Like in Twilight? :>
They were Vegetarian Vampires who survived on Animal Blood. So Vampire wasn't the only V word to lose all meaning during the course of that book.
Quote:
Excuse me, we do not talk about filth in this section. Thank you for your time.|
Originally Posted by Fanservice
Like in [REDACTED!] :>
They were [REDACTED!] who survived on Animal Blood. So Vampire wasn't the only V word to lose all meaning during the course of that book. |
And now, in happier news;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Quote:
Nope. I just can't stand Vampires, even before those stupid books/movies ever turned up.|
Originally Posted by Spectral_Ent
Out of curiosity, what would you think of an Angel style vampire who goes out of his way to feed off animals and other nonsapient creatures? Better? Worse?
|
I think they're a poor villain/monster, and think people should try using their own creativity instead of trying to copy something that's, quite honestly, rubbish.
With very few exceptions, vampire characters go on my ignore list as soon as I know they're vampires.
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The reason we don't bother arguing with FFM is simply that he refuses to consider opinions which aren't his own. He rationalises them out of existance, ignores them, or denies them.
Some of us still like him dispite all this! Go figure. 
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
Hey, I'm a really likeable guy in the flesh!|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
The reason we don't bother arguing with FFM is simply that he refuses to consider opinions which aren't his own. He rationalises them out of existance, ignores them, or denies them.
Some of us still like him dispite all this! Go figure. |
As for opinions. It's generally a lost cause to persuade someone else that your opinion should be their opinion, so why even bother? To each his own.
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Quote:
I disagree!|
Originally Posted by floatingfatman
as for opinions. It's generally a lost cause to persuade someone else that your opinion should be their opinion, so why even bother? To each his own.
|
Fans: Ruining everything since 1985.
Quote:
The Flaming lips disagree. More to the point anything that makes a conscious decision to hurt another being is doing "evil". Choice being the important factor.
|
Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
Sidenote: Robots cannot, and never will, be evil.
They're either made that way (either deliberately or by mistake), or are malfunctioning! |
Quote:
Because you're so damn cuddly and huggable, that's why.|
Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
Hey, I'm a really likeable guy in the flesh!
|
*I failed to Float the Fat Man in 2006*
Quote:
|
As for opinions. It's generally a lost cause to persuade someone else that your opinion should be their opinion, so why even bother? To each his own.
|
As long as it isn't taken overboard, that is. [Guilty as charged]
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
You can change people's minds, but there's an approach to it. Just saying "You're wrong and here's why" rarely works unless you just want to call out an elephant in the room. Even then it's generally quite a messy buisness and far from the best method.
Arguments only work if both sides are listening to each other and at GG usually neither side is which makes the whole thing a bit doomed. That doesn't mean they're not occasionaly fun to watch and take part in, but they don't accomplish much but bad feeling.
It's far easier to get someone to change thier mind if you treat them and thier opinions with a bit of respect, try to understand where they are coming from and show a genuine enthusiasm for the topic. I used to sell door to door to make a bit of extra money in Uni, a job that I wouldn't recommend as the pay and hours are lousy, but one thing I did get out of it was plenty of training on how to get people over to your side. Usually involving positive reinforcement (Getting them to respond "Yes" to a long list of questions), showing them how it solved a problem they had and generally getting them in the mindframe that they're buying from you, rather than you selling to them.
A game we played on the bus/cars/trains or while getting food was to get others on the team to do small things for you using the Three Steps (Smile, Eye Contact and Excitement) go get you a drink, give change for something, put something in the bin. That sort of thing. The key to it all is that the moment it's a direct confrontation you've already lost but if you can help people come to a conclusion, rather than giving them one, you're doing all right.
I did sell some stuff too! Though I'm not going to lie and say it's easy. People don't really want to listen and how you get people to do that is a different discussion.
I lost where I was going with this. Oh right! Changing peoples minds. Of course there's things people will never change thier mind, but I know for sure it's not true for everything.
"But Fans!" I hear you cry "You make confrontational characters!". Well yeah, I do have them. Be a bit boring if every character I made was only there to win arguments, not to mention rather silly.
Quote:
The issues i have with vampires it people play vampires, not characters who are vampires, no depth, no character development, just a flash of fangs, a dark comment or two, and going on about having lived for over 800 years, plus they all have "reasons" to avoid suffering all the classic vampire weaknesses, kind of making the whole effort pointless.
|
Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
Nope. I just can't stand Vampires, even before those stupid books/movies ever turned up.
I think they're a poor villain/monster, and think people should try using their own creativity instead of trying to copy something that's, quite honestly, rubbish. With very few exceptions, vampire characters go on my ignore list as soon as I know they're vampires. |
Quote:
Thing is, though, if you go with ALL the traditional Vampire weaknesses, you'd never actually appear except at night, have to flee during in-game daylight and, generally, not actually have much fun with them at all. And theres zero point playing a characte that isn't fun, right? |
Originally Posted by Rock_Powerfist
The issues i have with vampires it people play vampires, not characters who are vampires, no depth, no character development, just a flash of fangs, a dark comment or two, and going on about having lived for over 800 years, plus they all have "reasons" to avoid suffering all the classic vampire weaknesses, kind of making the whole effort pointless.
|
I do agree with the above, though, in that people play vampires not characters, which is why I made damn sure Leon had a full blooded (yes, I know, kill me) backstory before I took him in-game. While he does indeed not suffer from a lot of the traditional weaknesses, that's because over time he 1) focussed on negating them as anyone wanting to not lose their unlife likely would, and 2) he traded in a boatload of his other powers to enable him to do so.
So, while his attitude may be partially based on a traditional vampire, he is more of a modern vampire. Because anyone trying to live like they did centuries ago is going to find the mob is armed with shotguns, flamethrowers and enscorcled strong-box coffins these days, leading to a very short un-life
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Hmmm i now have a strange need to roll a Vampire, with all the weaknesses ..
must resist the thrist for alts......
so..full body power armour, water proofed , with garlic resistasnt air filtration, and a overcast day generator ..
One of Us
One of Us
OnE oF uS!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
Then why bother at all, if you're not going to even play them properly? Those weaknesses are part of the genre. Ignore them, and you're just making a terrible character even worse. Next thing you know, you'll be watching Twilight and liking it...
|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Thing is, though, if you go with ALL the traditional Vampire weaknesses, you'd never actually appear except at night, have to flee during in-game daylight and, generally, not actually have much fun with them at all. And theres zero point playing a characte that isn't fun, right?
|
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Quote:
Peacebringers.|
Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
Then why bother at all, if you're not going to even play them properly? Those weaknesses are part of the genre. Ignore them, and you're just making a terrible character even worse. Next thing you know, you'll be watching Twilight and liking it...
|
That arguement works both ways. So, define 'Properly', hmm?
And please, Twishite? I find that rather offensive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
FFM, my point wasn't about vampires being boring or uninspiring characters, or even the converse.
I was asking whether or not you feel that, as vampires who kill people are only doing it because they need blood to live and thus aren't "evil" (I believe the quote was "not evil, it's dinner"), a vampire who deliberately avoids preying on a human is innately a good person. Or, if we're discussing a species where vampires can avoid preying on humans, but do so anyway (possibly out of ease or the "tastes better" excuse), are all vampires who do prey on humans evil, since it's not necessary?
Well, the problem is that there's no such thing as a 'traditional' vampire. What we tend to think of as the traditional vampire, the Stoker-type vampire, is a romanticised version of the myths of eastern Europe. The original creature is a thing of darkness and disease, two things the locals feared.
Since unexplained sicknesses of cattle are among the horrors caused by vampires, one could assume they could subsist on animals, so they would choose to prey on humans, and doing so might be considered evil. However, almost by definition, vampires as originally conceived are 'evil' because that's exactly what they were supposed to be. They come from a time when 'evil' was an absolute. Our modern conception of evil being a choice, and our enjoyment of the idea of the tragic monster is what has turned them from evil monsters to the things we see in Anne Rice books, White Wolf games, and Twilight.
Evil is a viewpoint, and generally not a symetrical one. Few poeople view themselves as evil. Moral, and more importantly, immoral and amoral are rather more useful as terms in this discussion
As an aside, my problem with vampire characters is that they aren't vampires. What they are is gods with fangs and the personality of a depressed Emo. They're an excuse for power-play, but hardly the only one.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Vampires are undead unholy spirits and by deff are always evil, not drinking human blood is not really relavent to the debate, it is not that act that makes the evil.
and what Birdie said , with his hyper speed typing skills
Quote:
Except that's pretty much hogwash. I've seen zombie heroes, undead heroes, werewolf heroes, all accepted by players and (mostly) by characters. Why does 'Vampire' instantly mean evil?|
Originally Posted by Rock_Powerfist
Vampires are undead unholy spirits and by deff are always evil, not drinking human blood is not really relavent to the debate, it is not that act that makes the evil.
|
Admittedly, a lot get played as being stereotypically evil (borderline crap evil in a few cases), but they are NOT, by definition, ALWAYS evil. Thats just type-casting. And makes as much sense to me as Floaty's 'All vampire characters suck and I'm going to ignore them'. Thats the exact same viewpoint that 'All catgirls suck', a point that many characters have proven otherwise at GG and other RP locales.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
First, evil,
the original definition of evil falls under the 2nd and 3rd definitions listed in dictionary.com
"harmful, injurious"
"characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disasterous"
evil did not originally indicate a moral issue
it simply meant something that was bad for you
under those definitions, yes, the shark is evil, as is the plague, the door you stub your toe on, the dog that ate your tax returns and anything else that causes suffering to you or others.
also, under that definition, we are evil in regards to other animals
eventually, the primary meaning moved to the one that is listed first in dictionary.com
"morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked"
at this point, evil became specifically tied to a choice to do bad things
now, under that definition, a shark is incapable of evil for the fact that it is incapable of morality (as far as we know),
likewise, a simple machine is also incapable of evil
the sentinels, for instance, in the X-Man comics, are not evil
spreading out from that, however, limiting evil to actions taken against your own kind is counter to the overall perception and connotation of most of the English speaking world (and I'd dare say a large proportion of the Western world)
In fact, the intolerance of those who are different is considered a marker of an evil personality.
the perception that something being simply a machine is not enough to disqualify one as evil
after all, animals are simply biological machines
a simple animal is incapable of morality and therefore incapable of evil (save that older, original meaning as stated previously)
likewise the simple machines we have in reality are also incapable of evil
to say that a machine is either programmed to be that way or else malfunctioning is shortsighted.
human beings have programming as well...we just call it instinct and habit
a machine complex enough to have Free Will is able to ignore that programming in the same way that we can ignore instinct and habit (even if, most of the time, we don't)
once Free Will enters the picture, the potential for the modern definition of evil comes into being
the matter is still complex, however
let's look at vampires and robots since those are two of the main topics
***********
robots
the robots/programs in the Matrix were not evil overall. The majority were soldiers in a war. They were doing their duty and that was about it. Most were not overtly cruel to the humans they chased.
Smith, on the other hand, was evil as he was motivated by hatred rather than duty and he took joy in his tasks.
the Sentinels, as stated, are not evil just because they kill people and mutants...they are simply weapons, they have no Free Will
Ultron, however, is evil because he is not being forced down his path by someone else's programming. He is complex enough to have free will and has chosen to hate organics.
To say that "he's not evil because he's malfunctioning" is an oversimplification. An evil human is also malfunctioning
in fact, you could say that evil is a matter of malfunctioning by choice as adverse malfunctioning by design defect or damage
As to vampires
sometimes I like vampires, sometimes I think they're overdone
the essential trait that defines a vampire is the drinking of blood, anything beyond that is getting into specific variations
************
now, as to vampire stories, these days we have two varieties of vampires: supernatural and biological
biological vampires are not inherently anymore evil than any other race
they have a biological necessity for drinking blood for some reason
either they are a race or they are a mutation/diseased variant of human
assuming they retain a free will, they are still capable of evil, however
the vampires of underworld, for example, have laws to protect humans from their own activities (there is mention of feeding on animals) and then later there is the development of the synthetic blood pack
the majority of them have no interest in humans, simply avoid contact with them
there are evil characters amongst the vampires, Craven, Victor(arguable) and Marcus(arguable), but that evil has nothing to do with their dietary requirements
Craven's evil is the petty kind, the sort caused by jealousy, ambition and cowardice, Craven is actually the most evil out of the characters as he is about the only one that has no redeeming motivations to his desire for power
Marcus did not start out evil, his motive was to control and protect his brother, but many of his actions in the second movie are unecessary and pushed by ambition and a recent thirst for power and control, however, his evil is still small and seems to be more madness than deliberate evil
Of the villains, Victor is the one who is hardest to say is truly evil or not...on the one hand, Craven states that he had to clean up after Victor's messes when Victor broke his own laws to slaw humans...on the other hand, we learn that he specifically killed those humans to keep secret the location of William's prison, which in the day and age the act was made was not an uncommon behavior for a noble...if he's going to kill them anyway, might as well feed on them...there is also his fear of the creation of a werewolf/vampire hybrid and the threat it may pose to the vampire species...intolerance of this sort is considered evil by modern concerns (fantasy races like these are often used as a metaphor for real life racial hatreds and racial hatreds are considered evil)...however, it becomes more justified when dealing with the creation of a new species....
what it comes down to with Victor, I feel he's evil because of the racism...minus the racism it depends on whether some statements by him or Craven are lies or not...and he is thus in a big question mark
the Daybreaker vampires, on the other hand, are not evil, they are seeking survival. they are, however, diseased and ultimately unhealthy....it is stated that they have created a synthetic blood source at the end, but it is unknown how long that would have been effective...in any regard, it would seem that the race would be doomed to a dwindling due to accidental deaths if they managed to erradicate humanity, as such, while not evil, it was still necessary to eliminate the disease so that the species of humanity could continue to evolve
**************
As to supernatural vampires, this is a whole other kettle of fish
people make the mistake of looking at supernatural vampires with the perception of scientific, biological means.
when the source of the vampirism is supernatural, the various traits are symptoms of a moral decay
in the myths and old stories, the master vampire becomes a vampire deliberately...the implications of Dracula are that he was a student of the occult in life and made a deal with the devil that resulted in his power
the weaknesses and abilities of the vampire are reflections of his soul...if he were not evil, he would not have these abilties...
the vampire does not show in a mirror because he has no soul and the reflection in a silvered mirror is representative of the soul
the vampire is killed by ash wood staked through the heart because it is a spiritual wood that bridges the gap between spirit and flesh and spiking it through the heart forces the vampire to remember that it is dead and does not belong here
the vampire is likewise killed by the sun, silver and running water because these things purify the soul or spirit
the vampire becomes a wolf because he is at heart a beast
the vampire becomes a mist because it's existence is a fragile illusion
the vampire drinks blood because it is greedy to have what others have
the vampire has mind control and creates servants because he desires to enforce his will on others and that desire is so strong as to be made manifest
the requirement of an invitation is actually a blanket one applied to most supernatural entities in European myth...angels and faerie also have to be invited into a building in order to have any ability to affect you for good or ill within your own home...probably representative of the fact that morality has to be willfully chosen....it doesn't just happen
the master vampire's supernatural abilities exist because of the fact that he is evil
servitor vampires are not evil in and of themselves but are extensions of the master vampire, the servitors have no free will...they are essentially extra bodies for his/her mind
that's the thing with the supernatural...there is no biological need...everything is a reflection of the state of the being's soul or lack there of...
************************
very few things truly are evil
sociopaths are not evil, not all sociopaths become serial killers or criminals, however, they are a malfunctioning "sick" individual that has a harder time avoiding evil paths because of their malfunction. They lack empathy and the ability to connect with others....which is one of the key traits we have to guide moral choices.
a master vampire of the supernatural variety is flat out evil...they wouldn't have become what they are if they weren't evil to begin with
a servitor supernatural vampire is not evil, they have no choice, they are enslaved by the master
a biological vampire that is a stable species is evil, good or neither on the same scale as a human
a biological vampire that is a parasitic or diseased type is not evil, but could be monstrous
a simple robot is not evil, they have no choice
a true AI robot with free will is evil, good or neither on the same scale as a human
the argument that attacks various things not your own kind being not evil breaks down dependent on what you qualify as "your own kind"
there are numerous cases in past and present where "your own kind" is specifically limited to one's own race, religion or ethnicity.
other people have broadened "your own kind" to include anything animal or even anything that lives
in my case, "my own kind" encompasses sentience...if it is sentient, it is "my own kind"...anything else is a tool, pet or food
**************
Horror does not need evil....the very best horror stories have nothing to do with evil
Horror stories are stories where the characters discover truths about the world that obliterate everything that they thought was true.
The Eye is a horror story, but none of the ghosts or entities within it are evil (ignore the American version where the shadow figures are given snarly faces simply because of some simple minded moron's need for there to be something evil in the movie) only one is really even hostile. In fact, the only danger from the ghosts comes from a misunderstanding of the ghost's nature or a lack of understanding in how to deal with things.
Horror does not even really need a supernatural element, only psychological.
Likewise, action/adventure doesn't need evil
The Daybreaker vampires are not evil, but they are flawed and monstrous and need to be taken care of.
*******************
As to my view on vampires...depends
Dracula is evil...any attempt to do Dracula as a misunderstood monster (Coppola) just turns my stomach...he chose to be what he is, it wasn't forced on him
otherwise...they are either monsters that need to be destroyed (Daybreakers) or else just that world's fantasy race (Underworld)
I use vampires sort of myself in stories, but not planning on making them main elements
in Bystander, as part of a way to confirm that the magical age was a set of other superbeings several thousand years back, I plan to have a side character in the form of a vampire who will eventually die of cancer and making the statement that the 70s, 80s and 90s killed almost all the vampires due to the ozone layer weakening and the ones that survived died within the next forty years due to various cancers (fast healing would ignore the cancer until it got serious and then forget about it before getting rid of it completely so that the cancer would continuously spread and eventually one flare up would overwhelm the system) and converted vampires dying due to lack of instruction on how to control themselves (resulting in madness and death).
Most of the old monsters have been assimilated and recognized as what the setting calls "peaks" and recognized as a "new" development. Having the "last" vampire as a major supporting character and then killing them with something like cancer just felt like a good way of, first, confirming that "peaks" have been around a long time and, second, ground out the mythological world into the superhuman metaphysics of the setting. Making vampires "normal" is a good way of making people see anything magical as normal.
I'm probably going to use that as a gateway to some of the ancient history/magic of the setting after dealing with the various intelligence community factions
Thrythlind's Deviant Art Page
"Notice at the end, there: Arcanaville did the math and KICKED IT INTO EXISTENCE." - Ironik on the power of Arcanaville's math
Quote:
While I understand you're replying to Rock, kindly view my post.|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Except that's pretty much hogwash. I've seen zombie heroes, undead heroes, werewolf heroes, all accepted by players and (mostly) by characters. Why does 'Vampire' instantly mean evil?
|
Modern vampires may be something other than evil because that's the way modern people like to write them.
Classically, vampires (and for that matter werewolves and zombies) are evil because they were conceived as being evil creatures in a time when evil was an absolute concept.
Personally, I take characters as they come and a well played vampire character is a well played character. I don't happen to agree with FFM, but equally, I do find that vampire characters tend to be more likely to be stereotyped evil or terrible Emo Anne Rice tragic figures. However, there's always room for some originality, even in a very tired genre.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Very, very good post Lyc. Excellent points.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
Point by point|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Except that's pretty much hogwash. I've seen zombie heroes, undead heroes, werewolf heroes, all accepted by players and (mostly) by characters. Why does 'Vampire' instantly mean evil?
Admittedly, a lot get played as being stereotypically evil (borderline crap evil in a few cases), but they are NOT, by definition, ALWAYS evil. Thats just type-casting. And makes as much sense to me as Floaty's 'All vampire characters suck and I'm going to ignore them'. Thats the exact same viewpoint that 'All catgirls suck', a point that many characters have proven otherwise at GG and other RP locales. |
Vampire .. evil .. they are unholy, cast out by god, spirits
zombie ... object ...assuming magical origins .. animated corpse , under compulsion thus no free will ..However science Zombie ..depends on how much of the brain still works ..evil as any human can be , but may be any ...
werewolf ..cursed human..beast while in wolf form ..while human in human form..will show up as evil tainted due to curse.
demon ..evil being
Mobster ...criminal human
Merc ...amoral human
Peacebringer.. unclearly defined... personal view amoral exploting energy being
ok yes this is IMHO but to me these are defining traits, which takes me back to my earlier point ..people play Vampires not characters, and IMHO if you play a vamp or any of the others listed you have to take the ((ho ho )) good with the bad, there are degrees and levels in all characters but the foundations your stuck with. As Birdie pointed out the Vampire is a creature from a time when evil and good where taken as absolutes, none of this modern greys. IMHO, just to make that clear .
Quote:
Agreed, really. I've (hopefully) done Leon better justice than falling into either stereotype. He's going to end a Rogue simply because he doesn't suit any of the other 3 Allignments very well. He's not particularly Heroic, because he does some fairly selfish things. He's not a vigilante, because he doesn't particularly respect the law. But he's not a Villain, because he doesn't just kill people 'because he can' or anything like that. He'd find it demeaning, really. |
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
While I understand you're replying to Rock, kindly view my post.
Modern vampires may be something other than evil because that's the way modern people like to write them. Classically, vampires (and for that matter werewolves and zombies) are evil because they were conceived as being evil creatures in a time when evil was an absolute concept. Personally, I take characters as they come and a well played vampire character is a well played character. I don't happen to agree with FFM, but equally, I do find that vampire characters tend to be more likely to be stereotyped evil or terrible Emo Anne Rice tragic figures. However, there's always room for some originality, even in a very tired genre. |
He does look after himself, his two offspring and people he takes a liking too, and he doesn't like to leave things he considers wrong (i.e. killing children, the defenceless, blatant corruption and abuse of power) un-punished.
Heck, he has a Handbook page. I'll just end up rambling and sounding daft or, at worse, preachy if I go on here
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Out of curiosity, what would you think of an Angel style vampire who goes out of his way to feed off animals and other nonsapient creatures? Better? Worse?