Vampire Weaknesses, where the fuck do they come from?

[Koumei]

Wait, so if Medusa was the only Gorgon that looked like Medusa (hear me out here) and the others looked and worked like D&D Gorgons... does that mean that, aside from naming a monster race after an individual (and seriously whatever, it's that iconic that I don't care), they got it right for once? I always wondered about the "Gorgon: a bull made of metal, with toxic breath".

And JE, if you're willing to stuff a corpse full of honey, go right ahead. Let me know in 2017 when you've finished the first one.

[Prak]

Vampires busting in the flame when exposed to sunlight came from movies. If you go to the novel Dracula then he is basically paralyzed in the day time (not light) but is unharmed by sunlight.

I still need to read that...

Nosferatu was an unauthorized adaption of Dracula released in 1922 and was the first time I'm aware of this weakness appearing. So I was wrong before as the official Dracula movie was released in 1931.

yeah, I learned that in my cinema genres class a couple semesters ago.. that's why I was confused.

Ok, so sunlight first appeared in movies.
I knew the stake was more about pinning the vampire to the ground, and I'm thinking of making that physical limitation a symbolic weakness that causes paralysis. But if the vampire isn't being staked to something, it ain't accomplishing shit, except maybe pissing him off.

Alright, how about this, what, in your individual minds, are essential vampire traits?

[shadzar]

Wait, so if Medusa was the only Gorgon that looked like Medusa (hear me out here) and the others looked and worked like D&D Gorgons... does that mean that, aside from naming a monster race after an individual (and seriously whatever, it's that iconic that I don't care), they got it right for once? I always wondered about the "Gorgon: a bull made of metal, with toxic breath".

In Greek mythology, the Gorgon (plural: Gorgons) (Greek: Γοργών or Γοργώ Gorgon/Gorgo) was a terrifying female creature. It derives from the Greek word gorgós, which means "dreadful." While descriptions of Gorgons vary across Greek literature, the term commonly refers to any of three sisters who had hair of living, venomous snakes, and a horrifying gaze that turned those who beheld it to stone. Traditionally, while two of the Gorgons were immortal, Stheno and Euryale, their sister Medusa was not, and was slain by the mythical hero Perseus.

The Khalkotauroi (tauroi khalkeoi, "bronze bulls") are mythical creatures that appear in the Greek myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece. They are two immense bulls with bronze hooves and bronze mouths through which they breath fire. In the Argonautica, Jason is promised the prized fleece by King Aeetes if he can first yoke the Khalkotauroi and use them to plough a field. The field was then to be sown with dragon's teeth.

Jason survived the burning flames of the bronze bulls by smoking in a magical potion that protected him from the heat. The potion had been provided by Medea, King Aeetes own daughter, who had fallen in love with Jason.

The Khalkotauroi were a gift to King Aeetes from the Greek god of smiths, Hephaestus.

No D&D gorgons were not right. The gorgon named and most often read about, Medusa, was used as a whole monster species, while the name gorgon was given to the other mythological Greek creature.

But no monsters in D&D strived to match up with their mythical counterparts.

Alright, how about this, what, in your individual minds, are essential vampire traits?

Holy water hurts them. They drink blood to survive. They had the power of seduction. Cannot enter a building without being invited. Wooden "stake" can stop them....immobilize them, drain them of power to move, etc. They burn good. They fear bright/sun light.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Alright, how about this, what, in your individual minds, are essential vampire traits?

It was a person, it got dead, it is now re-animate, and it feeds on the living. That's really all you need to evoke the Vampire button.

[Username17]

Wait, so if Medusa was the only Gorgon that looked like Medusa (hear me out here) and the others looked and worked like D&D Gorgons... does that mean that, aside from naming a monster race after an individual (and seriously whatever, it's that iconic that I don't care), they got it right for once? I always wondered about the "Gorgon: a bull made of metal, with toxic breath".

The three Gorgon Sisters are Medusa, Stheno, and Euryale. They have snake hair, metal claws, and giant wings that they fly around with. They pretty much look like the Gorgon Pretender from Dominions 3 (available to Pangaea, Sauromatia, and I think a couple of other factions). Gorgons turn people to stone, which led to other things that also turn people to stone being called "gorgons" sometimes.

The Catoblepas is a wildebeest with metal scales that can turn people to stone or perhaps kill them with its breath or perhaps its gaze, depending on story. Because it turned people to stone, it was also sometimes called a "gorgon." In typical D&D fashion, TSR published stats for the Medusa, the Gorgon (as a catoblepas), and the catoblepas all separately.

What the fuck Gygax? What. The. Fuck.

Catoblepas:


-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Alright, how about this, what, in your individual minds, are essential vampire traits?

They need to have an uncontrollable need to drink blood, preferrably that of intelligent creatures, and need to have at least one trait aside from feeding on other human beings that would immediately expose them for who they are if they don't hide it to the point where they cannot live a normal life. Sunlight is a popular one, since it enhances the creatures of the night setting. I don't consider mirrors or garlic on their own enough to qualify. Being unable to cross running water isn't usually a big deal unless they're taking place on an all-sea campaign like in One Piece, then it's acceptable.

Finally, vampires need to have some trait that allows more efficient feasting on blood than some jackass with muscles and a sap could accomplish. Either they feed on someone else stealthily, they have super-strong powers to hold people in place, hypnotize people with magic, or etc. Otherwise they're not particularly scarier than just crazed serial killers; there is absolutely no reason why a vampire can't get their blood from any muggle they meet, especially because of silly shit like body build differences or weapons you could pick off of the street.

Otherwise, you end up with Twilight vampires, where vampirism is a free ride. And if it is a free ride then vampires lose all of their scariness. They just become people with mild inconveniences and superpowers--and if it's just going to be about the superpowers then vampires are no more scary than the average supercriminal. After all, they could bust into your house, kill your girlfriend, and stuff her in the fridge.

What makes vampires scary is that, unlike Two Face who is just being an asshole, they need to be able to commit villainy on an unceasing and constant level so they're a constant menace.

[K]

I'm personally amused that the modern vampire myth revolves around the "Vampire as Drug Addict". This means that vampires like we see in Twilight or Anne Rice novels don't share even a few of the classic weaknesses (one or two tops), and are even allowed to be heroes (or anti-heroes) of their own stories, reflecting our own modern ambivalence toward addiction and the "redemption" needed to overcome addiction.

[Midnight_v]

I'm personally amused that the modern vampire myth revolves around the "Vampire as Drug Addict". This means that vampires like we see in Twilight or Anne Rice novels don't share even a few of the classic weaknesses (one or two tops), and are even allowed to be heroes (or anti-heroes) of their own stories, reflecting our own modern ambivalence toward addiction and the "redemption" needed to overcome addiction.

Yep and really we hate that... but it reasonates with teenage girls and disaffected adult women who still harbor the core conceit that "If our love is true enough... then I can save my guy from himself/Forces of EVIL!"

they hammer that shit in on young girls pretty ferociously. ITs sad in a way...

[Prak]

see, for me it revolves around "Vampire as Apex Predator" and "force of nature"

and I like monstrous protagonists.

[Username17]

I rather like what Anthony Burch has to say on that subject.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Tangentially related, in my opinion one of the reasons we had the Dark Age of Comics (i.e. the time period when antiheroes were king) was because of two fundamentally unanswered question.

The first one is: why do heroes do what they do? The X-Men and Spider-Man are social pariahs. Batman would be much better off if he gave up the pursuit (even in the Silver and Bronze age the character realized the futility) of criminals since it didn't make a damn difference. The Dark Age's answer for this was simple--superheroes actually enjoyed fighting crime. Not the actual outcome of their fight, but the process. It's much more believable, or so it was thought, that the Punisher fights out of a sense of revenge and Rorschach and Batman fights out of sociopathy.

The second one, the one harder to answer, is: why don't heroes go the extra mile in the pursuit of heroics? It's honestly very hard to take Superman or Batman seriously when they let Lex Luthor or Joker go for the umpteenth time, where they will inevitably kill people. Their 'never kill others' philosophy just makes them look self-indulgent, like their personal morals are worth more than other peoples' lives.

Comics are still struggling with an in-universe explanation for this, with varying degrees of believability, but the honest answer to this is the reason why Batman keeps fighting the Joker is because if you kill him off it's hard to write stories.

I think that the more bloody comics, most notably the Punisher (of which I'm a huge fan--both the campy Welcome Back Frank continuity and the Punisher MAX series) realize this to some extent and struggle with the weakness of it. Punisher regularly blows criminals to smithereens, but there still needs to be a next issue with more violence--which ultimately means that killing criminals doesn't do a damn thing. The Punisher ends up looking just as pathetic as Batman and Superman. He wipes out the Russian slavers in Philadelphia but what's the point?

[Lago PARANOIA]

But anyway, I think Anthony Burch's rant a bucket of shit. Does, say, the brutality of Superman or Batman suddenly undermine their moralizing when the plot calls for it? Even if it's ultimately non-lethal, Superman could just knock them out painlessly or Batman could just use tranquilizer darts. But I'm personally insulted by the thought of a Superman game where he never punches a criminal through a brick wall or a game where Batman never kicks someone in the face while descending through a skylight despite having clear opportunity.

[Username17]

But anyway, I think Anthony Burch's rant a bucket of shit. Does, say, the brutality of Superman or Batman suddenly undermine their moralizing when the plot calls for it? Even if it's ultimately non-lethal, Superman could just knock them out painlessly or Batman could just use tranquilizer darts. But I'm personally insulted by the thought of a Superman game where he never punches a criminal through a brick wall or a game where Batman never kicks someone in the face while descending through a skylight despite having clear opportunity.

I'm sure you felt very intellectually bad ass writing that, what what the fucking hell does any of that have to do with anything Anthony Burch said?

When was the last time Batman ripped the head off an innocent person? When was the last time Superman used what he thought was lethal force on anyone? One of the things that makes heroes heroes is that they respond proportionately to threats, but even that is a total nonsequitur in the anti-hero discussion. Because being the good guy doesn't rule out awesome gymnastics or tremendous property destruction or whatever.

His point was that you shouldn't try to pretend that unlikable murderers are really nice people underneath it all. And you respond that Batman should kick people in the face. What the fuck do those two statements have in common? How is the one a refutation to the other?

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

His point was that you shouldn't try to pretend that unlikable murderers are really nice people underneath it all. And you respond that Batman should kick people in the face. What the fuck do those two statements have in common? How is the one a refutation to the other?

Because characters like Wolverine get pegged as Evil Unlikeable Murderers because of their brutal moves.

But we have genuine white hats also doing extremely brutal things, too. Superman is not at risk for losing his white hat status for punching a crook through a wall, even though that's not much different from Wolverine stabbing someone in the kidney with his claws.

So what's with the double-standard? Is it because Wolverine actually goes through with killing? It's okay for Batman to break a criminal's jaw and nose for several years with his foot instead of shooting them with a dart because it doesn't actually kill said criminal? Well, I was under the impression that Burch was condemning such characters because their killing of bad guys amounted to needless pain and suffering, not so much the act of killing itself.

If Burch is objecting to the killing rather than the method of killing then I have a separate rant for that.

[Username17]

Because characters like Wolverine get pegged as Evil Unlikeable Murderers because of their brutal moves.

Look, if he was doing that shit to zombies, robots, or Nazis, we wouldn't care. But he's not. He's doing it to ordinary dudes. Security guards who watch office buildings for seven dollars an hour. Police officers who have been called in because a dangerous fucking nutcase with knives on his hands has been ripping fools in half in broad daylight.

Wolverine is a villain and a monster. And that's if we're lucky. If he's in CCA approved comics, he's not allowed to stab anyone with those claws and he's just a pussy who talks big and threatens people with knives only to get slapped down again and again to show how awesome other characters are. A power fantasy about chopping fools into pieces with your fucking knife hands is all well and good, but call a spade a spade. Don't fill up the middle of the work with halfhearted moral masturbation about how ripping the face off of guys with families who didn't even know you existed twenty minutes ago is somehow part of the greater good - because it fucking isn't.

Edit: And don't even get me started about Punisher:

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Don't fill up the middle of the work with halfhearted moral masturbation about how ripping the face off of guys with families who didn't even know you existed twenty minutes ago is somehow part of the greater good - because it fucking isn't.

What if those guys are standing in the middle of the way of you trying to disarm some Ultranuke or something, like most plots that involve Not-Quite Evil dudes engage in? I know it sounds contrived, but believe it or not this is actually a pretty common excuse plot. Ask Shadow the Hedgehog or the Ultimates sometime.

I'm not familiar with the plot of the game Burch was reviewing--the one with Wolverine ripping people to shreds--but if the only way he can stop the launch of the Ultranuke is to kill a hundred innocent guards then why are we getting on his case? No one gets on Snake's case (until the third game anyway) for shooting up dumb guards to stop Metal Gear.

[shadzar]

So from vampires of long ago people want to interject the recent centruy creation of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee that they created to piss someone off at DC with a competing product with the Justice League and throw out X-men and Wolverine/Weapon-X/Logan as some kind of reason for vampire myths?

WTF?!

[Lago PARANOIA]

I mean, I'm not trying to sound overly hair-splitting here but seriously 'kill these mooks, even if they're just doing their job, or the world is doomed' is so common in video games that it's a damn cliche.

Just off of the top of my head, Valkyria Chronicles, Metal Gear Solid, and Tales of the Abyss specifically take time out of the gameplay to lecture a more squeamish character (and by extension the player) it's 'kill or be killed. And being killed is not an option because there's a war and many more people than your sissy morals at stake'.

Now from what I know of Wolverine, his character--while rough around the edges--is genuinely supposed to be a 'kills and enjoys killing, but only for the sake of humanity' character. If the game that was being talked about egregiously showed scenes of him pointlessly (as opposed to brutally) killing/torturing redshirts that would be one thing, but from what I understand of the character he's really not supposed to be in the ranks of Genuine Villains like Kratos and Travis Touchdown.

[Username17]

Here is the "plot" to the Wolverine game:

The game begins in Africa, which is implied to be Wakanda, due to Stryker's interest in meteorite deposits in the regions. The Africa missions, which are in the chapters as flashbacks, chronicle the events which have Logan disbanding from Team X, and at the end of the mission, it shows that his own morals conflict with that of what Team X is forced to do (i.e. massacres of innocents for strategic purposes).

Three years later, when Logan has settled in Canada with his girlfriend, Kayla Silverfox, his brother Victor Creed reappears at a local bar where he and Logan battle. Creed emerges victorious, breaks Logan's boneclaws and knocks him unconscious. Upon waking up, Logan finds Kayla (apparently) dead. Col. William Stryker appears before Logan and promises him two things, that: he will suffer more pain than any other man could endure and, second, that he will have his revenge. Logan accedes, and undergoes an indescribably painful procedure that melds his bones with adamantium, an indestructible metal processed from the meteorite deposits found back in Africa. After the procedure, Logan overhears that Stryker wants his memory erased, becomes enraged and breaks out of the Alkali Lake facility, killing many of Stryker's men in the process, including Agent Zero.

Logan travels to the Project: Wideawake site searching for John Wraith, where he has a confrontation with Bolivar Trask and his mutant hunting Sentinel. After freeing Wraith, Wraith leads Logan to Fred Dukes, who in turn leads Logan to Remy Lebeau, who mistakes Logan as one of Stryker's agents. Their confrontation is interrupted by Stryker's men, and a battle between Wolverine, Stryker's men, and Lebeau's personal assassin bodyguards erupts. Logan pursues Lebeau to the roof of the building, where he convinces Lebeau to take him to Stryker's island base. Arriving at the island, Logan learns that Silverfox is alive and her "murder" was a ploy to get Logan to volunteer for Weapon X. Devastated by the truth, Logan accepts Stryker's offer to erase his memory, but changes his mind after Creed takes Silverfox hostage. Following Creed and Logan's fight, Stryker's Weapon XI, Deadpool, is sent to kill Wolverine, and after the ensuing battle, Logan's memories are damaged by an adamantium bullet from Stryker's handgun. Silverfox decides to allow Logan to forget everything that happened to him and leaves him alone on the island.

In the epilogue, Bolivar Trask, who has perfected the recreation of human body parts via robotic replacements, has taken Logan hostage. Logan breaks free of his chains, but Trask flees. An army of Sentinels are seen in the distance in a ruined city, destroying everything in sight.

So... Wolverine kills various innocent people for no real reason and then later feels bad about it and starts killing people on his own team out of confusion more than moral outrage. How is he "better" than Kratos?

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Dammit, I don't want to do any Wolverine apologetics because it makes me feel dirty. Both because it puts people on a slippery slope and because the character is kind of a chode. But I'll give it the ol' college try if you press me on it.

[Username17]

The point is that you don't have to do apologetics. It's perfectly alright to just have a point of view douchebag in a story or game. God of War is awesome, and one of the things that makes it great is that it doesn't bother with extremely strained moralizing to justify Kratos' actions. Kratos is an uncompromising asshole and many of the people he fights are also uncompromising assholes and the game couldn't give a fig about whether anything anyone does is right or wrong.

And that's fine. It's when you start pontificating about how Kratos and Wolverine are really good guys that you do in fact get all dirty. And to bring it back to vampires for a bit: murderous vampires are bad people. The guys who just have to drink small amounts of blood or can get by off eating rats and deer are just superheroes with weird fetishistic weaknesses, but the ones that have to permanently injure or kill real people are villains. And there's nothing wrong with making a pure power fantasy story about a badass villain who kills people. But if you try to rationalize that shit, you're rationalizing evil.

Unapologetic glorification of Kratos, Dracula, or Jack the Ripper is fine because it's not real. It's just like watching a Halloween or Friday the 13th: no one actually gets hurt. However, apologizing for those guys is straight fucked up.

-Username17

[Judging__Eagle]

A vampire can still be a hero. As long as they're not hurting other people permanently. So, a blood doll who was your significant other when you were a mortal is possible; or if it's someone that you regularly feed on, that's fine (regularly being no more than they can recover between feedings; or something).

However, a mind controlled Mina Harker is not. Nor is draining her friend to death over several days, and making her one of your pawns.

[Data Vampire]

counting (what the fuck indeed)

I remember where this comes from. Vampires are a bit obsessive compulsive in some myths. If you places a pile of sesame seeds in your house where the vamp would stumble across it, then the would be complied to count every single one. If they took long enough dawn would catch them.

VON! TWO! THREE! AH! AH! AH!

[Kaelik]

I remember where this comes from. Vampires are a bit obsessive compulsive in some myths. If you places a pile of sesame seeds in your house where the vamp would stumble across it, then the would be complied to count every single one. If they took long enough dawn would catch them.

So... Are you telling me that the fact that the Count on Sesame Street is a Vampire is based on something that makes some kind of fucking sense?

[Data Vampire]

Yes.