Belkar's Alignment

[Jack Of Rivia]

It is interesting how many people fail to see the problem with a monster whose nature is the result of combining a cannibal, a serial killer, and a junkie.

Because people tend to the individual rights of the misanderstood monster, than to the collective right of the many to not risk to killed and tortured.

The cobsequences of a culture centered on individualism, i guess.

A dog isn't a person.

It's interesting how many people fail to see that there is only a person if the author wants there to be one. It's disturbing how many people want there to be a problem.

So? We should treat everything according to the majority of cases? Why not treat the different uses differently?

I'm merely stating a fact. That any eventual mistake in evaluation will be paid in innocent blood.

Look, for the milionth time, i'm not advocating the extermination of Necromancer: the question if the safety or prosperity of the many overcomes the rights of the few is one of the oldest question humanity has asked itself.
Your answer is "No, is better that a great number of innocent risks pain and death, than the certainity of the destruction of a single one". And is a reasonable one.
What is not reasonable is to call Evil everyone who comes with a different one.

[The Pilgrim]

Why? because they have grey skin and you don't?

It is irrelevant if the skin color of an undead is grey, green, or bright pinky. The problem is that they are animated corpses whose sole urge is to drain out the life of the living.

By this logic, we should kill humans infected with rabbies, you realize that? Since "the problem is not the [human], it's the condition" and all.

Yes. And your point is?

A condition with a spirit that can think chose and feel, isn't a condition anymore.

Except that what you describe isn't the situation. Xykon? A monster whole sole source of pleasure is to inflict harm. Malack? A monster with a plan to turn an entire continet into his food factory. Greg? Durkon managed to override his programming, but it was only temporal, the dark energies were flowing back, as Greg-turned-Durkon pointed out.

If you think that Undead can feel love and other normal emotions, you are going to end up like Tsukiko.

Nobody said undead should be treated differently based on that. Why bring it up?

To hammer the point that an Undead isn't an species. Orcs, goblins, humans, elfs, dwarves, kobolds, dragons... are. Undead are not.

[Fyraltari]

Because people tend to the individual rights of the misanderstood monster, than to the collective right of the many to not risk to killed and tortured.

The cobsequences of a culture centered on individualism, i guess.

I'm guessing the missing verb here is "consider less important"?

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

I'm merely stating a fact. That any eventual mistake in evaluation will be paid in innocent blood.

That goes both way. You cannot justify taking the risk of killing an innocent by stating that not doing so would risk the life of innocents, that's self-contradictory.

Look, for the milionth time, i'm not advocating the extermination of Necromancer: the question if the safety or prosperity of the many overcomes the rights of the few is one of the oldest question humanity has asked itself.
Your answer is "No, is better that a great number of innocent risks pain and death, than the certainity of the destruction of a single one". And is a reasonable one.
What is not reasonable is to call Evil everyone who comes with a different one.

According to D&D rules, and I would wager OOTS rules, it is.

By this logic, we should kill humans infected with rabbies, you realize that? Since "the problem is not the [human], it's the condition" and all.

Yes. And your point is?

I commmend you on your intellectual honesty. I cannot do so for your moral fiber.
This discussion is over.

[Caerulea]

I.made a case on why, in my opinion, necromancy is bad news.

I want to add another consideration.
Yes, there is the possibility of good necromancy, of good aligned undead. We see it with the ghost-martyrs. But they are extremely rare, and for a reason: that s because Necromancy is associated with UNTIMELY DEATH. And only very specific
Circustances may make an untimely death good aligned. A noble soul sacrificing itself for the good of others, for example.
But an evil untimely death? Freakishly more common.

Your argument seems to be that it disrupts nature, and the natural life cycle. I don't by that that makes it bad, just that it makes it dangerous and has to be used carefully.

Because people tend to the individual rights of the misanderstood monster, than to the collective right of the many to not risk to killed and tortured.

The cobsequences of a culture centered on individualism, i guess.



I'm merely stating a fact. That any eventual mistake in evaluation will be paid in innocent blood.

Look, for the milionth time, i'm not advocating the extermination of Necromancer: the question if the safety or prosperity of the many overcomes the rights of the few is one of the oldest question humanity has asked itself.
Your answer is "No, is better that a great number of innocent risks pain and death, than the certainity of the destruction of a single one". And is a reasonable one.
What is not reasonable is to call Evil everyone who comes with a different one.

Because treating a species as absolutely always worthy of death, if there are some innocents, means unprovoked slaughter of innocents. Which is not a good outcome.

Except that what you describe isn't the situation. Xykon? A monster whole sole source of pleasure is to inflict harm. Malack? A monster with a plan to turn an entire continet into his food factory. Greg? Durkon managed to override his programming, but it was only temporal, the dark energies were flowing back, as Greg-turned-Durkon pointed out.

If you think that Undead can feel love and other normal emotions, you are going to end up like Tsukiko.

I'm just going to respond with what The Giant said.

Maybe there are other vampires out there doing other things, being Good and living in harmony with the world. Don't care. Don't need them for this story.

To hammer the point that an Undead isn't an species. Orcs, goblins, humans, elfs, dwarves, kobolds, dragons... are. Undead are not.

Whether it has the "species" tag isn't particularly important. The important part is you have a class of creatures have the same properties.

[Pablo360]

Whether it has the "species" tag isn't particularly important. The important part is you have a class of creatures have the same properties.

Okay, I really don't want to get into why this kind of statement is problematic, because I don't want to break forum rules, but can we please stop ignoring that the undead only need to be killed because of their actions and not because of their “properties”?

[Fyraltari]

Okay, I really don't want to get into why this kind of statement is problematic, because I don't want to break forum rules, but can we please stop ignoring that the undead only need to be killed because of their actions and not because of their “properties”?

That's what we've been arguing for! Killing someone just because their undead is wrong. your character needs to have an actual reason to, just like with any other antagonist.

[Jack Of Rivia]

According to D&D rules, and I would wager OOTS rules, it is.

According to D&D, you are wrong. Neutral Characthers have compuntions against the killing of innocents, but lack the resolve to make personal sacrifice to protect their lives. Which means, a neutral Character will rather have a Vampire destroyed, rather than make the personal sacrifice of having a vampire in the comunity, free to kill them every time he wants. (Of course, i know that the Neutral Vaarsavious did not want the vampire destroyed: but remember, He/she belived himself and the order, uncorrectly, to be powerful enough to destroy the vampire in the future, should the need arise. A neutral character less confident in his powers may have taken a different approach.)

Your argument seems to be that it disrupts nature, and the natural life cycle. I don't by that that makes it bad, just that it makes it dangerous and has to be used carefully.

Not quite, my argument is a different one. My argument is that there are some instruments, in D&D but also in RL, which, while they can certanly been used for good end, for their nature tends to be used more for evil ends, and that maybe it will be better if we got rid of the instrument entirely, or at least put it under heavy state control. Such a debate is a very hot topic in certain part of Real World.

Because treating a species as absolutely always worthy of death, if there are some innocents, means unprovoked slaughter of innocents. Which is not a good outcome.

I agree. But not everything which is not Good, is necessary Evil. At least, not in the D&D universe.

[Fyraltari]

According to D&D, you are wrong. Neutral Characthers have compuntions against the killing of innocents, but lack the resolve to make personal sacrifice to protect their lives. Which means, a neutral Character will rather have a Vampire destroyed, rather than make the personal sacrifice of having a vampire in the comunity, free to kill them every time he wants. (Of course, i know that the Neutral Vaarsavious did not want the vampire destroyed: but remember, He/she belived himself and the order, uncorrectly, to be powerful enough to destroy the vampire in the future, should the need arise. A neutral character less confident in his powers may have taken a different approach.)

Yes a Neutral or Good character may do so. But it would be an Evil action. So while that is insufficent to to call that character evil (who judges a person based on a single action anyway?), it is not a neutral act as you have claimed.

Actually, it will count as a neutral act. An hypotetical good vampire is still an undead monstruosity. A dangerous abomination. Its destruction would not in itself be an evil act.

Not quite, my argument is a different one. My argument is that there are some instruments, in D&D but also in RL, which, while they can certanly been used for good end, for their nature tends to be used more for evil ends, and that maybe it will be better if we got rid of the instrument entirely, or at least put it under heavy state control. Such a debate is a very hot topic in certain part of Real World.

This is a reasonnable position, as long as it only pertains to the destruction of tools, not people.

I agree. But not everything which is not Good, is necessary Evil. At least, not in the D&D universe.

But in that case, it is.

[The Pilgrim]

I commmend you on your intellectual honesty. I cannot do so for your moral fiber.
This discussion is over.

Good to know. I was fearing you could turn it into a wall-of-quotes debate about the morality of Euthanasia. Which would derrail this thread too far away it's topic.

I'm just going to respond with what The Giant said.

I fail to see how The Giant saying "maybe, I don't care" actually serves as a refutation to my affirmation.

Whether it has the "species" tag isn't particularly important. The important part is you have a class of creatures have the same properties.

The important part is that an Undead it's not a base creature. It's a template you apply over another creature. Which is why all the people here repeating this quote from The Giant...
There are no fantasy worlds. There are no orcs. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.
... are failing to understand why The Giant isn't applying it to Undead. Which are not "some folks that look different". but "some foul magic you apply to someone's corpse in order to desecrate it into an aberrant tool for inflicting pain and death".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

some foul magic you apply to someone's corpse in order to desecrate it into an aberrant tool for inflicting pain and death".

I fail to see why you feel that forcing a sentient being into a corpse means that you automatically label said sentient being evil, rather than the person that did it.

Grey Wolf

[The Pilgrim]

I fail to see why you feel that forcing a sentient being into a corpse means that you automatically label said sentient being evil, rather than the person that did it.

The fact that such beings, "sentient" or not, are designed for inflicting pain and suffering. It's their very "nature". And even if someone like Durkon manages to "reverse the polarity" on one of them, it's still just a brief, temporally reversion, doomed to realign back.

Of course, I would also label as "Evil" the person that did it. Which is a good argument to label Necromancy as an Evil thing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The fact that such beings, "sentient" or not, are designed for commiting Evil. It's their very "nature".

It is not, anymore than a person born to poverty is "designed" for stealing or that poverty is their "nature", despite what generations of racists have said. Also, there is nothing quote-worthy about sentient. They are free willed, and thus sentient.

Yes, vampires a dealt a very rotten hand, and most will chose to do the easy thing and prey on others. But that does not mean you can blanket assume all of them will and thus you are right to exterminate the lot of them.

Grey Wolf

[LadyEowyn]

Not sure if we’re talking about vampires or all undead, but it’s worth mentioning that GDGU has a Good-aligned undead who wants to remain undead (rather than continuing to the afterlife), and a paladin is completely okay with that. Hoping I kept that vague enough to not be particularly spoilery.

For vampires it’s more complicated, since they’re parasites whose continued existence depends on trapping another being in horrifying psychic slavery. If there was some way to communicate with the host and confirm that a vampire had established a more cooperative and consensual relationship with them, then I would assess the vampire based on its other actions.

As for why Rich wrote vampires that way: it made for a very good story where a character who had previously tended towards to passivity needed to do something despite having virtually no power to act, and it created suspense and drama by having people think the vampire was Durkon when it wasn’t.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Not sure if we’re talking about vampires or all undead, but it’s worth mentioning that GDGU has a Good-aligned undead who wants to remain undead (rather than continuing to the afterlife), and a paladin is completely okay with that. Hoping I kept that vague enough to not be particularly spoilery.

And it was an infectious Undead, my Lady?

On the subject of Vampirism, Tho's Cleric Durkon Thundershield happens to have a different opinion.
"Yor 're a freakin Vampire, Malack! Yo' re danger to e'er person in tha continent!"

[KorvinStarmast]

Appeal to tradition.

That genre feature is why they are in the game in the first place. Suggest you go back to the original game, and the trope/inspiration for how the monster was introduced. Trying to remove a vampire from its context in cultural folk lore strikes me as a step into either willful misunderstanding or dishonesty. (More likely the former in most cases)

Neither is an Undead.

Why? because they have grey skin and you don't?

Ok, at least we now have blatant dishonesty (which is not your usual mode. What's going on here?).
Beyond the 3.5 rules issue of undead being a different creature type (undead, beast, fiend, celestial, etc) there is a great deal more to an undead than "having grey skin while a goblin/human/dwarf humanoid does not."

Why did you go there with that? The grey skin and fangs are not the why of the undead default position in the world, they are simply the graphic depiction in the visual medium that is a comic.

I would be interested, though, in the argument that a zombie, for example, may be characterized as "unaligned" moreso than evil, since like a shark (alignment, hungry) the zombie's will has been dominated/removed by an outside agency and it goes around the world seeking "brains" to feed its unnatural hunger. Whomever did that to the zombie, the enslavement or binding of their will, is the one who has to answer up to the evil charge.

A free willed vampire whose mode of existence is sucking the life out of people, dominating them, etc? I have yet to see anyone make a case that argues other than evil for that. If someone can, without the kind of tu quoque you tossed in up there, I'd be interested to see it.

[Aka-chan]

Can I put this in my extended sig?

Go for it! I think this is the first time I've been sigged.

See, this is exactly what weirds me out.
Why is Symbol of Pain Evil and Symbol of Death not?!
Why is creating a walking skeleton from someone's body (they already feast and dine in Valhalla, and probably don't care) Evil, but casting Disintegrate (PROBABLY on someone else, it's a combat spell) not?

There are definitely some inconsistencies in which spells get labeled Evil and which don't. The Symbol of Pain vs Symbol of Death one makes sense to me, though. The description for Symbol of Pain says that it cause the target to feel "wracking pains that impose a -4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks." There's no hit point damage, and the penalty is caused by just sheer pain (rather than something like becoming clumsier due to a Dex poison). Symbol of Death, on the other hand, just causes the target to instantly keel over.

There are legitimate reasons to use lethal force, such as self-defense, but the only reason to use a spell that does nothing but cause intense pain is, well, to cause intense pain. So Symbol of Pain is marked as Evil for the same reason that torturing someone by non-magical means would be considered an Evil act.

According to D&D rules, and I would wager OOTS rules, it is.

I think that would be considered a Neutral perspective by D&D rules. The PHB description for Neutral says that such characters "have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." It also says that while a Neutral character may sacrifice themselves for family or friends, "he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him." A character who's not willing to take the risk that the vampire may kill him or his friends seems pretty consistent with that description of Neutrality.

Your argument seems to be that it disrupts nature, and the natural life cycle. I don't by that that makes it bad, just that it makes it dangerous and has to be used carefully.

I once played in a campaign where our characters were exploring a large, newly-discovered island. We met some adventurers from a society that lived on the island and started trading with them. Eventually, they trusted us enough to invite us to their town. When we got there, most of the party members were shocked to see zombies working in the fields and doing construction. Turns out, the society had a tradition of reanimating their dead to do manual labor--it was considered a way of continuing to contribute to society even after your soul had departed the Material Plane. Of course, the more perceptive townspeople noted how uncomfortable we all were. When we explained about typical experiences with zombies where we came from, they were horrified! An islander necromancer probably would have attacked a mainland necromancer for abusing their powers and using the undead in a socially irresponsible way.

Now, the zombies in that game didn't need to eat brains to survive; they didn't need any form of sustenance at all. That made it possible to have them around without posing an inherent danger to innocents. I honestly don't remember if that's the case for D&D RAW zombies or not; it might have been a houserule for that game. But the DM did build a pretty functional, non-Evil society that made regular use of necromancy.

[LadyEowyn]

And it was an infectious Undead, my Lady?

A vampire can choose to infect people or not to infect people, just as any person has the capacity to commit murder but can choose whether or not to do so. The fact that vampires possess the ability to make other vampires does not, by itself, justify killing them on sight.

Durkon had Malack’s actions to judge him by - he was working with Tarquin and the Linear Guild and was deliberately draining Belkar’s blood to create another vampire. Prior to that, Durkon had the misperception that Malack would never ally with the Linear Guild. As Rich has stated, it’s not the same as deciding to kill someone purely because they’re a vampire without knowing of any negative behaviour.

[Prinygod]

It is not, anymore than a person born to poverty is "designed" for stealing or that poverty is their "nature", despite what generations of racists have said. Also, there is nothing quote-worthy about sentient. They are free willed, and thus sentient.

Yes, vampires a dealt a very rotten hand, and most will chose to do the easy thing and prey on others. But that does not mean you can blanket assume all of them will and thus you are right to exterminate the lot of them.

Grey Wolf

So you think people born to poverty are evil? That they are parasites that feed on society. I also like how you have a racial component to poverty. It weird how you defame the poor to defend vampires. I guess only grey lives matter to you.

[Fyraltari]

Good to know. I was fearing you could turn it into a wall-of-quotes debate about the morality of Euthanasia. Which would derrail this thread too far away it's topic.

I know I said I was done talking to you but, I cannot let this slide unchallenged.
A second party deciding to kill a person because they are infectious as nothing to do with euthanasia and equating the two is repugnent. I take back what I said about your intellectual honesty.

Not sure if we’re talking about vampires or all undead, but it’s worth mentioning that GDGU has a Good-aligned undead who wants to remain undead (rather than continuing to the afterlife), and a paladin is completely okay with that. Hoping I kept that vague enough to not be particularly spoilery.

Nobody seemed to mind the doctor working for the Oracle and his nurse either.

For vampires it’s more complicated, since they’re parasites whose continued existence depends on trapping another being in horrifying psychic slavery. If there was some way to communicate with the host and confirm that a vampire had established a more cooperative and consensual relationship with them, then I would assess the vampire based on its other actions.

Somebody mentionned Detect Thought upthread, is there any reasonwhy that wouldn't work?

As for why Rich wrote vampires that way: it made for a very good story where a character who had previously tended towards to passivity needed to do something despite having virtually no power to act, and it created suspense and drama by having people think the vampire was Durkon when it wasn’t.

Having a personification of Durkon's repressed side for him to confront was great writing too, especially the way it is resolved. I find the whole concept fascinating, if that wasn't clear alreday.

On the subject of Vampirism, Tho's Cleric Durkon Thundershield happens to have a different opinion.
"Yor 're a freakin Vampire, Malack! Yo' re danger to e'er person in tha continent!"

And you don't think that the fact that he caught Malack drinking the blood of a complete stranger had any part in that assessment?

That genre feature is why they are in the game in the first place. Suggest you go back to the original game, and the trope/inspiration for how the monster was introduced. Trying to remove a vampire from its context in cultural folk lore strikes me as a step into either willful misunderstanding or dishonesty. (More likely the former in most cases)

Korvin, adding more appeal to tradition to your appeal to tradition is not making your case any stronger. Writers are not constrained by the decisions of other writers and they shouldn't be. The whole reasons goblins are in D&D is to serve as diminutive, dim-witted monsters for the heroes to bludgeon to death, that didn't stop the Giant from using OOTS to criticize that. Besides, if you really thought writers ought to use vampires as they were originally, you should be complaining that D&D vampires are not the ghosts of the recently departed haunting their relatives in their sleep and draining them of life that can be defeated by turning their body upside down in their graves and instead are walking blood-drinking corpses guided by a foreign intelligence that are burned by the sun. The myth of the vampires keeps evolving and has been an allegory for many things: death, disease, aristocrats, sexually active people, various counter-cultures and even the mormonic ideal broom I am told. Any interpretation is just as valid as the others and claiming vampires shouldn't be used in some particular way is preposterous.

Ok, at least we now have blatant dishonesty (which is not your usual mode. What's going on here?).

Dishonest? I'd be dishonest if anyone had presented a valid argument as for why a free-willed undead is not a person and so far the only argument I have seen is "because their spirits are made of Negative Energy" which, seeing as Negative Energy is just as real as grey skin and doesn't hamper the emotional and rational abilities of the vampire is just as arbitrary as deciding they don't count as persons based on the colour of their skin. Because it's the same basic argument with the details changed "they are different from the PC races in some minor way and the Monster Manual lists them as Always Evil^TM therefore they are not people despite the fact that they act, look and feel like people". Yes I was delibaretely drawing a parallel between the position and Belkar's statement as to underline what's inherently wrong about it.

By all means if you have better arguments, do present them.

Beyond the 3.5 rules issue of undead being a different creature type (undead, beast, fiend, celestial, etc) there is a great deal more to an undead than "having grey skin while a goblin/human/dwarf humanoid does not."

Why did you go there with that? The grey skin and fangs are not the why of the undead default position in the world, they are simply the graphic depiction in the visual medium that is a comic.

Great, very helping. I'm totally convinced now that I realize that there is more to undeath than that. You simply stating that without any precision of what the difference is did what 8 pages of people trying to convince me couldn't.
EDIT: Okay, that was rude of me and I apologize. Korvin, if you have a case to make, I'd be glad to hear it, but please do not call me dishonest for not being convinced by arguments I refute and getting flippant when people just restate the same thing over and over without bring anything new.

I would be interested, though, in the argument that a zombie, for example, may be characterized as "unaligned" moreso than evil, since like a shark (alignment, hungry) the zombie's will has been dominated/removed by an outside agency and it goes around the world seeking "brains" to feed its unnatural hunger. Whomever did that to the zombie, the enslavement or binding of their will, is the one who has to answer up to the evil charge.

I agree.

A free willed vampire whose mode of existence is sucking the life out of people, dominating them, etc? I have yet to see anyone make a case that argues other than evil for that. If someone can, without the kind of tu quoque you tossed in up there, I'd be interested to see it.

We were talking about a good vampire. One that wouldn't feed of people (Gontor* fed of Little Whiskers so we know that much is possible) or only feeds on voluntary people either through a blood donation or by paying them or simply doesn't feed at all, is there any downside to not feeding for a D&D vampire?
I don't see how dominating is relevant, yes they can dominate people, but they don't have to any more than Wizards have.
As for the host's soul, just look upthread.

I think that would be considered a Neutral perspective by D&D rules. The PHB description for Neutral says that such characters "have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." It also says that while a Neutral character may sacrifice themselves for family or friends, "he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him." A character who's not willing to take the risk that the vampire may kill him or his friends seems pretty consistent with that description of Neutrality.

Would you really call sacrificing oneself for family and friends "Neutral"? That character would be willing to kill the vampire over the possibility of it being a danger is Evil, and that they would be willing to ie for their friends is Good. That they are willing to do both is what makes them Neutral. Is that not how it works?

[Ruck]

So you think people born to poverty are evil? That they are parasites that feed on society. I also like how you have a racial component to poverty. It weird how you defame the poor to defend vampires. I guess only grey lives matter to you.

Now that is a flagrantly dishonest reading.

[LadyEowyn]

Somebody mentionned Detect Thought upthread, is there any reasonwhy that wouldn't work?

My knowledge of the mechanics of specific D&D spells is basically nonexistent, so if you say it would work I’ll take your word for it.

Aka-chan, that sounds like a very interesting and creative campaign, thanks for sharing it!

[Fyraltari]

My knowledge of the mechanics of specific D&D spells is basically nonexistent, so if you say it would work I’ll take your word for it.

Don't, I don't know any more than you do.

[Peelee]

My knowledge of the mechanics of specific D&D spells is basically nonexistent, so if you say it would work I’ll take your word for it.

Don't, I don't know any more than you do.

I can help!

Detect Thoughts
Divination [Mind-Affecting]

You detect surface thoughts. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round

Presence or absence of thoughts (from conscious creatures with Intelligence scores of 1 or higher).

2nd Round

Number of thinking minds and the Intelligence score of each. If the highest Intelligence is 26 or higher (and at least 10 points higher than your own Intelligence score), you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends. This spell does not let you determine the location of the thinking minds if you can’t see the creatures whose thoughts you are detecting.

3rd Round

Surface thoughts of any mind in the area. A targets Will save prevents you from reading its thoughts, and you must cast detect thoughts again to have another chance. Creatures of animal intelligence (Int 1 or 2) have simple, instinctual thoughts that you can pick up.

Each round, you can turn to detect thoughts in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

[Fyraltari]

I can help!

Great! Isn't there something about undead being immuned to mind-whammy or something? I legitimely don't know.

Assuming undead doesn't enter the equation, the catser would onlty have to wait three rounds to hear the host's cries for help or seething anger/despair at their condition if no modus vivendi has been reached. People can intentionally fail saves right?

[Prinygod]

Detect thoughts won't work it's mind affecting and undead are immune.

[LadyEowyn]

So the question is whether that would leyt you detect the thoughts of both the host and the vampire, or only of the vampire (since it doesn’t mention anything about what happens when there are two sets of thoughts within a single body). If it would work, it’s a good solution.

If it wouldn’t, it’s hard to know what would be the right course of action with regard to vampires whose other actions (i.e. apart from parasitism of the host) are non-evil. Kill them, and you may be killing someone who doesn’t deserve it; spare them, and you may be condemning a person to potentially centuries of psychic slavery.

[Prinygod]

Now that is a flagrantly dishonest reading.

Is it any more honest than comparing killing undead to real life racism? He both defamed poor minorities and trivialized actual cases of racism.

[Fyraltari]

So the question is whether that would leyt you detect the thoughts of both the host and the vampire, or only of the vampire (since it doesn’t mention anything about what happens when there are two sets of thoughts within a single body). If it would work, it’s a good solution.

Well it does say you can study "an area or subject" and the second round tells you how many intelligences are present, so I'd say you could read it as telling you how many intelligence are present in one subject and their respective thoughts, no?

If it wouldn’t, it’s hard to know what would be the right course of action with regard to vampires whose other actions (i.e. apart from parasitism of the host) are non-evil. Kill them, and you may be killing someone who doesn’t deserve it; spare them, and you may be condemning a person to potentially centuries of psychic slavery.

Yup, no easy answer on that one.

[hroþila]

The vampire presumably won't last for all eternity, and the living soul will proceed to its afterlife once the vampire is destroyed. In such a situation, I think the vampire takes precedence over the host. It may also depend on what happens to a vampire spirit after being destroyed.

[Ruck]

Is it any more honest than comparing killing undead to real life racism? He both defamed poor minorities and trivialized actual cases of racism.

Your reading is fully honest and he did the exact opposite-- making the point that ascribing qualities to sentient beings to justify dehumanizing them is wrong.