Vampires: Mathematics Proves WotC is (un)Dead wrong

[Steel_Wind]

From Today's Yahoo News:

"A researcher has come up with some simple math that sucks the life out of the vampire myth, proving that these highly popular creatures can't exist.

University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou's work debunks pseudoscientific ideas, such as vampires and zombies, in an attempt to enhance public literacy. Not only does the public believe in such topics, but the percentages are at dangerously high level, Efthimiou told LiveScience.

Legend has it that vampires feed on human blood and once bitten a person turns into a vampire and starts feasting on the blood of others.

Efthimiou's debunking logic: On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.

If mortality rates were taken into consideration, the population would disappear much faster. Even an unrealistically high reproduction rate couldn't counteract this effect.

"In the long run, humans cannot survive under these conditions, even if our population were doubling each month," Efthimiou said. "And doubling is clearly way beyond the human capacity of reproduction."

So whatever you think you see prowling around on Oct. 31, it most certainly won't turn you into a vampire."
From MM3.5

Create Spawn (Su): A humanoid or monstrous humanoid slain by a vampire’s energy drain rises as a vampire spawn (see the Vampire Spawn entry, page 253) 1d4 days after burial.

If the vampire instead drains the victim’s Constitution to 0 or lower, the victim returns as a spawn if it had 4 or less HD and as a vampire if it had 5 or more HD. In either case, the new vampire or spawn is under the command of the vampire that created it and remains enslaved until its master’s destruction. At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn. A vampire that is enslaved may create and enslave spawn of its own, so a master vampire can control a number of lesser vampires in this fashion. A vampire may voluntarily free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again.

So. Given the vastly higher kill rate than one a month assumed for Vampires as set out in the hunger rules in Libris Mortis, it is plainly evident that any coven of vampires gets out of control in mere weeks, and the mathematical "problem" posed by a vampire infested city like Westgate is quickly seen to be utterly untenable.

It follows that:

Gary Gygax is unDead Wrong, while Anne Rice *may* be right.

 

[Christian]

So. Given the vastly higher kill rate than one a month assumed for Vampires as set out in the hunger rules in Libris Mortis, it is plainly evident that any coven of vampires gets out of control in mere weeks, and the mathematical "problem" posed by a vampire infested city like Westgate is quickly seen to be utterly untenable.

Au contraire. The mathematics is assuming that every vampire victim rises as another full vampire, capable of itself infecting new victims. This leads to exponential population growth, which rapidly swamps the normal human growth rate unless the generation times for vampires are comparable to or longer than those of humans (~ 20 years). But, according to that MM rule, victims of less than four hit dice instead rise as spawn, who are not themselves capable of creating spawn or vampires. A vampire that only feeds on low-level characters, killing one per night, will only result in a net of a few tens of thousands of victims in a century. (Linear rather than exponential death rate.)

So, from the fact that the D&D universe isn't overrun with vampires, we can conclude that they generally focus on low-level victims, and avoid heroes. Ancillary evidence of this is that the vampires continue to exist; heroes are distressingly likely, relatively speaking, to own undead bane weapons and be able to cast daylight spells. Stick with the low-level commoners, Vlad, it's a lot safer.

 

[Endur]

The doubling of the population is not exactly a new observation, hardly new research.

Note the rises d4 days after burial.

Anyone who dies and is not buried does not rise as a vampire (i.e. body cremated, etc.).

One interpretation is that if the grave has the usual prayers said over it, the vampire does not rise. What you need is someone slain by a vampire and then buried in an unconsecrated grave. Then you get a vampire.

In any event, doubling the vampire population every day or every month is not something that your average master vampire would desire.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I'm just wondering why the popular belief in these things is at "dangerously high levels."

I mean, I think it's pretty silly myself to believe in such things, but where exactly is the danger?

Anyway, obviously the researcher is failing to take into account two important things:

1) Established belief is that it simply isn't enough to just be bitten that creates another vampire (they have to be completely drained, and according to some lore, drink the vampire's blood as well)

2) The enormous underground vampire slaying movement that keeps the population levels at equilibrium.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Every episode of Buffy had the killing of at least a dozen vampires per week.

More during sweeps week.

Blade killed them by the truckloads.


In the natural world, predators keep rapidly-reproducing populations under control, because more food = more predators to feed on them. when something preys on a predator, the food population has more room to survive.

Or maybe MSG kills vampire DNA.

In D&D, vampires last, uhh, maybe 3 rounds before the heroes kill them, then chase the cloud 'til they find the coffin.

 

[Taraxia]

The idea that just *anyone* who *ever* gets killed by a vampire turns vampire themselves is a somewhat modern twist on the tale, and one that doesn't work for a lot of dramatic reasons that go beyond the math of the matter. Certainly ancient vampire myths didn't work that way, Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, White Wolf and other famous modern vampire mythmakers don't portray vampires that way, and WotC created the spawn/true-vampire distinction for exactly this reason.

Besides, the exponential growth only really works if vampires *must* feed on a regular basis and are always successful if they attempt doing so (as opposed to vampires who are portrayed as "sleeping" for long periods of time until they awaken and get hungry) and that once created a vampire never dies of accidents or being killed. (If vampires did work this way, then the smartest thing for a vampire to do would be to immediately attempt to kill its vampire "children" before they could compete with him -- and vampires are, after all, heartless and evil, and capable of simple math.)

I mean, it's a cute way to teach people a certain way to think about numbers, but it hardly constitutes any kind of "proof" that vampires don't exist, if you happen to believe in vampires. It just says that this simplistic schoolyard theory for how vampires work is probably false.

BTW, Libris Mortis gives rules on how to handle Vampires' dietary needs. A Vampire has to drink once every three days, but this does *not* even necessarily involve the death of the human he feeds from -- it's 1d4 Con damage, which isn't enough to kill the average healthy adult in D&D (who has, on average, 10 Con), just enough to make him feel quite ill.

Unfortunately, D&D also gives vampires a "soul energy" draining attack, and *that* is an itch they have to scratch every day, and that is much more likely to kill the target since it drains 2 levels and most peasants only have 1 HD.

This wouldn't result in an exponential increase in vampires, since all victims of energy drain rise as spawn, but it would result in a vampire having to carry out a quite astonishing rate of murders and not be caught in order to survive, which means, no matter how careful the murders were, also quietly spiriting away or killing off quite a few annoying spawn.

In a world where vampires are not a cautious secret society that lurks in the shadows of all civilization but instead this rare and terrifying great big fortress-in-the-wilderness capture-a-whole-wagon-train-and-eat-them antisocial menace, this makes sense, and that's why this is how vampires generally are in D&D. D&D worlds, after all, do *not* usually posit an ecology of vampires making more vampires endlessly in the shadows of the city underworld a la Vampire: the Masquerade, but of vampires being rare events, really evil souls who turn vampire, become scary menaces in the countryside for some time, and then are eventually killed (which is also what the authentic vampire myth is like).

In the Eberron setting, where vampires are more integrated into the whole secret-society mindset of the Blood of Vol religion, Keith Baker, the Eberron creator, has recommended adapting the Libris Mortis rules so that the hunger for soul energy only comes once a week. With that amendment, it becomes easy for a vampire to go underground and remain hidden almost indefinitely, as long as he has a plentiful supply of strong humans to drink from and can get away with, say, one murder a week -- or not even that, if he can find people of great spiritual force (i.e. higher levels) to target with his drain. One per day is hard to find, one per week, not so much, especially if he has some kind of mortal servant or consort who can regularly provide this service. *One* high-level character, given a week between feedings, could easily regenerate those negative levels for him. And with two or three high-Constitution cattle to drink from, a three-day feeding period is plenty of time for them to recover from ability damage.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Vampires don't have to drain 2 levels with a slam attack. Or they can use a weapon, to better blend in.

I don't think any game I've ever been in has had a vampire successfully execute a grapple blood drain. Then again, there weren't any commoners in the room either. 1d4 Con probably isn't going to kill anyone, and any sucker worth staking should have a bunch of thralls to keep him fed without needing to slaughter 3-5 a week.

A swarm of Stirges do more Con drain than a vampire ever will.

 

[Agamon]

"A researcher has come up with some simple math that sucks the life out of the vampire myth, proving that these highly popular creatures can't exist.

University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou's work debunks pseudoscientific ideas, such as vampires and zombies, in an attempt to enhance public literacy. Not only does the public believe in such topics, but the percentages are at dangerously high level, Efthimiou told LiveScience.

This is disturbing. I think euthenising dumb people is a better way to enhance public literacy. Great for popluation control, too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

[. . .] euthenising [. . .] way to enhance public literacy.

Nice one.

 

[Agamon]

Nice one.

D'oh! Okay, I'll get in line, too.

Though how dare you post a two-word monosyllabic reply to make sure I can't make fun as well.