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

[doctorbadwolf]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has someone pointed out Dracula in the Stoker novel has no tragic back story? He's a monster when we meet him in Transylvania, picks Lucy because he's hungry and she's pretty, and targets Mina because she's Lucy's friend and Harker's wife. All of the tragic love story stuff is an invention of Hollywood.

That said, I like the change to Strahd because it stops making his decent to evil Tatiana's fault. The classic version implies Strahd would have remained a good man if not for Tatiana picking Sergei. The new one implies he might have followed this path to darkness no matter what, but Strahd things it's because Tatiana choose Sergei...

So, they could have accomplished he Strahd bits without making him always an evil douche, though.

As for the great count douchula, his tragedy was never romantic. His tragedy was in how he became a monster.

The romantic stuff does make it a better story, though.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The romantic stuff does make it a better story, though.

For some people. Me, I hate it. I hate Dracula as a romantic character. I loathe the very concept of his desire for Mina being anything other than purely predatory.

*shrug*

Different strokes, and all that.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

That is... not remotely how his original story was written. Tatyana was a trigger, not a cause; the fault was 100% his. He was envious of his brother, almost to the point of hatred, well before she showed up. And he wasn't remotely a good or nice guy even before then.

Jealousy, and especially acting on jealousy, is the fault of the one experiencing it, not the targets of it.

Jealousy is about losing something you have. Envy is about coveting what others have and wishing ill on them because of it.

So, they could have accomplished he Strahd bits without making him always an evil douche, though.

As for the great count douchula, his tragedy was never romantic. His tragedy was in how he became a monster.

The romantic stuff does make it a better story, though.

The thing is Strahd was never a good person. He was a ruthless warlord. After conquering his land he proceed to be even harsher then the old lords. For example in I, Strahd a well received book that goes deeply into his character and is portrayed from his perspective. His first action as ruler of Barovia is to go and visit all the towns in his land. While they are celebrating his arrival for freeing them from their previous tyrants. He meets with the Burgomaster and then gets mad at them for saying they want to make his birthday a holiday. (Even when he was younger Strahd had a thing about this age and hated it being mentioned or anything related to it.) Then he started bring up that the Burgomaster of the town had been embessling funds as they had not gotten the amount of taxes they really should have and the Burgomaster house was much nicser then it should be with what his funds should be. Stahd forces the Burgomaster to strip and kneel with the impression he was going to be whipped. (Which the Burgomaster was someone happy about as the old punishment for theivery used to be getting your hand chopped off.) Instead Stahd had his head chopped off in front of the town. After which he started moving to the next one with the implication he had executed the the Burgomaster of each town he had visited.

This is before we get into Sergei coming to live with him. And when he does Strahd hates him because he is young, handsome and kind. With Strahd cursing him for being naive and that he hopes that when he joins the clergy to become a cleric as is tradition of the third son that experience teaches him the way of the world and that he loses those traits. Eventually Sergei falls in love with Tatyana, Strahd is very against it on the grounds that she is a commoner as he is going to join the clergy he is going to be celebate. Which leads to Sergei stating he is not going to join the clergy anymore. Which also fuels Strahds anger as Sergei just deciding not to do what was expected of him is an insult to Strahd who felt he had to waste most of his life in war. Strahd eventually becomes nicer when he meets Tatyanna and finds himself lusting after her. More or less giving Sergei and her whatever they wanted, partially in hopes she would choose him instead. While at the same time hating how they did things. Looking down on them preforming charity and stuff. Eventully his envy and realizing that Tatyana was not going to pick him (Strahd thinking it's because of his age.) leads him to becoming a vampire and murdering Sergei on his wedding day. Luring Sergei into the chapal while the party is going on for a private meeting before stabbing and blaming him for it saying he should have just become a priest. Before heading off to frame one of his guards for the crime.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ya'll need to calm down about the fictional vampires. It's going to be ok.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ya'll need to calm down about the fictional vampires. It's going to be ok.

As opposed to the nonfictional ones?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Oh, and "burned by faith" doesn't necessarily means the thing is evil, it's just means that the god doesn't like the thing. Since in the western culture faith/God was equal to good that was a no-brainer, but we don't live in those times, fortunately.

God's got some questionable planks in his platform, to be sure, but I'm reasonably confident that "It's bad to suck the lifeblood of the innocent" isn't one of them. And for whatever reason, the "holy water burns supernatural evil" trope seems ubiquitous even in postmodern franchises where God's morality and/or existence is ambiguous. If it goes sizzle when splashed, it probably deserves to -- even if you just spent the whole previous episode complaining about how angels are dicks.

Oh, and on that base, every non-divine magic user is evil, or at least the servant of evil.

Why? They're not burned by holy water nor do they recoil from holy symbols. Unless they do, in which case, yeah, maybe be careful around that one.

I'd argue that even outsiders could be interesting and complex characters, Like Lorcan in the Brimstone Angels.

No idea who that is, but my whole point here is that you can interesting and complex and still be totally evil. There are tons of very interesting portrayals of the Devil himself -- in pretty much every story I can think of adapted from or inspired by Faust, Mephistopheles steals the show.

Oh, and I definitely like Oldman's Dracula better, exactly because he's more interesting as a character. And come on, those icons doesn't iconic because they're better, but because they were the most popularat their times and at the beginning of the entire phenomenon. That doesn't make them "better".

Timing does play a factor, but if a portrayal is good enough, it can ascend to iconic status no matter when it comes out. The Joker first appeared in 1940. Heath Ledger played the character in 2008. Ledger's Joker is undeniably iconic. And also, I can't help but note, a performance that openly mocks the idea of having a tragic backstory to explain his monstrous behavior.

Gary Oldman is a really damn good actor (speaking of iconic performances in The Dark Knight...) But Coppola's Dracula sucked. I'm not going to dissuade you of your opinion any more than you're going to dissuade you of mine, but if popular reception is any guide, Oldman is no Heath Ledger here.

I'm fully admit I don't have a degree about it, but it's one of my interests, and as I know it was classical philosophy (Greek/Roman), then religious philosophy for a long time. Even the works that are not-religious are mentioning, or referring to God, or faith in general. You couldn't even find a fencing manual from the medieval/renaissance (and there is a lot of them) which doesn't contain some referring to God. Religion and faith was the norm and it basically permeated every part of life.

Yes and no. I'm not going to get into it here. But also recall that the particular books I hit with my darts were published in 1851, 1862, and 2008.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For some people. Me, I hate it. I hate Dracula as a romantic character. I loathe the very concept of his desire for Mina being anything other than purely predatory.

Yeah. It's really weird, and disturbing, to see a blatant allegory for sexual predation being reinterpreted as romantic. It's like watching an adaptation of Animal Farm where the pigs are honestly working for the good of all the animals.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah. It's really weird, and disturbing, to see a blatant allegory for sexual predation being reinterpreted as romantic. It's like watching an adaptation of Animal Farm where the pigs are honestly working for the good of all the animals.

Yes. I mean, I get that--due to the Victorian mores, and the (to us) stilted writing--many people don't immediately pick up on the fact that Dracula is a rape metaphor. But I expect people who are actually adapting the source material to look deeper than the casual modern reader.

It actually ties back into what was being discussed about Strahd, above. He's the fantasy version of a stalker and rapist, not some sort of jilted romantic. And like any stalker/rapist, the fault and the sin are his alone, not shared with his victim.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It actually ties back into what was being discussed about Strahd, above. He's the fantasy version of a stalker and rapist, not some sort of jilted romantic. And like any stalker/rapist, the fault and the sin are his alone, not shared with his victim.

And the misinterpretation of abusive behavior as true love is an all-too-real problem that we definitely don't need to reinforce in our pop culture (looking at you, Twilight).

 

[jasper]

As opposed to the nonfictional vampires?

I warned you about my ex mother in law. But would you listen? Nooooooo.