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

[FiddleSticks96]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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