Durkula's alignment could be chaotic

[Diadem]

The last few days on this forum has seen intense debate over Durkula's alignment, specifically whether he is now evil, or still good. One thing however that was completely ignored, is whether he is still lawful.

By the RAW, D&D vampires can be lawful, neutral or chaotic with no restrictions. There seem to be no rules about having to follow the alignment of the original living creature. Meanwhile, in fiction, vampires are generally chaotic. There are examples of lawful vampires (The elders from Underworld come to mind), but generally they are a pretty chaotic bunch.

This makes sense. Vampires aren't just evil. They live outside the law, outside the system, almost by definition. The few rare examples of lawful vampires I can think of, are vampires living in complex societies with other vampires. Generally though even those vampires revel in chaos, and their very strict and orderly societies are perhaps not an expression of a lawful nature, but actually a necessary tool to suppress their chaotic natures enough to make living in society possible at all.

And let's look at it from Durkon's side: He was just turned into a vampire. He followed all the rules, fought bravely, died in glorious battle like a dwarf should, and instead of a honourable death and a burial with his ancestors, as should be his proper reward, he's forced back into the world as an undead abomination. That has to shake up your belief in Order a bit.

So Durkon now being chaotic makes a lot of sense, from the rules, from how vampires are generally portrayed in fiction, and as character development. But of course none of that is proof. It just demonstrates that Durkon now being chaotic makes a lot of sense, but I'm sure arguments can also be found for him remaining lawful.

So we'll have to wait until we have more evidence. We've seen a few glimpses though: He suddenly started cursing, which seems to point towards a more chaotic nature. And while attacking Nale is something a lawful Durkon could also do, his reason in this case seems to be "Because I feel like it" which is distinctly chaotic.

Those two hints are hardly convincing evidence. I'll be the first to admit that. But as long as we're speculating about future developments in the comic, I think this is one of the directions we should speculate about.

[Sylian]

Malack is probably an example of a Lawful vampire, though. I found it highly unlikely that Durkon turned Chaotic, though I admit that it isn't impossible. We will see, I suppose.

[Kish]

I wish the meme that saying a single rather mild swearword demonstrates a huge change in Durkon's personality would go back to wherever it came from.

[Xelbiuj]

His alignment could be true neutral.

But it obviously isn't.

[Diadem]

Nothing is obvious about his alignment. Even true neutral is not obviously incorrect. We have to wait for more data.

But speculation is fun. And chaotic lawful just makes a lot of sense.

[DeliaP]

And chaotic lawful just makes a lot of sense.

Umm, that is about the worst possible typo!:smallwink:

[Diadem]

lol. I meant chaotic good :)

[JennTora]

But speculation is fun. And chaotic lawful just makes a lot of sense.

Or maybe he's good evil, or evil good.:smalltongue:

I'd really expect Durkon to change on the lawful chaotic axis moreso than good and evil. There have been plenty of good vampires in fiction. I'm not talking about twilight either, those would be sparkle fairies. See Hellsing(the anime/manga) and Black Blood Brothers.

[Rajhiim]

The big mistake surrounding "Lawful" is it's about "laws." It's about a code, personal or otherwise. I would argue a lawful character can always argue the course of action based on reason and interpretation of the facts as they pertain to the character - while a chaotic character does not need any reason for action. A neutral character goes both ways as they see fit.

The good, neutral, evil aspect is much more important because it tells us how they will apply their order "social" alignment.

For example, a Lawful Good paladin enters a land where slavery is LEGAL. Do they seek out and slay rebels, freeing the slaves? No. They'll adhere to their "personal code" dictated through their religious beliefs (aligning with the "moral" aspect of their alignment.)

You can easily describe alignment as having two parts, Social and Moral.

Vampires and Assassins get a bad rap because they are both forced to "evil" when in reality, dude's gotta eat and make a living! It's the prey who shout EVIL!

:smallwink:

And yes, my avatar is an Assassin

[Porthos]

So we'll have to wait until we have more evidence. We've seen a few glimpses though: He suddenly started cursing, which seems to point towards a more chaotic nature.

OK, I'll bite.

What is so chaotic about swearing?
How do you explain away the previous examples of Durkon swearing?


I wish the meme that saying a single rather mild swearword demonstrates a huge change in Durkon's personality would go back to wherever it came from.

I think you hope in vain, Kish. :smalltongue: Though, as I've said, I think I know why people think this. This is our very first look at Durkon 2.0. Anything he did was going to be over-examined to the n-th degree for signs of What New Durkon Is Like.

[Infinite]

And if he's Chaotic, then he can still be a cleric of Chaotic Good Thor.

[rainbowjo]

Or maybe he's good evil, or evil good.:smalltongue:

I'd really expect Durkon to change on the lawful chaotic axis moreso than good and evil. There have been plenty of good vampires in fiction. I'm not talking about twilight either, those would be sparkle fairies. See Hellsing(the anime/manga) and Black Blood Brothers.

I've actually always thought of the Twilight Vampires as Parasitic Elves.

[Roland Itiative]

I don't think there is any chance of Durkon going Chaotic. As far as the rules go, a vampire has no limitations regarding the Lawful-Chaotic axis, and Malack himself seemed to be Lawful (or at most Neutral), possibly giving us precedent.

Vampires in larger fiction, as far as I'm concerned, my fall anywhere on the alignment spectre, but in-depth discussion about character alignments, for characters that were not built with the D&D alignment system in mind is completely moot.

And yes, Lawful alignment is more about a personal code, rather than following any law regardless of their origins (though this kind of character usually feels more at home in a place with laws that do align with their personal views). Tarquin was as Lawful as he is now when he was just an upstart conqueror trying to overthrow some government or another, for example.

[thereaper]

There is literally only one reason we assume Durkon might now be evil, and that is because the vampire template, by the rules, turns you evil.

It does not turn you chaotic, therefore we have no reason to assume such. Heck, our primary example of a vampire so far (Malack) was lawful!

[Lapak]

We have a pretty good reason to assume that he's still Lawful, incidentally: when he summoned a Planar Ally he got a Devil.

[JennTora]

There is literally only one reason we assume Durkon might now be evil, and that is because the vampire template, by the rules, turns you evil.

It does not turn you chaotic, therefore we have no reason to assume such. Heck, our primary example of a vampire so far (Malack) was lawful!

Black Dragons are always chaotic evil by the rules, but it seemed like mama black dragon was relatively peaceful before the order zapped her kid to death. Admittedly that's an interpretation of the material.

I don't think we should just assume the giant is going to blindly follow RAW on this. We won't know if Free Durkula is really evil or lawful until next strip. Thrall Durkula probably just shared his master's alignment.

[Taelas]

The last few days on this forum has seen intense debate over Durkula's alignment, specifically whether he is now evil, or still good. One thing however that was completely ignored, is whether he is still lawful.
.... because nothing has happened which would affect his Lawful nature. :smallconfused:


By the RAW, D&D vampires can be lawful, neutral or chaotic with no restrictions. There seem to be no rules about having to follow the alignment of the original living creature. Meanwhile, in fiction, vampires are generally chaotic. There are examples of lawful vampires (The elders from Underworld come to mind), but generally they are a pretty chaotic bunch.
This is nonsense -- vampires do not favor Chaos over Order in any way. Which is why they can be any Evil alignment.

What happens in other fiction has absolutely no bearing on what vampires are like in D&D.


This makes sense. Vampires aren't just evil. They live outside the law, outside the system, almost by definition.
This has no bearing on alignment whatsoever. You can be Lawful and "live outside the law", and you can be Chaotic and still follow the rules.


The few rare examples of lawful vampires I can think of, are vampires living in complex societies with other vampires. Generally though even those vampires revel in chaos, and their very strict and orderly societies are perhaps not an expression of a lawful nature, but actually a necessary tool to suppress their chaotic natures enough to make living in society possible at all.
They "revel in chaos"? Based on what, exactly? Vampire covens are extremely common in fiction, though again, said fiction has nothing to do with how D&D handles vampires beyond the influence they had on the vampire's entry.


And let's look at it from Durkon's side: He was just turned into a vampire. He followed all the rules, fought bravely, died in glorious battle like a dwarf should, and instead of a honourable death and a burial with his ancestors, as should be his proper reward, he's forced back into the world as an undead abomination. That has to shake up your belief in Order a bit.
No, it doesn't have to.


So Durkon now being chaotic makes a lot of sense, from the rules, from how vampires are generally portrayed in fiction, and as character development. But of course none of that is proof. It just demonstrates that Durkon now being chaotic makes a lot of sense, but I'm sure arguments can also be found for him remaining lawful.
Especially since your arguments for him being Chaotic really don't make a lot of sense.

There's certainly value in speculating about it, but with absolutely nothing to base it on, I very much doubt this is happening.

For one thing, we actually have proof Durkon is Lawful Evil now: he summoned a barbed devil via planar ally. As a non-theistic cleric, you summon creatures that correspond to your own alignment.

[Math_Mage]

The big mistake surrounding "Lawful" is it's about "laws." It's about a code, personal or otherwise. I would argue a lawful character can always argue the course of action based on reason and interpretation of the facts as they pertain to the character - while a chaotic character does not need any reason for action. A neutral character goes both ways as they see fit.
The bolded does not distinguish between the alignments very well. Many Lawful characters do not reason based on facts. Many Chaotic characters do reason based on facts. Their methods and conclusions will differ because of differing value systems, which is where alignment comes into play.

A Lawful character is more likely to trust authority, to view correct behavior through a set of standards, to impose standards on others and accept obligations in return. A Chaotic character is more likely to be suspicious of authority, to view standards as barriers to seeing the true path, and to let each individual choose his own path. An unthinkingly Lawful character is more likely to be a soldier type who rigidly obeys an external code and/or authority; an unthinkingly Chaotic character is more likely to be an impulsive wanderer who acts on whimsy. A thoughtful Lawful character is more likely to deliberately formulate and execute a systematic plan; a thoughtful Chaotic character is more likely to rely on adaptability and opportunistic ingenuity.

One possible reason for your choice of distinction is that it's certainly the case in OotS. The Lawful characters tend to think more than the Chaotic ones. This isn't an indictment of OotS, but it is something to be conscious of when reading the story.

[Roland Itiative]

Black Dragons are always chaotic evil by the rules, but it seemed like mama black dragon was relatively peaceful before the order zapped her kid to death. Admittedly that's an interpretation of the material.

And that's why we weren't sure he's now Evil (908 put that question to rest, with the brutality he dealt wit the LG, plus his own admission of "not being any more evil than Belkar" as a way to justify his helping the Order still). Still no reason to think he ceased to be Lawful.

[veti]

Black Dragons are always chaotic evil by the rules, but it seemed like mama black dragon was relatively peaceful before the order zapped her kid to death. Admittedly that's an interpretation of the material.

MBD may or may not have been chaotic (I think so, on balance, but the material is susceptible of varying interpretations). But 'Evil', I think is beyond doubt.

What else do you call someone who tries to torture, murder and soulbind innocent pre-schoolers, because of something their parent did?

[nocker]

He summoned a Spiny Devil. If he was chaotic that summon wouldn't even work.

Durkon's channeling negative energy and the devil summoning limit his new alignment to four possible values: TN, LE, LN and NE. His admission to Roy that he's "not worse than Belkar" pretty much nailed his alignment on LE.

[mhsmith]

lol. I meant chaotic good :)

Of course! He's now a chaotic good rebel yearning to throw off the reputation of his evil kin :amused: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html)


MBD may or may not have been chaotic (I think so, on balance, but the material is susceptible of varying interpretations). But 'Evil', I think is beyond doubt.

What else do you call someone who tries to torture, murder and soulbind innocent pre-schoolers, because of something their parent did?

By that definition V is evil too, since her actions are even worse...

[JennTora]

MBD may or may not have been chaotic (I think so, on balance, but the material is susceptible of varying interpretations). But 'Evil', I think is beyond doubt.

What else do you call someone who tries to torture, murder and soulbind innocent pre-schoolers, because of something their parent did?

If you go back and reread my post a bit more clearly, you might notice that part of it says "before the order zapped her kid to death."

[skim172]

I get the argument, and I think it makes sense. And you may very well be right.

But I submit that these arguments - along Durkon rather coldheartedly icing Z, with a bit of a sneer - are not evidence so much that Durkon is Chaotic, as it might indicate that Durkon is, in fact, Evil. Maybe he's Chaotic and so not so bound by his code to respect all life - or maybe he just has contempt for life in general, being undead. As you said, he did all the Lawful things, lived as a good dwarf, and didn't get his reward - that might sway him towards Evil as much as Chaotic.

Even Durkon seems to imply this -
:roy:: "You're not evil?"
:durkon:: "Not any more'n Belkar, I'd wager."

Would an Evil Durkon still help the Order?
:durkon:: "World's still at stake, ain't it?"

Or, alternatively -
:durkon:: <Ha! These fools have no idea that I am merely manipulating their sentimental attachment to the old Durkon to use them as little pawns in my sinister game! Long Live Evil!>

[Psyren]

He currently has no deity, and Planar Ally sent him a devil. Therefore, he is LE. QED.

[JennTora]

Why is everyone assuming that "I'm not as evil as belkar" necessarily means, "I WILL SLAY YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR PUPPIES AND FEAST UPON YOUR ENTRAILS" and not maybe, "well I'm not really what I am at the moment, but I can tell you what I'm not, and that's an ill-tempered little halfling who is way better with daggers than is logically possible."

[marq]

I wish the meme that saying a single rather mild swearword demonstrates a huge change in Durkon's personality would go back to wherever it came from.

It won't go away though. No use complaining about it.

[martianmister]

Why is everyone assuming that "I'm not as evil as belkar" necessarily means, "I WILL SLAY YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR PUPPIES AND FEAST UPON YOUR ENTRAILS"

Who's assuming that? :smallconfused:

[JennTora]

Who's assuming that? :smallconfused:

It's an exaggeration. My point was durkon doesn't have to be giving a definitive "I'm evil now" answer. He may just be uncertain.

[martianmister]

It's an exaggeration. My point was durkon doesn't have to be giving a definitive "I'm evil now" answer. He may just be uncertain.

He doesn't look uncertain to me...

[Sholos]

He could be uncertain, but the fact that he channels negative energy is a pretty good indicator that he's Evil now. If he were Neutral, he would have the possibility of channeling either and there's no reason to think he would accidentally channel negative energy while trying to channel positive (in the spontaneous casting of a heal spell). As to whether Durkon is Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? I see no reason why he would not remain Lawful, and his choice to remain allied with the Order and to continue helping them seems to bear that out.

[martianmister]

He could be uncertain, but the fact that he channels negative energy is a pretty good indicator that he's Evil now. If he were Neutral, he would have the possibility of channeling either and there's no reason to think he would accidentally channel negative energy while trying to channel positive (in the spontaneous casting of a heal spell). As to whether Durkon is Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? I see no reason why he would not remain Lawful, and his choice to remain allied with the Order and to continue helping them seems to bear that out.

He also flat out said that he's nearly evil as Belkar.

[Sholos]

He also flat out said that he's nearly evil as Belkar.

Well, yes, but I was more pointing out yet another way of telling. Really it was pretty obvious all along and 908 just mega-confirms it.

[Diadem]

He's not saying he's as evil as Belkar. He's saying he's not as evil as Belkar. That's not the same thing as well. That label applies to O-Chul as well. It says nothing.

Don't forget, they are in the middle of combat. He needs a very quick and convincing argument to make Roy accept him. Pointing to Belkar is simply the fastest, easiest, one available. He can explain the details to Roy at a later time.

What do we know about his alignment by now?

- By RAW vampires are always evil. However Rich is known to be an opponent to the idea that sapient free-willed creatures can be "always x", so this probably doesn't say much.
- He summoned a devil, which for priests without a deity can only be done if they are LE. However he was a thrall at this time, meaning he just follows Malack's alignment. So this doesn't say much.
- He attacks the Linear Guild and killed Z. This really fits any alignment. Evil Durkon could kill Z because he enjoys it, good Durkon could do it because Z is irredeemably. Similarly both lawful and chaotic Durkon could do it. All in all the action is perhaps slightly more likely for a chaotic character, and for a neutral or evil character, but it's very inconclusive.
- He helps the OOTS. Like the above, a Durkon of any alignment could do this, so it doesn't say much. It makes good slightly more likely (since a good Durkon would always help the order, while an evil Durkon might not have), but like the above it's not hard evidence either way.
- He accidentally harms Roy instead of healing him. By RAW, this means he must be evil, but Rich has already said vampires use negative energy by definition. Which means this evidence too is inconclusive.

All in all, we have no hard evidence either way. Everything is still on the table.

He doesn't even have to be good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. He could be neutral on either or both axis.

[Edhelras]

The big mistake surrounding "Lawful" is it's about "laws." It's about a code, personal or otherwise.

....

For example, a Lawful Good paladin enters a land where slavery is LEGAL. Do they seek out and slay rebels, freeing the slaves? No. They'll adhere to their "personal code" dictated through their religious beliefs (aligning with the "moral" aspect of their alignment.)

I think a similar mistake is under-estimating that "Lawful" is actually quite a bit about laws, too. Or, legitimate laws, at least.

If a Paladin enters a country in which slavery is legal, she must make a judgment: Are these laws legitimate? Are they Good? Slavery implies oppressing someone, which is considered Evil. A Lawful Paladin should display "obediance to authority", but if that authority is Evil, the Paladin might and should question that authority.

One thing to consider, in terms of Lawfulness, is that there will always exist a lot of different and often competing authorities. You may be very preoccupied about "obeying authority", but still have a lot of work to do figuring out exactly which authority to obey.

A Paladin will often be part of a quite strong network or system of authority, which is her particular order or religious system. That authority will frequently be so solid and proven Good, so that any other competing authority must be quite convincing to overrule it.

However, if entering a country with a pretty straightforward and convincing authority, the default position for a Paladin would be to seek information concerning the country's laws, and then abide with the particular regulations. After all, most civilized societies will keep themselves with pretty similar laws regulating Good/Evil behaviour. Murder, for instance, is usually illegal unless specifically sanctioned by the state. A state in which murder is "legal" ad libitum, would often be a law-less society in which the Paladin should obviously follow his own order's code.
As for laws, they frequently regulate issues that don't have any overt Good-Evil aspects, they're more "technical", and don't come into conflict with the Paladin's own code.
For instance - a Paladin entering Great Britain should swiftly realize that drivers are required to drive on the left side of the road, and should thereafter stick to that system while on British soil.

I think it's a misconception that "code" can easily be read as "your own code". Adhering to a code should in most cases imply subordinating yourself to some higher authority, and your personal choice is mainly in deciding which authority to subortinate yourself too.

[Sylian]

For instance - a Paladin entering Great Britain should swiftly realize that drivers are required to drive on the left side of the road, and should thereafter stick to that system while on British soil.I don't think you have to be Lawful to follow that law. :smallwink:

As for the question, I think Durkon is Lawful Evil at the moment. It is strongly suggested that he's Evil ("Not any more'n Belkar, I'd wager", being a vampire and channeling negative energy when trying to heal), and I do think that he's Lawful, but, well, he could be Chaotic and trying to trick Roy into thinking that he's Lawful. He could also be Neutral Evil and figure that his best chance of survival is to try to save the world; however, I think he's Lawful.

[Domino Quartz]

What do we know about his alignment by now?

- By RAW vampires are always evil. However Rich is known to be an opponent to the idea that sapient free-willed creatures can be "always x", so this probably doesn't say much.
- He summoned a devil, which for priests without a deity can only be done if they are LE. However he was a thrall at this time, meaning he just follows Malack's alignment. So this doesn't say much.
- He attacks the Linear Guild and killed Z. This really fits any alignment. Evil Durkon could kill Z because he enjoys it, good Durkon could do it because Z is irredeemably. Similarly both lawful and chaotic Durkon could do it. All in all the action is perhaps slightly more likely for a chaotic character, and for a neutral or evil character, but it's very inconclusive.
- He helps the OOTS. Like the above, a Durkon of any alignment could do this, so it doesn't say much. It makes good slightly more likely (since a good Durkon would always help the order, while an evil Durkon might not have), but like the above it's not hard evidence either way.
- He accidentally harms Roy instead of healing him. By RAW, this means he must be evil, but Rich has already said vampires use negative energy by definition. Which means this evidence too is inconclusive.

All in all, we have no hard evidence either way. Everything is still on the table.

He doesn't even have to be good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. He could be neutral on either or both axis.

Whether he's good or evil might be debateable; however, whether he's Lawful or Chaotic (or Neutral) is not. All you've done is show that we don't necessarily know for sure whether he's Good or Evil and make some claims about how Durkon's actions could theoretically fit a Chaotic alignment. Just because a Chaotic Durkon could theoretically do the things that vampire-Durkon has done (which I would question), it doesn't mean that he is Chaotic, or even that he might be. He was Lawful before becoming a vampire, and there's no reason to believe that that's changed. Why would vampirisation cause him to become Chaotic?

[Edhelras]

I don't see WHY Durkon should suddenly turn to Chaotic, or even Neutral, just from becoming a Vampire. On the contrary, the Law-Chaos alignment might/should as well be completely unaffected by the vampirization.

And we know from before that the Lawful part of the LG alignment is very, very strong in Durkon, perhaps the most active and expressed part of his alignment.

[Komatik]

Vampire template => Base creature turns Evil (any). By Word of Giant and in-comic happenings, Rich is using the standard Monster Manual template.
Is a nontheistic Cleric by logic AND Word of Giant.
Summoned a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally -> a nontheistic Cleric can only do this if he's Lawful Evil. Domination effects do not change the victim's alignment, only suppress his free will for the duration of the effect.
Happily snapped Z's neck.
Spontaneously casts Inflict spells.
Makes comments as to not being any more evil than Belkar is.
Was extremely strongly Lawful while alive, nothing in Vampire template indicates a change on the law-chaos axis, demonstrates loyalty and camaraderie for companions after undeath.

Durkon's totally not Lawful Evil at all folks, he could prepare Summon Adorable Fluffy Bunny in all his spell slots tomorrow and start spreading amused confusion everywhere with no clear goal for the rest of his days.

... Or he could be an empathically-challenged, bloodsucking murderer that wants to save the world so he can be saved from obliteration. Nah, totally implausible.

I'm starting to wonder if someone cast Greater Ignore All Evidence and Wishful Delusions on the whole board. FFS.

[Milandros]

I mean no offense, but I've seen the "oh vampires can be good!" argument before.
Recently it's come from the "vampires also sparkly prettily in the sunlight and fall in love with teenaged girls like me (despite being a century old and still hanging around in schoolyards, the perverts)" group [Twilight being the Tale of a Woman's choice between Necrophilia and Bestiality].
The other group is the "It's a cool template with loads and loads of powers I don't need any XP for!" group, who see it as a set of stats and abilities rather than the incredible change in character it is. I've seen it arranged for a vampire to turn a character and then be immediately slain by the group just to get the abilities, then a one-line sob-story explaining that actually I'm still Lawful Good and a paladin all along.
It's one way of playing, I guess, but if I'd been the DM then the rather intelligent vampire would have just killed the paladin and waited for someone else to come and try to get the body. :)

For a vampire to be good requires rather more than for Drizzt to be good. He was simply raised in an evil society, and was a bit of an outlier with regards to instinctive responses which led him to question the values he was taught. A vampire, on the other hand, only stands up because he is animated by negative energy - soulless, dark energy that is inimical to life. He's evil because of that terrible hunger for and hatred of the living. Goblins can quite easily be good, they're savage/evil rather than designed/evil. Vampires have it harder. Sure they can have pseudo-friendships; the archetypal vampire, Dracula, is usually portrayed as a cultured, urbane, educated sophisticated nobleman - right up until the point when he acts...

Maybe an analogy might be the worst type of drug addict who has to keep stealing to get his next fix (with the corollary that anyone he robs dies). He might hate himself, he might hate what he does, but when that urge strikes... or maybe he revels in it, the feeling it gives him, that moment of dominance.

Now we don't yet know how Rich's interpretation on vamp feeding goes. Terry Pratchett lets them feed on blood sausage and beef steak, giving them an easy way out. Other sources make it clear that it's as much the soul that's being fed on, if not more, and a living sentient is needed. We'll see what Rich does when he wants to let us know. That'll make a big difference. If all Durkula needs to do is not eat Belkar's cooking raw then that's easy. If he has to wander off in every village to feed on someone's father, mother, child then I think Roy will not be able to accept it for long. Unless he turn neutral ("their deaths and suffering are necessary"). If they encounter enough monster-types (goblins, for example) then maybe Roy can look the other way while his stomach flip-flops a bit.

[Komatik]

Most settings, Vampires don't need to kill to feed. A Vampire Cleric can just use a couple castings of Restoration to negate the level and Con drain (why the hell vampires deal Con drain instead of damage, I'll never know) and be done with it. Unpleasant, perhaps terrifying, but no lasting damage and only a bit of pain from the fang stings.

The positive energy animating living beings is soulless and even lethal to living beings in excessive doses, btw. Google Death By Awesome on the usual optimization sites.

For a Vampire to be good is indeed hard. Depending on setting, the inherent lack of empathy in undeath can make more than Neutral a smidge hard to attain. Neutral shouldn't pose any problem whatsoever though.

[Edhelras]

I mean no offense, but I've seen the "oh vampires can be good!" argument before.

(...Many good points...)


I totally second this. I got this feeling that much of the [Vampires are NOT always Evil, they might as well be kind and gentle creatures who are simply bitten by a Vampire] theories are driven by this thought that Vamps (or other non-standard PC races) are simply a way to get cool powers quickly, without having to pay for it. Other examples might include embracing lichdom.

One thing is that it's slightly annoying, that someone want to pick that shortcut to out-powering other players.
But another thing is that treating for instance vampires, or liches, or drow, or other monster races, that way - it kinda reduces the horror and alien-ness and ultimately the fun of having those races in the game.

In my mind, my game-vision, liches are absolutely abhorrent creatures, objects of malevolent terror, heck, they're even surrounded by an Aura of fear. Noone would want to be a lich, except those utterly depraved and desperate. One problem with Xykon is that he almost makes liches seem like cool and likeable...
Drow - they're to me the terror of the Underdark, encountering a drow should strike ordinary surfacers with terror, and in the tunnels down below the creep up on stray adventurers, killing them soundlessly and cruelly.
And Vampires - they're surrounded by so many strange powers and abilities - many of them not-cool and quite cumbersome to the player. Noone except the most dedicated role-player should, in my highly personal opinion, desire to play a vampire. Because the game itself makes vampires undesireable to play - they're there to be defeated by the good guys.

Of course it's possible to use the DnD game mechanics to make a game world where vampires rule and are readily playable, like Twilight. But that would be quite a different world from ordinary DnD, and would require quite an effort from the DM or campaign designer.
Personally, I don't think such a campaign setting would be much fun. What - you're already a superpowerful creature, now go ahead and kill defenseless humans. It might be fun with one or two such sprees, but after a while, you realize that there are few real enemies to challenge you (except in a super-magic high-lvl setting). And being Evil, you can just go ahead killing without any qualms or consequences. What's the challenge, what's the fun? Some may like it, but I don't belong to those.

[Taelas]

He's not saying he's as evil as Belkar. He's saying he's not as evil as Belkar. That's not the same thing as well. That label applies to O-Chul as well. It says nothing.

Don't forget, they are in the middle of combat. He needs a very quick and convincing argument to make Roy accept him. Pointing to Belkar is simply the fastest, easiest, one available. He can explain the details to Roy at a later time.

What do we know about his alignment by now?

- By RAW vampires are always evil. However Rich is known to be an opponent to the idea that sapient free-willed creatures can be "always x", so this probably doesn't say much.
- He summoned a devil, which for priests without a deity can only be done if they are LE. However he was a thrall at this time, meaning he just follows Malack's alignment. So this doesn't say much.
- He attacks the Linear Guild and killed Z. This really fits any alignment. Evil Durkon could kill Z because he enjoys it, good Durkon could do it because Z is irredeemably. Similarly both lawful and chaotic Durkon could do it. All in all the action is perhaps slightly more likely for a chaotic character, and for a neutral or evil character, but it's very inconclusive.
- He helps the OOTS. Like the above, a Durkon of any alignment could do this, so it doesn't say much. It makes good slightly more likely (since a good Durkon would always help the order, while an evil Durkon might not have), but like the above it's not hard evidence either way.
- He accidentally harms Roy instead of healing him. By RAW, this means he must be evil, but Rich has already said vampires use negative energy by definition. Which means this evidence too is inconclusive.

All in all, we have no hard evidence either way. Everything is still on the table.

He doesn't even have to be good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. He could be neutral on either or both axis.
Oh come on!

Every single thing you dismiss out of hand here indicate an Evil alignment. I could go through your list and explain for every example why you are wrong to ignore it, but I seem to do that a lot these days.

Most importantly the Giant has named precisely two exceptions to his argument about free will: Undead and
Outsiders.

[Sholos]

Now we don't yet know how Rich's interpretation on vamp feeding goes. Terry Pratchett lets them feed on blood sausage and beef steak, giving them an easy way out. Other sources make it clear that it's as much the soul that's being fed on, if not more, and a living sentient is needed. We'll see what Rich does when he wants to let us know. That'll make a big difference. If all Durkula needs to do is not eat Belkar's cooking raw then that's easy. If he has to wander off in every village to feed on someone's father, mother, child then I think Roy will not be able to accept it for long. Unless he turn neutral ("their deaths and suffering are necessary"). If they encounter enough monster-types (goblins, for example) then maybe Roy can look the other way while his stomach flip-flops a bit.

Just wanted to point out that Pratchett's vampires don't actually need blood to survive. The ones that want to go completely off blood just end up turning the passion for it to something else (coffee, light and photography, and knitting to name a few). Eating blood sausages and beef steak is for those that can't go cold turkey. That being said, this isn't Discworld, so it should be interesting to see how Rich handles it.


He's not saying he's as evil as Belkar. He's saying he's not as evil as Belkar. That's not the same thing as well. That label applies to O-Chul as well. It says nothing.

Actually, he's saying that he's not more evil than Belkar. That includes being as evil. And, really, unless you believe Durkon is deliberately playing semantics and abusing logic to deceive Roy, there's no reason for him to say such a thing. Which, if he's not evil, there's no real reason to do. He could simply say that he's not. Really there's no reason for Durkon to say what he did unless he is, in fact, evil, but not evil enough to work against his friends.


Don't forget, they are in the middle of combat. He needs a very quick and convincing argument to make Roy accept him. Pointing to Belkar is simply the fastest, easiest, one available. He can explain the details to Roy at a later time.
Why? Why not just say he's not evil? If Roy trusts him, then that's enough. If Roy doesn't trust him, then nothing he says will be enough. The only reasonable implication here is that Durkon is, in fact, evil, but that being evil isn't going to stop him from helping the rest of the Order anyways.


What do we know about his alignment by now?

- By RAW vampires are always evil. However Rich is known to be an opponent to the idea that sapient free-willed creatures can be "always x", so this probably doesn't say much.

While this is indeed the case, it's worth noting that every example of an "always evil" creature has, in fact, been evil. With the possible exception of the black dragons killed by V. But we have no real way of telling about any of them beyond the son and the mom. And the mom was definitely evil. And just in case you were talking about the goblins, they're listed as "usually evil".


- He summoned a devil, which for priests without a deity can only be done if they are LE. However he was a thrall at this time, meaning he just follows Malack's alignment. So this doesn't say much.

Please point to where it says that a thrall's alignment matches their sire's and said alignment is used for spells.


- He attacks the Linear Guild and killed Z. This really fits any alignment. Evil Durkon could kill Z because he enjoys it, good Durkon could do it because Z is irredeemably. Similarly both lawful and chaotic Durkon could do it. All in all the action is perhaps slightly more likely for a chaotic character, and for a neutral or evil character, but it's very inconclusive.
You're correct. Attacking one's enemies does indeed fall under any alignment. However, the attitude he takes towards it (killing Zz'dtri with a smile?) is definitely more on the malicious side and feels more evil than anything else.


- He helps the OOTS. Like the above, a Durkon of any alignment could do this, so it doesn't say much. It makes good slightly more likely (since a good Durkon would always help the order, while an evil Durkon might not have), but like the above it's not hard evidence either way.
Correct, returning to helping the OOTS is indeed completely non-indicative of any alignment.


- He accidentally harms Roy instead of healing him. By RAW, this means he must be evil, but Rich has already said vampires use negative energy by definition. Which means this evidence too is inconclusive.
Umm, yes. They use negative energy in their natural attacks and are sustained by it. That doesn't say anything about channeling it. Which is what clerics do when converting spells spontaneously. Durkon harms Roy because he channels negative energy when spontaneously converting a spell. That only happens in one of two cases. Either you are neutral and choose to channel negative energy, or you are evil. If Durkon was neutral, there's no reason to believe he'd suddenly stop channeling positive energy given that he spent his entire life doing so. So it does indeed very powerfully suggest that Durkon is now evil.

ETA: I believe you are referring to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15763651&postcount=50) post? He says that vampire clerics channel negative energy. So... yes, that could be "even good vampire clerics channel negative energy" but it could also be "all vampires are evil and thus clerics that are also vampires channel negative energy by virtue of being evil".


All in all, we have no hard evidence either way. Everything is still on the table.

He doesn't even have to be good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. He could be neutral on either or both axis.

If you mean that he hasn't been detected as evil by a Detect Evil spell, then yes (though we've had evidence that those aren't infallible, in which case no hard evidence can be brought). If you mean past a reasonable doubt? No, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. Finding out that Durkon is not evil would surprise me greatly and I believe is the only rational conclusion to come to without evidence to the contrary. And I'm not even going to speak to where he is on the law-chaos axis because there really is no reason to think he's changed there.


Most importantly the Giant has named precisely two exceptions to his argument about free will: Undead and
Outsiders.

Do you have a link to that post? I'd love to see it.

[Diadem]

Look, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

In D&D, souls exist. That's a fact of the setting. So what happened with Durkon's soul? Either it's in the afterlife, or it's inside Durkula. The former case is how vampires work in for example Buffy. In this case, all the speculation is rather meaningless since Durkula is not Durkon in any way. Is this the case? Well, we don't know until Rich tells us. But in that case I expect to see some comics about Durkon in the afterlife, sometime soon. And I'd expect the order to try to stake Durkula and restore Durkon. Note also that in this case it doesn't make sense to say that Durkon became a vampire. His body did, he didn't. In this case it also does not make sense to say Durkula must be lawful because Durkon was, because Durkula is not Durkon.

The second case is the more interesting one. What if Durkula does have Durkon's soul? In this case they actually are the same person, not just the same body. But in that case Durkon should still have the same alignment he had before. Magic can't change your soul. Events can, especially major traumatic ones, and getting vamped definitely counts as one of those. But this generally happens over time, not instantly. And this also is not a fixed outcome process. It makes perfect sense for a vampire to lose more and more of their humanity over time, and thus become evil. Similarly it could make sense that they'd become more chaotic. But that can't be an instant process. You can't wave a wand at someone and BOOM change their very soul. That's not how souls work.

Imagine if Durkula were necessarily evil, just because he's a vampire, and in a few years time he gets staked and ends up in front of a bureaucratic Deva judging him. "Well, we're sending you to hell for all eternity because you were an evil vampire" "But that wasn't my choice!" "Well, sucks to be you".

"Vampire = always evil" and even "Durkula is evil" only make sense if you assume the soul of the original creature is gone and the vampire is either soulless of inhabited by a new, evil, soul.

[Kish]

Look, you can't have your cake and eat it too.[...]
Magic can't change your soul.
Obscured as it is by your talking about souls, it appears that what you're saying, in the "meaningful to the comic," sense, is, "Magic can't forcibly change someone's alignment in D&D, without actually removing that person's soul from her/his body and replacing it with another one."

Which is dead wrong. Ever heard of a Helm of Opposite Alignment?

[Komatik]

Soul =/= personality.

Also, Magic totally can change someone's alignment, there's ample evidence of this in D&D rules, including Helm of Opposite Alignment and some Exalted spell whose name I don't know. And this small thing called the Vampire template which evilizes the base creature in the transformation process. Rich is using that template.

[Talderas]

Imagine if Durkula were necessarily evil, just because he's a vampire, and in a few years time he gets staked and ends up in front of a bureaucratic Deva judging him. "Well, we're sending you to hell for all eternity because you were an evil vampire" "But that wasn't my choice!" "Well, sucks to be you".

"Vampire = always evil" and even "Durkula is evil" only make sense if you assume the soul of the original creature is gone and the vampire is either soulless of inhabited by a new, evil, soul.

The D&D multiverse uses an objective alignment system and not a subjective one. Various acts are evil and various conditions are evil based on their nature. This is a fact of the setting. You're attempting to suggest that D&D uses a subjective alignment system when it does not.

[Sholos]

Just to make things easier on people:

Helm of Opposite Alignment (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Helm_of_Opposite_Alignment)

Note especially the section that says, "Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook."

[Taelas]

"Vampire = always evil" and even "Durkula is evil" only make sense if you assume the soul of the original creature is gone and the vampire is either soulless of inhabited by a new, evil, soul.

Or the soul has its alignment forcibly changed to Evil, and is content with that so it doesn't try to change back. Y'know, the exact same way it happens with other forced alignment changes.

Undead in D&D retain their souls.

[hamishspence]

Depends on the edition you're looking at, and the particular source you're reading.

Complete Divine mentions a few undead with souls- but implies the soul is not in charge.

Libris Mortis suggests that in at least some cases, the soul is absent- gone to its reward in the Outer Planes, and that "this dark amalgamation is something new"

[Diadem]

Obscured as it is by your talking about souls, it appears that what you're saying, in the "meaningful to the comic," sense, is, "Magic can't forcibly change someone's alignment in D&D, without actually removing that person's soul from her/his body and replacing it with another one."

Which is dead wrong. Ever heard of a Helm of Opposite Alignment?
I should have started my previous post with "In the OOTS" and not "in D&D", since those two are not necessarily the same.

But what you are pointing out is an inherent contradiction in the rules of D&D. The very existence of a Helm of Opposite Alignment is anathema to the concept of people being punished / rewarded based on their alignment after their death.

The RAW alignment system of D&D has some very unfortunate consequences. So far, Rich has done a very good job not just avoiding those pitfalls, but exposing them whenever possible. I see no reason to think he would suddenly radically change his writing on that particular point.

If OOTS ever introduces a Helm of Opposite Alignment I will be extremely disappointed, and a lot of what we know about the upper planes and the judgement of your soul will have to be retconned to not lead to some pretty horrible consequences.

Vampirization is slightly less extreme, but still similar. If you say that Durkon's soul has vacated his body and is now in the lawful good afterlife, than anything is fine with me. But if you insist that his soul is still in his body, then as a free-willed person he has to have a choice about his alignment. Otherwise the very idea of judging souls after their death (which we know happens because we've seen it) becomes extremely cruel and in fact downright evil.

This choice could be very hard. He could suffer from very strong impulses to commit evil acts, to drink the blood of the innocent, to revel in chaos and destruction or whatever you want to think up. I have no problem with Durkon becoming evil (or any other alignment) as a result of being vamped. But the choice has to be there.

[JennTora]

He doesn't look uncertain to me...

Well he probably is certain that he's not more evil than belkar. I meant that he could be uncertain on his exact alignment. I.E. not sure if he's good, evil, or neutral.

I think if helms of opposite alignment are in OOTS they would be treated by the powers that be like a domination effect or something. Not that hard, really.

[Komatik]

I should have started my previous post with "In the OOTS" and not "in D&D", since those two are not necessarily the same.

*SNIP*

I have no problem with Durkon becoming evil (or any other alignment) as a result of being vamped. But the choice has to be there.


Nothing in the vampire template says Durkon is forced to remain Evil. Just that he was changed. He's just as able to change (at least to neutral, supposing undeath renders him "empathically challenged") as any other character. He just happens to be Evil now, because the Vampire template says so.

You're also assuming things about afterlife are fair and just. They're not. You have an alignment which describes your current moral outlook (Durkon's: An all-too-willing murderer loyal to the few he considers friends), and when you go poof you go to whichever plane embodies your current alignment. Little else there is to it.

[Taelas]

Vampirization is slightly less extreme, but still similar. If you say that Durkon's soul has vacated his body and is now in the lawful good afterlife, than anything is fine with me. But if you insist that his soul is still in his body, then as a free-willed person he has to have a choice about his alignment. Otherwise the very idea of judging souls after their death (which we know happens because we've seen it) becomes extremely cruel and in fact downright evil.

This choice could be very hard. He could suffer from very strong impulses to commit evil acts, to drink the blood of the innocent, to revel in chaos and destruction or whatever you want to think up. I have no problem with Durkon becoming evil (or any other alignment) as a result of being vamped. But the choice has to be there.

He didn't have the choice to become Evil, but it is his choice to remain so.

His personality was altered. That is what a forced alignment change like this does -- it alters your personality enough that your alignment is different. If it did not do that, it wouldn't work.

[JennTora]

Nothing in the vampire template says Durkon is forced to remain Evil. Just that he was changed. He's just as able to change (at least to neutral, supposing undeath renders him "empathically challenged") as any other character. He just happens to be Evil now, because the Vampire template says so.

You're also assuming things about afterlife are fair and just. They're not. You have an alignment which describes your current moral outlook (Durkon's: An all-too-willing murderer loyal to the few he considers friends), and when you go poof you go to whichever plane embodies your current alignment. Little else there is to it.

Looked fair enough when roy died. I would think everyone goes through a similar process, though different for each alignment.

[Psyren]

Depends on the edition you're looking at, and the particular source you're reading.

Complete Divine mentions a few undead with souls- but implies the soul is not in charge.

Libris Mortis suggests that in at least some cases, the soul is absent- gone to its reward in the Outer Planes, and that "this dark amalgamation is something new"

These are not incompatible. LM specifies that mindless undead are the ones where the soul has passed on, while intelligent undead are the ones that trap it inside. Thus intelligent undead retain the memories of their past life if not the connections. Vampires fall into this category, hence Malack remembering that he had a family once.

[TBFProgrammer]

Now we don't yet know how Rich's interpretation on vamp feeding goes. Terry Pratchett lets them feed on blood sausage and beef steak, giving them an easy way out. Other sources make it clear that it's as much the soul that's being fed on, if not more, and a living sentient is needed. We'll see what Rich does when he wants to let us know.

In 871 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html) Malack and Durkon discuss the blood and wart tea that Malack drinks to sustain himself.



In D&D, souls exist. That's a fact of the setting. So what happened with Durkon's soul? Either it's in the afterlife, or it's inside Durkula. The former case is how vampires work in for example Buffy. In this case, all the speculation is rather meaningless since Durkula is not Durkon in any way. Is this the case? Well, we don't know until Rich tells us. But in that case I expect to see some comics about Durkon in the afterlife, sometime soon. And I'd expect the order to try to stake Durkula and restore Durkon. Note also that in this case it doesn't make sense to say that Durkon became a vampire. His body did, he didn't. In this case it also does not make sense to say Durkula must be lawful because Durkon was, because Durkula is not Durkon.

In 874 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) Malack mentions that resurrecting him will wipe out who he has become, heavily implying that there exists a dead version of Malack to take up the reins. Given that Durkon clearly retains his memories from when he was alive, I'd say the likely event is a split wherein:

The good soul dies and goes to its eternal reward.
A new, evil copy of the soul grows within the body (over three days or aided by magic).

Alternatively, the soul splits and the remaining, undead half, must be restored to full strength before it can control the body.

From the point of view of the evil soul, it has always been Durkon and has merely become evil. From the point of view of the good soul, Durkon died and a foul monster has taken charge of his body. For our purposes, they are both Durkon.

[Oko and Qailee]

when you go poof you go to whichever plane embodies your current alignment. Little else there is to it.

This is wrong based on our in story knowledge

Roy was evaluated by the deva on ALL of his actions (except childhood escapades ofc), not just what he was doing at the time of death (LG trying to stop CE lich)

[Rakoa]

This is wrong based on our in story knowledge

Roy was evaluated by the deva on ALL of his actions (except childhood escapades ofc), not just what he was doing at the time of death (LG trying to stop CE lich)

Well yes, but the purpose of the evaluation is to determine his alignment.

[JennTora]

In 871 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html) Malack and Durkon discuss the blood and wart tea that Malack drinks to sustain himself.



In 874 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) Malack mentions that resurrecting him will wipe out who he has become, heavily implying that there exists a dead version of Malack to take up the reins. Given that Durkon clearly retains his memories from when he was alive, I'd say the likely event is a split wherein:

The good soul dies and goes to its eternal reward.
A new, evil copy of the soul grows within the body (over three days or aided by magic).

Alternatively, the soul splits and the remaining, undead half, must be restored to full strength before it can control the body.

From the point of view of the evil soul, it has always been Durkon and has merely become evil. From the point of view of the good soul, Durkon died and a foul monster has taken charge of his body. For our purposes, they are both Durkon.


Or because he was a vampire for over 200 years it was such a part of who he was that he saw no difference between dying, and becoming the shaman dude again.

[Oko and Qailee]

Well yes, but the purpose of the evaluation is to determine his alignment.


Yes, but more than just his current alignment mattered, his lifetime actions mattered, where his soul went and was determined as was based on his lifetime.

Current = right now. A person can be evil for 1000 years and then be a good person for 1 year. They are currently good, they are still unlikely to qualify for Arcadia (that's the LG afterlife correct?)

[Rakoa]

Yes, but more than just his current alignment mattered, his lifetime actions mattered, where his soul went and was determined as was based on his lifetime.

Current = right now. A person can be evil for 1000 years and then be a good person for 1 year. They are currently good, they are still unlikely to qualify for Arcadia (that's the LG afterlife correct?)

If a person has been evil for 1000 years, and then done nothing but good for 1 year, his alignment is unlikely to have changed to good. But when his alignment does, in fact, change to Good, he is welcomed into the LG afterlife.

The purpose of the Deva evaluation was not to see if Roy's past actions would disallow him entrance despite his being Lawful Good but to see if he was, in fact, Lawful Good. Currently.

[Taelas]

Yes, but more than just his current alignment mattered, his lifetime actions mattered, where his soul went and was determined as was based on his lifetime.

Current = right now. A person can be evil for 1000 years and then be a good person for 1 year. They are currently good, they are still unlikely to qualify for Arcadia (that's the LG afterlife correct?)

One of them; it's Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral.

Mount Celestia is only Lawful Good. (Bytopia is the third; Lawful Good/Neutral Good.)

[JennTora]

If a person has been evil for 1000 years, and then done nothing but good for 1 year, his alignment is unlikely to have changed to good. But when his alignment does, in fact, change to Good, he is welcomed into the LG afterlife.


Not in planescape:torment.


Big spoiler for the game in the tag. I has warned you:
The protagonist was so evil that even a lifetime of goodness wouldn't have allowed him to escape the blood war.

[Rakoa]

Not in planescape:torment.


Big spoiler for the game in the tag. I has warned you:
The protagonist was so evil that even a lifetime of goodness wouldn't have allowed him to escape the blood war.

Then this means that a lifetime of goodness wouldn't change his alignment to Good.

[Barsoom]

He used Lesser Planar Ally to summon a Devil, a creature with the [Lawful, Evil] subtypes. Therefore, it's not possible, at least by core D&D rules, for his alignment to be anything but Lawful Evil.

As for his behavior and personality, obviously there are going to be nuances, Rich's characters have never been one-dimensional, and we can argue about this nuance or that one until we're blue in the face, but the bottom line, he's LE.

[TBFProgrammer]

Or because he was a vampire for over 200 years it was such a part of who he was that he saw no difference between dying, and becoming the shaman dude again.

A resurrection requires a soul to call back into the resurrected body. The question is whether this soul is the one currently inhabiting Malack. If it is, then the resurrection would be completely analogous to the process of becoming a vampire.

"I was the ignorant barbarian shaman." If Malack retains the same degree of self-hood that Durkon has through his transformation, then he wouldn't be returning that state of ignorance through resurrection. Further, the word annihilation invokes complete elimination, such that even the memory of having been a vampire is no more.

Something that Malack knows causes him to believe that resurrection would restore him completely to who he was 200 years ago. As a 200 year old vampire cleric who has had cause to do some heavy research, he should be quite the authority on the subject, so we can probably trust him to have the correct information.

The rest of my post is conjecture about the probable implications for the souls of those who have been made into vampires. It is also possible that the soul of the deceased is simply trapped within the vampire and not in control, but then Malack would be able to make his point with the simpler form of: "I did not exist until this body became a vampire, resurrecting it would annihilate me." Instead his arguments indicate a far more complex relationship between the lizardfolk that was and the Malack that came after.

[JennTora]

He used Lesser Planar Ally to summon a Devil, a creature with the [Lawful, Evil] subtypes. Therefore, it's not possible, at least by core D&D rules, for his alignment to be anything but Lawful Evil.

this has been addressed 1, 000 times by myself and others and I apologize if I seem rude I'm sick of repeating it.

Please Read the following quote over and over until you no longer feel the need to point out that Durkon summoned a barbed devil:


He was effectively an extension of malack's will at the time and was treated as having the same alignment as malack

[Rakoa]

this has been addressed 1, 000 times by myself and others and I apologize if I seem rude I'm sick of repeating it.

Please Read the following quote over and over until you no longer feel the need to point out that Durkon summoned a barbed devil:

That quote is outright false. Vampire Thralls do not take on the alignment of their masters, for any length of time.

[JennTora]

That quote is outright false. Vampire Thralls do not take on the alignment of their masters, for any length of time.

There's plenty of reason to think they would. They are mindless puppets until released. whether the wlignment is the same id really the sort of thing that would be up to the dm. But enthralled vampires until released are effectively zombies with fangs.

[JennTora]

A resurrection requires a soul to call back into the resurrected body. The question is whether this soul is the one currently inhabiting Malack. If it is, then the resurrection would be completely analogous to the process of becoming a vampire.

"I was the ignorant barbarian shaman." If Malack retains the same degree of self-hood that Durkon has through his transformation, then he wouldn't be returning that state of ignorance through resurrection. Further, the word annihilation invokes complete elimination, such that even the memory of having been a vampire is no more.

Something that Malack knows causes him to believe that resurrection would restore him completely to who he was 200 years ago. As a 200 year old vampire cleric who has had cause to do some heavy research, he should be quite the authority on the subject, so we can probably trust him to have the correct information.

The rest of my post is conjecture about the probable implications for the souls of those who have been made into vampires. It is also possible that the soul of the deceased is simply trapped within the vampire and not in control, but then Malack would be able to make his point with the simpler form of: "I did not exist until this body became a vampire, resurrecting it would annihilate me." Instead his arguments indicate a far more complex relationship between the lizardfolk that was and the Malack that came after.

Is it possible that annihilated was poetic language? I know it's crazy since the only character that uses poetic language less frequently is Vaarsuvius, but it's just a thought.

[Barsoom]

There's plenty of reason to think they would. They are mindless puppets until released. whether the wlignment is the same id really the sort of thing that would be up to the dm. But enthralled vampires until released are effectively zombies with fangs.

A valid interpretation, but still, such is not stated in the rules. What you posit to be an unshakeable truth in naught but a conjecture.

[hamishspence]

In the novels- while vampire thralls can't (usually) disobey their masters, they're generally able to do things of their own volition (unless directly ordered).

They're not all that zombielike.

[Komatik]

There's plenty of reason to think they would. They are mindless puppets until released. whether the wlignment is the same id really the sort of thing that would be up to the dm. But enthralled vampires until released are effectively zombies with fangs.

They're not mindless puppets. The soul, the personality is still there, just with a heavy dose of slavish adoration and a domination effect. Unable to disobey =/= unable to think. Contrast zombies/skeletons without so much as an Int score with Durkula who was able to talk, just fawned over Malack like a puppy.

[JennTora]

They're not mindless puppets. The soul, the personality is still there, just with a heavy dose of slavish adoration and a domination effect. Unable to disobey =/= unable to think. Contrast zombies/skeletons without so much as an Int score with Durkula who was able to talk, just fawned over Malack like a puppy.

Then why don't they get a will save to resist the effect. You know what, never mind, I'm starting to think d&d undead are just really poorly thought out.

[Sholos]

Then why don't they get a will save to resist the effect. You know what, never mind, I'm starting to think d&d undead are just really poorly thought out.

There are plenty of examples of magical effects that don't allow saves. This is one of them.

[Komatik]

Then why don't they get a will save to resist the effect. You know what, never mind, I'm starting to think d&d undead are just really poorly thought out.

The below. And yes, yes they are.


There are plenty of examples of magical effects that don't allow saves. This is one of them.

[JennTora]

Usually though a mind affecting effect(Which this keeps being compared to) would allow a will save if the targeted mind was there to resist. The only exceptions I can think of off hand are:


1. Geas, which I also don't think was particularly well thought out.

2. A deity's control salient quality, and I'm not sure that's considered mind affecting.

3. Possibly epic magic, but I don't think even that does.

It's just odd to think that Durkon was in there trying to resist, but never able to actually do so, especially considering his stubbornness.

[Komatik]

Usually though a mind affecting effect(Which this keeps being compared to) would allow a will save if the targeted mind was there to resist. The only exceptions I can think of off hand are:


1. Geas, which I also don't think was particularly well thought out.

2. A deity's control salient quality, and I'm not sure that's considered mind affecting.

3. Possibly epic magic, but I don't think even that does.

It's just odd to think that Durkon was in there trying to resist, but never able to actually do so, especially considering his stubbornness.

It can be a bit odd, but the effect is also pretty one-of-a-kind and not renewable - a released thrall is free from that kind of enslavement forever. Also, there's flavour about that stuff, but it's the kind of stuff that's better as a so-rare-it-doesn't-actually-happen plot point instead of a die roll.

[Taelas]

this has been addressed 1, 000 times by myself and others and I apologize if I seem rude I'm sick of repeating it.

Please Read the following quote over and over until you no longer feel the need to point out that Durkon summoned a barbed devil:

You are all collectively pulling that out of your rears to try and cover why Durkon isn't Evil despite how everything points in the exact opposite direction.

The rules would very much have to specifically say that this happens, and it doesn't.

Repeating that over and over does not make it any more true, so please: if you are so sick of it, stop repeating your made-up bull**** rationalization.

[Psyren]

this has been addressed 1, 000 times by myself and others and I apologize if I seem rude I'm sick of repeating it.

Please Read the following quote over and over until you no longer feel the need to point out that Durkon summoned a barbed devil:

It doesn't matter how far under Malack's control Durkon was. Durkon cast the spell, not Malack, so anything that came out of it would be in keeping with Durkon's alignment. Planar Ally derives from the caster.

[JennTora]

It doesn't matter how far under Malack's control Durkon was. Durkon cast the spell, not Malack, so anything that came out of it would be in keeping with Durkon's alignment. Planar Ally derives from the caster.

I already sort of retracted my earlier statement, but if the control was to the point where durkon's is treated as the same as malack's, then yes it does matter. If durkon didn't really have an alignment at the time, then that would also matter.

[Taelas]

I already sort of retracted my earlier statement, but if the control was to the point where durkon's is treated as the same as malack's, then yes it does matter. If durkon didn't really have an alignment at the time, then that would also matter.

1) There are no rules to that effect, so the idea is pure conjecture with zero evidence, and 2) there is no such thing as "not having an alignment".