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

[FiddleSticks96]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.