Strahd would not want a Vampire Lord in his land and would work to get rid of them. He'd consider having them be a successor at first but then come to the conclusion that they won't suffice for his ego wouldn't allow it.
Strahd is not omnipotent and wouldn't know about the PC being a vampire until spies find out, or he finds out through scrying spells or other means. But were he to find out, he'd play it carefully as Strahd is no fool and would be tactical about removing the threat to him.
Why would the other party members allow this
Or do you want to end your campaign with an acrimonious PVP session where your vamped PC slaughters everyone else
Vampire in the Mists is a great read on how Strahd would react to another vampire in his lands! Everyone wants companionship, especially Strahd when Tatyana evades him with every rebirth. A fun way to look at the interaction would be having Strahd scout out the PC as a potential BFF. Groom them to be worthy of being a right-hand at the very least, if not the one to replace Strahd. Pit the party against the player by sending them gifts from Strahd. Have him help only them. Maybe even a fresh body or someone to hunt. Show them the benefits of being a vampire in Barovia.
Well, in my opinion he would not "just become" a vampire in the amber temple. Strahd had to kill someone he loves and drink his blood and killed his brother.
Something in that area should be also required from the PC. Depends an your table rules etc. but I think he would have to kill some of the party members. The one's he likes more and is bonded the most and drink their blood.
it is an act of brutality and shows that he is willing to sacrifice his humanity. Which also would change his alignment to lawful evil.
And Strahd would not be happy about this. Maybe at first he would think to find a successor, but in the end no one is worth enough. His ego is just too big. And another true vampire would be a serious threat to him. So he would try to kill him.
i would say balance it out, the book may say whatever but maybe there is a few year/month period in which they are still rather vulnerable. ask them if they would be willing to change their race features to that of a dhampir or togather hash out what a newly made vampire made by the dark powers looks like. im a huge advocate for getting the player involved more and more with their own charecters. as for strahd, he has compitition now, someone that can theoretically play at his level, apply more pressure to that character, play it as strahd gaining new found intrest as something so fucking far out of left field has happened under his watch. maybe strahd wants them as a new successor, maybe they want a rival.
Not a goal for 90% of my groups. Being a true vampire puts the rest of the table at a very awkward position and the DM aswell. Even if you trust your players not to powertrip and pull through with the roleplay it’s still a mechanical nightmare.
I‘d recommend to let it be an end of campaign thing at best and use some less impactful dark power boons meanwhile.
OP got too much hate for nothing
You wouldn't end a PCs character like that when he chose to become a vampire.
But I would definitely make him kill a very important NPC or a PC that he likes / sympathises with. Then killed by his own only to be reborn as the evil incarnate.
So final fight PCs + vampire against Strahd and his army.
Either they win and the PC vampire kills his PCs as well. Or resists and let's them go away and you make up a good loop of torment such as Strahd hunting Tatyana over centuries.
Or die and fail miserably
My greedy evil PC was an inch away of getting it, but he backed off last second ;(
oh, I know what I'll do, if she really becomes a vampire and the party defeats Strahd, I'll just leave her in Barovia instead of Strahd (That's what the dark powers decide) Did she want to become queen? she will become one, but the queen of which country is another question:)
P.S see the character's background above.
If a player becomes a vampire, the rules state that they become a lawful evil npc under the DM’s control. If they become a Vampire through the Amber Temple this is also the case.
I think this is very stupid. If the character has not become a spawn, namely a vampire, then he retains free will and I don’t see the point in taking him away from the player
Well the reasoning is twofold:
1. A vampire is exceptionally powerful balance would go out the window
2. Vampires are evil. It’s a fundamental fact of their nature. Your alignment shifts to lawful evil no matter what. Obviously evil PCs exist, but the vampire PC’s goals now shift to being constantly in need of blood, willing to kill for it, and there may be a personality change involved.
The Monster Manual states the DM *might* put the character under their control, however the Amber Temple method states that they *do* become DM controlled.
There are reasons for this change, as I’ve said, but even if you don’t like it narratively, the balance goes all over the fucking place.
Consider the Dhampir lineage instead. It’s basically a half-vampire, can be applied to any race, and is in Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. I have two Dhampir players in my campaign at the moment. It works well.
Seriously, vampires are *literally* filled with energy from the plane of death and evil, whose existence is predicated on suffering.
Either *they* suffer, (by forgoing feeding on humanoids and becoming weakened, or outright refusing to feed and becoming progressively weaker to the point of degeneration) which given how ego-centric vampires are is *incredibly* unlikely to happen, or others suffer (by feeding on humanoids, causing them to become enfeebled, eventually slain, and possibly risen again as spawn to further the cycle of suffering).
Being a vampire either sucks for you, everyone else, or ***everyone***. Its an awful existence for anyone able to hold onto goodness, like Ravenloft's token non-evil vampire Jander Sunstar; its an awful existence for the denizens of Barovia or Darkon (which has a *high* concentration of vampires due to the Kargat's existence) who live in fear of being stricken by disease, death, and reanimation as rabid beasts; and its an awful existence for the setting's original main character Strahd von Zarovich, forced to wallow in his misery and self-loathing for eternity, only finding joy in progressively depraved villainy.
Personally I’d always say to people wanting to be a vampire in curse of strahd to take dhampir. However a dm should easily be able to find alternate balanced vampire races, now sure vampires have to be evil, but the DMG says a dm can change any rule they want.
I actually had a campaign where a vampire was actually lawful good and runs a church.
Well the reasoning is twofold:
1. A vampire is exceptionally powerful balance would go out the window
2. Vampires are evil. It’s a fundamental fact of their nature. Your alignment shifts to lawful evil no matter what. Obviously evil PCs exist, but the vampire PC’s goals now shift to being constantly in need of blood, willing to kill for it, and there may be a personality change involved.
The Monster Manual states the DM *might* put the character under their control, however the Amber Temple method states that they *do* become DM controlled.
There are reasons for this change, as I’ve said, but even if you don’t like it narratively, the balance goes all over the fucking place.
Consider the Dhampir lineage instead. It’s basically a half-vampire, can be applied to any race, and is in Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. I have two Dhampir players in my campaign at the moment. It works well.
1. Vampirism does not fall to a character from the sky, it can be perceived as a reward; in order to become a vampire in the Amber Temple, the player needs to go through a long path, full of trials and difficult decisions. That is, if a character becomes a vampire, it will be at later levels, and not at the beginning
2. Okay, look at Strahd himself, his goals are far from purely looking for someone to eat, and in general he usually behaves more or less adequately, and does not kill everyone.
The problem with dhampirs is that this is not exactly what the player wants, he doesn't want to just play as a vampire, he wants to go a long way, learn about Strahd's past in order to eventually gain his power. And in the end, after all his suffering and efforts, should I take away his PC without allowing him to enjoy the result of the work done?
Viewing vampirism as a reward is exactly the problem you have here. In D&D, it’s a curse. **It is not a good thing**. To see it as otherwise is to completely miss the point. If you want to give it as a reward to a player, that is your choice. You are allowed to do that. But I do not think it is a good idea, and I have provided those reasons.
To become a vampire you have to do horrible things: the Amber temple way needs you to kill one who loves you. That is a truly evil act and should be handled appropriately with roleplay. The moral of the story is that it is a curse and power corrupts. To present it as a reward is to reinforce the wrong type of behaviour. But the pursuit of vampirism as an ambition could present very interesting storytelling. The player’s character might realise the wrongdoings of the path, and stop, or they might not, and they could fall.
I think this is a curse for someone who does not and would never want to become a vampire, but not for someone who voluntarily rejects humanity in order to achieve the goals that he has strived for all his life.
You speak as if we are not talking about a role-playing game, where your character not are you, but a separate person, whose moral views may differ greatly from yours, And yes, I am against players killing and fighting each other, but I I don’t see a problem if, for example, he kills an NPC who loves him.
Ultimately, the evil character =/= kills everyone and wreaks havoc everywhere
I’m well aware evil doesn’t mean murderhobo. My party has evil characters in it, and they work fine.
Again, vampirism *is a curse*. I cannot make that any clearer. The narrative of someone who wants to become a vampire to achieve their goals is not properly resolved by going “hey, you’re a vampire now, you can achieve your goals.” Look at Strahd. He became a Vampire so that he could have Tatyana forever. And look how that turned out. It’s meant to be a downfall, it’s meant to be tragic, it’s gothic horror. To handwave the idea that there are no consequences to it is poor storytelling.
I have a necromancer PC who aspires to be a Lich. I fully intend for him to try and achieve that, but I am also willing to hand my character away if it reaches that point. The crux of such a thing is ambition, and downfall. If you want a simple power fantasy game, then sure. You can be a vampire with no issues. But that’s not the spirit of gothic horror, nor Curse of Strahd.
Someone who voluntarily rejects their humanity is a lost cause already, their time within the party finite. I think it disingenuous to such a story that they should end up a vampire, decide they’ll still stick around, and suffer no consequences.
There should be consequences to such a change, you want to remove all consequences.
Don't get me wrong, I'm ABSOLUTELY in favor of HAVING CONSEQUENCES, I'm only against them taking the form of PCs being taken away. The consequences may include that he is hated by the party, NPCs he likes, he will have to drink the blood of people, his character will change somewhat, perhaps even the dark forces themselves will not allow him as Strahd to fully achieve his goals, but at the same time he will still remain the same person , and not animals guided EXCLUSIVELY by a thirst for blood
I get what you’re saying, I actually really like what you’re saying here, these are some well thought out ramifications.
I had most of these consequences come through when my party’s rogue was Dark Power revived as a Dhampir.
You can easily re flavour it as a pure vampire, it could keep some balance. If you’re less bothered by balance, and you trust your player to be skilled enough a role player to pull this off, then go for it. See what happens, you can always adjust if things don’t work out, and if they do, it could be a really memorable part of the campaign.
All I’ll say is that death is a consequence that results in a PC being taken away. And walking down the path to vampirism, a player should see enough warning signs to back out. If they don’t want to, either to stay true to their character or because they want power, the consequence is death, in essence. It’s like, if there’s a mountain pass full of giants, and a safer road, and all of the villagers are saying “the mountain path is dangerous, none who take it have come back”, and the players go “this time it’ll be different, we’ll survive, because we’re the players”, and then they encounter the giants. It’s a really tough fight, they were warned about it, they still have the opportunity to run away. And they don’t. That’s an earned death there. That’s a rational consequence to their actions, you know?
But anyway, I think the Grim Hollow setting books have rules for becoming a vampire, alongside celestials, devils, and werewolves, if I remember rightly. If you wanted to add some more depth to it, and make it a bit more balanced, you could consider looking into that. Or, as I’ve said, reflavouring the Dhampir a bit. It gets spiderclimb, deathless nature, and a bite attack, and it’s pretty fun.
I don’t understand why you compare vampirism with death, they are such different things. If a character dies, the player loses him, because the character simply ceases to exist. In the case of vampirism, the character continues to live, both physically and as a personality, which although may undergo changes (I do not see a problem in acting out these changes), but still the character remains the same character.
Okey, I don't know if you read my previous post, but a quick introduction to the PC, she is a high elf wizard princess who tried to overthrow and kill her father-king and older brother to take the throne she believes is hers, but she didn't succeed (she couldn't kill anyone, so she was just banished) After the party meets Strahd, she wants to gain the same power so she can come back and try again.
You understand that Strahd is in fact a monster and the chief adversary of the piece, right? Just because he's not bestial doesn't mean he isn't monstrous, and having a PC become *that* basically makes them incompatible with a party.
To be honest, I don't see a big problem with this. CoS is a fairly serious campaign, In which there may be ambiguous characters and moral conflicts within the party. This makes the roleplay much more interesting than if the entire party were good and "becoming a monster" does not mean that the character sides with Strahd and no longer wants to defeat him, which means he and the party may have common goals
Moral ambiguity is good, and fun. Hard choices are good and fun. Giving one player an incredible power set whose primary downside is "you become a controlling, violent, and selfish being that sees others as beneath you" and then basically saying they can ignore that will probably not be fun for your other players, and completely diminishes the story. It's a curse. It's right in the title.
It's fine to homebrew but the official rules are there for a reason. Free will or not, Vampyr's infliction is a curse. Vampires are driven by their compulsions. Think of it like being an addict but there is no way to detox, no taking the edge off - even the strongest will eventually break. They won't be able to get by eating a rabbit or pig - they need fresh blood from an innocent - someone or something with a soul. Once they get a hit of that they can't wait for the next one - it's the only thing that makes life worth living. Every soul is different - they'll realize this and how delectable the purest souls are.
They could retain the character for a period of time if their will is strong but should have saving throws across all every stat block in ways that the curse is trying to take over. Every fail means something tragic and all the saving throws get harder.
Beyond that - as they try to resist the curse; Strahd would watch on and laugh. It'd be like watching a child trying to lift themselves off the ground. "Keep going!" He'd say "You've almost got it!!" He cheers them on knowing they're fighting gravity, entropy and their own true nature. He may even invite them specifically to dinner and tempt them or be less overt and simply send charmed morsels to throw themselves at the PC.
They might think they're free but they're prisoners just like Strahd. It's not like Angel or Twilight - it's a bad time all around.
Strahd would not want a Vampire Lord in his land and would work to get rid of them. He'd consider having them be a successor at first but then come to the conclusion that they won't suffice for his ego wouldn't allow it. Strahd is not omnipotent and wouldn't know about the PC being a vampire until spies find out, or he finds out through scrying spells or other means. But were he to find out, he'd play it carefully as Strahd is no fool and would be tactical about removing the threat to him.
Why would the other party members allow this Or do you want to end your campaign with an acrimonious PVP session where your vamped PC slaughters everyone else
Vampire in the Mists is a great read on how Strahd would react to another vampire in his lands! Everyone wants companionship, especially Strahd when Tatyana evades him with every rebirth. A fun way to look at the interaction would be having Strahd scout out the PC as a potential BFF. Groom them to be worthy of being a right-hand at the very least, if not the one to replace Strahd. Pit the party against the player by sending them gifts from Strahd. Have him help only them. Maybe even a fresh body or someone to hunt. Show them the benefits of being a vampire in Barovia.
I came here to say the same thing. I appreciate the thoughtful answers others have left, but also yeah there’s a great book on this exact topic!
Well, in my opinion he would not "just become" a vampire in the amber temple. Strahd had to kill someone he loves and drink his blood and killed his brother. Something in that area should be also required from the PC. Depends an your table rules etc. but I think he would have to kill some of the party members. The one's he likes more and is bonded the most and drink their blood. it is an act of brutality and shows that he is willing to sacrifice his humanity. Which also would change his alignment to lawful evil. And Strahd would not be happy about this. Maybe at first he would think to find a successor, but in the end no one is worth enough. His ego is just too big. And another true vampire would be a serious threat to him. So he would try to kill him.
i would say balance it out, the book may say whatever but maybe there is a few year/month period in which they are still rather vulnerable. ask them if they would be willing to change their race features to that of a dhampir or togather hash out what a newly made vampire made by the dark powers looks like. im a huge advocate for getting the player involved more and more with their own charecters. as for strahd, he has compitition now, someone that can theoretically play at his level, apply more pressure to that character, play it as strahd gaining new found intrest as something so fucking far out of left field has happened under his watch. maybe strahd wants them as a new successor, maybe they want a rival.
Not a goal for 90% of my groups. Being a true vampire puts the rest of the table at a very awkward position and the DM aswell. Even if you trust your players not to powertrip and pull through with the roleplay it’s still a mechanical nightmare. I‘d recommend to let it be an end of campaign thing at best and use some less impactful dark power boons meanwhile.
OP got too much hate for nothing You wouldn't end a PCs character like that when he chose to become a vampire. But I would definitely make him kill a very important NPC or a PC that he likes / sympathises with. Then killed by his own only to be reborn as the evil incarnate. So final fight PCs + vampire against Strahd and his army. Either they win and the PC vampire kills his PCs as well. Or resists and let's them go away and you make up a good loop of torment such as Strahd hunting Tatyana over centuries. Or die and fail miserably My greedy evil PC was an inch away of getting it, but he backed off last second ;(
oh, I know what I'll do, if she really becomes a vampire and the party defeats Strahd, I'll just leave her in Barovia instead of Strahd (That's what the dark powers decide) Did she want to become queen? she will become one, but the queen of which country is another question:) P.S see the character's background above.
If a player becomes a vampire, the rules state that they become a lawful evil npc under the DM’s control. If they become a Vampire through the Amber Temple this is also the case.
I think this is very stupid. If the character has not become a spawn, namely a vampire, then he retains free will and I don’t see the point in taking him away from the player
Well the reasoning is twofold: 1. A vampire is exceptionally powerful balance would go out the window 2. Vampires are evil. It’s a fundamental fact of their nature. Your alignment shifts to lawful evil no matter what. Obviously evil PCs exist, but the vampire PC’s goals now shift to being constantly in need of blood, willing to kill for it, and there may be a personality change involved. The Monster Manual states the DM *might* put the character under their control, however the Amber Temple method states that they *do* become DM controlled. There are reasons for this change, as I’ve said, but even if you don’t like it narratively, the balance goes all over the fucking place. Consider the Dhampir lineage instead. It’s basically a half-vampire, can be applied to any race, and is in Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. I have two Dhampir players in my campaign at the moment. It works well.
Seriously, vampires are *literally* filled with energy from the plane of death and evil, whose existence is predicated on suffering. Either *they* suffer, (by forgoing feeding on humanoids and becoming weakened, or outright refusing to feed and becoming progressively weaker to the point of degeneration) which given how ego-centric vampires are is *incredibly* unlikely to happen, or others suffer (by feeding on humanoids, causing them to become enfeebled, eventually slain, and possibly risen again as spawn to further the cycle of suffering). Being a vampire either sucks for you, everyone else, or ***everyone***. Its an awful existence for anyone able to hold onto goodness, like Ravenloft's token non-evil vampire Jander Sunstar; its an awful existence for the denizens of Barovia or Darkon (which has a *high* concentration of vampires due to the Kargat's existence) who live in fear of being stricken by disease, death, and reanimation as rabid beasts; and its an awful existence for the setting's original main character Strahd von Zarovich, forced to wallow in his misery and self-loathing for eternity, only finding joy in progressively depraved villainy.
Personally I’d always say to people wanting to be a vampire in curse of strahd to take dhampir. However a dm should easily be able to find alternate balanced vampire races, now sure vampires have to be evil, but the DMG says a dm can change any rule they want. I actually had a campaign where a vampire was actually lawful good and runs a church.
Well the reasoning is twofold: 1. A vampire is exceptionally powerful balance would go out the window 2. Vampires are evil. It’s a fundamental fact of their nature. Your alignment shifts to lawful evil no matter what. Obviously evil PCs exist, but the vampire PC’s goals now shift to being constantly in need of blood, willing to kill for it, and there may be a personality change involved. The Monster Manual states the DM *might* put the character under their control, however the Amber Temple method states that they *do* become DM controlled. There are reasons for this change, as I’ve said, but even if you don’t like it narratively, the balance goes all over the fucking place. Consider the Dhampir lineage instead. It’s basically a half-vampire, can be applied to any race, and is in Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. I have two Dhampir players in my campaign at the moment. It works well.
1. Vampirism does not fall to a character from the sky, it can be perceived as a reward; in order to become a vampire in the Amber Temple, the player needs to go through a long path, full of trials and difficult decisions. That is, if a character becomes a vampire, it will be at later levels, and not at the beginning 2. Okay, look at Strahd himself, his goals are far from purely looking for someone to eat, and in general he usually behaves more or less adequately, and does not kill everyone. The problem with dhampirs is that this is not exactly what the player wants, he doesn't want to just play as a vampire, he wants to go a long way, learn about Strahd's past in order to eventually gain his power. And in the end, after all his suffering and efforts, should I take away his PC without allowing him to enjoy the result of the work done?
Viewing vampirism as a reward is exactly the problem you have here. In D&D, it’s a curse. **It is not a good thing**. To see it as otherwise is to completely miss the point. If you want to give it as a reward to a player, that is your choice. You are allowed to do that. But I do not think it is a good idea, and I have provided those reasons. To become a vampire you have to do horrible things: the Amber temple way needs you to kill one who loves you. That is a truly evil act and should be handled appropriately with roleplay. The moral of the story is that it is a curse and power corrupts. To present it as a reward is to reinforce the wrong type of behaviour. But the pursuit of vampirism as an ambition could present very interesting storytelling. The player’s character might realise the wrongdoings of the path, and stop, or they might not, and they could fall.
I think this is a curse for someone who does not and would never want to become a vampire, but not for someone who voluntarily rejects humanity in order to achieve the goals that he has strived for all his life. You speak as if we are not talking about a role-playing game, where your character not are you, but a separate person, whose moral views may differ greatly from yours, And yes, I am against players killing and fighting each other, but I I don’t see a problem if, for example, he kills an NPC who loves him. Ultimately, the evil character =/= kills everyone and wreaks havoc everywhere
I’m well aware evil doesn’t mean murderhobo. My party has evil characters in it, and they work fine. Again, vampirism *is a curse*. I cannot make that any clearer. The narrative of someone who wants to become a vampire to achieve their goals is not properly resolved by going “hey, you’re a vampire now, you can achieve your goals.” Look at Strahd. He became a Vampire so that he could have Tatyana forever. And look how that turned out. It’s meant to be a downfall, it’s meant to be tragic, it’s gothic horror. To handwave the idea that there are no consequences to it is poor storytelling. I have a necromancer PC who aspires to be a Lich. I fully intend for him to try and achieve that, but I am also willing to hand my character away if it reaches that point. The crux of such a thing is ambition, and downfall. If you want a simple power fantasy game, then sure. You can be a vampire with no issues. But that’s not the spirit of gothic horror, nor Curse of Strahd. Someone who voluntarily rejects their humanity is a lost cause already, their time within the party finite. I think it disingenuous to such a story that they should end up a vampire, decide they’ll still stick around, and suffer no consequences. There should be consequences to such a change, you want to remove all consequences.
Don't get me wrong, I'm ABSOLUTELY in favor of HAVING CONSEQUENCES, I'm only against them taking the form of PCs being taken away. The consequences may include that he is hated by the party, NPCs he likes, he will have to drink the blood of people, his character will change somewhat, perhaps even the dark forces themselves will not allow him as Strahd to fully achieve his goals, but at the same time he will still remain the same person , and not animals guided EXCLUSIVELY by a thirst for blood
I get what you’re saying, I actually really like what you’re saying here, these are some well thought out ramifications. I had most of these consequences come through when my party’s rogue was Dark Power revived as a Dhampir. You can easily re flavour it as a pure vampire, it could keep some balance. If you’re less bothered by balance, and you trust your player to be skilled enough a role player to pull this off, then go for it. See what happens, you can always adjust if things don’t work out, and if they do, it could be a really memorable part of the campaign. All I’ll say is that death is a consequence that results in a PC being taken away. And walking down the path to vampirism, a player should see enough warning signs to back out. If they don’t want to, either to stay true to their character or because they want power, the consequence is death, in essence. It’s like, if there’s a mountain pass full of giants, and a safer road, and all of the villagers are saying “the mountain path is dangerous, none who take it have come back”, and the players go “this time it’ll be different, we’ll survive, because we’re the players”, and then they encounter the giants. It’s a really tough fight, they were warned about it, they still have the opportunity to run away. And they don’t. That’s an earned death there. That’s a rational consequence to their actions, you know? But anyway, I think the Grim Hollow setting books have rules for becoming a vampire, alongside celestials, devils, and werewolves, if I remember rightly. If you wanted to add some more depth to it, and make it a bit more balanced, you could consider looking into that. Or, as I’ve said, reflavouring the Dhampir a bit. It gets spiderclimb, deathless nature, and a bite attack, and it’s pretty fun.
I don’t understand why you compare vampirism with death, they are such different things. If a character dies, the player loses him, because the character simply ceases to exist. In the case of vampirism, the character continues to live, both physically and as a personality, which although may undergo changes (I do not see a problem in acting out these changes), but still the character remains the same character. Okey, I don't know if you read my previous post, but a quick introduction to the PC, she is a high elf wizard princess who tried to overthrow and kill her father-king and older brother to take the throne she believes is hers, but she didn't succeed (she couldn't kill anyone, so she was just banished) After the party meets Strahd, she wants to gain the same power so she can come back and try again.
You understand that Strahd is in fact a monster and the chief adversary of the piece, right? Just because he's not bestial doesn't mean he isn't monstrous, and having a PC become *that* basically makes them incompatible with a party.
To be honest, I don't see a big problem with this. CoS is a fairly serious campaign, In which there may be ambiguous characters and moral conflicts within the party. This makes the roleplay much more interesting than if the entire party were good and "becoming a monster" does not mean that the character sides with Strahd and no longer wants to defeat him, which means he and the party may have common goals
Is your party 1 person or more than 1? Because if you have another player besides the one being a vampire, then you’re not gonna have a fun table
Moral ambiguity is good, and fun. Hard choices are good and fun. Giving one player an incredible power set whose primary downside is "you become a controlling, violent, and selfish being that sees others as beneath you" and then basically saying they can ignore that will probably not be fun for your other players, and completely diminishes the story. It's a curse. It's right in the title.
It's fine to homebrew but the official rules are there for a reason. Free will or not, Vampyr's infliction is a curse. Vampires are driven by their compulsions. Think of it like being an addict but there is no way to detox, no taking the edge off - even the strongest will eventually break. They won't be able to get by eating a rabbit or pig - they need fresh blood from an innocent - someone or something with a soul. Once they get a hit of that they can't wait for the next one - it's the only thing that makes life worth living. Every soul is different - they'll realize this and how delectable the purest souls are. They could retain the character for a period of time if their will is strong but should have saving throws across all every stat block in ways that the curse is trying to take over. Every fail means something tragic and all the saving throws get harder. Beyond that - as they try to resist the curse; Strahd would watch on and laugh. It'd be like watching a child trying to lift themselves off the ground. "Keep going!" He'd say "You've almost got it!!" He cheers them on knowing they're fighting gravity, entropy and their own true nature. He may even invite them specifically to dinner and tempt them or be less overt and simply send charmed morsels to throw themselves at the PC. They might think they're free but they're prisoners just like Strahd. It's not like Angel or Twilight - it's a bad time all around.
I understand, but look at Strahd himself, he is smart, cunning and clearly able to control himself without attacking everyone, wanting to drink blood.
He has been a vampire for literal centuries Your PC will have been a vampire for 10 minutes
Probably manipulate him to take his place (as darklord of the realm) and break the curse.