Vampires

[Hellis]

History lesson kids. Sit your ignorant goth asses down.

Any claim to "VAMPIRES MUST BE LIKE THIS" is inherently ignorant and dumber then selling sand in a desert.

"Why? But I want mah grim shit! " you say. Well, here is the deal. Vampires have existed for fucking forever in folklore, and most iterations of early vampires cared fuck all for little ol sunshine. The greeks had vampire snake ladies. Us nords had grave walking, shape changing, blood sucking corpses and lady vampires who fucked with your dreams. Your traditional grim dark vampire doesn't mean shit. I dont like Sparkly Angstbutton, but he is as legit a thing as any other vampire. Because they are all fiction.

 

[Brovo]

Vampires, in my opinion, should be ruthless monsters of the night who view humans as play things, as utensils, not as friends.

Incoming opposing viewpoint. Prepare your smites for my pale flesh.

Vampires should be whatever the hell you want them to be. "But Brovo, mah original vampires--" Could be stopped by locking your fucking door and not answering it when they knock. Could be swayed off by flinging a cross in their face and praising Jésus, your Mexican Gardner. Were originally made by people terrified of Vlad the Impaler coming back to life as that dude was radically brutal towards anyone who opposed him, including his own people. Varies in power and description based on civilization, akin to Chinese Water Dragons vs Western Fire Breathing Winged Durrgons.

Vampires are just a mythological creature like any other. What if I told you that Lord of the Rings completely fucked up the traditional depiction of Elves and Dwarves for its own variations on what were once mythological entities? Would you say that Lord of the Rings shouldn't have been allowed to change said races to fit its purposes? It's a not-real thing. Let people make of it what they will.

That being said, I think the idea of Twilight vampires is radically stupid, and angsty teenager fetish fuel... Like every other mythological creature popular among said age group. Including Demons, "Half-Demons", Angels, "Half-Angels", Lycanthropes, and so on. Their fantasies are no more or less valid than yours just because you or I personally think they're dumb. Why? Because we create our own shit that's pretty dumb. Vampires are a dumb concept in general for example: What in the fuck virus kills its host and expects it to not rot? What kind of apex predator is a vampire whose very prey can annihilate it with a simple crossbow, or a stick in the chest, especially in medieval settings, where basically every peasant has a pitchfork that could easily impale its ass to a wall through the heart and kill it dead? Even ancient depictions of vampires tend to defy all sorts of reality by making them undead and basically immune to muscle and tissue damage... And also making them somehow more flammable than a regular human. "The virus did it!" That's one shitty virus, then.

I love Vampires, I love Lycanthropes, I love the supernatural--in fantasy or modern fantasy settings--but I don't kid myself into thinking that my fantasy is superior to another person's fantasy by virtue of it being older, or just because I like X version more than Y version.

Now if you wanna talk about Vampire powers, I'm game, but if this thread is just about how your version of vampires is superior to another because they're monsters instead of people, I'll take my train ticket out of this thread yesterday, conductor.

 

[Razilin]

i approve of vampires being trolls

thats whats important

trolling

as a vampire

...what? vampires get bored

thus, they go on very enthusiastic walks

 

[Minibit]

I like vampires, and while I prefer the Dracula model, I can't agree that any version (Twilight included) is 'wrong' or 'not a vampire'. Even before Dracula, there were many variations on the creature, the only thing in common being that they drank blood. Some were succubi, others shapeshifters, ghosts, or zombie-like creatures. Brazil even had a version of a vampire which resembled a severed woman's head, with tentacle like entrails and large bat wings, which gobbled up infants in their cradles.

I don't LIKE it, but if the Twilight universe says the species Edward belongs to is called a vampire, then I add sparkling to the list of possible vampiric traits.

Our interpretations of classic mythos, especially in media, change with the trends, too. Among adolescents, there has been a notable increase in the desirability of androgynous, shy, feminine, and sensitive men. Burly die-hands still have their place, but a big handful of the teenage demographic seem to favour men with some fragility to them, which explains why vampires are becoming less of a scary monster out to get you, and more of a cursed, misunderstood soul in need of rescue. I think there's ups and downs to both. It takes all kinds, as they say.

You have now seen me defend an element of Twilight. Take a screencap for this shall not happen twice.

 

[Space Cowboy]

tl;dr Vampires can be however you want to write them.


That said, I have loved nearly all the characterizations of Vampires. From Anne Rice's eurotrash, to Bram Stoker's classic mountain-dwelling Count, to Hammer Films' creature of the Dark (that loved fighting the wolfman and Frankenstein), to True Blood's Southern Gentlemen. I can't say I'm a friend of the Twilight treatment, but aside from girls between the ages of 9 and 20, I'm not sure there are many (please note the distinction between girls and women).

The one common thing I think needs to be emphasized however, is that they are monsters. Whether they are fighting that side of themselves, embracing it, or hiding it, I want the author or presenter to remember that these guys hide in the dark for a reason. They eat flesh and drink blood for a reason. They are forced to wear perfumes (sometimes) and Charm people for a damn reason.

So long as that's kept in mind, I love any and all vampires.


As to why they're so popular, it involves beauty, power, and hyper-sexualization, along with a whole mess of the psychology behind the ever-emerging (or only just-now admitted) rape fantasy so many women (and men!) tend to have.

 

[Peter Feels]

History lesson kids. Sit your ignorant goth asses down.

Any claim to "VAMPIRES MUST BE LIKE THIS" is inherently ignorant and dumber then selling sand in a desert.

"Why? But I want mah grim shit! " you say. Well, here is the deal. Vampires have existed for fucking forever in folklore, and most iterations of early vampires cared fuck all for little ol sunshine. The greeks had vampire snake ladies. Us nords had grave walking, shape changing, blood sucking corpses and lady vampires who fucked with your dreams. Your traditional grim dark vampire doesn't mean shit. I dont like Sparkly Angstbutton, but he is as legit a thing as any other vampire. Because they are all fiction.

Thanks for the partial history lesson kinda!

 

[Razilin]

tl;dr Vampires can be however you want to write them.


That said, I have loved nearly all the characterizations of Vampires. From Anne Rice's eurotrash, to Bram Stoker's classic mountain-dwelling Count, to Hammer Films' creature of the Dark (that loved fighting the wolfman and Frankenstein), to True Blood's Southern Gentlemen. I can't say I'm a friend of the Twilight treatment, but aside from girls between the ages of 9 and 20, I'm not sure there are many (please note the distinction between girls and women).

The one common thing I think needs to be emphasized however, is that they are monsters. Whether they are fighting that side of themselves, embracing it, or hiding it, I want the author or presenter to remember that these guys hide in the dark for a reason. They eat flesh and drink blood for a reason. They are forced to wear perfumes (sometimes) and Charm people for a damn reason.

So long as that's kept in mind, I love any and all vampires.


As to why they're so popular, it involves beauty, power, and hyper-sexualization, along with a whole mess of the psychology behind the ever-emerging (or only just-now admitted) rape fantasy so many women (and men!) tend to have.

tl;dr


hellsing abridged is the most historically accurate vampire

:)

 

[Brovo]

tl;dr: Best Vampire ever, widely accepted as a vampire, and everyone--regardless of age or sex--loves him.

 

[Space Cowboy]

hellsing abridged

Is that like that Yugoh and DBZ abridged?! /search

 

[Dervish]

Who wouldn't want to bang the OG film vampire?

 

[Kestrel]

Could be stopped by locking your fucking door and not answering it when they knock. Could be swayed off by flinging a cross in their face and praising Jésus, your Mexican Gardner. Were originally made by people terrified of Vlad the Impaler coming back to life as that dude was radically brutal towards anyone who opposed him, including his own people. Varies in power and description based on civilization, akin to Chinese Water Dragons vs Western Fire Breathing Winged Durrgons.

Pretty much this.

Also, I twist mythology and it's spawn on a regular basis. Frequently I just mesh things together to make them seem different. I utterly raped the concepts of lamia, ghuls and a whole slew of Arabian mythology to fit my roleplays and stories. Nobody cared. People praised me for originality. That isn't arrogance here, for past RP concepts I've literally had multiple people PM me that, or refer to my games without even being part of it. For stealing and twisting concepts from less commonly used mythology.

Know something else that twists mythology worse than Twilight does vampires, yet nobody bats an eye at it? Final Fantasy. Shiva isn't some fancy ice-magic dame, it's a multi-armed man symbolising creation and destruction who apparently has a snake-fetish. Anybody cares? I could list countless summons and monsters that are either twisted or simply use names. Also guess what giant dragon is actually a giant fish.

I don't know why people make such a big deal of vampires (that's a lie, I do) but twisting concepts is something people do all the time.

 

[Jorick]

There really isn't any right or wrong way to make a vampire. You can have preferences and there were ways it was done originally, but ideas evolve. Look at werewolves, for example. They originated as stories of people who straight up turned into wolves (and there were versions with other animals of course), but nowadays they're usually people who turn into anthropomorphic wolf monsters rather than into an actual wolf. Does that mean that the modern idea is wrong and they're not real werewolves? Nope. Same applies to vampires.

I happen to prefer the bestial monster vampires myself, but that doesn't mean the vampire boyfriend types of them aren't real vampires or are somehow wrong. If they're immortal people that sustain themselves with blood acquired through use of sharp incisors then you can call them vampires and be accurate, regardless of what other details apply to them. So long as the basic traits are present enough that if you describe the character without the word vampire the average person would say "so it's a vampire, right?" then it is a vampire, end of story. The older versions of vampires (pre-Bram Stoker) had a lot of not giving a shit about the sun and not being harmed by religious icons and so on, plus a lot of really stupid weaknesses that have been long discarded, but they're no less vampires for it either. It's just a matter of preference, not a matter of correct or false.

I do not believe Bella and Edward qualify as vampires. The creations of Stephanie Meyer are merely her attempts to glorify immortality and create characters that are the epitome of flawlessnes. Which, in fact, makes them immensely flawed. Forgive the paradoxical statement, but referencing Twilight as a source comoletely dismantles your entire argument. If people wish to create creatures that so vastly differ from the original idea of the vampire, perhaps they should simply assign them a different name rather than majorly damage the idea of the once-feared beings that now roam the pages of literature as poorly developed characters.

The hate of Twilight is neat and pretty solidly justified and all, but saying "you referenced it so your argument is totally ruined" is just plain foolishness.

Also, the poorly developed characters thing is really a matter of the author sucking, not of vampires being somehow ruined. You can make even the most horribly bastardized version of a classic monster into a great character as long as you're a great writer. If you think otherwise, I would have to argue that you're too far up your own ass with pointless loyalty toward the classic monster idea to actually think about it clearly.

 

[Ruko]

tl;dr Vampires can be however you want to write them.


That said, I have loved nearly all the characterizations of Vampires. From Anne Rice's eurotrash, to Bram Stoker's classic mountain-dwelling Count, to Hammer Films' creature of the Dark (that loved fighting the wolfman and Frankenstein), to True Blood's Southern Gentlemen. I can't say I'm a friend of the Twilight treatment, but aside from girls between the ages of 9 and 20, I'm not sure there are many (please note the distinction between girls and women).

The one common thing I think needs to be emphasized however, is that they are monsters. Whether they are fighting that side of themselves, embracing it, or hiding it, I want the author or presenter to remember that these guys hide in the dark for a reason. They eat flesh and drink blood for a reason. They are forced to wear perfumes (sometimes) and Charm people for a damn reason.

So long as that's kept in mind, I love any and all vampires.


As to why they're so popular, it involves beauty, power, and hyper-sexualization, along with a whole mess of the psychology behind the ever-emerging (or only just-now admitted) rape fantasy so many women (and men!) tend to have.

I think you did a pretty good job of summing it up actually. Vampire traits can change, though I myself am more a fan of the sun-hating killing machine variety, but they are all monstrosities at core, and that's what people are forgetting when they write a vampire. Too often they are just these perfect people with super powers that happen to include the need to drink blood occasionally, and the writers dont even try to do anything about how they'd be highly unstable and often actively not using their powers to avoid frenzying.

 

[Hellis]

I think you did a pretty good job of summing it up actually. Vampire traits can change, though I myself am more a fan of the sun-hating killing machine variety, but they are all monstrosities at core, and that's what people are forgetting when they write a vampire. Too often they are just these perfect people with super powers that happen to include the need to drink blood occasionally, and the writers dont even try to do anything about how they'd be highly unstable and often actively not using their powers to avoid frenzying.

THE WHOLE POWER VS FRENZY THING IS A GAME MECHANIC. Jesus, writers don't work in the fact that they don't frenzy becouse it doesn't fit their vision of the mythos. The same reason they do not make them complete monsters either. Brovo covered it allready, as did I, that there is no "real" version. People don't forget nada, they purposly ignore or remove bits that clash with their story or vision. This is common in anything you write up. The whole frenzy thing in VTM is a limiter added there to keep players from getting to powerfull to fast, and to add a "Risk vs Reward" scenario. Its game balance 101. To use this as some sort of golden rule that everyone else should follow is inane.