The vampire county

[Nifft]

Well, it IS the child's house, presumably. An invitation may not be needed to enter one's own home.

If that's the case, there's going to be a LOT of new construction -- no sane family would remain in a house that "lost" someone. People would stay with neighbors, perhaps.

(Of course, if the invitation isn't necessary, the door isn't necessary either -- the vamp-kid would just crash in through a window and eat everyone.)

-- N

 

[Nyeshet]

I just had a frightening image of said lost child finding his way home after dark and banging on the door, begging to get in, but the mother is so frightened that her son may have been transformed into a vampire in the meantime that she cannot find the courage to let him in. She cries under her blankets in bed, hoping he'll just go away. Abruptly the child falls silent, the knocking gone.

As many have said, it is unlikely that the mother will not seek some way to get her child inside.

Their error, however, is in believing that openning the door without giving permission for the child to enter is a solution. That only works if the child has been turned.

What if the child is dominated? A few days later he might invite in his master, acting under the orders of the dominating vampire, of course.

In some of the older stories on vampires, anyone - not just the head of house, etc - can invite a vampire into the home, after which it can enter whenever it likes - even after the original inviter has died. Now, the SRD does state that the one to invite the vampire in has to be someone with the authority to do so, but who does that mean? Could a teenager invite in a friend of theirs? What about a wife, could she invite in another - despite the fact that under a patrilineal system the eldest male in the dwelling is actually the 'head of house'. What about a father whose own father happens to live with him (perhaps he is unable to leave is bed too often due to age), which of them has "the authority to [invite another into the home]" - or do both of them? Perhaps anyone over a certain age has that authority, so long as they live in the home? But then what about young adults that have not yet moved out? Perhaps their son has not yet married and so still lives with his parents, aiding them in taking care of the farm while he builds up enough revenue to build his own place, etc.

And, of course, the mother could open the door, allowing her (dominated) son to enter - unaware that he has a "rat" in his pocket. Can the son, who has nothing impeding him, enter the house, carrying the vampire into it? Or does the fact that the vampire is in his pocket act as some kind of force field, preventing him from moving into the house? I recall a good book a while back in which an evil sorcerer got around the protections keeping him out of a town by turning into a flea. The magic did not prevent the one he was on from entering, and so he was - in effect - "carried" into the town by one who was able to enter it.

By openning the door and standing aside the mother has granted entrance. She may not have said anything - may have said that her son is now welcome and not allowed into the house, but by not preventing him entrance after openning the door for him, she has nonverbally granted / allowed entrance. And by allowing her son to enter the dwelling she is allowing anything he may happen to be carrying - such as the vampire.

Truely the original poster was correct. She cannot open the door without in some manner having allowed her son entrance, and there is no way to know that her son is not dominated - or that her son is not carrying the vampire. (Well, other than having her son strip, but that doesn't prove lack of domination. Perhaps a few hours later, after she is asleep, the son will open the door, step out, pick up the (rat form) vampire, and step back in. As with running water, nothing precludes this as a means of allowing passage, as best I can tell.

 

[Nyeshet]

If that's the case, there's going to be a LOT of new construction -- no sane family would remain in a house that "lost" someone. People would stay with neighbors, perhaps.

(Of course, if the invitation isn't necessary, the door isn't necessary either -- the vamp-kid would just crash in through a window and eat everyone.)

But would the neighbors accept them? What if they survived but were dominated. By allowing them entrance, perhaps those admitted could later invite in the vampire? The 'authority to do so [invite in the vampire]' is a tricky line, as my last post pointed out. It could be highly exclusive - only the eldest male (or female, in a matrilineal society) can invite someone into the dwelling. It could be far more open - any who live there (rather than a visitor) could allow another into the dwelling. The problem with the latter are the children living there. You could say, then, that it is restricted to those that live there but are adults, but then how would you differentiate between someone who is living there temporarily (such as the neighbors, who may end up living there for weeks or months before another dwelling is built if building materials are in short supply or the season makes building difficult [Winter]) and those living there full time?

In the end, I tend to presume that 'authority to do so' means those adults who have lived there either for a year (if they have joined those already dwelling there) or since having bought the place or since it was built.

 

[Sejs]

What if the child is dominated? A few days later he might invite in his master, acting under the orders of the dominating vampire, of course.

Two points. The person doing the inviting has to have the authority to do so - a child arguably does not. I'd probably cut it at any adult to whom the building is home - mom, dad, grampa, uncle joe, etc. And I'm pretty sure the person doing the inviting has to do it of their own free will. If they're magically commanded it doesn't jive.

Not sure about the pocket rat thing. I'd be inclined to say that it wouldn't work. Riding isn't the same thing as invitation.

 

[Nifft]

By allowing them entrance, perhaps those admitted could later invite in the vampire?

I suspect there would be simple, but definite, ritual greetings that people would go through as part of "common courtesy". Stuff like "we are your guests, and we thank you for the gift of this night's lodging". People will have forgotten why they always say that, but everyone always does it.

There would be a lot of little rituals. For example, no-one would ever invite anyone into their homes if they could help it. "Porch culture" might dominate, and this village might have a baker whose bakery was inside her home, and who served patrons through a window.

Heh. "Vampires Cause Fast Food!"

since having bought the place or since it was built.

That's how I'd track it -- legal ownership, the deed of the house. Also, because it's written down, and it's a discrete event. Authority tracks ownership, and therefore inheritance, so when daddy dies, authority transfers to whomever gains ownership rights.

Because real estate is true magic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nyeshet]

Two points. The person doing the inviting has to have the authority to do so - a child arguably does not. I'd probably cut it at any adult to whom the building is home - mom, dad, grampa, uncle joe, etc. And I'm pretty sure the person doing the inviting has to do it of their own free will. If they're magically commanded it doesn't jive.

Not sure about the pocket rat thing. I'd be inclined to say that it wouldn't work. Riding isn't the same thing as invitation.

The rat idea was sort of an extreme situation, as I am uncertain as to how to cover that. Is the person who has been invited into the house, etc stopped as though they were the vampire? If they can still enter, then this is a work around for the vampire. If they cannot, then the vampire can cause chaos by simply riding in different people's pockets every now and then and discretely leaving in the chaos as those within think their loved one has become undead. Before long whole segments of the population may be under suspition of being vampire, even if they can later be shown to be able to enter the house, due to the fact that for a while they were as prohibitted as any vampire.

As for the invitation, I believe there are incidences in Dracula in which Lucy allows him into her room (in effect, inviting him) despite 1) not being the head of house (albeit still an adult, I admit), and 2) having been notably under Draculas control for several days. Also, there are old vampire stories in which the main horror of being dominated by the vampire is not being out of control, but that you who are dominated have just let into the house a creature that will likely slay you and all those you love. You did not invite the vampire willingly - only because you were under its control did you offer the invitation. So, IMCs, I would allow those dominated to be able to issue an invitation to the vampire dominating them - and thus allow the vampire into the dwelling.

Also of note, the Vampire, once invited, never again needs invitation into that building. This is common in most vampire stories, in fact, and is why the fear of accidentally (or unwillingly) inviting a vampire into the home is so tremendous. Once invited into the building, the vampire can return every night for the next few centuries if it wants to. Never again need it seek invitation. It could ignore the home, not entering it until the one that invited it is long dead and that man's great-grandchildren now live there. It will not need invitation, for it had such a century or more ago from one that had authority to give it.

Personally, I've always like focusing on the mythos and symbolism surronding the vampire. They were associated with fiends, granted, but their main association was with death and disease. In effect, by inviting a vampire into your building, you have invited Death into it. Once the building is tainted with its presense, only a cleansing might remove it - such as by having it re-consecrated.

Note that many buildings back then, upon completion, were blest or otherwise consecrated by the local priest. Inviting the vampire into the house could be considered similar to inviting sin into the soul. And while modern views allow more discretion into whether a sin is a sin if it was done unwillingly, medieval views did not. If someone sinned, it was a tarnish upon their soul. If they were blackmailed into doing so their soul is no less tarnished. I think the might have been leniant if the sinner did not know that the act was a sin, but even then the soul was still tarnished - only not quite as much as might otherwise have been the case. They were far more strict back then than they are today, where relativism has weakened a lot of the concept of sin except in the most extreme cases.

So inviting a fiend / vampire into your home / soul - whether intentional (quite damning), under duress (mildly damning), or accidental (potentially damning - especially if efforts are not taken to redeem oneself after the brush with sin / death) - still 'tarnished' the dwelling, although from this perspective, I'd allow a re-consecration (via a Consecrate spell, perhaps?) to remove the 'taint' such that the vampire would again have to receive an invitation (akin to a 'reconciliation' that removes the taint of sin, in a way).

 

[Sejs]

I love reading your posts on this topic, Nyeshet, though I'll admit it makes my paltry replies feel a little scant by comparison. Damn you, midterms! >_<

To split hairs on the coerced invitation thing:

One way to look at it: a vampire must be invited into a dwelling by someone with the authority to do so. If the subject is being dominated and is then commanded to extend invitation, it is not the subject doing the inviting. It's the vampire trying to invite himself. Doesn't fly as the vampire doesn't have that right.

However, if instead the subject is charmed rather than dominated, it's a different kettle of fish. Dominate: you're my puppet, you do what I command you to do. Charm: much more insidious - I don't order you to do anything, you just really like me because we're such good friends and I'm ever so trustworthy. If you then invite me inside, it's not because I'm inside your mind putting my words past your lips, it's because you've made an Assisted Critical Error in Judgement.

In a culture like the one we're constructing, one might very well not invite their bestest buddy in the whole wide world into their home (because you never know...), but it does give our vampire a foot in the door that some suavue old-fashioned social persuasion might be able to wedge open a bit more.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Great thread so far--lots of flavourful ideas for verisimilitude in a social environment with a vampire (this really only works if you use the Con-damage variant suggested above).

Here's an idea for a slightly different situation though, one with a vampire who is a bit more canny--the villagers in this prosperous town are unafraid to work into the evening, even though they know vampires lurk in these lands come nightfall, and they do not fear the howl of the wolf, or even the creepy gothic mansion overlooking the town on the nearby bluff...for within that mansion dwells a vampire. Normally this would be cause for fear and paranoia, but this vampire is an urbane fellow who has made a deal with the villagers (perhaps initially leading off with Charm magic, but now it is enforced by sheer popularity)--supply him with a sufficient harem of the village's most beautiful girls at his request, and they have no need to fear the darkness. The vampire will not attack any of the other villagers, and furthermore, he will kill or drive away any other vampires or werewolves or other creatures that threaten the village--he doesn't want competition. In the same vein (ha, not a great pun, I know), he will never raise more vampires, as that is more mouths to feed. He just stays in his mansion with the village's most beautiful girls, slowly feeding on them and letting them recover in an orgy of blood and sensuality. He allows family to visit the girls, and they are being treated to a life of luxury and all seem to adore him, at least some of them without the effects of Charm or similar magic.

This leads to several possible adventure ideas:

1) A young man of the village has fallen in love with a beautiful young girl who has been earmarked as the vampire's newest pet. He seeks outsiders to end the vampire's life, even though the rest of the village would throw him in jail if they knew his intentions--the older villagers remember stories from their grandparents of the times before, and they know they have it good.

2) The adventurers are hired by the villagers to hunt down the vampire-hunter VanNachtsing, who has killed the vampire who protected them and taken his head. News of their protector's death has reached other predators who were frustrated that they had to leave such a healthy town alone, and they are experiencing the horrors of the world once again in full-force. They want the party to defeat VanNachtsing, killing him if necessary, and bring back the head so that they can revive their old lord--even the young ladies who he once fed upon. The vampire is dead, so his magic can't be affecting them into making this plea...can it?

3) The vampire usually throws girls away when they get too old, but this time, he's fallen in love. As he prepares to crown his new immortal Queen of Darkness (and perhaps he'll invite the PCs to the macabre wedding if they helped him out in (2) above), he realises that the status quo will not be able to sustain a ravenous young vampire...to keep his beloved by his side forever, his little town will have to go to war.

 

[Matjannan]

It's been a while since I fully read Dracula.

I think the idea of Con drain comes from the bit about Lucy seemingly becoming infirm / weak and slowly dying of this mysterious anemic malady. As she never recovered, the designers of D&D 3e seemed to think it should be considered Con Drain rather than Con Damage.

How long was Lucy considered infirm before dying? As I recall Dracula visited her 2-4 times before she died, but at the time everyone believed it was some disease from which she was not recovering. If it occurred over the course of several weeks, then Con Drain would be needed to explain why she never recovered from the prior visit by the time of her next visit. If, on the other hand, it occurred over the course of about a week, then Con Damage could work just as well. She could have taken 4-5 damage, healed 1-2, then taken another 4-5, healed again 1-2, and then finally taken 4-5 a final time and died from lack of Con / blood, or something to that effect.

*snip*

Lucy died on Sep 20th - a full 40 days later.

*snip*

The question now is, "How many visits did he pay Lucy?" If it was but a couple times - the first and the last - then it is almost certainly Con Drain, for how else could she not have recovered over the course of 40 days? If it was multiple times - perhaps once or twice a week, and he drained her only partially on purpose during those visits - then perhaps it could have been Con Damage. In such an instance she could have lost, say 6 Con initially, then been drained of 1-2 Con each time she started to recover. On a few instances she was drained of 2-4 Con, but those were far apart, and she kept recovering until Dracula finished her off.

It occured to me as I was reading this post that the Con Drain/Damage is based on blood loss. If anyone's ever given blood before, they ask you questions about the last time you gave blood--you can't have given blood within a certain amount of time. The shortest amount I've seen is 30 days, though 60 to 90 days is more common. After giving blood they say don't do any strenuous activity for 24 hours. This, to me, is the difference between Con Drain and Con Damage. Drain is reparable, but it takes a long time--usually too long to be of any use and so is considered to be permanent. Following this, I can certainly see Dracula drawing out Lucy's assumption for 40 days.