 John the OFM  | 27 Jan 2010 7:20 p.m. PST |
Where do you stand on the ages old questions on how vampires behave? Do you think they must be invited into a home before they may enter? (Lately, I have been careful calling my dog in. I am afraid there is a vampire out there named Natasha who will come in if she hears me calling the dog.) Do you find Holy relics effective? Do you think garlic, or a wild rose, keeps them at bay? Can they cross running water? Can they move about in the day? I go by Stoker's Dracula. I find it canonical. |
| Mr Pumblechook | 27 Jan 2010 7:35 p.m. PST |
Is this a 'real elves arn't that colour' question? Stoker's Dracula is pretty canonical as virtually all fictional/gaming depictions of our fangy bretheren are influenced by it, even if they deliberately/ostentatiously go against the conventions established in it. I do draw the line on one thing. Real vampires don't sparkle. If they do, they're actually fairies. |
 Murphy  | 27 Jan 2010 7:42 p.m. PST |
Real vampires don't apply for jobs at mortgage companies during the daytime… and they don't sparkle…
That's all I'm saying….
|
 Parzival | 27 Jan 2010 7:47 p.m. PST |
I'm with Bram Stoker. The only exception is the depiction in the novel I Am Legend, which as a "scientific" form of vampirism I thought was great. "Enter freely and of your own will." Brrr. |
| Bunkermeister | 27 Jan 2010 7:49 p.m. PST |
|
| Kampfgruppe Cottrell | 27 Jan 2010 7:50 p.m. PST |
Agreed, Stoker is my guideline for vamps. Brian |
| Jamesonsafari | 27 Jan 2010 7:51 p.m. PST |
I'm with Bram Stoker, Nosferatu and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Holy water, crucifixes, fire, sunlight and pointy bits of wood throughthe heart. And with the exception of gypsy curses they're evil and don't turn vegetarian. Sparkly critters that fly aroudn the woods are FAIRIES!
theoatmeal.com/story/twilight |
| GiantMonster | 27 Jan 2010 7:55 p.m. PST |
Not really your traditional vampires but I have always liked Brian Lumley's take on them in the Necroscope series. Nothing really romantic about them. Pure monster. -Ken
Radioactive Press |
| Oddball | 27 Jan 2010 7:55 p.m. PST |
Ok, listen, it's real simple. James Woods (Jack Crow) explains it to the new priest of the team (Father Adam Guiteau) in the movie "Vampires". Jack Crow: You ever seen a vampire?
Father Adam Guiteau: No I haven't.
Jack Crow: No… Well first of all, they're not romatic. Its not like they're a bunch of  *n' s hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right? Forget whatever you've seen in the movies: they don't turn into bats, crosses don't work. Garlic? You wanna try garlic? You could stand there with garlic around your neck and one of these s will bend you **g over and take a walk up your strada-chocolata WHILE he's suckin' the blood outta your neck, all right? And they don't sleep in coffins lined in taffata. You wanna kill one, you drive a wooden stake right through his *n' heart. Sunlight turns 'em into crispy critters. If that doesn't work for you try the "Supernatural" episode from Season 1: Dead Man's Blood: Sam Winchester: Dad, we don't even know what these things are yet.
John Winchester: They were what Daniel Elkins killed best… vampires.
Dean Winchester: Vampires? I thought there was no such thing.
Sam Winchester: You never even mentioned them, Dad.
John Winchester: I thought they were extinct. I thought Elkins and others had wiped them out. I was wrong. Most vampire lore is crap. A cross won't repel them, sunlight won't kill them, and neither will a stake to the heart. But the bloodlust, that part's true. They need fresh human blood to survive. They were once people, so you won't know it's a vampire until it's too late. In "Supernatural", to kill a Vampire you have to cut off it's head. Only way to be sure. And that should sum it up for you. Good Hunting. |
| Space Monkey | 27 Jan 2010 9:07 p.m. PST |
I always liked them being more like evil spirits and phantoms… maybe they can show up in daylight but their powers aren't as strong.
I also always preferred the non-bloodsucking variety… the old woman who sits next to the crib while the infant slowly weakens.
Garlic and crucifixes are meaningless.
Crossing running water… maybe let that one stand.
Stakes and beheading seem like a good idea.
Having to invite them in… it feels nice and traditional but… well… maybe. I did really like Boris Karloff's Wurdalak in 'Black Sabbath' though.
And George Romero's 'Martin' |
| Hrothgar Berserk | 27 Jan 2010 9:59 p.m. PST |
I ran across an Old Slavonic folk tale where the vampire had a craving for sunflower seeds! The seeds were laid out in a trail from the graveyard and that is how the peasants trap and dispose of the vamp. |
| Martin Rapier | 28 Jan 2010 2:03 a.m. PST |
I go with Stoker & Nosferatu. Vampires are not nice, are extremely powerful and they are not of this world but span the plane between universes. The bits of them which appear in our universe do have to obey certain laws. They are motivated by an extreme hunger. |
| flicking wargamer | 28 Jan 2010 5:09 a.m. PST |
The book Vampires was way better than the movie. They started the movie okay and then totally ruined a great story. Best vampire book I have read (okay, I have not read that many). |
| jpattern2 | 28 Jan 2010 6:42 a.m. PST |
Stoker & Nosferatu here, too. |
| John the OFM | 28 Jan 2010 7:18 a.m. PST |
I see vampires as humans with a cursed soul. This allows for strict "rules" regarding their behavior. I like thei idea of needing to be invited in. This is how Dracula got into the asylum. He was invited in by Renfield. Poor Lucy…
Notice how Jonathan Harker, the intended victim, was also invited in. I think that victims do not automatically "turn" either. Note how Lucy had to drink of Dracula's blood before she died. Kim Newman uses this in his books too. Otherwise, a victim just dies. This is logical, otherwise do the math! We would be up to our elbows in undead otherwise.
It should be HARD to create a vamire. Stoker makes more sense if you think of cursed souls with powers, rather than monstrs created by a virus. |
| Hexxenhammer | 28 Jan 2010 7:19 a.m. PST |
I'm always surprised by how much use the "must be invited in" schtick gets used. It seems to me that it should be up there with garlic in corniness. But, it gets used to good effect in a lot of vampire stories. Buffy: good for humor when Angel bounces off a doorway and suspense when he's Angelus tricking Buffy's mom into inviting him in.
Lost Boys: the invitation schtick is the only piece of vampire lore the Frog brothers are unfamiliar with, allowing the head vampire into Corey Feldman's house and rendering the head vamp immune to their vampire tests.
True Blood: I guess in the books theres a funny scene where Sookie de-invites Bill and Eric, the two main vamp characters from her house, causing them to beg and plead to stay while being forced to back out the door.
Let the Right One In: Creepiest use of this schtick ever, bar none. |
| richarDISNEY | 28 Jan 2010 7:40 a.m. PST |
I go by what in my 0 Edition of D&D's Monster Manual.
 |
| Hexxenhammer | 28 Jan 2010 7:52 a.m. PST |
You mean when one punches you, you lose a level? |
| Yonderboy | 28 Jan 2010 7:58 a.m. PST |
I subscribe to the Stoker-esque version and subsequent iterations (i.e. Rice, whom I know only through movies):
- Supernatural
- Driven by hunger and a thirst for power/immortality
- Able to overcome their evil in exceptional cases
- Repelled by faith and bound by specific supernatural strictures (i.e. running water, garlic, mirrors, invitation in required)
- Susceptible almost exclusively to beheading, wooden stakes in the heart, holy water/relics, and burning.
- Capable of shape-shifting, charming, and limited "magic" |
| ordinarybass | 28 Jan 2010 8:12 a.m. PST |
One trend that annoys me is to make vampire traits less mysterious/spiritual and more logical/naturalistic. Garlic, invitations, crosses, silver, sunlight, etc. These are all great Christo-Pagan spiritual ideas (even if some may be more recent in invention) that add to the mystery of vampires. When we try to rationalize vampires, we remove or minimize the traits that have symbolic and spiritual value and wind up trying to justify the remaining vampire traits on a naturalistic level. Ex. The blood works this way, sensitivity to sunlight is a genetic trait, blah, blah, blah. I do enjoy some of the modern vampire interpretations also, but in general I'd prefer to keep vampires mysterious. In answer to the OP, I'm not a vampire expert, but…
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No |
| Goldwyrm | 28 Jan 2010 9:10 a.m. PST |
Where do you stand on the ages old questions on how vampires behave? I'll just go ask one at the con next month. |
| thosmoss | 28 Jan 2010 9:41 a.m. PST |
You should see "Let The Right One In", demonstrates it beautifully. And take that "Welcome" doormat off your front porch, already. |
| NoLongerAMember | 28 Jan 2010 10:35 a.m. PST |
Stephen King has a decent take on them in Salems Lot. And I work on the principle that a stake through the heart of anything pretty much destroys the ability to move or live (or unlive), who cares what it is actually made of. I do allow Silver to effect them, not least as it allows comments about mirrors and photos etc to be used… Vampires do not sparkle, do not love the living except as food and do not have souls or curable features…. Sorry Spike. |
| leidang | 28 Jan 2010 11:09 a.m. PST |
I like classic vampires – Stoker all the way. I do allow for the day walker though. Blade is too cool not to include. Especially with the fantastic mini from the Road Wars line. |
figures out Mighty Armies stats for his future Snakemen army.