Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn’t evil?
Vampires
Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn’t evil?
good DMs let snowflake players be snowflake characters
But people with social sense don't invite them in the first place.
They can only join your group if you invite them in, just like vampires and houses
Nah. I think good dms wrangle snowflake player's characters into actual characters.
>Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
I mean obviously not. How the frick can you post Mavis and still ask this question, you drooling moron?
>Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn't evil?
No.
No, good GMs don't have snowflake players to begin with.
>DMs
Have you considered trying to attempt to not play D&D, mayfly?
Good DMs let people do whatever and trun the game into a garhering of play pretend your fetish out loud.
Vampires are literally less evil than the average human. They drink the blood of people without killing, meanwhile the average human kills for food. If anything they should be good aligned.
a vegan vampire druid is an interesting character concept
Urban druid with his own private garden in a greenhouse - he ofc can only access it the night, but he still clips the growings, helps the flowers, hears the crickets singing in the dark. Maybe he even believes that humans offend the sun or whatever
If someone made a vegan in my game I'd kill their character until they make a normal person.
Now the historical revisionism of nogames has reached "no vegan elf", when such a thing was so common it used to be a cliché and jokes were made about it.
They'd be vegetarian rather than vegan. Blood is still an animal product.
I like the idea of a little pocket kingdom up in some pine forested mountains. Dull and dreary, steep valleys and tall mountains. A broken landscape that looks ideal for ambushing travelers on lonely roads. More castles than you'd expect in such a small nation that hasn't had a war in centuries, not to the pont of Wales but still a lot of isolated castles.
Every memeber of the aristocracy is a vampire. The population pretend that they don't know. The aristocrats don't seem to know that the gig is up. The peasants are happy with their vampire rulers because if you donate some blood for "medical conditions" you get minimal tax. Also vampires like everything accounted for and neat, there is a place for everything and everything must be in it's place. The roads are in good repair and the bridges are magnificent.
The knigdom is at least 50 - 100 years behind everyone else technologically and most modern fashions don't arrive at all. Everything is very calm, very peaceful and very stable.
There are no bandits. Nobody declares war on vampie kingdom, or at least not twice.
Blood can be given by humans with consent - blood banks are vegan. That is even without considering all the horny humans that would dream being bitten by vampires.
>Veganism
>Interesting
>Guys, why does The Count look more undead than usual?
>He's supposed to be a Vampire, but since he went vegan he looks like a Lich
>And he's gone from "smug undead fricker" to "belligerent moral busybody"
How could it even work?
A modern vamp capable of giving someone the proper medical aid and knowing how to drink measured amounts of blood can do it without killing.
A medieval vamp is killing people left and right just from sepsis and sucking just a bit too much.
>They drink the blood of people without killing
That depends on the setting. In some, being fed upon by a vampire is lethal (though not necessarily immediately). It's still possible to have non-evil vampires in that case, but it's very unlikely.
Oh yeah - but most worlds i can think of have it be non-lethal. Otoh I do remember the og Dracula killing people when drinking
Dracula could definitely feed without killing. He's fed on Lucy multiple times without her dying before Van Helsing starts giving her blood transfusions. Lucy herself feeds on several children without killing any of them, though the book treats it as though she's working up to it.
Honestly, the most monstrous bit about Dracula is that he could theoretically rotate feedings constantly and not kill anyone (though they'd all rise as a vampire upon their death anyway), but he chooses to do so anyway. A lot of the moral aspects of Dracula comes from the fact that vampires don't go to heaven unless they are killed in a specific way, no matter how virtuous they were in life. They have to slay Dracula to save Mina's immortal soul, and Jonathan even states plainly in his journal that if she turns, he'll let her turn him so they can still be together.
>Dracula could definitely feed without killing. He's fed on Lucy multiple times without her dying before Van Helsing starts giving her blood transfusions. Lucy herself feeds on several children without killing any of them, though the book treats it as though she's working up to it.
Wasn't it so that it started a slow vampirisation process? I read it so long ago.
It isn't perfectly clear, but the whole med drama with Lucy made it seem like the transfusions would actually cure her if they could keep Dracula from finishing the job. Likewise, they don't fear for the children Lucy is implied to have fed on.
But they do need to finish Dracula off because if you get bit, even if you recover, you will rise as a vampire when you die. Killing Dracula will "cure" all those he bit, and people bit by them. At least that's my recollection.
Vampires are by nature parasites and rather than predators. They live by cheating their victims out of things needed to survive as compared to predators which compete on mostly even terms with their prey.
It is important to remember that most vampire legends originated as explanations for wasting diseases, anemia and other similar issues that would cause victims to gradually weaken before death. Being the victim of a vampire was not a quick death.
This is the reason why we have dhampirs, hexbloods and half-orcs
So players can play vampires, hags and orcs, monstrous races which are almost always evil
Plus dhampirs don't burn in the sun
Yes and no. There's two methods of becoming a vampire in my setting.
First involves actively seeking it out and selling your soul. They are evil, no questions asked. They're also stronger than the second type, but suffer the traditional weaknesses harder.
Second involves being bitten and changed against your will. They still have their souls so they're OK to a point, aside from an urge to drink blood. Weaker, but unless they start drinking blood, they won't suffer any vampire weaknesses except being uncomfortable in direct sunlight. They can change into the first type by fully embracing their new form and gain more power, but gain all the heavier weaknesses in return.
How does the second type respond to blood donations? Like if I slashed my palm and bled into a cup for them would that blood nourish them? Damn them? Do nothing because there's no direct link to my vitae?
Bit late response, but it would probably be a bad idea. Vampires don't have to drink blood to survive, but drinking it increases their power and vulnerability.
You are correct in that it not being directly drained from you would lessen the effect, however it has a drug addiction effect to it, so the vampire would get cravings for more of it. In theory it's possible fur a vampire with a semi regular supply of external blood to function normally but they'll be constantly straining themselves to not grab the nearest person and drain them dry after a while.
In general it's safer to not bother risking it unless they desperately need a quick power boost.
Whether or not vampires are inherently evil depends on the method of becoming a vampire. If a person can be forcibly turned into a vampire against their will, then they're not inherently evil - but these "good vampires" don't live long because once you're committing cannibalism by drinking the blood of others, you're going down the evil path.
So really, you either die a good vampire, or live long enough to see yourself become evil.
>Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn't evil?
I've let players play vampiric PCs before, but oddly the ones who want to play vampires always want to be evil (or at least morally ambiguous) as well.
If they have to drink blood to survive and if they can find a willing donor, how is that evil? What about drinking blood is in itself evil? Are blood transfusions evil?
>Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
No. As a good example, a strict reading of the rules for Vampire: the Masquerade makes it pretty plain that it's actually *easy* for a vampire to maintain a Humanity of 7 as long as they aren't constantly going near raging infernos or getting into firefights or other things that would trigger Rage or Rotschreck.
All a vampire needs is 1 vitae per night. 1 vitae is a harmless loss for a healthy human that they don't even need to go to the hospital for. Technically this can be sated with animal blood, but it's repeatedly made clear that animal blood tastes disgusting or at least watery and flavorless compared to human blood. But provided that a vampire isn't doing anything to burn through vitae at an accelerated rate, they're fine with just 1 vitae per night.
So in order to maintain a normal person Humanity (7, defined as "it's wrong to hurt or kill, it's wrong to steal or destroy stuff that isn't yours, but sometimes the speed limit is just too damn slow"), a vampire just needs a small Herd, as in literally just one Dot. 3 mortals willing to donate 1 vitae per night, alternating between them each night, means that the vampire will never risk hunger and never risk harming a person. They can live an average if nocturnal life, enjoying eternity without harming anyone. Even most Disciplines, the cool vampire powers, don't require you to spend vitae, so you can still do neat stuff like read peoples' auras with Auspex or move super fast with Celerity, without increasing the vitae load of their herd.
This is important. It means that Vampire society in Vampire: The Masquerade isn't evil because of their curse, because of the Beast, because their curse is an easily manageable condition. Vampire society is evil purely because of the egos of the vampires that make it up, their very human sense of superiority.
They're not monsters. They're buttholes. And they have no one to blame but themselves.
>vampires are evil because of their humanity
Deeper than I anticipated.
Well, I should clarify that there are some caveats based on clans and their distinct Curses.
- Brujah rage easier, so it's harder for them to avoid situations that might make them flip out and do something terrible
- Malkavians are, every single one of them, insane to some degree (though very few of them are full-on fishmalk). This could obviously cause problems.
- Nosferatu are frick ugly and can't interact with normal human society as a result
- Ravnos are addicted to and compelled to commit a particular crime. This obviously might make things difficult for them.
- Giovanni bites are painful rather than euphoric, which might make a Herd harder to keep.
So for these five clans, keeping a human-like Humanity might be harder, though it's by no means impossible except for the most insane Malkavians.
Other than that, though, all of the other major clans (including, notably, both the Sabbat ones) don't have drawbacks that compel them to avoid normal society. Lasombra just got to watch out for mirrors. Tzimisce just need to sleep in their special dirt. Ventrue thanks to their clan weakness are more or less COMPELLED to build a Herd. Setites just have to avoid daylight even more than normal vampires but, hey, they were doing that anyway.
And so on. My personal take on Vampire: the Masquerade is that all that politicking and backstabbing and stuff the setting is famous for, only happens in the big cities with large numbers of vampires with delusions of grandeur who wreck everything for everyone else. But small cities and towns like, say, Topeka in Kansas or Clarks in Louisiana, all have just like one or two vampires who are, if not quite a Friendly Neighborhood Vampire, then at least by no means a threat to anyone else and live a relatively uneventful and simple unlife. They are content.
>Ravnos are addicted to and compelled to commit a particular crime
>aesthetically literal gypsies
What did they mean by this?
Probably to make them aesthetically literally gypsies. We're talking about a company that once in fact published a splatbook for Gypsies, entitled Gypsies. The '90s were a Hell of a drug.
For the record it was controversial to the point where public apologies were made even back then, so no one say anything about "woke culture" or other nonsense.
the Nosferatu curse is actually a boon for those who want too be a good person as it keeps you from interacting with the kine. a Nosferatu that only leaves his haven so he can drink 1 or 2 blood points per night before going back. sure he might end up draining the victim but they are as likely to do it as any other vampire.
>Beasts we are, lest Beasts we become
The animal blood thing reminds me of a series (discworld?) that had a background vampire character who got a job at a kosher butcher. Boring, and taste-free, but it paid the bills, and being a law-abiding taxpayer kept van helsing wannabe's at bay.
Discworld just made Vampire an addition they didn't need blood and could sustain themselves on other substances like coffee or being really good a photography
It wasn't a matter of being really good. Getting really good at a particular art was just a side effect of redirecting the obsession. Even then it was a very delicate thing. The never really stopped craving blood.
>They're not monsters. They're buttholes. And they have no one to blame but themselves.
I once played a Humanity 8 Sabat. Mostly because I didn't understand the rules at the time. The guy got turned against his will and blatantly hated every minute of his immortal existence. Still tried to do his best for others.
This pocket kingdom...it wouldn't happen to be ruled by the Von Carsteins, would it?
I was thinking it would be founded, and still ruled, by, an officer of classical era not!Rome. The higher ups in society know he's been infected by some blood curse even though he won't admit it. They can't fire him without cause and he's managing his condition very well and performing his duties better than most clean officers. So they station him to overseeing the safety and security of some ass backwards mountain dwellers and is then forgotten about.
Centureis later he's still there. Still keeping his condition a secret (everyone knows, nobody cares) and following his orders to keep this rainy, overcast, miserable patch of mountains with it's slightly odd inhabitants safe and secure in the name of an Empire that ended centuries ago. But the Empire never died, no so long as he still flies it's banner.
The rest of the warrior aristocracy he's raised range from just playing along to fully drinking the not!Rome coolaid.
Must be a historian's wet dream, someone who actually remembers Not!Rome and was part of it's administration.
I played a wildlife ranger Gangrel who just wanted to vibe in the forests with the animals , protect the park and protect those who visited it.
He ended the game at humanity 9
The elders of the clan thought i was a idealistic fool and a true outlander but since i was so effective at my job and my coterie was real trustworthy we ended up making some real changes without going to far. (Social animalism was a strange and effective mix)
I never really understood how we managed to have 5 player character all agree not to become monsters....i miss those guys
Frick Werewolves 99/100 gonna fricking try to rip and tear you for the crime of existing
You've gotta reread the Frenzy rules. Mundane triggers for frenzy include taunting, harassment, extreme frustration and being on the receiving end of assault - all of which can be pretty common in reality never mind the ultra-shitty dystopian version of it WoD is meant to be.
I will agree, however, that vampire society is brutal and sucks shit mostly due to the inertia of history. If everyone could live in a perfectly ordered way then there would be no problems for vampires. But that can never happen. Hell is other people is a big theme of the setting.
>Mundane triggers for frenzy include taunting, harassment, extreme frustration and being on the receiving end of assault - all of which can be pretty common in reality never mind the ultra-shitty dystopian version of it WoD is meant to be.
Yeah, but ordinary triggers like taunting have pretty easy to pass Difficulties, and the vampire I’m describing would also have Willpower spare to burn - not because of a high Courage or spending a lot of freebie points on increasing it, but rather because they just don’t put themselves in situations where Willpower is needed often so they’re vanishingly unlikely to e running low on their 3 or 4 points of starting Willpower. Further the typical rate of taunting or assault or the like among Humans in the WoD probably is the same as it is on Earth, precisely because Humanity 7 is supposed to be the overwhelmingly the most common Humanity score among normal humans.
this supposes that you are able to convince a human to willingly give you their blood to feed upon without any sort of coercion or trickery all the while not risking the exposure of vampire's existence to the human world.
it also supposes that you haven't essentially mind-slaved your small blood harem of humans through the supernatural alure of your feeding (see: evil).
Based on what I've seen online, there'd be no shortage of people willing to give their blood to a vampire as long as he or she is hot, no mind control necessary.
using your physical attractiveness as a method to manipulate desperate or impressionable simps into literally giving you their blood doesn't exactly sound moral to me whether they want it or not.
How many of these people actually have the know-how to safely collect their own blood? Sounds like an excellent way for someone to hurt themself.
what kind of gay homosexual wouldn't love to get a their neck bitten, blood sucked while getting a handjob with a tall hot vampiress behind you.
100% consentment on my side
Noone's giving you a handjob moron
>not giving her a creampie while she sucks you off
>Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire
No. Freakshit isn't allowed in my table, and anyone suggesting to play a freakshit is banned for life.
They are just junkies. They may not be evil but they do super fricked up shit to get their fix.
>junkies
>may not be evil
Keep your leftist nonsense out of ttrpgs
I've played two vampiric characters, both of them good aligned
The boy got turned against his will, his wife turned voluntarily so she wouldn't leave him to eternity alone. They figured it out at least
Depends on the setting and it depends on the age because the older they get then they probably care less and less and are more about surviving.
Not to mention it depends on what kind of person said vampire was before they became one and if they still try to uphold their principles.
Knock 'er up!
eh?
>Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
What a stupid fricking question.
>Hurr is there any setting where vampires are capable of morality
There are literally hundreds you simpleton. At least have the presence of mind to ask which we prefer and why rather than wasting our time with such a moronic non-question. Go frick yourself, get out of my sight.
i usually play vampires in the elder scrolls settings who're somewhat morally grey insofar as they are involved in the internal affairs of the Empire as well as Man and use their powers to fight off the elves, contrasted by a selfish pursuit of power and influence
>Spent entire Warhammer Fantasy campaign shilling for Blood Dragons, me and another player are playing cousins descended from one
>He portrays himself as a defender of Bretonnia, and we need to kill a boss for reasons so he and his fellow Blood Dragons can ride against orcs
>Buy it the whole way through, try and convince cousin (and others) that he is honorable and we should join him if given the opportunity
>Get to epilogue, party splits and cousin and I go to meet with vampires
>Cousin guilt trips me into backing out, vampire promised us safe passage if we declined his offer
>Couple hours later we’re run down by his insane mad dog of a daughter, cousin slaughtered, I’m dragged back screaming to be turned
I have never seen a player so smug as their character is killed.
No
No
What are the typical strengths a vampire would get?
Do vampires derive pleasure from sources the same way humans do? (High quality food as in superb blood, sex, drugs...)
How would one go about killing a vampire?
How often would a vampire need to feed and what quantities?
If Hotel Transylvania is anything to go by, they must enjoy sex and reproducing too. And food.
Would a vampire who became one when she like 14 still be stronger than a grown man?
My take? Yes. We're already talking about a corpse that is being animated through some supernatural means, the idea that she's unnaturally strong doesn't really require a huge leap of logic after that.
Their strength should have nothing to do with musculature, instead being related to how recently they've fed, age, and accumulated supernatural power.
yes in Europe
no in America
Depends on her vampiric age, but I'd prefer vampires with big suckers
Yes. Vampires being stronger than humans comes from their supernatural powers so it doesn't depend on their physical size. A 300 year old e-girlvamp is stronger than a bodybuilder who was turned last week due to her age having allowed her to accumulate more powers.
damn undead bats
sucking men off blood
stake correction is needed
Think you can drive that stake deep enough to hit the right spot and make them really feel it?
cheeky bats can't beat the stake
Having them inherently evil actually makes them less evil. They didn't have a choice in the matter. Having some vampires being good and taking pains to never kill people means that every bad vampire chose to be a murderer, chose to be evil.
>Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn’t evil?
Only in VtM. Vampires are OP so either everyone is a vamp or nobody is.
>are they inherently evil in every setting?
No, they're loyalists in fact.
>Imperium of Man
>Not Evil
Okay moron.
Yes.
Call me a sucker, but it's the SUFFERING that makes a good vampire. Watching an already non-evil aligned character struggle with the urges and deal with the consequences is always fun.
Also, I play by "the house always wins" rules when it comes to curses. I will take control of a character and have them feed if they lose too many rolls to resist or don't have a good reason for WHY they shouldn't have feed.
I like my villains evil. Evil.
Vampires are great because they can be near mindless savages or the puppet master pulling all the strings.
They're monsters that look pretty.
Yeah, but what happens when one of your players is bitten and gets turned? Do they automatically become mindless ghouls or do they suddenly start wearing a top hat and mustache so they can start doing dastardly deeds?
They reroll.
Part of the process of becoming a Vampire is dying. Granted, they'll have a short window to get it cured or slow down the process; I'm not a heartless monster.
I get a new vampire to control, they get a new character.
Huh. A genuinely fair ruling.
A hard stance on no vampire characters, but a genuine chance to solve the situation without reaching across the table and ripping up their player sheet.
Kudos.
But do they have to be villains?
NTA but I'd argue that if vampires HAVE to be evil they don't actually have free will. In this case they're nothing more than wild animals that need to be put down. Boring.
Having vampires Chose to be evil and having some ambiguity on if a specific vampire is good or evil makes them far more exciting.
I see being evil as part of their nature as supernatural beings.
But why? They don’t choose to be evil, and an animal isn’t evil because it feeds to sustain itself.
It's more the lore surrounding the supernatural nature of the affliction
Vampires at their core are beings that feed off of sapient and sentient creatures to those creature's detriment. They are moving corpses driven by hunger that never know a moment's peace. Even in covens they are constantly on the look out for betrayal, and those in power can never rest without the rest of usurpation close at hand.
A vampire might not start evil, but they will become evil. Whether it is to sate their eternal hunger, needing to stay ahead of their rivals and hunters, or falling victim to the games of power within undead society.
When you see living things as little more than food, you become evil pretty quick.
Closest I've ever been is my current Robot Artificer. He read an evil book from a evil moon cosmic horror, failed the wisdom save and now he's a psuedo-vampire who needs blood daily or else he suffers a level of exhaustion.
Only problem, is that the only two humanoids I have access to are the giant lizardfolk barbarian and the definitely cursed blood human...and they might be the only two humanoids left alive after said evil moon cosmic horror unleashed itself on our world.
I did have the option to become a true vampire robot... but my PC enjoys being a machine and this is making him far more human then he likes to be.
Vampires are the only undead that *have* to be evil.
Also they're more like crack addicts for blood/life force, and other undead consider them kind of pathetic (if sometimes powerful and dangerous).
Also they are room temperature, can't get erections or otherwise be aroused, and so sex with them is disgusting.
>Vampires are the only undead that *have* to be evil.
Liches have to be evil as well, they just become knowledge and power hungry autists instead of blood addicts
Setting aside the weeb coomer shit which basically has nothing at all to do with vampires, people commonly mistake vampires as demons or devils. They’re not, they’re cursed souls who are likely suffering terribly from the curse while it drives them to prey on the living. Entertainment media depictions seem to want to make them not into cursed undead by rather an edgy sub-species of human who take sustenance from blood and that’s not much less absurd than the weeb coomer shit.
Cursed suffering sadboys are much more absurd than happy big titty dommy mommies.
Can't we have cursed sad boys and happy evil big titty mommy mommies?
>Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
Not always undead, not always evil.
>Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn’t evil?
Played a Malcavian drug dealer in a Los Angeles chronicle a while back. The chronicle didn't last very long but good times where had by all. I honestly think that playing as vampires is better in an all vampire game or at least in some context where your weaknesses won't impact the party, like if the group your vampire is a part of is already nocturnal or your a dhampire who doesn't suffer the weaknesses of a vampire to the same extent.
Vampires must be evil because they must kill other humans to feed. If they can feed on animals they're not very cursed at all, are they? Run a sheep herd and train them to be nocturnal, never starve for blood again.
Humans could live without eating animals, does eating animals make us evil?
Animals don't have souls though
You don’t have a soul, Greg. Can I milk you?
Catholic dogs do. Presbyterian dogs can talk to their minister.
>does eating animals make us evil?
Yes.
How can people look at a factory farm or a slaughterhouse and not realise the pure evil of the place? Of course they do. They just don't care about it - pretty much all humans are by definition evil.
So the slaughter of thousands of innocent plants means nothing to you?
Even if you actually thought plants were in any way comparable to animals, which you do not really apart for trolling, you also do know that eating animals by the literal laws of thermodynamics means you kill way more plants.
You're a moron, basically. Just admit you just don't care about being evil instead of coping lol
>Even if you actually thought plants were in any way comparable to animals
Why not?
>which you do not really apart for trolling, you also do know that eating animals by the literal laws of thermodynamics means you kill way more plants.
At the same time, if the animals were not being raised for food they'd never have existed as their habitats were eradicated for cropland. If not for animal husbandry these animals would have long since gone extinct.
>You're a moron, basically. Just admit you just don't care about being evil instead of coping lol
No, you just have a very shallow sense of morality and like to demonize others in order to feel better about your life. In short, a Karen.
>Karen
Ok redditor lmao
We were the monsters all along…
All vampires deserve death. They are no better than parasitic capitalist pigs draining the life out of the noble workers. Vampires are evil incarnate, letting one live will ruin your home, destroy your family, and ruin your community.
Kill vampires. Behead vampires. Roundhouse kick a vampire into a church. Slam dunk a vampire spawn into the trashcan. Crucify filthy bloodsuckers. Defecate in a vampires coffin. Launch vampires into the sun. Stir fry vampires in a wok. Toss vampires into active volcanoes. Urinate into a vampires face. Judo throw vampires into holy water. Twist vampire heads off. Report vampires to the church. Karate chop vampires in half. Curb stomp vampire spawns. Trap vampires in quicksand. Stake vampires . Liquefy vampires in corrosive sludge. Dissect vampires. Exterminate vampires in the gas chamber. Cremate vampires in the oven. Lobotomize vampires. Mandatory defanging for vampires. Grind vampire spawns in the garbage disposal.
>Behead vampires. Roundhouse kick a vampire into a church. Slam dunk a vampire spawn into the trashcan
All this mean while all a vampire has to do is wait around for 80 years and you will die all on your own? You mortals really are a joke! Since your life is so short sacrificing some of your blood to sustain our eternal existence is a privilege for your kind. On top of that us vampires are an asset to the local economy because we graciously use our wealth creating jobs for dimwitted mortals such as yourself. (your welcome by the way)
cute smugpire
chapter 3 never
>gets manhandled and killed by a vampire monk
HE WON
Correct response.
I don't care how immortal or spooky you are. We're getting the village together and burning down your shitty castle.
>are they inherently evil in every setting?
Depends on 1) how they were turned and 2) how they manage the curse.
If they sold their soul (like Alucard in Hellsing), they're probably a shitbag. If they got embraced forcibly or under severe pressure (Seras Victoria, Astarion, many such cases), you really can't hold it against them.
If they kill, assault, or otherwise abuse people for their fix, probably a shitbag. If they just find goths who are into getting their blood drunk (or something like that) and take a little off the top, that's fine.
>Have you ever let a player RP as a vampire that wasn’t evil?
No, just because nobody's ever actually asked to do that (I mostly run sci-fi stuff, so Dracula would be pretty out of place)
All vampires are Good. Humans are the ones who are Evil.
What do you think about "living" vampires who gain their vampiric condition through a viral infection, like a virus or a genetic mutation both natural and/or artificial?
Very silly, to be honest. If I'm going to have "living vampires", I may as well just have a race of bat-people.
>vampire girl meets human boy for the first time
>immediately wants to get knocked up
Why are they like this?
Wtf I love vampires now
They want to have that yang energy.
European vampires may not have the same terminology for it, but they all feel the same urge.
is she 1000 years old?
It's the ONLY way they can have real children. Vampire + Vampire just doesn't work. And when you're eternally young, there's zero downside to having kids.
You can't blame a vampiress for falling for the first hunky mortal she runs into.
The downside is that the kid becomes a dhampir and wants to kill you.
Vampire hunter dhampirs usually have a vampire father. Presumably they're pissed off that their dad dumped their mom and left her to raise a half-vampire child. A dhampie raised by a vampire mom would probably have a more favorable view of vampires.
>Dhampirs with vampire fathers are broody, angsty and violent, seeking revenge on the undead for their cursed state.
>Dhampirs with vampire mothers are spoiled little shits that think they're better than everyone else.
Fun dynamic.
Vampires can mate with humans?
Ever hear of a Dhamphir?
Vampire girls only want one thing, and it's fricking wholesome
Would a pregnant vampire's breasts contain milk or blood?
I'm gonna go with blood if only because vampires are supposed to be undead. Milk seems...of brand. Then again, they could have both.
I like the way MtG did not-necessarily evil (though still often butthole) vampires with the Order of the Sacred Dusk.
Basically, the keeper of a stolen holy relic who had sworn to recover it no matter how long it took allowed herself to be turned into a vampire so she could actually fulfill her vow. After centuries of wandering she returned to her homeland only to find it in the middle of a civil war after the death of the king, with the side supporting the monarchy about to lose. She offered the queen to turn her knights into vampires in order to turn the tide of the war, and in desperation she agreed. The new army of vampire-knights crushed the rebels, leading to the original vampire being declared a saint for saving the kingdom and a new holy order of vampire-knights being created.
The members of the Order of the Sacred Dusk consider becoming a vampire a form of martyrdom, willingly sacrificing their humanity in order to protect their nation. They're only allowed to drink the blood of criminals and enemies of the nation, which causes the kingdom to have a policy of continuous expansion since they need to wage war in order to feed their army of vampires. At the time of the set's storyline they've conquered most of not!Europe and have sailed across the sea to not!South America to do the whole conquistador thing.
Some of the vampires are genuinely good and honorable people who truly believe they're sacrificing their own souls for the greater good, while a lot are just murderous buttholes who use their religious doctrine as a justification for being murderous buttholes. Also later some of the more assholish vampires abandon their original religion in favor of worshiping the demon-god of vampirism and seeking to dominate the living.
>Also later some of the more assholish vampires abandon their original religion in favor of worshiping the demon-god of vampirism and seeking to dominate the living.
To be fair, said demon god of vampirism is their actual progenitor and is very likely the source of said saint's vampirism. The Legion of Dusk is probably the most interesting and aesthetic faction Magic has created in the past decade though. Hopefully they don't go full moron and make them all mustache twirling evil fodder for the "underdog" natives and pirates to defeat.
>Hopefully they don't go full moron and make them all mustache twirling evil fodder for the "underdog" natives and pirates to defeat.
we are dealing with WOTC writers here anon, the Vampires will be the Villians that job to the other factions and it will be a good thing
The most recent set featuring them did have both moustache-twirling villain vampires and more sympathetic ones, with the evil ones being the ones who turned to demon-worship to the main faction is still lawful neutral leaning evil instead of chaotic evil.
Also interestingly somebody on the MtG thread made a pretty good point bout why the vampire-god's card doesn't at all synergize with the playstyle of Legion of Dusk. Aside from being the source of vampirism he doesn't really have anything to do with their society or their believes, other than some heretical vampires going "look I found a mention in some old book about a god of vampires, we should totally worship him". There's another god in the same set, the god of civilization, who synergizes with the vampire cards a lot more, which actually thematically makes sense since the Legion of Dusk is ideologically a lot closer to him than to the vampire god.
>The most recent set featuring them did have both moustache-twirling villain vampires and more sympathetic ones, with the evil ones being the ones who turned to demon-worship to the main faction is still lawful neutral leaning evil instead of chaotic evil.
The problem lies with the fact the vampire god is explicitly going to Torrezon and aims to overthrow the current regime to become the continent's god king, and knowing Wizards' current writers, I hope they don't have the more moderate faction aligned with Elenda just get killed off/converted so the other factions can defeat the NotEuropean demon vampire conquistadors who follow a usurper god of night. Ixalan had some nuanced story telling, with none of the four major factions being the de facto "good guy" faction, but having the vampires turning into literal demons following a dark god of night and death in the second visit to Ixalan is pretty ham-fisted compared to how they were presented in the original block.
In dnd vampires are a mimicry of the person who was turned, and actually souless monsters. I personally dislike that lore tidbit, but it opens up a fun possibility:
What would happen if their death also produced a ghost, and they possessed their own body in some manner?
I could see them arguing, with the vampire turning it's charisma up to 11 to attempt to gaslight the ghost into thinking it's the original. Could be such a fun side character.
Anyone got a cool/neat sounding name for a Kingdom whose royal family are basically vampires? My players might meet then soon and I wouldn't mind name ideas if anyone's willing. I initially wanted to go with Wallach, fun to try and pronounce with the accent. (I already know only one of the five players will get the reference) but I'm open to other, maybe a bit more original sounding names.
Malkavia
net little reference, could work
Could also work, I doubt anyone would connect the dots there
Mavisylvania
Ainavlysnart.
Ruled by the archduke Alucard.
what does it mean?
You can't be serious.
Shuddup
I tried saying it. I sounded like I was just saying anal lmao. But The title of Archduke is pretty cool sounding, I'll use that.
Ainavlysnart. Pronounced Ain-Av-lys-nart. Land of the Eripmav.
Eripmav. A creature known for needing to compulsively donate its own blood.
Flederhaus
They're undead monsters who feed on the blood of the living, and are entirely at the mercy of their base animal instincts, often time enforced by unholy and evil forces and/or magic.
They're evil.
There you go. Done.
Any Good with a Capital G Vampire ends up walking into the sun in the very first fricking dawn they exist, because they'd rather just kill themselves and end their lives rather than to make others suffer needlessly for their slowly degenerating condition of being undead where they'll harm others.
You may cope, seethe and mald about this but its as simple as this. If a Paladin of Good Hope got bitten, he'd be walking into the sunlight without giving a single shit, knowing it was the right thing to do.
Vampires don’t exist, and even if we did does their existing automatically equal suffering?
>even if we did
>does their existing automatically equal suffering?
Yes. Vampires are bad. Every skill and trait and necessity and nature associated with vampires is bad. Its harmful, abusive and terrible on every level, including spiritual and metaphysical.
>what about-
Irrelevant, they also deserve a stake to the heart even if their hearts still beat. Walk into the Sun if you are Good Vanon, but don't cope and try to argue out of this.
But why?
Because its the truth.
Sounds boring. Like you're just dealing with some generic baddie. Just send a Demon, at least then you've got to figure out what they're capable of.
>they'd rather just kill themselves and end their lives rather than to make others suffer needlessly for their slowly degenerating condition of being undead where they'll harm others.
That's a boring as frick way to handle heroes being afflicted with such a curse. Heroes trying to deal with denial and master their cravings is kino, regardless of whether they succeed or fail.
Hence the Good with a G. You're not really a Good Person if you don't do what I said, you're still trying to be capital G but you aren't. You can try and be a hero, but you're not pure of heart and true of soul, you're trying to walk a path you can't reach.
Can this be compelling, seeing them fall and stumble as they do horrid shit over the many many nights? Yeah, VTM is that entire concept. But nobody in there is a Good vampire because all Good vamps walked on the sun in the first or second night. You misunderstand that true Good wouldn't let anyone else be hurt by this and would do what needed to be done to harm the less possible and that the spice is in the denial of the monster you became and the 29 layers of cope as you degrade into the monster you truly are.
A true Hero would do what needs to be done, but often players aren't true Heros. That's the fun of seeing them frick around.
>Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
i don't think any TTRPG race is. people play orcs as non-evil.
I personally prefer lawful neutral vampires, who view their relationship with Humans as more like "livestock to be managed and increased in number" rather than "livestock to be devoured and exterminated". Unquenchable thirst is important, but they're also nobles and as such they should have at least a facade of wanting the best for their vassals. This also allows for more interactions with PCs, as if vampires are just straight up evil then players won't even attempt diplomacy and sometimes even beeline to go slay them if they're able. I think this cheapens the whole concept, much like how dragons are often reduced to "boss monster".
My brand of vampires are particularly evil such that one group has created their own religion of sorts along with a social structure that posits that they are an existential next step for Humanity to keep the rest of Humanity.
They will sometimes attempt to capture and contain the feral members who did not survive their Hunger Madness and keep them as experiments or special pets.
Vampirism is an inversion of the human/mortal spiritual journey. Whereas the latter starts as a developing someone, often wishing to attain longevity by means of becoming something, the vampire is thrust into the position of being some thing that may become someone. Attaining that very personal balance of one's weaknesses and strengths is as difficult for a vampire as it is for a human.
… so good idea for a player character?
Every time I read up about vampires I realize my vampires are the best. I make the best vampires. I am amazed that I of all people was the one who succeeded in making the best vampires, but indeed, that was me. Sometimes I try to challenge this truth and wonder if my vampires might actually not be the best, but no, they really are the best. I love vampires so much, and you know what's even better than vampires? I won't tell you lol
what are you even trying to say?
That my vampires are the best
Obviously false for every setting. You can simply imagine a setting where they're not evil.
technically speaking no, but those who don't become evil or go insane often die.
In my setting the vampires you see are essentially thralls of a Greater Vampire which is more akin to a demon or something, entirely a spirit and not bound to the physical world at all, who operates by holding captive the souls of any vampires it creates via magical disease (spread by bite, of course, but only "activated" in individuals the Greater Vampire deems a worthwhile investment), and in turn these souls grant it more power, like batteries or capacitors for magic.
Technically there are ways to more ethically be a vampire, like having donors get blood drawn (not biting them, as this could let the Greater Vampire turn them) and drinking that, but these generally rely on either a benevolent organization or community good will to avoid being staked immediately.
I will also mention that similar logic also applies to other undead; just as a vampire is free to choose their actions, a True Undead that is an actual person/creature's soul grafted to a vessel can as well (whereas other undead are simply vessels being puppeteered by magic)
This is as good as any thread to ask in:
Dhampirs age slower and seem to have a lifespan of 180 years
>As far as I remember from DnD/forgotten realms lore
But I also recall that this is only for HUMAN dhampirs (so like 100+ years for humans)
So if I had an elf vampire (and elves age slower anyways) would they only have +100 years or would they be able to become a lot older than other dhampirs?
Make it 2000+ years but they do age even if slowly so they eventually become too decrepit to function and have to kill themselves or get killed.
>Although undead, are they inherently evil in every setting?
i don't think so