Quote Originally Posted by rgrekejin View Post
I would argue that that comic is showing the opposite of what you say it does. Roy's conflicted about the need to kill sentient beings to keep himself alive, but he's clearly willing to do so. Being "conflicted" about doing evil doesn't make the things you do any less evil. Otherwise, you could make a good argument for Redcloak being neutral. Also, take into account that what we're looking at is "what Haley and Belkar think vampires might act like", rather than "what vampires actually act like".
OK, so lets go to what the only vampire in the strip has been doing: sitting around being good friends with a good-aligned priest. Helping said priest develop a mass version of a spell that will protect the priest and his (mostly) good-aligned party from undead evil powers. Maintaining control of himself and not resorting to murder when confronted with the killer of his progeny, out of loyalty and friendship. As far as anyone can tell from the comic, staying quite far from the daily running of the Empire of Blood.

All those actions suggest "neutral, with good tendencies, but primarily Legal" to me. The plan to rule the wastelands is not his, he might even find it disgusting, and yet he may have gone along with it because it was a better alternative to the chaos that preceded it, and had a chance of working. The end result is a much better situation for the masses, from a Legal point of view.

Do I think he is actually Legal Neutral? No. I don't know, and I don't really care what arbitrary alignment tag he would have in his non-existent character sheet. But I can see the above argument for what it is, which is Kurald Galain's point: difficult enough to tell one way or the other. Unless Malack comes out and specifies his own alignment, since good arguments can be made for both sides, it doesn't belong in this thread.

Grey Wolf