Is Blood Magic really evil?

[Beardicuss 486]

This was originally a silly little status question I made and people had opinions so I figured it would be fun to make it an actual Debate so I ask you

Does Blood magic deserve it's status as an evil magic?

[BonesOfTheEarth 2252]

This has been a hot debated topic for a long time and Flamboyant-era "all magic is grey" ruling has done irreparable damage to many things to this day..

 

Blood magic: Uses your blood and the most effective method is by forcibly tearing blood out of other people. And then has rituals that have an in-built always failure chance that could tear apart areas of the map or release untold horrors onto the mortal plane. Additionally, even if it was 100% safe in terms of risk to the caster, it has massive potential to be used for evil intentionally too, more than other magics. The cherry on top is that its a magic that can forcibly tear a hole into a god's private personal vacation home plane, which means most gods by default would probably back up calling blood magic a dark magic.

 

Basically, blood magic is a dark magic. Some deities don't care as much about it because there isn't as much forced moral implication to its use, but some still exists and that which does is definitely leaning to dark!

[KeiaTypeBeat 3277]

I fail to see how the purposeful maiming of the body for direct means of power can be anything but morally questionable at best.

 

Submitting yourself to purposeful suffering to appease a deity, something Osages traditionally did to earn favor from Wah'kon'tah, is an act of submission to reverence - an acknowledgement that you can give something meaningful away to something greater than you to acknowledge its higher place and earn its favor. 

 

Harming yourself to directly achieve power, sacrificing yourself to yourself so to speak, is individualistic, self centered, and self-referential. 

 

The negative connotation I ascribe to blood magic stems from its individualistic nature and its lack of appeal to a higher power. I also think it risks teetering on the edge of idolizing self-harm and glorifying it. But that is my PTSD talking, and it isn't a view I expect others to have, nor do I find it as a valid enough criticism to warrant it not existing in some way on lotc.

 

Despite my personal feelings about it - blood magic is a common trope in fantasy settings and I have no interest in meddling with that or changing its image.

 

But it would still nonetheless be a hard ******* sell to convince me it could be in any way morally aligned. And I'm the queen of looking at a dark magic and finding reasons for it to be morally justifiable in my characters' eyes. 

[Morigung-oog 5697]

A lot of dark magics don't offer the potential to be neutral. Naz and Necro lock a persona into an inherently evil path; Mystic and blood magic allow for a more neutral path which imo I really appreciates as it promotes far more creativity when making a character. Blood magic, like mystic, is only evil imo depending on how a character chooses to utilise it. 

 

Also ngl I'm of the firm belief that outside Naz and Necro [which are impossible to justify] every magic should offer potential for a neutral or even good path. Railroading people down wicked paths for certain niches is cringe.

 

Was also told by ST that dark magic is not dark because it is evil, but because it draws upon mortal energies. Dark does not necessarily equate to evil. Same goes for deific as the aengudaemons are the absolute embodiment of their domains, for better or for worse-- this means Xan could be oppressive, Tahariae can be genocidal etc.

[Customable 304]

yub

[Toddbringer 159]

Yub. Comes from a genocidal monster who made greater vampires. 

[Chimeraof1999 1187]

It’s considered dark due to its origin of creation, but if we were talking if all dark magics are evil then void magic should be up there due to using the bane of life. As long as the magic is not used badly, then it’s fine in my book.

[RockyTheWolf 209]

As someone has already pointed out. Blood magic is not dark because it is evil but dark because not only does it draw on mortal energies but it also has the capacity to tear holes in reality and harm/destroy its users and the landscape around them. And previously it also used to come with a BUNCH of physical detriments that would slowly kill the user. While it no longer does this Blood Magic is inherently a self destructive, unstable, and reckless magic to use.

One bad roll and rather than summoning a cute animal from the fae realm, you're summoning an eldritch horror. 

From a pure D&D morality stand point Blood Magic would probably be considered Chaotic Neutral. It is not evil but it is certainly not good, its users can be good people but the magic itself is basically going "I want [x] thing with no care for the consequences it might bring"

Similar to vampirism [where you CAN live off of purely willing mortals] Blood Magic doesn't require the actual user to be evil or to commit evil acts, but the actual magic itself definitely falls into more chaotic neutral and even darker territory than good. 

[Morigung-oog 5697]

1 hour ago, Toddbringer said:

Yub. Comes from a genocidal monster who made greater vampires. 

 

I feel like if this is the standard, almost every magic should be considered evil. 

[_AzureLexi 766]

1 hour ago, Toddbringer said:

Yub. Comes from a genocidal monster who made greater vampires. 

Clericism rewards murking beastkin

 

Templarism is endowed by Murder Supreme. It's used as a "good magic" but it's meant to be a neutral magic for courageous warriors regardless of moral alignment 

 

Shamanism is derived from entities who have blown up continents before

 

etc.

[femurlord 3751]

Blood Magic has actively caused catastrophes that outweighs any good. Even destroyed prior continents. Often we are desensitized as we're immersed in many fantasy worlds, so we're blind to these things. But realistically if you saw someone bending blood and calling calamities in real life, including its history wouldn't you think its evil? 

 

It can be used for good, but its past deeds speaks for itself and purpose, which usually, is rather selfish and time and time again, destructive. It is mortal, but at the same time, it is unnatural. Moreover, it is weaponized by entities that wish to destroy/enslave the world. The hands that own it are stronger than those that could.

 

What is your point of view? 

@Beardicuss

[Beardicuss 486]

4 minutes ago, femurlord said:

What is your point of view?

I agree with the idea that it's similar to nuclear weapons extremely dangerous but has the potential to do good but even that good can lead to disaster so would I call It inherently evil? No extremely dangerous and destructive to the point where it's best to not touch it? Yes 

[Wolfy-D 468]

I haven't read any replies but it always fun to throw in a fun theory I've had about dark magics and used ICly before

 

Basically to me dark magics are called dark magic because all of them use some form of life force, like blood magic using blood, mysticism using soul, and necromancy using actual life force or something.

 

So because it is possible to be somewhat neutral of a magic I say people call it dark magic because they think the use of those life forces are morally wrong and "dark"

 

 

Also a little last thought, literally every magic I've seen has some capacity of doing a lot of damage, not just blood magic.

[Onnensr 1908]

No, everything "evil" about it is either fluff, how you decide to use it, or unintentional consequences caused by the difficulty to do it. Some nerds ball their fist at their eyes and say "it's UN-NATURAL", that doesn't mean anything it's a meme. aengudaemons are easily influenced by our memes and so they share the perspective of the lowest common denominator 

[The Tough Guy 4319]

in theory no it doesnt have to be

historically and in practice indubitably kill them all