Just what kind of vampire do you prefer?

"Classic" Vampires - Varying mystical powers(And mystical counters), sunlight kills, often wears capes, has strange sleep positions, sometimes found upside down for no conceivable reason. Weakness to wooden stakes.

21st Century Vampires - Extremely powerful by way of powers, physical abilities, or both. May or may not be immune to sunlight and/or have a preference for firearms and/or have a weakness to holy artifacts(Hellsing, World of Darkness/Vampire: The Masqerade)

Blade Vampires - Burst into flames at the slightest hint of anything shiny or anything even remotely close to sunlight. Strength/speed varies by scene.

Buffyverse Vampires - Have that weird face changing thing whenever their stomach growls. Most are weak enough to fall victim to a teenage schoolgirl if that. (And holy artifacts/symbols?)

Underworld - See Blade.

Advanced Sci-Fi Vampires - Capable of consuming/controlling/destroying multiple worlds and/or stars by way of semi-explained in universe energies or mystical powers. Often Godlike. (40k C'tan and Type-Moon Anime)

Bram Stoker Style - Weakness to holy artifacts, loses most powers to and may dislike sunlight, has usual powers.



That's about all the major ones I can think of... If you don't know one, wiki/google it. Type-Moon is technically a company though I believe all of it's releases are set in the same or nearly the same 'verse.

I prefere.... le vampire`s de e` sexie!!!!!

So... it posts polls after the thread... Interesting...

Why are you talking French?

I'm pretty sure he's talking English... what are you talking about?

Um, what are you talking about?

Le Chupacabra can satisfy my vampiristic needs!

>:d ?

What the F is going on here.

Blade wins it, but classic (D&D if you will) vampires are a close second.

I've always thought vampires were stupid. Am I alone?

Is it because they suck?

And actually, until I played the Legacy of Kain Games I thought they were pretty lame.

Braum Stroker, ftw.

Bah, I voted Blade thinking you meant Blade, and not the bloodsuckers he's killing. I should probably read posts before voting...

I almost chose Bram Stoker. But a super-shapeshifting and thoroughly unkillable red trenchcoat wearing homicidal lunatic forced me to choose Hellsing.

How a bad cliche is dominating the poles is beyond my understanding.

haha, you're cute.

For the most part, I've decided they're really dumb when portrayed as anything less than totally god-like.

Oh. And "Classic" vampires are nothing like you described.

I suggest a visit to the internet.

Think I'll go with Blade/Underworld style. Holy artifacts don't mean jack, they're always good looking, age very slowly, regenerate, etc.

I like Anne Rice's vampires the best, they're the only ones that really seem immortal. They have a certain weariness and detachment from the world around them that makes them seem like someone who has lived for hundreds or thousands of years and has been radically changed by that. Some of them, through that detachment, will transform into godlike characters with a disdain for mortals and their morality, while others retain a tenuous attachment to human society even though they can never fully be incorporated into it. The different geographic and historical settings also mix it up, allowing a lot of different interesting scenarios to occur.

In other mythoi (hurray for the opportunity to pluralize mythos!) the godlike characters are either one dimensional or lack a powerful moral counterpart to make them interesting (see the demonic Buffy vampires, who only have one or two exceptions to the one dimensional rule).

But I also like the ridiculously 80s-ish vampires in Lost Boys with their mullets, and diverse vampires from the Masquerade mythos, especially the Malkavians. Easily the most fun and developed game vampires.

An obscure but hilarious type of vampire was also presented in the book Fat White Vampire Blues, where the main character drives around New Orleans in a cadillac and has the vampire version of diabetes. His only fledgeling is a vampiric drag queen named Doodlebug who leads a cult in California as a way of making an unliving, and the book ends up being mostly about race relations and self improvement. Definitely worth reading.

What's the difference between classic and Bram Stoker?

Vampires are one of the most overrated and overused fictional things ever, so I don't really have a preference.

I liked Buffy and Angel, though.

And Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines seemed neat back in the day.

Definitely the Vampire: The Masquerade universe.

Masquerades has awesome bad *** and masculine vampires.

D&D vampires are the only ones I care about, since my group is doing the Ravenloft campaign right now. Level drains are a *****.

What about the vampires of Vvardenfal?

I like a mix between the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series vampires and Anne Rice vampires. Underworld vampires close after that.

Classic. Masq's first chapter is quite fitting. I most certainly don't like the thirteen in a dozen vampires Buffy, Blade and other such titles have introduced. There should be few vampires at most in a story, and one of them the master, and he should be like a force of nature, very hard to stop but also something, whose thinking could be predicted.

Masquerade.

To clear some things up:

"Classic" - Old and bad cliche movies.(A cape? Who the hell wears a cape?)

Stoker - Anything like Stoker's original Dracula. Powerful, but not "unkillable". Can function in normal human society.

Anne Rice - I believe they overlap greatly with the "Classic" category in that they inexplicably have or do a lot of odd and redundant things, like requiring coffins, weirdly instant regeneration, etc. Not to mention that they have all the usual weaknesses.

Did the poll change...? I want for to change my vote if it did.

I chose 21st Century, however, I really prefer the vampires of Anne Rice.

Classic vampires are just 'cliched' in that they're used in a lot of pop-culture references to vampires like Halloween decor/cards, etc etc.

But well-done classic vampires are less cliched than all the super-vampires/badass vampires that are in games, movies, and novels today. The Anne Rice ones may have inexplicable habits like sleeping in coffins, but they're much deeper and more worthwhile characters than newer ones, to some extent at least.

That said, I know nothing about vampires!

odd this should come up, as I'm now reading an Anne Rice book.

definitely like hers and masquerade the best. most complex and realistic characters I've ever seen. if vampires were real i would expect they would be similar to the Anne rice ones.


she doesn't write vampire or witch books anymore. currently shes writing a novel about jesus, after a near death experience.

Underworld vampires couldn't even see in the dark, they were using torches ><
Worst vampire movie ever.

Another book about Jesus? She already has one out, entitled Christ the Lord Out of Egypt, which I'm currently reading (it's actually a pretty good book).

Ah, forgot to mention Anne Rice's. Yeah, I'm a fan. I read Interview with the Vampire a few years ago and really enjoyed it.

Anne Rice's earlier books were great, but they got... yeah...

I HATE almost all images of vampires. I'd love to see a modern vampire story that ISN'T "omg alternate culture." Like, normal people who have this disease/gift. It'd be really cool to have something similar to X-Men, but with vampires.

"Government officials have issued a statement, requiring all Hemophiles to register with a local office and receive treatment for their disorder. Some have resisted, breaking into blood banks and feasting. Criticism of their claim to peaceful consumption of blood is coming from both sides of the political line."

Anyway, Bram or Classic. I'll go with classic, because it's got more literary quality.

Someone hasn't seen Ultraviolet.