D&D 5E Nananananananaaaa BATMAN! (about vampires in D&D and in general, Ravenloft/Curse of Strahd etc.)

[PMárk]

So, the topic came up in the Volo's Guide to monsters thread, but it derailed the thread, so.

How do you like your vampires? Pure evil monsters? Moral ambiguity? What do you think about the setting changes (or rather setting non-observance) between CoS and the 2e/3e Ravenloft setting?

Things like that.

Discuss!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Vampires are pure evil, but they're more than willing to pretend to moral ambiguity the better to sucker PCs.

 

[Leatherhead]

Vampires work best as inhuman monsters that pretend to be human. Even the "exception to the rule" vampire characters struggling for redemption or whatever, work better if the rest of them are inhuman monsters for contrast.

 

[happyhermit]

...

How do you like your vampires?
...

Dead. I mean dead dead, as in actually dead. It was many years ago when the whole vampire thing became so unbelievably done to death that I just got bored by the mere thought of it. Not vampires as actual monsters but the angst, the tortured souls, the women who couldn't help but fall in love with them anyways (they would have to teach them to hold back their passionate beastly ways of course). The characters who hated/disliked their very nature and fought against it in an attempt to redeem themselves (Drizzzt anyone?). Then we got another pile of the same stuff, mostly centered around teen girls, sparkling even... One of the very few tropes/genres that I actually got completely sick of.

So when it came to the new CoS, I was pleasantly surprised. Overall I think the book is great and there was plenty there to make Strahd interesting while leaving many things open enough for the GM and players to have it come out differently in a particular game. I really don't see Strahd in the book to be some one dimensional character and the Strahd in actual play often seems rather interesting to me, for a vampire.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Vampires work best as inhuman monsters that pretend to be human. Even the "exception to the rule" vampire characters struggling for redemption or whatever, work better if the rest of them are inhuman monsters for contrast.

I agree with this very strongly - even when it comes to playing as a vampire, such as in Vampire: the Masquerade (where I find the appeal to me to be the, as the cover of the book puts it, "personal horror" of being a monster whether you like it or not). Plus, the struggle for redemption angle doesn't feel like much of a struggle unless the odds are clearly stacked against the character finding that redemption.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, Hickman made Strahd as an anti-Rice sort of character, rejecting the romanticism of an evil archetype. Vampires are vicious mothersuckers, plain and simple: stake 'em in the heart, fill their left sock with rocks and throw it in the river, cover their grave with salt and holy water.

 

[Oofta]

The only reason vampires sparkle in my world is because they've been exposed to the sun and are about to explode.

Vampires are evil and driven by hunger and lack all sense of humanity, empathy or compassion; people are simply cattle. You may have a favorite cow, vampires can become obsessed with beauty or an individual but it's similar to someone coveting a piece of art.

 

[delericho]

So, the topic came up in the Volo's Guide to monsters thread, but it derailed the thread, so.

How do you like your vampires? Pure evil monsters? Moral ambiguity?

Evil monsters, some of whom pretend moral ambiguity.

That said...

What do you think about the setting changes (or rather setting non-observance) between CoS and the 2e/3e Ravenloft setting?

I don't like the changes to Strahd's backstory because the key changes are in the story from before he became a vampire. And I find watching a good person becoming a bad monster to be far more interesting than watching a bad person just take the next step in his badness.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've always found the vampire as soulless monster dreadfully boring. Even Dracula was a tragic figure, cursed by his nature. Once a hero, now a creature of darkness, etc. that is a story.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Dead. I mean dead dead, as in actually dead. It was many years ago when the whole vampire thing became so unbelievably done to death that I just got bored by the mere thought of it. Not vampires as actual monsters but the angst, the tortured souls, the women who couldn't help but fall in love with them anyways (they would have to teach them to hold back their passionate beastly ways of course). The characters who hated/disliked their very nature and fought against it in an attempt to redeem themselves (Drizzzt anyone?). Then we got another pile of the same stuff, mostly centered around teen girls, sparkling even... One of the very few tropes/genres that I actually got completely sick of.

So when it came to the new CoS, I was pleasantly surprised. Overall I think the book is great and there was plenty there to make Strahd interesting while leaving many things open enough for the GM and players to have it come out differently in a particular game. I really don't see Strahd in the book to be some one dimensional character and the Strahd in actual play often seems rather interesting to me, for a vampire.

Yeah I love vampires as monsters instead of immortal lovers in frilly shirts struggling with angst and the women who can't help but love them...