Belkar's Alignment

[Rrmcklin]

My issue is that I'm pretty sure I'm expected to think of the current book as having a villain, not being the equivalent of a disaster film about battling a hurricane.

The book has a villain either way, what with all of this ultimately being Hel's plan, and the vampires just a vehicle to get it moving.

[Fyraltari]

The book has a villain either way, what with all of this ultimately being Hel's plan, and the vampires just a vehicle to get it moving.

Pretty sure Hel's plan is just there so the Order (especially Durkon) could confront the vampires.

[woweedd]

My issue is that I'm pretty sure I'm expected to think of the current book as having a villain, not being the equivalent of a disaster film about battling a hurricane.

A being can still be dangerous without possessing true intelligence, no?

[Kish]

The book has a villain either way, what with all of this ultimately being Hel's plan, and the vampires just a vehicle to get it moving.

In light of the way the people of the previous world apparently addled Odin's brain, I am pretty sure that Hel has no choice but to remain evil as long as the Northerners associate death, destruction, and disease with evil. So, not an improvement.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except, in this scenario, they aren't folks. They're predators, who are intent on murdering humans, and will if not stopped.

There appear to be a variety of people who do not understand the vampire in Western literature, as a trope, and as a figure of evil. You appear to understand them, as did (in fiction) Van Helsing.

[Fyraltari]

There appear to be a variety of people who do not understand the vampire in Western literature, as a trope, and as a figure of evil. You appear to understand them, as did (in fiction) Van Helsing.

Appeal to tradition.

[Caerulea]

Spoiler: Start Of Darkness

Show

We know that it is entirely possible for a child of what? five-six year of age to spontaneously cast necromantic spells

Would you call evil, killing everyone who fits into that category.

But again, doing Necromancy is a choice, someone with Necromantic powers can very well abstain from using them. So yes I would call hunting and killing anyone with necromantic powers evil. Simply outlaw the use of Necromancy and punish those who practice it voluntarily. Yes a vampire who goes around making more vampires deserves to be stopped for killing people and trapping their souls, but their spawns are not responsible for their progenitor's action and should not be judged based on them.

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Things^tm​ for power?

Exactly. Vampires in El Goonish Shive being all evil is not a problem because it's stated a few times that the only way to become a vampire is by choice. They chose to become an abomination who would need to regularly kill people and would be physiologically incapable of empathy and they knew that.

Would something created from the start to be like those aberrations be evil, and would they be worthy of death

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Things^tm​ for power?

No.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

No.

Grey Wolf

Ah. That clears it up. Very concise explanation.

[Fyraltari]

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Things^tm​ for power?

In most cases it is bad: trapping somebody's soul or using their corpse without their consent is evil. It can be used for good though. Click on the link I put over "Millenial King" a few posts above for some examples.

Would something created from the start to be like those aberrations be evil, and would they be worthy of death

There would be no point in calling such creature evil. And yes they then should be destroyed since they are a clear danger to everybody around them, containing them would just kill them in a crueler way and there wouldn't be a way to redeem them. Their lives simpl;y wouldn't be worth other people's. Of course the question then becomes why the author chose to have such creatures in their world and wether one should continue reading.

[Prinygod]

Ah. That clears it up. Very concise explanation.

Only some necromatic spells create undead. Spells with the (evil) tag are the ones that are evil to cast regardless of what you do with it. These are the necromantic spell that draw from negative plane more often than not.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ah. That clears it up. Very concise explanation.

I repeat myself enough as it is.

Grey Wolf

[woweedd]

In most cases it is bad: trapping somebody's soul or using their corpse without their consent is evil. It can be used for good though. Click on the link I put over "Millenial King" a few posts above for some examples.


There would be no point in calling such creature evil. And yes they then should be destroyed since they are a clear danger to everybody around them, containing them would just kill them in a crueler way and there wouldn't be a way to redeem them. Their lives simpl;y wouldn't be worth other people's. Of course the question then becomes why the author chose to have such creatures in their world and wether one should continue reading.

For what it's worth, when i'm doing undead, I always make sure they do something EVil, so you can't accuse me of using "born Evil" as a way to avoid having a real antagonist.

[Prinygod]

So let's see where we are at. Person gets turned into a vampire. Vampire spirit absorbs souls memories and realize it's an abomination because the memories were too spicy. Instead of destroying itself like we see in the comic, it hunts down a necromancer and a clerics to have them destroy, raise and revive itself and it's host.

An unrelated adventurer later runs into the vampire, the vampire tell them it's story and detects as good. Adventurer believes the vampires story, but kills them anyways because it has grey skin and pointy fangs. Do I have the hypothetical senario correct?

[Caerulea]

I repeat myself enough as it is.

Grey Wolf

I meant about why necromancy is bad, not why The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Things^tm​ is no such thing. Fyraltari answered that though.

Edit:

Only some necromatic spells create undead. Spells with the (evil) tag are the ones that are evil to cast regardless of what you do with it. These are the necromantic spell that draw from negative plane more often than not.

This makes me more confused.
Making somebody sick or creating skeletons (contagion, animate dead) is evil, but possessing somebody's body (magic jar) is fine. Hurting people (Symbol of Pain) is evil, but murdering them (Symbol of death) is fine. Creating stronger undead, or causing people to go into a coma (Eyebite, create [greater] undead) are evil. Straight up killing someone with Finger of Death, and then permanently trapping their soul in a gem (Soul bind) are not necessarily bad. (This is ignoring the myriad of spells from other schools which exist only to kill somebody, and have no Evil tag).

[woweedd]

So let's see where we are at. Person gets turned into a vampire. Vampire spirit absorbs souls memories and realize it's an abomination because the memories were too spicy. Instead of destroying itself like we see in the comic, it hunts down a necromancer and a clerics to have them destroy, raise and revive itself and it's host.

An unrelated adventurer later runs into the vampire, the vampire tell them it's story and detects as good. Adventurer believes the vampires story, but kills them anyways because it has grey skin and pointy fangs. Do I have the hypothetical senario correct?

That would be wrong. But, in my interpretation of D&D vampires, that would also never happen.

[Aka-chan]

The issue with OOTSverse vampires is that, in the vast majority of cases, they're imprisoning someone's soul and usurping that person's control over their body without their consent. Which is really Evil for reasons that should hopefully be obvious.

As Fyraltari pointed out, we do see one example of a vampire who has negotiated a more symbiotic relationship with their host, Ponchula. Presumably, a divination spell like Detect Thoughts would be capable of determining whether this is the case. So one could make an argument that someone who has access to such a spell should use it before killing a vampire (assuming that said vampire hasn't been engaging in Evil actions). But not everyone has access to divination spells. If, say, a barbarian comes across a vampire, I don't think it would be Evil for the barbarian to err on the side of freeing a slave and swing his greataxe at the vamp.

Vampire may take Friend of Talky-Man's life, but he will never take Friend of Talky-Man's freedom!

[Caerulea]

The issue with OOTSverse vampires is that, in the vast majority of cases, they're imprisoning someone's soul and usurping that person's control over their body without their consent. Which is really Evil for reasons that should hopefully be obvious.

The thing is, it is not actually the fault of the created vampire that this is the case. They are in that situation because a god of death formed them from the negative energy plane and stuffed them in the corpse. They weren't asked permission, just found themselves there. The person more to blame is the creating vampire. It is not unreasonable for the vampire to want to live, and not commit suicide to free the host.

Vampire may take Friend of Talky-Man's life, but he will never take Friend of Talky-Man's freedom!

Can I put this in my extended sig?

[Rrmcklin]

The thing is, it is not actually the fault of the created vampire that this is the case. They are in that situation because a god of death formed them from the negative energy plane and stuffed them in the corpse. They weren't asked permission, just found themselves there. The person more to blame is the creating vampire. It is not unreasonable for the vampire to want to live, and not commit suicide to free the host.

It doesn't really matter who is to blame, the fact remains that with the way things work creating a vampire is an inherently evil act.

Going "the vampire didn't choose to be created" doesn't matter.

I could make an (obviously not 1-to-1) analogy to a certain something in real life, but that would probably be going too far.

[Caerulea]

It doesn't really matter who is to blame, the fact remains that with the way things work creating a vampire is an inherently evil act.

Going "the vampire didn't choose to be created" doesn't matter.

I could make an (obviously totally not accurate) analogy to a certain something in real life, but that would probably be going too far.

Creating a vampire is an evil act. Being the vampire that is created is not necessarily. The fact that by existing they entrap another soul is not an argument to the contrary.

[Rrmcklin]

Creating a vampire is an evil act. Being the vampire that is created is not necessarily. The fact that by existing they entrap another soul is not an argument to the contrary.

Necessarily? No. In practice? It overwhelmingly seems to be the case, probably because of those same channels that lead to its creation in the first place.

And the whole "trapping an unwilling soul" thing can't just be forgotten in factoring in the good/evil/neutral value in destroying a vampire.

[Pablo360]

Pretty sure Hel's plan is just there so the Order (especially Durkon) could confront the vampires.

Uh, no. The vampires are there to enact Hel's plan. Unless you suddenly want to talk about this from a story perspective rather than an in-universe perspective. Because you can certainly do both, but you can't switch back and forth based on what's convenient for your current point.

[Mightymosy]

I meant about why necromancy is bad, not why The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Things^tm​ is no such thing. Fyraltari answered that though.

Edit:

This makes me more confused.
Making somebody sick or creating skeletons (contagion, animate dead) is evil, but possessing somebody's body (magic jar) is fine. Hurting people (Symbol of Pain) is evil, but murdering them (Symbol of death) is fine. Creating stronger undead, or causing people to go into a coma (Eyebite, create [greater] undead) are evil. Straight up killing someone with Finger of Death, and then permanently trapping their soul in a gem (Soul bind) are not necessarily bad. (This is ignoring the myriad of spells from other schools which exist only to kill somebody, and have no Evil tag).

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?

[The Pilgrim]

The thing is, it is not actually the fault of the created vampire that this is the case. They are in that situation because a god of death formed them from the negative energy plane and stuffed them in the corpse. They weren't asked permission, just found themselves there. The person more to blame is the creating vampire. It is not unreasonable for the vampire to want to live, and not commit suicide to free the host.

A rabid dog is not guilty of it's condition, but if you see one you kill it all the same.

There appear to be a variety of people who do not understand the vampire in Western literature, as a trope, and as a figure of evil. You appear to understand them, as did (in fiction) Van Helsing.

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.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Okai,
There are a few thing, I ll like to clarify.
I m not advocating for killing of innocents being; and i agree with the general Theme, that Killing Evil beings just for being Evil is wrong.
But, like every Hard rule, it has some exception, or grey areas. And i can think of two of them.

[....]
The second exception is Necromancy.
The dnd universe is balanced. You have good wizard and you have evil wizard, you have paladins and you have blackguards, eccetera eccetera. But there is an inbalance to the rule, and it's Necromancy.
Not only does Necromancy generates vreature who are by default hostile to living beings,that does not have a definite life cicle and that cannot be insered in any natural life cycle: it also generate creatures who are way more powerful than their original template, and in certain situation, even of the starting Necromancer. Case in point human Xykon and RedCloak: they were fairly powerful, but far from invincible, and they were defeated by Lirian. But when RedCloack used the ritualnof Lichdo on the Sorcerer, it created an almost unstoppable abomination, who crushed two epic characters.
Fittingly, the only time it was defeated it was by using a sort of unconventional "good" necromancy, by an army of ghost Martyrs. Necromancy perverts not just the natural order, but also the games mechanic.
Its a disruptive power, who cannot be allowed to freely roam.
And a Vampire is not only an undead, but also a natural necromancer. A super-necromancer actually: one that can, given the right circumstances, create an Undead way more powerful than himself.

Given this rational consideration, can you call someone who advocate for the destruction of Necromancers - and, to be clear, that is not my personal position - Evil? For sure, that is not Good: but Evil?

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Things^tm​ for power?

Would something created from the start to be like those aberrations be evil, and would they be worthy of death

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.

[Fyraltari]

A rabid dog is not guilty of it's condition, but if you see one you kill it all the same.

A dog isn't a person.

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.

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.

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.

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

[RatElemental]

I don't necessarily buy the idea that it's possible to use revive undead to free someone's soul and then have the vampire come back without retrapping it, for logistical problems if nothing else.

First of all, revive undead won't work on a pile of ashes, nor will it work on the living body of the creature walking around after getting resurrected. So you'd have to somehow kill the vampire in a way that doesn't turn it into ashes (which is something we haven't seen happen) and I guess cut off a finger to resurrect while you revive the whole corpse left over?

The only issue then is, you can't resurrect someone if there's currently an undead creature walking around using its corpse, so could you revive an undead creature whose 'corpse' is currently walking around being alive even if it was just part of the corpse you still have on hand?

[The Pilgrim]

A dog isn't a person.

Neither is an Undead.

Though, to be honest, I do not know what difference makes if we give a dog the category of "person" or not. The problem is not the dog, it's the condition.

Neither the problem with an Undead is their species. Because they are not an species, they are a condition. An Undead made from the corpse of an orc or a goblin is the same problem than an undead made from the corpse of an elf, human or dwarf.

[hroþila]

I don't necessarily buy the idea that it's possible to use revive undead to free someone's soul and then have the vampire come back without retrapping it, for logistical problems if nothing else.

First of all, revive undead won't work on a pile of ashes, nor will it work on the living body of the creature walking around after getting resurrected. So you'd have to somehow kill the vampire in a way that doesn't turn it into ashes (which is something we haven't seen happen) and I guess cut off a finger to resurrect while you revive the whole corpse left over?

The only issue then is, you can't resurrect someone if there's currently an undead creature walking around using its corpse, so could you revive an undead creature whose 'corpse' is currently walking around being alive even if it was just part of the corpse you still have on hand?

That's true, Revide Undead won't work because you need a whole or at least functional body for the spirit to return to. But it was more about the theoretical implications of that spell existing - namely, that it is possible for an undead spirit to be brought back, independently from their body's original living soul. In other words, that even undead that trap souls can potentially operate without those souls. Since that possibility exists, restoring the body of a vampire might be a matter of using a different spell beforehand, or maybe just one custom spell, since we know restoring bodies is possible too and that may or may not restore whatever link to the undead spirit is necessary for Revide Undead-like magic to work.

The original idea was not about also resurrecting the living soul, although with sufficiently powerful magic it might be possible to have both versions walking around, each with their own copy of the body.

[Fyraltari]

Neither is an Undead.

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

Though, to be honest, I do not know what difference makes if we give a dog the category of "person" or not.

Wow. You may want to dwell on that.

The problem is not the dog, it's the condition.

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.

Neither the problem with an Undead is their species. Because they are not an species, they are a condition.

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

An Undead made from the corpse of an orc or a goblin is the same problem than an undead made from the corpse of an elf, human or dwarf.

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

Edited because I forgot:

Uh, no. The vampires are there to enact Hel's plan. Unless you suddenly want to talk about this from a story perspective rather than an in-universe perspective. Because you can certainly do both, but you can't switch back and forth based on what's convenient for your current point.

I don't "suddenly want to talk about this from a story perspective rather than an in-universe perspective". woweed asked what the issue was with having sapient-seeming non-sapient antagonist. The problem with that are story based. And the in-unvierse evidence points to that not being the case in OOTS anyway. So yes Kish's assesment of the vampires being this books vilains is both correct and relevant to the discussion, as is my pointing out that Hel's role in the story is to enable them.

Also I must admit I'm really curious to see how durkon plans to deal with the Exarch, especially in light of both vampires discussing theirr relationship with their hosts here.