A note on Durkon's "Soul" (acc. to Xykon)

[Stricken]

Oh you poor, dumb elf. Don't you get it? Be a vampire, or a ghost, or an immortal with a paint-by-numbers portrait in the rec room. Hell, even a brain-in-a-jar, in a pinch. Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below.
From 652: No Respect for the Wicked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

Although Word of Xykon is not Word of Rich, it's pretty clear what Xykon thinks about what-happens-to-you-when-you-become-undead. He specifically states that a person could avoid a certain afterlife (the fire below) by becoming a vampire. Presumably, it would be the same for a Good afterlife: Durkon has become a vampire and by the same token must also be avoiding his Valhalla.

This is according to a guy who used to be a living human and has since become a sentient undead. That surely makes him a good authority on the transition!

Thoughts?

[EmperorSarda]

He said 'to avoid the big fire below'. It is his own opinion based on what he knows his eternal resting place will be.

Durkon does not get that luxury. Or rather, his soul does not get that luxury because the moment Malack is destroyed or releases Durkon from thrall-hood, Durkon is free willed again and has his soul. Durkon was happy to die cause he thought he would be finally going home, physically and spiritually. Such is not the case.

[SavageWombat]

Without KN: Religion he's not an authority on Undead, so he's speaking from his own limited knowledge.

Remember, Xykon has a phylactery specifically to keep his soul. Vampires don't have that. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but maybe liches are the unique exception to the "soul-less undead" rule.

Heck, maybe Xykon's soul is down there in the Abyss (or Grey Waste) and his lich-self doesn't have any clue.

[MaximKat]

I don't understand why does this keep popping up? It's quite clear in the comic that "higher-functioning" undead keep the soul and personality (up to the changes due to being undead obviously) of whoever they were in life.

Pretty much the only argument against is Redcloak's rant, based on the claim that he can control ghouls with a spell. Just like any other creature can be controlled by corresponding a spell. Very convincing...

[rodneyAnonymous]

Pretty much the only argument...

No, there are a couple others. For example, Malack says destroying and resurrecting him "is just a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html)"

I think it is way too literal to take that as support for the idea that an evil entity has control of the corpse of a person (whose spirit may also be trapped there) and access to their memories, Buffy the Vampire Slayer style, but some people apparently do. I think he just meant he's been undead for a lot longer than he was alive, and that would amount to destroying most or all of his identity.

[MaximKat]

I think he just meant he's been undead for a lot longer than he was alive, and that would amount to destroying most or all of his identity.

Exactly. Just like Durkon becoming a vampire changes him and is obviously something that old Durkon was against, but it doesn't mean that it's not Durkon anymore.

[Chantelune]

Just noticed something interesting while rereading the strip. Malack says to Durkon that he will feel more like himself once he release him from his thrall. Might imply that it's still Durkon in there, just corrupted by vampirism. :smallamused:

[Bulldog Psion]

I think he just meant he's been undead for a lot longer than he was alive, and that would amount to destroying most or all of his identity.

Precisely. It's like being suddenly returned to a pre-pubescent state when you're in your 60s, including the brain you had when you were 9 years old. The same individual and awareness, but a very different personality, would result.

[hamishspence]

I tend to the view that, at least from the idea of "Durkon gets character development" it makes sense to keep his soul in his body.

Having him be in control (rather than looking on while another "entity" moves it) might also be better from that perspective.

[Bulldog Psion]

It would be quite paradoxical for Malack to plan to free Durkon from his control once they reach Bleedingham "so that they can once again engage as peers" if it really wasn't Durkon anymore.

In fact, it would make absolutely no sense at all, since if it's some random demonic being, then Durkon is gone and he'll be freeing a random evil spirit for conversation. Or something equally illogical.

[The Pilgrim]

Looks like Durkon is going to have a wonderful next book.

[mawexzon]

He probably still has his soul, it's just that until he gets to Bleedingham we can't be sure about what extent of the old Durkon persist, personally, I think most of Durkon is still inside of him, but we can't be sure while he is being controlled by Malack.

[Procyonpi]

Lich's and Vampires don't necessarily work the same way soul-wise. Yes, they're both free-willed intelligent undead, but a prospective lich has to be willing for the transformation to take place:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm

I wouldn't be surprised if the soul situation with Vampires is kinda like in Buffy.

[hamishspence]

Complete Divine offered an intermediate category- it's like Buffy, except the soul is not in the afterlife, but in the creature (but not in control).

Adds an extra dose of horror- you're "there" watching your own body do horrible things, feeling it do so- and helpless to prevent it.

[Feddlefew]

Personally I prefer the idea that the original soul is still in the body, but suddenly saddled with new drives and urges, and having other parts of their personality "muffled" or otherwise altered. While it's easier to believe that most people aren't one traumatic brain injury / horrifying supernatural transformation away from having their personalities altered, it's not a healthy belief. We used to believe that mental illnesses were caused by possession instead of altered brain activity, but we've learned better.

I think the reason that the writers of the Complete Divine gave the possession explanation is to make it more justifiable to exterminate vampires.

[mawexzon]

Well, if you make Vampires just people who was cursed with an supernatural thirst that makes him do evil things, then that gives hunting Vampires a darker light, for they are not unlike insane people who can't control their actions, but if you say that the people are dead and the body is inhabited by some kind of vampiric energy demon, then that gives vampire hunting and vampires as villains a less morally-ambiguous light.

[Feddlefew]

Well, if you make Vampires just people who was cursed with an supernatural thirst that makes him do evil things, then that gives hunting Vampires a darker light, for they are not unlike insane people who can't control their actions, but if you say that the people are dead and the body is inhabited by some kind of vampiric energy demon, then that gives vampire hunting and vampires as villains a less morally-ambiguous light.

That's my point, sort of.

I believe vampires can control their actions, otherwise we're back to square one with the "are they people" thing. Imagine if someone you knew contracted an incurable disease which not only gave you an intense craving for human livers, but required them to consume the livers to survive, while at the same time altering the functions of several areas of the brain that dealt with empathy. It's contagious, and its possible that they could infect other people. How do we proceed? If they can control the behavioral changes and we can find a way to prevent the spread of the disease, then I think we could probably keep them somewhat integrated with society. If not, we have to consider if killing or isolating them might be the best course of action, for the safety of other people.

[hamishspence]

I think the reason that the writers of the Complete Divine gave the possession explanation is to make it more justifiable to exterminate vampires.

it's possible. In 2nd ed, there was the possibility that being soulless didn't prevent a vampire from wanting its soul back, in the Crimson Death adventure in Book of Lairs- a vampire hires the party to retrieve its soul (now a different kind of bloodsucking monster) so soul can be integrated with body and vampire return to mortality.

In The Little Mermaid (original version) not having a soul didn't prevent her from wanting one- and when it appeared hopeless, she still did the right thing despite the fact that she believed she was about to die permanently.

Maybe we're too focussed on souls as important.

[slayerx]

Here's an added question assuming vampires keep their souls. Once a vampire is released from it's master's Thrall and thus granted free will, how responsible is he for his actions alignment wise. Turning into a vampire forces their alignment to change to evil. When the vampire is destroyed and the soul free, would the soul go to a good after life, or would the evil actions they did while as a vampire weigh against them?

Granted, not sure how much that effects Durkon. Don't think Valhalla was concerned with good and evil, just dying honorably in combat. Though If Durkon is destroyed by sunlight Thor and Hel will probably end up arguing whether they should count his dishonorable desruction via sunlight, or his honorable original death fighting Malack.

[Feddlefew]

it's possible. In 2nd ed, there was the possibility that being soulless didn't prevent a vampire from wanting its soul back, in the Crimson Death adventure in Book of Lairs- a vampire hires the party to retrieve its soul (now a different kind of bloodsucking monster) so soul can be integrated with body and vampire return to mortality.

In The Little Mermaid (original version) not having a soul didn't prevent her from wanting one- and when it appeared hopeless, she still did the right thing despite the fact that she believed she was about to die permanently.

Maybe we're too focussed on souls as important.

The problem is that would undermine the "soul as the seat of conciousness" thing D&D has going for it.

Unless we consider you're soul to be like a metaphysical backup of some sort which is used to reconstruct a person after they die, which has interesting implications on its own.

[Thormag]

Consider what the Elder Black Dragon's head said when it was reanimated via Greater Create Undead:

"What-? Where am I? I was with my son and husband..."

It seems that undead (or at least, intelligent ones, but not necessarily) retain their souls, or at least that the soul is retained inside the undead's body (which is not the same). Xykon and Malack speak of their past lives as if those were their own, so maybe they were. The difference between being reanimated as an undead vs the process of reanimation Roy's body went through might have to do with either the use of negative energy or the mindlessness of the resulting creature.

This past evidence points out that yes, Durkon's soul will remain within Durkon's body and he will not go to his dwarven ancestors, at least not for the time being.

[Soylent Dave]

I think it is way too literal to take that as support for the idea that an evil entity has control of the corpse of a person (whose spirit may also be trapped there) and access to their memories, Buffy the Vampire Slayer style, but some people apparently do.

Probably worth pointing out that the whole "when you turn into a vampire you get possessed by a demon that walks around wearing your face" thing in Buffy was very much a lie perpetuated by the Watcher's Council.

Every single vampire in the series maintained the same goals, personality and desires as before his or her transformation; they're the same person: becoming a vampire merely removes any morality they once had.

Angel still cares about Buffy, Spike still cares about his mum (and later Buffy), Jessie (pilot episode) still obsesses over Cordelia, Spike & Drusilla are capable of love etc. etc.

"They're demons now" is how the Watchers justify killing people who used to be your friends - because it's easier than facing up to the fact that your friend is now a monster.

-

Which is, I suspect, the sort of thing the Order of the Stick are going to have to face with Durkon. Malack seems to have a very real, well-rounded personality - something he's developed over his centuries as a vampire.

He's also a vicious, brutal killer. That's what Durkon is now.

[hamishspence]

they're the same person: becoming a vampire merely removes any morality they once had.

Isn't a person morality a big part of what makes them, them?

And what about the whole "cursing Angelus to get his soul back" thing? And Spike going away to try and get the same thing done to him?

Something's involved, at least.

[noesis]

I tend to the view that, at least from the idea of "Durkon gets character development" it makes sense to keep his soul in his body.

Having him be in control (rather than looking on while another "entity" moves it) might also be better from that perspective.

I think basically the exact opposite. I mean, if invoking an chance event to completely change a character's most fundamental personality traits counts in your book as "character development," well, have it your way, I suppose. But, to my mind, you get development in a character when that character is forced to reshape themselves in response to external events (which more often than not, in the best character-driven stories, turn out to have been not so "external" to their will or character after all). Durkon getting vamped, in this sense, is basically the equivalent of a deus ex machina. It's a way of forcing him to be someone different without having to go through the messy business of figuring out he might have made himself someone different through the logic of his own motivations. (In this regard, it doesn't matter that such dramatic personality changes happen easily IRL -- the issue is one of narrative coherence, not realism)

I think there's more character development potential on the view that Durkon's soul is in the afterlife, while his body is animated by evil mojo down below. Since, by the rules of Vampire creation, Durkula will still be Durkon-like in appearance and personality quirks, there is still plenty of sense to be made of Malack's motivations. And if it works this way, we also get the comic relief of seeing Durkon's personality replicated in his evil vampiric "twin" (and of Durkon's reactions to the same in the afterlife) without the narrative whiplash of having to accept that Durkon's story in some perverse sense continues even though his future is wholly discontinuous with his past. And, most important of all, Durkon would come face to face with the consequences of his own values (esp. the desire to return to the Dwarven homelands, whatever it takes)--and he would be forced, by the logic of those desires coming to fruition in the most horrible way imaginable, to reconsider what really matters. That would be character development--of a very satisfying sort, I think.

Alas, I'm starting to think that that's not how it works in the OOTS-verse. And I fear, as such, we're about to be treated to the Nth iteration of the "conflicted vampire seeking redemption" narrative. Which is lame, even in satire, IMHO. Sighs.

[Feddlefew]

Isn't a person morality a big part of what makes them, them?

And what about the whole "cursing Angelus to get his soul back" thing? And Spike going away to try and get the same thing done to him?

Something's involved, at least.

Morality is as much a brain function as it is a cultural function. It changes over time, based on personal experience, social expectations, and on rare occasions violent encounters with blunt objects. So I don't think we can define weather someone is the same person by their morals alone.

[Soylent Dave]

Isn't a person morality a big part of what makes them, them?

And what about the whole "cursing Angelus to get his soul back" thing? And Spike going away to try and get the same thing done to him?

Something's involved, at least.

Morality - or maybe 'conscience' - is certainly 'removed' when a character is vamped in Buffy.

But that's basically the only personality change - it's a pretty big one; I don't want to diminish no longer caring about the evil things you do, but they're still the same person, with the same priorities and ambitions.

In fewer words: i.e.
I don't think we can define whether someone is the same person by their morals alone.

It's certainly very different from "it's a demon that can access the dead person's memories", which is what the Watchers claim.

All humans have evil & selfish desires; we also have guilt and compassion as counterbalances to them - vamping in Buffy seems to remove that block.

It's not just the main cast vampires who clearly have their old personalities (corrupted by amorality) - there's the student vampires when Buffy is at university, her old school friend who she has a chat with in Conversations with Dead People... they're still behaving like the people they were (but with a forced alignment change, basically)

The white hats literally demonise the vampires so as to make them easier to kill - because otherwise a Slayer is a murderer (and we know - and more importantly they know - that vampires can be redeemed (even if you need magic to do it); they know that it's a very fine line indeed, and they can't have a Slayer who second-guesses herself)

-
TL;DR - I don't think vamping in Buffy causes no change in a person, but it certainly doesn't kick the old person/soul out of the body and replace it with a demon.

[hamishspence]

Depends what kind of demon we're dealing with.

If it's a very minor one, a "parasite" so to speak, then it may be co-opting everything- personality, goals, memories- having practically nothing of its own.

If the soul is not kicked out of the body- exactly what ritual was being used to turn Angelus into Angel?

[Feddlefew]

Depends what kind of demon we're dealing with.

If it's a very minor one, a "parasite" so to speak, then it may be co-opting everything- personality, goals, memories- having practically nothing of its own.

... So it's you? I mean, how do we know in this context that your original soul isn't also a entity pupping around a human being? People seem to do fine without theirs.

[hamishspence]

I'm not entirely sure how the metaphysics of the Buffyverse work officially. But I could see there being something in the afterlife- that gets called back by the ritual- and as a result, Angelus becomes Angel.

[silveralen]

Just noticed something interesting while rereading the strip. Malack says to Durkon that he will feel more like himself once he release him from his thrall. Might imply that it's still Durkon in there, just corrupted by vampirism. :smallamused:

I read that and thought that was an in character "don't worry, Durkon isn't gone for good" from the author.

[Oakianus]

It's certainly very different from "it's a demon that can access the dead person's memories", which is what the Watchers claim.

I'm not seeing where you get that as a Watcher's only viewpoint. Spike's epiphany in "Lies My Parents Told Me" hinges on this, as well:


I'll tell you a story about a mother and son. See, like you, I loved my mother. So much so I turned her into a vampire... so we could be together forever. She said some nasty bits to me after I did that. Been weighing on me for quite some time. But you helped me figure something out. You see, unlike you, I had a mother who loved me back. When I sired her, I set loose a demon, and it tore into me, but it was the demon talking, not her. I realize that now. My mother loved me with all her heart. I was her world.

And considering it was for the sake of a personal epiphany and he'd had his soul back for less than a year, it seems like something that he'd actually understand a lot better than any of the other white hats might.

I'm also not sure at all how your theory jives with Angel's soul, tbh.

[Soylent Dave]

I'm not seeing where you get that as a Watcher's only viewpoint. Spike's epiphany in "Lies My Parents Told Me" hinges on this, as well

I think Spike's very much lying to himself there; he's got to find a reason why his mother was able to admit her contempt for him. You don't think she had some of those feelings when alive?

If the vamping just took away the compassion she also felt for him, and left her with the negativity, she'd react in that fashion.

And Spike would love to pretend to himself that it's wasn't her, just as Buffy pretends to herself that the vampires she kills aren't people any more.

(But yeah, maybe it's not a "watcher's only" mentality (although I suspect quite a lot of the vampire lore in the Buffyverse comes via them; the council predates most of the vamps!))


I'm also not sure at all how your theory jives with Angel's soul, tbh.

If it's really their soul that's being restored to Angel (or Spike, for that matter), why are they the same person without it?

Spike in particular is incredibly human even when utterly soulless, but even Angelus is still obsessed with his (ex-)girlfriend (to the point where he is unable to kill her)

Why is Drusilla still insane as a vampire? Why does newly-vamped Spike still love his mum?

Similarly, if Angelus is just a demon in a dead body, then why is Angel destroyed by guilt for the things the demon did (when his soul is restored)?

It can't just be stuff a thing wearing his face did; it's stuff he did, but didn't care about.

I think something is certainly taken away from them when they become a vampire (compassion, empathy, conscience - humanity?), but they don't behave like soulless demons inhabiting the bodies of dead people.

And because something is taken away, it can be restored; 'soul' is what they call it in the show, but I don't think it can mean "the entire person" so much as "the good bits" - I don't think a demon takes up residence inasmuch as the new vamp stops being properly 'human'.

In essence, they're the people they always were, but without a conscience to hold them back (which ultimately turns them into monsters, especially given that they have to eat).

(see also: parallel universe vampire Willow & Xander)

[I don't think this has ever been explicitly said in the show or Word of God or anything, incidentally, I am just opinionating here]

[SavageWombat]

If it's really their soul that's being restored to Angel (or Spike, for that matter), why are they the same person without it?


This is actually one of the great philosophical conundrums on the nature of the soul. Try googling "P-Zombie" and see if that enlightens you.

[Soylent Dave]

This is actually one of the great philosophical conundrums on the nature of the soul.

Yes! I love this sort of stuff.

We can codify the human psyche (id, ego, superego) and envisage a person who is dominated by one or another (or who lacks personality drives entirely).

At what point does that person stop being truly human? e.g. is a person dominated by his id (driven solely by desire and instinct) properly human?

Is there anything separate from all that which we can call 'a soul'?

Bringing it back to vampires, is there something in the psyche that vampirism destroys or suppresses - or is there something it enhances?

Is that enough to turn a good person into a monster? Or does there need to be an additional metaphysical element?

(I think you can probably guess I lean towards the less metaphysical 'we are all monsters-in-waiting' side of things - p-vampires, if you like)

[The_Tentacle]

Without KN: Religion he's not an authority on Undead, so he's speaking from his own limited knowledge.

Remember, Xykon has a phylactery specifically to keep his soul. Vampires don't have that. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but maybe liches are the unique exception to the "soul-less undead" rule.

Heck, maybe Xykon's soul is down there in the Abyss (or Grey Waste) and his lich-self doesn't have any clue.

I really thought of the phylactery as more of an added bonus, because it's essentially an extra life. It's like a Horcrux, there's a piece of soul in there, but maybe Xykon himself also has some of his soul.

[Charity322]

Xykon's soul isn't in the phylactery unless his body is destroyed. We saw that when Roy did destroy his body. Otherwise Xykon's soul is very much in his body.

And why is everyone arguing about Buffy? OOTS has nothing to do with Buffy and whatever happens in the Buffy universe has nothing to do with the DnD universe. Buffy didn't even exist when DnD undead were created. So it's irrelevant whatever Angel or Spike did!

[Leirus]

I have a pressing doubt related to this but I do not want to open another thread. If a Lawful good cleric gets vamped by no fault of his own (other than losing a fight), what afterlife does he get when stacked? How can you say that he or she is free willed when his or her allignment has been changed by an external factor?

I guess that is related to what a vampire is. It is the same person with his allignment shifted by the change? Or it is the bones and flesh (including the memories) animated by an evil spirit?

I have been searching through D&D forums, but I do not find a final answer.

[hamishspence]

And why is everyone arguing about Buffy? OOTS has nothing to do with Buffy and whatever happens in the Buffy universe has nothing to do with the DnD universe. Buffy didn't even exist when DnD undead were created. So it's irrelevant whatever Angel or Spike did!She does appear in Origin of PCs though- or at least someone who looks awfully like they're supposed to be her does.

"Do vampires have souls in OoTS" is a tricky question-

and since D&D is ambiguous on the subject (some sources say yes, some older ones say no)- it's valid to look at other sources and ask if The Giant might be drawing on real world mythology or not. Such as the mythologies that inspired Buffyverse vampires.

[JSSheridan]

So becoming a vampire changes your alignment to evil, Durkon's is evil and likely will commit evil acts. He didn't chose to change his alignment. It was forced on him. Would the Bureaucratic Deva hold him morally responsible for his actions as a vampire.

Resurrection doesn't say anything about the alignment as far as I know. Would Durkon's alignment change back to good if he was destroyed and resurrected or stay evil?

[MaximKat]

Here is something I don't understand. You don't do evil things because your alignment is Evil. Your alignment is Evil because you do evil things. Otherwise changing your alignment wouldn't be possible, outside of supernatural acts. Just because Durkon's character sheet now says Evil, doesn't mean he has to go around kicking puppies. Right now he has no choice, obviously, since he is controlled by Malack, but this is no different from being under a Control spell.

[hamishspence]

Here is something I don't understand. You don't do evil things because your alignment is Evil. Your alignment is Evil because you do evil things. Otherwise changing your alignment wouldn't be possible, outside of supernatural acts.

And Malack's done a supernatural act to Durkon.

It's a bit like putting a Helm of Opposite Alignment on him- only with one axis (Good-Evil) instead of two (Good-Evil and Law-Chaos).

[Soylent Dave]

Here is something I don't understand. You don't do evil things because your alignment is Evil. Your alignment is Evil because you do evil things.

That's why I lean towards the "getting vamped does something to your psyche that takes away your conscience / morality / self-control" - having no conscience + a hunger for the blood of the living doesn't automatically make you evil, but it's the sort of thing that'd push you towards the slippery slope.

(That means I lean towards 'Good is selfless / Evil is selfish' -type definitions, which obviously affects how I look at things)



Malack's done a supernatural act to Durkon.

Which works for my slightly indirect approach up there, or the more direct "becoming vampire changes how you think (feel?) immediately" approach.

-
It's a magical violation - or corruption - of the victim, either way, I think.

[Dubiela]

Assuming that Durkon's soul has gone, is it now in possession of Thor or Nergal?


Anyone noticed that


DURKON + MALACK = A DRACKULA MONK ?!?!

No? Ok...

[SavageWombat]

Assuming that Durkon's soul has gone, is it now in possession of Thor or Nergal?



Assuming that, I'd say neither. He's in the Celestia waiting room, getting processed. Thor would come to pick him up and take him to Valhalla, ideally anyway.

IF Durkon is "dead", Nergal has no claim on his soul. (Hel might.) It's only vampire Durkon that might belong to Nergal, and if so he's technically not "dead". For this purpose.

[Kish]

Assuming that Durkon's soul has gone, is it now in possession of Thor or Nergal?
Thor. Even Malack has never suggested that Nergal has the ability to claim the souls of anyone his servants kill regardless of the god the dead person worshipped.

Not that it's an issue, because vampires are sapient undead and Durkon's soul is as much still in his body as Xykon's soul is still in his.

[SavageWombat]

Not that it's an issue, because vampires are sapient undead and Durkon's soul is as much still in his body as Xykon's soul is still in his.

I do not consider this point resolved until we have more evidence. Canon text can be interpreted for both arguments.

[Gurgeh]

Thor. Even Malack has never suggested that Nergal has the ability to claim the souls of anyone his servants kill regardless of the god the dead person worshipped.
Actually... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html)

Probably just hyperbole, though.

[SavageWombat]

Actually... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html)

Probably just hyperbole, though.

Good point.

That'd be a pretty cool perk of worshiping a death god, if you think about it - your enemies REALLY suffer.

[Kish]

Actually... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html)

Probably just hyperbole, though.
And in any event, he suggested that Nergal would eat Nale's soul. If I were to try to interpret exactly what what he said meant for the afterlife, "It's just a statement of enraged and lethal intentions," "Malack's religion states that any native of the Western Continent who doesn't worship any gods (can you see Nale worshiping anyone but Nale?) gets eaten by Nergal," or, "Malack planned to do something to offer Nale's soul to Nergal after downing/killing him" would all be in line before "Malack believes that anyone he kills gets their soul devoured by Nergal."

Though, if he does believe that, it's not something he'd mention to Durkon.

[dps]

I'm not seeing where you get that as a Watcher's only viewpoint. Spike's epiphany in "Lies My Parents Told Me" hinges on this, as well:



And considering it was for the sake of a personal epiphany and he'd had his soul back for less than a year, it seems like something that he'd actually understand a lot better than any of the other white hats might.

I'm also not sure at all how your theory jives with Angel's soul, tbh.

Angel himself said, "When you become a vampire, the demon gets your body, but not your soul--that's gone". So if it's a lie, it's not necessarily something just made up by the Watcher's Council.

And Angel doesn't see a conflict between that and someone's personality not changing after being vamped. When Willow met her vamp doppleganger, she was freaked because Vamp!Willow seemed "kind of gay". Giles said that we know that a person's personality doesn't have any connection to their personality after being vamped, and Angel clearly started to dispute that, then realized that saying otherwise would just upset Willow even more, and stopped.

As to why a vampire would have the same personality as the person whose soul used to be in the body, modern psychology and neuroscience tend to argue that personality is all either just brain chemistry or cultural conditioning, or some combination of the two. If it's just brain chemistry--well, the brain is part of the body.