Hello! 

I am running a campaign with 6 player. My rogue just became a vampire and the paladin wants to kick him out of their house and party because she hates the undead. This just happened at the end of the last session so nothing has happened yet. My question is about how to run the game if the party is not together. I don't want to force players to act against how their character would act to keep the party together. But running separate scenes seems convoluted. And I don't know up to what extent the paladin will not want the vampire to join them in their quests. 

Thanks!

Generally speaking, a character that turns into a vampire becomes an NPC under the DM's control. The "Official" answer is to have the rogue roll a new character, and if the party decides to "save" the vampire, they can then reprise the role after that new story arc. A vampire and a traditional Paladin are axiomatically opposed and shouldn't be in the same party.

The "deus ex machina" option would be to give the vampire rogue a method for turning into a "good" version of itself. Ideally, let it be the Paladin's idea from research or a good religion check. "Baelnorn" are a type of positive-energy undead that are specifically non-evil, and often lawful good. Maybe by wearing an artifact, the rogue can temporarily become the host of some good force until a more permanent solution can be found.

The other option is to incorporate traditional vampire lore, such as killing the alpha vampire automatically cures the rogue.

This seems like something you as the DM can solve with a story arc.  If the group wants to redeem the rogue, it can be a story unto itself.  I agree with Memmosyne; the rogue should be an NPC and allow that player to roll up a new character (potentially temporarily if they do in fact save the rogue).

Party conflict is fine with the right table that does not let it undermine the group goals. But the paladin is acting as would be expected, and it would be a stretch to justify an undead being in the group.

"It's what my player would do," is not always the right answer. Talk to your paladin. Make sure they know that as a player, it's part of the social contract that they make the game playable for everyone. As a character, they can make an issue of this, but they should work out a plot reason for them to get over their objections. You cannot just have a split game for the rest of the campaign. If the players want it and you can handle it, you can consider splitting for a session or two with a plan to resolve it.

I mean, the simple answer here, at least with 20/20 hindsight, is don't turn the rogue into a vampire when you know the good characters in the party will kick the rogue out. As a DM, you have control of what you do to the party.

Evil_Lynn, was the rogue afflicted by vampirism by role playing and or design (i.e. the Vampire did the Anne Ricean "'Dark Trick", drained the rogue and then let the rogue drink its own blood), or was the affliction a result of accident by combat (i.e. the party fought the vampire and the rogue got drained of all rouge traces to their complexion)?  Vampire RAW are pretty conservative (as opposed to lycanthropy for some reason).  In the latter case, vampire killed the rogue in battle, the rogue would rise as vampire spawn and be completely a puppet of the vampire (probably a big factor in the MM's rule that PCs succumbing to vampirism become NPCs).  

If the vampire fully turned the rogue, why?  I suppose its possible the party killed the vampire so per RAW the spawn is liberated to become an autonomous vamp.  If the turning was orchestrated and not an accident of combat, that was completely DM agency so I'm wondering if there was a plan how to integrate a character with basically another at minimum journeymen level class power set plus complications of vampirism.  You're asking the question so I'll presume it was the accident so we're dealing with spawn or a "free and full" vampire upon the the progenitor's death.    

So before getting into intra-party personality conflict, how do you propose the party handles the nuts and bolts of being burdened by a vampire.  Does the entire party become nocturnal operatives?  How will the party accommodate the vampire's need to feed?  Assuming the party is content to roll with the tonal and moral implication of running with a vampire, the biggest hindrance is going to be the vampire's 'tied to the grave" feature.  If the rogue was given a proper burial, who carries the coffin.  If he rose vampriically where he fell, now someone has dirt detail.  Physically carrying a sack of dirt from the grave or death site would be a burden and will also deplete over time unless you have a magic user with the willingness to use arcane resources and spells lots to be an arcane duster and dustbin.   Move earth may be useful here if someone wants to be detailed in that fashion.

As for the Palladin, what does their oath think of redemption?  Entice the paladin with the renown that would come if they stood by their comrade and saw the rogue delivered from the curse.   If it's just a "destroy all monsters" oath, maybe the redemptive quest could involve striking a greater blow to the world's monstrous forces, so it's actually worth it to stick with the vamped party member.

One of my players ran a one shot with some magic the gathering themes where eldrazi were going to invade and devour the plane and an elder Vamp came in last minute to shut it down. He asked me if he could offer the players the chance to become a vampire to form a coven in their plane so that they had an army ready in case they tried again. Technically its a "noble" cause. And the rogue did say he would only turn already dying and willing ppl. 

It sounded fun and I expected the Rogue to take it because he had made a deal with Asmodeus and this was a loophole to remove his soul without giving it to the devil. I thout it would be interesting storywise to get the Asmo's cult to be pissed and to build a vampire army which they will need by the end of the campaign. (They will just need any army of allles) 

My players are all pretty cool. Im posting this before having a full conversation with everyone to see what more experienced DMs would do so that I am prepared with options. I am both new to D&D and new to DMing. And so is most of my party. So i didn't really think about the incompatibility with the rest of the group. Now i know. 

Worst case one of the two characters can leave the party, and the player can make a new character.

OK well...

I think one lesson here is, do not use the characters of an ongoing campaign in a one-shot, either yours or another DM's. This example shows why -- something permanent could happen to the PCs that then affects the entire ongoing campaign in ways that could completely mess up that campaign. In the future, you should probably make up a totally different set of PCs to run a one-shot so the campaign doesn't get derailed like this.

Additionally, it seems to me like some potential issues were already cooking here. If the rogue made a deal with Asmodeus, was the rogue already evil? And didn't the paladin notice this? Why would a paladin who refuses to work with a vampire, have been willing to work with a guy who served Asmodeus? I'm having a hard time picturing this... but maybe the paladin didn't know about the deal, but now the rogue can't hide being a vampire.

Finally, players need to understand that in-character actions have in-character consequences. In the old MUSH days this was abbreviated "ICA=ICC". In a normal game of D&D at most tables, you cannot just RP turning into a vampire without there being a reaction from both the other characters and most or all of the NPCs around you. Unless everyone has agreed at the table to screw the logical consequences of a roleplay session and ignore the rules of the world, being evil in a good party or turning undead in the world of living people, by logical consequences should not end well.

This is probably the thing that blindsides new players and DMs the most in D&D... Something happens in game (someone fails death saves and the character dies... someone steals from a noble and their character is sentenced to hang... someone hits on a hot girl who turns out to be a succubus and gets mind controlled into doing bad things... etc.), and players are upset to learn it is permanent. "Sorry, Bill... but that last failed death save means it's time to make up a new character." 

There isn't really a good way to handle this -- "good" in the sense of there being a way that is without negatives. Because, it is something that by rights ought to have a negative outcome so there will be something bad here, even if the character doesn't die or get arrested or become mind controlled. I guess what I'm saying is, you have no good options here, only imperfect ones.

As I see it, your options are as follows:

Option 1: Allow the RP to go as it is going. Rogue is kicked out of the party. Vamp character is retired (player's choice: becomes an NPC under your control, or is just taken out of the story never to be seen again) and player of the vamp makes up a new PC. Non-evil this time, so as not to conflict with the existing PCs.

Option 2: Retcon it. Say this was a one-shot, and is not in-continuity.  It was a "vivid communal dream" they all had and now they have woken up. Since they mentally experienced things, their XP stays, but any physical items, treasure, vampirism, is negated. Erase all treasure and anything other than XP they gained from the one-shot from character sheets. No exceptions. Rogue's back into the deal with Asmodeus, who does not recognize "dream vampirism" as negating the deal.

Option 3:  Provide some immediate mechanism in the next session to un-vamp the character. Give the party a quest to do it. Make up an NPC and let the rogue player control that NPC just for this adventure, since the PC is a vamp now. At the end of the quest, assuming they're successful, the NPC returns to your control, and the character is un-vamped. Whether this brings the rogue back into the deal with Asmodeus is your call.

I would personally pick option one and ask the rogue player to roll up a new character -- but I would only do that with experienced players. Inexperienced players who are not prepared for there to be permanent consequences to their characters might just up and quit the table if you do this. With inexperienced players I would pick option 2 if it is at all possible, option 3 if there has been too much in-game play since the rogue was vamped and it is not believable that this could all be a vivid dream. I would also make clear that this is a one-time thing. Next time someone does something with permanent consequences, that's it.

In the future, be very, very careful about allowing evil and good characters into the same party. These characters ought to be completely incompatible with each other, and it takes extremely experienced and capable RPers to keep together a party that has such wildly different values. I've done it, but it is not easy, and you have to know what you are doing. And the players on the different sides are going to need to have an OOC agreement to find ways to RP things that will keep their PCs together despite their very strong moral differences. It's not something inexperienced RPers will probably be able to do. You're better off with a standard "mostly good" party and some neutrals, at least until everyone gets a few years of RPing under their belt. Yes, years. That's how long it takes to become experienced enough at RP to do this well, in many cases.

I think the easiest resolution is in line with Bio-Wizard.  I actually don't mind "campaign" characters being copied into "one shots" that don't have ramifications for the main game, and actually use the technique as a way to let some of my players develop DMing skills (they know the characters already, so it's just finding story they fit in).  Parallel universes or other "What If" style forms can be fun.  So IMHO the best thing is to explain how a character's turn to vampire may be good for a one shot, it's literally a burden (all that dirt to carry, and everyone resigning to a Vitamin D deficienty to a campaign).

_If_ you want to deal with the vampire delivered into your game (which is basically accepting a sandbagging from another DM) given some of the points BioWizard pointed out, it's probably time for the group to have a "where are we going thematically and tonally" discussion, which it sounds like you're already positioning the group to do.  I mean buddy adventures of a Devil worshipping rogue and a pious paladin could be quite the romp if you want to lean things to the cartoonish or full on plunge into the absurd (and I'm not using absurd as a perjorative, rather there is a Robin Williams level joy in the inane that can happen in TTRPG, especially if you play long into the night with a few two liters of Mountain Dew).  

If you'd like things more "real" it sounds like enough has gone on where the party has to figure out their common purpose and how different codes and ways of living can reconcile.  A rogue motivated by greed who is now in the hot water of vampirism could lead to a redemption arc and the Palladin can be guide.  Or the Paladin could see the vampire as a pawn to further its own long game against evil (Paladins do tend to be pretty confident in their abilities).  These are things that can be worked out, but require labor from the table beyond the DM.  Assigning motivations isn't something a lot of players work well with.  Probing their motivation and encouraging dynamics, that's something a DM can catalyze and players can consequently feel more invested in their game by going through these sort of "meta" (in a good way) exercises.

It's a tightrope walk though, and things could just crash.  If you after a few tries you find yourself in a train wreck in sandstorm, just whip out "Yakkety Sax" and pregame the next campaign with lessons learned.

I agree that using an existing party from a campaign as a "What If" can be fun. We used to do that when a DM couldn't make it for several sessions in a row (and gave notice) and we called it a "dreamscape" -- But NOTHING that happened in the dreamscape came with you into the waking world when the DM came back. (Conversely, if you went back to the dreamscape later, you picked up where you had left off, but you did get any levels and XP and such that you had earned while awake, since the dreamscape was subservient to the waking world.)

I think this was the problem - not using the existing characters, but then bringing them back to the campaign with whatever happened during the one-shot. That's usually a bad idea.

Why can't the rogue become a BBEG? If the rogue-vampire becomes an npc the players (all) are still invested but the conflict is no longer player vs player. They can become unified in their resolve to deal with their old friend's decision. This may also come out as the Paladin explains the feeling of betrayal to... the new guy.

Ultimately, you have an opportunity here, hopefully it works out that way.

It can be the new BBEG if the rogue's player isn't dead-set on keeping the character as a PC.

To clarify; I meant that the rogue becomes an NPC. It would be ill advised, to say the least, to allow a player to become the BBEG.

Quote from Gigaflop >>

To clarify; I meant that the rogue becomes an NPC. It would be ill advised, to say the least, to allow a player to become the BBEG.

Yes, I understand that.

And I am saying that, making the rogue an NPC now, should occur after a conversation with the player and not arbitrarily. As a matter of courtesy.

RETCON it all. One-shot with a different DM so it doesn't count. Unless of course the rogue player doesn't want the character anymore. In that case NPC the character, make it the Vampire lord BBEGs henchman, and you've got yourself some pretty good plot development.

From the way you described it doesn't actually sound like your players are incompatible -- in fact, it sounds like they work pretty well together. If that's actually the case you shouldn't have to frag your campaign and just making some minute adjustments should suffice.

So, I understand the circumstances of the situation given what has already been on the thread, but I was under the impression that MTG Vampireism was a Magical curse, not a form of undead. If that is the case, then there is no nessesarily for most of the things that are affiliated with undead Vampireism. Its ust a general hematophagy  If there is no undead and nothing inherently evil about this transformation and it is truly a curse, thats sounds like a relatively uncomplicated way to not have the party be forced apart and to have an arc for redemption in the event the party is interested. As for the party finding out that information, there are several spells that can be used to find out bits of the informstion over time (detect undead, healing spells, identify) or a meta conversation recontextualizing the events with the new information.

There is technically a vampire race that the team over at MTG published for Dnd 5e that you might want to look into, perhaps the rouge is now one of those.

Just a couple comments ...

I think most of the other posters have covered the important points.

1) Avoid completely incompatible characters in a party. This is the DMs fault not the players. Either there is an issue at character creation that will cause problems or the DM allowed the characters to become incompatible during play (e.g. a vampire and a paladin in the same party).  In the current case, I think the vampire probably has to leave the party if you continue with the events as is (Biowizard did a good job of listing your options).

2) I realize the rogue has said they will only turn willing creatures that are dying. However, they are still being turned into immortal, undead blood thirsty monsters. The creatures feed off the life force and blood of living creatures to ensure their continued existence. Turning anyone is honestly a bad idea even if they are willing. Each one created has to go on to feed on others. If the creator dies they have no control over the creations. There is no way to guarantee that innocents would not suffer and die in the process of creating a vampire army. In addition, after the army fulfills its purpose, the world is left with an army of  vampires which is probably even a bigger threat than whatever BBEG you originally had in mind.

Basically, as DM, you may want to rethink the possible future plot line unless you really want an unstoppable vampire army created to destroy the current BBEG then turn around and have the party try to eliminate the vampires. I think the players though would be smarter to look for other allies in their fight.

3) Avoid one shots in an on going campaign run by a different DM. There is no continuity, the other DM has no idea what you have planned, and unexpected consequences like the one here can completely derail whatever you had in mind for your campaign. In this case, the rogue could become an NPC creating a vampire army for the vampire lord from the other plane and the characters have to pivot towards stopping their former party member but this is the OTHER DMs plot line, not yours.

4) Looking at the Ravnica book. MtG vampires aren't exactly the same as the ones found in the other planes of existence.

"The vampires of Ravnica differ from those in the Monster Manual in important ways. They lack the traits and abilities that those other vampires boast, but also lack the weaknesses that hinder such vampires. What they have in common is an unquenchable thirst for the blood that sustains their undead existence."

Both the examples in the book only have mostly melee and weapon attacks plus a bite attack which can be used on a grappled target to do extra damage and possibly charm their target. However, they are still evil creatures since they subsist on the blood of other creatures.

So, even a MtG vampire is likely incompatible with a paladin in the same party unless there is some over-riding plot reason where the paladin would put up with an evil creature to possibly destroy a greater evil - this might work for some of the paladin oaths like vengeance or conquest but likely not devotion or some of the others.

Quote from David42 >>

There is no way to guarantee that innocents would not suffer and die in the process of creating a vampire army. In addition, after the army fulfills its purpose, the world is left with an army of  vampires which is probably even a bigger threat than whatever BBEG you originally had in mind.

Basically, as DM, you may want to rethink the possible future plot line unless you really want an unstoppable vampire army created to destroy the current BBEG then turn around and have the party try to eliminate the vampires. I think the players though would be smarter to look for other allies in their fight.

 I honestly think this is a pretty cool and novel concept as far as D&D plot lines go. The PCs work with a vampire lord (or at least dont actively interfer) to create an army that would defend against "the coming destroyers" only to have that very same army turn on them after the threat was neutralized -- revealing the vampire lord was the BBEG the entire time. This only works if 2 things happen though:

1. The PCs never get turned themselves (because then they become vampires and NPCs)

2. The paladin finds a way to rationalize working with evil undead or leaves the party forever.

Honestly not super great options but it might be a good setting for your next campaign OP.

Quote from David42 >>

Avoid one shots in an on going campaign run by a different DM. There is no continuity, the other DM has no idea what you have planned, and unexpected consequences like the one here can completely derail whatever you had in mind for your campaign. In this case, the rogue could become an NPC creating a vampire army for the vampire lord from the other plane and the characters have to pivot towards stopping their former party member but this is the OTHER DMs plot line, not yours.

 Yeup. This is a rookie DM mistake and a common one at that. It seems that across the DM forum people are complaining about players getting super powerful items, or transforming into super powerful creatures and ruining their game, etc. There's just one thing to remember OP, you're the DM. If you don't like it and your campaign doesn't support it the it doesn't happen, full stop. One of the DMs jobs is to ensure the game stays fun for everyone including you. If a player starts doing something that would make them vastly overpowered or is incompatible with the party comp stop them (either by removing their character or just not letting it happen). If they complain then that's too bad, you're the DM. If they keep complaining them just kick them. It is infinitely more difficult to replace a DM then to replace a player.

At the end of the day you can work with your players but you should never feel like you're being forced to work "for them." You're the "God" of this campaign, the moment you give that up is the moment the game gets derailed.

Thanks everyone. Lesson learned. 

I do want to say that the DM asked me ahead of time if he could offer the vampire thing in his one shot. So its not like he was sandbagging me as someone else said in this thread.