Print

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

[ChairmanPoo]

Aw fuck, I didn't realize she's canonically 17.  That's even worse than I thought.

You know, I never read it because for what I heard it was Interview with a vampire for teens. And for me ITWAV was bad enough. It even had shining vampires for chrissake.

Regarding the age... leaving the creep factor aside, does anybody else find it unlikely? I mean, the guy is supposed to be centuries old. That sort of experience... has to show. I cant help but think that if to someone on his thirties a 18 y/o seems a tad shallow, to someone centuries old it would get boring really really fast.

[scriver]

I mean this is a guy who has reattended the same high school year over and over again for over a hundred years just because 17 was the age he was turned at. I don't think he is the kind of person who finds old experiences all that dull.

[TD1]

Not the same high school, but supposedly a similar curriculum.

Also, I'm 21 and other 21 year olds often seem shallow and...lacking character?...to me. Not sure how to describe. Even worse for a 17 year old.

[ChairmanPoo]

Not the same high school, but supposedly a similar curriculum.

Also, I'm 21 and other 21 year olds often seem shallow and...lacking character?...to me. Not sure how to describe. Even worse for a 17 year old.

This is what I mean.  Now imagine that instead of 21 you were 210. You'd have an amount of life experience that the 17 y/o couldnt even begin to fathom. They would seem ridiculously bidimensional. You'd likely get fed up early.

Now, in other vampire films (eg: Coppola's Dracula) they address this by making the love interest the reincarnation or whatever of the vampire's significant other.

This has its own problems. In particular, I'm thinking that if you are a 500 y/o nobleman turned vampire and meet someone who looks like your late wife, odds are that rather than dealing with her reincarnation, you're trying to pork your greatgreatgreat grandchild. Just something to consider

[pisskop]

vampires wouldn't care?

but, something that far removed has less than 10% of your genes anyway, sooooo

[Mathel]

Even better, vampires are undead. If the vampire overlord turns her into a vampire, they can not have children anyway.

[Frumple]

That depends entirely on the mechanics of undead in the setting in question. Sometimes vamps are (cross)fertile despite being undead.

More than just them, really, and at times even when they're not horrific abuse of magic and/or science occasionally finds a way. I wouldn't be claiming she couldn't get knocked up post death without justification more solid than "is undead". Settings with vampires in them have probably impregnated chairs before, never mind things that actually have/had a functioning biological system.

[Arx]

I can't speak to vampires, but I think it's probably safe to say that rules as written you could probably in some edition of DnD get away with an Undead Half-Dragon <Inanimate Object>, a grace that one could possibly extend.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Clearly, vampirism is not a specific form of undeadness but a persistent magic effect which blocks all other physical concerns by maximizing consumption of blood and damage caused by sunlight.

This is why things like rings of vampirism can exist. As a result, all you really need is an archmage to instill a vampiric effect on a chair. And awakening unless you want it to just sit there, I guess.

[Frumple]

Way I figure it, arx, at some point people in the setting figure out they need to just stop telling wizards what can or cannot happen.

"Vampires can't get pregnant, Elminster!"

"Oh yeah? Hold this, I'm drunk enough to prove you wrong."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Unfortunately, that only slows the rate of progression. As long as there are at least two wizards, they will eventually collide and begin one-uping each other. At this point the destruction of the world is certain unless action is taken before they reach the point of making themselves immortal, which won't be long.

[scriver]

"Owls can't be mixed with bears and also do all my chores and make me rich and famous and maybe also solve world hunger if you still have the time afterwards, Elminster!"

[Frumple]

Eh, I think they generally spin off into artificial (sub)dimensions before the world itself gets destroyed, MSH. Either intentionally or because some god and/or other meddling wizard tricks them into it some way or another. I can only assume there's a divine of Subtle Wizard Herding quietly existing somewhere in the background of whatever pantheons are involved making sure things don't blow up.

... alternatively, timeline splitting. Lots and lots of timeline splitting. The world gets destroyed a lot, but it happens in throwaway temporal strands and the causes mutually annihilate.

Also pretty sure trained owlbear maids are a thing, scriv. How well they manage on the latter bits of that, I'unno, but...

[Akura]

I don't think I've charged the battery of my electric shaver in nearly three months or more. It's still going strong.

Likewise, I don't think I've changed the AA battery in my toothbrush in over a year, and that still works perfectly well.

[overseer05-15]

Unfortunately, that only slows the rate of progression. As long as there are at least two wizards, they will eventually collide and begin one-uping each other. At this point the destruction of the world is certain unless action is taken before they reach the point of making themselves immortal, which won't be long.

Once upon a time the plural of 'wizard' was 'war'.