A Side Order of Corruption, Please

[Tom Lehmann]

{SCRUBBED}

D&D draws on both these ideas of evil -- as a choice/act and as something that exists. A character who repeatedly chooses to do evil acts becomes evil, as defined by the alignment rules. A paladin or cleric can "fall". Evil Outsiders, deities, clerics, and undead do exist. They all have, in varying degrees, auras of evil.

OOTS doesn't slavishly follow 3.5 rules. Rich has shown, within OOTS, that evil and good are choices for sentient races, even those that the monster manual designates as "always evil". Rich has also shown that evil is not only a choice; it has metaphysical weight -- evil auras do exist (such as the one on Xykon's crown; its aura made its wearers detect as evil).

How this plays out for Durkon, a formerly lawful good cleric turned vampire, isn't clear yet. Being able to summon and control evil outsiders, preparing spells at dusk, and spontaneously converting prepared spells to inflict instead of cure spells all indicate that Durkon the vampire is now a cleric attuned to some evil deity or evil source of divine power. In response to Roy's question, "You're not evil?", he answers "Not any more'n Belker." This suggests -- but is not conclusive -- that Durkon the vampire considers himself somewhat evil.

I'm fairly confident -- given how the spell Detect Evil has been portrayed in OOTS -- that Durkon the vampire currently detects as evil (with an overwhelming aura given his class level alone), since clerics of evil deities (and evil sources of divine power) do so. Similarly, I'm fairly sure that a good cleric of sufficiently high level could turn or destroy Durkon the vampire.

How does this square with Rich's previous portrayals of evil as a choice for sentient beings? Is Durkon the vampire capable of good, by choosing to do good acts? I believe so. I think that the freedom to choose to do good -- as opposed to being defined by *what* you are -- is a central underlying theme of OOTS.

If Durkon has suddenly -- with a flick of the alignment switch -- become Durkon the evil mastermind vampire with a secret plan to kill the party Bwahaha, I'll feel pretty cheated as a reader. It just doesn't fit with OOTS to date.

Is someone who detects as evil and chooses to do good a fundamental contradiction? I don't think so, given the dual nature of evil, in both D&D and OOTS, as both something one chooses and as something that exists metaphysically.

Does this mean that Durkon the vampire is just Durkon with some new powers and limitations and two "conditions": an evil source of divine power and a hunger and need for blood as sustenance? If these conditions are easily "managed" and kept in check (by preparing cure spells and volunteer blood donations), can Durkon the vampire function mostly as before? (Albeit with some challenges due to detecting evil to others -- which will cause problems when working with Paladin allies.)

If so, is this whole vampire twist just a fairly lame obstacle from a story perspective?

I mean, sure, we haven't yet seen Durkon in the process of spell prep and if he is, say, praying to Hel, not Thor, for his spells, that's a poignant scene. Similarly, drinking blood might arouse some bloodlust, but is there anyone who really doubts that Durkon's devotion to duty won't keep him from completely draining Roy, Haley, or Elan? Again, there's some room for interesting angst, but, in both cases, this doesn't seem like much of a payoff for such a big change.

Is there something in between "Evil has taken over Durkon" and "Durkon manages his new conditions"?

I think so. One possible answer would be to take a page from Tolkien (one of D&D's major influences). The One Ring functions as both tempter and corrupter. It clearly affects its users, leaving them feeling "stretched" and "thin" and, if used too much, twists one's being unnaturally. Yet, it doesn't rob its users of their free will (at least, initially). It is the user's choice to use the Ring and up to the user's strength of purpose and self-restraint whether or not to succumb to the dreams of power that it tempts one with.

From the D&D rules, we know that Cure spells channel positive energy and Inflict spells channel negative energy. What it *feels* like is unspecified. When Durkon the vampire accidentally inflicted moderate wounds on Roy, did he feel a thrilling surge of power course through him? When he now casts Cure spells, does it feel "unnatural", "hollow", and "false"? Does the very act of receiving spells from an evil source of divine power slowly corrupt one to become more evil? Does the negative energy that imbues the undead do so?

If Durkon the vampire is slowly being corrupted, then does he try to limit his uses of his vampiric abilities to slow this? Does he try to establish boundaries -- say, to minimize spell use besides those, like Restoration and Cure, that heal and restore? Do such steps have any effect? Is he now on a slippery slope of doom?

This is sheer speculation, of course. But, if Durkon the vampire is trying to do good in the face of slow corruption, then things become much more interesting, story-wise. If his condition is ultimately unable to be managed, will Durkon be able to hold out long enough to help save the world? As Durkon starts to slip, will Roy's denial that there is, in fact, a problem continue?

Further, Durkon himself may not know what is going on or what to do. From strip 52, we know that he doesn't have many ranks in Know(Religion). (Granted, it's an early strip, but not having many ranks is consistent with Durkon's backstory in OOPCs.) His strong inclination to hide his feelings and just do his duty may lead him to not ask for help.

His uncertainty may lead him to hesitate at a crucial moment, not spend a spell he should have, and so on. I think Durkon the vampire's struggles become far more interesting if he has to wrestle with slow corruption. YMMV.

In any event, as we pass the OOTS 2/3 mark, a pattern is beginning to suggest itself.

The three human members of OOTS have had their character development center around parent (father) relationships and learning to be better people: to take on personal responsibility, instead of trying to live up to others' expectations; to trust and express one's feelings and thoughts; to become competent and more realistic about other people.

It looks like the three non-human members are struggling, in different ways, with evil: whether V's act of immense evil, done out of hubris, arrogance, and a lack of empathy for other races; or Durkon dealing with evil inflicted upon him; or Belkar slowly becoming aware of his sociopathic and selfish behavior.

I might have wished for this split to not be on human/non-human lines (I thought there was some good story potential in Durkon's Mum teaching him to subordinate the expression of his own feelings to his duty), but I very much look forward to seeing where Rich takes things.

[Myou]

Durkon being turned is highly unlikely - he has approximately 15 hit dice, a +4 racial bonus, which all vampires get, and as an undead cleric he has the ability to use his Rebuke Undead ability to bolster himself against turning attempts (as Redcloak bolstered the zombies back in Dorukon's dungeon), which with his newly boosted charisma score would likely give him another significant boost. As a cleric he also has access to every spell on his spell list - I'm sure there are a few that help an undead caster resist turning. In other words, there's no possibility of any non-epic cleric turning him, and even low epic casters probably stand no chance at all.

I'm not comenting on the entire post (mostly because I havn't read it all), I just wanted to point that out.

[DeadMG]

I might have wished for this split to not be on human/non-human lines (I thought there was some good story potential in Durkon's Mum teaching him to subordinate the expression of his own feelings to his duty), but I very much look forward to seeing where Rich takes things.

Perhaps in the Order itself, but not in the comic in general. Many of the most evil characters have been humans, like Xykon and Tarquin, and Kubota may not have been tremendously effective or interesting but he was certainly Evil.

All of the team members struggle against the evil of Team Evil and Team Tarquin equally. The only difference between Durkon and Haley is that Durkon died in that struggle. Roy died struggling against Xykon too.

[sr123]

It has frustrated me (and confused me as a novice) to no end that in D&D editions they continue to use the word "level" for both "character level" and "spell level" when the two have almost 0 correspondence.

I annoys me that the word "theory" in science is all too often interchanged with "theory" in lay speak.

The words "good" and "evil" in the alignment system, the cosmology of D&D, and in real life seem to indicate the same basic idea, but maybe they are fundamentally different.

Then we'd be looking at this in the wrong way.



Example: In a rules-violating thread a few years back, a forumite gave this insight:D&D evil energy/aura/magic comes from Evil gods; good is what comes from Good gods. In that sense, Durkula's "always evil" status may have more to do with a larger abstract cosmic fight than his earthly behavior.

[Bulldog Psion]

Example: In a rules-violating thread a few years back, a forumite gave this insight:D&D evil energy/aura/magic comes from Evil gods; good is what comes from Good gods. In that sense, Durkula's "always evil" status may have more to do with a larger abstract cosmic fight than his earthly behavior.

Interesting thought. So alignments are some type of metaphysical uniform?

[zimmerwald1915]

Interesting thought. So alignments are some type of metaphysical uniform?
The etymology would seem to suggest that. But Tarquin seems to hold this position (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html), which probably means the Giant does not and that alignment means more than, well, who you're aligned with in his world.

[Komatik]

The OP seems to me like a classic case of reading way, way too much into things and going off on tangents based on those readings (the tangents themselves may be reasonable enough given the initial assumptions).

Some points of order here:

1. D&D doesn't have "Alignment X, but not really". An Evil-aligned person really is Evil. This is completely separate from what all manner of detection spells register the character as. A Good character can have an effect that makes him register Evil on those kinds of spells, but that doesn't change the fact that he is Good.

There is the [Evil] subtype. A creature with that subtype is treated as Evil for the purposes of most effects that depend on alignment. And for a pretty good reason - almost every single creature with the subtype is a fiend from the Outer Planes, a creature whose body is literally made of pure, solid, cosmic Evil.

Undead aren't like that. Negative energy, though nasty and inimical to life, is unaligned just like fire and positive energy and whatnot are. It is very dangerous, but more like cosmic acid. Treat carefully, that's it.

2. Durkon registers as Evil because of very many reasons:
- He is undead, which the spell treats equivalently to being Evil
- He is, actually, Lawful Evil.
- Being an Evil-aligned Cleric doesn't help.

3. Turning Durkon is unlikely. he's stupidly high-level, has inherent Turn Resistance and can bolster himself. Also, being turnable just comes with the territory when you don't have vital signs but insist that walking around is a good idea.

4. The Application of the Vampire template turns the base creature Evil. This is, however, an instant, one-time effect. There is nothing in the template, comic, or Word of Giant that would indicate that a Vampire, once freed from Thralldom, wouldn't have free will as any other creature would.
A newly-sired Vampire's natural way of looking at the world is an Evil viewpoint, but people change alignments as a result of experience and interactions with others.

See this point about a similar effect, the Helm of Opposite Alignment:



That's not true. From the DMG, p. 275: "Only a wish or miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.)"

Yes, it does. A Good character who donned a helm of opposite alignment is not locked into their new alignment for all time. They can return to a Good alignment as surely as anyone else with the Evil alignment can.

This seems, to me, a pretty natural response. Imagine someone telling you you should enjoy burning orphanages with the kids still inside. Chances are, you'd be revulsed.
What about someone who doesn't genuinely understand that wishy washy goody two shoes nonsense, then? Would you want to wear clown shoes and parade around town? Not bloody likely.
A person is not at all likely to actively look to be something that he is not, especially if he enjoys being himself. It typically takes time and some personal turmoil to change views on fundamental issues.

The clause itself seems to me to just be a guard against people thinking it's some flavour of Dominate Person and going "Break Enchantment, lulz".

We have concrete proof of Durkon being Lawful Evil - a nontheistic Cleric can only call a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally if his alignment is Lawful Evil.

Durkon committing the act: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html
Planar Ally spell: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm

5. Staking and Resurrecting Durkon would not restore his alignment.
His alignment is naturally Lawful Evil, and Resurrection doesn't do anything to the character's alignment.


If Durkon has suddenly -- with a flick of the alignment switch -- become Durkon the evil mastermind vampire with a secret plan to kill the party Bwahaha, I'll feel pretty cheated as a reader. It just doesn't fit with OOTS to date.

Evil doesn't have to mean "backstabby Machiavellian mastermind" any more than it has to mean "omnicidal, sociopathic mass murdered". The alignment boxes themselves are absurdly huge, and there's a ton of nuance to what a character can be like.
A bit of selfishness, complete lack of care for strangers unless given good (~= beneficial-to-you) reason to, a ruthless attitude towards dealing with people who are enemies or generally obstacles to your goals, and you already have the makings of an Evil character. All the while being, say, a loyal-to-his-team/friends Dwarven cleric from the Northern lands who recently had a bit of problems trying to draw breath, and is on a quest to save the world (in good part because he thinks saving his and his friends' asses is a pretty rad idea. Plus, I don't know, taking revenge on the lich who killed your first and best human friend?)


Is someone who detects as evil and chooses to do good a fundamental contradiction? I don't think so, given the dual nature of evil, in both D&D and OOTS, as both something one chooses and as something that exists metaphysically.

It is a person who may or may not be on the path towards the top of the alignment pool, depending on his/her motivations for it. Besides which, it may totally be a Good-aligned undead creature or a Good-aligned fiend (whose body is still composed of pure, solid cosmic Evil) both of which register as Evil regardless of their philosophy, motivations and outlook.


I mean, sure, we haven't yet seen Durkon in the process of spell prep and if he is, say, praying to Hel, not Thor, for his spells, that's a poignant scene. Similarly, drinking blood might arouse some bloodlust, but is there anyone who really doubts that Durkon's devotion to duty won't keep him from completely draining Roy, Haley, or Elan? Again, there's some room for interesting angst, but, in both cases, this doesn't seem like much of a payoff for such a big change.

Durkon is a nontheistic Cleric by Word of Giant. I expect his future choice of deity to be a pretty important plot point somewhere along the line.



All in all, the simple conclusion is:
Durkon got turned into a Vampire. He is still Durkon, just Lawful Evil now. So mostly himself, with differences. He has to deal with the issues of being a Vampire, namely how to procure blood. Otherwise, he has his own, free will and can do whatever he damn well pleases. Betrayal of the Order seems exceedingly unlikely and out of character. He may turn Good or Neutral at a later date, as a result of his experiences from here on out. But that's in the future. Now the Order has a Lich to (re-)kill.

[King of Nowhere]

How does this square with Rich's previous portrayals of evil as a choice for sentient beings? Is Durkon the vampire capable of good, by choosing to do good acts? I believe so. I think that the freedom to choose to do good -- as opposed to being defined by *what* you are -- is a central underlying theme of OOTS.

If Durkon has suddenly -- with a flick of the alignment switch -- become Durkon the evil mastermind vampire with a secret plan to kill the party Bwahaha, I'll feel pretty cheated as a reader. It just doesn't fit with OOTS to date.


I agree with that. someone becoming evil just like that, with no further justification than "well, he's a vampire now" contradicts all the themes about morality that were established before.
It is fully possible for durkon ton gradually become evil as a result of character development, though.

[Komatik]

I agree with that. someone becoming evil just like that, with no further justification than "well, he's a vampire now" contradicts all the themes about morality that were established before.
It is fully possible for durkon ton gradually become evil as a result of character development, though.

See my post above. He did indeed just become Evil because of being vampirized. Not much else there to it. There's still a ton of character development made possible by it. And Durkon still has free will, so what does it change? You're not any more justified to stake vampires on sight than you would if they were not Evil right after creation. You see what they do, and judge them on their acts (and preferably don't look them right in the eye).

[Amphiox]

I agree with that. someone becoming evil just like that, with no further justification than "well, he's a vampire now" contradicts all the themes about morality that were established before.

One cannot speak for the Giant, but it is certainly possible he has done this deliberately. It amounts to a kind of dramatic tension on a meta-level. After presenting a consistent set of themes about morality, he puts in something for which there is an established rule-set that says the exact opposite of it, and then explores the ramifications of this in narrative.

It also makes the audience sit up and think, after a period of being lulled into a sense that they feel they know what to expect for the narrative thematically.

[SoC175]

I agree with that. someone becoming evil just like that, with no further justification than "well, he's a vampire now" contradicts all the themes about morality that were established before.I disagree here. The themes about morality that were established before were for "normal" mortal beings. A vampire is more a supernatural entitiy similiar to a devil or demon. Being brainwashed is part of the transformation

[Snails]

And Durkon still has free will, so what does it change? You're not any more justified to stake vampires on sight than you would if they were not Evil right after creation. You see what they do, and judge them on their acts (and preferably don't look them right in the eye).

Having an Evil alignment is not a bit of window dressing. It is an objective statement about the moral status of the being. It is a judgement made by the fabric of the universe.

To be Evil without having committed a single Evil act may strike some as unfair, but the D&D universe does not promise that kind of fairness. Sorry.

[WindStruck]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, when did Durkon ever "register as evil"? That's right, never. There's no proof of his alignment: only what people assume.

[Komatik]

Having an Evil alignment is not a bit of window dressing. It is an objective statement about the moral status of the being. It is a judgement made by the fabric of the universe.

To be Evil without having committed a single Evil act may strike some as unfair, but the D&D universe does not promise that kind of fairness. Sorry.

*thumbsup* This is exactly what I've been championing throughout this whole damn vampirism treadmill.

Was this post a point in support of yours truly, or did you try to make some other kind of point?


Whoa, whoa, whoa, when did Durkon ever "register as evil"? That's right, never. There's no proof of his alignment: only what people assume.


We have concrete proof of Durkon being Lawful Evil - a nontheistic Cleric can only call a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally if his alignment is Lawful Evil.

Durkon committing the act: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html
Planar Ally spell: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm

This, in addition to being subjected to a template that turns the base creature Evil within the last two-three hours or something, having committed the above only-possible-for-LE-cleric act and the gleeful snapping of Z's neck (which, as far as evidence goes is way way weaker than the template or Planar Ally, but still totally in support of an Evil-aligned Durkon)?

Where is your case, good sir? Because there is absolutely no uncertainty whatsoever about Durkon's alignment. Just proof in favour and people's wishful thinking against.

[hamishspence]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, when did Durkon ever "register as evil"? That's right, never. There's no proof of his alignment: only what people assume.

It's more that it would be very hard for a nontheistic cleric to summon a Devil without being Evil-aligned.

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[Jasdoif]

This, in addition to being subjected to a template that turns the base creature Evil within the last two-three hours or something, having committed the above only-possible-for-LE-cleric act and the gleeful snapping of Z's neck (which, as far as evidence goes is way way weaker than the template or Planar Ally, but still totally in support of an Evil-aligned Durkon)?

Where is your case, good sir? Because there is absolutely no uncertainty whatsoever about Durkon's alignment. Just proof in favour and people's wishful thinking against.Durkon was still Malack's thrall when he summoned the barbed devil. Being a thrall means he wasn't a free-willed vampire. Not being a free-willed vampire means he didn't have free will. Not having free will means he had no opportunity to change his alignment from the standard Always Evil of the vampire template.

So your strong evidence manages to prove that Durkon was Lawful Evil when he had no choice in the matter. Personally, I'd be more interested to see you make such a strong case that his alignment hasn't changed since it became possible for him to do so.

[WindStruck]

Durkon was still Malack's thrall when he summoned the barbed devil. Being a thrall means he wasn't a free-willed vampire. Not being a free-willed vampire means he didn't have free will. Not having free will means he had no opportunity to change his alignment from the standard Always Evil of the vampire template.

So your strong evidence manages to prove that Durkon was Lawful Evil when he had no choice in the matter. Personally, I'd be more interested to see you make such a strong case that his alignment hasn't changed since it became possible for him to do so.

This. I thought we were over that part of the discussion weeks ago when the strip first came out.

But I guess people just don't get that that wasn't really Durkon, as opposed to... you know, now.

[Sylian]

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.

Bolded by me. Source (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_alignment&alpha=)

Will Durkon be the unique exception? I don't know.

[King of Nowhere]

the crux of the issue here is that durkon is supposedly free-willed, and he is also supposedly always evil.
That's a contradiction if I ever saw one. if a being is free willed, he can choose his fate and his actions. he can choose to never commit an evil act in his life, so he can't be evil by default. if a being is compelled to be evil, then it is not free willed. it is under some kind of magical compulsion, that may otherwise leave him freedom of action on other matters.
The way D&D slaps "always evil" tags as a way to say "it's fine to kill on sight" is highly unsatisfactory because it says nothing of everything that's behind. Or maybe just incomplete; and it is willingly left there so a DM wanting to explore the ramification can do so in his own way.
Peersonally, I've never used those racial alignments descriptors and houseruled there's no reason whatsoever a lich or vampire or chromaic dragon cannot be good aligned (altough I've decided that liches, being empowered by negative energy, if not evil need to make a saving throw every week to avoid going insane. so the only non-evil liches are those few who succesfully researched a spell to avoid this problem (and the spell is different for every person, so asking for someone else's research don't work)).
Still, this is not rich's style. he generally abides by the alignment descriptors, but he make evil with depths. those hobbos in the army were mostly evil, but they were people with goals and motivations we could relate. same for the abd. So, this new durkon is likely to be evil, but he will be an evil durkon with goals and motivations we can understand. he certainly will never betray the party for the sake of it. he probably won't snuff the life out of the innocents just to watch them die. durkula's newfound evilness will be vitually undistinguishable from character development. His sense of duty, his loialty to the party, are still a big part of him. He may be evil, but he's still an asset for the team.


That makes me think of a particular npc I created to explore that concept of forced evilness, that unfortunately I could never introduce to the players. She was a goood aligned wizard who went through the fate that almost took vaarsuvius: her children soul bound and carried away. She spent the rest of her life looking for them, but without success. she didn't want to give up and leave her children soulbound for eternity, so she decided for lichdom. But she couldn't because she was good and she had no idea how to make an homebrewed spell to be a good lich. So she went and killed some people. She choose people whose lives were miserable - slaves, low-class people under oppressive regimes, terminally ill without access to healing magic, elders with no family or friends left - and she killed them until her alignment switched to evil. She then became a lich, and she went back to being the good person she was before. When she erred too close to neutral (she could start to feel the negative energy itching uncomfortably within her as a warning sign) she killed some other people. Just enough to make sure she stayed evil. She deeply regrets what she does, although she manages to convince herself that with a verifiable afterlife those peopel she kills are probably better off than they were alive.
In her normal life she's a kindly old lady, and she genuinely feels like that. then she will feel she's building too much positive karma, so she'll teleport in the empire of blood, cast meteor swarm into the prison (or teleport to azure city and disintegrate some of the slaves xykon were keeping for his amusement, or whatever you can think of - ok, in my campaign world there were no empire of blood or azure city, but you got the concept), then teleport back and resume being a kindly old lady. The centuries spent trying to locate her children make her one of the greatest world experts in divination, and the pcs could have met her if they look for the best diviner available to locate the villain.
I conceived her to explore the concept of a genuinely good person maintaining her free will, but being magically compelled to generically "be evil" in some way.
And I find one of the greatest tragedies of being a DM with a passion for worldbuilding to realize how secondary characters the party never met were much better characterized than the pcs.

[Komatik]

Durkon was still Malack's thrall when he summoned the barbed devil. Being a thrall means he wasn't a free-willed vampire. Not being a free-willed vampire means he didn't have free will. Not having free will means he had no opportunity to change his alignment from the standard Always Evil of the vampire template.

So your strong evidence manages to prove that Durkon was Lawful Evil when he had no choice in the matter. Personally, I'd be more interested to see you make such a strong case that his alignment hasn't changed since it became possible for him to do so.


This. I thought we were over that part of the discussion weeks ago when the strip first came out.

But I guess people just don't get that that wasn't really Durkon, as opposed to... you know, now.

A creature being mentally dominated doesn't change it's outlook. It's simply bound up, then made to dance by puppet strings of sorcery. A Good person who's Dominated and compelled to commit atrocities is still a Good person.

Incidentally, actual, natural moral/philosophical change, especially one going deep enough to change a person's alignment, is typically either a slow, gradual process or some huge moment of personal revelation.

Durkon's been a vampire for, what, a few hours?
Timeline:
Become vampirized. Ancient black magic thoroughly changes you so an Evil morality is completely natural to you.
Go around under one of the most crushing mental domination effects in all of D&D.
Alignment confirmed as Lawful Evil by casting of Planar Ally.
Freedom.
First act: Gleeful murder of an enemy, something completely, utterly uncharacteristic of Good Durkon.
Normal fighting.
Mechane, pray for spells.

Where, in all of this, do you see anything that would make a creature of naturally Lawful Evil outlook change it's views on things? Unless your argument is "be freed from the mental yoke" => "rainbows and ponies" or something, to exaggerate a bit. There's no time, there's basically nothing to prompt a move towards Good, there's no huge personal revelations going on.
What would make Durkon Neutral, let alone Good?

There's nothing. Just wishful thinking against every existing piece of evidence and proof with the argument "Well you didn't prove the opposite of my view two seconds ago."



the crux of the issue here is that durkon is supposedly free-willed, and he is also supposedly always evil.
That's a contradiction if I ever saw one. if a being is free willed, he can choose his fate and his actions. he can choose to never commit an evil act in his life, so he can't be evil by default. if a being is compelled to be evil, then it is not free willed.

In the case of vampirisation, a liberal, one-shot application of ancient black magic. A starting point, but just a starting point. The same way someone raised among Paladins is likely to be strongly LG, but could turn evil over time. He's naturally something else by way of upbringing, but circumstances can and do change that. Same case with our dwarven friend here.

[jere7my]

the crux of the issue here is that durkon is supposedly free-willed, and he is also supposedly always evil.
That's a contradiction if I ever saw one. if a being is free willed, he can choose his fate and his actions. he can choose to never commit an evil act in his life, so he can't be evil by default. if a being is compelled to be evil, then it is not free willed. it is under some kind of magical compulsion, that may otherwise leave him freedom of action on other matters.

We're free-willed, right? Now imagine sleeping is an evil act.

[WindStruck]

A creature being mentally dominated also gets an additional will save each time it would do something that goes against its nature. Durkon as a vampire thrall would get no such thing. In fact, he most obviously seemed to behave much like those wights under Tsusiko's control.

Also no: his first act was punching evil in the face.

[Jasdoif]

A creature being mentally dominated doesn't change it's outlook. It's simply bound up, then made to dance by puppet strings of sorcery. A Good person who's Dominated and compelled to commit atrocities is still a Good person.A creature being mentally dominated can't change its outlook. Which was kind of why I brought it up, being raised as a vampire made Durkon evil and being enslaved prevented that from changing until he ceased being enslaved.


Incidentally, actual, natural moral/philosophical change, especially one going deep enough to change a person's alignment, is typically either a slow, gradual process or some huge moment of personal revelation.

Durkon's been a vampire for, what, a few hours?
Timeline:
Become vampirized. Ancient black magic thoroughly changes you so an Evil morality is completely natural to you.
Go around under one of the most crushing mental domination effects in all of D&D.
Alignment confirmed as Lawful Evil by casting of Planar Ally.
Freedom.
First act: Gleeful murder of an enemy, something completely, utterly uncharacteristic of Good Durkon.
Normal fighting.
Mechane, pray for spells.

Where, in all of this, do you see anything that would make a creature of naturally Lawful Evil outlook change it's views on things? Unless your argument is "be freed from the mental yoke" => "rainbows and ponies" or something, to exaggerate a bit. There's no time, there's basically nothing to prompt a move towards Good, there's no huge personal revelations going on.
What would make Durkon Neutral, let alone Good?Revulsion at the memory of drinking Belkar's blood and other behavior, now that he has the free thought to process the events of the last few hours? Experiencing events inimical to one's worldview are the kind of thing that prompt intense self-evaluation.

As for time, I imagine he wasn't just daydreaming when he was standing still immediately after being freed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html).


There's nothing. Just wishful thinking against every existing piece of evidence and proof with the argument "Well you didn't prove the opposite of my view two seconds ago."Your evidence does not constitute proof. You've said that Durkon has free will now and is capable of becoming Neutral or Good at a later date, which I agree with...but you also say it hasn't happened between the time he was freed and now. That's the part I haven't seen a compelling case for.

[Peelee]

Also no: his first act was punching evil in the face.

His first act was punching "a couple of *****" in the face. If being opposed to Nale is an indication of alignment, Tarquin, Malack, and Xykon would also join the ranks of the good.

[Seward]

A side note on what it takes to fully restore Durkon.

1. Kill the vampire body
2. Ressurect him (find a 15th level cleric, a 10k diamond and hope that the likely currently LE Durkon is willing to be raised by a cleric of that alignment...not a given if they killed the body against his will)
3. Cast Atonement from a LG cleric to turn him back to LG, so he can follow Thor. (A LN or NG cleric would also work, as he'd be "close enough"). This also requires willing cooperation from a likely LE newly raised Durkon.

Now probably #2 and #3 can be handled by the same cleric. The crux of the problem is that if #1 is done against Durkon's will, #2 or #3 aren't likely to happen. So you could end up with a LE live Durkon, or you could end up with a staked corpse.

Belkar's plan is actually the most likely to lead to a really bad outcome. Whatever they choose once the opportunity arises, Vampire Durkon really needs to agree to it for it to result in a better ally for the Order to save the world than Vampire Durkon.

[Keltest]

A side note on what it takes to fully restore Durkon.

1. Kill the vampire body
2. Ressurect him (find a 15th level cleric, a 10k diamond and hope that the likely currently LE Durkon is willing to be raised by a cleric of that alignment...not a given if they killed the body against his will)
3. Cast Atonement from a LG cleric to turn him back to LG, so he can follow Thor. (A LN or NG cleric would also work, as he'd be "close enough"). This also requires willing cooperation from a likely LE newly raised Durkon.

Now probably #2 and #3 can be handled by the same cleric. The crux of the problem is that if #1 is done against Durkon's will, #2 or #3 aren't likely to happen. So you could end up with a LE live Durkon, or you could end up with a staked corpse.

Belkar's plan is actually the most likely to lead to a really bad outcome. Whatever they choose once the opportunity arises, Vampire Durkon really needs to agree to it for it to result in a better ally for the Order to save the world than Vampire Durkon.

Durkon would come back. Hes all about duty, and he sees it as his duty to save the world. Besides, at the moment hes a nontheist evil cleric, so he would go to one of the unpleasant lower planes to be tortured.

[Sir_Leorik]

Some points of order here:

1. D&D doesn't have "Alignment X, but not really". An Evil-aligned person really is Evil. This is completely separate from what all manner of detection spells register the character as. A Good character can have an effect that makes him register Evil on those kinds of spells, but that doesn't change the fact that he is Good.

One way for that to happen is to handle an Evil artifact. If you're Lawful Good and you've placed the Eye of Vecna into your empty left eye socket, you will register an Overwhelming Evil aura. (Also, if you've popped the Eye of Vecna in your Alignment has probably switched to Neutral Evil, but that's a separate matter. :smallamused:)


There is the [Evil] subtype. A creature with that subtype is treated as Evil for the purposes of most effects that depend on alignment. And for a pretty good reason - almost every single creature with the subtype is a fiend from the Outer Planes, a creature whose body is literally made of pure, solid, cosmic Evil.

And the world famous Lawful Good Succubus Paladin still has the [Evil] subtype (and the [Chaotic] one as well). She can't change that inherent part of her nature, even if she wears a Helm of Opposite Alignment, is converted by the Power of Love, or decides that she's tired of being evil and wants to join the "white hats". She can't excise the part of her being that is [Evil] anymore than Celia could excise the part of herself that relates to the [Air].


Undead aren't like that. Negative energy, though nasty and inimical to life, is unaligned just like fire and positive energy and whatnot are. It is very dangerous, but more like cosmic acid. Treat carefully, that's it.

That's true in 4th Edition, but not necessarily in 3.X. In 4E Negative Energy (renamed Necrotic Energy) is just another type of damage, like Fire, Lightning, Thunder, Acid, Radiant or Poison. You can even mix types, like Acid Necrotic damage, which would overcome Necrotic resistance since it's mixed with Acid.

In 3.X Negative Energy is the antithesis of life itself, and is treated as Evil in many ways. Spells that use or manipulate Negative Energy, like Animate Dead, often have the [Evil] descriptor in 3.5. Book of Exalted Deeds is pretty explicit in ruling Negative Energy as inherently Evil, but that's an optional rule.

But Undead powered by Negative Energy are often Evil. There are exceptions, such as Ghosts, Revenants, etc., which don't have to be Evil, but the majority of Undead are Evil.


4. The Application of the Vampire template turns the base creature Evil. This is, however, an instant, one-time effect. There is nothing in the template, comic, or Word of Giant that would indicate that a Vampire, once freed from Thralldom, wouldn't have free will as any other creature would.
A newly-sired Vampire's natural way of looking at the world is an Evil viewpoint, but people change alignments as a result of experience and interactions with others.

Based on the events following Malack's destruction, I think we can all agree that Durkon regained his free will after being freed from Thralldom. Nale and Zz'Dtri would agree if they were still able to. :smalleek:


We have concrete proof of Durkon being Lawful Evil - a nontheistic Cleric can only call a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally if his alignment is Lawful Evil.

If I could just play devil's advocate (no pun intended!), I'm sure that someone could argue that at the moment Durkon Called "Spikey" his Alignment could have been Lawful Evil because he was the Thrall of Malack, a Lawful Evil Vampire. And I have a counter-argument that should be used in case anyone ever brings this argument up in the future: not only was Durkon able to Call "Spikey" and make a Planar Ally agreement with him while he was a Thrall, this alliance lasted after Durkon was no longer Malack's Thrall! "Spikey" continued to obey Durkon, even though Durkon had free will, which "Spikey" probably would not have done if Durkon's Alignment reverted to Lawful Good! Devils are always trying to twist contracts to their advantage, and while Barbed Devils aren't the smartest of the bunch, they have an average Intelligence score of 12 and Wisdom score of 14! "Spikey" would not Ally himself with a Cleric of Thor, but he'd have no problem obeying a Vampire, even if the Vampire changed orders mid-combat. He was getting paid anyway. :smallwink:


5. Staking and Resurrecting Durkon would not restore his alignment.
His alignment is naturally Lawful Evil, and Resurrection doesn't do anything to the character's alignment.

I know that if I were a DM in this situation, and the players' characters succeeded in staking a PC turned into a Vampire and then succeeded in casting Resurrection on the PC, I would allow her Alignment to be restored to what it originally was, with the caveat that the PC was haunted by what she did while she was a Vampire. Of course that assumes the PCs can stake their comrade and manage to Resurrect her successfully. I'd probably be inclined to say that the Resurrection spell fails because "Ravenloft". If the PCs are in Ravenloft, the Dark Powers prevent the PC from being restored to life; she remains a Vampire and as soon as the stake is removed she'll be thirsty. If the PCs are not in Ravenloft, the Mists rise and transport the party to Ravenloft, where the Dark Powers do the exact same thing, and they advance the Vampire PC an age category (as per the 3.X "Ravenloft Campaign Setting"/"Ravenloft Player's Handbook" from Arthaus). As cruel as that might seem, I could always fall back on the excuse "Wow, those Dark Powers are capricious jerks, aren't they." :smallwink: Otherwise I'd be accused of twisting the RAW and an argument would break out at the game table.

[Rakoa]

A creature being mentally dominated can't change its outlook. Which was kind of why I brought it up, being raised as a vampire made Durkon evil and being enslaved prevented that from changing until he ceased being enslaved.

I don't see what you're saying. Nowhere does it say in the Vampire template that the creature is "Always Evil: Except if it's a thrall". This is just conjecture with no basis in rules. Where does it say that a creature cannot change it's outlook while being a Thrall?


Revulsion at the memory of drinking Belkar's blood and other behavior, now that he has the free thought to process the events of the last few hours? Experiencing events inimical to one's worldview are the kind of thing that prompt intense self-evaluation.

Sort of sounds like he was aware of what he was doing as a Thrall, then, doesn't it? Which is to say, capable of re-evaluation of his world view.

[Jasdoif]

I don't see what you're saying. Nowhere does it say in the Vampire template that the creature is "Always Evil: Except if it's a thrall". This is just conjecture with no basis in rules. Where does it say that a creature cannot change it's outlook while being a Thrall?Well, what I'm saying is that of course Durkon is evil while he's a thrall; the vampire template makes him evil and the lack of free will while being a thrall means he doesn't have the freedom of thought to genuinely reflect on his own alignment that would be necessary for him to change it.

As for how I could come to that conclusion...well, if Durkon isn't even able to speak freely enough to have his own accent, I'm having an extremely difficult time accepting that he could perform honest self-evaluation.


Sort of sounds like he was aware of what he was doing as a Thrall, then, doesn't it? Which is to say, capable of re-evaluation of his world view.Oh, mental domination makes this kind of stuff weird. Being able to perceive and remember events doesn't mean he has the freedom of thought to mentally process those events in a normal fashion.


Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that, even in the most charitable/unrealistic "Durkon was Lawful Good again the instant he was able!" case (let's call it the "rainbows and ponies" scenario), Durkon would still have to have been Lawful Evil when he summoned the barbed devil, which is easily the strongest directly observed evidence of Durkon's alignment since he became a vampire.

If Durkon could have changed his alignment prior to that, but didn't, I'd find it far easier to simply accept that it'll take a long time for Durkon's alignment to change (assuming it will happen at all), since the abrupt epiphany type of change would be off the table. As it is, I don't see how the degree of certainty I've seen that it hasn't happened yet could be justified.

[Keltest]

I don't see what you're saying. Nowhere does it say in the Vampire template that the creature is "Always Evil: Except if it's a thrall". This is just conjecture with no basis in rules. Where does it say that a creature cannot change it's outlook while being a Thrall?

That's sort of what a thrall is. Youre the quintessential Minion, unable to voice or act on an opinion that goes against your master's even if you were to form one.

[Komatik]

That's sort of what a thrall is. Youre the quintessential Minion, unable to voice or act on an opinion that goes against your master's even if you were to form one.

That's kind of the point, though: A Thrall or a Dominated creature still has it's own mind (though it seems thralldom also superimposes a slavish adoration for the newly risen vampire's master), it's just forced to do whatever. Basically, charms and the like are persuasion, Dominate effects are raw, violent force. You want someone to kneel, you don't persuade him to - you press his face to the ground. The various create spawn abilities various undead have are the strongest examples of that kind that I've seen.

[Rosstin]

Forgive me because I know this has been gone over before-- let's say Durkon is willing to be resurrected. Can he scribe a scroll of Resurrection, be killed, and have Haley cast it?

From my understanding, Haley would need to roll 27 and 32 on UMD to cast a scroll of Resurrection. (27 to be able to cast the spell, 32 to be able to emulate a Wisdom of 17).

What kind of roadblocks are there to this happening?

[Rakoa]

If Durkon could have changed his alignment prior to that, but didn't, I'd find it far easier to simply accept that it'll take a long time for Durkon's alignment to change (assuming it will happen at all), since the abrupt epiphany type of change would be off the table. As it is, I don't see how the degree of certainty I've seen that it hasn't happened yet could be justified.

Ahh, I think I see what you mean now. Thanks.

[SoC175]

That's sort of what a thrall is. Youre the quintessential Minion, unable to voice or act on an opinion that goes against your master's even if you were to form one.That might be the case for truly newborn thralls, but D&D novels and adventures had their fair share of thralls who resented their master and did what little the limitations of their thralldom allowed them to bring him down.

E.g. going to the utmost limit of acting against their master that the letter of their orders allowed them, even if against the spirit of these orders

[Keltest]

That might be the case for truly newborn thralls, but D&D novels and adventures had their fair share of thralls who resented their master and did what little the limitations of their thralldom allowed them to bring him down.

E.g. going to the utmost limit of acting against their master that the letter of their orders allowed them, even if against the spirit of these orders

That may be true, but since Durkon is a newborn thrall, its not particularly relevant to the discussion.

[King of Nowhere]

Forgive me because I know this has been gone over before-- let's say Durkon is willing to be resurrected. Can he scribe a scroll of Resurrection, be killed, and have Haley cast it?

From my understanding, Haley would need to roll 27 and 32 on UMD to cast a scroll of Resurrection. (27 to be able to cast the spell, 32 to be able to emulate a Wisdom of 17).

What kind of roadblocks are there to this happening?

Haley may not have a umd that high. she would need to roll a 32. and what if she rolls a 1 and they have to face xykon without cleric?

[Kish]

If Haley's Use Magic Device is not high enough to guarantee success...

...then they could always take the scroll to any cleric. A first-level acolyte with a Wisdom of 13 would do (Vaarsuvius can cast Owl's Wisdom).

[Komatik]

Forgive me because I know this has been gone over before-- let's say Durkon is willing to be resurrected. Can he scribe a scroll of Resurrection, be killed, and have Haley cast it?

From my understanding, Haley would need to roll 27 and 32 on UMD to cast a scroll of Resurrection. (27 to be able to cast the spell, 32 to be able to emulate a Wisdom of 17).

What kind of roadblocks are there to this happening?

That Durkon would be resurrected with a Lawful Evil alignment. Resurrection does nothing to restore that since it's a one-time change on application of the template, not a constant effect.

[zimmerwald1915]

That Durkon would be resurrected with a Lawful Evil alignment. Resurrection does nothing to restore that since it's a one-time change on application of the template, not a constant effect.
If that was the case in The Order of the Stick, what would be the point of Durkon wanting to resurrect Malack? Vampire template or not, he'd still be the kind of person who'd want to gas the population of an entire continent to please his god. The only differences would be that he wouldn't necessarily suck a few of his victims' blood instead of sending them to the gas chambers, and that he wouldn't have eternity to carry out his scheme, which would mean he'd have to fast-track it so it happened sooner.

[Komatik]

If that was the case in The Order of the Stick, what would be the point of Durkon wanting to resurrect Malack? Vampire template or not, he'd still be the kind of person who'd want to gas the population of an entire continent to please his god. The only differences would be that he wouldn't necessarily suck a few of his victims' blood instead of sending them to the gas chambers, and that he wouldn't have eternity to carry out his scheme, which would mean he'd have to fast-track it so it happened sooner.

Don't ask me, but that's how the rules work. If the Stickverse works differently, I haven't seen it yet.

[Kalmegil]

That Durkon would be resurrected with a Lawful Evil alignment. Resurrection does nothing to restore that since it's a one-time change on application of the template, not a constant effect.

Why do you think the rules work this way? Do all of the other "one-time changes" wrought by the template still apply? Because, if so, Durkon would still be undead after a resurrection, along with a host of other effects:


The creature’s type changes to undead (augmented humanoid or monstrous humanoid).

Increase all current and future Hit Dice to d12s.

The base creature’s natural armor bonus improves by +6.

A vampire retains all the special attacks of the base creature and gains those described below [Blood Drain, Children of the Night, Dominate, Create Spawn, and Energy Drain].

A vampire retains all the special qualities of the base creature and gains those described below [Alternate Form, DR, Fast Healing, Gaseous Form, Resistance, Spider Climb, and Turn Resistance].

Abilities Increase from the base creature as follows: Str +6, Dex +4, Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +4. As an undead creature, a vampire has no Constitution score.

Vampires gain Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes, assuming the base creature meets the prerequisites and doesn’t already have these feats.

Alignment Always Evil. [Also worded as "Vampires are always evil" elsewhere in the entry.

I don't see any difference between the description of the alignment and the description of the vampire attributes I included in the quote above. That leaves three options:

1) All of these attributes will remain after resurrection.
2) Some of these attributes (including alignment) will remain after resurrection.
3) None of these attributes (including alignment) will remain after resurrection.

If the answer is 2 or 3, then there needs to be a way to distinguish between those attributes that survive resurrection and those that don't. What is the method of distinguishing those who advocate the "alignment remains evil after resurrection" are proposing?

[Jasdoif]

Forgive me because I know this has been gone over before-- let's say Durkon is willing to be resurrected. Can he scribe a scroll of Resurrection, be killed, and have Haley cast it?

From my understanding, Haley would need to roll 27 and 32 on UMD to cast a scroll of Resurrection. (27 to be able to cast the spell, 32 to be able to emulate a Wisdom of 17).

What kind of roadblocks are there to this happening?For the immediate future, there's the time issue. A scroll of resurrection costs 12,275gp (because the diamonds the spell requires are subsumed in the scroll), and scribing a scroll takes one day for every 1,000gp in its price. So it'd take 12 days for the scroll to be created; too long if the intent is to resurrect Durkon prior to arriving at the last Gate.

[warrl]

It has frustrated me (and confused me as a novice) to no end that in D&D editions they continue to use the word "level" for both "character level" and "spell level" when the two have almost 0 correspondence.

Your complaint is not new. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) :smallsmile:


The words "good" and "evil" in the alignment system, the cosmology of D&D, and in real life seem to indicate the same basic idea, but maybe they are fundamentally different.

In D&D the words "good" and "evil" are used for two sets of ideas that are somewhat similar and usually correlate, but are NOT the same.

One set of ideas: fundamental sources of energy. A sufficiently-powerful sapient being that is powered by "positive" energy is "good", and one powered by "negative" energy is "evil". (Oddly, non-sapients vary: the ones that are actually made of negative energy - certain nether-plane Outsiders - are "evil" but the ones that are made of ordinary matter and animated by negative energy - certain undead - are "neutral". And the same for non-sapient positive-energy beings.)

The other set of ideas: behavior. A sapient being that is routinely willing to undermine the well-being of innocents for personal gain (including pleasure) is "evil" while a being that routinely undermines its own well-being to preserve or enhance the well-being of unrelated innocents is "good" - and since most sapient beings do both at least occasionally, we get all sorts of debates.

Law and Chaos are similarly dual-meaning terms.

The thing is, the two sets of ideas do NOT ALWAYS correlate. A sapient being has free will, no matter how strong the tendencies of its nature may be. So there CAN be a being that by its fundamental source of energy is Evil, but by its behavior is Good. There is even, in D&D canon, a Succubus (a Chaotic Evil Outsider, actually made of Chaotic Evil energy) Paladin (necessarily Lawful Good) - she would be vulnerable to every spell that targets alignment X (except Neutral) and I don't know what to do about those that target alignment "non-X".

There are also examples of Vampires (who are inherently Evil due to that negative-energy thing) being Neutral (by behavior) on the Good/Evil axis.

And there's a slight inconsistency: a non-Outsider non-Undead spellcaster's alignment is determined solely by the pattern of behavior, NOT by the type of energy he most-often channels for his spells. Durkon, as a Vampire, could go sufficiently Lawful Good to qualify for Paladin, and he'd still (also) be Evil.

It would be nice if different terms had been used for the different sets of ideas... but history is what it is.

[Komatik]

In D&D the words "good" and "evil" are used for two sets of ideas that are somewhat similar and usually correlate, but are NOT the same.

One set of ideas: fundamental sources of energy. A sufficiently-powerful sapient being that is powered by "positive" energy is "good", and one powered by "negative" energy is "evil". (Oddly, non-sapients vary: the ones that are actually made of negative energy - certain nether-plane Outsiders - are "evil" but the ones that are made of ordinary matter and animated by negative energy - certain undead - are "neutral". And the same for non-sapient positive-energy beings.)

This is incorrect: Positive and negative energy are separate things from the cosmic forces that are Good and Evil. Angels and fiends are not made of positive or negative energy - their bodies are their very souls and pure cosmic Good/Evil solidified.

Living, corporeal beings and undead are a body made of matter, a bunch of positive or negative energy, and usually a soul (nonsentient undead excepted, though this depends heavily on setting).

Incorporeal undead are similar to outsiders in that they are souls, but they're still powered by negative energy. Many undead are Evil because they're crazed and homicidal, having undergone torturous things in their past lives. But this is not a result of the negative energy in and of itself.

It's more fruitful to think of positive energy as the cosmic equivalent of masonry, and negative energy as acid. One creates, structures, one dissolves and is generally a bit icky. Both can be useful, dangerous if used wrong and so on.


The other set of ideas: behavior. A sapient being that is routinely willing to undermine the well-being of innocents for personal gain (including pleasure) is "evil" while a being that routinely undermines its own well-being to preserve or enhance the well-being of unrelated innocents is "good" - and since most sapient beings do both at least occasionally, we get all sorts of debates.

Law and Chaos are similarly dual-meaning terms.

The thing is, the two sets of ideas do NOT ALWAYS correlate. A sapient being has free will, no matter how strong the tendencies of its nature may be. So there CAN be a being that by its fundamental source of energy is Evil, but by its behavior is Good. There is even, in D&D canon, a Succubus (a Chaotic Evil Outsider, actually made of Chaotic Evil energy) Paladin (necessarily Lawful Good) - she would be vulnerable to every spell that targets alignment X (except Neutral) and I don't know what to do about those that target alignment "non-X".

There are also examples of Vampires (who are inherently Evil due to that negative-energy thing) being Neutral (by behavior) on the Good/Evil axis.

And there's a slight inconsistency: a non-Outsider non-Undead spellcaster's alignment is determined solely by the pattern of behavior, NOT by the type of energy he most-often channels for his spells. Durkon, as a Vampire, could go sufficiently Lawful Good to qualify for Paladin, and he'd still (also) be Evil.

It would be nice if different terms had been used for the different sets of ideas... but history is what it is.

This, though, is pretty much spot on. The main thing I'd amend is that alignment is a thing, not just a pattern of behavior, though that very very heavily influences what the creature's alignment is.
That LG Succubus is Good, with a big G. It's physical existence, however, is literally made of Evil, and that physical Evil is as such integral to what it is in the first place, just as these piles of meat and bone are to what we are. That duality results in a lot of the wonky behavior with regard to spell effects. But that's just spell effects - if the LG Succubus is a Cleric, it simply cannot cast [Evil] spells - it is a Good being.