PDA

View Full Version : Worst Race Ever



Shatenjager
2007-01-24, 04:27 PM
What's the worst LA race for a player?

The one that comes to mind for me is the Blue. You mean I get goblin stats (which are already subpar), and one powerpoint for LA+1? Sign me up!

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 04:29 PM
Hands-down, Varag out of the MM-IV.

Wonderboy
2007-01-24, 04:30 PM
What's the worst LA race for a player?

The one that comes to mind for me is the Blue. You mean I get goblin stats (which are already subpar), and one powerpoint for LA+1? Sign me up!

Yeah, but I think they're kind of cool.

Ikkitosen
2007-01-24, 04:31 PM
Hobgobs - they're the worst by being the most common crappy +1 LA race.

reorith
2007-01-24, 04:37 PM
Svirfneblin for the lose. +3 for nothing worth using and the ability to suck more than a normal gnome and a -2 net to abilities. the spell likes are lacking in that a 4th level gnome as a caster could pull those off. oh well.

Amiria
2007-01-24, 05:15 PM
Tieflings ! It is just plain unfair that they get +/+/- on stats while their counterparts, the Aasimars, get +/+.

In my RL gaming group their ability boni are +2 dexterity and +2 charisma. And the planetouched are +1 LA templates.

DaMullet
2007-01-24, 05:23 PM
Tieflings ! It is just plain unfair that they get +/+/- on stats while their counterparts, the Aasimars, get +/+.

In my RL gaming group their ability boni are +2 dexterity and +2 charisma. And the planetouched are +1 LA templates.
It's 'bonuses'.

Boni means 'a political faction of the late Roman Republic.' Under no circumstances should you EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER pluralize Bonus in such a manner.

EVER.

And to anwser the OP, I dislike any LA race. The PHB has more than enough options.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 05:23 PM
It's 'bonuses'.

Boni means 'a political faction of the late Roman Republic.' Under no circumstances should you EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER pluralize Bonus in such a manner.

EVER.

And to anwser the OP, I dislike any LA race. The PHB has more than enough options.

Er. "Bonii" is correct.

squishycube
2007-01-24, 05:24 PM
Actually the Tiefling and the Aasimar are pretty well balanced against each other: Dexterity and Intelligence are generally more useful than wisdom or charisma, Darkness is a lot more useful than Daylight, fire resistance is better than acid resistance (depends on campaign obviously, but Fire is usualy the most common). Personally I think Rogue is a better favored class to have, but that's not really mechanically true.
I hope I haven's spoilt your fun in your Zimmer in the Elfenbeinturm :elan:

I vote for the poor hobgobo.

Spelling discussion:
In the English language, traditional Latin rules of conjugation are not used. Therefore, forums is the correct plural of forum, bonuses is the correct plural of bonus.

But in Dutch and German (Which I think Amiria is), the Latin grammar is used: bonus - boni, forum - fora.
Bonii is certainly not correct, the double i only occurs if the original word has an -us end and an i before that, like radius - radii.

Since Amiria and I are headstrong, we use the Latin grammar even in English.
[/language geek mode]

ken-do-nim
2007-01-24, 05:24 PM
I love lillends myself, but the +6 LA is a killer. Considering they are basically fighter/bards, with that +6 (making them equivalent to 13th level characters including their 7 levels of outsider) they can't fight well and can't cast well compared to their peers.

Here's a full 20-level build with lillend:
lillend (accounts for 13 levels)
4 bard (in order to qualify for eldritch knight, you need 3rd level spells, so you have to take that 1st level of bard. Once you've taken that you may as well take 3 more as the base attack bonus keeps going up and you get inspire greatness)
3 eldritch knight

So the result is, at 20th level you are a large-sized warrior with a base attack bonus of +13, less than even the cleric/rogue/monk classes, you have 12th level bard casting, and 10th level bardic music. Sure you've got great ability scores and can fly, but was it worth it?

DaMullet
2007-01-24, 05:26 PM
Er. "Bonii" is correct.

Kindly show me where it says that. Anywhere.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bonus
According to that link, which I'm inclined to trust more than anyone here, it's Bonuses.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 05:27 PM
Kindly show me where it says that. Anywhere.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bonus
According to that link, which I'm inclined to trust more than anyone here, it's Bonuses.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. "Bona" is correct Latin, in the same vein as "medium/media" and "forum/fora". In English, however, "bonuses" (in the same vein as "forums") is correct.

DaMullet
2007-01-24, 05:32 PM
I see. Thank you for divulging that piece of arcane lore, so I can bust it out at random moments. I don't speak latin, so I wasn't aware Bonus was a word in it, as well.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 05:33 PM
English has thieved a good deal of its literary history directly from Latin, though it also has roots in a wide variety of other romantic languages.

squishycube
2007-01-24, 05:34 PM
no no no, while bonuses is indeed correct in English (like I mentioned in my previous post, words ending in -us do not become -a in plural:
singular - plural
servus - servi (male slave)
serva - servae (female slave)
forum - fora (gathering place thing)
bellum - bella (war)

Amiria
2007-01-24, 05:35 PM
Aargh ! I had lessons in Latin and 'boni' is the latin nominative plural. Also in German, 'Bonüsse' is both wrong and sounds horrible. Bonuses is too similar for my taste.

(Maybe I confoud the noun with the adjective here, anyway, I stick to my opinion. Lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala :smalltongue: )

Go on people, there is nothing to see here. Post about crappy LA races.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 05:38 PM
See, now I'm all mixed up. Cheesus, the Dairy Messiah, is the only one who can save me now.

squishycube
2007-01-24, 05:40 PM
Aargh ! I had lesson in Latin and 'boni' is the latin nominative plural. Also in German, 'Bonüsse' is both wrong and sounds horrible.

(Maybe I confoud the nound the adjective here, anyway, I stick to my opinion

lalalalala I cAn't hear you lalalalala :smalltongue: )

Go on people, there is nothing to see here. post about crappy LA races.

Hear, hear. I does indeed sound horrible. But what's this LA thing you speak of? I vaguely remember something about it in the distant past.

Gobo, gobo

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-24, 05:52 PM
It's gotta be vampire. +8?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-24, 06:01 PM
Spellwarped.

Not because it's bad. Because it's the single best LA race I can think of, and the most abused in my free LA games.

Fighter that wizards can't hit 50% of the time?!

mikeejimbo
2007-01-24, 06:02 PM
no no no, while bonuses is indeed correct in English (like I mentioned in my previous post, words ending in -us do not become -a in plural:
singular - plural
servus - servi (male slave)
serva - servae (female slave)
forum - fora (gathering place thing)
bellum - bella (war)

No, but 'bonum' becomes 'bona.' It's 'cause it's neuter, and 2nd declension.

Now, if it was something like 'rebus' it wouldn't be 'rebi' because rebus is not 2nd declension. (Forget if it's fourth or fifth though)

Anyway, I don't like playing races with LA, so I wouldn't know.

Amotis
2007-01-24, 06:03 PM
It's gotta be vampire. +8?

qft. I mean...what? They get medicore powers and a huge list of disadvantages. What?

mooseofshadows
2007-01-24, 06:04 PM
Bonus is an adjective. It can be Bonus, Bona, Bonum, whatever, depending on the gender of the noun it modifies.

The only thing it means as a noun in latin is Good Man, which is Bonus.

If the word were to be made directly from latin it would be neuter.

Therefore, the word is made from latin but not latin itself. It can be used Bonuses.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-24, 06:19 PM
Bonus is an adjective. It can be Bonus, Bona, Bonum, whatever, depending on the gender of the noun it modifies.

The only thing it means as a noun in latin is Good Man, which is Bonus.

If the word were to be made directly from latin it would be neuter.

Therefore, the word is made from latin but not latin itself. It can be used Bonuses.


So wouldn't "bona" be either "good woman" or "good things"?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-24, 06:20 PM
Good woman, good thing, what's the difference?

Hahaha, I'm going to get yelled at.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-24, 06:22 PM
Any of the aquatic races. +1 LA just because you can breathe underwater? And can't breathe outside it? It gets worse if you are amphibious and can do both, automatic +2 LA.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-24, 06:26 PM
Since someone brought up vampire, I'll bring up another template...

Dark Creature from Tome of Magic gives an unnamed bonus of +8 to Hide, Hide in Plain Sight and other really nice stuff for +1LA. Hard to imagine not taking it as a Rogue if it's an option.

Turcano
2007-01-24, 06:44 PM
English has thieved a good deal of its literary history directly from Latin, though it also has roots in a wide variety of other romantic languages.

Influences, yes. Roots, not so much.


Also in German, 'Bonüsse' is both wrong and sounds horrible.

No, no, you've got to put the ess-zett in, so it's "Bonüße." See? Better.

And I just love the fact that a thread about LA turned into an argument over the proper plural for "bonus." Only on the internets...

Mewtarthio
2007-01-24, 06:48 PM
See, now I'm all mixed up. Cheesus, the Dairy Messiah, is the only one who can save me now.

He arrives! (http://www.itswalky.com/d/20020721.html) And he's not too happy, either...

Anyway, I don't think Vampires are all that underpowered. Sure, they get some nasty weaknesses and anyone prepared to fight them can win, but as a PC you're intelligent enough to avoid those weaknesses. Really, the vunlerability to garlic is more of an advantage, since unless garlic mills spend a lot of money pushing perfume in your world, it serves as nothing more than a warning (eg, "These people have garlic; they must therefore know your weaknesses"). The staking thing isn't really a weakness at all: There aren't any rules for staking in combat, so it's basically just a method of permanently killing a vampire once you've got him in his coffin. Running water? Ha, good luck with that. Thanks to this nifty thing called "Gaseous Form," you never have to fight anyone near an acqueduct or river, and they'll definately find it difficult to get you grappled and submerged. Vulnerability to sunlight applies only to real sunlight, and no self-respecting vampire should be out past his deadtime. The only real limiting factor is your dependence on a coffin, which in a short, localised adventure isn't much of a downside. Oh, yes, and vulnerability to clerics, but all undead get that. The main unbalancing factor is your ability to control (albeit indirectly) a limitless number of vampire soldiers, including some which are actually more powerful than you.

That being said, +8 LA is just a tad harsh, particularly since that means 8 fewer Hit Dice to protect yourself from clerics. Given the huge gap between LA and CR, you probably won't be very effective in a fight. If you think it should be lowered, you could try houseruling it lower.

Caelestion
2007-01-24, 06:58 PM
Well, you could treat a stake as a spiked club (piercing or bludgeoning depending on use) which, if it scores a critical on a vampire not wearing a breastplate, stakes the vampire.
When I was playing a vampire blackguard in 3.0, we came to the general consensus that no thrall could be of equal or higher level and you could only have as many thralls as you had HD.

Dumbledore lives
2007-01-24, 07:24 PM
Bonus just means good, it's not something specific good. I really don't play with LA characcters but the most unrealistic is Ocean Strider or something like that LA+35 I don't even know what's the point of having it.

Umbral_Arcanist
2007-01-24, 07:49 PM
Svirfneblin for the lose. +3 for nothing worth using and the ability to suck more than a normal gnome and a -2 net to abilities. the spell likes are lacking in that a 4th level gnome as a caster could pull those off. oh well.

HUH? +4 dodge to AC against everyone? +2 to all saves? the SR and non-detection? None of those are worth using? Your average deep gnome will have an AC 6 points higher than (4 dodge, 1 size, 1 DEX) your average gnome gnome. Not to mention excellent darkvision stonecunning and decent spell-like abilities (which are handy for non-casters). yeah, sure +3 LA is high, but it is so totally justified, if you can buy off LA, it's totally worth it...


Vampire is most likly the worst PrC LA "race" you can pick....

CockroachTeaParty
2007-01-24, 09:50 PM
Hmm... worst race? Blues or Hobgoblins. I personally allow blues in my campaigns as a +0 LA race, since nobody wants to play them anyway (tragic).

Does anyone else wish Dromites didn't have +1 LA? What could I nerf to make them +0? *sigh*

shaka gl
2007-01-24, 09:58 PM
Where do these Blue appear? Never heard of them.

The_Snark
2007-01-24, 10:13 PM
They're in the Expanded Psionics handbook, I think. Essentially psychic goblins.

Also in the SRD.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 10:13 PM
Does anyone else wish Dromites didn't have +1 LA? What could I nerf to make them +0? *sigh*

Take away their free power point.

Druid
2007-01-24, 10:20 PM
Hobgoblins such for the LA.

I want to give honorable mention to the drow. Not only do you get to lose two HD but you also take a penalty to constitution.

lordmarcoos
2007-01-25, 01:00 AM
Now, if it was something like 'rebus' it wouldn't be 'rebi' because rebus is not 2nd declension. (Forget if it's fourth or fifth though)Rebus is a terrifying word, from my experiences of latin (which was 4 years in high school).

Sorry for reverting to the tangent, everyone return to the regularly scheduled programming

Zincorium
2007-01-25, 01:36 AM
HUH? +4 dodge to AC against everyone? +2 to all saves? the SR and non-detection? None of those are worth using? Your average deep gnome will have an AC 6 points higher than (4 dodge, 1 size, 1 DEX) your average gnome gnome. Not to mention excellent darkvision stonecunning and decent spell-like abilities (which are handy for non-casters). yeah, sure +3 LA is high, but it is so totally justified, if you can buy off LA, it's totally worth it...


Vampire is most likly the worst PrC LA "race" you can pick....

Right, well, in order of mention:

-Gnomes also get a size bonus to AC, so +5.
-The +2 to saves makes up for the 3 levels worth of saves that they lose, plus an additional save or two (or not) depending on class choice. This is equal to a really poor feat, and guess what, you get one fewer feat than a normal character.
-If you can buy off LA, you're still stuck with that full adjustment until ECL 12, when you can spend 11K of xp (more than making a +10 weapon costs) to reduce it by one. Just, one. Your total xp to reduce it to 0 is 45000.
-Especially with the reduction in con as compared to the average gnome, you are incredibly fragile. Prepare to risk being one-shotted by orcs well into the point where you don't get xp for killing them.
-You're highly resistant to taking damage. But on the other hand, you really can't do as much, since you have a lower BAB and/or lower casting level than someone else (say, a gnome?) of your level.
-The spell-like abilities are okay if you aren't a caster. And with the LA, svirneblin make terrible casters, even divine ones where they can take advantage of the wisdom bonus. And they make bad fighters, with the small weapon, fewer feats, and severe loss of hp.

I'll give you that vampires are a horrible choice too.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-25, 02:04 AM
Practically anything that has an LA higher than 50 % of its racial HD.

And Hobgoblins. Definitely Hobgoblins. *points to signature*

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-25, 02:24 AM
A latin Argument? In a DnD forum? Oh well time to break out the texbooks!
Because Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, there are 3 plural forms, Bonae(Fem) Boni(Masc)and Bona(neuter). The correct form relies on the gender of the word it is modifying, but because the English language doesn't make such distinctions, any form would be appropriate.
Rebus is actually a Firth declension noun meaning thing, the base nominative being res. The form Rebus is the ablative or dative form(they two forms are spelled the same).

If one goes by PHB, 1/2 elf is the definite winner.

Caelestion
2007-01-25, 05:32 AM
I'm definitely casting my vote for the Blue Gobbo, the Hobgoblin and the Vampire. Equality, fraternity, liberty!

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-25, 11:35 PM
Worst race mechanically? The half-orc, hands down. +2 Strength and 60-foot darkvision in return for -2 Intelligence and Charisma and having the party dwarf get a +1 bonus to hit you? I don't think so. (Note: in my games, I remove the half-orc's Charisma penalty and give them favored class: Any.)

But the worst race in practice has to be the half-elf. For one thing, they're boring: they have no racial ability modifiers and no special racial traits to help them stand out among the other races. Okay, they get a bonus to some social skills, but that is in direct contradiction with the flavor text that identifies them as social outcasts. The worst part about half-elves, however, has to be the sort of players that play them. I have never seen a player play a half-elf and not try to play a social outcast unjustly persecuted by a prejudiced society and all that. Somehow, I think there's a difference between persecuted because of your race and being a member of a fantasy race that, while persecuted somewhat, has super-powers! The fact that every player I've encountered who's played a half-elf has been of the Whitey McTrustfund persuasion doesn't help.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-25, 11:37 PM
Tieflings ! It is just plain unfair that they get +/+/- on stats while their counterparts, the Aasimars, get +/+.

In my RL gaming group their ability boni are +2 dexterity and +2 charisma. And the planetouched are +1 LA templates.
What the hell is a boni? :smallyuk:

Merlin the Tuna
2007-01-25, 11:46 PM
Aw man, we're talking worst for their LA? I was hoping I had a chance to complain about how fnording stupid Illumians are.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 11:54 PM
What the hell is a boni? :smallyuk:

It's the occasionally-used plural of "bonus." Most people just say "bonuses," but I've heard it often enough to qualify it as valid depending on your definition of "language."

Turcano
2007-01-26, 12:04 AM
Aw man, we're talking worst for their LA? I was hoping I had a chance to complain about how fnording stupid Illumians are.

No one said you couldn't. :smallwink:

mikeejimbo
2007-01-26, 12:08 AM
A latin Argument? In a DnD forum? Oh well time to break out the texbooks!
Because Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, there are 3 plural forms, Bonae(Fem) Boni(Masc)and Bona(neuter). The correct form relies on the gender of the word it is modifying, but because the English language doesn't make such distinctions, any form would be appropriate.
Rebus is actually a Firth declension noun meaning thing, the base nominative being res. The form Rebus is the ablative or dative form(they two forms are spelled the same).

If one goes by PHB, 1/2 elf is the definite winner.

Ah drat, you're right! I'm going to go beat myself with my copy of Oxford's Classical Dictionary for that one.

So, what's a non-first declension word that ends in -us in the nominative?

Wait, how about 'manus'?

Jack Zander
2007-01-26, 12:14 AM
Any of the aquatic races. +1 LA just because you can breathe underwater? And can't breathe outside it? It gets worse if you are amphibious and can do both, automatic +2 LA.

Yes, it was posted a while ago in this thread but I would like to point out that creatures who can breathe underwater only are tougher to fight, since PCs can't, and they will never fight these creatures outside of water (the LA is more for NPCs on those ones). If you are a PC and you are amphibious, there's a whole new level of easy for you (depending on how many water encounters your DM throws at you. I've had games where no one would care, and others where we were constantly purchasing potions of water breathing and freedom of movement).

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 09:58 AM
What in Baator is a Whitey McTrustfund??

Mechanically, I'd rather take a half-Orc over a Blue Gobbo, if only because of the LA. Stylistically, Blues are far more fun!

Ithink a Blue would be more balanced at +1 LA if they also had +2 Dex like normal Goblins and the Psionic Body feat as a racial bonus feat.

Chris_Chandler
2007-01-26, 10:11 AM
I second the +8 vampire. That makes it prohibitive for a PC option. I also think that the lich is underpowered, but it's a better option than the vampire. Pretty much any LA race with HD are also just a pain. It realistically precludes any of those races being able to take a full caster class. I mean, it's just frustrating. Even the so-called cool HD + LA races (Hound Archon, et. al) call for a sacrifice, if I'm thinking caster.

Now, as far as an actual playable option that I still feel is bad, the svirfneblin, flavor-wise, are one of my very favorites, but the +3 LA is, again prohibitive. I'd implement the LA adjustment buyout for any race, but it still doesn't help HD races. My svirfneblin'd be even by level 18 (and able to catch up relatively quickly with his group) as a wizard, but an ogre would never be make up the difference as the cleric, even after the level 9 "evening". Racial HD are a killer.

DaMullet
2007-01-26, 10:17 AM
What in Baator is a Whitey McTrustfund??

If I know my interweb colloquialisms (and I'm not saying I do), it's a White-Middle-Class-Anglo-Saxxon, one who doesn't know what it's like to be an outcast, or repressed, or anything of that variety, and plays Half-elves anyhow.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 12:21 PM
Add "heterosexual" and probably "Anglican" to that list :)

Hzurr
2007-01-26, 12:48 PM
As far as vampires go, it depends. If you're fighting a group of meatshields, you're god-like. Fast Healing? Automatic gaseous form when killed? Dominating gaze, ability to summon creatures, crazy stat bonuses? Naturally, you have the problem with clerics, but hey, them's the breaks for being undead. Also, don't forget that you have improved turning resistance (and I think there's a feat somewhere in Libris Mortis so you can improve it even more).

Still, playing a vampire is a challenge for both a PC and a DM, so it's never really a character to be played on a whim, unless the campaign has a specific theme or something like that.


On a side note with regard to the latin arguement - I was with a friend who was eating a bowl of ravioli, and he wondered outloud, "what do you call only 1 piece of ravioli?" I immediately replied "a raviolum," thinking he would laugh at something so absurd. Fortunately, he completely missed the joke, and believed me, and for the next year or so, would insist to everyone that the singular for Ravioli was raviolum.

I've decided that if I ever work at the Olive Garden, I'm going to see how many people I can get to believe it. "Yes, our Ravioli plate comes with 3 large raviolum, each stuffed with a blend of..."

clericwithnogod
2007-01-26, 12:56 PM
I'm pretty sure you need to be upper class rather than middle class to earn (or not earn to be more precise) the McTrustfund part of Whitey McTrustfund. If not, my parents owe me some money.

DaMullet
2007-01-26, 01:29 PM
Upper-Middle class, then. Upper class is a fairly narrow group.

And Hzurr, that is awesome, what with the raviolium. I'm going to begin using that.

Thomas
2007-01-26, 01:30 PM
qft. I mean...what? They get medicore powers and a huge list of disadvantages. What?

They get two abilities that make them overpowered at any LA. You can't kill them, and they fly.

The rest of the abilities are far from mediocre. Unlimited dominate person, fast healing, inflict 2 negative levels/round, drain (not damage, drain) Con, a huge pile of feats and stat bonuses, general undead-ness (it's an advantage)...

They're way too powerful to be used as PCs at all.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 01:49 PM
On a side note with regard to the latin arguement - I was with a friend who was eating a bowl of ravioli, and he wondered outloud, "what do you call only 1 piece of ravioli?" I immediately replied "a raviolum," thinking he would laugh at something so absurd. Fortunately, he completely missed the joke, and believed me, and for the next year or so, would insist to everyone that the singular for Ravioli was raviolum.

I've decided that if I ever work at the Olive Garden, I'm going to see how many people I can get to believe it. "Yes, our Ravioli plate comes with 3 large raviolum, each stuffed with a blend of..."

OK, that made me laugh. I'm going to have to start using that one...

Kantolin
2007-01-26, 02:02 PM
Insofar as PHB races, I'd vote that it's the half-orc over the half-elf, if for no reason other than the half-orc is mashed into a specific role more hardcore than any other PHB race. Dwarves can be Wizards and Elves can be Clerics, but the Half-Orc who's not a barbarian is almost always not doing well.

And Orc Blood! Orc Blood is great! Everyone makes anti-orc equipment due to disliking them! Nobody makes equipment that only works in the hands of an orc!

Pah. Orc blood is very blatantly a penalty. You have to go hunting through splatbooks for any benifit at all to it. Comparably, elf blood may actually help you, and lets you qualify for a kind of meh class (and a few other classes in splatbooks).

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 02:05 PM
I dunno. Half-orcs make pretty good monks.

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-26, 02:46 PM
DaMullet's been pretty spot-on with defining Whitey McTrustfund, at least as I intended it to be used. You get a gold star, Mr. Mullet.

As far as this talk of vampires as a bad race goes, I must agree with the majority. Vampires are a terrible race for players, not just mechanically--oh, they get their perks, especially the whole you-have-to-kill-me-at-least-twice-sucka thing, but those perks are simply not worth the inability to go outside during the day--but also from the fact that they are monsters. I'm willing to accept orcs, goblins, kobolds, and even ogres as possible player races--especially in Eberron games, where those creatures are portrayed as work-a-day fantasy creatures rather than slavering brutes out to devour the peasantfolk--but mind-flayers, vampires, liches, dragons, and other such powerful and mechanically weird creatures are, in my opinion, meant to be on the "an" side of tagonists, rather than the "pro." Just my thoughts.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Divides
2007-01-26, 03:06 PM
I'm sorry, I misspoke. "Bona" is correct Latin, in the same vein as "medium/media" and "forum/fora". In English, however, "bonuses" (in the same vein as "forums") is correct.

Hurray... now I know the verbal incantation to power word bonus.

*Get's beaten to death.*



But anyway... what is the worst race? Not sure off the top of my head... but I generally think fairly poorly of most true dragons as RAW characters. The fact that they (rapidly) reach a point where their ECL is such that (RAW) "shouldn't be gaining experience except under very special circumstances" from fighting creatures of their OWN CR... is kind of a bad sign :-p.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 03:15 PM
Hurray... now I know the verbal incantation to power word bonus.

I NEED THAT SPELL. Like, really.

Turcano
2007-01-26, 05:44 PM
Me too. Give us the power word bonus!

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 06:13 PM
The problem with letting players play as vampires is that their create spawn power is so abusable. A vampire can cause anyone slain by their blood drain ability to rise as vampire spawn. There is no limit to the amount of spawn a single vampire to control, and there is no limit to the level of power of the creatures that you can control. You don't take the leadership feat, but you can have as many cohorts as you want that are COMPELLED to obey you, all at any level you can manage to slay with blood drain. Worried about someone at too high a level for you to handle? Get enough minions under control, overpower the high level character with sheer numbers, and suddenly you have an extremely powerful minion that is physically incapable of disobeying your orders.

As for vulnerability to the sun, you could head to the underdark (or your world's equivilant) and never have to worry about the sun again. That is why the vampire has a +8 LA.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 06:25 PM
As for vulnerability to the sun, you could head to the underdark (or your world's equivilant) and never have to worry about the sun again. That is why the vampire has a +8 LA.

Er, daylight spell? Pwnt?

Amphetryon
2007-01-26, 06:27 PM
No hate for the Buomman? +2 WIS Race that's forbidden from speaking intelligibly by a cultural taboo. Yay, a bonus to a Caster stat for a Race that needs one or more extra Feats to cast spells! :smallyuk:

Khantalas
2007-01-26, 06:32 PM
Er, daylight spell? Pwnt?

Doesn't daylight state that it doesn't have the effects of full sunlight despite the name?

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 06:34 PM
Er, daylight spell? Pwnt?

I believe the Monster Manual specifically points out that vampires are only destroyed by natural sunlight, and that magical light merely imposes some penalties. Not entirely sure so I'll have to check later.

Oh, what I said earlier about the why the vampire's level adjustment was so high, I was primarily talking about the create spawn ability, not the sunlight thing. Sorry, I probably should've been more clear about it.

Whamme
2007-01-26, 06:36 PM
Hurray... now I know the verbal incantation to power word bonus.

*Get's beaten to death.*



But anyway... what is the worst race? Not sure off the top of my head... but I generally think fairly poorly of most true dragons as RAW characters. The fact that they (rapidly) reach a point where their ECL is such that (RAW) "shouldn't be gaining experience except under very special circumstances" from fighting creatures of their OWN CR... is kind of a bad sign :-p.

To be fair, a dragon with the full WBL allotment and PC stat bonuses is a different monster (think dragon shaped mithril full plate and a DEX bonus, and magic items of killing stuff better).

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 08:17 PM
Doesn't daylight state that it doesn't have the effects of full sunlight despite the name?

My bad. I meant Searing Light.

Thomas
2007-01-26, 08:19 PM
How many ways are there to make yourself immune to one specific spell, again?

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-26, 08:19 PM
And don't forget Sunbeam and Sunburst. Nothing like a reflex save between you and ceasing to exist.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 09:02 PM
Why do you think vampires are such whiny goth losers? It's because they know how extremely killable they really are.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 09:30 PM
And don't forget Sunbeam and Sunburst. Nothing like a reflex save between you and ceasing to exist.

What level are those spells and what exactly do they do?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 09:32 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sunbeam.htm

And

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sunburst.htm

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-26, 09:32 PM
What level are those spells and what exactly do they do?
Sunbeam is 7th Druid/Sun, Sunburst is 8th Druid/Sor/Wiz/Sun.


For the duration of this spell, you can use a standard action to evoke a dazzling beam of intense light each round. You can call forth one beam per three caster levels (maximum six beams at 18th level). The spell ends when its duration runs out or your allotment of beams is exhausted.
Each creature in the beam is blinded and takes 4d6 points of damage. Any creatures to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural take double damage. A successful Reflex save negates the blindness and reduces the damage by half.
An undead creature caught within the beam takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6), or half damage if a Reflex save is successful. In addition, the beam results in the destruction of any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fails its save.
The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.

Sunburst causes a globe of searing radiance to explode silently from a point you select. All creatures in the globe are blinded and take 6d6 points of damage. A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage. A successful Reflex save negates the blindness and reduces the damage by half.

An undead creature caught within the globe takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 25d6), or half damage if a Reflex save is successful. In addition, the burst results in the destruction of any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fail its save.

The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.

Sunburst dispels any darkness spells of lower than 9th level within its area. Emphasis mine.
:edit: damn ninjas

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 09:34 PM
Ninja, ninja!

Rap!

Go! Go! Go! Go!

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 10:00 PM
Whoa. Even more evidence in favor of vampires being the worst race for players to use.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 10:02 PM
Even the retard barbarian carrying around a sun blade can destroy a vampire.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-27, 12:55 AM
The problem with letting players play as vampires is that their create spawn power is so abusable. A vampire can cause anyone slain by their blood drain ability to rise as vampire spawn. There is no limit to the amount of spawn a single vampire to control, and there is no limit to the level of power of the creatures that you can control. You don't take the leadership feat, but you can have as many cohorts as you want that are COMPELLED to obey you, all at any level you can manage to slay with blood drain. Worried about someone at too high a level for you to handle? Get enough minions under control, overpower the high level character with sheer numbers, and suddenly you have an extremely powerful minion that is physically incapable of disobeying your orders.


At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn.

Now, you can indirectly control a bunch of spawn with a proper chain of command (so long as you're certain to keep only the guys at the bottom of the chain, such as Vampire Spawn, in danger).

Regarding Sunbeam and Sunburst, those are high-level spells. Still, spells weren't exactly build with fairness towards undead in mind, which is why you have save-or-die-permanently, save-and-almost-die spells like that. Of course, there are countless reasons why you, as a Vampire, want to avoid high-level Clerics like the plague, and those spells are just a few of them. Luckily, those spells aren't available before thirteenth level, and by the time the caster's that powerful, you should be able to know enough about him to avoid him. Lastly, Druids probably aren't guarding anything you particularly want, and clerics with the Sun domain are already the type of threat any good Vampire tries to be aware of. Remember, you're a vampire: Your primary goal in life is to create as much spawn as possible without being destroyed. Odds are, you don't have to attack people with the Sun domain.

grinner666
2007-01-27, 01:21 AM
I second the +8 vampire. That makes it prohibitive for a PC option.

GOOD! If you want to play a vampire, play Vampire!! Otherwise live with it. Or ... here's a slightly scary idea ... play a race designed for play as a PC. The fact that a creature has a level adjustment doesn't mean players should be creating characters from it. All it means is that that level adjustment makes for an appropriate challenge for a party of four PCs. A vampire wizard/5 will make an appropriate challenge for a 13th level party if played at all intelligently. That doesn't mean it'll make a good 13th-level player character. Same goes for other level-adjusted creatures.

Divides
2007-01-27, 01:33 AM
But the worst race in practice has to be the half-elf. For one thing, they're boring: they have no racial ability modifiers and no special racial traits to help them stand out among the other races. Okay, they get a bonus to some social skills, but that is in direct contradiction with the flavor text that identifies them as social outcasts. The worst part about half-elves, however, has to be the sort of players that play them. I have never seen a player play a half-elf and not try to play a social outcast unjustly persecuted by a prejudiced society and all that. Somehow, I think there's a difference between persecuted because of your race and being a member of a fantasy race that, while persecuted somewhat, has super-powers! The fact that every player I've encountered who's played a half-elf has been of the Whitey McTrustfund persuasion doesn't help.

To be fair, I've played half-elves, and not one of them was done as a social outcast. Actually, the one I've played most recently was sort of a happy-go-lucky social type that (evidently) has never seen a shred of judgement or hardship in his life (which is to say he was frustratingly trusting. Probably a little TOO far in that department, but neh).

Mind you, he was for Living Greyhawk... which is much less fluff oriented than most home games. And he sucked as crunch (I had the "wisdom" of making him a level 3 scout/level one bard XD)... but that's another matter :-p.



To be fair, a dragon with the full WBL allotment and PC stat bonuses is a different monster (think dragon shaped mithril full plate and a DEX bonus, and magic items of killing stuff better).

True... although I believe it's mentioned somewhere that elite array is only considered a +1 CR for the monster.

Now, admittedly, a fully min-maxed dragon is allot more badass than a "typical dragon" (especially if you're using draconomicon)... but I still say the LA is a bit much :-p.

Count Chumleigh
2007-01-27, 01:33 AM
GOOD! If you want to play a vampire, play Vampire!! Otherwise live with it. Or ... here's a slightly scary idea ... play a race designed for play as a PC. The fact that a creature has a level adjustment doesn't mean players should be creating characters from it. All it means is that that level adjustment makes for an appropriate challenge for a party of four PCs. A vampire wizard/5 will make an appropriate challenge for a 13th level party if played at all intelligently. That doesn't mean it'll make a good 13th-level player character.

While I agree with you, Grinner, that vampires are meant to be monsters rather than player-characters, I feel I must point out a slight rules discrepency in your post. Level adjustment and challenge rating have nothing to do with each other: the former is meant for players playing monsters, while the latter is meant as a rough estimate of how challenging an encounter a certain creature will be for a "standard" party of four PCs. A vampire has a level adjustment of +8 and a challenge rating of "base creature +2."
Therefore, unless something seriously screwy is going on, a fifth-level vampire wizard will be slaughtered by a party of four 13th-level adventurers. Indeed, that poor vampire may well be slaughtered by a party of seventh-level adventurers, as a challenge rating equal to the party's level is only supposed to drain them of one-quarter of their resources, not be an even fight.
Tragically, the fact that vampires have a level adjustment means that the writers of the game contemplated vampiric player-characters. Mind you, with their hefty level adjustment, vampires are by no means an optimal ... ugh ... "race," either for the individual player or the party that has to cope with the fact that one of its own members is literally dead weight half of the time, but they are still, for some people, with some DMs, an option.
But that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-27, 01:41 AM
GOOD! If you want to play a vampire, play Vampire!! Otherwise live with it.

Yes! Because limiting what people can play is GOOD! Letting people do what they want in their games, with their GM's approval, is BAD! They should have to SUFFER for it!

Divides
2007-01-27, 01:41 AM
While I agree with you, Grinner, that vampires are meant to be monsters rather than player-characters, I feel I must point out a slight rules discrepency in your post. Level adjustment and challenge rating have nothing to do with each other: the former is meant for players playing monsters, while the latter is meant as a rough estimate of how challenging an encounter a certain creature will be for a "standard" party of four PCs. A vampire has a level adjustment of +8 and a challenge rating of "base creature +2."
Therefore, unless something seriously screwy is going on, a fifth-level vampire wizard will be slaughtered by a party of four 13th-level adventurers. Indeed, that poor vampire may well be slaughtered by a party of seventh-level adventurers, as a challenge rating equal to the party's level is only supposed to drain them of one-quarter of their resources, not be an even fight.
Tragically, the fact that vampires have a level adjustment means that the writers of the game contemplated vampiric player-characters. Mind you, with their hefty level adjustment, vampires are by no means an optimal ... ugh ... "race," either for the individual player or the party that has to cope with the fact that one of its own members is literally dead weight half of the time, but they are still, for some people, with some DMs, an option.
But that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

I think the reason behind this is that D&D is supposed to be somewhat flexible as to how it's run. Making things an option is generally a good idea... especially since the "vampire in the party" tends to make a good extended plot effect (the other PCs may not realize it), and many DMs may actually want to have the character remain run by the person who's been running him. (In such an event, the LA let's people know when the character gets to level up if they're actually kept around long enough :-p).

Ok, yeah, so it shouldn't come up often... but frankly, I'm in favor of LA whenever feesible (even if only remotely so). So, again, options = good... even if the situations in which doing it makes sense happen to be exceedingly rare.

Zincorium
2007-01-27, 04:42 AM
Yes! Because limiting what people can play is GOOD! Letting people do what they want in their games, with their GM's approval, is BAD! They should have to SUFFER for it!

So, by your logic, D&D would be much better if I could play a cybered out street samurai/jedi wielding eight lightsabers with my wild talent telekinesis? D&D seems to be better built for what it does than what it could be made into.

I think the limiting of the appeal (mechanically) of playing a vampire was put in place because D&D's version of what a vampire is harkens back to the dracula days when being a vampire wasn't a good thing, ever. Look no further than the automatic chaotic evil alignment and the mythological drawbacks (invite only, can't cross running water) for exactly where the standard description lies.

Vampire: the masquerade or the requiem is a game designed around playing vampires, and D&D is a game designed around people who get killed by vampires or kill them first. It seems reasonable to place an arbitrary limit on what should be played, based on what game you're playing.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-27, 05:03 AM
So, by your logic, D&D would be much better if I could play a cybered out street samurai/jedi wielding eight lightsabers with my wild talent telekinesis? D&D seems to be better built for what it does than what it could be made into.
Sure, it would. Unfortunately, that would involve changing the system too much, and would cause more harm than good. Making vampires more playable? It wouldn't.


I think the limiting of the appeal (mechanically) of playing a vampire was put in place because D&D's version of what a vampire is harkens back to the dracula days when being a vampire wasn't a good thing, ever. Look no further than the automatic chaotic evil alignment and the mythological drawbacks (invite only, can't cross running water) for exactly where the standard description lies.
Sure, except "always" alignments aren't actually *always*, and Chaotic Evil is an availible PC alignment. You could run a story about a group of vampires--or a vampire, a lich, et cetera. If the creature just isn't balanced for PC play, period, then slap it with an "LA --" entry, but don't penalize it.


Vampire: the masquerade or the requiem is a game designed around playing vampires, and D&D is a game designed around people who get killed by vampires or kill them first. It seems reasonable to place an arbitrary limit on what should be played, based on what game you're playing.
People keep talking about how D&D Is Where You Play Heroes, Dammit--and yet, playing villains remains a popular and viable choice. The fact is, D&D 3.5 is intentionally set up to LET you play villains and monsters as well as heroes. D&D doesn't have to be based around playing vampires to make playing a vampire feasible.

Zincorium
2007-01-27, 05:55 AM
Sure, it would. Unfortunately, that would involve changing the system too much, and would cause more harm than good. Making vampires more playable? It wouldn't.


Eh, take that first sentene with what it was intended with: mirth. I was more speculating on why things were they way they currently are, un-houseruled, and so on than trying to directly contradict you.



Sure, except "always" alignments aren't actually *always*, and Chaotic Evil is an availible PC alignment. You could run a story about a group of vampires--or a vampire, a lich, et cetera. If the creature just isn't balanced for PC play, period, then slap it with an "LA --" entry, but don't penalize it.


Mea culpa, I was probably thinking back to 3.0 where the template changed your alignment when applied. And again, it's bad the way that it currently is. If I was going to let a PC play a vampire, I would massively change the template so it was more suited towards an adventuring life, with a lot fewer special abilities but also a lot fewer weaknesses, and give it an LA of 1 or 2. Anything past that is somewhat prohibitive when making characters.



People keep talking about how D&D Is Where You Play Heroes, Dammit--and yet, playing villains remains a popular and viable choice. The fact is, D&D 3.5 is intentionally set up to LET you play villains and monsters as well as heroes. D&D doesn't have to be based around playing vampires to make playing a vampire feasible.

D&D isn't neccessarily about playing heroes, but it is about playing people, and the vampire as described in the monstrous manual isn't so much a person as a bloodthirsty force of evil. And being feasible isn't really what I was getting at, it's that if you are set on playing a vampire, why not go with the most specific rule system in that category?

Fizban
2007-01-27, 07:45 AM
Ninja, ninja!

Rap!

Go! Go! Go! Go!
This post is made of win.

Although, I would have typed it more like:
Ninja, ninja!-Rap!
But vocals don't translate well into text.

Turtles ftw!

The_Pope
2007-01-27, 09:13 PM
D&D isn't neccessarily about playing heroes, but it is about playing people, and the vampire as described in the monstrous manual isn't so much a person as a bloodthirsty force of evil.

That rule I would say should be taken with a grain of salt. The 3.5 manuals even state that the rules inside are by no means concrete, and are editable by DM's as they see fit, within reason. The thought that a vampire is a bloodthirsty evil evil bad bad seems a bit harsh. They were people once. And unless they were evil evil bad bad people, then I don't see how one split second (and an untimely death) completely changes a person's view on reality, especially if its to the polar opposite. Its still the same guy, just deader, thirstier, paler and prone to sun damage. Power corrupts, sure, but it doesn't corrupt everyone, everytime no matter what. But I digress, as I'm getting off topic.

Vampires can make effective player characters, if the player knows what he's doing. Any vampire, no matter how high leveled, can be killed in half a second if they're being stupid. I'm not saying its a good idea to choose to be one. I've been a vampire fan from as long as I can remember, and yet I have never played one in D&D, and probably never will. It all comes down to what the player wants to do with his character. And if the character is cruising for a bruising, leave that in the capable hands of the DM.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-27, 10:29 PM
That rule I would say should be taken with a grain of salt. The 3.5 manuals even state that the rules inside are by no means concrete, and are editable by DM's as they see fit, within reason. The thought that a vampire is a bloodthirsty evil evil bad bad seems a bit harsh. They were people once. And unless they were evil evil bad bad people, then I don't see how one split second (and an untimely death) completely changes a person's view on reality, especially if its to the polar opposite. Its still the same guy, just deader, thirstier, paler and prone to sun damage. Power corrupts, sure, but it doesn't corrupt everyone, everytime no matter what. But I digress, as I'm getting off topic.

But it's not the same person. It's an undead monstrosity that happens to control said person's body. There's a bit of a debate as to whether or not the person's actual soul is trapped in there or not (let's not go into that again), but for all intents and purposes the vampire is an entirely different character. Sure, it's got the same memories, the same body, and possibly even the same mannerisms, but the actual person is gone.

BCOVertigo
2007-01-27, 10:58 PM
But it's not the same person. It's an undead monstrosity that happens to control said person's body. There's a bit of a debate as to whether or not the person's actual soul is trapped in there or not (let's not go into that again), but for all intents and purposes the vampire is an entirely different character. Sure, it's got the same memories, the same body, and possibly even the same mannerisms, but the actual person is gone.

THANK YOU. Frankly the romantic view of vampires seen throughout fantasy literature rubs me the wrong way. Vampires can be good-but-tortured "people" who now have a huge burden to bear/will be alone for eternity, but most often they are monsters, pure and simple. They are infectious parasites that either indulge their thirst or take wisdom damage as their will erodes and they kill a living person, probably damning him to the same fate. I don't want to go adventuring with that any more than I want a Frenzied Berserker on my team.

Sure precautions can be taken in both cases but do you really want to give your groups enemy an opportunity like that?

In the campaigns I DM, I leave the decision to allow potentially dangerous character concepts to the other players, cause it's their fun that is at stake and not mine.

In closing, I also think vampires as written suck for players. As for blues, I heart the goblins. Can't think of anything that sucks more than what's been covered.

The_Pope
2007-01-28, 01:58 AM
So what you're saying is its either black or white because anything else that resembles a shade of grey is bad and stupid and retarded? And you cant have a simple jovial lovable-fat guy vampire butcher who runs his shop at night and drinks the blood of his merchandise because he either has to be a twisted soul-sucking monster or a whiny little emo biatch? Cause thats pretty dang boring and idiotic, I'll tell you straight off.

Darkshade
2007-01-28, 02:04 AM
you know under the vampire entry in the MM it lists the Level adjustment on the first example vampire at +5.
that sounds a lot more reasonable to me.

Wonton
2007-01-28, 02:39 AM
Tieflings ! It is just plain unfair that they get +/+/- on stats while their counterparts, the Aasimars, get +/+.

In my RL gaming group their ability boni are +2 dexterity and +2 charisma. And the planetouched are +1 LA templates.

Yeah, I've just started playing a Tiefling, and that's been bothering me too a bit.
Though only a bit, because if anybody makes fun of the fact that my CE Tiefling Rogue/Invisible Blade has 5 Charisma, they shortly get 4 daggers to the chest. :smalltongue:

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 03:17 PM
So what you're saying is its either black or white because anything else that resembles a shade of grey is bad and stupid and retarded? And you cant have a simple jovial lovable-fat guy vampire butcher who runs his shop at night and drinks the blood of his merchandise because he either has to be a twisted soul-sucking monster or a whiny little emo biatch? Cause thats pretty dang boring and idiotic, I'll tell you straight off.

By the same token, do you think we should be allowed to have happy-go-lucky Balors who love nothing more than sunshine and perinneal gardening? How about friendly Inevitables who know that "boys will be boys" and let a few things slide with a wink and a nod. New base class: The Anticipate Necromancer, who uses his undead minions to build churches and orphanages and oh-so-pretty murals! :smallbiggrin:

I can understand your views, but the problem is that you're lessening the impact of vampirism. A vampire isn't just an ordinary guy who happens to drink blood: A vampire is a creature of the night who hunts and kills innocents, spreading his undead curse. Otherwise, it's just like a food allergy or a bad back:

"Hey, Mark, you wanna come to the game on Saturday?"
"No, sorry, I got turned into a vampire last week, so I'll turn to ashes in the sunlight."
"Aw, dude, I'm sorry, that really sucks."
"Hey, man, don't worry, no big. I'll adjust."
"Okay, cool, man. Here, I'll go to the store and pick up some animal blood for you. That good?"
"Thanks, buddy. You're the greatest."

DaMullet
2007-01-28, 03:22 PM
"Hey, Mark, you wanna come to the game on Saturday?"
"No, sorry, I got turned into a vampire last week, so I'll turn to ashes in the sunlight."
"Aw, dude, I'm sorry, that really sucks."
"Hey, man, don't worry, no big. I'll adjust."
"Okay, cool, man. Here, I'll go to the store and pick up some animal blood for you. That good?"
"Thanks, buddy. You're the greatest."
This is the single greatest thing about vampires I have ever read. Not only does it do justice to the flavor, it's freaking hilarious.

its_all_ogre
2007-01-28, 03:34 PM
vampires as a player do suck for all of the above, the main classes to benefit would be rogue/assasin and similar, but then your bab would be so low and so would your hps(no con score!)
as a monster a cunning dm can make them a recurring villain so easily. in no place does it state that a vampire can only have one coffin and an intelligent vampire would likely have several all within say 4 miles of each other. also they can turn into gaseous form to move around their lairs(intelligent monsters normally have more than one place to retreat to)
finally for the reflex save or die: lightning reflexes and +4 dex. not that likely to fail a save. oh and cleric vampires can use rebuke undead attempts to increase their own turn resistance. mwahaha!
but yes sucks to lose 8 levels.

The_Pope
2007-01-28, 03:49 PM
By the same token, do you think we should be allowed to have happy-go-lucky Balors who love nothing more than sunshine and perinneal gardening? How about friendly Inevitables who know that "boys will be boys" and let a few things slide with a wink and a nod. New base class: The Anticipate Necromancer, who uses his undead minions to build churches and orphanages and oh-so-pretty murals! :smallbiggrin:

Yes. Because that would kick arse. I hate all these stupid stereotypes everyone erects for everything. Why cant people, I dont know, have fun with things? Of course theres always going to be the evil sonuvabiznatch Balor and the fiendish vampiric monster, but is that all we've got?
It would get extremely boring to use the same old same old over and over and over. Its like people who hate movies about "fast zombies". "Oh, thats not what real zombies are like, so its automatically bad." Have you met a zombie? Have you conversed with them about their running capacity? Have you taken brief notes on their physical stamina? If so, please, do let me know.

And, to make my views clearer, I know full well about the effects of vampirism. But they do not have to be so static. Vampires do not need to kill their victim to drain their blood. They could, you know, knock some bloke out, take a few sips and be on their way, while Mr. Joe wakes with a bad headache a few hours later. I'm not saying they are normal humans. They arent. But that should not force them into one or two stereotypes. Sillyness aside, you could have a vampire who doesnt kill when he feeds, as I mentioned previously. You could have a vampire that only feeds from evil-doers. You could have a vampire that feeds only from animal blood. Hell, you could have a vampire who works at a blood bank and skims a little bit off the top for himself. All of these are non-evil vampires. They still are creatures of the night, they certainly feel their carnal urges, but the do not succumb to them or turn into whine-o's.

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-28, 04:37 PM
I know there is a cursed item that permanently switches your alignment. ASo what would happen if a Balor, celestial or undead put it on?

Maxymiuk
2007-01-28, 04:43 PM
They'd... pass their will save.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-28, 04:47 PM
I'd like to think that changing a creature's alignment when they're a physical incarnation of that alignment more or less changes their type entirely. So, the infamous succubus paladin, while retaining her powers, would actually become an archon celestial.

Emperor Tippy
2007-01-28, 04:55 PM
I know there is a cursed item that permanently switches your alignment. ASo what would happen if a Balor, celestial or undead put it on?
Keep trying until they fail their save. One game we had 100 LG Pit Fiend's. That was quite interesting.

Divides
2007-01-28, 05:06 PM
I'd like to think that changing a creature's alignment when they're a physical incarnation of that alignment more or less changes their type entirely. So, the infamous succubus paladin, while retaining her powers, would actually become an archon celestial.

My understanding is that while their brain is now LG, their physical essence remains the polar oposite (the helm only affects one's personality, not their form).

What this means is that the succubus is now a nice person in a villains body. From what I'd interpret, I'd say that this should probably be RP'd as somewhat uncumfortable... the succubus is a good person at heart, but they're perpetually made uncumfortable by their own body/form (and would probably JUMP at the chance to get this changed... no matter how slim the actual chances of the effort succeeding, or how dire the consiquences to themselves).

What I know is that I seem to recall reading somewhere that, according to the RAW, a creature with an alignment subtype that moves to the polar opposite alignment is now considered to be BOTH alignment types for purposes of spells, items, and the like that effect them. So, for example, the succubus paladin would now take the extra damage from both a holy and an unholy sword (and axiomatic and anarchic swords, for that matter). I'm not entirely sure how blasphemy and holy word would work (I think RAW they'd be immune to both, but I'm not 100% sure if this is what the actual intent was :-p).

Serakus_DeSardis
2007-01-28, 05:54 PM
By the same token, do you think we should be allowed to have happy-go-lucky Balors who love nothing more than sunshine and perinneal gardening? How about friendly Inevitables who know that "boys will be boys" and let a few things slide with a wink and a nod. New base class: The Anticipate Necromancer, who uses his undead minions to build churches and orphanages and oh-so-pretty murals! :smallbiggrin:

I can understand your views, but the problem is that you're lessening the impact of vampirism. A vampire isn't just an ordinary guy who happens to drink blood: A vampire is a creature of the night who hunts and kills innocents, spreading his undead curse. Otherwise, it's just like a food allergy or a bad back:

"Hey, Mark, you wanna come to the game on Saturday?"
"No, sorry, I got turned into a vampire last week, so I'll turn to ashes in the sunlight."
"Aw, dude, I'm sorry, that really sucks."
"Hey, man, don't worry, no big. I'll adjust."
"Okay, cool, man. Here, I'll go to the store and pick up some animal blood for you. That good?"
"Thanks, buddy. You're the greatest."


What you are in fact doing is pigeon-holing vampires into the classical romantic view of them as vicious night creatures. Neo-classical literature and culture has allowed for an advancement of the creature and even alludes to concepts of grandness beyond the day to day urge to feed. Yes there is a different game that builds onto that plotline and is designed for just such a purpose, but it doesn't change the fact that opinions like yours are as awful and nonsensical as those who think all elves must live in trees and be good forest folk, or that all halflings have hairy feet and like to eat alot of food and smoke pipes. Or that all dwarves live in mountains and spend their days plotting to retake their ancestral lands that a dragon has made his home.

Get my point? Stereotyping one creature implies you must stereotype them all. D&D is all about customization. If someone wants to create a society of Blade-esque vampires who do good deeds and struggle with their thirst, then who are you or myself or anyone to tell them thats not how it should work.

Point being - someone who has legitimate concerns with the official version of a template or race, has the right to express their concern. Because at the end of the day we all rely on a hefty portion of published material to provide guidelines to our adventures.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 06:15 PM
I'm not saying you can't make up a world where vampires are just super-powered people who don't like sunlight (though I'd question why you bother making them vampires in the first place instead of something unique). I'm saying that we're discussing RAW DnD, and by RAW DnD, vampires are CE creatures of the night that kill innocent people to slake their thirst and generally perform vile acts of darkness and evil.

My other tastes aren't really relevant here, but I personally think that getting a curse such as vampirism or lycanthropy should be a huge, life-altering event: Something strikes me as very wrong if you have "a simple jovial lovable fat-guy butcher vampire"; why make him a vampire in the first place? And, if that's what vampires are like in your world, why would anyone be scared of them? Most vampires are scary because you don't want to be turned into a horrific abomination forced to feed on innocents and damned for eternity; if all they can do to you make you stay indoors on sunny days, it's not a very bad deal. If being a vampire is not something terrible, then the very meaning of "vampire" is diminished and eliminated, and vampires become nothing more than another race of humans. I'd fully expect to walk into a town, see a bunch of vampires wandering around, chatting with normal humans, working desk jobs, etc, with the only difference being that curfews are more strictly enforced, the nightlife is livlier, restaurants serve blood along with the regular meals, and garlic isn't quite as popular a condiment. If that's what you want, then by all means go ahead, but I personally think it cheapens the concept of "vampire." It's not at all like a belief that "fast zombies are stupid because zombies are slow," it's a belief that "zombies with human-level intelligence and the memories, personality, and views of the deceased aren't really zombies."

Saph
2007-01-28, 06:45 PM
I'm with Mewthario on this one. If being a vampire in your game has no evil implications whatsoever, then why are you using a word with evil implications in the first place? Just make up a new name for your blood drinking monster thing that really isn't evil, honest, and only has a bad reputation because of those evil bigoted other people.

And yes, a vampire is a terrible PC race, for that reason and others.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-28, 06:57 PM
I don't think he is saying that they aren't evil. I think that he is saying that they don;t have to be bloodlusting monsters with no thoughts besides feeding. I, personally don't see why having thoughts other than feeding makes them less evil. In fact, it could make them more evil, after all, if all they do is feed, they are more like animals than evil creatures.

DaMullet
2007-01-28, 07:11 PM
Get my point? Stereotyping one creature implies you must stereotype them all.
Pardon, but I fail to see why this is. It doesn't hold true in real life, and I don't see why it would in someone's made up world. If I want to say that dwarves are, in fact, thin creatures, gaining the stability bonus due to their large feet, I can do that. If I want to do it in the same campaign where I decree that elves live where it's cold, wear green shoes, and built toys for the nice while leaving coal for the naughty, I can do that. It's my game.

jjpickar
2007-01-28, 07:22 PM
I think the vampire debate is degenerating into whether or not you like the stereotypical monster version or a more player friendly anti-hero. Personally, I like the stereotype (I hate Angel and love Bram Stoker's genius) but that's just my opinion.

Now what about the mindflayers as players debate? I'm a pro mindflayer myself.:smallbiggrin:

DaMullet
2007-01-28, 08:43 PM
Only in a campaign where everyone is a mind flayer.

Sir_Banjo
2007-01-28, 08:47 PM
For me, it's none of the obscure races from MM#, it's the gnome. I hate the little buggers, largely because a guy I used to play with always made inqusitive, annoying gnome characters with the common sense of a gnat.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-28, 08:54 PM
Monsters with really high LA should probably be confined to epic-level campaigns, that way their disadvantage in LA is overcome somewhat. As for playing as a vampire, if you really have your heart set on it, buy the Libris Mortis and play as the vampire spawn race/class. Yes, you have to be under a master vampire, but you can roleplay that (after all the samurai and kensai have to operate under a lord, yet both are still viable Pc's).

The_Pope
2007-01-28, 11:29 PM
Okay, let me pose it to you this way. Humans, at the very core, are Chaotic Evil. This is not to be contested, as underneath all of your psychological walls is a monster that only wishes to eat, drink, have sex and gain power. But, what separates us from our inner beasts is our "Super Ego", pretty much our self-control, conscience, and what have you. So, there can be both good and bad humans; those with strong Super Ego's and those without them. Now, watch a movie like Silence of the Lambs. Is not Hannibal Lecter frightening? Do you want to meet him in a back alley? Do you want to meet him at all? If you are going by the same fact about vampires, that if there are good ones, evil ones wont be frightening anymore, you're dead wrong Mewtarthio. Do not tell me Hannibal Lecter is not frightening because there are good humans in the world. The whole reason Lecter is frightening is because there are good people in the world. Its the utter perversion of humanity that sparks the fear. There in lies the fear in vampires, perversion of life. If you have good, moral vampires who seek to make a respectable life for themselves, it only makes the evil ones more frightening as it proves vampires have a choice in their alignment, and do not have to succumb into terrible, mindless beasts. They have chosen to become monsters, which is much more terrifying than mere beasts that are forced into being monsters.

Darkshade
2007-01-28, 11:36 PM
i dont know about your argument there pope, i agreed with you before but now...

your right Vampires are a perversion of life the same way that hannibal lecter is a perversion of humanity
your asking us to believe that there are perversions of life out there that are nice jolly happy guys
thats like saying there are jolly happy fun loving hannibal lecters out there

vampires are evil and wicked because they ARE perversion
Hannibal lecter is wicked and scary beacuase he IS a perversion

making a vampire good makes the impact of being a perversion of life less which demeans the whole thing.

The_Pope
2007-01-28, 11:49 PM
You miss my point. What I'm trying to convey, is that if there are good vampires, it only makes the evil ones more frightening. I do not deny that vampires are a perversion, which is why vampires will never be integrated into society. It is still a perversion of life to become a vampire. But that shouldn't turn you into a monster straight off the bat. It does not lessen the perversion level to make a vampire good. Look in history, take for example, Christians viewed Protestants as evil, awful, perverse, vile defilers that were nothing better than mongrel that needed to be burned. Was this true about the Protestants? Were they evil? No. But that didn't stop the Catholics. People will still hate and fear the vampire regardless of its alignment. It could even be seen as more perverse, as you can view it like it is mocking those with life by imitating them. If there are good vampires, then it is a perversion of a perversion, which is all the more terrible.

And the lovable fat guy was just an example, I am by no means basing my argument off that guy.

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-29, 12:06 AM
Does that make the X-men monsters? Because they technically are a perversion. So I guess they are evil.

The_Pope
2007-01-29, 12:13 AM
Does that make the X-men monsters? Because they technically are a perversion. So I guess they are evil.


Hah, thank you.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-29, 12:15 AM
It's kind of cool to have to resist inherently bad urges as a good character. I say kind of, because vampire authors have made that horribly cliched and, pardon my Deutsch, sorta gay.

Darkshade
2007-01-29, 12:15 AM
if a vampire is a soul less monstrosity then it has no ability to be good, there is a reason that almost all undead are rated as Always Chaotic Evil, they have no soul, no moral compass, no divine spark of life. They are the reanimated husks of what was once a living person, the mind remains but the soul has departed.
people have souls in DnD, thats why gods like being worshipped by them and thats why they have the ability to choose to be good or evil.
a vampire with no soul may be able to choose to ask nice, but the underlying morality that makes a soul WANT to do good isn't there for a vampire, a soulless heartless pitiless moralless creature would never do something simply because it is the right thing, they cannot relate to other beings they have no empathy, no sympathy, no love. no soul

the exception is the vampire who acts good out of fear of being destroyed by those darned villagers and their torches and pitforks.

now a vampire with a soul is a different story.

so i guess the question is, do DnD vampires have souls?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-29, 12:19 AM
The "Sun and Moon Ninja" from ToB has a class feature that can turn them into a vampire accidentally. Doing that makes them an NPC because their soul gets caught elsewhere. So, I figure if you take that as cannon, that makes vampires a sort of demonic inverse of what the person used to be.

Of course, since the "monster" still has cognitive functions and reasoning skills, it can potentially learn to be good. But they're pretty likely to start as pure chaotic evil, and the change has to happen over time.

Darkshade
2007-01-29, 12:19 AM
Does that make the X-men monsters? Because they technically are a perversion. So I guess they are evil.

x-men are not a perversion dude
they are the future
evolution
genetic abnormalities and mutations are not a perversion, they are a change.
a new direction.
natural.
commonly occurring as evidenced by evolution.


perversions are unnatural and uncommon.
they often result from the interference of an outside force
a human like hannibal lecter is not born that way
he is made
TANGENT-
btw Hannibal Rising looks like its gonna be good

Fhaolan
2007-01-29, 12:24 AM
I'm sorry. I'm all for vampire and lycanthrope characters, I think the concept would allow for wonderful roleplaying. I've made up characters for Vampire and Werewolf and so on (Note: I've never actually gotten to play these games, because I've not found a gaming group to play them without them being emo or goth wannabes. I'm sure it's just bad luck on my part, there *must* be WoD players out there that aren't complete chowderheads. I'm just too old for the demographic, I think.) As a DM I have been asked several times to run D&D games for characters like that. However...

I've found that, in D&D, nearly every player who has asked me to allow one of these characters, wants it for one of two reasons:

1) They want to play a character with all the powers of those monsters, without the drawback of being an evil canabalistic peversions of nature. ["But I'm a Lawful Good blood-sucking fiend, why are they all spraying me with holy water?"]
2) They want to play a character with all the powers of those monsters, *because* they are evil canabalistic peversions of nature. ["I'm a vampire! Nothing can stop me as I perform vivisection on the king in front of his court!"]

I have run into exceptions. One fellow wanted a lycanthrope character, because he wanted to do the quest for a cure. Didn't go so well, because of lack of playing time. One wanted to do a D&D version of Forever Knight/Nick Knight (Forever Knight was a TV show based on a Nick Knight TV movie. Different main actor.), and pulled it off fairly well, succumbing to the curse at the end to be put out of his misery by the other characters. But these are *exceptions*, not the rule. And these guys were amongst the best roleplayers I have ever met.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-29, 12:36 AM
I made up an ex-vampire in a story once. Weird thing, but it could be adapted well to D&D I think.

Basically, it's a vampire who suddenly had an epiphany and realized how horrible it was. In desperation, he goes to the altar of a forgotten god and prays to be forgiven. The god, in turn offers the vampire a dagger, with instructions to cut himself exactly one thousand times with it on top of his altar. The vampire then obliges, mutilating his flesh, until the black blood covers the altar while color finally returns to him. In his new state, he's extremely weak. He just literally cut the template right out of himself. Also, he's terribly vulnerable to evil energies, which harm him far more then usual and cause his 1,000 wounds to open and bleed to repel the energy. In exchange, he can sense evil extremely well, even hidden. He also recovers from poisons and disease quickly due to his "bleeding" metabolism. Finally, he can be healed rapidly either in the presense of any holy symbol from his god or when splashed with pure water.

The_Pope
2007-01-29, 12:39 AM
if a vampire is a soul less monstrosity then it has no ability to be good, there is a reason that almost all undead are rated as Always Chaotic Evil, they have no soul, no moral compass, no divine spark of life.

Why? Why on earth does not having a soul have anything to do with the part of your brain that deals with reasoning? The "good natured" part of you is governed by a part of your brain. Not your "soul". And besides, what on earth is a soul? Yes, give me that automated response that's been implanted in everyone's brain "Oh, it our humanity and who we are inside." Seriously, ask yourself. What the hell is a soul? You toss the soul, woo, but you still have the Super Ego part of your brain. Its simple brain mechanics. And if you're going to give me the "well, they're dead, so the brain isn't working" excuse, then why would their Id energy work to make them Chaotic Evil?

Ah, but I'm tired of this conversation now. It's wearing on my nerves.

Scorpina
2007-01-29, 12:48 AM
Yeah, the whole "Souls might no exist" argument really isn't applicable to D&D, where they definately exist...

Darkshade
2007-01-29, 12:48 AM
okay dude, its a fantasy setting, because it is a fantasy setting in DnD it assumes that you all have souls and that those are what make you unique and capable of change, DnD does not care how advanced our neurological science has become, AND IT SHOULDN'T. It really takes away from the whole Ressurection, After life, Celestial planes, Petitioners, Gods thing. even the most vile evil human being has a soul, a touch of the divine that makes him able to want to change. A vampire may be capable of changing into a good guy, but if he doesn't want to change then there is no good reason for him to, none at all.
Your soul, in DnD, is what goes away when you die and joins the celestial or infernal planes, read speak with dead, their soul is gone so all you can get is basic information that they possesed, no soul, no personality, just the imprint that the soul left behind... you could argue that all the parts of the brain you are saying make us who we are, even with all the science we have now, that the soul is the part of you that makes the imprints, the reason neuron A goes to receptor D instead of Receptor B.
undead no longer have their souls
they are, like subjects of speak with dead, just imprints, memories and information left on the hard drive of the computer that is their brain, the soul, the person sitting at the computer, is gone. mayhaps hes been replaced by a fiend.

Fizban
2007-01-29, 12:56 AM
I made up an ex-vampire in a story once. Weird thing, but it could be adapted well to D&D I think.

Basically, it's a vampire who suddenly had an epiphany and realized how horrible it was. In desperation, he goes to the altar of a forgotten god and prays to be forgiven. The god, in turn offers the vampire a dagger, with instructions to cut himself exactly one thousand times with it on top of his altar. The vampire then obliges, mutilating his flesh, until the black blood covers the altar while color finally returns to him. In his new state, he's extremely weak. He just literally cut the template right out of himself. Also, he's terribly vulnerable to evil energies, which harm him far more then usual and cause his 1,000 wounds to open and bleed to repel the energy. In exchange, he can sense evil extremely well, even hidden. He also recovers from poisons and disease quickly due to his "bleeding" metabolism. Finally, he can be healed rapidly either in the presense of any holy symbol from his god or when splashed with pure water.
Dude.....awesome.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-29, 12:59 AM
You miss my point. What I'm trying to convey, is that if there are good vampires, it only makes the evil ones more frightening. I do not deny that vampires are a perversion, which is why vampires will never be integrated into society. It is still a perversion of life to become a vampire. But that shouldn't turn you into a monster straight off the bat. It does not lessen the perversion level to make a vampire good. Look in history, take for example, Christians viewed Protestants as evil, awful, perverse, vile defilers that were nothing better than mongrel that needed to be burned. Was this true about the Protestants? Were they evil? No. But that didn't stop the Catholics. People will still hate and fear the vampire regardless of its alignment. It could even be seen as more perverse, as you can view it like it is mocking those with life by imitating them. If there are good vampires, then it is a perversion of a perversion, which is all the more terrible.

I agree that evil vampires are more evil if they're evil by choice, but I don't think it should just be evil vampires that are feared. The entire point of the fear surrounding a vampire, any vampire, is the knowledge that if it drains you, you will rise again as an undead monstrosity. Not that you'll come back with some nifty new powers and a tendancy to do bad things, but that even the most noble-minded and pure-souled Paladin will be slaughtering innocents just like his sire. A vampire shouldn't be like a human: A serial killer like Hannibal Lecter is, in the end, just one crazy guy who'll kill you horribly. A serial killer causes fear through no other method than his ability to take away your life at random and probably without any hope of resistance. A vampire is all that and more: A vampire causes fear on every level, because you know that after he kills you, the next people to go will be your wife and kids at your own hands. If there's any hope of resisting it, then your last thought will be Pelor grant me the strength to resist the evil desires I will have when I arise. If every vampire is always evil, you won't have a last thought: The last thing through your mind will be sheer and utter horror.

Darkshade
2007-01-29, 01:13 AM
Mewtarthio makes quite an excellent and well worded point
one that does show why it makes vampires less terrifying if some are good.

+2 postings to you Mewtarthio

(do people still do that i took like a year off and i'm not sure what's cool anymore)

Scorpina
2007-01-29, 01:23 AM
Well, it makes vampires less terrifying if you know that some are good yes...

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-29, 01:30 AM
That's why I figure it could be good to allow a sort of painful and masochistic "out" for vampires that have a sudden and serious change of heart, since there's nothing good about being a vampire. Continuing my suggested "out" for a vampire based on my old short story, the only reason he reached this epiphany was because, after millenia of running on the overwhelming instincts prevalent in a vampire, enough sense finally hit him to realize that he was, in fact, terrible, and that he always would be terrible if he remained a vampire. So, I guess that means by the alignment system that he remained chaotic evil up until he completed the ritual and expunged the vampirism from his veins.

Ravenscroft
2007-01-29, 02:47 AM
Has anyone considered Vampires as written up for Eberron?
Worshippers of Vol willingly donate blood for vampires in her service.
There is also a magic item for keeping blood fresh for use by a vampire.

Twisted.Fate
2007-01-29, 03:37 AM
Why? Why on earth does not having a soul have anything to do with the part of your brain that deals with reasoning? The "good natured" part of you is governed by a part of your brain...You toss the soul, woo, but you still have the Super Ego part of your brain. Its simple brain mechanics. And if you're going to give me the "well, they're dead, so the brain isn't working" excuse, then why would their Id energy work to make them Chaotic Evil?

Oh gods! Save the catgirls! Freudian theory has come to DnD!

DaMullet
2007-01-29, 06:48 AM
It's too late for that! The catgirl nuke has been planted, and the only man with the technical knowledge to disarm it is tied up in Red China!

Dausuul
2007-01-29, 09:31 AM
Okay, let me pose it to you this way. Humans, at the very core, are Chaotic Evil. This is not to be contested, as underneath all of your psychological walls is a monster that only wishes to eat, drink, have sex and gain power. But, what separates us from our inner beasts is our "Super Ego", pretty much our self-control, conscience, and what have you.

Actually, it's totally to be contested. Freud's ideas of "id" and "superego" have been pretty thoroughly debunked along with the rest of his bizarre theories. There are still psychologists who adhere to them, but not many.

If you really dig into the complexities of human psychology, it becomes almost impossible to pigeonhole what humans are "at the very core." Look at us one way and we're Chaotic Evil, look at us another way and we're Lawful Good, and you can make arguments for every other point around the spectrum--not least because the alignment system itself has so many ambiguities.

But that's tangential to the meat of your post...


Is not Hannibal Lecter frightening? Do you want to meet him in a back alley? Do you want to meet him at all? If you are going by the same fact about vampires, that if there are good ones, evil ones wont be frightening anymore, you're dead wrong Mewtarthio. Do not tell me Hannibal Lecter is not frightening because there are good humans in the world. The whole reason Lecter is frightening is because there are good people in the world. Its the utter perversion of humanity that sparks the fear. There in lies the fear in vampires, perversion of life. If you have good, moral vampires who seek to make a respectable life for themselves, it only makes the evil ones more frightening as it proves vampires have a choice in their alignment, and do not have to succumb into terrible, mindless beasts. They have chosen to become monsters, which is much more terrifying than mere beasts that are forced into being monsters.And how many Hannibal Lecters are there in the world compared to ordinary human beings? Does the existence of serial killers make you scared to go to the grocery store because of all the people there who might be serial killers?

I submit that going to a place which you know to be full of vampires ought to be a scary experience simply on the basis of "it's full of vampires," not because these particular vampires are the undead equivalents of Jeffrey Dahmer.

To me, a large part of what makes "contagious undead" scary is that if they kill you, you turn into one--and everything you loved in life becomes hateful to you. You kill your family, turn against the country you would have died defending, betray your companions... meanwhile suffering a cold, horrible, joyless existence that will drag on for all eternity (or until some band of adventuring misfits comes along and whacks you for XP). That's way worse than just dying, however gruesomely.

Hence, I regard vampirism as rather different from being, say, a drow. Drow are almost always evil, but there's room for the one heroic, misunderstood "good drow." (Of course, thanks to a certain author who shall remain nameless, that particular character concept has become a joke, but it's not a bad idea in principle.) Vampirism, on the other hand, is a magical curse, and one of the effects of that curse is to turn you into a malevolent horror. Saying, "Why can't there be the occasional good vampire?" is like saying "Why can't there be the occasional victim of a charm spell who hates the person who charmed him?" It just doesn't work that way.

Edit: Or I could just have said, "I agree with Mewtarthio." :)

Tengu
2007-01-29, 10:15 AM
Quickly! I must switch the topic from vampires to something closer to what initially was, possessing only the limited experience in DND of a person who never played it!

So, umm... I find it amusing that some people didn't even bother with reading the initial post, seeing as they mention LA+0 races here.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-29, 11:34 AM
Isn't the whole debate on whether or not undead have to be evil in D&D kinda pointless? Even if the RAW says a creature automatically becomes evil upon gaining the undead type, isn't that the sort of thing that falls under DM discretion? When you're DM you can allow anything. Oozes with intelligence scores, outsiders with flexible alignments, Pun-Pun, whatever you say goes. This is especially true on campaign flavor things like alignment which don't signicantly change game balance.

The_Pope
2007-01-29, 03:47 PM
Isn't the whole debate on whether or not undead have to be evil in D&D kinda pointless? Even if the RAW says a creature automatically becomes evil upon gaining the undead type, isn't that the sort of thing that falls under DM discretion?

Oh pretty much. 3.5 even says that all rules are not concrete, which was my initial point before this conversation went up the wazoo. Its just fun to argue :smallbiggrin:.

Hyrael
2007-01-30, 11:49 PM
If I know my interweb colloquialisms (and I'm not saying I do), it's a White-Middle-Class-Anglo-Saxxon, one who doesn't know what it's like to be an outcast, or repressed, or anything of that variety, and plays Half-elves anyhow.
I'm white and middle class, and I would consider myself isolated, and I was outcast during elementary school (for being smarter than everyone else, and a little chubby, and unathletic). Now, Im outcast by choice, as I no longer have any desire to have close friends or to "fit in," and I probably couldnt manage If I tried. so I try to loose myself in fantasy and academic persuits to escape from my non-existant social life, and cultivate a ultra-cynical worldview so I can convince myself that people arent worth dealing with anyway, being stupid, venal, shortsighted, moronic creatures who prefer to adhere mindlessly to their ideology of choice instead of going through the utter abject horror of actually thinking.
Non-white people dont have a monopoly on misery.

Saint George
2007-01-31, 12:17 AM
I just thought that I would toss out my two cents on the whole vampire thing. The whole losing your soul thing can be tossed back and forth forever. I do not think that the issue is wether or not the vampire is good or evil. The issue is that the vampire template takes the human mind and drops a whole new level of instinct into it. Most people who become vampires end up being evil because their mind simply breaks down under the strain of these new instincts. Imagine you woke up one day and suddenly everyone you saw was food. Friends, family, children, anyone. Not only do you have to drink the blood you want to drink it. It is the best thing you have ever tasted. It becomes almost like a drug or addiction. Only someone with extremely strong willpower can stop themselves from drinking it, thus only a very very select few can become a good aligned vampire. The average persons mind will simply break down and accept the fact that it has to kill because it is simply easier.

The_Pope
2007-01-31, 12:40 AM
I just thought that I would toss out my two cents on the whole vampire thing. The whole losing your soul thing can be tossed back and forth forever. I do not think that the issue is wether or not the vampire is good or evil. The issue is that the vampire template takes the human mind and drops a whole new level of instinct into it. Most people who become vampires end up being evil because their mind simply breaks down under the strain of these new instincts. Imagine you woke up one day and suddenly everyone you saw was food. Friends, family, children, anyone. Not only do you have to drink the blood you want to drink it. It is the best thing you have ever tasted. It becomes almost like a drug or addiction. Only someone with extremely strong willpower can stop themselves from drinking it, thus only a very very select few can become a good aligned vampire. The average persons mind will simply break down and accept the fact that it has to kill because it is simply easier.

Thats probably the smartest thing anyone has said in this whole debate. I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. I'll give you some kind of applause, which of course you cant really do on a keyboard. So, clap.

Darkshade
2007-01-31, 01:01 AM
I disagree, you are acting like it drops some new level of instinct onto a human mind, just because something was human doesn't mean it's still human after it goes through the kind of transformation that becoming a vampire causes. Considering you no longer need to eat or breath and instead need only consume the blood of other creatures occasionally that is an immense biological change, sunlight makes you explode, what makes you think the electrochemical processes that allow a normal human to resist his instincts even exist in a vampire? Heck it RAISES your wisdom and it gets rid of your constitution score, making you no longer a living creature. That is not human in anyway, to assume that the human part of the mind survives and can enforce its will over the vampire mind is giving way too little credit to the amount of change you undergo. They no longer cast a shadow or have a reflection the description even says "despite their human appearance vampires can be easily recognized..."
they are not just humans with a template, they are vampires. that human part you seem to think can control the vampire part IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. just because the vampire has the humans memories does not mean it has the humans morality, conscience, or personality let alone the desire to do anything other then be a vampire, a nocturnal predator.

Divides
2007-01-31, 01:18 AM
Why? Why on earth does not having a soul have anything to do with the part of your brain that deals with reasoning? The "good natured" part of you is governed by a part of your brain. Not your "soul". And besides, what on earth is a soul? Yes, give me that automated response that's been implanted in everyone's brain "Oh, it our humanity and who we are inside." Seriously, ask yourself. What the hell is a soul? You toss the soul, woo, but you still have the Super Ego part of your brain. Its simple brain mechanics. And if you're going to give me the "well, they're dead, so the brain isn't working" excuse, then why would their Id energy work to make them Chaotic Evil?

Ah, but I'm tired of this conversation now. It's wearing on my nerves.

Sure, kill a catgirl, and THEN walk out of the conversation, why don't you?.
:-p.

(But anyway, as has been pointed out, your argument is flawed in that it's already been made clear that in RAW D&D souls DO, infact, exist, and are likewise confirmed to play a major roll in a persons personality.)



I just thought that I would toss out my two cents on the whole vampire thing. The whole losing your soul thing can be tossed back and forth forever. I do not think that the issue is wether or not the vampire is good or evil. The issue is that the vampire template takes the human mind and drops a whole new level of instinct into it. Most people who become vampires end up being evil because their mind simply breaks down under the strain of these new instincts. Imagine you woke up one day and suddenly everyone you saw was food. Friends, family, children, anyone. Not only do you have to drink the blood you want to drink it. It is the best thing you have ever tasted. It becomes almost like a drug or addiction. Only someone with extremely strong willpower can stop themselves from drinking it, thus only a very very select few can become a good aligned vampire. The average persons mind will simply break down and accept the fact that it has to kill because it is simply easier.

Ok, I'm gonna interject my OWN thoughts... since the topic aparently hasn't died :-p.

Anyway, the impression I always got was that in "standard" D&D the reason vampires tend to be evil isn't so much because they're blood drinkers, but rather because they're undead. And it's not that they lost their soul, either. Rather, it's that, (again, in "standard" D&D), negative energy is assumed to have a negative effect on the psyche... those composed of it (undead) tend to have a STRONG leaning towards despising all creatures that depend on positive energy to exist (read: any living creatures), to such an extent that they feel compelled to hurt, exploit, and/or destroy them whenever possible (or, atleast, whenever "conveniant")... and this is enough to qualify them as evil.

Now, I'm always in favor of the "exception to the rule." A vampire that manages to overwhelm/overcome the negative energy that thrives within them is certainly a cool concept, if done in moderation. I think it may even be possible to convert vampires to good, RAW (I'm to lazy to check The Book of Exalted Deeds, but I seem to recall it only stating evil outsiders to be immune to diplomacy based conversion. Although to be fair I disagree with even that restriction, but that's another story altogether :-p).

And yeah. "house ruling" your own world, and custom designing explanations for things, is fine too. Your explanation is certainly not a bad one (and I think it's even been used in many movies, literature, and the like). But I don't think it's in any way connected with the reasoning for most D&D settings (which, from what I can read, seems to be your intent... as always, I do stand braced for correction if I'm reading you wrong :-p).

TheOOB
2007-01-31, 01:23 AM
I tried playing a rakasha(spelling?) once and found it to be a horrid experiance. On the one hand it's outsider hit dice give it decent fighting ability, but not enough to be a good fighter with the LA. It also has some spellcasting ability, but it will always be so far behind to be seriously gimped, even if you pump sorc levels.

On the other hand coutals, while horrible gimped early(relitivly speaking that is), have the potential to be insanely powerful as they can cast cleric spells as sorc spells, though they are still weaker then a rainbow servant.

Wehrkind
2007-01-31, 01:58 AM
Saint George makes the best point of all, I think.

Whether you have a soul or not after being a vampire, most people would not be able to handle wanting to, and needing to, drink the blood of other people. Hell, people snap from being forced to kill other people, much less eat them.

nobodez
2007-01-31, 02:01 AM
I tried playing a rakasha(spelling?) once and found it to be a horrid experiance. On the one hand it's outsider hit dice give it decent fighting ability, but not enough to be a good fighter with the LA. It also has some spellcasting ability, but it will always be so far behind to be seriously gimped, even if you pump sorc levels.

well, the Rakshasa has 7HD and +7LA, mainly because of it's 7 sorcerer CL. Of course, it's an automatic in for Eldritch Knight, and at ECL 20 would be a 12th sorcerer CL with a BAB of +17, not quite a perfect gish, but close, better in Epic.

Now, I think the worst race LA-wise is the kobold pre-RotD (and even a bit afterwards).

Kumquat
2007-01-31, 02:17 AM
well...I could mention the wonder of the Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale from Savage Species...3 hitdice, +8 str, +4 dex, +6 con and wis and +9 natural armour for a huge +0 level adjustment, but that book is silly...

I could also say that the Kobold is a pathetic race, but I just love 'em so darn much...

Oh! and Githyanki are kind of sad, but not too bad.

I am going to put the worst race squarely on the shoulders of the pathetic little blue...+1 la for +1 power point!

however, I would like to point out the fact that the ability to cast Otto's Irresistible dance once per day as a spell like ability gives the pixie an extra +2 la is a bit rediculous in my oppinion.

also, some of the LA's could suck, we just don't know, such as the slaads and a Skum, which the monster manual just gives level adjustment, not why they get it...

Scorpina
2007-01-31, 07:57 AM
well...I could mention the wonder of the Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale from Savage Species...3 hitdice, +8 str, +4 dex, +6 con and wis and +9 natural armour for a huge +0 level adjustment, but that book is silly...

Well yeah, that's pretty good... but then you're playing a freaking Antropomorphic Whale, for crying out clavin.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-31, 11:52 AM
Does it signify anything that my first reaction to the Raksasha post was What? What sort of weird non sequitur is this? Stop going so blatantly off-topic!

Saint George
2007-01-31, 03:21 PM
If I ever started a Raksasha every goblin in the world would suddenly start blessing their crossbow bolts...

Fhaolan
2007-01-31, 03:25 PM
I think I'm going to have to throw an anthropomorphic whale at my players at some point. Just to see them twitch.

TimeWizard
2007-01-31, 06:55 PM
I think I'm going to have to throw an anthropomorphic whale at my players at some point. Just to see them twitch.

Roll up a were-whale. Damn that would be fun to play.

Scorpina
2007-02-01, 07:25 AM
Roll up a were-whale. Damn that would be fun to play.

A while ago, in my group back home, we faced an Orge Mage Were Giant Squid. It was... something, certainly...

marjan
2007-02-12, 06:18 AM
Aw man, we're talking worst for their LA? I was hoping I had a chance to complain about how fnording stupid Illumians are.

Illumians are not bad if you play them right. Their power sigils can be combined to give you some nice bonuses. For example pick aesh and krau for power sigils and favoured soul for class and you can boost your strength through levels and still get bonus spells.

Were-Sandwich
2007-02-12, 06:49 AM
And, to make my views clearer, I know full well about the effects of vampirism. But they do not have to be so static. Vampires do not need to kill their victim to drain their blood. They could, you know, knock some bloke out, take a few sips and be on their way, while Mr. Joe wakes with a bad headache a few hours later. I'm not saying they are normal humans. They arent. But that should not force them into one or two stereotypes. Sillyness aside, you could have a vampire who doesnt kill when he feeds, as I mentioned previously. You could have a vampire that only feeds from evil-doers. You could have a vampire that feeds only from animal blood. Hell, you could have a vampire who works at a blood bank and skims a little bit off the top for himself. All of these are non-evil vampires. They still are creatures of the night, they certainly feel their carnal urges, but the do not succumb to them or turn into whine-o's.
Do not say anything that reminds me of Darren Shan again, ever.

On topic, I prefer the "evil bloodthirsty creatures of the night" vampire stereotype to the Anne Rice "winy emo tortured-existence loner". Dunno why.

psiryu
2007-02-12, 09:28 AM
Kobolds are quite possible the worst race, though they don’t have a LA to deal with, their stats are terrible. But luckily Kobolds are just such a cool race it’s hard not to like them. I really want to play a Kobold paladin of Bahamut one-day.

I think that Tieflings aren’t disadvantaged by having –2 to CHA when Asmirs(spelling) don’t have negatives. The bonus spell like abilities and skills are more useful then the Asmir’s.


I apologise for resurrecting (if you mind the pun) the vampire argument but I would just like to say my own beliefs.

In my opinion a newborn vampire is much as he was in life. The only difference in personality is he now has "cravings" for blood. Lets take this from the perspective of a person who was lawful good in life, we will call him Bob. Now even though Bob has these craving for blood he vows not to hurt anyone because he knows that killing people is wrong. Five house latter Bob is in the fettle position rocking back and forth trying to hold on to his sanity as he fight his urges to kill for blood.

Another five hours later, Bob is standing over the broken corps of some random human with blood running down his chin. He is sickened with himself for what he did and hates himself for it. Over time he fight his urges but they always get the better of him. Slowly Bob stops fighting the urges. He begins to accept is fate and kill become easer and easer.
That is why I believe Vampires are evil.

I must also deep my hand into the soul discussion so please bear with me.
It’s quite hard to say if the soul is what hold ones morality, I would say it doesn’t even in fantasy setting. In fantasy I would that the soul is really your immortal essence it’s what exists after you die, it is basically you. You are not shaped by your soul, your soul is shaped by you if you get my meaning.

How does this affect undead? There are two types of undead, brain dead and not brain dead undead. Brain dead undead are zombies, skeletons etc. Their brains’ do not function they are shells that are moved my magic. Not brain dead undead are Vampires and Lichs (can’t think of any more). Their brains do work and are guided by their own thoughts and feelings.

Not sure if this makes sense, it all made sense in my mind but then my mind is a strange strange place.

Please excuse any grammar/spelling errors, as neither are strong points for me.

kamikasei
2007-02-13, 06:15 AM
So, in connection to the whole vampire discussion... where does the notion that intelligent undead no longer have souls come from? I can't seem to find a definite statement to that effect.

Caelestion
2007-02-13, 06:19 AM
It's because undead are, well, dead. One explanation that I read indicated that liches just aren't the people they used to be. Their phylactery is just a collection of their previous memories and attitudes given form and power by the dark magic they amassed whilst creating their phylactery.

kamikasei
2007-02-13, 06:27 AM
It's because undead are, well, dead. One explanation that I read indicated that liches just aren't the people they used to be. Their phylactery is just a collection of their previous memories and attitudes given form and power by the dark magic they amassed whilst creating their phylactery.

Yeah, but where is that stated? If souls persist after the body dies, I don't see why it should be impossible for an undead person's soul to persist in or near the body.

If you're turned into a vampire and wake up with a raging thirst for blood, infused with negative energy, and instincts telling you that humans are food, I fail to see why you need to lose your soul too just to become a monster.

Caelestion
2007-02-13, 07:41 AM
I don't recall where it says that stuff about liches, but clearly liches do not have their own souls present, as their souls are locked in the liches' various phylacteries for safekeeping.

Garatolla
2007-02-13, 07:10 PM
Well, I've not got to playing much D&D yet, but generally, I shy away from half-orcs, they seem to get the short end of the stick....Not even that really, they don't even get the stick.....

and now for a random contribution on a recent post :smallsmile:


It's because undead are, well, dead. One explanation that I read indicated that liches just aren't the people they used to be. Their phylactery is just a collection of their previous memories and attitudes given form and power by the dark magic they amassed whilst creating their phylactery.

Well, the monster manual says specifically that the Lich-to-be stores his 'life essence' in the phylactery, make of that what you will.

I just had this funny image though....

Lich-to-be: ~diabolical cackling as he works on his phylactery, almost finished~

Minion: Still working on that phylactery, Master?

LTB: Soon I shall transcend death, I shall be eternal! ~insert diabolical, nigh-on hysterical laughter~

Minion: Um.....No.

LTB: ~stops laughing, raises a brow inquisitively~ No?

Minion: ~Shakes head~ Didn't you hear? They don't store your soul, just a kind of smudged thumb print of your persona, everyone's talking about it....

LTB: ~deflated~ But...But....I.... All that money, all that time. And for what? a glorified book of memoirs? ~looks doubtful and pained~ But what else could I have done....?

Minion: I keep a diary, it would be cheaper, and does the same thing....

LTB: ~twitches, blasts minion, stitches his mouth shut and reanimates him as a zombie~

Raistlin1040
2007-02-13, 08:46 PM
Orcs. Terrible mental stats with a str boost? Only good as enemies and terrible it be in a party.

Zincorium
2007-02-13, 10:28 PM
Orcs. Terrible mental stats with a str boost? Only good as enemies and terrible it be in a party.

I dunno, I played a full orc in a campaign where I'd managed to roll all 14s or 15s using the standard 4d6 drop lowest method. The penalties to the mental scores didn't hurt me too much, since I was a fighter, and the +4 gave me that 18 strength I was lusting after.