PDA

View Full Version : Why must the vamps be evil?



Arachu
2009-03-15, 09:01 PM
In the vampire's very description, it says they have to be evil. Why is that? I mean, they're unholy semblances of life, animated by dark magics, that feed on blood, but they keep their mind.

I mean, they really keep their mind. As do lycanthropes, who are also rank-and-filed.

I'm pretty sure it's more relaxed for lycans, but regardless of a being's origin, if it has a mind, it should have a choice.

And the worst part is, they can't become non-evil!

So, some paladin gets mauled by a vampire, wakes up as a vampire, and regardless of his mental state, or moral standing, or general dang-giving, he has to be evil.

It just doesn't make sense to me, is all... Probably because it doesn't.

P.S. Oh, and before anyone comes in saying "Vampires drink the blood of the innocent. That is evil", Blood Drain's description says that they have to drain a living target, not a human target.

Anyone who's obsessed with Supernatural should know where I'm going with this. :smalltongue:

A vampire could drain anything. Humans, cows, goats, even fish. Eating steak isn't evil, nor is eating a (albeit cooked) chicken's body. I mean, attacking a cow and sucking the blood from its neck is pretty dang evil, but they couldn't bleed it first?

P.S.S I wasn't trying to be very serious here, but I'm pretty sure I was. No one jump on me, here (smiley face I can't decide on right now)

Flickerdart
2009-03-15, 09:05 PM
A human being can survive by eating lard. But you don't want to, because that's nasty, and something like steak is a lot better. A human being could also blend that steak before eating it, but that's also nasty. So yes, vampires could drain cows and drink the blood through a straw, but why would they do that when they don't have to? 8 LA worth of instincts can't be that easy to fight.
Their priorities could also change. Take, for example, Dr. Manhattan, but replace his powers with a vampire's. Why should he care who he eats? His food doesn't care about him.

Collin152
2009-03-15, 09:07 PM
They have a mind, which might be similar to their own, but it's evil. Don't forget, they died; their body is now a Vampire, even if they themselves are departed.
Chew on that one.

Graymayre
2009-03-15, 09:08 PM
In the end it's up to the DM, or the writer, or whatever else is controlling the situation.

If they literally have to be evil and there should be an explanation? Perhaps they retain their intelligence, but not their minds.

Maybe negative energy is some sentient being, controlling anything it pervades.

Kyouhen
2009-03-15, 09:11 PM
Technically they COULD be good, but they'll still register as evil to any alignment detection. That's what happens when you have your blood replaced with raw energy that makes anything that lives wither and die. :smallamused:

Assassin89
2009-03-15, 09:11 PM
I think you just answered your question with your introduction. Sentience does not automatically mean being given a choice. As for alignments, always does not mean that every single vampire is evil, as there may be a very rare exception.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 09:15 PM
Maybe negative energy is some sentient being, controlling anything it pervades.
Catch: There's a Core undead with no alignment restrictions at all: The Ghost. It's also the only Core undead without an alignment restriction...

Additionally, when you consider that (Core), someone who's corpse is shambling around as an undead can't be brought back without either destroying the undead or applying the spell directly to the shambling corpse (well, except by Clone... but that requires some work prior to the death of the test subject), that suggests the soul is trapped in the corpse, and not necessarily in control of it. It's not all that far-fetched to say that most undead are actually some form of demon/devil/whatever that's been put in control of the corpse, and is torturing the soul of the original owner for power; some get an amount of access to the victim's memories.

Alternately, there are methods by which to change the alignment of a critter - Cursed items, mostly, but there's a handful of other ways.

Fishy
2009-03-15, 09:16 PM
Eating steak isn't evil, nor is eating a (albeit cooked) chicken's body.

In mythology, vampires are a metaphor for idea that, in order to live, human being have to kill things. Constantly. Unpleasant fact.

In D&D mythology, vampires and all undead are powered by Negative Energy- which, according to one interpretation of the standard cosmology, is essentially evil radioactivity. A vampire's physical body is a point of contact between the material world and the Negative Energy Plane: the source of all darkness and unpleasantness in the universe. The idea is that even if the vampire manages to resist his tendencies and opens a nunnery for orphaned kittens, the Material Plane is still somehow metaphysically but quantifiably worse because he's in it.

In terms of game mechanics, it's because the 3.5 alignment system is dumb.

Innis Cabal
2009-03-15, 09:23 PM
In the vampire's very description, it says they have to be evil. Why is that? I mean, they're unholy semblances of life, animated by dark magics, that feed on blood, but they keep their mind.

There we are. Somethings are just evil. Its D&D...not RL, moral ambiguity dosn't exist in print

horngeek
2009-03-15, 09:24 PM
In terms of game mechanics, it's because the 3.5 alignment system is dumb.

Actually, it's not a bad system.


As for vamps, there are some universes where they aren't always evil. Discworld in particular, but you would have to have some way of them not killing constantly to survive.

Or, the Warhammer approach. No matter the previous character of a vampire, they are evil. In this case, a PC who became one would require the player to make a new character.

Arachu
2009-03-15, 09:24 PM
Flickerdart: I'm assuming that they have to feed on blood. You know, like everyone else does :xykon:

Collin 152: True, assuming that that's the case. I assert that it's the same mind that was there before they died. It's at least somewhat more complex than a sentient zombie...

Graymayre: Good point.

Kyouhen: Extremely good point.


... And for that matter, I wonder if they could live off of red meat? That would totally count as neutral.

Zaq
2009-03-15, 09:47 PM
I guess it's pretty much the same as any other default undead alignment in D&D. We all know the tired old confusion of why zombies, (mindless, non-living beings who serve their creator unthinkingly) are Always Evil but golems (mindless, non-living beings who serve their creator unthinkingly) are Always Neutral, even though creating a golem involves forcibly enslaving an unwilling earth elemental and binding it to your will. Or why Animate Dead has the [Evil] descriptor but, say, Dominate doesn't. (And Deathwatch is Evil? Hengh?)

D&D, particularly in the core books (though certainly not only there) is really weird about alignment in particular and negative energy specifically. It's evil! Except it's actually just a force of nature and Inflict Wounds isn't evil and stuff. But it's evil! And undead are always evil! Even the mindless ones who have no free will and no concept of right and wrong! Except that animals have no concept of right and wrong and thus are always neutral. But they're evil! Except there's no goddamn reason for it.

If you insist on sticking to the text in the book, just say they're evil because the process of becoming a vampire forcibly and irrevocably twists their essence into something actively Evil, actually changing their outlook, personality, and goals. Or you can look at the mismatched pile of crap that is the rest of the core rules on alignment and/or negative energy, conclude that the whole thing was written by a group of people who didn't actually talk to each other on the matter, and go with whatever makes sense to you.

Arachu
2009-03-15, 09:52 PM
Yeah, I've always wondered what the f*** was with Deathwatch being evil :smallyuk:

Alleine
2009-03-15, 09:56 PM
Vampire's aren't devoid of their souls, right? One of the few undead that aren't, I believe. If so, you could cast Sanctify the Wicked on them. That would certainly be a most interesting vampire.

Graymayre
2009-03-15, 09:58 PM
So what happens when a vampire is given an item that curses him to be good? Would there be any changes? Or would he simply "be-a-good-vampire-end-of-discussion-and-post"

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 10:00 PM
Why do they have to be evil? Because this isn't d20 Twilight. :smalltongue:

But seriously though I actually agree, I don't think vampires should be required to be evil since they should be able to sustain themselves without actually killing intelligent beings, it's just that murder's an easier path for them to take to get the blood they need.

I'm reminded of my old V:tM character, a Assamite sorcerer on the Path of Humanity who actually found a way to keep Kosher as a vampire (blood is unclean after all--he basically had to have a full chemistry lab to be able to drink). I was aiming at acquiring True Faith for him before the game died. Too bad too, it was a fun and challenging character to play.

Flickerdart
2009-03-15, 10:20 PM
So what happens when a vampire is given an item that curses him to be good? Would there be any changes? Or would he simply "be-a-good-vampire-end-of-discussion-and-post"
He'd be a good Vampire. That's about it.

A demon with that helm would be a Lawful Good creature with Chaotic and Evil subtypes though. Which is funny.

Kris Strife
2009-03-15, 10:43 PM
Scyfling, you think trying to keep Kosher as a vampire is hard? Try being a Jehovah's Witness vampire.

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 11:16 PM
Scyfling, you think trying to keep Kosher as a vampire is hard? Try being a Jehovah's Witness vampire.

That's, wow, I have no idea how I'd even begin to play that--well I could see being a bad one rather easily, using the door-to-door routine as a means to feed (though that'd be especially difficult if you can't enter homes uninvited.) But an actual practicing JW vampire? That's pretty wild.

Kris Strife
2009-03-15, 11:39 PM
That's, wow, I have no idea how I'd even begin to play that--well I could see being a bad one rather easily, using the door-to-door routine as a means to feed (though that'd be especially difficult if you can't enter homes uninvited.) But an actual practicing JW vampire? That's pretty wild.

Especially since blood transfusions arent allowed. :p

Ooh... What about a warforged Morman?

Dervag
2009-03-15, 11:46 PM
I think the answer is that while we can imagine a vampire with morals (and many fiction writers have), a vampire who behaves normally really is being pretty darn evil, since they're eating people on the installment plan when they don't have to.

Oslecamo
2009-03-16, 02:20 AM
I think the answer is that while we can imagine a vampire with morals (and many fiction writers have), a vampire who behaves normally really is being pretty darn evil, since they're eating people on the installment plan when they don't have to.

People's definition of "evil" and "good" has become quite twisted nowadays. I had a friend who played Fallout and got suprised when he got negative karma after stealing stuff from good people's houses when he had already plenty of equipment and then kill said good people when they tried to get back their stuff.

Similarly, in Exalted the "good" guys are the nº1 responsible for the sad state of stuff. If they weren't so busy backstabbing their creatores and each other for pure greed, perhaps the world wouldn't be falling apart. But off course, they're good, because they're shiny and they can beat the crap out of anyone who says otherwise.

In WH40k, I've seen many people consider the Space Marines who crippled the Emperor for fun, slaughter inocents left and right just to get some evil doers(where evil doer is normally someone who doesn't think as twisted as them), attack each other for any and every pretext and then turn to chaos in a 50% basis, to be true and pious defenders of justice and good.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 05:49 AM
Personally, I always homebrew that the vampire needs freshly poured human blood to survive.
Now, if he wants to be good, he'd better find a way to get it without hurting people.
Buying blood could be an option here.
Most vampires in my setting don't bother to do it, but simply kill innocents to sate their hunger and are thus evil

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 06:14 AM
Actually, it's not a bad system.


As for vamps, there are some universes where they aren't always evil. Discworld in particular, but you would have to have some way of them not killing constantly to survive.

Or, the Warhammer approach. No matter the previous character of a vampire, they are evil. In this case, a PC who became one would require the player to make a new character.

Warhammer Vamps aren't always evil. There a Vamp actress in the book series who's a good guy.

As for how a vampire can feed reguly by killing constantly without been evil. That's simple, become an adventurer. Plenty of food.
Of course if you look at the vampire entry there isn't any requirement to feed. Given that the MM also makes clear that even "always" only menas "Almost all" there is actually nothing stopping a vampire PC been a good alignment character that travels with the group and never feeds on blood. If they do feed some you can just fix it with some Restoration spells.
You'll probably want to setup the coffin with a permanent Tensors Floating Disc or two and some Darkness spells ready to activate for popping out during the day.

It's simply a question of how far you want to think outside the box.

Stephen E

Ernir
2009-03-16, 07:51 AM
In the games I DM, I think of vampires as "Usually neutral evil". Vampires do have a pretty strong natural desire to do ebil stuff, but a determined individual turned vampire (like most Paladins) might still be able to keep his alignment.

I guess I would represent this with some series of will saves if it ever happened to a PC...

Sendal
2009-03-16, 08:31 AM
Perhaps a Paladin who wakes up to find himself a Vampire must choose to either smite himself or alow a vampire (always evil) to live and thus fall.

Khatoblepas
2009-03-16, 08:46 AM
Because their primal urges are Evil. They feel the urge to feed and make more vampires. It's not just drinking blood, it's reproduction (their reproduction is linked to their feeding). They're like viruses - they exist only to make more.

But since the targets are sentient, reasoning beings, vampire instincts appeal to their darkest, deepest most vile thoughts. I'd rule that a Vampire Paladin doesn't immediately turn to evil... but their MO would have to change ever so slightly over time.

- After all, you're only taking the blood of the most vile criminals.
- You're only taking blood of those who would die anyway.
- You're only taking blood to fuel yourself for the greater good.
- You're only giving your compatriots untold power to fight the evil.
- To fight evil, you must survive. To survive, you must drink blood.
- Why must others live such ineffectual lives that don't contribute to fighting evil? They deserve to die, I'm giving them power anyway!
- Evil must be destroyed! I'll make an example of anyone who doesn't follow me in my crusade against it! I will give my followers ultimate power, we will swoop down and destroy. Anyone who objects will die!

And more and more, you come to rely on your new powers to function. A Vampire Paladin would be the scariest thing of all, too, as they'd still think they're good. Vampires are more insideous than just "Will save or try to drink that man's blood". It requires a lot of roleplaying on the player's part, and this is why the LA is +8, I think. DMs who trust the players will drop the LA to something reasonable, and then a tragedy would play out.

Note also that a vampire's soul is corrupted and is only tenuously linked to the body, hence why running water will destroy them - it washes the soul away.

Evil the Cat
2009-03-16, 08:55 AM
In my setting I generally don't have a vampire instantly be evil, but they all wind up there eventually.

Once created, they see everyone as flowing with such... wonderful life energy... that they just want soooooo bad..... Its more addictive than heroin, the cravings only get stronger with time, never weaker. the habit is impossible to kick, and they're born fully addicted, in a state of withdrawal and have no experience at all in fighting it. animals are the crap stuff that takes the edge off, but it isn't anywhere near enough...

The only time they're not going crazy with blood withdrawal is when they've recently fed.

To me this is very thematically appropriate, and every vampire winds up full on evil eventually.

ericgrau
2009-03-16, 09:09 AM
Because it is their nature to be evil. You're all thinking that it's something they do that makes them evil, when really they're born evil and that makes them act the way they do.

It's similar to a demon. You might have a good demon, but it's extremely rare. They're not too likely to change. That's why demons and aberrations tend to be killed on sight, whereas other races are supposed to get a trial regardless of alignment. Though most campaigns don't do that.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-16, 09:10 AM
Because their primal urges are Evil. They feel the urge to feed and make more vampires. It's not just drinking blood, it's reproduction (their reproduction is linked to their feeding). They're like viruses - they exist only to make more.So do Humans. And Celestials. The ultimate purpose of anything's existance is to breed.

Ladorak
2009-03-16, 09:24 AM
So do Humans. And Celestials. The ultimate purpose of anything's existance is to breed.

Most things don't have to kill to do it tho.

(From MM 3)
Rot reavers crave the taste of undead fl esh, gaining sustenance from the consumption of the foul energies that animate the undead.

So yeah, evil radiation

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-16, 09:30 AM
Most things don't have to kill to do it tho.Actually, they do. Most of the(always neutral) animals listed in the MM have to kill to eat, the ranks of celestials are swelled by the deaths of good people, and humans may not have to kill, but we definitely are healthier when we do.
So yeah, evil radiationSo why aren't Inflict Spells or the Negative Energy plane Evil? Heck, why aren't Ghosts?

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-16, 09:39 AM
Actually, they do. Most of the(always neutral) animals listed in the MM have to kill to eat, the ranks of celestials are swelled by the deaths of good people, and humans may not have to kill, but we definitely are healthier when we do. So why aren't Inflict Spells or the Negative Energy plane Evil? Heck, why aren't Ghosts?

I think he was talking about us not having to kill to reproduce. Which, if you are, you're doin' it wrong. :smalltongue:

Thajocoth
2009-03-16, 10:12 AM
I was under the impression that one had to consent to becoming a vampire in the first place. This is basically saying "Yes, I would like to live forever by drinking people's blood." Those that don't consent to become a vampire, if caught by a vampire, would merely be meals, would they not?

Tyrmatt
2009-03-16, 10:37 AM
I feel I should direct you to Olivia E. Butler's "Fledgeling" (I think.)

It features a clan of vampires who take on willing human thralls (sort've) and use their considerably extended lifespan to basically play the stock markets in order to provide good lives for their human partners. I forget how the new vamps were made but it was generally something done only to the most favoured and loved of the humans.

Check it out for a nice morally grey town you could set up for your adventurers to stumble across.

Tensu
2009-03-16, 10:40 AM
I may not know much about them in D&D, but in mythology they are corpses possessed by evil spirits to drink blood. there's no way to put a good spin on that. and anything that doesn't fit that description isn't a vamp. so they're always evil because they are by their very definition evil.

warning: trying to argue this with me will set off a notorious pet peeve of mine an spark a very heated debate about staying true to source material when drawing from mythology and about the nature of originality. I'll keep it civil if you will, but if you're not ready for a debate of that magnitude, you've been warned.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-16, 11:11 AM
Text quoting time:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Now, putting aside fluff requirements of horrible rituals to achieve vampirism and somesuch, which of these sound like the alignment of immortal beings that prey on the living? Since the movie just came out, think of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen (the book, preferably); the longer he was untroubled by mortal concerns the harder it was to deal with mortals as beings deserving respect, let alone as equals.

Why should an immortal have compassion for others or respect for life? What does he care about the dignity of other sentient beings?

Now, in the short term he may remain "good" but over time that is likely to slip into Evil; it is just the more appropriate mindset for a being like a Vampire.

Fhaolan
2009-03-16, 01:30 PM
To the OP:

Because vampirism, and lycanthropy, is supposed to be a *curse*, not a blessing. That's the point of it. If it didn't include the nigh-uncontrollable urges to do vile and horrible acts that drive you insane, people would be lining up to become vampires, because it's all benefits with no real drawbacks.

Which is, of course, why we have all these silly Vampire Love Stories running around now. Because the dire personality-warping aspects of the curse have instead become minor irritations to be angsted about.

In another version, why are werewolves evil? Wolves aren't evil, they're just simple predatory animals. Because werewolves aren't people who have a wolf-shape and a person-shape and are sometimes forced to swap shapes. That's a shapeshifter, not a werewolf. No, the werewolf is a person who is under a serious curse that strips away all inhibitions and civilized conditioning, leaving a ravening beastial monster that is usually *represented* by a wolf-like form. It might also be represented with the form of a tiger, or some other predatory animal. Werebears as good-aligned lycanthropes is purely from Tolkien's Beorn in the Hobbit, which I believe is misunderstanding the source material on behalf of the D&D writers, as Beorn follows from other shapeshifter myths rather than the lycanthropic curse model followed by werewolves and their ilk.

Thajocoth
2009-03-16, 01:40 PM
...Werebears as good-aligned lycanthropes is purely from Tolkien's Beorn in the Hobbit, which I believe is misunderstanding the source material on behalf of the D&D writers, as Beorn follows from other shapeshifter myths rather than the lycanthropic curse model followed by werewolves and their ilk.

Werebear STARE!

Sorry... Ahem...

I don't know about prior to 4E, but in 4E there are rules for a player to be a Shifter or Dhampyr, which, while not a Lycanthrope or Vampire, implies that Lycanthropes and Vampires mated with ordinary humans, as they're decendants of Lycanthropes and Vampires respectively. As a matter of fact, someone in a campaign I'm running is playing as a Dhampyr Shifter Cleric, multiclass Ranger.

So, if they mate with ordinary humans, perhaps they're capable of besting their instincts, and becoming good, despite their curse?

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 01:53 PM
Werebear STARE!

Sorry... Ahem...

I don't know about prior to 4E, but in 4E there are rules for a player to be a Shifter or Dhampyr, which, while not a Lycanthrope or Vampire, implies that Lycanthropes and Vampires mated with ordinary humans, as they're decendants of Lycanthropes and Vampires respectively. As a matter of fact, someone in a campaign I'm running is playing as a Dhampyr Shifter Cleric, multiclass Ranger.

So, if they mate with ordinary humans, perhaps they're capable of besting their instincts, and becoming good, despite their curse?

Where can I find those rules? Link og simply a copy please?

hamishspence
2009-03-16, 02:01 PM
Dhampyr is, unfortunately, in one of the subscription-only issues of Dragon magazine on D&D Insider.

Shifter is in MM, and PHB2, when it comes out this month.

Tensu
2009-03-16, 02:01 PM
wether Werewolves are considered good or evil depends largely on the society in which you ask that question. evil is defiantly the norm for werewolves and werewolf-like creatures, but they where venerated in some cultures.

it's also worth noting that unlike a lot of other "creatures of the night" religious artifacts and symbols where said to have no harmful effect on werewolves.

Thajocoth
2009-03-16, 02:20 PM
There are two versions of PC-compatible Shifters near the end of the MM: Razorclaw Shifter & Longtooth Shifter. It sounds like Shifter might be expanded in tomorrow's release of the PHB2, but don't quote me on that.

Dhampyr is in, I believe, the February issue of Dragon Magazine. (If not, then it was the January issue... I could double-check when I get home.) It's done via feats instead of as it's own race. It's the closest 4E has come to having templates.

Porthos
2009-03-16, 02:28 PM
Why do Vampires have to be evil?

Because DnD was first written before the Vampires Are Sexy Angsty Emo Driven Anti-Heroes/Anti-Villains meme became popular.

Really, that's it. That's the list. :smalltongue:

25+ years ago no one would have batted an eyelash at Vamps = Eval. Sure there might have been a couple of interesting debates amongst the more intellectually driven gamers. And Interview with a Vampire (which was first released in '76) might have generated some discussion (although it took a long time to seep into popular awareness, nevermind popular culture). But the vast majority of opinion was Vamp = Evil. Mostly because of the foul magics (generic terms used) that were keeping the person "alive". Only the most saintly and or iron willed person could keep the overwheming emotions and sensations away.

It's often been descried in terms of a drug addiction, but consider it this way. One hasn't sipped a drink of water for a week, and suddenly you are dropped in the middle of an area with tons of bottled water. What does one think the natural inclination is going to be? :smalltongue: Sure, one could be like Louie and drink from rats. But sooner or later one's gonna slip up. Especially in a world like DnD with the odds are tremendously stacked against you.

Now, sure, one could play a good vamp in DnD. Nothing's stopping you or a DM from playing with the idea. For instance, in an Egyptian themed campaign I was once in, Mummies were Usually Lawful Neutral. Partially because they were Temple Guardians. But mostly because they were also viewed as Ancient Sages (i.e. the people you went to when you wanted advice on Very Important Matters). But the baseline presumption of the game is Vamp Equals Dracula, not Vamp Equals Lestat (or Louie, or any of the Vamps from all of the other Sexy Time novels of the last three decades).

The more interesting question is this: Should DnD "get with the times" and go with the more "modern" defintion of what it means to be a Vampire? Should they play up the agnst and fighting one's nature angles (like one can find in various White Wolf games). Or perhaps they could play with the notion that the Vamps Are Really Odd and Cold Elf Like Beings Who Are Keeping A Lid On Their Bestial Natures. Or could they even take a page from Laura K. Hamilton and her take on Vampires?

Or should they stay Old School with their assumptions? The fact that they changed ghosts from Evil in prior editions to Any Alignment in 3e shows that they can change their minds on things. So perhaps it's time for the Vamp to get another look. Or not. It just depends on what one wants from their Vampire Legends.

Captain Six
2009-03-16, 02:56 PM
If you're wanting vampires to be capable of a good alignment then just have them good in your campaign. If you're not being hypothetical and are sincerely looking for a reason all vampires are evil I have a few that I've used with varying degrees of realism:

1. They are made of negative energy and erode away at all life around them making their very existence in the mortal planes a selfish act at the expense of others. Vampires can act good but they can be no more than neutral as every breath they exhale is a gale against the lifeforce of those around them.

2. They are made of negative energy and grow to hate things made of positive energy. Or being fueled by negative energy simply rewires your mind for evil.

3. Although vampires are fueled by negative energy their biology is still completely alive, with only a few biological functions no longer working. Vampires must drink the blood of their original race not for sustenance but for transfusion. And it HAS to be from their original race, modern bloodbanks don't stock themselves with cow blood you know. This means that a human vampire must drink and ENTIRE human body of similar mass once every few days or so, not a quick drink from a consenting mortal or animal with ample time for them to recover from it between urges.
3.b I've also instated an exception to this in one of my settings; vampires don't have to drink blood at all, they just start to rot rapidly if they don't. All good vampires end up resembling zombies while at the same time it's the fair looking ones you have to look out for. I freely admit this is a cheap shot against all those who insist that pretty races like drow and vampires shouldn't be evil but have never given ghouls a second thought. I mean at least ghouls eat from things that are already dead, why isn't this tread about them?

4. Vampires, being dead, no longer fear death. Due to the fact that the fear of death is such a vital and massive section of the human psyche. Vampires replace that fear with odd phobias in general. This neatly explains all their supernatural compulsions. It's not that they die in sunlight, cannot cross running water and get hurt by holy symbols, they have just redirected the natural fear of death to all of the above. This already neurotically mad state of mind is hard enough to handle, vampires will then seek refuge from their suffering deeper within insanity. Thus creating unpredictable, eccentric and often violent creatures known to myth.

5. Cut vampires out of the game altogether. In 3.5 at least Vampires feel to me like they're only there because they're famous. They don't actually mesh with their fellow undead that well. I don't think any other undead have nearly as many weaknesses as they do, have abilities no other undead do and flavorwise they've always felt like diet-Lich.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 03:06 PM
If I ever encounter a vampire that gloves in sunshine rather than burns, I'll smite the b_stard to hell

Xuincherguixe
2009-03-16, 03:09 PM
In a recent play by post game, I was the god of Undeath, and as such, I got to decide how all that stuff worked. Here's how I ruled it.

It was a profoundly unnatural state. The existence of an Undead being brings destruction and misery. This is what the "Evil" part is.

Very rarely, there could be some nice undead out there. However all have an urge to destroy life. Which tends to eat away at people.

Unintelligent Undead, having no free will simply attack everything. At least unless they're uncontrolled. Controlled Undead have to be fought with occasionally to prevent them from acting out their natural "instincts".

I also decided that intelligent beings without souls was too weird for me to wrap my head around. As such, intelligent Undead had warped souls. The process of becoming something between the living and dead states causes damage to a person's being. It is an even more unnatural state than walking corpses. Hence, they cause more damage.


And so, we arrive at Vampires...

How I handled it was that while they were all villains of supreme significance. As in, stronger than a Balor. They also don't reproduce, it takes serious bad magic. That would of course, not be appropriate for PCs :P The idea was that although I'm of the opinion that angst = good when handled right, The "Twilight" kind of Vampires are just plain dumb. And that while the Ann Rice style are annoying, it's valid. If poorly written.

When you get right down to it, Dracula was angsty. But that doesn't stop him from being awesome. He was kind of an anti villain. Tragic. He had a number of heroic qualities.

I'd like to think it's a good way to handle Undeath in general. A disdain for natural laws. "Nature is after all oppressive. Why must we die?" and so on. An arrogant attitude, but one that people could believe in. It explains why the Undead are a menace, and how Zombies/Skeletons are evil. But also one that acknowledges free will. And gives room for PCs.

The Undead really should be terrible monsters. Even when they're the protagonist.

Stormageddon
2009-03-16, 03:33 PM
In the vampire's very description, it says they have to be evil. Why is that? I mean, they're unholy semblances of life, animated by dark magics, that feed on blood, but they keep their mind.

I mean, they really keep their mind. As do lycanthropes, who are also rank-and-filed.

I'm pretty sure it's more relaxed for lycans, but regardless of a being's origin, if it has a mind, it should have a choice.

And the worst part is, they can't become non-evil!

So, some paladin gets mauled by a vampire, wakes up as a vampire, and regardless of his mental state, or moral standing, or general dang-giving, he has to be evil.

It just doesn't make sense to me, is all... Probably because it doesn't.

P.S. Oh, and before anyone comes in saying "Vampires drink the blood of the innocent. That is evil", Blood Drain's description says that they have to drain a living target, not a human target.

Anyone who's obsessed with Supernatural should know where I'm going with this. :smalltongue:

A vampire could drain anything. Humans, cows, goats, even fish. Eating steak isn't evil, nor is eating a (albeit cooked) chicken's body. I mean, attacking a cow and sucking the blood from its neck is pretty dang evil, but they couldn't bleed it first?

P.S.S I wasn't trying to be very serious here, but I'm pretty sure I was. No one jump on me, here (smiley face I can't decide on right now)

I for one would let a character keep his "good" status; if the first thing he/she did was put a stake through his/her heart when the character found out he/she was a vampire. Because if the character decides to continue on as a vampire they have made a choice to put his/her or interest in continued existence over the possibility of a innocent person being being hurt or killed, which is what evil is all about.

In D&D if you get killed by a vampire feeding off you; you come back as a vampire. If you feed off a cow it would come back as a vampire cow and feed off other cows. Pretty soon an army of vampire cows would be roaming the countryside killing all sorts of people and creatures. The character would be responsible.

Fhaolan
2009-03-16, 03:34 PM
wether Werewolves are considered good or evil depends largely on the society in which you ask that question. evil is defiantly the norm for werewolves and werewolf-like creatures, but they where venerated in some cultures.

it's also worth noting that unlike a lot of other "creatures of the night" religious artifacts and symbols where said to have no harmful effect on werewolves.

To which we now enter into playing the 'Terminology' game, unfortunately. To me, the curse is intrinsic to the lycanthrope. Without the curse, it's a turnskin or shapeshifter rather than lycanthrope, and even then a turnskin usually has addiction sideffects that make it a lycanthropic curse. It just takes longer to manifest the curse aspect than the straight lycanthropy.

Yes, many cultures have 'wolf-shifters' that are not lycanthropes under my definition. In which case, I would not use the werewolf in D&D to model them. For example, the Norse Berserkers were originally called Ulfheðnar (wolf-skinned) in the Sagas, not Berðnar. In most literary cases, these berserkers are *not* lycanthropes, but there are a few that are. Kveld-Ulf and his son Skalla-Grimm are berserkers who have taken their battle frenzy to such a level that they were cursed by it, devolving from Odin's chosen warriors into ravening beasts, indiscriminate and uncontrollable.

When I say things like that, people usually start refering to North American mythos then, because wolves weren't quite the 'evil terrors' there relative to the European cultures. However, the lycanthrope is there still as Mai-cob of the Navajo, and the Wendigo of the Algonquian (which is mythologically almost identical to the Greek myth of Lycaon from which the term 'lycanthrope' actually comes from.) The other wolf shapeshifters, that aren't lycanthropes, almost all are shamans or something similar taking on their totem aspect. This is modeled in D&D via the Druid (or Shaman depending on editions), not by werewolves.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-03-16, 03:50 PM
In the vampire's very description, it says they have to be evil. Why is that? I mean, they're unholy semblances of life, animated by dark magics, that feed on blood, but they keep their mind.

I mean, they really keep their mind. As do lycanthropes, who are also rank-and-filed.

I'm pretty sure it's more relaxed for lycans, but regardless of a being's origin, if it has a mind, it should have a choice.

And the worst part is, they can't become non-evil!

So, some paladin gets mauled by a vampire, wakes up as a vampire, and regardless of his mental state, or moral standing, or general dang-giving, he has to be evil.

It just doesn't make sense to me, is all... Probably because it doesn't.

P.S. Oh, and before anyone comes in saying "Vampires drink the blood of the innocent. That is evil", Blood Drain's description says that they have to drain a living target, not a human target.

Anyone who's obsessed with Supernatural should know where I'm going with this. :smalltongue:

A vampire could drain anything. Humans, cows, goats, even fish. Eating steak isn't evil, nor is eating a (albeit cooked) chicken's body. I mean, attacking a cow and sucking the blood from its neck is pretty dang evil, but they couldn't bleed it first?

P.S.S I wasn't trying to be very serious here, but I'm pretty sure I was. No one jump on me, here (smiley face I can't decide on right now)

Vampire are Chaotic Evil because they are a parasitic abomination of the cycle of life and death. They are a disease which spreads by bite of an infected abomination, and must be cleansed with fire and sunlight. They disrupt the life cycle by being a corpse which continues moving around, their very existence is an abomination to nature. Also, they no longer have completely free will. They have urges which they cannot control, which cause them to commit decidedly evil acts, such as killing for blood (because they cannot control their urges, particularly not in the beginning), and later on they fall prey to the Titan Complex, deciding that they are simply a higher form of life and that all other sentient life forms are but mere cattle, which is also CE, or possibly LE depending on their leanings.

Lycanthropes are cursed. While not under the effect of the curse, they are whatever alignment they once were. When they shift, however, the curse steals their free will, and they act out of their primal and bestial urges, certainly Chaotic Evil. Some come to enjoy this too much, and so their alignment slowly degrades until it also becomes CE.

FoE
2009-03-16, 04:30 PM
Consider the transformation that comes with vampirism. Your body becomes cold and dead, yet still capable of movement. You are suddenly possessed by a gnawing hunger for blood, particularly the blood of sentient beings. Your very touch becomes harmful to living beings and your gaze becomes hypnotic.

Is it really so unrealistic that vampirism should not affect the mind as well as the body?

@^: Shreeky has got it right.

Saint Nil
2009-03-16, 04:43 PM
Because their primal urges are Evil. They feel the urge to feed and make more vampires. It's not just drinking blood, it's reproduction (their reproduction is linked to their feeding). They're like viruses - they exist only to make more.

But since the targets are sentient, reasoning beings, vampire instincts appeal to their darkest, deepest most vile thoughts. I'd rule that a Vampire Paladin doesn't immediately turn to evil... but their MO would have to change ever so slightly over time.

- After all, you're only taking the blood of the most vile criminals.
- You're only taking blood of those who would die anyway.
- You're only taking blood to fuel yourself for the greater good.
- You're only giving your compatriots untold power to fight the evil.
- To fight evil, you must survive. To survive, you must drink blood.
- Why must others live such ineffectual lives that don't contribute to fighting evil? They deserve to die, I'm giving them power anyway!
- Evil must be destroyed! I'll make an example of anyone who doesn't follow me in my crusade against it! I will give my followers ultimate power, we will swoop down and destroy. Anyone who objects will die!

And more and more, you come to rely on your new powers to function. A Vampire Paladin would be the scariest thing of all, too, as they'd still think they're good. Vampires are more insideous than just "Will save or try to drink that man's blood". It requires a lot of roleplaying on the player's part, and this is why the LA is +8, I think. DMs who trust the players will drop the LA to something reasonable, and then a tragedy would play out.

Note also that a vampire's soul is corrupted and is only tenuously linked to the body, hence why running water will destroy them - it washes the soul away.

This. Just read this, it explains it perfectly.

hamishspence
2009-03-16, 04:45 PM
Technically it was more 3.0 that had Vampires as Always CE. 3.5 Vampires could be any Evil (Vampire spawn were still CE) and 4.0 vampires appear to be Evil (mostly- maybe some are CE)

Non-evil (or at least, striving to be good) vampires exist in D&D fiction: Jander Sunstar, elven vampire, in Realms of Valor and Realms of Infamy, comes across as very Good.

I haven't read Vampire of the Mists where he is in Ravenloft and meets Count Strahd. Does he change in that?