The primary masquerade problem of a high-society vampire

[Solan]

Speaking of Van Richten, I think that sometimes we, as players, characters, and readers, need to keep reminding ourselves that he, although an authority on all things supernatural, is not an infallible source of information. He peppers his texts with such admission: "Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a 'typical vampire'." (VRGtV); "Nevertheless, I have been able to separate--to some degree, at least--the truth of the matter.." (VRGtW); or, as VRGttC best sums it: "As always, however, a would-be vanquisher of evil must remember this rule: nothing in our world is absolute. Do not cling so hard to old beliefs and knowledge that you become blind to new evidence."

Obviously this fact of character/personality/truth doubles as an "in" for DMs to customise monsters of Ravenloft as they see fit.

I just think we can and do, at times and as a community, sometimes attribute too much fact and absolute truth to Van Richten and his in-game role.

I don't think we need to necessarily water the guides and his knowledge through investigations and research down to any great degree, it's just that I do think we need to allow him some degree of imperfection of said insight. At times. To, again, allow inclusivity of DMs' creativity, on top of allowing a major NPC to be a non-perfect entity. In this case, allowing Van Richten to "be human". Which can, in any RL campaign, lead to a great plot twist to throw at your PCs. Especially those cock-sure players/PCs that treat such hunts/encounters as routine...

Maybe it's just me...?

In terms of individual powers, weaknesses, limitations, etc, of the monsters he's covered, sure; that's even recommended in the GM sections of the book. Yet there's a wide gulf between creating an atypical vampire and maintaining, for instance, that the Doctor was completely wrong about something important and widespread as numerous vampires masquerading as humans in high society. If you're going to go that far, you might as well simply decide not to observe canon at all.

[Five]

You can have both if you work for it. It's D&D.

"Canon" is a misnomer, given the fact that the game is played, and thus only exists, at one group's table. Communities of fans such as this, as elsewhere, have used the term to refer to ideas, concepts, etc as those existing in official print...which is still kind of funny and "off" because the source material quoted, especially in a lot of Ravenloft's case (it having been printed during the 2E run; 3E was somewhat of a fanram to stay true to the 2E concepts), was specifically introduced with the oftentimes conveyed expression that everything found glued to the binding of the book in question was optional and subject to the DMs' acceptance and approval. It was arguably a golden rule inserted by TSR, as they promoted their entire line of supplementary products (anything outside of the three core books) as being optional. Like I mentioned in a different thread, 2E was very much a piecemeal system.

Back to the discussion, applying hardline "right" and "wrong" when it comes to Van Richten is not doing the character justice. I don't think anyway.

Any "wrong" in his compilations could easily be attributed to the fact that a good portion of his reports were anecdotal...if a DM didn't want to humanise him as suggested above. And even though he went out of his way to try and vet the information (he constantly provides warnings to wouldbe hunters and scholars to not fall into blacks and whites when it comes to monster hunting), he can't possibly, outside of a DM ruling otherwise, have successfully weeded all tales etc down to pure truth. He's one man (and it's a hard sell to make to certain kinds of players). And he can't be everywhere or have access to all such truthful knowledge that pertains to the monstrous.

"In his experience, and through his personal studies", however, allows some amount of misinformation, even if both are profound.

Maybe Van Richten didn't catch much talk about multiple vampires hunting the same "farm" because word simply never got out or that the vampires in question were just that efficient in maintaining their feeding grounds. Maybe all witnesses were killed, or otherwise nerve-shattered enough to the point of silence. And if that were to be true, and Van Richten never personally encountered such a concept...

[IanFordam]

I don't think we need to necessarily water the guides and his knowledge through investigations and research down to any great degree, it's just that I do think we need to allow him some degree of imperfection of said insight. At times. To, again, allow inclusivity of DMs' creativity, on top of allowing a major NPC to be a non-perfect entity. In this case, allowing Van Richten to "be human". Which can, in any RL campaign, lead to a great plot twist to throw at your PCs. Especially those cock-sure players/PCs that treat such hunts/encounters as routine...

Maybe it's just me...?

Not just you.

[Pizza]

I don’t think my one mentioned one straight forward method. Your upper class vampire probably controls a number of properties for business or pleasure. There shouldn’t be any trouble having people meet them in an inner room during the day or even holding large indoor functions during the day at the right time of year witho it drawing suspicion as to why the person is doing this indoors.

Similarly, how do your vampires handle sunlight? Just finished the tv show The Strain and the vampires could be in rather bright indirect sunlight with no issue. Standing the in the shadows just inches from direct sunlight was fine for them. It was only direct full sunlight or light from UV lamps that was dangerous.

[Solan]

I don’t think my one mentioned one straight forward method. Your upper class vampire probably controls a number of properties for business or pleasure. There shouldn’t be any trouble having people meet them in an inner room during the day or even holding large indoor functions during the day at the right time of year witho it drawing suspicion as to why the person is doing this indoors.

Similarly, how do your vampires handle sunlight? Just finished the tv show The Strain and the vampires could be in rather bright indirect sunlight with no issue. Standing the in the shadows just inches from direct sunlight was fine for them. It was only direct full sunlight or light from UV lamps that was dangerous.

Except D&D vampires have to sleep during the daytime.

[Five]

But what if they didn't have to sleep?

What if a vampire needing to "sleep" (or hybernate) only really needs it if/when they need to regenerate (negative energy) the most grievous of wounds?

I mean, argument can be made that they are unliving creatures, so, why the need for sleep (outside of trope)? A process to ease or stabilise centuries of mental activity and memories (keep sane/skill retention)? Is it simply old habits (to those who haven't completely shed their humanity, or, embraced undeath)?

Even Van Richten makes mention of certain vampires that require no sleep (VRGtV).

DM in-game shout-out aside, what do any of you think about this "fact"?

[Solan]

But what if they didn't have to sleep?

What if a vampire needing to "sleep" (or hybernate) only really needs it if/when they need to regenerate (negative energy) the most grievous of wounds?

I mean, argument can be made that they are unliving creatures, so, why the need for sleep (outside of trope)? A process to ease or stabilise centuries of mental activity and memories (keep sane/skill retention)? Is it simply old habits (to those who haven't completely shed their humanity, or, embraced undeath)?

Even Van Richten makes mention of certain vampires that require no sleep (VRGtV).

DM in-game shout-out aside, what do any of you think about this "fact"?

If one or very few vampires don't need to sleep, that's as suggested in the Guide. If all vampires don't ever need to sleep, then they're not really vampires anymore as the term is understood in Dungeons and Dragons. Such a change also puts the players at a severe disadvantage in terms of detecting vampires and negates one of the biggest weaknesses of such creatures. Hey, though, if you want Dragons who can use their breath weapons an unlimited amount of times a day or mind flayers who have a perpetual mind-blast in effect for any living creature that comes within a mile of them, you do you.

[Five]

Taking away one weakness (from a list of them) from one monster is not the same as creating infinite offence in another.

Such a tweak may lead to a need to re-balance, but then again, with player ingenuity, it may not. Only the DM knows.

As for me, I don't like the fact that all clerics can turn undead. Never did. It should be only available to those deities and their worshippers who actually oppose the undead. Control Undead to those who ally with them. All others should either avoid the undead, or get their martial skills up to task, if they don't like guarding the rear.

Vampires will react to and can be turned by holy symbols of those deities that they (or their progenitor) believed in before undeath (and ultimately turned their backs to, for whatever reason), so any character can hope to ward off a vampire...but only if they know the vampire's spiritual background. Yeah, it's investigative before combat. Ideally. At least, if you plan on debuffing an apex predator. Smart vampire hunters carry a collection of religious icons for this very reason. But only the bravest, or most foolish, openly display such a collection; it passes situational advantage to a perceptive vampire!

Yeah, I'm personally biased towards changing bits of the game like that, so thought exercises that go against the grain come easy to me. Ain't nothing sacred in D&D.

[Solan]

Taking away one weakness (from a list of them) from one monster is not the same as creating infinite offence in another.

Yeah, I'm personally biased towards changing bits of the game like that, so thought exercises that go against the grain come easy to me. Ain't nothing sacred in D&D.

Whereas it is very much against my views, not the least because it makes threads like this one useless. Why bother to brainstorm ways for a clever vampire to try to get around the dead-giveaway of his never being seen in daylight hours when a DM will just make all vampires daywalkers? There's no real point in putting heads together if they're not operating off a common, mutually accepted reality; that's what allows for the meaningful sharing of ideas.

[Five]

Taking away one weakness (from a list of them) from one monster is not the same as creating infinite offence in another.

Yeah, I'm personally biased towards changing bits of the game like that, so thought exercises that go against the grain come easy to me. Ain't nothing sacred in D&D.

Whereas it is very much against my views, not the least because it makes threads like this one useless. Why bother to brainstorm ways for a clever vampire to try to get around the dead-giveaway of his never being seen in daylight hours when a DM will just make all vampires daywalkers? There's no real point in putting heads together if they're not operating off a common, mutually accepted reality; that's what allows for the meaningful sharing of ideas.

You shouldn't let alternate thoughts and ideas impact your own creativity if or when they run head-on. They're alternate views and nothing else. They may have no value to you, but they may also inspire another reader's imagination. And in that way, it is a meaningful sharing of ideas.

The mutually accepted reality is a game based off of the imagination from a multitude of creative minds at work within loose boundaries of common themes and whathaveyou. It's only inevitable that some if those ideas are "useless" (not really helpful) within our views or wants of the overall look or feel of that world or anything it contains. Inevitable and quite natural. If we expect all input to match ours point for point, then why reach beyond our own minds? That's just a reach for validation and nothing else. Which is a pointless exercise, in my opinion, because the fact is if you think it and post it, then it's automatically validated.

One DM is not all DMs. One poster is one poster. If you don't like alternate views then ignore them. I do it all the time. Sometimes I'll play devil's advocate to try and test an opinion or idea, but that's more for me for my own digestion. Nothing on anybody in particular.

I suggested (the possibility of) a vampire who doesn't need sleep. I even backed it with "canon" (for those big on such a concept). That's just one idea. Don't let it ruin your thread or line of thought. It was a simple "what if?"...your original post remains intact. Its gist anyway; if some, or even all, vampires don't sleep they, or some of them, still need to maintain a facade. Either way, put the focus back on to whatever it is you want to focus on if/when you feel people (like me) are straying a bit too far. But don't jaw that anybody's contribution to the ideas offered within this post is anything less than a meaningful sharing of ideas.

That's just ignorant man.

In an honest effort to put things back on track, what are your thoughts on vampires and their facade? You dropped hints, but not much specifics. You asked, some of us answered...

[alhoon]

If by "socialite", you mean a perpetually partying rake, as another poster pointed out that's exactly the role Vladimir has adopted in Borca. I agree that particular role would not work for vampires because of their inability to drink alcohol.

Without doubt there are vampires who insert themselves into the upper class of society; Van Richten in his guide wrote of one city in which three vampires were members of the upper class. When one went insane, the other two almost immediately destroyed him in order to protect their own positions. So no, vampires are not all monsters hiding in abandoned ruins.

The werebat you describe sounds like he was a socialite that was travelling around manors in Borca. But that person could be near garlic, had a reflection, could be outside in the day, could cross running water, had a pulse, had a shadow, could enter places uninvited etc.

Three vampires in a city as reclusive upper class in a dark decrepit manor, that rarely meet anyone (more or less like Strahd but in an urban environment) is not the same as a social butterfly that goes to a different ball every week.

[Solan]

Taking away one weakness (from a list of them) from one monster is not the same as creating infinite offence in another.

Yeah, I'm personally biased towards changing bits of the game like that, so thought exercises that go against the grain come easy to me. Ain't nothing sacred in D&D.

Whereas it is very much against my views, not the least because it makes threads like this one useless. Why bother to brainstorm ways for a clever vampire to try to get around the dead-giveaway of his never being seen in daylight hours when a DM will just make all vampires daywalkers? There's no real point in putting heads together if they're not operating off a common, mutually accepted reality; that's what allows for the meaningful sharing of ideas.

You shouldn't let alternate thoughts and ideas impact your own creativity if or when they run head-on. They're alternate views and nothing else. They may have no value to you, but they may also inspire another reader's imagination. And in that way, it is a meaningful sharing of ideas.

The mutually accepted reality is a game based off of the imagination from a multitude of creative minds at work within loose boundaries of common themes and whathaveyou. It's only inevitable that some if those ideas are "useless" (not really helpful) within our views or wants of the overall look or feel of that world or anything it contains. Inevitable and quite natural. If we expect all input to match ours point for point, then why reach beyond our own minds? That's just a reach for validation and nothing else. Which is a pointless exercise, in my opinion, because the fact is if you think it and post it, then it's automatically validated.

One DM is not all DMs. One poster is one poster. If you don't like alternate views then ignore them. I do it all the time. Sometimes I'll play devil's advocate to try and test an opinion or idea, but that's more for me for my own digestion. Nothing on anybody in particular.

I suggested (the possibility of) a vampire who doesn't need sleep. I even backed it with "canon" (for those big on such a concept). That's just one idea. Don't let it ruin your thread or line of thought. It was a simple "what if?"...your original post remains intact. Its gist anyway; if some, or even all, vampires don't sleep they, or some of them, still need to maintain a facade. Either way, put the focus back on to whatever it is you want to focus on if/when you feel people (like me) are straying a bit too far. But don't jaw that anybody's contribution to the ideas offered within this post is anything less than a meaningful sharing of ideas.

That's just ignorant man.

In an honest effort to put things back on track, what are your thoughts on vampires and their facade? You dropped hints, but not much specifics. You asked, some of us answered...

Aside from the insult, that's a well thought-out and insightful post. I'm impressed.

I think that while it makes a lot of sense for liches to squirrel themselves away in a distant dungeon, a vampire with sufficient wealth is much better off integrating himself into high society, especially given his dietary needs. At the same time the inability to be awake during the day makes it hard for a vampire to hide his true nature. That's why in "The Scarlet Kiss" adventure of "Chilling Tales", the writer made the vampire a daywalker; that kept the answer to the mystery from being painfully obvious. It was also the easy way out, however, and I certainly would not want to make every vampire immune to the sun! Hence this posting of ways I had thought of for a vampire to compensate for never being seen in the day and my request for other ideas.

Possibly the best way to work things is for the characters to not know they're hunting a vampire at all. Say they were invited to a manor house by a member of the nobility who wished to hire them as bodyguards. Before he can explain to them the nature of why he is hiring them, he is murdered in a locked room. The vampire member of the household killed him because he had come to suspect his relative's undead nature, but the heroes don't know this; they think they're simply after an ordinary human killer.

[Five]

Just to get it out of the way, and speaking generally about vampires and their facade...

As doctor Rudolph van Richten wrote in his treatise on vampires (VRGtV), "Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a 'typical' vampire". This simply-stated caveat should be applied to all that follows.

That said, not every vampire partakes or aspires to "play the grand facade". They're not one-dimensional creatures (unless you want them to be), so certain types just won't make the cut and need to be eliminated from the list, before we go further into the idea(s) of those that do.

What sorts of vampires (or personalities) are ill-suited to facades?

1. Feral Vampires (if somebody out there likes the concept).

These creatures exist only for the hunt, and nothing else. Their primal minds, although possessing of great levels of cunning, just can't grasp the concept of hiding their one, and only, true nature. It's not even about sustenance really (not consciously anyway; it's more a result from all.that.blood.). It's about ripping, shredding, and destroying life.

2. Some insane vampires (which may be included in the above).

The gods probably don't know what goes on in these minds. They probably don't want to know.

3. Starving vampires, or newly-turned vampires that are currently trying to cope with their "sanguine addiction".

Some of these may also fall into the feral type, even if but temporarily. An uncontrollable overfeeding or three; high profile. Until they draw unwanted attention to themselves and their actions of murder, and are either forced to flee or begin the first stages of entering the facade: rags for clothes, soup kitchens (for a different kind of soup), and drunken "beatings". That is, until they begin to realise their extraordinary ability to charm, and a supernatural strength that can, literally, be used to beat a drunken brute to death with their own arm...attached or unattached.

4. Time-ruminating, melancholic, or otherwise misanthropic vampires (of a certain, non-violent bent).

These vampires are the ruin and cave-dwelling kind that, at some point in their unnatural lives, have chosen to stay away from the rest of society, and for reasons known only to them. They may put on a temporary facade to lure in livestock to keep their mouldy "pantries" from becoming too bare, or to shake off a generation or two of boredom, or even for that one last/great hunt. Some may find themselves once again hungry for the grand facade; others will just go back to themselves, their minds, their lairs, etc.

5. ?? Anybody?

A few quick thoughts. It's a bit of a side trek but it's a bit of a foundation in my mind. I may come back to this post a edit/beef it up some.

[Pizza]

As someone who doesn’t play, I’ll admit my suggestions are probably out of left field sometimes, but I do wonder if it ruins vampires. Have you never stayed up late, woke up early, or pulled an all nighter? Perhaps the vampire incurs penalties of some sort the next day or days, but this is a necessary occasional sacrifice to maintain the facade.

[Rock of the Fraternity]

And there is always the Mimic mortal-spell, which can be cast into a ring or brewed into a potion.