Not at all. Is it just that I used the word 'lineage'? If it is, hey,don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Vampires create other vampires, thus you get 'lineages' - doesn't mean WW style clans, bloodlines, etc - unlike WW, its not all about the blood. Most of the time, its more like a secret sorcery school.
In fact, I seem to be the one argueing that vampires should be unique creatures rather than a general class of critters that exists in many variants a la White Wolf.
I fully expect to lose this argument, but that's because when making aesthetic decisions by committee, restraint almost always loses to excess. Doesn't make it better. Personally, I'd much prefer 'vampires' to be a well defined class of critters with a unique Gloranthan twist based on what we already know about them from other Gloranthan sources, rather than a vague concept that allows for anyone throwing in any vampire myth they can think of.
>
>It is my understanding that there are many different sorts of
>vampires. Many are sorcerous constructs and fall into the urbane
>civilized blood-and-soul-sucking man of culture.
The classic Gloranthan vampire is, IMO, essentially a sorcerous creation. The ones that are found in theist lands like Maniria, too, are essentially sorcerous constructs even if they might no longer understand or practice sorcery. They can steal feats and talents and use some of the standard vampiric abilities and thats probably enough to make them dangerous opponents, even if they don't necessarily know spells.
>However, there are apparently many other types, ranging from draugr
>type vampires which are sentient zombies, bizzare vital organ
>stealing
>jungle critters and other, wierder things.
Sure. You can use 'vampire' to mean any creature that acts kind of vampiricly. Thats a perfectly acceptable use of the english word. However, in Glorantha it has a more specific meaning. There are plenty of creatures that act in a pretty damn vampiric way, such that it would be quite acceptable to call them vampires in a general use of the word, such as lamia and redcaps. But 'bizarre organ stealing jungle critters', for example, are as different from a vampire as a lamia is, and should be given a different name for purposes of distinguishing them in the game. A draugr isn't a vampire, its a draugr. Lets NOT do a White Wolf and throw every conceivable vampire myth into the same category of creature.
At 9:58 PM -0500 29/8/00, Loren Miller wrote:
>I believe that the proper Secret would be "Embrace of Undeath" or "Ecstatic
>Communion" and wouldn't be used on the self, but on others to create brand
>new vampires who are in some sense subservient to the creator. Why? Because
>master vampires are the only ones who can create other vampires, it is not
>the sort of thing that every new wamphyri ... er I mean vampire ... can do.
Thats pretty cool, actually, allows vampires to create other vampires, but limits it to a reasonable number.
I don't think vampires get to steal mystic abilities either, though they can probably use martial arts (just for fun). The eastern lands, however, probably do have both vampires (sorcery is known, and sorcerous groups like some Sekeverians would be ripe for vampirism), and some sort of mystic vampiric analogue.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail