PDA

View Full Version : eating summoned animals



de-trick
2007-08-31, 01:12 AM
Im playing a good half-vampire and i thought to take children of the night and suck there blood to feed, but my DM says it is a evil act to summon a animal just to kill it and drink it's blood, I'd said it sure is better than drinking the blood of a humanoid in the city

what do you the people think

Fhaolan
2007-08-31, 01:19 AM
Well... morally it's really not that much different from a very efficient hunting technique.

However, that said, I'm not sure it would work for technical reasons. I'm not that familiar with the exact text of the 'Children of the Night' ability. Is this a summon, as in the creature just *poofs* right next to you, or is supposed to draw them from the nearby terrain? If it's a *poof* thing, usually the creature *poofs* back once the timer runs out. And usually it's ruled that all the creature's bits go *poof* away, even the blood no longer in the creature...

TheOOB
2007-08-31, 01:21 AM
Two points of interest, if a summoned creature dies, it goes back to it's home plane and reforms, so that make it difficult to feed.

Second point, when the summon duration ends, the creature in it's entirely, even any spells it has cast, disappear, thus it would be impossible to get any substance from them for more then a minute or two, as their flesh/blood would disappear from your system when the creature does. Not fun.

Beings summoned creatures are there to be summoned and die with no ill effects to the creature, I doubt it would be especially evil. In fact, the way summon spells work it seems more like you are instantiating the platonic form of the creature rather then actually calling a real creature to aid you.

de-trick
2007-08-31, 01:22 AM
vampire special ablity


[Children of the Night (Su): Vampires command the lesser creatures of the world and once per day can call forth 1d6+1 rat swarms, 1d4+1 bat swarms, or a pack of 3d6 wolves as a standard action. (If the base creature is not terrestrial, this power might summon other creatures of similar power.) These creatures arrive in 2d6 rounds and serve the vampire for up to 1 hour.from SRD

Jarlax
2007-08-31, 01:38 AM
vampire special ablity

from SRD

ok, so its not an evil act, they are mindless animals and you are feeding on them so it would be no different that summoning them and cooking them.

and since your calling them not summoning them the blood with remain with you even after the duration of the call.

Jasdoif
2007-08-31, 01:41 AM
This thread makes me think having something like one of those bloodbag imps from Fiend Folio would be nice for any vampire or similar creature. You'd need to alter the mechanics a bit, but they exist for other creatures to drink their blood (for hit point healing); wouldn't be much of a stretch to adapt the blood thing for a vampire. Their alignment might pose other problems though.

TheOOB
2007-08-31, 01:41 AM
It's debatable if that ability is summoning or calling. I would disallow it simply because I belive vampires should hunt for their food.

tannish2
2007-08-31, 01:44 AM
yes. drinking the blood of an animal is evil, so is shooting it, cooking it, and eating it meduim rare. all animals eaten must be cooked well done, especially if you want to keep that good alignment

only the BBEG eats his food meduim or rarer, doesnt anyone know these things?

and its a calling effect not summoning so.... ya they are there. they take 2d6 to arrive if no such creatures around beings of similar power might come and they SERVE you for an hour, they dont poof, they just stop obeying your commands and disregard any that you gave them, acting normally for the situation.

Stephen_E
2007-08-31, 04:03 AM
I'd have to say killing animals you've summoned by magic is in the morally dubious area.

Hunting something gives it the chance to escape.
If you call something you're using a link to make them turn up. No choice or chance to avoid involved. Proceeding to eat them just because it's convient is definitely non-good in my book.

Stephen

lord_khaine
2007-08-31, 04:18 AM
why not just chase down a few dogs and eat them instead?

Ashtar
2007-08-31, 04:30 AM
Can't you find a willing blood donor? Take leadership and have a priestess of loviatar (or a if you can find a good aligned god of suffering, even better, Ilmater?) follow you around, being a willing donor and healing herself up afterwards...

goat
2007-08-31, 07:57 AM
Really, you need a blood elemental in a bottle.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-31, 08:09 AM
Why do you have to kill the animals? Blood Drain drains 1d4 Con at a time, so why not 'take a bite' out of each of the summoned wolves? That way you get 3d6 x 1d4 Con points of blood drain every time you summon (more than enough. You don't even have to feed on all of them), and 1d4 Con damage on a few wolves in a pack won't be devastating.

Zim
2007-08-31, 08:09 AM
Will a ring of sustenance work? Just cut out the need to feed altogether.

Dausuul
2007-08-31, 08:12 AM
I'd have to say killing animals you've summoned by magic is in the morally dubious area.

Hunting something gives it the chance to escape.
If you call something you're using a link to make them turn up. No choice or chance to avoid involved. Proceeding to eat them just because it's convient is definitely non-good in my book.

Stephen

Soo... does that mean that if you have an animal in a pen from which it cannot escape, and you go into the pen, slaughter it, butcher it, and eat the meat, that makes you evil?

Awful lot of evil pig farmers out there, then.

It's certainly not a good act, but I wouldn't call it evil when dealing with a creature of animal intelligence.

Kaerou
2007-08-31, 08:18 AM
I guess the local farmers are also evil then.

After all, they're breeding animals in captivity with no chance to escape, only to be killed and eaten when they're nice and plump.

Those evil farmers..!

Stephen_E
2007-08-31, 08:59 AM
Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
I'd have to say killing animals you've summoned by magic is in the morally dubious area.

Hunting something gives it the chance to escape.
If you call something you're using a link to make them turn up. No choice or chance to avoid involved. Proceeding to eat them just because it's convient is definitely non-good in my book.

Stephen
Soo... does that mean that if you have an animal in a pen from which it cannot escape, and you go into the pen, slaughter it, butcher it, and eat the meat, that makes you evil?

Awful lot of evil pig farmers out there, then.

It's certainly not a good act, but I wouldn't call it evil when dealing with a creature of animal intelligence.

Can you point to where I used the word "evil"?
I said non-good. That leaves neutral and evil.
Does no one remember that the alignment system has THREE categories on each axis.

Re: killing animals you've raised for food. If you've raised it for food that is fair enough IMO (although there are people who'd disagree). I'd consider it a neutral act that can be moved to good or evil based on how you treat the animals as you raise them. And in case you think I'm been holier-than-thou, I'll mention that I have killed my mothers roosters for her and eaten them.

Stephen

goat
2007-08-31, 09:05 AM
Well, I'd consider eating a summoned creature evil once you start eating summoned fiendish and celestial things or anything else with a humanoid Intelligence score...

Citizen Joe
2007-08-31, 09:07 AM
First, it is a calling...


[Children of the Night (Su): Vampires command the lesser creatures of the world and once per day can call forth 1d6+1 rat swarms, 1d4+1 bat swarms, or a pack of 3d6 wolves as a standard action. ...These creatures arrive in 2d6 rounds and serve the vampire for up to 1 hour.
Note that it doesn't say they leave after an hour, only serve.

Second, why do you need to feed on blood? I know that there is a fluff reason to do so, but I don't think there is a mechanic to it.

Third, precedent in movies include 'good' vampires subsisting on rats. Angel from BtVS and I think Lestat in Interview with the Vampire (although he's not actually good).

Lastly, if you're playing a half-vampire, I don't think YOU nor your dm are going to be sticklers on alignment.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-08-31, 09:07 AM
Will a ring of sustenance work? Just cut out the need to feed altogether.

I don't think those are enough to sustain abominations against all life.

UglyPanda
2007-08-31, 09:33 AM
Strangely, there are almost no food rules in the PHB or DMG, nor is there a requirement for vampires to feed on blood other than fluff. What I can see is that vampires don't have to drain something to death to feed, and the ability damage isn't permanent. Most likely you can bribe the party member with the most CON to let you feed on him, then pay the party cleric to cast restoration on him/her. This will get expensive over time, so you should see how much combat your DM gives you compared to how often he makes you feed.

Mewtarthio
2007-08-31, 11:30 AM
He's not playing a vampire. He's playing a half-vampire. They have to make Fort saves to avoid fatigue and exhaustion if they don't feed.

That is, if they even have the blood drain ability. They gain one and only one special ability: Either Charm Gaze or Children of the Night or Blood Drain. If and only if you have the Blood Drain special ability, you must drain at least 1 Con per day or risk fatigue. Thus, if you need to feed, you can't call your meals anyway; conversely, if you can call animals to you, you won't need to worry about eating them.

It's probably moot, anyway: You only have to drain a victim once to satisfy your hunger, and nobody dies from 1d4 Con damage save frail people on the verge of death. It's more of a fluff downside than anything actually painful: You don't have to do much more than mildly inconvenience anyone to satisfy your needs, so the only problem is finding someone who doesn't mind if you have some blood.

((Re: Summoning vs Calling: If anything, I'd label "Children of the Night" to be an Enchantment effect. The delay between activating the ability and acquiring your animal servants implies that the bats, rats, and wolves are already wandering around the countryside, and you're just gathering them to you and forcing them to serve you.))

Nerd-o-rama
2007-08-31, 11:47 AM
I don't think those are enough to sustain abominations against all life.
Works for the illithid PC in a game I play, and those are abominations against all life and reason. But it's a DM ruling thing.

Also, as a half-vamp, you have to get blood from somewhere (apparently). What's your DM expect you to do? Chow down on party girls like a normal vampire? Re-roll a character? How're you going to get by except by drinking from animals? As mentioned before, you don't even have to kill them.

If it's the fact that you're enchanting the animals to come to you and then eating them...well, Children of the Night really just calls critters from the surrounding area. At worst, you're cheating at hunting.

Jayabalard
2007-08-31, 11:55 AM
I'd have to say killing animals you've summoned by magic is in the morally dubious area.

Hunting something gives it the chance to escape.
If you call something you're using a link to make them turn up. No choice or chance to avoid involved. Proceeding to eat them just because it's convient is definitely non-good in my book.

StephenSoo... does that mean that if you have an animal in a pen from which it cannot escape, and you go into the pen, slaughter it, butcher it, and eat the meat, that morally dubious?

Awful lot of morally dubious pig farmers out there, then.

UglyPanda
2007-08-31, 12:11 PM
According to Crystal Keep, Mewtarthio is right. Half-vampires who can use call of the night don't need to drink blood, and those that do can't use call of the night.

This is assuming you're using the Libris Mortis half-vampire and not a different version.

Jayabalard
2007-08-31, 12:13 PM
They gain one and only one special ability: Either Charm Gaze or Children of the Night or Blood Drain. If and only if you have the Blood Drain special ability, you must drain at least 1 Con per day or risk fatigue. Thus, if you need to feed, you can't call your meals anyway; conversely, if you can call animals to you, you won't need to worry about eating them.

unless someone is using a homebrew half vampire with multiple abilities.

tannish2
2007-08-31, 12:19 PM
I'd have to say killing animals you've summoned by magic is in the morally dubious area.

Hunting something gives it the chance to escape.
If you call something you're using a link to make them turn up. No choice or chance to avoid involved. Proceeding to eat them just because it's convient is definitely non-good in my book.

Stephen

your right, so is putting them in a farm, or hunting them with 9th level spells, or hunting them with a state of the art sniper rifle w/ laser scope.

paladin/druids must destroy the farmers!

de-trick
2007-08-31, 12:25 PM
i would get a ring of sustenance, but if we get to choose a magic item i would definitely think about getting one

we got drinking blood from Fang and blood, i also don't have to eat, sleep, or drink besides blood of course

Stephen_E
2007-08-31, 05:32 PM
Soo... does that mean that if you have an animal in a pen from which it cannot escape, and you go into the pen, slaughter it, butcher it, and eat the meat, that morally dubious?

Awful lot of morally dubious pig farmers out there, then.

:smallbiggrin:
When you look how many pig farms are run, yes. Even moreso if you look at poultry farms.:smalltongue:

Humour aside, the basic point centres on the concept that you can shackle a man's body, but his spirrit/soul is still his own. Magical domination effects remove free will, which is a vastly greater crime than any physical restraint/injury.

In RL it's a somewhat theorectical view, but in a world of magic it is eminiently real.
Even with the creature restrained it can try to struggle if it wishes, no matter how boxed in. Binding it's spirit so that it will go smiling to it's death if you will it, is by most considerations/definitions of the importance of free will, a vastly greater crime.

The 2nd book of The Deeds of Paksennarion touches on this.

Stephen

de-trick
2007-08-31, 06:09 PM
wow deep stuff from the anti drink blood from called creatures movement
Stephen, wouldn't most charm or dominate be non-good than


also lets say i wasn't a half-vampire but still had creatures of the night, could I eat them like a normal animal

I see it as non-evil or bad at all sure, I drink blood but the animal can still live, better than kill a deer and mutilating the deers corpse to eat its flesh, like a normal hunter

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-08-31, 06:18 PM
Now, let's assume the logistics would work, that is, you could summon a creature long enough to drink its blood, and once it is gone, the feeding remains successful. Let's just say that the blood can be called "Officially Yours" under the "Possession is 9/10ths the Law" principle or something like that ...

I'd say to summon an animal solely to drink its blood is a 'neutral' act. It's not particularly evil as you are (hopefully) not preying on sentients. It's not particularly good either as there's really little overly virtuous about having dinner. Much like eating in life. Eating a hamburger is neither good nor evil. It's not evil as you aren't killing your neighbor and eating him. On the other hand, there's nothing virtuous in eating a hamburger. Well, maybe there is. Make that a spinach salad instead. There's nothing particularly evil or good about eating a spinach salad.

Hamburgers though, those are good. Amen.

Jasdoif
2007-08-31, 06:25 PM
I see it as non-evil or bad at all sure, I drink blood but the animal can still live, better than kill a deer and mutilating the deers corpse to eat its flesh, like a normal hunterThis is bad reasoning. Just because things could be worse, does not mean things are good.

tannish2
2007-08-31, 06:38 PM
well......... all enchantment and illusion spells are evil, that charm person you cast? your evil now. illusory wall? woah... ya idc how many countries you saved last adventure or if it was to save puppy from getting kicked. your evil now.

as an alternative you could cast restoration on them afterwards, just because vampires do it doesnt mean that its evil. if i had to pick ide choose to donate a pint of blood rather than getting stabbed to death, and drained of blood.

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-31, 06:47 PM
your right, so is putting them in a farm, or hunting them with 9th level spells, or hunting them with a state of the art sniper rifle w/ laser scope.

paladin/druids must destroy the farmers!
Actually, hunting with a state-of-the-art sniper rifle isn't evil so much as stupid. A military sniper rifle will rip up an animal to the point of there not being much edible left. :smallamused:

de-trick
2007-08-31, 06:57 PM
This is bad reasoning. Just because things could be worse, does not mean things are good.

butchering and cooking and eating = mutilating a corpse and burning the flesh and eating the burnt flesh

they mean both the same thing but the first seems to be ok, the second seems to me evil

Citizen Joe
2007-08-31, 07:07 PM
Evilness depends on which end of the knife you're touching.

Lavin
2007-08-31, 09:49 PM
This is bad reasoning. Just because things could be worse, does not mean things are good.


True.

DM; He begins slowly cutting off your foot, adding salt and lemons to each new incision.

Player; *Gasp*

DM; Hey, you could be sober.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-31, 10:34 PM
I know! A redeemed Vampire with a Cohort wielding Stigmata!:smallbiggrin:

TheOOB
2007-09-01, 12:54 AM
One must wondering that if you constantly feed on your called children of the night, wouldn't they eventually stop obeying you?

Anyways, as a GM you have to be careful what tricks you allow vampire characters (half blooded or otherwise) to use to avoid drinking blood. One of the key elements of vampires is regardless of good they try to be, deep down they are a monster who must feed on the living to survive. Removing that moral ambiguity takes away some of the impact a vampire characters have.

Stephen_E
2007-09-01, 01:06 AM
wow deep stuff from the anti drink blood from called creatures movement
Stephen, wouldn't most charm or dominate be non-good than


also lets say i wasn't a half-vampire but still had creatures of the night, could I eat them like a normal animal

I see it as non-evil or bad at all sure, I drink blood but the animal can still live, better than kill a deer and mutilating the deers corpse to eat its flesh, like a normal hunter

If you use Charm or Dominate to do stuff really bad for the target, yes, it's likely evil.

The half/vampire isn't the big deal. It's the mentally enslaving for their destruction part that's dodgy. I did differentiate between evil and non-good, because if it was a question of life/death then it wouldn't be evil. If you had other ways of getting sustanance, but killing the called creature was simply easier, that's when you start stepping into evil.

If you drain some blood/Con off the called creatures, but don't kill or cripple them, that'd be fine. The original suggestion was, IIRC, to actually kill them.

Stephen

Dervag
2007-09-01, 01:31 AM
Can't you find a willing blood donor? Take leadership and have a priestess of loviatar (or a if you can find a good aligned god of suffering, even better, Ilmater?) follow you around, being a willing donor and healing herself up afterwards...That idea is waaayy creepier than normal.

On the other hand, you could almost certainly find volunteers, and not necessarily among the followers of a pain-centric religion.


It's probably moot, anyway: You only have to drain a victim once to satisfy your hunger, and nobody dies from 1d4 Con damage save frail people on the verge of death. It's more of a fluff downside than anything actually painful: You don't have to do much more than mildly inconvenience anyone to satisfy your needs, so the only problem is finding someone who doesn't mind if you have some blood.There's also a trust issue. Vampires are notorious for drinking all of a person's blood and/or turning them into other vampires. They are not notorious for being honest about their motives.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-01, 01:40 AM
butchering and cooking and eating = mutilating a corpse and burning the flesh and eating the burnt flesh

they mean both the same thing but the first seems to be ok, the second seems to me evil
They're both Neutral. To me, hunting and eating an animal is moral-Neutral, no matter how you accomplish it, as long as you don't put the animal through more pain than necessary with the tools available. So "Children of the Night/Drain 1d4 Con from some wolf/leave/release Children of the Night" is just as Neutral to me as "Find deer/shoot dear/clean deer/cook dear/eat deer." Perhaps slightly better, as you can let the animal live as a vampire.

Stephen_E
2007-09-01, 02:22 AM
They're both Neutral. To me, hunting and eating an animal is moral-Neutral, no matter how you accomplish it, as long as you don't put the animal through more pain than necessary with the tools available. So "Children of the Night/Drain 1d4 Con from some wolf/leave/release Children of the Night" is just as Neutral to me as "Find deer/shoot dear/clean deer/cook dear/eat deer." Perhaps slightly better, as you can let the animal live as a vampire.

I'd go further.
If you "called" a Wolf, talked to it with a speak to animal spell (from item or spell) and then offer to feed him well in exchange for a 1d4 Con drain, and he agreed, I'd call it a mildly good act.

You are in a position where you could take what you like, but instead are offering a fair trade and giving him the right to decline.

Stephen

tannish2
2007-09-01, 02:45 AM
druid, animal companion, charge... *splat* *combat* wow, that BBEG sure likes killing my animal companions "ya, thats the fifth one this week"

but from a RP perspective i would say it would have to be humanoid blood, just because.

if you offer to pay people, or have a few cleric levels for restoration, or something like that, then thats not at all an evil act. but.... remind me again, why are you locked into a good aligned character?

de-trick
2007-09-01, 07:49 AM
he's apart of a order of Cormyr, also im trying to play a redeemed villain like character

warrior of darkness protector of Cormyr

Captain van der Decken
2007-09-01, 08:12 AM
Couldn't you simply buy steak/black pudding?

And, really, you should be using blood drain in battle.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-01, 08:44 AM
Why are you making this so difficult?

Do good stuff, feed on creatures. What does it matter what your alignment is?

Jack_Simth
2007-09-01, 09:06 AM
It's probably moot, anyway: You only have to drain a victim once to satisfy your hunger, and nobody dies from 1d4 Con damage save frail people on the verge of death. It's more of a fluff downside than anything actually painful: You don't have to do much more than mildly inconvenience anyone to satisfy your needs, so the only problem is finding someone who doesn't mind if you have some blood.Is it Drain, or Damage?

Con Drain is permanent; it doesn't heal on it's own. That person, if not healed up, is going to be minus some con until he dies.

Con Damage, even if you roll a crit on the 1d4 and then max damage twice, goes away on it's own. 8 days of normal rest later, the target is fine.

Captain van der Decken
2007-09-01, 09:14 AM
Drain.

Also, looking at Libris Mortis, the OP's question is kind of void, seeing as Half-Vampires can only have Blood Drain or Children of the Night, not both.

de-trick
2007-09-01, 12:30 PM
If i wanted to do it in combat I would have to get 2 feats, improved unarmed strike and improved grapple then pin him than drain some blood, also i don't want to increase my blood wanted thing, so I don't want to choose blood drain ability, I see 2 options either call some animals to eat or charm people with charming gaze to let me suck blood from them

If I suck blood than do good things I would have to be changing my alignment alot,

I would play a neutral character, but a CN vampire is one off CE vampire

Captain van der Decken
2007-09-01, 01:10 PM
You only get blood dependency if you choose blood drain as your special ability.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-01, 01:24 PM
If i wanted to do it in combat I would have to get 2 feats, improved unarmed strike and improved grapple then pin him than drain some blood, also i don't want to increase my blood wanted thing, so I don't want to choose blood drain ability, I see 2 options either call some animals to eat or charm people with charming gaze to let me suck blood from them

"Increase your blood wanted thing"? I've read your post in that other topic where you quoted the Blood Drain ability, and I understand it to mean that you do not need to drink any blood whatsoever if you don't have the Blood Drain ability.

Granted, it's possible that you're playing with some sort of house rule. A really creepy house rule. Seriously, are you running around holding a cup under bleeding veins or something? :smalleek:


If I suck blood than do good things I would have to be changing my alignment alot,

Your alignment shouldn't change very much (unless you get your hands on a certain deck of cards). Blood Drain is not necessarily Evil. A few decidedly non-Evil uses of Blood Drain include:

Draining an opponent during a fight to the death (it's just another method of doing damage)
Draining a willing target, provided you only take what you need (to say otherwise would be like equating barter with theft)
Draining a non-sapient creature, such as an animal, provided it's not anyone's property save maybe your own (no more immoral than mundane hunting)

For a darker character, uses of Blood Drain that are morally questionable but would still probably be acceptable for a non-evil character include:

Draining an unwilling target outside a life-or-death situation, provided you only take what you need (it's not very nice, but you don't do any permanent damage, so if you've got no alternative this is tantamount to stealing bread to feed your children)
Draining non-sapient creatures owned by others, such as livestock, without the owner's permission (as above, but more forgivable)

Really, the only truly Evil uses of Blood Drain would be things on the order of:

Draining an innocent target to death (it's murder, plain and simple)
Draining a willing target to death, even with their permission (taking advantage of a suicidal character is decidedly less than noble)
Draining an unwilling target when a healthy willing target is available (implies you enjoy the act of overpowering unwilling victims)
Taking sadistic pleasure in the act of draining the life of sapient beings (I shouldn't have to explain this one)
Repeatedly draining from the same target in a short amount of time (risks their death, particularly if you aren't told what the result of the Con damage roll is)


Note that above I'm not using the mechanical definitions of "willing" and "unwilling." I'm using the moral definitions: A target is "willing" only if it clearly allows you to use Blood Drain (in the rules, "willing" basically means "unable to fight back," so targets under Enchantment effects or unconscious targets are legally "willing").

ray53208
2007-09-01, 01:25 PM
good aligned half vampires cannot also have the blood dependency.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-01, 01:28 PM
good aligned half vampires cannot also have the blood dependency.

Really? Where does it say that? Crystal Keep lists no alignment restrictions, and it seems a bit arbitrary.

de-trick
2007-09-01, 01:57 PM
Man I will have to have a debate about this tomorrow with my DM, and maybe the other characters so if I seem like im not listening to reason, I'm sorry practice for the debate

Mewtarthio
2007-09-01, 02:09 PM
Man I will have to have a debate about this tomorrow with my DM, and maybe the other characters so if I seem like im not listening to reason, I'm sorry practice for the debate

Of course. There's no accounting for house rules.

StickMan
2007-09-01, 02:16 PM
Would like to point out that you don't have to kill the things you feed off of. One of the Kings of one of the (campaign setting that must not be named) is a vampire, and he has a harem he feeds off of but does not kill any of them.

de-trick
2007-09-01, 02:24 PM
The only house rule thing is I drink blood and don't sleep, eat or drink anything other

Mewtarthio
2007-09-01, 04:09 PM
The only house rule thing is I drink blood and don't sleep, eat or drink anything other

Ah. Well, then, my list still applies, though acquiring a blood source is a bit messier and a bit more painful (to the victim). Frankly, I recommend just buying some livestock. You can buy a pig for, what, 3 gp? Take it home, slaughter it, then you can drink all its blood while everyone else cooks up some bacon.

John Campbell
2007-09-01, 08:13 PM
wow deep stuff from the anti drink blood from called creatures movement
Stephen, wouldn't most charm or dominate be non-good than

That's certainly not an unreasonable position to take.

I'm currently playing a neutral wizard who has no moral objection to creating mindless undead with animate dead (though I don't do it because other party members do object), and who is actively planning to use barghest's feast to destroy the soul of the BBEG so she can't be brought back (assuming we ever manage to kill her in the first place), but who absolutely refuses to use any of the mind control spells, because taking away someone's free will is wrong.

horseboy
2007-09-01, 10:08 PM
only the BBEG eats his food meduim or rarer, doesnt anyone know these things?

(Wonders if he should bring up St. Louis rare)

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-02, 01:23 AM
if I seem like im not listening to reason, I'm sorry practice for the debate
...Rhetoric does not work that way. Man, the internet is killing rational debate even faster than every other form of mass communication.

The ability to be stubborn is a poor one to rely on in winning an argument, is all I'm saying.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-02, 02:46 AM
...Rhetoric does not work that way. Man, the internet is killing rational debate even faster than every other form of mass communication.

The ability to be stubborn is a poor one to rely on in winning an argument, is all I'm saying.

I believe he was saying that he only appears to be ignoring valid points because he's playing devil's advocate to have as many answers as possible available during the Rules Debate.

ray53208
2007-09-03, 06:04 AM
Really? Where does it say that? Crystal Keep lists no alignment restrictions, and it seems a bit arbitrary.

half-vampire, pages 106-108 of libris mortis. they can be of any alignment, but tend toward nuetrality and evil. they may only select ONE special attack from those listed, and if the select blood drain they must also take blood dependency.

there do not appear to be any alignment restriction in the RAW concerning the template.

summoning an ally only to deliberately kill it isnt a good act. especially when you could just find a rat in any sewer.

question: why on earth would you take blood drain over charm gaze???

de-trick
2007-09-03, 10:00 AM
I didnt, I took charming gaze

well I played my half vampire yesterday and I'm regretting it\

everyone in the party but 2 people hate me, even when the party is used to traveling with evil races, we had a drow, were-wolf, worshiper of Bane, but I can't feed off blood

so far almost burnt at the stake by villagers, go partly insane from not drinking blood, 2 party members tried killing me with a stake

but the bad thing is we are in a ton of undead, no living in the town, well besides party

Anxe
2007-09-03, 10:52 AM
Yeah it sure is less evil than sucking some random person. Which is more evil? Room service where a maid has to bring you food, or cannibalism.