Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Furious D 18 10-09-06, 01:00 AM	In the vampire template, it states that the alignment of the creature changes to evil. However, any creature with its own intelligence and wisdom has free will, and can choose to be good, right? I can imagine a vampire that might have the evil alignment for the purposes of game mechanics that depend on alignment, but would also act in a way to protect the good people of his villiage. From there, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine a vampire that does so many good deeds that he gains a "good" alignment. So, can a vampire resist the natural tendancies to be evil? If so, what does it take?
Salla 10-09-06, 01:22 AM	In the vampire template, it states that the alignment of the creature changes to evil. However, any creature with its own intelligence and wisdom has free will, and can choose to be good, right? I can imagine a vampire that might have the evil alignment for the purposes of game mechanics that depend on alignment, but would also act in a way to protect the good people of his villiage. From there, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine a vampire that does so many good deeds that he gains a "good" alignment. So, can a vampire resist the natural tendancies to be evil? If so, what does it take? A lot of it gets filed under DM preference, DM tendencies, and what kind of mythologies the DM has been influenced by. A vampire *can* be good ... as you say, it has free will, therefore it has free choice. It's just against its nature ... keep in mind, though, even an evil creature can perform good acts if properly motivated.
captainswift 10-09-06, 01:30 AM	I always rule that intelligent creatures can make the choice between good and evil (and Law and Chaos). I make an exception for creatures (powerful outsiders, notably) who have alignments as sub-types perhaps, because in a sense, they're made of Good or Evil. On the other hand, just because a demon is evil, doesnt' mean he can't be friendly, or even helpful. A game I ran once, the party was primarily heroic, but one of the major NPC's was a succubus who was famililaly devoted to a tiefling in the party, and often helped him out. Even the RAW allows for exceptions (MM p. 305), even for "always x" alignments.
Furious D 18 10-09-06, 01:37 AM	Thanks for the page reference. Specifically, I was thinking about a paladin killed by a vampire, which was later slain. The paladin would rise from the dead, but would be free from the "master" vampire, and would be free to make his own decisions. Unless the transformation has a severe effect on his psyche, I picture him having the same morals and values that he had in life. But if that's the way all vampires acted, then there would be no "alignment" line in the template.
Shinryouga 10-09-06, 04:34 AM	What if the very act of breathing was a fundamentally evil thing to do? How much good would you have to do to balance out the evil your very existance requires to continue? Dont get me wrong, I love the idea, and I'm the first to argue for exceptions to the alignments. Within reason and believability. Con #1. Vampires need to feed. The most concise and official rules are from libris mortis. A vamp who doesn't feed needs to will save or go nuts trying to get his fix (think mind of a strung out crack addict, with a body on PCP). At best, every 3 days you will need to make a DC 15 will save, or take 2d4 wisdom damage. Should you get reduced to 0 wis, you go nuts, feeding on the closest thing to you. NOTE: There is an odd hiccup in the hunger rules in Libris Mortis that makes vampires actually more dependant on beating creatures to death than drinking their blood. Your DM may houserule it differently, but if he plays it from the book, your also looking at similar DC 25 saves if you aren't killing things with your slam attack and energy drain. Con #2: You will be constantly hunted. Vampires are well known as one of the most insidious, agressive, and dangerous undead. They can rival liches in intelligence, and are capable of reproducing. Expect multiple vampire hunters and radiant servants of pelor to try and bring you down. Con #3 (Regarding being good): Doing good for personal gain (and wanting to not be perceived as evil is personal gain) gives you nothing. Alignment is the sum of the universe's perception of your actions, desires, and beleifs. Your own opinion has no bearing on it. (heavy Planescape foundations in my gaming group, disregard if your DM feels otherwise). An evil creature who did good for the purposes of not going to a lower plane upon death would get a neutral plane at best. Good is only good when it isn't done for oneself. Con 4#(Regarding being Good): You must harm and end life to survive. Your existance mandates the abuse and destruction of life. Unless you can curb your appetites to non-sentient creatures, you will have a hard time every reaching good alignment. Much like you or I enjoy the taste of our favorite foods, and our mouth waters when we smell them, and our stomachs rumble, and if denied long enough, our stomachs demand that we put anything inside to sate the hunger, a vampire feels that way about the living creatures around him. Other beings are food, how do you force yourself to continue seeing your companions as friends and equals and not cattle? Something you'll have to decide for yourself. Potential Pro #1: Libris mortis does not state that a vampire needs human(oid) blood to survive. Your DM may houserule otherwise, but as it stands, you could get by on rats and cats. Hope this helps, Im a personal fan of the redeemed vampire, but you might find it a tad hard to play unless your group bends some of the rules a bit. I reccomend watching some old episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spin-off Angel, for how to be a redeemed (or mid-redemption) vampire. Still, best of luck!
wrecan 10-09-06, 08:54 AM	Well, if anything should have a "severe effect on the psyche" it would be a transformation into vampirism. Vampirism in D&D is not the same as vampirism in Anne Rice novels or White Wolf games. Evil is tangible force in the the D&D cosmos and vampires (and most undead) are slaves to it. Their free will is severely limited, much in the way that people with obsessive compulsive order are, but much more severe. A vampire in D&D is "always evil", although his free will allows him to choose between LE, NE and CE. Now, even ex-paladin vampires can seek to redeem themselves, but that should be an epic quest, not the fortuitous result of having been raised as a vampire after your master was slain. And such an individual should be unique (ala, the famous succubus paladin example). Now, you can house rule this, of course, but as you asked the question in the rules counseling forum, I assum you wanted to know if such a thing was feasible under the rules. It isn't.
Shinryouga 10-09-06, 09:10 AM	Addendum: It isn't possible under the core rules or the expanded rules, unless you are SPECIFICALLY using the Libris Mortis variants of flexible undead alignments. Not trying to step on toes, Wrecan, but figured it should be said.
Millennium 10-09-06, 09:30 AM	For a vampire, just surviving requires many Evil acts. Any vamp who can manage to refrain from walking into a sunrise for very long after its creation might not necessarily be Evil, but certainly has enough of a stomach for Evil acts that I think it's fair to say that any Good alignment is lost.
wrecan 10-09-06, 09:35 AM	Addendum: It isn't possible under the core rules or the expanded rules, unless you are SPECIFICALLY using the Libris Mortis variants of flexible undead alignments. Not trying to step on toes, Wrecan, but figured it should be said. Good point. I don't own Libris Mortis. Thanks!
Echo_that_Pains 10-09-06, 10:00 AM	The only reason I would say that it isn't possible is the whole feeding thing. You are required to kill to feed which is in no way considered "Good" and maybe a streach of the rules would allow "Neutral". Outside of that, I do not see why you couldnt be a non-evil character. The only catch with droping the evil alignment might cause you to loose some of the vampire's special abilities/attacks.
Sereno 10-09-06, 10:10 AM	Another viable route to a benevolent/redeemed vampire is to still be evil but not EVIL!!! Feed only on other evil people; catch criminals in the act and feed on them. Work behind the scenes with good forces, even though you, yourself, are not truly good. You may never be able to reach an LG alignment, but you can (un)live your (un)life without ever harming or killing an "innocent" person.
Furious D 18 10-09-06, 10:19 AM	I don't own Libris Mortis either, and in the MM it doesn't say that vampires have to feed, so that's what I'm going off of. Also, for clarification, I wasn't asking about a PC, but an NPC. But after thinking about it some more, I don't think I'll have the paladin stay good. I want to have certain absolute truths in my game: vampires are evil, angels are good. I think it makes the world more predictable and realistic for the players. Thanks to everyone for the advice.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 10:21 AM	Without Libris Mortis, by RAW Vampires are pretty solidly evil since all we have to go by is their description/stat block. However, I've always found alignment to be one of the more. . troublesome. . components of the D20 system. It's hard to intelligently rationalize free will with fixed alignments. I could easily rationalize most any creature 'switching teams' so to speak. Perhaps some of the extraplanar creatures would be considered more embodiments of their alignment (archons, devils, etc) than true free willed creatures. However, the problem is of course 'how do they survive'. By the book (without Libris Mortis) it doesn't say anything about vampires needing to kill sentient creatures to survive. I could see incorporating it into a campaign, it's just a case where you need to dot a lot of 'i's and cross a lot of 't's to make it believable. . . a little of your typical 'resisting one's nature' cliche' as well as some originality that would make the creature stand out on it's own. :)
Salla 10-09-06, 11:31 AM	The only reason I would say that it isn't possible is the whole feeding thing. You are required to kill to feed which is in no way considered "Good" and maybe a streach of the rules would allow "Neutral". Outside of that, I do not see why you couldnt be a non-evil character. The only catch with droping the evil alignment might cause you to loose some of the vampire's special abilities/attacks. You don't have to kill to feed ... you have to hurt, yes, but not kill, and as stated above, nothing says a vampire has to attack humans or sentient life at all for their sustenance. A vampire feeding from, say, a cow is little different from a human eating a steak.
wrecan 10-09-06, 11:45 AM	And nothing says red dragons have to kill either. And yet they are "always chaotic evil" Vampires are not evil because they drink blood. They are intriniscally evil in the same way that Outsiders and Dragons and anything with an "always" descriptor in their alignment block is intrinsically of that alignment. D&D is a game in which some things are just inherently evil. Vampires are one of those things.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 11:54 AM	And nothing says red dragons have to kill either. And yet they are "always chaotic evil" Vampires are not evil because they drink blood. They are intriniscally evil in the same way that Outsiders and Dragons and anything with an "always" descriptor in their alignment block is intrinsically of that alignment. D&D is a game in which some things are just inherently evil. Vampires are one of those things. I agree from an RAW standpoint. I do however have difficulty seeing such things as terribly realistic. It requires a bit of suspension of disbelief to make something 'evil by definition'. Sometimes it feels like alignment is another one of those Sacred Cows that could've been done a lot better if it was conceptually scrapped and one started from scratch. Depending on the world, I could see it being very interesting to have characters that are non-evil representatives of mostly evil groups and non-good representatives of mostly good ones, though I'd put a lot of emphasis on making a very good backstory and design as well as a feeling that these were truly exceptions As much as he's become Cliche', the ever-popular Drizzt is a good example of that, back when he was 'invented' the Drow were an invariably evil race. The author came up with a way to explain their frequent evilness and create a character that felt like an exception and was quite entertaining.
wrecan 10-09-06, 12:34 PM	Well, it's a thematic thing, as far as I'm concerned. In our post-modern world, we like stories of redemption. Darth Vader can slaughter children, destroy planets, mutilate his own son, kill his own mentor, swear fealty to a fascist emperor, and yet, we still believe that deep down, his son can redeem him in the end. In that world, there are no true monsters... possibly even Palpatine could have been redeemed.... But D&D is trying to recapture the pre-postmodern epic fantasy genre. In that genre, Morganna le Fey is evil because that's what's in her soul. Satan is not redeemable. Tiamat is not going to repent trying to destroy the world and Marduk has no guilt about slaying her. In that epic world of good against evil, good and evil are tangible forces diametrically opposed to one another. Some creatures -- humanoids mostly -- have sufficient free will to choose sides, but most either are too stupid to choose a side (most oozes, animals, etc.), or are born onto a side and they can't leave absent some epic struggle (outsiders, elementals, etc.) That's not a theme for everyone, but that's the theme D&D chose. For those who like their morality a bit more postmodern, there's always Eberron.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 12:42 PM	But D&D is trying to recapture the pre-postmodern epic fantasy genre. In that genre, Morganna le Fey is evil because that's what's in her soul. Satan is not redeemable. Tiamat is not going to repent trying to destroy the world and Marduk has no guilt about slaying her. In that epic world of good against evil, good and evil are tangible forces diametrically opposed to one another. Some creatures -- humanoids mostly -- have sufficient free will to choose sides, but most either are too stupid to choose a side (most oozes, animals, etc.), or are born onto a side and they can't leave absent some epic struggle (outsiders, elementals, etc.) Is that THE theme that Wizards chose with the latest incarnation of D&D, or is it just ONE of the themes that can be tied to the system? I see plenty of room in the system to have complex characters and make certain that most of my evil entities behave the way they do for a reason. 'I'm evil because my dad was evil and my gran'dad was evil and it was good enough for them and by golly it's good enough for me' is quite a bit of a stretch when it comes to defining real moralities. 'I'm evil because I have evil things in my blood' is far greater. I'm not sure Wizards intended to pigeonhole us into 'evil for evil's sake, good for good's sake' as a concept. Redemption's an exceptional plot point (as is the opposite! I once played in a campaign where the DM had us being manipulated by a solar who's morals were rapidly failing in a 'constantine' sort of way) and one never should conceptually eliminate such things 'just because'
wrecan 10-09-06, 12:53 PM	Is that THE theme that Wizards chose with the latest incarnation of D&D, or is it just ONE of the themes that can be tied to the system? That is the overarchign theme of D&D. You are heroes in a world torn by the titanic struggle of good against evil and order against chaos. Their agents seek nothing more than total conquest. You must choose a side. Do you stand for good? Do you choose security or freedom? Or do you seek balance? That's the heroic theme of D&D and it has been since alignment was first developed for it. I see plenty of room in the system to have complex characters and make certain that most of my evil entities behave the way they do for a reason. The theme I described is not inconsistent with this desire. The "Powers That Be" (gods, outerplanes, outsiders, and dragons) have no ability to choose a side. The sides have been chosen for them. But the heroes are special, even more special than the epic forces swirling around them because they can choose sides. And thus, unlike the impersonal moral forces of nature represented by gods, dragons and demons, they have a moral responsibility when they choose unwisely. And that allows for very complex PCs. I'm not sure Wizards intended to pigeonhole us into 'evil for evil's sake, good for good's sake' as a concept. They didn't. The pigeonhole was reserved for the "major forces": gods, angels, demons, devils and, of course, dragons. one never should conceptually eliminate such things 'just because'They didn't eliminate them for PCs. They did eliminate them for certain classes of NPCs, including vampires.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 01:11 PM	That is the overarchign theme of D&D. You are heroes in a world torn by the titanic struggle of good against evil and order against chaos. Their agents seek nothing more than total conquest. You must choose a side. Do you stand for good? Do you choose security or freedom? Or do you seek balance? See, I see all this as stuff that's part of MY campaign themes. If I run one that's got a very 'good vs. evil' tolkeinesque motif then that sort of concept fits well. However even more often I run (and have run even back during 1E+ days) campaigns that are more complex. I always felt like concept came first, then the rules. If you run a campaign without the outer planes you may change a lot of planar binding options. If you're playing a gritty low-magic campign you're even more likely not to have 'evil for evil's sake' and 'good for good's sake'. I suppose if you see it that way then that's how you'll treat all the entities in the game. I just never have and quite definitely never will. If my devils are evil it's because they are incarnations of evil, but when it comes to everything non-planar I generally need to give them actual rationales rather than just saying 'they're always naughty or always nice'. And making them complex adds lots of life AND potential surprise to the game.
wrecan 10-09-06, 01:16 PM	I suppose if you see it that way then that's how you'll treat all the entities in the game. Why? The game doesn't treat all entities the same and never did. There were always evil elves. Humans always got to choose any alignment. when it comes to everything non-planar I generally need to give them actual rationales rather than just saying 'they're always naughty or always nice'. Other than dragons and undead, that's how the game is written. I'm not sure if you mean to imply I said otherwise.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 01:24 PM	Other than dragons and undead, that's how the game is written. I'm not sure if you mean to imply I said otherwise. Ooh, sorry if I misimplied :) Ooh! and you did hit on my sticking point. .dragons!! With undead I can somewhat rationalize it as long as do the same with respect to necromancy in general. Though sometimes it feels like 'negative energy-ish' and 'evil' don't always mix. Skeletons are a great example. .WHY are they evil again? But when I attribute that sort of thing to dragons and give them personalities they often end up being far more complex than 'good' or 'evil'. They tend to be some brand of standoffish often, and may see the 'little people' as inferior. . but that's kind of something else. It's as if they've been color-coded for adventurer's convenience ;)
Sereno 10-09-06, 02:05 PM	With undead I can somewhat rationalize it as long as do the same with respect to necromancy in general. Though sometimes it feels like 'negative energy-ish' and 'evil' don't always mix. Skeletons are a great example. .WHY are they evil again? I've always rationalized it like this; they're evil because they're powered by a cosmic force that exists ONLY to destroy ... not one that "can be *used* to destroy" (fire burns, water drowns, etc) ... that destruction is Negative Energy's ONLY purpose. Even unintelligent things animated by Neg. Energy take on a little of it's "Destroy! Destroy!! DESTROY!!!" ethos ... and, IMO, anything that only wants to destroy is evil. But when I attribute that sort of thing to dragons and give them personalities they often end up being far more complex than 'good' or 'evil'. They tend to be some brand of standoffish often, and may see the 'little people' as inferior. . but that's kind of something else. It's as if they've been color-coded for adventurer's convenience ;) One more reason I love Eberron; not only can dragons be any alignment, they're a lot more important to the setting than simply big, stupid piles of treasure and XP waiting for adventurers to burst in and kill them.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 02:27 PM	I've always rationalized it like this; they're evil because they're powered by a cosmic force that exists ONLY to destroy ... not one that "can be *used* to destroy" (fire burns, water drowns, etc) ... that destruction is Negative Energy's ONLY purpose. Even unintelligent things animated by Neg. Energy take on a little of it's "Destroy! Destroy!! DESTROY!!!" ethos ... and, IMO, anything that only wants to destroy is evil. True, I just kind of figured 'mindless' should be somewhat alignment free. Or perhaps 'negative energy/positive energy' and 'good/evil' are separate things. So mr. skelly can be a negative energy thing (and therefore icky) without us trying to figure out how he could be more evil than skippy my pet rock ;) And meanwhile WOTC has been adding 'good' and 'neutral' undead to the list. . leading even more into the whole positive/negative being separate from good/evil. Still, I'd never (save for in a very unique campaign) do your typical evil undead as anything other than generally evil. I could see if I was clever coming up with a great non-evil individual though that'd be doable without being disruptive. Though it's kind of a one-trick pony in your typical campaign world I think.
wrecan 10-09-06, 02:29 PM	But when I attribute that sort of thing to dragons and give them personalities they often end up being far more complex than 'good' or 'evil'. They tend to be some brand of standoffish often, and may see the 'little people' as inferior. . but that's kind of something else. In my opinion, dragons in D&D are intended to be the cosmic entities of the Material Plane, divided into the various alignments/colors/metals to illustrate that the Material Plane is home to a diversity of alignment. They are not mere monsters, but creatures of cosmic significance.
lears_fool 10-09-06, 02:42 PM	In my opinion, dragons in D&D are intended to be the cosmic entities of the Material Plane, divided into the various alignments/colors/metals to illustrate that the Material Plane is home to a diversity of alignment. They are not mere monsters, but creatures of cosmic significance. With the shiny ones good and the matte ones evil? ;) Perhaps sunlight causes evil? That might explain something. After all, the shiny reflective dragons reflect the sunlight while the non-reflective dragons soak it all up and become evil. It could be like a black-hat white-hat thing ;) On a slightly more serious note, I don't think that TSR planned quite that far ahead. They had some neat ideas in the first Monster Manual and implemented them. The system HAD lawful/chaotic and good/evil axis (axes? axeses? axi?) and so they did the 'theme' thing and it stuck. 2nd edition D&D (where all this alignment stuff and lots of the token creatures come from) seemed to me to be a lot more about nifty ideas than heavy focus on cosmologies. (note. . not that there's anything WRONG with that! I loved some of the nifty ideas! :) )
wrecan 10-09-06, 03:12 PM	Well, the splitting of dragons into metal=good and color=evil goes way back to the blue-boxed Basic set, if not earlier. In my opinion, this was a feature of the very first Arneson-Gygax D&D campaigns. Someone got the bright idea of having Tiamat being a multi-headed dragon, with the other dragons being her "children" (not too far from the Babylonian myths). For ease of reference, the DM decided to keep the various dragons types organized by color. Later, someone decided there needed to be good-aligned dragons too, but given the origin of evil dragons, it was decided that colors wouldn't work for them. So the platinum dragon Bahamut (a derivation of the ancient "behemoth") and his metallic offspring were born. But the important focus was that dragons, originally, were the offspring of the great cosmic entities Bahamut (good) and Tiamat (evil). And because the dragons themselves represented the opposing forces of good and evil, they were given fixed alignments, like demons, devils and angels, rather than variable alignments, like dwarves, elves and humans. I don't think the alignment theme requires foresight and planning. It's a function of the themes from the very first proto-campaigns played, likely before D&D was ever placed in a box. Yes, second edition didn't add to the alignment themes. But they didn't change them either. Paladins were still LG, dragons were still fixed in alignment and almost all their campaign settings (see Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and particularly Planescape) adopted these fixed alignments. Heck, Dragonlance was pretty express about good, neutral and evil, placing their wizards in color-coded robes. Talk about convenient! Only Dark Sun got around this, mostly by making everybody evil!
Sereno 10-09-06, 03:15 PM	Still, I'd never (save for in a very unique campaign) do your typical evil undead as anything other than generally evil. I could see if I was clever coming up with a great non-evil individual though that'd be doable without being disruptive. I do allow, IMC, for the rare good ghost, vampire or lich ... but even in Eberron, most undead are evil and opposed by the LG religions. For most undead, there's something in it's description about "hating the living", "wanting to cause pain and suffering," or "destroy the life it once had..." That's generally where I get my negative energy leads to evil, "theory". I can't really think of any good (negatively powered) undead in actual WotC books ... what ones are there?
lears_fool 10-09-06, 03:25 PM	I can't really think of any good (negatively powered) undead in actual WotC books ... what ones are there? I think the Necropolitan and Deathless are both able to be non-evil Oh! and the ghost! The ghost can be good too :)
Sereno 10-10-06, 03:28 PM	I think the Necropolitan and Deathless are both able to be non-evil Oh! and the ghost! The ghost can be good too :) I don't know much about the Necropolitan ... isn't that a PC-playable undead "race"? Deathless, though, are Positive Energy powered ... so that works in favor of my "explanation". :) And, ghosts are always a special case ... in many cases you can't even destroy them like any other undead because sometimes the reason they become a ghost is the "unfinished business" thing....
lears_fool 10-10-06, 03:32 PM	I don't know much about the Necropolitan ... isn't that a PC-playable undead "race"? Deathless, though, are Positive Energy powered ... so that works in favor of my "explanation". :) And, ghosts are always a special case ... in many cases you can't even destroy them like any other undead because sometimes the reason they become a ghost is the "unfinished business" thing.... ooh, yeah, I forgot about the deathless being positive! (come on guys! We can do it!) as opposed to negative (Noo. . it's too hard. Life is pain! I'm off to write angsty poetry) And yeah, that's the necropolitan, I think they're in the SS and maybe somewhere else. But the ghost is a good one at least. Definitely pure negative, yet at the same time could be as noble and good as they come. Odd, but definitely indicates that negative energy isn't pure evil
robertliguori 10-10-06, 04:25 PM	Re: the OP: If I may suggest: Vampires are (or should be) inhuman monsters. The process of conversion and life as an undead predator should twist a psyche, leeching any and all goodness or benevolence out of it. Love should be twisted into dark obession and feral lust, civility into a rigid code of politeness horribly contrasted to violent actions, friendship into slavery, etc. That being said, a vampire coming to the aid of the party (or at least not initating hostilities) has possibilities. "Conquer Hellgate? Why would I want to do that? All I have to do is walk through the Shambles once or twice a week going 'Ooh, me old leg.' and just like magic, my next meal presents itself. There are enough criminals, crazies, and undesirables here to keep me fed and happy for hundreds of years, and more are being born every day. Hah, and they say that we're a plague." "Yeah, we've got a name for those vampires that stalk the night and slay entire towns, raising legions of dark servants. It's 'dusted'. You can't do that sort of thing without the third grand-cousin twice-removed of some guy you ate fifty years ago showing up with some sort of mystical vampire-slaying artifact of solar doom. Slow and gradual progress, that's the ticket. Why conquer Hellgate when it will already be mine in eightneen decades?" "Well, yes, we could fight, but why would we? I'd have to end up killing a couple dozen people and ordering them to cause general mayhem to slow you up, and I'm watching my waistline these nights. Oh, yeah, and the worth of human life, etc. Or, you could perform this simple and not-particularly-evil service for me, be very well paid for your trouble, and go on with your lives knowing that any possible negative consequences of your acts won't even be known until after you're long dead?"
Evangelos 10-11-06, 05:56 AM	Generally, I think that saying that any intelligent creature (except perhaps some outsiders) is ALWAYS one alignment or the other is just silly, RAW or not. Vampires in particular I disagree with being always evil. Okay, so you need blood to live. You don't have to kill people to get it; even if you assumed that vampires could only feed on the mortal PHB races, they could always just take enough to feed without killing. They could also feed on criminals and other evil people (what, killing them is Good but if you have to drink their blood it's suddenly Evil?).
Mirian 10-18-06, 05:55 AM	It's an interesting concept. I think one of the best examples of this would be the Hellsing Anime. Of couse, it is set in modern day and done theatrically to build suspense, but it raises a good point. A person who is generally considered good may attempt to resist such urges, but will usually fail. However, giving in to a primal instinct is not what makes one evil, especially if they sincerely repent afterwards. On the other hand, even if a vampire is self professed "good", it does not mean they lose the evil subtype. Quite simply, they will still take damage from good aligned attacks, holy water, etc, no matter how good they are. It makes for a particularily intriguing situation. The fight with ones inner beasts against what you are becoming makes for great roleplay, if it is handled properly. Was it an unfortunate accident during the course of the campaign or a targeted, malicious act? Logisitically, however, it is impossible as a vampire is raised as a spawn and with no free will. They lose their class levels and depending on the DM, all memories before being raised. A player could take the emancipated spawn prestige class from Savage Species to get around this though. Also keep in mind that if a player wants to play a "Good" vampire, they will be severly hampered in their abilities. Against some foes, they may be able to justify the use of their soul draining touch, but it would be a difficult internal argument. I would argue against any sort of paladin vampires though. There are two simple reasons. A paladin is a holy warrior and bound to the dictates of their god and would not be able to endure the sin they would be committing by existing. Thus they would end their own existance (It's not suicide because they are already dead). The other problem would be holding onto the lawful alignment. If you're evil, its not so difficult, but in a good society you would be breaking several laws just by existing. One last thing. Many people were saying how they would have to kill to survive. That's not quite correct, as does it state nowhere that a vampire must drain a victim completly or that blood cannot be taken from a willing victim (Put that high charisma to work). All in all, if someone were to try such a thing, I would recommend playing a vampire of chaotic good alignment, as it is more justifable.
sunsilverdragon 10-18-06, 07:28 PM	Personally... I'd make up a new template entirely for this "Good Vampire" scenario, based upon the idea the Vampiric Foil. For example, rather than making this template feed on the blood of the living, I'd make it feed on the undead, making it a pseudo "undead-hunter." But, that's just me.
BobSutan 10-19-06, 05:05 PM	The vampire I'm building to be a BBEG later on in my campaign isn't outright evil. He's more crazy birdcrap odd than anything else. He's been trapped on a world without other humans for eons and has been sleeping for a LONG time until the PCs wake him up. Backstory: The people of his world had all died by a plague that made them undead. In fact he fell to the plague as well while leading his forces in battle against the scourge. When he "died" he was buried and later awoke ages later to find the world uninhabited and in shambles. After searching for others, and failing, he lived off the land much like a druid and he slowly took on features of what we now consider to be a "vampire". He's essentially the first of his kind and his innate ties with the world around him due to his eons of solitude in nature gives him some of his supernatural abilities. After wandering for so long, he gives up and tries to return to the only thing he has left to sleep in: his coffin (human anemities had wasted away in the ages since he was origionally laid to rest). It is in his coffin that the PCs will find him. Once the PCs "rescue" him and take him back, things will begin to change. His urges will consume him and he'll begin to prey on humans. Not understanding what's happening to himself he'll be torn in two. A Jekle and Hyde if you will. This will have a serious effect on his mental state and leads him to join the kingdom's military in hopes of finding the structure a means to save himself. He ends up being teh greatest warrior they'd ever seen and he leads his kings troops to victory after victory. Eventually the madness starts to overtake him and he accepts his "superiority" and decides to acend as ruler of his own lands. Lands where he can make the law of the land. Lands where he can decide what is moral and just. Lands where his curse will not be looked down upon and can be accepted for what he truly is.
lears_fool 10-19-06, 05:11 PM	I think for me the biggest issue I have with 'always evil' is I like to make thick, complex characters with real motivations and emotions. And you can't do that if they aren't actually making the choices themselves. For me to make anything 'primarily' one alignment or another, if you want to flesh them out as sentient, intelligent creatures then you need to be able to have exceptions. If your Vampire is evil because he chooses to be, he's going to be far more interesting than the evil demon who's just a 'personificiation of evil'. But that does leave room for the rare rebel. Kind of a win-win.
wrecan 10-19-06, 06:06 PM	I actually find the idea of sentient manifestations of abstract concepts like law, good, chaos and evil to be rickly complex characters. In some ways, role-playing an alien mindset in which your entire worldview is biologically driven to make you consider things from an evil (or lawful or chaotic or good) viewpoint is very challenging. In modern post-Enlightenment times, the idea that we have unfettered free will is mythical. It's difficult to comprehend the idea of a creature that is both sentient and constrained in his choices. And yet, humanity is in fact socially constrained. Humans are social creatures. We are driven to seek out companionship. In fact, it appears that humans denied of human contact for extended periods will break down and die. Is a balor under the same compulsion? No. The "always" alignment descriptor takes this compulsion to new depths. If you want moral greyness, there are plenty of creatures whose alignment description does not include the word "always".
lears_fool 10-19-06, 07:29 PM	If you want moral greyness, there are plenty of creatures whose alignment description does not include the word "always". Yes, yes, I know. .but that's not the point. The point is, if I'm going to develop an NPC or BBEG in an RP heavy world. . then I'm going to make that personality rich and complex. With a planar creature I can somewhat rationalize them being 'always lawful', but even with that rationalization they simply are never as rich as they are if I've got creature that's motivated by comprehensible emotions. Even when I go lovecraftian and alien the emotions themselves are largely comprehensible And if they're motviated by comprehensible emotions, they cannot be always anything. . almost always. .usually. . of course. . but free will and 'always' just don't mix. So when I hear someone talk about the idea of a 'good' vampire, I have two thoughts go through my head.. one that there's cheesey anime potential. . but the other is that if their vampires have real motivations then there's always a chance one could be good. I can't argue against that if they're truly developing their NPCs
wrecan 10-20-06, 09:12 AM	And if they're motviated by comprehensible emotions, they cannot be always anything. . almost always. .usually. . of course. . but free will and 'always' just don't mix. The problem is that I disagree that "if they're motivated by comprehensible emotions" means that "they cannot be always" an alignment. I have no problem devising rich NPCs of creatures who are :"always" an alignment. "Always" is a racial classification. But the individual is just an individual of an alignment. There's not difference between making a chaotic evil vampire and a chaotic evil assassin, in terms of outlook. The difference being the vampire has a biologic (or metaphysical) inability to accept a non chaotic-evil outlook. Much like people with certain emotional disorders are compelled to take certain actions or even hold certain beliefs. the other is that if their vampires have real motivations then there's always a chance one could be good. I can't argue against that if they're truly developing their NPCs I can, because even in the real world there are regular mortal people who have an incapacity to certain mindsets. There are sociopaths who have no compassion or empathy. They will never be good. They are incapable of being good. If someone were to write a story in which a sociopath develops empathy, without epic-level magic being applied, it is not only cliche, but it is unrealistic. Now, with epic-level magic, anything is possible. Paladin succubi and angelic assassins. But the OP is trying to get a good vampire based on nothing more than an accident of birth. I find that not only to be cliche but lazy writing, not a sign of "truly developing their NPCs".
lears_fool 10-20-06, 09:38 AM	The problem is that I disagree that "if they're motivated by comprehensible emotions" means that "they cannot be always" an alignment. Okay, let me rephrase this then,I figured I'd already said it well. Chaotic Evil motivated by largely incomprehensible emotions=potentially quite interesting Chaotic Evil motivated by largely comprehensible emotions = far more interesting. You can't use comprehensible, rich emotions and create a character that is 'always' anything. Every complex character has good sides and bad sides, and if circumstances were greatly different in their lives it's often possible to see a path where they shifted. I'm not saying that Vampires should be good, in fact I've never had one be 'good' in any way. I'm saying that the more rich you make your characters, the more the 'always evil' or 'always good' arguments don't fit them well. It's when they actually choose to be evil that they're truly interestingly bad.
wrecan 10-20-06, 10:35 AM	You can't use comprehensible, rich emotions and create a character that is 'always' anything. I wholly, vehemently, strongly disagree. Alignments divide up personalities into only 9 categories. One-ninth of the range of emotions (particularly once you add in alien mindsets that are unacheivable -- yet still comprehensible -- for regular people) easily allow for comprehensible and rich emotions. Milton's Satan, and his minions, from the Paradise Lost and Paradise Found epics are "always" evil. They are also some of the most rich and complex characters in English literature. There is no chance that any of them will eve be redeemed, but their actions, philosophies and conflicts are no less interesting (and according to most are a whole lot more interesting) that Adam and Eve, who have the whole range of choice available to them. The difference is that it is harder to play a complex Satan than a complex Adam because Satan's mindset is alien, particularly to those of us raised and reared in the post-modern world of moral relativism. We're simply not accustomed to wrapping out heads around a creature that has free will and yet is incapable of choosing to be good. Every complex character has good sides and bad sides Untrue. Hannibal Lecter, as portrayed in the novels (I haven't seen the movie sequel/prequels), is charming, witty and intelligent. But he is irredeemably evil. He is a complex fascinating character, but he does not have a "good" side. At least, not one that is "good" from a D&D perspective. Hannibal Lecter was likely born an evil sociopath and remains one his entire life. History and literature are replete with characters who are both complex and irredeemably evil. They also have characters who are complex and undeniably good. Arthur never falls. Jesus never falls (he doubts, but doesn't fall). Hector, from Homer's Trojan Epic is a paragon of goodness. He embodies goodness, even more than the fallible gods. He is one of the most poignant, rich, moral, and, yes, complex, characters in Western literature. Creatures of an "always" alignment are not less complex. They ar emore challenging. They are inconsistent with a post-modern worldview. But they are anything but flat, when properly written. Which is not to say that morally ambiguous characters are flat or uninteresting. On the contrary. Lancelot is every bit as interesting as Arthur (maybe more so). Moral redeption and moral fall are classic character arcs and rightly so. But they are not the exclusive arcs. And they are not the exclusive arbiters of what makes a character fill of comprehensible, rich emotions. I'm saying that the more rich you make your characters, the more the 'always evil' or 'always good' arguments don't fit them well. And I'm saying that isn't necessarily so. Creating a character incapable of redemption or fall need not affect the character's richness, although it is a challenge.
theEaterOfShades 10-20-06, 11:02 AM	Hi All, I remember reading a Ravenloft novel 10+ years ago staring Jandar Sunstar (I believe that was his name). Jandar was a Sun elf vampire that was sucked into the mist after he lost control in a blood lust in an orphanage and ended up in Barovia. He tried to walk a fine line and stay good, but had "relapses". Some of the people in Barovia though he was Lathander come to the dark realm. I remember him fighting off Strahd's influence and opposing him directly. The whole book seemed to center around the struggle to keep a "good" alignment after becoming an evil creature. Now keep in mind that it has been a number of years since reading it and my mind is semi fuzzy on the details. I believe the book may have been written by Christie Golden... Maybe "a Vampire in the mists" or something like that.
lears_fool 10-20-06, 11:04 AM	The difference is that it is harder to play a complex Satan than a complex Adam because Satan's mindset is alien, particularly to those of us raised and reared in the post-modern world of moral relativism. We're simply not accustomed to wrapping out heads around a creature that has free will and yet is incapable of choosing to be good. Ahhh. .perhaps that's the crux then. I believe the 'old' views of morality are horribly archaic. And while Milton's Satan and gang are certainly more interesting than Adam and Eve, I'd argue that's because A&E are poorly developed characters with fairly flat personalities History and literature are replete with characters who are both complex and irredeemably evil. They also have characters who are complex and undeniably good. Arthur never falls. Jesus never falls (he doubts, but doesn't fall). Hector, from Homer's Trojan Epic is a paragon of goodness. He embodies goodness, even more than the fallible gods. He is one of the most poignant, rich, moral, and, yes, complex, characters in Western literature. Okay, let's grab just one subset there. . The Arthurian one. Arthur's interesting. . Lancelot's less interesting before his fall and becomes far more interesting after the fall. . and mordred's rather bland. Why is that? Arthur's a good guy. .he's fallible and makes mistakes (and that's when he's at his most interesting). Lancelot actually isn't that interesting early on, he's not that likable and harder to identify with. .UNTIL he falls. .then suddenly he's a fascinating character. And Mordred. . Mordred's kind of 'blah' because he's 'just evil' Creatures of an "always" alignment are not less complex. They ar emore challenging. They are inconsistent with a post-modern worldview. But they are anything but flat, when properly written. And again, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't and can't empathize with the pre-modern worldview that people could be 'iredeemable' or 'always good'. I find everyone richly complex BECAUSE they have the complexities and the choices. I believe the pre-modern view of paragons of good 'because they are' and pure evils 'becauase they are' somewhat immature. . a reflection of people taking the easy way out and stereotyping rather than an actual realistic view of the world. And I'm saying that isn't necessarily so. Creating a character incapable of redemption or fall need not affect the character's richness, although it is a challenge. For you, perhaps. For me I can say definitively that it's not just a challenge. . . because I can't turn off that whole 'post modern' elightenment thing. (because the old way was silly). I don't think I can be faulted for that. I always find complex characters that became 'good' or 'evil' far, far more interesting than ones that always were one or the other and 'pure good' or 'pure evil' sorts rather dull. The forgotten realms Drow are far less entertaining (save, ironically, for Jaraxle and early on Drizz't) than Soth or Strahd because they made themselves what they were and those moments of goodness make their badness all the more delicious.
wrecan 10-20-06, 11:47 AM	Ahhh. .perhaps that's the crux then. I believe the 'old' views of morality are horribly archaic. And while Milton's Satan and gang are certainly more interesting than Adam and Eve, I'd argue that's because A&E are poorly developed characters with fairly flat personalities Except that Milton's Satan and gang are considered soem of the most interesting characters ever created, no matter who you compare them to. In my English literature classes, and particularly in the writing classes, Milton's Satan was held up as the epitome of a rich, complex antagonist worthy of emulation, even today. I would not be surprised to find that Hannibal Lecter was based in no small part on Milton's portrayal of Satan. Arthur's a good guy. .he's fallible and makes mistakes (and that's when he's at his most interesting). Being "always" an alignment does not make one less prone to error. Arthur makes errors of judgment, errors of action, but he makes no errors of morality. At no point is his "goodness" called into question. Unlike Lancelot and Guinevere, Arthur is never tempted. Yet, he remains a fascinating and complex character. Homer's Trojan Hector is the same. He is the paragon of all things the Greeks admire. He is true, loyal, faithful, honest, strong, smart. He is a perfect son, prince, husband and father. At no point does the thought of betrayal, cowardice, infidelity (and given Greek tales, this is fairly remarkable) or moral fall ever enter his picture. And yet in a tale involving the most epic heroes even brought together in a single story -- Achilles, Odysseus, Paris, Helen, Priam, Menelaus, Ajax, Agamemnon, and Cassandra, just to name a few -- Hector stands out as the protagonist of much of the story, as real and complex as any character written then or today. Mordred's kind of 'blah' because he's 'just evil' Right, but that's because his personality is defined by his being evil. Contrast that with Milton's Satan who is evil but has a personality to go with it. Or Hannibal Lecter. I don't and can't empathize with the pre-modern worldview that people could be 'iredeemable' or 'always good'. Then I think the problem lies with you, and not with the D&D alignment system. D&D asks people to play in a world of epic proportion. And the epics occur in a world that is pre-post-modern. Eberron's Keith Baker made a conscious choice to change the world from epic struggles of good against evil to a post-modern mindset where red dragons can be good and angels can be malicious. A fine, very post-modern choice. I believe the pre-modern view of paragons of good 'because they are' and pure evils 'becauase they are' somewhat immature. . a reflection of people taking the easy way out and stereotyping rather than an actual realistic view of the world. That would make sense if it was believed that everybody was always an alignment. But they didn't feel that way. They felt that mortals had a choice between good and evil. They just had other characters that didn't. Milton's unchanging Satan and Jesus had to contend with morally ambiguous Adam and Eve. T.H. White's Arthur and Mordred still had to deal with Guinevere and Lancelot. Hannibal Lecter had Clarisse Starling. So there's no "easy way out" because they still had the same morally changing characters to deal with as you do. They just had other characters as well. For me I can say definitively that it's not just a challenge. . . because I can't turn off that whole 'post modern' elightenment thing. (because the old way was silly). It's easy to dismiss that which you are unable to do as "silly." That doesn't make it so. Moreover, I think your dismissal of constrained moral choice is itself becoming archaic. There are morally constrained people in the real world. There are sociopaths who cannot be redeemed. There may also be people who are incapable of intentionally hurting others. The more we learn about modern biology and psychology, the more we learn that we do not all have the unfettered free will that your post-modern morality assumes. In fact, we may all have biological constraints on our free will to one degree or another. I don't think I can be faulted for that. In a post-modern world, actually, you can. That's the whole point of post-modern morality. However, under a more constrained world, I'll just assume you are incapable of it. :) Well just label you "always post-modern". How's that for irony? :D
lears_fool 10-20-06, 12:17 PM	This is getting long! Umm, okay, let's skim ahead. Except that Milton's Satan and gang are considered soem of the most interesting characters ever created, no matter who you compare them to. In my English literature classes, and particularly in the writing classes, Milton's Satan was held up as the epitome of a rich, complex antagonist worthy of emulation, even today. Yes, Satan IS evil. Angels aren't In fact, honestly that's precisely my point. Satan's interesting because he was once part of the 'good group' and became the 'bad group'. He's an example of precisely what I was talking about. . he's far easier to make interesting as a fallen angel than a guy who was born evil and stayed evil. Moreover, I think your dismissal of constrained moral choice is itself becoming archaic. There are morally constrained people in the real world. There are sociopaths who cannot be redeemed. There may also be people who are incapable of intentionally hurting others. The more we learn about modern biology and psychology, the more we learn that we do not all have the unfettered free will that your post-modern morality assumes. In fact, we may all have biological constraints on our free will to one degree or another. So so far we have one mental illness that is comparable to 'iredeemably evil'? A true sociopath is unable to empathize with other people. .it's a capability they literally don't have. While they're interesting psychological studies they're surely less 'rich' when it comes to emotional interaction than a non-sociopathic person who simply turned bad. I'm not going to fault you for trying to use the 'pre-modern' approach in creating villans and using that to rationalize the 'always evil' tag on so many D&D bad guys. However, please don't fault me in saying that I see no reason to develop or play them that way. I'm incapable of creating a rationalization where you could take a human, corrupt them (or enlighten them) and EVERY time they become 'just like the others'. Generally? of course. Almost entirely? workable. Always? nope. And while your approach may be reasonable, the approach that realistic motivations are interesting is also reasonable, and it's unfair to fault those posters who have it. .as it's a VERY legitimate take on things I find it infinitely more fulfilling to have my best heroes have a little bit of evil in them and my greatest villains to have a little bit of good. And they also are the ones my players identify with/empathize with the most naturally. . giving me room for more interesting conflicts.
wrecan 10-20-06, 12:45 PM	This is getting long! Umm, okay, let's skim ahead. Sadly, by skimming ahead, you have totally misunderstood what I have been arguing. Satan's interesting because he was once part of the 'good group' and became the 'bad group'.Milton's Satan was created to fall. It was his destiny and he had no choice, although he likes to spin it to make it seem like he did the right thing. He was never part of the "good group." Before mankind, there was no point to groups, in Milton's world. So far we have one illnesss... We have a lot more than that, but I didn't feel it was necessary to go through the entire DSM-IV to show how many conditions exist that place moral constraints on people. I used sociopathy as the most blatant example. While they're interesting psychological studies they're surely less 'rich' when it comes to emotional interaction than a non-sociopathic person who simply turned bad. Not necessarily. You argue that they are because you seem incapable of creating "rich" sociopaths. But people have created rich sociopaths. That's why I keep talking abotu Hannibal Lecter. "American Psycho" is another critically acclaimed (as well as popular) modern novel with a "rich" sociopath. I'm not going to fault you for trying to use the 'pre-modern' approach in creating villans and using that to rationalize the 'always evil' tag on so many D&D bad guys. But you do. You faulted the D&D system I've been defending and you have called it "silly", amongst other things. I have never criticized you for not wanting to include them, except a tongue-in-cheek jab as post-modern thought. So please don't claim you're not "faulting" my position a mere post after announcing it to be "silly". However, please don't fault me in saying that I see no reason to develop or play them that way. I'm incapable of creating a rationalization where you could take a human, corrupt them (or enlighten them) and EVERY time they become 'just like the others'. Generally? of course. Almost entirely? workable. Always? nope. I have no idea to what this refers. Who is taking humans corrupting them and making them "just like the others"? What does that mean? What others? What humans? I thought we were talking about demons, devils, dragons and other inhuman creatures with an "always" alignment. If you think making a demon is just slappiing a moral framework on a regular person, that you are limiting yourself. Rich characters are not like Star Trek aliens -- human with a prosthetic crinkle pasted on the face to shorthand their alienness. the approach that realistic motivations are interesting is also reasonable And here's where you misrepresent me. I never said it was unreasonable to have realistic motivations! I have always repeated that morally malleable characters can be as equally rich and interesting as creatures that are morally constrained. I gave plenty of examples of those as well. Remember that I brought Lancelot and Clarisse Starling into the discussion as just such examples. I have consistently defended your right to make morally ambiguous characters. What I take issues with are your statements criticizing the concept of morally rigid characters, either their realism or their complexity. Statements like these: Post 16: "I do however have difficulty seeing such things as terribly realistic" Post 16: "alignment is another one of those Sacred Cows that could've been done a lot better if it was conceptually scrapped and one started from scratch." Post 24: "it's kind of a one-trick pony " Post 37: "you can't do that if they aren't actually making the choices themselves." Post 39: "if they're motviated by comprehensible emotions, they cannot be always anything" Post 41: "You can't use comprehensible, rich emotions and create a character that is 'always' anything." Post 44: "the 'old' views of morality are horribly archaic" I'm not saying you aren't allowed to have morally ambiguous characters. I'm saying you can have both. But you are the one saying that having rich, complex, morally constrained characters is "unrealistic," "archaic", "a one-trick pony", and impossible. If it is impossible, it is for want of skill and/or desire, not for want of possibility.
lears_fool 10-20-06, 12:54 PM	Okay, I get what you're saying with this. . and you're right, I perhaps was a bit heavy on the 'always evil' and 'always good' are less realistic side of things. Totally agreed there. I also saw your post #6 as saying 'this is how vampirism works', and while I agreed that one doesn't want to go the Anne Rice route, I also believed the rules weren't nearly so narrow or tightly defined. I didn't think we were talking 'house rule' as you stated, I was more firmly of the opinion that the rules were exceedingly vague and it was in the hands of the DM to make either decision. Perhaps we can agree to something nice and concise. . ;) 1) It's reasonable for a DM to create NPCs that are 'always good' or 'always evil' from a standpoint in which the individuals are part of some group that is 'born that way' or 'destined to be that way' 2) It's also reasonable for a DM to buck that trend and create individuals that are not the same alignment/demeanor as those described as 'always x' or 'always y' based the evolution of the individual NPC. That good?
wrecan 10-20-06, 12:58 PM	Yes. I can totally agree with that. Heck, one of the reasons Eberron is popular, is it gives the post-modernists a premade universe in which to play.
Furious D 18 10-20-06, 01:00 PM	Alls I wanted to know is if a paladin gets turned into a vampire, can he resist the evil alignment.... and I came to the conclusion long ago that he can't. But I'm glad you guys are having fun talking about it.... you are having fun, right?
lears_fool 10-20-06, 01:02 PM	Alls I wanted to know is if a paladin gets turned into a vampire, can he resist the evil alignment.... and I came to the conclusion long ago that he can't. But I'm glad you guys are having fun talking about it.... you are having fun, right? Nooo. .we're seething and angry ;) Wrecan's been completely civil, there's nothing bad about an intelligent debate. We do need more smileys though I think ;)
Tenebrous_Sage 10-20-06, 04:37 PM	Baelnorn and Archliches are both good aligned undead.
wrecan 10-20-06, 04:51 PM	Nooo. .we're seething and angry ;) Wrecan's been completely civil, there's nothing bad about an intelligent debate. We do need more smileys though I think ;) :ayyyy!:
Tenebrous_Sage 10-20-06, 07:58 PM	Alls I wanted to know is if a paladin gets turned into a vampire, can he resist the evil alignment.... and I came to the conclusion long ago that he can't.I would like to point out that Sanctify the Wicked, a 9th level sanctified spell, from Book of Exalted Deeds can "redeem" "irredeemably evil" creatures, and would certainly allow for you to have a vampire paladin.
FrostHammer 10-29-06, 05:24 PM	IF you're the DM, whatever you say, goes. If you want your world to be post-modern, then it is. If you want to scrap the alignment system and go with a point-based morality system, then go ahead! The world is yours for the shaping. Persoanlly I'd go with Feeding not being an evil act unless you actually kill someone innocent with is. You can always drink a small amount of blood and leave the person dazed.
Ogmug 10-29-06, 07:45 PM	On the "always" alignments. The glossary has this to say: glossary: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_alignment&alpha=A] Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. On the subject of (possible) Good aligned Negatiely powered Undead: Ghosts Baelnorns Archlich Mummies all come to mind off the top of my head.
richarddej 04-11-07, 07:15 AM	If you change into a vampire, you will become evil. but you can change that because any creature can be redeemed (for example the succubus paladin) how ever this is hard to keep up. also if i recall there was something i have read in magazine about dungeons and dragons (maybe dragon or something). there was something you could do if you want. this was for creatures that are always evil but have a good alignment. they had to roll a dc from time to time. but i don't recall more details. personally i love the good vampire, I am intending to play one soon.
Kyaran 04-11-07, 09:47 PM	And here I totally thought vampires had really high EvilchlorianTM counts. You know... in their blood. I have now been properly motivated to create/burgle rich and complex characters with narrowly constrained morality (such as might even appear alien) and introduce them into my games. PCs, Mr. Lecter. Mr. Lecter, PCs. :evillaugh
Heros_Backpack 04-14-07, 08:05 PM	Talking of vampires and alignment, can anyone tell me why a CE vampire cleric can access the Chaos Domain, but a LE one can't access the Law domain? :confused:
Nephlite 04-15-07, 02:00 PM	Talking of vampires and alignment, can anyone tell me why a CE vampire cleric can access the Chaos Domain, but a LE one can't access the Law domain? :confused: Wee Jas gives Law domain and loves the dead/undead. I don't get that... But you are right... Who does a Evil Vampire Cleric serve an ideal?
Heros_Backpack 04-16-07, 01:10 PM	I suspect (though I don't know) that the choice of available domains harks back to earlier editions where vampires were 'always chaotic evil' rather than 'any evil'. :weep:
Aetheryn 04-17-07, 02:17 PM	Wee Jas gives Law domain and loves the dead/undead. I don't get that... But you are right... Who does a Evil Vampire Cleric serve an ideal?If memory serves, Wee Jas had the domains of Magic, death, Law, and love. Anyways, she is more interested in the souls of the undead people, not their bodies...but she has no qualms with any voluntary undead conversion. "she tolerates necromancy--especially if the subject is willing...she is displeased when these spirits are involuntarily summoned back to the moral world..." I quote Dragon magazine #350, pg.22
Kitaki 04-17-07, 02:24 PM	I believe it was in Savage Species that I saw it, but it said that any creature can be any alignment, the alignment given in the creatures entry is for the majority of that race. So if the entry said "Always Chaotic Evil" it just means that creature can be any alignment other than CE, but they represent less than 1% of that race.