>Vampyres are corrupted spirits that inhabit their own dead bodies. They
>pay for eternal life on Glorantha with their afterlives. A Vampyre
>cannot die as they're already dead, but when his or her existence comes
>to an end there is no place in the halls of the dead for them.
This seems a bit too complicated. What's wrong with the CoT description that the Vampire has no soul to speak of since he has destroyed it? Then statements like 'has no afterlife' logically follow. Saying that they have no place in the halls of the dead does leave open the possibility that they might wander the earth as a wraith.
>All Vampyres are directly descended from Vivamort, the first Vampyre.
Descended? Perhaps not the right word to use.
>Many Gods were concerned by Vivamort creating legions of unwilling
>undead to help spread the ache of his corrupted soul. During the
>compromise it was agreed that only those willing to accept Vivamort's
>pain voluntarily would become Vampyres. Vivamort railed at this, but in
>the end he had to concede. If he hadn't he would have been shut out of
>the compromise altogether and unable to interact with Glorantha.
I dislike this. For starters, the myth of the compromise is not universal. The Malkioni and the Pelorians would not agree with the concept of a committee of Gods deciding what the new world should be like (and Vampires are known in the West). Furthermore CoT (which speaks from the Orlanthi perspective) implies that the Compromise was imposed on the Chaotic Gods whether they liked it or not. Kajabor is part of the Compromise yet his part in it was definitely forced.
And I do believe that there are unwilling vampires in glorantha, bewailing the loss of their souls, increasing their angst and trying to OD on clove cigarettes. The Huan-To of Kralorela are able to turn unwilling victims into ghouls so the precedent is there.
>Humakt because Vivamort never tells the whole truth when attracting
>worship and he allows people to pass through death and return at the
>cost of their souls.
This presupposes an intelligence for Humakt that seems alien to what we know of him. Humakt is not concerned with people telling lies. He is the True Death. Those who worship him find the presence of vampires offensive because their death is false. (Some even find the presence of resurrectees offensive for the same reason but that's another matter).
>Uleria sees Vivamort as the ultimate deviant sexuality, a
>perversion of the kiss in Vampyre feeding.
Would Uleria really give a damn so long as it is love? Uleria would have *no* inhibitions about sexuality whatsoever so long as it's consensual.
>Almost all can mesmerize people of their former
>species by looking at them. This is particularly potent when used
>against members of complimentary gender and sexuality.
Why would one's sex or orientation make a difference?
Powered by hypermail