Peter Metcalfe made some comments on my version of the Vivamort myth, so I thought I'd better add a few comments on why I changed things.
When I first started playing RQ, I noticed Vampyres drained POW (later Mpts) and thought, "Ugh, they drink blood! Why the hell are this lot able to drain POW like that? Is this just DnD level drain in a cunning disguise?" Then CoT came out which rationalised this position. I can't say I liked it that much, to be honest. So I started messing around with alternatives. As I got older, I realised, that the two things that interested me about Vampyres was the avoidance of death and the raw, perverse, sexuality. Anyway, I bored friends of mine intensely with Vampyres in several games, including Aftermath to try and find a Vampyre I liked and fitted into my conception of what a Vampyre should be.
Then, I came across two books by Anne Rice: "The Vampyre
Lestat" and "The Queen of the Damned." The history of Vampyres in those
books was spot on what I wanted, it added the final piece of the puzzle,
which to me was "Why do Vampyres create other Vampyres?" So, I wrote my
own Gloranthan myth, heavily drawing on the central concept of there
being a "proto-Vampyre" that needed to spread it's blood lust around
(make others) to make it more bearable.
The idea of a Vampyre having a lineage or descent was nicked from White Wolf's "World of Profit - er, Darkness". There, the Vampyre's creator is like a parent to the fledgling blood sucker, and all Vampyres trace their ancestry back to their "proto-Vampyre." Presumably they liked Rice's idea as well.
Peter didn't like my explanation of the compromise and
it's effects on Vivamort. Again, it's personal preference and
interpretation. Personally, I like the idea that eventually Vampyres
realise what a terrible fuck up they've made under their own free will
and want out. But, as they signed on knowing the facts, or without
bothering to find out the facts, they're buggered. In this, Vivamort
(not necessarily exclusively) plays the part of the tempter in Christian
myths.
Onto the Ulerian dislike for Vampyres... The idea here is that the Vampyre is the personification of deviant sexuality. Vampyres use others sexuality and gender against them to further their own ends. Most of the time, Vampyres trick and cajole consent out of their victims, it isn't love, it's just manipulation - no pun intended.
Why does someone's sexuality or gender make a difference to the Vampyres chance of seducing you? Well, in most European myths, Vampyres are more potent against those that would find the Vampyre attractive under normal circumstances. I was trying to emphasise the sexual, carnal nature of the critter.
Cheers,
Ash
Powered by hypermail