Forums of the Megaverse®

In Palladium games, be it Nightbane or Rifts, we are kind of strongly encouraged to despise vampires and want to wipe them out, I think. I mean sure, there's that sympathetic Secondary in Pantheons, and the reformist Nocturnes in NB, but overall... the just get spit on... we aren't suspicious enough of Guardians and "doctors" like Reid...

I was rewatching the finale to the anime series "Shiki" today and it got me remembering just how messed up it must be to be a vampire... having to do certain things to survive, being alone, having to replicate out of mixed feelings of not just loneliness but to have brethren to defend you from those who would murder you for being different.

Hypothetically a community could support a solitary vampire. But most never would. They would hunt her... and this drives her to feed in whatever way she can to survive, even if it means killing people, even if she'd rather spread things out so people could live, solely because it's more manageable to hunt 1 person than 10. Even if she'd rather be the only predator, if she can't fight off 10 hunters, maybe 2 could fight off 9.

I am wondering if anyone has any favourites like Shiki is mine for generating sympathy for the classic predatorial vampire. I'm not sure if something like Vampire Princess Miyu would qualify since it deviates so much (I don't understand the metaphysics of that universe well).

I think Vampire Bund and Vampire Knight do okay jobs, but I personally don't think they express the difficulties that vampires would actually face in our human world. Things end up too organized and idealistic in those.

While there are some semi-serious comedies like Rosario to Vampire or Karin (which I've yet to see) they also share that same flaw of having vampires being so powerful and dominant that their difficulties just aren't expressed well. I think perhaps Bloodlust did a better job than the original Vampire Hunter D of showing a desperate and vulnerable vampire, but even then, it was this big clash of great powers.

I'm wondering if there's media that compares to Shiki, for those who have seen it, for inspiring empathy in vampires. Maybe Interview with a Vampire? Been a while since I saw that. Interested in media which essentially humanizes them.

I got thinking about this when people talk about whether to consider things like Galactus a monster, when they must kill to eat. Vampires may not necessarily HAVE to kill to get blood, but I think the lack of tolerance for them would generally lead them to having to a lot of the time. Does this not in part justify the existence of the Vampire Kingdoms? Or even moreso the Strigoi in Shadows of Light, who reject the willing Masters who start it and do not subserviate themselves to a single intelligence, but find a benefactor who simply tries to make the best of things?

If you want sympathy for vampires then you might want to get Vampire: the Masquerade or Vampire: the Requiem from the RPG company formerly known as White Wolf. Those games are built from the ground up to explore what "being human" means to a vampire, and they can do the sort of stuff you want without the need for you to re-stat and radically retool anything.

Meanwhile, being sympathetic to canon Palladium vampires is a mug's game. Most of them are evil. Lots of the are semi-intelligent predators running on instinct. All of them are nastier people than they were in life. They prey on the living to survive. Even the nicest vampire in the world has no way to prevent any of his offspring from turning out as diabolical mass murderers. And every single vampire that you don't kill is a stepping stone that a Vampire Intelligence will eventually use to physically manifest itself in your world. As a species, vampires in Palladium's games just aren't built to be sympathetic or morally ambiguous. They're designated antagonists, and the three different castes are just three different flavours of classic monster-movie vampire.

That sounds kinda racist bro. This applies even to the one working for the imposter Quetzalcoatl?

A person who was a Diabolic human could feasible be an Anarchist vampire.

So do a lot of us omnivores.

Nor do humans, short of imprisoning or killing them, which are options for vampires to inflict on their own.

and every single human is a stepping stone to overpopulation, doesn't make them evil or it right to kill them. Vampires don't want to die, that's no crime.

True, but this makes it all the more interesting to do so with with them. There's really no inherent unavoidable evil here, and our situational reactions to them often railroad them into taking actions we perceive as evil which they may perceive as survival.

You're playing devil's advocate on a ridiculous position and you know it. Vampires in Nightbane are a race of predatory evil monsters being used by monstrous intelligences from beyond the bounds of space as part of a plan to invade Earth and devour all living things. Period. If you want to portray them as a race of sympathetic antiheroes (or perhaps as something even more morally complex) then the solution is to change canon, not piffle around splitting hairs and self-indulgently trying to win debates.

I tend to agree with this. The vampires in Palladium products are designed to be evil and are controlled by evil supernatural alien intelligences. They are not the sparkly vampires like in teen vampires novels. I personally despise the type of vampires that we are supposed to feel sorry for. I played VtR and I enjoyed it then but when I think of a vampire I think of something that wants to feed, kill and manipulate, not try to get us to feel sorry for it.

I want vampires that are going to make me fear for my life, not bore me with its sob stories.

Palladium has devils, but they are not vampires. If anything they'd be demons, which I think is how they were classed in PRPG. I don't think they count as demons in newer versions though.

That's some strong Guardian propoganda you have going there. Why are you so racist against vampires? There is a non-evil vampire helping a pair of Kukulcan save humans from evil vampires in Pantheons. A bunch of secondaries in the Nocturnes are helping the Nightbane save humanity from the Nightlords. Clearly not all are evil as you say. Those that are, were often made that way against their will.

They are considered evil from their feeding, yet they go insane if they do not feed. Sanity is as much an aspect of survival as maintaining a body. Should I consider someone evil for wanting to live? The gods have rejected these vampires, so why should I apply their morals to these poor folk?

No change to canon is require. Vampires-as-antiheroes already exists in both settings that focus on them, Nightbane and Rifts.

I'm not totally familiar with how Palladium Fantasy treats them. It does seem that Vald Tegor manages to paint them this way even though he himself is evil, so I think a lot of people could buy into "vampires as good guys" misled by his cult. This could lead to good people becoming vampires with good intentions, and clinging to that goodness.

Is it evil for them to be drawn to immortality? Death is no requirement for vampires. Like psi-stalkers, they need only draw blood, and can allow their victims to recover. They can also barter for their food.

But if food is not offered, it is not immoral to take what you need to survive. If other species will not accomodate them, should they simply opt to die? Is suicide made their only "moral" choice? That dilemma seems unethical to me.

Yep, that's quite literally what they're designed to be, and what most of them end up being. But not all are. You could say the same of a lot of species. Kill-Hounds and Battle-Cats are designed to be murderers... should we judge all members of a race by their tendency?

Here's where the logic breaks: nobody feels sorry for the sparkly vampires. Those guys are mostly all-benefit with little drawback. Palladium vampires ARE designed for you to feel sorry for, like it or not. They are driven insane if they do not feed. Anyone driven insane against their will is a victim. Just like Hera. The ones who strive to feed in a way that doesn't kill their victims are quite heroic, the same way Psi-stalkers are.

Your prejudice is shared by many guardians and vampire hunters. And while they do all want to feed (an instinctive hunger), not all want to kill. Or at least, any instinctive urge to kill can be countered by urges to morality which tell them not to, and allow them to fight that predatory impulse.

You guys are ignoring the guys who are not evil, who turn their strength to fighting other vampires, who try to keep the humans they feed on alive, and protect them, in exchange for the service of their blood-providing.

Tor, the problem is Vampire Kingdoms Revised goes into quite a bit of metaphysical detail on them, and makes it abundantly clear that the vampire intelligence fragment actually removes the soul of the original human, and replaces it with a fragment that inherits some of the memories and skills and magic (if any) of the original. Thus the process of vamparism litterally destroys the being that was, and replaces it with a puppet that thinks it's the original, with just enough freedom of action to sometimes rebel because of it. the point is, it's still just a fragment of the Intelligence, just a rebellious one, and not a human, just inhabiting a human body.

So a human who becomes a vampire dosn't actually become anything, they die and are replaced with a fragment controlling their corpse while preventing it from decaying.

Something in a Nightbane's makeup resists this process, hence, Wampyres.

Tor you know quite well what he meant, everyone knows what a devil's advocate is.



No, they're considered evil because they're evil. They have no compassion or other positive feelings, only predatory drives combined with sentient intelligence that makes it all the more dangerous and evil as they seek out prey.



Tor, seriously, you really should just give it a rest. Arguing just to argue is not the way to go, especially on something that you simply have no foundation to base any of what you're trying to argue. Vampires like those in Palladium are monsters, they see anything that they can feed on as food and they get a sadistic joy out of killing said food at some point when feeding on them. There is no room to dispute that. What exceptions you see are just that, exceptions, flukes create by some odd circumstance they aren't an example of some kind of non-evil potential from vampires.



No Tor you can't compare vampires to Kill-Hounds or Battle-Cats, since for one the latter aren't designed to be murderers and are fully free-willed beings and can be as good as anyone else given the proper upbringing. Vampires on the other hand have no real free-will, they're magically created predators meant to hunt and feed on the living to support the alien intelligence that creates them. The worst off ones being the wild vampires that have gone purely evil predator.

Remember, vampires are NOT a race, they do not have 'racial tendencies', they're products of an evil alien intelligence that places a fragment of itself into the corpse of one of its vampire's victims (outside of its master vampires who were already evil beings who willingly embraced becoming vampires). They only exist to serve its will and its will is NOT good nor is that of its minions.



*laughs* Oh but that's such a laughable interpretation there, there's absolutely nothing about Palladium vampires that you're meant to feel sorry about them. Sorry for their VICTIMS yes, for the vampires? Oh no, no no no no no. Next you'll be trying to argue that murder wraiths are just victims and we're supposed to feel sorry for them and that Palladium even intended for us to.



No Tor, you're ignoring all those that are nothing but amoral predatory monsters and trying to make it out as if exceptions are the rule. Plus ignoring the little detail that those vampires that keep humans alive keep them alive as cattle to feed on, some are just better at treating their food than others it's NOT because they care for their food or have any lingering good within them.

I an appreciate the VtM comments for what they are, but when i played that game in particular i was a soldier in a war (Assamites vs Tremere, i sent a lot of staked sorcerers back to Almut for that curse they levied on us). I used humans as fodder when i could, used them as terrain in battles, used them as the instrument of my own vengeance and didn't care if they were destroyed in the process.

That's VtM. You're in the jihad, not weeping over your lost humanity.

In Palladium, Vampries are quite different. They're part of a larger beast, it isn't a part of them. In VtM, you have demon living in you that you must feed to stay in control of, in Palladium, you just ARE the beast. There is nothing else really. What's left of your personality is an illusion. It can become, or perhaps only feel real still, but in the end you're serving ancient Gods, working to bring their reign terror upon mortals.

Look at New West, there's a story about a group of vampires in a town, they aren't slaughtering the place because it's good feeding. Though it reminds you to make no mistake that their ultimate goal is to bring their master into play so they get to make another vampire kingdom and turn sentient beings into cattle.

So, in Vampire Lore, there is a lot of sympathy for the Devil, but Palladium's vampires don't have much humanity to them. They're almost always evil, and even the non-evil ones aren't good people.

I don't care if it's just a fragment... if you say it's not a soul... you don't need a soul to be sentient. Machine People are still people. Dream Personae are soulless but can become sentient. However puppet-like they're supposed to be, if they're free enough to rebel, that's sentience to me.

If we look at normal biological reproduction, we're all the results of 'fragments' of each parents' DNA mixed together. It's not the means from which the mind comes, but the resulting thinker who matters.

I mean heck, I'm not sure if Dopplegangers have souls, or the clones which Astral Lords make of themselves in their own domains. Copies of original souls, but not the original... but still sentients I think. Sentience isn't soul-exclusive to me. Do the Living Magics in TTGD have souls? Or Pathways? I would not deny these intelligent creatures the respect afforded to them simply because they lack this element.

Don't you all be such soul-supremacists.

The whole "Latents become Wampyres" theory is only posited as a possibility, not canon, unless VKR mentioned Nightbane, which would be cool.

Not everyone... but there's a difference between playing dumb and making a joke. Anyway, being a DA is a good thing. I bet nobody ever wants to advocate for Boogie Men or Night Princes. Somebody's gotta do it.

Untrue, Jennifer Flores (Cihuateto, CB2pg35) is not like this. She is not evil. A vampire hunter turned against her will, forced to do atrocities, she broke control and stabbed the vampire that turned her. She opts to only feed on the human hirelings who serve vampires. She rescued a dragon from a swarm of vampires. She wishes to kill the intelligence that made her, and die along with it. Her strong will allows her to fight her nature.

Her alignment is selfish, not evil. It's wrong for you to call all vampires that when not all are. Their nature drives them to be, but it does not obligate them to be.

I perceive talking down to others like this as flamebaiting and request you cease doing this. I've issued this request before. I don't appreciate people playing at psychologist and telling me why I argue. I do not do so "just to argue". That makes no sense, it's circular causality, and you are dumbing me down to seem like a simplistic and single-track person.

I have a very basic foundation: you say all vampires are evil, and there is a vampire NPC with a non-evil alignment. Case closed.

Jennifer doesn't. This isn't a rule. It's a tendency.

The non-evil potential comes from the people they were. Good people with strong wills fighting their nature is not some 'fluke'. Exceptions to a tendency mean it is wrong for you to misrepresent that tendency as a rule.


Yes, I can, I can compare whatever I want. All things are comparable.


If by latter you mean the Battle-Cats (though I think you meant both), I would like to amend that I was thinking of the "Kill Cats" (Lonestar Pg 79). Both they and Kill-Hounds (Pg 43) are designed to murder, thus why "kill" is in their names.

Hounds are "intended to be .. killers of D-Bees .. to literally rip D-bees and magic users to shreds" with "a lust to .. kill" who are "narrowly focused on their purpose (fight and kill), aggressive (be alert, hunt, kill). They're encouraged to EAT their prey. They have sections explaining their aggression, bloodlust and rages.

Cats are assigned hunting grounds to kill all non-humans. They're not as serious a problem as kill-hounds but half of them suffer some of the same mental problems.

In comparing them to Vampires, I have identified similarities between the two, which is their inclination (a designed one) towards murder.

Kill-Hounds and Kill-Cats have also gone purely evil predator, so have humans. What some members of a race do is irrelevant.

Vampires do possess free will, this is made explicitly clear in the books. It is just heavily compromised because their will can be overridden by mind control, and because they are driven insane if deprived of blood. Vampires may not be "as good as anyone else", but they CAN be good, and they are not by default, evil. I gave you a non-evil NPC, and the rules mention that secondaries can be "unprincipled good" (selfish) but higher alignments are impossible. Unprincipled is simultaneously both good and selfish, based on the 3-tier and lesser-known 2-tier division of the various alignments. Masters can only be evil, and Wilds can't be Unprincipled, but can be Anarchist.

If you want to argue that Masters/Wilds can't be good, I'll agree with you there. But Secondaries can be, by merit of the 'unprincipled good' phrase used.

They are a race. They're a racial character class. It's just a race that modifies the template of a pre-existing race, like Demigods or Psi-Stalkers. They do indeed have racial tendencies. This is simply a very non-traditional kind of race.

YUP. This isn't an issue of contention here so you don't need to reiterate that anymore, thanks.

Incorrect. Jennifer has good will, she rescues vampire victims and doesn't like to feed on innocent humans. Vampires do NOT exist only to serve the will of intelligences. That's why intelligences create them, but it doesn't always work out that way for them. Parents may create children with the intent of creating servants, children may take on properties of parents, be dominated by them, but they are not railroaded into being copies of that morality.

The rules say non-Masters can have selfish alignments, so both Wilds and Secondaries can be non-evil. Neither is obligated to be evil as you insist. The rare Secondaries who are Unprincipled are also Good in addition to being Selfish.

I suppose it is, if you literally laughed, but I'm wondering if you're one of those people who emoticons laughter when not actually laughing. Regardless, people laughing at interpretations doesn't say much. People can laugh at the truth, and not laugh at lies. Not very clear what you're trying to express here except scorn for my ideas, all the while avoiding the discussion of actual game content.

I am sincerely beginning to doubt that you have read Pantheons of the Megaverse. Jennifer Flores is clearly designed to have people feel sorry for her. Does anyone who has read this character disagree with me?

Strong argument bro.

CJ Carella, the person who wrote Juicer Uprising, certainly made Murder Wraiths a potentially empathizable character. I felt sympathy for Knight-Hunter (Ralph Miller, Pg 99) since he had such a **** childhood, being mildly retarded and 2nd best at everything. I mean heck, he was born with mental attributes of 8/6/4. Aramis Knight (KH's creator) is also designed this way.

People can be turned to Juicers against their will. Or they might become Juicers to pay a family debt, or to feed their families. Doomed to death, a mage can offer them a chance to escape that. You do have to be willing, either depraved or insane, to become a Wraith. You have to murder innocent people, and you must become evil in the process of doing that before you can be turned. That said, you can still have sympathy for evil characters. Tolmet (dragons and gods) is designed that way, she's evil, but people sympathize with her because of her background.

No, you are lying. I acknowledged their existence. Stop lying, Nightmask.

Incorrect. I am not saying "because some vampires can be unprincipled, they all are". You are engaging in straw-man argument tactics and I request you stop that. I am merely saying that vampires are not as a rule evil, because vampires can be non-evil alignments. Those are the ones we tend to sympathize with more, and NPC vampires with non-evil alignments are the kind generally designed to be sympathetic, as a fair assumption.



Jennifer Flores cares about her food. She does have lingering good within her, even though she's an Anarchist, a step below the Unprincipled ceiling available to Secondaries. Though not "good" by alignment itself, her actions are obviously good, since she is rescuing people from vampires. No vampire except a Master is obligated to be evil. Wilds can at highest be Anarchist, Secondaries can at highest be Unprincipled, and Wampyres can at highest be Scrupulous. All vampires are drawn to evil, but only for Masters (and, if you have Shadows of Light, the Strigoi) is evil mandatory.

It can be the same in Rifts. Jennifer weeps over her lost humanity.

You're simply wrong here. Being fuelled by an essence fragment doesn't mean that's all you are. You're also part of who you used to be, just as Haunting Entities are, except probably moreso. We can bicker about whether or not that's the 'technical soul' in control, but it doesn't matter to me, it's the person's mind, and mind trumps soul. If someone feels emotions, has morality, I could care less if they are without a soul.

Cogito ergo sum. Illusions are real. Man, now you're reminding me of Rosario to Vampire. I won't elaborate since it would be a bit of a spoiler though.

Tell that to Jennifer Flores, a vampire who is working with vampire killers to attempt to murder that "ancient god", working to END it's reign of terror, at the cost of her own undead life.

Those are SOME vampires. That's like saying "hey, look at Emperor Prosek, all humans must be evil". Races have variety.

That's not always the case though. Not all vampires co-operate. Some hold on to a good alignment, or a selfish one, and fight the evil they are tempted to do. This is canon.

"Humanity" doesn't matter here. The Coalition States is very much human. We are talking about morality here. The non-evil ones can indeed be good people. Wampyres can definitely be good, and Unprincipled ones are also described as good, and even an Anarchist one is doing good.

Huh? I didn't say vampires wern't sentient beings. I said they arn't the person whose bodies they inhabit after they're turned into vampires. They're someone else now. Specifically the fragment of an evil alien intelligence. I'm really not sure what point you think your getting at here.

You need to look again, she requires a magical ring in order to function and killing your enslaver doesn't make you good it just means you took advantage of the opportunity.



The fact that some people argue just to argue might not make sense to some but that doesn't negate the fact that people still do so.



Case presented without all facts, said vampire has a magic ring that lets her escape the normal restrictions of being evil that all vampires are therefor she's proof that your claim is wrong and that indeed all vampires are evil and only outside events like magical rings can allow one to behave in a less-evil manner.



No, it's a rule, she's proof of that because she requires a magical artifact not to be as evil as other vampires. The fact she requires magical artifacts to not be as evil as other vampires and can't do it on her own shows it to be a rule.



*laughs* No what's wrong is trying to use exceptions to claim that a rule doesn't exist and it's only indicative of a tendency rather than what it is: an extremely rare exception.



While you can attempt to compare anything not all things are comparable. All you get is obvious proof that you can't compare everything to everything else.



I believe you had problems with what 'kill' means in another thread, killing doesn't equal murder. While murder requires killing killing itself is not by definition murder. The two aren't interchangeable, killing is a more neutral term whereas murder is by definition an evil act.



I have no idea what books you're reading (but clearly not Palladium books) that you think vampires have free will and even more bizarrely think that they can be good and that they aren't by default evil when in fact they are. Your ONLY example of a non-evil NPC requires a magical ring to make that possible, so even your example says the opposite of what you claim, she requires assistance to be not evil therefor you've no proof that vampires can actually be even remotely good without powerful magical help to override their inherent natures.



Again vampires are not a race, they're magically animated corpses and they do not have 'racial tendencies' they have an inherently evil nature by design because their creators are all thoroughly evil vampire intelligences that are spreading some of their own essence around in these dead shells.



Apparently I do since you keep trying to argue that to not be the case.



You keep harping on that single vampire that requires magical assistance to not be as evil as vampires are built to be as if all vampires follow her pattern instead of the opposite. That's why she's an exception. It's like the jab you see in one webcomic regarding a drow elf where everyone's like 'but aren't you evil' and his response is 'oh no we're all chaotic good rebels'. You're trying to make it out that all vampires are like a lone exception just like suddenly every drow elf around seemed to be chaotic good (based on the popularity of R.A. Salvadore's Dark Elf character) when they aren't.



Tor she's a SINGLE CHARACTER, she is NOT an example of a common vampire but an EXCEPTION.



I'm no more going to feel sorry for a vampire than I would for Jeffrey Dahmer (as in absolutely NONE).



Need I point out that said murder-wraith reflects on how he's happy to finally be accepted by others as the monster he always was? There's NOTHING sympathetic about him. He was basically lazy and faulted his brother for being more dedicated and hard-working, to the point he took the lazy path to power of being a Juicer. When everyone pointed out what an idiot he was for becoming one and encouraged him to detox he instead went trying to drown his sorrows in booze until he hooked up with the murder cult that made him a murder wraith and then enjoyed himself murdering his entire hometown with sadistic glee.



I'm not lying, and do stop with continually cutting up my posts and trying to change the context of what was said so it sounds like I said something I didn't. If you can't handle dealing with the actual post in its actual context then don't say anything.



Seems like you think everything's a strawman argument when it disproves whatever point you keep trying to make. You are wrong. Vampires are as a rule evil. Exceptions are just that, exceptions. They are not examples of how vampires aren't really evil because vampires are in fact evil as a rule. They are a dead body infused with an evil alien intelligence's essence, it may retain memories of the living body's past but framed by the inherently evil nature of their design.



If all you can do is keep pointing to her instead of pointing to other examples all you're going to keep doing is proving how evil is mandatory for vampires and that they are indeed monsters and Jennifer is again just an exception who only proves how evil is the norm for vampires. Her actions, while having good results, does not make her good. She hunts vampires as much for revenge if not moreso and to get back at the vampire intelligences responsible for what she is. Intent is what determines if an action is good or evil, not the outcomes. An incompetent rapists who seems to always fail and cause life to get better for those he tried to rape isn't good even if good came of it.

True, races do indeed have variety, but pointing out such exceptions doesn't make a rule. You are saying SOME vampires, but your examples use an even smaller number or subjects. I think you're really overreaching here. It's pretty plain what vampires in palladium are, it's also plain that the authors like to throw in things like "random not evil vampire fighting against their otherworldly master" because they feel it makes a good story.

I'm saying that bringing up their lack of soul and their nature as an AI fragment is not a relevant observation to determining their value as an individual and their capacity to possess morality.

No, YOU need to look again. Her ring protects her from mind control from other vampires, and that's it. Vampires can do this on their own, this just makes it easier for them to do. Flores initially overcame her master's mind control using her own willpower (she has a high ME) prior to getting the ring.

News flash: getting mind-controlled by psionics to do evil things doesn't make you evil yourself.

I don't recall saying that particular act was good, I was just summarizing her life story.

That people do so is NOT a fact, it is your opinion which belittles and oversimplifies other's motives. Nor does your fantasy establish as fact your accusation that I do so. You are engaging in ad hominem attacks by saying things like that, which distracts from the actual discussion, so please stop it.

Making foundless accusations about what motivates others to argue is silly and pointless because we can't resolve contrasting views about it since we can't read minds. Such an accusation could just as groundfully (read: groundlessly) be levied against you, because like me, you engage in arguments. All we know is that we both argue, not why, and why is not relevant, all that is relevant is content. If you have theories about others motives, please keep them to yourself instead of making personal attacks.

No, that's not a fact at all. Either you're outright lying (in which case, I commend you on your trolling) or you are lackomg reading comprehension skills. Anyone with Pantheons on hand can confirm you are wrong by reading the text.

Pg 35
third paragraph: " as the master vampire prepared to fight the newcomer, Jennifer broke free of his control and stabbed him in the back and into the heart with a wooden stake."

fourth paragraph "the stranger.. gave her a gift, a black ring that protected her from the control of other master vampires"

You have complete MADE UP this thing about alignments. Jennifer made her savings throw vs mind control, and this ring presumably allows her to avoid mind control without having to make savings throws at all anymore (emphasized by paragraph 6: "the local vampire intelligence does not realize she is immune to mind control")

Mind control and alignment are completely different issues. The stats for vampires in both Kingdoms and Nightbane make it clear that only master vampires and Strigoi are obligated to be of evil alignments. Wilds can be anarchist, Secondaries can be unprincipled (selfish AND good) and Wampyrs can be scrupulous (good).

Did revised Vampire Kingdoms present new stats on vampires that say "evil only" under wild and secondary now? In that case, that would be a NEW breed of vampire. It could be evidence that as time passes, the Vampire Intelligences in Mexico are growing stronger and able to more thoroughly corrupt their minions. Is this what is leading your argument? Has revised changes something?

My original edition of VK and Nightbane both allow for non-evil alignments for vampires. Vampire Kingdoms went into detail discussing vampires 'being good'. Revised could have omitted this, but that doesn't erase it, it doesn't erase Jennifer.

You're mistaken. That's not what the ring does. Either read it again, or stop lying.

Are you thinking rules mean strong tendencies? They don't. Rules are laws that can only be broken by other rules.

"Vampires are evil" is not a rule. You have not provided anything to support this. I have provided examples of non-evil vampires and the stats for vampires saying they can be non-evil, and even good.

What is wrong is your lying and saying rules exist when you're inventing them in your head and not basing them on the books at all.

Someone with VKrevised, please educate me if the alignments for vampires were changed and if this is what is throwing Nightmask off? If revised changed it I can concede that NEW vampires might be evil-only, but Nightmask, if this is the case, please cite the alignment description of wild/secondary in revised to support your stance. If you can't, you won't be believed.

Even if this is the new case with Mexico vampires, we're having a discussion on the NIGHTBANE forum, and changes to vampires in Rifts do not change the alignments of vampires in Nightbane.

Incorrect. Attempting to compare 2 things IS comparing them. You can't attempt to compare something and fail at comparing them. Anyone can attempt (and automatically succeed) at comparing anything, and as such, ALL things are comparable. What does 'compare' even mean to you?

Incorrect, everything can be compared to everything. Sometimes comparisons find no similarities, other times they find no differences, but most of the time you find both.

Yeah I recall this discussion. I don't really want to get into this again here, this could be a whole other thread. Sufficed to say, one can take the stance that all killing the CS does is justified by merit of their own laws.

The definition of murder is really so loose that murder can theoretically not exist at all, since a being can declare their own laws which justify any killing.

This is a problem with the alignment system being subjective to law, and while it allows all killing to be conceivably non-murder, it also allows all killing to be conceivably murder. It's a discussion we can't exactly resolve unless Palladium gives us a clear-cut non-subjective law on what murder is. Until they do, I'll use the two interchangeably.

I base this on a vampire's ability to resist insanity, resist mind control, and have a mind and alignment independent of their creators, masters or intelligences.

What do you base the idea they lack free will on?

Vampires don't have default alignments unless you're talking about specifically statted NPCs or NPC templates like vampire clowns (who I think are miscreant). Vampires instead have alignment options, like most races and classes do. Those options range from evil to selfish, and the unprincipled alignment is (in addition to selfish) explicitly described as 'good'.

The books support me, they do not support your unfounded claim that they are 'by default evil'. Cite me a page. I cited you the page for them being called good. You want me to do it again?

What books do you have on hand Nightmask? I own 1st VK (not revised) and Nightbane. What do you have on hand to consult?

WRONG. The ring only protects her from mind control. It doesn't protect her from bloodlust or the evil temptations of vampirism. Vampires can already be a higher alignment than Jennifer is on their own.

No, she doesn't. Jennifer requires assistance to protect herself from being mind-controlled from master vampires. Something humans also need. It has nothing to do with her ability to resist her nature or resist an evil alignment. Stop stating falsehoods, please.

THE BOOKS SAY THEY CAN.

Nightbane (March 2000 third printing)
Page 181: "Those of evil alignment readily accept their new monstrous existence and are least tormented by past memories. Those of good alignment frequently loathe the mosnters that they have become." .. "Characters who are secondary vampires, but try to fight the desire for blood, can be unprincipled good (selfish), but their vampire instincts, gravnigs and needs make a higher good alignment impossible"

Vampire Kingdoms (September 1994 Fourth Printing)
Pg 16: "the character may be evil" .. "only the most sympathetic and good vampire characters are apt to be tolerated"
Pg 18: "even the tragic good alignment vampire must partake of human blood.
Pg 19: "a vampire of good or anarchist alignment has enough presence of mind to avoid attacking friends"

I have provided multiple examples where the books say that vampires CAN be good, and do NOT have to be evil. You have provided NO examples supporting your allegations that vampires can only be evil. NONE. Back your arguments or please go away.

Please quote me where I have ever tried to argue against them being products of an evil AI fragment. WHERE? I am accusing you of strawmanning me here, because I don't recall ever saying that. My saying I view vampires as a race does not contradict this fact. I have a broad view of what 'race' means, is all.

I don't think the books oppose me in this, either. I wouldn't be surprised if 'race' itself was used somewhere. Similar terms certainly have. Nightbane Pg 188 under the Wampyr mentions "Wampyres are a strange breed of vampire" and "They are considered to be abberations and a terrible danger for the entire undead species."

Similar terminology is used here for vampires like we might use for dogs, they are a species, and they come in different breeds. This is similar to terms like race/ethnicity used for people. It feels like splitting hairs here, but if it's that important to you, I'll keep an eye out to see if 'race' itself is used anywhere.

No, I keep harping on the vampire who is not evil based purely on her own scruples. Her ring has nothing to do with it. You can mind-control someone into doing evil things, but that doesn't drop their alignment because they're not choosing to do those things.

YOU keep harping this lie that her ring helps her to avoid being evil, and it doesn't. Vampires are built to be drawn to evil, but the rules explicitly say that only Masters/Strigoi are OBLIGATED to be evil. Wampyrs, Secondaries and Wilds do not have to be evil. You have no support for that, unless you have something from Revised (in RIFTS, not Nightbane) to add.

Jennifer is not an exception to a rule, because 'vampires must be evil' is NOT a rule. It is your lie. "Masters must be evil" and "Strigoi must be evil" are the only true laws relating to mandatory evilness for vampires.

No, I am not, STOP LYING. Jennifer is anarchist and I never once claimed all vampires are anarchist. I am well aware of various vampire NPCs who are Diabolic, Miscreant and Aberrent. I am sick of your straw-manning and if you continue it I may opt to ignore you. All I seem to be doing in replying to you on this (and some other topics) is addressing your constant straw-man arguments and utter lies about the rules while you overlook the proof I supply to support my stance and disprove the arguments you come up with based on your fantasies.

I never said she was an example of a common vampire.

Most vampires are evil. The common vampire is evil. My opinion is that the standard Wild is Diabolic, that the standard Secondary is Miscreant. But vampires have the option of being selfish or good, and she is an example of what some vampires are, and what any non-master and non-Strigoi can be.

I request you stop strawmanning and pretending like I am arguing "oh hey guys, most vampires are nice guys like Jennifer" because I never said that.

I'm saying they CAN be good. That they are not all obilgated to be evil. Do you disagree? Over and over you appear to be arguing that vampires MUST be evil. Are you saying something else?

Well then you wouldn't make a very good member of the Sons of Quetzalcoatl, and the Rifts version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Janelle the Kukulkan) probably won't want to be your friend.

Your view sounds akin to that of most Guardians, and it's not one I share, because vampires are things that deserve our sympathy. Even the evil ones (who, while they probably compose the majority of vampire alignments, are an option, not a mandate)

That only made me empathize with him more. I don't agree with Ralph's opinion of himself. My analysis is that Ralph was so neglected, not given a chance to contribute, that a monster was all he learned to see in himself. That doesn't mean that Ralph was inherently a monster, or that a monster was all that he could ever be. He was a distraught young man neglected by his parents because of his mental retardation.

He couldn't become a Cyber-Knight, he lacked the mental capacity to fulfill the OCC requirements. His attributes were all below the human average, some to a large degree. Ralph simply was a sub-par human devalued by his community.

That statement about "too lazy to become a warrior or mage" is an odd one. What magical OCC could Ralph have chosen. Looking at his mental attributes, at most (assuming he rolled a 4 to subtract from all 3 attributes on D4) he could have had IQ 12, ME 10, MA 8. Based on the text (lacking smarts) it's more likely that his IQ was previously 9. His MA was too low to be a Mystic, his ME was too low to be a Shifter or Techno-Wizard. Unless his IQ was 10 (in which case it's basically average, and conflicts with the implication that he's dumb) he also couldn't have been a LLW. What 'mage' OCC was he 'too lazy' to train to be, exactly?

Regardless though, it doesn't matter that Ralph was lazy. He still sacrificed his health to make something of himself, because he wanted to be a hero to his people and impress his parents. When the first thing that happens is his father calling him a fool, which is abuse heaped upon decades of previous neglect and favouritism, it's completely understandable that he snapped. I can definitely take pity on that. It doesn't mean I wouldn't jail him for it, or that I think his town deserved to die, but they were clearly partly at fault and bad parents and I take pity on kids with bad parents.

You said vampires are amoral predators, which is false. It's either a lie or a mistake. People tend to recognize mistakes when pointed out to them, you seem to be resisting that.

It's not merely a good story, it's a REALITY. Both Kevin and CJ, the creators of the two vampire-focused worlds, have had good vampires as an inherent aspect of the system.

These were not exceptions added later, they have always been there. They are not 'random', they are HEROES.

Of course it's a reality, it's in the book, but heroes are rare. Exceptions don't make a rule. Not sure how you don't get that.

Let's use a simple analogy to make the point here.

Murder is illegal. If you kill someone and get declared guilty. You go to jail.
Killing in self-defence is justified. Killing in self-defence is an exception to the law against murder. This exception does not counteract the law about murder.

Now on to Palladium vampires.

Vampires are evil. It says so right in World Book 1.
There are vampires that have broken free from their masters. These are exceptions. They are still evil creatures however that need to feed off living blood to survive no matter what their new alignment might be. These exceptions do not make a new rule. They do not overrule the ruling that vampires are evil. Just as with the analogy above, an exception does not make a new rule or law. Exceptions in games have to be made to allow for something whether it be a good story, an adventure hook or something we haven't considered yet. But these exceptions do not overrule the core statement that vampires are what? That's right. Evil.

I have no idea what you're even responding to here. You're clearly not responding to any content in my post.

I have never claimed there are new rules. You're arguing with an imaginary person's opinion here.

Let's try rewinding a bit here. Scroll up. The issue at hand here is that people made inaccurate statements.

Rallan said "Vampires in Nightbane are a race of predatory evil monsters" which isn't true because they are not entirely evil. The presence of evil beings (even if they compose the majority) does not make your race evil.

Auyl said "The vampires in Palladium products are designed to be evil" which isn't true because vampires aren't ONLY designed to be evil, they are ALSO designed to selfish or good.

Nightmask said "they're considered evil because they're evil" which is false because not all vampires are evil. Vampires are considered evil because MOST of them (I assume) are evil.

Let's say humans tended to be of good alignment (fat chance) would we be saying "they're a race of good people, designed to be good, considered good because they're good"? I would not, because that is a limiting generalization.

We should only describe the traits of a species by aspects common to them all, and evilness is not common to all vampires. There are plenty of traits besides evil common to vampires which we could rightly describe them as, such as being regenerating nocturnal shapeshifters who require blood to maintain their sanity. We can even argue they are a race more tempted to evil by their predatory nature.

But being prone to evil does not make you an evil race.

I assume you mean of Vampire Kingdoms (World Book 1 of Nightbane is Between the Shadows, let's keep in mind the forum). To what quote are you referring? Rifts WB1 references to evil vampires have never meant that all of them are. Supply your quote.

Incorrect. Vampires are generally not creatures under eternal mind control. Mind Control is a temporary thing which any vampire may overcome. Mind Control has nothing to do with alignment.

Vampires do not become evil because of mind control, they become evil (some of the time, probably most) partly due to their nature, and partly due to their circumstances.

You are not an "evil creature" if you do not have an evil alignment. Needing to feed on living creatures doesn't make you inherently evil, Palladium clarifies this by allowing non-evil alignment options.

It's just much harder to get blood and keep yourself safe by being a good guy.

Why do you and Nightmask keep talking about a 'new rule'? The only ones inventing new rules here are you guys, when you keep saying 'vampires are evil as a rule'. I am telling you the ORIGINAL rules. Not new ones.

That's not a rule, you guys made it up. Page number please.

Some vampires are good, some vampires are selfish, some vampires are evil. Stating "vampires are X" for ANY alignment is only true if you mean some, and never true if you mean all.

Please clarify through the use of an adjective (some or all) what exactly you mean by your "vampires are X" statements or go away.

I never claimed there were any new rules or laws, where are you getting this? You seem to be parroting Nightmask verbatim in this strawman silliness.

What on earth do you mean by a 'core statement'?

You're making a non-specific statement which is utterly worthless. Clarify your stance or drop it, please. You aren't committing to anything here and I suspect you're trying to rile me up by not co-operating in clarification efforts.

As I mentioned earlier, start a new thread about it if you want. You are describing murder by our own laws, which no longer exist in Rifts, so are irrelevant to the alignment system. Self-defense is a loose and vague concept, as both Kill-Hounds and Vampires can show us.

I think you're really reaching here, Tor. I understand that some vampires even "love" their submissive humans (much like we love pets) and that not all vampries are evil, but if you can't admit that the majority of them are fiendish bloodsuckers bent on diabolical plots of conquest, then you aren't reading the material. Or you're just arguing for the sake of being contrary.

Alrik I have a neutral viewpoint here. In Nightbane, the division of alignments isn't very clear.

I think vampires are more drawn to being evil alignments, due to both their nature and their circumstances.

However, on worlds like Nightbane, I do not necessarily think that the majority are evil.

The reason for that opinion, is I think a lot of the evil ones are getting killed off.

The Nocturnes recruit vampires who are willing to avoid killing innocents, and help them to find food and protection. This reduces the 'circumstances' aspect which draws vampires to be evil.

The Nocturnes also hunt down vampires who kill innocents, so however many evil ones there might have been, that number is heavily reduced in the world of Nightbane. Unlike random roving vampires, the secondaries who are recruited by the Nocturnes have Wampyres, Nightbane and Sorcerers to protect them and keep an eye on them if their hunger begins to tilt them over the precipice.

The only vampires inherently bent on diabolical plots are Masters, because they are willingly co-operating with diabolical intelligences.

I'm not clear where you get the idea that other vampires are though. Wild Vampires are far too feral to be plotting anything, and Secondaries are probably just enjoying the power, trying to stay alive, etc. Plots of conquest need not be 'diabolical' in nature. Vampires may simply want to conquer humans so that they have a ready food source and nobody hunting them during the day.

It's even possible for a good vampire to want to conquer humans because they figure that with more humans available to feed on, and more controlled ways to feed on them, humans need not die from the feeding. This is exactly what the Vampire Kingdoms are doing in Rifts. Part of that happens due to immoral vampires (who could be disciplined or eliminated) but part of it also happens because of the lack of ready access to food and the need to cover up the feeding or eliminate witnesses.

It would be possible for the Nocturnes to want to set up their own Vampire Kingdom where vampires can live in peace, and it would not be diabolical, but rather good. Vampires have a lot to offer humanity (strength, protection, psionics, immortality for the elderly nearing their deathbeds) and could trade the benefits in exchange for blood which is renewable. Wampyrs with healing psionics and secondary vampires who used to be spellcasters with healing spells could both restore the blood drained (as per VK, 15 HP restores 1 pint).

Considering all vampires are psionic and have an unusual amount of PPE, I'm surprised there hasn't been an Astral Mage (we know the Nocturnes have astral realms) pooling their mana together with a bunch of secondary vampire allies. They could instill a healing spell into that realm and then any humans who came there to feed vampires could easily be replenished as they were fed on. There might also be some other useful spells for vampires to encode in such a realm. Like the Nightlands it could be a land without sun, but also without Nightlords.

I think there is a lot of room to have sympathetic vampires in Palladium's games. However, evil is in their blood. Some might be selfish, some might be remorseful, rather than "evil" but when you think about it, evil comes in a lot of forms. It doesn't take supernatural influence to be a monster, but when you're got that pressing on you, i'd say those that aren't cruel and wicked are the nearly insignificant minority, and the only reason they are worth mentionng is literally because the authors thought characters like that would be interesting. RPG's are about telling stories, after all.

Tor, I may have a solution for you:

I found an optional ruleset specifically for the vampires in the Nightbane setting. This one allows for more flexibility, and even allows for the occasional "good" vampire, even if they are still tragic bloodthirsty monsters. (wherein I think I remember the original ruleset specifically stating that vampires cannot get higher than selfish alignments).
(I will note that, in my own personal opinion, that vampires would eventually lose that link to humanity and turn evil irregardless, but that may not be the case in your own game).
this ruleset can be found here: The Rifter #49, pg 54. (you probably can still buy this in pdf form, or even in palladium's storefront).

The optional ruleset is interesting, though I will note that we need no optional rules to have good vampires, since Unprincipled is (in addition to selfish, its primary classification) also (secondarily) a 'good' alignment.

Your opinion about how they will gravitate over time is likely shared by the majority of vampire hunters in Rifts and Nightbane, I imagine. Though too extreme in its generalization, it describes an obvious trend, they will kill to avoid the hunger and insanity that pains them.

I don't like the idea 'evil is in their blood", but they do have the essence of a diabolic being inside them. It is clearly that aspect which, to varying degrees, pulls them to evil. Blood-drinking itself is not inherently evil and it's possible for a Principled character to do it, so the alignment restrictions must be related to the level of evil essence inside the character.