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

[Doug McCrae]

Regarding my idea that vampires must kill to stay alive: Eternal life is something that humans have wanted, but not yet achieved, for as long as we have been in existence. It's a powerful desire. In literature it goes all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, making it literally the 'oldest one in the book'.

Because immortality is such a great prize it makes conceptual sense to us that it requires a great price to be paid, and human life is the ultimate price. If a vampire can live forever by drinking the blood of animals or by 'nibbling' their victims - draining blood without killing - then I think it seems that it has been gained too cheaply. There's something a bit naff about vampires who don't kill, an oxymoron we can't help but notice.

That said, in most of the legends and notable early fiction, vampirism does seem to be more about disease than eternal life. I think it stems from our natural aversion to dead bodies because they presented a real risk of contagion.

 

[PMárk]

I think the main reasons of why we consider blood-drinking as such as an inhuman act is ultimately boils down to the taboo of cannibalism in the western culture, not because the vampire must kill to eat. We, humans are seeing themselves as something above the natural world, thus something that could blend in our society, but feeding on us is inherently evil in most people's eyes. It plays on one of our worst fears that we are not safe, there's something out in the dark that hunts us.

Aside from that, I think the inhumanity of vampires are many-fold:

1. While they are not have to kill to feed, they also don't have to stop. Why hunting down 4-5 victims in a night to feed, when you could do it from just one if you drain it dry? Some don't want to kill, so restricting themselves. Some do it for better hiding. Yet, some just doesn't care, and in the end those are the ones that get knocking adventurers at their doors very quickly. For some, it is just toooo good a feeling and they can't stop, just as any other addict.

2. Also, the case of hunger and "the beast" in WoD. There is something absolutely inhuman in vampires, which, when allowed to roam free, or taking the drive seat for any reasons is just doesn't care. It's a rabid animal, or a cunning one, depending on the game/book or what do you want. I think it is a great concept, the need to balancing things. You could forsake your human side and became a monster. It feels good, it feels free, strong. But I think it allows more deep and diverse stories if we don't assume everyone succumbs to it.

3. They are immortal. It's hard to not get detached and not-caring when you watched everyone die around you that might anchored you to your human side. I don't think every old vampire should be a beast, but they are definitely inhuman. Yes, elves are very similar and this side often get neglected in rpgs and from players playing them. Still Vampires and other sentient undead are even one step further, because they also lost theneeds and desires that defines a living being and a human. Again, in WoD's Vampire the roads/paths of enlightenment is a great concept of how vampires invent philosophies and inhuman creeds to avoid succumbing to the beast and live through the ages. Or when they just want to shed humanity and want to became something else, but an organized something else.

 

[flametitan]

I get where you're coming from. However, I'd argue back that a specific NPC's and especially an "end boss" and iconic NPCs performance in the story isn't just about his on-screen performance, since the players presumably learned a lot about him through the adventure prior to that point, thus a more interesting backstory indeed adds to the quality of the adventure. Besides, I as a GM could do more work with a more interesting and relatable villain, it adds depth to his personality, to his goals and generally makes me more interested in him. I like when an adventure has interesting background besides the interesting here and now encounters. Makes the whole more lively to me. that, and i like to read stories, I like to read the adventure background in Paizo's APs, because even when the players won't explore the whole of it, it adds to my game.

My counterpoint is probably cliche, but: Star Wars. Without the expanded universe, we know next to nothing about Tarkin or the Emperor, and yet they're still interesting to watch. They don't have complex goals, but I like watching them interact, and consider their performances memorable. To me, that's more important than the actual "fleshing out" of character motivations. And that's what I mean. Heaps of background is all for naught if all you do is roll your eyes and groan when the character is on stage.

Having background is nice. Curse of Strahd has background. Background, however, isn't always good. Background is space that could be used to have more events in the book. Background also needs to be relevant to the plot, or in some way accessible to players. If it isn't, then it's utterly irrelevant wasted space.

Princes of the Apocalypse, as much as I like the premise, has that problem. The first chapter of the book is dedicated to the background of the adventure, but the characters have no means of accessing, or even learning about the "Elemental Eye," making his presence utterly wasted space. And as far as I can tell, the only actual way to learn about the creation of the weapons is to backtrack out of the megadungeon (Which a number of DMs have had trouble motivating their parties to do), go on a side quest, and then ask the right questions, probably not knowing that the NPC can answer questions about the history of the elemental cults. Really, the adventure would do fine with a simple "Cultists are harnessing the elements for evil. Go stop them." If you need a bit more backstory, the prophets already have their own. It's very easy to strip out the Eye and Vizeran DeVir and not change the plot.

I don't know how Pathfinder is with making sure the background lore is actually useful and relevant to the plot.

Because it was advertised as a toe-dip in Ravenloft. Because Ravenloft isn't just the adventure, it's the setting. They would just need to write certain things that was written any way, but not in the way of discarding the setting, but working with it. That and adding a paragraph in the introduction, or in the end as a "how to continue the campaign" section. In a perfect way a short appendix, like in the end of SCAG about how to integrate the class options onto other settings. 1 or two page at best.

Would it have been really that much? That much space, that much effort? Wouldn't have been better to acknowledge the favorite setting of countless fans and one of D&D's most interesting worlds? To really bring it into the new edition, to open gates instead of closing them? Why it worked in the past but wouldn't have work in the present? Would it detract from the adventure?

I'm not talking about wasted space in a quantitative way. I'm talking in a qualitative way. Going back to our analogy of the tunnel to Cormyr, it could also be a plot hook. The problem is: What is there to do in Cormyr? If the rest of the book never goes into doing things at Cormyr, then it's a plot hook that doesn't go anywhere, and should be exorcised from the book. Does that mean we're exorcising the Forgotten Realms out of OotA for not Cormyr exists? No, it's simply not relevant.

The same goes for the rest of the Demiplane of Dread. It's simply not relevant. The story is about Strahd, and Barovia. The only time the other Realms are a factor is that Van Richten hails from Darkon. None of the other Lords are involved, none of them have any secrets to destroying Strahd, nothing. And it actually takes away/ from the story, as you're now focusing less on the effects Strahd had on his corner of the world, the whole premise of the adventure.

And it's not the same as the "what comes next?" sections, as Curse of Strahd is relatively self contained. The "What comes next?" sections are about ways to continue on the story you're already going on, based on what's already happened. Curse of Strahd doesn't have that avenue to continue the story onwards with. Sure, I guess you could go on fighting the other Dread Lords, but why? In what way would the story be expanded upon to face another dread lord? If anything, it just takes away from the central element of the story, the glimmer of hope, by saying "Ha, joke's on you, there's an entire continent full of these guys, and no, you can't go home."

And no, I'm not really a big fan of the "Strahd comes back anyway and everything you've done is pointless" part of the ending in the current book.

(I recall something from an interview, or discussion, i definitely remember reading somewhere that Hickman always disliked the setting).

I remember hearing that, as well, but the closest I've ever found to confirming that was how Tracy was spiteful enough for somebody else making Lord Soth be involved in Ravenloft that he did what he could to contradict the two timelines.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Because immortality is such a great prize it makes conceptual sense to us that it requires a great price to be paid, and human life is the ultimate price. If a vampire can live forever by drinking the blood of animals or by 'nibbling' their victims - draining blood without killing - then I think it seems that it has been gained too cheaply. There's something irredeemably naff about vampires who don't kill, an oxymoron we can't help but notice.

The way I run it, even if a vampire just "nibbles", they take something from their victim that doesn't come back. It isn't a natural blood loss to be recovered from with a little bed rest and some extra iron in the diet. That vitality, that capacity for living well and feeling joy, is gone for good, because the vampire has eaten it to fuel their own undeserved longevity.

Or perhaps the vampire literally steals years from the victim's life.

That said, in most of the legends and notable early fiction, vampirism does seem to be more about disease than eternal life. I think it stems from our natural aversion to dead bodies because they presented a real risk of contagion.

But the "canonical" vampire fiction of the Victorians had already evolved from that to a fear of corrupting sexual immorality: "The vampires are here to seduce our women!" Van Helsing is a medical doctor, and he speaks of vampirism as literally a blood disease, but in undertones Dracula is far more the depraved libertine than the disease vector.

Certainly in the undead pantheon of modern pop culture, the "contagious dead body" fear is addressed to a much greater extent by zombies (or, in D&D, ghouls).

 

[PMárk]

My counterpoint is probably cliche, but: Star Wars. Without the expanded universe, we know next to nothing about Tarkin or the Emperor, and yet they're still interesting to watch. They don't have complex goals, but I like watching them interact, and consider their performances memorable. To me, that's more important than the actual "fleshing out" of character motivations. And that's what I mean. Heaps of background is all for naught if all you do is roll your eyes and groan when the character is on stage.

I always thought the Emperor in the old trilogy is... Not very fulfilling. He's just the evil boss, who suddenly appeared at the end, we know nothing about him and he's just comically evil. He's much better in the prequels, but still, i wanted to know his true motivations and story. What could I say, I'm a lore-guy.

Besides, I think comparing RPGs to movies is not the best way, since you have much, much less space in a film than in an RPG normally. Maybe not in convention one-shots, or in competitions, but I prefer deeper stories.

Having background is nice. Curse of Strahd has background. Background, however, isn't always good. Background is space that could be used to have more events in the book. Background also needs to be relevant to the plot, or in some way accessible to players. If it isn't, then it's utterly irrelevant wasted space.

Oh, I agree that the background should be accessible to the players somehow. Or most of it at least.

I'm not talking about wasted space in a quantitative way. I'm talking in a qualitative way. Going back to our analogy of the tunnel to Cormyr, it could also be a plot hook. The problem is: What is there to do in Cormyr? If the rest of the book never goes into doing things at Cormyr, then it's a plot hook that doesn't go anywhere, and should be exorcised from the book. Does that mean we're exorcising the Forgotten Realms out of OotA for not Cormyr exists? No, it's simply not relevant.

Yes, but you don't pick the Underdark and detach it from the Realms. There are connections, factions, etc. Acknowledging the setting doesn't mean that you have to use every part of it, it's just mean you work with what was written before instead of throwing it out the window.

The same goes for the rest of the Demiplane of Dread. It's simply not relevant. The story is about Strahd, and Barovia. The only time the other Realms are a factor is that Van Richten hails from Darkon. None of the other Lords are involved, none of them have any secrets to destroying Strahd, nothing. And it actually takes away/ from the story, as you're now focusing less on the effects Strahd had on his corner of the world, the whole premise of the adventure.

1. They said he comes from Darkon, but it's just an easter egg, they don't say anything where Darkon is. So the other realms not even relevant in that instance. Sam with the Vistani.

2. To focusing on Strahd and Barovia why you'd have to reject the setting and alter significant parts of it? I deem it unnecessary. You focusing on the Underdark, but don't change significantly the Realms because of that. You just focusing on that part of the world.

And it's not the same as the "what comes next?" sections, as Curse of Strahd is relatively self contained. The "What comes next?" sections are about ways to continue on the story you're already going on, based on what's already happened. Curse of Strahd doesn't have that avenue to continue the story onwards with. Sure, I guess you could go on fighting the other Dread Lords, but why? In what way would the story be expanded upon to face another dread lord? If anything, it just takes away from the central element of the story, the glimmer of hope, by saying "Ha, joke's on you, there's an entire continent full of these guys, and no, you can't go home."

And no, I'm not really a big fan of the "Strahd comes back anyway and everything you've done is pointless" part of the ending in the current book.

That would be a different kind of campaign indeed, but it's a possibility.


Ultimately the main reason why I think it'd be better to work with the setting and maybe including a paragraph in the introduction, or a 1-2 page appendix is that would opened up gates and introduced a new generation of players to the Ravenloft setting. They wouldn't need to write a CG or anything, just work with the setting and mentioning it as i said then point to the old material. That they didn't do that sends me a clear message: "We don't want Ravenloft as a setting. We Wanted to milk one of the most succesfull adventures ever written and that's it. We don't want to allow even the possibility of any alternative or competition to FR." I don't say it doesn't make sense as a business decision, but I hate it nonetheless. That, or as i said, someone might just doesn't like RL as a setting up there. Might be both.

I remember hearing that, as well, but the closest I've ever found to confirming that was how Tracy was spiteful enough for somebody else making Lord Soth be involved in Ravenloft that he did what he could to contradict the two timelines.

Yeah the Soth part too. Frankly i found those books fun to read. I really can't remember where i encountered with it, but distinctively remembering that the Hickmans never really liked the RL setting and what it evolved into. But it might not be true.

 

[PMárk]

The way I run it, even if a vampire just "nibbles", they take something from their victim that doesn't come back. It isn't a natural blood loss to be recovered from with a little bed rest and some extra iron in the diet. That vitality, that capacity for living well and feeling joy, is gone for good, because the vampire has eaten it to fuel their own undeserved longevity.

Or perhaps the vampire literally steals years from the victim's life.

Hmm, i like the concept, I'd run with that in a campaign!

 

[flametitan]

Besides, I think comparing RPGs to movies is not the best way, since you have much, much less space in a film than in an RPG normally. Maybe not in convention one-shots, or in competitions, but I prefer deeper stories.

I don't believe it's wrong to compare entertainment. It's still useful to highlight certain elements true to all forms of fiction, namely that background is a secondary element. It's more important that a character is somebody you want to watch to see what they do next before you start working on anything else. And Strahd's still interesting at the table, even with his "trimmed" backstory.

2. To focusing on Strahd and Barovia why you'd have to reject the setting and alter significant parts of it? I deem it unnecessary. You focusing on the Underdark, but don't change significantly the Realms because of that. You just focusing on that part of the world.

But the setting isn't entirely rejected is my point. It's simply ignored because they're focusing on something specific. They changed elements of Barovia, but that's not the same as ditching the setting entirely. We don't know enough of anything to make definitive conclusions. All we have to go by is a half baked paragraph in the DMG that refers to them as "demiplanes" but no reference if they're even isolated from each other or are interconnected. For all we know they could even be trying to combine the two story elements, and have a series of demiplanes floating in an aether of shadowfell, but sometimes they touch and to those inside it looks like it should instead be a single patchwork continent.

Ultimately the main reason why I think it'd be better to work with the setting and maybe including a paragraph in the introduction, or a 1-2 page appendix is that would opened up gates and introduced a new generation of players to the Ravenloft setting. They wouldn't need to write a CG or anything, just work with the setting and mentioning it as i said then point to the old material. That they didn't do that sends me a clear message: "We don't want Ravenloft as a setting. We Wanted to milk one of the most succesfull adventures ever written and that's it. We don't want to allow even the possibility of any alternative or competition to FR." I don't say it doesn't make sense as a business decision, but I hate it nonetheless. That, or as i said, someone might just doesn't like RL as a setting up there. Might be both.

For me this is where my own interest in lore screams in pain. There's not enough room to fit in enough to make those places interesting without shortening the adventure. It'd be like trying to run an adventure in Kara-tur using only what's mentioned in the SCAG.

Yeah the Soth part too. Frankly i found those books fun to read. I really can't remember where i encountered with it, but distinctively remembering that the Hickmans never really liked the RL setting and what it evolved into. But it might not be true.

It's funny that I remember this too, but I can't seem to find a source on it for the life of me.

 

[ccs]

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

Whatever the game we're playing, pure evil monsters masquerading as humans(etc). And, unless we're playing Vampire/WoD, they're NPCs.
And if we're playing WoD? If I'm NOT a vampire, then I want any vampires dead. As in reduced to ash in the morning sun & then mixed with holy water. But if I am playing a vampire? Then I want every other vampire either permanently destroyed (1st choice) or permanently under my control (2nd choice).

The only ambiguity involved lies in how many letters of the word evil are capitalized....

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

I'm all for it. The less ever said about the 2e+ RL campaign setting the better in my opinion. I hated it. They took the name of one of the best modules ever written & used it for the logo of a craptastic Halloween campaign setting. And then they then proceeded to fill with rules aimed at screwing over the players.
Oh sure, as the DM I can easily just not use them.
But the damage was done. A lot of players simply didn't want to put up with that rules BS & thus had really negative reactions anytime they saw a RL branded module.
Wich is unfortunate because a lot of the 2e modules were pretty good if you just ignored the setting special rules & the overall setting & just ran them as stand alone adventures....

 

[PMárk]

Whatever the game we're playing, pure evil monsters masquerading as humans(etc). And, unless we're playing Vampire/WoD, they're NPCs.
And if we're playing WoD? If I'm NOT a vampire, then I want any vampires dead. As in reduced to ash in the morning sun & then mixed with holy water. But if I am playing a vampire? Then I want every other vampire either permanently destroyed (1st choice) or permanently under my control (2nd choice).

The only ambiguity involved lies in how many letters of the word evil are capitalized....

That's... quite radical, should I say. I wouldn't say I'm surprised that this seems to be the majority's opinion there, it's a D&D forum after all and there is room for every style of play. I just like to handle characters, be them npcs or pcs as individuals. Would i expect bad things from a vampire either in D&D or Masquerade? Yes. But there's room for different shades in my mind and games.

For example, I never got the whole paladin/inquisitor thing. Goody-good, holier-than-thou, or just plain religiously fanatic and unflexible characters are just irks me on a fundamental level. Although, in one-shots I'll happily play one of them, exactly for the reason that it's sooo different from what i am, so it's a fun challenge and experiment. However, I'll never play one in a longer campaign, it's just not fun to me on the long run.

I'm all for it. The less ever said about the 2e+ RL campaign setting the better in my opinion. I hated it. They took the name of one of the best modules ever written & used it for the logo of a craptastic Halloween campaign setting. And then they then proceeded to fill with rules aimed at screwing over the players.
Oh sure, as the DM I can easily just not use them.
But the damage was done. A lot of players simply didn't want to put up with that rules BS & thus had really negative reactions anytime they saw a RL branded module.
Wich is unfortunate because a lot of the 2e modules were pretty good if you just ignored the setting special rules & the overall setting & just ran them as stand alone adventures....

Again, that's a valid opinion, perfectly okay, I just doesn't agree with any part of it, with all due respect. But that's fine.

 

[PMárk]

I don't believe it's wrong to compare entertainment. It's still useful to highlight certain elements true to all forms of fiction, namely that background is a secondary element. It's more important that a character is somebody you want to watch to see what they do next before you start working on anything else. And Strahd's still interesting at the table, even with his "trimmed" backstory.

Fine point, sure the most important is how you portrayed the caharcter. I'd still argue that in most cases the backstory is a fairly important chunk of that character's portrayal on the long run and could help a lot to the GM to portraying that character to the best effect. Also, i think RPGs aremore close to a novel than a movie and in novels you'll get some background on average. I'll also uphold that i found the Emperor in the old trilogy boring. Consider another example: in the Wheel of Time novel series, the Forsaken are fairly boring, IMO until you start to get bits and pieces about their history and they got elaborated as persons. Or Voldemort in HP.

But the setting isn't entirely rejected is my point. It's simply ignored because they're focusing on something specific. They changed elements of Barovia, but that's not the same as ditching the setting entirely. We don't know enough of anything to make definitive conclusions. All we have to go by is a half baked paragraph in the DMG that refers to them as "demiplanes" but no reference if they're even isolated from each other or are interconnected. For all we know they could even be trying to combine the two story elements, and have a series of demiplanes floating in an aether of shadowfell, but sometimes they touch and to those inside it looks like it should instead be a single patchwork continent.

You say potato, i say potahto i think. You say changing fundametal elments of the setting and absolutely not mentioning the wider setting in the book (not in the adventure necessarily) and writing the adventure as there hadn't been a setting is not a rejection, just ignoring. I say the changing of those parts and don't acknowledging the wider setting even in a minor paragraph is indeed rejecting. I think we could agree to disagree on this.

For me this is where my own interest in lore screams in pain. There's not enough room to fit in enough to make those places interesting without shortening the adventure. It'd be like trying to run an adventure in Kara-tur using only what's mentioned in the SCAG.

Again, my opinion is that acknowledging the setting, mentioning it and designing the adventure with that in mind is not necessiating a CG immediately. I'm not speaking about detailing the other domains in any length in the adventure, just mentioning there is a wider setting in a paragraph or appendix. Then they could have point people toward the DM'sG for the older material and it opens up space for future products, like SCAG. This could be done still, but i doubt it will be, or the end results will be anything resembling the old setting. It's more likely we get something like the 4e domains of dread, if anything. And that is, for me is the rejection of the old setting. You say that wouldn't be enough so it's better they didn't, I say it's worse, because that would have stirred interest toward the wider setting in new people.

It's funny that I remember this too, but I can't seem to find a source on it for the life of me.

Might be it was at a convention when somebody spoken with them personally, then shared it on the forums before CoS came out. I remember vaguely about something like that.