As I pointed out before the only way to restore the character to their former life is to destroy them in their current foul undead state and THEN resurrect them. Even if you were interested in allowing them to redeem their damned mortal soul and allowing them the opportunity to repent for their sins this is only further reason to smite them down in their current abhorant undead state.
In my opinion you played your paladin correctly and were not a jerk at all. Too bad the same cannot be said for everyone else in your group.
Our group has had some interesting roleplay involving the shadowdancer in the party: other party members include a paladin, a cleric of Sarenrae, and a ranger with undead as a favored enemy. None of them is thrilled to have a [good-aligned, "tame"] undead creature running around with them.
They'd have to do some serious begging in order to save their soul. The player chose to become UNDEAD, Pharasma is unlikely to be too kind to him.
I mean, the guy chose to become Evil, he wasn't guided, or nudged, or manipulated down the path. Effectively, it's the same as a guy walking up to you and saying, "Hey, wanna be Evil with me?"
"Yeah, sure!"
"All right, let's go kill some babies."
Then getting caught by the police and trying to play it off as not meaning to do that, and it wasn't his fault. Either way, his salvation is pretty much forfeit at this point unless the party can destroy then resurrect him. Even then, he'd come back Evil, as resurrection doesn't restore your alignment, so it's unlikely how helpful he'd be.
you missed a session where it mattered.
That being said, you weren't a jerk, but neither were they, you ALL roleplayed well.
I would ask the GM to let the paladin become "the villain" as NPC, slay the vampire, go away, cast true ressurection somewhere, and never see that party again.
Then play something else, perhaps no vampire hunting inquisitor.
|
[snark]I would be tempted to ask the GM when the rest of you were getting your CR+2 templates as well.[/snark]
To be honest, this would never happen in my group because nobody in my group would be selfish enough to pull this kind of stunt on the party paladin.
And, we have enough sense of drama to know that becoming a vampire would be a massive game-changing event which would play out over weeks and weeks.
The GM and other player have failed in the first responsibility of tabletop roleplaying: "It's like sex, everyone involved should be having fun or you are doing it wrong."
There's always option #2:
Fall.
Become an anti-paladin.
Become undead yourself.
Then, because you are now a ruthless evil monster, wipe out the party and take their stuff, cackling madly as you do do, in order to show them how playing an evil character is REALLY done!
Which, of course, is only acting in character with being an evil tyrannical monster ...
I mention this merely to illustrate the available options, not that it is something I would ever do unless the other players started giving me stick for not getting with their 'evil has no consequences' mind set.
Kind of. I do have to say, your GM is being a door-mat by letting a player play a vampire (which is entirely outside the rules as written), it is just bad game-mastering to allow one player to gain a huge amount of power instead of the normal result of being turned to a vampire - having your character taken from you and having to create a new character, who most like will have to fight and destroy their first character.
Actually, your PC does not become an NPC by default. Your PC just becomes a vampire. The down side is your PC is a slave to the vampire that turned your PC. If said vampire is later destroyed, your PC regains its freedom, and just eats the +2 CR penalty for being a monster PC, as per the monster PC rules.
While your group may require players forfeit their characters just because they got turned into a vampire, lycanthrope, or anything else, that is not part of the basic rules of the game. Insulting the OP's GM does no one any good, especially when your post is entirely opinion with no grounds in the game rules at all.
I would have had a hard time not killing the vampire right then and there, however I probably would have talked it over OoC beforehand.
Now if not playing a paladin, my character might be cool with it, and I know that my group would be cool enough to roll with vampire, even if he does get a bonus, but that is because I know how our group works, and non of us try to steal the lime light.
And just to say it again, I would have killed the vampire.
You are a paladin. The very existence of the undead, especially intelligent undead, is anathema to the gods of good. You would probably destroy the creature and leave the party.
Honestly, I am a fan of monster races, so someone playing a vampire isn't a huge deal to me. If they get a significant power boost, then I would hope everyone else would get a similar one, but I don't mind someone being a monster that usually is not played.
If I was the paladin, I would in character threaten the undead and talk to it, and if they explain they are not evil and I can see they are not (through detect evil) I would let them stay, but be constantly vigilant against them, and never sleep at night around them, until something in the game gave me a reason to trust them again (risking life and limb to save me for instance).
I know normally vampires and undead are evil, and that they should not be playable, but if someone wants to play something different, and the gm is allowing it I would just try to work with it. Also I liked that try to find a cure idea that someone else mentioned.
|
Mikaze: Pardon me, but did I ever claim that negative energy was evil? I certainly do not recall doing so. Perhaps you are the one making some assumptions here?
Also, if you are going to complain about "fallacious assertion of negative energy=evil" then perhaps you should come with some evidence to the contrary. Personally, I doubt that it exists. I challenge you to prove me wrong especially as you seem so convinced.
Where are you getting that a vampire retains it's soul? Either from in game fluff or otherwise? Original conciousness, I'll grant you (albeit "borked up"). But soul? No.
You've pretty much stated one proof already:
To bring that friend back to life, you're going to have to destroy her vampiric form first. Until then, her soul is stuck in an undead body. You can't bring her back with raising magic. You won't find her in her appropriate afterlife plane.
D&D/PF vampires aren't Buffy vampires. Most intelligent undead have repeatedly been shown in both D&D and PF material to retain their original souls. That's the hell of it for most undead: these souls are stuck and trapped in that state. This has been the regular state of things in the game, to the point that actual exceptions are called out when they happen(liches with their put-away souls, Dragon Ecology devourers with their notably missing souls).
Also, non-evil undead have long been a part of the game, no evil required.
That doesn't mean vampire girl here wouldn't fall towards evil, but that's left for that group and their setting's rules to explore. Or not, if it plays out that way.
Really the core of the issue here seems to be incompatible play styles. Or a lack of OOC concern for group integrity, going both ways honestly.
Really the core of the issue here seems to be incompatible play styles. Or a lack of OOC concern for group integrity, going both ways honestly.
No, this is pretty one sided. The vampire player took advantage of a momentary lapse of presence from the paladin to willingly and fully commit a heinous evil act, of being willingly turned into a vampire.
They did this knowing full well that it would cause party strife when the paladin's player returned, and then tried to cheese it off with some ridiculous "oh, I'll magic myself chaotic neutral...."
The answer is no, you didn't act like a Jerk. Acting like a jerk would have been to do what 90% of the true paladins are thinking you should have done - Staked her on the spot.
Really the core of the issue here seems to be incompatible play styles. Or a lack of OOC concern for group integrity, going both ways honestly.No, this is pretty one sided. The vampire player took advantage of a momentary lapse of presence from the paladin to willingly and fully commit a heinous evil act, of being willingly turned into a vampire.
They did this knowing full well that it would cause party strife when the paladin's player returned, and then tried to cheese it off with some ridiculous "oh, I'll magic myself chaotic neutral...."
The answer is no, you didn't act like a Jerk. Acting like a jerk would have been to do what 90% of the true paladins are thinking you should have done - Staked her on the spot.
Sorry, I'm disagreeing with you: staking it on the spot would NOT have been acting like a jerk, but a valid response by any character, let alone paladin.
NOT staking it immediately was bending over backwards to not be a jerk.
Undead are not soulless.
Nothing in the Undead subtype description says that they're soulless.
Nothing in the Vampire description says anything about being soulless.
In fact, the entire reason gods like Pharasma hate undead so much is because the souls are trapped, unable to pass on as they are supposed to.
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to game in their own game, but nothing in the RAW suggests that the soul goes free when undead are created. So if you're playing it that way, it's homebrewed.
To the OP:
Tell your GM you're making a Know: Religion check to see if you know anything specifically about vampires. If you pass your check then by letting your party member live you're breaking your code because you'll know that she'll have to kill to feed. If you fail your check, you can "play dumb" at least until you're forced with a confrontation of the knowledge.
D&D/PF vampires aren't Buffy vampires. Most intelligent undead have repeatedly been shown in both D&D and PF material to retain their original souls. That's the hell of it for most undead: these souls are stuck and trapped in that state. This has been the regular state of things in the game, to the point that actual exceptions are called out when they happen(liches with their put-away souls, Dragon Ecology devourers with their notably missing souls).
That's actually a factually wrong take on BtVS vampires. Yes, they are soulless ( or rather they have gotten a "demon soul" ), but they retain their original personalities. Only that their outlook on the world is altered by their new state as apex predators.
As such, BtVS vampires make an excellent analog to PF and D&D vampires... they have essentially become evil because of their change into an undead.
Grantedly, the books don't explicitly mention losing your soul, either. So both interpretations can be seen as valid, although I personally tend more to the "soul is lost" theory. That you cannot be resurrected without your original body being destroyed seems to me to be more of a function of the continued existance of said body "blocking" a living recreation of it with your soul.
Are there ANY intelligent undead that aren't automatically evil? I think there might be some ghost-types that are good-aligned, but that's about it. Vampires? The template says 'Any evil' so pretty much all vampires are evil.
And. They. Do. Not. Sparkle.
Was the rest of the party turned?