Alignment: Is 'always' really 'always'?

[Hawken]

Thanks for the input guys.

The good vampire is not too much of a sticking point with me. The DM is kind of throwing alignments out the window, making everyone 'shades' of whatever alignment seems appropriate to their disposition, while the PCs (all of us are paladins) are confined to lawful good and must operate in a world that isn't really lawful, or good, or even evil.

Our detect evil is out the window as evil creatures no longer detect as evil unless they are in the commission of an evil act (and therefore smite evil is gone too unless we catch a baddie red-handed).

The set up is that we are basically cops, and he diluted alignments to make us actually investigate things rather than look at someone (with detect evil), recognize their evil nature and either haul them in or start smiting.

 

[rgard]

Thanks for the input guys.

The good vampire is not too much of a sticking point with me. The DM is kind of throwing alignments out the window, making everyone 'shades' of whatever alignment seems appropriate to their disposition, while the PCs (all of us are paladins) are confined to lawful good and must operate in a world that isn't really lawful, or good, or even evil.

Our detect evil is out the window as evil creatures no longer detect as evil unless they are in the commission of an evil act (and therefore smite evil is gone too unless we catch a baddie red-handed).

The set up is that we are basically cops, and he diluted alignments to make us actually investigate things rather than look at someone (with detect evil), recognize their evil nature and either haul them in or start smiting.

It sounds like alot of fun. Enjoy!

 

[Dross]

Personally, I have a strong dislike for campaigns that allow "good" undead. But that is just me, not a reflection on any particular DM.

That said, it doesn't prevent an undead from doing a good deed or two on the journey through unlife. It just isn't enough to ever weigh up their horrendous existence.

There are the good elven liches Balorns (might have spelt that correctly) in the Forgotten Realms. So it is not entirely out of the ordinary.

Just sayin' .

 

[Hawken]

I think the correct term is Baelnorn. Maybe...?

But they were few and far enough between that "good" undead are still the exception to the exception to the rule. And I think they have a better PR department.

Adv #1: You're a what? A lich?
Baelnorn: No, no, no. That's not right. We're baelnorns, elven wizards that have learned such magic as to pass beyond the barrier between life and death.
Adv #2: Oh! Ok! How's that different from a lich?
Baelnorn: We're Good!
Adv #1: Ah, so you're not a lich then!
Baelnorn: That's right! We're baelnorns.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm in a an online game currently in the middle of a discussion on this topic. The DM made mention of a Good vampire in the city (the PCs are all Paladin policemen). We're all discussing this and I am stating that vampires cannot be Good (except, of course, for DM hand waving). He isn't forcing the issue either, instead he's seeing where the discussion is headed.

My reasons for stating that vampires cannot be Good are pretty simple and straightforward:
1) MM says so. Core rules. Alignment for the vampire entry is Always Evil.

2) Moral reasons. Vampires can only exist/continue to exist through the intentional infliction of pain and suffering (torture) on others by neck bites, blood drain and loss of constitution.

While I understand the DM can hand wave the first reason away, the second one isn't so easy. I know he's going for variety (there are drow, goblins, etc., running around the same city as elves, dwarves and humans), and I'm not telling him how to run his game either. This is just an ongoing discussion and I'm curious to hear from you guys what you think of this and if you think there are any monsters that could/should be exempted from the "always" part of alignment.

It's in the MM page 305 in the Glossary section. Always represents heredity or created with the alignment so creatures who are different are unique or unusual. Usually represents more than 50% and Often represents 40-50%. So while the rules essentially backs up the logic of your argument for vampires, DM's can have that "unique" or "unusual" vampire as well.

 

[Anguish]

Here's my thoughts. As has been pointed out, there's the rules side and the description side of the equation.

Rules-wise, there's always DM fiat. If it makes for an interesting game, it's allowed. Period. If you have even one house-rule, you've accepted that the the rules are mutable for a good gaming session and that the DM is the arbiter of when and where the rules are broken.

Description-wise, there's plenty of literature revolving around stricken creatures like vampires struggling with their new nature. In my opinion, creatures who are atypical are more interesting than those that are typical. So if in a campaign world there is even one singular good-aligned vampire, that's a fascinating entity who should appear in the story somewhere. That individual is rife with storytelling potential and is worth hundreds of his evil race-mates.

In the end, I'd say that any liberty a DM takes to further an interesting campaign is a good choice. Trolls that regenerate damage taken from anything but wooden weapons (you thought you knew everything about trolls... well... surprise!), good vampires, angels who have just recently fallen, demons who just want to stop being bad, dragons who don't like hordes, gnomes who aren't annoying... okay, that last one makes no sense. Never mind.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm in a an online game currently in the middle of a discussion on this topic. The DM made mention of a Good vampire in the city (the PCs are all Paladin policemen). We're all discussing this and I am stating that vampires cannot be Good (except, of course, for DM hand waving). He isn't forcing the issue either, instead he's seeing where the discussion is headed.

My reasons for stating that vampires cannot be Good are pretty simple and straightforward:
1) MM says so. Core rules. Alignment for the vampire entry is Always Evil.

The simple answer is that there can be non-evil vampires if your DM wants there to be. There can always be exceptions, but it's up to the DM whether or not such an exception is going to be a part of the campaign.

2) Moral reasons. Vampires can only exist/continue to exist through the intentional infliction of pain and suffering (torture) on others by neck bites, blood drain and loss of constitution.

A lion survives by the intentional infliction of pain and suffering (torture) on gazelles (even cute, innocent little baby gazelles) by neck bites, blood drain and loss of flesh. That doesn't make them evil. Of course, many people consider feeding on humans to be a different story. But even then, there are many stories of vampires that restrain their cravings for human blood and seek out other prey instead (or drink only what they need, without killing the victim).