- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 794
- Points
- 0
(Note: this is not meant to be a whine post or anything like that. It's meant purely to spark discussion and to hear differing opinions on a matter that just seems a little unfair to me.)
So with the recent vampire rewrite, unless I'm completely misreading this section of the wiki, it seems that vampires (with the exception of Varlord), upon curing, lose all of their mutations, and have no way of getting them back even when reinfected, unless the character waits several real-life decades to get them back in real time, which of course is not feasible in any way. The section of the wiki in question can be read below:
"After curing, Varlords will retain their Varlord appearance with the sole exception of their nails, which return to normal, and their eyes which also return to normal. These old Vampires will often need to be closely watched, as they have an extreme urge to be re-infected, and when re-infected, will instantly regain their old Vampirism Mutations also. Aside from these conditions, Varlord curing takes longer. Instead of the 2 day procedure and bowel passage the third morning, every step takes a full day, taking 5 days to cure a Varlord. The Mutations remain dormant in their body even when cured, and only need to be re-activated during the first feeding after reinfection to re-activate fully. The only exception here is the Skeletal Vampire. A skeletal Vampire cannot be cured and should simply be destroyed by crushing all bones and tearing them apart, and finally crushing the skull and burying it. After curing, any and all (either Vampire, Varlord, or not yet fully turned) will suffer post curing sickness, which involves lethargy, weakness and anxiety for 2 weeks. Any and all ex-Vampire, unless they had not yet turned, or were a holy devout person before being turned, will always have a nagging desire in the back of their mind to desire to turn into a Vampire again. They are however unable to turn back into a vampire for another 2 full weeks after their curing."
Now, I understand and agree that characters should be made based on persona and not special abilities, but this seems a little unreasonable to me. I'll copy and paste a post that I made in a different thread, which sums up my thoughts pretty well.
"When it comes to the issue at hand, I do feel that it's a maim, especially if you lose your proficiency points. Just imagine the outrage if there was some mechanic where you could drag away mage characters and take away all their spells and not give them their lost proficiency points, or kindap weapons-based combat characters and rip away their character's ability to fight, and not let the owner of the character have any say in the matter. I think a big reason that more people aren't upset is because they assume that they can simply get their mutations back even if they aren't Varlord, based on the wiki's wording.
I know it would be a powerful tool for character development and characters shouldn't be made based on special abilities and all, but let's face it, pretty much all vampire characters are made with their mutations in mind to help drive fun roleplay, and having those taken away on the whims of others kinda stings. It's true that vampires should be careful to avoid getting cured, but then again, non-vampire characters can waltz right into vampire territory without fearing such repercussions to their characters, seeing as having any permanent damage done to their characters requires permission. It just seems a little unfair and one-sided to me. If this system is to be used, I think it'd only be fair that vampires are automatically given maim perms on other characters in situations where the vampire is in danger of being forcibly cured, or at least something along those lines. It shouldn't be only vampires that can be maimed without permission, especially when the odds are overall stacked against them already in the grand scheme of things."
So, what do you guys think? Is this a good system that drives great character development and vampire players should just deal with it, or is it a bit unfair that vampire characters can be so drastically altered and the owners can do nothing about it, while non-vampire characters can't have any permanent damage done to them without express permission from the owner? I'm certainly open to different opinions on this matter and having my mind changed, but as of right now, I don't feel that this system is fair. It's true that losing all your mutations would be a strong character development tool, and I think such a method of harming vampires should be in the lore somewhere (with a permission-based system), but you could also argue that a mage losing their ability to cast or a sword user losing his sword-arm would be good for character development, yet these things still require permission from the owner of the character.
EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken and you do get your lost proficiency points back, my point still stands. Altering a character in such a drastic way is still a maim, and IMO, should require permission.
So with the recent vampire rewrite, unless I'm completely misreading this section of the wiki, it seems that vampires (with the exception of Varlord), upon curing, lose all of their mutations, and have no way of getting them back even when reinfected, unless the character waits several real-life decades to get them back in real time, which of course is not feasible in any way. The section of the wiki in question can be read below:
"After curing, Varlords will retain their Varlord appearance with the sole exception of their nails, which return to normal, and their eyes which also return to normal. These old Vampires will often need to be closely watched, as they have an extreme urge to be re-infected, and when re-infected, will instantly regain their old Vampirism Mutations also. Aside from these conditions, Varlord curing takes longer. Instead of the 2 day procedure and bowel passage the third morning, every step takes a full day, taking 5 days to cure a Varlord. The Mutations remain dormant in their body even when cured, and only need to be re-activated during the first feeding after reinfection to re-activate fully. The only exception here is the Skeletal Vampire. A skeletal Vampire cannot be cured and should simply be destroyed by crushing all bones and tearing them apart, and finally crushing the skull and burying it. After curing, any and all (either Vampire, Varlord, or not yet fully turned) will suffer post curing sickness, which involves lethargy, weakness and anxiety for 2 weeks. Any and all ex-Vampire, unless they had not yet turned, or were a holy devout person before being turned, will always have a nagging desire in the back of their mind to desire to turn into a Vampire again. They are however unable to turn back into a vampire for another 2 full weeks after their curing."
Now, I understand and agree that characters should be made based on persona and not special abilities, but this seems a little unreasonable to me. I'll copy and paste a post that I made in a different thread, which sums up my thoughts pretty well.
"When it comes to the issue at hand, I do feel that it's a maim, especially if you lose your proficiency points. Just imagine the outrage if there was some mechanic where you could drag away mage characters and take away all their spells and not give them their lost proficiency points, or kindap weapons-based combat characters and rip away their character's ability to fight, and not let the owner of the character have any say in the matter. I think a big reason that more people aren't upset is because they assume that they can simply get their mutations back even if they aren't Varlord, based on the wiki's wording.
I know it would be a powerful tool for character development and characters shouldn't be made based on special abilities and all, but let's face it, pretty much all vampire characters are made with their mutations in mind to help drive fun roleplay, and having those taken away on the whims of others kinda stings. It's true that vampires should be careful to avoid getting cured, but then again, non-vampire characters can waltz right into vampire territory without fearing such repercussions to their characters, seeing as having any permanent damage done to their characters requires permission. It just seems a little unfair and one-sided to me. If this system is to be used, I think it'd only be fair that vampires are automatically given maim perms on other characters in situations where the vampire is in danger of being forcibly cured, or at least something along those lines. It shouldn't be only vampires that can be maimed without permission, especially when the odds are overall stacked against them already in the grand scheme of things."
So, what do you guys think? Is this a good system that drives great character development and vampire players should just deal with it, or is it a bit unfair that vampire characters can be so drastically altered and the owners can do nothing about it, while non-vampire characters can't have any permanent damage done to them without express permission from the owner? I'm certainly open to different opinions on this matter and having my mind changed, but as of right now, I don't feel that this system is fair. It's true that losing all your mutations would be a strong character development tool, and I think such a method of harming vampires should be in the lore somewhere (with a permission-based system), but you could also argue that a mage losing their ability to cast or a sword user losing his sword-arm would be good for character development, yet these things still require permission from the owner of the character.
EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken and you do get your lost proficiency points back, my point still stands. Altering a character in such a drastic way is still a maim, and IMO, should require permission.
Last edited:
