Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draco18s]

It also depends on where you place your vampire on the gothic (like Nosferatu) to romantic (like Dracula) scale.

You forgot the Sparkly end of the scale. 

IIRC, The Dresden Files allows for all vampire types.  There were four, if I recall correctly.
Ah yes, four.
Red: Blood Vampires (Gothic)
White: Emotional Vampires
Black: Undead Vampires (Bram Stoker)
Jade: Asian Vampires (only alluded to in the series)

[WillowLuman]

There are potentially way more than just 4 kinds. As I said, DF doesn't have to follow the constraints or specific definitions of other settings, and other settings are not definitive of things outside themselves.

[arkhometha]

Don't cite sources on myths, DF doesn't follow the rules of any particular setting or universe

As a matter of fact, it does. Weaponry and technology is meant to go until our XIV century. Fantasy in DF usually follows western fantasy, and it follows our mythology, since vampires is a myth definition of our world and we use it in DF, it is comparable. Not to mention I cited sources on the thing that defines vampires, blood sucking. You can't pretend DF doesn't follow rules of any particular setting or universe, because it does, and it borrows heavily from our world and our myths.

and a single book is hardly definitive of the immense variety of medieval folklore. Toady's not trying to do a strict recreation of Romanian folklore or anything, he's trying to create a fantasy world generator, influenced not just by mythology but by fantasy conventions and tropes.

This statement contradicts with your previous statement. It doesn't follow rules of any particular setting or universe but it borrows from our fantasy conventions and tropes? Nevermind that, as I said before, I was defining vampires with two books from reputable sources. I can't really put in here every source of folklore attempted and I'm certain if vampires here where like the ones from Twilight we sure would get people complaining here that "vampires aren't like that" because, as almost all other life, vampires are defined by certain parameters.

Vampires will eventually have variable traits, semi-random. Judging by the common depections of vampires in fantasy, effects of blood starvation could vary between each world/curse lineage:
-Become less human in appearance
-Become weaker
-Become stronger but more desperate
-Nothing, except they'll drain the first living person they get their hands on
-Revert to corpse
-Crumble
-Revert to human (though this one is rare)
-and more

A vampire can't turn back into a human. It's dead, by it's definition. It can turn into a corpse or crumble. But as random as they can get, if something doesn't get it's sustenance for some time, it will perish. Unless what is sustaining it is magic, like zombies, though if you cut the source of the magic, the zombie would probably crumble, or could crumble.

Like I said, it's not going to be constrained by the strict definition of any particular convention or setting, the only constant thing will eventually be consuming blood/life force. You can have the tragic vampire driven to murder by their hunger and survival instinct, or the evil vampire who doesn't need blood to survive but loves nothing better than to drink it.

It will be constrained, yes, by some constants. As you agreed before

Vampires are defined for being bloodsuckers, and that's about it. Lore varies wildly.

Not only being a bloodsucker, but being an undead. Vampires are, thoroughly the lore, undead bloodsuckers. If it's alive and it sucks blood, it's not a vampire. And if its dead and it doesn't need to suck blood, it is not a vampire. So no, you can't have a vampire who doesn't need blood to survive. It wouldn't be one because it escapes the definition of vampire.

In resume, while you can argue that DF doesn't strictly follow the rules of our world and that it alters our mythology, it use it's characters, like vampires. And it defines them, by our definition, the need to suck blood and it being undead. It can have powers as random as you like, but it needs blood for sustenance, and if something doesn't get what sustains it... If a vampire doesn't need to suck blood it isn't a vampire. Vampires in DF need to suck blood, only the adverse effects of they not doing it are not implement yet. Toady recognized it.

EDIT:
To close the case, DF itself say that a vampire is a creature "cursed to prowl the night in search of blood." If the part of not getting the blood is ignored, sure a consequence, a dire one, should happen.

[WillowLuman]

Someone help me out here. 

It doesn't follow the conventions of any particular setting, it follows, in general, the conventions of the fantasy genre. There are western fantasy stories that include all these kinds of vampires. Many stories allow Vampires to revert to human somehow. Drinking blood does not mean they need it to survive, it means they drink it. Additionally, there are many vampires that don't suck blood, but instead feed on things like life-force or emotions, or other abstracts. The archtype of the vampire is something seemingly human that parasitises something vital to the lives of real humans. Fitting that general bill does not require recreating the vampires of one specific other setting.

DF intends to allow for variability, so demanding strict Stoker loyalty isn't going to work. In the future, between different save files, Dragons might have wings or acid blood or ice breath, or they might not due to being semi-random.

Real world technology in DF has a cut off date of 1400, but that doesn't mean it slavishly follows real life, down to making England in every game. DF has many things not found in the real world or specifically in any real world mythology, it just has many things based on the concepts. In 1400 there was no magma technology, and there still is none today. The definition of a vampire, in some cases, varied between villages in real life. There is no race of Minotaurs in Greek mythology, there was only one, likewise for the Hydra, and in DF they aren't born from the mating of a woman and a bull.

[arkhometha]

It doesn't follow the conventions of any particular setting, it follows, in general, the conventions of the fantasy genre. There are western fantasy stories that include all these kinds of vampires. Many stories allow Vampires to revert to human somehow. Drinking blood does not mean they need it to survive, it means they drink it.

This goes against your definition of a vampire, the general definition of vampire that is carried with the word and DF definition of a vampire that is the same as the classic one, a creature "cursed to prowl the night in search of blood".

Additionally, there are many vampires that don't suck blood, but instead feed on things like life-force or emotions, or other abstracts.

And what's this life-force? Blood. DF states that vampires need blood. You are talking about succubus or incubus? Because they are not vampires, you know. Look on a dictionary the definition of a vampire. DF uses our word, it uses our definition. It varies, but what defines it is there. That's why I cited those sources. Otherwise it would make a word for the creature and set the definition.

The archtype of the vampire is something seemingly human that parasitises something vital to the lives of real humans. Fitting that general bill does not require recreating the vampires of one specific other setting.

Nope, I provided you the definition of a vampire, one that yourself said. They are bloodsuckers. They parasite on blood, not emotions or anything else. They don't need to be classic vampires, I never said that, I said they need blood to survive or they should die or enter deep hibernation, only waking if someone gives them blood.

DF intends to allow for variability, so demanding strict Stoker loyalty isn't going to work. In the future, between different save files, Dragons might have wings or acid blood or ice breath, or they might not due to being semi-random.

I never cited Stoker, I cited western medieval lore. Common western medieval lore. I't not saying vampires need to be classic vampires, but to be considered vampires they need to follow what defines them, needing blood to survive.
Yet all dragons in DF need to be:

A gigantic reptilian creature.  It is magical and can breath fire.  These monsters can live for thousands of years.

Things have definitions.

Real world technology in DF has a cut off date of 1400, but that doesn't mean it slavishly follows real life, down to making England in every game.

I know. That's why I cited our XIV century technology, I didn't cite a country or continent. I meant humanity XIV century, sorry for the confusion.

DF has many things not found in the real world or specifically in any real world mythology, it just has many things based on the concepts. In 1400 there was no magma technology, and there still is none today.

Care to cite something that doesn't exist in our world or any of our mythology or fantasy stories? Seriously, I can't think in anything. Besides monster/giant sponges, but that's just "monstrifying" things.
And magma isn't part of the XIV century technology barrier, it's part of dwarf fantasy lore. It isn't really comparable.

The definition of a vampire, in some cases, varied between villages in real life. There is no race of Minotaurs in Greek mythology, there was only one, likewise for the Hydra, and in DF they aren't born from the mating of a woman and a bull.

I know, as vampires in DF are cursed by the gods and a variety of werecreatures can happen. And as not every vampire is killed by the sun, they all have different powers, I know, but they all suck blood. Better, vampire feed on the life essence of other creatures. In DF case, blood. And they need it to sustain themselves, they are not auto-sufficient. They are cursed to prowl the night in search of blood to sustain themselves.

It's like saying to me a zombie can be alive. Zombies are dead, or rather, undead by definition. Vampires need life force to be live (or unlive).

[Xanmyral]

I think everyone needs to chill a bit, no need to get worked up on either side.



Yes, DF does follow typical mythology classifications and conventions, but no that doesn't mean that's all there will be and that it will all the time. Yes there will be vampires that seek blood, but no that doesn't mean that will be the only kind of monstrosity that may fall under the purview of vampire, it will certainly be the most of it, but not the all of it I wager. Yes there will be vampires that will die without blood, but no that doesn't mean that's the end all be all for all of them. I believe the ultimate goal here is to allow all kinds, or at least the chance for such, even some of the weirder bits. Its what we know and love about dwarf fortress, no? The chance that, at the push of a button we're generating an entire new world and mythology with some trappings familiar and some strange, all wrapped together in a masterful work of craftdwarfship. Just because one thing is black, and one thing is white, doesn't mean they both can't co-exist, grey can happen. False dichotomies are not your friend, not even an acquaintance. Just because something isn't in the fantasy books of ye-olden days doesn't mean it won't be in the game, just as well as said books also being in the game and each having a chance of being wonderfully blended or played straight.

The point is to make stories, have fun, kill some stuff while laughing at absurdities and marveling at the depth, what's the point if that isn't it? I couldn't care less if it was restricted to only vampires that were written about before, or something entirely different, long as I have fun, long as people have fun with it that's all that matters. Hell, they'll probably be choices of "no magic" "high magic" "conventional myths" and "everything put into a blender and set to puree." And I'll play and love the hell out of all of those choices, as each has stories I want to see told.

I want to see a Van Hellsing fighting vampires that crave blood to survive, I want to see a dwarf fighting were-elephants that is that setting's werewolves, I want to see a setting where undead are the norm and living the rarity, I want to see a Flork, which could be a sentient plant person, fight a Geoff, which could be a plant person set to burst on fire and spread a curse or something, as absurd as it could be. I want to see something played straight and messed all up. Both have merit, one isn't better than the other.



That's the only two bits I'm throwing into this argument, I shall not make anymore.

[arkhometha]

I think everyone needs to chill a bit, no need to get worked up on either side.

And I think we are having a civil discussion. I didn't see LugoMan worked up nor did I become worked up. If you are talking about the underlines, sorry, it was for emphasis!

Yes, DF does follow typical mythology classifications and conventions, but no that doesn't mean that's all there will be and that it will all the time. Yes there will be vampires that seek blood, but no that doesn't mean that will be the only kind of monstrosity that may fall under the purview of vampire, it will certainly be the most of it, but not the all of it I wager. Yes there will be vampires that will die without blood, but no that doesn't mean that's the end all be all for all of them. I believe the ultimate goal here is to allow all kinds, or at least the chance for such, even some of the weirder bits. Its what we know and love about dwarf fortress, no? The chance that, at the push of a button we're generating an entire new world and mythology with some trappings familiar and some strange, all wrapped together in a masterful work of craftdwarfship. Just because one thing is black, and one thing is white, doesn't mean they both can't co-exist, grey can happen. False dichotomies are not your friend, not even an acquaintance. Just because something isn't in the fantasy books of ye-olden days doesn't mean it won't be in the game, just as well as said books also being in the game and each having a chance of being wonderfully blended or played straight.

I'm not saying mythology or fantasy need to be fixed, they can be generated randomly. I'm not saying because it doesn't exist in our mythology it can't happen, I'm talking about definitions. Can a creature be classified as a werecreature without turning into another creature? No. If it doesn't turn into another creature, it isn't a werecreature. If a vampire doesn't need blood to survive, it isn't a vampire.

The point is to make stories, have fun, kill some stuff while laughing at absurdities and marveling at the depth, what's the point if that isn't it? I couldn't care less if it was restricted to only vampires that were written about before, or something entirely different, long as I have fun, long as people have fun with it that's all that matters. Hell, they'll probably be choices of "no magic" "high magic" "conventional myths" and "everything put into a blender and set to puree." And I'll play and love the hell out of all of those choices, as each has stories I want to see told.

I want to see a Van Hellsing fighting vampires that crave blood to survive, I want to see a dwarf fighting were-elephants that is that setting's werewolves, I want to see a setting where undead are the norm and living the rarity, I want to see a Flork, which could be a sentient plant person, fight a Geoff, which could be a plant person set to burst on fire and spread a curse or something, as absurd as it could be. I want to see something played straight and messed all up. Both have merit, one isn't better than the other.



That's the only two bits I'm throwing into this argument, I shall not make anymore.

This bit I answered in this and other posts. I'm not talking about transforming vampires in classic vampires. I never said that. It's not a question of merit on one being better than the other. We can always mod vampires to not need blood, though we can't mod vampires to have an adverse effect for not getting blood. I'm saying vampires aren't vampire if they don't need blood to survive. They could breath fire or sparkle for all I care, but they need to drink blood otherwise they can't be classified as vampires. DF follows definitions, that's it. Vampires are creatures "cursed to prowl the night in search of blood." They need blood, and that's the only thing I asked Toady: Do you plan to implement vampires suffering for not getting blood? What's your take on them not getting it in the current version and having no adverse effects?

[WillowLuman]

Ninja'd

@Xan Thank you! That is exactly what I'm trying to say!

Care to cite something that doesn't exist in our world or any of our mythology or fantasy stories? Seriously, I can't think in anything. Besides monster/giant sponges, but that's just "monstrifying" things.
And magma isn't part of the XIV century technology barrier, it's part of dwarf fantasy lore. It isn't really comparable.

Bronze Colossi, for one. Randomly generated titans and megabeasts may sometimes resemble something else but oftentimes they are something completely unique and bizarre. Ditto for other entirely generated creatures. Green devourers, molemarians, voracious cave crawlers, beak dogs, and many other creatures might resemble something out of a Monstrous manual but they aren't actual standard-issue DnD creatures.

I know you didn't cite Stoker, I was just using that as a hyperbole to illustrate the point of confining procedural generation to reconstructing a very specific portrayal of the subject. Sorry.

Before you go any further on the subject of blood for survival being THE defining thing, please read these. All the way through. There is always some consequence for not drinking blood, but it is not always fatal, and is sometimes a slap on the wrist.

[arkhometha]

Ninja'd

@Xan Thank you! That is exactly what I'm trying to say!
Bronze Colossi, for one. Randomly generated titans and megabeasts may sometimes resemble something else but oftentimes they are something completely unique and bizarre. Ditto for other entirely generated creatures. Green devourers, molemarians, voracious cave crawlers, beak dogs, and many other creatures might resemble something out of a Monstrous manual but they aren't actual standard-issue DnD creatures.

Bronze Colossi is a "A gigantic magic statue made of bronze and bent on mayhem" moving statues are not unheard of in fantasy. And procedural monsters are just mix-match of RL of fantasy parts. They don't compare, and they don't have anything unique in them, just the final result. They can't be compared because they are generated randomly, while our fantasy does nothing of the sort. I'm talking more about things that can be classified, one completely random creature will most probably never find parallel in our world besides it's individual parts.

I know you didn't cite Stoker, I was just using that as a hyperbole to illustrate the point of confining procedural generation to reconstructing a very specific portrayal of the subject. Sorry.
Before you go any further on the subject of blood for survival being THE defining thing, please read these. All the way through. There is always some consequence for not drinking blood, but it is not always fatal, and is sometimes a slap on the wrist.

I'm not speaking against procedural generation, but there are things that can't be made procedural. A werebeast need to turn into another creature to be considered one. You can't change them without changing what it is.
About the links:
Okay, if we broad the definition: Vampires need a life-force other than their own to thrive. One of your sources say tomatoes. As absurd as that is, they still need it. If they don't get it, they suffer something. Often dire, as it happens with creatures that need things to sustain themselves. While I can understand getting just weak for nothing feed over a time, they will suffer dire consequences over time. It's their life force they are not getting. Their sustenance, what keeps them afloat. They are not magical.

But DF vampires don't fall on vampires that need life force other than blood. They are vampires that are "cursed to prowl the night in search of blood." Sorry for repeating this, but it's whole point. If they are walled off and don't search for blood, and they don't suffer adversities for not searching for blood, what's the point of the curse? What remains is an undead super-creature. Not a vampire.

[WillowLuman]

Just as dragons are concrete right now, vampires in their current form are a placeholder for semi-random generation. And, from the vampire's point of view, being locked away to do books for eternity, unable to sate their hunger, must be pretty crappy. If you're lucky enough to have a world with vampires that don't wither/die/go insane without blood, then they're still likely to break out and maul someone at the first opportunity. Maybe, if you're super-lucky, you find in the same world a conscientious vampire who accepts the task, hoping it will take their mind off blood, but like an unexplained upright adamantine weapon, it would be a rare boon. And they'd still probably pull someone in if they got too close to whatever gap you forgot to seal.

[arkhometha]

Just as dragons are concrete right now, vampires in their current form are a placeholder for semi-random generation. And, from the vampire's point of view, being locked away to do books for eternity, unable to sate their hunger, must be pretty crappy. If you're lucky enough to have a world with vampires that don't wither/die/go insane without blood, then they're still likely to break out and maul someone at the first opportunity. Maybe, if you're super-lucky, you find in the same world a conscientious vampire who accepts the task, hoping it will take their mind off blood, but like an unexplained upright adamantine weapon, it would be a rare boon. And they'd still probably pull someone in if they got too close to whatever gap you forgot to seal.

As random as they can get, they will always need life force of others to sustain themselves. And if being locked away without your life force is so daunting, they should go mad. The only reason they would not perish/hibernate if they don't get their life force for prolonged periods of times is if they are sustained by magic, IMHO, but that's defined by Toady, so I hope he answers it in my question.

You can still keep an endless bookkeeper, but you would need to feed it whatever it needs to sustain itself. And I think that's a fairly simple thing to do (though not so much now, as Toady quote said vampires need to hunt in the world gen before he activates consequences for not feeding).

And thank you for the nice discussion, HugoLuman!

[Putnam]

arkhothema: I'm with Hugo here. It's eventually planned that procedurally generated stuff could be completely and utterly off the wall in terms of normal fantasy. The fact that vampires are currently procedurally generated, even if they only have one permutation at this point, shows that yes, they are most certainly planned to have more differences later.

[arkhometha]

arkhothema: I'm with Hugo here. It's eventually planned that procedurally generated stuff could be completely and utterly off the wall in terms of normal fantasy. The fact that vampires are currently procedurally generated, even if they only have one permutation at this point, shows that yes, they are most certainly planned to have more differences later.

So, eventually, there will be vampires that will not have to feed? Or vampires that will not suffer any consequences of not acquiring sustenance aka feeding for prolonged periods of time?

[DG]

Touching on another point, hopefully you eventually won't be able to have a creature entirely sealed away spending their time accoutning for you. Unless maybe you have dwarves yelling through the steel prison door "We just bought twenty sun berries from the elves! Two full finely crafted oak bins of rope weed fibre! One male grizzly bear in a finely made pine cage!"

Muffled reply through the door, ""Check! Check! Check!"

[arkhometha]

Touching on another point, hopefully you eventually won't be able to have a creature entirely sealed away spending their time accoutning for you. Unless maybe you have dwarves yelling through the steel prison door "We just bought twenty sun berries from the elves! Two full finely crafted oak bins of rope weed fibre! One male grizzly bear in a finely made pine cage!"

Muffled reply through the door, ""Check! Check! Check!"

Would the ones that observe the item need to have a good observation skill to not report it wrongly, though?

I mean in quality terms, I doubt someone could confuse a cage.