Does being a vampire change personality?

[Zeitgeist]

I am wondering what will become of Durkon once he is released from Malack's control. I did some reading but I must have missed the roleplaying aspect of being a vampire.

So, you're evil aligned. Does that mean you must behave evil? Can your alignment shift, or is it evil simply for purposes of alignment-based abilities?

Does it change your behavior or loyalty, or is it likely Durkon will still be loyal to the Order (though I'd guess if he were feeling contract bound, dying technically breaks that).

[NerdyKris]

I believe that's left up to the individual campaign world to figure out. We won't have any idea what Rich chooses to do until Malack allows Durkon free will.

[Zeitgeist]

Really? No established rules on the matter? I guess that will at least make it exciting to find out rather than predictable.

[JavaScribe]

I hear Xykon became even worse than he already was when he became a lich. Undeath isn't exactly a healthy state of being and I'm sure there is a reason the vampire template says their alignment is always evil, causing certain classes to lose abilities.

Durkon will remember who he is once released from Malack's thrall, but yes, there will certainly be changes to his personality. Malack already considers his vampire self a separate person to who he was in life.

[ancev]

So, you're evil aligned. Does that mean you must behave evil? Can your alignment shift, or is it evil simply for purposes of alignment-based abilities?
Does it change your behavior or loyalty, or is it likely Durkon will still be loyal to the Order (though I'd guess if he were feeling contract bound, dying technically breaks that).

Well... rules say that a Vampire character "became an evil NPC in the DM hands". If Durkon also remain LE, he just know that works against the DarkOne/Snarl its in the interest of every alignment, races and mortal strategy.

I don't remember if was an official modules or unofficial modules, but I remember the history of a good aligned vampire, because god intervention has preserved purity and previous faith in the vamped. (perhaps with drama of veggie vampire like in TrueBlood series ;) ).

I anyway don't believe that god intervention is the most funny character development that is promised for Durkon. Plus, we I feel like we stand in front of some major twist of the plot, IFCC would sure became a declared enemy in the future strips, and no one can guess what happen when enemy of that manipulative and overseer power join the games.


So,... stay strong, and shame on Thor.

[factotum]

I don't think it *directly* changes your personality, but what it *does* do is give you an absolutely unstoppable craving for the blood of the living. Durkon had to have blood when he awoke as a vampire, and even if a small part of him hated himself for doing it, the easiest way to get that was to feed on Belkar. Of course, he's also a thrall of Malack, which is also depressing his inner self.

I think Malack is certainly under the impression that Durkon will return to something akin to his previous self once he frees him as a thrall, but whether that will actually happen remains to be seen.

[Werbaer]

Malack already considers his vampire self a separate person to who he was in life.

He consideres his current self to be a different personality than the one he was 200 years ago. Who hasn't changed in a few decades?

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, first of all, we don't know for sure yet if Rich is enforcing the normal alignment change that becoming a vampire normally entails. For that, we have to wait until Malack releases Durkon from his control.

Secondly, alignment doesn't dictate one's actions, it essentially just gives one a framework for decision-making. Even if Durkon is now Evil, he still can weigh his priorities when deciding how to interact with his former allies. For all we know, he may remain loyal to the OOTS since loyalty was such a core part of his personality and Evil people are still capable of being loyal.

Of course, Durkon may instead opt to establish a new set of priorities which coincide with his new alignment, in which case his personality could change a lot.

[Tomada]

If changing into a woman will: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0249.html

Then I guess turning a vampire will too. It can be argued that it is a bigger transformation, so...

[pendell]

That's the thing about the vampire template and the alignment system which I don't care for. It mandates a particular alignment. The paladin class also mandates an alignment, but it's different in that the character must voluntarily uphold the alignment or lose his powers. A vampire can't lose his powers, but he also can't lose his alignment ... or at least it's very, very hard to do so and remain a vampire.

This would be more acceptable if becoming a vampire was a free, willing choice in the same way becoming a lich is. As a rule, you've already got to be pretty far down on the evil side of the street to consider becoming an undead abomination in order to cheat death, and actual lichdom is simply the culmination of the choices which lead to an evil alignment.

The same could be said of those willingly embraced vampiredom.

But Durkon and a lot of the other thralls aren't like that. They are not making the free, willing choice to become vampires. Instead, they are victims.

That's a bit of a change from Bram Stoker's version of Dracula. In Stoker's story, vampirism did NOT come from being bitten -- a drained victim simply dies -- but from drinking a vampire's blood. The vampire would drain the victim, then open his own veins and offer to permit the victim to drink the vampire in return. This exchange was what actually resulted in vampirism.

Of course, the victim usually was offered the alternative of "death", but I suspect someone of Durkon's character just might be able to make that choice.

Same with Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire". I forget exactly what was entailed, but the potential vampire had to be a free, willing participant in murder.

In none of the really good vampire fiction are vampires innocent victims unwillingly dragged into a fate worse than death, then compelled to "live" in a way contrary to their own desires. No, in the best vampire fiction the vampires are in some way complicit and accessories to their fate.

D&D doesn't do that.And to me it doesn't make sense that a being can be compelled into an evil alignment. If you are being irresistibly dominated, it is mind control and the victim is not responsible, so the actions their body is forced to should not impact the victim's alignment. OTOH, if the creature has some free will, they should be able to join the equivalent of Terry Pratchett's Black Ribbon (motto: Not One Drop) society. Sure , it's a difficult choice to rise above your passions and base needs but that's as much a part of being a mortal human who's not in jail as it is to be a vampire. And it's easier if you've got people in the same position who can encourage you to be disciplined.

So bottom line the idea that a being can be compelled to embrace an alignment, when alignment is all about the free willing choice of a morally responsible being, is silly.

It'll be interesting to see what Rich does with it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Same with Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire". I forget exactly what was entailed, but the potential vampire had to be a free, willing participant in murder.

Actually no. "Never convert anyone who doesn't agree to it" was a social rule, not a physical rule. The vampire who turned Lestat into a vampire, as an act of deliberate contempt for that rule, asked all his potential convertees to agree to be converted, but he killed all the ones who said "Yes" and didn't turn anyone into a vampire until he found one--Lestat--who insisted he'd rather die.

Forced alignment conversion is indeed...problematic.

[AngryHobbit]

I hear Xykon became even worse than he already was when he became a lich. Undeath isn't exactly a healthy state of being and I'm sure there is a reason the vampire template says their alignment is always evil, causing certain classes to lose abilities.

Durkon will remember who he is once released from Malack's thrall, but yes, there will certainly be changes to his personality. Malack already considers his vampire self a separate person to who he was in life.

The reason Xykon became even worse was because he lost his sense of taste, smell and so on...

Spoiler

Show

He couldnt taste coffee any more, the only thing he enjoyed when he was alive, beside mass slaughter. And you can argue that he didn't become worse, he became more powerful.

And that doesn't apply for vampires in OOTS, we saw Malack and Durkon drinking tea. Not that there are no other factors besides alignment change that can bring to the change of personality in Durkons case.

[RiOrius]

So bottom line the idea that a being can be compelled to embrace an alignment, when alignment is all about the free willing choice of a morally responsible being, is silly.

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

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? Or, as a more general example, don't the circumstances of one's upbringing influence one's outlook (and thus alignment)? Those circumstances are clearly beyond your control. The same person raised by two different families can have vastly different alignments.

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.

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.

[Katuko]

That's a bit of a change from Bram Stoker's version of Dracula. In Stoker's story, vampirism did NOT come from being bitten -- a drained victim simply dies -- but from drinking a vampire's blood. The vampire would drain the victim, then open his own veins and offer to permit the victim to drink the vampire in return. This exchange was what actually resulted in vampirism.

Spoilers for Dracula below (for those who haven't read it or know the whole story).

Spoiler

Show

Having read that book, I seem to recall that when Mina was forced to drink Dracula's blood, she was not happy about it. As the vampirism made her sick and started to cloud her mind, she still used her new telepathic connection the vampire that sired her in order to direct the heroes towards his location.

Van Helsing, who protected her while going to Dracula's castle to get rid of the three vampire brides there, used holy protection measures in case Mina would vamp out completely. It also kept the brides from stealing her away at night. Note that these are baby-eating vamps we are talking about here, and they were presumably turned like Mina was.

Earlier, Mina was recently infected and had not yet started to show any great symptoms, Van Helsing had tried to place a holy wafer on her, which ended up leaving a nasty burn mark instead. Clearly something in Mina's very being was changing, causing her to gain all the typical traits of vampires. Seeing as death/undeath was closing in and a lust for blood must have been rising:

A cold shiver ran through me to find my worst fears thus endorsed. Van Helsing continued.

"With the sad experience of Miss Lucy, we must this time be warned before things go too far. Our task is now in reality more difficult than ever, and this new trouble makes every hour of the direst importance. I can see the characteristics of the vampire coming in her face. It is now but very, very slight. But it is to be seen if we have eyes to notice without prejudge. Her teeth are sharper, and at times her eyes are more hard. But these are not all, there is to her the silence now often, as so it was with Miss Lucy. She did not speak, even when she wrote that which she wished to be known later. Now my fear is this. If it be that she can, by our hypnotic trance, tell what the Count see and hear, is it not more true that he who have hypnotize her first, and who have drink of her very blood and make her drink of his, should if he will, compel her mind to disclose to him that which she know?"

I got ready food, but she would not eat, simply saying that she had not hunger. I did not press her, knowing her unavailingness. But I myself eat, for I must needs now be strong for all. Then, with the fear on me of what might be, I drew a ring so big for her comfort, round where Madam Mina sat. And over the ring I passed some of the wafer, and I broke it fine so that all was well guarded. She sat still all the time, so still as one dead. And she grew whiter and even whiter till the snow was not more pale, and no word she said. But when I drew near, she clung to me, and I could know that the poor soul shook her from head to feet with a tremor that was pain to feel.

I said to her presently, when she had grown more quiet, "Will you not come over to the fire?" for I wished to make a test of what she could. She rose obedient, but when she have made a step she stopped, and stood as one stricken.

"Why not go on?" I asked. She shook her head, and coming back, sat down in her place. Then, looking at me with open eyes, as of one waked from sleep, she said simply,"I cannot!" and remained silent. I rejoiced, for I knew that what she could not, none of those that we dreaded could. Though there might be danger to her body, yet her soul was safe!

Two main plot points are Mina's connection to Dracula, and that via hypnosis she can "see" what he sees. The opposite is true as well, Dracula can see and know what Mina knows if he wants to. Once he realizes he is being hunted via this telepathy, he shuts the power off. However, Mina still changes, and grows paler, more sleepy at day and more awake at night, and she becomes unable to get close to any sanctified objects or areas.

Lucy, the first vampire they meet in London, is likewise a sweet and innocent girl who simply falls ill, and then eventually dies from vampire draining. They know nothing of her until she rises from the grave as a vampire, at which point none of her sweetness and innocence remains. Instead, she has become a blood-drinking beast, with a questionable level of personality compared to instinct.

The "brides" of Dracula and the vampire lord himself, however, seem much more intelligent. Dracula acts like a normal - though wicked - man, and the brides are at least capable of independent thought even though they seem like slaves to him. It seems like a long period of undeath - or at least a willing submission to it - keeps your mind intact; while an unwilling vampire simply loses themselves in the affliction and becomes a beast due to the instinct of hunger.

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.

[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.

[JavaScribe]

He consideres his current self to be a different personality than the one he was 200 years ago. Who hasn't changed in a few decades?

I'm sure that helps, but if that's all there was to it, then why did he say that raising him would just be a more complicated way of destroying him?

[Obscure Blade]

I'm sure that helps, but if that's all there was to it, then why did he say that raising him would just be a more complicated way of destroying him?

Would he remember anything of his vampiric life? From the way he talked, it sounded like the 200-year-dead shaman would be raised, and the last 200 years of unlife would just be erased.

[Ronnoc]

So bottom line the idea that a being can be compelled to embrace an alignment, when alignment is all about the free willing choice of a morally responsible being, is silly.

I've always viewed undeath as a complete restructuring of the character. On a very basic level the undead is not the same entity they were prior to their conversion. They may have the same memories and appearance and they certainly can use those traits to manipulate their prey, but the undead fundamentally are not the same beings they were created from. We aren't dealing with Durkon, we're dealing with Malak's freshly created brother who just happens to be wearing a Durkon shaped meat-puppet.

Now the Giant may choose to go an entirely different direction with his take on vampirism, but that's how I've always viewed it.

[JavaScribe]

Would he remember anything of his vampiric life? From the way he talked, it sounded like the 200-year-dead shaman would be raised, and the last 200 years of unlife would just be erased.

Are you saying that ressurection literally causes amnesia, or that vampire Malack is a different entity from living Malack?

The former is doubtful, the latter would only prove my point.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I don't think either is correct, that is an extremely literal interpretation. I just got that he's been undead for a long time, longer than he was alive, and taking that away would be taking away a big part of his identity.

[Soylent Dave]

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!

Babylon 5 -

Spoiler

Show

The Centauri conquer and enslave the Narn, and most regard them as little more than unevolved barbarians who must be controlled via brutality, genetic cleansing and re-education.

Within the series, only one or two individual Centauri (Vir, Emperor Turhan) ever voice the opinion that what they are doing is wrong - and are painted as insane or out of touch for doing so.

Battlestar Galactica -

Spoiler

Show

Humans build Cylons as artificially-intelligent robot slaves, and when the Cylons inevitably rebel and lay waste to Humanity, most Humans still regard Cylons as soulless monsters who want to kill us for no reason.

Cylons conversely think of us as hated, godless oppressors who must be exterminated in order for them to survive, even after they've annihilated all 12 human colonies and forced the remaining few humans to flee as refugees.

There are few on either side who are capable of seeing the others as people, or of even conceiving any kind of compromise (ultimately essential for either species to prosper), much less fighting for one.

(and anyone who voices such dissension - Human or Cylon - is shouted down as a traitor or collaborator; there are even executions (on both sides) for this)

[Obscure Blade]

Are you saying that ressurection literally causes amnesia, or that vampire Malack is a different entity from living Malack?

The former theory has some support; Roy doesn't remember much about his time in the afterlife. And if it does that directly implies the latter, given that removing 200 years of personality change would amount to turning someone into a different person.

And really, if it didn't involve some major change than Malack would have no reason to consider it to be "annihilating the person I've become", or even permanent; he could just get himself re-vampirized.

[sims796]

I hope it does change personality. I like my vampires evil, bloodsucking monsters.

[Obscure Blade]

Roy: "You're an undead monstrosity! You're nothing like the Durkon we knew!"

Vampire!Durkon: "...I still hate trees."

Roy: "All right, almost nothing like the Durkon we knew!"

[factotum]

Are you saying that ressurection literally causes amnesia, or that vampire Malack is a different entity from living Malack?

The former is doubtful, the latter would only prove my point.

Why is the former doubtful? The Resurrection spell is capable of restoring somebody to life from a spare toenail or something like that--True Resurrection doesn't even need that. Essentially you're completely recreating the person's physical form from scratch, *including* their brain, so to my mind it wouldn't be at all doubtful that this would also restore their memory to more or less the state it was when they died (with maybe some vague shadowy memory of what happened afterward, like Roy got).

If Malack were raised and had the same post-mortem amnesia that afflicted Roy it *would* essentially wipe out 200 years of experience in an instant, and he would be a different person.

[Kish]

I don't think either is correct, that is an extremely literal interpretation. I just got that he's been undead for a long time, longer than he was alive, and taking that away would be taking away a big part of his identity.

I agree with rodneyAnonymous.

What Malack said looked like a metaphor to me.

[Laughing Dragon]

There are some interesting points being brought up here, and in reading through this thread I thought of something:

Durkon has (or at least had) a soul. The question is: is that soul still in residence in his body, or has it gone to his afterlife with Thor?

If his original soul has gone to be with Thor, (which would explain why Malack said that bringing him back to life would just be a complicated way of destroying him) then that means that there is one of two things going on. 1)A "new" soul is now in Durkon's body and pulling information from his "wet web" to form a Durkon-like personality ... OR 2)His body is now operating "sans-soul" which would make ALL moral questions about his alignment moot (outside of the mechanical functionality which an alignment provides/creates). Without a soul, he would be a pure being "of the now" and would (or at least should) face no ultimate consequences for any actions he might take. (Side question, would a God accept or hear or be motivated to respond to, the prayers of a soul-less body?)

Going with the "his body has a soul" side of the argument (otherwise why would giving Durkon free will imediately be confusing for him) the question becomes, "Is he still 'Durkon' or has he become 'Nokrud'? And if he's actually Nokrud, will we get a Durkon-in-the-afterlife storyline, like we did with Roy?

This has to be THE question, since in D&D becoming a vampire is something that is done to you (like rape), unlike the Rice universe where becoming a vampire has at least a measure of free will implying that the core personality has the required seeds for vampireism. All I'm trying to say here is that untimately "the rape of Durkon" should not be able to make him permanently evil. But, once again, if he's now Nokrud all bets are off.

[hamishspence]

There are some interesting points being brought up here, and in reading through this thread I thought of something:

Durkon has (or at least had) a soul. The question is: is that soul still in residence in his body, or has it gone to his afterlife with Thor?

I'd say the odds are against it being in the afterlife. Even Libris Mortis, which suggests that in the case of some intelligent undead, the soul has gone on to the afterlife, doesn't specify that vampires are among those undead.

While Complete Divine does specify that the soul of the original living creature is trapped within the body of the vampire.

[pendell]

Without a soul, he would be a pure being "of the now" and would (or at least should) face no ultimate consequences for any actions he might take. (Side question, would a God accept or hear or be motivated to respond to, the prayers of a soul-less body?)

I'm not sure how it works in D&D, but I suspect a soul-less being would be incapable of forming the intent to pray in the first place, so the question would be moot.

That depends a lot on just what "soul" means though. To me, 'soul' is the part of a rational being that says "I will" -- the "I am" in "I think, therefore I am". Consequently a soulless being would have no volition of its own, being a robot operating at the will of another, like a golem.

Not everyone defines soul that way. Joss Whedon's Buffy shows "soul" as being synonymous with conscience -- the "unsouled monsters" in his stories retain their own volition but no longer have any check on the evil within them. That's the difference between angel and angelus.

So mileage varies, depending on what exactly a "soul" is in OOTS world. I would be surprised, however, if Durkon's soul was not trapped in the body. The experience of Mamma black dragon seems to imply that a souled undead has its soul return from the afterlife to be trapped in the undead body.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

In the 2nd ed Book of Lairs (collection of short quests) the Crimson Death one is set by a vampire-

he remembers his soul leaving his body- he heard a voice telling him that he could become human again by getting his soul back- and once his sire was dead, he did the research, and found out what his soul had become (a monster called a Crimson Death) and eventually, where it was.

So he hires The Party to retrieve it.

So you can have a soulless undead, which nonetheless has volition, and a desire to change its condition.