Twilightpeaks.net
RoE General => The Sage (Questions & Answers) => : X-EOM/SS (Marco) August 20, 2009, 09:13:23 AM
-
Wuold you generally consider bloodtheft an evil act?
why?
-
Some would, some would not ;D
http://roe.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=281.0
-
Wuold you generally consider bloodtheft an evil act?
why?
Speaking from the alignment point of view: Bloodtheft in itself isn't an evil act, whereas outright murder is and since bloodtheft involves killing another, it stands to reason that bloodtheft has often been an evil act.
As Even's link shows, there are several cultural ramifications to consider. Boer f.ex. might not be wholly evil by now due to his bloodtheft of any Avan he defeats in battle, but he's certainly reviled in most of Anuire for doing so.
-
IMO If you kill someone and 'happen' to usurp their bloodline then whether the act is good or evil would depend on why you killed them; if you kill someone to commit bloodtheft then its pretty much automatically evil - a lot like cannablism but with a side order of anarchy, rioting, etc, etc. I take the clerics to add a moral issue from the awnsheghlien corruption aspect and the social side effects and so be very heavily against bloodtheft generally.
Of course, much depends on a) whether you get caught b) whether you have a good excuse and c) whether you are on good terms with the temple.
-
About alignment:
There is the matter of what do you mean by alignment:
1) Personal ethics/D&D based: In this scenario bloodtheft is definitely an evil act, unless you happen o commit it while in self-defense. Alignment is very rigid and strict, and frankly no matter how many self justifications someone might try to offer devise, conscience cannot be fooled.
2) World view/Fame: In this scenario, it depends whether you are caught in the act, and what type of damage control you are able to do. Even though you might have committed the act in self defense, many will be skeptical, and might consider you a maniac (depends on their own relations with your character and other social parameters). At best you can expect a certain amount of distrust.
I guess it depends on the situation, but once such an act is known, it would be very hard to control the rumors and avoid being labeled as "evil".
-
Why do I not like where this question is coming from?
-
Why do I not like where this question is coming from?
Nice knowing you?
-
An strong social attitude against bloodtheft is also a self-defense mechanism for regents. Consider someone who bloodthefts in this light: a man or woman who is deadly enough to kill a fellow regent in a careful, specific manner, who is willing to kill in order to increase his or her bloodline, and who by definition is now even more dangerous than before and could continue to grow in strength. Nightmare time. They've had a strong reason to make bloodtheft an "evil" act in society's mind for a long time, now.
-
Very interesting and strong point
I completely agree... Besides, since this blood is divine in nature, you could state that by bloodthefting, not only is the perpetrator going above his station (as per the "divine rights"), but that person is also forcefully making himself more of a God, each time he kills in this way (highlander style)
I think the temples (most temples at least) will have spoken aggressively against this... and those temples who do not speak against it, should consider that if they endorse bloodthefth, they also endorse aggressive takeovers... (Ie. if you can kill the high-priest and retrieve his bloodline, you will be the new high-priest yourself)
-
Why do I not like where this question is coming from?
you're so suspicious Mark :)
I can guarantee you I've no plans to commit a bloodtheft.
It's only a question arisen between some friends of mine and I when we were talking about our newcoming campaign (If we're lucky we'll play once a week starting on mid-september...I must only still to convince my wife however :))