Too many vampires

[Babylon Logos]

I say should, would, and maybe an awful lot. It isn't because I'm indecisive. I won't tell anyone how to play their character, but my characters lock horns with any character than can't offer a plausible story beyond "I'm a monster! Rarr!" then I honestly walk away from that interaction feeling like I've wasted part of my night. It's discouraging for no other reason that I am there to entertain and be entertained, and so is everyone else there.

Remind me one day to bring my little vampire around with you there one day. She'd love to idly chitchat with a decently made slayer other than the few close buds I dragged into my little web of distruction. That and I really want a reason to drag her out.

 

[Protector_corwin]

Now warbridge is the only one that I have read here that I caagree with...but it doesn't seem as if anyone else will listen to your advice War. I play drow who by the rules of the site must keep themselves hidden as well...and yet as I walk in the tavern at times people remark about it...the same with the vampire characters...I understand the people who have been playing for as long as I have, 20 some years, have their favorite characters...heck I just recently started another character up to have a whole new aspect on the game and yet it is still to be hidden..I thik War has the best advice and would suggest that those playing vampires might want to read and look into following some of it...granted we cannot force people to do it...but it would be nice.

 

[Cyath]

Well ..
I am actually kinda intimitated to comment upon this subject. I will say that when I first started playing Cyath ; I could be deliberately unfair and well....rather annoying( I am fairly certain I still am at times). But this was approximately 5-6 years ago. Do I regret the way I played Cyath back then ? ...you bet. Have I learned from my past mistakes?...most certainly.

I believe a vampire can act "good" in some respects.
I can only speak of Cyath and Byron. Cyath primarily because he seems to be the most active. Cyath will be very nice , very considerate and very thoughtful. He can be a friend to one and an enemy to another. Cyath will try to seduce ( if possible) or..simply just ignore people. He is unique. He has his own goals in mind and he will use his strengths to achieve them. By nature , he would be evil due to his cainite blood. As a person though.. he is deliberately evil. I've made him that way specfically. I realized a long time ago that I cannot conform to the "norm". I am familiar with White Wolf literature as well as Anne Rice , and so I have played Cyath with that influence.

Cyath is not an animal. He is able to think and to calculate quite effectively the pro's and con's of his actions. He may be hungry for blood at times , but as a hunter ; a predator ...he will rarely allow himself to go into a bloodlust.
The point I make is this : Cyath does not fit into the DnD description of a vampire because I do not wholly agree with them. He can be approached and he will most often then not , converse with you thoughtfully. He is not animalistic. He can control himself.
He comes on during daylight hours because frankly I cannot come on any other time ( Twins , Wife , Police= Very busy). I would never be able to play him for just that simple reason.
Ultimately I just want to have fun. I play Cyath the way I want him to be played. Sure he is not liked by some players. But that is the way he is. Do I try to make my rps interesting with others though? Do I respect someone's character and ask ooc before performing a certain skill upon them?. The answer would be yes. Most definately. I really want my fellow rper to enjoy themselves.

I suppose I ask for some patience. Understand that when someone starts a new character , it can be a little rocky at first. The player strives to mould the character into a being they can love and learn from. This may lead other rpers to be annoyed with said character as well. Thats normal. I just figuer if someone is really annoyed with a character , then why not just ignore them. Go on with your own character's daily life and not stress out about another's actions. Gradually through time , "unfair" " demi-god" characters will die out because no one will interact with them.
Give a vampiric player a chance is all I say. If they annoy you , then just ignore them , but also...try not to discard them immediately.
Thats all I got.
Take care.

 

[James V]

I've played two vamps, and well there is a very distinct line between good and evil alighnment, people tend to forget, bad people do at times do good things, perhaps to benefit themselves with intentions of causing problems, or selfish intentions, while a good person could make a sacrifice of sorts, which in many retrospects can be considered an evil thing to do, yet do it for a very good purpose, You see, being friendly isn't always being good...nor is it being bad at times, Take James, I alighned him for what he is as chaotic Neutral, but according to a DnD manuel, he should be chaotic Evil, why is he Chaotic Neutral, because in order to play him, I have to civilize him in some manner, does it mean he's evil, yes...does he act nice to some people who may be lawful and good...yes..why though? There is always something in it for him, vampires though I suppose are almost impossible to have this, because, its like this, Vampire, Damnit, Stake that thing!!!! I suppose though if they are able to hide it in a managible way, we should come up with them, espcially for the crt tavern, IE enchantments, things like that, so no one can go to them, and say, Damnit, a vampire, because they don't know. They can eventually know, but thats up to the characters descresion of how they act out upon it. I do believe though definately, There are way to many seperate vampires without any sires...I seriously think that they would go at each other for no other reasons other then territory sake of feeding, I read some where, vampires are naturally aggressive with others who have no affiliation with them.

 

[Babylon Logos]

Well ..
I believe a vampire can act "good" in some respects.

I don't feel that it is always an intent of 'acting' good. Granted the Vampire is a being inheirently evil, no matter what lore you look into. After all, they are likened to and in some instance refered to as, the children of Cain, born of the purpose of sin. Yet, they are always considered intelligent beings, not nessecarally overly intelligent, but rather having gathered the wisdom of their years. As intelligent, and wise beings vampires are allowed morals, which thus allows them the moral dilemna.

"What I am doing is wrong," is a phrase that should have passed the mind of any vampire at some point in life, especially of those unwillingly embraced, who may not fully accept the lifestyle they have been thrown into. It is therefore plausible to foresee the exsistance of a vampire living off rats and maybe the occassional Poodle instead of a being of higher intelligence. While this does not nessecarally make the vampire of a good alignment, it does at least adhere them to a moral code that is for it's intents 'stay alive and don't eat the people' still good.

Well ..
Cyath is not an animal . . . He can be approached and he will most often then not , converse with you thoughtfully. He is not animalistic. He can control himself.

A valid point, also something I find myself in agreement of, as would seem many of the vampire players I have seen in ISRP through there years, no matter how much of a jackass they may be, they all choose to play the race as an intelligent being of self-control.

Why is it that according to WOTC, a being of at least hero based stats, naturally above the average person, usually with an excessive amount of self-control and willpower to begin with, when taken by the embrace, and retaining if not bettering many of their stats will have less control of themselves than a lowly rat sensing a female in heat?

My solution is that they shouldn't. As intelligent beings, regardless of being Undead, or Chaotic Evil, the vampire should be alloted at least as much self-control as in life, and through the years, much much more. After all, randomly killing townsfolk because of a minor case of the munchies that coudl easily be settled by munching on a rat kept in a snackbox draw the attention of the aforementioned 'experianced adventurers' aching for some teeth to sell for beer money, and maybe some loving at the local brothel.

Besides, when you feed of populations, and assist in population control self-control = longer life. A small town is less likely to call for a hunter over a vampire that practices the self-control they should be alotted, killing maybe one person a month, usually taking the elderly, people who will be dying soon anyway, than a vampire that wipes out a family in a single dining session. Granted, having company over might encourage the family meal, but still . . .

Anyhow, I'm out of time on my rant juice, time for me to head to class and the 45 minute hell of Pittsburgh rush hour to get downtown . . .

 

[shistal]

Good god people, a vampire is a vampire no matter what is. Some people to role play them from what they have seen or read. A new series has just come out about vampires and that's Twilight series...that's where vampire can walk out during the day, they just might shine like thousand diamonds but they still drink blood and live for ever. So quiet fighting and arguing over this. I mean really just let someone be a vampire if they want to . This site is suppose to be a fun place just hang out and role play. Not say this race is to out of control or this race is the perfect race kind of thing. Just let it go.

 

[Imreis]

I'm going to agree with Shistal here on this. Besides people can't play the all evil animalistic vampire in any setting except the Sigil setting (Bazaar and Cage) I would think for they would break the code of conduct rules that have been laid out. Nextly - good and evil vampires, vampires who 'daywalk' (i put that in quotations because heck some people can only come on during the day or are in different time zones so its a hard thing to peg); all this is circumstantial in the long run.

What about players who play good drow, neutral drow, lawful drow, etcetera. We could say well they aren't playing drow there just playing dark skinned elves because they aren't played to the DnD standard of the race. We cold say anyone playing a evil sun elf is not playing it right because they are innately and usually good beings. This list goes on. I guess my point here is that people will play what they want. They get good ideas in there head they want to see run out and played and will do it.

The whole not dying and not wanting to loose a character we all have agreed on that no one wants it - and i also agree. But the thing I also agree on is the horribly powerful characters who never ever loose a fight and never get even a scratch is hard to cope with. There are other ways to have evil characters who don't get killed in a fight. Run away.

Play to the cliche movie titles where the bad guy feels the fight might not go his way who vanishes to live and fight another day. It gives the heroes time to recuperate as well, and makes the fights far more fun when in the middle of it the villain laughs evily and vanishes in a cloud of dust or flies off - any good idea would work here. The same goes for the hero who makes a tactical retreat to the rear when the battle isn't going his/her way.

In closing, it is not just vampires who play like this. Anyone playing any character is capable of playing annoyingly powerful characters - vampires are just the trend right now...as are demons, devils, humans, elves and halflings.

 

[Tharivious]

Besides people can't play the all evil animalistic vampire in any setting except the Sigil setting (Bazaar and Cage) I would think for they would break the code of conduct rules that have been laid out.

And no one has advocated it. If anything, it's been almost universally decried as bad writing on D&D's end of things. Evil, on the other hand, can absolutely be played in any setting, just not by people who don't understand how intelligent (or at least, not moronic) evil works when inside a society - those types either get themselves killed or banned (or ignored), depending on how foolish the vampire in question is.

What about players who play good drow, neutral drow, lawful drow, etcetera. We could say well they aren't playing drow there just playing dark skinned elves because they aren't played to the DnD standard of the race. We cold say anyone playing a evil sun elf is not playing it right because they are innately and usually good beings. This list goes on.

And they'd all be strawmen that hold no weight relative to vampires. Those races aren't inherently aligned by nature (with the exception of Greyhawk drow), and they don't feed off of other living beings by draining their blood or life-force. Those are societally inclined races that make those alignments highly unlikely, but not impossible (and that's from someone who believes good aligned members of any organized evil race shouldn't live past their childhood, as the society should cull or subvert such weakness from its numbers), and even then, yes, you often get eyerolls when it comes to good-acting drow. More accurately would be a good aligned demon (or openly evil angel, although it's worth noting that good turning evil is a far simpler thing than evil turning good), which get groans of disbelief and rolling eyes from the vast majority I've seen, as their very nature turns these anti-stereotypes into cliches. It's comparing blueberries to pineapples.

I agree with the rest, though. In fact, there's a handy Combat Guide linked in the Tutorials section of the ISRP header that goes into more detail for those unsure on how to freeform more reasonably. ... [/shameless plug]

 

[Elf_Ariel]

Over the years, I have seen and tried, on a few occassions, the all encompassing, bat-winged, silk and leather, dark stared attempt of vampirism. It almost universally fails, because well, you can only act evil when no one wants to be the victims. In order to prove the evilness and cunning and outright fear required of a vampire you actually have to have someone -see- you doing the acts which you so controversially ban because they are "suicidal". (Else there are no rumours!) It's quite a conundrum. And when you find victims willing, and players willing to be victimised, often you're dismissed as pathetic.

Talk to Jazzmyn, I'm sure she's having these kindsa problems right now ;-)!

For the record...there is only one player allowed to kill Ariel; and they have owned those rights for years (approx 7 of them). And they are plenty deserving too. But that, is completely, an OOC agreement.

 

[DarkmoorRunebane]

Meh, when has there ever *not* been vampires in the tavern setting?