Commoners and Bloodtheft

**Lord Eldred** · 01-01-2002, 06:21 PM

I would vote for some sort of blood disease instead of becoming blooded if the character fails the shock survival. I'll give it some thought on the specifics but the bloodtheft occurs it just doesn't work in a positive manner.

**Raedwald** · 01-11-2002, 03:41 PM

I think commoners should only gain a bloodline through investiture. Otherwise having a bloodline would put a larger target on blooded characteres than there already is. A bloodmark would be an extreme disadvantage.

**Riegan Swordwraith** · 01-11-2002, 06:52 PM

I would conceed allowing commoners to achieve Blooded staus through Bloodtheft IF there was a serious consequence to it.If a commoner kills a scion through the heart and the essence starts filling him I beleive a save is appropriate and death could insue.Even Investiture is not always successful and that is being cautious.Why should an accidental,or purposeful have no chances for failure???

**Lord Eldred** · 01-14-2002, 02:30 AM

I have never argued that there shouldn't be a risk. And I am sorry Raedwald but I think the target is huge either way!

**Sellenus** · 01-23-2002, 03:09 PM

Commoners becoming blooded through bloodtheft is a great idea. It opens other possibilities in any realm. When people are revolting that is one thing... when they are lead by a charismatic unblooded commoner that is another. It leads to more questions and intrigue, not to mention the increased threat.