Am I the only one who doesn't like the D&D Vampire? (Pointless rant, I suppose)

[mmadsen]

I've got a "half-vampire" class (the Avenger, from Ravenloft 2e) and I'm thinking about letting them swap levels from that class into some kind of Evil Vampire Prestige Class.

What does your half-vampire Avenger class look like?

 

[The Serge]

I'm pleased to inform you folks that this thread has been far more interesting than recent Vampire threads I've seen at the WotC site (which were closed due to a lot of flaming).

Anyway, I think the problem with Vampires and virtually every monster or class in the D&D game is bridging the gap of folklore and popular contemporary concepts.

A few people here clearly like the Anne Rice influenced Vampire which has greatly impacted popular concepts of this creature. (Incidently, this "romantic" vampire showed up before Stoker's Dracula in that there were "noble" vampires in other, very long stories). We see this Vampire in the Masquerade and in many novels of varying quality.

Then, we have those of you who want the more "traditional" Vampire, a la Dracula, clearly a monster who is both reviled and seductive (again, the seductive aspect of this kind of Vampire is very flexible. Dracula brought out a sensuality that is considered repellent in the novel, and most movie and stage adaptations of Dracula added quasi-romantic elements not at all related to the novel itself).

And, then, there are those who are talking about the folklore vampire, the plague that rots in a grave, kills everything in sight, doesn't have as many fancy powers, etc.

I think the problem here is, if D&D were to cling to a folklorish Vampire, they would cut out a large number of people unfamiliar with such a creature. In addition, I think this kind of "vampire" does exist, only under different names like Ghast, Ghoul, and Wight. Furthermore, attempting to create a completely folklore-ridden vampire would result in most of the monster in the MM and other creature collections being changed. Say goodbye to mega-powerful dragons, cutesy Elves, noble Dwarves, and so on.

As for those wanting the angst-ridden, super sexy, androgenous, "bisexual" Vampire, well, you also end up conflicting with the mainstream because most people, although they see Vampires as beautiful and all that, still see them as monsters that only come out at night and kill people (incidently, the vampire in Stoker's Dracula could move about during the day, although he was stuck in the last form he was in when the dawn arrived). The vampire you're asking for really is more of a role-playing issue. (I will say that I happen to like this vampire-type just fine, although I think it has been overused and overblown since the mid-90s).

The vampire template in the MM is fine. It captures the traditional powers we associate with vampires, while attempting to pay homage to both tradition (the Constitution drain is something seen in some "oriental" vampires and some "European" vampires) and the new-age, sexy vampire (that Dominate person is a real charmer). Sure, on paper, these vampires appear very powerful and seem to just be monsters. But, that's the point with this version of D&D's creature collections; the MM provides the stats and the building suggestions (which I use because they allow for balance, a very important consideration for 3ed). It does not tell you how to make each vampire distinct from others of its ilk. If you want a raving, slathering monster, it's up to the DM to craft and role-play one. If you want a seductive, angst-ridden charmer, again, the DM can create one. Also consider that Ravenloft does offer more power and varients for the vampire template that allows DMs to make even more refined undead. While it would have been nice to see these rules in the MM, I suspect they were excluded due to space constraints and 3ed tendancy to cling to traditional, 1ed ideas.

Anyway, I once again commend everyone here for this great thread.

Later!

 

[Henry]

I see the D&D Vampire fine as-is, but there is certainly room for variation. I think the most salient point brought up in this whole discussion is that D&D Vampires are supposed to be scary to only one group - the players. If they don't scare the players, they aren't doing their job.

How do you scare a player? Storminator has it right on here: You either give them abilities that take away those things the player holds dear to their characters, or you use mood, ambiance, tone, etc. to generate the feeling that these beasties can REALLY put an end to your characters.

Not all DM's are masters of tone and mood. However, the PC-destroying powers of level-draining and mental dominance are perfect for subtly scaring the bejeezus out of the people behind those character sheets.

Back in the olden days of 2E, when level draining was almost permanent, I used level-draining undead sparingly. When I did, they were treated with more viciousness on the part of the players than against any other creature I set them against.

Once, I ran a halloween-themed game against them, involving HUNDREDS of wights, wraiths, and spectres. I never saw a finer tribute to navy SEALS than I did out of the players at that session. They were so on the edge of their seats, you would have sworn it was THEM in Vecna's Spidered Throne, rather than their PC's. It wasn't Vecna that scared them - it was his minions they had to bypass to get to him.

 

[Voadam]

I will have to reread the Secrets book again, it has been a number of months since I have read it. (My campaign's been in Sri Raji for the last year or so.

So I cracked the Secrets book open this weekend and the shallow feeding sidebar allows vamps to inflict temporary con damage instead of permanent drain in their blood draining attacks, they just require twice as much temporary damage as permanent to sustain them each day. It says about 8 points a day for the average vamp. So with a stable of at least 8 prisoners or whatever, a vamp can spread out the feeding so the victims recover by the time he needs to feed on them again.

This sidebar rule is a very good option allowing vamps to feed and not always decimate a population. It just should have been in the core setting book description of how vamps in Ravneloft differ from the MM. Or even in the MM itself.

 

[mmadsen]

Anyway, I think the problem with Vampires and virtually every monster or class in the D&D game is bridging the gap of folklore and popular contemporary concepts.

That may be a problem with the Vampire (and many other monsters), but the chief problem seems to be that the D&D Vampire doesn't represent the Vampire of folklore, the Vampire of Stoker's Dracula, or the Vampire of Anne Rice's novels -- or even an amalgam of those varied Vampires.

And really, one single power seems to cause most of the complaints: the level-draining "slam".

In addition, I think this kind of "vampire" does exist, only under different names like Ghast, Ghoul, and Wight.

Good point.

Speaking of traditional monsters and Ghouls, the Ghul of Arabic tradition either sucked blood or ate corpses, but it was a shapeshifter -- and like many shapeshifters in folklore, it had a flaw: it always had the hooves of an ass.

Does anyone know where the paralysis of the D&D Ghoul came from?

 

[mmadsen]

Once, I ran a halloween-themed game against them, involving HUNDREDS of wights, wraiths, and spectres. I never saw a finer tribute to navy SEALS than I did out of the players at that session. They were so on the edge of their seats, you would have sworn it was THEM in Vecna's Spidered Throne, rather than their PC's. It wasn't Vecna that scared them - it was his minions they had to bypass to get to him.

Sounds excellent. This raises an interesting question though. If attacks that scare players make the game more fun, why do we introduce rampant healing and escalating hit points -- two aspects of the game that take away that fear?

 

[coyote6]

This raises an interesting question though. If attacks that scare players make the game more fun, why do we introduce rampant healing and escalating hit points -- two aspects of the game that take away that fear?

Many reasons: D&D is not a horror game; many (most, IME) players don't like being afraid all the time; playing tough characters (ergo, lots of hit points) is fun; and not being stuck with permanent crippling injuries or long recovery times is also fun-increasing.

 

[kenjib]

Sounds excellent. This raises an interesting question though. If attacks that scare players make the game more fun, why do we introduce rampant healing and escalating hit points -- two aspects of the game that take away that fear?

I think it's a balancing point for randomness. You want enough randomness to scare the players but not so much that they die too often. Really it helps you have your cake and eat it too. You want the illusion of danger more than danger itself, no (of course occasional reinforcement of true danger is necessary)? I think this is the design principle of D&D and also helps to explain why it is so ridiculously easy to bring back people from the dead.

As regards the paralysis of the ghoul -- my money would be on some short story or novel that Mr. Gygax read somewhere.

 

[The Serge]

That may be a problem with the Vampire (and many other monsters), but the chief problem seems to be that the D&D Vampire doesn't represent the Vampire of folklore, the Vampire of Stoker's Dracula, or the Vampire of Anne Rice's novels -- or even an amalgam of those varied Vampires.

I somewhat disagree. I think the D&D vampire does represent all of these elements, only it requires innovative use of the given rules to capture them the way most fans of one or the other varient see them.

I could easily run a Ricesque Vampire. The energy drain would be like effect that most people undergo when Lestat or Louis or any other vampire drinks; victims tend to freeze up almost instantly when "attacked." I could also use the Dominate power to "read minds" by keeping careful contact with thralls.

I capture the "classic," "traditional" vampire through all of the shapechanging powers, the aversion to things like garlic and religious symbols.

And, for the folklore component, I could use either a simple Spawn, or I can use a full-blown vampire who isn't interested in mingling with its prey and couldn't care less that it will ruin its food supply by over hunting.

And really, one single power seems to cause most of the complaints: the level-draining "slam".

Well, while I agree that a permanent drain is a little silly, someone already pointed out that some of the folklorish vampires caused severe weakness to those they assaulted before they drank their blood. And a "slam" is a punch, slap, kick, or whatever. I think "slam" sounded more threatening and possibly more inclusive than any of the aforementioned examples to the designers.

Good point.

Thanks!

Speaking of traditional monsters and Ghouls, the Ghul of Arabic tradition either sucked blood or ate corpses, but it was a shapeshifter -- and like many shapeshifters in folklore, it had a flaw: it always had the hooves of an ass.

Does anyone know where the paralysis of the D&D Ghoul came from?

I think it's related to the Vampire's Con drain, only it just "stuns" the victim, making them easier to attack. The victim is overwhelmed by the stench, preternatural cold, and evil o the Ghoul that seeks to rip the victim to shreds. I'd be so terrified that I'd probably be stunned.

 

[radferth]

Whence ghouls

I am pretty sure that D&D ghouls are taken from _The Hour of the Dragon_ Conan story by R. E. Howard. I am not sure if that is the correct story, as they all tend to run together in my mind. I think the basis for the carnivorous ape (now dire ape) came from the same story. The physical description of ghouls my owe a bit to Lovecraft, but Lovecraft's ghouls were quite different from D&D ghouls or ghouls of Arabian folklore.