Is Blood Magic really evil?

[Reckless Banzai Screamer 15456]

read nothing but OP

 

I would say based off roleplay over the last few years and notable examples even prior to Almaris, Blood Magic deserves to be characterized as an evil magic ICly. Plenty of events regarding its usage and associations with Siliti and vampires in general.

 

From an OOC knowledge perspective, it's sourced by Malghourn and fucks around with creation. Majority of Aenguls don't like it. But aenguldaemons can be evil too so it really boils down to how one is using it. I heard some dwarves were using it as a sub for runesmithing and then there's others that summoned a corrupted mani with it. So it's really all over the place.

 

I think it could have paired really well with older human roleplay when it was more anti-aengul back in the day and went beyond /cuts self. Would be more purpose beyond angry knighting elves if they were used to fuel blood magic rituals dedicated to the Creator. evil to some? definitely. But it could've had some weight in human role play as a more moral gray practice.

 

It's definitely a dark magic. It carries the stigma roleplay. But it's fair to say not all blood mages are using it for "evil" intentions.

[Slorbin 2932]

inherently; no. inherently many magicks are not evil should you use them in a certain manner: Necromancy (used to, might be different with the rewrite) could be used solely to heal and do 'natural' druidism via the shifting around of lifeforce. If people consent to letting their soul fragments be harvested, that part of Mysticism isn't necessarily bad (until you start using said soul fragments to create horrible things).

Blood Magic follows the same ideology: You could theoretically JUST use your OWN blood and the blood of willing subjects to make whatever you want, harm-free. The problem is that it is not ideal and it is WAY easier to just be ******* evil and sacrifice people for it

[Reece Nolan 996]

Yeah, I'd say so.

 

"Morally gray" only works from the perspective of in-universe. Take Mysticism for example: Your entire magic hinges off of grafting someone else's soul onto your own, all of your powers involve messing with the dead, and more than half are only made possible by harming others and literally stealing parts of their soul. It doesn't matter if you have good intentions or not, the magic will always be evil by way of it's nature. The same applies to blood magic.

 

I don't know every magic, but the only ones I'd say for sure have the capacity to be morally gray, is Voidal Magics. Because Voidal Magics have the capacity to do evil and catastrophic damage, but it is completely optional, you do not have to open tears to progress through it, you do not have to become a void stalker and let some eldritch entity into your head, you do not have to be evil even though you can.

 

I would say that magics which do not have these kinds of options cannot be morally gray or evil. Like sure, YOU can be an evil templar but I'm pretty sure the majority of your spells are mostly effective against darkspawn and dark magics. YOU can be evil but magics like Housemagery won't be.

[MysticalWeasel 910]

Same people who say blood magic isn't evil are the same people who say mysticism is grey. 

BOTH ARE EVIL! YOU ARE A BLOOD FIEND!

[The King Of The Moon 7016]

On 4/29/2026 at 5:47 PM, Toddbringer said:

Comes from a genocidal monster who made greater vampires. 

No it doesn't and it never has.

 

Blood magic doesn't "come from" anything, it simply is in the same way the Material Alphabet is.

It is a fact of creation and at its core a mortal magic. As is Kani, as is Alchemy.

 

It is not a pseudo-deific magic because Malghourn happens to be good at it;

Malghourn is a blood mage. Malghourn is also evil. 

Malghourn didn't invent blood magic nor does he have the loyalty of blood mages at large.

Malghourn being an evil blood mage does not make blood magic evil any more than Hitler being a painter would make painters evil. This is a logical fallacy.

Other misconceptions I keep seeing on this topic are that blood magic demands sacrificing others, which is also untrue. I've also seen people argue that it's more efficient to sacrifice others but for the majority of the player magic's history now the opposite has been the case. 

Does all of that somehow make blood magic good? No. But calling it inherently evil is lazy thinking and is often misinformed.

 

Even if we want to sneer at the not-so-great legacies of past and present staff and their "morally grey" advocacy, that's fine but it doesn't change the objective nature of what we're talking about in terms of established canon.

Even if we want our server to look like D&D with clear cut heroes and villains and even if we want to roll our eyes at the embarrassingly common anti-hero characters who use these magics, that doesn't and shouldn't have any bearing on the topic at hand.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll reiterate what I said on the status update about this:

 

Most LotC morality stems from divinity. Divinity has reason to dislike blood magic as a chaotic (and potentially threatening) emulation of their power, which has time and again fallen into the wrong hands.

 

From a real-world human perspective, is nuclear physics inherently evil? No. But nuclear reactors currently provide energy for millions whilst nuclear bombs are capable of killing billions.

 

Vampires require the suffering of others to sustain their existence. They are, from the inter-subjective descendant POV, inherently evil.

Blood magic threatens the divine order and emulates divine power. Though from the descendant POV it is not "evil". But it is reckless, and recklessness is selfish.

 

It can be evil. It is not inherently evil. Does that make it good? No.
But that's because the question of objective morality isn't really answerable.

 

We have inter-subjective reasons as player characters to see things which necessitate harm as evil. We don't have these reasons for blood magic. Cringe as people will at the term 'nuance', it is a nuanced issue which can and should be addressed differently by different characters and cultures.