Vampire question settled?

[brionl]

I don't remember anything like that, but we can make a couple of inferences based on some of the rules surrounding it:

- The personality of a vampire character is completely different from whoever died to make it; such characters are, "always evil," and become NPCs if the original characters were PCs to begin with.

Does a Helm of Opposite Alignment cause a character to be possessed by some other spirit? It's still the same person only eviller. Or gooder if they were already evil

- While a character's body is a vampire, the soul is nowhere else to be found - they can't be raised or resurrected until the creature is destroyed.

Because their soul isn't free in the afterlife, it is still attached to their body.

- Once the vampire is destroyed, if the original character is resurrected, it retains its original identity, not that of the vampire character.

So, regardless of the in-character mechanism by which it happens, a vampire is treated as a different entity that holds the original soul hostage. The nature of the undead spirit is kind of left up in the air, though.

Since the Malack is dead, we'll probably never know how it worked for him; it doesn't matter to the story anymore.

There is nothing in any of the rules to suggest that this is the "standard" mechanism for vampirization.

Now, it's Rich's story and he can make it work however he wants, but I'm also free to consider this just another one of his non-standard D&D house rules.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Does a Helm of Opposite Alignment cause a character to be possessed by some other spirit? It's still the same person only eviller. Or gooder if they were already evil.... There is nothing in any of the rules to suggest that this is the "standard" mechanism for vampirization.

Fair enough, and in fact I think that most campaigns act under the assumption that the spirit controlling a vampire is still the original one, given the same information.

Really, I'm just as confused as to how the helm is supposed to work in that regard. Is it the magical equivalent of years of torture and brainwashing? A series of post-hypnotic suggestions? Doing all of the drugs?

[Everyl]

Fair enough, and in fact I think that most campaigns act under the assumption that the spirit controlling a vampire is still the original one, given the same information.

I think that the assumption a DM makes upon reading the RAW rules depends on their background in vampire stories. I've never been that interested in them, but most of the ones I've read and seen have been of the Anne Rice/Vampire: the Masquerade school of thought, where a vampire's soul/mind/whatever is the same as before, but with some unpleasant additional urges and appetites. I tend to assume that D&D vampires work the same way. However, many people on this forum seem to be fans of Buffy, which I've never seen. From forum discussions, I've gathered that Buffy vampires are very similar to OOTS vampires, except that the victim's soul moves on to the afterlife instead of being trapped - the evil possessing spirit gets access to their memories, but it is not the same person anymore. People with that fandom in their background would be more likely to interpret the RAW D&D rules in a manner similar to the way Rich did, assuming that "always evil" stems from vampires not technically being the same person anymore.

Also, from what I've gathered reading way too many threads about vampirism on these forums, non-core D&D books that go into greater detail about the way that vampires (and other forms of contagious undead) work support the way it works in OOTS. I haven't read those books personally, though.

[Skorj]

The implications are interestimg: If Durkon manges to overcome this evil spirit, he would be piloting an undead body...and then he'd really be the thing he hates most. I wonder what the giant is going to do with this.

Also: Is Belkar on to him? The swearing seemd over the top...

Swearing? Lightning just struck the boat with Thor's (god of lightning) likely highest level priest on it (seemingly): seems appropriate for Durkon to exclaim "Thor is nuts!". Wouldn't seem suspicious to me at all.

But I expect we'll see something more along the lines of "Mr Spock, you pointy-eared half-blood freak!", or whatever Kirk thought when he had a similar problem. It's not like Durkon is going to give up.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Swearing? Lightning just struck the boat with Thor's (god of lightning) likely highest level priest on it (seemingly): seems appropriate for Durkon to exclaim "Thor is nuts!". Wouldn't seem suspicious to me at all.

Based on the context of where the High Priest got that expression from, it looks like the "'s" is showing possession and is not a contraction. The nuts of Thor. It also fits more inline with some of the other curses dwarves apparently have.

[TheOtherErnie]

Does a Helm of Opposite Alignment cause a character to be possessed by some other spirit? It's still the same person only eviller. Or gooder if they were already evil

All very good questions. And, as you point out later, 100% the responsibility of the DM to consider PRIOR to including such items in his game.

There is nothing in any of the rules to suggest that this is the "standard" mechanism for vampirization.

Now, it's Rich's story and he can make it work however he wants, but I'm also free to consider this just another one of his non-standard D&D house rules.

And I'd agree. Each DM has to consider the mechanics behind these events BEFORE throwing them at their players. Because you know that your players WILL try to work it to their best advantage. Personally, I'd never allow a player to become a vampire because of questions such as the ones raised here.

The only alignment changes I allow are the ones I rule based off of how the player plays his/her character.

[factotum]

The only alignment changes I allow are the ones I rule based off of how the player plays his/her character.

That seems overly restrictive to me. Things like Helms of Opposite Alignment are really there as a roleplaying challenge, in my mind; can the player take the character they've worked on and make them act the opposite to how they normally do, while still being more or less the same person?

Of course, this is one of the areas where what works well for a D&D campaign probably doesn't work so well as a story, and I think this is why the Giant chose to represent Durkon's vampirisation as being the result of an evil spirit piloting his undead body--it neatly explains how he can act so differently, he's a different person! I would personally have liked to see this being treated in the *other* way (e.g. Durkon is still essentially a good person but has an uncontrollable urge to drink the blood of the living), but I'm not going to criticise the Giant's choice based on my personal preferences.

[Kish]

Fair enough, and in fact I think that most campaigns act under the assumption that the spirit controlling a vampire is still the original one, given the same information.

Really, I'm just as confused as to how the helm is supposed to work in that regard. Is it the magical equivalent of years of torture and brainwashing? A series of post-hypnotic suggestions? Doing all of the drugs?

A relic of an edition (1ed) written with the idea that alignment wasn't fundamentally different from anything else you might put on your character sheet. A curse that cut your Strength in half was fair game; a curse that turned you from an elf into a halfling was fair game; and so a curse that turned you from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil was fair game (and could be assumed to mean only that your character would be somewhat impaired as s/he continued on the same adventure with the same companions, not that your character's loyalties would abruptly change).

(The first stage of character creation was rolling 3d6 for each of your stats, in order. If you rolled a 5 or lower the sixth time, congratulations: your class had been decided for you--assassin--and since it happened to be one with an alignment requirement, it had also been decided for you that this character was going to be evil.)

[Falbrogna]

Why are people still confused by this? It seems clear to me that Durkon's case is a special one, as in, "Hel sending one of her dark spirits to take over someone's body" and not how vampires generally work. Remember how Malack mentioned Durkon being "confused" by his new condition and hence keeping him under thrall? Why would he do that if he knew that the one inside wouldn't be Durkon anyway?
This new "Durkula" spirit seems pretty fine and comfortable with being an undead, no signs of confusion or anything, which tells me that Malack was expecting Durkon to be Durkon once he released his thrall.

[Kish]

Aaaaand there is the answer to the question in the thread title.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Why are people still confused by this? It seems clear to me that Durkon's case is a special one, as in, "Hel sending one of her dark spirits to take over someone's body" and not how vampires generally work. Remember how Malack mentioned Durkon being "confused" by his new condition and hence keeping him under thrall? Why would he do that if he knew that the one inside wouldn't be Durkon anyway?
This new "Durkula" spirit seems pretty fine and comfortable with being an undead, no signs of confusion or anything, which tells me that Malack was expecting Durkon to be Durkon once he released his thrall.

Just let it go... it's time to move on with your life.

[Peelee]

That one, at least, has a solid answer. They needed the body. It was hard enough to find a cleric that could cast Resurrection, let alone True Resurrection.

Cur people asking if True Resurrection would have worked in 3, 2...

Edit: Damnit, zimmerwald!

I'd ask to sig the "dammit, zimmerwald" portion of it wouldn't lose all context that makes it hilarious. Alas....

[Keltest]

I'd ask to sig the "dammit, zimmerwald" portion of it wouldn't lose all context that makes it hilarious. Alas....

Ive seen people with sigs that link to the source quote if people want context. Im too green to the ways of the forums to know how to do that though.

[Loreweaver15]

Why are people still confused by this? It seems clear to me that Durkon's case is a special one, as in, "Hel sending one of her dark spirits to take over someone's body" and not how vampires generally work. Remember how Malack mentioned Durkon being "confused" by his new condition and hence keeping him under thrall? Why would he do that if he knew that the one inside wouldn't be Durkon anyway?
This new "Durkula" spirit seems pretty fine and comfortable with being an undead, no signs of confusion or anything, which tells me that Malack was expecting Durkon to be Durkon once he released his thrall.

I was a diehard proponent of "Hel interfered"--hell, probably the biggest proponent--but we got a quote in 948, the current comic, that it's not a unique situation.

I'll be quite happy if we get another turnaround, though!

[Gift Jeraff]

Ive seen people with sigs that link to the source quote if people want context. Im too green to the ways of the forums to know how to do that though.

The arrow by the name in the quote box automatically links to the post.

[Keltest]

The arrow by the name in the quote box automatically links to the post.

right, im aware of that. Im just not sure how to carry that over to a sig. Does it just automatically do that if you copy-paste the quote from the edit screen?

[Loreweaver15]

right, im aware of that. Im just not sure how to carry that over to a sig. Does it just automatically do that if you copy-paste the quote from the edit screen?

Yup! Code's the same.

[Gift Jeraff]

right, im aware of that. Im just not sure how to carry that over to a sig. Does it just automatically do that if you copy-paste the quote from the edit screen?

Yeah, as long as you keep the number part. e.g. Keltest;17276388

[Keltest]

Yeah, as long as you keep the number part. e.g. Keltest;17276388

well, theres my daily dose of learning painlessly done.

[mikeejimbo]

From what I recall from Bram Stoker.

Spoiler: Dracula

Show

Mina was the same person while she was going through the transition, ecxept she'd get sick and weak and van Helsing would give her a blood transfusion, which seemed to stave off the progression of the disease. Occasionally she would "sleepwalk" and entice children, but would have no memory of the duration.

Dracula himself was evil before he was a vampire, however.

[Amphiox]

Also clarifies that Malack is "Vampire that absorbed Malack's memories long ago" as we'd suspected.

It doesn't completely rule out the possibility that Malack is the orginial lizard folk shaman who fought and conquered the usurping vampire spirit long ago.

Or that, instead of fighting the two came to an amicable agreement and merged, because both were lawful evil entities.

[Keltest]

It doesn't completely rule out the possibility that Malack is the orginial lizard folk shaman who fought and conquered the usurping vampire spirit long ago.

Or that, instead of fighting the two came to an amicable agreement and merged, because both were lawful evil entities.

Or that HPoH is a memory leech that Hel sent that is not normally a part of vampirism.

[Amphiox]

I was a diehard proponent of "Hel interfered"--hell, probably the biggest proponent--but we got a quote in 948, the current comic, that it's not a unique situation.

Even if it normal procedure for Hel to have provided the vampire spirit due to her dominion over dwarves, it is unlikely normal procedure for the newly created spirit to be automatically elevated to High Priest. So Hel still had to have interfered in some respect, whether it was to recruit the vampire spirit, or manipulate its thoughts and feelings on creation in such a way as to ensure its loyalty to her. A generic evil vampire cleric dwarf spirit isn't guaranteed to be a worshiper of Hel, after all. It could easily have chosen Loki, for example.

[hamishspence]

Hel says "Your dark spirit was birthed in my hall"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html

(as well as "The dwarves fall under my purview")

It may be that whenever a being is sired by a vampire, a negative energy spirit is dispatched from the realm of whatever deity "has purview".

[Toper]

Raise dead works on an intact, recently killed corpse. Resurrection works on any part of a potentially long-dead corpse. And true resurrection works without the need for a corpse at all. Raise dead cannot affect "a creature who has been turned into an undead creature." Resurrection and true resurrection can affect "someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." What this means is that while all the spells require a free soul, raise dead cannot rebuild a mutilated body and needs that body to have been untainted by undeath, resurrection can purge the taint of undeath from the body it rebuilds, and resurrection just creates a new body from scratch and doesn't care how the old one was abused or whether it's still up and walking around.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

For example, true resurrection failed bring back Lirian not because her body was being used as a zombie, but because she had been the subject of soul bind. The spell would have built her a new body.

Is this really right? I read True Resurrection somewhat differently. Like Raise Dead, it has a Target of "Dead creature touched". Then, as an additional clause, it can resurrect "creatures whose bodies have been destroyed", but it doesn't seem to me that this changes the spell's Target in other cases.

So I tend to think the existence of a body elsewhere (not rotted away or walking around undead) would prevent True Resurrection from working. If the corpse exists, you need access to it. But I could be wrong.

[Falbrogna]

Just let it go... it's time to move on with your life.

This is the first and last post I did on the matter, I've been absent from the forums for months.
All of my points seems valid to me, feel free to point me some counterpoints or whatever if they exist.

I was a diehard proponent of "Hel interfered"--hell, probably the biggest proponent--but we got a quote in 948, the current comic, that it's not a unique situation.

I'll be quite happy if we get another turnaround, though!

I don't see how the contents of your post has anything to do with mine. I never said an inch about it being unique, nor does it matter at all.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Is this really right? I read True Resurrection somewhat differently. Like Raise Dead, it has a Target of "Dead creature touched". Then, as an additional clause, it can resurrect "creatures whose bodies have been destroyed", but it doesn't seem to me that this changes the spell's Target in other cases.

So I tend to think the existence of a body elsewhere (not rotted away or walking around undead) would prevent True Resurrection from working. If the corpse exists, you need access to it. But I could be wrong.

I think that if the spell can restrict things without the body, it can do so in any situation, regardless of whether the body has been destroyed or not.

[Kish]

Yeah, I don't think the High Priest's devout worship of Hel is indicative of anything other than that the High Priest's dark spirit was created as a funhouse-mirror version of a soul that fundamentally always believed "Service is me sole purpose." And I don't think the High Priest's status as the High Priest is indicative of anything but Durkon being really high-level (possibly not even that; if Hel has no other worshipers a first-level priest of Hel might also be the High Priest).

'Course, I was wrong about the High Priest actually being Durkon, so what do I know?

[Falbrogna]

Yeah, I don't think the High Priest's devout worship of Hel is indicative of anything other than that the High Priest's dark spirit was created as a funhouse-mirror version of a soul that fundamentally always believed "Service is me sole purpose." And I don't think the High Priest's status as the High Priest is indicative of anything but Durkon being really high-level (possibly not even that; if Hel has no other worshipers a first-level priest of Hel might also be the High Priest).

'Course, I was wrong about the High Priest actually being Durkon, so what do I know?

Huh, what?

[Keltest]

Huh, what?

I think hes saying "evil spirits don't have complete free will" and "Durkon is high priest because hes the only priest" respectively, although im not entirely sure on the latter.