Does being a vampire change personality?

[Zeitgeist]

I am wondering what will become of Durkon once he is released from Malack's control. I did some reading but I must have missed the roleplaying aspect of being a vampire.

So, you're evil aligned. Does that mean you must behave evil? Can your alignment shift, or is it evil simply for purposes of alignment-based abilities?

Does it change your behavior or loyalty, or is it likely Durkon will still be loyal to the Order (though I'd guess if he were feeling contract bound, dying technically breaks that).

[NerdyKris]

I believe that's left up to the individual campaign world to figure out. We won't have any idea what Rich chooses to do until Malack allows Durkon free will.

[Zeitgeist]

Really? No established rules on the matter? I guess that will at least make it exciting to find out rather than predictable.

[JavaScribe]

I hear Xykon became even worse than he already was when he became a lich. Undeath isn't exactly a healthy state of being and I'm sure there is a reason the vampire template says their alignment is always evil, causing certain classes to lose abilities.

Durkon will remember who he is once released from Malack's thrall, but yes, there will certainly be changes to his personality. Malack already considers his vampire self a separate person to who he was in life.

[ancev]

So, you're evil aligned. Does that mean you must behave evil? Can your alignment shift, or is it evil simply for purposes of alignment-based abilities?
Does it change your behavior or loyalty, or is it likely Durkon will still be loyal to the Order (though I'd guess if he were feeling contract bound, dying technically breaks that).

Well... rules say that a Vampire character "became an evil NPC in the DM hands". If Durkon also remain LE, he just know that works against the DarkOne/Snarl its in the interest of every alignment, races and mortal strategy.

I don't remember if was an official modules or unofficial modules, but I remember the history of a good aligned vampire, because god intervention has preserved purity and previous faith in the vamped. (perhaps with drama of veggie vampire like in TrueBlood series ;) ).

I anyway don't believe that god intervention is the most funny character development that is promised for Durkon. Plus, we I feel like we stand in front of some major twist of the plot, IFCC would sure became a declared enemy in the future strips, and no one can guess what happen when enemy of that manipulative and overseer power join the games.


So,... stay strong, and shame on Thor.

[factotum]

I don't think it *directly* changes your personality, but what it *does* do is give you an absolutely unstoppable craving for the blood of the living. Durkon had to have blood when he awoke as a vampire, and even if a small part of him hated himself for doing it, the easiest way to get that was to feed on Belkar. Of course, he's also a thrall of Malack, which is also depressing his inner self.

I think Malack is certainly under the impression that Durkon will return to something akin to his previous self once he frees him as a thrall, but whether that will actually happen remains to be seen.

[Werbaer]

Malack already considers his vampire self a separate person to who he was in life.
He consideres his current self to be a different personality than the one he was 200 years ago. Who hasn't changed in a few decades?

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, first of all, we don't know for sure yet if Rich is enforcing the normal alignment change that becoming a vampire normally entails. For that, we have to wait until Malack releases Durkon from his control.

Secondly, alignment doesn't dictate one's actions, it essentially just gives one a framework for decision-making. Even if Durkon is now Evil, he still can weigh his priorities when deciding how to interact with his former allies. For all we know, he may remain loyal to the OOTS since loyalty was such a core part of his personality and Evil people are still capable of being loyal.

Of course, Durkon may instead opt to establish a new set of priorities which coincide with his new alignment, in which case his personality could change a lot.

[Tomada]

If changing into a woman will: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0249.html

Then I guess turning a vampire will too. It can be argued that it is a bigger transformation, so...

[pendell]

That's the thing about the vampire template and the alignment system which I don't care for. It mandates a particular alignment. The paladin class also mandates an alignment, but it's different in that the character must voluntarily uphold the alignment or lose his powers. A vampire can't lose his powers, but he also can't lose his alignment ... or at least it's very, very hard to do so and remain a vampire.

This would be more acceptable if becoming a vampire was a free, willing choice in the same way becoming a lich is. As a rule, you've already got to be pretty far down on the evil side of the street to consider becoming an undead abomination in order to cheat death, and actual lichdom is simply the culmination of the choices which lead to an evil alignment.

The same could be said of those willingly embraced vampiredom.

But Durkon and a lot of the other thralls aren't like that. They are not making the free, willing choice to become vampires. Instead, they are victims.

That's a bit of a change from Bram Stoker's version of Dracula. In Stoker's story, vampirism did NOT come from being bitten -- a drained victim simply dies -- but from drinking a vampire's blood. The vampire would drain the victim, then open his own veins and offer to permit the victim to drink the vampire in return. This exchange was what actually resulted in vampirism.

Of course, the victim usually was offered the alternative of "death", but I suspect someone of Durkon's character just might be able to make that choice.

Same with Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire". I forget exactly what was entailed, but the potential vampire had to be a free, willing participant in murder.

In none of the really good vampire fiction are vampires innocent victims unwillingly dragged into a fate worse than death, then compelled to "live" in a way contrary to their own desires. No, in the best vampire fiction the vampires are in some way complicit and accessories to their fate.

D&D doesn't do that.And to me it doesn't make sense that a being can be compelled into an evil alignment. If you are being irresistibly dominated, it is mind control and the victim is not responsible, so the actions their body is forced to should not impact the victim's alignment. OTOH, if the creature has some free will, they should be able to join the equivalent of Terry Pratchett's Black Ribbon (motto: Not One Drop) society. Sure , it's a difficult choice to rise above your passions and base needs but that's as much a part of being a mortal human who's not in jail as it is to be a vampire. And it's easier if you've got people in the same position who can encourage you to be disciplined.

So bottom line the idea that a being can be compelled to embrace an alignment, when alignment is all about the free willing choice of a morally responsible being, is silly.

It'll be interesting to see what Rich does with it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Same with Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire". I forget exactly what was entailed, but the potential vampire had to be a free, willing participant in murder.

Actually no. "Never convert anyone who doesn't agree to it" was a social rule, not a physical rule. The vampire who turned Lestat into a vampire, as an act of deliberate contempt for that rule, asked all his potential convertees to agree to be converted, but he killed all the ones who said "Yes" and didn't turn anyone into a vampire until he found one--Lestat--who insisted he'd rather die.

Forced alignment conversion is indeed...problematic.

[AngryHobbit]

I hear Xykon became even worse than he already was when he became a lich. Undeath isn't exactly a healthy state of being and I'm sure there is a reason the vampire template says their alignment is always evil, causing certain classes to lose abilities.

Durkon will remember who he is once released from Malack's thrall, but yes, there will certainly be changes to his personality. Malack already considers his vampire self a separate person to who he was in life.

The reason Xykon became even worse was because he lost his sense of taste, smell and so on... He couldnt taste coffee any more, the only thing he enjoyed when he was alive, beside mass slaughter. And you can argue that he didn't become worse, he became more powerful.
And that doesn't apply for vampires in OOTS, we saw Malack and Durkon drinking tea. Not that there are no other factors besides alignment change that can bring to the change of personality in Durkons case.

[RiOrius]

So bottom line the idea that a being can be compelled to embrace an alignment, when alignment is all about the free willing choice of a morally responsible being, is silly.

Since when does free will have anything to do with alignment? Do zombies have free will?

Furthermore, free will versus determinism is a difficult subject in general. Nature versus nurture and whatnot. For instance, take Drow. They're generally Evil. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority are clearly Evil. How can a race of free-willed individuals so consistently choose Evil? Does that really make any sense? Or, as a more general example, don't the circumstances of one's upbringing influence one's outlook (and thus alignment)? Those circumstances are clearly beyond your control. The same person raised by two different families can have vastly different alignments.

Anyway, we're getting into real-world and philosophical issues, which as I understand it are frowned up on here. But I think zombies are clear evidence that Evil does not imply free will, and Drow are clear evidence that free will isn't as free as we might like/expect.

As for Durkon, I expect he'll be Durkon-like and generally free-willed but also Evil. He'll have some lingering sympathies for his comrades, certainly, but he'll have a new outlook on life. Tarquin's philosophy will make more sense to him, for instance. Malak's status as an undead abomination will be less disgusting.

Vampirism is a curse that changes you on a fundamental level. It taints your thoughts. It makes the formerly inconceivable (drinking blood fresh from a human's veins) suddenly vastly appealing. Durkon won't be automatically Dominated into killing babies and drinking blood, but he'll find the idea far more appealing, and his former principles far less convincing.

[Katuko]

That's a bit of a change from Bram Stoker's version of Dracula. In Stoker's story, vampirism did NOT come from being bitten -- a drained victim simply dies -- but from drinking a vampire's blood. The vampire would drain the victim, then open his own veins and offer to permit the victim to drink the vampire in return. This exchange was what actually resulted in vampirism.
Spoilers for Dracula below (for those who haven't read it or know the whole story).


Having read that book, I seem to recall that when Mina was forced to drink Dracula's blood, she was not happy about it. As the vampirism made her sick and started to cloud her mind, she still used her new telepathic connection the vampire that sired her in order to direct the heroes towards his location.

Van Helsing, who protected her while going to Dracula's castle to get rid of the three vampire brides there, used holy protection measures in case Mina would vamp out completely. It also kept the brides from stealing her away at night. Note that these are baby-eating vamps we are talking about here, and they were presumably turned like Mina was.

Earlier, Mina was recently infected and had not yet started to show any great symptoms, Van Helsing had tried to place a holy wafer on her, which ended up leaving a nasty burn mark instead. Clearly something in Mina's very being was changing, causing her to gain all the typical traits of vampires. Seeing as death/undeath was closing in and a lust for blood must have been rising:

A cold shiver ran through me to find my worst fears thus endorsed. Van Helsing continued.

"With the sad experience of Miss Lucy, we must this time be warned before things go too far. Our task is now in reality more difficult than ever, and this new trouble makes every hour of the direst importance. I can see the characteristics of the vampire coming in her face. It is now but very, very slight. But it is to be seen if we have eyes to notice without prejudge. Her teeth are sharper, and at times her eyes are more hard. But these are not all, there is to her the silence now often, as so it was with Miss Lucy. She did not speak, even when she wrote that which she wished to be known later. Now my fear is this. If it be that she can, by our hypnotic trance, tell what the Count see and hear, is it not more true that he who have hypnotize her first, and who have drink of her very blood and make her drink of his, should if he will, compel her mind to disclose to him that which she know?"


I got ready food, but she would not eat, simply saying that she had not hunger. I did not press her, knowing her unavailingness. But I myself eat, for I must needs now be strong for all. Then, with the fear on me of what might be, I drew a ring so big for her comfort, round where Madam Mina sat. And over the ring I passed some of the wafer, and I broke it fine so that all was well guarded. She sat still all the time, so still as one dead. And she grew whiter and even whiter till the snow was not more pale, and no word she said. But when I drew near, she clung to me, and I could know that the poor soul shook her from head to feet with a tremor that was pain to feel.

I said to her presently, when she had grown more quiet, "Will you not come over to the fire?" for I wished to make a test of what she could. She rose obedient, but when she have made a step she stopped, and stood as one stricken.

"Why not go on?" I asked. She shook her head, and coming back, sat down in her place. Then, looking at me with open eyes, as of one waked from sleep, she said simply,"I cannot!" and remained silent. I rejoiced, for I knew that what she could not, none of those that we dreaded could. Though there might be danger to her body, yet her soul was safe!

Two main plot points are Mina's connection to Dracula, and that via hypnosis she can "see" what he sees. The opposite is true as well, Dracula can see and know what Mina knows if he wants to. Once he realizes he is being hunted via this telepathy, he shuts the power off. However, Mina still changes, and grows paler, more sleepy at day and more awake at night, and she becomes unable to get close to any sanctified objects or areas.

Lucy, the first vampire they meet in London, is likewise a sweet and innocent girl who simply falls ill, and then eventually dies from vampire draining. They know nothing of her until she rises from the grave as a vampire, at which point none of her sweetness and innocence remains. Instead, she has become a blood-drinking beast, with a questionable level of personality compared to instinct.

The "brides" of Dracula and the vampire lord himself, however, seem much more intelligent. Dracula acts like a normal - though wicked - man, and the brides are at least capable of independent thought even though they seem like slaves to him. It seems like a long period of undeath - or at least a willing submission to it - keeps your mind intact; while an unwilling vampire simply loses themselves in the affliction and becomes a beast due to the instinct of hunger.


Woah, long post. Hopefully I get the point across, though. Long story short: Even an unwilling vampire seems to lose more and more good traits due to the Horror Hunger overwhelming all other thoughts and making them lose their mind. Another side effect may simply be numbness and ignorance of the pain the feeding causes, bringing us in on the evil sense of "self before others" and lack of care for others' feelings or general worth.

[pendell]

Since when does free will have anything to do with alignment?


Alignment makes no sense if free will is not involved. A creature must have an INT of at least 3 to have an alignment, because alignment in D&D implies 1) the being possess the ability to reason 2) the being has the ability to choose.

That's a general rule.



Do zombies have free will?


That's an exception to the rule. If *I* were writing the rule book I would put zombies as neutral because they are mindless robots, no more capable of rational decisions than a cardboard box is. They are classified as evil because, being animated by negative energy, the force of evil, they are considered evil also. Presumably this is why even a good vampire would detect as evil.

We've previously had the D&D example of the lawful good succubus paladin. I'm told that such a being would register as "good" on detect good due to her personal choices, but still ping as "evil" on "detect evil" because they are essentially MADE of evil, being creatures of the Lower Planes.

No one, incidentally suggested that the aforesaid lawful good succubus should banish herself, or use polymorph other to change into some other creature (is that even possible?) Rather, IF she was a paladin that means she both adhered to lawful good conduct by choice, and the good gods accepted her profession of lawful good by giving her paladin powers, regardless of her nature.

Presumably the same thing is technically possible for vampires, and probably on a much larger scale since vampires were once living beings and have some recall of what it means to be mortal, while a succubus has presumably spent most of its existence in a hellish environment saturated by evil.



Furthermore, free will versus determinism is a difficult subject in general. Nature versus nurture and whatnot. For instance, take Drow. They're generally Evil. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority are clearly Evil. How can a race of free-willed individuals so consistently choose Evil? Does that really make any sense?


BEHOLD THE POWA OF RATIONALIZATION! Yes. yes, it makes PERFECT sense.

I hate to use a real world example but at the moment I'm at a loss to think of a fantasy world which illustrates this principal. Once upon a time the major trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade) and basis for the entire economy of the Atlantic was slaves, sugar (harvested by the slaves in backbreaking conditions) and rum (distilled from the sugar). Read hard, and you'll find that very few people questioned this state of affairs. And many of the people who participated in this trade, or owned slaves themselves, considered themselves good people. Some of them insufferably so.

Or consider the Aztec Empire. Read hard, and you'll find very few aztecs who questioned the way there society was set up.

There are at least two reasons for this:

1) Societies don't encourage questioning their fundamental assumptions. Societies , real or fantastic, are at least in part a compact of rules by which people interact with each other. To the extent they don't play by these rules, to that extent they are outside of society and rebels against it. The more they push, the less society can accept them to the point of exile, imprisonment, or death.

2) That said, very few people ever rise up to question what they see done. When people have been brought up to believe that, say, goblins are evil, they are unlikely to ever question what they've been taught. Indeed, unless they're exposed to other cultures and ways of thinking, it's likely they'll never realize there IS any other way to believe than what they have been taught. It's simply the way things are, as immutable as the sky.

So to get back to your drow example, most drow are the way they are because their forebears chose this path and heavily indoctrinate their children to follow in their footsteps , as all parents do. Those who question the way things are either learn to keep their mouths shut in a hurry or learn to love driderhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drider).

Being a rebel in such a society in the face of constant indoctrination is hard enough. Being a SUCCESSFUL rebel is even harder. Even Drizzt Do'urden was not successful in that he failed to change his parent's society. The most he could do was escape from it, a form of suicide almost as final as if his mother had sacrificed him. And even Drizzt did not gain his ideas on his own. He had a father who encouraged those ideas in him.



Anyway, we're getting into real-world and philosophical issues, which as I understand it are frowned up on here. But I think zombies are clear evidence that Evil does not imply free will, and Drow are clear evidence that free will isn't as free as we might like/expect.


Point noted. Maybe this is silly of me, but if I were judging a D&D campaign I would judge less by objective good and evil and more by what good and evil the creature was actually capable of, given upbringing and environment. So from my perspective a drow who whipped his slaves twice a week instead of all week and didn't torture them to death for his own sick pleasure might register as more lawful good than a celestial being who littered on the sidewalk. The reason for this is that the drow might very well be doing all the good he was reasonably capable of in his environment, while the Celestial, being a creature of pure law and good dwelling in the seven heavens, is capable of great deal more. Therefore the Celestial should be held to a higher standard.

I suspect D&D doesn't work that way, though.



As for Durkon, I expect he'll be Durkon-like and generally free-willed but also Evil. He'll have some lingering sympathies for his comrades, certainly, but he'll have a new outlook on life. Tarquin's philosophy will make more sense to him, for instance. Malak's status as an undead abomination will be less disgusting.

Vampirism is a curse that changes you on a fundamental level. It taints your thoughts. It makes the formerly inconceivable (drinking blood fresh from a human's veins) suddenly vastly appealing. Durkon won't be automatically Dominated into killing babies and drinking blood, but he'll find the idea far more appealing, and his former principles far less convincing.

That remains to be seen. Different authors have very different takes on this legend ,and I see I must be the only Terry Pratchett fan here.



Woah, long post. Hopefully I get the point across, though. Long story short: Even an unwilling vampire seems to lose more and more good traits due to the Horror Hunger overwhelming all other thoughts and making them lose their mind. Another side effect may simply be numbness and ignorance of the pain the feeding causes, bringing us in on the evil sense of "self before others" and lack of care for others' feelings or general worth.


You did, thank you :).

ETA: If anyone DOES have a fictional example that illustrates my point above, please put it up so I can use it in future. Thanks!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JavaScribe]

He consideres his current self to be a different personality than the one he was 200 years ago. Who hasn't changed in a few decades?

I'm sure that helps, but if that's all there was to it, then why did he say that raising him would just be a more complicated way of destroying him?

[Obscure Blade]

I'm sure that helps, but if that's all there was to it, then why did he say that raising him would just be a more complicated way of destroying him?
Would he remember anything of his vampiric life? From the way he talked, it sounded like the 200-year-dead shaman would be raised, and the last 200 years of unlife would just be erased.

[Ronnoc]

So bottom line the idea that a being can be compelled to embrace an alignment, when alignment is all about the free willing choice of a morally responsible being, is silly.


I've always viewed undeath as a complete restructuring of the character. On a very basic level the undead is not the same entity they were prior to their conversion. They may have the same memories and appearance and they certainly can use those traits to manipulate their prey, but the undead fundamentally are not the same beings they were created from. We aren't dealing with Durkon, we're dealing with Malak's freshly created brother who just happens to be wearing a Durkon shaped meat-puppet.

Now the Giant may choose to go an entirely different direction with his take on vampirism, but that's how I've always viewed it.

[JavaScribe]

Would he remember anything of his vampiric life? From the way he talked, it sounded like the 200-year-dead shaman would be raised, and the last 200 years of unlife would just be erased.
Are you saying that ressurection literally causes amnesia, or that vampire Malack is a different entity from living Malack?

The former is doubtful, the latter would only prove my point.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I don't think either is correct, that is an extremely literal interpretation. I just got that he's been undead for a long time, longer than he was alive, and taking that away would be taking away a big part of his identity.

[Soylent Dave]

ETA: If anyone DOES have a fictional example that illustrates my point above, please put it up so I can use it in future. Thanks!

Babylon 5 - The Centauri conquer and enslave the Narn, and most regard them as little more than unevolved barbarians who must be controlled via brutality, genetic cleansing and re-education.

Within the series, only one or two individual Centauri (Vir, Emperor Turhan) ever voice the opinion that what they are doing is wrong - and are painted as insane or out of touch for doing so.


Battlestar Galactica - Humans build Cylons as artificially-intelligent robot slaves, and when the Cylons inevitably rebel and lay waste to Humanity, most Humans still regard Cylons as soulless monsters who want to kill us for no reason.

Cylons conversely think of us as hated, godless oppressors who must be exterminated in order for them to survive, even after they've annihilated all 12 human colonies and forced the remaining few humans to flee as refugees.

There are few on either side who are capable of seeing the others as people, or of even conceiving any kind of compromise (ultimately essential for either species to prosper), much less fighting for one.

(and anyone who voices such dissension - Human or Cylon - is shouted down as a traitor or collaborator; there are even executions (on both sides) for this)

[Obscure Blade]

Are you saying that ressurection literally causes amnesia, or that vampire Malack is a different entity from living Malack?The former theory has some support; Roy doesn't remember (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html) much about his time in the afterlife. And if it does that directly implies the latter, given that removing 200 years of personality change would amount to turning someone into a different person.

And really, if it didn't involve some major change than Malack would have no reason to consider it to be "annihilating the person I've become", or even permanent; he could just get himself re-vampirized.

[sims796]

I hope it does change personality. I like my vampires evil, bloodsucking monsters.

[Obscure Blade]

Roy: "You're an undead monstrosity! You're nothing like the Durkon we knew!"

Vampire!Durkon: "...I still hate trees."

Roy: "All right, almost nothing like the Durkon we knew!"

[factotum]

Are you saying that ressurection literally causes amnesia, or that vampire Malack is a different entity from living Malack?

The former is doubtful, the latter would only prove my point.

Why is the former doubtful? The Resurrection spell is capable of restoring somebody to life from a spare toenail or something like that--True Resurrection doesn't even need that. Essentially you're completely recreating the person's physical form from scratch, *including* their brain, so to my mind it wouldn't be at all doubtful that this would also restore their memory to more or less the state it was when they died (with maybe some vague shadowy memory of what happened afterward, like Roy got).

If Malack were raised and had the same post-mortem amnesia that afflicted Roy it *would* essentially wipe out 200 years of experience in an instant, and he would be a different person.

[Kish]

I don't think either is correct, that is an extremely literal interpretation. I just got that he's been undead for a long time, longer than he was alive, and taking that away would be taking away a big part of his identity.
I agree with rodneyAnonymous.

What Malack said looked like a metaphor to me.

[Laughing Dragon]

There are some interesting points being brought up here, and in reading through this thread I thought of something:

Durkon has (or at least had) a soul. The question is: is that soul still in residence in his body, or has it gone to his afterlife with Thor?

If his original soul has gone to be with Thor, (which would explain why Malack said that bringing him back to life would just be a complicated way of destroying him) then that means that there is one of two things going on. 1)A "new" soul is now in Durkon's body and pulling information from his "wet web" to form a Durkon-like personality ... OR 2)His body is now operating "sans-soul" which would make ALL moral questions about his alignment moot (outside of the mechanical functionality which an alignment provides/creates). Without a soul, he would be a pure being "of the now" and would (or at least should) face no ultimate consequences for any actions he might take. (Side question, would a God accept or hear or be motivated to respond to, the prayers of a soul-less body?)

Going with the "his body has a soul" side of the argument (otherwise why would giving Durkon free will imediately be confusing for him) the question becomes, "Is he still 'Durkon' or has he become 'Nokrud'? And if he's actually Nokrud, will we get a Durkon-in-the-afterlife storyline, like we did with Roy?

This has to be THE question, since in D&D becoming a vampire is something that is done to you (like rape), unlike the Rice universe where becoming a vampire has at least a measure of free will implying that the core personality has the required seeds for vampireism. All I'm trying to say here is that untimately "the rape of Durkon" should not be able to make him permanently evil. But, once again, if he's now Nokrud all bets are off.

[hamishspence]

There are some interesting points being brought up here, and in reading through this thread I thought of something:

Durkon has (or at least had) a soul. The question is: is that soul still in residence in his body, or has it gone to his afterlife with Thor?

I'd say the odds are against it being in the afterlife. Even Libris Mortis, which suggests that in the case of some intelligent undead, the soul has gone on to the afterlife, doesn't specify that vampires are among those undead.

While Complete Divine does specify that the soul of the original living creature is trapped within the body of the vampire.

[pendell]

Without a soul, he would be a pure being "of the now" and would (or at least should) face no ultimate consequences for any actions he might take. (Side question, would a God accept or hear or be motivated to respond to, the prayers of a soul-less body?)


I'm not sure how it works in D&D, but I suspect a soul-less being would be incapable of forming the intent to pray in the first place, so the question would be moot.

That depends a lot on just what "soul" means though. To me, 'soul' is the part of a rational being that says "I will" -- the "I am" in "I think, therefore I am". Consequently a soulless being would have no volition of its own, being a robot operating at the will of another, like a golem.

Not everyone defines soul that way. Joss Whedon's Buffy shows "soul" as being synonymous with conscience -- the "unsouled monsters" in his stories retain their own volition but no longer have any check on the evil within them. That's the difference between angel and angelus.

So mileage varies, depending on what exactly a "soul" is in OOTS world. I would be surprised, however, if Durkon's soul was not trapped in the body. The experience of Mamma black dragon seems to imply that a souled undead has its soul return from the afterlife to be trapped in the undead body.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

In the 2nd ed Book of Lairs (collection of short quests) the Crimson Death one is set by a vampire-

he remembers his soul leaving his body- he heard a voice telling him that he could become human again by getting his soul back- and once his sire was dead, he did the research, and found out what his soul had become (a monster called a Crimson Death) and eventually, where it was.

So he hires The Party to retrieve it.

So you can have a soulless undead, which nonetheless has volition, and a desire to change its condition.

[Silverionmox]

I've always viewed undeath as a complete restructuring of the character. On a very basic level the undead is not the same entity they were prior to their conversion. They may have the same memories and appearance and they certainly can use those traits to manipulate their prey, but the undead fundamentally are not the same beings they were created from. We aren't dealing with Durkon, we're dealing with Malak's freshly created brother who just happens to be wearing a Durkon shaped meat-puppet.

Now the Giant may choose to go an entirely different direction with his take on vampirism, but that's how I've always viewed it.

Mmm.. Xykon was still Xykon after his transformation. He lost some of his appetites and pleasures, and some of the last few remaining inhibitions he had as a human. But his driving personality was still Xykon. Likewise, I would expect Durkon to remain Durkon, albeit with a hunger for blood and an irritation with the living perhaps. As a Lawful Good person, he will still fight the urge to go on random killing sprees. It will be much harder to remain Lawful Good under these circumstances, and that's an interesting conflict for the story. His battle isn't over yet.

[JavaScribe]

Why is the former doubtful? The Resurrection spell is capable of restoring somebody to life from a spare toenail or something like that--True Resurrection doesn't even need that. Essentially you're completely recreating the person's physical form from scratch, *including* their brain, so to my mind it wouldn't be at all doubtful that this would also restore their memory to more or less the state it was when they died (with maybe some vague shadowy memory of what happened afterward, like Roy got).

If Malack were raised and had the same post-mortem amnesia that afflicted Roy it *would* essentially wipe out 200 years of experience in an instant, and he would be a different person.
It backs up the brain via the soul, not with some sort of record of the brain left inside the toenail.

And yes, there is probably some state-dependent memory going on, but that wasn't quite my point. My point was, Malack is probably referring to how being a vampire has changed the person he is.

[Mishri]

My take on vampires in D&D is this:

You remember everything from your past, and thus you have patterns from before that you still associate you decisions and passion on, except for one thing, over-riding all else is a craving for blood. Every living creature you look at looks like the tastiest thing you can imagine and you just want to drink from them. There is no fighting it, there is no decision that you'll be good and not do that. Hence, they are always evil. They do have the control not to drink from someone that will benefit them. Obviously you can't just go on a kill crazy rampage or you wont survive long. But there is certainly no more Good in Durkon, he is now as Evil as one gets, He likely wont see any point in helping others without some benefit to himself anymore.

So, their primary directive of survival is still intact, followed by (or including) the need/desire to drink blood, and then decision making based on their previous life. So he could still choose to help the oots(to save himself/world from the snarl or from xykon/redcloaks rule), if they choose to accept his help, which i'd say the oots is unlikely to accept vampire durkon, wanting to return him to life, and I think his desire for survival (as a vampire) will over ride that.

It is entirely possible that in the next book going after the next gate he and malak return to the dwarven lands and rampage there, then meet the order where he will be returned to the living after a battle. Thus fulfilling the prophecy, and making people feel all warm and fuzzy about it... I don't know if durkon would be able to live with himself after that though.


As far as Bram stoker's dracula goes I remembered him only feeding from lucy and she still turned into a vampire. (Dracula fed his blood to mina which gave them a telepathic connection to each other, it didn't turn her into a vampire) It was Anne Rice that had the feeding from a vampire in order to turn. (they even had half-formed monster vampires that were mindless killers from those they drank from and accidentally got some of their own blood into the wound)

[Callista]

In vanilla D&D, becoming a vampire changes your alignment immediately. So, yeah, that's a drastic personality change. I see it as feeling distanced from life, no longer willing to support it because it's now foreign and even painful to you.

Depending on your interpretation of the rules, a vampire may not share anything but the physical body with the person it used to be--the soul itself has gone on to the afterlife, and the negative energy animating it creates a sentient creature but cannot create a soul.

However, they are sentient, and thus capable of change--though much hindered by their undead state. Undeath is a sort of stasis; undead tend to be trapped by their manners of death or by magic (mohrgs, mummies, ghouls), trapped by their own will (ghosts, liches), or little more than vessels for negative energy to express itself (skeletons, zombies). We see this with Xykon, who has remained essentially the same throughout the entire story, while every other major character has had character development of one sort or another.

So if an undead creature changes at all, it usually requires a very strong reason to change, magical assistance, or Diplomacy checks from a very persuasive person. For undead that keep memories of their previous lives, those memories can cause dissonance ("I know I am this person, but I remember doing and thinking these things") that might let the newly-made vampire try to change. From the "Always Evil" vampire designation, we know that most such vampires are not successful.

[Ronnoc]

Mmm.. Xykon was still Xykon after his transformation. He lost some of his appetites and pleasures, and some of the last few remaining inhibitions he had as a human. But his driving personality was still Xykon. Likewise, I would expect Durkon to remain Durkon, albeit with a hunger for blood and an irritation with the living perhaps. As a Lawful Good person, he will still fight the urge to go on random killing sprees. It will be much harder to remain Lawful Good under these circumstances, and that's an interesting conflict for the story. His battle isn't over yet.

Liches are strange though, even for undead. Xykon's soul, the essence of who he is, is still bound to his body via his phylactery. The process is very different from the creation of standard undead like vampires, ghouls, zombies etc.

[hamishspence]

So if an undead creature changes at all, it usually requires a very strong reason to change, magical assistance, or Diplomacy checks from a very persuasive person. For undead that keep memories of their previous lives, those memories can cause dissonance ("I know I am this person, but I remember doing and thinking these things") that might let the newly-made vampire try to change. From the "Always Evil" vampire designation, we know that most such vampires are not successful.

Savage Species had the Emancipated Spawn PRC- for undead whose spawner have been slain- which are interested in regaining something of their former life.

The example creature was a shadow, that chose to "revert to her former Neutral alignment" then started adventuring.

[Byzantine2]

Durkon is still in there, but he has to cope with new thoughts and cravings he never had while he was alive. Malak's own actions show that a vampire does not HAVE to be evil (he himself is evil, but he has a system for taking care of his need to drink blood that isn't-itself-evil, the fact that it is an evil empire does make his own take on it evil, probably, though).

Vampires are probably evil for the same reason that fiends are evil, they are literally animated (or made from, in the fiends case) evil, yet are still capable of being something other than evil on their own personal alignment. So we will have to see how much of Durkon will be clear. Since he maintains his memories I'd figure his first act on gaining free will will be to yell at Malak, Tarquin, et al that they have no idea just how dangerous the gates are, or what is really going on. Evil does not mean that he wants the Snarl loose, as many others have pointed out.

I think part of the reason vampires are "Always evil" is because normally it takes a significant amount of time between a vampire being spawned and gaining free will, assuming they didn't go willingly. During that time they have had evil deeds heaped upon them and many may not see any chance of redemption, or may have had any desire of it worked out of them by their former masters. Durkon is, if Malak is being honest, going to be let free rather soon, which means it is unlikely he will have such things dropped upon him - he didn't even kill Belkar.

[factotum]

but he has a system for taking care of his need to drink blood that isn't-itself-evil, the fact that it is an evil empire does make his own take on it evil

Doesn't matter what sort of empire it is, if the person who is at least partially responsible for formulating the empire's laws is then using people who fall foul of those same laws to satiate his own bloodlust...well, should be pretty obvious what the problem is there!

[Byzantine2]

Doesn't matter what sort of empire it is, if the person who is at least partially responsible for formulating the empire's laws is then using people who fall foul of those same laws to satiate his own bloodlust...well, should be pretty obvious what the problem is there!

Oh, I agree. I'm saying that said system, or something similar, could be adapted so that it wasn't inherently evil, say having someone let you bite them then using a Heal after (which we know vampires can use). My point is that being a vampire doesn't force you to commit evil (not counting thralls, who obviously have no choice), it is simply much easier.

[Silverionmox]

Liches are strange though, even for undead. Xykon's soul, the essence of who he is, is still bound to his body via his phylactery. The process is very different from the creation of standard undead like vampires, ghouls, zombies etc.
Vampires solidly fall in the category of intelligent undead. I mean, just consider Malack. Ghouls, zombies etc. are pretty mindless, and being controlled by someone is implied. Vampires don't need to be.

In addition, if undead are just puppeteered corpses, why would it be considered so evil? It's not very different from making bone golems or meat golems then. Distasteful and aggravating to the next of kin, but not particularly evil. Preventing someone's soul to pass on to the afterlife: that's evil. Making undead implies locking up the soul, and for the lesser undead, also controlling it.

[ReaderAt2046]

Doesn't matter what sort of empire it is, if the person who is at least partially responsible for formulating the empire's laws is then using people who fall foul of those same laws to satiate his own bloodlust...well, should be pretty obvious what the problem is there!

Not necessarily. Malack could choose to feed only on murderers, rapists, counterfieters, and others who commit crimes arguably deserving of death. In a city as big as Bleedingham, there should be at least one or two every day, which would be plenty for Malack's needs.

(Note that I'm not saying he does do this, merely that he could if he so desired).

[Gift Jeraff]

Vampires solidly fall in the category of intelligent undead. I mean, just consider Malack. Ghouls, zombies etc. are pretty mindless, and being controlled by someone is implied. Vampires don't need to be.

In addition, if undead are just puppeteered corpses, why would it be considered so evil? It's not very different from making bone golems or meat golems then. Distasteful and aggravating to the next of kin, but not particularly evil. Preventing someone's soul to pass on to the afterlife: that's evil. Making undead implies locking up the soul, and for the lesser undead, also controlling it.

Most lesser undead aren't mindless. I think it's mostly just zombies and skeletons.

And if most lesser undead did trap the victim's soul, it must be a pretty obscure fact because Redcloak just treats Tsukiko reanimating the hobgoblins as being disrespectful and Roy treats destroying the mummies as something that the Draketooths would view negatively. Also, we know for a fact that zombies don't trap souls as per SoD.

[JusticeZero]

Roy doesn't remember (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html) much about his time in the afterlife.
Sure, but RAW rather anviliciously implies that when your body is used to create an undead creature, that your soul is trapped in the body or otherwise not in the normal system of the afterlife - spells that would normally be able to summon your soul from any part of the afterlife and bring you back to life without even needing any part of your body such as True Resurrection (Clr 9) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) fail if someone so much as uses your body to create a Skeleton. You have to destroy the undead first.

[Callista]

That doesn't mean that the soul is trapped, though. It could just be that creating an undead blocks the soul from returning to the Material Plane, because the soul's most natural home is the body, and if the body is filled with negative energy, then the soul would try to return to it, but be instantly repelled because living creatures and negative energy don't mix. Trying to call it back to anything else without either destroying the body or removing the negative energy (or at least having a backup body via Clone) wouldn't work.

Regarding animating undead being an evil act: It can be evil just to bring them into being, even if they are mindless and do not trap the soul, if the simple fact of their existence causes damage to life. This is the case in one variant rule (Libris Mortis): If there are enough undead in an area, the whole place becomes attuned to negative energy and evil and strengthens evil creatures in it. In most settings even mindless undead are inimical to life, to the point of destroying it at every opportunity and without a reason to do so (unlike a natural predator, for example). If they become uncontrolled, they kill people. That could be viewed as evil to choose undead rather than, say, constructs or magic, because of the danger they pose to life if they're uncontrolled.

Personally, I like the idea that mindless undead are neutral rather than evil, and follow simple commands literally, standing still if not commanded to do anything else. If the existence of undead doesn't damage the world around them, that'd leave the creation of mindless undead to be more of a cultural taboo (i.e., chaotic) than an evil act. But that's not the way the rules have it, so it's still only a house rule, however interesting the implications are.

[Komatik]

Vampires solidly fall in the category of intelligent undead. I mean, just consider Malack. Ghouls, zombies etc. are pretty mindless, and being controlled by someone is implied. Vampires don't need to be.

In addition, if undead are just puppeteered corpses, why would it be considered so evil? It's not very different from making bone golems or meat golems then. Distasteful and aggravating to the next of kin, but not particularly evil. Preventing someone's soul to pass on to the afterlife: that's evil. Making undead implies locking up the soul, and for the lesser undead, also controlling it.

Because they're undead boo hiss, pretty much. Zombies are sometimes also portrayed as possessing a distinct hunger for brains or human flesh, though it's trivially overridden if they're controlled. Skeletons, as far as I know, should be pure automata, puppets with strings of sorcery.

Interesting note on golems: Doesn't making them involve enslaving an elemental to serve as the power source? And making a golem is somehow neutral, while leaving someone's soul while using his corpse as a skeletal puppet is evil. Double standards, yay!

[factotum]

and others who commit crimes arguably deserving of death.

"Deserves death? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? So do not be so eager to hand out death in judgement." --Gandalf the Grey (paraphrased slightly, did it from memory rather than looking it up)

These days, the general attitude toward judicial execution seems to follow the above--e.g. it's not something that's considered a great thing to be doing. In the situation we have here, declaring that convicted murderers must die for their crimes is still a judgement call on behalf of the lawmakers of the country, and so I'd still call it shading Evil to feed on those thus condemned to death.

[ReaderAt2046]

"Deserves death? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? So do not be so eager to hand out death in judgement." --Gandalf the Grey (paraphrased slightly, did it from memory rather than looking it up)

These days, the general attitude toward judicial execution seems to follow the above--e.g. it's not something that's considered a great thing to be doing. In the situation we have here, declaring that convicted murderers must die for their crimes is still a judgement call on behalf of the lawmakers of the country, and so I'd still call it shading Evil to feed on those thus condemned to death.

I knew that was going to be someone's response, which is why I put up the "arguably". Ah well, didn't help any.

[pendell]

In the traditional legends with which I am familiar, it's supposed to be a temptation to willngly become a vampire. That would be utterly pointless if your soul is every bit as trapped in an afterlife as if your body had been properly buried. As Rowling belabored at length in the Harry Potter series, to escape from or conquer death is the great human dream, and those who are willing to use any means necessary to achieve it turn to horcruxes or to the undead to achieve it.

If being self-willed undead didn't allow a person to "cheat death", to "become immortal", much of the point of temptation in those stories is lost.

I understand Joss Whedon changed the story around for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They are good stories, but I'm pretty sure they weren't one of the baseline legends RAW drew from to create the D&D vampire.

To become a vampire is to punished for black deeds committed in life, to make a "pact with death" , as Count Strahd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahd) did. So it makes perfect sense that these original vampires should always have an evil alignment, and the letter of their "pact with death" should be upheld. Whether the same should apply to innocent victims is another issue entirely.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Icedaemon]

I see the expected alignment shift as something based first and foremost on a perspective shift. From what I would expect to be an average vampire's perspective:

"Mortals are not the equals of vampires - a vampire cannot die of old age or disease or be weakened by many other things, level-drain-like problems being among them. Mere mortals are cattle to feed on, unimportant in the long run and wholly expendable even if they are one's temporary allies.

Mercy, kindness and all that are social constructs based on half-truths and outright lies which lesser beings have convinced one another of in order to beg for aid like feeble vermin when they inevitably fail. A vampire needs none of those things, though they might be used to manipulate the foolish mortals who cling to such lies.

Honour, respect, duty and suchlike are important only in regards to (dis)honourable actions affect one's reputation, which for an immortal monster who thrives on fear and needs mortal cattle should not be a minor detail.

Torture is a fine way to extract information and something mildly amusing to pass the long centuries."

Now, this is a rough framework of how I personally would probably write a previously moral and kind person's turn towards vampirism were I trying to write a D&D-based novel or comic - utter narcissism and contempt towards those they deem beneath them. This does not mesh completely with Malack's behaviour insofar, so I might be completely off track.

[AlaskaOOTSFan]

Interesting note on golems: Doesn't making them involve enslaving an elemental to serve as the power source? And making a golem is somehow neutral, while leaving someone's soul while using his corpse as a skeletal puppet is evil. Double standards, yay!

Yes, it does, and yes, it is a double standard.

This frustrates me too.

[Silverionmox]

I see the expected alignment shift as something based first and foremost on a perspective shift. From what I would expect to be an average vampire's perspective:

"Mortals are not the equals of vampires - a vampire cannot die of old age or disease or be weakened by many other things, level-drain-like problems being among them. Mere mortals are cattle to feed on, unimportant in the long run and wholly expendable even if they are one's temporary allies.

Mercy, kindness and all that are social constructs based on half-truths and outright lies which lesser beings have convinced one another of in order to beg for aid like feeble vermin when they inevitably fail. A vampire needs none of those things, though they might be used to manipulate the foolish mortals who cling to such lies.

Honour, respect, duty and suchlike are important only in regards to (dis)honourable actions affect one's reputation, which for an immortal monster who thrives on fear and needs mortal cattle should not be a minor detail.

Torture is a fine way to extract information and something mildly amusing to pass the long centuries."

Now, this is a rough framework of how I personally would probably write a previously moral and kind person's turn towards vampirism were I trying to write a D&D-based novel or comic - utter narcissism and contempt towards those they deem beneath them. This does not mesh completely with Malack's behaviour insofar, so I might be completely off track.

That's certainly the perspective one would most likely acquire by living as a vampire among mortals, but the question is whether becoming a vampire makes it happen instantly.

[Quantum Glass]

It certainly changes his alignment. Whether it also changes his personality...possibly to an extent, but I think as long as he keeps his thirst for blood in check, avoids italian restaurants, and makes sure to pronounce his "W"'s, he'll still be the same old Durkon.

It doesn't matter how he acts, or how much he repents--he's a vampire, and they're evil, end of story. Just like goblin children and their civilian parents.

Mr. Burlew has already made his opinion on the alignment system very clear.

[Callista]

Yes, it does, and yes, it is a double standard.

This frustrates me too.I don't think they realized that elementals are intelligent creatures when they did that. Originally, golems are animated simply by words, which if erased end the spell... But I guess D&D writers wanted to make it more magical so they added the bound elemental idea. Without realizing that elementals are, in fact, people rather than just magical power sources you can conjure up. Oops.

[Obscure Blade]

In the traditional legends with which I am familiar, it's supposed to be a temptation to willngly become a vampire. That would be utterly pointless if your soul is every bit as trapped in an afterlife as if your body had been properly buried. As Rowling belabored at length in the Harry Potter series, to escape from or conquer death is the great human dream, and those who are willing to use any means necessary to achieve it turn to horcruxes or to the undead to achieve it.

If being self-willed undead didn't allow a person to "cheat death", to "become immortal", much of the point of temptation in those stories is lost.

I understand Joss Whedon changed the story around for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They are good stories, but I'm pretty sure they weren't one of the baseline legends RAW drew from to create the D&D vampire. IIRC Buffy has vampires as soulless creatures controlled by a demon that just has access to the memories of the former human? I believe he actually copied that from Nancy A. Collins' Sonja Blue stories; they inspired a lot of ideas in later vampire fiction.

[JavaScribe]

It certainly changes his alignment. Whether it also changes his personality...possibly to an extent, but I think as long as he keeps his thirst for blood in check, avoids italian restaurants, and makes sure to pronounce his "W"'s, he'll still be the same old Durkon.

It doesn't matter how he acts, or how much he repents--he's a vampire, and they're evil, end of story. Just like goblin children and their civilian parents.

Mr. Burlew has already made his opinion on the alignment system very clear.
Not quite. It might overly simplify things, yes, which was one of the issues he had with the alignment system, but there is one crucial difference between goblin children and the undead. Namely, the fact that their evil isn't based on speciesm. Undead are unnatural abominations, and similarly, fiends are supposed to be evil incarnate by their very definition.

[Quantum Glass]

Not quite. It might overly simplify things, yes, which was one of the issues he had with the alignment system, but there is one crucial difference between goblin children and the undead. Namely, the fact that their evil isn't based on speciesm. Undead are unnatural abominations, and similarly, fiends are supposed to be evil incarnate by their very definition.

You can be evil by definition and not due anything evil. If a goblin chooses complete pacifism and funds a charity soup kitchen or something, he isn't good--he just doesn't act evil. Nobody said it was fair.

Similarly, even if Durkon chooses to act like he always has, he'll still be evil-aligned--regardless of his personality. If the gods define good and evil in a binary way, it's possible to disagree with them on who they consider good and who they consider evil.

Remember, Vaarsuvius showed us (right before using the Familicide spell) that necromancy spells bring back the soul of their target, in that case the Black Dragon Mother. It's hard to imagine that a single spell would change someone's personality (Well, it isn't, but I mean in this case), and there have already been some cases where we've seen the two being more or less independent--so it's still possible.

[JavaScribe]

Remember, Vaarsuvius showed us (right before using the Familicide spell) that necromancy spells bring back the soul of their target, in that case the Black Dragon Mother. It's hard to imagine that a single spell would change someone's personality (Well, it isn't, but I mean in this case), and there have already been some cases where we've seen the two being more or less independent--so it's still possible.
If he retains his soul, then he will probably hate what he has become. But at the very least, Durkon will have had an urge to devour and corrupt life implanted in his brain. And it is pretty easy to imagine that negative energy may have other side effects. The mind is a plaything of the body after all, so in the case of the undead, it isn't necessarily just a god-imposed alignment definition regardless of personality.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Remember, Vaarsuvius showed us (right before using the Familicide spell) that necromancy spells bring back the soul of their target, in that case the Black Dragon Mother.

Good observation. "What? Where am I? I was with my son and husband... You--You reanimated my head?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)

Clear evidence of intelligent undead being the "same person"; it's probably Durkon in there. Evil Durkon.

[Silverionmox]

It certainly changes his alignment. Whether it also changes his personality...possibly to an extent, but I think as long as he keeps his thirst for blood in check, avoids italian restaurants, and makes sure to pronounce his "W"'s, he'll still be the same old Durkon.

It doesn't matter how he acts, or how much he repents--he's a vampire, and they're evil, end of story. Just like goblin children and their civilian parents.

Mr. Burlew has already made his opinion on the alignment system very clear.
Belkar isn't good either, even though he is a halfling. Clearly species does not absolutely determine alignment in the oots universe.

[pendell]

Durkon is still in there, but he has to cope with new thoughts and cravings he never had while he was alive. Malak's own actions show that a vampire does not HAVE to be evil (he himself is evil, but he has a system for taking care of his need to drink blood that isn't-itself-evil, the fact that it is an evil empire does make his own take on it evil, probably, though).

Vampires are probably evil for the same reason that fiends are evil, they are literally animated (or made from, in the fiends case) evil, yet are still capable of being something other than evil on their own personal alignment.


Agreed.

For me , the alignment change should be gradual and not immediate. A newly risen vampire should still think more like a human than like a vampire.

But I would expect immortality to take a toll. You live for centuries. Humans live for decades. Over time it becomes harder and harder to deal with short-sighted , impatient humans as fellow beings. And the few that really stand out to you? Just when they start becoming interesting, they die.

A vampire in such a position should find it increasingly difficult to identify as 'human' and easier and easier to rationalize treating humans as prey, as an inferior species. Those few humans that actually catch the vampire's interest, to the extent the vampire wouldn't mind their company over the centuries, would be targeted for 'uplift' -- to become creatures like himself.

So a vampire's predilection for evil , already pretty strong due to the hunger for blood, should be exacerbated over time until it would take an unconquerable will to continue identifying humans as fellow-beings.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tragak]

You can be evil by definition and not due anything evil. If a goblin chooses complete pacifism and funds a charity soup kitchen or something, he isn't good--he just doesn't act evil. Nobody said it was fair. Actually, if I could point you to a famous fantasy writer who uses his stories to show that that viewpoint about people who look different being ipso facto evil does not work: Rich (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108) Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120)Now, I will grant you that for this specific example, The Giant has stated that beings created supernaturally can be 100% Good or Evil, but we still have no idea which side of the scale of constant vs. variable he has vampires fall under, and will not know until he finishes writing.

[Mishri]

Yes, being turned into a vampire should change Durkon's personality.

Being transformed into a vampire changes much physically and mentally.


Why are vampires always evil? the most basic way to describe alignment:

Good - You are selfless and seek to help others

Neutral - You care about yourself, but not at the expense of others.

Evil - You care only about yourself, even at the expense of others.

Vampires feed on others to survive, hence, always evil.

It doesn't matter what the alignment and lawfulness of the person you are feeding on is.
I posted before on this subject but figured a more straight forward answer will answer some questions on what I believe a vampire is in D&D.

[Silverionmox]

Yes, being turned into a vampire should change Durkon's personality.

Being transformed into a vampire changes much physically and mentally.


Why are vampires always evil? the most basic way to describe alignment:

Good - You are selfless and seek to help others

Neutral - You care about yourself, but not at the expense of others.

Evil - You care only about yourself, even at the expense of others.

Vampires feed on others to survive, hence, always evil.

It doesn't matter what the alignment and lawfulness of the person you are feeding on is.
I posted before on this subject but figured a more straight forward answer will answer some questions on what I believe a vampire is in D&D.
I suppose that cute little lamb that I ate yesterday makes me evil, then?

It seems you prefer the black and white version of aligment. That's ok, but I don't think it's useful to gauge the conundrums of the protagonists of a story with that limited instrument.

[Rakoa]

I suppose that cute little lamb that I ate yesterday makes me evil, then?

It seems you prefer the black and white version of aligment. That's ok, but I don't think it's useful to gauge the conundrums of the protagonists of a story with that limited instrument.

Well said. Alignment is a very complex thing as compared to many other aspects of Dungeons and Dragons, and to just say because a Vampire feeds on others makes them inherently evil is a vast oversimplification.

[Quantum Glass]

All I'm saying is that he might (And most likely will) gain both a powerful urge and need to drink blood, but that doesn't necessarily mean his morality or integrity will change right away. Vampires, at least the intelligent ones we've seen, aren't machines--Malack could, if he chose, never drink blood again. Obviously, he wouldn't survive, but unless he turns into a slavering, mindless beast when he's hungry for some reason (Oh, modern vampire fiction...), he could starve himself just as easily as any human. If only evil vampires survive, is it really that surprising that all vampires are evil?

In 879 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) (I feel silly about linking to a strip so recent), Malack's words in the second and third panels suggest that Durkon is not going to instantly and easily adapt to what's going on. We'll have to wait and see, but I find it probable that there's going to be at least some mixed feelings.

(Note that these are my opinions, and I wouldn't be too surprised if most if not all of my assertions ("Malack could choose to never drink blood again") turned out to be false. I just find repeating, "In my humble opinion," tiresome.)

[Callista]

It's not so free-willed as you say, Quantum. If you've read Libris Mortis, the vampire has something called an "inescapable craving", which despite its sentience, literally forces it to go and drink blood. Unless you are using house rules, every vampire starts with an Evil alignment, and all vampire clerics lose the ability to Turn and gain the ability to Rebuke, and may lose their cleric powers temporarily until they find a god in keeping with their new alignment.

Additionally, undead change psychologically in a fundamental way: Rather than changing or growing as living things do, they remain the same, in stasis. The book actually says something like, "Ancient undead may seem insane not because they are insane, but because they are still running on centuries-old norms which are nonsensical in the current culture." A long-lived creature like an elf can change with the world around him and may seem merely old-fashioned--an undead creature will change so little that it may seem insane. Undead can learn new things, but they are preserved, not living, and so they are very unlikely to actually change their minds.

"Very unlikely" is not the same as "impossible", though. There are exceptions to every rule, including "Always" alignments. And if anyone is going to be an exception, I would give the best chance possible to a devout formerly-Lawful Good cleric who previously hated undead and cared more about his friends than himself. An evil creature who remembers being so firmly Good may be capable of at least wanting to change, which might be just enough to make a difference.

[factotum]

I suppose that cute little lamb that I ate yesterday makes me evil, then?

There's a difference between feeding on cute fluffy animals and feeding on living human beings...at least, there is for most people, if that isn't the case for you remind me not to get anywhere near you when you're wielding a knife and fork. :smallwink:

[Dr.Epic]

Durkon has a personality?!?!?!:smallconfused:

[Byzantine2]

There's a difference between feeding on cute fluffy animals and feeding on living human beings...at least, there is for most people, if that isn't the case for you remind me not to get anywhere near you when you're wielding a knife and fork. :smallwink:

it can pretty easily be argued that while that is certainly true from a human perspective from a vampire's perspective there isn't a difference, which is the point, I think. The trouble is: Is it right to define an act that is required for survival as Evil?

[Silverionmox]

There's a difference between feeding on cute fluffy animals and feeding on living human beings...at least, there is for most people, if that isn't the case for you remind me not to get anywhere near you when you're wielding a knife and fork. :smallwink:
Well, as long as you're not two out of three of fresh, properly cooked and well-seasoned the risk is manageable..

But would a vampire that limited itself to draining animals ready for slaughter be more evil, through that act, than the people who ate those animals afterwards?

[tufttugger]

In my mind. Being a vampire is probably like being Sith. Same person, same soul, same memories, but they've been corrupted, twisted, possessed, whatever you may call it. They are mostly themselves but with certain key aspects of their motivation, ethics, and morality flipped (ie. being bad is just too easy and too wonderful to resist... mostly). And if a vampire is brought back to life, they flip back, and remember everything. The soul carries the memories and never left (since the process of being blood drained and killed was not a normal death and the dark energies bound the soul).

Now over time, if you are in such a state a long time like Malack, your personality changes, and living with that 'flip' becomes normal for you. So if you were brought back to the living, you'd feel weird and possibly still with a personality that has evil in it until you get used to your newly returned life. Maybe you won't need to do evil to feed, but the habit of killing, or being deceitful, may be hard to shake.

That seems simple to me and maintains threads.

[pendell]

There's a difference between feeding on cute fluffy animals and feeding on living human beings...at least, there is for most people, if that isn't the case for you remind me not to get anywhere near you when you're wielding a knife and fork. :smallwink:

Quite right. There's a major difference between feeding on animals and intellgient, reasoning creatures. Thus, any vampire which wished to have even a shot at a neutral or good alignment has to give up preying on humans as if they were beasts. Some possibilities:

1) Feed on animals.
2) Research a variant of Create Food and Water: Create Blood!
3) Start a blood bank which really IS a blood bank used for transfusion into human beings. Take some of it for your own needs.
4) Feed on human volunteers , not to death. Put out an ad in the local personals offering a "dinner" with a vampire with all the trimmings, including a non-lethal feeding, and see how many ladies show up with their best nighties.
5) Feed on convicted human criminals sentenced to death in, say, a justice system like Azure city's, not like the EOB's.

Incidentally, remember Tarquin's dinner (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0744.html) which featured and Pegasus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/pegasus.htm) . Phoenixes aren't listed, but Pegasi in the monster manual have INT 10, making them comparable to humans in intelligence and ability to understand languages.

So that's why Tarquin and Malack get along. Because in this respect they are exactly alike: Predators who prey on intelligent beings as if they were animals. What difference that one only drinks the blood, while the other eats the flesh?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[factotum]

it can pretty easily be argued that while that is certainly true from a human perspective from a vampire's perspective there isn't a difference, which is the point, I think. The trouble is: Is it right to define an act that is required for survival as Evil?

Is it required for survival, though? Vampires need to drink blood to live, but does it have to be human blood? If it does, then fair dos, you have a point. If it does not, then a vampire could feed off animals in the same way humans do; if such a vampire then *chooses* to feed on humans anyway I'd call that as putting them over the Evil horizon and accelerating rapidly.

[hamishspence]

The Libris Mortis rules don't say it must be human blood.

However, they are "diet dependant" on it- but they have an "inescapable craving" for life force- which they get via their Energy Drain ability.

Which could also be sated by draining animals- but would be lethal unless the animal has more than 2 HD.

[Killer Angel]

There's a difference between feeding on cute fluffy animals and feeding on living human beings...

Cute fluffy animals (http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://images.movieplayer.it/2009/05/28/un-wallpaper-del-gatto-con-gli-stivali-per-il-film-d-animazione-shrek-2-118671.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.movieplayer.it/foto/un-wallpaper-del-gatto-con-gli-stivali-per-il-film-d-animazione-shrek-2_118671/&h=1024&w=1280&sz=265&tbnid=27Rrzn_7OkX0xM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=124&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgatto%2Bcon%2Bgli%2Bstivali%26tbm%3Di sch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=gatto+con+gli+stivali&usg=__DJTgrYLfwahuYO-eWOK4ZGiknQw=&docid=ur11BuRQgvioEM&hl=it&sa=X&ei=7ipIUeDnKsWIOIzagYgP&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQ9QEwAw&dur=246) say you're evil! :smalltongue:

[veti]

Alignment makes no sense if free will is not involved. A creature must have an INT of at least 3 to have an alignment, because alignment in D&D implies 1) the being possess the ability to reason 2) the being has the ability to choose.

This is true. And yet...

Alignment also makes very little sense if free will is involved. What precisely does it mean to be "good", if you could choose at any moment to do something evil, or vice versa? Is this "goodness" a matter of nature (instinctive), or intellect (educated)? If the former, then how "free" is it really? (Can you really imagine any feasible plotline in which, say, Elan turns evil, short of complete character derailment?)

Basically, alignment makes very little sense any way you look at it.


I hate to use a real world example but at the moment I'm at a loss to think of a fantasy world which illustrates this principal.

<Snipped real-world examples>

Absolutely. I've seen social mores change quite sharply even in my own lifetime, although sadly I can't explain how without risking an 'inappropriate topic' violation. And having seen that, I feel confident in predicting that there are some things we routinely do today that our grandchildren will look back on with horror and incredulity that we could have been so callous. And I'd love to speculate on what those are, but I don't think that would be allowed either.

Long story short: the whole idea of "absolute morality" is, basically, a crock.


So to get back to your drow example, most drow are the way they are because their forebears chose this path and heavily indoctrinate their children to follow in their footsteps , as all parents do.

Whoa, wait a moment. We've agreed that most people basically derive their alignment from their upbringing/environment. But now you're saying that the drow, way back, "chose this path"? What makes you think there was anything voluntary about it? Maybe it was the only way to survive at the time.

I think you've succumbed to the same delusion as 'social contract' theory - because you want to argue that there's something voluntary going on here, you're driven to assume that someone must have made a positive choice, even though there's no evidence and no obvious mechanism by which that could have happened.


That remains to be seen. Different authors have very different takes on this legend ,and I see I must be the only Terry Pratchett fan here.

Meh. I'm as big a Pratchett fan as you'll find in a long time looking, but even so I don't much like his take on vampires. The 'black ribbon' is a nice idea, but all the characters who adopt it seem shallow and unconvincing to me. Dragon King of Arms, now - he was a convincing vampire. Lady Margolotta? - just reads like a cypher to me.


ETA: If anyone DOES have a fictional example that illustrates my point above, please put it up so I can use it in future. Thanks!

You might do worse than consider the changing politics of Ankh-Morpork. Long time ago, it was a repressive police state. Then it was governed by the guilds. Then the Watch started to grow more powerful, and has now become as strong as it was before Vetinari took over. At each stage, people accepted the current order as natural and saw no particular reason why it should change.

[factotum]

Which could also be sated by draining animals- but would be lethal unless the animal has more than 2 HD.

I don't think most people (well, the ones who eat meat anyway :smallwink:) would consider killing an animal to survive to be an evil act.

[hamishspence]

Strictly, even with the Libris Mortis rules, it's impossible for a vampire to starve to death. However, it will go insane eventually if it doesn't feed- and immobile after a few months without blood.

[JackRose]

That's a bit of a change from Bram Stoker's version of Dracula. In Stoker's story, vampirism did NOT come from being bitten -- a drained victim simply dies -- but from drinking a vampire's blood. The vampire would drain the victim, then open his own veins and offer to permit the victim to drink the vampire in return. This exchange was what actually resulted in vampirism.


I don't believe that that is the case. If I recall, in Stoker's story, any victim of a vampire rises again-


"For all that die from the preying of the Un-dead become themselves Un-dead, and prey on their kind."

There's also some indication that the curse can be transmitted and remain dormant until the recipient dies of other causes, but that bit's kind of unclear.


Friend Arthur, if you had met that kiss which you know of before poor Lucy die, or again, last night when you open your arms to her, you would in time, when you had died, have become nosferatu, as they call it in Eastern europe, and would for all time make more of those Un-Deads that so have filled us with horror.

What Dracula did to Mina when he fed her his blood seems to have been a separate trick which enabled a two way flow of information. Of course, in Dracula, it's always hard to tell what is supposed to be standard vampire abilities, because Dracula is also an accomplished sorcerer who studied under the devil himself.

[gerryq]

It certainly changes his alignment. Whether it also changes his personality...possibly to an extent, but I think as long as he keeps his thirst for blood in check, avoids italian restaurants, and makes sure to pronounce his "W"'s, he'll still be the same old Durkon.

It doesn't matter how he acts, or how much he repents--he's a vampire, and they're evil, end of story. Just like goblin children and their civilian parents.

Mr. Burlew has already made his opinion on the alignment system very clear.

When you say he made it clear, just *where* do you say he made it clear? Because the issue was discussed extensively when Roy was being judged in the Afterlife, presumably by beings whose views on the subject are authoritative. And it seems to me that Roy was eventually judged good largely because he kept on trying to be.

Earlier, somewhere too, it is indicated that alignment is a choice - how someone chooses to live life.

I grant you the notion of evil races etc. is also paid lip service to. But I cannot accept that the author's position is entirely definitive.

Incidentally, how much does alignment matter to dwarves, anyway? If a dwarven vamp goes down fighting someone who is trying to stake him, does he join Thor?

[pendell]

And having seen that, I feel confident in predicting that there are some things we routinely do today that our grandchildren will look back on with horror and incredulity that we could have been so callous. And I'd love to speculate on what those are, but I don't think that would be allowed either.


Agreed.



Long story short: the whole idea of "absolute morality" is, basically, a crock.


Disagree, but out of forum scope.





Whoa, wait a moment. We've agreed that most people basically derive their alignment from their upbringing/environment. But now you're saying that the drow, way back, "chose this path"? What makes you think there was anything voluntary about it? Maybe it was the only way to survive at the time.


The history R.A. Salvatore used to describe the Dark Elves is shown in Homeland (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Homeland). So far as I can gather, it happened like this:

1) Once upon a time, the Dark Elves lived on the surface. But they were already a fairly evil lot.

2) They went to war with their other elvish cousins, lost , and were driven underground.

3) At some point after being driven into the underdark they found the spider goddess Lolth, and this was the foundation of Drow society, at least as of the time of Drizzt's birth.

The current wiki entry for Drow (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow) indicates that they were already followers of the being who became Lloth when they were on the surface. They renounced her when Lloth was exiled to the demonweb, but later developed military ambitions. In pursuit of these ambitions, they made contact again with the fallen goddess.



Drow were once known as Dark Elves (Ssri-tel-quessir in old Elven) and their nations, Ilythiir and Miyeritar, Ilythiir was one of the most powerful,[9] but, in -30000 DR their goddess Araushnee betrayed her fellow Seldarine and, along with Ghaunadaur, Vhaeraun, Malar and others they tried to invade Arvandor. Afterwards Araushnee was cast into the Abyss, where she took the name Lolth.
During the First Crown War, the Ilythiiri made several unsuccessful attempts to conquer Faerûn (actually they conquered Southern Faerun and to the north up to Shantel Othreier, and perhaps only the intervention of Corellon Larethian had stopped them), and at the time of the Fourth Crown War, they turned to Lloth and the other outcast Seldarine in the Demonweb Pits who gave them powerful magic and fiendish allies, as a reward for allegiance. One of these was a balor named Wendonai. He bred with the Ilythiiri, giving them a taint. After many malicious acts and abuses of elven magic, Corellon Larethian banished the dhaerow (traitors) whom Lolth used to be responsible for (and most of whom still secretly worshiped her) to the Underdark.


There are any number of ways this story could have taken a different turning. But the Drow were already falling into evil when they sought out the spider queen. They were not forced into it out of necessity -- or if divine help WAS necessary to survive in the underdark, there are other beings who could have helped them. The Svirfneblin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svirfneblin) and the Dwarves survive in the Underdark, after all.

So I would not say that the choices of the forefathers are totally binding on society. But they do have a strong impact. In a liberal society which fosters questioning tradition simply becomes, in Chesterton's words



“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. ... Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”


Such an attitude only works, however, in a society where the opinions of those "walking about" has any value. Tribal societies and authoritarian societies such as the blue-skinned people of Avatar or the Grandfathers of Terry Pratchett's Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_(novel)) place no value on the insight of the living. No, in such a society all that is known and has ever been known was set down and written by our forefathers. Who are you? Are you wiser than Groo/Einstein/Aristotle/Gandalf who gave us these rules in the first place?

The more weight a society gives to tradition, the harder it is to change. And there are no shortage of authority figures happy to whip any dissenters into line, punishing those who disagree with either death or exile.

So: Yes. In Drizzt's story, at least, the worship of Lloth and current drow society were not "necessary evil" but deliberate choices dictated by people who were already steeped in evil, and they then went on to fasten those onto their children with chains of tradition as tightly as possible. But it is possible -- though very difficult -- for the living to overcome the dead. After all, the living can still do things and make choices, the dead can't.

Truthfully, I would not expect Drow society to change without some outside cataclysm that brings everything they ever believed into question, something as fundamentally shocking as the Cataclysm of Krynn. Because in such a tightly controlled society in which children are propagandized from birth and never allowed any exposure to outside ideas, it is very unlikely that anyone will have even the inkling that things should change unless the current system is shown to be unworkable in so obvious a way that even small children can figure out things need fixing.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

And it seems to me that Roy was eventually judged good largely because he kept on trying to be.

Trying to be Lawful Good rather than Neutral Good. She also says "I don't think there's any doubt you're a Good man..."

[Kish]

When you say he made it clear, just *where* do you say he made it clear?

This is why ThePhantasm maintains his incredibly useful Index of the Giant's Comments.
Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108), here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120), here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718655&postcount=132), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12743252&postcount=511).



R.A. Salvatore

Salvatore certainly put a lot of work, a lot of writing, into defining drow and their society. Unfortunately, he's evidently a very firm believer in, not racial morality, but not-actually-better inborn morality. Drizzt was born different from all the other drow around him; had he not been born "different," goodness apparently being carried on his father's chromosomes, he would never have had a chance to be any less of a monster than his half siblings.

Accordingly, I look with a jaundiced eye on anything Salvatore writes that amounts to "these ancestors-of-the-drow were born bad."

[pendell]

had he not been born "different," goodness apparently being carried on his father's chromosomes, he would never have had a chance to be any less of a monster than his half siblings.


*Splutters*

But that's absurd! Where did his father get this? Zaknafein was full drow elf on both sides, yes?

Besides which, in a world where "polymorph other" exists , being "born bad" should carry much less weight than it would in our world. If you can permanently change a pech into a hook horror (happened in the second book, Exile) then you can permanently get rid of the "born bad" problem. That should be especially true in a world where every other tavern keeper is a 14th-level mage in retirement.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ReaderAt2046]

So I would not say that the choices of the forefathers are totally binding on society. But they do have a strong impact. In a liberal society which fosters questioning tradition simply becomes, in Chesterton's words





+20 Awesome points to you for quoting Chesterton!

[hamishspence]

Salvatore certainly put a lot of work, a lot of writing, into defining drow and their society. Unfortunately, he's evidently a very firm believer in, not racial morality, but not-actually-better inborn morality. Drizzt was born different from all the other drow around him; had he not been born "different," goodness apparently being carried on his father's chromosomes, he would never have had a chance to be any less of a monster than his half siblings.

Vierna was Zaknafein's other child- she became a priestess of Lolth. Though Drizzt does note his sister was a bit less evil than his half-sisters.

"Born different" seemed to be applied to Salvatore's nonevil goblin Nojheim, in the short story Dark Mirror, as well. Unlike Drizzt, he never gets to break out of the role human society insists on fitting him into- that of oppressed slave (Drizzt's was Distrusted Outsider).

This is portrayed as being at least partly because surface dwellers have little contact with drow, and a lot of contact with normal goblins. And also because, to them, drow are a lot less ugly.

[Kish]

Vierna was Zaknafein's other child- she became a priestess of Lolth. Though Drizzt does note his sister was a bit less evil than his half-sisters.

And Zaknafein reflects at one point that he and Malice had a battle over Vierna's destiny that mirrored the one they were currently having over Drizzt's destiny, and that in that battle, he was unable to stop the spark of goodness in Vierna's soul from being blotted out by her intensive training as one of Lolth's clergy.

[gerryq]

Incidentally, how much does alignment matter to dwarves, anyway? If a dwarven vamp goes down fighting someone who is trying to stake him, does he join Thor?

Ignore that last bit - Durkon explained it to Malack. Alignment does matter if they die fighting. If they don't they get lumped together and sent to Hel.

[hamishspence]

And Zaknafein reflects at one point that he and Malice had a battle over Vierna's destiny that mirrored the one they were currently having over Drizzt's destiny, and that in that battle, he was unable to stop the spark of goodness in Vierna's soul from being blotted out by her intensive training as one of Lolth's clergy.

After Zaknafein & Drizzt's last fight, they ask "Are all drow born evil- or is it the ways of their society that corrupt them?" and decide "It's the society- the ways of the demon Lolth".

However it's left unclear as to how accurate this is.

[Mishri]

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that genetics does play a significant role in personality, and even being evil, http://rinr.fsu.edu/spring96/features/evil.html I think genetics and it's role in shaping the person you are is a scary subject for a lot of people, it brings back the not-so-old bloodlines belief, the difference between commoners and royalty, and ofcourse racism.

now if the genetic argument is true, across an entire group of highly intelligent creatures and there really isn't anything they could do about it even if they wanted to, they will have the desire to inflict violence, enslave others etc...

As far as choice, free-will and the alignment system itself goes, if you take genetics into it there isn't going to be much choice in it when you are wired for murder and mayhem. You will have that immediate reaction of what you want to do. The best you can hope for is restraint.

A truly good person simply wouldn't even consider doing something that would be evil. (say something like murder someone for their possessions). A good person might make some neutral choices, but nothing truly evil except under extreme circumstances and it might lead them down into a path of becoming evil. and the reverse of this is true as well, evil becoming good (although, in our society what would a murderer have to do to redeem himself in the public's eye?) But generally, people will continue to make choices that they are aligned for, and not even get a toe in the other end of the alignment pool, and both good/evil will make neutral choices frequently, if anything neutral is the standard alignment, and extra work needs to be done to achieve anything other. Environment then plays a significant role assuming you aren't genetically predisposed to one.

I don't know if I want to touch on the subject of killing animals vs intelligent creatures, getting into an animal rights discussion. In the realm of D&D i'd say there is a difference, in every game i've played killing an animal is a neutral action and killing an intelligent being can be evil depending on circumstance, location, alignment. Generally feeding on other intelligent beings is evil in any case, where as killing isn't always. sort of the cannibalism effect I'd say.

And finally, I believe in D&D vampires are very much predisposed to evil, even if they were lawful good before, and Durkon should now, even when released should view everything he sees differently, with reactions to all circumstances as any evil person would. Will he even still feel a kinship with his old comrades after such a transformation or will he view that companionship as worthless other than a means to an end for his personal benefit?

[hamishspence]

both good/evil will make neutral choices frequently, if anything neutral is the standard alignment, and extra work needs to be done to achieve anything other.

True Neutral is the Typical alignment for humans according to PHB- though "they tend toward no alignment- not even Neutral". Suggesting it may be more common than the others- but not by much.

[pendell]

True Neutral is the Typical alignment for humans according to PHB- though "they tend toward no alignment- not even Neutral". Suggesting it may be more common than the others- but not by much.

I think that shows just how useless alignment is when applied to large groups. when in these books have we met any true neutral humans? I think, realistically, that the numbers balance out -- there are very few true neutral humans, but there are almost as many lawful good as chaotic evil humans (by D&D standards, anyway, in D&D universes), so when you average the entire species it works out to the center of the graph.

I can't think of ANYONE in OOTS who was true neutral except for Vaarsuvius and Roy's sister. I believe they are exceptions to their species general alignment, not the rule.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mishri]

Most of those random people in any city would be neutral (or unaligned, with some exceptions, evil/good empires, but even then the average baker/merchant will be neutral). PC's are well beyond your average person, including beyond their average alignment. Plus, most people have more fun playing an aligned character for RP purposes, villains and heroes are what make up our stories, not a bunch of neutrals. For many movies, especially, action or adventure movies you'll find you can ascribe the main characters an alignment, the exceptions are movies like lost in translation, which many people find boring(I liked that movie). The exciting ones have clearly defined good and evil characters... or all evil... all evil can be fun too. I can't recall any movies where everyone is Good.

[pendell]

I can't recall any movies where everyone is Good.


Wouldn't think so. Cross-alignment is a great recipe for conflict, and without some kind of conflict there's no story. It also justifies the "good" characters in throwing the villain down the reactor shaft or some other gruesome fate, which would be horrific and sad if it were two good creatures doing it to each other.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr.Epic]

I can't recall any movies where everyone is Good.

They exist. They're really crappy children's films that pander to its audience and have barely any narrative.

Oh, and Watchmen.

[Menas]

They exist. They're really crappy children's films that pander to its audience and have barely any narrative.

Oh, and Watchmen.

I disagree. Try watching the 'InTouchables'. It's in French but it has subtitles and is a recent release.

It's based on a true story, and both the main characters are good, and the obstacles they need to overcome are obstacles presented by life itself. And there are plenty of those for most of us, especially the characters in this show.

Everyone has the potential to be good, and there are always plenty of difficulties that people need to work together to overcome that can be used for a good story.

Movies used to be a lot more like that actually, and I enjoy those more than the 'template' ones we see anymore where people keep creating a bunch of manufactured evil idiots because they think you can't have a good story unless you have someone around that wants to make life miserable for everyone else.

[Dr.Epic]

I disagree.

Okay. With what?:smallconfused:

[Menas]

Okay. With what?:smallconfused:

With the statement that I quoted for reference. Ah, ok. I didn't disagree with the 'they exist' part ;).

[hamishspence]

I think that shows just how useless alignment is when applied to large groups. when in these books have we met any true neutral humans? I think, realistically, that the numbers balance out -- there are very few true neutral humans, but there are almost as many lawful good as chaotic evil humans (by D&D standards, anyway, in D&D universes), so when you average the entire species it works out to the center of the graph.

I can't think of ANYONE in OOTS who was true neutral except for Vaarsuvius and Roy's sister. I believe they are exceptions to their species general alignment, not the rule.

There's plenty of people whose alignment hasn't been confirmed. The dirt farmers spring to mind.

I figure it as only a bit more common than any other alignment- not common enough to approach Often True Neutral- but 12% is enough to be "typical" if all the others are 11%.

[Incom]

There's plenty of people whose alignment hasn't been confirmed. The dirt farmers spring to mind.

I figure it as only a bit more common than any other alignment- not common enough to approach Often True Neutral- but 12% is enough to be "typical" if all the others are 11%.

Is it bad that I did the math in my head to see if 11%*8+12%=100%? (It does.)

[Man on Fire]

I wanted to point out something.
Vampire template does more than just change your alignment.
It also gives you +2 to Intelligence and Wisdom and +4 to Charisma. Going only by RD definition:


Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.


Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings.


Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

Suddenly Durkon sees world completely differently. Things that were once complicated now look much simpler, his reasoning is much clearer, his memory is sharper and cognitive abilities much greater and thinking is just much easier. He now has bigger resolve, combiend with greater understanding of the world and awarness of niuances of his current situation, he literally and figuratively sees things much better and his intuition is much sharper. He now has greater empathy and is far more persuative, he gets much more from social situations and can get people to do what he wanted much easier. These three Ability Scores represents more than your bonus spells modifier, they represent your character's personality. Remember how Owl's Wisdom worked on Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html). Or watch Limitless to see how world's perception and personality of people changes when they're using drugs to increase their mental capabilities. So yes, while being turned evil is debatable, his personality will change.

[pendell]

Thank you, Man on fire. It might also explain why Malack is reluctant to being staked and resurrected. Because he's losing the bonuses to int and wisdom and will once again become the "ignorant" shaman of his past. It's like voluntarily agreeing to wear an ear radio (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html) which would generate noise to interrupt thinking.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[veti]

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that genetics does play a significant role in personality, and even being evil, http://rinr.fsu.edu/spring96/features/evil.html I think genetics and it's role in shaping the person you are is a scary subject for a lot of people, it brings back the not-so-old bloodlines belief, the difference between commoners and royalty, and ofcourse racism.

In a world where magic is real, there's every reason to suppose that genetics would play a large part in your alignment. For instance, if your diet consists of live human brains, or the psychic emanations of sentient torture victims, it's hard to imagine how you're going to be anything other than evil.

(OK, you can make up stories about implausible edge cases, but those are never going to be the mainstream. For the vast majority of illithids, evil is always going to be the obvious and instinctive way to go. It's so much the path of least resistance.)

I see vampires as being in much the same boat. They're 'technically' evil for the same reason as zombies - because they're the product of evil magic - but they're also naturally, instinctively evil, just because if you're a vampire it's non-stop hard, painful work to be anything else, and nobody can keep that up for an eternity.

Edit: that implies that it is technically possible for a vampire to be good (in terms of actions and motivations), at least for a limited time. But they'd still ping as Evil for all game-mechanical purposes.

[hamishspence]

Edit: that implies that it is technically possible for a vampire to be good (in terms of actions and motivations), at least for a limited time. But they'd still ping as Evil for all game-mechanical purposes.

It's possible for a being that is good in terms of actual alignment, to "ping as Evil for some game-mechanical purposes". Clerics of Evil gods, Fiends, and Undead, all ping on Detect Evil, regardless of their actual alignment.

[Killer Angel]

It's like voluntarily agreeing to wear an ear radio (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html) which would generate noise to interrupt thinking.


This reminds me of Lobo (DC comics). Lobo loved metal music so much he forced surgeons to perform unnecessary surgery on him, implanting a micro-radio in his brain so he could always listen to Radio Cosmic Rock Zombie. :smalltongue:

[veti]

It's possible for a being that is good in terms of actual alignment, to "ping as Evil for some game-mechanical purposes". Clerics of Evil gods, Fiends, and Undead, all ping on Detect Evil, regardless of their actual alignment.

Ummm. If there's such a thing as "actual alignment" that's independent of the "game mechanical alignment", then I'm wondering - what exactly is the point of the latter?

This is part of why I think alignment is such a mess. It was originally conceived as "team colours", and it works fine for that - but as soon as you try to build a campaign that's more complicated than (good races) vs (evil races), the whole system becomes - at best - the cumbersome and unwieldy source of about four zillion forum threads that inevitably drag on for ten pages or so before failing to reach any kind of consensus.

[hamishspence]

Ummm. If there's such a thing as "actual alignment" that's independent of the "game mechanical alignment", then I'm wondering - what exactly is the point of the latter?

Possible for the same reason that Xykon's crown causes Roy to produce a false positive on Detect Evil- there is "Evil energy" independant of alignment- that can be detected.

[Silverionmox]

In a world where magic is real, there's every reason to suppose that genetics would play a large part in your alignment. For instance, if your diet consists of live human brains, or the psychic emanations of sentient torture victims, it's hard to imagine how you're going to be anything other than evil.I'd argue that makes them neutral. Dangerous, but neutral. Much like human lice: they have no choice but to feed on you: they cannot make any other choice.



I see vampires as being in much the same boat. They're 'technically' evil for the same reason as zombies - because they're the product of evil magic - but they're also naturally, instinctively evil, just because if you're a vampire it's non-stop hard, painful work to be anything else, and nobody can keep that up for an eternity.

Edit: that implies that it is technically possible for a vampire to be good (in terms of actions and motivations), at least for a limited time. But they'd still ping as Evil for all game-mechanical purposes.

But we've seen that even lawful good requires you to try, you can fail occasionally. And wouldn't a vampire fighting his urges be a much greater accomplishment than an ordinary human?

[hamishspence]

I'd argue that makes them neutral. Dangerous, but neutral. Much like human lice: they have no choice but to feed on you: they cannot make any other choice.

They could seek out magic to change themselves so they don't have those needs anymore.

[gerryq]

I wrote:
And it seems to me that Roy was eventually judged good largely because he kept on trying to be.


Trying to be Lawful Good rather than Neutral Good. She also says "I don't think there's any doubt you're a Good man..."

She judged both Lawfulness and Goodness on similar criteria, though. Sure, the Law decision was a bit harder in Roy's case, but that's not relevant to the principle of the thing.

[hamishspence]

The key factors she cited for Roy's Goodness were "regularly fights Evil without expecting compensation" and "very few Evil acts"

A character who "keeps on trying to be Good" but fails dismally, would probably not get into a Good afterlife. "Trying" is not enough- you actually have to succeed a lot as well.

[Silverionmox]

They could seek out magic to change themselves so they don't have those needs anymore.

Sure, and that implies that their morality is contingent upon their actions rather than their state of body. Surely becoming a vampire by asking to be bitten and becoming one while doing all you can while trying to prevent it must have a different alignment impact?


A character who "keeps on trying to be Good" but fails dismally, would probably not get into a Good afterlife. "Trying" is not enough- you actually have to succeed a lot as well.

No qualms with that, but that still fits with the idea that becoming a vampire doesn't make you evil automatically.

[hamishspence]

We know that there are "instant alignment change" effects, that change a creature's outlook and personality drastically. (Helm of Opposite Alignment springs to mind).

It's possible that this is how most D&D vampires are handled- which is why the template specifies an alignment change.

However, I could see there being exceptions.

Maybe Durkon will be one of those exceptions?

[Procyonpi]

Depends. For Angel, yes, for Spike, not really.

[Mishri]

Durkon wasn't forced to drink Belkar's blood, he might be under Malack's control, but his first words were that he wanted blood. I don't think it will change when he is released. He is now a highly wise, charismatic vampire cleric with an insatiable lust for blood that I doubt he will see any reason to fight. The Giant can write it however he likes but I think any story where vampires fight who they are lacks the ability to grasp the idea that once turned, they don't see it as bad or wrong even if they would have as a mortal, some values certainly would carry over but it would be like saying you can't eat living material because it has life in it. pure H2O and rocks with no organisms on them it is all you get.... but, what about veggies? How dare you feed on life!

I'd figure it becomes that silly for them to care about humans(or other races) the same way. I simply don't see any way to be a good or even neutral vampire. On the other hand, he has already written Malack as having some sort of quasi respect for life and who he kills. There are quite a few things he has written that I don't agree would be or should be the way they are but I enjoy it anyway.

[Menas]

The key factors she cited for Roy's Goodness were "regularly fights Evil without expecting compensation" and "very few Evil acts"

A character who "keeps on trying to be Good" but fails dismally, would probably not get into a Good afterlife. "Trying" is not enough- you actually have to succeed a lot as well.

If you're talking about just the OotS-verse, based on Roy's 'judgement' criteria, then that makes sense.

If you're talking about D&D in general, or RL, then not necessarily.

If I was DMing any character who continued to work towards an alignment would continue to make progress towards that alignment, whether the outcomes of their actions matched their expectations or not. For me, it's a simple matter of whether or not you quit, and whether or not you act on your intentions. If you don't quit, you haven't failed. But you need to act on your intentions to make progress, you can't just have intentions and then forget about them. A passing thought does not character make.

[Menas]

Durkon wasn't forced to drink Belkar's blood, he might be under Malack's control, but his first words were that he wanted blood. I don't think it will change when he is released.

Then there would really be no point in Malack 'releasing' Durkon, if it would make no difference. But the way that Malack speaks of the act of releasing Durkon implies that it WILL make a difference. In fact, speaking of Durkon as a 'peer' after released very much implies this.

But there are infinite possibilities. There is so much differing vampire lore out there anymore that Rich could pretty much go any way he wants, assuming he wanted to base the template on any of them. Or he could just choose to create his own brand of 'vampire'.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Then there would really be no point in Malack 'releasing' Durkon, if it would make no difference.

No difference in one aspect is not the same as no difference at all.

[Menas]

No difference in one aspect is not the same as no difference at all.

Looking back on what I quoted from Mishri, I'm not sure if it was clear what I was trying to say.

When Mishri said "I don't think it will change when he is released.", it didn't sound to me like Mishri meant just bloodlust, but also the attitude towards bloodlust (or anything else that's vampire driven) that wouldn't change if Durkon was released.

That was what I was trying to address. Malack made it sound like there would most certainly be a difference when Durkon is released. I suspect that once released a Vampire is again an individual and no longer a Thrall, but an individual who has to take into account his/her new desires that are associated with being a Vampire. And this makes sense when taking into account that Malack himself does not act like a mindless Thrall. Having to deal with the vampire tendencies is probably going to be very hard for Durkon to reconcile. Also, I expect he'll be very angry with Malack when released. I don't see how another fight can be avoided, unless Durkon's release happens by Malack dying.

[veti]

Durkon wasn't forced to drink Belkar's blood, he might be under Malack's control, but his first words were that he wanted blood.

"Wanting blood" is one thing. Actually "taking it from the nearest living sentient being" is another. The difference between the two might be said to be the difference between good and evil.

As you say, he was under Malack's control and obeying a direct order when he fed from Belkar. Possibly Malack anticipated some hesitation, but knew that a new vampire needs to feed urgently, so he gave him that order to shortcut any moral qualms he might have had if forced to make his own decision.

But we're all theorising without evidence here. We'll find out in a few more strips.

[SavageWombat]

I thought of a comparable example, though it comes from second edition. Don't know if it updated.

In the DARK SUN rules for 2ed, it mentioned a rule for water shortages: that a character dying of dehydration would have to make a saving throw regularly to avoid having their alignment temporarily become CE, for purposes of what they'd do to get water. When you're thirsty enough, one failure of will and you're an insane monster who will kill to get water.

This is what vampires live with every day, without fail, in pretty much any interpretation. And they don't die if they go long enough without failing a check.

With this logic, you could easily have "you keep your personality" AND "you quickly turn evil" in the same character. You're THAT THIRSTY.

[Zweisteine]

Here's my 2 cp:

Durkon's personality will not be directly effected by his transformation, barring the sudden and overwhelming thirst.
However, when Malack gives control back to him, he will be different, in some rather important ways. For example, he won't even think about the morality of drinking blood. It will never occur to him to question whether or not vampirism is a bad thing. When he encounters the OOTS again, he will still consider them friends, but they will likely be afraid/sorrowful, and he won't understand why.


Alternatively, he will have been "enlightened" and he is now aware that his previous beliefs regarding vampirism/undeath/inherent evil were wrong.