if your player became a vampire of undead or were beast what would you do?

[Amdy_vill]

i would let them play the creature with some obvious control issue with the player having to try to keep control.

how would you guys do it would your fallow the suggestions in the monster Manuel

[Rebonack]

I run most undead as 'corpse possessed by an evil spirit from (setting specific spooky place)' so if a player gets turned into a vampire spawn or what have you, that person is gone. There's just a nasty monster puppeting their body with some degree of access to their memories.

In the case of were-beasties, I've got a custom feat players can take that gives them nerfed lycanthropy that can be controlled (but not spread). Otherwise they go berserk whenever they fluff-out.

[Amdy_vill]

fluff-out.

i like that i will use that word a lot more now

[Unoriginal]

i would let them play the creature with some obvious control issue with the player having to try to keep control.

how would you guys do it would your fallow the suggestions in the monster Manuel

Vampire: the character becomes a NPC.

Were-animal: the character stays a PC while they fight their transformation (and by consequence get themselves de-cursed ASAP), becomes a NPC if they embrace it. Aside from special circumstances.

[MintyNinja]

I have a calendar for my setting with a full-moon cycle so that I can easily track Lycanthropy. Should it come up, I would prefer for the Player not to know they were infected and then have it take place while they think they're sleeping. I'd have the transformed creature run off into the night, or fight the party, and then have the PC wake up when they're humanoid again.

As for Vampires, I feel like that would be a direct NPC-ification of a character.

[DarkKnightJin]

..Give them a chance to undo it.
If they don't want that and embrace the affliction..

Well, they might start being hunted for what they are now.
As for actual stat stuff.. I'd have them gain some of the benefits from their new form, to make the choice a little harder between cure or keep.
Were-beast would get that Str or Dex(depending on the kind of beast). Vampire, I would have them use the Planeshift Zendikhar race. That's fairly balanced for PC usage.

[TheYell]

I was a mythic were-rat, I made a lunar calendar and tracked the days to my danger period. If I transformed I became an NPC under the command of my DM.

[Joe the Rat]

I play almost entirely online, so it's not likely to be an issue. I might take weeks off around the full moon, since that player would be out most likely. Vampires are trickier - but I'd probably insist on meeting in public spaces so I don't have to invite them into my house to play. Common sense.
[/pedant]

Now for characters, it depends greatly on their reaction to the situation. Becoming vampire spawn kind of falls into the Wights and Particularly With-it Ghasts - fairly sharp self-willed undead. You're a super zombie that retains language skills, but alas are still rather feral. In other words, a Monster. You will lose control on occasion. PCs do not get to turn into full vampires right away. It takes time to build up your monstrosity. Decades, perhaps centuries.

Lycanthropes are very much playable, though I am inclined to reserve them to NPC status when shifted, particularly during that time of the month. I'd probably dig up the old 1st ed rules to farm ideas on shift control.

Now what I had been doing with my possession-prone cleric was to direct his actions, and let him do the rolls and dialogue. If you trust your players, they can play "Evil Me" quite well. With the right group, it'll work.

[Specter]

As the curse is unfolding, that gives me an interesting plot hook: go against the one trying to be your master and overcome him while simultaneously facing hard decisions along the way.

But if the curse is already on, full power? They're my characters now. Werewolves are all chaotic evil, and vampires' description states that all good emotions in a person become twisted when they turn into vampires. That kind of person can't be with a party.

[Hesh]

If my player became Vampiric, I'd probably wear garlic aftershave. Or just not invite him round.

[sightlessrealit]

Vampires: Hell yeah my players can becoming them without being degraded to the stupidity of being forcefully becoming an NPC.
Same goes for any form of lycanthropy or even lychdom.

[Unoriginal]

It's not because you don't like 5e's portrayal of the vampire that it's stupid.

[Angelalex242]

Being a Buffy fan, I'd say if you want to play a vampire as a PC, the vampire has to have their soul restored through some method or other. Otherwise, it's not really YOU in there. It's a demon piloting your body around.

...funnily enough, restoring the soul to a vampire takes nothing more than a bestow Curses spell. (Which always comes with the 'one moment of true happiness and the soul goes bye bye' escape clause...

So, if you want to be a vampire PC, you're basically operating under Angel's rules.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Vampirism - I simply wouldn't. Since turning someone into a vampire spawn takes conscious choice and effort on the DM's part to arrange (it's not the kind of thing that will happen by accident and take people by surprise), I wouldn't have a vampire do that to a PC.

Lycanthropy - I'd play the horror-film tropes to the hilt. The character (and player) wouldn't know they had been infected; and they'd have no memory of turning into a ravening monster during the full moon. Eventually, they'd realise what was going on, and the party would either kill them (possibly in self-defence) or get them cured.

At no point would being a lycanthrope ever be to the character's advantage.

[oxybe]

Just like magic items, if I didn't want people using it, I wouldn't put it on the table. If I don't want people potentially turning into werewolves and vampires, i wouldn't be using werewolves or vampires.

If you become a were-shark, welp, that's your lot in life now. deal with it one way or another.

You now have an adverse reaction to garlic bread and sunlight? oh well.

[Unoriginal]

Just like magic items, if I didn't want people using it, I wouldn't put it on the table. If I don't want people potentially turning into werewolves and vampires, i wouldn't be using werewolves or vampires.

If you become a were-shark, welp, that's your lot in life now. deal with it one way or another.

You now have an adverse reaction to garlic bread and sunlight? oh well.

With the interpretation they went for in 5e, a vampire isn't just "you, but hating the Sun and garlic", it's a whole different person, based on the worst parts of the dead guy.

[Glorthindel]

Depends on the player - I am firmly of the belief that such things are vile, undesirable curses, and if I believe the player can handle portraying that, with the expectation that their character will either be striving to undo the curse, or meet the inevitable unpleasant end, then that is fine. I would much rather see the character go through the conflict between their old and new selves, and their attempt at redemption or descent into monsterdom.

However, if I catch even a hint that the player sees it as some power-up, and attempt to circumvent the curse, and the moral conflict of their new nature, then I will enforce NPC-dom immediately.

[Zanthy1]

If a player became one of those, it is because I allowed it. If the specific setting or campaign doesn't allow for that sort of thing, i'd tell my Players before hand so they don't get hyped and then let down. I typically don't have lycanthropy in my worlds just because its one extra thing I have to worry about.

As a player though, I did have a character who became a Revenant (UA version) and for the first couple sessions thought it was amazing, but slowly realized that playing in a long term campaign without the risk of character death wasn't doing it for me, so about a year out of game time later I was finally able to get it removed via an elaborate conversion/rebirth ritual (similar to the Drowned God in Game of Thrones).

[Dr. Cliché]

Happened to me when I got turned into a werewolf. The DM was really unfair about it and said that I just straight up couldn't play anymore. Something about me biting off the arm of one of the other players over a minor disagreement. Well, how else do you settle a fight than by asserting dominance? Anyway, I only meant to nip his arm a bit - not my fault if human arms are so fragile. And delicious.

Anyway, I promised the DM that I wouldn't bite off his arms, but that wasn't good enough and he said I had to leave. There's just no reasoning with some people.

Still, I found an online group after that. So it's not all bad.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Happened to me when I got turned into a werewolf. The DM was really unfair about it and said that I just straight up couldn't play anymore. Something about me biting off the arm of one of the other players over a minor disagreement. Well, how else do you settle a fight than by asserting dominance? Anyway, I only meant to nip his arm a bit - not my fault if human arms are so fragile. And delicious.

Anyway, I promised the DM that I wouldn't bite off his arms, but that wasn't good enough and he said I had to leave. There's just no reasoning with some people.

Still, I found an online group after that. So it's not all bad.


Oh wow. I feel like kicking you out was a bit too much but good that you found a group online.

[Specter]

It's not because you don't like 5e's portrayal of the vampire that it's stupid.

Well spoken.

[sightlessrealit]

It's not because you don't like 5e's portrayal of the vampire that it's stupid.

Overall, I like 5es vampires. Just the herp de flurp you got turned you can't play you anymore that I don't like.

[Baptor]

This is actually a really good question. For the longest time I never had to deal with it - and I've been DMing since 1998. Then it happened in 2015 - one of my players was killed by a vampire's bite.

Lycans
I don't do lycanthropes by the book. In my world, once you are bitten, you have two choices.
1) Embrace the beast - let go and allow the curse to take over, if you do this you have immediate control over your ability to change shape but you lose all that was left of your humanity and become evil - character sheet goes to the DM.
2) Fight the good fight - assuming you don't find a cure, you instead resist your transformation every full moon and make saving throws. Once you make three (doesn't have to be consecutive), you master the curse and become a "good" lycanthrope - accepted and beloved by Selune. If you fail the save, you turn into a beast and murder people, but it doesn't make you evil because you fought it. You get another chance next full moon. Only adventurers (creatures with 2+ hit dice) can fight the curse. Normal people always lose their minds and become full monsters.

I did this for lycans because I felt that becoming a beast didn't necessarily make you evil (i.e. Beauty and the Beast). There's nothing inherently about them that's bad (unlike the vampire, see below). So its all about who do you choose to be - the man or the beast?

Vampires
A player decided this one for me. It's a long story but suffice it to say, I was willing to try some kind of "fight the good fight" method for vampires as described above - but the player who was bitten asked me not to. To paraphrase him,


"I lost. It's OK. I lost. Tragic things happen. My character will rise an inhuman monster to stalk the Realms for fresh blood. Maybe you can use her as a villain later. But don't try to make me happy and undo this. Vampires are supposed to be terrifying - and this right here is one of the reasons why. It would ruin her to make her a "good" vampire. There is no such thing. If she were to rise with her good personality intact, the first thing she'd do is run out into the sunlight. No good person would ever willingly exist as one of these things."

It was very moving in the moment. I nodded and reminded him he's one of the best players I've ever had the pleasure to run for. I took his character sheet, and that vampire mage is still one of the deadliest adversaries in my world. Be careful if you are ever in Tethyr. :smallwink:

Now that incident was a solo game. In a game with a full party you'd still have the following options to help your buddy:

1) If you can cast a remove curse on the body before nightfall, it won't rise. Likewise if you can raise them during this time they are alive again and of course don't rise.
2) Should they rise as a vampire, the party can destroy the vampire and then raise them back to life. In this case the curse is also resolved.

[Unoriginal]

Overall, I like 5es vampires. Just the herp de flurp you got turned you can't play you anymore that I don't like.

The character is dead, that's the thing. That's why you can't play them anymore.

[sightlessrealit]

The character is dead, that's the thing. That's why you can't play them anymore.
Undead not dead.

[Unoriginal]

Undead not dead.

No, dead. Their corpse get moved around by an Undead entity, but it's not the character anymore.

[Dr. Cliché]

Undead not dead.

If you're having trouble telling the difference, try gnawing on their bones.

If they raise objections to this, they're most likely undead.

[noob]

I guess I would question my sanity if I believed one of my players turned into a vampire of undead or were beast.(and I would wonder what it does means)

[sightlessrealit]

No, dead. Their corpse get moved around by an Undead entity, but it's not the character anymore.
Only as a spawn is that true.

[Unoriginal]

Only as a spawn is that true.

From the MM:


Whether or not a vampire retains any memories from its former life, its emotional attachments wither as once-pure feelings become twisted by undeath. Love turns into hungry obsession, while friendship becomes bitter jealousy. In place of emotion, vampires pursue physical symbols of what they crave, so that a vampire seeking love might fixate on a young beauty. A child might become an object of fascination for a vampire obsessed with youth and potential. Others surround themselves with art, books, or sinister items such as torture devices or trophies from creatures they have killed

A vampire isn't the same as the being that died, and might even lack memories from that time.

[sightlessrealit]

From the MM:



A vampire isn't the same as the being that died, and might even lack memories from that time.

Which is totally fine for a player to play.

[Baptor]

No, dead. Their corpse get moved around by an Undead entity, but it's not the character anymore.

Yeah I get it 100%. If it wasn't a vampire, the character would still be dead and unplayable. Would a player be complaining if an earth elemental stepped on its head and killed it because they weren't allowed to keep playing the corpse? Or perhaps more to the point, if a wraith killed the player and its corpse became a specter? Would a player expect to be able to play the specter?

I mean you could play a specter I guess, but I'd bet most players aren't arguing that they should. They accept that the specter is just a monster created from their death. I think with vampires popular culture and movies have convinced people that becoming a vampire is just becoming a cooler character and adding a template of bonuses, rather than the character dying and its corpse becoming a monster apart from the person, using its memories and motivations for evil ends.

As I said in my long post, you can still resurrect the character before they rise as a vampire to get them back. Once they are a vampire you can destroy them and then resurrect them and get them back. I'm pretty sure that's either a rule, was a rule in prior editions, or is a generally accepted houserule (OOTS follows this rule - that's Durkon's only hope.) So basically whether you die to a fireball or die to a vampire, the solution is still a resurrection spell.

I think if you fundamentally changed what a vampire is it could be a different story. For example there's a vampire that's just a human who was infected with a disease or something that transformed it into a creature that drinks blood, etc., but isn't an undead monster. The vampire in Innistrad is similar to this. In such a case the result is more like a lycanthrope and I could get behind such a vampire not being totally evil and able to control its destiny.

Of course every table is different and you may not agree and decide as a group to have whatever kind of vampire you want. Maybe you want conflicted vampires like Anne Rice's vampires who are driven towards evil but like Louis it can be resisted. Maybe you want Buffy vampires who lose their souls and become evil but can, in rare cases, get their soul back and be good like Angel. Maybe you want Twilight vampires who make the good/evil choice when they feed for the first time - if they feed from a human they become evil - if an animal, good (or something like that.) YMMV and all that.

[MaxWilson]

If my player became a were or vampire?

Assuming I learn by seeing the disorder in action...

I would run like crazy and then call the police and then the newspapers, in that order.

[Dr. Cliché]

If my player became a were or vampire?

Assuming I learn by seeing the disorder in action...

I would run like crazy and then call the police and then the newspapers, in that order.

Oh, no. Never run from a werewolf. We're a lot faster than you and our instinct is always to give chase.




I think if you fundamentally changed what a vampire is it could be a different story.

I'm sure you could have the current concept work.

What about a vampire who's desperately trying to retain his humanity? One who's searching for a way to become human again, before he reaches the stage where he no longer wants to be human.

[Baptor]

I'm sure you could have the current concept work.

What about a vampire who's desperately trying to retain his humanity? One who's searching for a way to become human again, before he reaches the stage where he no longer wants to be human.

I mention that in my post, near the bottom. :smallwink:

[Dr. Cliché]

I mention that in my post, near the bottom. :smallwink:

Yeah, I just wasn't sure you'd need to change the D&D vampire for that to work.


Could make for real nightmare fuel if the vampire tries to restore his soul, only to find he doesn't actually have one. His actual soul moved on when he died. Even if he manages to restore it somehow, it still won't be him who gets restored. Everything he is now is what remains when a body no longer has a soul - and will be gone forever when he finally dies for real.

[Unoriginal]

Which is totally fine for a player to play.

If you're fine with a PC being a shallow, violent caricature of a person, obsessed by possessing material object rather than what they signify, and who considers everyone, including the rest of the party, to only be tools to satiate their urges...


Nevermind.

[Specter]

Even if you would allow a vampire to play, you shouldn't do so unless you would allow evil characters (not 'diet, College of Whispers' evil, but full-on party-wrecking evil).

The MM says all good emotions are twisted when you become a vampire. If you love someone, you are obssessed, a la Strahd. If you respect your party members, now you're jealous of their power, or look down on them. A vampire would charm party members into doing whatever he wants, and enslavement is also on the table. If you are a paladin of justice, then your ideal of justice is corrupted to the point where it's just killing and hatred. If I were a player in a group with a vampire, I'd either finish him for good or just walk away from the group, because that would destroy the party. In short, as a vampire think of anything nice you feel and then subvert it.

Anything other than that, and you're running
a Twilight module.

[Blackbando]

Personally, I would just let a player be it if it comes up. After all, I'm the GM; if I throw a vampire or lycan at the party, and consciously choose to try and infect them, I'm not going to turn my players into NPCs for that.

However, do take how I'd do it with a grain of salt; I'm an extremely allowing DM. I let my players become in a campaign any monster that states humanoids can be turned into it (though not beforehand such as in backstory), such as meenlocks, almost any undead, yuan-ti broodguards, etc.

I mostly allow this because I like letting my players do pretty much whatever they think is cool, so if a player approaches me with the idea of becoming a meenlock later on, I'd sign off on it. I know encounter balance well enough that I can handle the difficulties of a monstrous race.

[SociopathFriend]

I've been afflicted with Lycanthropy twice in 5e and it went a bit differently each time.

First time I was a Chaotic (might've been Neutral Good I forget) Good Paladin. The DM had me go on a violent killing-spree after I turned into a Wereboar the first time since I had zero control. Since I had killed innocents, he allowed me to start rolling to control it as his ruling was:
Accept the curse, change alignment (and consequently follow your alignment in-character) and always have control
Reject the curse, keep your alignment, and only have control once you've shed the blood of the innocent

Second time I was a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian in Straud's campaign and was hit up with the Werewolf stuff. Given that I was already living the, "Only the strong survive" mentality and was already willing to kill and eat humans to survive (I had no food for some reason) we decided it wasn't much of a jump to the alignment and accept the curse. That Barbarian in his backstory was also influenced by that Minotaur demon-lord so all-in-all the Werewolf curse didn't do much to him.

In the same instance the party Paladin was afflicted with the Werewolf curse and, unlike the Barbarian, couldn't control it for alignment reasons. So he promptly mauled a family to death. We got him cured soon after that so he didn't continue the trend.

[mephnick]

The character is dead, that's the thing. That's why you can't play them anymore.

Players are so god damn afraid of losing characters these days. It's really weird.

[Hesh]

Players are so god damn afraid of losing characters these days. It's really weird.

Fancy waking up one day wanting to kill yourself.

[Callin]

As a player I would reject the idea of losing a character to become a NPC.

Its part of the story. No reason (other than players shouldnt become the monster) for them to allow them to keep playing. Depending on the campaign it could make for a very nice story. If its an all evil game BAM they are more evil and the status quo continues. Normal Game, they either embrace it and the party has to either accept it or the player must survive the incoming attempts of destruction. Should the character decide to leave THEN it becomes an NPC because its no longer part of the story. Let the player make important decisions about said NPC behind the scenes so its like they are still playing it.

As a DM if I dont want something to happen. It dont. If I send a Lycan or Vamp at you and I dont want you to become one I "Secret Roll" and you pass. If I dont mind then I let fate decide. If you fail then we figure out your place in the world.

[mephnick]

Fancy waking up one day wanting to kill yourself.

I mean, at one time if you got cursed with lycanthropy and your party had to put you down in a frenzied bloodbath it was seen as awesome. Then you rolled up a new character.

Now any negative effect is seen as a personal slight from a jerk DM. I had a player nearly in tears with a dominated character I told to attack the party. I even let him control it!

Good thing they removed all the save or die effects from 5e. People would be rage quitting the hobby in droves.

[Baptor]

Could make for real nightmare fuel if the vampire tries to restore his soul, only to find he doesn't actually have one. His actual soul moved on when he died. Even if he manages to restore it somehow, it still won't be him who gets restored. Everything he is now is what remains when a body no longer has a soul - and will be gone forever when he finally dies for real.

Oh wow I get what you are saying now. That would be an awesome story. Not sure if such a tale would fit in a traditional D&D game with a party. If it was a solo game set in Ravenloft, I could get into a tale like this. Great idea, you may want to write a book - it would be a great twist on the current "teddy-bear" vampire genre. :smallwink:


As a player I would reject the idea of losing a character to become a NPC.

But you don't reject the idea of dying? What is the difference? Honestly if you were in my games and I knew this, I'd just tell you that you died - game over. Then later off screen your corpse would rise to hunt the night. You wouldn't find out for months, maybe years, when he's the villain of a later campaign. Then you'd probably quit my game, but I'd sure think it was funny.

Seriously, you reject the idea as a player? If it was as a DM I'd respect that, but as a player you play the game you're dealt. I have never, EVER, told my DM how to run his game or his world. Sometimes that means stepping onto the doorstep of what looked like a normal house and losing my very first character to a disintegration trap - which DID happen. But I never thought to "reject" the ruling or pout. I tossed the sheet and rolled up a new character.


I mean, at one time if you got cursed with lycanthropy and your party had to put you down in a frenzied bloodbath it was seen as awesome. Then you rolled up a new character.

Now any negative effect is seen as a personal slight from a jerk DM. I had a player nearly in tears with a dominated character I told to attack the party. I even let him control it!

Good thing they removed all the save or die effects from 5e. People would be rage quitting the hobby in droves.

Gosh this is SO true. :smallannoyed: See the above rant. :smallmad:


If you're fine with a PC being a shallow, violent caricature of a person, obsessed by possessing material object rather than what they signify, and who considers everyone, including the rest of the party, to only be tools to satiate their urges...Nevermind.


Anything other than that, and you're running
a Twilight module.

HAHA you guys are killing me! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[TMac9000]

I remember a d20 Cthulhu game where my character was bitten by a werewolf. I broke contact with the rest of the group, let out the straps of my Kevlar vest, and filed the trigger guard off of my shotgun.

I didn’t want to be A werewolf ... I wanted to be THE werewolf.

Alas (or maybe fortunately), I didn’t turn.

[Callin]

But you don't reject the idea of dying? What is the difference? Honestly if you were in my games and I knew this, I'd just tell you that you died - game over. Then later off screen your corpse would rise to hunt the night. You wouldn't find out for months, maybe years, when he's the villain of a later campaign. Then you'd probably quit my game, but I'd sure think it was funny.

Seriously, you reject the idea as a player? If it was as a DM I'd respect that, but as a player you play the game you're dealt. I have never, EVER, told my DM how to run his game or his world. Sometimes that means stepping onto the doorstep of what looked like a normal house and losing my very first character to a disintegration trap - which DID happen. But I never thought to "reject" the ruling or pout. I tossed the sheet and rolled up a new character.



As a Player I have every right to reject my character becoming a NPC you do not have the right to my character. If you wish to kill my character I am fine with that. Im not a child. I would actually LIKE the twist of finding out my character was actually alive and a Vampire Villain way down the road I would laugh with you. However if I did have an issue with it I would talk to you about it and ask that you change it. I wouldnt quit. Like I said I am no child. I have lost so many characters its a running joke in my groups. I am not adverse to death or even having a character die in the first MINUTE of a game. It happens. However if just because I gained Lycanthropy or Vampirism from a monster you put out there I would expect to play it out. THAT is what I was dealt was it not? We also seem to play different style of games.

[TheYell]

As I recall, I had control of my character unless he shifted into a wererat, then he was under DM control.

But when I came back after my first transformation, the party insisted I be bound hand and foot and thrown over the back of a horse while they searched for a cure.

They stuck a stick up my butt, "in case that helps".

I remember being ok with the DM rampaging against that party.

[Angelalex242]

Once again, what's wrong with playing an Angel/Spike type vampire?

"Sure, most vampires have all their feelings twisted into vicious mockeries, but I was Cursed with my soul by a gypsy tribe, and now I have normal emotions again."

Mind, before he got cursed, Angelus made Strahd look like a saint for the vicious crap he did, but once cursed with a soul, he was a hero, straight up.

[SociopathFriend]

Once again, what's wrong with playing an Angel/Spike type vampire?

"Sure, most vampires have all their feelings twisted into vicious mockeries, but I was Cursed with my soul by a gypsy tribe, and now I have normal emotions again."

Mind, before he got cursed, Angelus made Strahd look like a saint for the vicious crap he did, but once cursed with a soul, he was a hero, straight up.

Especially what he did to Dru.

Specifically the argument (As I understand it) was that 5e explicitly states vampires become twisted beings that don't do "good" feelings. Any sort of good emotion: Love, Respect, Honor, are all twisted into negative things. To change that is to change what it means to be a vampire and if your excuse is, "Magic did it" then that's technically the ultimate cop-out in D&D when you have to fabricate magic in a setting that already has it.

Vampires don't want to be cured. They don't want to be fixed or made better. They're undead spirits who as a concept only exist to destroy and ruin the world in the ways they see fit. It's the seeming equivalent of wanting to make an angel but have him evoke all the qualities of villains.

All the power to you if that's what you and the DM want to run. But it's, for lack of a better way of putting it, not the point of being a vampire in 5e. It's right up there with, "I want to play a free-willed skeleton." It's running contrary to what the thing is supposed to be. It's not wrong, no, I certainly wanted to be a free-thinking skeleton, weakness to bludgeoning damage and all, but it's just not how the world you're in works if you play normal 5e.

Granted, I would allow someone to be a vampire if I sent vampires at them and I would hope my DM allowed me the privilege in turn. I'm fine with acting out the fantasy of turning on the party and maybe being killed for it (or perhaps mutually benefiting each other? That's not impossible after all)- and in my mind I deserve the chance to do it- not the DM by making me be a NPC.

[Angelalex242]

Especially what he did to Dru.

Specifically the argument (As I understand it) was that 5e explicitly states vampires become twisted beings that don't do "good" feelings. Any sort of good emotion: Love, Respect, Honor, are all twisted into negative things. To change that is to change what it means to be a vampire and if your excuse is, "Magic did it" then that's technically the ultimate cop-out in D&D when you have to fabricate magic in a setting that already has it.

Vampires don't want to be cured. They don't want to be fixed or made better. They're undead spirits who as a concept only exist to destroy and ruin the world in the ways they see fit. It's the seeming equivalent of wanting to make an angel but have him evoke all the qualities of villains.

All the power to you if that's what you and the DM want to run. But it's, for lack of a better way of putting it, not the point of being a vampire in 5e. It's right up there with, "I want to play a free-willed skeleton." It's running contrary to what the thing is supposed to be. It's not wrong, no, I certainly wanted to be a free-thinking skeleton, weakness to bludgeoning damage and all, but it's just not how the world you're in works if you play normal 5e.

Granted, I would allow someone to be a vampire if I sent vampires at them and I would hope my DM allowed me the privilege in turn. I'm fine with acting out the fantasy of turning on the party and maybe being killed for it (or perhaps mutually benefiting each other? That's not impossible after all)- and in my mind I deserve the chance to do it- not the DM by making me be a NPC.

Yep. That sounds exactly like a Buffyverse vampire, is my point. "When you become a vampire the demon gets your body, but it doesn't get your soul. That's gone. No conscience, no remorse, it's an easy way to live. You have no idea what it's like to have done the things I've done...and to care..."

Hence, a PC vampire would have to be, like Angel, cursed with a soul.

And hey, if you think that spell effect is too powerful for Bestow Curse, maybe the old gypsy elder had a ring of wishes to Curse Angelus with his human soul.

Then again, considering how easily Willow recurses him, it really is meant to be only a Bestow Curse level effect.

[Luccan]

I'm not turning PCs into intelligent Undead they can't play unless the player is cool with it. Killing them is one thing. Having the corpse of their character continuing to tap dance around and telling them no, you can't have it back, doesn't seem like something I want to do to players unless they're ok with it. That said, in 5e I'm not letting players be Vampires until I see something that makes that playable. 3.X had monsters that worked like PCs, so it was fine. Since they don't quite work the same as PCs in 5e, I'm not going through the headache of making a Vampire race and/or class right now.

As for werebeast? I'd be willing to allow some benefit. I figure regular form you get some bonus to survival, hunting by scent, things like that. In fact, I think if you gave the right benefits, it would make it a better dilemma. Sure you become a raging bloodthirsty monster every now and again, but if the benefits are there and you think you can control it, well, what's a little more power to fight BBEG? It's just for now. Right?

However, the werebeast form would definitely be a battle every step of the way.

Except werebears, but I think I'd have werebearism be non-transferable. Becoming one requires passing a trial proving your worth, after which you're bestowed the ursinethropy as a gift. Not entirely sure how I'd handle it yet, though.

[Spore]

Both have enough abusable weaknesses that I would be inclined to accept their new status quo if the group is okay with it. NPC-ification feels somewhat cheap to me.

Vampire fledgling would get their drain attack, advantage on Str and Dex checks and the usual undead perks. They would be killed by proper sunlight, paralyzed by stakes and unable to cross running water without their coffin

Werewolves would have advantage on Str and Con saves, would add their con bonus to HP regen on short rests but be vulnerable to sunlight. They go on a frenzy every full moon, with their most primal instinct to spread the curse as best as possible to strong members (aka the group) and feed on the weak.

Both would get RP flaws fitting their curse.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm not turning PCs into intelligent Undead they can't play unless the player is cool with it. Killing them is one thing. Having the corpse of their character continuing to tap dance around and telling them no, you can't have it back, doesn't seem like something I want to do to players unless they're ok with it.

I don't know. I mean, having a villain turn a defeated player character into his own puppet seems like a great way to make the rest of the party absolutely despise him.


Except werebears, but I think I'd have werebearism be non-transferable. Becoming one requires passing a trial proving your worth, after which you're bestowed the ursinethropy as a gift. Not entirely sure how I'd handle it yet, though.

Personally, I tend to ignore (or at least drastically alter) the alignment side of werebeasts.
- Werewolves/wererats are usually okay, but it bugs me that they are not just locked into evil but one specific type of evil. Why is the werewolf chaotic? You'd think the pack structure of wolves would have them lean more towards lawful? Why can't I have a NE or CE wererat? I'm not even sure where the 'lawful' aspect comes from.
- Are weretigers cursed with apathy or something?
- Oh no! My paladin has been "cursed" by a werebear. Please don't make him keep his NG alignment whilst also gaining extra strength and resistance to damage. That would just be awful. :smallconfused:

I'll leave it there before i get into a full rant about D&D Lycanthropes.

[Luccan]

I don't know. I mean, having a villain turn a defeated player character into his own puppet seems like a great way to make the rest of the party absolutely despise him.



Personally, I tend to ignore (or at least drastically alter) the alignment side of werebeasts.
- Werewolves/wererats are usually okay, but it bugs me that they are not just locked into evil but one specific type of evil. Why is the werewolf chaotic? You'd think the pack structure of wolves would have them lean more towards lawful? Why can't I have a NE or CE wererat? I'm not even sure where the 'lawful' aspect comes from.
- Are weretigers cursed with apathy or something?
- Oh no! My paladin has been "cursed" by a werebear. Please don't make him keep his NG alignment whilst also gaining extra strength and resistance to damage. That would just be awful. :smallconfused:

I'll leave it there before i get into a full rant about D&D Lycanthropes.

I don't think it's always wrong to do so, just that I would be sure the player was cool with it. I don't want any potential hard feelings because I decided to make them an evil spirit's new meat suit.

As for Lycanthropes, I'm fine with them defying alignment, but I don't like it in large numbers*. "Oh you mean I can have a fur coat and hunt game with the efficiency of a wolf pack? Sounds better than starving to death on the dirt farm, sign me up." It just strikes me if it isn't at least partially a real curse, why are good werebeasts not sharing? Which is why I would make werebears be nontransferable in the classic way. They're usually good, so them not turning those who want it is weird. It's literally a boost in survivability.

*Mind you, this is in their hybrid and beast forms. Most lycanthropes have no control and are average people, possessed by a thirst for blood. They're victims of their affliction, though some do embrace it and become truly evil.

[Dr. Cliché]

I don't think it's always wrong to do so, just that I would be sure the player was cool with it. I don't want any potential hard feelings because I decided to make them an evil spirit's new meat suit.

See, my attitude is more one of 'you're playing in my campaign, you know the risks'. :smallwink:



As for Lycanthropes, I'm fine with them defying alignment, but I don't like it in large numbers*. "Oh you mean I can have a fur coat and hunt game with the efficiency of a wolf pack? Sounds better than starving to death on the dirt farm, sign me up." It just strikes me if it isn't at least partially a real curse, why are good werebeasts not sharing? Which is why I would make werebears be nontransferable in the classic way. They're usually good, so them not turning those who want it is weird. It's literally a boost in survivability.

Well, especially for werebears (and weretigers to a lesser extent) it really does make me question the 'curse' aspect.



*Mind you, this is in their hybrid and beast forms. Most lycanthropes have no control and are average people, possessed by a thirst for blood. They're victims of their affliction, though some do embrace it and become truly evil.

That's the thing though - I don't see why accepting/embracing it makes you evil in the first place. Why can I not embrace my lycanthropy and use it to accomplish my current goals - including good/noble ones (or even just non-evil ones)? I wouldn't even mind it being something of a struggle, with a constant temptation to use violence.

But no, once you accept that you're a werewolf, you just turn into a psychotic murderer. In exactly the same way that a wolf isn't. :smallconfused:

It annoys me because it renders the choice to embrace the curse in the first place completely moot - since you basically become a different person anyway (ergo your choice had no meaning, because you're no longer playing the same person who made that choice).

Also, as above, it bugs me that it's not even a curse unless you were bitten by the right sort of werebeast.

[Angelalex242]

See, my attitude is more one of 'you're playing in my campaign, you know the risks'. :smallwink:



Well, especially for werebears (and weretigers to a lesser extent) it really does make me question the 'curse' aspect.



That's the thing though - I don't see why accepting/embracing it makes you evil in the first place. Why can I not embrace my lycanthropy and use it to accomplish my current goals - including good/noble ones (or even just non-evil ones)? I wouldn't even mind it being something of a struggle, with a constant temptation to use violence.

But no, once you accept that you're a werewolf, you just turn into a psychotic murderer. In exactly the same way that a wolf isn't. :smallconfused:

It annoys me because it renders the choice to embrace the curse in the first place completely moot - since you basically become a different person anyway (ergo your choice had no meaning, because you're no longer playing the same person who made that choice).

Also, as above, it bugs me that it's not even a curse unless you were bitten by the right sort of werebeast.

Well...it depends. Does the werebear keep his class abilities while transformed? Or is he stuck being a monster manual werebear? Otherwise, the Curse is from the fact you lose all your powers in bear form.

[DeadMech]

For werebears the curse is power hungry people coming looking to exploit you either for your strength or eager to gain it for themselves. I think in lore it's supposed to be a blessing from a particular god but the way things work it's easier for good to become evil than the opposite. As for why not share with everyone I've heard at least one person suggest werebears should require quite a larger ecological footprint than a typical person. So aside from a few small family units an area of wilderness wouldn't provide enough food to keep up with the increased metabolism.

[Luccan]

See, my attitude is more one of 'you're playing in my campaign, you know the risks'. :smallwink:



Well, especially for werebears (and weretigers to a lesser extent) it really does make me question the 'curse' aspect.



That's the thing though - I don't see why accepting/embracing it makes you evil in the first place. Why can I not embrace my lycanthropy and use it to accomplish my current goals - including good/noble ones (or even just non-evil ones)? I wouldn't even mind it being something of a struggle, with a constant temptation to use violence.

But no, once you accept that you're a werewolf, you just turn into a psychotic murderer. In exactly the same way that a wolf isn't. :smallconfused:

It annoys me because it renders the choice to embrace the curse in the first place completely moot - since you basically become a different person anyway (ergo your choice had no meaning, because you're no longer playing the same person who made that choice).

Also, as above, it bugs me that it's not even a curse unless you were bitten by the right sort of werebeast.

Can't properly respond (on mobile) but one thing: no one is saying wolves are bloodthirsty. But the curse doesnt just turn you into a wolf, it turns you into a murderous shapechanger who takes the form of a wolf. The disease might make you somewhat like the animal (I assume tigers working solo or in pairs is why there aren't many weretigers) but it also changes who you are, at least in beast and hybrid form. Although another direction to go is to say only evil lycanthropes change your alignment. Maybe werebears don't and that's why they don't just give it awat: you don't want to risk creating evil werebears

[Unoriginal]

That's the thing though - I don't see why accepting/embracing it makes you evil in the first place. Why can I not embrace my lycanthropy and use it to accomplish my current goals - including good/noble ones (or even just non-evil ones)? I wouldn't even mind it being something of a struggle, with a constant temptation to use violence.

But no, once you accept that you're a werewolf, you just turn into a psychotic murderer. In exactly the same way that a wolf isn't. :smallconfused:

It annoys me because it renders the choice to embrace the curse in the first place completely moot - since you basically become a different person anyway (ergo your choice had no meaning, because you're no longer playing the same person who made that choice).

Also, as above, it bugs me that it's not even a curse unless you were bitten by the right sort of werebeast.

Look, if you accept the curse, you accept that an evil being that is not a wolf but a psychotic murderer which has the worst aspects of the animalistic behavior takes over your body.

THIS is why it's a curse.

There is no "but I want to accept my lycanthropy to accomplish noble deeds", because you're cursed by an evil, nasty thing in order to spread murder and destruction.

Embracing the curse IS the bad choice, and it's on purpose.

Now, Werebears and Weretigers are still cursed, but the difference is that they can control what kind of being they're becoming, to an extant.


Although another direction to go is to say only evil lycanthropes change your alignment. Maybe werebears don't and that's why they don't just give it awat: you don't want to risk creating evil werebears


The MM specifically says that there are evil Werebears, but that the good ones have trained for years to control the "beast".

[Dr. Cliché]

For werebears the curse is power hungry people coming looking to exploit you either for your strength or eager to gain it for themselves.

But you could say that about any positive thing.

I guess One Punch Man is also "cursed". :smalltongue:


Can't properly respond (on mobile) but one thing: no one is saying wolves are bloodthirsty. But the curse doesnt just turn you into a wolf, it turns you into a murderous shapechanger who takes the form of a wolf.

But then why do different animals result in different alignments? Why don't they all just turn you evil?


Look, if you accept the curse, you accept that an evil being that is not a wolf but a psychotic murderer which has the worst aspects of the animalistic behavior takes over your body.

Unless you're a werebear. Or a weretiger.


THIS is why it's a curse.

See above.


There is no "but I want to accept my lycanthropy to accomplish noble deeds", because you're cursed by an evil, nasty thing in order to spread murder and destruction.

Unless you're a werebear. Or a weretiger.


Now, Werebears and Weretigers are still cursed, but the difference is that they can control what kind of being they're becoming, to an extant.

But why? Why does this curse function so differently for them - to the point where a good person turning into a werebear is basically an all-round good result? There's literally no dilemma involved.

"Would I like to control this form whilst keeping my personality and sacrificing absolutely nothing return? Gee, I'll have to think about this one."

At the absolute worst, you've got two other forms that you never have to use if you don't want to.

I think whoever came up with this really needs to invest in a dictionary so that they can look up what a curse is.



The MM specifically says that there are evil Werebears, but that the good ones have trained for years to control the "beast".

Which is complete nonsense and clearly contradicted by the actual rules. Because if a person embraces the curse then they immediately become Neutral Good. There is literally no mechanic (beyond DM fiat) to turn them evil.

[DeadMech]

But you could say that about any positive thing.
I guess One Punch Man is also "cursed". :smalltongue:


I'm the kind of person who gets suspicious of my DM when they give me an unusually expensive item assuming I'm about to become the local pickpockets newest mark.

[Angelalex242]

I'm the kind of person who gets suspicious of my DM when they give me an unusually expensive item assuming I'm about to become the local pickpockets newest mark.

My current DM is more the sort where 'great, you have a silver dragon on the team, now go kill 2 ancient dragons per session. Sometimes 3.' :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

My current DM is more the sort where 'great, you have a silver dragon on the team, now go kill 2 ancient dragons per session. Sometimes 3.' :smalltongue:

So now it's the adventures of the Silver Dragon, with the PCs as sidekicks ?

[No brains]

Being a PC in even a lighter D&D game is sort of an abyss stating contest already, so getting swept up in some transformative curses is sort of par for the course.


If you're fine with a PC being a shallow, violent caricature of a person, obsessed by possessing material object rather than what they signify, and who considers everyone, including the rest of the party, to only be tools to satiate their urges...


Nevermind.

Largely it depends on what's fun for the rest of the table. It can go any way so long as the rest of us agree that's what we can enjoy.

Sidebar: How would some of you deal with some of the rarer transformations, like Chaos Phage or even a Reincarnate spell? Is there as much baggage attached to turning into a hobgoblin or a frog-doppelganger?

[Unoriginal]

Sidebar: How would some of you deal with some of the rarer transformations, like Chaos Phage or even a Reincarnate spell? Is there as much baggage attached to turning into a hobgoblin or a frog-doppelganger?

I'm not sure I recall it correctly, but isn't Chaos Phage you being eaten by a Slaad rather than you becoming one?


As for Reincarnation: there is not as much baggage. You're still you, just from a different humanoid species.

Now of course people will treat you differently, and you might have personal issues with your new body, but fundamentaly there's no more issue with being an hobgoblin than there is from, say, being from an human country who has tried to attack other countries using devils, in term of reputation.

[Temperjoke]

I think it would depend on 2 things for me: the player involved, and the campaign itself. If the player isn't the sort that can handle that sort of change properly (ie, suddenly turns on other party members because they can't do anything to stop him) then nope, the character is an npc for now (the party might find a way to restore the character for example). On the other hand, if the player acts responsibly then I don't see that I should automatically take the character away. It also depends on the campaign. If we're talking a dark fantasy campaign, such as Curse of Strahd, where a vampire PC isn't out of place, then that wouldn't cause me to take the character.

I'd have certain requirements though. The PC no longer can gain class levels, for example, while existing as a vampire. Mechanically, this is to offset the advantages a vampire gets, and lore-wise reflects the fact that they're undead. If they're a cleric, they're going to have to take a new deity and domain. They're going to have to abide by the grave requirements, sunlight, etc., that vampires have. And like I said, it has to fit the campaign to an extent. If the party is a group of monster hunters, having a player become what they once hunted is a trope, but it does make for good character development. If it's an evil campaign, then they'll fit right in. On the other hand, if it's something like Tomb of Annihilation, then a vampire would be way out of place.

[Sigreid]

But you could say that about any positive thing.

I guess One Punch Man is also "cursed". :smalltongue:



But then why do different animals result in different alignments? Why don't they all just turn you evil?



Unless you're a werebear. Or a weretiger.



See above.



Unless you're a werebear. Or a weretiger.



But why? Why does this curse function so differently for them - to the point where a good person turning into a werebear is basically an all-round good result? There's literally no dilemma involved.

"Would I like to control this form whilst keeping my personality and sacrificing absolutely nothing return? Gee, I'll have to think about this one."

At the absolute worst, you've got two other forms that you never have to use if you don't want to.

I think whoever came up with this really needs to invest in a dictionary so that they can look up what a curse is.



Which is complete nonsense and clearly contradicted by the actual rules. Because if a person embraces the curse then they immediately become Neutral Good. There is literally no mechanic (beyond DM fiat) to turn them evil.

My interpretation of the text around wearbear is that their animal impulses are just as berserk as the others. The Lawful Good comes from them only allowing progeny to survive who are willing to separate themselves from people and minimize the risk while protecting something worthwhile the rest of the time.

For weretiger, I see the neutral in the description of how they are basically hillbillies. They don't really care for town or company and if you leave them alone they aren't going to go out of their way to mess with you.

Edit: As for vampires, they would make lousy adventurers. The need to carry a vulnerable coffin or a lot of dirt every where they went in order to get a long rest in would suck.

[Angelalex242]

So now it's the adventures of the Silver Dragon, with the PCs as sidekicks ?

Not exactly. More like 'Rise of Tiamat got turned into Dragonlance. Human/Dragon pairings are expected in that sort of game. I'm waiting for the GM to hand me a +3 Lance of Dragonslaying any time now. :P

[Angelalex242]

My interpretation of the text around wearbear is that their animal impulses are just as berserk as the others. The Lawful Good comes from them only allowing progeny to survive who are willing to separate themselves from people and minimize the risk while protecting something worthwhile the rest of the time.

For weretiger, I see the neutral in the description of how they are basically hillbillies. They don't really care for town or company and if you leave them alone they aren't going to go out of their way to mess with you.

Edit: As for vampires, they would make lousy adventurers. The need to carry a vulnerable coffin or a lot of dirt every where they went in order to get a long rest in would suck.

Nah. Vampire can just stash his coffin in a bag of holding and call it good. Hell, he doesn't need to breathe, so he can take his 8 hour long rest IN the bag of holding!

[Sigreid]

Nah. Vampire can just stash his coffin in a bag of holding and call it good. Hell, he doesn't need to breathe, so he can take his 8 hour long rest IN the bag of holding!

One thing I often see missing in bag of holding talk is the limitation of the circumference of the opening.

[Joe dirt]

If they are good at roll playing and u have an already evil campaign then just let them play it.... just send peasants with pitchforks and valiant knights to slay them

[Angelalex242]

One thing I often see missing in bag of holding talk is the limitation of the circumference of the opening.

Okay, fine. Portable hole, then. :P

[furby076]

If you're fine with a PC being a shallow, violent caricature of a person, obsessed by possessing material object rather than what they signify, and who considers everyone, including the rest of the party, to only be tools to satiate their urges...


Nevermind.

seems like a typical adventuring party

[No brains]

I'm not sure I recall it correctly, but isn't Chaos Phage you being eaten by a Slaad rather than you becoming one?

A slaad either hatches from the claw-eggs of a red slaad or is transformed by the disease of a blue slaad. The slaadpole chestburster probably just kills the host, but the disease says it transforms the afflicted. It can be cured right before the transformation or it can only be reversed by wish afterwards.

Slaad's habits aren't really described beyond 'spreading chaos', so a shapeshifting Green Slaad that came from an adventurer that had firebolt could really fool anyone into thinking its the same. There's also a note that it has all the memories of its past forms, so presumably it remembers its human memories.