
I lean towards drinking of the blood being an inherently neutral act, but agree that circumstances can render it evil.
Pretty much this. Virtually all things are inherently neutral. Once could preform acts of great good and heroism with methods that seem ugly and impure (heck, Paladins do it all the time, and are expected to, since more of their class revolves around the relentless slaughter of the sinful, rather than the peaceful resolution and restoration of evil doers); or I could summon pretty celestial beings to murder and pillage and kidnap orphans to be forced to work in my evil sweatshops, making my patented iSecretPage spellbooks!
|
If I can try to take the debate in a new direction:
I think the question of whether this particular instance of blood-drinking constitutes an evil act depends a lot more on the fact that the PC is a Dhampir than anything else. Put aside cultural relativism or nutrition, etc etc. Forget trying to generalize this. Let's look at specifically who's drinking the blood and why:
Dhampirs are basically weaksauce vampires. Or half-Vampires. Or somehow related to vampires. The point is that any supernatural abilities they have come from their vampire heritage.
Vampires are USUALLY evil undead. Part of their evilness stems from their blood-drinking. When a vampire drinks blood, he is not gaining any nutritional value from it. (He's dead, remember? The protein is meaningless to him.) The vampiric act of drinking blood is actually a physical manifestation of what is actually occuring, which is that the vampire is feeding off of his victim's LIFE. He is literally sucking the life out of his victim. Or the soul. Or some other ineffable energy which is mystically transferred via the ritualistic and largely symbolic act of drinking blood.
(your mileage may vary, depending on how you treat vampirism in your campaign. I'm basing my analysis on the standard, classical tropes from western fiction)
Then there is also the sexual component to vampiric blood-drinking. It is an intimate, violent act in which the vampire imposes his power over the victim and literally objectifies his victim by removing the life/soul of the victim while exchanging bodily fluids. Paging Doctor Freud! Doctor Freud to the thread, please!
(again, your mileage may vary. GM's discretionary privilege and all that)
All of this adds up to vampiric blood-drinking being pretty evil. If anyone wants to argue that Vampiric blood-drinking is NOT inherently evil, let me point out that almost all vampires who try to be "Good" go out of their way to avoid drinking the blood of people under ANY circumstances, and only do so when their victims are REALLY BAD PEOPLE who have it coming or when they are in the grip of some kind of uncontrollable bloodlust, usually both. (I personally can't think of a one who doesn't fit this trope.)
So let's get back to our friend the Dhampir. His supernatural "The Blood is the Life" power is basically a watered down version of Vampiric blood drinking. The reason he needs to consume "fresh" blood (within a minute of death) and from significantly sized creatures is that he is not just drinking the blood itself, but is (like his vampiric forebears) stealing some of the victim's life before it completely leaves the corpse. He is very much desecrating the corpse and interfering with the victim's soul at the moment of death, and depending on your outlook he is possibly also symbolically raping the corpse as well.
Since he's only using a very watered-down version of the vampiric power, that may be enough to remove such horrors from the realm of being inherently evil - but at the very least I think it dances right on the border, and if he enjoys it or employs it too much, it could cause him to fall.
Also:
Drinking blood is inherently emo.
CRAAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIN~
This this a thousand times this!!! If you allow this PC, part of the package stipulations should be that he wears lots of eye-liner and cries tears of blood every time he uses his power. :P
Body fluid, is body fluid, in the realm of good and evil.
I really need to wash my mind out...
Body fluid, is body fluid, in the realm of good and evil.Except in the case of Vampirism. Then body fluid is actually a stand in for something else. See my previous argument.
Fiay ampiresvay uckedsay ockcay, ouldway hattay akemay ornstarspay vileay?
|
|
Fiay ampiresvay uckedsay ockcay, ouldway hattay akemay ornstarspay vileay?Body fluid, is body fluid, in the realm of good and evil.Except in the case of Vampirism. Then body fluid is actually a stand in for something else. See my previous argument.
Only if the ornstarpays in question were dhampirs using their vampiric ornpay abilities to drain the life from their victims at the moment of imaxclay. :P
"draining life" is how vampires get thier "Nutrients". if they don't do it, they will eventually die.
The question is though, do Dhampir sparkle?Had a friend roll a dhampir sanguine sorcerer. Can't recall his name, but we all referred to him as "Sparkletaint."
Edward Cullen might Sparkle, But the Scarlet sisters don't.
It has nothing to do with being a particular type of fluid. What matters, in my mind, is whether the PC's culture comports anything sacred to that fluid, and how the PC comports himself when drinking it.
If a culture held tears to be pieces of your soul, then as a member of that culture, licking the tears off someone's face would be an evil act, unless it was done as part of a ritual holy to your culture.
It would be an especially evil act if you had just served that person chili with their parents remains mixed in and then had their favorite band come to watch them cry. Even if tears weren't considered soul pieces…
If a culture held tears to be pieces of your soul, then as a member of that culture, licking the tears off someone's face would be an evil act, unless it was done as part of a ritual holy to your culture.
Like taking pictures of the Amish!
Vampires are USUALLY evil undead. Part of their evilness stems from their blood-drinking.
I dunno, I'd think that ALL of their evilness comes from being undead creatures and therefore infused inherently in negative energy. The blood drinking is more of a symptom of the TYPE of undead they are, usually in modern cultures meant to be a curse that represents the original vampire, such as Vlad the Impaler or Elizabeth Báthory, who were evil in many many ways and not necessarily because they enjoyed a cup of plasma with their eggs.
In this case, it is nutrition.
Actually - in this case it is a completely optional ability that the PC can choose not to use. Nothing is forcing him to drink blood. Nothing in that text states that he will suffer any penalties if he forgoes drinking.
or Cain, who was cursed to forever repeat the drawing of blood created with the first murder. All depends on the mythos of vampire really.
|
|
In this case, it is nutrition.
Not necessarily. As has been mentioned, it depends on what kind of vampire tropes are being used. Vampires work differently in different works of fiction. For example, in Being Human, vampires seem to drink blood not because it nourishes them, but because they're addicted to it. Several vampires try to give up blood over the course of the series, and even form a sort of AA-style support group for it. It's hard to imagine that happening if drinking blood was like food to them.
|
|
I dunno, I'd think that ALL of their evilness comes from being undead creatures and therefore infused inherently in negative energy. The blood drinking is more of a symptom of the TYPE of undead they are...
I think you have a good point, but still think that the soul-sucking and symbolic rape contribute to the evilness.
"draining life" is how vampires get thier "Nutrients". if they don't do it, they will eventually die.They are already dead. "Draining Life" is how they prolong the cursed mockery of mortal existence that they prefer to endure rather than submit to the way of all flesh.
by "nutrients", i mean the sustenance required to survive. yeah, they aren't getting carbohydrates from bread because they are dead, but drinking that blood provides the nourishment to keep them alive. so appearantly, they are getting something from those proteins. maybe not the same things a human gets, but something similar.
if you honestly knew you had a short period left to live and had something you feel you must do, would you choose to let the terminal illness kill you? or would you accept the curse of undeath if you knew it would prolong your life?
man has sought immortality since forever. a vampire offers you immortality with a drawback, i'm pretty damn sure that most desperate people are going to take it.
I dunno, I'd think that ALL of their evilness comes from being undead creatures and therefore infused inherently in negative energy. The blood drinking is more of a symptom of the TYPE of undead they are...I think you have a good point, but still think that the soul-sucking and symbolic rape contribute to the evilness.
I think however an important distinction between the sanguine bloodline power and the blood-sucking of vampires is that in the case of the sanguine bloodline power, the target corpse is already, well, a corpse, whereas vampires usually drink the blood of living creatures (and kill them in the process).
On an interesting note, in the television series 'Angel', the titular vampire in that series subsisted on packeted blood, although I can't rememer if he drank animal or human blood. He was almost certainly a 'good' vampire.
Oh and for those who are wondering, the PC in question is a paladin of Erastil, which was part of the reason why I thought he should particularly consider the impact he might have on the community and the people around him no matter what he was drinking.
|
|
by "nutrients", i mean the sustenance required to survive. yeah, they aren't getting carbohydrates from bread because they are dead, but drinking that blood provides the nourishment to keep them alive. so appearantly, they are getting something from those proteins. maybe not the same things a human gets, but something similar.
The vampire is NOT ALIVE. It is already dead. It continues to exist (I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "survive") by literally stealing the life of others. It is a supernatural creature that is sustained by evil magic.
Wov. You must be American. Probably a Republican, too.Under none.
Drinking the blood of the dead is evil in the common sense, period.
Now if you want to have some gritty campaign you could rule if he sanctifies the corpse each and every time beforehand you can let him go on. Could be a nice rp opportunity.
This flies but my Santorm joke gets modded?
Boo. At least mine was funny.
by "nutrients", i mean the sustenance required to survive. yeah, they aren't getting carbohydrates from bread because they are dead, but drinking that blood provides the nourishment to keep them alive. so appearantly, they are getting something from those proteins. maybe not the same things a human gets, but something similar.The vampire is NOT ALIVE. It is already dead. It continues to exist (I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "survive") by literally stealing the life of others. It is a supernatural creature that is sustained by evil magic.
Twilight fangirls will hate you now. XD
|
|
I think however an important distinction between the sanguine bloodline power and the blood-sucking of vampires is that in the case of the sanguine bloodline power, the target corpse is already, well, a corpse, whereas vampires usually drink the blood of living creatures (and kill them in the process).
Again, I agree that you have a point, however the fact that the Dhampir needs to get to the corps within the first minute indicates that it's trying to get at the life-force before it leaves the corpse, which is part of the vampires heritage of life-sucking.
On an interesting note, in the television series 'Angel', the titular vampire in that series subsisted on packeted blood, although I can't rememer if he drank animal or human blood. He was almost certainly a 'good' vampire.
Yeah, I thought about that, but in terms of the fiction behind vampires in general, you can see that "blood bank vampires" are basically doing everything they can to divorce themselves from their "victims" and separate themselves from the life-draining act a much as possible because it is inherently evil. You can also say that in spiritual terms the people donating blood to the blood bank are actually making a willing sacrifice, and somehow that sacrifice sustains the life-giving power of the blood which in turn allows Angel to continue his tortured existence.
Like I said, it's all fiction anyway - your mileage may vary.
I would also say that (as has already been opointed out) the Dhampir paladin, not being a full vampire himself, does not NEED to drink the blood to continue existing, does not NEED to give into the temptation to make victims of those he kills in honorable combat. As such, having this ability would be a constant temptation that he needs to overcome, rather than a useful tool in his arsenal of powers.
Here are my thoughts at this point (after reading all the posts...oww that was alot of reading).
I lean towards drinking of the blood being an inherently neutral act, but agree that circumstances can render it evil. The reason most cultures today consider cannibalism evil is that the person is specifically killed so that he or she can be eaten. The reason it is depicted as evil in most media is that the people in those instances are specifically killed for their meat/blood.
Which is not to say that the paladin can drink blood with complete disregard for what other people think. As rightly mentioned before, the paladin should need to ascertain whether or not there are laws in the land against drinking blood from a corpse.
Furthermore, as one who seeks to be an example to others, a paladin needs to consider what kind of behavior he may be encouraging to those around him, especially if people around him knows he is a paladin.
At the moment, I'm inclined to go with the following ruling: drinking from beasts/animals is ok, drinking from corpses of sentient beings is by default ok, but the paladin needs to consider the impact he may have on anyone watching.
Oh and btw, he intends to use prestigitation to draw the blood from the wound and stream it into his mouth. I've adjudicated that he can do that at a range of no more than 2.5ft. I suppose it does reduce the ick factor a little.
I'd say that seems reasonable. If nothing else you can say that he's a paladin of Cayden Cailean-- I'm pretty sure there are various cultures that make mead or whatnot out of blood.
Also, the "prestidigitate it into his mouth" angle officially turns it from moral quandary into "too ridiculous to take seriosuly". I honestly burst out laughing when I read that.
Heh, well, it actually brought to mind Trinity Blood when he suggested it.
Check out this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEUvFm3O1MQ , from 2:25 onwards, except that the blood is drawn to his mouth instead. It has the potential to be a little creepy.
As such, having this ability would be a constant temptation that he needs to overcome, rather than a useful tool in his arsenal of powers.
Well, from a roleplaying standpoint absolutely, but let's look at it from the player's point of view - he basically wants to play a Batman-style dark knight. He's choosing his powers and such from a thematic viewpoint rather than a mechanical one. But he's still playing Pathfinder, and beneath the fluff that bloodline power IS a useful tool in his arsenal of powers. So unless the power is going to be denied right out, I would make sure to work this out with the player so that both people are happy. No one wants to be screwed over simply because they chose a power during character creation, and the GM interprets it solely as a liability.
I would stress to the player that this combination could come to a tragic end, and make sure they know your rules as far as alignment goes.
As such, having this ability would be a constant temptation that he needs to overcome, rather than a useful tool in his arsenal of powers.Well, from a roleplaying standpoint absolutely, but let's look at it from the player's point of view - he basically wants to play a Batman-style dark knight. He's choosing his powers and such from a thematic viewpoint rather than a mechanical one. But he's still playing Pathfinder, and beneath the fluff that bloodline power IS a useful tool in his arsenal of powers. So unless the power is going to be denied right out, I would make sure to work this out with the player so that both people are happy. No one wants to be screwed over simply because they chose a power during character creation, and the GM interprets it solely as a liability.
I would stress to the player that this combination could come to a tragic end, and make sure they know your rules as far as alignment goes.
He is well aware, and part of the character concept is that he became a paladin specifically to deny and combat his darker inclinations, and to offset the distasteful nature of his powers by employing them for good.
What's cool about the concept (and the main reason I approved of him playing a Damphir) is that he is using a class ability to accentuate the nature of his race. I like how most people here have actually all but forgotten that his blood-drinking ability is mechanically a function of his class, rather than of his race as a Damphir! Mechanically, Damphirs don't even need to drink blood!
Given that the paladin is a follower of Erastil, the hunt god, drinking blood from a slain animal or nonsentient magical beast could certainly hardly be considered more evil than eating the flesh of that animal or beast.
If I were GMing this paladin, I would tell him that Erastil is fine with the above, but should only drink the blood of humanoids or other sentients if they are killed in otherwise honorable battle and only if it is necessary for him to survive.
As such, having this ability would be a constant temptation that he needs to overcome, rather than a useful tool in his arsenal of powers.Well, from a roleplaying standpoint absolutely, but let's look at it from the player's point of view - he basically wants to play a Batman-style dark knight. He's choosing his powers and such from a thematic viewpoint rather than a mechanical one. But he's still playing Pathfinder, and beneath the fluff that bloodline power IS a useful tool in his arsenal of powers. So unless the power is going to be denied right out, I would make sure to work this out with the player so that both people are happy. No one wants to be screwed over simply because they chose a power during character creation, and the GM interprets it solely as a liability.
I would stress to the player that this combination could come to a tragic end, and make sure they know your rules as far as alignment goes.
He is well aware, and part of the character concept is that he became a paladin specifically to deny and combat his darker inclinations, and to offset the distasteful nature of his powers by employing them for good.
What's cool about the concept (and the main reason I approved of him playing a Damphir) is that he is using a class ability to accentuate the nature of his race. I like how most people here have actually all but forgotten that his blood-drinking ability is mechanically a function of his class, rather than of his race as a Damphir! Mechanically, Damphirs don't even need to drink blood!
Of course they forgot. It's easy to forget stuff like that when everyone on the boards is trying to prove that playing softball or eating beans is going to send you to the 9th layer, because they say so.