# Encounter with a good aligned vampire, what do you do?



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 23, 2011)

My very first post!

Okay, down to business.

I'm currently DMing a 3.5e D&D campaign. This is a mid level campaign right now (lvls 10-17ish). There are 3 players (all good aligned), a Barbarian, Cleric, and Paladin...well Ex-Paladin. The Paladin lost his Paladin status for doing something very NOT Lawful Good. The PCs are currently on a quest bestowed on the Paladin to prove himself worthy of an atonement spell. The details of what he did and the quest itself are irrelevant to this thread.

---What happened last session---

The PCs are currently in the Ethereal Plane with an Astral Deva, the Paladin's spiritual guide for his quest. During their travels, they were attacked by a Malebranch and a handful of Merregons. They were sent to kill the Astral Deva before the Paladin can be redeemed (they are agents of the Devil trying to corrupt the Paladin in case you were wondering). During the fight, a vampire traveling the Ethereal Plane joined the fray and helped the party finish off the Devils.

When the vampire showed up, she was already brutally injured, but thankfully, she was able to just start lobbing spells at the Devils (shes a Wizard). Being a good aligned party, with a Cleric and Paladin (close enough) no less (not to mention the Astral Deva), they aren't normally supposed to associate with a vampire. It doesn't take long for the party to figure out that the vampire was ambushed by a group consisting Paladins and Clerics while heading back to her lair. She barely managed to escape by fleeing to the Ethereal Plane with a Plane Shift spell. Not waiting around to see if they'd be able to follow her, she continued to flee. Turns out they were able to pursue her, and shes been running from them for nearly 4 days. She was nearby when the party was attacked and decided to help them out.

Now, as all D&Ders know, vampires are "always" evil (snore). This vampire happens to be good (Neutral Good in fact). A Detect Evil spell does NOT register her as Evil, and a Detect Good spell registers her as Good. A Discern Lies spell also tells the Cleric that she has been telling the truth about why she was running. When asked by the party, the Astral Deva announced, "Oddly, I sense that she has an good, albeit naive, heart."

Things were complicated when the Barbarian, despite the vampire's warnings not to get too close to her since she hasn't feed in days and might lose control, got too close. Just as she warned, she lost control and gave into her hunger for blood. She attacked the Barbarian in a frenzy, but was subdued by the party. Despite her apology for losing it, the party is understandably ever more cautious of her. She was clearly afraid of the party to begin with, especially the Astral Deva. Now she is even more afraid of what they might do to her.

The players will decide what they will do with her in the next session.

---End Session---

That was a really boring story I'm sure so I'll get to the point.

The vampire is clearly good aligned, and in her current state, she is pretty much helpless (few spells left, badly wounded, half-starved). She DID help the party out, but she also attacked the Barbarian. She is also a vampire, and undead, a mockery of life. She is at the mercy of the players. Since we're on the theme of right and wrong, I'm anxiously awaiting to see how they will react.

Now, my question is, what would YOU do?


----------



## Heathen72 (Mar 23, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> we're on the theme of right and wrong, I'm anxiously awaiting to see how they will react.
> 
> Now, my question is, what would YOU do?




Hmm. Good question. Is she hot?

Sorry. You know - good vampiress and all - I had to ask.

I'd like to know how she ended up 'not evil' for a start. That would inform a lot of my other responses. 

I wouldn't want to destroy her, but given there is lots of weird demon stuff going on, and who know's what is what, I wouldn't want to just let her go, either.


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 23, 2011)

To me, it would depend on how she answers two questions (backed up with _detect lies_):

1) Is she opposed to no longer being a vampire?

2) Has she been sustaining herself on the blood of sentients?

If she answers yes to either, she's toast.  If it's no to both, I'd either let her go or offer to assist her to be "cured" of her current curse, possibly questing with her.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 23, 2011)

Stake that glittering witch!!!!

Sparkle or no, she is a blood sucking parasite - ticks, fleas and leeches are neutral, oh well.


Remember folks, the only Good vampire is a DEAD vampire.


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 23, 2011)

spunkrat said:


> Hmm. Good question. Is she hot?
> 
> Sorry. You know - good vampiress and all - I had to ask.
> 
> I'd like to know how she ended up 'not evil' for a start. That would inform a lot of my other responses.




Lol! Charisma 19. Sunny personality (pun intended). I suppose in terms of physical attractiveness she's higher up on the scale. +4 bonus to Charisma and all that. Of course, she's still a walking corpse, and she has a deathly pallor. That might turn a few people off.

She did not become a vampire by choice (most people don't). She was actually turned by her father. Her father was also turned against his will and forced to turn his whole family (spawn don't really have a choice).

She eventually broke free of the head vampire's control and fled. He still exists. Good quest for later on. Kill the evil vampire from the past.

Of course, the players do not know this, so they can't use that information to influence their decision.

P.S.

I'm adding this to the reply because I realized I didn't actually answer your question. She struggled for years against her nature, nearly going mad in the process. Eventually, she locked herself in a specially prepared room (haven't figured out the exact details on what magic was involved. Definitely a long lasting Magic Circle against Evil turned inward, and probably incense and other stuff like that) and meditated nonstop for about a two weeks. She never once left that room in the meantime, not even to feed. She managed to cease control over herself and suppress her savage instincts.

I did this this way to reinforce the idea that strong will and determination can allow an individual to control their own instincts. If there can be good aligned illithid, why can't there be good aligned vampires?



Stormonu said:


> To me, it would depend on how she answers two questions (backed up with _detect lies_):
> 
> 1) Is she opposed to no longer being a vampire?
> 
> ...




Answer 1: Yes. Her former controller still exists. She doesn't know how long it will take to take him down. So until he is gone, she can't risk limiting her time with a mortal lifespawn. She has grown to enjoy being a vampire. She does not intend to find a cure after she finally takes out her former controller.

Answer 1: No and Yes. She is holed up a good distance from any large community. She sustains herself mostly on animals. She will only feed on people, preferably an evil aligned person, if there isn't anything else to feed on. The only time she ever killed a good aligned person was when she was a vampire spawn, and therefore was being controlled by another being.

It is not necessary to kill someone to feed on them. Since vampires don't technically have to take blood in lethal amounts.



Thunderfoot said:


> Stake that glittering witch!!!!
> 
> Sparkle or no, she is a blood sucking parasite - ticks, fleas and leeches are neutral, oh well.




Aww, but what about the moral dilemma?


----------



## SuperJebba (Mar 23, 2011)

I would not kill the vampire.  I definitely would be extremely cautious around her, but I would not kill her.

Though in my group, it would be a moot point.  I happen to love the Twilight novels and my group mocks me mercilessly for it.  They would without question kill the vampire and then probably kill me for trying to save it.


----------



## korjik (Mar 23, 2011)

Geas. If you kill an innocent in a hunger frenzy, go watch a dawn.

Assuming that would be fatal. If it isnt, then stake the DM 

If she is trying to be good, then all I want is some insurance that she wont kill due to her hunger. Even then, my geas idea is a bit harsh. Adventurers occasionally wack an innocent and get away with it, so I guess I couldnt really hold that against her. 

The only sticking point I would have is why was she jumped in the first place? If it was just cause she was a vamp, then she is ok, but if she killed someone she shouldnt have, I would prolly demand she surrender to face justice. Mind you, I dont count anything she did as a thrall against her.

If it turns out she is what she seems, and she really does want to hunt down her ex-master, then I would abandon the atonement quest and help her kill her ex-master, with the intention that afterwards, she would live where she could be watched by my church, to make sure she dosent go bad. My figuring is that an atonement quest is at its heart a selfish act, and helping a stranger destroy an evil is not. This also assumes that my church is relatively understanding, and wouldnt just destroy her cause she is a blood sucking abomination.

PS: If the barbarian is so intent on getting close, he can at least provide a snack occasionaly


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 23, 2011)

SuperJebba said:


> I would not kill the vampire.  I definitely would be extremely cautious around her, but I would not kill her.
> 
> Though in my group, it would be a moot point.  I happen to love the Twilight novels and my group mocks me mercilessly for it.  They would without question kill the vampire and then probably kill me for trying to save it.




Nothing wrong with being cautious. That's just self-preservation telling you to be careful.

I'm not a fan of twilight. I do not agree with twilight vampires; however, I agree with originality. She definitely gets points for that, and I don't see what everyone's deal is with Twilight. If you don't like it then don't watch it. You don't have to go off on a rant about how you don't like it.



korjik said:


> Geas. If you kill an innocent in a hunger frenzy, go watch a dawn.
> 
> Assuming that would be fatal. If it isnt, then stake the DM
> 
> ...




Cool. Well, undead have strong urges to feed when they're hungry. REALLY strong when they are injured and haven't fed for days.

She didn't do anything really. Just minding her own business. She's been laired up there for a few decades now. Thought she had finally found a nice, quiet, secluded place to study her magic. About 7 years ago, some druids moved into the forest her tower is in. Eventually they started to figure out what she really was. One of them was spying on her for a several days. He was trying to find proof so they can justify attacking her. He caught her feeding on an animal (caught red handed no?), in the excitement he messed up and she figured out what that squirrel really was...a druid. They both panicked and ending up attacking each other. He got away with no permanent injuries, but she was still too much for him to handle. Since he was one the more powerful druids there, and he was ineffectual...albeit, while on his own...the druids decided to enlist some help. Enter the Clerics/Paladins.

Hunting down her ex-master would be a fun arc to write up, but you have to admit, the Paladin regaining his Paladin powers would greatly help in that quest no?


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 23, 2011)

A good vampire huh? Well there are ways to cure that. Resurrection will return to life a creature that was formerly undead. So destroy her and resurrect her. Or just stop at step 1.

I'm reminded of the story of the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion and the frog both wanted to get across the river. The scorpion asked the frog to carry her on his back. The frog knew this was foolish, and said no. But the scorpion answered that if she were to sting the frog while crossing the river, they would both die and certainly the scorpion didn't want to die. Well the frog saw the logic in that and let the scorpion crawl on his back to cross the river. Halfway across the river the frog felt the sting of a scorpion on his back. As he felt the poison coursing through his veins he asked the scorpion why she had condemned them both to death. The scorpion replied, "I'm a scorpion. I can't deny my nature."

Its in the nature of a vampire to drink blood of innocent creatures that never did them any harm. That is why the monster manual entry says ALWAYS evil. Unless you can come up with a vampire that doesn't do that, then it has to be evil. Otherwise it isn't a vampire.

If you like the idea of "good undead," I suggest you use the deathless template. Maybe she isn't a vampire at all, but a vampire who transformed herself to some other kind of deathless creature by the ritual she performed.


----------



## JustKim (Mar 23, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> The details of what he did and the quest itself are irrelevant to this thread.



It may be irrelevant to the thread, but it sets a precedent for your paladin player not agreeing with what you see as lawful good behavior, doesn't it?

Here your paladin is partaking in a quest to atone himself, and as part of the quest you dangle a moral dilemma in front of him with this sympathetic but traditionally evil creature. Well, I say sympathetic because it sounds like you want the party to feel sympathy for her, not because she actually sounds sympathetic. She's fleeing from divine agents, that's not indicative of goodness, pretty standard for evil vampires. A sunny person doesn't really come off as being very repentant about feeding on the innocent. She attacked a party member. That's like the worst thing an NPC can do.

So ask yourself, is it likely the paladin will anticipate that killing the vampire is part of his atonement? It seems like a foregone conclusion to me, but hey, I don't know your players.

It's not going to help you at all to get a popular opinion poll on what other people might do, but to answer your question, I'd roll with the vampire stuff. It sounds like a fun idea. But, let me tell you from experience you've probably gone about it in the wrong way. Don't be surprised if your vampire's last meal is stake.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

To me the answer depends very much on setting - in Eberron, as an example, she might not even be all that unusual. If she is taking care in her feeding - avoiding killing prey, etc.. and the paladins & co. chasing her are a bunch of Silver Flame bigots then, yeah, I'd help her. (As a side note - for me the difference between 'Deathless' and 'Undead' is semantics - the Deathless elves are just as much undead as any vampire. Their moral compass is different, but that is a cultural, not inherent, distinction.)

In a setting where undead are tainted by the powers of Hell, and have given their souls over to the Great Adversary in return for eternal life, where soon or late the loss of her soul is inevitable, then it is time for the stake, or possibly time to help her to win free from her creator's dominion. In that case, I would allow the death of her creator to reverse her creeping doom, and bring her back into the realm of the living. (Hey, if you are going to steal the whole 'is killed by sunlight thing' from movies then you might as well steal the trappings from other movies as well.)

You can also make it tragic, as her undead nature slowly overwhelms her goodly nature.

In my homebrew vampire spawn are little more than intelligent zombies - the original soul sped. A master vampire has made a deal with Darkness for eternal life. 

For that matter, a vampire in daylight is dead, but when the sun goes down they can once again walk the earth. Sunlight is only temporarily fatal, but does make it easier to drive the stake home and cut off the head.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 23, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> My very first post!
> 
> Okay, down to business.
> 
> I'm currently DMing a 3.5e D&D campaign. This is a mid level campaign right now (lvls 10-17ish). There are 3 players (all good aligned), a Barbarian, Cleric, and Paladin...well Ex-Paladin. The Paladin lost his Paladin status for doing something very NOT Lawful Good. The PCs are currently on a quest bestowed on the Paladin to prove himself worthy of an atonement spell. The details of what he did and the quest itself are irrelevant to this thread.




Perhaps the details are irrelevant but the context is not. If the Paladin is seeking atonement for some misdeed, it seems like destroying the vampire would send the message that there is no forgiveness for those who exist in sin. Further, the very fact of the vampire's alignment suggests she is not only Good, but exceptionally enlightened, probably the equal of the wisest monks and clerics in the land. Clearly, the paladin must accept her as someone deserving of his mercy.

As to what should befall her, it depends on the nature of vampirism. If vampirism is truly unnatural, they should try to cure her. If, however, she has accepted her state, and her state of being is simply the way of the universe, that sometimes the strong must prey on the weak to survive, then the Paladin is not bound to do anything. Being Lawful, he reasonably would have to accept a Good creature's need for survival.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> Of course, she's still a walking corpse, and she has a deathly pallor. That might turn a few people off.



She'd blend right in on the Sunset Strip.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Starfox (Mar 23, 2011)

By D&D definitions, undead are perversions of the cycle of life and inherently evil. If you've presented your game as a standard DnD game, that will be the player's expectation (if they are read up on the system). There might be a point in shocking them by showing that some of the base assumption (or natural laws, if you will) of the campaign is different than they think - in this case that undead can be good - but this needs to be done carefully. If they destroy this vampire right away, not really thinking it was a moral choice since "all undead are evil", and you punish them for this "evil" act, they are in their rights to become grumpy. But, as you said, the game theme right now is ethics, and maybe the players will be sensitive enough to investigate further.

Or they may just think vampires are hot. Which may (or may not) be good role-playing, but questionable ethics. 

In a world like DnD where souls are sorted according to alignment, the choice to "kill them all and let god sort them out" actually makes kind of sense for a good vampire. The best way to handle a good vampire might be to destroy her - freeing her of the curse of undeath and letting her soul go to its final reward. Even a good vampire might create spawn, and if she regularly loses control and thus involuntarily creates spawn she is very dangerous - like a plague carrier, only much worse.


----------



## Horatio (Mar 23, 2011)

Kill her. Then ressurrect her. That way, she will be alive again, with no need to feed on mortals. If she is really good aligned and a bit smart, she should ask the group if something like that would be in their powers.


----------



## avin (Mar 23, 2011)

I won't kill her. My second RPG character, in fact, had a romance with a good aligned vampire.

She was hot and gave me this really cool blood armor, so...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 23, 2011)

It may be cliche at this point, but the answer is "ask the vampire out on a date". Or at the very least, out for a drink.

(there's a joke in here about a virgin Bloody Mary, I'm sure of it...)


----------



## Whisper72 (Mar 23, 2011)

I wouldn't kill her. But then again, in my campaigns, races are rarely 'all evil', and good orcs, goblins etc. are also about. So the idea of a good vampire is not that strange. As long as she does not kill innocents (and really, that is not really necessary if she preys on evil beings and animals etc.), then the mere fact she is undead is not a moral problem in my campaigns (the whole idea that undeath is a mockery of life is a matter of personal taste, in the same vein, one could conclude a Golem is a mockery of life and that ticks are evil for drinking the blood of the innocent...)

So, the facts are: she helped out the party using valuable resources (her spells), while she herself is on the run (so even when in trouble, she goes out of her way to help others) and risks destruction (she is already injured) to help out total strangers...

In my book this means she is practically a saint. That she fed on the barbarian for getting to close, well that is the barbarian's fault. She warned him. He should have listened, the provocation is totally the barbarian's fault, not hers...

So, because she was so selfless in helping out, the party should go all out to help her next. Convince the hunting party of paladins/clerics that she is not evil. Convince the druids of the same so she can go back to her home, hopefully now in harmony with the druids (so they can help eachother out), then help her hunt down and kill her (former) master to make sure she remains free willed and cannot be made into his thrall again.

Seems pretty clear to me...


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 23, 2011)

It's time for her to quest for the hidden subterranean garden where a unique strain of heart-shaped turnips grow, over a forgotten cemetery. There she will meet the ones who have learned how to squeeze blood from a turnip.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2011)

She has to die, no if ands or buts. Not just because D&D Vampires feed by PERMANENTLY harming their victims , but because as [MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION] & [MENTION=63829]Horatio[/MENTION] pointed out, they can't resurrect her until after she is destroyed . And since quick, if violent death is more merciful than slow starvation in my book, the party really shouldn't just let her go.

Good news is that once resurrected, she'll be a useful member of the party who won't potentially overshine the PCs.

And as a player if i sensed even the slightest hesitation on the DM's part to this plan, I'd either kill her or accuse the DM of trying to slip a DMPC into the group.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2011)

Or slay then _Reincarnate_, though that might not technically work on undead.  So, maybe a _Wish_?


----------



## Starman (Mar 23, 2011)

Sepulchrave's Tales of Wyre Story Hour, especially the beginning in which a succubus expresses a desire to repent, might be helpful and it's a damn fine read to boot.


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 23, 2011)

From the Monster Manual:







> *Alignment*
> This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.



And then under vampire that line says:







> *Alignment:* Always evil (any)



Now you'll find three different qualifiers: Often, Usually, and Always. These first two qualifiers can be interpreted different ways as the terms are somewhat indicative without being precise. But the final term is an absolute and is not negotiable. This means that unless there is some overarching power dictating otherwise, a creature with the Always evil alignment left to its own devices will never deviate from being evil. The very act of becoming a vampire changes a creature's nature such that it cannot refrain from being evil in the manner you have described.

[MENTION=6673096]FiddleSticks96[/MENTION], it would seem you find the D&D alignment system too rigid for your liking and wish to house rule it to be more flexible. That's fine, but you should make sure your players are informed of this in no uncertain terms. You are introducing a "dark hero" figure into the campaign and if you are ambiguous about how closely you are following the D&D alignment system then your players will get the wrong idea and probably make the "wrong" decision because they can't see inside your head. Think of it this way, if you were to sit down to play Monopoly with a group of people, then were designated the banker, everyone would expect you to give them $200 when they passed Go. If you personally decided that $200 was too much and that for this game you would only hand out $100, then as soon as someone passed Go, an issue would arise. House rules that apply to everyone need to be stated clearly ahead of time, especially where they pertain to important player decisions. You have a paladin on a quest to prove himself worthy after losing his abilities and then you introduce a very morally ambiguous character into the equation but you are not following the RAW for alignment. Your paladin player is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. For the sake of your players, please take a moment to explain how you run alignment in your campaign, because if you haven't your players are probably going to be distressed at some point. At the very least they don't have all the proper tools to make the proper decision.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Mar 23, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> I'm not a fan of twilight. I do not agree with twilight vampires; however, I agree with originality. She definitely gets points for that, and I don't see what everyone's deal is with Twilight. If you don't like it then don't watch it. You don't have to go off on a rant about how you don't like it.



The issues that I suspect people have with Twilight vampires are that vampires are supposed to be creatures of gothic horror - malevolent and EVIL. They drink the blood of the living (traditionally of the innocent and brave rather than the despicable for the greater sense of violation and degradation.) As you say there is praise to be expended for originality but at this point the idea of a "good" vampire is hardly original - even if making them sparkle is. The Twilight series is also wildly popular. THAT brings the ire of a large section of gamer culture simply for being popular. They are popular in particular with young girls. That is, if you'll forgive the expression, the kiss of death. No dedicated guy gamer wants portions of his pasttime associated with popularity among tween girls.

Speaking for myself, my gut reaction to encountering a "good" vampire as descirbed is highly unfavorable towards the DM that introduces it for several reasons. One is that I don't want my character or his party to require assistance or saving via the intervention of NPC's. No _deus ex machina_ for me. There are better ways to introduce an NPC than by the NPC (and/or DM) feeling the need to "save" the PC's, whether they really need the assistance or not.

Next, in MY book, undeath is a vile, unspeakable, generally incurable curse (at least not without the actual death of the thing first - it's lack of proper death being the whole point). It is ANATHEMA to the concepts and precepts of a good alignment. The two DO NOT and CANNOT be combined for the same reason that matter and anti-matter do not mix well. Life and UNDEATH are and MUST be at odds with each other by definiton.

Okay, so it's a fantasy setting and of course there can always be exceptions for any number of reasons which EMBRACE such contradictions just to see what happens. The only saving grace here is that D&D vampires DO NOT DRINK BLOOD. That means either your vampire is NOT a normal vampire or all vampires in your campaign are blood drinkers - which is a significant change as it alters their required behavior. A vampire that cannot control whose blood it drinks simply because it's hungry may WANT to be good, but it's actions DICTATE that it cannot be because it kills the innocent. A vampire that LIKES its undead status or willingly accepts it is likewise NOT good in alignment if it must drink blood to live. If it is otherwise a normal D&D vampire that does not drink blood then MAYBE it can maintain a good alignment - but it should be a constant struggle and acceptance of the condition should only be because a cure cannot be found.

But the cure is simple - raise dead. At worst PC's would have to kill it and _then_ raise it, but that should be a sacrifice any GOOD aligned individual would make.

I would most definitely react strongly to the introduction of such a character and if the DM did not make it fairly clear fairly quickly just what purpose the NPC was serving we would be having a signficant conversation about just what kind of campaign the DM is running.


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 23, 2011)

Here is my take:

The angle was not given the full details of the quest.  He was only give a task for the fallen paladin to get him to the correct time and place to meet and deal with the good vampire.

How the ex-paladin deal with the situation is what the god is judging him on.

If the ex-paladin sacrifices himself to feed the vampire, he shows mercy thus his goodness.  Even if he cuts himself and bleeds into a bowl for the vampire to drink, the DM should make him suffer the Blood Drain special attack of vampire.

If the ex-Paladin talks the vampire in to destruction followed by a resurrect.  By keeping his word he is showing his Lawfulness.

If the ex-paladin gets her to give him information on her former master to give to the hunters or use himself to destroy her former master.  He is showing his willingness to service the cause of good.

If the ex-paladin talks the hunters out of a fight and point or join them to kill the former master.  He showing his lawfulness and his goodness at good people should try to work together to defeat evil.

Most of your posts are an interesting debate but don't answer Fiddlesticks96 basic question.  Hopefully, he thinks that I have tried to help him with this.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 23, 2011)

Destroy the physical body so her soul can be released from its torture.

It doesn't really matter if a vampire is good or not, at least in D&D. They must all feed and unless they can find other sustenance, they always run the risk of losing control and taking a life. Even if that feeding is completely voluntary. Assuming that a vampire can only get susteneance from non animal blood.

If there was an actual way to return the vampire to human form, then I'd want to imprison it until we can find that option.

Of course, another option would be to create a spell that would be like Create Food And Water and have it create blood that gives the vampire sustenance so it wouldn't have to feed on sentient beings.

Otherwise, if the vampire was able to feed off of animal blood and actively did so I just might help it find that way to become human again.

If this were an RPG like Angel or Buffy, then it'd be a different story. In one episode Angel was able to regain human form.

Edit: 

Hmmmm.... now i have this image of this group who actively seeks to imprison vampires and uses this spell to feed them until the time they can actually find a way to return a vampire to its human form. At least for those who want it. For those that don't they simply destroy them.


----------



## KahnyaGnorc (Mar 23, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> From the Monster Manual:And then under vampire that line says:Now you'll find three different qualifiers: Often, Usually, and Always. These first two qualifiers can be interpreted different ways as the terms are somewhat indicative without being precise. But the final term is an absolute and is not negotiable. This means that unless there is some overarching power dictating otherwise, a creature with the Always evil alignment left to its own devices will never deviate from being evil. The very act of becoming a vampire changes a creature's nature such that it cannot refrain from being evil in the manner you have described.




So, character's in-game should react a certain way because the Monstrous Manual says Always Evil, as opposed to Usually Evil?  If that is not an example of the evils of meta-gaming, I don't know what is.  If they killed the vampire because of that bit of meta-gaming, the PCs deserve to be punished imo.


----------



## Numlock (Mar 23, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> [MENTION=6673096]FiddleSticks96[/MENTION], it would seem you find the D&D alignment system too rigid for your liking and wish to house rule it to be more flexible. That's fine, but you should make sure your players are informed of this in no uncertain terms.




Why? Why should his players have the meta-information that vampires could be good? If this DM want to have a good aligned vampire, he should. He doesn't have to, and shouldn't tell his players that vampires could be good, and instead have the actions of the vampire NPC show that she is good. Characters don't (well, shouldn't) know the MM, but might have some basic knowledge of monsters in their world. If there is only one, or only a handful of these good vampires in the world, why should, and how could, the characters (and thus the players) know that those exceptions exist?

As if characters would stand around arguing:
Character 1: "Well, she seems nice"
Character 2: "And she helped us, I like her"
Character 3: "No, the MM says vampires are *always* evil, so we should kill her. Good vampires cannot exist"
Character 1,2: "Let me see that (players look-up vampire in MM), yeah, you're right, lets kill her"

Above is meta-gaming (or as I like to call it, cheating). And although this isn't a huge issue in most tabletop RPG's (it is in LARP), it should be discouraged.

If the characters would stand around arguing like this, it would be better:

Character 1: "Well, she seems nice"
Character 2: "And she helped us, I like her"
Character 3: "No, don't you know vampires are *always* evil, so we should kill her. Good vampires don't exist"
Character 1: "Yeah, good point, let's kill her"
Character 2: "But ... I like her. I don't wanna kill her"





> Think of it this way, if you were to sit down to play Monopoly with a group of people, then were designated the banker, everyone would expect you to give them $200 when they passed Go. If you personally decided that $200 was too much and that for this game you would only hand out $100, then as soon as someone passed Go, an issue would arise.




Nowhere in the DMG of Monopoly does it say that all rules in this game can be changed at will by the DM (or banker). That's the difference.



> House rules that apply to everyone need to be stated clearly ahead of time, especially where they pertain to important *player* decisions. You have a paladin on a quest to prove himself worthy after losing his abilities and then you introduce a very morally ambiguous character into the equation but you are not following the RAW for alignment.




Important *player* decisions. This game isn't about players decisions, it's about character decisions. Player make certain decisions, because it's what their character would do. Alignment isn't an in-game mechanic, just like all other stats. Did you ever have your character say:
"Well, this boulder looks heavy, I don't think I can push it, my Strength modifier is -1. Well, trying once can't hurt, let's roll. *rolls* Booyah, natural 20, eat that, stupid boulder."
I sure hope not, because if you did, you must have missed the letter R of RPG.

Back to character decisions. Their characters should decide, based on their (the characters that is, not the players) previous experiences and on the current situations, being, a nice vampire lady protected them. I'm not saying it would be wrong if they still killed her for being 'evil', but this choice should not be based on player knowledge, or system mechanics.



*TL-DR:* Whatever the MM says, DM has the final say, players shouldn't cheat with MM information.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 23, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> The vampire is clearly good aligned, and in her current state, she is pretty much helpless...
> 
> Now, my question is, what would YOU do?




I would kill her.  It may be meta, but I'm just plain sick of dealing with this "good vampire" crap.  I see any, I kill them just to get them out of the campaign.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> From the Monster Manual:And then under vampire that line says:Now you'll find three different qualifiers: Often, Usually, and Always. These first two qualifiers can be interpreted different ways as the terms are somewhat indicative without being precise. But the final term is an absolute and is not negotiable. This means that unless there is some overarching power dictating otherwise, a creature with the Always evil alignment left to its own devices will never deviate from being evil. The very act of becoming a vampire changes a creature's nature such that it cannot refrain from being evil in the manner you have described.



 Except that it is already posited that the vampire is good aligned. Railing about the rules does not change the fact that part of the operational parameters of the question is that the vampire _is_ good aligned. And that a past edition of D&D has already had a good aligned vampire, though that was caused by a _helm of opposite alignment_. 

This is a matter that is setting based, and, in the case of Eberron, 'Always' becomes 'Usually', Usually' becomes 'Often', etc.. The setting has a Lawful Good red dragon for the love of mud! (Also 'Always Chaotic Evil'.) And let us be honest, for a Lawful Good religion the Silver Flame takes some awfully draconian measures.

The 'overarching power' is the DM. If the DM wants there to be Lawful Good Sparkly Vampires then there are Lawful Good Sparkly Vampires.

Me, I would rather play up the tragedy, have the critter fighting its nature, but doomed to fall. If a paladin is using Detect Evil have it pulse in time with the paladin's own heartbeat....

The Auld Grump


----------



## KahnyaGnorc (Mar 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Except that it is already posited that the vampire is good aligned. Railing about the rules does not change the fact that part of the operational parameters of the question is that the vampire _is_ good aligned. And that a past edition of D&D has already had a good aligned vampire, though that was caused by a _helm of opposite alignment_.
> 
> This is a matter that is setting based, and, in the case of Eberron, 'Always' becomes 'Usually', Usually' becomes 'Often', etc.. The setting has a Lawful Good red dragon for the love of mud! (Also 'Always Chaotic Evil'.) And let us be honest, for a Lawful Good religion the Silver Flame takes some awfully draconian measures.
> 
> The Auld Grump




Ravenloft/Forgotten Realms also had Jander Sunstar.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Except that it is already posited that the vampire is good aligned. Railing about the rules does not change the fact that part of the operational parameters of the question is that the vampire _is_ good aligned.





I think the point being that a paladin written/created under the RAW isn't going to see such houserules so it is hard to expect the player of such a character to be held to the former/original standard.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 23, 2011)

Attacking someone because they got too close to you is not good behavior. Once she's decided that it's better to do that then be cured, she is no longer a good character. It would deeply annoy me that someone who is an active danger to all life--of her own free will, since we've established that she wouldn't change if she could--gets protected by what would feel to me to be DM fiat.



Numlock said:


> Why should his players have the meta-information that vampires could be good?




I can play where certain creatures are evil, and we kill them. I can play where I don't just kill orcs and vampires on sight. But I've really got to know upfront what the rules are for this game, and I'm going to be very unhappy if my paladin gets punished if I feel you changed the rules.

IMO, a good Knowledge (Religion) check should clear up a lot of this. It should tell you whether undead are invariably evil, and whether your god cares. (I suspect a paladin of Kelemvor would destroy this vampire; undead are to be destroyed, not coddled.)


----------



## Numlock (Mar 23, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> I can play where certain creatures are evil, and we kill them. I can play where I don't just kill orcs and vampires on sight. But I've really got to know upfront what the rules are for this game, and I'm going to be very unhappy if my paladin gets punished if I feel you changed the rules.




I'm not saying the paladin should be punished if he killed this vampire, just because they are both good. This is a fundamental problem with the DnD alignment system, which I will not elaborate on further, so not to hijack this thread, but the choice should be made on a character level and not on a player level. This whole good vampire attacking the barbarian thing is a bit of a gray area, so here a nice black and white example.


A paladin, named Bob, walks through town. There he meets this beautiful, but somewhat pale lass named Alice. Bob and Alice fall in love, and he asks her to marry him. She says yes! On the night of their wedding, she admitted to him that she is a vampire. Bob slays her on the spot. When he is arrested by the town guards (Alice was very much loved by the townsfolk) he says: "She was a vampire, and the MM says they're all evil. I'm a paladin, I have to slay evil beings."

(Note: Bob's creed isn't that specific, he just has to purge evil and what not. Alice is the only vampire in this world that is good, the rest is totally evil all the way).

If Bob's player would now complain to the DM that he's being punished for doing something that would be a good deed according to the rules, I hope we would all agree that Bob's player is a total idiot. 

The DM had no reason to 'publish' the 'house-rule' that vampires could be good, because none of the characters know this. If I was said DM, I'd keep the vampire alignment thing very much a secret, because otherwise I'd give incentive to meta-gaming.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 23, 2011)

Vampires eat people, and are made out of experience points.  Kill it and take its loot.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

But if Pally Bob goes and does a Detect Evil then they _know_ that either Alice ain't evil or has a means to disguise her evil.

In the example that you gave Pally Bob the Idiot would likely be stretched, right quick. She was a local, he wasn't. On the other hand, if he can show that she was a vampire, and there had been an unexplained epidemic of anemia in the town.... (More often both 'vampires' and their 'victims' suffered from consumptive tuberculosis - a surprising number of corpses were exhumed and executed in Rhode Island during one outbreak of TB...). Bob will be tried in the court of public opinion as well as the courts magistrate.

Then again, I liked Matheson's  I am Legend (the book, not _any_ of the movies) where the protagonist is considered the monster at the end of the story - striking during the day when the vamps are helpless, and murdering them in their sleep. He had become legend.

Alignments are only as confining as the setting, the players, and the DM allows them to be. But murder of someone you know to be one of the good guys... the Pally's god/ess might have something to say about that.

For my homebrew vampires are _monsters_, just as Dr, Harold Shipman was a monster. They were monsters before they became vampires, and willingly chose their path. (Also not RAW for D&D.)  For Eberron, I would have a lot more leeway. Heck, one of the big baddies is a vampire pushing for peace - not because he is good (he ain't) but because war hurts his plans..... (Yeah, I like Eberron....)

In a Vampire LARP I played a vampire with True Faith. (A Nos, but also a nice guy, in life he was a scumbag.) In other games vamps would never have this. 

In a game RAW must give way to setting, at least in its minor aspects.

And I agree with the comment that a player going by the MM is metagaming, and needs to be hit upside the head with a clue bat.

The Auld Grump, who once had a party hanged for murdering an orc....


----------



## scourger (Mar 24, 2011)

She has to be redeemed or destroyed, preferably both since she sounds like a DMPC.  There are several good ideas for that upthread.

Meanwhile, call her "Angel", make her a love interest and eventually give her her own show.  

Or, call her "Spike", make her a love interest, and keep her around for the series finale.

Or, call her "Blade", show her redemption in the first movie, give her a love interest (that seems to be a theme) that dies in the second movie, and introduce lots of plucky sidekicks in the third movie (but the mentor can't come back!).  Maybe the plucky sidekicks are the PCs.  

Or, call her Selene, put her at war with werewolves (lycans), give her a love interest that starts as human but become a half-vampire half-lycan uber character, and then have her resolve her daddy issues with her sire Viktor (easily portrayed by the most powerful actor in the film) with his own sword.  (But the follow-up movie won't be as good so don't go there.)


----------



## baradtgnome (Mar 24, 2011)

My neutral good cleric would thank her for her help, and laud her for her attempts to follow the 'right' path.  Then I would help her design a path to salvation (which MUST involved becoming a non-vampire regardless of method), and risk my life to help her get there.  If she refused salvation, I would destroy her utterly, pray for her soul, and be sad.

As a DM, I would make sure the players understood their latitudes in alignment before presenting them with such a quandary.  I do like moral dilemmas however.  Nicely done if you have prepared them properly.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 24, 2011)

Good or evil, doesn't matter.  It's undead and must be destroyed.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The Auld Grump, who once had a party hanged for murdering an orc....



   I once reincarnated a slain PC, his dire enemies being kobolds and his assailant being a kobold... as a kobold.   



JRRNeiklot said:


> Good or evil, doesn't matter.  It's undead and must be destroyed.



   "Mum...Dad... Don't touch it! It's evil!"  

   Granted, the main protagonist NPC in all of my online games, the closest thing I have to a Mary Sue, is a neutrally-aligned night hag. And that isn't that big a stretch as she was was created with 1e rules, where her kin are N(E).


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 24, 2011)

Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. I'm not done reading through all of them (still on page 2), but I've seen some interesting thoughts so far.

To clear some things up, someone said something about vampires not drinking blood. Completely ignoring most every source of vampire lore, Page 9 of Libris Mortis CLEARLY states vampires as having BLOOD as their diet.

About creatures of "Always" alignment not being able to change alignment. The notion that they can has existed for as long as alignment has existed. House rules aside, Page 10 of Fiend Folio states that, though it is a one-in-a-million chance, it is still possible for such a creature to change alignment.

Vampires don't require the blood of the innocent. Personal preference aside, any blood will do. I don't remember seeing a rule that says that vampires HAVE to drink the blood of the innocent, or kill anyone.

Constitution Drain is semi-permanent, as restoration spells will remove them, as well as a number of other spells. I don't think anyone will say that feeding on an animal is evil, as for people, causing ability drain is clearly not a good act if the person's alignment is good, and you are just feeding, but it is not necessarily evil. It is a neutral act at best and an evil act at worst.


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 24, 2011)

After finally finishing all the posts I will say this.

This is a made up campaign setting, as I lack most of the books that contain information specific about geographical information ins Faerun and Eberron. As someone who grew up with Baldur's Gate games, my campaigns are influenced by Faerun setting.

I will not punish the PCs if they kill her, but I may reward them for aiding her.

My players know better than to meta-game. They learned their lesson long ago. Though I can do nothing about prior knowledge, each setting is potentially a unique multi-verse. The way of the world in one setting could potentially be entirely different from the way of the world in another. Ever play a setting where humanoids are the minority and monstrous humanoids have vast empires?

Now, ignoring all buffy, blade, and other references, the core of this dilemma is whether or not being a vampire can justify the destruction of a good aligned being. The vampire doesn't have to, and doesn't, kill people to feed. It is not evil to feed off an animal, even if it kills the animal. People eat animals all the time.

Thanks again for the replies. Giving me more and more ideas. Fresh perspective also helps.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 24, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> She has to die, no if ands or buts. Not just because D&D Vampires feed by PERMANENTLY harming their victims




Devils advocate:  How is a good vampire picking a fight with an evil npc, then feeding off them, then killing them and making sure they don't become undead any more evil then a good character picking a fight with a evil npc and then killing them?

After all, the end result of both situations is murder?


----------



## PoorHobo (Mar 24, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> Devils advocate:  How is a good vampire picking a fight with an evil npc, then feeding off them, then killing them and making sure they don't become undead any more evil then a good character picking a fight with a evil npc and then killing them?
> 
> After all, the end result of both situations is murder?




And if no evil NPCs come along?  In fact I remember reading that the vampire attacked the barbarian for coming too close.  Crippling someone for invading your personal space isn't what I would call good.  If the next group of people that come along aren't good aligned adventurers then what?  The next group of people could be some down on the luck entertainers moving from city to city without a PC class among them, sucks to be them I guess.  The vampire has already proven it does not have complete control over its urges by attacking the barbarian.  Your devils advocate argument relies heavily on that evil NPCs will routinely pass by the vampire often enough to keep it sated and good or neutral people will only happen to be near when its not hungry.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Mar 24, 2011)

I think this IS the redemption quest.  If they are able to thread the ethical needle and achieve a good outcome, the paladin should get his Atonement then and there.


----------



## Sugarmouse (Mar 24, 2011)

So, I don't post often, and this may be a slight tangent. Further, I may be missing something entirely... 

...but could a Ring of Sustenance work here? 

It could be interpreted as a relatively inexpensive way to address the requirement of feeding? The wording seems generous enough.

Alternatively, since the basis of the Ring exists, could she (as a Wizard) be able to think of a way of creating something similar to sustain her unlife?


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 24, 2011)

PoorHobo said:


> Your devils advocate argument relies heavily on that evil NPCs will routinely pass by the vampire often enough to keep it sated and good or neutral people will only happen to be near when its not hungry.




Keeping in mind that these are unusual circumstances, resulting in half-starvation. Still, there's always the chance that she will be half-starved when some non-evil NPCs walk by her and she fails to control herself. Being undead isn't all fun and games no?



On Puget Sound said:


> I think this IS the redemption quest.  If they are able to thread the ethical needle and achieve a good outcome, the paladin should get his Atonement then and there.




That is correct. The portfolio of the deity the Paladin serves includes "Mercy", among other things. With that in mind, a good-aligned deity who is concerned about being merciful could conceivably show mercy to an undead, or at the very least, be understanding but stern.

As for the ring of sustenance, the exact limits of the ring are rather vague, not that there's anything wrong with that; however, because the description says "life-sustaining nourishment", I have to assume that it provides nourishment that would support LIFE. Undead do not have genuine life, so I treat them as not being benefited by that ring. Though, there is no reason why she couldn't come up with a magic item that temporarily sated, or at least curved, a vampire's craving for blood.


----------



## Starfox (Mar 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Or slay then _Reincarnate_, though that might not technically work on undead.  So, maybe a _Wish_?




I can see no reason reincarnate would not work, except the time limit is counted from the living creature's death (prior to becoming undead). There are no such thing as dead undead creatures. An undead creature that is destroyed becomes the corpse of a living creature. That this living creature spent some time as an undead is irrelevant. It is not the formerly undead creature you target with resurrect, raise dead, reincarnate, and similar spells, but the formerly living creature.  

Question is, will this living-again creature remember what happened while it was an undead? Will it retain any experience it gained as an undead? These are open questions, and pretty intriguing ones. I guess it depends on whether the living creature's soul was corrupted upon becoming undead, or if there was another soul (or no soul at all, undead are often referred to as soulless) inhabiting the body. One possible solution is that the resurrected former undead keep memories but in a detached "this happened to someone else" fashion. The memories are stored in the creature's brain, but the soul did not experience these events and thus has no personal relationship to them - it is like reading a book.

Either way, even if a good undead risks losing memories (and associated levels) by being destroyed and raised, NOT volunteering for this is a surefire way to real corruption and evil. This is what evil is all about - putting your personal interests and power before the welfare of others.


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 24, 2011)

Okay to address those who say I was just encouraging players to meta-game, let me explain my thought process a little more thoroughly.

In a default D&D game that uses the 3.5 rules, vampires are always evil. Every time a player character encounters a vampire in such a game, it will be evil. Every story, tale, and bit of lore about vampires depicts them as evil. Every character with knowledge (religion) will probably recognize this fact. And it is just that, a fact. There are no exceptions. "Always" is an absolute qualifier. We are also talking about players who seem to be in the realm of around 7th-10th level. Such characters ought to know the stories, tales, and lore about vampires already, as well as the rule (speaking metaphorically here) that they are evil. In this case, it is not meta-gaming for these players to be incredibly suspicious of a vampire who seems to be good and is acting good. I would expect thoughtful, careful players to be suspect that the vampire is somehow masking her alignment and trying to lure them into a trap. Or that the creature is not, in fact, a vampire, but something else.

But in this situation, the OP has not made it clear whether or not his players know that he does not use the rules as written for alignment. Therefore, in the interest of fair play, I feel it is incumbent upon him to mention that he does not take the Monster Manual entry of "Always evil" as gospel if he expects them to be able to make an informed decision. He should at the very least allow them some sort of Knowledge check. If, in his world, vampires can be good, she certainly can't be the only one, so there ought to be corroborating evidence that there is indeed precedent for vampires to be other alignments aside from evil.

Bringing up arguments about Eberron and such simply back up my point. Eberron states in no uncertain terms that alignment rules work differently. It states explicitly that dragons of any type can be of any alignment. Therefore, any reasonably informed player in Eberron is already going to know that and can figure it out in-character with a simple Knowledge check. To bottom line is, this is explained to players ahead of time so that they know not to expect every red dragon to be evil or every gold dragon to be good. The DM, if he is running his own campaign setting or just using different rules for alignment, ought to explain to players that not every vampire is evil and therefore there is the possibility that they can take her at her word. To do otherwise is not giving the players the information they need to make an informed decision.


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 24, 2011)

To clarify the discussion on whether or not and how to raise the vampire as a living creature, you must use resurrection or true resurrection but you must destroy the creature first. Raise dead and reincarnate will not work. Both state explicitly that if the creature to be returned to life has been undead that these spells will not work. Resurrection and true resurrection however state explicitly that a creature that has been undead can be returned to life with these spells, but that the creature must be destroyed first.


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 24, 2011)

To end any further questioning of whether or not my players are aware  that I do not follow the rules (which are stated to be guidelines to be  followed but can be altered) to the letter 100% of the time. I don't go  around making stuff up or outright ignoring rules for no reason, and I  do my best to make the altered or new rule as coherent and believable as  possible. I take each campaign on a case by case basis. A constant that  exists in all our campaigns is that non of us are exceedingly rigid  when it comes to the alignment system, which, in my opinion, is  fundamentally flawed. With that said, my players are aware that in my  book "Always" means "Mostly (more than 50%), or sometimes even Usually  (50%), but that is rare". This is the way we have always done it, no  matter which of us is the DM.

Now then, that PLAYERS are aware of this, the characters on the other  hand are likely under the impression that undead are evil, period. Now  they are standing in front of an undead who claims and appears to be  good. I encourage role-play and discourage player knowledge. To put it  simply, I try to prevent players from acting on knowledge that the  character doesn't know. It defeats the purpose of the roleplaying.

This thread wasn't so much meant to be a discussion of the rules as it  was a way for me to get ideas be seeing how various people would react  if they were in the same situation. Please avoid being offended by  something that is different.



Deset Gled said:


> I would kill her.  It may be meta, but I'm just plain sick of dealing with this "good vampire" crap.  I see any, I kill them just to get them out of the campaign.




For the record, I've been a vampire buff BEFORE it was common place. Remember the good 'ol days when you would say "Vampire" and everyone would respond by saying "Eww a goth!". Those were the days!


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 24, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> I don't think anyone will say that feeding on an animal is evil, as for people, causing ability drain is clearly not a good act if the person's alignment is good, and you are just feeding, but it is not necessarily evil. It is a neutral act at best and an evil act at worst.




Maybe, maybe not.  If it were simple bloodletting (not very different than what I do every so often to contribute to the general blood supply), then it is not evil in and of itself.

But, (and this is for you to decide), there may be more involved.  There might be a transfer of "essential life essence" which to drain would be akin to torture.  If the eating of flesh of animals required you to torture them first, then that necessary component would make the eating of flesh evil.

I think that puts a Good mind flayer in a tough spot, as don't they _have_ to consume sentient brain matter?  (Perhaps they only _prefer_ it.)  If that were the case, unless there is a stupendously exceptional circumstance (the mind flayer needed to prevent the sun from exploding, due to the machinations of his brethren, and folks made willing sacrifices), I don't see a Good mind flayer lasting very long.

Thx!

Tom


----------



## jbear (Mar 25, 2011)

Me, I'd let her live and even stand against her pursuers. But I wouldn't be playing a paladin (not in 3.5 anyway) in the first place which simplifies the decision.

Also I have just finished reading the fourth book in the Geralt de Rivia Saga. Best good Vampire ever.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 25, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> Okay to address those who say I was just encouraging players to meta-game, let me explain my thought process a little more thoroughly.
> 
> In a default D&D game that uses the 3.5 rules, vampires are always evil. Every time a player character encounters a vampire in such a game, it will be evil. Every story, tale, and bit of lore about vampires depicts them as evil. Every character with knowledge (religion) will probably recognize this fact. And it is just that, a fact. There are no exceptions. "Always" is an absolute qualifier.




That's not actually true, necessarily. It means ALL, except for a handful of exceptions. Because there are always exceptions. Keeping in mind that something is Always Evil will always be inclined toward evil behavior, and would have to struggle against their own nature. It's more like 99.9% rather than absolute; after all, many Evil Outsiders were once Good, but fell. Changing alignment for such a creature is a conscious act, and would exceed the difficulty of kicking an opium addiction. But it could happen. The Book of Exalted Deeds went into what it would take to redeem an Evil being; not a simple thing, but as long as the creature has free will, it is a possibility.

Which goes back to what I said before: this character, in a normal 3.5 campaign, would be beyond exceptional. Probably close to a saint.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 25, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  If it were simple bloodletting (not very different than what I do every so often to contribute to the general blood supply), then it is not evil in and of itself.
> 
> But, (and this is for you to decide), there may be more involved.  There might be a transfer of "essential life essence" which to drain would be akin to torture.  If the eating of flesh of animals required you to torture them first, then that necessary component would make the eating of flesh evil.




No, it wouldn't. If that is literally the only way to survive, it's the only way to survive. Ethical acts must always be considered in relation to genuine need. Are we evil for eating beef? Is a cow evil for eating grass cover used by insects? And what about mosquitoes, the poor things? The females drink the blood of cows, while the males drink plant sap! Is it ethical for female mosquitoes to give birth? Is it ethical to fart, considering that methane is a greenhouse gas? 

Let's assume I'm a Kantian. That's pretty hardcore LG, right?

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Ok... so can I logically will creatures not to do that which they need to do to survive? Even if it means mass extinctions, or in some extreme situations, the end of all life? I would have to reject that categorical imperative.

The same thing for Mills's rule-based utilitarianism. I can't construct a meanginful ethical system that requires reasonable beings to not do the things required for their basic survival.


----------



## KahnyaGnorc (Mar 25, 2011)

If the PCs are aware of, say, Archliches, then they would be aware of good undead.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Mar 25, 2011)

FiddleSticks96 said:


> To clear some things up, someone said something about vampires not drinking blood. Completely ignoring most every source of vampire lore, Page 9 of Libris Mortis CLEARLY states vampires as having BLOOD as their diet.



Libris Mortis is optional material, and I'm willing to bet it's not owned and/or unread by one or more players.  In general this is key to the issue that a lot of responders have with the situation.  What ARE the rules?  Do the players KNOW the rules?  Are you SURE the players know the rules - just because THE DM knows what the DM knows doesn't mean the players can read the DM's mind...  Is the DM setting a trap by CHANGING the rules that the players believe they are operating under?  Are players being punished for simply not guessing that the rules HAVE changed?  Etc.

If the players have never run into this sort of alignment "anomaly" before in the campaign and they weren't made explicitly aware of the possibility at the outset then what the players understood and what the DM _thought_ they understood are going to be different animals.


----------



## baradtgnome (Mar 25, 2011)

Even if the players 'know' all undead must be evil, having one show up as good should be enough of a dichotomy that it invokes some player doubt about what action to take.  The moral dilemma should be apparent.  By their nature moral dilemmas are not black and white.  

Some people are uncomfortable with moral dilemmas in their game.  I for one like them so some extent so long as it does not get to personal for the folks involved.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 25, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> No, it wouldn't. If that is literally the only way to survive, it's the only way to survive.




As has been said a number of times, this is not the only way to survive. Resurrection could return her to life, and at least here it's been said that she would refuse that. 

And in the heroic mythos, survival at all costs is cowardly and unnoble at best; a hero does what needs to be done, even if it means his or her life, not skulk around letting innocents come to harm because of their inaction.


----------



## FiddleSticks96 (Mar 26, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> I don't see a Good mind flayer lasting very long.




I'm just saying something I read in the Book of Exalted deeds. There was an example good mind flayer that also swore an oath not to cause harm to living creatures.



KahnyaGnorc said:


> If the PCs are aware of, say, Archliches, then they would be aware of good undead.




Don't think so. We've played for years but I don't recall encountering an Archlich. That will be something we'll have to think about. I'm sick of always being the DM, but that is a completely other rant.

As we've played since AD&D, we're familiar with many rules, new and old. I personally am fairly new to versions beyond AD&D. I skipped 3.0 and went right to 3.5. I've read some of the 4.0 rules and I don't like how everything is overly simplified. I'm getting off topic...

My point is, the players understand the rules, and I haven't changed anything for the mechanics on changing alignments. As pawsplay said, angels can become evil and demons can become good. The point of this moral dilemma is to not give them a black and white answer, as that would defeat the purpose of "dilemma". It's one of those decisions you have to stop and think about before making it.

Next session is tomorrow


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> As has been said a number of times, this is not the only way to survive. Resurrection could return her to life, and at least here it's been said that she would refuse that.




Is it more moral to be a moral cow than a moral tiger?



> And in the heroic mythos, survival at all costs is cowardly and unnoble at best; a hero does what needs to be done, even if it means his or her life, not skulk around letting innocents come to harm because of their inaction.




I take it you haven't read the Odyssey. <rimshot>


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> No, it wouldn't. If that is literally the only way to survive, it's the only way to survive. Ethical acts must always be considered in relation to genuine need. Are we evil for eating beef? Is a cow evil for eating grass cover used by insects? And what about mosquitoes, the poor things? The females drink the blood of cows, while the males drink plant sap! Is it ethical for female mosquitoes to give birth? Is it ethical to fart, considering that methane is a greenhouse gas?




Not a mode that I accept.  I don't presume that survival is guaranteed, or that it justifies any action.  (I do accept that there are other outlooks, and can reason within them, that's just not where I find myself.)  Would I be justified in _forcing_ another to donate blood for my operation?  What about to donate a kidney?  Or a heart?

Mind, though, that "evil" is game specific.  The best that I can use for a real example is "wrong" (or perhaps "causing harm and to be opposed").  I don't think that I would ever actually use the idea of absolute evil in real terms.

Also, I didn't say that eating meat was evil, only that if there was no humane way to obtain the meat, _then_ it might be evil.

Going back to the Vampire example, _if_ they could obtain blood without causing harm, then it would be no more wrong than a person having an operation accepting blood from me.  (It would be locally harmful to me, but, I would say, globally helpful, in the balance.)  But what if the act of draining blood had a chance to cause a ghoulish disease?  Would that be a problem?  What if draining blood was accompanied by a corrupting sense of euphoria, that made further acts more likely?

... which goes to say, the details matter, and we don't have those details.

Thx!

Tom


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> The same thing for Mills's rule-based utilitarianism. I can't construct a meanginful ethical system that requires reasonable beings to not do the things required for their basic survival.




That one made me think a bit more.  I'm finding that the meaning of "reasonable" makes a big difference.  A vampire (or very much so a mind flayer) is a reasoning creature.  But, they are extreme types of creatures, and so, not "reasonable" by there nature.

There have been monsters created that feed on fear or terror.  If they _must_ feed on fear or terror, are they to be permitted to persist?  But, that is an even more extreme example.  (And, I changed the terms!  Being "evil" is not the same as "not permitted to persist".  I don't think that disease is evil, but I would allow a quarantine to be enacted that caused harm to innocent and potentially uninfected people.)

Going back to the vampire example, is the best question to ask "Is the vampire evil", or, can one get by with "may the vampire be permitted to exist".  The second question is operative, and does not require a (perhaps artificial) abstraction as a justification.

Thx!

Tom


----------



## Orius (Mar 28, 2011)

It's a vampire, stake it.  The only good vampire is a dead vampire.  Even it's it's one of those posers from Twilight, they need to be put out of my misery.

Besides, I never said _I_ was good-aligned.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 28, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> Okay to address those who say I was just encouraging players to meta-game, let me explain my thought process a little more thoroughly.
> 
> In a default D&D game that uses the 3.5 rules, vampires are always evil. Every time a player character encounters a vampire in such a game, it will be evil. Every story, tale, and bit of lore about vampires depicts them as evil. Every character with knowledge (religion) will probably recognize this fact. And it is just that, a fact. There are no exceptions. "Always" is an absolute qualifier.




Just because Always in an absolute qualifier in no way, shape or form means it is a common knowledge qualifier. For me, for "always" to be absolute and common knowledge some popular deity must have prayers where common folk recite this statement of fact. 

Short of that, only the characters with Knowledge (religion) could absolutely know that vampires are "always evil". And I would tag that around a DC 35 since it is an absolute positive statement of existence and they are hard to prove. A single exception disproves an absolute positive statement but a million examples is insufficient to prove an absolute positive statement. 

"Hey cleric, are vampires evil?"
"All the vampires I'm aware of from the book of undeath."
"Does that mean all vampires must be evil?"
a) "yes"
b) "I assume so as I have never heard of a non-evil vampire."
c) "I don't know for sure."

I'd set the DC for answer (a) to 35 and the dc for (b) to around 20.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 28, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> That one made me think a bit more.  I'm finding that the meaning of "reasonable" makes a big difference.  A vampire (or very much so a mind flayer) is a reasoning creature.  But, they are extreme types of creatures, and so, not "reasonable" by there nature.




Ethical systems that require creatures to not survive lead to all sorts of logical self-nullifications. For instance, if you have a duty to help others, how can letting yourself starve possibly be considered conducive to doing your duty? Once you are dead, you are incapable of further action.

Does drinking a human's blood justify the death penalty, each and every time?

Let's say you counter: okay, what if they have the option not to be a vampire? I counter with, didn't that soccer team, or that prospecting party, or the crew of that sailship, have the opportunity to just stay home? 

If ethically, you are deontological... telling the vampire they must die is self-negating; it is not something that can be willed, since you would not will that all creatures cease existing if any of them caused harm to others.
If you are utilitarian... telling the vampire they must die overlooks the possibility that their existence may lead to greater good.
If you are a virtues-based ethicist... telling the vampire they must be murderous toward themselves
If you are a pragmatic ethicisit... telling the vampire they must die is the same as saying a vampire must not be a vampire, which is a contradiction. 

Now, you can construct scenarios where according to divine command, the vampire must die, in which case you would have to demonstrate that there is a heavenly reward for the vampire's obedience. Depending on the precise belief system, it may be that the vampire may not commit suicide, yet others are required to destroy it; that would be a "greater purpose" argument and is probably not persuasive unless you can be absolutely sure, in a theological sense, that vampires exist to be staked and only to be staked. This requires a stronger argument than that vampires are Evil, as Evil itself may serve a greater purpose.

Or you can say vampires have no free will, which invalidates the example that started this thread.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 29, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> If ethically, you are deontological... telling the vampire they must die is self-negating; it is not something that can be willed, since you would not will that all creatures cease existing if any of them caused harm to others.
> If you are utilitarian... telling the vampire they must die overlooks the possibility that their existence may lead to greater good.
> If you are a virtues-based ethicist... telling the vampire they must be murderous toward themselves
> If you are a pragmatic ethicisit... telling the vampire they must die is the same as saying a vampire must not be a vampire, which is a contradiction.




All of this is interesting, from a theory point of view, but, (in my view), there may be specific features of the dilemma which do not require a resort to this level of abstraction.

For example, I can conceive of examples where a person would sacrifice themselves for what they perceive as a "greater good".  Or for their child.  Or would make a small sacrifice locally for a perceived global good (such as my example of giving blood: It hurts, and I don't like doing it, but I find an overall good in giving blood, nevertheless.)

Also, (I think), you have to put more features in the Vampire's state: Actions do carry consequences to the state of the actor.  Usually, a person cannot wholly forget or ignore the consequence of their actions.  They don't act as simple logical machines, and must bear the memory of their actions.  A vampire who kills their spouse because they could not otherwise survive might find their existence unbearable.  On the other hand, a Vampire who must survive, and who drains the blood of an innocent, because that is necessary to prevent a greater harm (think Blade, in the first movie, where he drains blood from his companion close to the end), that could be justified.  In my view, there are so many details of this to consider that they overwhelm an abstract method to telling correctness.

... which gets me back to a statement of "it depends".

One difference, I'm thinking, is whether there are scenarios where a person would (from their point of view) think of a good arising from their death, one which would cause a better result than if they survived.  That does beg the question of whether that outlook is rational (or even sane), but that seems to be a key question to be answered.

To make a contrived example, we are on a spaceship, with barely enough food for us to reach a destination.  Just so much food, water, air, and power to go around.  There is an accident, and I have to enter the reaction chamber to fix it, but thereby expose myself to a large amount of radiation.  Not enough to immediately kill me, but enough that I'll need more than my ration of supplied to survive to reach the destination.  I could survive, but only by taking a larger share of rations, and most likely preventing another from reaching the destination.  In this case, what should be done?  Am I to be permitted to survive by causing another death?  Would it matter what decisions were made before I volunteered to fix the reactor?  What if I needed the resources of several people, not just of one, such that my survival would cause multiple deaths?  What if I had key skills to help prevent an outbreak of a disease at our destination, and if I didn't reach the destination, thousands might die?

Thanks!

Tom


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 29, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> ... which gets me back to a statement of "it depends".
> 
> One difference, I'm thinking, is whether there are scenarios where a person would (from their point of view) think of a good arising from their death, one which would cause a better result than if they survived.  That does beg the question of whether that outlook is rational (or even sane), but that seems to be a key question to be answered.




Right, but if you rule out the necessity of survival in the first place, you would be saying, "It doesn't depend." Of course it depends. But it can't depend if you say, "You do not have the right to survive."


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 30, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Right, but if you rule out the necessity of survival in the first place, you would be saying, "It doesn't depend." Of course it depends. But it can't depend if you say, "You do not have the right to survive."




I think I would say that it depends on _more than_ whether or not the vampire survives.  (Of course, relative to features are decided as important, by the system that is being used.)  This seems to get into a "if I'm not around to be affected by the outcome, because I didn't survive, then how can any of that outcome matter to me, and so why should it influence what I am to do" type of problem.  _If_ I must survive for the morality to matter, then my survival becomes a predicate for any action.  I see that as possible viable basis, but see also that there could be more to consider.

Not sure if I want to get into a discussion on "rights".  You probably would imagine I don't follow the usual thinking in terms of what rights a person has, and you would be correct.  Way to much baggage there for my tastes.  At this level, I find a statement like "One has a right to survive" to be like saying "One has a right not to be subject to gravity".  I don't find any meaning in the statement.  Having a right to free speech, or to survive, say, is a political statement, and (in my mind) very contextual.  Or rather, I don't look at rights as primitive statements (meaning atomic, non-divisible ones), but as complex issues having a meaning in a larger social context.

Thx!

Tom


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 31, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> IOr rather, I don't look at rights as primitive statements (meaning atomic, non-divisible ones), but as complex issues having a meaning in a larger social context.




I don't either. I'm saying that any ethical system that imposes a duty on a being not to exist, a priori, is self-defeating.


----------



## Starfox (Mar 31, 2011)

In Dragonstar I had cause to collide (somewhat) modern notions of law and ethics with fantasy reality. In general, undead there were illegal, their very existence a crime except in very special circumstances. Practically, they were disenfranchised, considered curses or living embodiments of the crime of turning them into undead. As legal nonentities it was permissible to destroy them. If you had enough life insurance, an agent would be dispatched to do exactly that so that you could be restored to life. Undead did not have the right to control any assets they had when alive.

This is all pragmatic; dragons did not want an empire overrun by undead. Laws are not ethics. And of course there were exceptions, undead that were enfranchised. But if you were an undead entitled to be enfranchised, you still had so survive long enough for the law to recognize you - which might not be easy.

I can see planets or habitats in Dragonstar dominated by undead, with very different laws, but these would be the exception. The Eleti, from Races of the Galaxy, are different in that they have no identifiable previous life - they can be said to be undead what were never alive. But we never had any Eleti in our game.

On a completely different bent, I once played a Brujah cop in Vampire the Masquerade. He would still walk his beat, beating up and sucking the blood of criminals. He considered himself good and lawful, kind of a superhero beat cop.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 31, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I don't either. I'm saying that any ethical system that imposes a duty on a being not to exist, a priori, is self-defeating.




That does strike at the heart of the issue.  From two current religions, one might consider, after death, an issue of bad karma, or a burden of sin.  Very much not wanting to stray into real world religions (I'm pretty sure the site very much wants to avoid discussions in that area), I can see characters in a fantasy world having to look to such issues.  At least for D&D, there is a definite soul, and the actions of an entity can very much have an impact on what happens to the soul upon death.  That is for most D&D cosmologies, although, possibly not for that of the original poster.

Although, that trivializes the issue, to an extent.  I always wondered why D&D settings don't eventually center on religion and alignment, what with concrete resurrection and concretely visitable outer planes.  A more interesting part of ethical and moral questions lies in areas where concrete proofs are hard to come by (if available at all, in a non-subjective way).

Tom


----------



## prosfilaes (Apr 3, 2011)

And Darths and Droids weighs in on the issue:
Darths & Droids


----------



## jefgorbach (Apr 3, 2011)

I suspect the grief the Religious crowd gave TSR/WOTC during the 1980s simply for having demons and devils in the game was more than sufficient incentive for them to avoid openly raising the issue of questionable morality, with confidence any group sufficiently capable of discussing such Mature issues would do so without needing an official Corporate stance on the subject beyond the brief explanations given regarding Alignment and the Great Wheel. 

Personally, I would question the vampire's intentions regarding OUR party and having satisfied our personal safeties, would gladly accept her continued companionship as long as our mutual interests remained compatible with the clear understanding that ANY offensive action taken against ourselves would be met in kind.


----------

