Vampires are not inherently evil

[Bad Wolf]

With the most recent comic, it got me thinking about the subject. While they do take rather quickly to murder and mayhem, they have a lot going against them.

1: Vampire spirits are created by gods of death like Hel and Nergal. While Nergal's exact alignment is unknown, Malack's behavior suggests that he's evil-aligned. Thus, they have a rather raw deal at the start, as an evil aligned death god would not make a spirit that leans towards good behavior.

2: When a vampire spirit forms, it absorbs the worst, darkest moments of the host's life first. Thus, its general attitude is formed. While there may be a saint out there who's never had a bad day in his life, the odds that they get vampirized are pretty low.

This sets the spirit's general atritude, leading it towards evil-aligned behavior. By the time it absorbs all of the memories, it's too much of its own person to be rocked like Durkula would be.

If a vampire managed to somehow absorb the best memories of its host first, then it would probably turn out pretty well.


Thoughts?

[2D8HP]

Well, the list you gave seems to indicate that new Stickverse vampires aren't "inherently" so much as "very much likely".

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

[pyrefiend]

Well, the list you gave seems to indicate that new Stickverse vampires aren't "inherently" so much as "very much likely".

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

I think that's exactly what he's getting at, and I think it's an interesting enough point.

[Dragonus45]

So going by D&D rules, even a race with the Always Evil stat line will still deviate in roughly less then a percent of cases. This is an insanely rare outlier and probably not enough to start declaring that negative energy empowered creatures with an existence created whole cloth from the deepest evils and most painful memories of the host are somehow not inherently evil.

[factotum]

It's really just semantics at this point. Vampires are listed as "Always evil" in the SRD, but as Dragonus45 points out, that still allows for the occasional outlier--mainly, one suspects, because the guys who wrote D&D didn't want to restrict the DM from doing anything they like. Good vampire fighting an Evil platinum dragon? Sure, why not, knock yourself out!

[Synesthesy]

In ootsworld, I would say that speed is important. More time you need to absorb all host's memories, more (probably evil) vampire experience you add to them. Greg instead have little experience to add to Durkon's, and Dukon's memories were so strong and interesting....

[martianmister]

Seems right.

[Fyraltari]

I completely agree with this.



So going by D&D rules, even a race with the Always Evil stat line will still deviate in roughly less then a percent of cases. This is an insanely rare outlier and probably not enough to start declaring that negative energy empowered creatures with an existence created whole cloth from the deepest evils and most painful memories of the host are somehow not inherently evil.
An outlier of one (not one percent, or one in a hundred, mind you, one) is enough to declare something "not inherent".

[Dragonus45]

I completely agree with this.



An outlier of one (not one percent, or one in a hundred, mind you, one) is enough to declare something "not inherent".

Hardly, in order to pull this off he effectively turned the vampire into a totally different person who he was before by replacing everything about who it was.

[Cazero]

Hardly, in order to pull this off he effectively turned the vampire into a totally different person who he was before by replacing everything about who it was.
"Vampire" is a denomination of the undead body, not the spirit controlling it. Since vampire are people, claiming they are inherently Evil requires some supernatural clause like Demons changing creature type when they change alignement.

[Dragonus45]

"Vampire" is a denomination of the undead body, not the spirit controlling it. Since vampire are people, claiming they are inherently Evil requires some supernatural clause like Demons changing creature type when they change alignement.

Well we have already seen positive energy undead ghosts before so for all we know this will end with a type change. Or something totally different is about to happen who knows.

[hamishspence]

"Demons changing creature type when they change alignement.

That's a 5e-ism. 3e doesn't have "any demon that ceases to be Evil ceases to be a demon" text the way 5e does.

There's a certain amount of precedent for celestials changing type to devils, demons, other fiends, etc when they become Evil - but it's not a guarantee. At least one 3e book (Elder Evils) has an Evil celestial that has not changed their type.

[Fyraltari]

Hardly, in order to pull this off he effectively turned the vampire into a totally different person who he was before by replacing everything about who it was.
He did not "replace" anything he just added more. The vampire has always been Durkon. He used to be an incomplete version of Durkon that is now whole, yes but that did not make him a "totally different person" anymore than Durkon now is a totally different person than the one he was when he argued with Sigdi or when he was cast out. The vampire simply grew the Hel up, in the span of a moment, yes but that's about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Vampires are not inherently evil Wesley Snipes(Blade) and Van Helsing disagree. Back to you.

An outlier of one (not one percent, or one in a hundred, mind you, one) is enough to declare something "not inherent". Vampires aren't a race, are they? Any race can be vamped (as we've seen in this comic and in D&D rules) so the excuse that any race marked evil isn't always so(which is workable) has no application to the discussion of the evil tag on type Undead vampire. not a race.

This point also directed to Dragonus45

[Rrmcklin]

No, vampires most certainly seem to be inherently evil. That does not equate to saying they can't ever be good (or at least not evil), though.

And if you want to talk about good vampires, I really don't think you should be using what happened with Durkon as an example. According to Rich this happened because of a combination of unusual circumstances and even then only works because of who Durkon is.

The vampire didn't so much as choose to be good, as had who it is entirely remade. It's fairly clear the end result of the normal process would not have been this.

[Fyraltari]

Wesley Snipes(Blade) and Van Helsing disagree. Back to you.
What do they have to do with the Order of the Stick?

Vampires aren't a race, are they?
Yes they are. Durkon* and every other vampire are a sentient beings who were born, the idea that since they require an host to come into being means they are not a race is just wrong. They are a group of people who have, from birth, physical attributes in common they do not share with others*, what more do you want?

Because, really it's not how they came into being that's important. What's important is wether or not, in the universe you create, one can point to an entire group of people and say "they are all X" and the attitudes it promotes in real life.

*Mandatory reminder that "human races" have been scientifically disproven since the extinction of homo neanderthalensis and any attempt to divide a large enough population into "races" is doomed to fail.

[Rrmcklin]

What do they have to do with the Order of the Stick?

Yes they are. Durkon* and every other vampire are a sentient beings who were born, the idea that since they require an host to come into being means they are not a race is just wrong. They are a group of people who have, from birth, physical attributes in common they do not share with others*, what more do you want?

Because, really it's not how they came into being that's important. What's important is wether or not, in the universe you create, one can point to an entire group of people and say "they are all X" and the attitudes it promotes in real life.

*Mandatory reminder that "human races" have been scientifically disproven since the extinction of homo neanderthalensis and any attempt to divide a large enough population into "races" is doomed to fail.

This seems needlessly pedantic. Tell me, do you have an issue with the fact that all demons/devils/daemons are portrayed as evil?

[Cazero]

No, vampires most certainly seem to be inherently evil. That does not equate to saying they can't ever be good (or at least not evil), though.On the contrary, inherently evil means exactly that it is litteraly impossible for them to be or become good.
I think you mean to say that vampire are always born evil (but can change).

[Fyraltari]

No, vampires most certainly seem to be inherently evil. That does not equate to saying they can't ever be good (or at least not evil), though.[
It does though.
inherent: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent) involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit.

And if you want to talk about good vampires, I really don't think you should be using what happened with Durkon as an example. According to Rich this happened because of a combination of unusual circumstances and even then only works because of who Durkon is.

The vampire didn't so much as choose to be good, as had who it is entirely remade. It's fairly clear the end result of the normal process would not have been this.
So what? It still means it can happen (because it did). The vampire did not choose to be good anymore than Durkon, I don't see how that's relevant.

This seems needlessly pedantic.
Oh trust me, I can go, much more pedantic. KorvinStarmast stated that vampires were not a race, how do you expect me to disagree with that without explaining what I think constitute a race?

Tell me, do you have an issue with the fact that all demons/devils/daemons are portrayed as evil?
Less of one. Sabine has demonstrated a capability for love so she is not utterly evil just a whole damn lot.
There's also the fact that fiends are not free-willed but incarnations of their respective alignments.

[Rrmcklin]

So what? It still means it can happen (because it did). The vampire did not choose to be good anymore than Durkon, I don't see how that's relevant.

Except Durkon does choose to be good. Saying he doesn't completely invalidates his life and struggles. That a person's choices are influence by their life experiences does not mean they are not choices. That's ridiculous.


Oh trust me, I can go, much more pedantic. KorvinStarmast stated that vampires were not a race, how do you expect me to disagree with that without explaining what I think constitute a race?

I mean, I can argue against you too. Vampires don't seem to have families, culture, a shared language, any of the thing often used to define "races".


Less of one. Sabine has demonstrated a capability for love so she is not utterly evil just a whole damn lot.
There's also the fact that fiends are not free-willed but incarnations of their respective alignments.

Love is not a good person thing, being capable of it doesn't somehow make someone less evil. How can you claim that fiends are not free-willed and also go on about Sabine's ability to love Nale? Those are inherently contradictory. That they are incarnations of their alignments doesn't make them less free-willed.

As people love bringing up that Paladin Succubus fiends can most certainly go against their respective alignments; their very nature would just prevent them from wanting to do so ordinarily. Which, coincidentally, seems to also apply to vampires and the undead as whole. Your not making a very persuasive argument. Free-will is just about the possibility of making a choice, it doesn't mean all choices have to be equally likely.

[factotum]

Love is not a good person thing, being capable of it doesn't somehow make someone less evil.

This. I mean, the Giant has an example somewhere on this very website of having two Evil guys working together to conquer the world, and never betraying each other as the PCs expected because they were childhood friends. I don't imagine someone who sets up scenarios like that is under the impression that being Evil makes it impossible for someone to love.

[hamishspence]

I don't imagine someone who sets up scenarios like that is under the impression that being Evil makes it impossible for someone to love.

The theory may be that Love is an intrinsically good thing - but, a character who has one Good trait and many Evil traits, is Evil-aligned overall.

Which is probably why the Paladin Succubus's first step away from Evil, was falling in love - her path to redemption began there, but was long and difficult.

[Fyraltari]

Because this isn't a vampire choosing to be good, this is the host forcing the vampire to become exactly like him.
Not really, Durkon* wanted to understand, and the only to do so was to become good and the only way Durkon could help him do that was the same way he did through his own experiences.

At no point have I said vampires have to be evil forever, but if you're talking about free-willed choice, this is not an example of it.
Then what are you saying?



I mean, I can argue against you too.
I know. I never said otherwise.

Vampires don't seem to have families, culture, a shared language, any of the thing often used to define "races".
Malack at least considered his various spawns families.
I am not aware of any definition of race that includes "shared culture and language". Any definition of race that I know of includes that you belong to one and only one race form the moment of your birth (when you know nothing of language or culture) until your death (and so cannot change your race while you can very much learn languages and integrate to new culture).




Love is not a good person thing,
NO but it is a good thing.

being capable of it doesn't somehow make someone less evil.
I do not believe that calling someone "evil" makes actual sense as no-one has ever put forth a set of criterion that would allow for a clear distinction. However it is generally accepted that the core concept of "evil" is an acceptance to make other suffer, while love is the desire to put someone's well being before all other consideration. So yes having people that one does not want to be hurt does make one less evil that someone who has no such people.


How can you claim that fiends are not free-willed and also go on about Sabine's ability to love Nale? Those are inherently contradictory.
No they are not. She has no choice wether to be evil or not but that doesn't mean she has to be 100% evil, there can be nuances even among fiends.

That they are incarnations of their alignments doesn't make them less free-willed.
Yes it does since said alignments are about morality. I did say I still saw it as a problem, mind you, just less of one than the undeads'.

As people love bringing up that Paladin Succubus fiends can most certainly go against their respective alignments; their very nature would just prevent them from wanting to do so ordinarily.
She's not in OOTS so I don't care.

Which, coincidentally, seems to also apply to vampires and the undead as whole.
Well a vampire just turned into Durkon and Durkon is not evil so it "seems" not to apply.

Free-will is just about the possibility of making a choice, it doesn't mean all choices have to be equally likely.
Did I say otherwise?

Look I have no idea what position you are defending anymore, originally you said that inherently evil did not mean cannot not be evil, which is just wrong and that the vampire did not make a choice which is defensible.

Is that what you want to talk about?

[KorvinStarmast]

What do they have to do with the Order of the Stick?
It's called humor. :smallwink: (then again, I'd be a lot thinner if telling jokes is what earned me a paycheck) :smalleek:
Yes they are. No, they are an undead creature, and a condition or change of state that can happen to any race in the game (as the game defines race). As you noted in the other thread, let's not get all real world moralizing on this.

In another way of saying this: the creature is already a race when being a vampire happens to it via the usual means (as Malack did to Durkon, as Durkon did to Exarch, etc.) Each of those victims was already a race. Vampire is not a race. (Check the SRD and explain to me in SRD terms why you see it another way).

All of the races are a form of humanoid. Even within the Monsters as Races bit, you start with

Starting Level of a Monster PC
Monsters suitable for play have a level adjustment given in their statistics. Add a monster’s level adjustment to its Humanoids and Class Levels to get the creature’s effective character level, or ECL. Effectively, monsters with a level adjustment become multiclass character when they take class levels. A creature’s “monster class” is always a favored class, and the creature never takes XP penalties for having i

Then go to the rules entry on Vampires: they are creature type undead. That isn't a race in game terms.

[Rrmcklin]

@Fyraltari, put simply, you seem to be overly pedantic about things that ultimately don't matter, and also seemed to have conflict with the message that "It's wrong to say things are always Evil" and so this development is "good". But in doing so it seems like you're ignoring what being free-willed means, and how and why it relates to what's important about being good (or evil, or neutral, whatever).

Because Greg did not choice to become good, and using taking this as a positive Aesop blatantly ignores that something like this could very easily be interpreted as brainwashing someone. Going "Even undead can be good" means nothing if the example of them being "good" was completely foist upon them against their will.

Again, I have no particular thoughts on whether vampires (or other free-willed undead) can be good or not. I imagine they can, but for the purposes of this story they don't matter (I believe the Giant has actually said this). And I'm fine with that, there possibly being some good vampire that choice to not being evil of its own volition doing its own thing, but that's not what's happening here. And what's happening here is because the circumstances and reasoning are so extraordinary they can't even be applied to most vampires, let alone other undead, as the Giant himself said.