I am a person like many have seen a lot of movies/anime/cartoon. We all saw those characters who have dark powers but uses them for good causes. 

Here is my question, why do many people hate the idea of having a good vampire, lich, undead, werewolves? it seem every time i bring up the topic they just go with "no, they are innately evil" or "no there is no way they'll be good".

i mean, if a vampire does good without minding all the hate they get and some do offer to become blood donors (i know they are few and all)  however everyone says you'll eventually go evil. For liches yea sure they are too strong to be well... playable, but i just want to see a good one at least. Undead such as mummies, could have came back to life to stop something evil. and werewolves...(kinda my favorites) sure you may start off as chaotic evil but why won't anyone accept the idea of fully controlling it? i am a fan of moral dilemmas which is why i am asking.

Sorry guys if i sound like the one who likes edgy characters but i've had enough of old school classics. what do you think do you agree or disagree? and if possible do comment.

Hiya.  Long time player and Storyteller of White Wolf's World of Darkness line here.  Pleased to meet you.  As such, I feel I can address some of the issues you present and then focus on how those character types interact with the principles of DnD.   

Innately Good or Innately evil character types:  Yes, even monsters are characters, they just get played for a short time, come into conflict with the PCs and are either triumphant or are overcome.   The ones you mentioned wanting to play do have urges and needs that when fulfilled place them on a path that, in the moral objectivism system that exists in DnD makes them evil.  Vampires are not blood suckers, they are cursed LIFE drinkers, to continue to exist they have to kill sentients.   Liches, to continue their potent form of undeath they feed to souls of living to their Phylacteries, Werewolves and other Lycanthropes again this curse/disease leads the character to a place that most would deem, well evil.  That said, there is nothing in the game that precludes one of these types of characters developing a conscience and a soul as it were and start to try to do the "right and good" thing.   It is just that such a character will never be free of their darker compulsions.  A real two steps forward and three steps back scenario.   In a small one on one game in DnD, it might be fun to explore.   Moreover, if such characters really interest you other games exist where those "dark" types are the norm.

All that said, some good undead do exist.  Baelnorns are good elven Liches, Revenants can be any alignment, and Mummies could, in theory be created by Good Aligned Clerics and Deities.  What do you think?  

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

Hiya.  Long time player and Storyteller of White Wolf's World of Darkness line here.  Pleased to meet you.  As such, I feel I can address some of the issues you present and then focus on how those character types interact with the principles of DnD.   

Innately Good or Innately evil character types:  Yes, even monsters are characters, they just get played for a short time, come into conflict with the PCs and are either triumphant or are overcome.   The ones you mentioned wanting to play do have urges and needs that when fulfilled place them on a path that, in the moral objectivism system that exists in DnD makes them evil.  Vampires are not blood suckers, they are cursed LIFE drinkers, to continue to exist they have to kill sentients.   Liches, to continue their potent form of undeath they feed to souls of living to their Phylacteries, Werewolves and other Lycanthropes again this curse/disease leads the character to a place that most would deem, well evil.  That said, there is nothing in the game that precludes one of these types of characters developing a conscience and a soul as it were and start to try to do the "right and good" thing.   It is just that such a character will never be free of their darker compulsions.  A real two steps forward and three steps back scenario.   In a small one on one game in DnD, it might be fun to explore.   Moreover, if such characters really interest you other games exist where those "dark" types are the norm.

All that said, some good undead do exist.  Baelnorns are good elven Liches, Revenants can be any alignment, and Mummies could, in theory be created by Good Aligned Clerics and Deities.  What do you think?  

In my experience in playing "Evil" characters/races, you can still be a good person, it's just that the means of preforming the good deed is considered evil by society. An example for a vampire might be only drinking the life from someone who is already close to death while trying to find the cure to something (plague, their own vampirism, and such things) or sustaining themselves while they fight a greater evil. A character that is evil by the view of others, but is doing it for a greater cause. A way to play a werewolf might be as a city watch man during the night, just telling your guard friends to keep the gates closed while you are outside hunting dangerous beasts.

I play evil characters a lot (like having an assassin that LOVES killing people, or a Warlock trying to bring his patron [I chose Cthulhu cause why not] into the world.) and I've come to view alignment as what others see, rather than what your actual alignment is. That assassin I have, my party thought that she was lawful neutral because when we went in town, I would always ask if there was a 'death row' and if I could kill one of the people there and she would never kill some random civilian on the street (Even though she REALLY wanted to). My party thought that she just hated criminals because that is what I killed the most. I only told them my alignment after the adventure was over and apparently even the DM didn't know that I was an evil character. And that warlock? He was trying to bring Cthulhu down to the world, he was doing it to get rid of the "evil" dragons that destroyed his home. So while a character may appear as one thing, they may have other reasons for doing what they do and have "Good" moral values.

I was much like you when I started playing DnD in college.  Anime and some crazy comics made me want to play a crazy character and I even managed to get my DM to allow to play a werewolf.  Since then I have become one of those players that rolls my eyes when someone says that they want to play a werewolf, a vampire, or a lich.  The biggest issue is precedent.  So many of those who came before you have wanted to play one of those races in order to make the entire game about them.  They want to be the strongest, they want to be scariest, they to be the big shot and all the other PCs are meant to be set extras.   This is not always the case of course, but that's the expectation you're going up against.  

All the races you listed are all inherently more powerful than the base races, they don't mix well with standard PCs.  So it forces the DM to come up with a rule set that tries to twist and distort the race to make it so it doesn't outshine the other players.  Inevitably the player and the DM come into some sort of conflict regarding these rules because they're too loose, or too restrictive to remotely resemble the race the player is trying to play.  There's been official attempts to build a rule set for blending more powerful races in with standard PCs, but they're generally clunky and often times lead to a weaker version of the race they were trying to play.

There's a tone to the game that gets altered when a character like this gets introduced.  Often times when someone wants to play a character like this they're expecting the game to take on a darker tone that baseline DnD doesn't really support and may make other players at the table uncomfortable.  If everyone starts the game with the agreement that The Book of Vile Darkness is A-Okay, that's one thing.  Having your character lose out to their vampiric thirst and maul a little girl can be somewhat unsettling to other players who thought that they signed up to play a game of heros.  (like seriously, who wants to keep adventuring with that guy?)

It's also nice from a player's stand point to just have some good bad guys for which there is no moral quandary.  "OMG that dude just tried to bite my neck, kill it with fire!" is a great departure from "Wait did we just walk onto this guys land?  Are we the invaders here?" if your group is ever concerned about such thing.

As an aside, there are indeed dhampir in DnD.  Check out Ravenloft, I'm sure you'll find all sorts of interesting stuff in there.

Personally I work on the basis that Evil doesn't consider itself evil, it is their intent and deeds that make them so.  Most of the creatures you mention do walk a fine line between becoming evil or not, as they have to do things willingly or otherwise to survive that push them towards the darker paths (its the easy path for them) than to push against their inherent nature/curse.

The way I like to look at it, is that every villain thinks himself the hero of their own story. A "I'm evil because I enjoy wrecking things"-mentality is all well and good, but it's not necessarily the most interesting villain, nor the most memerable. I love villains that want to change the world, not because they simply want to rule but because they see it as flawed and they will find a way to heal the world at all costs. Something like the Oath of Conquest Paladin is based on that notion and it makes for excellent stories.

Alignment does not dictate what your character does or feels, but they are somewhat related. Think of it as the way for the game system/multiverse to establish some sort of categories for creatures and beings. A great example I feel is the existence of Necromancy as a school. While Undeath is considered "evil", this is mostly because it is unnatural. There's no indication of "you must be this evil to use this spell" or something like that, and even a cleric of a good deity technically cast the create undead. The same could be said of resurrection spells; this is also unnatural yet not "evil".

Considering the werewolves and vampires of the DnD multiverse, I think they are labeled as "evil" because most  of them eventually give up fighting their curse or start to relish in it. The rush of transforming into a wolf and running with the pack might be addicting, and living forever is a dream for most people, so what if you need to drain the lifeforce of some people you don't know or care about.

I think the whole "eye-rolling" aspect comes in because as ckelly717 stated; it's been done to death. So often people try to be the "special snowflake" by being "misunderstood by their people" or simply not fitting in. (a great example is found here: http://goblinscomic.com/comic/07102005 and on the next page). That said, if done well it can be an interesting character and a great storyline to follow. You could talk with your dm about starting as a 'normal' character who is then infected with lycanthropy or turned to a vampire and have the story being about how the character copes with this.

Another thing to consider with lycanthropy is there is a huge specrum of alignments with the alignment being determined by the animal for example the werebear and wereraven are both good aligned lycanthropes with each curse varient slightly effecting the hosts mentality. Though even with the evil aligned ones the character can resist the curse by trying to pass the relevant checks. (The MM and CoS for wereraven can give you the relevant alignments and attitudes of each individual curse). As for saying why specifically the werewolf is chaotic evil i would argue that the curse itself is chaotic evil but not the character. If the character resists the cure they are not being chaotic evil its when they let the curse take over them then the obvious happens and they turn into the wild kill everything animal with the repurcussions of how they deal with it when they untransform. I feel with the lycanthopes the rules actually give alot of leeway for all of this both on the moral quadry side and with general not being too op side. Though as a DM i tend to go with you cannot start as one but you can probably go on a quest to find one and you may be able to become a lycanthrope.

Vampires are a bit more murkey a subject, it isnt an easy yes the game and story can support this, there is in fact a "vampire package" for players (nothing i feel is to OP when you consider all the weaknesses you gain) being vampires the main issue is A: they need to drink blood and B: they are automatically under the control of the vampire that made them. Being LE automatically is not a bad thing (unless the player playeing the character really stuggles playing to it, though it shouldn't ruin a party dynamic) and like lycanthropyi feel deending on DM you could argue it only happens if you give into the curse and drink freely from ppl. Drinking blood can be sometimes gotten around like the weaknesses often by having some REALLY restrictive roleplay stuff like your god protects you from the worst of the curses effect but you must always abide by these strictures otherwise all the protection will be lost (a perfect example of this is the current MtG set where the vampire paladin only drank the blood of criminals but his faith led him to an item tat removes his desire to drink blood so long as he stays near it). The control aspect though again is a big downside cause depending on the npc this can make the character unplayable. For this as a DM I would say has to be gotten in play not prior to campaign start, cause I feel the player if they want to bennies needs to earn it by dealing with the bad. 

Liches on the other hand are a different kettle of fish.

Liches by their very nature are ALWAYS evil, you have to be to do the ritual to become one. I don't believe in this edition it mentions it but in older editions this featured drowning yourself in a particular way in the blood of a few 100 innocent ppl (innocent being a requirement), with bonus points for them being kids. You cannot claim to be not evil at that point if that is what is required for your immortality. Another issue with lich is their is no "lich package" for a lycanthrope you take a character alter some of the stats  based off the template given and some some actions and features. Liches don't have that so would need to be entirely homebrewed.

Also just as a reminder you can be a vampire werewolf https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/890406348717936640

Quote from ak318 >>

 Liches on the other hand are a different kettle of fish.

Liches by their very nature are ALWAYS evil, you have to be to do the ritual to become one. I don't believe in this edition it mentions it but in older editions this featured drowning yourself in a particular way in the blood of a few 100 innocent ppl (innocent being a requirement), with bonus points for them being kids. You cannot claim to be not evil at that point if that is what is required for your immortality. Another issue with lich is their is no "lich package" for a lycanthrope you take a character alter some of the stats  based off the template given and some some actions and features. Liches don't have that so would need to be entirely homebrewed.

 In DND E:3.5 there is a entry in the monster manual for what was called a “Archlich” which had the “any non-evil alignment” type it was a lich that didn’t become undead thru the use of demonic pacts or forbidden knowledge, even had a bit where it said they were the target of Orcus himself. 

The bigger issue moreso than alignment is power level.  If one character is significantly more powerful than the rest or constantly hogging the attention, it's not fun.  A lich is by definition a high level spellcaster first.  A vampire has a host of powerful abilities and a bunch of vulnerabilities that make it impractical to travel with a normal group. A lycanthrope is immune to non-magical weapons, which protects from most attacks at low levels. 

It's much more balanced to play something similar and just reflavor it . A revenant is undead and if you play a wizard or sorcerer you could say you were a lich (and the dm would have everyone treat you as if you were). A shifter (from Eberron) can be thought of as a half lycanthrope.  Take a couple levels in moon druid and you can actually turn into a bear.  You don't have to get all the benefits of the race to say that's what you are.

Quote from Unruly_Cow >>

The bigger issue moreso than alignment is power level.  If one character is significantly more powerful than the rest or constantly hogging the attention, it's not fun.  A lich is by definition a high level spellcaster first.  A vampire has a host of powerful abilities and a bunch of vulnerabilities that make it impractical to travel with a normal group. A lycanthrope is immune to non-magical weapons, which protects from most attacks at low levels. 

It's much more balanced to play something similar and just reflavor it . A revenant is undead and if you play a wizard or sorcerer you could say you were a lich (and the dm would have everyone treat you as if you were). A shifter (from Eberron) can be thought of as a half lycanthrope.  Take a couple levels in moon druid and you can actually turn into a bear.  You don't have to get all the benefits of the race to say that's what you are.

 i know a pc lich sounds very ridiculous maybe an end game goal? A good lich sounds pretty nice though there is , but a vampire might not be all that bad, so sunlight sensitivity, being able to drink blood for sustenance  and the stats if anything remain the same. Lycanthropy problem is kidna solved with bloodhunter order of the lycan.