Can vampires go swimming in lakes and oceans unharmed?

[milo]

I would say that unless the water has a speed listed it can't run. It also has to run in a straight line. But, if I was to go by the way the rules were written I would say that flowing water = running water. Streams and rivers = bad for a vampire, while oceans and lakes should be ok.

 

[Arravis]

by the RAW, the definition of "running water" is a DM call.

Point well made.

I was hoping for something more substantial than going back to the myth... just seems like folly since D&D already diverges so much from myth (if you ever figure out exactly which myth they are pulling from to begin with).

 

[mvincent]

this is the Rules forum and its purpose is to stick to the RAW.

I disagree. I can (and have before) listed absurdities that can result if one chose strict RAW over RAI. This is because rules are unlikely to always be written with perfect wording (nor do we expect them to).

Regardless, RAI is applicable for discussion in a rules forum (despite your own personal interests).

The findings about flowing water elsewhere in the rules are certainly useful. I would back any DM that chose to adjudicate based on those terms, even though they don't align perfectly (i.e. it's not unreasonable to believe that the writer(s) intended to indicate the same thing with those two different terms, and it's probably the closest match that will be found in the core rules). However, it seems more likely to me that writers did not actually have this in mind, and that one was simply alluding to the commonly known (i.e. Bram Stoker's) vampire weakness. Going with the perceived higher percentage of probable intent is preferable to many than relying on strict literalism. Why would you begrudge them that? I don't think they would begrudge you of your preference (but if they did, I would likely instead be defending your view here).

Even in legal matters, spirit/intent of a law is very relevant.

 

[Legildur]

Even in legal matters, spirit/intent of a law is very relevant.

Interesting topic this one.

You are correct that spirit/intent is useful for ruling on a matter of law where there is ambiguity in the legislation. We certainly have ambiguity here. But do we have a statement of spirit/intent available to us? I certainly haven't seen one yet.

 

[mvincent]

But do we have a statement of spirit/intent available to us?

If it were, that would technically make it the letter of the law. A statement of spirit/intent is normally not present in legal matters either. Instead, the judge uses the 'everyday man' interpretation of the intent (which may or may not be ambiguous).

In this case, we have:
"Vampires are also unable to cross running water, although they can be carried over it while resting in their coffins or aboard a ship."

An everyday man would probably view the intent as trying to capture 'traditional' vampire weaknesses (and the most commonly understood ones are from Bram Stoker). In fact, the vampire weakness section contains some other standard vampire weaknesses that seem to be described more in a traditional (Stoker) sense than a mechanical sense.

Curiously, the passage mentions being carried over running water in a ship (i.e. not a boat). 'Ships' are normally thought of in the context of seagoing (as opposed to traversing rivers and streams). Using a ship to traverse the ocean was a fairly notable scene in Dracula (one which well established the weakness), which is another reason I reckon the writer had Bram Stoker-type weaknesses in mind when he wrote the above passage.