Does being a vampire change personality?

[pendell]

Since when does free will have anything to do with alignment?

Alignment makes no sense if free will is not involved. A creature must have an INT of at least 3 to have an alignment, because alignment in D&D implies 1) the being possess the ability to reason 2) the being has the ability to choose.

That's a general rule.

Do zombies have free will?

That's an exception to the rule. If *I* were writing the rule book I would put zombies as neutral because they are mindless robots, no more capable of rational decisions than a cardboard box is. They are classified as evil because, being animated by negative energy, the force of evil, they are considered evil also. Presumably this is why even a good vampire would detect as evil.

We've previously had the D&D example of the lawful good succubus paladin. I'm told that such a being would register as "good" on detect good due to her personal choices, but still ping as "evil" on "detect evil" because they are essentially MADE of evil, being creatures of the Lower Planes.

No one, incidentally suggested that the aforesaid lawful good succubus should banish herself, or use polymorph other to change into some other creature (is that even possible?) Rather, IF she was a paladin that means she both adhered to lawful good conduct by choice, and the good gods accepted her profession of lawful good by giving her paladin powers, regardless of her nature.

Presumably the same thing is technically possible for vampires, and probably on a much larger scale since vampires were once living beings and have some recall of what it means to be mortal, while a succubus has presumably spent most of its existence in a hellish environment saturated by evil.

Furthermore, free will versus determinism is a difficult subject in general. Nature versus nurture and whatnot. For instance, take Drow. They're generally Evil. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority are clearly Evil. How can a race of free-willed individuals so consistently choose Evil? Does that really make any sense?

BEHOLD THE POWA OF RATIONALIZATION! Yes. yes, it makes PERFECT sense.

I hate to use a real world example but at the moment I'm at a loss to think of a fantasy world which illustrates this principal. Once upon a time the major trade and basis for the entire economy of the Atlantic was slaves, sugar (harvested by the slaves in backbreaking conditions) and rum (distilled from the sugar). Read hard, and you'll find that very few people questioned this state of affairs. And many of the people who participated in this trade, or owned slaves themselves, considered themselves good people. Some of them insufferably so.

Or consider the Aztec Empire. Read hard, and you'll find very few aztecs who questioned the way there society was set up.

There are at least two reasons for this:

1) Societies don't encourage questioning their fundamental assumptions. Societies , real or fantastic, are at least in part a compact of rules by which people interact with each other. To the extent they don't play by these rules, to that extent they are outside of society and rebels against it. The more they push, the less society can accept them to the point of exile, imprisonment, or death.

2) That said, very few people ever rise up to question what they see done. When people have been brought up to believe that, say, goblins are evil, they are unlikely to ever question what they've been taught. Indeed, unless they're exposed to other cultures and ways of thinking, it's likely they'll never realize there IS any other way to believe than what they have been taught. It's simply the way things are, as immutable as the sky.

So to get back to your drow example, most drow are the way they are because their forebears chose this path and heavily indoctrinate their children to follow in their footsteps , as all parents do. Those who question the way things are either learn to keep their mouths shut in a hurry or learn to love driderhood .

Being a rebel in such a society in the face of constant indoctrination is hard enough. Being a SUCCESSFUL rebel is even harder. Even Drizzt Do'urden was not successful in that he failed to change his parent's society. The most he could do was escape from it, a form of suicide almost as final as if his mother had sacrificed him. And even Drizzt did not gain his ideas on his own. He had a father who encouraged those ideas in him.

Anyway, we're getting into real-world and philosophical issues, which as I understand it are frowned up on here. But I think zombies are clear evidence that Evil does not imply free will, and Drow are clear evidence that free will isn't as free as we might like/expect.

Point noted. Maybe this is silly of me, but if I were judging a D&D campaign I would judge less by objective good and evil and more by what good and evil the creature was actually capable of, given upbringing and environment. So from my perspective a drow who whipped his slaves twice a week instead of all week and didn't torture them to death for his own sick pleasure might register as more lawful good than a celestial being who littered on the sidewalk. The reason for this is that the drow might very well be doing all the good he was reasonably capable of in his environment, while the Celestial, being a creature of pure law and good dwelling in the seven heavens, is capable of great deal more. Therefore the Celestial should be held to a higher standard.

I suspect D&D doesn't work that way, though.

As for Durkon, I expect he'll be Durkon-like and generally free-willed but also Evil. He'll have some lingering sympathies for his comrades, certainly, but he'll have a new outlook on life. Tarquin's philosophy will make more sense to him, for instance. Malak's status as an undead abomination will be less disgusting.

Vampirism is a curse that changes you on a fundamental level. It taints your thoughts. It makes the formerly inconceivable (drinking blood fresh from a human's veins) suddenly vastly appealing. Durkon won't be automatically Dominated into killing babies and drinking blood, but he'll find the idea far more appealing, and his former principles far less convincing.

That remains to be seen. Different authors have very different takes on this legend ,and I see I must be the only Terry Pratchett fan here.

Woah, long post. Hopefully I get the point across, though. Long story short: Even an unwilling vampire seems to lose more and more good traits due to the Horror Hunger overwhelming all other thoughts and making them lose their mind. Another side effect may simply be numbness and ignorance of the pain the feeding causes, bringing us in on the evil sense of "self before others" and lack of care for others' feelings or general worth.

You did, thank you :).

ETA: If anyone DOES have a fictional example that illustrates my point above, please put it up so I can use it in future. Thanks!

Respectfully,

Brian P.