"Zombie morphology and behaviourism" Topic

Everyone has their own vision of how and why zombies behave the way they do; on TMP I speak in regards to gaming aspects :)

Currently I am pretty much burned out on the science fiction reasoning for zombies…rage, viruses, etc…becoming a bit stale at this point for me.

But for the sake of moving on to the main point, how they behave, I will say that right now I am leaning towards supernatural and occult zombiefication.

*****

The reason behind everything about being a zombie and all that a zombie does IMO is the hunger.

The same unnatural hunger that drives most fell creatures…werewolves, vampires, wendigos, even fishmen…all driven by the need to feed…be it flesh, blood, or brains it is our humanity that they seek…eat our bodies and gain a taste of life again…like a poison or an addictive drug this hunger fills them with a burning to feed.

It is the hunger that I am focused on.

This hunger shapes the bodies of all these foul creatures, and in particular the zombies.

My current vision of zombies is one of hunger twisting the body, driving the instincts, and pushing the creature forward.

I am liking my zombies bodies to reflect their hunger status.

Simply said, a desperate zombie is withered, dry, slow, and plodding…constantly creeping, lurching, staggering towards any source of life to fill that horrid void…to slake the thirst and hunger.

Once sated, filled with gore, brains, flesh, etc…the corpus vita anima…the zombie is flush with activity, moving in determined fashion, focused, and active.

By far the worst situation would be to face a zombie with a full belly…as they always are hungry, driven to feed, but now the zombie is granted temporary vigor…so the need to feed is matched with the energy to do so…

*****

Anyway, that is my zombie mantra…if unfed a zombie is a dried up caricature of a man and if sated the zombie is more like a raving ghoul.

As the hunger drives the sated zombie it uses the life energy quickly and completely…the hunger burns away the energy like so much gunpowder, ignited.

So in that thought process a zombie in a deep pit would wear down the fingers trying to claw and climb out, driven by the hunger…eventually falling into a with drawl coma…waiting for the spark of life force to awaken them again…in time I suspect they would turn to dust.

Anyway…where does your working vision for gaming zombies fall compared to mine? Close or way on the other side of the lake?

For me zombies start out fast and fresh and then get slower as they fall apart. We sometimes use the raise dead spell to creat some zombies in an occult wars game. So they are occult zomibes but once they are set off it acts like a virus, as in REC 2. The occult zombies in REC 2 are pretty much what my zombies are.

So in game terms, a zombie that wins a melee would take a turn feeding then become more dangerous as the life energy it just consumed "energizes" it. It would move faster, maybe get a bonus in melee, be harder to destroy by gun fire and, perhaps, have increased detection range for other victims. Nasty cascade event. I've always used the chemical/biological approach myself with shamblers and runners but the occult aspects could make for a nice change of scene.

"So in game terms, a zombie that wins a melee would take a turn feeding then become more dangerous as the life energy it just consumed "energizes" it. It would move faster, maybe get a bonus in melee, be harder to destroy by gun fire and, perhaps, have increased detection range for other victims. Nasty cascade event"

Yes indeed, although I had not considered this to extend beyond a certain point…so like falling from a plane there should be a critical maximum of momentum…but once energized the zombie would be quickly looking for the next meal…scary thought…

So they would reach Terminal Zombocity? :)

…whoa…that was a stinker! :)

Good 'hard SF' approach of the nature / origin (and thus evolution) of zombies:
link

Good stuff…nice share!

Ok, this is just fantasy, but…

As the zombie is ALREADY DEAD, I see no reason why eating anything will nurture the zed.

Their internal organs are rotting, and the neccesary gastric juices will only destroy the zed from inside out, not give him more stamina.

So I'll say no, the hunger is a constant drive, but in no way it can be fulfilled, so the zed is ALWAYS hungry, but at the same time, no matter how much does he-she-it eats, it can't assimilate the food and NEVER gets stronger.

But that's only my opinion.

Best wishes.

I am with you…they can not see with those gross rotten eyes, they can not digest anything, and they do not feel anything that we do…IMO this is a matter of the cells being charged by life force and the brain being a sponge for said life force, becoming for all sakes considered the zombie's heart…energy traveling along those nerves…the pain is a supernatural issue where the soul which is trapped within this rotten husk is constantly tortured by this current this hunger…killing a person transfers some of that essence to the zombie via contact with the flesh to flesh not so much gore in the mouth, which would fall back out because the zombie can not swallow…they just know that we have a static charge of life and they need that jolt to sate the driving hunger pain…or something along these lines :)

But yes I am with you…just about everything zombie is illogical, beyond the dead getting back up thing which starts the what the firetruck session…sigh, it is what it is.

It is an interesting variant. I am concerned bout the amount of bookkeeping this idea would cause. Say, I have 80 z's on the table, how do I remember who ate and who didn't? Brain shaped markers?

Excellent examples of 'home made' zombification by 'pimp my minis' conversions: link

"Simply said, a desperate zombie is withered, dry, slow, and plodding…constantly creeping, lurching, staggering towards any source of life to fill that horrid void…to slake the thirst and hunger.

Once sated, filled with gore, brains, flesh, etc…the corpus vita anima…the zombie is flush with activity, moving in determined fashion, focused, and active."

So the zombie at the super bowl would look like this: link

I don't have a good feeling about your idea. What is the difference between your Zombie and a vampire? One is a little dumber and the other apparently is a chick magnet?

Zombies which are raised from recently dead corpses require a bit of blood to be fully cognizant and the occupant of the zombie in this circumstance is the original persona, complete with memories, etc. (See Greek mythology that the dead require blood to communicate with the living; q.v. the modern horror series in which the heroine is a necromancer who raises z's for a living and is in a menage a trois with a werewolf and a vamp). If such a zombie were to drink its fill of blood, it would be crazed and powerful for a brief time – perhaps an additional week – and thereafter would decay into what was left of poor Mr. Valdermort. If it killed the necromancer who raised it, it would be without compulsion to obey anyone and would seek the drink blood without end. Sadly, another week to ten days would see this creature likewise become a pile of quivering and decayed flesh. Unless one had the misfortune to be the necromancer or the zombie's drink source, not much difference.

Longer than about a week to ten days after death, what is called back is the corpse and a demon of (relatively) limited powers. This thing requires blood but it's the usual fare for the demon and adds nothing to its abilities. The demon may, given enough blood often enough, maintain the corpse for a month – lunar month, the next identical moon phase – and thereafter be the proud and powerless occupant of a pile of decaying protoplasm. (see above under zombie who kills its necromancer.)

Vampires? Well, Stoker seems to have nailed those, don't you think?? Except that their appearance is a veil, an illusion, which allows them to approach their victims more closely than if the victim could see their actual appearance. After a number of years, their natural appearance is rather insect-like and repugnant and the smell is .. the less said the better about that. The most common vampire awakens without mind or reasoning powers and without any magic, apart from the reflexive spell which keeps it 'alive'. It shortly will become too obviously a mindless 'beast' and its span would be ended by a hunter, especially since it has no ability to tolerate at all the sun's light, running water, a holy object presented by one of the faithful, nor may it cross the threashold of a house without becoming truly dead as it's powers are insufficient to pass the door step and still retain energy to maintain its miserable existance. 'Dracula'-types are much more powerful, but still are bound to be asked into a house etc; pretty much as Stoker revealed them to be. Makes one wonder where he spent his summer vacations; doesn't it?

Original Transylvanian vampires leaved their coffin only in some astral / etheral form to haunt the dreams of living people and suck their 'life force' (remember the 'space vampires' movie, btw?).

But, as for 'modern' description of vampires, why would the 'canon' slavishly follow Stroker? Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla (1872) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmilla , the 'other' (and better imho) seminal vampire novel -probably based on memories of Elizabeth Bathory rather than Vlad Tepes- antedates Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897). Carmilla has nocturnal habits but is not uncomfortable in full sunlight, while Dracula goes out for a daytime walk in London streets only once or twice, presumably taking advantage of the famous fog. If vampirism is an infectious disease this may reflect a slight genetic difference of the pathogenic strain. Then, it may be no more than a psycho-somatic symptom, Carmilla being an 'uninhibited vampire', perfectly comfortable with her new nature and her changed ethics (what is interpreted as 'the loss of the soul' by religious people).

If 'ghoulification / zombification' implies a pathogen in the same way as 'vampirification' according to the 'Matheson model' TMP link what are the consequences for possible cross-immunization?