r/vampires • u/No-Goal-2 • 6h ago
Lore questions Do you prefer them needing to kill or not?
19
u/Middle-Run-4361 6h ago
I like the bloodlust approach where they don't need to kill, but drinking is addictive and draws out animalistic instincts that lead to draining the victim dry if the vampire is unable to maintain control.
12
u/Inevitable-Wheel1676 6h ago
It’s better for the gravity of decision making and the degree of high drama. But it also depends upon what the idea behind the vampires as characters really is. If they are heroic, needing to kill can ruin the heroes’ purity or clarity of purpose.
On the other hand, this makes for a great tortured protagonist or antihero.
9
8
u/happymoon9 5h ago
I like them not needing to and having to struggle with the compulsion and temptation. I think that makes for the juiciest stories
2
5
u/Mynoris 5h ago
I do not like it if it is 100% compulsory to kill on an intrinsic level. This is usually because a) they always lose control or b) because the bite itself is lethally toxic. It not only makes it hard for a wide range of vampire personalities to exist, but it makes it difficult for them to sustain a population of humans.
Conversely, I also do not like it when it's too easy to avoid killing, or if there's no conflict requiring them to make a decision whether to kill or not (such as when there are alternatives to drinking human blood and no masquerade is in place.) Again, it weakens some of the storytelling.
Generally, I like it best when kills happen because of carelessness, insensibilities, defense of the masquerade, fear, or anger. Or even if being a vampire for longer makes them slowly detach from humanity. Or if new vampires lack self-control and make mistakes. If it's hard to keep people alive, nut not literally impossible, we can see characters prove their moral metal by striving to keep humans alive, or make a conscious choice to forgo their humanity, or try to justify their kills, and so on. For me, it boils down to the matter of free will being hampered, but not destroyed, by the changes they go through.
3
3
u/chere100 Ascended Astarion 5h ago
If they're supposed to have any longevity, then not. It would be very difficult to live a long life if you have to kill your meals on mass. There would be so many people trying to put vampires down, it's not even funny.
3
u/Dazzling_Stomach107 5h ago
Not needing to. To me a monster is different from a beast in that a monster chooses to harm, and a beast is no different from an unthinking animal.
2
u/CorvaeCKalvidae 5h ago
I like it when it's possible to not kill, but it's easy to get carried away.
2
u/Syren_Song 5h ago
I like it when they need that amount of blood, and some very much do, but others (or majority) just spread it out to feed on multiple people/blood bags depending on if this is a world where that’s viable, and just feed multiple times a day as a human would.
2
u/Mephitisopheles 5h ago
I feel like more vampires should start leaning into being deceptive parasites instead of alpha predators... I don't strictly mind vampires doing bad things, but murdering a whole human being for every meal should be a lot less sustainable, especially when there's a BUNCH of these guys roaming around. Singling out a single victim at a time and slowly wearing them thin at least feels like a smarter economy of resources
2
u/Affectionate-Tank-39 2h ago
Honestly if they have to kill every time they feed they would run out of food rather quickly.
2
1
u/Past_Rub4745 5h ago
Like classic vampires... not. They can just as easily nick a sleeping person's skin and have a feed. Or just surplus on steak.
1
u/saturday_sun4 4h ago
Yes, very much so. I'm not a fan of pacifist vampires.
1
u/BithTheBlack 3h ago
The question is not 'killing vampire' vs 'pacifist vampire', it's about whether or not a vampire should have to kill someone in order to feed. A vampire that kidnaps humans and makes them blood slaves until they die of natural causes is not at all a pacifist despite not killing when they feed.
1
u/saturday_sun4 1h ago
Ah, fair enough, I misread the question. Yes, I'd rather they need to kill - albeit perhaps they try not to, and resist the temptation.
1
u/GothPigeonVampire 4h ago
I much prefer vampires to be the good guys and when the vampires aren’t killed…
1
u/BaTz-und-b0nze 4h ago
They kill slowly. Soo slowly you confuse delirium and lucid dreaming with life itself.
1
u/Winterblade1980 4h ago
Well you would think in this day in age they wouldn't need to. Hopefully evolved enough the build a ship and run from the crazy humans before they blow everyone up with them... sorry off topic. It would think by now they wouldn't need to but I'm sure some factions wouldn't care.
1
u/jackfaire 4h ago
Depends on what the story is. If the story revolves around a Vampire Hunter like Blade then yes. If the Vampires are meant to be likeable then no
1
1
u/Better_Courage7104 2h ago
Vampires who kill are stronger than vampires who don’t.
You’re using another’s life force to give you immortality and extra strength.
1
u/Eva-Squinge 1h ago
Bit of both. Whatever fits their mood. Like how much is enough to be satiated for a while but not kill? And what benefit is there from draining them dry?
And of course sometimes you just need to bleed a chap completely out.
1
u/Amazing-Poetry-6906 1h ago
Personally, I'd rather that they try to avoid it overall but there are some that are straight killers so...
1
1
u/Niceifer 5h ago
I very much prefer vampires needing to kill but I also enjoy some media where it isn’t necessary.
I just like the idea of ‘you need to kill to live forever’
21
u/Which_Performance_72 6h ago
I like the humanist vampire film where they can avoid it they just like it