Setting Design: Dracula

[virgil]

I'm working on a setting (roughly modern day), and initially there is going to be only a single supernatural element to it, vampires. These vampires are intended to be based on Bram Stoker's Dracula, and thus vulnerable to the stuff in the book.

However, there are some theological implications if I make crucifixes work. I've thought of two options, if you could help me decide...

1) Whatever holy symbol used works. It would either be faith powering it, or simply whatever religion the bearer was initiated in (faith or not); crosses for those who were baptized, Star of David for those who went through their bar mitzvah, etc (screws over raised or current atheists)

2) Simply what the curse stated. Whoever cursed Dracula, which is the setting's source of all known vampires, simply choose that stuff because he thought it sounded cool; no inherent power in sunlight or crosses in and of themselves. This would allow for witchcraft, but I could afford to have it be fairly nondemoninational; and to minimize its presence, I would try to limit magic by both population and its scope to just curses and blessings. Maybe I could allow transformations and have the bat-form spell not be something vampires have, but something Dracula learned.

Any thoughts?

[Psychic Robot]

I prefer #1. I would have to ask, "Why does faith 'power' the holy symbol? Is it a sort of conduit for the will of the user?"

[Elennsar]

I would somewhat have to prefer the idea that holy symbols have power in and of themselves, or that they're not necessary, just a holy individual.

Whatever "holy" means.

[Username17]

The Bloofer Lady was defeated among other things by communion wafers. The setting specifically has Christian crap working, although it's a little weird. A holy circle around Dracula was uncrossable by Mina until Dracula died - at which point she could walk in.

-Username17

[virgil]

But the reason for Christian crap working could be faith, real Jesus power, or some guy who cursed him thought it would be funny for that to be the case. Each of these creates different effects in the setting/metasetting.

[Elennsar]

Since we don't see any other things even being used (which may reflect the author's biases, what's your point?), I would prefer #2 (or #1 if necessary).

[Avoraciopoctules]

What if Dracula believes that "holy" objects are bane to him so strongly that they actually are, regardless of what affect they might otherwise have? He's got a bunch of supernatural stuff going on inside him normally, some of which is definitely connected to his mind and willpower. If he believes something fanatically, his magic could react to it. You could play it as faith magic in reverse.

[ludomastro]

Personally I prefer the first half of option 1: the faith of the individual makes them immune (at least temporarily) to the influence of the vampire. Simply having a symbol without faith work seems ... off.

For the purposes of the game you could define "holy" as a state of being integral or whole. Faith being the vehicle to express this. Therefore, the vampire can only affect those who are "corrupt" in some way.

There is the third option with, as you put it, theological implications. If your players are accepting of it, you could simply have the Almighty putting good 'ole Dracula in his place.

[Elennsar]

If he believes something fanatically, his magic could react to it. You could play it as faith magic in reverse.

I can't speak for anyone else, but Dracula deluding himself that he's weak against holy symbols doesn't make sense. Why would he believe it that strongly?

Feels weird.

Personally I prefer the first half of option 1: the faith of the individual makes them immune (at least temporarily) to the influence of the vampire. Simply having a symbol without faith work seems ... off.

Supposedly, however, a crucifix is not merely a symbol, it is (in a tiny, tiny, tiny way) holy in its own right.

In the same way as a saint's thigh bones.[/b]

[virgil]

Oh, I should probably mention the full reason why I'm trying to err away from having real Jesus power. It's a combination of me not wanting to show preferential treatment to any one religion (political-correctness?) and me being an atheist.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that if it is just "faith", then atheists are still screwed, and it doesn't particularly fit the source material.

Politically incorrect or not, Dracula is repeled by crosses, not stars of David.

[Avoraciopoctules]

If he believes something fanatically, his magic could react to it. You could play it as faith magic in reverse.

I can't speak for anyone else, but Dracula deluding himself that he's weak against holy symbols doesn't make sense. Why would he believe it that strongly?

Feels weird.

Yeah, maybe. You could tweak the character's personality and history to fit, but I'm not sure whether it could apply normally. I read a Discworld book where vampire vulnerabilities worked that way, and it was interesting enough to stick in my mind. I don't remember Dracula's religious views in Bram Stoker's book with very much clarity, so I couldn't say either way.

[Bigode]

I can't speak for anyone else, but Dracula deluding himself that he's weak against holy symbols doesn't make sense. Why would he believe it that strongly?

Feels weird.

Someone strongly devoted to the actual power that "cursed" them could produce that perception easily. And while my memory of Bram Stoker's work's hazy, the real Vlad Tepes passed as "champion of Christianity", so no big stretch (as far as fiction goes) to say he started it with one single catastrophic crisis of faith.

Politically incorrect or not, Dracula is repelled by crosses, not stars of David.

To the extent that things were shown. A non-eurocentric setting could've him repelled by any holy symbol easily if it was an inherent vampiric condition. OTOH, if Dracula was cursed by a specific person, it's of course pretty likely that the curse specifies a single religion (whatever religion the curser had).

[Elennsar]

Someone strongly devoted to the actual power that "cursed" them could produce that perception easily. And while my memory of Bram Stoker's work's hazy, the real Vlad Tepes passed as "champion of Christianity", so no big stretch (as far as fiction goes) to say he started it with one single catastrophic crisis of faith.

Fair enough, but not a good basis for vampires (since most won't pass for it).

To the extent that things were shown. A non-eurocentric setting could've him repelled by any holy symbol easily if it was an inherent vampiric condition. OTOH, if Dracula was cursed by a specific person, it's of course pretty likely that the curse specifies a single religion (whatever religion the curser had).

Could, yes.

Personally, I mind the idea that "any holy symbol whatsoever" has the same effect.

If vampires are like Stoker's, they should be impacted the way Stoker's are. If that sucks for nonChristians, so be it.

Now, I'm not precisely sure what elements of Stoker's Dracula virgileso is trying to capture here, so it may be good enough to use "holy symbols" and stay faithful (pardon the punny wording) to the source.

[Heath Robinson]

I can't speak for anyone else, but Dracula deluding himself that he's weak against holy symbols doesn't make sense. Why would he believe it that strongly?

Feels weird.

Elennsar, we have people blowing themselves up in various parts of the world because of religious belief. Is it too much to consider that Dracula was a religious man and believes that a cursed being like himself should be warded off by religious symbols?

Just because you're cursed and wretched doesn't mean you stop believing.

[Elennsar]

Dracula feeling "I am unworthy to enter a church." is a rather different thing than being physically unable to set foot inside one or sponateously catching on fire if he enters one.

[TavishArtair]

You only assume that they are different because of your human bias - you aren't kept in a half-dead state by a five hundred year old curse. For a vampire, exploding into flames because of a psychological disorder may be perfectly normal. I mean, if what passes for neurochemistry is essentially magical now, there's no reason that you can't have psychosomatic effects that are also magical. It'd be strange if they weren't.

[Elennsar]

Close, but no cigar.

"I am unworthy." fits the doomed and damned vampire, twisted by a terrible curse who seeks the peace of death but cannot find it.

Holy things being repellent because they are "off limits" is one thing. It would be tied to the believers (who may or may not be recieving power, but whose actions are how/why it is "off limits")

Having vampires smitten for daring to enter holy places is still another. (God by any other name is acting, or the fundemental laws of the universe...matter and antimatter, or in this case holiness and unholiness...are.).

So yes, you could have a psychosomatic magical effect, but that's under "pyschological by the vampire", as distinct from "by people who Believe" and "by the fundemental laws of the universe and/or actions of higher powers".

You'd have to have some pretty screwy pyschological issues to DIE of shame. And as far as I know, Dracula (Stoker's) doesn't have those particular ones.

Not that it wouldn't be an interesting concept, but it would mean any quality of holy symbols and anything else is purely in the vampire's mind...a vampire who is an atheist, heretic, infidel, etc. wouldn't care.

I personally prefer the idea that vampires are repulsed by holy things.

And not all religions have "holy" things in this sense...Zen Buddhism, for instance, doesn't exactly have things fundementally antithetical to Evil as part of its Truths.

Those Truths are just as valid presumably, but they're not relevant.

[TavishArtair]

So yes, you could have a psychosomatic magical effect, but that's under "pyschological by the vampire", as distinct from "by people who Believe" and "by the fundemental laws of the universe and/or actions of higher powers".

You'd have to have some pretty screwy pyschological issues to DIE of shame. And as far as I know, Dracula (Stoker's) doesn't have those particular ones.

Well, as of the current moment, we're really justifying how Dracula was affected by those things, not how any given Hypothetical Vampire might react. Dracula specifically. Other vampires we might invent are irrelevant, aside from the other ones in the book, because of their basis on Dracula, so whatever one decides for Dracula can be used as a model for the rest of the universe.

So with those out of the way, we're more or less left with Dracula, who was himself Christian at one time, as observed, which is the basis for the argument that there is some sort of mental disorder at work. Arguing that it's "too weird" for Dracula to blow up in flames due to his crisis of conscience isn't really that significant. Humans every day shorten their lifespans by suffering unnecessary stress that is purely mentally inflicted. We just don't have cool special effects to accompany it. Out of genre, on the other hand, maybe.

No, what's really telling as to why it is likely not a mental disorder is that the Christian magic appears to work when Dracula isn't paying attention. It requires holy wafers, et cetera, in order to destroy a vampire, who by the time the ritual element is introduced, is generally quite incapacitated. This is what indicates that vampires are vulnerable to some sort of external force, rather than the problem being "in their own head."

The book also indicates that it isn't "just" faith, or at the very least, it's possible to consecrate an item and have it be considered holy. The active attention of a mind is not necessary in order for the holy wafers to be blessed, or so it seems. You can extend that to holy water, et cetera.

If you want to be true to the setting outlined in the book, you either have to assume it is a property of the curse or a property of some kind of God, although whether it is in fact the God of the Bible may be a subject of debate.

I'm also somewhat puzzled by your assertion of Buddhism not having the idea of fundamental antithesis to Evil. Buddhism doesn't omit the existence of demons, and especially as in the case of Japanese beliefs (since you reference Zen) the idea that you could use a strong, pure force to harm an unclean thing is definitely present.

[Elennsar]

Arguing that it's "too weird" for Dracula to blow up in flames due to his crisis of conscience isn't really that significant. Humans every day shorten their lifespans by suffering unnecessary stress that is purely mentally inflicted. We just don't have cool special effects to accompany it. Out of genre, on the other hand, maybe.

"blowing up in flames" because you have a guilty conscience is too extreme, then.

I'm also somewhat puzzled by your assertion of Buddhism not having the idea of fundamental antithesis to Evil. Buddhism doesn't omit the existence of demons, and especially as in the case of Japanese beliefs (since you reference Zen) the idea that you could use a strong, pure force to harm an unclean thing is definitely present.

If you can find an example, I'd be delighted to hear it, because none were coming to mind when I wrote that. (PM me)

So far as how this relates to this discussion, I believe that it makes sense for it to be "some kind of God". Something that Dracula, as a "Damned" being is antithetical to.

Which brings up a point. If Dracula like vampires are "damned", that implies that damnation is a state that can be reached if you screw up badly enough.

Not all faiths have the concept of (eternal?) damnation.

I dislike the idea of it being driven by the individuals (whether they have to be paying conscious attention while the holy water or whatever is being applied or not) for one reason.

Fanatics. I don't think it belongs here for people who are maniacal fanatics to be POWERFUL by virtue of their unshakable conviction.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is a setting where that element particularly fits in. Its more that there are powers out there.

[Username17]

In Dracula it seems that some rituals work and others do not regardless of their original source. For example, Dracula most certainly can go into an abbey. And frankly there's no real reason to believe that sealing gates p with holy objects is in any way helpful - all vampires are slain with hand to hand combat using metal knives. Garlic is the only thing that really has demonstrable utility against the undead. Fill your room up with garlic and the undead can't harm you.

Sacred circles keep vampires from crossing, but only under frankly weird circumstances. But saying a bunch of 'Our Fathers' certainly doesn't protect you from evil spirits.

I definitely don't think Atheists would be at a disadvantage in such a world. The things that "work" are a seemingly random collection of old European superstitions, Catholic rituals, Gypsy magic, and modern science. You can deny a vampire power recharge from earth by sterilizing it! People who aren't religiously invested are at a huge advantage in that setting. Catholics like Van Helsing not only are preoccupied with doing rituals that seem to be completely ineffective for religious reasons, but are also wracked by guilt when they contemplate using entirely effective rituals in a manner that their religion doesn't approve of. Van Helsing has to get permission from a priests to throw blessed crackers around, while an Atheist would just load and go.

In short, ritual magic totally works in that setting, and is also completely amenable to the scientific method. There is flat no evidence at all for Jehova, Satan, Thor, or Zeus in that book, but you clearly can perform controlled experiments in order to determine what magical rituals are more potent or more useful.

-Username17

[Heath Robinson]

Given my personal beliefs, I'm having a hard time attributing any kind of unique and special power to any single religion. It would also be pretty difficult to justify choosing one particular religion over another without just pointing fruitlessly at the source material.


What if we go for a completely different look at the hows and whys of vampires? Vampires don't actually need blood, they sustain their existance through some sort of metaphysical manipulation involving helplessness. That would give us the reason why vampires both drink blood (being fed upon is quite likely to inspire feelings of helplessness) and also why a pious man with a religious symbol can ward them off. Currently the idea is like swiss cheese, but it's a possible start.


Alternatively, we can posit ancient discovery of rites that ward off supernatural critters that have passed down through the ages into current religious observances. Religion has been most successful at wiping out external threats to humanity and now vampires are the only major supernatural force around. They've avoided being wiped out by not being all that distinguishable from humans and lurking in the cellars of civilisation.

This attributes power to religion that doesn't actually come from the doctrine of religion (because that would mean that not eating shellfish makes you more immune to Vampires, which is silly) and manages to avoid screwing minority religions. It also gives us an explanation behind the "bursting into flames" when stepping on church ground. It also makes priests into vampire exterminators by dint of being present at so many religious rites (and building up layer upon layer of wardings as a result).

And we all want badass vampire slaying priests.

[Elennsar]

And we all want badass vampire slaying priests.

Then they had better know something actually viable, instead of being arbitrarily gimped by the "all Lawful religions have stupid and pointless restrictions as part of being Lawful" (using D&D alignment terminology because we all recognize it, not because D&D alignments make any sense here, assuming for the sake of avoiding derailment they do at all) rule Frank referenced with Van Helsing.

I could live with "unique and special power" for any one religion if the issue of other religions never came up...for instance, in Victorian England, it probably won't...but it will in a modern day setting.

But in any case, religious rites have to be at least semilogical or we don't get badass priests, we get thickskulled dogmatic morons.

[Username17]

As a member of an organized belief system, you get knowledge of several magic rituals that work. You also get burdened with believing that you know several other magic rituals that don't work. That seems like a fairly balanced tradeoff.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

The problem is that an atheist will be able to learn the rituals that do work without a great deal of trouble (unless these are UBERSECRET) and say "fuck this." to the ones that don't with even less trouble (regardless of how hard it was to learn the ones that do work).