Negative Energy ?

[Yagerr]

How long does it take for Negative Energy to take over a person?

Malack mentioned that he wanted to keep Durkon as a thrall in case his old personality took over.

Like...

Would this be like a drug type thing? Were he wants to return to normal, but over time stays a vampire? Like he goes to his old dwarf home and finds out that he was sent on an errand for no real reason that any one can remember and goes ape crazy because the negative energy is taking over?

Shot in the dark.

[Sir_Leorik]

How long does it take for Negative Energy to take over a person?

Malack mentioned that he wanted to keep Durkon as a thrall in case his old personality took over.

Like...

Would this be like a drug type thing? Were he wants to return to normal, but over time stays a vampire? Like he goes to his old dwarf home and finds out that he was sent on an errand for no real reason that any one can remember and goes ape crazy because the negative energy is taking over?

Shot in the dark.

Um, I'm not really sure what your question is.

The second that Durkon rose from the (metaphorical) grave as a Vampire, his existence was being sustained by Negative Energy. All Undead in D&D are sustained in some way by Negative Energy (Necrotic Energy in 4th Edition). Vampires also need to drink blood, and they have an uncontrolable craving for Life Energy (inflicting negative levels with their Energy Drain attack); see Libris Mortis chapter one. A Vampire that doesn't drink blood every night gets weaker, while a Vampire that doesn't drain Energy goes through withdrawal symptoms.

As a Cleric, Durkon could try to feed off of willing victims, drinking their blood and draining their Energy, and then casting restoration on them to fully restore their Constitution score or remove the negative levels, but he has to feed. The Vampire Template changes the base creature's Alignment to Evil; Durkon may try to resist that if Rich wants, but as a Thrall his Alignment was Evil. He's no longer under Malack's control, so maybe he'll retain some of his old Alignment and personality.

[Reddish Mage]

I think the OP'S idea is that Durkon personality might be slowly being overtaken by the evil negative energy or perhaps it can be like True Blood vampires smelling faerie blood. They go out of control sometimes.

Neither fluff explain "always evil" according to the Monster Manual. I don't think uncontrollable compulsions arising sporadically or even frequently makes for an evil alignment. The vampire is supposed to be born (er created, "sired") evil. So slow corruption is not compatible with that description (despite its popularity in vampire fiction).

Divine Champion explains that a malignant intelligence controls intelligent undead. Of course Rich doesn't need to treat it like Buffy vampires or even use DC. In fact 706 shows there's quite a bit of old Durkon. If Durkon is evil now it could be explained in terms of a perspective change that could be more or less subtle.

[Silverionmox]

The actual effects on Durkon of the whole ordeal will, no doubt, be explored during the rest of the comic. It's not going to be adapting a few stats on his character sheet and be done with it.

[hamishspence]

Divine Champion explains that a malignant intelligence controls intelligent undead.

Complete Divine- but yes. Though there's the proviso that it applies mainly to undead that create spawn- liches aren't an example. Nor ghosts.

[137beth]

Neither fluff explain "always evil" according to the Monster Manual. I don't think uncontrollable compulsions arising sporadically or even frequently makes for an evil alignment. The vampire is supposed to be born (er created, "sired") evil. So slow corruption is not compatible with that description (despite its popularity in vampire fiction).
Sorry, but that is nowhere in the rules. The rules specify that in the default setting (Greyhawk), vampires are "always" evil, with the provision that always means almost always in the monster manual. It doesn't say a single thing about what happens to a good character who is turned into a vampire, that is left entirely to DM discretion.

Now, you could argue that vampires are usually evil BECAUSE good characters get turned evil, but that isn't in the rules. You just took
1. the brief statement of alignment tendencies in the MM
2. the assumption that all D&D worlds are Greyhawk
3. the assumption that the alignment system is internally consistent
4. concluded that SOMETHING must happen to make most vampires evil, and picked one explanation and declared it to be the only one (it would be equally valid to suppose, without looking at other Greyhawk sources, that Greyhawk vampires are almost always evil because evil characters are the most likely to be vampirized. I have no idea WHY that would be true, but nor have you given any justification for your interpretation...and it still doesn't matter, because this isn't Greyhawk.)

[SavageWombat]

If you want a D&D game with actual rules regarding this, you turn to Ravenloft, where you clearly determine that it is the need to commit evil acts to remain alive that forces the alignment change, not the inherent nature of the template.

Essentially, your LG vampire must feed off of innocent humans to live, which is an evil act. (No non-human blood for Ravenloft vamps.) Every time he commits the evil act, make a check of some sort or have your alignment shift one place towards CE. Time takes care of the rest.

So it's not completely without discussion in D&D - just in the core rules.

[Reddish Mage]

Sorry, but that is nowhere in the rules. The rules specify that in the default setting (Greyhawk), vampires are "always" evil, with the provision that always means almost always in the monster manual. It doesn't say a single thing about what happens to a good character who is turned into a vampire, that is left entirely to DM discretion.

Now, you could argue that vampires are usually evil BECAUSE good characters get turned evil, but that isn't in the rules. You just took
1. the brief statement of alignment tendencies in the MM
2. the assumption that all D&D worlds are Greyhawk
3. the assumption that the alignment system is internally consistent
4. concluded that SOMETHING must happen to make most vampires evil, and picked one explanation and declared it to be the only one (it would be equally valid to suppose, without looking at other Greyhawk sources, that Greyhawk vampires are almost always evil because evil characters are the most likely to be vampirized. I have no idea WHY that would be true, but nor have you given any justification for your interpretation...and it still doesn't matter, because this isn't Greyhawk.)

You don't need to go to Greyhawl. Always evil is right in the core Monster Manual, together with the explanation that always means "born" with the alignment "genetically" or from being from a plane of that determines it. Yes alignment shifting is possible but exception are "unique" or "rare."

[Gnoman]

You don't need to go to Greyhawl. Always evil is right in the core Monster Manual, together with the explanation that always means "born" with the alignment "genetically" or from being from a plane of that determines it. Yes alignment shifting is possible but exception are "unique" or "rare."

Every bit of fluff in the 3.5 Core books is from the Greyhawk setting. Wizards of the Coast decided to make it the default.

[Sir_Leorik]

Every bit of fluff in the 3.5 Core books is from the Greyhawk setting. Wizards of the Coast decided to make it the default.

Actually that isn't always accurate. The designers took aspects of the original "Greyhawk" campaign, and tweaked it to fit what they wanted to be the default setting. For example, prior to 3.0, Heironeous' favored weapon was the battleaxe, not the longsword. It was changed to the longsword because the 3.0 design team wanted a chivalrous god that appealed to Paladins, and Heironeous fit the bill. So they replaced his specific weapon (battleaxe) with a generic "paladin weapon". In the "Living Greyhawk" Campaign, clerics of Heironeous used either battleaxes or longswords as their favored weapon.

In terms of Vampires, the AD&D Monster Manual/Monstrous Manual had Vampires always be Chaotic Evil. In the "Ravenloft" Campaign Setting, the AD&D 2E sourcebook Van Richten's Guide to Vampires explains why Vampires almost always become Evil: the influence of the Sire, the influence of the Negative Material Plane, the act of feeding on other sapient beings and the weight of the centuries, changes their Alignment. Rarely, Vampires like Jander Sunstar or Dante Lysin can resist becoming Evil, but they never retain a Good Alignment. Dr. Rudolph Van Richten's teenage son, Erasmus, was on the verge of giving in, when he found his father and begged him to destroy him. They spent one last tearful night together, then Dr. Van Richten staked his son and watched as the sunlight destroyed his body.

In the 2E "Ravenloft" campaign, Vampires can't get any nutrition from the blood of non-sapient creatures. In the 3.X "Ravenloft" campaign (published by Arthaus, under license from WotC), Vampires get less nutrition from feeding on non-sapient creatures. According to the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign Setting, Vampires need to drain at least 4 points of Constitution worth of blood each night. If they try feeding on animals they need to drain at least 8 points worth of blood. There is an optional rule for "shallow feeding" in Ravenloft Gazetteer Vol. IV, which allows a Vampire to inflict Constitution damage rather than drain when drinking blood, but a Vampire would need to drink at least eight Constitution points worth of blood each night. Constitution damage caused by "shallow feeding" under this optional rule heals like all other forms of ability score damage.

[137beth]

In terms of Vampires, the AD&D Monster Manual/Monstrous Manual had Vampires always be Chaotic Evil. In the "Ravenloft" Campaign Setting, the AD&D 2E sourcebook Van Richten's Guide to Vampires explains why Vampires almost always become Evil: the influence of the Sire, the influence of the Negative Material Plane, the act of feeding on other sapient beings and the weight of the centuries, changes their Alignment. Rarely, Vampires like Jander Sunstar or Dante Lysin can resist becoming Evil, but they never retain a Good Alignment. Dr. Rudolph Van Richten's teenage son, Erasmus, was on the verge of giving in, when he found his father and begged him to destroy him. They spent one last tearful night together, then Dr. Van Richten staked his son and watched as the sunlight destroyed his body.

In the 2E "Ravenloft" campaign, Vampires can't get any nutrition from the blood of non-sapient creatures. In the 3.X "Ravenloft" campaign (published by Arthaus, under license from WotC), Vampires get less nutrition from feeding on non-sapient creatures. According to the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign Setting, Vampires need to drain at least 4 points of Constitution worth of blood each night. If they try feeding on animals they need to drain at least 8 points worth of blood. There is an optional rule for "shallow feeding" in Ravenloft Gazetteer Vol. IV, which allows a Vampire to inflict Constitution damage rather than drain when drinking blood, but a Vampire would need to drink at least eight Constitution points worth of blood each night. Constitution damage caused by "shallow feeding" under this optional rule heals like all other forms of ability score damage.
1. This isn't Ravenloft
2. Even if it were Ravenloft, everything you just said supports vampires gradually becoming evil due to actions they take after becoming vampires. Which happens to contradict Reddish Mage's assertion that the process of becoming a vampire instantly transforms the subject's alignment to evil and that it is "genetic" or that they are "created evil." So no, in Ravenloft, vampires do not instantly become evil upon transformation.

In the core 3.5/3.0 rules, "almost all" vampires are evil in the default world (which is a stripped down Greyhawk), but the core rules don't say anything about how they become evil. Are they
1. magically made evil by their transformation?
2. become evil out of necessity to feed of other living beings?
3. Do they usually become evil due to the social influence ?
4. Is the fact that they are almost always evil just because evil people are made into vampires more often and the "almost always evil" part is purely coincidental?
5. something else?

Any of those could be true under the core rules, because the Monster Manual does not specify. So why is it that Reddish_Mage and others on these forums keep insisting that it absolutely must be option (1)? That's not in the core rules. It may be in the setting-specific books of certain settings (though, as Sir_Leorik, it definitely isn't true in Ravenloft), but that would only necessarily be the case in those settings. So even under setting-neutral RAW , there is not reason to suspect that vampires are created evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

1. This isn't Ravenloft

That's why I didn't bring up VRGtV first. "Ravenloft" is a corner case, a campaign setting specifically designed with a Gothic Horror feel, rather than a High Fantasy feel.


2. Even if it were Ravenloft, everything you just said supports vampires gradually becoming evil due to actions they take after becoming vampires. Which happens to contradict Reddish Mage's assertion that the process of becoming a vampire instantly transforms the subject's alignment to evil and that it is "genetic" or that they are "created evil." So no, in Ravenloft, vampires do not instantly become evil upon transformation.

True, but most Vampires created in the Demiplane of Dread are under the thrall of their Sire for years, decades or even centuries. During that period they lose control over their actions, but are aware of those actions. Jander was able to subvert his Sire's domination, and he became Chaotic Neutral, rather than Chaotic Evil; Urik von Kharkov gave in to his animalistic nature, and when his Sire was destroyed, he fled into the Mists and became Darklord of Valachan.

Durkon was a Thrall for a single day, during which he committed two actions that were clearly Evil: draining Belkar's blood and summoning a Barbed Devil.


In the core 3.5/3.0 rules, "almost all" vampires are evil in the default world (which is a stripped down Greyhawk), but the core rules don't say anything about how they become evil. Are they
1. magically made evil by their transformation?
2. become evil out of necessity to feed of other living beings?
3. Do they usually become evil due to the social influence ?
4. Is the fact that they are almost always evil just because evil people are made into vampires more often and the "almost always evil" part is purely coincidental?
5. something else?

The Core Rules seem to lean towards number 1. As I pointed out, VRGtV and other material from "Ravenloft" disagrees, but that isn't part of the 3.X Core Rules. Libris Mortis isn't much help in this case; while it does discuss the psychology of Undead, it doesn't explain why a Vampire becomes Evil upon gaining the "Vampire Template".


Any of those could be true under the core rules, because the Monster Manual does not specify. So why is it that Reddish_Mage and others on these forums keep insisting that it absolutely must be option (1)? That's not in the core rules. It may be in the setting-specific books of certain settings (though, as Sir_Leorik, it definitely isn't true in Ravenloft), but that would only necessarily be the case in those settings. So even under setting-neutral RAW , there is not reason to suspect that vampires are created evil.

The 3.5 Monster Manual says that Vampires are "Always Evil (Any)", period. It doesn't give a reason why. A DM is entitled to step in and provide an explanation, but the Core Rules have shirked their responsibility in this case.

[tomandtish]

When it comes to vampires and the evil alignment, it may very well be gradual. A big part of the problem is that it's hard to maintain respect for something you consider to be food. Especially when combined with overwhelming craving (as mentioned earlier). You start slow and eventually you've crossed lines with justifications and self-delusions.

Assume the below is no particular timeframe in the comic, and assume the accent (my spellcheck throws a fit otherwise).

"The burning in my throat. It's always there. Like I've run for miles with nothing to drink at all…"


"It's just a goblin. It's our enemy anyway. There's no real difference between me drinking him and me hitting him with my hammer…."

"Will this burning ever go away. I'd do anything to make it stop. Gods will the five of them stop yammering and leave me in peace!"

"We've saved most of the slaves… this one is wounded and will probably die anyway. And I need to save my healing for the party… He'll die of his wounds… He will…. I'm sure of it…. And we did save the rest of them…"

"I can't stand this! Make it stop! I just want it to stop burning! Thor, please!!!!"

"Roy…. You're hurt. I could heal you…. I'm sorry…. But I'm so hungry….. and you smell so good…. I'm sorry….".

"Strawberries….. She tastes like strawberries….".

"Finally he stops. That music was making my head hurt anyway. I'm not so thirsty anymore".

"You're lecturing ME on controlling myself?!? YOU?!? You want to understand what power is?!? Let me show you!"

"He'll do. He can bring me others. Let's just get rid of that stupid cat".

[FujinAkari]

Uh... guys?


Vampire Characters

Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities. In addition, certain classes take additional penalties.
Clerics

Vampire clerics lose their ability to turn undead but gain the ability to rebuke undead. This ability does not affect the vampire’s controller or any other vampires that a master controls. A vampire cleric has access to two of the following domains: Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.

Characters that become Vampires ARE Evil. Period. The rules don't say "A vampire whose alignment changes lose any abilities that rely on their former alignment." they simply outright state that changes to class abilities occur.

While there is certainly nothing preventing a character from shifting his alignment back over time, RAW certainly seems to imply that the process of becoming a vampire makes a character evil at the moment of transformation.

While a DM can override this, there is no reason to suspect Rich is.

[SavageWombat]

Uh, guys? There is no reason to suspect Rich will do anything other than follow the needs of the story.

If there was ever a point where he might ignore RAW, this is it.

[Sir_Leorik]

Characters that become Vampires ARE Evil. Period. The rules don't say "A vampire whose alignment changes lose any abilities that rely on their former alignment." they simply outright state that changes to class abilities occur.

While there is certainly nothing preventing a character from shifting his alignment back over time, RAW certainly seems to imply that the process of becoming a vampire makes a character evil at the moment of transformation.

While a DM can override this, there is no reason to suspect Rich is.

I agree with you 100% about what the RAW says. The problem is the paucity of fluff in the Monster Manual or Libris Mortis to explain why that happens. Unlike on "Buffy" or "Angel", D&D Vampires have their old souls; they are sustained by Negative Energy, have an overwhelming compulsion to drain Life Energy, and they must subsist on a diet of blood (See Libris Mortis for the feeding habits of Vampires and other Undead), but they have all their old memories. The influence of the Sire can't be the chief factor, since all Vampires, by RAW, become Always Evil (Any), whether their Sire is Count Strahd, or a thrall that rose from the grave last night.

We're trying to debate the why, not the what; by the RAW the second a Humanoid or Monstrous Humanoid has the Vampire template applied to her, her Alignment changes. The Core Rules don't give a satisfactory explanation why.

[Reddish Mage]

Uh, guys? There is no reason to suspect Rich will do anything other than follow the needs of the story.

If there was ever a point where he might ignore RAW, this is it.

You could depict goblins as tiny magical artisans with neutral tendencies but that wouldn't be D&D. Standard D&D Vampires (sans Ravenloft) are evil from creation, the why isn't clear but that fact is.

Now Rich could have ignored that, but he didn't. Durkon already summoned a fiend, his alignment has already changed.

[JSSheridan]

Which do you think is more interesting, appropriate for the setting, and what your players want? Just do that.

What interest me is what happens to the soul of a newly sired vampire. I think it's more interesting for a gradual change to a person than a instant transformation.

The Evil is just a facade at first, compelling them to commit Evil acts, but their actions slowly change the person as they rationalize what they're doing.

If someone Good spent a month as a vampire and was resurrected, they'd probably still be Good on resurrection. A few months to years, then there's a good chance they'd shifted to Neutral. After ten years, it'd be very likely they would be Evil.

[Yagerr]

Which do you think is more interesting, appropriate for the setting, and what your players want? Just do that.

What interest me is what happens to the soul of a newly sired vampire. I think it's more interesting for a gradual change to a person than a instant transformation.

The Evil is just a facade at first, compelling them to commit Evil acts, but their actions slowly change the person as they rationalize what they're doing.

If someone Good spent a month as a vampire and was resurrected, they'd probably still be Good on resurrection. A few months to years, then there's a good chance they'd shifted to Neutral. After ten years, it'd be very likely they would be Evil.


This was kind of what I was wondering, but then I do not think the old durkon would use a corpse as a weapon... so I think he be evil.

[137beth]

Standard D&D Vampires (sans Ravenloft) are evil from creation, the why isn't clear but that fact is.

That isn't in the core rules, you just made it up. It says Vampires are almost always evil, it doesn't say a thing about whether they instantly become evil upon creation or shift there gradually.
Now, if your "standard D&D sans Ravenloft" claim was referring to other standard D&D settings....you might want to look at spelljammer, planescape, and Eberron.
Regardless, whether vampires instantly become evil upon creation is not in the core rules, or in any other non-setting-specific book (that I know of, I don't have Libres Mortis).

[Sir_Leorik]

That isn't in the core rules, you just made it up. It says Vampires are almost always evil, it doesn't say a thing about whether they instantly become evil upon creation or shift there gradually.

The Vampire Template says that the Base Creature's Alignment changes to Always Evil (Any). There is no fluff explaining when this occurs, why it occurs, what to do regarding PCs who become Vampires, or how to handle corner cases like Dante Lysin or Jander Sunstar. Libris Mortis doesn't say anything either.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Nothing we presume should be based of the vampire template mechanics...

[Sir_Leorik]

Nothing we presume should be based of the vampire template mechanics...

Why not? We should presume the Vampire Template is being used as is, unless we are shown otherwise. So far everything Malack and Durkon have done is consistent with the RAW Vampire Template.

[137beth]

The Vampire Template says that the Base Creature's Alignment changes to Always Evil (Any). There is no fluff explaining when this occurs, why it occurs, what to do regarding PCs who become Vampires, or how to handle corner cases like Dante Lysin or Jander Sunstar. Libris Mortis doesn't say anything either.

The Monster Manual says that "Always Evil" means "Almost Always Evil."
It also doesn't specify that the base creature's alignment changes to evil, just that vampires "always" are evil-aligned. Which could hypothetically mean that vampires in Greyhawk "default setting" are almost always made from already-evil creatures. The rules do not say that the base creature's alignment is instantly transformed.

[Sir_Leorik]

The Monster Manual says that "Always Evil" means "Almost Always Evil."
It also doesn't specify that the base creature's alignment changes to evil, just that vampires "always" are evil-aligned. Which could hypothetically mean that vampires in Greyhawk "default setting" are almost always made from already-evil creatures. The rules do not say that the base creature's alignment is instantly transformed.

Let's try to avoid a debate over semantics, because the RAW in the Vampire Template really don't give any guidance to a DM on how to resolve this issue. The relevant rules are listed in the Create Spawn special attack, which describes how long it takes for a victim to become a Vampire Spawn or Vampire Thrall (1d4 days after burial), how many hit dice of Vampire Spawn or Vampire Thralls a Sire can have at any given time (no more than twice the Sire's own Hit Dice total), and how a Vampire or Spawn can become free (voluntarily freed by the Sire, or automatically freed upon the Sire's death).

There's nothing there detailing how long it takes for a Base Creature that acquires the Vampire Template to become Evil; it could happen automatically or gradually, but there's no rules for it in the Monster Manual or Libris Mortis.

[Skorj]

The Monster Manual says that "Always Evil" means "Almost Always Evil."
It also doesn't specify that the base creature's alignment changes to evil, just that vampires "always" are evil-aligned. Which could hypothetically mean that vampires in Greyhawk "default setting" are almost always made from already-evil creatures. The rules do not say that the base creature's alignment is instantly transformed.

As I've always understood "always evil" it means "if you're just rolling randomly for alignment, all the results are evil, so no need to roll". The DM has the discretion with the "always" alignments to make exceptions where it serves the story without even the need to invoke Rule 0.

That's different from creatures with the (Evil) type. Unlike vampires, who are "Type: Undead", Demons e.g. are "Type: Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)". You can't have a demon who's not evil any more than you can have a demon who's not an Outsider - in a sense they're made of evil.

So there is a clear mechanical distinction between: "alignment: always evil" - evil unless the DM has a story to tell "type: (Evil)" - the DM has no discretion except Rule 0

All of which is likely beside the point - Durkon seems to be straightforward LE now to me - but even by RAW he doesn't have to be.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Why not? We should presume the Vampire Template is being used as is, unless we are shown otherwise. So far everything Malack and Durkon have done is consistent with the RAW Vampire Template.

Because this is Rich and when has he ever followed things to the letter?

[hamishspence]

That's different from creatures with the (Evil) type. Unlike vampires, who are "Type: Undead", Demons e.g. are "Type: Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)". You can't have a demon who's not evil any more than you can have a demon who's not an Outsider - in a sense they're made of evil.

MM says otherwise, in its description of each alignment subtype.

SRD example, Evil, in this case:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

[Skarn]

Are they
1. magically made evil by their transformation?
2. become evil out of necessity to feed of other living beings?
3. Do they usually become evil due to the social influence ?
4. Is the fact that they are almost always evil just because evil people are made into vampires more often and the "almost always evil" part is purely coincidental?
5. something else?
2 doesn't make sense because even if taken to the extreme it's no different than killing someone. Choosing evil targets (or non-sentient ones) should not be an evil act in that scenario.
3 and 4 don't make sense because the template makes reference to Good characters automatically losing their Good alignment(and any bonuses that come from it). It is not a choice the character makes.

1 works because 1 is magic(tm) and no one can make a logical argument against that. :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness, the question here isn't "What are the different ways this could be handled", it's "How did the Giant handle it". To that end, I would suggest going over what has been seen so far:
1) Malack was totally Evil no matter how much he liked to pretend he wasn't. Granting your victim's deathwish is hardly a consolation for that fact.
2) Durkon spontaneous-cast an inflict spell by accident, which means he's currently most likely Evil for the purposes of spells and effects, but at most Neutral.
3) Somehow I doubt he rose from the dead and said said to himself :durkon: "eh, I've been Good for long enough" so it's safe to assume he didn't choose to make that change.
4) Siding with the Order was a mostly Neutral act, though it can be construed as Good as well, given his exact reasoning.
5) His demeanor in combat has changed greatly, he seems to enjoy it now, as opposed to before when he was always very serious-faced. Also, given that Z was unconscious, he probably should have gone after Nale next, but instead went in for the kill on Z.

What this is telling me is that Durkon's alignment both has and hasn't changed. His old personality is still in control, but there are definite signs of a shift. If it continues like this I think in the end he will tend towards behaving in an Evil manner even if his intentions are Good. His newfound "instinct" (or whatever you want to call it) will eventually cause him to lose sight of the difference.

[factotum]

Because this is Rich and when has he ever followed things to the letter?

Most of the time, actually--he'll ignore the D&D rules if they get in the way of the story he wants to tell, but when the story and the rules go together, he's happy to follow the rules.

[TriForce]

i think, from a story perspective, it might help to read malacks responce to durkon when durkon suggested to resurrect him.

basically, malack was saying that resurrecting the old him, would be nothing more then killing him and putting the origional him in the place.

this strongly suggests that, while they have the same mannerisms and memories, a vampire version of someone is NOT the same person, and thus, Durkula is NOT Durkon, Durkon, good alignment and all, is just chatting it up with roys dad on a cloud before he gets in the great gates.

whatever is controlling durkons body atm is very likely just negative energy, used his memories to create a personality, very similar to the origional durkon, but from the get go tainted by negative energy, and thus evil. this wouldnt prevent alignment changes later on in the line (tough unlikely) but it would suggest ( and explain why) durkula is evil, and has been since the start

[hamishspence]

i think, from a story perspective, it might help to read malacks responce to durkon when durkon suggested to resurrect him.

basically, malack was saying that resurrecting the old him, would be nothing more then killing him and putting the origional him in the place.

this strongly suggests that, while they have the same mannerisms and memories, a vampire version of someone is NOT the same person, and thus, Durkula is NOT Durkon, Durkon, good alignment and all, is just chatting it up with roys dad on a cloud before he gets in the great gates.

whatever is controlling durkons body atm is very likely just negative energy, used his memories to create a personality, very similar to the origional durkon, but from the get go tainted by negative energy, and thus evil.
4E does have some undead be like this- but not vampires- which it states have souls.

3E (Complete Divine) has something a bit like this- but with the soul still trapped in the body- and something else, a "malign intelligence" in control.

We'll have to wait and see- but it would surprise me somewhat if we see Durkon's soul in the afterlife in a later strip, but Durkula still around.

[Edhelras]

Most of the time, actually--he'll ignore the D&D rules if they get in the way of the story he wants to tell, but when the story and the rules go together, he's happy to follow the rules.

Actually, I'm not convinced that Rich breaks the rules that much - not even "to get the story going"? On the contrary, most of the times I see cries of rule-breaking, it seems to me that actually Rich DID follow the rules, only in a different (mostly smarter - but sometimes less "optimizing") than people perceived.
I know Rich has sometimes stated himself that he didn't look up this or that specific rule. But still, I'm quite impressed by how closely he follows the rules after all.

[Sir_Leorik]

Because this is Rich and when has he ever followed things to the letter?


Most of the time, actually--he'll ignore the D&D rules if they get in the way of the story he wants to tell, but when the story and the rules go together, he's happy to follow the rules.

And in this case, forcing Durkon to become Evil makes for a better story. Instead of becoming a more powerful version of the old Durkon, Durkon is now more bloodthirsty (figuratively and literally); he takes actions the old Durkon would never do (like making a coup de grace against a fallen enemy); his connection to his "good buddy" Thor is gone, replaced with a nebulous connection to a non-theistic Divine power source; he channels Negative energy rather than Positive energy, so he will now have to prepare a limited number of Cure (X) Wounds and Heal spells (limiting his use as the party's heal-bot); and he may alienate his old friends through his actions. Unlike Belkar, who never really cared about anyone but himself until Mr. Scruffy came along, Durkon was a kind and caring soul; now he's a blood-dependent, Negative energy-powered, monster. Durkon's changed; how much remains to be seen, but he's changed.


2 doesn't make sense because even if taken to the extreme it's no different than killing someone. Choosing evil targets (or non-sentient ones) should not be an evil act in that scenario.
3 and 4 don't make sense because the template makes reference to Good characters automatically losing their Good alignment(and any bonuses that come from it). It is not a choice the character makes.

This is true if the Vampire goes "vegetarian", only draining blood and Energy Levels from non-sapient animals and magical beasts. Choosing to feed off of sapient enemies, even Evil ones, is a borderline Evil act, especially if the Vampire loses control.


1 works because 1 is magic(tm) and no one can make a logical argument against that. :smalltongue:

The problem with that is it slams the door shut on exceptional Vampires like Dante Lysin or Jander Sunstar. The Book of Crypts did not explain how Lysin remain Chaotic Neutral, but "Vampire of the Mists" indicates that Jander's Gold Elf heritage played a leading role in his ability to resist his Sire, remain Chaotic Good until the night he entered Ravenloft, and resist Count Strahd's bad example of how to be a really cool Chaotic Evil Vampire Darklord.


But in all seriousness, the question here isn't "What are the different ways this could be handled", it's "How did the Giant handle it". To that end, I would suggest going over what has been seen so far:
1) Malack was totally Evil no matter how much he liked to pretend he wasn't. Granting your victim's deathwish is hardly a consolation for that fact.
2) Durkon spontaneous-cast an inflict spell by accident, which means he's currently most likely Evil for the purposes of spells and effects, but at most Neutral.
3) Somehow I doubt he rose from the dead and said said to himself :durkon: "eh, I've been Good for long enough" so it's safe to assume he didn't choose to make that change.

He did rise as a Thrall, though he only spent a few hours as a Thrall. Jander spent over a century (hamishspence can probably provide the exact number of years) as a Thrall, before he was able to come up with a plan to destroy his Sire. Jander was making a conscious effort to hold onto his inner Elf, and his Sire found it amusing to have an Elf Vampire as a Thrall, so he may have loosened his control, but Jander fought against his Evil urges (sometimes unsuccessfully).


4) Siding with the Order was a mostly Neutral act, though it can be construed as Good as well, given his exact reasoning.

It could also be construed as a form of self-preservation: Durkon doesn't want to be destroyed, and saving the world will mean he'll get to enjoy centuries to carry out any Evil schemes.


5) His demeanor in combat has changed greatly, he seems to enjoy it now, as opposed to before when he was always very serious-faced. Also, given that Z was unconscious, he probably should have gone after Nale next, but instead went in for the kill on Z.

What this is telling me is that Durkon's alignment both has and hasn't changed. His old personality is still in control, but there are definite signs of a shift. If it continues like this I think in the end he will tend towards behaving in an Evil manner even if his intentions are Good. His newfound "instinct" (or whatever you want to call it) will eventually cause him to lose sight of the difference.

His Alignment has changed, but his personality hasn't. Durkon is still humble and self-effacing, but now that humility has taken on a darker mien. Look at how quiet he is, as he listens to Nale's spiel. Then he slowly acknowledges that he's changed, before leaping to attack. He's also quick with a quip, and Rich manages to find humor in Durkon being set in his ways, like many Dwarves are. Durkon may be a blood drinking monstrosity, but he's our blood drinking monstrosity.

[Joe the Rat]

His Alignment has changed, but his personality hasn't. Durkon is still humble and self-effacing, but now that humility has taken on a darker mien. Look at how quiet he is, as he listens to Nale's spiel. Then he slowly acknowledges that he's changed, before leaping to attack. He's also quick with a quip, and Rich manages to find humor in Durkon being set in his ways, like many Dwarves are. Durkon may be a blood drinking monstrosity, but he's our blood drinking monstrosity.

There you go. Alignment and Personality have some correlations, but they are not totally interdependent. A Good-Aligned Nale would still be given in to grandiose schemes and glory, but his goals would be a bit more beneficial to the world, rather than just him. Lawful Haley would probably be more the rules lawyer than the fast-talker - but not necessarily more trusting. Evil Durkon has that humble side, but he also still has that little bit of himself that enjoys winning (the 'tea-time' smile, the smirk after they beat Windstaff), it's just become more manifest.

Now then, let's talk changing alignments.

Durkon becoming evil is not the results of Evil acts taken of his own free will in the past... 36 seconds of Thrall-free existence. He is Evil because he became a vampire. One of the effects of becoming a vampire is becoming Evil. Period. It's right there under the effects of becoming a vampire. Why? Magic. You can debate if this is part of the Vampiric curse, or a result of being mainlined to the Negative Energy Plane, but it's inherent to the process.

You know what else can make you Evil? A hat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment).

He may not stay evil (nothing in the Vampire status says they can't change), or decide to wax his mustache for villainous twirling, but right now he's Evil, in a cruel, pragmatic way.

[factotum]

basically, malack was saying that resurrecting the old him, would be nothing more then killing him and putting the origional him in the place.

this strongly suggests that, while they have the same mannerisms and memories, a vampire version of someone is NOT the same person

Or it suggests that someone who's existed for 200 years is not the same person at the end of that time as they were at the start, regardless of what templates they have.

[Skarn]

Choosing to feed off of sapient enemies, even Evil ones, is a borderline Evil act, especially if the Vampire loses control. I can understand it if we're talking about creating a spawn, but otherwise it's not any different than any other attack.


The problem with that is it slams the door shut on exceptional Vampires like Dante Lysin or Jander Sunstar. The Book of Crypts did not explain how Lysin remain Chaotic Neutral, but "Vampire of the Mists" indicates that Jander's Gold Elf heritage played a leading role in his ability to resist his Sire, remain Chaotic Good until the night he entered Ravenloft, and resist Count Strahd's bad example of how to be a really cool Chaotic Evil Vampire Darklord.

He did rise as a Thrall, though he only spent a few hours as a Thrall. Jander spent over a century (hamishspence can probably provide the exact number of years) as a Thrall, before he was able to come up with a plan to destroy his Sire. Jander was making a conscious effort to hold onto his inner Elf, and his Sire found it amusing to have an Elf Vampire as a Thrall, so he may have loosened his control, but Jander fought against his Evil urges (sometimes unsuccessfully).
Sounds like it fits to me. Being vamped magically changes the subject's nature to an evil one, but they remain a free-willed person who can technically resist it but in practice fail to.


It could also be construed as a form of self-preservation: Durkon doesn't want to be destroyed, and saving the world will mean he'll get to enjoy centuries to carry out any Evil schemes.
It's not as if Xykon or Nale/Tarquin are actually planning to destroy the world. They intend to conquer it with the help of the gates, nothing more.

If he just wants to be evil, there are far better choices to side with than the good guys.


His Alignment has changed, but his personality hasn't. Durkon is still humble and self-effacing, but now that humility has taken on a darker mien. Look at how quiet he is, as he listens to Nale's spiel. Then he slowly acknowledges that he's changed, before leaping to attack. He's also quick with a quip, and Rich manages to find humor in Durkon being set in his ways, like many Dwarves are. Durkon may be a blood drinking monstrosity, but he's our blood drinking monstrosity.
Maybe. Time will tell, but my personal interpretation is that he still thinks he's in control of things. That is, that he can still tell right from wrong and choose the right despite technically being evil. I doubt it will end well for him.

Notably, it's possible that the "confusion" Malack was referencing may actually mean that he isn't done changing in terms of his personality or alignment due to the process being rushed. If so, he may start to behave differently over the next few days.

[Taelas]

In the core 3.5/3.0 rules, "almost all" vampires are evil in the default world (which is a stripped down Greyhawk), but the core rules don't say anything about how they become evil. Are they
1. magically made evil by their transformation?
This.


2. become evil out of necessity to feed of other living beings?
3. Do they usually become evil due to the social influence ?
4. Is the fact that they are almost always evil just because evil people are made into vampires more often and the "almost always evil" part is purely coincidental?
5. something else?

Any of those could be true under the core rules, because the Monster Manual does not specify.
YES, it does. It specifies that they become Evil. It uses the example of a cleric that Turns Undead to explain what happens to vampire clerics. To turn undead, a cleric must be either Good or Neutral.

Even if you were to ignore this, it categorically states that all vampires are Evil, and since the vampire template does not restrict itself to Evil creatures, it means an alignment change occurs. It does not mention the passing of time, it does not mention the need to devour the blood of innocents, and it does not indicate any "social influence." Vampires are Evil. Since that is the extent of the information we get, it means that even recently sired vampires are Evil, regardless of their original alignment. It cannot be anything but 1.


So why is it that Reddish_Mage and others on these forums keep insisting that it absolutely must be option (1)? That's not in the core rules.
Because any reasonable reading of the source material makes it abundantly clear?

[137beth]

YES, it does. It specifies that they become Evil.
Uh, the phrase "become evil" does not appear in the entry for vampires under alignment--you just made it up.

It uses the example of a cleric that Turns Undead to explain what happens to vampire clerics. To turn undead, a cleric must be either Good or Neutral.

:smallconfused:
So under your reading, all vampires are clerics, and all non-good clerics are evil. Right, I'll go tell that to the true neutral cleric (or heck, the Good fighter, since it doesn't say "fighters become evil", just "clerics gain the ability to rebuke undead").


Even if you were to ignore this, it categorically states that all vampires are Evil,
I suggest you read the definition of "always evil" in the Monster Manual:smallsigh:


and since the vampire template does not restrict itself to Evil creatures, it means an alignment change occurs.
When does the alignment change occur? Instantly? Where does it say that? If it happens 1 day after they turn into a vampire, and "almost all" vampires are more than 1 day old, then "almost all" vampires would be evil. Or heck, where does it say in the rules that good characters are "frequently" turned into vampires? Where does it say anything about former nonevil characters making up even 1/100000000000000000 of the population of vampires? How the heck are either of those contradicted by the core rules?


It does not mention the passing of time, it does not mention the need to devour the blood of innocents, and it does not indicate any "social influence."
Of course not, because it doesn't even mention alignment change in any capacity whatsoever.. You think alignment change occurs instantly? Sure, that is as allowable under RAW as alignment change occurring gradually, or not occurring at all, because the core rules don't say anything about it.


Because any reasonable reading of the source material makes it abundantly clear?
Huh, it's almost like I just posted three other readings which are consistent with core...
oooh, or how about the "source material" of 4 official D&D settings which don't follow your "reading" of the core rules, huh? Are the developers reading their own rules wrong?

[Darilian]

Uh, guys? There is no reason to suspect Rich will do anything other than follow the needs of the story.

If there was ever a point where he might ignore RAW, this is it.

I doubt it.

Mr. Burlew has always loved to play with the preconceptions of the alignment system- from Miko, the Lawful Good antagonist, to Belkar, to Roy abandoning Elan and then realizing what he had done- one of the consistent strengths of the comic is that Mr. Burlew likes to set up characters using the D&D alignment archetypes and playing off of those archetypes.

Given that Mr. Burlew has wanted Durkon to be a vampire for a very long time, I really think that he has thought a very long time about this. As a result, I would be shocked if Durkon, as a vampire, wasn't evil. Even evil, he's still loyal to his friends, wants to save the world, and presumably, wants to go back home to the dwarven homelands. He can't do anything of those things if he abandons the OoTS to die in the middle of the desert.

The real question to ask-

Is there any real reason to doubt that Durkon is now evil?

Otherwise, one would have to read this strip expecting the author to broadcast every single thing, every mood change, every acquisition of an item, everything. And that would be very, very tedious indeed.

I sometimes am struck with the thought that Mr. Burlew, perhaps, when he decided to make the OoTS more of a narrative comic than just a joke a week, precisely saw the limitations of the D&D universe (alignments included) as a challenge. Ie- can one create compelling and interesting dramatic characters under the restrictions of the D&D alignment system?

Given that Mr. Burlew obviously has much love for Dungeons and Dragons, I would be surprised if his overall goal was anything but an attempt to show that one can do good drama and characterizations under the alignment system.

Darilian

[137beth]

The real question to ask-

Is there any real reason to doubt that Durkon is now evil?

Otherwise, one would have to read this strip expecting the author to broadcast every single thing, every mood change, every acquisition of an item, everything. And that would be very, very tedious indeed.
No, there isn't much reason to doubt Durkon's evilness.

But we also don't have any reason to doubt that Durkon is now neutral (he isn't good since he spontaneously cast inflict moderate wounds)....
well, aside from the fact that he was grinning when he snapped someone's neck, which seems kinda evil to me:smallsmile:

[Taelas]

Uh, the phrase "become evil" does not appear in the entry for vampires under alignment--you just made it up.
No, I inferred it. All vampires are Evil, and there is no restriction for the template to only affect living creatures that are Evil.


:smallconfused:
So under your reading, all vampires are clerics, and all non-good clerics are evil. Right, I'll go tell that to the true neutral cleric (or heck, the Good fighter, since it doesn't say "fighters become evil", just "clerics gain the ability to rebuke undead").
....

I did not say "all vampires are clerics". I pointed out that the entry uses an example of a cleric that must have been Neutral or Good, since they used to channel positive energy, which has now become Evil (because "all vampires are Evil") to point out that no, it does not just affect Evil people, the way you started claiming.


I suggest you read the definition of "always evil" in the Monster Manual:smallsigh:
See, I have. I know what it says.

Perhaps it is you who needs the refresher course. Here:

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The
creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or
come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals
to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique
or rare exceptions.

The vampire is created with the Evil alignment. It continues to have free will, so it can change its alignment after the fact, but it is created with the alignment.

"Always" means the creature always has the alignment (or in the case of a rare few exceptions, had it at some point). Huh. Funny how it means exactly what it says.


When does the alignment change occur? Instantly? Where does it say that? If it happens 1 day after they turn into a vampire, and "almost all" vampires are more than 1 day old, then "almost all" vampires would be evil. Or heck, where does it say in the rules that good characters are "frequently" turned into vampires? Where does it say anything about former nonevil characters making up even 1/100000000000000000 of the population of vampires? How the heck are either of those contradicted by the core rules?
It is an instantaneous change that occurs upon becoming a vampire.

The makeup of the population of vampires have nothing to do with whether or not they change alignment. Even if 90% of the people who were turned into vampires were originally Evil -- which is a baseless assumption, for there is no indication of that happening at all -- the remaining 10% would still be Evil vampires -- regardless of their original disposition.


Of course not, because it doesn't even mention alignment change in any capacity whatsoever.. You think alignment change occurs instantly? Sure, that is as allowable under RAW as alignment change occurring gradually, or not occurring at all, because the core rules don't say anything about it.
It is the only possible interpretation of the source material. Any other interpretation directly contradicts what the entry says.

[hamishspence]

He did rise as a Thrall, though he only spent a few hours as a Thrall. Jander spent over a century (hamishspence can probably provide the exact number of years) as a Thrall, before he was able to come up with a plan to destroy his Sire.

Sadly, none of the books tell us- only "over a century".

[Sir_Leorik]

Sadly, none of the books tell us- only "over a century".

That's what I figured. Practically every year of Strahd's life (and unlife) is recorded somewhere (although some of the material is contradictory and anything that is in the "Tome of Strahd" or the diary in "I, Strahd" or "I, Strahd: the War Against Azalin" is likely propaganda) but Jander's life story is not really that fleshed out. I just wasn't sure if I'd missed some reference in a "Forgotten Realms" anthology or sourcebook.