> Being responsible for this passage, I must say it's a fair cop but
> society is to blame. I was cribbing shamelessly from the Gods of
> Glorantha Prosopaedia ...
Noted. It was the perfect preservation in the printed book of your speculative queries about zombies etc. [in square brackets] that I found amusing, and not your eminently sensible cribbing from the Prosopaedia.
> As for the differences between Vampires and Zombies, I do feel that
> zombies are not vampires because, although corpses, they do not have
> the hunger for other people's blood.
I agree. I think Vampires (among many others) can create Zombies, in various ways. I also think that not all Vampires are east-European nobles in opera capes with pointy teeth (as they appear to be in the CoT writeup), and that some Vampires may indeed appear to be "just" unusual zombies ("More brains!"), or bog-dwelling wights (Erik Sieurin's suggestion), or rune-tattooed weirdoes (Cults of Terror), etc.
Let's say I prefer to have lots of kinds of folkloric Vampires (and other monstrosities) existing alongside the Stoker-derived tradition, not just a Cult of Bela Lugosi Imitators.
With any luck, Tales #19 will have some super new Vampiric material, and be out Real Soon Now.
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail