Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 09-02-06, 01:34 AM	I'm curious how far moral ambiguity should go in Eberron and what the limits are to youur opinion of how much individuals can be in the 'moral right' while being themselves evil or vice versa. Also, what 'monsters' can be different from the stated alignment. Part of this comes up because one of our Karrnath characters wishes to have a non-evil vampire as a girlfriend. Aside from the oddity of this request, it made me wonder if it wasn't a problem for the setting. I'm very much a "vampires are innately evil" thing and it undermines the setting to think that anyone except someone rather disturbed would think of them as people.
Salla 09-02-06, 02:09 AM	Well, you're the GM, so what you say goes. That said, non-evil vampires don't stretch my imagination too much. Heck, one of the last information brokers my group ran into was a True Neutral Lich in the Shadow Marches. Just look at it this way ... the party ranger brings down a deer, they get the meat, you get the blood, everybody's happy. :) Besides, if you want to get that sappy and mushy, this is love we're talkin' about here. I'd be tempted to have that be a powerful enough force to keep someone good, despite that whole dead thing.
JulesCARV 09-02-06, 02:28 AM	My view on liches and vampires is that there are two legitimate approaches: either get rid of alignment restrictions or make those alignment restrictions make sense. Approach 1: get rid of alignment restrictions Fairly simple: vampires, liches, and the like can be of any alignment. Approach 2: Make alignment restrictions sensible through the inherent nature of the creatures in question: For example, make the phylactery creation process for the lich require painful sacrifice of innocents who would otherwise live full lives. Make it so that blood-drinking for vampires isn't just an ability, but a requirement, and while a good vampire might exist temporarily, she would be dead in a week from starvation, with blood drain doing permanent and painful damage to people. For example, on the mature boards I posted my ideas on how to make phylactery creation more evil. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9813729&postcount=9) Approach 3: Strip vampires, etc. of autonomy. This approach just means that vampires no longer have free will: they would essentially become like zombies, skeletons, or gelatinous cubes in acting in a pre-programmed way, albeit brighter. Some might argue that having no autonomy means that the vampires, liches, etc., like animals, lack enough moral agency to be really evil, and thus should instead be neutral with the [evil] subtype.
Kaizer_Ryu 09-02-06, 02:39 AM	A question on moral ambiguity from the man who unleashed the Forgotten Freedom upon the poor unsuspecting fools of Eberron? Wow. Never thought I'd see the day. :D :P One of the things my DM is almost obssessive over is how mindless undead creatures (skeletons, zombies, etc) can be evil. As his argument goes, they may be infused with negative energy, but that doesn't make them evil. Due to their inability to think, they are neutral at best. For the most part, I am inclined to agree with him (but am nowhere near as fervent about it :D ). With the position that being infused with negative energy doesn't make something evil, seeing a good vampire is no big stretch of the imagination. I still think that MOST of them will be, but it is by no means a requirement. Even if the Curse of Vampirism naturally twists the mind of the subject into being evil (can't remember if this is stated or not), shouldn't there be a chance to resist it? It would have to be a Will save of something on the order of DC 35-40, but not completely outside the realm of possibility. Meh. There's my :twocents: .
Lily_Knight 09-02-06, 02:40 AM	I'm curious how far moral ambiguity should go in Eberron and what the limits are to youur opinion of how much individuals can be in the 'moral right' while being themselves evil or vice versa. Moral development is determined largely by culture. Members of the Blood of Vol would be dying to date a vamp. However, a citizen of Thrane would find that idea to be completely evil. With this in mind, I use the character's (or NPC's) culture as a guide to which morals they hold in high esteem.
JulesCARV 09-02-06, 02:53 AM	Bear in mind that morality in Eberron is objective, not subjective, but not absolute either. Absolute morality: There is a fork in the road, the road diverging into two. One is easy and leads to riches and glory, but requires an evil heart. One is hard and rutted, but the righteous will follow it in spite of the trials and tribulations it presents. Subjective morality: There are many paths. Each must find their own path, and decide what is good and evil for themselves. No one can say what is right or wrong for another person to do; let each be the judge of herself. Non-Absolute Objective morality: There are many paths. Some are better than others. There is no path of pure righteousness or pure evil, but there are paths that only the evil would take, although there is no one path that all evil people take, and there are paths that only the good would take, although there is no one path that all good people take.
Charles Phipps 09-02-06, 07:08 AM	I actually have a "house rule" for Skeletons and Zombies in my games that makes them more evil. Skeletons and Zombies are bound from acting outside the confines of their orders but are actually possessed by malevolent spirits of the Negative Material Plane that are summoned into their body to animate them. Thus, any necromancer whom animates the dead will always find that they attempt to fulfill their duties in a manner that inflicts the most suffering possible. I also make it a point that there's a 10% chance in that if a necromancer is killed, his Undead will gain a 2-3 semi intelligence and go hunting to destroy the living mindlessly. As for the Vampire situation, I've done my best to make Karrnath a little TOO Hammer Horror to be honest (Karrnath too Gothic thread for the example). The children of vampires being little evil seeds and so on. However, I do think there's potential in the character relationship since I'm personally considering the possibility that the vampiress in question is another one of Kaius' spawn and yet another daughter of the late Kaius the III imprisoned.
makeshiftwings 09-02-06, 04:50 PM	I use the alignment rules a little differently than normal. I don't really like alignment so I minimize its impact while still allowing extreme cases to be in the game. For most humanoids and "normal" creatures, they are mechanically treated as if they were neutral for all spell effects. Undead, like vampires, are always mechanically treated as evil, even if they don't act that way. This means that even if you're the nicest vampire in the world, you're still going to show up as a big red blob when someone casts Detect Evil, you're still going to take full damage from a Smite or Good Aligned weapon, you'll be unable to use anything that requires you to be good, you'll be more tied to negative energy than positive, etc. In addition, though I agree that positive and negative energy aren't necessarily good and evil, there are strong ties between the two (clerics energy use is dependent on alignment, and creatures infused with one of the energy types generally move towards the corresponding alignment). So I rule that if you're infused with negative energy, like you are when you're undead, it tends to warp your mind and outlook and turn you more feral and angsty, with a particular loathing/obsession with things that are actually still alive. It's possible to still be a good guy, but only if you have the will to resist your natural impulses. I'd guess the opposite thing would happen if you were positive infused, like the Deathless; you would develop an overactive sense of guilt and compassion. Personally I don't like the idea of an energy "forcing" you to be good as much as an evil one, but that does seem to be the mechanical point of the deathless.
ArcTan 09-02-06, 05:33 PM	Someone who cares about doing what is objectively morally right and constantly tries to do it is Good. Someone who doesn't is Evil. Someone who only sort of does is Neutral. It's still as simple as that. The thing is that people in Eberron don't have a perfect understanding of morality, so a person can *think* they're morally right and be Evil, or *try* to be morally right but fall short of that. It's all up to your interpretation, but I don't think the cosmic workings of alignment really change in Eberron. As far as non-evil vampires, they should be a rarity -- because of the constant compulsion to drink blood and drain energy. You don't even have to make it a starvation requirement -- even if a person *can* live without harming others, if they have a constant biological urge to harm others, it's going to be much more difficult for them to struggle successfully against becoming evil than if they're normal people. Someone with violent bursts of murderous rage is going to have a much tougher time maintaining a Good alignment than someone who doesn't, and someone who takes great pleasure from sucking the energy out of a sentient being is going to have a harder time being Good than someone who doesn't. That said, you can imagine a situation where someone doesn't have to be Evil for being a vampire, such as if there are large groups of people who willingly give themselves up to be drunk from. The Blood of Vol is the obvious choice here, and while yes, I would still argue that the BoV is in general a religion that hovers at Neutral and skirts Evil in its ideas, a Good vampire of the BoV is easy to imagine -- someone who believes she's been touched by the divine and given a reason to continue in this long, unnatural life to defend her community and fight against the creeping curse fo death any way she can, and has been generously given the blood of her patrons and worshippers as a sacrament, to continue this fight.
Morbid Angel 09-02-06, 06:23 PM	The pc in question could always stock up on restoration potions, or be a cleric that can cast it. Then she can feed on him. ;)
ArcTan 09-02-06, 06:31 PM	Yes, the non-evil vampire struggling against her nature is an old, old trope (relatively speaking) in fantasy. So is the whole sexual metaphor of blood drinking.
hockeyteam 09-02-06, 08:39 PM	Morals by their very nature have a very high level of ambiguity. If one considers the example of a vampire living outside a village of humans and every once and a while snacks on one, the humans might think the vampire evil. Now if the humans once and a while go to the nearby forest and snack on a deer, do the deer think the human evil(if they could think)? Should the deer think the human evil? The human usually doesn't think himself evil because he is killing a non-human edible lifeform in the name of self-preservation, but really if the human doesn't think himself evil for killing a deer why should he consider a vampire evil for in effect doing the same thing? To me in Eberron, the designers realized that morals are just common beliefs held by a group of people (or one person) not universal forces that a creature innately had, and good and evil are defined only when the individual creature(s) viewed something through their particular moral 'glasses'. This allows for characters like followers of the Silver Flame who might help feed the poor and may lend you a hand building your house, but are commited to the complete elimination of beings they deem 'evil'.
Charles Phipps 09-02-06, 08:42 PM	The human usually doesn't think himself evil because he is killing a non-human edible lifeform in the name of self-preservation, but really if the human doesn't think himself evil for killing a deer why should he consider a vampire evil for in effect doing the same thing? In most games, my response is an homage to South Park's rebuttal of Scientology. "Is X really anymore silly than Y?" "Yes. It really is." ;-)
Lafarallin 09-02-06, 08:51 PM	Now if the humans once and a while go to the nearby forest and snack on a deer, do the deer think the human evil(if they could think)? Should the deer think the human evil? The human usually doesn't think himself evil because he is killing a non-human edible lifeform in the name of self-preservation, but really if the human doesn't think himself evil for killing a deer why should he consider a vampire evil for in effect doing the same thing? Um...the deer is not a sentient being. It can't communicate in the same language. This is a pretty lame comparison. A deer hunter walks into the forest and sees a deer, raises his rifle and takes a deep breath. The deer looks up and says, "No sir, please. I have two little babies that are counting on me to feed them. Someone shot their mother earlier." I'm guessing any deer hunter would stop and rethink the situation at this point. This isn't even remotely the same thing. You're also missing the point that most vampires were humanoid at some time. So after being a human for 24 years you become a vampire and think of the rest of humanity as dinner now and nothing more then a deer? Yeah okay.
makeshiftwings 09-02-06, 09:58 PM	Well, as a strict vegan in real life, I'd actually say the deer analogy is pretty spot-on, and is a prime example of the fact that morality IS relative in real life. Of course, in D&D, I play "good" characters as doing all sorts of things that I think are "evil" in real life. D&D is a game that at its heart is about using violence to solve all of your problems, glorifying warfare, and romanticizing the hideously unjust social and religious structure of the European middle ages.
Charles Phipps 09-02-06, 10:00 PM	Bambi: I'm a talking de... *BLAM* In any case, let's just say I don't agree with that interpretation. In any case, I suppose I'm now simply curious whether I should genuinely make it a romance with a good vampire or insert a position of whether it should be a lie for political gain.
Lafarallin 09-02-06, 10:03 PM	Bambi: I'm a talking de... *BLAM* In any case, let's just say I don't agree with that interpretation. In any case, I suppose I'm now simply curious whether I should genuinely make it a romance with a good vampire or insert a position of whether it should be a lie for political gain. Just remember..there is nothing that says a vampire can't feed off animals. I could see a good vampire that only feeds off other animals that are not sentient. This would be no different then a human hunting an animal for food. Albeit the method of feeding might be considered a bit disgusting in our culture, but in some cultures it would be the norm.
Salla 09-03-06, 12:40 AM	Actually, I just noticed something this morning ... crack open your ECS to page Nine (I think it was 9 ...) to the section about how alignment operates differently in the list of 10 things to know about Eberron. It specifically mentions that you can encounter a good vampire. :)
ArcTan 09-03-06, 01:02 AM	So Charles, do you because of this claim that the Blood of Vol is actually an evil religion at the highest levels in Eberron? Remember that the BoV actually has regular encounters with sentient undead at the highest levels -- the highest levels of the BoV *are* sentient undead who are worshipped as the harbingers of a future eternal life for all, and the BoV *does* have a number of blood rituals where worshippers are expected to give blood to sustain a vampire leader. And remember that KB has said that BoVers are not generally Evil and that as a consequence the BoV is supposed to be a source of a non-Evil vampire if you need one. There's nothing against the setting in having a character with a romance with a non-Evil vampire, especially if he's a worshipper of the BoV. It's one of the ways that Eberron is distinct from other settings that this is a possibility, in fact.
ArcTan 09-03-06, 01:07 AM	Just remember..there is nothing that says a vampire can't feed off animals. I could see a good vampire that only feeds off other animals that are not sentient. But feeding off animals is said to be deeply unsatisfying. They probably *can* drain from nonsentients but don't find it satisfying at all -- like it would be for us to eat nothing but hardtack biscuits for the rest of our lives. Remember that most animals you'd be likely to catch have less Con to drain than a human. Remember that they also have to drain soul energy as well as blood, and soul energy from things that may not have souls -- animals -- may be even less satisfying than animal blood.
Salla 09-03-06, 02:43 AM	But feeding off animals is said to be deeply unsatisfying. They probably *can* drain from nonsentients but don't find it satisfying at all -- like it would be for us to eat nothing but hardtack biscuits for the rest of our lives. Remember that most animals you'd be likely to catch have less Con to drain than a human. Remember that they also have to drain soul energy as well as blood, and soul energy from things that may not have souls -- animals -- may be even less satisfying than animal blood. Pardon the snarkiness, but ... says who? A lot of monsters in D&D vary significantly from their mythological roots (see: gorgon), and there are a LOT of different vampire mythologies out there. I don't recall seeing any references to the need to devour 'soul energy' in the vampire description (for that matter, there's only a passing mention of drinking blood). The closest thing I can recall is the negative level effect of a slam, but that simply provides temporary hit points, as does the blood drain. Heck, by strict reading of the MM entry, vampires don't HAVE to drink blood because no negative effects for failing to do so are given. They just won't have extra temporary HP. Different people have different takes on all things mythological, and at the end of the day, it pretty much boils down to how the DM wants to do it (either that, or pester Mr. Baker about it, but I suspect he'd give you the same answer I just did). So, it depends on how the DM wants it to play out. Me? I have no problem with vampires sustaining themselves on animal blood (or, tangentially, mind flayers sustaining themselves on animal brains). Your Mileage May Vary. P.S. Even if you do ply the 'unsatisfying' angle ... hey, nobody said being Good was easy.
Morbid Angel 09-03-06, 10:46 AM	Remember that most animals you'd be likely to catch have less Con to drain than a human. Avg. Human Con: 10 Avg. Horse's Con: 15 Avg. Dog's Con: 15 As stated in the Monster Manual. Besides having to drink blood is a Vampire the Masquerade thing. Going strictly by the MM it says nothing of the sort as Salla pointed out above. :b: :b: :b:
Charles Phipps 09-03-06, 03:48 PM	My current idea is his Vampire Girlfriend is a/was a member of Kaius' harem, which makes for interesting times I suppose is a definite point on this. She's definitely a member of the Blood of Vol though not the leadership.
makeshiftwings 09-03-06, 04:47 PM	Besides having to drink blood is a Vampire the Masquerade thing. Going strictly by the MM it says nothing of the sort as Salla pointed out above. I agree that by the rules, there's nothing that says vampires have to drink blood. Though, by core rules, it does say that acquiring the vampire template turns you evil, always. Eberron's rule overrides this I suppose, essentially saying that everything in every monster book can be good. (Though technically, even the MM itself says that "always evil" actually means "almost always evil"). If you're going to basically abandon all flavor text of all monsters and only cling to the Eberron rule "everything can be good", then you can eventually have a very silly campaign. Mind flayers and daelkyr having tea parties, pit fiends sponsoring a bake sale for a local charity, etc. So yes, you could say that the Eberron alignment rule means that all vampires are exactly the same as they were in life, and that there are plenty of nice ones slumming around in Karrnath throwing Halloween dance parties with their werewolf, mummy, and flesh golem friends. But I don't think that's the intention of the rule.
Fion81 09-03-06, 06:54 PM	Keith baker has himself commented that this is one of the items of his campaign that alot of people have taken up and run too far with. he meant to stretch alignments slightly, not throw them out.
Morbid Angel 09-03-06, 07:02 PM	I agree that by the rules, there's nothing that says vampires have to drink blood. Though, by core rules, it does say that acquiring the vampire template turns you evil, always. Eberron's rule overrides this I suppose, essentially saying that everything in every monster book can be good. (Though technically, even the MM itself says that "always evil" actually means "almost always evil"). If you're going to basically abandon all flavor text of all monsters and only cling to the Eberron rule "everything can be good", then you can eventually have a very silly campaign. Mind flayers and daelkyr having tea parties, pit fiends sponsoring a bake sale for a local charity, etc. So yes, you could say that the Eberron alignment rule means that all vampires are exactly the same as they were in life, and that there are plenty of nice ones slumming around in Karrnath throwing Halloween dance parties with their werewolf, mummy, and flesh golem friends. But I don't think that's the intention of the rule. I fail to see what this has to do with anything. If "always evil" actually means "almost always" in the Core MM then you can have a good vampire in any campaign world, not just Eberron. It doesn't however, say anything in the MM about penalties a vampire takes for not drinking blood. So in a core game a good vampire is a rare exception to the rule who would not need to drain blood for any reason other than a special attack. You are clinging to an absurd exaggeration of Eberron's blurring of alignment. A dm is free to use whatever monster mythologies he likes. That doesn't mean a campaign need devolve into the absurdities presented above. :b: :b: :b:
Edymnion 09-03-06, 08:04 PM	The way I would handle this: The character first takes Leadership, the vamp is going to be his cohort. If we're going to do this, we gotta do it right. The character will come across some other vampire feeding on a teenage girl. Can be older of course, but I'm assuming the character has chosen the standard 20'ish age for the character. Whatever the age though, the girl should be as young as possible before it starts getting "weird". The character (with help from the party if needed) kills the vampire that was feeding, but the damage is already done, and the girl turns. This is where you need to use some alternate rules for making will saves to avoid alignment changes from the curse. Just have her make that first save, be scared, etc. Character takes her under his wing, and tries to help keep her from becoming just another evil blood sucker.That way, he gets his vampire girlfriend, he pays for it mechanically, and you get lots of roleplaying potential as she tries to make those saves to keep from feeding (and I would have feeding on animals only reduce the DC on the save, not reset it completely, only humanoid blood can do that, for story reason), trying to talk her back down from the brink of plunging into pure evil, etc. It would be a given that eventually she would lose her struggle and go evil, the question is how long he can help her retain her humanity.
Errant 09-03-06, 10:54 PM	Pardon the snarkiness, but ... says who? A lot of monsters in D&D vary significantly from their mythological roots (see: gorgon), and there are a LOT of different vampire mythologies out there. I don't recall seeing any references to the need to devour 'soul energy' in the vampire description (for that matter, there's only a passing mention of drinking blood). Actually, the Libris Mortis section on undead physiology lists vampires as having an inescapable craving for life force and being diet dependent on blood. This means if they don't satisfy their hunger for life force & blood they continually risk losing will power (Wis) until they are overwhelmed by their hunger and become near-mindless ravening beasts until their hunger is sated. Being diet dependent on blood means prolonged hunger ends in them losing mobility/special abilities until they are sated. Granted, Libris Mortis is not a core book & don't recall it saying anywhere that the blood had to be human/sentient, but thats where it says vampires have to feed on blood.
makeshiftwings 09-04-06, 12:42 AM	I fail to see what this has to do with anything. If "always evil" actually means "almost always" in the Core MM then you can have a good vampire in any campaign world, not just Eberron. It doesn't however, say anything in the MM about penalties a vampire takes for not drinking blood. So in a core game a good vampire is a rare exception to the rule who would not need to drain blood for any reason other than a special attack. You are clinging to an absurd exaggeration of Eberron's blurring of alignment. A dm is free to use whatever monster mythologies he likes. That doesn't mean a campaign need devolve into the absurdities presented above. :b: :b: :b: I think you're misinterpereting what I wrote. I am agreeing with you; I was trying to point out the absurdity of taking Eberron's blurred alignment rule too far. My post was in response to those above, which were basically saying that since the core rules don't say vampires actually like drinking blood, that they don't. My point is that even though the core rules don't specifically say "When you become a vampire, you develop an unquenchable thirst for blood and killing that greatly outweighs your former sense of guilt or morality", that it's supposed to be implied by the fact that it's a creature called "Vampire", and that the transformation makes you Always Evil. But, all that aside, yes I think vampires can be good. BUT, they should be constantly struggling against their nature, and SHOULD still have the desire to kill human(oid)s and drink their blood. It should not be as easy as just drinking pig's blood instead. If it were that easy, then all vampires would drink pig's blood, even evil ones, because it would be a lot less trouble for them.
Hellcow 09-05-06, 03:45 AM	Keith baker has himself commented that this is one of the items of his campaign that alot of people have taken up and run too far with. Umm... Not so much. I don't have time to discuss this in detail. But if you check this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9947230#post9947230) you can find some of my thoughts on alignment. I also suggest you read Chapter Nine of the ECS, especially the section "Alignment is unpredictable". As a general rule, I believe that most sentient creatures have no innate tendancy towards an alignment. A particular culture or religion may frequently produce people of a certain alignment, but biologically, orcs are not evil. So MOST sentient creatures can be of any alignment. IMO, creatures that I would continue to assign a "Usually" alignment to are those whose behavior is influenced by magical forces. An example of this is an afflicted lycanthrope, whose mind is altered by the affliction... or a vampire. As was said before, a vampire has an innate link to Mabar, and this does cause them to hunger for the energy of others. Likewise, in my campaign, vampires are drawn to their own kind, just as evil afflicted lycanthropes will turn on their own species. A vampire CAN feed off of an animal and will survive, but it is (again, IMO only) inherently unsatisfying. A human vampire wants the energy of HUMANS, because his spirit hungers to replenish what it has lost. So, the point there is that yes, you can absolutely have a good vampire. But it's a struggle, because the power of Mabar IS urging the vampire to see others as prey. So can you have a good vampire girlfriend? Sure. But she should be a very stoic person with a serious ongoing internal struggle, not a carefree "Woohoo! I'm an airhead who happens to have nifty powers" sort of person. Of course, this really is ignoring another point... why's the girlfriend have to be GOOD? The big thing in Eberron - as noted in the thread I linked to earlier - is that evil people can do good. Evil people are out there, and there's nothing saying that an evil person can't win the heart of a good person... or vice versa. And there's nothing saying that because she's evil she'd betray the party, rob her beloved, etc, etc. She might brutally murder anyone who threatened her beloved without a second thought... but she loves HIM, and she'd never do that to him. In my opinion, the members of Kaius' harem are deeply devoted to Kaius and to Karrnath, and that can easily slip into an evil alignment if the person is willing to do anything in the name of either or both causes. Kaius himself is working towards a noble goal; he is evil because of the ruthless actions he is willing to take in pursuit of this cause. So you can certainly have a good vampire. But you can also have an evil girlfriend. And to me that's a more intriguing situation, as the two lovers have to see how their differing outlooks on the world affect their relationship. To finish the trilogy: I said that in my campaign most sentient creatures can be any alignment. "Usually alignment X" is reserved for creatures whose alignment is influenced by outside forces... though bear in mind that a particular CULTURE may produce people that are "usually alignment X", if its values are especially pervasive. And I reserve "always alignment X" for creatures that are truly embodiments of ideas, primarily outsiders. And even there, as people have noted, "always" means "almost always"... it is possible for an angel to fall or a quori to turn against the Dreaming Dark. Anyhow: I have been posting far too often in the last few weeks, and I don't have time to do more. I won't be responding further on this thread, though you can see more of my thoughts on alignment on the linked thread above. But no, this isn't something I think most people have run too far with. It's not about throwing alignment out; it's about viewing the meaning of good and evil alignments in a different way, and differentiating between evil alignment and evil actions.
Charles Phipps 09-05-06, 04:42 AM	Oh bah Hellcow, everytime you think you're out we'll keep pulling you right back in!
DragonWatcher 09-05-06, 10:42 AM	Personally, I don't believe that Alignment represents morality at all. Furthermore, I think that the idea that Alignment = morality is the one thing that causes more people to become frustrated with Alignment and try to find ways to eliminate it from their games than anything else. To explain... Morality deals with subjective concepts of right and wrong, while Alignment deals with objective absolutes of Good and Evil. Now, the problem (as I see it) becomes that many people equate the two... and in reality, it is very easy to blur those lines, as we do not have magic or science that allows us to detect the presence of Good or Evil in our actions (or in our person). Similarly, we do not have outsiders (angels or demons) who regularly make proclaimations that such-and-such is Good or Evil. So in real life, we determine Good and Evil through our subjective morality... we equate what is right to be Good, and what is wrong to be Evil. That said, in Eberron... just as in any other setting for Dungeons and Dragons, there are outsiders who are the embodiment of Good and Evil... there is magic that can detect and affect those with strong ties to objective forces of Good and Evil in "reality". When you can actually perceive and measure the extent to which someone is "aligned" with the objective force of Good or Evil, and the effects that an individuals actions can have on that Alignment it becomes apparent that there is a distinction between the Good thing and the right thing, just as there is a distinction between the wrong thing and the Evil thing. I would argue that it is inherently possible for someone to perform an evil act in the pursuit of doing the right thing. In fact, I would guess that this happens more often than performing evil acts to do the wrong thing, as right and wrong are inherently subjective, and while a particular action might be seen societally as wrong... the actor himself might believe that it's the right thing to do. An example might be the sacrifice of an innocent on the last night of every month to keep one of the Rajahs imprisoned. Clearly keeping the Rajah imprisoned is the right thing to do... but the sacrifice of an innocent is itself an Evil act. So it is possible to commit evil in the pursuit of the right. Likewise, as Kaius proves, it's possible for someone inherently Evil to do the right thing. At this point, I would have to say that I think that it would be tremendously fun as the DM to do as Hellcow suggested and allow the player's character to have a vampire gf, who is COMPLETELY in love with the character, yet has none of the "moral filters" (for lack of a better term) that prevent most people from acting out on their jealousy. Basically, if she perceives any threat of someone else drawing him away from her, they become her late night snack. This is especially problematic when the woman flirting with the character was their patron, or someone whom the party was trying to get a key piece of information from. Likewise it is a fine line between love and hate, and should the PC ever try to leave the vampire, she is certainly poised to become a recurring villian, setting traps for the PC and his friends, or trying to prevent them from accomplishing their missions. Their love could inspire her to try to do the right thing most of the time, but she could still be an Evil person who is just a hair's width away from committing unspeakable crimes. The roleplaying opportunities there are huge. :)
Kreistor1 09-05-06, 11:00 AM	My campaign is thick with morally ambiguous NPC's. I may not be able to run classic Film Noir storylines, but I sure can bring the moral ambiguity in. For vampires specifically, I do not present them as a few others do. They think of themselves as human with a disease, not as the next evolution. They want and need human companionship. Some may have the classic Strahd issue of trying to find a lost companion, and then falling to the urge to convert that companion into a beast like himself. Others may just want the friendship. But ultimately, every one of them knows that sooner or later any humanoid presence near them is at risk of the vampire's urges. I don't allow drinking animal blood cop-outs. Vampires are murderers. They know they are murderers. They know and are ashamed that they are a mockery of real life. That does make them Evil. The means to an end does not justify that end. Murder of intelligent life merely to survive does not justify the act. We have people who will die without organ transplants. It is Murder to kill for someone's organs, and we would view that act as evil. This is no different. However, my vampires can have different motivations for their life, beyond the classic Strahd's choice to "Emulate my previous life as closely as possible". My Kaius, for instance, is a Karrnath patriot. He wasn't that way when he was Turned: he was an egotistical, self-indulgent fool that handed his nation to an Evil ratehr than give it to his siblings. Turning hi revealed to him the horror he had created and now he is obsessed with restoring Karrnath, which will cause yet more devastation, of course. But, the ultimate goal is noble on first perusal. So, he has good goals in many cases, but he still sucks the lifeblood out of his harem, killing them periodically. I have another vampire with a similar motivation that my PC's are working with... not exactly allies, but enemies currently working towards the same goal. They've worked with Rhashaak (Haka'torvhak in Q'barra). They achieved a particular goal, and saw him turn on them in the end. He may be an ally, but he is Evil. No surprise there. I will have other "Evils" that may have motivations that the PC's will work with through the campaign. I get big reactions out of them working their way through this kind of world. It doesn't really matter whether the reactions are positive or negative, the players end the day liking the twists and turns. The unexpected is always good for a gasp and smile. Anyway, my point is that to a certain extent, evil creatures can have goals that align with good creatures. Evil creatures can view good creatures as useful tools over the long term, so even short term disagreements (even those involving violent conflict) do not need to turn into the murder of the PC's. [Note: yes, Paladins find it hard in this campaign. I need them to act more like Sparhawk in Edding's Elenium. I am much less restrictive on the "association with evil" part of the code.]