Alignment rewards

[Airk]

Are you talking about alignment rewards or action points? I was asking about the latter.

Oh. My bad. Your post lacked context and I made the wrong guess.

[TandemChelipeds]

Why not try reading the last two pages? They seem to have plenty of confusion in them.

Also, "interesting" is not the same as "a useful mechanic or RP aid".

I'd say anything that helps with the character-creation process is useful.

[Airk]

I'd say anything that helps with the character-creation process is useful.

I think that's a little bit broad, but regardless, I'm more curious to see how many people work the way you do and try to do interesting things with alignment while creating your character concept, and how many people just make a character and then fill in that field with whatever seems most appropriate. If most people do the latter, I would assert that it doesn't help most people with character creation.

I am in category B.

[Reddish Mage]

I give my players bonus experience for making meaningful sacrifices in accordance with their ethos.

I am currently writing an adventure where my players are going to defeat a group of slavers. The slavers have both a large treasury and a galley full of slaves. I am expecting my players to free the slaves.
If they choose to let the freed slaves keep the slavers treasury I plan on giving them a very large xp award in compensation.

Here is the problem; only four of the six pcs are "good" and two are some flavor of "neutral". Should i give the neutral PCs a share of the XP reward, when they are not actually acting according to their alignment but are instead just going along with the party majority?

This very narrow question illustrates how highly complicated alignments, character ethos, and DMing can be. I would think it is problematic to reward (especially heavily) only some of the party for making sacrifices, and in fact, the neutral players may be roleplaying more true to their character by demanding their share of the treasure or even seeking to avoid confrontation and win some sort of compromise with the slavers. It then comes down to whether the DM wants to encourage certain behavior, and how he justifies doing it within the alignment system and balanced by considerations about allowing and encouraging actual role-playing.

Of course this reward is a "what if" scenario, a kick down the door group of PCs are likely to see treasure as there for the taking and not even think of handing it over to the slaves unless the DM gives them some sort of push (say having the slaves complain about not knowing what to do and being hungry, ill-clothed and lost in the world, or perhaps less heavy handed, overhearing a slave child make a vague statement "I'm hungry" or "what are we going to do" to an adult).

[Talakeal]

Aha, I see. Well in that case, are the "neutral" characters accomplishing their goals or working with their allegiances while part of the party? If so, then they should get the bonus XP as well, as aiding the party (including helping in situations with other characters) will make it stronger and allow the party to get back to helping their own goals.

If the party does not aid their allegiances or goals, then it's probably a problem - although more a problem for the character rather than for awarding XP. Namely, why would such a character hang out with the party if they're actively wasting time and never getting anything desirable done?

One of the two neutral characters chose allegiance to the party and the other chose allegiance to herself.

[erikun]

One of the two neutral characters chose allegiance to the party and the other chose allegiance to herself.

Well then, Neutral #1 should most obviously get the bonus XP for going along with the party - it's their allegiance, after all.

Neutral #2 should probably get the bonus XP for going along with the party as well. After all, it's presumable that they're with the party because it is better for themselves than going it alone. Sticking with the party, even if it means occasionally being self-sacrificing, would still be more beneficial than being confrontational with the party. The only reason that Neutral #2 would not be getting the bonus XP would be if you wanted to state that they "Were not being argumentative enough towards their own self-interests." I think it would just be better to grant them the award, as this would both end up being singling out one player and telling them that they are roleplaying their character 'wrong' by not giving them the bonus XP.

[Devils_Advocate]

It being a moral guideline and it being a reflection of deeds aren't mutually exclusive though.

Oh, absolutely. A character's moral nature can be influenced by her behavior as well as vice versa. For example, if put in an unusual situation that compels her to do something she wouldn't normally do, she may later find it easier to engage in the same activity under less onerous circumstances. (This is an actual psychological phenomenon, I'm pretty sure.)

But there's a difference between a character's moral nature changing due to her deeds and alignment directly representing her past behavior instead of her moral nature.

Hell, the "you can't do that, you're lawful good" bit is generally referred to as a hallmark of bad DMing.

I dunno, I think that "Lawful Good characters don't torture random strangers for fun" is a pretty legit thing to say. Sturgeon’s Law of course applies, but it applies to player use of alignment as well.

It seems that one can opt to endorse

(1) horrible roleplaying (by saying that no one else should ever have input into how a player's character is roleplayed),
(2) horrible DMing (by enshrining the DM as unquestionable tyrant, per long-standing tradition), or
(3) DM/player arguments (by suggesting that this is something both parties can have valid opinions about).

Y'know, in general (not just with respect to alignment).

It's a combination of two things. One is specifically that alignment is explicitly stated not to be prescriptive:

Yes, but it's also stated to represent a character's attitudes.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

That's quite different from Alignment As Karma, which, as near as I can tell, it was never intended to function as.

Also, and this is probably the essential point here, restricting what players can do with their characters is not the same thing as restricting the characters at all. Characters are not their players. And if, for example, your character is the sort of person who doesn't kick puppies, then allowing your character free will means not making him kick puppies. Of course, this is free will in the compatibilist sense. Free will in the incompatibilist sense does seem to mean precisely that your player reserves the right to reach in and make you do whatever; but, man, how is that desirable? I dunno about you, but I'd personally generally prefer that extradimensional entities not be free to override my personality without my permission. Like, protections against that seem like good things from my perspective.

The other is the fact that alignment can change through action - if alignment were predictive, then alignment change would only be possible via external influences, and not internal decisions.

Not at all; see my reply to squiggit above. Of course, every internal decision is influenced by external circumstances.

The vampire case is an example of something supernaturally changing the character, so it (and other things that set someone's alignments) can be considered as distinct in that regards.

It makes no sense to me to treat having an alignment as distinct from having that alignment. How is it helpful to say that two different things are the same thing?

Still, if e.g. at my table someone was transformed into a vampire, I would not immediately require them to act all things Evil. What I might do is ask for a Will save to avoid doing specific evil acts given opportunity (for a vampire, feeding; for an evil lycanthrope, going on a rampage; etc) and have them detect as Evil by virtue of their nature; alternately, I'd alter their in-character perceptions in a way that would encourage the player to have them do evil things incidentally/unknowingly/etc - for example, describe to them an encounter with a bunch of goblins, only to have them wake up surrounded by the bodies of a bunch of innocent villagers. If they figured out what was going on, they could voluntarily stop the rampage.

Well, personally, if I were as a GM using a mechanical character trait to track character behavior... then I would just use it to track character behavior. If you actually want to use alignment as a representation of past deeds, then you, y'know, use it as a representation of past deeds, and things like Helms of Opposite Alignment and whatnot just plain don't exist. That's a departure from the norm, of course, but I'm certainly not convinced it's an invalid one.

If, on the other hand, you say that alignment represents a character's history, but it doesn't sometimes, then it kinda just doesn't, because if it doesn't mean anything in particular... well, then it doesn't mean anything in particular. So it's not a representation of anything. What it is is bull****.

Now, there's absolutely nothing unusual about that. Many RPG traits are bull****. Ability scores are a classic example. They generally don't represent what they ostensibly represent, because a character's actual ability to do the things associated with a "stat" come more from class and level than from said stat. So a high-level Fighter with low Constitution is actually a tougher, healthier dude than a low-level Wizard with a high Constitution, for example, even though Constitution is supposed to be how tough and healthy a dude you are. Of course, a stat gives you an edge in what it's associated with, but as a rule it doesn't actually measure the things it's described as measuring. The "primary attributes" of many roleplaying games follow this particular bull**** model pioneered by D&D.

Basically what I object to here is the idea that alignment needs to be bull**** to function well, because I don't think that anything works well as bull****. I'm too much of a simulationist, I suppose. I think that mechanics should ideally directly correspond to properties, processes, objects, etc. in the game world; or otherwise explicitly be levers by which the players and/or GM intervene on events. I think that they should be more than just the weird series of hoops you have to jump through in order to do things in the system. If that's the only function something serves, then better to do away with it.

Especially when the mechanical whatchamahoozit is something actually engaged with in-character! There's magic that deals with stuff like alignment and Ability scores and so on! Like, if a +2 sword costs six thousand gold pieces more than a +1 sword, then a character who opts to purchase the former rather than the latter should have very good reason to think the former more valuable. But how does he even conceive of the difference? Is it seriously just as "plus one to hit", even if not in exactly those words? Like, one quantum higher on the standard magic weapon scale, the standard magic weapon scale apparently being something that the consumers as well as the makers of magic weapons are aware of? Some groups will address stuff like this, but I think it's much more commonly glossed over.

So, um, anyway. If there's a disconnect in perspective here, that's probably where it is. I've developed rather an anti-bull**** attitude towards RPG rules over time, I guess, so perhaps I'm ill-equipped to engage in productive conversation with fans of the standard D&D style nonsense (e.g. classes, levels, attributes, etc). But alignment actually strikes me as an interesting schema that doesn't need to be bull**** at all and can be non-bull**** without all that much difficulty. I actually kinda think it's pretty neat that way.

With Good characters, to a large extent, Good is a goal for them. Evil may not explicitly seek evil, but for Good, Good must be a goal.

There are distinctions to be made between wanting to want to help others, wanting to help others, and wanting others to be well off. The first of those is actually two steps removed from the third. And the broader desire to be "virtuous" can be downright dangerous. I wouldn't recommend "trying to be a good person", personally. Not that I'd recommend against it, but I'd be a lot more specific.

[NichG]

Well, personally, if I were as a GM using a mechanical character trait to track character behavior... then I would just use it to track character behavior. If you actually want to use alignment as a representation of past deeds, then you, y'know, use it as a representation of past deeds, and things like Helms of Opposite Alignment and whatnot just plain don't exist. That's a departure from the norm, of course, but I'm certainly not convinced it's an invalid one.

If, on the other hand, you say that alignment represents a character's history, but it doesn't sometimes, then it kinda just doesn't, because if it doesn't mean anything in particular... well, then it doesn't mean anything in particular. So it's not a representation of anything. What it is is bull****.

Slight misunderstanding here. The will saves and perceptual mucking about isn't because they're Evil, its because they're a Vampire. It's the causal explanation for why someone's personality might suddenly change when there's a change to the nature of their existence, which allows the player to simultaneously try to retain the personality they had before with the full force of their will and also experience the mental influences of vampirism as something concrete and real to the character.

[Andezzar]

While I get what you are trying to say with the vampire example, the rules do not support it. Vampires are not given any cravings for blood or other potentially evil deeds in D&D. Other games do that. And if such a mechanic does not exist but you introduce it, why don't you introduce it for other murder hobos as well. They might also have an urge to kill the princess and free the dragon.

[NichG]

While I get what you are trying to say with the vampire example, the rules do not support it. Vampires are not given any cravings for blood or other potentially evil deeds in D&D. Other games do that. And if such a mechanic does not exist but you introduce it, why don't you introduce it for other murder hobos as well. They might also have an urge to kill the princess and free the dragon.

The rules say something more coarse-grained, which is that 'if you become a vampire, you become Evil'. This gives you a choice - either enforce alignment behavior on the player without explanation of why their paragon of virtue is now a Snidely Whiplash, or invent a perceptual and experiential reason to make the player understand at a basic level why good people might become evil when afflicted by this curse, but leave control of the decision whether to actually behave evil or not up to the player.

(as to the third option 'it changes a letter on the character sheet and we all move on', this goes against the observational data that when vampirism happens to NPCs, no matter how goodly they might have been beforehand they suddenly start doing evil things. So somehow that fact has to be explained in a satisfying way to a PC who experiences vampirism themselves in order for the world to appear self-consistent)

In any event, I strongly suggest the second of the options over the first.

[Andezzar]

Where do you get this observational data? The rules tell us that a) people become evil when they are made a vampire b) actions determine alignment and c) vampires and other undead (who all at least ping as evil under the detect evil spell even if they are not required to have an evil alignment) are under no compulsion to commit evil acts or at least enjoy being evil. Lycanthropes and people who suffered from wearing a helmet of opposite alignment on the other hand do have such a restriction in their behavior.

You may even find anecdotal evidence in the books that NPCs commit evil acts after becoming a vampire, but the rules do not support that this shift in behavior is caused by vampirism. It could just as well be coincidental and caused by something else. Interestingly enough D&D vampires do not have to feed on blood much less the blood of sentient beings. So a traditional source for such evil urges is not present in D&D vampires.

Would a vampire with such urges be more interesting? Possibly, but the rules do not support that this is the way they have to be played unless you rule 0 them. It is quite the opposite really. Enforcing behavior consistent with the new alignment is actually the house rule.

If you are into characters that have to resist such evil urges or give into them completely I suggest playing oWoD Vampire/Dark Ages: Vampire. The mechanisms are much more thought out.

[NichG]

Where do you get this observational data? The rules tell us that a) people become evil when they are made a vampire b) actions determine alignment and c) vampires and other undead (who all at least ping as evil under the detect evil spell even if they are not required to have an evil alignment) are under no compulsion to commit evil acts or at least enjoy being evil. Lycanthropes and people who suffered from wearing a helmet of opposite alignment on the other hand do have such a restriction in their behavior.

Because there's more to the game world than the strictly compulsory rules. When it says in the vampire entry that they are 'always evil' (which means 99% of the time evil), that means that 99% of the vampires one would encounter in the world would have an evil alignment. If actions determine alignment, then not only are people becoming evil when they become a vampire, but they're continuing to perform evil actions sufficiently to maintain an evil alignment. Furthermore, they're not doing things like getting an Atonement to change their alignment back.

You may even find anecdotal evidence in the books that NPCs commit evil acts after becoming a vampire, but the rules do not support that this shift in behavior is caused by vampirism. It could just as well be coincidental and caused by something else.

Would a vampire with such urges be more interesting? Possibly, but the rules do not support that this is the way they have to be played unless you rule 0 them. It is quite the opposite really. Enforcing behavior consistent with the new alignment is actually the house rule.

When have I ever said that 'what the rules support' is inherently important in any way? 'Running a RAW game' should be the last of anyone's concerns. What's important is running a world that is self-consistent and compelling, while at the same time not getting in the way of the PCs having the personalities that their players choose for them. Rather than when the rules say 'they're evil now' you just go and say 'you must act evil now, figure out why', its best to change the relationship between the PC and the world in such a way that most people in that circumstance would naturally become evil - then you can have the PC deal with the scenario as best they can, which may involve overcoming it and being that 1%, or might involve giving into it.

[Andezzar]

Because there's more to the game world than the strictly compulsory rules. When it says in the vampire entry that they are 'always evil' (which means 99% of the time evil), that means that 99% of the vampires one would encounter in the world would have an evil alignment. If actions determine alignment, then not only are people becoming evil when they become a vampire, but they're continuing to perform evil actions sufficiently to maintain an evil alignment. Furthermore, they're not doing things like getting an Atonement to change their alignment back.

Yes, but are they evil because their vampiric nature overrides their previous morals or are they evil now because they always were evil and the vampires select such individuals to become their kin, or did they simply stay evil because they wanted to without being enticed by their vampiric nature? Committing evil often simply is the easier choice. I'm not saying many vampires should be goody two shoes, but that there is no explicit cause and effect relationship between vampirism and continued evilness.The books do not say that vampires are in any way compelled or even enticed to commit evil acts. As such they should not have a more difficult time to refrain from such acts than any other character.

When have I ever said that 'what the rules support' is inherently important in any way? 'Running a RAW game' should be the last of anyone's concerns.

I disagree, RAW is what the players should be able to expect. It it the basis for the game. A deviation from it should be communicated and agreed upon with the players. Just as the players expect Power Attack to add 2 to the damage of a two-handed weapon for each -1 the player subtracts from his attack bonus, they should be able to expect that they are not forced to play their characters in a certain way if they become vampires.

What's important is running a world that is self-consistent and compelling, while at the same time not getting in the way of the PCs having the personalities that their players choose for them.

How is "vampires usually select those to become vampires from evil people and thus almost all are evil" less consistent and compelling and more restricting to the players' characters than saying "you must act evil now"?

Rather than when the rules say 'they're evil now' you just go and say 'you must act evil now, figure out why', its best to change the relationship between the PC and the world in such a way that most people in that circumstance would naturally become evil - then you can have the PC deal with the scenario as best they can, which may involve overcoming it and being that 1%, or might involve giving into it.

This deviation from the rules should be communicated beforehand.

[NichG]

Yes, but are they evil because their vampiric nature overrides their previous morals or are they evil now because they always were evil and the vampires select such individuals to become their kin, or did they simply stay evil because they wanted to without being enticed by their vampiric nature? Committing evil often simply is the easier choice. I'm not saying many vampires should be goody two shoes, but that there is no explicit cause and effect relationship between vampirism and continued evilness.The books do not say that vampires are in any way compelled or even enticed to commit evil acts. As such they should not have a more difficult time to refrain from such acts than any other character.

I'm in search of a good adjective for this kind of argument. I think 'disconnected' or 'noncomittal' might work, but I really want to use 'namby-pamby' just because its an awesome term. This is the kind of argument that comes from a lack of desire to actually explore the meaning of things in the game as if they were real situations. You're basically describing an approach to GMing which creates a very hollow game, because nothing is expected to have any meaning beyond what is actually written in the ink - there's no exploration of ideas or concepts. We're picking out vampire alignment as a specific thing here, but if you really want to follow your argument through then it applies to basically everything in the system. A fireball shouldn't be described as feeling hot, because thats not what the rules say a fireball does - it doesn't interfere with a character's sense of temperature (though by the rules, I suppose they don't actually have one unless they're being influenced by an illusion spell!).

I have zero interest in playing in or running such a game, and I also think that in general, most players will have a better experience in a game in which things are expected to have meaning and depth beyond just what the text says.

I disagree, RAW is what the players should be able to expect. It it the basis for the game. A deviation from it should be communicated and agreed upon with the players. Just as the players expect Power Attack to add 2 to the damage of a two-handed weapon for each -1 the player subtracts from his attack bonus, they should be able to expect that they are not forced to play their characters in a certain way if they become vampires.

We're never going to agree then. Basically the sort of game you describe is something I wouldn't want to go anywhere near - its 180 degrees from what I consider an acceptable tabletop experience.

How is "vampires usually select those to become vampires from evil people and thus almost all are evil" less consistent and compelling and more restricting to the players' characters than saying "you must act evil now"?

Its a brush-off. Its saying 'I don't want to deal with this issue, so I will propose something that conveniently makes it go away'. Note that I'm very much not saying 'you must act evil now' - I'm saying 'act however you like, but because you're a vampire your experience of the world is different and that is something you will need to deal with.'

[Andezzar]

I'm in search of a good adjective for this kind of argument. I think 'disconnected' or 'noncomittal' might work, but I really want to use 'namby-pamby' just because its an awesome term. This is the kind of argument that comes from a lack of desire to actually explore the meaning of things in the game as if they were real situations. You're basically describing an approach to GMing which creates a very hollow game, because nothing is expected to have any meaning beyond what is actually written in the ink - there's no exploration of ideas or concepts. We're picking out vampire alignment as a specific thing here, but if you really want to follow your argument through then it applies to basically everything in the system. A fireball shouldn't be described as feeling hot, because thats not what the rules say a fireball does - it doesn't interfere with a character's sense of temperature (though by the rules, I suppose they don't actually have one unless they're being influenced by an illusion spell!).

My point is not that such themes should not be explored but that the transformation to a vampire is the wrong vessel for it. There are other creatures that actually enforce such behavioral shifts. They can be used for such. And players can always initiate such shifts on their own. I don't say that there is no meaning beyond what's written in the rules but if you impose roleplaying restrictions on characters that cannot be expected from the rules as written, that should be discussed beforehand.

I have zero interest in playing in or running such a game, and I also think that in general, most players will have a better experience in a game in which things are expected to have meaning and depth beyond just what the text says.

But does imposing restrictions on the PCs' behavior add depth or does it take it away?

We're never going to agree then. Basically the sort of game you describe is something I wouldn't want to go anywhere near - its 180 degrees from what I consider an acceptable tabletop experience.

I think you misunderstand me. I detest DMs that change the rules on a whim without discussing it with the players beforehand. I'm not saying that vampirism should not give the vampire urges, but that such urges are not supported by the rules. If they are introduced, the players should be informed beforehand. Would you like it, if for example a DM used The Burning Hate as the standard doctrine of Pelor and not tell the players?

Its a brush-off. Its saying 'I don't want to deal with this issue, so I will propose something that conveniently makes it go away'. Note that I'm very much not saying 'you must act evil now' - I'm saying 'act however you like, but because you're a vampire your experience of the world is different and that is something you will need to deal with.'

Of course it is different, but this does not necessarily mean that this difference entices that character to commit evil acts. As I said before the main traditional motivator (blood is the only viable food source) for committing evil acts is lacking in D&D vampires. Imposing evil urges on the player without prior warning and with no backup from the rules is just wrong IMHO. The DM can build the world and play the NPCs but he should not interfere with how the PCs are supposed to be played. If found out the vampire should be shunned or attacked by the NPCs, and this might result in the character committing evil deeds but there should not be an internal nudging towards them.

Also I find it much more interesting if the player rationalizes the evil deeds he commits after becoming a vampire out of his own free will, than if he just said the voices in my head told me to do that.

[hamishspence]

The D&D splatbook Libris Mortis gave vampires a couple of addictions - to blood - and to life force. They weaken if they don't get blood (eventually losing all mobility) and if they don't use their Energy Drain ability, eventually they go mad until they get a chance to use it.

[NichG]

But does imposing restrictions on the PCs' behavior add depth or does it take it away?

I'm specifically endorsing a particular way of running it that does not restrict PC behavior in any way, but which still allows you to encode the differences in a way that a player can experience.

I think you misunderstand me. I detest DMs that change the rules on a whim without discussing it with the players beforehand. I'm not saying that vampirism should not give the vampire urges, but that such urges are not supported by the rules. If they are introduced, the players should be informed beforehand. Would you like it, if for example a DM used The Burning Hate as the standard doctrine of Pelor and not tell the players?

I'd approve strongly. As a player, I don't want to know everything about the world before I step into the game. To me, the DM's job is to make things interesting, spin things in new ways, surprise me, and generally present something that is lively, deep, interesting, and worthy of exploration. A DM who just runs what I already know is, to me, just a warm body - not adding anything of their own.

Furthermore, a DM who puts RAW and rules-lawyering considerations above what is actually needed for the game to be functional and fun is sending out a huge warning sign. That kind of mindset tends to be particularly rigid and incapable of actually rolling with the punches, which means that if I go off-grid and do something unexpected its likely that their game will fall apart. Inflexibility is one of the worst traits a DM can have, just below 'DM-vs-player mentality'.

[Andezzar]

The D&D splatbook Libris Mortis gave vampires a couple of addictions - to blood - and to life force. They weaken if they don't get blood (eventually losing all mobility) and if they don't use their Energy Drain ability, eventually they go mad until they get a chance to use it.

Ah, Libris Mortis (re)introduces that traditional weakness. This does make slipping into evil more probable, but still there are ways to get around committing evil acts and AFAIK the book does not force vampires to commit evil deeds to satisfy their hunger.

[veti]

My point is not that such themes should not be explored but that the transformation to a vampire is the wrong vessel for it. There are other creatures that actually enforce such behavioral shifts. They can be used for such. And players can always initiate such shifts on their own. I don't say that there is no meaning beyond what's written in the rules but if you impose roleplaying restrictions on characters that cannot be expected from the rules as written, that should be discussed beforehand.

A shift in behaviour can be expected from the rules as written. SRD: "Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities. In addition, certain classes take additional penalties." That right there blows away the "vampires only select evil people to be their kin" sophistry, and puts a large hole in the "vampires just happen to choose to be evil" option.

Would you like it, if for example a DM used The Burning Hate as the standard doctrine of Pelor and not tell the players?

Any player who makes assumptions about the setting without trying to verify them before they become critical... is asking for all they get, and then some. I've been working on my setting for over 25 years, there are hundreds of pages of notes on it, including many handwritten annotations. Of course there's the 3-page intro pack for newbies, but if you want to know something not mentioned there, ask. Don't assume.

The DM can build the world and play the NPCs but he should not interfere with how the PCs are supposed to be played. If found out the vampire should be shunned or attacked by the NPCs, and this might result in the character committing evil deeds but there should not be an internal nudging towards them.

How do you reconcile that with advocating the "other creatures" you mention, which do enforce behavioural shifts? And why should NPCs attack or shun vampires, if vampires aren't particularly evil?

Also I find it much more interesting if the player rationalizes the evil deeds he commits after becoming a vampire out of his own free will, than if he just said the voices in my head told me to do that.

Ah, finally an interesting point. But that seems to be turning the game into a psychological experiment on the player.

[Pan151]

Vampires are not given any cravings for blood or other potentially evil deeds in D&D.

Actually, they are given specific rules about their cravings for both blood and lifeforce. In D&D 3.5, at any rate.

There's of course nothing stopping a vampire from being a LG paladin of a LG good if they really want to...

[Andezzar]

A shift in behaviour can be expected from the rules as written. SRD: "Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities. In addition, certain classes take additional penalties." That right there blows away the "vampires only select evil people to be their kin" sophistry, and puts a large hole in the "vampires just happen to choose to be evil" option.

Yes, vampires are evil when they are created. This does not however mean that each individual vampire has to remain evil after creation by the rules. Unless controlled by their creator, individual vampires have the same free will as any other character.

Any player who makes assumptions about the setting without trying to verify them before they become critical... is asking for all they get, and then some. I've been working on my setting for over 25 years, there are hundreds of pages of notes on it, including many handwritten annotations. Of course there's the 3-page intro pack for newbies, but if you want to know something not mentioned there, ask. Don't assume.

So I have to verify each and every little bit that my character is supposed to know based on his knowledge skill bonuses? If I had to expect the DM to change pretty basic things about the setting (like Pelor being Neutral Good) there would be a lot of questions before we could start playing.

How do you reconcile that with advocating the "other creatures" you mention, which do enforce behavioural shifts?

I'm not opposed to such behavioral shifts in general but on imposing them on players of creatures that do not mention them in the rules.

And why should NPCs attack or shun vampires, if vampires aren't particularly evil?

Because experience/word of mouth has taught them that vampires are evil (MM entry says they "always" are). There just is no clear cause and effect relation between the two. As I said before vampires have the same free wil as other characters. Statistics just tell us that nearly all keep committing evil deeds.

Ah, finally an interesting point. But that seems to be turning the game into a psychological experiment on the player.

How so? The player of the vampire character decides a) that the character commits evil deeds or not b) how the character justifies those deeds.

Actually, they are given specific rules about their cravings for both blood and lifeforce. In D&D 3.5, at any rate.

In Libris Mortis. So if your campaign does not use that book, vampires can live happily without ever using Energy Drain or Blood Drain. Even if the book is used, there are no rules that the vampire must commit evil deeds to satisfy his hunger. Sure it is easier that way, but that does not make it the only way. And barring mind control according to the rules, what a PC does should wholly be in the hands of the controlling player.

There's of course nothing stopping a vampire from being a LG paladin of a LG good if they really want to...

Well they do fall when they are created since the template sets the character's alignment to Evil (LE most likely). Atonement unfortunately does not help:

Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.
Reverse Magical Alignment Change

If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no cost in experience points.

I doubt the alignment change from becoming a vampire is magical. Even if it is the paladin is still not restored.

Restore Class

A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

The paladin did not lose his class features due to committing an evil act but by being subjected to an evil act by the vampire who created him.

Lastly wasn't there a bit (in BoED most liely) about not destroying evil being an evil deed in itself...

[veti]

Yes, vampires are evil when they are created. This does not however mean that each individual vampire has to remain evil after creation by the rules. Unless controlled by their creator, individual vampires have the same free will as any other character.

So your position is that that 'evil' tag is purely cosmetic? It reflects neither past actions nor present inclinations/preferences? In that case, since actions have nothing to do with alignment, how can one change alignment through actions?

So I have to verify each and every little bit that my character is supposed to know based on his knowledge skill bonuses? If I had to expect the DM to change pretty basic things about the setting (like Pelor being Neutral Good) there would be a lot of questions before we could start playing.

Well, if you're expecting there to be a god named 'Pelor' in my world, you're in for a disappointment right there. But if I did decide to include one - yes, if you expect to have anything to do with her church, you'd be well advised to ask about her doctrine.

I'm not opposed to such behavioral shifts in general but on imposing them on players of creatures that do not mention them in the rules.

In your previous post, you said "The DM ... should not interfere with how the PCs are supposed to be played." But you also said "There are other creatures that actually enforce such behavioral shifts. They can be used for such." So which is it? Do we use those other creatures and interfere with how the PCs are played, or should we refrain from doing that?

Because experience/word of mouth has taught them that vampires are evil (MM entry says they "always" are). There just is no clear cause and effect relation between the two. As I said before vampires have the same free wil as other characters. Statistics just tell us that nearly all keep committing evil deeds.

Then what does it mean, when a character becomes a vampire and (by RAW) "becomes evil"? What does "evil" mean, in that rule?

I'm still seeing a disconnect here. By RAW - barring aberrations that are so rare as to be statistically nonexistent - vampires are Always Evil. If they "have the same free will as other characters", then how do you explain that fact? And how do you explain that the mere fact of becoming a vampire also changes one's alignment?

[hamishspence]

Lastly wasn't there a bit (in BoED most liely) about not destroying evil being an evil deed in itself...

It's in BoVD and refers to Fiends (I'm guessing this does not include Fiends that are trying to redeem themselves or have succeeded).

BoED says that for violence to be "acceptable" in the name of Good, it must primarily be directed at Evil - and even then - it requires Just Cause and Good Intentions - and that it is possible for there to not be Just Cause to go after someone evil.

[Andezzar]

So your position is that that 'evil' tag is purely cosmetic? It reflects neither past actions nor present inclinations/preferences? In that case, since actions have nothing to do with alignment, how can one change alignment through actions?

A creature's alignment usually reflects its previous actions. The rules for making vampires tell us otherwise. Here the alignment is set by an act of another creature, when the vampire is made. After that the alignment is again determined by the actions of the creature itself. Whether the creature acts according to that new alignment is in its own free will.

Well, if you're expecting there to be a god named 'Pelor' in my world, you're in for a disappointment right there. But if I did decide to include one - yes, if you expect to have anything to do with her church, you'd be well advised to ask about her doctrine.

You are informing the players about what game world you are using (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc. or homebrew), right? If you homebrew of course the player has to ask because he cannot know these things. If however you told the players that you used one of the established settings, they should be able to expect that the setting works as the books say. If it does not you should inform the players.

In your previous post, you said "The DM ... should not interfere with how the PCs are supposed to be played." But you also said "There are other creatures that actually enforce such behavioral shifts. They can be used for such." So which is it? Do we use those other creatures and interfere with how the PCs are played, or should we refrain from doing that?

I still think a DM should not do that, and thus should not force such creatures on the PCs, but with those creatures at least such meddling can be expected and they are part of the rules of the game that players and DM agreed upon to play.

Then what does it mean, when a character becomes a vampire and (by RAW) "becomes evil"? What does "evil" mean, in that rule?

The alignment of the creature is set to evil, at the time of the acquisition of the vampire template. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm still seeing a disconnect here. By RAW - barring aberrations that are so rare as to be statistically nonexistent - vampires are Always Evil. If they "have the same free will as other characters", then how do you explain that fact? And how do you explain that the mere fact of becoming a vampire also changes one's alignment?

I don't. It is just the way it is. Statistics do not matter to the individual. Most if not all vampires are evil, this does not say that each individual vampire does not have a choice in that matter. Most vampires keep their evil alignment, without actually being forced to (contrary to lycanthropes). That all but some statistically insignificant aberrations take the easy way out, may be due to vampirism or it may be a failing of the creatures' human nature.

(Darn, I can't find a very fitting quote from Uriel in the Dresden files. I might add it later)
[Edit]Found it:

“That smells an awful lot like predestination to me. What if those people choose something different?”
“It’s a complex issue,” Jake admitted. “But think of the course of the future as, oh, flowing water. If you know the lay of the land, you can make a good guess where it’s going. Now, someone can always come along and dig a ditch and change that flow of water—but honestly, you’d be shocked how seldom people truly choose to exercise their will within their lives.”

[/Edit]

[Devils_Advocate]

Slight misunderstanding here. The will saves and perceptual mucking about isn't because they're Evil, its because they're a Vampire.

But "you get turned into a vampire" was given as an example of something that can cause someone to spontaneously become evil. That was the rhetorical function of that phrase in my post in the context of this discussion. Instantaneously changing alignment without changing your behavior first is and is supposed to be a thing that can happen, however rarely, in D&D. We can tell this because there are things like a Helm of Opposite Alignment and (one function of) the atonement spell whose damn point is that they induce instantaneous alignment change; the core concept is "the character changes alignment".

My point was that alignment works in the books differently from how people frequently say it works. (Which is not to say that it necessarily does not also work the way that they say it works; the rulebooks of Dungeons & Dragons are not exactly a model of consistency.) I just chose an example that could be argued to be an improper implementation of a more vague idea, if considered in isolation and while ignoring other stuff.

Basically I chose something that was less a less than ideal illustration of what I was talking about, and you kind of twisted it around so as to completely ignore my point. Quite frankly, that seems like a fairly namby-pamby response to me.

It's the causal explanation for why someone's personality might suddenly change when there's a change to the nature of their existence, which allows the player to simultaneously try to retain the personality they had before with the full force of their will and also experience the mental influences of vampirism as something concrete and real to the character.

Well, quite frankly, the "altered perception" angle strikes me as a really dubious way of handling this. What you're describing pretty much requires a possessing malign intelligence with control over output as well as input. And if it can have the character's body chase down, bite, and suck on fleeing people when the character decides to stab his sword at onrushing enemies and feels like he's doing so, then there seems like such a disconnect between what the character perceives himself as doing and what his body is actually doing that he could about as easily murder people while he thinks he's baking a cake.

Also, placing the character in a dream world that vaguely corresponds to what's happening to his body strikes me as unlikely to make the player feel morally responsible for anything, but then, I'm not even sure if that's a goal here. This whole approach seems really odd to me, and I guess I don't really understand what you're going for with it. |:-/

The rules tell us that a) people become evil when they are made a vampire b) actions determine alignment

First off, don't those seem rather contradictory? Like, doesn't (a) kind of disprove (b)?

Secondly, I checked the 3E DMG, and apparently it explicitly states "Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players". So this is presumably the basis for the view that... well, that actions dictate alignment. And I've got to admit that it certainly seems like a pretty damn solid basis at first glance.

My problem is that that section is self-contradictory and filled with bad DMing advice. In fact, it implicitly acknowledges alignment as representing character attitudes, saying things that make no sense under the assumption that it's a record of past deeds. It just also recommends treating it as the latter, apparently based on the assumption that the DM/player relationship -- out of character! -- should be based on antagonism and distrust.

First off, look at the second example given. It describes a chaotic evil spy having a change of heart and becoming chaotic neutral. If this example were written to illustrate alignment as some would have it, it would instead say something like

"Over the course of his involvement with the player characters, this NPC commits many good deeds in order to earn their trust. This alters his alignment from chaotic evil to chaotic neutral, and if he stays with the PCs long enough, he may even become chaotic good. However, this in no way means that the evil NPC has abandoned his original plans; he's just waiting for the perfect moment for his devastating betrayal, hoping to kill them all. Obviously, at the point when he does so, his alignment will shift strongly back towards evil."

But it doesn't say that. And, to the contrary, this section ends by saying that there are exceptions to all of this and it's possible for someone to immediately change from evil to good. It's just something that should be very rare because that sort of sudden and drastic change in outlook is something that happens very rarely. What with character outlook being what alignment represents.

For that matter, look at the second example. "Garrett is a neutral character and the player made a mistake when declaring Garrett's alignment because he hadn't decided how he wanted to play him." The assumption here is that the character was already like this before the start of the game, because it makes no sense for him to just start behaving bizarrely differently for no reason. In other words, his alignment and the implied backstory that goes along with it? RETCONNED! No big deal, just like you can let someone swap out a feat or whatever before the second game session is even over without making a huge deal out of that.

So, if alignment is supposed to indicate what -- or perhaps more accurately how -- a character thinks about certain things, then why should the DM be in charge of alignment change, and why should the players need to demonstrate alignment through action? Why, because players should be assumed at all times to be munchkins, of course! If you trust them to be honest about their characters' opinions and intentions, then they can just go and make up things that will benefit them in some way! And that's totally bad somehow, even if what they come up with makes perfect sense! So instead, you need to implement a draconian policy that actually discourages munchkins from thinking about what personalities might underlie their characters' choices, because there are no game-mechanical payoffs involved, so who cares. Which is good, because what's important is your opinion of how a given character concept should be roleplayed. Always remember, listening to your players' opinions creates a very real danger that they might convince you to do something they want, a possibility which must be guarded against at all costs.

Particularly telling is the discussion of the possibility that a player might wish to change her character's alignment in order to use an evil artifact. The appropriate thing to say about that is that "tricking" a magic item in this fashion is a function of the Use Magic Device skill, requiring a DC 30 check. What we get instead is 'DON'T LET PLAYERS DO THAT, LETTING PLAYERS DO THINGS IS BAD'. This passage was clearly written under the "old school" expectation that things are to be adjudicated by DM fiat, because this whole system, wherein the "referee" actually runs the opposing team as well as the entire game world, exists to allow the Dungeon Master to indulge his control freak tendencies via the weird group sub/dom relationship that it sets up, not that there's anything wrong with that if that's what everyone involved is into, but D&D has sort of moved beyond that by expanding on the whole "There are rules for things" concept.

and c) vampires and other undead (who all at least ping as evil under the detect evil spell even if they are not required to have an evil alignment) are under no compulsion to commit evil acts or at least enjoy being evil.

So far as I know, the core rules don't say that vampires aren't compelled to do evil. They don't say that they are, but that doesn't mean that they say that they aren't. Rather, the rules are silent on the matter.

If a game has rules for random encounters with monsters, but doesn't say where the monsters come from, does that mean that they don't come from anywhere? Because... man. If it doesn't say that they appear out of nowhere either, then that isn't the case, either, so... I guess that this is part of the setting not subject to causality, somehow?

Or, alternately, there are parts of the setting that aren't covered by the rules. Hey, that strikes me as a good idea! In fact, that strikes me as common sense and frequently vital to making RPGs make any sort of sense!

Point being that "not supported by the rules" isn't the same as "goes against the rules". The rules do not cover everything, and a very standard part of the Game Master role is to make stuff up to fill in the gaps.

I doubt the alignment change from becoming a vampire is magical.

Why in the heck would you doubt that?

I mean, you're wrong. A vampire's Create Spawn special attack is a Supernatural Ability, and "Supernatural abilities are magical", and since the alignment shift is part of the whole "becoming a vampire" thing, well, there ya go. But this really seems like something that it shouldn't be necessary to cite rules text to convince you of. Do you think that dying of blood loss naturally turns people evil or what? It's really quite obvious that some sort of sinister mojo is at work here. I mean, come on.

Even if it is the paladin is still not restored. The paladin did not lose his class features due to committing an evil act

Wow, you really are a being a stickler for the RAW here, aren't you? Yes, technically speaking, the atonement spell as written doesn't do everything that it was obviously intended to do. It doesn't restore paladinhood lost due to grossly violating the code of conduct unless that gross violation was also an evil act. It doesn't restore cleric and druid class features other than spellcasting (e.g turn undead, animal companion, etc.). It doesn't help a druid who doesn't have a deity. And so on.

But that doesn't mean that it should actually be run that way; it means that the spell is poorly written. Lots of things in D&D are poorly written. It's commonly assumed that the poorly written parts are to be ignored. E.g. monks have proficiency with unarmed strikes, because monks not being given proficiency with unarmed strikes is an oversight and enforcing the oversight does not imporove the game.

I'm curious; suppose a DM said to you "I'll be coming up with rules for things that the system doesn't cover and fixing existing rules as events warrant, taking into account player opinions. If you want to use some option and the existing rules for it are blatantly defective, then ask me about it and we'll hammer something out." Would you be okay with that "house rule", or would you object?

Because I'm pretty sure that most groups assume that that understanding is in effect without needing to be stated, and that they're not going to play by the rules as written even when the written rules seem clearly malfunctional. And that common sense, game balance, and/or probable authorial intent is/are allowed to trump really technical readings of rules text that they weren't even aware of until some rules lawyer pointed them out. And that expecting a DM to officially overrule every mistake in the Player's Handbook before play is completely unreasonable, because years of unpaid editing shouldn't be a prerequisite to running a game.

FYI.

If however you told the players that you used one of the established settings, they should be able to expect that the setting works as the books say. If it does not you should inform the players.

Well...

Players should understand what their characters think is true well enough to roleplay their characters appropriately. In many cases, this obliges the DM to provide information to the players.

Beyond that it's mostly a matter of preferred level of metagaming, which is definitely a thing where different people favor different playstyles.

The alignment of the creature is set to evil, at the time of the acquisition of the vampire template. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just to be clear, you're saying that you favor alignment being bull****, correct? I.e. having it not really mean anything?

But even taking the position that "Well, it's an exception-based ruleset, so nothing should be assumed to consistently mean anything", how does that apply to this case? The PHB and SRD say "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment". That's the general rule, so it should apply except in cases of specific exceptions. And there doesn't seem to be an explicit exception here.

It seems to me that you are in fact adding in extra bull**** in a way unsupported by the rules, even while claiming to oppose changes unsupported by the rules.

Tsk, tsk! Naughty! ;)

Well, if you're expecting there to be a god named 'Pelor' in my world, you're in for a disappointment right there. But if I did decide to include one - yes, if you expect to have anything to do with her church, you'd be well advised to ask about her doctrine.

Well, if you say without qualification that Pelor is one of the deities in your campaign setting, then you shouldn't follow that up by later revealing "No, it's not Pelor from the PHB, it's a totally different deity named 'Pelor', trololololol!" That's like saying that Fighter is one of the available classes and then criticizing a player for making a character using the Fighter class from the Player's Handbook instead of your custom Fighter class that you never mentioned.

But you probably wouldn't do either of those things. Hopefully you agree that jerking people around like that is discourteous and obnoxious.

[Andezzar]

First off, don't those seem rather contradictory? Like, doesn't (a) kind of disprove (b)?

A) is an exception to b). The exception only goes as far as it states. I.e. The alignment is set to evil when the character becomes a vampire. At any point before and after that b) applies.

But it doesn't say that. And, to the contrary, this section ends by saying that there are exceptions to all of this and it's possible for someone to immediately change from evil to good. It's just something that should be very rare because that sort of sudden and drastic change in outlook is something that happens very rarely. What with character outlook being what alignment represents.

The thing is that the sudden alignment change from becoming a vampire does not mention any change in outlook, just a change in alignment.

So far as I know, the core rules don't say that vampires aren't compelled to do evil. They don't say that they are, but that doesn't mean that they say that they aren't. Rather, the rules are silent on the matter.

While they do not say that, other sudden alignment shifts (lycanthropy, helm of opposite alignment) do indicate that the outlook changes and the characters are compelled to act according to the new alignment. That is at least a very strong indication that becoming a vampire does not compel the character to act according to his new alignment.

If a game has rules for random encounters with monsters, but doesn't say where the monsters come from, does that mean that they don't come from anywhere? Because... man. If it doesn't say that they appear out of nowhere either, then that isn't the case, either, so... I guess that this is part of the setting not subject to causality, somehow?

The rules do say that monsters have lairs:

This line reflects how much wealth the creature owns. In most cases, a creature keeps valuables in its home or lair and has no treasure with it when it travels. Intelligent creatures that own useful, portable treasure (such as magic items) tend to carry and use these, leaving bulky items at home.

Point being that "not supported by the rules" isn't the same as "goes against the rules". The rules do not cover everything, and a very standard part of the Game Master role is to make stuff up to fill in the gaps.

Being compelled to commit evil acts actually does go against the rule that actions determine alignment. Such an exception must be explicit.

Why in the heck would you doubt that?

I mean, you're wrong. A vampire's Create Spawn special attack is a Supernatural Ability, and "Supernatural abilities are magical", and since the alignment shift is part of the whole "becoming a vampire" thing, well, there ya go. But this really seems like something that it shouldn't be necessary to cite rules text to convince you of. Do you think that dying of blood loss naturally turns people evil or what? It's really quite obvious that some sort of sinister mojo is at work here. I mean, come on.

You are probably right on that one. On the other hand is the alignment change due to the supernatural ability or due to the application of the template?

Wow, you really are a being a stickler for the RAW here, aren't you? Yes, technically speaking, the atonement spell as written doesn't do everything that it was obviously intended to do. It doesn't restore paladinhood lost due to grossly violating the code of conduct unless that gross violation was also an evil act. It doesn't restore cleric and druid class features other than spellcasting (e.g turn undead, animal companion, etc.). It doesn't help a druid who doesn't have a deity. And so on.

The spell does not do what ayou assume the authors intended for it to do. The problem with assumptions is that they can be wrong. So anything changing what the authors actually wrote needs to be communicated with the other players.

But that doesn't mean that it should actually be run that way; it means that the spell is poorly written. Lots of things in D&D are poorly written. It's commonly assumed that the poorly written parts are to be ignored. E.g. monks have proficiency with unarmed strikes, because monks not being given proficiency with unarmed strikes is an oversight and enforcing the oversight does not imporove the game.

I never said that an actual game should be played that way, just that deviations from the rules should be communicated. In a forum discussion however you should not assume a any houserules except those that a poster introduced to the topic at hand.

Many of those houserules are pretty obvious but others aren't. For example, what is the power attack exchange rate for the errataed Leap attack with a two-handed weapon? RAI may be 1:4(+100% of the normal 1:2 exchange rate), but RAW clearly is 1:6 (triple the normal exchange rate of 1:2).

Compelling vampires to commit evil acts is not an obvious omission/mistake of the authors.

I'm curious; suppose a DM said to you "I'll be coming up with rules for things that the system doesn't cover and fixing existing rules as events warrant, taking into account player opinions. If you want to use some option and the existing rules for it are blatantly defective, then ask me about it and we'll hammer something out." Would you be okay with that "house rule", or would you object?

Probably not, but who decides that a rule is "blatantly defective". Well healing by drowning obviously is, but the 1:6 exchange rate from Leap Attack is not. How does a player know he has to ask the DM, if he does not see a rule as "blatantly defective"? What happens if the DM and another player disagree on the status of a rule?

Because I'm pretty sure that most groups assume that that understanding is in effect without needing to be stated, and that they're not going to play by the rules as written even when the written rules seem clearly malfunctional. And that common sense, game balance, and/or probable authorial intent is/are allowed to trump really technical readings of rules text that they weren't even aware of until some rules lawyer pointed them out.

If the players talk to each other about those rules a compromise can be worked out. If they don't, there might be confrontations. The problem is that if you ask two players what common sense would dictate or what game balance should look like you will get different answers. The more you iron out those kinks beforehand the less conflict you will have about them in game.

And that expecting a DM to officially overrule every mistake in the Player's Handbook before play is completely unreasonable, because years of unpaid editing shouldn't be a prerequisite to running a game.

They shouldn't be a prerequisite, but it would reduce the amount of arguing about rules during the game.

Just to be clear, you're saying that you favor alignment being bull****, correct? I.e. having it not really mean anything?

But even taking the position that "Well, it's an exception-based ruleset, so nothing should be assumed to consistently mean anything", how does that apply to this case? The PHB and SRD say "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment". That's the general rule, so it should apply except in cases of specific exceptions. And there doesn't seem to be an explicit exception here.

The problem is that this rule contradicts the rule that actions dictate alignment. Becoming a vampire sets the character's alignment to evil. It does not explicitly change the characters outlook or otherwise take away the character's or the player's agency contrary to other methods of radically changing a character's alignment. So as I said earlier, at any time before or after the character can act freely and thus change his alignment. Either that or all the stuff about liking the new outlook is superfluous in those other methods. I wouldn't be surprised if generally requiring appropriate actions after a sudden alignment change can be abused much more than giving the player the choice whether he wants to play as a monster.

[NichG]

But "you get turned into a vampire" was given as an example of something that can cause someone to spontaneously become evil. That was the rhetorical function of that phrase in my post in the context of this discussion. Instantaneously changing alignment without changing your behavior first is and is supposed to be a thing that can happen, however rarely, in D&D. We can tell this because there are things like a Helm of Opposite Alignment and (one function of) the atonement spell whose damn point is that they induce instantaneous alignment change; the core concept is "the character changes alignment".

Certainly one can do this, but it feels like a missed opportunity to actually explore anything. Instead, its sort of like a throwaway status effect and isn't really going to make for very interesting gameplay, not to mention that the alternatives are both pretty undesirable - either endeavor to force the player to 'play their character a certain way', or have the alignment change effect be highly inconsistent with the thematic fluff it's associated with in that its has no influence on behavior.

Well, quite frankly, the "altered perception" angle strikes me as a really dubious way of handling this. What you're describing pretty much requires a possessing malign intelligence with control over output as well as input. And if it can have the character's body chase down, bite, and suck on fleeing people when the character decides to stab his sword at onrushing enemies and feels like he's doing so, then there seems like such a disconnect between what the character perceives himself as doing and what his body is actually doing that he could about as easily murder people while he thinks he's baking a cake.

Well, the 'possessing malign intelligence' is pretty close to how OotS is running it right now. But you can do less 'intelligent' manipulations. Think about how a person sees the world when they're under the effects of, say, laughing gas. They feel like they have an internal logic that makes complete sense, but viewed externally its gibberish. There's no intelligence mapping inputs to outputs in that case, just a chemical compound that messes with the brain's processes.

Making the experience completely random and disconnected isn't going to be a very interesting form of gameplay, but doing it more subtly and saving the twisted perceptions for opportune moments can be a lot deeper. The vampire cleric is about to cast a Cure Serious Wounds on a wounded party member when you mention casually how good the energy coursing through their hands feels (and perhaps that the wounded party member is looking on in horror). The cleric, if they're at all savvy, might realize that they charged up their energy drain touch instead of the Cure Serious Wounds by mistake, and that spell slot is still there, unused. Or describe NPCs with slightly different impressions when the vampire player is looking than when other PCs look - to most of the party, an NPC might be somewhat standoffish, but to the vampire player they're described in ways that suggest that they're interested in the vampire PC, maybe even things that suggest that the person wants to be energy/blood drained. In a fight, when an ally is injured, rather than describing how badly they're hurt the DM might describe all that blood going to waste, or describe the wounds using very positive language 'a beautiful red flower has blossomed', etc.

Any PC with an adventurer's sense should be able to figure out what's going on, but it creates a game experience that makes the evil influence feel like evil influence, not just like ink on a page.

Also, placing the character in a dream world that vaguely corresponds to what's happening to his body strikes me as unlikely to make the player feel morally responsible for anything, but then, I'm not even sure if that's a goal here. This whole approach seems really odd to me, and I guess I don't really understand what you're going for with it. |:-/

If they don't feel morally responsible for things, there's not really a reason to try to force them to feel morally responsible for things. In fact, its almost the opposite which would be the desired outcome. If you want to describe a set of experiences that would make a good person turn apathetic towards evil, it'd make sense to use something where they feel like its impossible for them to truly take responsibility for their own actions. If they can internally justify the idea that they are being made incapable of controlling their actions, so its not their fault, then that's another step towards evil.

And if despite that, they try to resist their condition, then they've demonstrated the strength of their moral convictions despite their circumstances, which can be a very powerful story.

[Devils_Advocate]

NichG, just to be clear, are you simply intentionally ignoring my original point? If you wish to do so and to instead discuss something different, that's fine, but I wanted to check that we're on the same page here.

Making the experience completely random and disconnected isn't going to be a very interesting form of gameplay, but doing it more subtly and saving the twisted perceptions for opportune moments can be a lot deeper.

But a process can only be directed to the extent that someone is directing it. To the extent that something requires a lot of judgement calls and can't simply be handled by hard and fast rules, it's necessarily the deliberate product of an intelligent mind in pursuance of some goal or goals. Obviously it's the DM in real life, but since the DM isn't a character within the game world, there needs to be some other being in the game world that is responsible. See what I mean?

Any PC with an adventurer's sense should be able to figure out what's going on, but it creates a game experience that makes the evil influence feel like evil influence, not just like ink on a page.

Well, any player in that situation can quickly figure out that the DM is messing with them, but it's not clear how that translates to in-character understanding. But if the influence isn't perceived as having any intent behind it, how can it be perceived as evil? It might be bad, sure, but that's not the same thing as evil. A drought isn't "evil".

Trying to trick someone into feeding on people seems like a bad approach to making someone particularly evil, not only because accidentally harming others isn't really evil, but because normal humans kill innocent creatures anyway for food anyway, so it seems that eating humans doesn't make someone more evil, just higher on the food chain. But of course, if you don't want to make anyone evil necessarily but are going for something different, then that's not really a concern.

But really I think that my main issue is that you seem to be trying to set up a "man vs. himself" or "man vs. nature" style conflict but are trying to do so using a "man vs. man" approach. For starters, said approach is clearly present on a metagame level if you set things up as player vs. DM with the DM as the player's wily adversary, rather than having the DM dispassionately administer penalties and bonuses according to a set of fixed rules, for example. So even without thinking in-character that this trickery has got to come from some trickster, the player is in a poor position to view this struggle as being against a mindless force because the player knows that it isn't, really.

And having vampires not filled with dark urges, but instead beset by sinister illusions that result in them acting like monsters seems awfully... contrived, I guess? In addition to the oddity of taking what traditionally is a test of willpower and turning it into, like, a test of cunning or something.

The rules do say that monsters have lairs:

My question was more whether the rules should need to specify everything. I gave a hypothetical example. Hence "If a game". I was not talking about Dungeons & Dragons specifically.

On the other hand is the alignment change due to the supernatural ability or due to the application of the template?

The application of the template is itself due to the supernatural ability. So... I think that the answer to this question is "Yes, yes it is".

The spell does not do what ayou assume the authors intended for it to do.

The spells in D&D do not actually do anything because they do not actually exist. What exist are words on paper. If there's a relevant factual question here, I think it's "How do groups tend to play in practice?", and I think that exceedingly strict adherence to the RAW is a minority position.

who decides that a rule is "blatantly defective". Well healing by drowning obviously is

"Blatant" and "obvious" are pretty close to being synonyms. If something isn't obvious, it isn't really blatant. If you think that something is "borderline obvious", then, well, it's probably best to ask about it.

The problem is that this rule contradicts the rule that actions dictate alignment.

You mean the bad DMing advice?

Because if you're going to advocate for players being able to expect that things work how the books say, then surely it makes more sense to say that alignment works as described in the alignment section of the PHB, not the way that it works in an obscure and internally inconsistent section of the DMG.

I'm pretty sure that that stuff isn't even in the SRD. It's not part of the system, it's bad advice that was unfortunately packaged along with the system. Why follow instructions to be a draconian control freak when that set of instructions even implicitly acknowledges that it's wrong, instead of just letting alignment be alignment?

Becoming a vampire sets the character's alignment to evil. It does not explicitly change the characters outlook or otherwise take away the character's or the player's agency contrary to other methods of radically changing a character's alignment.

A newly created vampire is explicitly under the command of the vampire that created it. Furthermore, nothing states that the character returns to the player's control if freed. And why would it? I see nothing to suggest that a vampire isn't supposed to be a monster with its own agenda controlled by the DM, whether made from a PC or not.

I probably should have pointed this out earlier, because a lot of this discussion seems to be based on the faulty assumption that a vampire is controlled by the player of the living character it was made out of if the living character had a player. That's not a scenario that I intended to introduce. The question of how to portray an NPC's transformation into a vampire is closer to what I was talking about, really.