Nekira Sudacne wrote: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.
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.
Nightmask wrote:You need to look again, she requires a magical ring in order to function
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.
Nightmask wrote:killing your enslaver doesn't make you good it just means you took advantage of the opportunity.
I don't recall saying that particular act was good, I was just summarizing her life story.
Nightmask wrote: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.
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.
Nightmask wrote:Case presented without all facts, said vampire has a magic ring that lets her escape the normal restrictions of being evil
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.
Nightmask wrote: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.
You're mistaken. That's not what the ring does. Either read it again, or stop lying.
Nightmask wrote: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.
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.
Nightmask wrote:While you can attempt to compare anything not all things are comparable.
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?
Nightmask wrote:All you get is obvious proof that you can't compare everything to everything else.
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.
Nightmask wrote: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.
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.
Nightmask wrote:I have no idea what books you're reading (but clearly not Palladium books) that you think vampires have free will
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?
Nightmask wrote:and even more bizarrely think that they can be good and that they aren't by default evil when in fact they are.
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?
Nightmask wrote:Your ONLY example of a non-evil NPC requires a magical ring to make that possible
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.
Nightmask wrote:she requires assistance to be not evil
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.
Nightmask wrote:you've no proof that vampires can actually be even remotely good without powerful magical help to override their inherent natures.
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.
Nightmask wrote:they're products of an evil alien intelligence that places a fragment of itself into the corpse of one of its vampire's victims ... you keep trying to argue that to not be the case.
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.
Nightmask wrote:You keep harping on that single vampire that requires magical assistance to not be as evil as vampires are built to be
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.
Nightmask wrote:as if all vampires follow her pattern instead of the opposite. That's why she's an exception.
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.
Nightmask wrote:You're trying to make it out that all vampires are like a lone exception
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.
Nightmask wrote:she's a SINGLE CHARACTER, she is NOT an example of a common vampire but an EXCEPTION.
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?
Nightmask wrote:I'm no more going to feel sorry for a vampire than I would for Jeffrey Dahmer (as in absolutely NONE).
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)
Nightmask wrote:said murder-wraith reflects on how he's happy to finally be accepted by others as the monster he always was?
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.
Nightmask wrote: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.
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.
Nightmask wrote:I'm not lying
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.
Nightmask wrote: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.[/quoet]I don't do that when I cut up posts, I keep meaning intact.
Nightmask wrote:If you can't handle dealing with the actual post in its actual context then don't say anything.
I'll say what I like, I'm not misrepresenting you. Strawmanning can be done without cutting up posts, just as honest representation can be done while keeping them intact.
I apologize for the 'lie' accusation, it's just that saying 'you're wrong' and 'you're incorrect' and 'you're mistaken' over and over gets a bit repetetive and unfortunately sometimes when we try to liven things up, our opinions leak out in lieu of facts. Fact is, I don't know if you're making wrong statements due to legitimately holding wrong beliefs or trolling, so I'll try to assume neither and simply talk about the veracity of the statements and not the state of your opinion.
But please read the page numbers I cited in Nightbane and VK. They disprove this stuff you keep saying about vampires.
SOME vampires are amoral. "Vampires are amoral" is only true if you are saying "there are a pair of diabolic vampries out there". By that basis, since there are reasonable more than a couple unprincipled vampires out there, I could also say "vampires are good".
I request we affix some adjectives here to make our meaning clear. We should use quantity-specifying adjectives like none/some/most/all. Can we agree on the usefulness of that to avoid confusion in the interpretation of statements?
If by 'vampires are evil' you mean 'some are evil' or even 'most are evil' then we have nothing to argue about. If you mean 'all' then we do have something to argue about. Adjectives will clarify meaning and whether or not we're actually disagreeing about something, or misreading each other.
Nightmask wrote:Seems like you think everything's a strawman argument when it disproves whatever point you keep trying to make.
No, something is a strawman argument when it addresses an argument I never made. The phrase is based on the idea that rather than attack a real opponent, you make up a fake opponent and attack that.
I congratulate you on your victory in disproving an argument I never made, but it doesn't weigh in on our discussion.
You accused me of saying "exceptions are the rule". I have never said this. I am saying Jennifer is not an exception to any rule. She is an exception to a tendency. I have never presented Jennifer as being "the rule" (in terms of saying 'most vampires are good', indeed Jennifer herself is not good, she is anarchist, but other unprincipled vampires ARE good). Your accusation that I present exceptions as rules is arguing a straw man.
Nightmask wrote:You are wrong. Vampires are as a rule evil. Exceptions are just that, exceptions.
Vampires have NEVER been evil as a rule. Provide a page number to support this claim. Vampires have always had the option of being selfish and good, if they are wild or secondary.
Master Vampires are, as a rule, evil. Strigoi are, as a rule, evil. But vampires are NOT, as a rule, evil. "As a rule" means "they can only be evil". That is not the case for wild or secondary, and it never has been. Unless, again, you can supply a page number (revised VK?) supporting that. I don't have the book so if this has changed, I can accept that.
Nightmask wrote:They are not examples of how vampires aren't really evil because vampires are in fact evil as a rule.
If they were 'evil as a rule' then they could not have selfish or good alignments. Yet they can. Which means no, they are not evil as a rule, and your claim is false.
Nightmask wrote: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.
Their designer is evil, but they are not obligated to be. Only those who willingly give themselves to an intelligence (or to The Dark) MUST be evil. People can be turned to Wild, Secondary or Wampyr against their will.
Vampires turned against their will are NEVER obligated to be evil. This has NEVER been the case. Actually read the books bro.
Nightmask wrote: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
Incorrect. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if I can't find anything else but Diabolic vamprie NPCs, that would NOT prove evil is mandatory.
Evil has never been mandatory for unwilling vampires. There aren't a lot of non-evil vampires out there because vampires are drawn to evil by their pathetic nature. That doesn't mean they don't exist, because the rules allow for good vampires, and mention them repeatedly. Organizes like the Nocturnes in Nightbane are clearly designed to include good vampires, both Wampyr and Secondary.
Nightmask wrote:Jennifer is again just an exception who only proves how evil is the norm for vampires.
Jennifer is not an exception, because something has to be a rule to be an exception. Jennifer is an example of the capacity (presented from the start) of vampires to be non-evil. Stop the falsehoods.
The fact that you think a member of a race having a selfish alignment "proves" that "evil is the norm" is absurd.
We know evil is the norm for vampires already. I have never disputed you on that, and I have accepted it from the start. I am talking about RULES here, not NORMS. You are moving the goalposts. By insisting "vampires are normally evil" you are arguing a strawman, because that implies I am insisting "vampires are not normally evil" which I have never done.
What I did was empathize with why (like Ralph) they are drawn to evil at higher rates than most species are.
Nightmask wrote:Her actions, while having good results, does not make her good.
Agreed. I see her on the side of good, but as an anarchist, she is indeed not good.
Of course, if she moves up to Unprincipled (which she can do even if she loses her ring, since it doesn't matter) she would then be good. Perhaps that could happen if she spends more time with Janelle and their relationship blossoms into a magical thing.
Alrik Vas wrote:races do indeed have variety, but pointing out such exceptions doesn't make a rule.
Good vampires are exceptions to a tendency.
Exceptions to tendencies DO make rules. "Vampires can be good" is a rule. "Vampires can be selfish" is a rule. "Vampires do not need to be evil" is a rule. This is explicit.
Is there anything besides this you are are saying I am claiming to be a rule? You are saying "doesn't make a rule". What "rule" are you accusing me of promoting here? Specify, please. I want to know if you're strawmanning or not.
Alrik Vas wrote:You are saying SOME vampires, but your examples use an even smaller number or subjects. I think you're really overreaching here.
I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to communicate here. "Use an even smaller number of subjects" compared to what?
Alrik Vas wrote:It's pretty plain what vampires in palladium are
Oh? What's that? Individuals?
Alrik Vas wrote: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.
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.