AC0 wrote:Would symbolism be a bad thing? If vampires are supposed to be metaphorical, is it wrong to have metaphorical vampires?
No. It isn't wrong at all.
Drinking blood in movies and books is usually a sensuous and messy affair. But however many ml of blood you can get out of licking a cut on someone's neck, you can get several
liters of blood out of people if you drain them in a systematic way. When I use a needle and a syringe to draw some blood out of an arm vein, I'm usually taking about 5 ml - and that's pretty similar to what you get if you like bit a dude or something. The whole body has like five
thousand ml, and with a systematic drainage system you can get almost all of it. If we're going to maintain the idea that we are even remotely attempting to support different "kinds" of vampires, it's a complete non-starter for science vampires to get more than a hundred times as much blood from their victims as romantic vampires or wilderness hobo vampires.
Now going the full symbolism vampirism is a thing that has been tried before. Shadowrun vampires drink a completely tiny and symbolic amount of blood in order to permanently drain some spiritual essence from their victim. Which is fine. It means that you got romantic vampires and ambush monster vampires and it doesn't particularly matter if they are "clued in" to the wonders of hypodermic needles and cannulation. Of course, the very fact that I used the word "permanent" over there means that Vampires in Shadowrun are not supported keeping blood dolls or servants around for any particular length of time - a vampire can only feed from a single victim five times in total in Shadowrun before they have to convert them into a vampire or kill them.
But you could easily imagine a situation where you had an amount of time between when you could safely feed from a person to create an acceptable "herd size" for a vampire that rotated their drinking targets and which gave some larger benefit if you wanted to drain people into weakness and larger benefit still if you wanted to drain people to injury or death so that you would have in-world support for the kinds of vampires that cause problems and leave town or straight up villain vampires who leave a trail of bodies in their wake.
Adjusting the numbers would of course require that you decide how large the herds you wanted, which ties into what kinds of demographics you're looking for in terms of total numbers of vampires and total numbers of victims. But that is of course exactly the kind of population math that White Wolf never bothered even beginning to attempt.
I'm going to go out on a limb and blame WW for the reason we have Twilight , True Blood, and Vampire Diaries, and all these other female wish-fulfillment books and shows.
Nah. We have Twilight for the same reason we have Masquerade. Stephenie Meyer never read any vampire fiction, it's why she wasn't actually sure what happened to vampires who got into the sun and we ended up with fucking sparkles. Vampires have been an important part of romance novels since Anne Rice brought them into the mainstream in 1976. But of course Vampires have been deeply associated with sexuality and romance since the 19th century.
By removing vampires from the act of murder they neutered them.
I would not agree with that. Vampires can represent sickness or the dangers of intimacy without strictly being murderers and can definitely do so without
always being murderers.
Dracula is quite obviously capable of feeding without killing anyone. That he chooses to kill people anyway is a core part of how you know he is ultimately the villain.
-Username17