If you have been following the posts on non-regents, you know that there is a debate on commoners becoming blooded. Read those posts and then come back here and vote.
I am interested why the person voted that commoners should only be allowed to invest and not do bloodtheft.
But why should unblooded become blooded by bloodtheft!?!
Sorry guys, but I have to vote NO
Why because they want to regain the bloodline they lost at death but they were brought back to life. Why because commoners want to become blooded. Why because why not?
You ask the question why should they but present no argument on why they should not. And did you vote they should never become blooded? Why do you advocate changing the rules to say they can’t become blooded through investiture which has many sound arguments for it.
Where are the posts on Non-Regents?
Leland
When the gods blew up. It isn’t exactly like their divine blood went into already established scion, or is it? Na, why should people acquire a divine bloodline from a god that just blew up, yet couldn’t acquire the same bloodline from a scion who has one as well. The scion doesn’t actually have enough energy to just blow up, but there are already established methods of bloodline transfer, such as investiture and bloodtheft, and I see no reason why either shouldn’t work on a non-blooded.
Leland,
The Non-Regent posts are in the Crown of Glory Forum.
Enjoy!
Temujin,
I would agree with you except many people are rules freaks and the rules indicate that a commoner can not commit bloodtheft on a scion. How do you feel about abandoning the rules?
…are used in my game to give a better feel to my world. If I feel that people who die really die, well spells like wish, miracle, raise dead, resurrection and true resurrection simply won’t exist. As far as commoners becoming blooded through bloodtheft, it may no be possible in the rules, but if you look at the world’s NPCs, you’ll notice that several of them have gained a bloodline through that way(and in Vosgaard, this is especially common). While I don’t mind ignoring a few details I don’t like about a world(such as the one or two instances of psionicist that were mentionned in the blood enemies and Havens of the Great Bay), I think this is a trend that is quite generalized, and also makes sense to me. Of course, I’m not asking everyone to agree, if you don’t want commoners to be able to bloodtheft scions in your game, fine =) It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’m all for commoners becoming blooded. In fact, though no one truly knows it that is how Guilder Kalien got his start in my campagin.
If you open that canof worms though you will have several non-blooded commoners who are being oppessed ("I’m being oppressed!! Do you see me being oppressed!.. Sorry couldn’t resist) with blood in the eyes… in more ways then one.
I’ve got an NPC controlled cult operation that has secret holdings around the continent that kidnaps blooded regents and uses them in human sacrafices taking their bloodline simultaneously (major yucky… and morally challenging in for me to include…). Its basically a bunch of nasty random events rolled into one. Definately stressing the importance of the PCs need to deal with the problem.
I think it is important to include the moral challenges in the campaign. It tests the alignment of characters and provides for good role playing and adventures. In our campaign the biggest moral dilemma dealt with a baby alien. The baby alien creature was sucking the life essence of the assigned priest care giver. The alien creature was not deemed to be evil and it was also deemed that the creature had to do it for survival. The main priest in our campaign therefore could not bring herself to kill the creature while some of the secular characters felt there was a need to protect the priest and others by killing the baby. It was some of the best role playing we ever had…
Alien… Have you got your RPGs correct???
hehe. Alein… Are you serious… (still laughing)
BU-WHA -HAAA!!!
Sorry…
I much prefer the moral challenges to hack and slash. The only problem is it can be difficult coming up with deep plots over and over… I’m only one man (though the 27 of us in his mind get along just fine).
It was a mindslayer baby from another plane thus making it alien to Cerilia.
I don’t know if I should laugh with you or be offended that you are laughing at me.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to offend you. It was late and I’ve averaged 5.5 hrs of sleep for four days.
No offense taken! I actually laughed at your post!
As long as you weren’t laughing at my post and not at me…
No really the Bu-Wha-haaa really got to me
I may be mistaken,as it has been a few years since I played BR,but someone name me the Blooded characters that it says they got their bloodline from bloodtheft in the books.But I do not EVER remember reading about a commoner getting their Bloodlines through Bloodtheft.To me the only way that can happen is if the commoner had a tighmaevril weapon and as he struck the blow he casts a Wish spell to grant him the Bloodline.
The reason I say commoners cannot be blooded by simple Bloodtheft is that they do not have the capacity to accept it.
Now I know someone made mention that there were no scions at Deismaar.You would be correct.However you are forgetting one HUGE thing,I beleive it was seven gods died all at once.Not even in Realms do multiple gods all die at once.That is a unique situation that occured and will never occur again.Who knows what happens when a god dies,let alone seven.
To me to allow any commoner to just come along and make a mini-Deismaar erodes the significance of that day.
That is why I vote no to the Bloodtheft.
I do beleive that they can become blooded through investiture as I beleive through the ceremony the recipients body is prepared to handle the powerful essences that he is to gain.
Do scions then have some natural ability to trigger the bloodtheft? Or does the bloodtheft occur but the commoner doesn’t know how to accept the bloodline?
I kind of like the second option, then perhaps if a commoner kills a scion with the appropriate killing blow or with a tighmaevril weapon, the commoner would die upon the transfer of the bloodline because the commoners body is not prepared to handle it.
However Riegan, you seem a bit contradictory in you argumentation. On one hand you complain that mini-Deismaars should not be allowed to happen but on the other hand it is ok if it is through investiture. I think your argument would prove why commoners shouldn’t be allowed to be blooded at all (prevent mini-Deismaars).
I think because no one really knows how the fact 7 gods died created this bloodline thing, it is possible that commoners become blooded through bloodtheft or investiture. Maybe it just should be harder like if the commoner commits bloodtheft and survives system shock check then they become blooded.
I re-read what I said and I understand what you are referring to Eldred.Let me see if I can explain it a little more clearly.
If I remember correctly,Investiture is a series of rituals,which require RP’s and several GB’s worth of resources.(I am trying to do this off the top of my head,my BR books are out of hand at the moment).Plus it is a Domain action correct?That means it takes time for it to actually take effect.It is a Time-consuming,expensive,exhausting ceremony,which is not certain to succeed right?What happened at Deismaar was spontaneuos.A commoner becoming Blooded through simple Bloodtheft,kinda counts as the same thing.The using the Wish spell is kinda of like using a Investiture ceremony,with all the drawbacks of a Wish spell.(In 3E I still use 2E rules for Wish spells,I think that made it too easy to use a Wish and it work successfully 100%)
I hope I am not wrong in my recollections here,but this is the way I did it in my games when I ran BR.
I hope this clarifies my point to your satisfaction Eldred;).
It does indeed. It does indeed.