Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ezram 07-01-07, 10:25 AM	I ask this because in some settings, vampires aren't necessarily so, and are in fact agents of good :confused:
†Aeolus† 07-01-07, 12:38 PM	I handle Vampires this way: A Vampire starts as a strong, but tragic human. They have to drink blood, to stay "alive", but they don't want to, most of the time. At this point, they are not more evil, than before. As he gets used to drinking blood, he is more eager to get to drink. It may also happen, that the Vampire kills the human he is drinking from. As this happens more often, the less shocked the Vampire is by the sight of a corpse. At this point, he cares less for others, and more for him. Tending towards evil. If the Vampire lives long enough, he turns into a bloodhungry monster. The time it takes to become such a monster, depends from Vampire to Vampire (some tend to embrace the monster, some tend to fight it). The Vampire is evil now. Well, this is my point, but as you said, other settings and people handle it differently. I just like to see Vampires as the humans they were before.
Ezram 07-01-07, 01:32 PM	Another good point - there is the savage, but cunning hunter type vampire, and the regal, sophisitcated, blood is a dietary quirk type vampire.
Heartlezz 07-01-07, 07:46 PM	Vampires are evil because the supposively feed only on humans though that isn't true, they are undead so people are jealous of their ever living life, and because they are more powerful that humans so that is why people make vampires seem evil.:raincloud
joekap 07-02-07, 03:58 PM	Well the whole becoming undead process is what, in theory could turn them evil because of the negative energy that fuels there undeath and because they are no longer human. The look human-ish but they are like another race, and humans are now food. Just like if a cow could think they would think we are evil. Which brings up another point, they feed off of the life blood of other intelligent life forms, which is inherently evil. But in a game mechanics kinda way, they are controlled by what ever or who ever made them a vampire, so if that person was evil then they to are evil.(kinda like a drunk with power type reaction) But this does change from setting to setting. If you look at the eberon campaign setting, undead do not have to be evil and you could be an evil priest of a good aligned god. So really it’s up to the game master. I kinda like the hero vampire type thing, but for most non heroic NPCs who get transformed, they are evil. I am running a D20 future/horror game, and im using the “from the dark heart of space” setting, and im adding vampires but they are not undead; they are mutants that must drink blood. And they are not all bad guys either. So again it’s all game master discretion.
Shadojack 07-18-07, 11:02 PM	I consider all vampires to be blood sucking, murdering, leeches unfit to be alive or undead as the case maybe. the buffy syndrome aside. Any reasonable thinking creature who willingly trades their soul to become a creature of the night deserves a stake in the heart, end of story. Now for all this crapt about people who didn't want to become vampires but are forced to feed on others, my heart bleeds. you pop a vessel, you get staked simple as that.
DragonBringerX 07-19-07, 03:08 AM	I consider all vampires to be blood sucking, murdering, leeches unfit to be alive or undead as the case maybe. the buffy syndrome aside. Any reasonable thinking creature who willingly trades their soul to become a creature of the night deserves a stake in the heart, end of story. Now for all this crapt about people who didn't want to become vampires but are forced to feed on others, my heart bleeds. you pop a vessel, you get staked simple as that. (in British tone) I say ol' chap...good show :clap:
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 07-24-07, 03:41 AM	Well, them killing people is a good reason.
RobbyPants 07-24-07, 11:31 AM	I ask this because in some settings, vampires aren't necessarily so, and are in fact agents of good :confused: Well, the way I do it in my modified vampire template (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=708607) is to let them make a Will save when they first "awake" to retain their alignment. If they fail, the lawful portion remains the same, but the second half changes to evil. The DC is 10 + 1/2 biter's HD + biter's Cha mod.
DaemeonBlack 07-28-07, 01:35 PM	Well if you look at the Buffy universe vampires are evil because they have no soul when turned. Angel is an exception because he was "cursed" with a soul, so he has his normal human alignment and thus is good. In other things they are evil because of various reasons, such as in D&D they are animated shells of intelligent beings infused with negative energy and under the control of their creator. They are not the person they once were but an undead mockery. I personally love the whole idea of the tragic hero, the vampire who is not inherently evil and fighting his nature through raiding blood banks or feeding on animals to not hurt humans. I personally think that they should have a tendency toward evil with the whole cannibalistic urge to feed on their own kind but treat them something like how †Aeolus† describes them, they can easily start that downward trend to evil if they are not careful.
Sandlphon 07-29-07, 05:54 PM	Evil because they lost their mind.. and humanity.:v:
Ezram 07-30-07, 02:33 AM	You mean the same humans that sell eachother out for a few extra bucks...the same humans that kill eachother due to their skin color? :rolleyes: Please, don't pull out the "lost their humanity" bit. At least vampires have a reason for doing what they do...
Thakowsaizmu 07-30-07, 03:35 AM	Please, don't pull out the "lost their humanity" bit. At least vampires have a reason for doing what they do... Yup, the reason of "Mythology made them that way and they aren't real." That reason.
Ezram 07-30-07, 03:50 AM	:heehee For a minute there, I thought you were going to provide a reason within the scope of vampire lore and not just pull out a "because they say it is"
Sandlphon 07-30-07, 10:41 AM	They are evil to us because they are not human and regard us like we do a hmm... animal? they do not consider themselves evil who would? P.S. tho they are insane....
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 07-30-07, 06:20 PM	Please, don't pull out the "lost their humanity" bit. At least vampires have a reason for doing what they do... "They want to" is not a good reason.
Ezram 07-31-07, 01:24 AM	Humans: Compelled by instinct Vampires: Compelled by evil
Sandlphon 07-31-07, 08:58 AM	No, we are just FOOD to a vampire wether you think eating people is evil?? that is up to you. Although most people would i think. :mrt: :smirk:
Scorpion13 08-03-07, 12:14 AM	Maybe it has something to do withthem being ambulatory corpses who drink the blood of the living? Might have something to do with it.
The Colonel 08-03-07, 03:52 PM	Of course, if you remain alive long enough your humanity will get ground off no matter how good you start off. Once you bury your friends, children and grand children, plus one or more spouses, another generation or two of friends ... sooner or later you'll learn not to get attatched. You'll find that you end up having to develop barriers between yourself and the whole of humanity the same way that, say, a doctor needs to protect himself from his patients. If you continue to work for the good of humanity you may end up looking at the big picture, which, coupled with your detatchment will tend to make individual people matter less and less against 'the cause' ... and little by little you slip away. Even living humans can get pretty odd if you isolate them sufficiently. And all that is assuming that you start off good and aren't additionally plagued by a depraved vampire society eager that you 'be yourself'. Also, bear in mind that the undead are liable to be treated like monsters even if they aren't - in many cases they will never get to know love or friendship or any other positive relationship. If treated like a monster long enough they will tend to act like one. Of course there is always the option of a vampire being an evil spirit wearing your body or, more prosaically, someone with a critical addiction to human blood - which arguably isn't 'evil' just dangerous.
James Cosper 08-05-07, 02:52 AM	A lot of the vampire mythology comes from the idea that the person was cursed for dying in a state of sin. The stake aspect started when such people were literally staked to the interior of the coffin so they wouldn't get up and wander home. The thing isn't the person you knew. This is the best book I have encountered about vampires. The Vampire Lectures by Laurence A. Rickels
ArgulFraster 08-07-07, 11:26 AM	Personally, I think the Monster Manual version of the Vampire cannot stand, so I've been making my own for my anthro-world campaign. Vampires in my world aren't necessarily evil once they're bitten-but they are controlled by whichever vampire infected them-and so on. They can be directly controlled (haven't decided the resist DC yet) through a pyramidal control system-allowing for a Blade-style hierarchy. The kind of vampires I favor are a mixture-they have multiple forms, some of which are weaker than others but immune to sunlight, others which emulate the "monster" style of vampire from Blood Plus...oh, there's lots. What's more, they don't have to be evil-but being nigh-constantly under control can slowly make them more and more cynical until they no longer care about good. That's how I see it. (P.S. I must admit a slight admiration for some of the vampire fandom, but I'm not a nut for that sort of thing.)
Thakowsaizmu 08-08-07, 01:43 AM	:heehee For a minute there, I thought you were going to provide a reason within the scope of vampire lore and not just pull out a "because they say it is" After thinking for a while, I have finally come up with somthing better than "because they it is". Vampires are evil because they "vant to suck your blud!"
Ezram 08-08-07, 04:37 AM	Don't some vampire myths have biblical connections?
Thakowsaizmu 08-08-07, 10:53 AM	Don't some vampire myths have biblical connections? Pretty much every Western and Middle-Eastern myth. Save the new ones.
ArgulFraster 08-08-07, 03:04 PM	There is some contention that the legend of Dracula was inspired by a rabies outbreak.
Thakowsaizmu 08-09-07, 03:30 AM	There is some contention that the legend of Dracula was inspired by a rabies outbreak. That one I am not so sure about... You know in Rumania Vlad Ţepeş is a national hero? Pretty cool.
ArgulFraster 08-09-07, 12:03 PM	That one I am not so sure about... You know in Rumania Vlad Ţepeş is a national hero? Pretty cool. It's true; they had a page-article on it in Popular Science. And PopSci goes to great lengths for accuracy.
Thakowsaizmu 08-10-07, 09:24 AM	It's true; they had a page-article on it in Popular Science. And PopSci goes to great lengths for accuracy. Nifty. That's not how I knew about it though. I've known for a while. They excavated his grave some years back, no trace of a body. SPOoOoOoKEY. A friend of mine tought English in Rumania a year or two ago, but she never got the chance to go to Sighişoară castle. I would've walked if I had to, heh.
j0lt 08-16-07, 12:34 AM	BECAUSE THEY EAT BABIES! It doesn't get any more evil than that folks!
RazielK 08-17-07, 12:41 AM	Don't some vampire myths have biblical connections? In the Old Testament there was a woman named Lillith. She was Adam's first wife, made of dust as he was. She left the Garden of Eden after being forced to remain in missionary position during intercourse, she found this to be too degrading toward women. Late on she encountered Cain, Adam's infamous son. She drank Cain's blood until he was near death and then fed him her own. Thus, Cain became the first male vampire. The Mark of Can is rumored to be a vampires bite. Judaism FTW!
j0lt 08-17-07, 02:06 AM	In the Old Testament there was a woman named Lillith. She was Adam's first wife, made of dust as he was. She left the Garden of Eden after being forced to remain in missionary position during intercourse, she found this to be too degrading toward women. Late on she encountered Cain, Adam's infamous son. She drank Cain's blood until he was near death and then fed him her own. Thus, Cain became the first male vampire. The Mark of Can is rumored to be a vampires bite. Judaism FTW! I call BS! Where in the OT is this supposedly found?
Ezram 08-17-07, 02:08 AM	I'm most familiar with Vlad the Impaler
j0lt 08-17-07, 04:01 AM	I'm most familiar with Vlad the Impaler Vlad Tepes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_tepes) was a Wallachian prince (it's located in modern day Romania), and is widely accepted as being one of the two main inspirations for Bram Stoker's Dracula. The other inspiration comes from Countess Elizabeth Bathory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bathory) who was an accused serial killer in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. According to folklore, Countess Bathory bathed in the blood of girls and young women in order to prolong her own youth.
RazielK 08-17-07, 12:15 PM	I call BS! Where in the OT is this supposedly found? It is in the Kabbalah. I know, I studied it.
j0lt 08-17-07, 09:28 PM	It is in the Kabbalah. I know, I studied it. You said Old Testament, not Kabbala. Those are totally different books. I know, my father was a minister.
RazielK 08-17-07, 10:33 PM	The Kabbalah is a series of stories linked into the Old Testament, just like how the Tanach and Mishnah are extrapolations of stories. Forgive me for not being clear on that.
Ezram 08-17-07, 10:42 PM	It seems D&D vampires are more of the feral, pack hunter variety. d20 Modern, I think it's the same. Which do you prefer - the elegant wanderer, or single-minded bloodthirsty being?
j0lt 08-17-07, 10:58 PM	The Kabbalah is a series of stories linked into the Old Testament, just like how the Tanach and Mishnah are extrapolations of stories. Forgive me for not being clear on that. No worries It seems D&D vampires are more of the feral, pack hunter variety. d20 Modern, I think it's the same. Which do you prefer - the elegant wanderer, or single-minded bloodthirsty being? IMO, they're one and the same. I think that upon being turned, a new vamp should have to make a Will save or lose their mind becoming said bloodthirsty monster. The same save should be forced every time the vamp does not meet their dietary requirement. Ooh, I just made a new mechanic! :P Question: assuming this mechanic, what of the vampire who fails the save? should it be permanent? do they get another save to "come back" to their wits?
Duderlybob 08-17-07, 11:33 PM	Hm, well it really depends on what vampire lore you decide to go with. Some say evil, some say no. Personally, I favor lore that doesn't particularly make them evil or good, but with the majority of them being evil. Like, make the bloodlust like a very strong hunger, those who resist can non-lethally get their fill, while the evil ones just get as much blood as they can. At first, the hunger is easier to resist because it's a fresh trial, but the longer the vampire deals with the hunger, the more exhausted of fighting the psyche becomes. My personal favored style of transmitting is by death due to blood lost to another vampire. However, again, I must stress that it's really just due to which vampire lore you decide to use. Like the argument between fast zombies and slow zombies, or voodoo zombies and genetically engineered zombies. Oh, and I like the idea j0lt! I think they should be allowed to get a save if the player so chooses, but only upon the consequent attack. During the attack (again, at player's whim), the vampire can make a will save to resist the attack being lethal, to represent the sane mind making the biggest fight when push comes to shove, to stop from killing the victim. Upon success, the vampire is able to stop from killing the target, and the vampire gains control again. Upon failure, another, though lower DC will save is given to reclaim sanity, as the bloodlust has been slaked, the vampire has a less harsh time holding the reins. That's my two cents at least. :)
Thakowsaizmu 08-18-07, 10:04 PM	Hm, well it really depends on what vampire lore you decide to go with. Some say evil, some say no. Personally, I favor lore that doesn't particularly make them evil or good, but with the majority of them being evil. Like, make the bloodlust like a very strong hunger, those who resist can non-lethally get their fill, while the evil ones just get as much blood as they can. At first, the hunger is easier to resist because it's a fresh trial, but the longer the vampire deals with the hunger, the more exhausted of fighting the psyche becomes. My personal favored style of transmitting is by death due to blood lost to another vampire. Which lores are we talking here? Because aside from a few modern writers, I've never heard of Vampire Lore with non-evil Vampires.
yellowdingo 08-21-07, 09:49 PM	BECAUSE THEY EAT BABIES! It doesn't get any more evil than that folks! Since when do Vampires eat babies? Since some Anne Rice novel? Cannibalism amongst Vampires is a modern thing. You want evil...Martha Stewart!
JasonOrlandoHawk 08-22-07, 01:16 AM	*Looks at Thread title* :confused: I don't get it... Isn't this question self-explanatory? :thinks: Oops! Sorry, I believe that I forgot about the profound impact of pop culture on our view point... Vampires are viewed as Evil for two main reasons. 1) They are strongly associated with death. 2) They are clearly a violation of the natural order. Graves. Corpses. Losing all your blood. These all have a strong connection to DEATH!!! (Insert spooky background noises here...) Combine corpses with old accounts of the plague, and well... it's just not a pretty picture. Some people may enjoy a good funeral (few and far between, but they are around), but you never see a corpse smiling at his own funeral (unless the makeup artist was good). Death creates a sense of loss, and vampires (classical and modern) all embody that sense of loss (humanity, control, love, passion, etc...). Also, it should be noted that vampires are never exactly normal. You are ripped out of the natural process of life to become the living dead. By sin or by choice, you are no longer living the life that is "common" to humanity. You are something else different entirely. You can fight the monstrous urges, or you can give into them with bloody fury (note: both make good stories), but at best you are a beast struggling to hold onto what you lost. Of course, today vampires are portrayed as gun-totting, sensual superheros. They have cool super powers, immortality, really hot "toys," and one relatively insignificant dietary quirk. It's kind of like putting Marvel Super Heroes in Gothic Clothes... In D&D (and many forms of world thought), evil is not some subjective term people apply to things they don't like. Evil is a real power, with real goals, that is out to do really bad things! Vampires represent people who, by accident, murder, or willing decision, have been transformed into a twisted mockery of life. Evil changed them forever...
Ezram 08-22-07, 02:34 AM	2) They are clearly a violation of the natural order In D&D, actually, Druids (who are the defenders of the natural order) have sects with ties to Aberrations and the Undead.
Cam S. 08-22-07, 09:50 AM	Well...personally, I go with the Bram Stoker interpretation: Vampires are contagious damnation. If you are bitten by one, there is the chance that you'll become a vampire; if you become a Vampire, your soul becomes damned, hence Vampirism is evil (and in D&D, they might even qualify as "Vile".) You might be able to do some nifty things, but that hardly makes up for the eternity of torment awaiting you on the other side of bodily destruction.
mikeloop86 08-25-07, 12:04 AM	Druids (who are the defenders of the natural order) have sects with ties to Aberrations and the Undead. Reply With Quote Care to site your sources? If your talking about the Eberron Campaign Setting, (Which would be the Nightbringers-Negative Plane of Mabar and the Gatekeepers-Defenders against Xoriat) Gatekeepers main tie to Aberrations is that they fight against them. Nightbringer's tie to Undead is in there dedication to what powers them, Negative Energy. They care less about the fact that the dead has been made animate, and more about the presense of Mabar's energy on their home plane. On the topic of Vampires being evil, in D&D one must realize they are more than just a simple person turned parasite. They are powerful conduits of negative energy, the very stuff that negates life. They are just below the Nightshades in terms of powerful "naturally" occuring undead. (Liches don't count because a spellcaster has to go through a ritual to become one, knot just come to be or be turned into one). Honestly, an undead with a better argument for a flexible alignment would be the ghoul, as they don't even need to prey on the living. Their diet only requires flesh of some form. Vampires on the other hand NEED to consume from a living creature, endangering it's personal well being and risk passing on the curse.
Ragitsu 08-28-07, 06:53 AM	Care to site your sources? Well, for Aberrations check out Lords of Madness There's even a feat or two for druids that represents being part aberration :) They are powerful conduits of negative energy, the very stuff that negates life. I'm gonna call BS on this. Negative Energy can kill, but it can also be used to kill harmful organisms (viruses, bacteria, cancerous growths, etc) just like Positive Energy can be used kill (an influx of too much positive energy = pop!)
mikeloop86 08-29-07, 12:56 AM	Well, for Aberrations check out Lords of Madness There's even a feat or two for druids that represents being part aberration :) Mmkay, I've got the LoM Book in front of me. For druids specifically this book has: A Feat that lets you Wild Shape into Aberations. A Prestige Class Dedicated to Slaying Aberations. Several Spells Focused on Destroying Aberations. So 1 out of three is not bad, but it's not really the best example of how Druids "go outside the natural," given that the requirement is a feat that, flavorwise entails having Aberations in your bloodline. The Wildshape into Aberations feat is derived from an aberant Lineage, not an actual organization worshipping the Far Realm. I'm gonna call BS on this. Negative Energy can kill, but it can also be used to kill harmful organisms (viruses, bacteria, cancerous growths, etc) just like Positive Energy can be used kill (an influx of too much positive energy = pop!) Okay, lets get one thing straight before we discuss anything further: Negative Energy is not, I repeat, NOT chemotherapy or any Alpha, Beta, or Gamma radiating equivalent. It is a planar force whose sole goal is the destruction and hindrance of life. One need only look at any spell that channels negative energy, (almost exclusively Necromancy). Almost none of them are ever beneficial to anyone, or come at the cost of a victim. In fact, such spells actually can CAUSE GROWTHS! The entire group of Cyst spells from Libris Mortis do this specifically, and all thanks to Necromantic (IE: Negative) Energy. Honestly, saying negative energy can be used to fight off an ailment (be it viral or otherwise) is like saying all clerics can now use Inflict Minor Wounds to cure Filth Fever. It makes no sense and just sounds silly.
annoyinglizardvoice 08-29-07, 07:42 AM	Why are vampires evil? Two reasons: 1. Because we are looking at things from a human perspective, anything that is a danger to our lives can easily be described as evil. 2. Some rpgs (and an unpleasantly large number of people in general) favour a simplistic black-and-white view of good and evil.
Ezacael_Eson 08-29-07, 11:58 AM	Ok, if a butcher slaughters animals and feasts on them to feed himself. Lets say he even discovers that animal blood tastes good and starts drinking it. Maybe even enjoys killing animals to feast on them. Would he be considered evil? A vampire is just slaughterer of what he sees as "animals" to feed himself. Don't give me crap about humans being higher organisms thus eating them would make you more evil then eating an animal. So now were judging how bad your actions are by the intelligence score of what you killed? Even if he can't understand what the animals are saying he pretty much knows its saying "Don't kill, roast, and eat me." I say if a vampire is considered evil, why not consider the butcher who slaughters and feasts on animals evil? My random comments for today....
Thakowsaizmu 08-29-07, 03:30 PM	Ok, if a butcher slaughters animals and feasts on them to feed himself. Lets say he even discovers that animal blood tastes good and starts drinking it. Maybe even enjoys killing animals to feast on them. Would he be considered evil? PETA would say yes. Seriously though, if not evil he'd at least be deranged. Have you tasted animal blood? It isn't pleasant.
mikeloop86 08-29-07, 03:50 PM	Ok, if a butcher slaughters animals and feasts on them to feed himself. Lets say he even discovers that animal blood tastes good and starts drinking it. Maybe even enjoys killing animals to feast on them. Would he be considered evil? A vampire is just slaughterer of what he sees as "animals" to feed himself. Not a good comparison. The butcher, more often than not, will just slaughter the animal quickly and be done with it. A vampire HAS to feed on a living subject, which means slowly draining someone of their health while their alive. A butcher wouldn't go about it the same way a vampire would, unless he too was as sick and demented as the vampire. Also, once again, the butcher is a man like you and me, while the vampire is an entity powered by a force that is inherently evil. Don't give me crap about humans being higher organisms thus eating them would make you more evil then eating an animal. So now were judging how bad your actions are by the intelligence score of what you killed? Even if he can't understand what the animals are saying he pretty much knows its saying "Don't kill, roast, and eat me." I say if a vampire is considered evil, why not consider the butcher who slaughters and feasts on animals evil? My random comments for today.... No we aren't any more justified to eat an animal as they are to eat us, this is true. However, their are steps most decent people take before feeding that animals aren't capable of comprehending. We DON'T feed on living things (I know there are exceptions to this based on cultures) while its still wriggling and struggling and holding on. A lion, crocidile, or any other predator however doesn't comprehend empathy, and so they keep chewing away while the deer or antilope is still screaming. Enter the vampire. This thing has all the empathetic knowledge we possess, and yet willingly embraces that primal predatory behavior. No empathy, no instinctive protection of its fellows, just cold murderous hunger. A vampire is an animal with the life taken out of it, but still animate. It is the darkest aspect of the predator, and thus I have every right to go up and stake it, chop off its head, and stuff garlick in its mouth. Now let me mount my vampire head in peace ya dang hippies! /joke.
James Cosper 08-30-07, 01:10 AM	Enter the vampire. This thing has all the empathetic knowledge we possess, and yet willingly embraces that primal predatory behavior. No empathy, no instinctive protection of its fellows, just cold murderous hunger. A vampire is an animal with the life taken out of it, but still animate. It is the darkest aspect of the predator, and thus I have every right to go up and stake it, chop off its head, and stuff garlick in its mouth. Right. When vamps are cursed they cease being human and are left as beasts. Vamps are mad dogs in a children's park. It is only a modern scenario which would allow vampires to feed at the local bloodbank or slaughterhouse. Dracula wouldn't get anything from it because traditional vamps need the lifeforce they steal in the symbol of the blood.
James Cosper 08-30-07, 01:12 AM	I am pretty sure Lucy is caught carrying an infant she is about to eat in the original Dracula.
Ragitsu 08-31-07, 03:31 AM	Honestly, saying negative energy can be used to fight off an ailment (be it viral or otherwise) is like saying all clerics can now use Inflict Minor Wounds to cure Filth Fever. It makes no sense and just sounds silly. Actually it does. Negative energy kills, so why couldn't it be used to kill a lethal organism (in this case, the contagion) ? I'm not stating anything RULE-wise at all (Inflict Minor Wounds or Filth Fever, you're the one using mechanics to ridicule my idea) If you want to argue Negative Energy = evil and Positive Energy = good, go over to the D&D "The Planes" forum. It'll be shot down faster than a Zero over the Pacific Ocean.
mikeloop86 08-31-07, 11:59 AM	Actually it does. Negative energy kills, so why couldn't it be used to kill a lethal organism (in this case, the contagion) ? I'm not stating anything RULE-wise at all (Inflict Minor Wounds or Filth Fever, you're the one using mechanics to ridicule my idea) Yes, I am using mechanics because, oh jeez!, we happen to be on a D&D message board! You know, where mechanics actually have somewhat of a deciding factor in the whole spin of things(especially when it comes to flavor of a setting)? But to address your point: Could negative energy be used to kill off a contagion within the body? It is certainly possible. Would I be dumb enough to introduce that kind of stuff into my body? NO!!! Negative energy isn't some discreet type of antivirus. It corrodes and kills ANYTHING it comes in contact with. There is not one spell or ability tied to negative energy that doesn't somehow hurt a living creature, unless it pertains to undead. Under that precident, why would there be any assumption that the stuff could in any way be beneficial to the human body? And, if you can use the Inflict spells to cure disease, then whats the point of the Cure Disease spell? Restoration? Greater Restoration? Notice that none of these spell have "Necromancy" in the descriptor? If you want to argue Negative Energy = evil and Positive Energy = good, go over to the D&D "The Planes" forum. It'll be shot down faster than a Zero over the Pacific Ocean. How about, NO!? Why don't you actually defend your view instead of telling me to go hunt down someone who can actually make a valid argument.
Ragitsu 08-31-07, 06:13 PM	we happen to be on a D&D message board! Two things: I don't recall the topic being one that was mechanics based, and...*looks at the top of the page* I don't see D&D there, nope...
mikeloop86 08-31-07, 10:02 PM	Two things: I don't recall the topic being one that was mechanics based, and...*looks at the top of the page* I don't see D&D there, nope... So just because they aren't specifically mentioned in the thread title, all theories based on the actual rules of the game are null? So then what is the point of this forum, since aparently d20Design and d20Horror at the top of the page weren't big enough hints that maybe we should be discussing how this all actually applies to a game? Better yet, don't answer that question. Just answer these: There is not one spell or ability tied to negative energy that doesn't somehow hurt a living creature, unless it pertains to undead. Under that precident, why would there be any assumption that the stuff could in any way be beneficial to the human body? And, if you can use the Inflict spells to cure disease, then whats the point of the Cure Disease spell? Restoration? Greater Restoration? Notice that none of these spell have "Necromancy" in the descriptor? And take the advice of this one: Why don't you actually defend your view instead of telling me to go hunt down someone who can actually make a valid argument.
JosephKell 08-31-07, 10:07 PM	I think if you added a Blood Lust mechanic for Vampires you could remove the template alignment change. Especially rules for Sating and resisting it. For instance, a new born vampire probably won't be used to resisting the draw of blood and will attempt to feed off humans as often as possible. But resisting the draw of blood should probably also be related to how recently a vampire has fed. Alignment is synonymous with behavior (to me) which has to do with choice AND nature. Nature: By their nature, vampires are cast as being attracted to the blood of their own species. In D&D that is expanded to any sentient species. But there are thoughts that animals could do. Choice: To feed off people, to take some but not all? To feed off animals instead? As long as a vampire chose to survive off animals, I see nothing wrong with them having a Good Alignment. However, a vampire hunting down bad people (like murderers) and only feeding off them is not a good being. It is using an excuse (the guilt of the victim) to justify murder (which is evil). Even if a society were to use a local vampire as a police officer, but only allowed the vampire to eat a person if the person was convicted, it is still evil (on a larger scale) because there is incentive to convict (to keep the vampire sated). Vigilantism is a crime because it isn't justice. At the same time, a group of vampires that were to protect a city (make it a crime to hunt there) but import victims to feed on are still evil. Even carefully feeding off the willing is kind of questionable (and is at best Neutral on the G-E axis). But subsisting on clone blood (or maybe blood collected through a medical procedure--like how blood is collected today) might be fine, especially if sentient blood helped sate the blood lust more than animal blood. All that said, I think any time a vampire were to give into blood lust (not resist it) it would automatically switch to evil and have to work its way towards the light again from scratch. Rules for triggering a blood lust could also make a game where vampires are hunted more interesting. Imagine if hunters were to carry a sealed bag of blood with them for the purpose of throwing on a corner (or on a vampire) to distract a vampire? A rapid animal might be stronger, but it is direct and predictable (I see a rapid vampire running at a target despite many cross-bar spears being aimed at it).
mikeloop86 08-31-07, 11:33 PM	As long as a vampire chose to survive off animals, I see nothing wrong with them having a Good Alignment. Hmm, I don't know. The method by which they feed would make me lump this into the Neutral area of the G Vs E axis. Much like feeding on but not killing a human. It just comes down to the method, since D&D really doesn't go into too much detail about the process of feeding, it leaves us in a grey area. That is to say, if you as a DM ruled the feeding process a sensual experience as depicted in popular media and White Wolf games, then you could probably get away without an alignment shift, as long as you didn't kill the victim. However, if you the DM rules the process as a painful ordeal, in the sense that "this guy just bit a chunk out of my jugular and now is hoovering the open wound!!!", then the process would be deemed an act of cruelty, regardless whether or not you needed to do this to the victim to survive (animal or otherwise). Funny thing about vampires as they pertain to D&D, they never die from starvation. That is to say, their insatiable hunger is not tied to their survival, just their behavioral stability. According to Libris Mortis, they go from normal, crazy, and then comatose. Once they get a drop of blood, they go right back to (pardon the pun) bat**** insane.
Rania 09-01-07, 02:37 PM	To me, if vampires are evil, it's not because they automatically become evil; it's because the good don't survive, and the neutral slip. If a vampire needs to kill sentient species to survive (an evil act), a good person with a strong will simply won't. Then they'll die. They stay good, but dead. You could call it a twisted form of natural selection.
Hazzard 09-02-07, 12:39 AM	Well, They are defined as EVIL by HUMANS, their primary source of food. Personally, I kinda have to agree, anything that thinks I'm on the menu has to go, EVIL or not. I'll bet cows think we're EVIL too!!! :P
Rania 09-02-07, 02:17 PM	Well, They are defined as EVIL by HUMANS, their primary source of food. Personally, I kinda have to agree, anything that thinks I'm on the menu has to go, EVIL or not. I'll bet cows think we're EVIL too!!! :PHowever, assuming cows aren't sentient (something we'll never know for sure IRL), they wouldn't. "Evil" is a concept that can only be understood by sentient beings; it's consciously making a choice to do wrong, hurt others, etc. Cows would think that we cause pain, that we're bad (maybe), but as they don't have a concept of evil, no more than that. Think of it this way. Cancer kills, and painfully; but we consider it "bad", not "evil". Cancer has no choice in the matter.
Ignitus 09-05-07, 09:04 PM	well, vampires are evil because its in thier history. Back in the day when vampires were seen as real, they weren't just an odd bunch with a "dietary quirk" (as Heroes of Horror puts it) but as people who were too evil to get to heaven so they had to drink the blood of humans to remain on earth. Vampires might also have been seen as corpses possessed by demons or as the people who sold thier soul to the devil. All evil orgins. There was no question of "Well, I just got bitten, it's not my fault!" Not sure where that one came from. Fiction, probaly. As Vampires are presented in D&D and in alot of modern fiction, though, alot of them don't really have a reason for being evil.
JasonOrlandoHawk 09-06-07, 11:07 PM	In the hope of adding some depth to this debate, I think I shall insert a new, theoretical question: Why are vampires good? [speaking in terms of alignment] 2. Some rpgs (and an unpleasantly large number of people in general) favour a simplistic black-and-white view of good and evil. I'll have you know, some things are simply black and white. Newsprint, for example. :P Seriously, if we're going to waste that much time on "relative morality," then I think that I shall simply change my answer to: "By the standards of the predominant majority of Western Society (the source for much of the D&D fan base and many vampire myths), Vampires clearly violate our social and ethical norms, earning the label of evil."
Ragitsu 09-07-07, 12:07 PM	"Western" only? :confused:
Ragitsu 09-15-07, 08:47 AM	Bump
Ral of Tyr 09-15-07, 06:47 PM	The world is not black and white. It is not seperated into good/evil. Vampires are not really evil. They are just being that require human beings blood to survive. They may or may not kill them. Vampires are no more evil that a prince that has to kill his rivals to stay alive. What they are is self-interested. They are not concerned with the good of society, if they are good etc. Only their immortallity. Secondly, there's the superior creature arugment. What is a miserable peasant, who lives a life of suffering compared to an immortal vampire that can do things that peasant can only dream of. Isn't the vampire's "Life" worth more than than smelly peasant's? Seconldy, say a vampire only preyed on theives, murders and the like of the city. Isn't the vampire doing good by taking these people off the streets?
Ragitsu 09-15-07, 07:31 PM	The world is not black and white. I suppose that does depend on the setting, and how tangible good/evil are. :embarrass
mikeloop86 09-15-07, 08:53 PM	The world is not black and white. It is not seperated into good/evil. Wrong. The world and multiverse within the D&D game are based on an objective morality system. The world may not just be black and white, maybe has shades of green and red thrown in, but it definitely is built around the concept of things that are "truly" good and "truly" evil. Subjective morality has no place in the alignment system of D&D. Vampires are not really evil. They are just being that require human beings blood to survive. They may or may not kill them. Vampires are no more evil that a prince that has to kill his rivals to stay alive. What they are is self-interested. They are not concerned with the good of society, if they are good etc. Only their immortallity. Sorry son, both the vampire and the prince are objectively evil. Self interest at the cost of others is evil, plain and simple. Its one thing for your "prince" to defend himself against the assaults of his rivals, its a whole other level to pre-emptively assassinate his competition. Secondly, there's the superior creature arugment. Which is null when dealing with an objective alignment. What is a miserable peasant, who lives a life of suffering compared to an immortal vampire that can do things that peasant can only dream of. Isn't the vampire's "Life" worth more than than smelly peasant's? Seconldy, say a vampire only preyed on theives, murders and the like of the city. Isn't the vampire doing good by taking these people off the streets? With this logic, you justify The Third Reich/Megatron/Sideous/(insert any blatantly evil character here) as being portrayed as the Messiah, because according to them there acts are justified because they are "superior creatures" (the Master Race anyone?) and that their actions lead to a benefit, in their eyes.
Ral of Tyr 09-16-07, 02:03 AM	Wrong. The world and multiverse within the D&D game are based on an objective morality system. The world may not just be black and white, maybe has shades of green and red thrown in, but it definitely is built around the concept of things that are "truly" good and "truly" evil. Subjective morality has no place in the alignment system of D&D. The alignment system as no place, really. People aren't divided into good/evil. That thinking was medieval and similar to religious fanaticism. Sorry son, both the vampire and the prince are objectively evil. Self interest at the cost of others is evil, plain and simple. Its one thing for your "prince" to defend himself against the assaults of his rivals, its a whole other level to pre-emptively assassinate his competition. Not so, both are doing unjust acts for what they see as the greater good. With this logic, you justify The Third Reich/Megatron/Sideous/(insert any blatantly evil character here) as being portrayed as the Messiah, because according to them there acts are justified because they are "superior creatures" (the Master Race anyone?) and that their actions lead to a benefit, in their eyes. That is how the world is. Over 50,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq for America to be safe and for freedom. Doesn't America have the right to protect itself? Isn't an American life worth more than an Iraqi terrorist's? Vampires aren't really evil*. They are survivalists. *The mad ones, maybe, but they usually end up killing themselves, eventually.
Dex 09-16-07, 03:26 AM	This thread should close due to a blatant breach of Godwin's Law in Post #70. However, because some things that have been said really riled me, I'm posting. Vampires are evil because the monster manual says so. Period. If you want to houserule it for your specific campaign setting then go ahead, but there's no point trying to get anyone else to do things your way unless they want to. Isn't an American life worth more than an Iraqi terrorist's? According to the Geneva convention, no. Equal right to live. Equal worth: open market value: Priceless.
Ragitsu 09-16-07, 06:09 AM	The alignment system has no place, really. People aren't divided into good/evil. That thinking was medieval and similar to religious fanaticism. We are not arguing your opinion on the matter, but how it is. The alignment system is in place as is, not to debate whether Billy Bob Demon is just "misunderstood" because he eats babies. Towards D&D, the alignment system is immutable. Towards any other setting, that's different, of course. Vampires are evil because the monster manual says so. Period. Not everyone on this thread plays D&D, or they may use a variant form of the monster. Period.
mikeloop86 09-16-07, 04:35 PM	This thread should close due to a blatant breach of Godwin's Law in Post #70. However, because some things that have been said really riled me, I'm posting. Vampires are evil because the monster manual says so. Period. If you want to houserule it for your specific campaign setting then go ahead, but there's no point trying to get anyone else to do things your way unless they want to. According to the Geneva convention, no. Equal right to live. Equal worth: open market value: Priceless. Godwin's law? :confused:
Ragitsu 09-16-07, 04:45 PM	Godwin's Law is basically that any internet argument, if it goes on long enough, will inevitably involve someone bringing up Nazi references. Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
mikeloop86 09-16-07, 07:03 PM	Godwin's Law is basically that any internet argument, if it goes on long enough, will inevitably involve someone bringing up Nazi references. Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) Ah, quite informative. While I won't apologize for the reference, I do understand that such comparisons need to be used sparingly. I'll try to tone that down. I stick by my statement before though, that such ideas of concepts of "good" are better left out of discussion of an "objective" alignment game, like D&D.
The Colonel 09-19-07, 04:49 PM	Godwin's Law is basically that any internet argument, if it goes on long enough, will inevitably involve someone bringing up Nazi references. Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) Just out of interest, does anyone know how Godwin's law applies to discussions of, say, early C20 politics, left wing politics and the like ... it would seem that it would be a bit silly to end discussions on that basis. Even a discussion of evil can probably warrant mentioning them since they are, after all, and example that everyone thinks they know.
JosephKell 09-20-07, 12:48 AM	The "The Ends Justify the Means" argument is at best a neutral statement, but usually I would say it is an evil argument because people never try to justify doing the right thing. Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series is one of the most forgiving vampire series I have read and in it the only vampires that are able to really coexist (with other vampires) are the ones that exclusively feed off of animals. Vampires that kill people are pretty much emotionless and rather evil. They only keep their numbers down to prevent competition, exposure, and extermination (for exposing them to humans). Are vampires "superior" to humans in Twilight? Perhaps in terms of strength, speed, durability, etc. But does losing the ability to empathize with other beings (even each other) make a person superior? So it really comes down to how you calculate worth. But setting that aside, the sole purpose most vampires seem to have is feeding, and beyond that: indulgence. The only good (dependent, see below) vampires are those that don't hurt other people to survive. Kind of like any other sentient. The reason I say good vampires is because this assumes that they have an urge that draws them to feed on humans (sentients) over animals (non-sentients), and that resisting that urge is very difficult. Therefore anyone that can do that is working very hard against his or her nature (a good act). If no sentient blood lust exists, then it is merely a neutral act. All that is just my opinion though.
Ragitsu 09-22-07, 08:13 AM	The "The Ends Justify the Means" argument is at best a neutral statement, but usually I would say it is an evil argument because people never try to justify doing the right thing. Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series is one of the most forgiving vampire series I have read and in it the only vampires that are able to really coexist (with other vampires) are the ones that exclusively feed off of animals. Vampires that kill people are pretty much emotionless and rather evil. They only keep their numbers down to prevent competition, exposure, and extermination (for exposing them to humans). Are vampires "superior" to humans in Twilight? Perhaps in terms of strength, speed, durability, etc. But does losing the ability to empathize with other beings (even each other) make a person superior? So it really comes down to how you calculate worth. But setting that aside, the sole purpose most vampires seem to have is feeding, and beyond that: indulgence. The only good (dependent, see below) vampires are those that don't hurt other people to survive. Kind of like any other sentient. The reason I say good vampires is because this assumes that they have an urge that draws them to feed on humans (sentients) over animals (non-sentients), and that resisting that urge is very difficult. Therefore anyone that can do that is working very hard against his or her nature (a good act). If no sentient blood lust exists, then it is merely a neutral act. All that is just my opinion though. I have the first two Twilight books, but have not read them yet. Are they any good?
JosephKell 09-22-07, 11:38 AM	Twilight is pretty good, there aren't many lulls in the story which is nice, so it reads pretty fast. It is worth reading. It is probably one of the better vampire related novels I've read to date (including a few of Ann Rice's pieces). There isn't much more I can share on it about my opinion that wouldn't spoil surprises.
Ragitsu 09-26-07, 08:07 PM	I've read that the third one isn't that good. :embarrass
Thakowsaizmu 09-27-07, 12:33 AM	Boredom makes you :bump:
Ragitsu 10-10-07, 07:05 AM	Needs more differing views...bump.
Thakowsaizmu 10-10-07, 03:06 PM	Yes, more views...more!
Ragitsu 10-13-07, 08:57 PM	Here's something I found... Q: Are vampires evil? Do vampires worship the devil? A: No, being an evil person is something that you have to choose, not something you're born with. If you are a non-evil person before coming into your vampiric nature, you won't suddenly 'turn' evil. Just like with normal humans, it's the individual who is evil, not the species. Secondly, a person's religion has nothing to do with whether or not they are a vampire. Vampirism is something you are born with, like height or natural hair color, and religion is something that you personally decide to put your faith in. Vampires can be of any religion; Christian, Jewish, Buddhism, Hindu, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic, Satanism, etc. :confused:
mikeloop86 10-13-07, 11:59 PM	Here's something I found... :confused: Might help yours and that quote's credibility on the argument if you could cite the source. ;)
echelon_house 10-16-07, 06:58 PM	I strongly disagree with the entire alignment system currently used by D&D, and I've completely removed it from every game I've DMed. Players shouldn't be able to cast "Detect Alignment" and tell if their enemies are evil, anyway, because that removes a crucial aspect of a *role-playing* game. You're supposed to act these things out and discover them, not just push a button and get an answer. Anyway, vampires. Everyone who's brought up the cow argument is exactly right - vampires aren't humans anymore, and they only see us as food. Some vampires, I'm sure, would be unusually sympathetic and refuse to drink the blood of anything sentient (or even anything at all, and thus starve to death). But the general vampire population would dismiss their opinions as readily as most humans dismiss the concerns of vegans and vegetarians. The question: does that make them evil? I say no. The real matter at hand here is whether morality should be humanocentric: if something is bad for humans, it's automatically Evil, and if something is good for humans it's automatically Good. This is not only overly simplistic, it's also kind of ... creepy (said as a proud vegetarian, lol). There's no particular reason why vampires would consider their actions to be shameful or Evil, and no particular reason why they would act malevolently or cruelly in general, especially towards other vampires. They shouldn't be plotting to take over the world, or wantonly slaughtering humans when they aren't hungry, or living in a castle of bones and ichor. As much as I'm vaguely disgusted with the way modern fantasy and horror (and romance, weirdly) fetishize the vampire lifestyle, I do think that going the other way and demonizing it is equally incorrect.
Ragitsu 10-16-07, 07:17 PM	Are you serious? Are you really putting forth the "it's not evil, it's just...misunderstood!" argument? :confused: The real matter at hand here is whether morality should be humanocentric: if something is bad for humans, it's automatically Evil, and if something is good for humans it's automatically Good. Flawed logic -> other races find vampires evil as well.
echelon_house 10-16-07, 08:06 PM	Flawed logic -> other races find vampires evil as well. Other races created by, and played by, humans. Of course it's impossible to really create an elf society with a "genuine" elvish moral code, because it's impossible for any human to understand how another species can think. So we apply our own perspective onto our characters, no matter how hard we try to do otherwise. And no, I'm not saying it's "misunderstood." I'm saying the traditional fantasy/horror vampire is extremely one-dimensional and needs badly to be taken in some new directions to spice up the genre.
Ragitsu 10-16-07, 08:25 PM	Right, and vampires are created by humans as well. We are speaking within the game world. Right?
echelon_house 10-16-07, 10:27 PM	No, I mean in real life - vampires, elves, dwarves, etc are all (obviously) created by humans and biased from that human perspective. A creature that preys on humans will always be seen as evil by humans, but there's no reason why they would see themselves as evil. For example: humans eat cows. Does this mean that everytime a human sees a cow grazing in a field their eyes will blaze red with uncontrollable hunger and they will rip it apart with their bare hands? Um, no. Sometimes people even think cows are adorable - is there any reason a vampire wouldn't run up to a human and scratch their ears? Especially since the "aristocratic" vampires often have vampire servants, they might even be appalled at the idea of killing someone themselves, the same way that humans who eat meat would refuse to butcher a cow.
mikeloop86 10-16-07, 11:46 PM	No, I mean in real life - vampires, elves, dwarves, etc are all (obviously) created by humans and biased from that human perspective. A creature that preys on humans will always be seen as evil by humans, but there's no reason why they would see themselves as evil. For example: humans eat cows. Does this mean that everytime a human sees a cow grazing in a field their eyes will blaze red with uncontrollable hunger and they will rip it apart with their bare hands? Um, no. Sometimes people even think cows are adorable - is there any reason a vampire wouldn't run up to a human and scratch their ears? Especially since the "aristocratic" vampires often have vampire servants, they might even be appalled at the idea of killing someone themselves, the same way that humans who eat meat would refuse to butcher a cow. See, heres the thing, on a D&D board the only thing worth really debating is the D&D world. When you pass from the realm of D&D to the realms of personal preferences in all media, the amount of stances and examples of each characterization becomes so convoluted that the debate dissolves into a shouting match. As for within the game itself, I think the reasoning of their Evilness should be less "they drink blood," because honestly, thats not just what they do. They do this: their eyes will blaze red with uncontrollable hunger and they will rip it apart with their bare hands Thats the evil part. Its not due to the fact that the siphon blood from another species in a parasitic transfer, its due to the fact that the sick SOB hoovering your neck is getting a kick out of the fact that the blood sucking process hurts like hell to you. And then afterwords the same villain might either finish you off or make you his eternal slave, and then go off into the night and kick puppies. Because it needs to be stressed, their is probably nothing RAW to support the above paragraph, it is simply a flavorful and plausible explanation for why the alignment descriptor reads : Always Evil. The bloodsucking aspect of the Vampire, while a staple feature, is not the ONLY defining aspect of them, in D&D and in most other forms of media. So don't take that solely in account when debating the morallity of their existance/creation/behavior.
echelon_house 10-17-07, 12:20 AM	What separates an RPG from a video game is that the players have complete creative control over what sort of game they want to play. So what if the Monster Manual says "Always Evil?" So what if Joe down the street plays his vampires as psychotic bloodthirsty demons? I personally find that idea to be worn to death, and anyway I prefer three-dimensional NPCs the players can relate to. The idea of a vampire carpenter who buys his blood from the vendor downtown and doesn't bother anyone is a million times more interesting to me than Lord Raven Darktalon in his castle of black obsidian.
Ragitsu 10-17-07, 12:28 AM	Just because you find the idea "worn to death" doesn't mean it in any way explains why, in game, that the vampires are evil (be it d20 Modern, D&D, etc)
echelon_house 10-17-07, 12:37 AM	That's kind of my point ... Are you agreeing with me?
JosephKell 10-17-07, 02:10 AM	That's kind of my point ... Are you agreeing with me?No, I'm pretty sure we aren't agreeing with you because you are talking around the point. Eating [domesticated] animals isn't the same as eating people (read 'sentient beings'). Domesticated animals don't look after themselves, they are raised for the sole benefit of their masters. Be it providing wool, milk, eggs, or meat (to name a few examples). In fact, if humans were to all disappear right now, cows everywhere would die. Cows are effectively walking digestive systems with lightning rods* on their heads. Now if vampires can only get by feeding on sentients then things get a lot muddier. But if vampires can subsist off any type of blood (even the blood of other vampires), then it is readily apparent that feeding off people is evil because the vampire is murdering someone.Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime. Most jurisdictions impose a severe penalty for its commission.There is forethought because vampires (like all predators) stalk their prey. It isn't like the vampire went home and caught a human in bed with his girlfriend and killed him in anger then decided to drink the blood to not waste it. Not only that, but a vampire chooses WHICH sentient to feed off of. A vampire could go after Joe Blow or Jane Doe, and that decision implies forethought. Therefore it is murder. Butchering animals doesn't involve passion. Butchers don't hate the animals they kill. Sorry the domesticated animals they kill (are the really "animals" still?). Therefore, my opinion on vampire morality is "Vampires are evil until proven good." *Lightning rods don't attract lightning. Lightning rods ground out the air so that lightning won't form in their vicinity.
echelon_house 10-17-07, 03:34 AM	No, I'm pretty sure we aren't agreeing with you because you are talking around the point. Eating [domesticated] animals isn't the same as eating people (read 'sentient beings'). Domesticated animals don't look after themselves, they are raised for the sole benefit of their masters. Be it providing wool, milk, eggs, or meat (to name a few examples). In fact, if humans were to all disappear right now, cows everywhere would die. Cows are effectively walking digestive systems with lightning rods* on their heads. Now if vampires can only get by feeding on sentients then things get a lot muddier. But if vampires can subsist off any type of blood (even the blood of other vampires), then it is readily apparent that feeding off people is evil because the vampire is murdering someone. There's absolutely no reason why vampires would only be able to get their nutrition on blood taken from a sentient being, and many books/movies/etc have touched on the idea of ethical vampires feeding on rats or other small animals. And, by the way, a vampire could hypothetically make the same argument about humanity: as the sole predators on our species, if vampires were ever to disappear humans would overpopulate the planet and quickly deplete all its resources, going extinct. There is forethought because vampires (like all predators) stalk their prey. It isn't like the vampire went home and caught a human in bed with his girlfriend and killed him in anger then decided to drink the blood to not waste it. Not only that, but a vampire chooses WHICH sentient to feed off of. A vampire could go after Joe Blow or Jane Doe, and that decision implies forethought. Therefore it is murder. Butchering animals doesn't involve passion. Butchers don't hate the animals they kill. Sorry the domesticated animals they kill (are the really "animals" still?). Therefore, my opinion on vampire morality is "Vampires are evil until proven good." Again, I believe you're only thinking here of the traditional fantasy vampire as a sadistic killer who works alone and takes pleasure from killing their victims. I agree that's definitely the most standard version of the idea, but I'm talking about how how you can create variations of that idea that are still vampires. To me, three things make a vampire what it is: 1) Can only subsist off of blood. 2) Undead, or at least not "really" alive. 3) Effectively immortal as long as it can continue to feed. These three facts can be interpreted any number of ways, and having every vampire be the stereotypical count in black silk who lures people into his lair and then sexes them up while he kills them is boring. And anyway, it doesn't really make sense: why would a creature like that ever create spawn, since they would only be competition for the same resources? This type of vampire could only work if there were extremely few of them at any given time. In a world with a large number of vampires - perhaps the same amount of humans, or more - they would naturally have to develop a system of coexistence with their food source or risk mass starvation. Having all humans donate a pint of blood every month for vampire consumption, using the blood from the newly deceased (which is just thrown away anyway), etc etc. My opinion on vampire morality is "Vampires can be good, evil, and anywhere in between, just like humans." Don't you agree that makes it much more interesting?
Ragitsu 10-17-07, 03:48 AM	There's absolutely no reason why vampires would only be able to get their nutrition on blood taken from a sentient being On the other hand, it is completely logical (and I hesitate to that that word :) ), because whatever the writer wants, he can create. "Vampires can be good, evil, and anywhere in between, just like humans." Don't you agree that makes it much more interesting? No, not always.
JosephKell 10-17-07, 11:23 AM	There's absolutely no reason why vampires would only be able to get their nutrition on blood taken from a sentient being, and many books/movies/etc have touched on the idea of ethical vampires feeding on rats or other small animals.If there is a driving impulse to feed off of sentients, then not feeding off people is a good act. But if no such instinct exists, then living off animals is just a neutral act. Good people help others, neutral people don't affect others, and evil people hurt others.And, by the way, a vampire could hypothetically make the same argument about humanity: as the sole predators on our species, if vampires were ever to disappear humans would overpopulate the planet and quickly deplete all its resources, going extinct.According to Malthus (he was the guy that inspired Darwin), checks and balances prevent a species from overpopulating. When the population surpasses the level or resource support, the exess quickly starve and either relocate or die out. It is naive to believe that if there were suddenly only enough resources to feed half the people everywhere in the world that everyone would stop eating because not everyone can eat. Instead you would get hording of resources so more die than had to. So instead of dropping the population to just match supply, the population would drop to just below the supply. More likely however would be war to steal neighboring resources. War (especially ancient forms of it) can drastically reduce populations very quick. However, humans today (and in D&D) aren't domesticated. Humans pursue their own agendas. Domesticated animals do not, their needs are provided for them and their lives are carefully managed for maximum profit. That is why domesticated animals are commonly called livestock, because they are property. Finally, since we live in the real world, where there are no vampires, and we aren't all starving (there are starving but not everyone is), I can conclude that we don't need vampires to keep our numbers down.Again, I believe you're only thinking here of the traditional fantasy vampire as a sadistic killer who works alone and takes pleasure from killing their victims. *snip*The only way variations of vampire matters is whether or not they have to feed off of sentients. Assuming they DO have to feed off of sentients (which isn't a stretch if the cause of vampirism is a personal deficiency that causes their blood to spoil, then a vampire probably gets more blood efficiency from a more similar species the same way that humans get better protein efficiency for eating animals more closely to us), then vampires have no choice on the type of subject. However, there are other things then, like how much must a vampire take? Is it like D&D and Vampire:TM, where a vampire can take a little without propagating its species? Or is it such that a single bite and then survival will cause a human to turn? Assuming they DON'T have to feed off of sentients, then mere fact that a vampire CHOOSES its victims (basically choosing which of X number of people to feed from and potentially kill) means that there is morality involved. Why does Person 1 deserve to live more than Person 2, or 3, or 4? This is why animals (Int less than 3) are NEUTRAL. They don't have the choice options of sentient beings. Now if there were some sort of addictive property of vampires (like say in their saliva), then it is possible for vampires to effectively domesticate humans. Especially if a mere bite and partial drain isn't enough to infect humans with vampirism. Then it becomes an even more complex moral question. Are these Vamp-Spit addicted sentients still people? If all they think about each day is getting a high from a vamp bite, and must be hand held through their bodily needs (like eating and drinking), are they still people? That said, forcing such a domestication on a person is evil because you are still effectively killing the person. Now if the addiction can be inherited, then raising babies addicted to Vamp-Spit might not be evil (you are preventing yourself from having to feed on free sentients), but there is still the first sentient that was made addicted. You used an example of saying that humans co-existing with vampires could be mandated to donate blood. Aside from the fact that humans wouldn't go for it (they would rather fight), donating so much blood regularly DOES have major health effects. This topic is more complex than you have demonstrated. I should hope that from what I've supplied that you could tell that there is no way a vampire could be good just because of the dietary choices it makes. And the only way a vampire can be neutral (or good) is if it doesn't hurt sentients in its feeding. Then to be good it must go further to help those around it. Do I agree that vampires should run the gamut of alignments? Yeah, but I also think that a Good vampire would be pretty rare, just as Good people are fairly rare.
mikeloop86 10-17-07, 05:46 PM	I applaud you JosephKell :clap:
Tharsis 10-17-07, 10:29 PM	Vampires being evil or good just depends on the campaign setting. Have any of actualy read Bram Stoker's Dracula? Dracula is not just "trying to survive". He is clearly seen as not the same as a person eating a cow. He's clearly a demonic entity, much the same way as D&D infernals are. There is no question of what "energy" powers him, or what choices he made. Dracula is just... evil. As part of being a demonic entity, he has to drink blood to survive, not the other way around. He is not evil because he has to drink blood, but he has to drink blood because he is evil (and unnatural). He's Nosferatu, a demon who uses a human shell. Now, in some campaign settings, vampires are just people who were changed into something else, rather than people who are changed into demons. In these campaign settings, I don't see why vampires would be evil. If you use the traditional sense of what a vampire is, though, they are clearly evil. ...Also, vampires have to feed on humans traditionaly. Otherwise, they'd just be like us, except that they drain blood instead of eating flesh.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 10-18-07, 12:32 AM	Assuming they DO have to feed off of sentients (which isn't a stretch if the cause of vampirism is a personal deficiency that causes their blood to spoil, then a vampire probably gets more blood efficiency from a more similar species the same way that humans get better protein efficiency for eating animals more closely to us) We don't get better protein efficiency from eating animals more closely related to us. Protein is protein. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
JosephKell 10-18-07, 01:06 AM	I applaud you JosephKell :clap::king:We don't get better protein efficiency from eating animals more closely related to us. Protein is protein. It doesn't matter where it comes from.Actually we do. When we take in protein we have to take it apart enough before we rebuild it into human protein. It is theorized that cannibalism is more efficient, but good luck testing it. That said, the extra efficiency isn't really worth the grotesque and unsustainable nature of cultivating humans (to feed other humans). Unless we were in a "Make room, make room!" situation. :D "Soylent Green is People!" However (to beat the dead horse a little bit more), if vampires get their strength from blood (come to vampire lore), then the less digestion required to use the blood they take probably robs the blood less of that power. Plenty of lore that involve vampires subsisting off animals pretty much describe it as subsisting. Vampires getting by on animals tend to be less potent. Possibly both less potent and having to feed more often [off of animals]. So if we toss the "more strength from sentients' blood" and fear of exposure, then vampires would probably most fear each other. Therefore vampires have a lot of reason to be selfish (evil) by feeding on sentients just because they don't want to be weaker if rivals show up.
Ragitsu 10-18-07, 02:34 AM	Isn't the chance for brain disease also higher among cannibals?
JosephKell 10-19-07, 07:26 PM	Actually the principle risk of cannibalism is that viruses that affect the food can definitely affect the eater, as opposed to there being a chance of the food having a disease that can affect the eater. I guess there is probably at least one virus that can cause various types of cancer, so sure, I guess cannibalism can cause cancer. The risk of infection from ingestion is relatively low as long as a person is careful (I doubt even cannibals would eat a leper). There isn't much studying into cannibalism. Pretty much all cannibalistic societies were pretty undeveloped. It is very possible to explain any health defects by the environment. Imagine how much sicker people would be today if we didn't have vaccinations. But to get back on topic. If Vampires can't make their own blood, then they need blood similar to what they have, which seems to me to mean humans (or whatever they were before turning).
Melpomene 10-24-07, 01:31 PM	In most d20 writing systems, vampires are also depicted as having a negative energy soul. This is a problem inherant unto itself. Even mindless beings with this are tainted by evil. It's an unnatural stain, a blight upon reality. Even if the undead were a kitten-loving, rainbow-hugging hippy, the nature of their inversed soul causes evil thoughts and tendancies to swell in them beyond their ability to curb it. Of course, your physics may vary.
Duzzle 11-13-07, 09:02 PM	I keep on seeing the belief that they are evil because they are powered by negative energy, this is complete rubbish. Negative Energy is not evil just as positive energy is not good. Negative energy is no more evil than a sword, both are tools for killing, but in the end (in DnD) what matters is how you use them. Notice that the inflict line of spells, the purest negative energy spell in that it does nothing aside from channel negative energy, is not evil. At the same time positive energy is no more good than water, both are needed to sustain life, but both will just as readily kill it if there is too much. There are evil people powered by positive energy (demons for instance) just as there are good people powered by negative energy (arch-liches and Bael'norn). On the subject, vampires are evil because thats how they are standardly written (asking why a vampire is evil is like asking why a demon is evil, they just are, its part of what defines them). Now you can change that, and thats fine, but know that your siding with White Wolf instead of the original legends. Personally I think the White Wolf style of vampires can be very interesting, but I also have no problem with all vampires being evil (at the very least though I prefer them to be any evil instead of restricted to chaotic evil).
Ragitsu 11-14-07, 06:42 PM	It just promotes a stereotype.
mikeloop86 11-14-07, 11:33 PM	It just promotes a stereotype. And the problem with that being?
Ragitsu 11-15-07, 07:50 AM	There's a good chance they're being judged unfairly...it skews perception of these beings, and thus introduces the standard for making encounters too "black and white"
mikeloop86 11-15-07, 08:35 AM	There's a good chance they're being judged unfairly...it skews perception of these beings, and thus introduces the standard for making encounters too "black and white" A) They are far from judged unfairly when most (if not all) of them have the capabilities of your average special forces soldier hopped up on a PCP and Adrenaline cocktail. That fact, combined with the consistent homicidal or vindictive attitude they tend to have (Alignment: Always Evil) is enough justification for anyone looking out for himself or his family's skin to shoot first and ask questions later. B) With this stigma against them in place, it actually ALLOWS some interesting roleplayind development to take place. This can take the form of: a Vampire Duke whom the PC's have to temporarily ally themselves with to take on a greater foe; A PC who has been infected and thus must carefully seek out his friends for aid in finding a cure (or just finding new victims); and :sigh: it can even offer interesting dillemmas for your favored good vampires, as they could follow the same procedure as an infected PC, and even go through the personal struggle when its time to be cure (or destroyed) of whether or not the form they are now, with all it's power, can be of more aid to good in spite of the evil nature he would have to battle.
Ragitsu 11-15-07, 06:34 PM	I don't mean judged unfairly within the game world, but the writers of the book ( Monster Manual or d20 Modern Core Rulebook) that statted them.
Duzzle 11-15-07, 07:56 PM	I don't mean judged unfairly within the game world, but the writers of the book ( Monster Manual or d20 Modern Core Rulebook) that statted them. Judged them unfairly? By being true to their origins?
Ragitsu 11-15-07, 10:32 PM	That's it - there's not just one origin story for vampires in legend/mythology, so why only one alignment for "Always"?
Duzzle 11-15-07, 11:04 PM	That's it - there's not just one origin story for vampires in legend/mythology, so why only one alignment for "Always"? DnD vampires are obviously supposed to be based upon Eastern European, mostly Dracula, myth. Just paying attention to those roots we can see they are supposed to be evil. Even beyond that I don't know of any mythology that shows vampires as anything but evil (unless Hollywood/White Wolf count as acceptable mythology).
mikeloop86 11-16-07, 01:19 AM	That's it - there's not just one origin story for vampires in legend/mythology, so why only one alignment for "Always"? Because maybe D&D vampires are a specific type of vampire, with a specific type of origin. Because maybe D&D vampires aren't your vampires, and the writers at WOTC didn't feel like pandering to the needs of every inane incarnation of a beast. You complain about Vampires being tightcasted, what about all the other monsters in the MM? You think Mindflayers and beholders have been treated unfairly? What about Medusa? Hags? All of the above creatures come from many different myths, and come in many different incarnations, but I don't see you harping on the Wizards Staff for not making them swiss-army monsters like you want the vampire to be.
Ragitsu 11-16-07, 03:28 AM	Because maybe D&D vampires aren't your vampires I wasn't aware I had a type of vampire in mind. :) And your examples don't make sense - the Beholder and Mind Flayer are uniquely D&D, with no basis in real life mythology. That, and the medusa as per the Monster Manual / d20 Modern Core Rulebook are actually gorgons. And the gorgon from Monster Manual...I have no idea what that is.
mikeloop86 11-16-07, 10:01 AM	I wasn't aware I had a type of vampire in mind. :) Well obviously you don't want D&D's incarnation of vampire or else you wouldn't be complaining about it. ;) And your examples don't make sense - the Beholder and Mind Flayer are uniquely D&D, with no basis in real life mythology. That, and the medusa as per the Monster Manual / d20 Modern Core Rulebook are actually gorgons. And the gorgon from Monster Manual...I have no idea what that is. Except that the Mindflayers aren't solely from the creative minds of D&D. They were inspired from Lovecraftian horror literature, just like vampires were inspired from horror film and literature. The what does the name change of medusa have to do with my point? My point was that monsters like the medusa (or gorgon :rolleyes: ) come from specific myths, sometimes multiple myths, and yet still are unique in D&D from any other incarnation. So once again, I restate the question, why is it no one complains about the other monsters not incorporating their origins, but everybody throws a :censored:-fit about the Vampire?
Duzzle 11-16-07, 10:33 AM	So once again, I restate the question, why is it no one complains about the other monsters not incorporating their origins, but everybody throws a :censored:-fit about the Vampire? Because White Wolf has yet to make "Medusa: The Stoning" :P Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Melpomene 11-16-07, 01:56 PM	I keep on seeing the belief that they are evil because they are powered by negative energy, this is complete rubbish. Negative Energy is not evil just as positive energy is not good. Negative energy is no more evil than a sword, both are tools for killing, If you built a creature who's soul was made of swords, both you and they would be evil.
Duzzle 11-16-07, 02:33 PM	If you built a creature who's soul was made of swords, both you and they would be evil. If you would have finished reading the post you quoted you would have noticed that I mention actual canon DnD beings that have negative energy souls and yet are good aligned (and if you want more examples look at ghosts or necropolitins, both are alignment: any), being undead != being evil. Also you carried the analogy to a point that made no sense, but assuming it did make sense we could then apply the same argument to water (a soul made of water must be good), but Nimblewrights (from MM2) are constructs who have water elementals for souls, and yet they are any chaotic.
Giradius 11-16-07, 03:35 PM	Hello I am new to this debate and just want to offer my views on this. There are good vampires but you will never meet one because as soon as they realise what they are, they kill themselves. assuming they have an instinct to hunt and kill, they would rather end their own life than take many many more over the course of their immortal lifespan. Even if they had some measure of self control they would still not be good because they care more about there own existence than that of others because all it takes is one lapse and someone dies (and if infection is when bitten then everyone that this victim kills is also dead because of this selfish act). Regarding negative energy, My interpretation is that negative energy IS evil, its a manifestation of evil itself, hence evil doers tend to become undead when they die. I Imagine negative energy building up within a person like lead poisoning, each evil act contributing to the poisoning of the soul. Many games and books have rules for Taint, taint is the build up of negative energy and eventually the spiritual corruption becomes physical ((look at Palpatine for how this would work)). Mohrgs are mass murderers who die and become undead, Ghouls are cannibals who die and become undead. I know the type of vampire you are looking for... The brooding tragic anti-hero who bears his curse alone blah blah blah, I personally find these whining bleeding heart types irritating and cannot help but love a good villain, we are having this discussion because the evil character of Dracula, Graf Orlock, and the other vampires of literature and legend have made them popular, they are evil because we like them evil. I personally find the alignment system to be very unrealistic and problematic anyway, and so get around this by assigning racial alignments as opposed to personal ones. Vampires are inherently evil! their origin is from evil, even if they aren’t evil, their creator probably was, but sometimes one struggles against his own dark nature and behaves as best he can, but deep down his nature is still evil even though he may not be he is an aberration. Humans are inherently neutral! their origins are the animal kingdom which knows no good or evil merely survival, but sometimes you find one so morally corrupt and debased that he lives for abomination, yet his nature is still neutral, he is the aberration. This works for Necropolitans and things like them, they might not behave in an evil way but their origins are evil. (for an example of what i mean watch Psycho II and IV and this will show you what i mean, Norman Bates kills people but he doesn’t want to, he knows his nature and fights against it, he tries to be good and struggles with his own dark impulses, but yet he still commits evil acts, his insanity has twisted his nature his nature and it is inherently evil now even though he tries to be good) I would say in game terms that this inherent alignment is only changed when a template changes or when they use any form of alignment based magic, A Necromancer taints his soul by channelling negative energy (Evil incarnate) and eventually becomes undead and thus becomes evil, The vampire does the same thing and perhaps becomes an native outsider or a gains celestial qualities and then becomes good but at the same time is no longer a vampire. Alignment doesn’t have to be the big thing you are making of it, in reality all is used for is to determine what heals and what damages, and whether you are bolstered or weakened by an effect, in terms of moral boundaries they are quite inadequate*. *(imagine your lawful character travels to a theocracy that has all manner of stupid laws, your character does not become chaotic by not obeying them, he respects order and tradition as much as the priests of the theocracy but simply values different laws)* Sorry this post is so long.
Duzzle 11-16-07, 04:14 PM	From the SRD: NEGATIVE ENERGY PLANE To an observer, there’s little to see on the Negative Energy Plane. It is a dark, empty place, an eternal pit where a traveler can fall until the plane itself steals away all light and life. The Negative Energy Plane is the most hostile of the Inner Planes, and the most uncaring and intolerant of life. Only creatures immune to its life-draining energies can survive there. The Negative Energy Plane has the following traits. • Subjective directional gravity. • Major negative-dominant. Some areas within the plane have only the minor negative-dominant trait, and these islands tend to be inhabited. • Enhanced magic. Spells and spell-like abilities that use negative energy are maximized (as if the Maximize Spell metamagic feat had been used on them, but the spells don’t require higher-level slots). Spells and spell-like abilities that are already maximized are unaffected by this benefit. Class abilities that use negative energy, such as rebuking and controlling undead, gain a +10 bonus on the roll to determine Hit Dice affected. • Impeded magic. Spells and spell-like abilities that use positive energy, including cure spells, are impeded. Characters on this plane take a –10 penalty on Fortitude saving throws made to remove negative levels bestowed by an energy drain attack. Random Encounters: Because the Negative Energy Plane is virtually devoid of creatures, random encounters on the plane are exceedingly rare. I notice a distinct lack of the evil alignment trait. Negative energy is not the embodiment of evil, negative energy is one "of the basic building blocks of the universe" as the Negative Energy Plane is one of the Inner Planes. If you want the manifestation of evil you have to go a bit further and check out the Outer Planes (such as Hell and the Abyss). Pure evil is what Fiends are made of, yet they still run on positive energy.
mikeloop86 11-16-07, 05:00 PM	Regarding negative energy, My interpretation is that negative energy IS evil, its a manifestation of evil itself, hence evil doers tend to become undead when they die. As has been stated before by others in this topic, Negative Energy is not evil. By RAW, the only sign of a relationship between Evil and Negative Energy is that Evil Clerics have an easier time casting inflice spells and use the stuff to Rebuke Undead. Thats great that you houserule, but keep the houseruling out of this discussion. I personally find the alignment system to be very unrealistic and problematic anyway, and so get around this by assigning racial alignments as opposed to personal ones. GAH!! MY EYES!!! :eek: Sorry this post is so long. You could have saved yourself some energy had you read the earlier posts in this topic. Everything you have stated has already been brought forth by others, weighed, measured, and either found wanting, accepted, or is the current discussion. Because White Wolf has yet to make "Medusa: The Stoning" :D
Ragitsu 11-16-07, 05:30 PM	Well obviously you don't want D&D's incarnation of vampire or else you wouldn't be complaining about it. ;) So once again, I restate the question, why is it no one complains about the other monsters not incorporating their origins, but everybody throws a :censored:-fit about the Vampire? 1) Obviously? You are quite mistaken - I do want it, but having more variants would have at least given a wide variety (an addition on different alignments, stereotypes) of DMs options than just saying "Always Evil" 2) Why is it whenever someone brings up a debate on one aspect of one (or more) system(s), they have to complain about another aspect of it, or state why others aren't complaining about it? Perhaps they have, but that isn't the point of this thread.
mikeloop86 11-16-07, 07:35 PM	1) Obviously? You are quite mistaken - I do want it, but having more variants would have at least given a wide variety (an addition on different alignments, stereotypes) of DMs options than just saying "Always Evil" I haven't seen any complaints in this topic besides ones about the vampire's alignments, which could simply boil down to a houserule of the DM. Going by this, unless you are asking for variants in the form of actual different monsters based on the differing myths and media (which is something that I would be for in that situation), there really is no reason for WotC to state any different on the alignment section of the vampire. As far as WotC's default 3.0/3.5 campaign is concerned, Vampires default to Always Evil. Change as you see fit for your game. 2) Why is it whenever someone brings up a debate on one aspect of one (or more) system(s), they have to complain about another aspect of it, or state why others aren't complaining about it? Perhaps they have, but that isn't the point of this thread. WHY HELLO THAR STRAWMAN ARGUMENT! NICE SEEING YOU AGAIN! I never stated nor intended to imply that if someone complains about one thing, they have to complain about the rest. I was pointing out plainly that because of the Vampire's popularity, people are more willing to change (read: *woobify) the vampire into something it not only isn't but most likely wasn't intended to be by WotC. *Woobification definition can be found here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.TheWoobie
Giradius 11-16-07, 11:37 PM	WOW guys thanks for the warm welcome. Duzzle: I appreciate that, but as I said that’s MY INTERPRETATION, and as I am DM in this instance I can change what I want, I don’t like half of the explanations they give for various mechanical functions of this game. Mikeloop86: I see no reason to keep house rules out of this, After all what is this set of forums for, If it was for people to just quote rules at each other there would be no point to them posting the PHB, DMG and MM on the website would there, this should be a forum for people who can have opposing views but bring something to table to back them up, and i did, you may not agree but thats your opinion. and regarding your eyes, I don’t know what you are getting at (honestly), people dont have alignments , you can fit your own moral structure within the boundaries of D&D alignments very roughly but there are always holes and things called circumstances which get in the way of such a black and white view of things. If it is reasonable to label ALL animals with the neutral alignment(where you have a herbivore such as a Cow and a Cat which is a predator and actualy toys and torments rats and mice before killing them) then it is not so unreasonable to label an inteligent species such as humans (who are animals as well, animals that reason but still animals)
Ragitsu 11-16-07, 11:44 PM	mikeloop86, we aren't discussing the fact of how the book currently is, but what their reasoning was for making them "Always Evil"
Ragitsu 11-16-07, 11:45 PM	WOW guys thanks for the warm welcome. Duzzle: I appreciate that, but as I said that’s MY INTERPRETATION, and as I am DM in this instance I can change what I want, I don’t like half of the explanations they give for various mechanical functions of this game. Mikeloop86: I see no reason to keep house rules out of this, After all what is this set of forums for, If it was **** retentive jerks to just quote rules at each other there would be no point to them posting the rules on here now would there, so I don’t think I will avoiding house rule postings just yet. and regarding your eyes, I don’t know what you are getting at, so your point is totally wasted, telltale sign of a poor communicator (or probably just an unpleasant person) Don't worry about it, and don't let them discourage you from sharing your view on it.
Duzzle 11-16-07, 11:45 PM	Duzzle: I appreciate that, but as I said that’s MY INTERPRETATION, and as I am DM in this instance I can change what I want, I don’t like half of the explanations they give for various mechanical functions of this game. Sorry, I know you started by saying it was your interpretation but it came across as a definite statement. My apologies for misinterpreting you. My post did however reinforce previous statements I had made and contributed to the discussion as a whole regardless of whether it is taken as a reply to your post or not. Mikeloop86: I see no reason to keep house rules out of this, After all what is this set of forums for, If it was **** retentive jerks to just quote rules at each other there would be no point to them posting the rules on here now would there, so I don’t think I will avoiding house rule postings just yet. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The topic is about why vampires are evil, as in standard DnD, not how they are evil because of houserules. Oh, and responding as harshly if not more so than your detractors does not put you in any better light.
Ragitsu 11-16-07, 11:59 PM	Not a good comparison. The butcher, more often than not, will just slaughter the animal quickly and be done with it. A vampire HAS to feed on a living subject, which means slowly draining someone of their health while their alive. A butcher wouldn't go about it the same way a vampire would, unless he too was as sick and demented as the vampire. Also, once again, the butcher is a man like you and me, while the vampire is an entity powered by a force that is inherently evil. And what would that force be?
Giradius 11-17-07, 12:14 AM	Duzzle: I apologize, I think there is a lot of room for interpretation in what is considered canon and rule, I tend to follow the golden rule, that it is ultimately up to the DM what happens in his game, the DM is not god, the DM controls gods. i must also point out that i was logging back in to edit my post as my temper got the better of me, and combine this with an occasional lack of tact and we have a recipe for disaster. I just expected a slightly more pleasant response from someone who probably shares half my interests, after everyone here posts becasue they are creative and because they love roleplaying, i dont want to get into arguments with people and i see no reason for people to be rude, so again i offer my apologies. Oh and thank you Ragitsu :D
mikeloop86 11-17-07, 12:23 AM	And what would that force be? Evil, and edit your posts before instead of posting multiple ones right next to each other. mikeloop86, we aren't discussing the fact of how the book currently is, but what their reasoning was for making them "Always Evil" And wouldn't the best way to do that be basing our analysis on what they actually wrote? Duzzle: I appreciate that, but as I said that’s MY INTERPRETATION, and as I am DM in this instance I can change what I want, I don’t like half of the explanations they give for various mechanical functions of this game. Once again, good for you for thinking outside the box, but that doesn't help us in a discussion about what the writers' at WotC (read: NOT YOU) intensions and justifications were in making the Vampire Always Evil. The problem is that bringing in Houserules can immediately through a monkey wrench into otherwise sound and plausible theories, on both sides of this argument. Example: You make the Negative Energy Plane evil, thus making Negative Evergy responsible for the Vampire's evilness. Okay, then lets introduce my houserules that state Vampires are native to the Positive Evergy Plane, and feed off of Human waste as opposed to blood. There goes the all the theories saying vampires are evil due to the act of feeding (who minds if they eat :censored:?), and there goes your assertion that they are evil by association with the Negative Energy Plane. It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point. Mikeloop86: I see no reason to keep house rules out of this, After all what is this set of forums for, If it was **** retentive jerks to just quote rules at each other there would be no point to them posting the rules on here now would there, so I don’t think I will avoiding house rule postings just yet. Then be prepared to have most of what you post disregarded if you can't see the logic behind going by what an author wrote on a subject and not a fan of the author. We share views on vampires being evil, but I don't share your justifications. and regarding your eyes, I don’t know what you are getting at, so your point is totally wasted, telltale sign of a poor communicator (or probably just an unpleasant person) Ok, I'll spell it out for you: Your houserule on alignment is grossly simplistic (at least as you presented it) to me and damages your credible standing with me on the topic of D&D. The blatent insult doesn't help your case either.
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 12:26 AM	So, what would that force be?
Duzzle 11-17-07, 12:26 AM	Duzzle: I apologize, I think there is a lot of room for interpretation in what is considered canon and rule, I tend to follow the golden rule, that it is ultimately up to the DM what happens in his game, the DM is not god, the DM controls gods. i must also point out that i was logging back in to edit my post as my temper got the better of me, and combine this with an occasional lack of tact and we have a recipe for disaster. I just expected a slightly more pleasant response from someone who probably shares half my interests, after everyone here posts becasue they are creative and because they love roleplaying, i dont want to get into arguments with people and i see no reason for people to be rude, so again i offer my apologies. It's all right. My own problem is that I tend to be too much of a stickler for rules as written...except when I make my own setting (currently working on a combination of d20 modern and World of Darkness that then got blown up, set 100 years after the Apocalypse. Obviously I was playing to much Vampire before thinking of it)
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 12:31 AM	Hello I am new to this debate and just want to offer my views on this. There are good vampires but you will never meet one because as soon as they realise what they are, they kill themselves. In your games, is there ever a cure for vampirism?
mikeloop86 11-17-07, 12:32 AM	So, what would that force be? Evil. Thats the Force. A Force of EVIL!!! The Tangible Evil Energy that exists in the D&D multiverse, outside of Negative, Positive, Fire, Cold, Sonic, and Electricity. The same primal force Demons and Devils are composed of. EVIL!!!!.... With just a hint of Negative Energy thrown in, you know, to animate the creature.
Giradius 11-17-07, 12:41 AM	Mikeloop86: I apologise, as I mentioned i was logging in to change that, perhaps it is the way you worded your reply which seemed to grate on me, it seemed unnecessarily acidic and i reacted in a what i considered to be an equally negative way, this was a mistake, i have no wish to cause trouble or get a reputation. To clear what i meant about racial alignments, in this context alignment has nothing to with personal morality but with the races nature, Alignment in the mechanical sense serves only to impose boundaries on what other mechanics effect the character, does bane help or hinder, does negative energy harm or heal, do i take damage from picking up an "evil" sword or a good sword. Good and evil are just labels. regarding a races nature, Remember what Director Manning say to Hellboy about the fact that he has killed every monster there will still always be one left (a bit harsh but somewhat true), Hellboy is a devil but no one would say he has evil alignment, but because of his demonic nature he would still be bound by true name magic and i suspect would be damaged by silver or cold iron for instance. This is in reality a form of extended original sin, You are evil (or sinful) because Adam was sinful it is part of human nature (this is not my real opinion but serves as an example of what i am getting at), just as a vampires nature is cruel predatory and evil, maybe some fight against their nature but the fact they have to fight at all implies they are evil by nature.
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 12:41 AM	Yeah, but...since vampires can be good, is that to say then that being a vampire in itself is evil (the state of existing as ), or becoming a vampire makes you evil as a sort of change that's purely spiritual to make killing easier? And at least you didn't say negative energy is evil...that's something I never got.
Giradius 11-17-07, 12:47 AM	Ragitsu: I dont think a cure for vampirism is possible because the cure for undeath is death, if memory serves a final look of peace passes Draculas face when he dies (although it was a long time ago). Death is supposed to be natural state, undeath is not. Also hypothetically, would a good aligned vampire still be turned by a holy symbol? would immersion in running water (baptism, purification, washing away of evil, thats the symbolism I see) still destroy one?
mikeloop86 11-17-07, 12:52 AM	Mikeloop86: I apologise, as I mentioned i was logging in to change that, perhaps it is the way you worded your reply which seemed to grate on me, it seemed unnecessarily acidic and i reacted in a what i considered to be an equally negative way, this was a mistake, i have no wish to cause trouble or get a reputation. To clear what i meant about racial alignments, in this context alignment has nothing to with personal morality but with the races nature, Alignment in the mechanical sense serves only to impose boundaries on what other mechanics effect the character, does bane help or hinder, does negative energy harm or heal, do i take damage from picking up an "evil" sword or a good sword. Good and evil are just labels. regarding a races nature, Remember what Director Manning say to Hellboy about the fact that he has killed every monster there will still always be one left (a bit harsh but somewhat true), Hellboy is a devil but no one would say he has evil alignment, but because of his demonic nature he would still be bound by true name magic and i suspect would be damaged by silver or cold iron for instance. This is in reality a form of extended original sin, You are evil (or sinful) because Adam was sinful it is part of human nature (this is not my real opinion but serves as an example of what i am getting at), just as a vampires nature is cruel predatory and evil, maybe some fight against their nature but the fact they have to fight at all implies they are evil by nature. Apology accepted and slate cleaned in my book. As to the racial alignment, you've made it much more clear as to what you were getting at, and while I still wouldn't implement that as a DM, or agree to play under those conditions, I can see the good intentions behind it. The thing is, as far as some undead and alignment dependent affects are concerned, a lot of what your doing with that houserule is already in place. Undead of any alignment and type come up under the Detect Evil spell, and multiple spells affect both evil creature and undead at greater power. As for other creature and races, it gets fishier from there. Saying orcs ALWAYS register as evil, and elves as good, could lead to frustrated players who might justifiably want to play an orc paladin or an elven blackguard. Ragitsu: I dont think a cure for vampirism is possible because the cure for undeath is death, if memory serves a final look of peace passes Draculas face when he dies (although it was a long time ago). Death is supposed to be natural state, undeath is not Actually, I think the cure for any form of undeath is re-death (destroying the undead) followed by a true resurrection. :cool: EDIT Also hypothetically, would a good aligned vampire still be turned by a holy symbol? would immersion in running water (baptism, purification, washing away of evil, thats the symbolism I see) still destroy one? Yep, at least by RAW
Duzzle 11-17-07, 12:56 AM	Ragitsu: I dont think a cure for vampirism is possible because the cure for undeath is death, if memory serves a final look of peace passes Draculas face when he dies (although it was a long time ago). Death is supposed to be natural state, undeath is not. I know of one cure for vampirism, high level magic :P Wish or resurrect (if they want it) should do the trick. Edit: Blast, you beat me to it mikeloop86 Edit2: Oh, I'm curious Giradius, if you houserule negative energy as pure evil does that make positive energy pure good? Or is positive energy no longer the opposite of negative energy?
Giradius 11-17-07, 01:08 AM	Those cures are all fine in a high magic setting but in modern horror setting where the secrets of the ancient sorcerors are lost, then you are up a certain creek without a certain implement, the only thing in that instance that would do would be artifacts like the holy grail and you cant just buy those in a corner shop. Even low magic Fantasy, (magic loses something for me if its too widespread and every city has an arcane university) still presents the same problem.
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 01:08 AM	I see evil in four steps. 1. Innate = Demons and Devils: they are formed of it. 2. Genetic = Dragons: it seems that they inherit their dispositions. 3. Societal = Orcs / Kobolds / Goblins: it is so hammered in by society that if they were raised with people other than their own, they would most likely at least be neutral on average. 4. Necessity = Most Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves that become evil: whether out of good intentions, a lust for violence or other "mundane" reason, they nevertheless have the easiest time breaking away. There are more creatures, of course, but these examples are most obvious.
Giradius 11-17-07, 01:16 AM	I agree Ragitsu. But I would say that in some cases there may be a mix of all those things, and sometimes one of those factors may exert more pressure than the others. and also if you look from a different angle you see that maybe the people that turn to evil from necessity do so because they are genetically predisposed to do so (Schizophrenia can be genetic and run in families), perhaps a society is evil because its people have natural tendencies to this kind of behaviour. Maybe you can take the orc out of his dark god worshipping brutal flesh eating tribe but you cant take the dark god worshipping brutal flesh eating tribe out of the orc.
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 01:20 AM	I can sort of see where you're coming from - violent tendencies or mental conditions which encourage them could be hereditary, but outright being evil? Hm...one might be treatable by therapy, but the other one could need an act of redemption if far gone.
Giradius 11-17-07, 01:39 AM	Duzzle: No I dont use positive energy as the opposite of negative, I Interpret positive energy more as the vitality of nature, the lifeforce. It is aligned to goodness because goodness nurtures. Negative energy is evil and as such destroys. Think of one as the force of creation and vitality and the other as entropy (not destruction because destruction is the ally of creation) the established Yin/Yang positive-negative doesnt realy appeal to me, i am not a fan of the dualistic universe.
Duzzle 11-17-07, 01:47 AM	Duzzle: No I dont use positive energy as the opposite of negative, I Interpret positive energy more as the vitality of nature, the lifeforce. It is aligned to goodness because goodness nurtures. Negative energy is evil and as such destroys. Think of one as the force of creation and vitality and the other as entropy (not destruction because destruction is the ally of creation) the established Yin/Yang positive-negative doesnt realy appeal to me, i am not a fan of the dualistic universe. Do you make the fiends (demons, devils, and yugoloths) run off of negative energy then? Their about as far from nurturing as you can get, and they are supposed to be made of manifest evil. But doesn't that also mean all living creatures (ie all creatures powered by positive energy, as you say its "aligned to goodness") should naturally be inclined to good? Which must not be true as it goes against your statements about racial alignment tendencies :/
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 02:17 AM	I don't really see that - because Positive Energy can be harmful too (too much of it) and Negative Energy could be used to kill harmful microorganisms (as the other poster mentioned). Therefore, they are both neutral alignmentwise.
Duzzle 11-17-07, 02:28 AM	I don't really see that - because Positive Energy can be harmful too (too much of it) and Negative Energy could be used to kill harmful microorganisms (as the other poster mentioned). Therefore, they are both neutral alignmentwise. While I agree, I'm asking about his specific house ruling which changes the nature of the two energies, thus giving them alignments.
Ragitsu 11-17-07, 02:53 AM	Ah, I didn't see that part. My mistake. :)
Giradius 11-17-07, 09:58 AM	Its not so much that positive energy has an a alignment in itself, it is energy and therefore mindless (of a sort, it follows predictable courses like all other energy), in the same way fire has no alignment. Alignment implies a moral choice and they are incapible of such. Positive enerfy is generally good in that it fosters growth and more life, Negative energy is evil in that it decays, corrupts and destroys. This might seem like a contradition given that I use negative energy as inhernetly evil, but its a matter of perspective, Evil does not create negative energy, evil exists because of negative energy, they are connected in the similar way that electricity and magnetism are. Demons (and angels too) are Outsiders, which in my mind means they are outside the normal rules for living beings, being native to planes where different physics and laws apply they are not powered by positive or negative energy and use their own inherent divine power, the difference between Gods and Demons is a matter of theology not nature. If i remember correctly the origin of the word Demon is from a greek word that means "small god".
Shadojack 11-28-07, 03:42 PM	Ok, if a butcher slaughters animals and feasts on them to feed himself. Lets say he even discovers that animal blood tastes good and starts drinking it. Maybe even enjoys killing animals to feast on them. Would he be considered evil? A vampire is just slaughterer of what he sees as "animals" to feed himself. Don't give me crap about humans being higher organisms thus eating them would make you more evil then eating an animal. So now were judging how bad your actions are by the intelligence score of what you killed? Even if he can't understand what the animals are saying he pretty much knows its saying "Don't kill, roast, and eat me." I say if a vampire is considered evil, why not consider the butcher who slaughters and feasts on animals evil? My random comments for today.... I'm a vegetarian so I don't care. And no it was for health reasons not because of some moral delima or the movie "Babe". If I'm lost in the wilds and starving and some rabbit just comes hopping along, he's getting roasted. We don't blame the wolf, tiger, or other carnivors for eating other animals, why? Because that is what nature intended. Vampires are an affront to the natural order of things so any theory comparing them to humans or other animals dietary patterns is irrelivent.
Ragitsu 12-20-07, 07:27 PM	It's interesting to read that a vegetarian would abandon their lifestyle if necessary.
Giradius 12-20-07, 10:10 PM	I think Shadojack has hit the nail on the head. Vampires are undead and therefore "Unnatural" , an aorganism that feed another organism does so because life depends on the process, I find it ironic that as a vegetarian myself I have refered to the carniverous nature of animal life as vampiric in conversations. ( I am a vegetarian for a combination of health and desire to avoid unnessary cruelty, the second my circumstances change i will drop it and eat meat again) Life depends on eating other life, even herbivores consume living organisms (it is hard for many people to see plants a living organism's, and funnily enough, vegans who abstain from all animal products for moral reasons, are the sort of people who favour rustic or exotic wooden decorations and furniture). the issue with vampires is that they are not supposed to exist, their parasitic existance is a mockery of natural states, Animals consume life to live, Vampires dont live in the first place. As I have said before , the issue of a "good" vampire would not come up becasue the first thing a "good" person would do once they know what they are is walk out into the morningsun, even if they think they can control themselves, a single lapse means someones deaths, something that a supposedly good person could not allow, it is not selfish to value your own life (or unlife) but by the moral code implied in the question would prohibit a vampires with a will to exist because it will almost certainly be at the cost of anothers (to hold on to an immortal existance where you are constantly driven instinctivly to kill, you could live for thousands of years, probablility dictates you will lose control at least once in that time). if you look at 2 setting where vampires are common, Nosgoth (the soulreaver & legacy of Kain games) and the WOD, The world itself causes earthquakes and other cataclysms in an attemot to shake of Kains vampiric empire. In the WOD it was my understanding that lupines are Gaias antibodies to fight off vampires.
Dravda 01-01-08, 04:30 PM	I've only read the 1st page of this thread, so bear with me here if this has already been said: Libris Mortis says that undead, while some may look human, are twisted and malformed in their outlook by their connection to the Negative Energy plane. Usually, they do not even consider compassion as a choice at all, although most retain enough of their memories to know that their acts are wrong. This makes them thoroughly evil. Furthermore, unlike living creatures, who can shape their outlook and form new opinions in response to new experiences, undead cannot. They do not live, they exist. This is why many ancient undead seem insane. They can't usually do anything different in the face of new experiences: they can only do what they've always done. They cannot be persuaded not to kill, not to maim, or to not be destructive: they can't help it. I am of the opinion that vampires are evil, although exceptions could exist. I'm just sick of all these vampire romance stories in style right now. My favorite interpretation of vampires can be found in Heroes of Horror: "Remember, too, that vampires are predators first and foremost. From the bestial figure covered in grave dirt, barely more than a lowly ghoul, to the cold lord scheming in his castle, vampires are hunters, gluttons, addicts, and sociopaths rolled into one. A vampire's lust for blood is no mere hunger but a profane and burning need that permeates every iota of its being. Modern literature romanticizes vampires into sensual beings whose need for blood is little more than a dietary quirk. Don't hesitate to fall back on older interpretations. Portray vampires in your campaign as rage-filled, murderous beings for whom all other concerns--romance, honor, wealth, power--pale before the all-consuming need to feed." (Heroes of Horror, 136) Other interpretations of vampires are certainly viable, but I quite like this one. -Count Dravda EDIT: Since you guys were thinking about a variant rule for "Resisting the Urge to Feed", Libris Mortis has the exact rule in a sidebar on page 10. Satiation: 3 Days Will DC: 15 Damage: 2d4 Wis SATIATION: A diet-dependent undead takes ability damage every three days unless it makes a successful DC 15 Will save. Each time an undead feeds on its preferred morsel, it is satiated and need not make these saving throws for the satiation period noted on the table. After the satiation period wears off, the undead once again grows hungry. DAMAGE: An undead's need to feed is like a mental spike boring into its awareness, dealing the indicated damage each day unless the undead succeeds on the saving throw or feeds. An undead immediately gains back all of the ability damage it has taken if it manages to feed. As the undead goes longer and longer without feeding, potentially losing Wisdom all the while, the undead grows increasingly unbalanced. It mulls over plans that would allow it to feed--plans it would likely consider too risky were it completely sane. When the undead reaches 0 Wisdom, it retains no volition of its own, no judgment to deter it from seeking its preferred morsel, even if the undead's utter destruction seems likely thereafter. (A player character who reaches 0 wisdom from failure to feed is temporarily remanded to the DM, who plays the undead as a ravening beast until the character has fed.) An intelligent undead sometimes plans for this eventuality, even arranging to have itself locked away in a self-constructed vault from which it is unable to escape. It will stay there until a prearranged third party provides the undead with its preferred morsel (presumably in a fashion that does not endanger the third party, though accidents do happen).
Giradius 01-02-08, 09:14 PM	Couldn’t have put it better myself... The analogies of butcher and cow, predator and prey are only superficially true, Undead are supposed to be wholly unnatural and bear only the semblance of true life. I am not a fan of the wishy washy "Emo" vampires whose tragic life is so full of pain and dark romance, if undeath is so bad walk out into the sun and do us all a favour, I think that a lot of anime is to blame for much of this as well as things like Buffy. I am more of a Count terrorizing the local village of inbred yokels who go quiet when someone walks into the Inn, high collar black cloak Christopher Lee type vampire kind o Guy.
ukplayerX 01-10-08, 10:17 AM	Yup, the reason of "Mythology made them that way and they aren't real." That reason. Read 'Vampires, Burial and Death: Folklore and Reality' by Paul Barber, it should answer all your questions.
Thakowsaizmu 01-25-08, 01:22 AM	Read 'Vampires, Burial and Death: Folklore and Reality' by Paul Barber, it should answer all your questions. I don't believe I posed a question... Seriously though, wow, this is still going? I figured it'd be dead by now. Pun intended.
GodOfYams 01-26-08, 07:22 PM	I'm sure I don't know as much on the subject as the other posters on this forum, but here's my opinion on why vampires are listed as always evil. Becoming a Vampire is (Obviously) a transformation. The subject goes from being a living being (let's use human, because that's the most familiar form to us.) to being a much more powerful undead version of themselves, unfortunately, it comes with it's negative aspects. Now, the key thing here is that they go from being alive to undead, meaning they have to die, then come back. This could cause serious damage to the brain or soul of the recipient. Alternatively, the process of vampirism could have been tailor-made to turn the victim evil. Similar to what the zerg do to kerrigan in star craft. The vampire may remember their life, but they now look at it with distaste and can't see how they were ever content with being good. Feel free to point out the errors in my arguement (But please, just ignore any spelling errors)