Yeah, they're just really bad at being parasites.
|
Parasite suggests a separate or replacement consciousness; the old character's gone, replaced by the vampiric parasite personality. Kind of like Buffy vampires maybe.
Could be interesting, but it does have some "always X" alignment implications. Maybe I'll use that for the aberration or fungus/plant vampire versions.
That's not how parasites work. A plague is a better analogy, at least when you consider how vampires reproduce.
|
White Wolf vampires go a step beyond parasitic, to actually having some symbiotic attributes (if not, in the *vast* majority of cases, any inclination to use these features to benefit anyone other than themselves, making them opportunistic parasites by choice, if not necessarily by design...), being able to make humans who drink their blood immortal and strong and capable of exercising various vampire attributes. True Blood vampires also have this sort of effect, with their blood being able to heal injuries.
I'd veer away from that. Even without an 'always evil' or 'plague on mankind' trope in place, I'd prefer if vampires didn't really contribute anything beneficial to other species, or than the sort of unpremeditated and incidental 'benefit' that wolves provide to deer, by culling the herd.
On the one hand, I think it adds to the 'darkness' of the concept if the vampire is literally 'good for nothing' and isn't designed in such a way that it's abilities can be a great benefit to mankind.
On the other hand, if I wanted an 'always evil' sort of vampire, I'd absolutely embrace the idea that their blood *can* be used to benefit others, but they are such selfish dicks that it never occurs to them to do such a thing (except when it explicitly benefits *them,* to coerce others by offering to heal loved ones or keep favored minions alive a little longer).
I guess you could treat it as a kind of lycanthropes, you can even have natural born vampires (originals) and made vampires (spawn). It can borrow some flavor from the lycanthrope template but replacing the shapeshift ability and borrowing some from the vampire template.
I'd probably make them monstrous humanoid (augmented humanoid).
that ghouling process is no positive benefit. You become the vampire's b@&!#, plain and simple.
|
|
I'm not going to make vampirism seem like a big benefit to the normal population, but on the other hand I'm interested in making a vampire template that's not so overtly antagonistic or psychotic that it would be impossible to have in the party.
A character that will try to drink your blood if it fails a will save is a bit too disruptive, to my taste. A character that will starve and lose a lot of powers if it doesn't feed occasionally is still a blood-sucker but it's not quite as much of a dagger aimed at your neck.
So that's why I like to use the Starvation rules if you can't get regular blood, instead of a check to see if you lose control. The player is still free to play a hunger-crazed vampire, but there's no mechanical compulsion, just an incentive.
Likewise, a pool of blood points that powers abilities, which is only refreshed by feeding, puts the choice in the player's hands; abstain or drink for power.
Using the haematovore template I've posted upthread, you can play a paladin that drinks only from willing donors. Maybe he wears a ring of sustenance to limit the amount of blood he needs, but if he wants to use powers, he still needs to find donors.
---
Can I get any comments on the Haematovore template, please?
Actually, no. Their legends make them out to be a plague, not simply a parasite. Remember how they spread?
Actually, in original vampire lore anybody who was buried instead of cremated were destined to rise as a vampire. You needn't be sick, plagued or otherwise affected in life - being a plague victim had nothing do with it. The very word 'vampire' comes from the Serbian word 'umpyr' which means unburned (this was before embalming existed for burying corpses).
Actually, no. Their legends make them out to be a plague, not simply a parasite. Remember how they spread?Actually, in original vampire lore anybody who was buried instead of cremated were destined to rise as a vampire. You needn't be sick, plagued or otherwise affected in life - being a plague victim had nothing do with it. The very word 'vampire' comes from the Serbian word 'umpyr' which means unburned (this was before embalming existed for burying corpses).
You have to remember that vampires varied somewhat based on the locale, although "vampires" themselves were an epidemic in 1800's Europe.
You can't accept the Serbian vampire as gospel, simply because others were different. There were LOTS of names for vampires; simply that we ended up using the Serbian name doesn't mean a whole lot.
A plague victim wasn't necessarily from the Black Death; there were lots of diseases and even just plain rotting dead bodies that were attributed to vampirism. I used the word plague to connote just how fast the disease of vamprism was said to spread.
While I can't verify it, as all sources are in Serbian or Russian only (nothing translated), but according to a Russian anthropologist, I'd met, the Serbian vampire legend is the oldest and probable origin source. Though vampire beliefs have spread throughout eastern Europe, Serbian cremation practices pre-date the common era (BC) and was apparently entirely based on vampire beliefs.
I'm no expert, but this Russian scientist claimed to be, and said it was true.
Did he ask where the "nuclear wessels" were, as well?
You know, I had a thought the other day. There are clearly alchemists in Golarian. What's to stop them from turning water into blood? Or if vampires specifically need human blood, what's to stop them from turning pig's blood into human blood?
You know, I had a thought the other day. There are clearly alchemists in Golarian. What's to stop them from turning water into blood? Or if vampires specifically need human blood, what's to stop them from turning pig's blood into human blood?
Nothing but the need for an interesting campaign I suppose, if you rather want True Blood vampires.. different tastes I guess.
Well I mean, thinking logically, if a vamp wanted, for some reason, to avoid killing people, that seems like a viable option. But maybe it's really expensive, hence the need for him to be an adventurer.
Maybe it helps them survive, but it's kind of flat. It's like eating rations instead of a Texas Roadhouse steak.
I mean, the way I picture it. Obviously it would be up to a DM.