![]() They're gluttonous, ravenous, and treat human beings as fast food rather than people. When a vampire goes around killing people, you know that they're not some forlorn soul who really wish they weren't a monster but are subject to the whims of this "horrible curse of immortality and great skin". Which in turn actually brings me back to the source of evil undead in my campaigns. Mind you, none of this makes them any more evil than any outsider or golem or what not. ![]() They aren't the only living things to do this, and not all of them consume of course, but they also aren't consumed. ![]() If one ignores the metaphysics, there's little question they're anomalies on the basis they consume without reciprocation. All three are disruptions of the natural order of things as far as nature is concerned. Which could be considered pretty accurate. Nothing eats undead really.Ĭourse by this metric, outsiders and native outsiders are not natural either, nor are constructs. Leave an undead to their bit and they'll never stop needing to consume and they'll never in turn give up the ghost and be consumed. The undead don't very much do the latter two. It's a function of the universe, but on the material plane living things, for the most part, live, die, and are consumed in turn. Or to be precise, it's not the same thing as part of Nature. No more unnatural than humans exploding on the Positive energy plane.īut that's not the same thing as natural on the Material Plane. After all, go to the Negative plane unprotected, you get a wraith in very short order. This always happens, it's certainly a natural result of it. We both came to the agreement that mix person with negative energy and you get undead. Technically I'm discussing it still but I figure may as well bring another view point on the matter. I had an interesting discussion on another medium as to the "naturality" of the undead. Which means that vampires, unless intentionally being evil, are actually less destructive to life than most living humanoids. Then there's also the fact vampires can feed on living creatures that aren't sentient and have even less chances of killing said creatures. Both fed on their party members who weren't particularly bothered by the ability damage the feeding involved, with the party's Paladin being one of the common members to willingly allow them to feed on him because it was trivial for him to simply cast lesser restoration and recover instantly. Most people would be silly to argue that drawing blood from a willing donor for the well being of another is evil.Īn example of this in action would be a campaign I ran a while back where my friend Rai played a vampire and there was an NPC with the group who was also a vampire of lesser power. However, this comes down to willing vs unwilling. However, the act of drawing blood is only as morally questionable as it pertains to harming the blood source. If it's done to induce suffering, oppression, or slaying the victim, then it's evil. Now as to the morality of feeding, that's pretty easy to deduce. Even if they are feeding on a sentient creature, they will never risk killing said person before they have to feed again (based on the hunger rules in Blood of Night). A feeding deals 1d4 Constitution damage to the creature they feed on. According to Pathfinder, vampires have a minimum of 4 HD. ![]() Also on the subject of vampires, if vampires aren't forced to starve themselves, feeding should very rarely be a lethal thing at all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |