How do you feel about "good" or "not-evil" Vampires?
Completely contrary to the nature of a vampire, which is a parasite that requires draining the life out of many humans to just survive.
>>47442243
It's not a bad concept but a tad over used.
>>47442273
So, just like humans then.
>>47442243
It should be the exception, not the rule. Having one Vampire who tries to use his powers for the greater good is a decent character, having multiple is just being contrary for the hell of it.
>>47442243
As individual characters, I think they're fine. But large organizations or groups of them aren't very interesting.
They can be fun to DM. But I don't buy into the whole 'drink animal blood instead because I'm friendly' bullshit.
'Feeding off of lowlife criminals who I feel deserve it' is a lot better in my opinion
>>47442243
Fucking awesome and Best Vampire is proof.
>>47442243
There's exceptional individuals among every group or species. I mean - couple weeks ago, I've seen employed gypsy. Actually doing his work, even!
If you mean as a whole, I think it doesn't really work and any justification will feel forced.
>>47442414
Humans don't waste away and die due to not killing enough humans.
>>47442243
Purge regardless
>>47442438
>>47442452
>Not creating your own vampiric order of knights
Y
>>47442243
>>47442273
>>47442438
>>47442456
The only thing that makes them evil is that they can and often do feed on humans. I find it utterly retarded that they default to evil just because humans can't deal with not being the apex predators. You can't kill plants and animals and still claim to be above the food chain, bitch. I don't make them inherently good any more than humans are though, that's just another kind of retardation.
>>47442243
I prefer vampires to be monsters first and foremost. I think that vampires who aren't total dicks should be exceedingly rare and exceptional if they exist at all.
Also
>vampire
>has superpowers associated with vampires
>has no problems with sunlight, crosses, garlic, or any other traditional vampire weaknesses
>has normal skin tones (not pale as death)
>doesn't have fangs
>doesn't need to eat blood
>can survive just fine on normal food alone
>commands bad-boy cred because vampire
>most of them are actually pretty decent people
Get this trash out of my fiction. If you want a superhero who's being persecuted for no reason, just do that. Don't slap the word vampire on things when it doesn't apply.
>>47442494
It's the fact that they regularly dine on sapient people, including your family, friends, loved ones, and everyone you know. This includes you. The utter disregard for human life is also a big permenent stamp on vampires as "permanently evil". If you cannot conceive the idea that maybe their is a legitimate reason vampires are labelled evil then you need a psychological evaluation followed by therapy because you have anti-social personality disorder.
>>47442243
WoD had the right idea, even though the whole deal with the Beast and the grimdarkness of the setting get a bit out of hand: Vampires are human monsters, so they should still be people to some extent, but there should also be good reasons for them to be so feared - so their nature create a fucked up society where predatory behavior is how you survive.
Like vegetarians, they are annoying as fuck.
>>47442710
I love this meme.
>>47442710
Except that they don't tell anyone about it, unless they're currently eating their favorite food with friends.
Speaking of Vamps anybody looking forward to Vampyr?
>The plot revolves around vampire doctor Jonathan Reid who is coming to terms with his undead condition. He must deal with being torn between the Hippocratic Oath and his newfound bloodthirsty nature. The player is under no obligation to kill to finish the game. Dialogue options can be used for hunting prey to feed on, which replenishes strength and levels up the lead character.
>Vampyr is based on the 1918 London Spanish flu pandemic. The setting was researched by travelling to London and the visuals were made with fictional and factual reference points in mind.
>>47442243
>neutral vampires
I have no strong feelings either way.
>>47442471
>Humans die and waste away if they don't eat lesser lifeforms.
Compare to.
>Vampires die and waste away if they don't eat lesser lifeforms.
I mean yeah I'm aware there is degree of difference. Specifically the rate in which a vampire must feed.
I'm personally fine having "good" aligned vampires. As long as they're not seen as "good" by your local human nation. The vampire, and others like it, are free to be altruistic and friendly, even lawful.
But to ignore that inherent atagonism they have towards humans ruins a great part of what vampires are. Parasites.
So I'M agreeing with you, half and half there.
>>47442676
I prefer having vampires as a seperate species altogether. Also 'good' and 'evil' aren't metaphysical laws, just because they kill humans for nourishment doesn't somehow make you more/less inherently evil than humans that eat other things.
>>47442768
Nah I mean it's kind of evil for them to eat people, dude.
>>47442804
From the perspective of people, yes. Doesn't make them inherently so from the perspective of the world outside humans. Vampires gain the lifeforce from blood, similar to how humans and many animals gain it from flesh. They could get it from animals, or elves or whatever. Most others have learned to live with the concept of other races that eat them to survive, humans should be able to as well.
>>47442768
In many, many interpretations of vampires they can easily done on raw animal flesh and survive on animal blood just as easily as human blood. So any vampire that willingly ignores the cheaper and more ethical alternative food source is an evil person by all human standards. Don't respond with "Humans don't control morality" or some shit because human morality is all you've got.
>>47442754
>lesser lifeforms
Even if we all agreed with this, we consider animals to be a lesser lifeform only because they don't think. They act on survival, don't create bonds as deep as humans and are ruled by their instincts. We humans wouldn't be eating lambs if they could talk and have intelligence.
So yeah, vampires are by definition monsters. You may add that guy who's weird I guess, but you need a good explanation, not >>47442560
Fucking hate that shit.
I had this idea for a setting that had somewhat not-evil vampires.
This setting is a shithole of a world to live in and there was once something really fucking terrifying and destructive threatening all humans. The vampires protected them, simply because they were their favored food source and they could turn humans into vampires to strengthen their numbers.
I don't know what it should be that was so terrifying, but the humans started to feel save as the subjects of the vampires, as long as the vampires didn't feed on too many of them. So the vampires became rulers and knights, the humans peasants, workers and citizens. They made deals with each other, and deals turned into laws, countries into principalities. The vampires now are the aristiocracy. Some of them are assholes and will stalk the knight to hunt humans, despite laws inhibit it. Some of them hunt and punish those vampires, because they are interested in a functional and stable society. Some of them just act like they punish them and let them get away scot-free, because at the end of the day humans are just cattle, aren't they?
I'm really interested in how such a society could work. Obviously there would be a lot of conflict. Maybe peasant revolts are a common thing in this country, because its ruler is a malevolent madman. But I heard the one over the hills has a really nice ruler, that only feeds on criminals, slavesor when you give him your hot daughter for favors
Overall I'm fascinated about how they both, human and vampires, would try to get along each other, how they would try to use each other for their own benefit. Or if they would work together.
The problem is that I barely know anything about vampires and was not sure if the idea for such a setting would be worth its own thread. I also don't know what you can do with this setting, but at least I could use it for some writefaggotry. Thanks if you made it through my rambling.
>>47442849
>From the perspective of people, yes.
That also means your perspective, since you are a human. Besides, you cannot know what the implications of two sapient species eating each other would have on society. Hell, when one sapient race eats another member of their own race it is considered a crime against nature itself.
>>47442871
> more ethical alternative food
No. It's not 'more' ethical. Every living creature is entitled to their survival, equally. Vampires are not the only creatures to consume others to survive, the ones that don't need to can be counted on one hand. It's tough to swallow but there it is.
>>47442895
> it is considered a crime against nature itself.
By humans because they're eating other humans. Vampires are not human and thus are not subject to human social mores. They have their own to deal with.
Fine with them personally.
If feeding on humans is required for them to survive, then I don't see it as an evil act. (Though I prefer vampires that can non-lethally feed in general.)
Obviously people can still want to kill them for being "monsters" but whatever.
>>47442243
It depends on the genre and mood of the game, really. I happen to like friendly vampires personally, but know that they're definitely not a good fit for every setting.
>>47442243
Vampire should be chaotic evil.
>>47442926
>Every living creature is entitled to their survival, equally.
So you would kill your dog because you don't want to kill a sheep for food?
>Vampires are not subject to human social norms.
They fucking are since they live exclusively in human societies and must keep up a face of a normal person. Any vampire that feeds regularly on humans would eventually get caught and killed by authorities and angry mobs. So, it's not only more ethical to feed on animals, it's more practical as well for the vampire's survival. Same reason why humans eat animals and not poor people.
>>47442954
>>Obviously people can still want to kill them for being "monsters" but whatever.
>Oh he just murdered and ate my friend's sister in cold blood for lunch and feels no remorse whatsoever.
>Not a monster.
Nigga you retarded.
>>47443036
>lions are monsters too
>>47443019
>They fucking are since they live exclusively in human societies
>it's not only more ethical to feed on animals
You only explained why it's more pragmatic to do so, not why it's morally superior. They're still not beholden to human mores since they can just leave to a different world and feed on those inhabitants, which I imagine, you see nothing wrong with. Some live among humans because their mind-control powers are particularly effective on the population.
>So you would kill your dog because you don't want to kill a sheep for food?
Why not? They're equally entitled to their existence. The only reason why I might hesitate is because I liked one more. One is not fundamentally more...better(?) because /I/ happen to like it.
>>47443090
Can you just kill your entire neighborhood then since there's nothing morally wrong about an animal killing another animal?
>>47443036
It'd be in the same vein that you'd call an animal a monster.
>>47442243
Would like to compose a setting where Vampires are very much a military aristocracy, they need the human populace to survive and have many parasitic elements to their nature but in the end serve a necessary purpose as without them there would be no effective defence to the Vampire aristocracy next door.
If a state has too many Vampires all these power players tend naturally to thinning the herd of weaker but potentially dangerous elements as having too many vampires in one place increases the bloodlust of the othersit's magic. Too few vampires however leaves the kingdom vulnerable to the predations of other kingdoms.
Even better, play in that setting for a while then take it into the future where modernity is rendering the armed aristocracy obsolete and have some good old insurgency gameplay as the aristocracy try to find a place in the new world or make it fit them.
>>47443117
An animal is not sapient. Once an animal reaches salience it is no longer an animal, a species, but a race of people. You cannot seriously claim that the death and butchering of a sheep and a human are completely identical.
>>47443152
Humans aren't animals though.
>>47443110
>Can you just kill your entire neighborhood then since there's nothing morally wrong about an animal killing another animal?
There isn't anything wrong with animals killing animals. Why would I want to kill my neighbors? Just because there's nothing wrong with one act doesn't necessarily mean I have to automatically want or need to do another.
>>47443179
If that's true how does
>nothing morally wrong about an animal killing another animal?
lead to
> Can you just kill your entire neighborhood then since
?
>>47443147
Didn't read the thread but a little like this.
>>47442891
>>47443159
Uh, I said you'd call an animal a monster for murdering you family, and that a vampire would be in the same vein.
>>47443202
Because you believe humans are animals and nothing can be ethically immoral since all human actions are the actions of animals.
>>47442243
I think Vlad von Carstein-style would be the closest you could get. The dude is a man-eating monster for sure, but he is also a very competent leader and inspires loyalty born of gratitude or just duty in his human subjects, who generally are pretty well off under him even if it is only out of pragmatism and not any genuine feelings of altruism.
>>47443237
I believe that all creatures are fundamentally equally entitled to pursue paths that continue on their existence. For vampires this can mean drinking human blood. It is no more ethical to drink human blood over animal because all creatures are equally entitled to continue their existence by any means. The reason, I contend, that you're ok with vampires killing animals and other sapient races is because they're not humans. There's nothing wrong with prioritizing the survival of your species but acting like it's inherently better to kill others just because they're not you is weird.
>>47442895
>Hell, when one sapient race eats another member of their own race it is considered a crime against nature itself.
In some cultures, it's an act of communion with the death. Or something you do to defile your enemies or make you a stronger warrior. Or just something you do from desperation.
Your humanistic/Judeo-Christian values don't account for the full scope of ethical systems.
>>47442243
If they are loners, it makes sense for them to be total psychopaths.
If they actually have courts, clubs and stuff, then no. They aren't really evil, they are just our natural enemies. It's not their fault that they want to live and have to kill us for that, and it's not our fault that we want to live and would rather hunt or starve vampires to accomplish that.
>>47442891
How many vampires-per-human are there? I imagine that once the main threat was over there were a lot of young vampires around who were unneeded but a burden on the populace, so I expect population control and some pretty brutal social maneuvering to be considered worth keeping around to be a thing.
>>47443441
Humanistic Judeo/Christian allows us to enter the 20th century pretty well desu.
If there can be any proof of Objective Morality, then let it be the science and innovation of Western society being the dominant culture of the world.
>>47443485
Yes, this would be a problem. I'm not good at such math things and I also think it will depend on how hungry those vampires are for human blood. A lot of young vampires would probably fight each other for land, which means that they can command more human cattle. If this society works like that, if you have land that means that the people on it are kinda your property. To some degree. This will lead to a lot of infighting. You could say that by infighting the problems kinda solves itself.
But on the other hand I could ask how much nobility was there in your regular middle age kingdom compared to all the people of a lower social class? Of course we could also go the easy route and say that there is always a threat.
Something else, could someone dump some vampire art, please? I try to build a folder and am interested in vampires from the medieval times.
>>47443302
>humans are worth more than animals
>all creatures deserve life equally
This line of argument boils down to opinion vs opinion.
>>47442243
I find them boring as a concept, absolutely cringeworthy when given to players. I've seen enough of them when VtM was still a thing, and they all sucked (pun intended). I blame Anne Rice.
>>47442243
It can be done very well, it just rarely ever is.
>>47443660
While we're here do you know of any books/papers/articles that touch on both sides? My side, the second quote, is mostly based on my gut feeling.
I've a question, related to this thread topic and to something I'm working on for Muh Settan.
What, exactly, is a vampire? As in, what defines something as 'this is a Type [X] Vampire' and something else as 'this is not a vampire'?
Example: Zombies feed on human meat and blood-rich organs, but are not (traditionally) vampires. Werewolves will tear out people's throats and lap up the blood, but are not vampires (normally). A soul-drinking abomination drains the very literal life-essence from a person, but not via blood - are they vampires?
In short, what makes one thing a vampire? Serious question, because I'd like to know if my homebrew 'vampires' are actually vampires, or just monsters-that-feed-on-blood.
>good
It's harder to justify and depends on the setting and type of vampire if it's even possible to justify it.
For example in Pathfinder, Dhampirs don't need to suck on blood to survive. While they do have an unnatural lust for blood and have the sharp fangs to help draw blood from their victims, they're not going to die if they go without blood for a while.
It's entirely possible for a Dhampir to have learned to either control their lust for blood, only partake in the blood of their fallen enemies, or with a person who has consented to help satisfy their cravings.
It also depends on whether a vampire feeding on you has to be "lethal" for them to get what they need or desire. It is possible for a vampire to only need a relatively small amount of blood each day to thrive, which can be taken from a consenting person as said before, or even from a non-sentient being if the setting allows for it.
To be quite frank though, "good" vampires are rare due to their nature. I mean by all means make one if you want to play one, but I'd advise you don't overdo it. The concept of a "good" vampire can become quite stale after a while.
>>47442243
Make them like Silas from The Graveyard Book and it's gonna be fine.
>>47443745
Vampires are a name for one kind of creature that takes the lifeforce that they need to survive from blood, and blood only. You can start defining them by culture + powers here but maybe you could use 'vampire' as an umbrella term for what I described.
Vampires are undead. Undead exist because of the power of evil deities or because they're powered by destructive anti-life energy. Therefore vampire are evil because its in their very fabric to be so. Get the fuck out with the revisionist bullshit, good drow are bad enough, no need for vampires to join that club.
>>47443786
>Vampires are undead. Undead exist because of the power of evil deities or because they're powered by destructive anti-life energy.
What if not undead
or what if death/life god not evil but allows necromancy
>>47443745
Vampire for me is an intelligent being that was dead, but has risen from the tomb with its wits intact. Feeds on blood, scared of water, all the classic. Body not rotting. Generally victim of a curse, or some of the old slavic hullabaloo (son of a warlock? son born from incestous relations?).
Zombie: rotting, beast-minded braineater
Soul-drinking abomination: it's just that, no more vampire than an IRS agent.
Psychic vampires, emotion vampires, everything but blood-drinkers: no vampire.
>>47443786
>>47443784
That's a helpful place to start, thank you both.
Are vampires required to be undead? Or could a living monster be classified under the 'vampire' type?
>>47442891
honestly, that sounds like that one world in Stargate: Atlantis that cut a deal with the wraith and just fed them criminals
>>47442490
>>47443853
See
>>47443801
They could just also be a completely different species, loved as much as any other races by their god(s). Last but not least: if you can count the number of differences between them and humans on one hand, and/or they can interbreed, seriously consider omitting vampires. Just substitute them for a clan of special secretive albino blood magi or whatever.
>>47443801
>What if not undead
Then its not a vampire.
>or what if death/life god not evil but allows necromancy
If there are two gods, one for life and one for death then I asume the life god would not allow or like a creature thats basically a mockery of life (like any undead). If its one god with both portfolios then he wouldnt allow necromancy either, since it subverts the order behind life and death.
>>47443735
I don't know, sorry. Maybe something about ethics. The problem is "what is good?". Is it better to have more people? less people? would a world without people be better? A world without life? What makes life good? I'm pretty sure we are biased due to anthropo-ego-biocentrism.
Maybe more intelligence is more better. i'm reminded of the xkcd comic where optimal feedstock turns out to be baby seals or some such.
>>47442243
Depends how good were talking.
Noblebright vampire saviour? I mean maybe but i dont like it.
Shady vampire governor that dominated and enthralled his way to his position, runs his town well and uses the populace for food?
Sure. Why not.
>>47443914
> life god
He wants everything to be alive. Thus he brings things back from the dead at every opportunity. Sometimes they come out as vampires but that's all good as long as they're alive.
>Then its not a vampire
what if different species but just drinks blood and only blood
>>47443497
Why are you separating "Judeo" from "Christian", but not "Humanistic". I arranged them the way I had because I wanted to distinguish the secular and the religious currents.
Anyway, Science makes no value judgements on morality. It isn't scientific.
>>47443853
The catch for being a vampire is being undead. Leave the undead part out, you are calling "vampire" something that's not, like calling "sword" a sling. Wouldn't then be better to call them something other than "vampire", so as not to void a word of its meaning?
>>47442754
>>47442875
You know, you can be vegan. Not saying it's a good thing, just, it's possible and you won't die ; you can make a moral choice.
Unless it wants to die, that is, unless it doesn't exist for more than five secondes, you cannot be a vampire and make this moral choice.
(again, not saying you should be vegan, that's not my point)
>>47443939
>what if different species but just drinks blood and only blood
While I understand your idea I dont agree with it, I see no point in taking away something that has defined the vampire mythos from the very beginning. If you're so hell bent on it I see no point in calling this creature a "vampire", it would be like like creating a new creature called "dog" that doesnt resemble a dog at all, might as well give it a new name.
>>47443939
Does that life god creates vampire versions of animals eaten by other animals and humans? Is your setting ready for bloodthirsty vampire bunnies? Or chickens?
Different species: call them another way then.
>>47444015
I can see your point but I far prefer adding my own spin to things instead of just copying and pasting from old legends and genre fictions desu.
>>47444037
Why not? I figure it's better actually to make the mutations random. The thing about this god is just wants thing /alive/. It doesn't matter how fucked up, as long as it's alive.
>>47443976
If they're not undead, I'd just call them "bloodsuckers".
Truth is, this is all semantics. Words do not have set, concrete meanings, especially names for fictional creatures. If someone calls a non-undead creature that they just made up a "vampire", then it's a vampire, no matter what the prescriptivist pedants of the world may claim.
>>47443994
Unless the vegan food I'm eating is artificial and has never been "alive", than its still a
>Lesser lifeform.
Just because my bacon was once a pig doesn't mean the celery was never alive in the garden.
>>47444059
I imagined a half-digested bunny reanimated in its entirety (via divine magic shenanigans) in a poor guy's stomach bursting out of his belly like an Alien screaming for blood, and moments later the poor motherfucker rises too as a vampire, and suddenly I'm all for it.
This is one of those "depends on the setting" kind of questions, honestly. But assuming you're talking about the standard, it can be done and it can be done well. It's just a very hard thing to do without it becoming cliché or shit.
also, somewhat related, what other interpretations of vampires do you like or find interesting? Pic related.
>>47444094
Sure, why not. Pic related.
>>47443786
There were good aligned undead powered by positive energy and there are non-evil vampires in OD&D though.
I think they were referenced in OoTS.
>>47444144
I do remember something about good/neutral elf liches, but I can't for the life of me remember their name.
>>47444104
Yes but it's (probably, unless you're panpsychic) not counscious ; it has no subjective experience. Therefore, it cannot "prefer" to live. So it's indifferent to it that you eat it. It was design to survive by evolution, but itself it has no will and doesn't want anything in particular, especially not survive.
>>47444129
Lampreys by default subsist on blood so what's the point of turning one into a vampire?
>>47442243
Meh at best. Feels like the euphemism treadmill:
> New scary monster is introduced
> horny guys write monstergirl books and horny girls write Twilight books about monster
> scary monster turns into badboy sextoy monster
> dark and edgy writers write a Drizzt Clone Good Monster
> badboy monster race turns into race of chaotic good humanoids who are oh so misunderstood
> tasteless paid-by-the-word writers give us half-monsters like Dhampir
> misunderstood monster race now just another rubber forehead humanoid interfertile with humans
> monster race now needs to be reinvented with unique culture as an excuse for why they are still a distinct thing
It happened to succubi, it happened to elves, it mostly happened to dragons (they managed to retain a bit more rubber forehead), it happened to umpteen minor creatures, it's happening to vampires, and it sucks all the flavor out of them. I really have no use for Magical Humanoid Variation #58.
>>47444186
that;'s a vampire squid.
>>47444186
the setting comes with more "creative' vampires at least, like this barnacle vampire right here.
>>47444233
its like a vagina, ballsack, and anus had a baby
>>47444251
And it's still not the worst looking one.it's spoilered for a reason.
How do you feel about Regis?
>>47444297
Qui?
>>47442243
I would say that the curse/condition/whatever of being a Vampire means a person must indulge in evil behaviours, such as feeding on the blood of humans. If a Vampire lets this dominate their mentality and morality then whatever, but a Vampire doesn't have to be a monster. They're just people who have to do a bad thing.
>>47444273
It's okay, I didn't want to sleep anyway.
>>47444199
You forgot one step:
> Paizo shits out a "blood of" supplement with the new and improved whatever-kin, feats and traits.
>>47444199
That's generally why if you do make a monster, you don't automatically call their species as a whole "good" or "evil" and you leave just enough detail to explain what they are without actually giving details as to who they are.
Part of the reason why Lovecraftian monsters worked so well was because at the time, there wasn't really much detail as to what they were aside from "creature beyond the expanse of creation whose form cannot be comprehended by the mortal psyche."
It's only after the old ones and their ilk gained a defined form and names that the concept went through romanticism and we ended up with shit like pic related.Sad thing is, pic related is also one of the more accurate retelling of lovecraft's work, it's just that the crawling chaos is a girl...japan is weird.
depends entirely on the genre.
in fantasy with gods and sharply defined alignments, vampires should be elementally evil.
In deconstructionist settings or genre-bending ones, good or neutral vampires are cool. It's not /tg/ and I know it's all social commentary metaphor but the Ina in Octavia Butler's book Fledgling reimagined vampires as biological rather than supernatural (before Guillermo made that cool) and as no more good or evil than human beings, in an alternate history in which humans and Ina have always been symbiotic.
I had a setting were a group of vampire (or at least vampire like) formed a cult to keep a demon pacified. Basicly the demon would awaken if it was not feed vampire blood, it was also a supply of blood that turned people into vampires(a vampire could not turn anyone on his own). The cult walked around at night and offered the sick or badly wounded to join them. It was still considered a curse by most of the population due to them worshipping the sun.
![sample_1b5b24156f6535422e6db994df4d2e82[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R8ONuIo.jpg "sample_1b5b24156f6535422e6db994df4d2e82[1].jpg")
>>47442243
>How do you feel about "good" or "not-evil" Vampires?
I like doing it when they're Young and haven't "truly" become Undead yet, I.E: they haven't outlived their actual lifespan and were turned in their 20's or 30's or something.
They still feel all those feelings, those aspirations, those phobias, sympathies and so forth. Young Vampires can be down right charitable.
The problem only begins when they just get old, they get old and they lose track of time, their moral compass and they become less sympathetic and more bored with humanity each coming year.
Vampires often like to build small nations because they think with their enhanced vitality, intelligence and charm they can run it better than Humans and they can.. For a time.
You get a Vampire older than 150 years and each coming decade there's a 15% chance he'll just lose his touch with the public and become a weird, fetishistic, shut-in.
I don't do "asshole evil", but Vampires just get BORED, they get BOOORED, so they come up with weird, eccentric, expensive and drawn-out things to pass their time.
>>47444447
>vampchan
>>47443786
In my setting undead are powered by pixie dust and farts
>>47442744
Its being made from the faggots who made Life is Strange, I expect shit.
>>47444297
The best vampire ever.
I hope he managed to get himself together after a couple of centuries.
>>47444447
I would play it just for the hell of it.
> By our Immortal Lord Blut-Sauger the Eternal's command, from now on every child, male and female alike, shall be called Cocksucker.
Give it a generation or two, and the party shall try to get information from Cocksucker the blacksmith while he drowns away his sorrow at Cocksucker's Tavern. A brawl soon starts, and Cocksucker the town idiot gets arrested by that old loon of a guard, Cocksucker, who is one day away from retirement.
>>47444398
idk why i love the idea of sun worshiping vampires. One of my campaigns had a huge empire of sun worshipers where the elite were actually vampires who saw the sun as an almighty god of death.
>>47442754
>vampire
>lifeform
Depends on the setting. Do they have to eat straight from people, or can they carry blood in bags and drink it? If they can buy blood rations, sure whatever, be a special snowflake good vampire. If they have to kill or drink directly from the source, then no, you can't be good. Neutral is fine.
>>47445762
I mean, assuming two things
One; you did not choose to become a vampire
and
Two; feeding is both non lethal and non painful
Then you COULD be good.
>>47442243
The only reason predators are "inherently evil" is because they can eat us.
Having an army of Alucards and Ds is bullshit, but every vampire being an overlord of darkness is bullshit too.
An average vampire should be a city outskirts dweller that contributes enough for authorities to either not suspect or turn a blind eye on periodically dissapearing hobos and rogues.
>>47442243
Well, seeing as there is no objective good or evil, I can't say I have a strong opinion. My personal ethical framework would consider vampirism as more or less morally uncharacterized, since I value a combination of virtue and consequentialist principles. A good vampire to me is a vampire that is stoic, rational, and just, no different from my conception of a good man.
Drinking blood to live isn't really relevant to my set of values.
>>47445762
>If they have to kill or drink directly from the source, then no, you can't be good.
Based on what? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. It's based on your opinion, or someone else's opinion. Nothing about killing is inherently more good or bad than anything else.
>>47442273
Are tapeworms evil?
![sample_89636097ca17b3ee29a8056d66616d00[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lvPSAgG.jpg "sample_89636097ca17b3ee29a8056d66616d00[1].jpg")
>>47444465
>>47444804
For sure, totally; Old Vampires retain all of their youth, beauty, power, but they start to dip in the "wisdom" and "charisma" as they lose track of more and more time getting progressively more eccentric, outlandish or even down right socially awkward due to getting completely lost in themselves, their hobbies, etc..
-One Vampire lord has taken the responsibility of converting much of their territories land into a penal colony. Not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they use the money and the prisoners sentenced to death to stock extremely extravagant, disgusting, offensive, blood-orgy dinner parties.
-One Vampire lord has begun sinking everything they have into funding the arts: poets, writers, painters, drawers, sculptors, actors, etc.. Their kingdom has turned into a central hub for the finest entertainers in all the land and a heaven for every spoken or depicted word and they've even begin to turn an immense profit from their entertainment business. The Vampire lord is just secretly trying to methodically make and produce every single one of their fan-fictional stories no matter how awful.
-Another Vampire simply wishes to be sodomized regularly by an incredibly wide and diverse array of cocks. No subtly at all. They literally put up the decree and started taking volunteers. They employ a small army of Druids, Biologists, Doctors, Alchemists, Anthropologists and Beast Masters to keep the cocks coming in all shapes, sizes and species.
>>47442243
At best, a Vampire should be not-evil, never good.
>>47445978
>Nothing about killing is inherently more good or bad than anything else
Ok
>>47446017
Because?
>>47446104
Because he's a sweaty, autistic neckbeard who does not play anything aside from D&D and D&D says that they are evil, or something along those lines.
>>47446145
Arent D&D vampires different though? Like when a guy becomes a vampire he actually dies and the vampire is some malicious spirit in his body
>>47446022
Different guy but
You said "or drink directly from the source" so I'm wondering why it's inherently bad if they don't have to kill.
>>47446188
Don't know, don't care. I don't play shitty games.
>>47442243
They can work as long as they realize they need to restrain themselves. The Secret World had one good vampire who outright stated that vampirism is a disease, but one that is cultivated like a rare flower. He had no problem living as a vampire aristocrat for centuries, but when the vampires launch a crusade to conquer the entire country he defects because "I was a soldier before becoming a Wampire, and a Man before a soldier." and in any case he's more loyal to his country than some sort of racial pride.
>>47446207
Well you dont sound bitter at all
>>47446215
D&Dfags are truly toxic, and the brain-sickened wastrels that flood this board from that subcommunity never cease to bring me to new and lower depths of melancholy and frustration. They really should be contained elsewhere.
>>47446190
If they can't drink fresh blood out of a bag, only right from the neck of a living being, it wouldn't survive on the blood itself, it would be the act.
>>47442243
Depends on your lore for vampires. Sometimes they're inherently evil because they are because they are tied to the will of undeath or have no souls or are part demon or what have you. If they just need to live on human blood to live then it's feasible for them to be good just not as likely.
>>47442494
>>47442768
>>47442849
>>47442926
>>47443090
>>47443202
>>47443302
Firstly 'Good' is a human concept. Therefore we define it. Humanity agrees by an overwhelming majority that killing human being makes one evil. I know that just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it true but secondly how can you not see that taking a human life and taking the life of an animal are completely incomparable?
>>47444763
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_Home_Interactive
And a whole bunch of other shit
>>47442494
It's the idea that they take the life of living creatures to extend their own unnatural, unholy existence. They are dead. They had their chance. They exist against the laws of the Gods and the natural world, and they destroy the domain of both those things to perpetuate that abominable state of existence.
>>47446266
Calm down dude, did a D&D player bully you in a game or something?
Vampirism is selfishness wrought in flesh. A vampire could only ever be "good" if they were made one against their will, and only then if they fought their urges with every ounce of their will.
>>47446609
> They exist against the laws of the Gods and the natural world, and they destroy the domain of both those things to perpetuate that abominable state of existence.
So, when are you going to set fire to your home, give up all medicine, and live in the woods naked, eating the animals you kill with your bare hands raw?
>>47446680
What does anything of that have to do with being undead?
>>47446671
They have a liquid diet. Meat isn't particularly nice either, and its consumed 95% of the time just for pleasure, unlike a vampire's blood.
>>47446266
>literally "my feelings are hurt by D&D players:" the post
>>47443786
Too much positive energy gives you cancer, then makes you explode, faggot.
Negative energy isn't inherently bad, positive isn't inherently good.
>>47446272
And? Why does that make them evil if they don't have to kill.
>>47444178
Behorns. Or something of the like, they're Forgotten Realms.
>>47446705
Not him but "yer destroying mother Earf" and "drinking blood is abominable, like shellfish and layered wardrobes" really aren't arguments, at least not against being nonevil.
>>47446680
I'm alive. I'm a living part of an ecosystem and I interact with that ecosystem.
A vampire is a fucking abomination outside of that system. You don't seem to have understood my post.
>>47446714
Eating human flesh is the realm of wendigo, who are even worse than vampires
>>47446188
That's an *interpretation* used by OotS, and its accurate to a point -- specifically, in 3e you will notice that the Soul Bind spell and other things that stipulate you can't be resurrected don't stipulate you can't be made undead.
I generally disagree, not because I don't like Durkula, but because it fucking inflames my autism that your body would be hijacked by a malevolent spirit permanently... and you'd have the same class levels, your mental stats would still be used as the basis, etc. how bout a hybrid template a la symbiote or tauric then? Christ.
>>47446771
My argument is that undeath is a state completely at odds with the laws of the physical universe and the divine mandate of the gods. It's not about the intentionally stupid reductionist take on my argument you're presenting. It's the fact that undeath is at its very core a perversion of all things.
>>47446705
All of that shit is also 'unnatural' and an 'abomination unto god', and fuck over shit to perpetuate themselves.
It's realllly fucking hypocritical to bitch and whine about one while he does the other.
>>47445820
I like the idea of mook vampires feeding like parasites on some sort of gigantic torpid eldritch Thing, a hulking dragon necromancer, or upon a river of blood (see: the nwod underworld) or something like that, so you can have dungeons full of em somewhere without having 1581 unexplained murders a year.
>>47446789
Nah, faggot. I understood it just fine.
You're typing on a computer. That shit ain't fucking natural. Clothing? Not natural. Cooking your meat? NOT. FUCKING. NATURAL. Medicine? I can die, and be literally brought back to life.
Cry and whine if you want, but you're just a goddamn faggot, cherry picking like a biiitch.
>>47446818
I'm not even certain that's a hard rule in OotS, considering that everyone still assumed Durkon was Durkon for a while
>>47446829
>My argument is that undeath is a state completely at odds with the laws of the physical universe and the divine mandate of the gods.
Its not relevant to good vs evil. Its relevant to them not being clerics, perhaps.
Now, I kid about it being on the same level of evil as homosexuality and eating shellfish, but I'd totally like to see you people who think "hurts a deity's pwecious feelings ->evil" pony up and take it to the logical conclusion and make a fantasy setting where, ermagawsh, the divine is intrinsically good. THEN I could buy it.
But as long as there's neutral and evil gods, then stuff that hurts the feelings of all the gods being evil is really, really retarded. You can't have it both ways.
For the record, I would also buy "vampires have a massive predisposition towards evil, due to it being easier to feed on whatever is available, and being able to crush people's will with a glance is too tempting for most to ignore."
>>47446870
Tool use is perfectly natural in humans, and lots of other organisms. Not even just primates, corvid birds are also famous for it. Tool use and advanced social interaction are two behaviours our species has selected for and have evolved many adaptations for for thousands of years. This is widely known. It is taught in Anthropology 101 classes. Technology is as natural for us as it is for the thousands of other organisms that use it, we just specialize in it in the way other organisms specialize in other behaviours. You don't know how to properly view yourself as an organism that operates under the same pressures as do others. Also, chill dude. Chill.
And trust me, when I'm talking all this "abomination" crap, I'm talking about a fictional universe wherein vampires exist, and that they conform to a vague set of traits as set out in pop culture. Under those circumstances... vampires are fucking evil, and a perversion of the natural order.
>>47446958
I get where you're coming from, but my approach is this.
In a setting with Good, Neutral, and Evil gods, what Good Gods want is Good, and what Evil Gods want is Evil.So offending a Good God (I mean, outside of an "Athena jealous of Arachne" sort of offence, which arguably a good god wouldn't be offended by in the first place but o u olympians so salty) must be Evil.
>>47446981
Basically this. I personally think that's just more interesting these days because it's not like good vamps aren't everywhere in vamp fiction. Half-vamps like Blade not withstanding.
>>47447039
Dunno, good vampires are ultra, ultra rare in fiction and RPGs.
Nearly always, when someone cites a "good vampire" they mean "a vampire that doesn't pointlessly kill humans," ignoring the fact that if there were more than 30 or so vampires that killed when they fed in a modern setting, it would probably completely transform the culture of, say, America and not really resemble the modern world anymore.
>>47447035
I really don't get what the point of "against the divine order = bad" could possibly be when the divine order is, itself, as evil as it is good. A bowl full of M&Ms where 1/3rd are normal and delicious, 1/3rd have no taste and 1/3rd are poisonous (or just taste like earwax) would not be in anyone's best interest to consume.
>>47442243
I think "good vampire" might be a little retarded but its nice when a vampire is more than just undead killing machine, although I like those more monstrous versions too.
>>47443159
>>47443179
The only difference between humans and animals is that we are slightly more creative than other creatures. That is it. Animals do drugs (Dolphins bite pufferfish to get high, elephants eat rotten fruit to get drunk), animals murder (Lions will hunt down and kill other Lions kittens), animals wage war (Ants and Chimps), animals can do maths (Crows, pigeons, octopus, monkeys and bees have all been observed counting, and some animals can subtract), learn how to speak to different species (a gorilla that was taught sign language as proficient enough to lie about going to the bathroom and instead went outside to play). Have you ever thought about how hard it is for pilots to learn how to fly planes? Many animals can fly and do so with greater skill than any human could. Thinking that we as humans are better than animals is stupid.
>>47447195
When people refer to "the divine", they're usually talking about the will and law of those gods which are good, or at least are considered good by most
>>47447216
Well, those people are objectively wrong, so why care about what they say? It's the whole hog, divine =/= good.
>>47447216
This is literally the first time I've heard that idea.
Like I said, I'd admire someone who did something actually original (by RPG standards) with their deities like gods being good, but you gotta admit that in the typical RPG, where there is as much divine evil as divine good, the gods are collectively a cancer upon the world, as would be any group of powerful beings whose adherents are as likely to inflict superhuman nastiness as superhuman benevolence.
Depending on whether you think an evil god is more like a poisoned M&M or just an earwax filled one.
>>47447214
Animals are incapable of language and self awareness. And while certain specific species are capable of remarkable intellectual feats (compared to animals in general) none come anywhere near human cognitive capacity, both in terms of ability and depth of individuality, personality, and awareness.
You are right in that dolphins and great apes to some degree blur the line between humans snd other animals, but, and this is key, MOST PEOPLE ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S OKAY TO EAT GREAT APES OR DOLPINS.
>>47447214
You point out how animals are similar to humans and you're right. We're not all that different. But that doesn't matter because we (humans) define what 'good' is. See here>>47446328
>>47447247
Have you never played the elder scroll games? They literally call the good gods "the divines" and the rest of the gods other things. Just one example I can think of at the moment, but a pretty damn big one
Also, not all RPGs are SMT
>>47447344
>Have you never played the elder scroll games?
Yeah, Daggerfall, but didn't get much of the lore. If you're talking about Daedra, they seem to me to Not! Demon Lords etc.
>Also, not all RPGs are SMT
I only have the most cursory knowledge of SMT. I don't think it has to do with the usual polytheistic nonsense pantheon though.
>>47447234
How is someone objectively wrong for say, calling the action of good gods "divine" and evil ones "arcane" or "demonic"? If anything, that's much closer to classical diction
>>47447400
The aedra and daedra are the same species, the former of which gave up their "lives" to create and protect the world, and the latter made their own realms nearby and fuck everything up
>>47447414
I don't use "objectively wrong" very much, but evil gods are, objectively speaking, divine beings of the divine power source that grant divine spells to their divine servants and have divine ranks.
I don't think its a D&D thing that a divine being that acts in a cruel fashion and manages to keep full powers is still divine, absolutely all settings that are different in that respect just go with a more Judaeo-Christian inspired flavor and have demon (or daedra) lords substitute for evil gods. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of exceptions.
>>47447435
Sounds about right and is a nice way of explaining why celestials seem to be far rarer, far less active, etc. than fiends.
>>47447435
>The aedra and daedra
Not exactly. Consider the mer. In theory they are essentially the same as the aedra and daedra as well but smaller and forced to take physical form. The aedra and daedra have some significant differences intrinsic to their natures. I remember reading about how aedra are forever unchanging constants or something whereas daedra are agents of change. But you point still remains semi-valid.
>>47447287
>Animals are incapable of language and self awareness.
Guess what wrong on both counts. Have you ever heard a bird/ whale sing?, a dog bark?, a Cow moo? That's there language, Animals even have regional accents. Many animals have self awareness, it may not go past more than " Me here that one over their not me" but they do have self awareness.
>And while certain specific species are capable of remarkable intellectual feats (compared to animals in general) none come anywhere near human cognitive capacity, both in terms of ability and depth of individuality, personality, and awareness.
I repeat the only difference between humans and other animals is that we are slightly more creative than the rest.
>You are right in that dolphins and great apes to some degree blur the line between humans and other animals, but, and this is key, MOST PEOPLE ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S OKAY TO EAT GREAT APES OR DOLPINS.
True but people still do. Congo and Japan respectively. And I would eat someone if I had to. I would eat an ape or dolphin if I had to as well.
>>47447294
Good may be a human concept but do animals have a similar concept? Animals may have different views of good and evil depending on the species. But as mentioned earlier in this thread, Vampires are considered evil due to them praying upon humans and being considered unnatural. So to a sheep a wolf, fox or eagle may be considered evil, while the shepherd and alpaca or dog that protects them is considered good.
And what is good or bad can change over time or indeed from culture to culture. Today most people think that genocide is evil, but some people think that its good.
>>47447580
>I repeat the only difference between humans and other animals is that we are slightly more creative than the rest.
You left out opposable thumbs. Kind of a boost to tool use and therefore civilization, that one.
>>47447555
The Aedra and Daedra are both Et'Ada, the original spirits born from the conflict between Anu and Padomay. The Aedra lost their power when Nirn was formed, essentially dying, while the Daedra retain all of their original powers.
>>47447580
>So to a sheep a wolf, fox or eagle may be considered evil
Sheep don't have a concept of good or evil because they aren't intelligent enough for that kind of logic. They feel fear and comfort and respond to these things naturally. It's not the same or comparable in any way.
>>47447644
I don't know about that. Many other animals use tools and have opposable digits. All apes have opposable thumbs and toes (apart from us). Opposable thumbs definitely helped, but it was creativity that allowed us to go from using them to grab that branch on the tree to escape the lion, to grab that branch on the ground so we can hurt the lion.
>>47447748
And how do you know that? Brain size does not equal intelligence. And us claiming what is intelligent and what isn't, is narcissistic. Humans can only look at the world our eyes. We can only perceive the world a certain way, this shapes our thinking. So how do we possibly know how 'intelligent' a sheep is? How intelligent are humans anyway? because from where I'm standing I just see idiots (that include me).
>>47442243
Kinda sucks. Not because it can't be done well, but because most GMs/DMs have done it wrong and done it so often that the very idea of it is tainted.
>>47447982
>Many other animals use tools and have opposable digits.
And many don't, including tool users and other animals considered highly intelligent. Corvids for example can only have one foot and their beak manipulate an object at a time, and dolphins don't have any manipulators at all.
>>47447491
"very good" is as important an aspect of the definition of the word "divine" as is "of a god", especially as it pertains to more colloquial usage.
>>47447555
The mer are faggots and incorrect.
As far as change versus stasis goes, it's an oversimplification of a complicated idea related to the earliest stages of TES theology. The aedra and daedra were among a group of immortal beings known as the Et'Ada who were born from a mixture of the forces of Anu (stasis) and Padomay (Change). All the Et'Ada are, to various degrees, mixtures of these two forces. Many people will tell you that the aedra are purely Anu while the daedra are purely Padomay, but this isn't the case. In fact, it is the duel aspect of change and stasis which allows for the existence of linear time in creation, and attempts to meddle with the function of either "half" of the god of time result in horrible disaster.
Essentially what happened was there was a guy named Lorkhan, who decided to make the world, so he got 8 other dudes, (later known as the divines) to help him build it, in the processes becoming a part of it and "dying". The elves say he tricked them in such a way they didn't know they would die, others disagree. Lorkhan created men and then died, giving his own essence into the world (the elves say after their champion killed him, but again, elves are always wrong), sort of jump starting it. Thus, eight divines and the missing god. Of all the rest of the Et'Ada, about a dozen and a half remained near the new world, called Mundus, and created their own realms in the Oblivion which surrounds it. These are the daedra, who, in contrast to the sacrifice of the Divines, are generally selfish, and their interactions with the denizens of Mundus range from "mixed" to "unimaginably awful". The rest of the Et'Ada left to the aetherius, a distant realm of purest light and magic, and in their wake tore holes in the darkness which are the sun and stars.
>>47447580
Self awareness is a hard concept and one with multiple levels.
Only a few pass the mirror test. Only apes have ever demonstrated theory of mind. And none have demonstrated reciprocal thought that is necessary for higher levels of self awareness, though that might be due to testing limitations for the apes
>>47447982
>Brain size does not equal intelligence.
Nobody said anything about that. If sheep were intelligent we wouldn't be able to herd them so easily; they don't even try to escape. Also by analysing behaviours we can see that they aren't capable of the same level of cognitive thought as we are. They are not self-aware (see mirror test). Please don't tell me your one of those 'your evidence means nothing because you can't truly know anything' arseholes.
>>47447580
>Guess what wrong on both counts.
Not at all.
>Have you ever heard a bird/ whale sing?, a dog bark?, a Cow moo? That's there language
Completely wrong. The key is that animals cannot comprehend the meaning behind the noises that they make, they make them instinctually and reply to them instinctually. While some (very few) animals are able of coming up with new sounds on their own, they aren't to describe new things.
>Many animals have self awareness, it may not go past more than " Me here that one over their not me" but they do have self awareness.
No, they don't. Consider chimps, who, for all their remarkable ability, are literally incapable of understanding that other beings don't know everything that they do. The idea of a secret or ignorance is lost on them. What they perceive is the world and is what everyone else perceives.
>I repeat the only difference between humans and other animals is that we are slightly more creative than the rest.
It's not creativity, or at least not principally. It's the ability to apply knowledge and understanding in an abstract context, primarily problem solving.
>True but people still do. Congo and Japan respectively. And I would eat someone if I had to. I would eat an ape or dolphin if I had to as well.
If you would kill and eat a human to survive then I would consider you evil just as I consider the idea of a vampire evil.
There are literally people walking around that are this stupid >>47442875 and it's against the law to crap on them.
>>47448119
But he's exactly right. Other animals are fundamentally incapable of the same kinds of thinking that humans are, the vast majority aren't even close
Underworld and Daybreakers are both example of how to do "good" vampires.
>>47442273
Vampires are simply sexy immortal demons that drink blood. They are not evil.
>>47448030
>especially as it pertains to more colloquial usage.
But its not the colloquial usage. The only cited example is from a vidya which uses "daedra" instead of the religiously tainted word "demon" and "atronach" instead of the religiously tainted world "golem."
>>47445733
>Vampires die and waste away if they don't eat lesser lifeforms.
Hey faggot, next time read the sentence right. No where does it imply Vampires are living.
>>47448273
The people in the games use "demon" to describe them constantly, "daedra" is just a formal term which means "not of our ancestors"
>>47444297
Best example of what OP asked for, honestly.
>>47442243
Well in my opinion vampires that have no regard for life, and simply live an un-life of decadence and gluttony with no care for other sapient life are evil. Just as a human who does the same is evil. Vampires as a whole, however, are predators. They feed off of the blood of certain races depending on the setting. That doesn't make them inherently evil. They do what they must to survive just as literally all life does in every setting. Just because their food source is other sapient creatures doesn't make them inherently evil. What makes most vampires evil is their life of being "evolved" and treating their food source as cattle, even though they are sapient beings. The argument could go on and on, but in the end vampires as a species need blood to survive, so them feeding off other races is not evil.
I'm inclined to think that a liquid diet is almost totally irrelevant to morality and that the far greater temptation is Dominate/Domination; anyone who makes eye contact with you can become your slave for days. THAT would be far harder to resist abusing.
A vampire has barely the tummy capacity to kill someone through feeding alone, but literally everyone a vampire runs into could become their mind slave.
>>47448017
>Corvids for example can only have one foot and their beak manipulate an object at a time, and dolphins don't have any manipulators at all.
Birds have an opposable toe. I looked it up, I was suprised how many animals actually have them. And of course dolphins don't have them, when was the last time you saw a dolphin in a tree?
>>47448042
The mirror test is stupid. Do they know what a mirror is? How do they know what they look like? I don't unless I look in a mirror and i know what a mirror is. Get them to look at their reflection in water instead.
>>47448102
>If sheep were intelligent we wouldn't be able to herd them so easily; they don't even try to escape.
Its safe, doing whats safe is often considered smart. Try that with wild sheep and see what happens.
> 'your evidence means nothing because you can't truly know anything' arseholes.
No but your evidence is flawed.
>>47448107
>Completely wrong. The key is that animals cannot comprehend the meaning behind the noises that they make, they make them instinctually and reply to them instinctually. While some (very few) animals are able of coming up with new sounds on their own, they aren't to describe new things.
I have seen reports that refute everything you have mentioned here. Not for all animals but for many.
>No, they don't. Consider chimps, who, for all their remarkable ability, are literally incapable of understanding that other beings don't know everything that they do. The idea of a secret or ignorance is lost on them. What they perceive is the world and is what everyone else perceives.
You have just described humans for the better part of several thousand years. Or what is commonly thought about our ancestors today.
>>47448449
Con't
>It's not creativity, or at least not principally. It's the ability to apply knowledge and understanding in an abstract context, primarily problem solving.
That's what creativity is.
>If you would kill and eat a human to survive then I would consider you evil just as I consider the idea of a vampire evil.
You've obviously never done a class on ethics. When we're in a plaincrash in the high mountains with nothing but, snow, rocks and the remains of both the plane and our fellow passengers. I look forward to eating your corpse.
See ya I have better things to do than type about innate human narcissism all day. But everything's on the internet. Look for yourself you're a big boy now.
>>47448449
>I have seen reports that refute everything you have mentioned here. Not for all animals but for many.
And I've seen reports that you're a tremendous faggot. Put up or shut up
>You have just described humans for the better part of several thousand years. Or what is commonly thought about our ancestors today.
You can't be fucking serious. You think that humans weren't capable of understanding that other people didn't know everything that they did, as recently as several thousand years ago?
>>47448470
>You've obviously never done a class on ethics.
Apparently you've never taken a class in fucking reading because I said "if you would kill and eat a human to survive I would consider you evil", not you eating a corpse from an accident.
Best vampire.
>>47448562
Enlighten us? They look cute.
>>47448594
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gucwr-shJrY
>>47448594
>he hasn't watched monogatari
>>47448212
>demons
>Not evil
Someone is a GNOSTIC!
>>47448562
Its shit
>>47448650
>mention "oh cool, what is thing"
"OMG YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THING IS? GET OUT!"
WHy is this everyone's fucking reaction to everything?
>YOu haven't listened to Rock Band? GET OUT!
>You haven't eaten nasty, slimy, boiled peanuts? Its like a 6000 year old pharoah orgasmed in your mouth. GET OUT!
>You haven't watched OREO NO DESU WAI? GET OUT!
>You haven't read Marvel Avengers vs Shitlords Ep 88: Return of Trump Snek? GET OUT!
>>47448815
>he hasn't been here very long
>>47442243
Depends on the kind of vamp, if sexy as phuck vampos then yes. (I'm a mosnster)
If cursed beings of death then no.
>>47448815
>WHy is this everyone's fucking reaction to everything?
Partly because exclusivity is something people value in their cultures, but I'd say mostly because responding with a "nice" post explaining things that can be easily Googled is an insincere, juvenile, self-serving, rotten behavior that is strongly discouraged in this online community. Being all "cool" and "casual" is a fucking disgusting act, a show that's put on, and helping people with something so trivial is something you do in order to receive praise or feel good about yourself - scummy and dishonest. And by the way, that holds true in real life as much as online, it's just that here in the land of the anonymous there is no reason to hold in the scorn for fake people doing fake things.
>>47448905
I was being mostly satirical (I know people are usually fairly well mannered) but the goober peanuts and rock band stuff are real reactions I've seen in real life.
But that being said,
>but I'd say mostly because responding with a "nice" post explaining things that can be easily Googled is an insincere, juvenile, self-serving, rotten behavior
What the fuck? How is it
>insincere, juvenile, self-serving, rotten behavior
>>47449049
I suspect you've just been caught up in a culture clash with an anon whose primary board is /a/ who feels no need to adapt to other boards when he posts outside his home board.
Don't ask me why /a/ is like this, I only ever visit /a/ for the occasional Ranma, Sailormoon, or Slayers thread, and even then /co/ and /tg/ usually produce better threads about those particular anime than /a/ where, from the admittedly small sample size that I've seen it usually just comes down to waifu wars and how much they want Ryoga to fuck Ranko.
>>47449284
Ah, thank you.
>>47448449
>The mirror test is stupid. Do they know what a mirror is? How do they know what they look like? I don't unless I look in a mirror and i know what a mirror is. Get them to look at their reflection in water instead.
this has nothing to do with how the mirror test works. It's about being able to recognize a reflection as you.
You clearly don't know what's actually involved in these sorts of tests.
>No, they don't. Consider chimps, who, for all their remarkable ability, are literally incapable of understanding that other beings don't know everything that they do. The idea of a secret or ignorance is lost on them. What they perceive is the world and is what everyone else perceives.
>You have just described humans for the better part of several thousand years. Or what is commonly thought about our ancestors today.
You are both wrong. He's wrong in that chimps are one of three animals to have demonstrated a theory of mind (the other two are humans and gorillas).
You are wrong in that it's a thing humans develop around age 3. It's been a thing for all of recorded history, and suspected to be true for prehistory going back to the start of homosapien as a species.
>>47449049
You look like Meatloaf?
Rock on!
>>47448815
Stop being so literal minded. People are being facetious.
Usually it's an exaggeratedly incredulous response to someone in a situation where someone admits to having never experienced X, where X is a relatively common experience that many people in your situation are often assumed to have experienced.
>>47449049
>>47449284
Yeah, I'll confirm: That's pretty textbook /a/ retarded shitposting about muh spoonfeeding.
>>47442243
Depends on the setting really.
I actually had a campaign once where one character's organization was composed of monsters and monster-born persons. The organization was a sect of a Holy church knight order used to study and kill monsters( though over time it was more like enacting diplomacy with the monsters and kill deviants who caused an incredible amount of harm). The organization head huntsman was a crippled vampire who only drinks of the blood and flesh of the holy father( the communal wine and bread) and thus was allowed to move in the day without turning into dust for his atonement. The Head Huntsman lived in absolute agony, but managed to tolerate the pain of the Hunger that vampires had(or at least in the setting of course) to be saved. That man was the reason the character continued to fight for the knight order.
>>47449884
A younger Meatloaf than that, but I loved the expression. But yeah.
I really like them actually.
Thanks to Zendikar though i'm in love with tribal vampires.
>>47442243
in my settings, nothing is bound by alignment if it has any amound of intellegence. Evil and Good are choices. For the most part, demons are evil and angels are good, but there are uncommon or at least rare instances where that is not the case. good vampires exist in my settings.
>>47442243
Can work, sure. But my characters never eat or drink at their mansions if they know that they are vamps, unless its their own rations that they brought themself.
>>47442414
>>47442243
a little tired
>>47442243
>but he's a GOOD [insert unequivocally evil monster]
I hate all of these. Good demons. Good vampires. You're fucking missing the point if you take a irredeemably evil monster and make your shit-tier character a good version of one. Use a tiny bit more creativity and make them something else instead.
Vampires are pure evil in almost every setting they're in, and the ones where they aren't, they're usually intolerably gay hackneyed bullshit (see Twilight Vampires, for example).
Vampires are, by definition, evil monsters who take the life force from others so they can live forever. They leave corpses, thralls, and corrupt sycophant servants in their wake. Something who must grievously injure or kill others just to prolong it unholy life is never, ever, qualified to be good or neutral. Evil, at its core, is about selfishness, placing your desires over the consequences or rules or anything really. And that's exactly what Vampires are, a selfish desire to live forever, damn the consequences.
>but vampires in MY setting don't have to hurt people
That' s nice, have fun with your mary-sue no-drawbacks immortal "vampires". When someone says Vampire with no other context, I don't think about your shitty fanfics.
>>47456040
>every game is D&D the post
>>47456040
>Something who must grievously injure or kill others just to prolong it unholy life is never, ever, qualified to be good or neutral
This is retarded logic and you know it. If you were to try and apply that logic to the real world, then just about every predator in existence could be considered evil as well. Doubly so for the ones that don't bother killing their food before they eat it. I'm not going to say that most vampires aren't evil, but that's a pretty shitty argument on your part.
As a general rule I don't mind vampires being an alignment other than evil so long as they aren't LG or NG. There's no way you can twist the act of eating another sapient being into something lawful unless you're a lawful evil vamp eating death row inmates or something. I can see there being extremely rare CG vampires provided they've worked out a system in which their feeding benefits society, (i.e. a bounty hunter who drinks 'dead or alive' bounties or bandits or something in a similar vein), though in the end it's still an arguably more LE act than it is CG. Neutral vampires are the middle ground- being more common than the good vampires, but less common than the evil ones. These I see as being either preparing for the transition to good or evil or the ones or who have mentally degraded into straight up wild animals who just mindlessly follow their instincts.
>>47442243
I'm all for going against the grain as long as it's done right and interesting. Can very easily be snowflakey.
>>47456535
>If you were to try and apply that logic to the real world, then just about every predator in existence could be considered evil as well
I think it is you who has the retarded logic. Why the fuck are you applying a discussion about alignment of Vampires in a game setting to animals in real life.
A vampire is someone who made the conscious decision to break the rules of life and death (or had it inflicted on them and decided to roll with it). And how do they stay young and supernaturally powerful, by preying on other sentient people. Every time they kill someone they're consciously deciding "I deserve to live more than this other member of society."
Don't compare that to a wolf eating a deer. Don't compare it to a human eating a cow either.
This is a (for example) ex-human, eating what was once his fellow humans, for the express purpose of living longer than they should. That is very, very different.
As for your example, I hardly see living like a desperado from the Wild West as Good, particularly if you're also murdering all your targets. I suppose it could work, if the setting was hardcore enough that murdering evil people en masse was 100% good and not psychotic at all, you could break even and be neutral. But in the end, you're still a monster who chose a job where no one could quite fault all the murders for unnaturally extending their life, not some hero risking his life in defense of others.
>humans aren't animals
what the FUCK am I reading?
are you guys actually fucking stupid?
>>47456976
>, for the express purpose of living longer than they should
No. The same can be said of humans here since they eat other creatures to 'live longer than they'. Just because you eat and sleep and just do things that prevent your death does not mean you're 'living longer than you should.'
>>47442243
I don't care much about them.
Then again I don't really mind kenders either so that might tell you a thing or two.
>>47442414
No, not at all like humans...
Son you might have to rethink your life values if you go around stealing blood and other necessary bodily fluids.
>>47457302
Oh great, the retarded apologist argument that humans eating cows and living our their normal lifespan is the same as vampires eating other sentient people so they can be immortal.
>>47442734
Yeah but they are extremely out and will try to force you to become one too.
>>47443069
Yes, at least they were before actual science came in and put them down as another earthly creature.
And to be fair dude, they are still "monsters" that scare the shit out of tribesmen and outsiders alike.
>>47457553
They weren't treated as monsters nor are they today. Some simple folk even confer personalities to wild life and natural catastrophes, in a way making them seem more human.
>>47443745
Well zombies don't need to feed, but do it because "muh instincts", cursed furries don't drink blood I don't know where you got that from, most fiction they just eat you.
Vampires if you want to go by the traditional sense are cursed human, usually from a deal with some devil like figure. They get their immortal life and in trade they lose soul, ability to eat anything but blood and can't touch sunlight. If soul is in the blood then sure, if not then its just another pseudo-undead.
Besides, it depends on the setting.
>>47457662
I beleive you are confusing monster for "mystical creature" rather than "spooky big thing"
Cause lions are spooky and we still fear them today.
My setting doesn't have "living things" per se, and vampires are just people who are able to siphon Heart (energy, sort of) from others. It's generally seen as a pretty nasty practice when used on intelligent creatures (at least, good intelligent creatures), but since pretty much every creature runs on Heart it's more of just "keep an eye on that guy until he proves he's not a dingus."
>>47442243
Depends.
I like Vampires being evil undead bloods suckers created by Faustian bargains with the devil, or an evil god.
But if it's just a disease/affliction that makes you pretty and immortal, like in a lot of fiction, there's no reason not to be good, or at least not-evil.
>>47444297
Sauce on this guy?
>>47456463
>every problem is D&D the post
>>47442243
Same way as I feel about other vampires.
Grab the flamethrower
>>47458041
But this is literally a problem for D&D exclusively. No other system has such a mechanic as alignment be so core to its operation. D&Dfags are so brain rotted that they apply their incoherent moral standards universally.
>>47458284
>the concept of having a morality only exists in D&D
>>47442414
What's a matter, not alpha enough to move to Alaska and build a home on your own?
>>47458295
The concept of "objective morality" wjich is both easily determinable and relevant in numerous gameplay situations is pretty much exclusive to D&D. There's a good reason for that: such a thing is mind numbingly stupid.
>>47446266
>calm down
>holy fucking shit how dare you shitlord, D&D is the most toxic community ever, they should just go somewhere else other than my safespace
>>47442243
I do like the idea of the tragic vampire.
Someone with strong mental fortitude, who was bitten and turned by a very powerful vampire, but doesn't and has never wanted to be a vampire. Perhaps they were intended to be a 'plant' by the powerful vampire; One vampire left in the village who was meant to turn others, spread the power/disease, and psychologically or literally prepare the rest of the village for a vampire feast.
But they refuse their fate. They were too mentally strong to completely lose their mind and succumb to the creeping mental tendrils that came with the thirst and power of vampirism. They shut themselves in abandoned or secluded old homes where people won't stumble across them at the wrong time. They starve themselves for as long as possible because they don't want to kill a human and accept their nature. When they can no longer endure the pain of hunger, they strain themselves to hold the bloodlust at bay and attempt to acquire warm blood in more peaceful ways. Whenever possible, they drink freshly-spilled-or-let human blood from consenting sources instead of killing for it. When and if they must kill, they prey on the homeless, the elderly, the mortally-ill, mortally-wounded, and near-dead. The tragic vampire has lived for far too long, attempted to take their own life far too many times, but either found this task impossible through conventional means, or in the case of self-destruction through sunlight/silver/stakes/etc., the vampire's survival instincts kick in and it will subconsciously transform into a familiar and retreat to a safe place (often the vampire's home), much to the tragic vampire's frustration and regret.
...
>>47459109
...
But this alone is not what makes the tragic vampire tragic. In his attempts at self-destruction and occasional feeding, the interior of the vampire's old secluded house is covered wall-to-floor in dried blood. The vampire itself, being so pitiful and starved, is emaciated and bony, with long greasy hair trailing down over its grey, clammy skin. Opposite of a well-fed vampire, the tragic vampire appears far older and sicklier than it should. It dresses in simple hooded robes to blend in when it must leave its seclusion, and hide its baggy, bloodshot eyes. The tragic vampire is beyond caring for the cleanliness of its house or physical appearance. Days and nights pass by like minutes while the vampire alternates between searching for information/knowledge of vampirism to stave off insanity and maybe find a cure, and wallowing in self-hatred and pity.
Whereas a 'healthy' vampire can mingle, entrance, and seduce victims by way of its attractive visage and charisma alone, the opposite is true of the tragic vampire. Because of its horrifying nature and disgusting appearance, the people of the village have become terrified of the tragic vampire. Village rumors abound of a ghoul, monster, or evil old man lurking in the shadows, even the personification of death itself come to take the sick and dying away. Attempting to peacefully communicate with people becomes so difficult that the tragic vampire's preferred method of blood ingestion (willing donors) is rendered mostly impossible. Gross/scary appearance aside, when someone is shaking and drooling while asking for your blood, most people are all too ready to decline.
...
>>47459142
...
Many people attempt to fight or kill the tragic vampire, whether it has attempted communication with them, or people have simply hunted it down to its home. While the tragic vampire will initially accept the violence as penance, not reacting to the stabs and blows of its attackers, eventually the tragic vampire cannot sustain its mental state. Surrounded by the sight of its own wet blood spilling out, and the roaring sound and radiant heat of the white-hot mortal blood rushing through the bodies of the attackers surrounding it, the tragic vampire can no longer remain lucid. Its instincts will kick in, and the next thing the tragic vampire is aware of is laying on the ground with a bellyful of (and face/body covered in) the fresh blood of its now-slaughtered attackers. While sustaining the tragic vampire's life, this unconscious murder of innocent people takes a heavy toll on the vampire's conscience, resulting in an extended period of seclusion and self-hatred.
>>47459160
>>47459142
>>47459109
So as someone who specializes in Victorian Literature, I'm just going to throw this out there and say that while vampires didn't start with Dracula, he is the model for the modern vampire, so it's worth considering what he represented.
Dracula can be read a number of different ways, (Yes, even as just a spooky villain in a horror story) however two things that made Dracula such a huge threat in the Victorian era were that:
-He was a gateway for women to have sexual power
-He is an immigrant of high standing
Consider if you will the bite of a vampire and its penetration of the skin. No big deal right? Except that the female vampires created by Dracula were now able to 'penetrate' male characters.
The actual threat of vampires is rather dated at this point in time, though some people still have fears about high standing minorities and women in general. Depicting them as evil is taking a moral stance against certain kinds of people which is problematic in modern society.
That said, in fantasy it is totally reasonable to assume Vampires could only be a threat given the much more delicate social structures of the middle ages.
tl;dr: As it goes, DEPENDS ON THE SETTING
>Relaxing in my home by the fire
>Reading a book or some other such relaxing activity
>A bunch of wolves break in to my house
>Murder the people that work for me
>Set fire to my home
>Barricade me in my office and start growling at me nonsensically
>Get mad and act like I'm a monster when I fight back
>Kill me
>Yet somehow I'M THE BADGUY HERE
Fucking humans, this is what it's like to be a Vampire.
>>47463303
>Consider if you will the bite of a vampire and its penetration of the skin. No big deal right? Except that the female vampires created by Dracula were now able to 'penetrate' male characters.
What a profoundly asinine opinion to have.
Please keep this constrained to your underwater basket weaving courses.
>>47442243
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't vamps inherently evil? As in, animated by the power of negative energy undead kind of evil?
couldn't a vampire theoretically be a great noble raising many and varied beasts for their blood for him to drink, then giving the drained corpses to its peasants?
sure it wouldn't be as tasty as a regular not blood sucked cow, but when is the last time a villager got to eat owlbear instead of chicken deer and cow
thats relatively balanced out in the "not evil" scale
Make vampires run hospitals.
>>47442243
Impossible in my setting t b h.
A person is killed the moment they are turned into a vampire with the undead corpse using the deceased's personality, memories and skills to act out an imitation of life.
It might give off the impression of being a good person but that is merely to ensure it's own existence, it is fundamentally incapable of acting with genuine empathy.
Is that edgy? Now that I've typed it all out it feels edgy now.
>>47463303
Is this pasta?
>>47465855
That's basically how it worked in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Vampire batman best batman
>>47442243
They don't HAVE to be evil but come on, a blood-sucking undead who can only come out at night seems pretty evil by default. They'd be shunned and feared by society, everyone would try to kill them, their loved ones would abandon them. I'd probably turn "evil" too if that happened to me, that or just off myself.
So as the other anon said "good" vampires need to be the exception not the rule. Unless your setting is built around it specifically so that it fits in such a way that feels better - e.g. Vampire the Masquerade doesn't portray all vampires as bloodthirsty monsters, some see humans as food but hold no hatred towards them, others feel uncomfortable about feeding but realize it's necessary, others only drink blood from dead things or whatever because they're weirdos...
To be honest it kinda makes me wanna scream "REEEEEEEEEEEEE."
