Van Richten's Monster Hunter's.pdf - Askadesign.com

-’ SLCTION, THE FK~T:
“Time is precious,” “time is slipping
away,” “time is fleeting,” “time, the
subtle thief of youth: these are the
proverbs and truisms of mortality. So
many facets of (demi)human
psychology and philosophy can be
understood when viewed through this
lens.
It should come as no surprise, then,
that the psychology of vampires is
very different, in some very profound
ways, from that of the mortal races.
Having already died, vampires little
consider the specter of death as mortal
do. Provided that they can avoid
accidental destruction or annihilation
at the hands of foes, these fiends could
theoretically continue to exist to the
(hypothetical) end of time!
One must not forget, however, that
vampires were once mortal creatures.
Although the transition to undeath
drastically affects the body, its effects
on the mind and on thoughts, beliefs,
and philosophies are much less
predictable and generally more subtle.
Before discussing the psychology of
immortality in more detail, it is
necessary to distinguish between the
three “classifications” of vampires,
based on their origins. The first
classification includes those who
became vampires because of “deadly
desire,” like Strahd von Zarovich. The
second comprises those who became
vampires as the result of a curse,
whether laid by a mortal or by an evil
deity. The third and final category is
the most numerous: those unfortunates
who became vampires as a result of
the attack of another vampire.
The first two categories have one
major factor in common: in almost all
cases, these vampires were evil while
they were alive. The transition to
undeath never affects this, except, in
some cases, to intensify their evil.
The final category is a totally
different case. Victims of vampires
have no commonality with regard to
ethos, moral strictures, philosophy of
0 life, care toward others, or any other
factor. The victim of a vampire could
be a saint or a sinner, a paladin or an
assassin, a compassionate healer or a
ruthless alley-basher.
The fact is that the vast majority of
vampires are chaotic and evil in the
extreme. How does this come about?
In most cases, it seems, the transition
to undeath itself works this grim
change on the mentality of a vampire’s
victim: the Fledgling’s previous world
view is largely irrelevant.
There are some fascinating
exceptions, however, some
documented cases of Fledgling
vampires that managed to cling to
some of the attitudes and beliefs they
had while alive-for a time, at least.
What set these exceptions apart? Was
it, as some sages suggest, a
characteristic of the vampire that
created them? Or was it something
within them? My own theory is this: the
victim must have an immense strength
of will, and the vampire that killed the
victim be prevented in some way from
implementing the innate control that
such creatures have over “secondary”
vampires. (This can happen if the
creating vampire leaves the area or is
destroyed between the time of the
victim’s death and the night the victim
first rises as a vampire.)
Some of the most fascinating
examples of this sort of “carry-over”
were recorded by a sage, whose name
has been tragically lost, in a treatise
whose title I have borrowed (with
thanks) for this chapter: The Mind of
the Vampire. Two samples follow:
A young, naive man, raised in a
sheltered and privileged family, was
slain by a vampire passing through the
neighborhood. At first, he was unaware
of his true nature (or unwilling to
accept it), believing that his “death
had been only profound sickness and
that his “premature” burial had been a
mistake by his overzealous family.
Evidence of his vampiric nature soon
became apparent, however, but the
poor wretch was unable to fully