Vampire Questions

[Mathalor]

Why are all vampires evil? Do they get a choice in the matter? I get that Durkon is a new soul now, I'm asking about the new soul. Could he, if he wanted, choose to be good?

[Red XIV]

They have free will, so it should be possible for them to choose not to be evil if they wanted to. But their nature means that few if any would want to.

[Mathalor]

Thanks.

Another question. Why would Durkon (new) have any problem with his accent? Hel said she created him for the purpose of being, "Durkon." Shouldn't it come naturally?

[factotum]

Another question. Why would Durkon (new) have any problem with his accent? Hel said she created him for the purpose of being, "Durkon." Shouldn't it come naturally?

Hel never said anything of the kind. She said the new spirit was "birthed in her halls", but that doesn't mean it was specifically created to inhabit Durkon's body; she could have just used any spirit she had lying around the place to send into Durkon's empty shell.

[Mathalor]

Thanks again.

[Loreweaver15]

We also don't know if this was an exception--that Hel shoved this monster into Durkon's corpse when she had the shot--or the rule. I tend towards the former, myself, mostly because Malack evidently expected Durkula to BE Durkon with a craving for the blood of the living.

[Benthesquid]

We also don't know if this was an exception--that Hel shoved this monster into Durkon's corpse when she had the shot--or the rule. I tend towards the former, myself, mostly because Malack evidently expected Durkula to BE Durkon with a craving for the blood of the living.

My personal take is that a Vampire has both a Dark Spirit and the original being's Spirit inside. Evidently it's possible for the two to struggle for control, and in Durkon's case, the Dark Spirit is winning.

It may be that Malack won his battle, has imprisoned the Dark Spirit inside him, and expects Durkon to be able to do the same. Alternatively, it's possible that the Shaman and the Dark Spirit (and it occurs to me that it's not entirely clear where the name Malack came from) are in agreement in their cause of serving Nergal, and have combined forces, either literally merging into one personality, taking turns driving, or ruling by committee.

[NerdyKris]

My personal take is that a Vampire has both a Dark Spirit and the original being's Spirit inside. Evidently it's possible for the two to struggle for control, and in Durkon's case, the Dark Spirit is winning.

It may be that Malack won his battle, has imprisoned the Dark Spirit inside him, and expects Durkon to be able to do the same. Alternatively, it's possible that the Shaman and the Dark Spirit (and it occurs to me that it's not entirely clear where the name Malack came from) are in agreement in their cause of serving Nergal, and have combined forces, either literally merging into one personality, taking turns driving, or ruling by committee.

Or that Malack the snake person accepted Malack the vampire's control and they merged. To use the annoying Buffy example, it would be like how William/Spike don't exhibit the animosity towards eachother that Liam/Angelus displayed. (edit- yes, I agree that this is more of a plot inconsistency on Buffy, but it helps illustrate the example)

My guess is that it's a gradual merging. At this point, less than a day after the change, Durkon's soul is still very much struggling against the vampire. Two hundred years later, it's doubtful ANY soul would still be capable of resisting control.

[Loreweaver15]

Or that Malack the snake person accepted Malack the vampire's control and they merged. To use the annoying Buffy example, it would be like how William/Spike don't exhibit the animosity towards eachother that Liam/Angelus displayed. (edit- yes, I agree that this is more of a plot inconsistency on Buffy, but it helps illustrate the example)

My guess is that it's a gradual merging. At this point, less than a day after the change, Durkon's soul is still very much struggling against the vampire. Two hundred years later, it's doubtful ANY soul would still be capable of resisting control.

These theories ignore the fact that it's the dark spirit in control, not Durkon, and Malack expected Durkon :P

[Pokonic]

My guess is that the Vampire is a souless inteligence that arises in the shell of a vamp'ed creature. Presumably, Malack the vampire was in full control, having lived long enough where Malack the shaman is a non-entity when it comes to deciding things. Malack the vampire was a person in his own right, though, having lived long enough to have had developed personal relations with others that wasn't based on mayhem and slaughter.

Durkula, on the other hand, is a entity connected with a death god who seems to have an active interest in it. Presumably, with Malack being a powerful priest of a death god who's at least on the same level as Hel, Durken might have remained Durken with a vampire's needs and wants, which would pretty much akin to how the Order seems to believe he is currently. But, Hel pretty much did a hijack on that when the vampire was freed from Thralldom. A vampire dwarf would probably alway's serve Hel by default, unless clerics of Loki or somesuch approve of undeath, though.

[Sir_Leorik]

The answer is that D&D has been slightly inconsistent in this regard. In some cases the Vampire becomes instantly Evil, in others the Vampire struggles against it's Evil nature. In some cases Vampires have their original soul, albeit tainted by Negative Energy, in others they have a dark spirit (ala the High Priest of Hel) inserted into their corpse, either instead of their original soul (ala "Buffy" and "Angel") or in addition to it (ala Durkon).

If we take I, Strahd to be an authentic memoir, and not a pack of lies, then Count Strahd von Zarovich certainly doesn't seem to have a "dark spirit" inside him. He's the same person he was when he murdered his brother Sergei in order to seal his pact with "Death" and become a Vampire. If Jander Sunstar has a "dark spirit" then he's done a great job containing it for over five centuries. Erasmus van Richten may have had a "dark spirit" that he was wrestling with, or he may have been simply struggling against the control of Baron Metus. Merrillee almost certainly has a "dark spirit"; she was a child when she was sired, yet she is completely Chaotic Evil, and practically worthy of being a Darklord. It is uncertain if Kas the Bloody-Handed has a soul or not; given how powerful he is, and how Evil he was in life, Kas could still have the wretched soul he always had. Declaud Heinfroth (aka "Dr. Dominiani"), also seems like he was Evil in life, and Duke Gundar had almost no character development, so we can't really know.

Basically the only D&D Vampires whose transition we've seen are Strahd (whose memoirs, as I said earlier, may be a deliberate hoax to fool adventurers), Jander Sunstar and Erasmus van Richten. There are also interviews that Dr. Rudolph van Richten conducted with Vampires as part of his research into how to slay them, but those could also be suspect.

In terms of Durkon, we can't really know. We have only seen three Vampires in the entire run of "OotS": Malack, Durkon/HPoH and Haley's thoughts about Vampire Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html). The latter was mostly meant as a joke about "Vampire: the Masquerade"/"Vampire: the Requiem", and was only a hypothetical scenario anyway. So that leaves Malack, who didn't reveal much about his past, other than that he was a Lizardfolk Shaman in life, and the HPoH, who's existence was a major cliffhanger to end Book Five. I think we're going to have to wait and see about what's going on inside Vampire!Durkon's head.

[Ghost Nappa]

I think we're going to have to wait and see about what's going on inside Vampire!Durkon's head.

I thought there was a Dwarf in there. He looked kind of familiar too.




Gimli, maybe?

[Sir_Leorik]

I thought there was a Dwarf in there. He looked kind of familiar too.




Gimli, maybe?

No, you're thinking of Bombur. :smalltongue:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I personally, tend toward believing that Durkon followed the normal rules, whatever those are. I think that Malak's statements can be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on what you believe to be true. Another thing is that it is difficult to see what is an exception when we have only met two vampires, and only seen the early life of one.

Perhaps Malak is the exception. :smalltongue:

[Keltest]

I personally, tend toward believing that Durkon followed the normal rules, whatever those are. I think that Malak's statements can be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on what you believe to be true. Another thing is that it is difficult to see what is an exception when we have only met two vampires, and only seen the early life of one.

Perhaps Malak is the exception. :smalltongue:

Im inclined to believe that Durkon followed the normal case, however the instant he was spawned, Hel came in and basically hired his demon right off the bat, before it could "merge" with Durkon's personality. So she basically gave it a purpose outside of being durkon, and gave him a separate identity to be completely loyal to her. This had the side effect of stopping him from tapping into Durkon's identity by default, and thus it takes a conscious (possibly) effort for it to do so.

[KillianHawkeye]

For all we know, different things happen when a person willingly seeks out to become a vampire compared to when they are turned into one involuntarily.

Anyway, the reason that a vampire's default alignment is Evil is because they need to drink the blood of the living on a regular basis, either killing or seriously harming their victims in the process.

[Benthesquid]

For all we know, different things happen when a person willingly seeks out to become a vampire compared to when they are turned into one involuntarily.

Anyway, the reason that a vampire's default alignment is Evil is because they need to drink the blood of the living on a regular basis, either killing or seriously harming their victims in the process.

Or, in the cosmology Rich is presenting us, because they have a spirit born in the halls of an Evil Death God rammed into their being?

[Vladier]

Im inclined to believe that Durkon followed the normal case, however the instant he was spawned, Hel came in and basically hired his demon right off the bat, before it could "merge" with Durkon's personality. So she basically gave it a purpose outside of being durkon, and gave him a separate identity to be completely loyal to her. This had the side effect of stopping him from tapping into Durkon's identity by default, and thus it takes a conscious (possibly) effort for it to do so.

Why necessarily a demon? For all we know, Hel is NE or LE, thus her servants being daemons or devils. It may actually be a Negative Energy spirit, if Hel's domain has connections to the Negative Energy Plane, which, considering that she's an Evil Death goddess and seemingly has no problem with undead, she might as well have. It may even be a soul of her actual High Priest from a cult long destroyed, reborn as her servant in her hall after his death, though that's unlikely. Still, the wording is somewhat ambiguous, especially "serendipitous" and "your dark spirit was born in my hall".

[Keltest]

Why necessarily a demon? For all we know, Hel is NE or LE, thus her servants being daemons or devils. It may actually be a Negative Energy spirit, if Hel's domain has connections to the Negative Energy Plane, which, considering that she's an Evil Death goddess and seemingly has no problem with undead, she might as well have. It may even be a soul of her actual High Priest from a cult long destroyed, reborn as her servant in her hall after his death, though that's unlikely. Still, the wording is somewhat ambiguous, especially "serendipitous" and "your dark spirit was born in my hall".

I call it a demon for lack of a better word, not because I think it is a specific kind of creature from the lower planes.

[elros]

I suspect that being a vampire puts a different spirit in charge. Malack became a vampire a long time ago, so he original spirit was held in check for so long that he probably stopped struggling. Also, Malack may have known that the new vampire spirit in Durkon could access his memories, which would be enough for them to be friends.
For me, the biggest question is if we will ever see Malack's spirit again. Maybe a reunion in the afterlife?

[factotum]

The answer is that D&D has been slightly inconsistent in this regard. In some cases the Vampire becomes instantly Evil, in others the Vampire struggles against it's Evil nature.

As with most situations where the rules aren't especially clear, this is almost certainly due to the makers of the game not wanting to limit the roleplay opportunities for the playerbase--a player character who got turned into a vampire would probably want to invent their own reasons for turning evil.

[random_guy]

Or that Malack the snake person accepted Malack the vampire's control and they merged. To use the annoying Buffy example, it would be like how William/Spike don't exhibit the animosity towards eachother that Liam/Angelus displayed. (edit- yes, I agree that this is more of a plot inconsistency on Buffy, but it helps illustrate the example)

My guess is that it's a gradual merging. At this point, less than a day after the change, Durkon's soul is still very much struggling against the vampire. Two hundred years later, it's doubtful ANY soul would still be capable of resisting control.

I think Spike's situation is different. It seems that his base personality remained and he gained vampire abilities. He actually continued to see his mother as his mother. He vamped her in order to grant her immortality. He was essentially the same person with a different outlook on life.

Angelus was different. He was a completely separate person with a separate personality. He sees Liam as a pathetic loser, and he cannot stand to possess the same body.

We don't know if it's the base personality or the new vampire personality, but Malack seems to share Spike's situation. He sees the ignorant shaman as himself, or rather someone he used to be. It's possible his personality remained unchanged after he became a vampire, so he expects the same from Durkon.

In Durkon's case, Durkula sees him as a means to an end. They are in direct conflict and Durkula's evil acts will have an impact on him in one way or another. Coping with the guilt of helplessly standing by while an evil spirit uses his powers, abilities, and knowledge to commit acts of evil might be a character growth moment for him.

[Keltest]

I think Spike's situation is different. It seems that his base personality remained and he gained vampire abilities. He actually continued to see his mother as his mother. He vamped her in order to grant her immortality. He was essentially the same person with a different outlook on life.

Angelus was different. He was a completely separate person with a separate personality. He sees Liam as a pathetic loser, and he cannot stand to possess the same body.

We don't know if it's the base personality or the new vampire personality, but Malack seems to share Spike's situation. He sees the ignorant shaman as himself, or rather someone he used to be. It's possible his personality remained unchanged after he became a vampire, so he expects the same from Durkon.

In Durkon's case, Durkula sees him as a means to an end. They are in direct conflict and Durkula's evil acts will have an impact on him in one way or another. Coping with the guilt of helplessly standing by while an evil spirit uses his powers, abilities, and knowledge to commit acts of evil might be a character growth moment for him.

Something else to point out is that Spike deliberately fought for his soul. Spike, as in the demon controlling the body.

[Loreweaver15]

Let's break this down:

1. Malack claims that resurrecting him would be a "complicated way of annihilating the person he is today". If this was a Nergal-spirit driving the lizard-shaman's corpse rather than the lizard-shaman himself, not only would that be a very simple way of annihilating him, but he wouldn't have referred to his living self as himself, or recalled his living self's brothers as if they were his own.

2. "You will feel more like yourself" so that "we may once again engage as peers", though releasing him right then "would be...confusing for you." Malack clearly expects Vampire Durkon to be Durkon with a newfound hunger for blood. As Malack is the only firsthand account of how non-Durkon vampires work, his expectation that Durkon will still be Durkon seems to me to carry a lot of weight.

I really don't see any evidence in-comic that what happened to Durkon is anything but Hel interfering with the way things normally work. Malack expects his friend, not a dark spirit pretending to be him; Malack refers to his living self as himself, not as a wholly separate entity. I may be proven wrong, but...it seems pretty clear to me.

[Heksefatter]

There are some canon examples of D&D vampires who are not evil. Jander Sunstar is a CN vampire with goodish tendencies.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jander_Sunstar

Van Richten's Guide to Vampires from 2e gives rules as to how good vampires can originate. If someone is vamprized, but their domitor vampire is destroyed or leaves the area before they rise, the vampire can remain good, though it is unlikely.

It also says that the goodness is likely to disappear over time, due to the sinister nature of the vampiric state.

In short, vampires are not literally always evil in D&D. But exceptions are extremely rare.

[Orc Warrior]

I'm not to clear on how killing a vampire works with the whole 'stake' thing. Would someone mind explaining for me? And also, a vampire who dies under the sun has no way of returning, yes?

[MesiDoomstalker]

The stake thing is taken from the folklore. Someone with more knowledge about the folklore can be more helpful.

About burning in the sun, yes, thats a sure fire way to kill a Vampire for good, barring a spell in Libris Mortis if memory serves.

[Heksefatter]

But some, very old and powerful vampires, can actually survive the sun for a long time.

As a side note: In Bram Stoker's Dracula, vampires could be out in the sun, no problem.

[Kish]

But some, very old and powerful vampires, can actually survive the sun for a long time.
I'm unaware of any 3.xed source that indicates that older vampires can survive more than one round of sunlight.

[Heksefatter]

I'm unaware of any 3.xed source that indicates that older vampires can survive more than one round of sunlight.

So am I. I just went by the assumption that stuff like that which was canon sort of remained canon, unless otherwise noted.

[Millennium]

My personal take on it is that the instinctive urge to feed from innocent sentients, and to kill when feeding, pulls most vampires toward Evil. The recently-risen may well retain their old alignments at first, but most people just can't hold out against the instincts for very long. Turning away from the instincts after they've been ingrained for a long time is even harder, and this results in a very lopsided graph of alignments among vampires.

[factotum]

So am I. I just went by the assumption that stuff like that which was canon sort of remained canon, unless otherwise noted.

The only place I can recall that being canon is in the sequels to Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire", where the most ancient vampires are super-powerful and don't even *need* to drink blood any more--however, their urge for blood becomes even stronger, so they end up drinking even more of it. I'm not aware of any other setting in which age grants a vampire immunity to their normal weaknesses.

[Kish]

It's not like there aren't 3.xed stats for vampires, including statements of what increases by age. I don't see the sense in the interpretation "doesn't say anything about increased sunlight resistance, so it must mean for us to refer to old 2ed supplements" rather than the interpretation, "doesn't say anything about increased sunlight resistance, so they don't have increased sunlight resistance."

(Though I might wish otherwise; the 3.xed descriptions given for "demihuman" vampires are painfully generic where the old ones seemed like the writers actually enjoyed coming up with them.)

[Heksefatter]

The only place I can recall that being canon is in the sequels to Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire", where the most ancient vampires are super-powerful and don't even *need* to drink blood any more--however, their urge for blood becomes even stronger, so they end up drinking even more of it. I'm not aware of any other setting in which age grants a vampire immunity to their normal weaknesses.

It is definitely canon in Van Richtens Guide to Vampires from 2e. An ancient vampire (this being a specific age category) can survive sunlight for an hour, while a patriarch (highest age category) can survive indefinitely, but is discomfited.

They are also more able to resist holy symbols.

[screwtape]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html

That's what you've never really understood about the undead, Tsukiko. You treat them like they are people when they are nothing but bits of skin and bone and dark energy, glued together by magic into the shape of a man.
...
From the lowest zombie to Xykon himself, the undead are just complex weapons that we make and aim at other people.

I don't think Hel disrupted anything. Durkula was never going to be Durkon with a skin condition and new abilities. Vampire is not just a template that gives awesome bonuses, though I know many people play it that way. It is a curse. Otherwise, who wouldn't become one? Why would there not be a world full of them, to the exclusion of all else?

If you step outside D&D and into traditional lore, it has always been that way. When Lucy was finally staked by Van Helsing, et al, it was described as releasing her soul from a kind of hell. On her face was an expression of relief. Essentially, her body was possessed by an evil spirit while she (her soul) was forced to watch and to an extent participate in the evil it did.

[Heksefatter]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html


I don't think Hel disrupted anything. Durkula was never going to be Durkon with a skin condition and new abilities. Vampire is not just a template that gives awesome bonuses, though I know many people play it that way. It is a curse. Otherwise, who wouldn't become one? Why would there not be a world full of them, to the exclusion of all else?

If you step outside D&D and into traditional lore, it has always been that way. When Lucy was finally staked by Van Helsing, et al, it was described as releasing her soul from a kind of hell. On her face was an expression of relief. Essentially, her body was possessed by an evil spirit while she (her soul) was forced to watch and to an extent participate in the evil it did.

I dunno how much we can rely on Redcloak there, though. Xykon is as much a person as he was in life. And even with Durkula, one can argue that he's a person, just not the person most people think he is.

Also, traditional lore regarding vampirism and undeath is very contradictory. Also, Stoker's Dracula is not traditional lore either. It is a template for many modern depictions of vampires, and inspired by some traditional lore, but not more than that.

As for why people wouldn't want to become vampires, even if they kept their soul? I could imagine that many would not want to sustain themselves by drinking blood or having their personality warped into something evil and inhuman.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Let's break this down:

1. Malack claims that resurrecting him would be a "complicated way of annihilating the person he is today". If this was a Nergal-spirit driving the lizard-shaman's corpse rather than the lizard-shaman himself, not only would that be a very simple way of annihilating him, but he wouldn't have referred to his living self as himself, or recalled his living self's brothers as if they were his own.

2. "You will feel more like yourself" so that "we may once again engage as peers", though releasing him right then "would be...confusing for you." Malack clearly expects Vampire Durkon to be Durkon with a newfound hunger for blood. As Malack is the only firsthand account of how non-Durkon vampires work, his expectation that Durkon will still be Durkon seems to me to carry a lot of weight.

I really don't see any evidence in-comic that what happened to Durkon is anything but Hel interfering with the way things normally work. Malack expects his friend, not a dark spirit pretending to be him; Malack refers to his living self as himself, not as a wholly separate entity. I may be proven wrong, but...it seems pretty clear to me.
When you lay it all out like this, it does seem pretty clear. However, if this is true, then why does Hel claim that all dwarves fall under her purview? If what happened to Durkon is a one-of-a-kind thing, then why would all Dwarven vampires be Hel's? Now, if you're to make the case that Dwarven vampires are different from Western vampires, that I would accept.

[Vladier]

When you lay it all out like this, it does seem pretty clear. However, if this is true, then why does Hel claim that all dwarves fall under her purview? If what happened to Durkon is a one-of-a-kind thing, then why would all Dwarven vampires be Hel's? Now, if you're to make the case that Dwarven vampires are different from Western vampires, that I would accept.

Because she's a Northern Goddess of Death and the Northern Pantheon was the one that had a turn to create dwarves? It would've actually seemed that every dwarf gets to Hel first and is then saved by Thor, either legitimately or through the use of murky areas or outright buffoonery on Thor's part. Since Durkon's soul had no access to afterlife to be judged, he is hers by default.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Because she's a Northern Goddess of Death and the Northern Pantheon was the one that had a turn to create dwarves? It would've actually seemed that every dwarf gets to Hel first and is then saved by Thor, either legitimately or through the use of murky areas or outright buffoonery on Thor's part. Since Durkon's soul had no access to afterlife to be judged, he is hers by default.

However, if the Northern Goddess of Death gets control of Northern vampires, then Durkon is not one of a kind, nor is Hel interfering. In order to send the spirit into Durkon, Durkon must have already been put under her domain, so it doesn't have anything to do with his lack of ability to reach the afterlife.

[Loreweaver15]

Well, here's the thing--if Durkon's soul would normally have stayed inside his corpse and kept walking around with it, it wouldn't have gone anywhere near the afterlife, now would it?

Or, even if it would have gone to the afterlife and then gotten sucked back when he rose as a bloodsucker, that just means that an attentive death god has an opportunity to piggyback something of her own into the corpse.

This is the shaky part of all this; we have the why, that Hel wants a servant to carry out her will on the mortal place, and probably the what in that she shoved one of her spirits into a recently vamped dwarf, but the how is shaky speculation at best.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

One thing I want to add is that, to me, Malak's statements don't say that Durkon will be the same. In #879, he says that he will feel more like himself and that they will be peers, but is referring to Durkon feeling more like himself or is he speaking to the High Priest? In other words, is he saying Durkon will feel more like his old self, or that the High Priest will be feeling like himself?

Of course, Malak wouldn't think of him as the High Priest, but he could be thinking of him as a new person.

Also, a few panels later, he refers to "Durkon that was", which seems to be saying he thinks Durkon is gone.

[Keltest]

One thing I want to add is that, to me, Malak's statements don't say that Durkon will be the same. In #879, he says that he will feel more like himself and that they will be peers, but is referring to Durkon feeling more like himself or is he speaking to the High Priest? In other words, is he saying Durkon will feel more like his old self, or that the High Priest will be feeling like himself?

Of course, Malak wouldn't think of him as the High Priest, but he could be thinking of him as a new person.

Also, a few panels later, he refers to "Durkon that was", which seems to be saying he thinks Durkon is gone.

If he was thinking of an entirely new person, he would have no idea how the new vampire would feel. For all he could know, the new vamp could be a natural born toady, with no intellectual inclination whatsoever.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

If he was thinking of an entirely new person, he would have no idea how the new vampire would feel. For all he could know, the new vamp could be a natural born toady, with no intellectual inclination whatsoever.

But, Malack does have experience with newborn vampires. He is aware of what they are like when they are first formed. Perhaps previous experience has told him that the new souls tend to be confused about the vampirization process.

[Kish]

Reasonably sure that whatever else Malack did or did not know, he knew that his new child would have Intelligence and Wisdom equal to Durkon's +2.

[factotum]

However, if this is true, then why does Hel claim that all dwarves fall under her purview? If what happened to Durkon is a one-of-a-kind thing, then why would all Dwarven vampires be Hel's?

You've just made two statements that have no logical connection between them. Hel stated that Dwarves fall under her purview, which is true--we know she gets any Dwarf who dies a dishonourable death. There's nothing saying that all Dwarven vampires (assuming there's more than one in any case, which we don't know) belong to her. The implication I got from her statements is that she was able to intervene and insert a dark spirit to take over Durkon's corpse because he was a Dwarf--the fact he was due to rise as a vampire wasn't relevant to the process.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

But he did not die a dishonorable death. He died in combat, fight Malack. He should fall under Thor's purview, since he gets the souls of those who die honorably. I don't see why Hel would get any control over his body either. The only reason I can think of why what happened would is that Hel gets the Dwarven vampires.

[factotum]

But he did not die a dishonorable death. He died in combat, fight Malack. He should fall under Thor's purview, since he gets the souls of those who die honorably.

But Durkon was killed by a vampire, and as such, was always going to rise again as a vampire no matter what--Malack may have speeded up the process with his spell, but that doesn't change what would have eventually happened anyway. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable to assume that Durkon's spirit was trapped in his body and never got anywhere near Thor, allowing Hel to pull off her trickery.

[Kish]

Given the premises (correct me if these are not your premises, of course),
1) Hel can "claim" any dwarven vampire she wants, by intervening and imposing a dark spirit.
2) She does not claim them all; the new vampire in the comic is unusual in being a direct servant of Hel.

Why is 2)? We've seen how jealous Hel is of dwarven souls, why wouldn't she claim all the direct servants she can?

[Loreweaver15]

The implication in the comic is that this is the first, or at least only, dwarven vampire in the world, so Hel snatched him up quite eagerly. That still doesn't affect the 'Hel is screwing with how things normally work' angle; even if she snaps up every dwarven vampire, she'd still be interfering with how vampires function in this world by my theory.

[Coat]

One explanation that would work is if souls are offered a choice at the moment of death to take ownership of the vampire body.

The offer would take the form of a pact with a Dark Power of some sort - the one who spawned the first of that bloodline of vampires, the God of the vampire siring the new victim, presumably Hel in Durkon's case, whatever.

If the soul accepts the offer, they retain control but would have to meet the terms of whatever pact came with it. This would obviously be a fairly major Evil decision. If the soul rejects the offer, they (in OotS cosmology) get soul-bound into it, and a evil soul gets handed the ride.

This this theory, Malack either forgot there was a choice, or simply couldn't imagine anyone not taking it. Durkon, obviously, would give a nice clear 'no'. Whereas Malack agreed to the terms.

This would mean that resurrecting Malack wouldn't destroy the person he is literally - but it's possible that after two hundred years of drinking blood, climbing on ceiling and dominating people with a look, those things become so much a part of your identity that you don't know what you would be without them.


Alternatively, an evil soul always gets shoved in at the moment of siring, but it's possible for the original soul to reach an accommodation with it over time - though this would either be a good act by the vampire soul, or an evil act by the original soul.

It's been suggested that Malack's normal speech bubbles are his original lizardfolk shaman soul, and that the black 'vampire voice' bubbles are his vampire soul, which would fit well with this - and show that his original soul was in charge most of the time.

The giant's comment on the black speech bubbles (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14733452#post14733452) is worded in a way that does not rule out this possibility, though that could be co-incidence. That said, it kind of depends what questions The Giant's referring to when he says we'll have to 'wait and see' for the answers.

In this hypothesis, Malack is clearly assuming that the vampire soul and Durkon's soul will reach an eventual accord just as his original and vampire soul have done (even if it takes a few decades).

Resurrecting Malack in this hypothesis would result in him losing part of his gestalt being and so would literally destroy his vampire persona in a complicated way. That might be a point in this theory's favour, though I'm not sure The Giant puts quite as much emphasis on literal interpretation as this forum tends to...

[screwtape]

I dunno how much we can rely on Redcloak there, though.

He seems quite expert on matters regarding the undead.


Xykon is as much a person as he was in life. And even with Durkula, one can argue that he's a person, just not the person most people think he is.

Then we're getting into the question of how we define "person" and identity. Is a 100% accurate computer simulation of your brain the same as you? If so, would you think that it was okay to have your body disintegrated because "you" continue to exist on a hard drive?




Also, traditional lore regarding vampirism and undeath is very contradictory. Also, Stoker's Dracula is not traditional lore either.

It is traditional enough for what we are talking about. The sources that we lean on today that have defined "vampire" for the last 100 years. Dracula is the paradigm we use when we speak of vampires. And I only meant to distinguish it from more modern views on vampires - Lost Boys, True Blood, and god forbid, Twilight, and the like, wherein vampires are cool and desirable anti-heroes.

It is true though, that going back beyond Dracula or theVampyre, many cultures had legends about similar beings and varied stories about what they were and how they came to be.


As for why people wouldn't want to become vampires, even if they kept their soul?

That is the whole matter at question, isn't it? What happens to your soul? Whether your body that has become a vampire is still "you"? I argue it is not and never was intended to be until more recent pop culture.


I could imagine that many would not want to sustain themselves by drinking blood

Why not? People all over the world consume blood. Blood sausage. Blood pudding. These are not far fetched nor exotic foods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_as_food
To be nigh invulnerable, immortal, able to fly, able to transform into mist, able to seduce the opposite sex with a glance and the only trade off is consume something that people eat all over the world? Seems good to me.


or having their personality warped into something evil and inhuman.

How would that happen if your soul was still in charge?

[Sir_Leorik]

As with most situations where the rules aren't especially clear, this is almost certainly due to the makers of the game not wanting to limit the roleplay opportunities for the playerbase--a player character who got turned into a vampire would probably want to invent their own reasons for turning evil.

In 2E, in the "Ravenloft" sourcebook, Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, Dr. van Richten hypothesizes about the nature of Vampires, based on interviews he conducted, and research he undertook. His general assessment is that most Vampires become Evil due to the influence of their Sire, and even those that resist that influence, are likely to lose their humanity (or Elvishness or Dwarvishness) as the years pass by, since they will need to feed on the blood of other sapient creatures. (At least in Ravenloft, where the Dark Powers don't let Vampires gain sustenance from the blood of animals or non-sapient beasts.) While VRGtV is only canon for Ravonloft, it was reprinted as part of Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium: Volume 1, which was intended to be easily adaptable to other campaign settings.

The real confusion arises in 3.X, where the Monster Manual doesn't provide any fluff concerning Vampires, and Complete Divine and Libris Mortis contradict each other. (At least in 4E, where there is a Vampire character class, provides plenty of fluff in Open Grave and other sources, including splatbooks about that Shadowfell.)


I think Spike's situation is different. It seems that his base personality remained and he gained vampire abilities. He actually continued to see his mother as his mother. He vamped her in order to grant her immortality. He was essentially the same person with a different outlook on life.

Angelus was different. He was a completely separate person with a separate personality. He sees Liam as a pathetic loser, and he cannot stand to possess the same body.

For whatever reason, the demon that took over Liam to become Angelus was very different from Liam. However, Spike and William weren't that close in personality either. William was a bookish fellow, as opposed to the wild, party animal that Spike became. And while Spike decided to sire William's mother, he also staked her as well, and then later on Spike would drive railroad spikes through his victim's heads (perhaps so that he wouldn't be siring any Vampires).


But some, very old and powerful vampires, can actually survive the sun for a long time.


I'm unaware of any 3.xed source that indicates that older vampires can survive more than one round of sunlight.

The Ravenloft Campaign Setting for 3.0 and the Ravenloft Player's Handbook for 3.5 have exactly those rules, based on the information in VRGtV. While neither was published by WotC, they were published under license from WotC by Arthaus.

[Kish]

No, Leorik, the Campaign Setting doesn't say anything about sunlight resistance. Does the Player's Handbook? I'll look it up.

"Some slight resistance to sunlight," no real mechanical details, unless I'm missing them. Makes referring to Van Richten's Guide more justifiable than when the Campaign Setting was the most recent source on the subject--though I think it stretches a point to suggest that the old Patriarch vampire's complete immunity to sunlight damage would be covered by "slight resistance." Malack, who would be an Old vampire under that classification system, certainly had no more resistance to sunlight than a one-minute old vampire would; one round in which he could only take a standard action and he was done (well done, even).


He seems quite expert on matters regarding the undead.
Does he?

All the evidence I can see that Redcloak is an expert on the undead, would double as evidence that Tsukiko was expert on the undead. I admit that the evidence currently available to the audience on the subject of Redcloak's disagreement with Tsukiko seems to be going Redcloak's way, but...I'll be disappointed if it turns out that we really were supposed to parse the things he said as, "This is Rich Burlew speaking directly to the audience. It is not in any way a statement about Redcloak's mentality. One of these people is all right and one of these people is all wrong."

[Sir_Leorik]

No, Leorik, the Campaign Setting doesn't say anything about sunlight resistance. Does the Player's Handbook? I'll look it up.

The Ravenloft PHB is mostly identical to the RCS for 3.0, so those rules would be identical. (I'm currently AFB, so I'm going completely on memory of the advances for Mature, Old, Very Old, Ancient and Patriarch Vampires.)


All the evidence I can see that Redcloak is an expert on the undead, would double as evidence that Tsukiko was expert on the undead. I admit that the evidence currently available to the audience on the subject of Redcloak's disagreement with Tsukiko seems to be going Redcloak's way, but...I'll be disappointed if it turns out that we really were supposed to parse the things he said as, "This is Rich Burlew speaking directly to the audience. It is not in any way a statement about Redcloak's mentality. One of these people is all right and one of these people is all wrong."

Or they could both be bringing their obvious biases to bear when discussing the Undead. Redcloak blames Xykon for the death of Right-Eye, and has openly told Jirix that he considers Xykon a mortal threat to Goblinkind, while Tsukiko is a necrophiliac, who treats newly created Wights and Ghouls like infants. I'd rather hear the opinions of an expert who didn't have serious issues. Maybe Haerta? :smalltongue:

[Vladier]

He seems quite expert on matters regarding the undead.


Yes, and as much Redcloak is an expert on undead, even he admits that Xykon isn't a tool that he can use easily. In fact, the way he describes his power over Xykon, it becomes clear that he doesn't directly control him but manipulates the lich as one would manipulate a powerful yet somewhat gullible person. The same way the Vector Legion controls the rulers of three empires except more personally dangerous.

[Skorj]

The stake thing is taken from the folklore. Someone with more knowledge about the folklore can be more helpful.

About burning in the sun, yes, thats a sure fire way to kill a Vampire for good, barring a spell in Libris Mortis if memory serves.

I'm pretty sure that in the folklore, driving a stake through a vampire's chest was simply a convenient way to hold it down while cutting off its head, which was the thing that actually killed it. That's why it was a stake in particular, not some odd wood allergy.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm pretty sure that in the folklore, driving a stake through a vampire's chest was simply a convenient way to hold it down while cutting off its head, which was the thing that actually killed it. That's why it was a stake in particular, not some odd wood allergy.

The original folklore regarding Vampires called for a wooden stake to be driven through their midsection (not necessarily their heart), while the Vampire was facing down in the middle of a crossroads. (Presumably the Vampire hunters were supposed to scatter beads, seeds or coins, in order to trigger the obsessive-compulsive nature of the Vampire, and then drive the stake while the Vampire's back was turned.) Afterwards the Vampire would be beheaded, it's mouth filled with garlic or holy wafers, and sewn shut with silver thread.

In the novel Dracula, van Helsing and Co. do not stake the Count; they cut his heart out with a kukri. They only stake the other Vampires that Dracula sired.

[Leviting]

I'm thinking that it would make sense if evil characters (such as a certain lizardfolk barbarian shaman likely was) retain control over their bodies, as Malack seemed fairly calm about Durkon remaining the same person. On the other hand, good-er people, such as Durkon or Isamu, lose control of their body to a separate consciousness, such as the High Priest Of Hel.

Alternatively, you could go with the whole "drinking blood is inherently evil" thing, kinda like cannibalism in fallout 3

[BenjCano]

The original folklore regarding Vampires...

Going to stop you there. There is no "THE" original folklore regarding vampires. There have been stories about demonic entities and blood-drinking spirits over numerous cultures for thousands of years. To say that any one set of beliefs is "THE" original mythology is a bit ludicrous.

The bit about a wooden stake is from Slavic folklore, but that pretty much only goes back to the 17th century, whereas the idea of blood drinking undead entities precedes that notion by a good fair bit.

[Sir_Leorik]

Going to stop you there. There is no "THE" original folklore regarding vampires. There have been stories about demonic entities and blood-drinking spirits over numerous cultures for thousands of years. To say that any one set of beliefs is "THE" original mythology is a bit ludicrous.

The bit about a wooden stake is from Slavic folklore, but that pretty much only goes back to the 17th century, whereas the idea of blood drinking undead entities precedes that notion by a good fair bit.

Can we please not argue over the semantics?

The Eastern European folklore I was mentioning was part of a large corpus of folklore that John Polidori, James Malcom Rymer, Joseph Sheridan le Fanu and Bram Stoker used in their novels. Said novels, aided and abetted by Friedrich Murnau's "Nosferatu" and Universal Pictures' "Dracula" movies, is what led to the D&D Vampire as we know it. Along the way bits and pieces of folklore were modified or removed wholesale (although they were sometimes restored, especially in "Ravenloft" material). As Dr. van Richten warns his readers, they shouldn't expect every Vampire they hunt to be the same as every other Vampire they've hunted in the past.

In Ravenloft there are Vampires who can go about by day, but lose their powers unless they rest 8 hours in their coffin; Vampires who look more like Ghouls or Wights, and who spread disease with their prehensile tongues; Elven Vampires who are unharmed by sunlight, but who take damage if they're not in their coffins before sunset; Vampires that suck the cerebral fluid from the brain stems of their victims; Illithid Vampires; Hopping Vampires; Dhampirs; a child turned into a Vampire; and a race of living humanoids who drink blood to gain sustenance, and are able to charm their victims by drinking their blood, called Vampyres. There are Vampires who compulsively count beads or seeds; Vampires who need to suck moisture out of their victims, rather than blood; a Vampire who was a panther Polymorphed into a man; Halfling Vampires who are warded off by the smell of pipe tabacco; and Kender Vampires who can be staked with their own hoopaks (if you can pry them from their withered claws).

[BenjCano]

Can we please not argue over the semantics?


Hi, this is the Internet. Have we met?

[factotum]

The Eastern European folklore I was mentioning was part of a large corpus of folklore that John Polidori, James Malcom Rymer, Joseph Sheridan le Fanu and Bram Stoker used in their novels.

Slightly off topic, but I'm sure I recall seeing the stats for a penanggalan (a type of Malaysian vampire) in a D&D sourcebook a long time ago (might have been the Fiend Folio), so they didn't stick solely to the Eastern European type of vampire; you're of course right that the basics of the "vampire" template derive from that branch of folklore, though.

[hamishspence]

Yup - it was restatted for 3rd ed in Oriental Adventures.

I think it may even have made it into a 4E book, but I'm not sure.

[Sir_Leorik]

Slightly off topic, but I'm sure I recall seeing the stats for a penanggalan (a type of Malaysian vampire) in a D&D sourcebook a long time ago (might have been the Fiend Folio), so they didn't stick solely to the Eastern European type of vampire; you're of course right that the basics of the "vampire" template derive from that branch of folklore, though.

Yeah, the Penanggalan has been around a long time in D&D. Sometimes they have their entrails streaming behind them when they're hunting, other times Lovecraftian tentacles.

In "Ravenloft" there are also stats for a Vampire based loosely on the Chinese folklore, called variously an Eastern Vampire (in 2E) or a Chiang-Shi (in 3.X). "Ravenloft" is also famous for the Demihuman Vampire strains: Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling and Kender.

[WolvesbaneIII]

Are there any vampires that can live in sunlight naturally, maybe with stat penalties? Like the necromancy vampires in legacy of kain?

Basically kain was weaker in daylight than at night.

[factotum]

Are there any vampires that can live in sunlight naturally, maybe with stat penalties? Like the necromancy vampires in legacy of kain?

The aforementioned Penanggalan appears as a normal human being during the day and can live in sunlight no problem. I think the whole "sunlight kills vampires" is actually very specific to the Bram Stoker style of the creature.

[hamishspence]

It may have began with the Nosferatu movie - Dracula walks around in daylight just fine in the novel - however, he can't use his special powers.

He's also not killed with a stake, but with a bowie knife - though the other vampires in the book are staked.

[Rakoa]

It may have began with the Nosferatu movie - Dracula walks around in daylight just fine in the novel - however, he can't use his special powers.

He's also not killed with a stake, but with a bowie knife - though the other vampires in the book are staked.

During the filming of one of the classic vampire movies (possibly Nosferatu, maybe Dracula), the actor for the lead vampire role was sick. In order to continue with filming, they brought it another actor and had him cover his face with his cape and hiss in daylight so that the audience wouldn't be able to tell the difference. In other words, they invented the sunlight weakness. And it caught on quite well.

[screwtape]

During the filming of one of the classic vampire movies (possibly Nosferatu, maybe Dracula), the actor for the lead vampire role was sick. In order to continue with filming, they brought it another actor and had him cover his face with his cape and hiss in daylight so that the audience wouldn't be able to tell the difference. In other words, they invented the sunlight weakness. And it caught on quite well.

I think you may be confusing two movies. Ed Wood is known as the worst movie maker ever (outside Bollywood). He and Bela Lugosi were friends, and Lugosi appeared in several of his movies. Wood had test footage of Lugosi which he used for the famously terrible Plan 9 From Outer Space, but not enough to complete the film. So he hired his wife's chiropractor to fill in. He pretty much just ran around, hiding his face behind the cape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bela_Lugosi#Ed_Wood_and_final_projects

This episode was portrayed in the movie, Ed Wood, with Johnny Depp and Martin Landau.

I could not find any reference of Lugosi being sick in the original Dracula.

Nosferatu did not have a cape, but it seems to be the origin of the death by daylight idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_film#History
This may have been done to avoid being sued for plagiarizing Stoker's material. If so, it failed.