Quick question about Durkon

[Kwinza]

Is it completely impossible for a Vampire to be good in the rules of 3.5?
Like he has a compulsion to be evil but has a strong enough will to fight it?

[ChristianSt]

The SRD listed vampires as always evil.
So RAW that answers that as yes.

But since the Giant doesn't like determined alignment I think that doesn't really matter.

[Kish]

By the letter of D&D rules, alignment ranges are "Often," which means 30-50% are the listed alignment, "Usually," which means 50%+ are the listed alignment, and "Always," which means nearly all are the listed alignment--whatever "nearly" means to an individual DM.

The vampire template includes "Alignment: Always Evil (Any)." But that Always is game term Always, not dictionary term Always; the half-dragon template includes "Alignment: Same as the dragon parent's type," and yet Enor wasn't Lawful Evil.

[NerdyKris]

Is it completely impossible for a Vampire to be good in the rules of 3.5?
Like he has a compulsion to be evil but has a strong enough will to fight it?

I think we're going to be seeing the answer to that in the comic. We've already seen Belkar do good deeds, even if for the wrong reasons. We've also seen good people do evil deeds.

Durkon is lawful and loyal. That hasn't changed. He's also clearly evil in the sense that he's powered by negative energy and casting harm instead of heal spontaneously. He's stated as much. How this will affect his relationship with the Order remains to be seen. But it's a fine line between good and evil when the world is at stake. I'd imagine this is going to be delved into considerably.

[AstralFire]

I got $5 metaphorically on Durkon ending up Ruthless Good (aka Well-Intentioned Evil that is actually Good at its Job), to contrast with the variety of idealism, adherence to character self-identity, pragmatism and need for redemption which characterizes the rest of the OotS.

[Finagle]

Durkon will have a philosophical revelation that will lead him to become the first priest of Hel. He will then lead an army of undead to destroy the dwarven kingdom, thus fulfilling the prophecy.

[factotum]

"Always," which means nearly all are the listed alignment--whatever "nearly" means to an individual DM.


The only reason that exists is to allow the DM some leeway when they want to introduce their Lawful Good vampire paladin who only ever feeds on the blood of evil wombats, though. Generally, "always" should be taken as meaning "pretty much every one of these you will ever meet, in this lifetime or any other, will be this alignment".

As for Durkon, just go back and look at his smile as he snapped the helpless Zz'dtri's neck, and tell me he's still Good.

[FujinAkari]

The only reason that exists is to allow the DM some leeway when they want to introduce their Lawful Good vampire paladin who only ever feeds on the blood of evil wombats, though. Generally, "always" should be taken as meaning "pretty much every one of these you will ever meet, in this lifetime or any other, will be this alignment".

This is both untrue according to RAW and explicitly denied by Rich.

Though, yes, Durkon is quite obviously evil.

[warrl]

Is it completely impossible for a Vampire to be good in the rules of 3.5?
Like he has a compulsion to be evil but has a strong enough will to fight it?

Vampires are by definition Evil. But that could be a racial marker (like Outsider) rather than an alignment.

There's a RAW example of a succubus (alway Evil, and originating from a plane where even the ground one walks on is Evil) being a paladin (always Good). I believe the statement was that she would ping on both Detect Evil (because of the racial marker) and Detect Good (because of her alignment).

I think pretty much everyone agrees that Durkon is not as solidly Good as previously. But not about whether he's Good, Evil, or Neutral. (Definitely still Lawful.)

[Obscure Blade]

Vampires are by definition Evil. But that could be a racial marker (like Outsider) rather than an alignment.

There's a RAW example of a succubus (alway Evil, and originating from a plane where even the ground one walks on is Evil) being a paladin (always Good). Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

That who you meant?

[Ramien]

There have been examples of Good (or at least non-Evil) vampires in D&D - Jander Sunstar from Forgotten Realms would be an example.

[Peelee]

The only reason that exists is to allow the DM some leeway when they want to introduce their Lawful Good vampire paladin who only ever feeds on the blood of evil wombats, though. Generally, "always" should be taken as meaning "pretty much every one of these you will ever meet, in this lifetime or any other, will be this alignment".

As for Durkon, just go back and look at his smile as he snapped the helpless Zz'dtri's neck, and tell me he's still Good.


I've always interpreted it as, "rare enough that you won't encounter one in any game I run, unless I need one as part of the plot."

[Souhiro]

Interesting, I always tought that Class features (I.E. Paladin's Aura of Good) trumps over Race Features (Devils being Always Evil)

But in the Eudecia case, using a Holy weapon stills inflicts her with negative levels, even when she's an accomplished Lvl-12 Paladin who renounced to most of her evil abilities (like Energy Drain)

[factotum]

Interesting, I always tought that Class features (I.E. Paladin's Aura of Good) trumps over Race Features (Devils being Always Evil)

I think devils and demons are literally made from the stuff of Evil--just because she's been able to overcome her nature and be an LG Paladin doesn't change what she fundamentally is, so the sword is presumably affecting her because of that. In the case of most other evil species it probably *wouldn't* affect them if they changed alignment.

[Jay R]

Is it completely impossible for a Vampire to be good in the rules of 3.5?
Like he has a compulsion to be evil but has a strong enough will to fight it?

Anytime you try to process the D&D alignment axis "Evil"/"Good" as if it were synonymous to the real world moral judgments "evil" and "good", you reach conclusions that cannot be reconciled with the rules.

An Evil creature is Evil, even when sleeping. The alignment comes first, and then the actions come from it. Some creatures are Evil simply because of their species. It can be detected with spells, totally apart from judging their thoughts and actions.

Durkon is clearly Evil, in D&D terms. He is also loyal to the Order, opposed to Tarquin and Nale, and trying to save the world. Just like magic, the Alignment System doesn't have a real-world meaning.

[Coat]

I read the wording as written to describe (nearly) any vampire players are going to encounter. It doesn't clearly describe what happens when you become a vampire.

If vampires need to perform evil acts (like drinking blood) to continue to exist, then any vampire that chooses not be be evil isn't going to last very long, and is unlikely to be available for encounters. Doesn't mean that Durkon can't be good just after turning.

However, that said, he still doesn't seem very Good at the moment to me.

[StLordeth]

The alignment rules are irrelevant for Rich's story.

Durkon, however, is probably evil. And in my opinion, I hope he stays that way until the end.

[factotum]

I read the wording as written to describe (nearly) any vampire players are going to encounter. It doesn't clearly describe what happens when you become a vampire.

I think it does--it says Vampire is an acquired template that can be applied to any creature, it says the alignment for that template is Always Evil (Any), and it also says "Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities.". Seems pretty clear that you change alignment to Evil when you become a vampire.

[Wardog]

I think it does--it says Vampire is an acquired template that can be applied to any creature, it says the alignment for that template is Always Evil (Any), and it also says "Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities.". Seems pretty clear that you change alignment to Evil when you become a vampire.

Yes, although what's not clear (as far as I know) if if that is because:

a) Your mind/brain is reprogrammed, so you now think killing and eating people is cool.

b) Your life is now dependent on killing and eating people, so unless you have a strong enough will to refuse to do so (even while starving to death) you are going to end up doing (and becoming) evil.

c) You are now saturated in Evil particles, which cause you to ping "Evil" on detect evil spells, and block any connection with the Good gods and powers (regardless of what your actual behaviour and moral philosophy is).


(Personally, I think c) would be a good explanation that would solve a lot of the anomalies with the alignment system, but it seems to be contradicted by the existance of succubus paladins).

[Coat]

Clear and unambiguous would be


When a character is drained to zero CON and subsequently rises as a vampire they immediately apply all the effects of the vampire template. They retain their Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic alignment as they had it in life, but immediately change their moral alignment to Evil. For classes such as Paladins that have specific alignment restrictions, the penalty for any such alignment restrictions immediately apply. For clerics and other classes that gain powers directly from their deity, if this change to alignment puts them more than two steps away from their deity's alignment, any powers or spells derived from the deity are immediately lost, although they may continue to worship the deity if they wish. Deities with a particular repugnance for the undead may refuse to grant spells or powers, even if alignment change would not otherwise affect them.

Vampires who lose their powers or spells in this way may not recover them by means such as atonement. However, they may immediately switch on rising to the worship of fundamental negative energies. This grants access to any two of the domains Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery, and they may now rebuke rather than turn undead, if they could not before, and spontaneously convert uncast spells into cause wounds.

If a vampire is destroyed, and the character subsequently restored to life via Raise Dead or similar magic, any Deity they worship may immediately restore to them the powers they acquired from worship prior to becoming a vampire. If the character chose to convert to the worship of negative energy while a vampire, the deity may require a substantial atonement quest before restoring their powers.

[Jay R]

Yes, although what's not clear (as far as I know) if if that is because:

a) Your mind/brain is reprogrammed, so you now think killing and eating people is cool.

b) Your life is now dependent on killing and eating people, so unless you have a strong enough will to refuse to do so (even while starving to death) you are going to end up doing (and becoming) evil.

c) You are now saturated in Evil particles, which cause you to ping "Evil" on detect evil spells, and block any connection with the Good gods and powers (regardless of what your actual behaviour and moral philosophy is).


c) You are now saturated in Evil particles, which cause you to ping "Evil" on detect evil spells, and block any connection with the Good gods and powers (regardless of what your actual behaviour and moral philosophy is).

You're still trying to process alignment with common-sense real-world experience.

"[S]aturated in Evil particles, which cause you to ping "Evil" on detect evil spells, and block any connection with the Good gods and powers" cannot be separated from "what your actual behaviour and moral philosophy is". This is how alignment works in D&D, which is why it cannot be understood in real-world moral terms.

Yes, he is filled with Evil particles, or whatever, and yes, his mind is programmed to enjoy killing Z, and yes, his existence (not "life") depends on drinking blood.

Durkon is Evil, and will behave in an Evil fashion, and will still be loyal to the Order and out to save the world. The fun begins the first time they have time to stop, and Durkon wants to pick out a random passerby for a drink.

[hamishspence]

You're still trying to process alignment with common-sense real-world experience.

"[S]aturated in Evil particles, which cause you to ping "Evil" on detect evil spells, and block any connection with the Good gods and powers" cannot be separated from "what your actual behaviour and moral philosophy is". This is how alignment works in D&D, which is why it cannot be understood in real-world moral terms.

The existence of nonevil fiends, that still ping detect evil - is indicative of the fact that one's actual behaviour and moral philosophy, can be changed, despite the character still being "saturated in evil particles".

Same applies to nonevil undead. Or nonevil clerics of evil deities.

[F.Harr]

I got $5 metaphorically on Durkon ending up Ruthless Good (aka Well-Intentioned Evil that is actually Good at its Job), to contrast with the variety of idealism, adherence to character self-identity, pragmatism and need for redemption which characterizes the rest of the OotS.

Now THAT could be interesting.


Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

That who you meant?

Now SHE'S interesting.