At 12:39 PM 2/22/2008, Capricia wrote:
>I found this in the BRCS
>
>"However, because the scions divine essence is contained in his
>blood, this usurpation can only occur if a scion dies in a violent
>manner and his blood is literally spilt. If a blooded character dies
>non-violently, by poison, or a spell that doesn`t result in the
spilling of blood, then the divine essence of their bloodline passes
with them, either to their heir or to into the land itself if they
had not designated a heir. However, if a scion`s blood is spilt as a
>result of his death in hand-to-hand combat then the divine essence
>of his or her birthright is released in a burst of immediate power."
>
>It makes it pretty clear that the bloodline goes when the scion
>dies. Either it leaves for an heir, back to the land, or to their
>killer in the case of usurpation or bloodtheft.
As Irdeggman pointed out, I think this is a misreading of the
original rules, so the folks who put together the current document
erred in this interpretation. I had made the same assumption,
though, because the text in the Rulebook, p31 also makes it sound as
if bloodline goes too: “If a blooded character dies a natural death
or perishes at the hand of a commoner, his bloodline is unaffected,
and all his bloodline characteristics die with him…”
There was a pretty consistent problem with the use of terms in the
original 2e document, so “bloodline is unaffected” and “all his
bloodline characteristics die” would seem to be a contradiction, but
what the latter term appears to mean is that no bloodline is
transferred to the killer given the context of the other quotes in
the rest of that section. The main issues are the scions bloodline, how much (if any) bloodline is transferred to a killer, a regents
accumulated RP, and the disposition of a regent`s domain after his
death. The circumstances under which a scion/regent can die as
presented in the original bloodtheft rules are
- A scion killed by a commoner or dying a “natural” death.
- A regent killed by a commoner or dying a “natural” death.
- A scion killed by another scion.
- A regent killed by another scion.
- A “last of his line” regent killed by a scion.
- A scion killed by a scion wielding a tighmaevril weapon.
- A regent killed by a scion wielding a tighmaevril weapon.
The results of those deaths are:
- Nothing much other than a stained shirt and funeral expenses.
- Domain and RP transferred to an heir.
- Slayer gains 1 or 2 bloodline score points.
- Slayer gains 1 or 2 bloodline score points, domain is transferred
to an heir, RP are lost.
- Slayer gains 1/5 of victim`s bloodline score points and his
RP. Domain becomes “uncontrolled.”
- Slayer gains 1/2 of victim`s bloodline score points.
- Slayer gains 1/2 of victim`s bloodline score points, RP are lost
and domain becomes uncontrolled.
However, where I think the source of confusion is that things get
even more convoluted when it comes to the rules regarding the
designation of an heir, because once an heir is invested a victims bloodline score is transferred to that character upon his death. Should such a scion or regent be killed and raised from the dead hed have no bloodline since that power has gone to the
heir. That would appear to be what was meant by the text that says
that the scion`s “bloodline is unaffected” should he die under
circumstances #1 and #2. That is, all the other methods of
bloodtheft take bloodline score points from the scion/regent and
interfere with the inheritance process by reducing the amount of the
inheritance. The heir of a scion who was killed under circumstance
#3 would inherit a bloodline that was 1 or 2 points lower than the
original since those points were drained off by the
killer. Similarly, a scion who died under circumstance #6 would only
pass along half his bloodline to his heir.
Conversely, a scion who died under any of those circumstances without
an heir would lose a like amount from his bloodline score. That is,
a regent killed under circumstance #2 who had no heir could be raised
from the dead with this bloodline intact, while one who was the “last
of his line” (#5) would lose 1/5 of his bloodline when raised.
And once undead, how do you put a “divine spark” into a reanimated shell?
In the absence of some exceptional mode of reanimation, I dont think you can. I think there must be something about the nature of bloodline that prevents it from taking hold in any of the standard D&D undead. Maybe it has to do with the nature of worship and divinity. After all, I dont think a regent would derive a whole
heck of a lot of regency from the adoration of a zombie
population… Maybe it has to do with the nature of immortality
(either undead or elven) being the kind of thing that turns a
character away from the ability and inclination to worship gods in
the way that other mortal characters can. (Though that one`s a bit
of an interpretation too…) Maybe it has something to do with the
interaction between bloodline, the world of light and cosmic
interference from the Shadow World. There are any number of
justifications for such an interpretation.
Just as important, though, is that I think there are several game
mechanical reasons to avoid the situation. So I don`t think it
should be used in BR as a standard concept, and would advise against
it in a homebrew unless someone wanted to take their game in a
direction that might diverge strongly from the ideas expressed in the
original materials.
OK, so that said, if one wanted to allow it, I could see some sort of
exception for a few intelligent undead, particularly vampires, whose
feeding habits have a nice symmetry with the idea of bloodline and
some of the exceptional modes of bloodline transfer described in the
original materials. Other undead feed on humans in various ways–I
wrote up a ghoulish awnshegh once whose background had to do with
having been “executed” (he could arguably have been only near death
rather than actually dead) and then thrown on a pile of corpses where
his transformation took hold and he began to feed upon the
dead. That character is one of the exceptions rather than the rule
since he was already a scion, and therefore his transformation was
into a ghoul-like awnshegh, not an actual ghoul, but the basic
premise having to do with devouring the dead makes a certain sense
for ghouls and ghasts.
It should be noted, however, that even The Vampire didn`t seem to
come about becoming blooded in this way…
Personally, I havent quite figured out what happens with a lich when he becomes undead. Liches are specifically mentioned in the back of the rulebook (but so are gnomes...) but if one loses bloodline upon death/undeath then how would a lich remain able to cast true magic? Surely that ability is one that is necessary for such a character, and part of what makes one a lich in the first place. Lich-magicians just dont seem apt. Of course, given the
“low-level” and “low-magic” nature of the setting, that particular
issue is something of a rarity, but it`s worth mentioning.
Gary