Vampires

[Retro-Pathfinder]

Is it possible to cure from Vampire virus? It's not the final stage yet. NPC's are not attacking me.

[ZeldAlice]

Originally posted by no1schmo:

Originally posted by Draufen:

we are getting into a nice interesting academic discussion here, now i must admit that last time when i played oblivion i even cant remember, same with morrowind and i know it s been called porphyric hemofilia all the time which really doesnt sound like a curse... i played skyrim probably about a year ago and i wont even start it to check, but i think vampirism keeps this very same name; so it looks to me that bethesda must have been changing their approach in lore of vampirism all through the involved games; now my gues is that it starts as a disease then probably becomes a curse

They changed the name for Skyrim, but that's not really the point. Vampirism's original source is Molag Bol raping mortal women and turning them into monsters that spread a disease to create more vampires. Definitely seems like a curse FIRST, disease SECOND. If it was just a disease, curing it wouldn't require the soul of a human and some questionable magic ritual. IMO, anyway.

I agree with no1schmo once more, plus that he/she's right. Also, Draufen, it appears that even back in Morrowind there are ties to vampirism-origins from Molag Bal (I don't own the game Morrowind but I have done some reading), it appears that there is a book called "Vampires of Vvardenfell" in Morrowind which reveals the Vampirism-origins, indeed tied to Molag, and the first vampire which is indeed created by him. However, the book "Opusculus Lamae Bal" tells the story... more. And then Serana, (and Harkon if you choose his Vampire Lord Power) and also Valerica also gives a bit of info, but not much.

But its disease thingy, from Morrowind-Oblivion this curse/disease was called Porphyric Hemophilia, but then changed to Sanguinare Vampiris for some reason. Its disease thingy, I believe is only a disease as its spread like a virus, but that's all the disease there is to it, the real thing about this is that it is indeed a curse, a curse spread like a virus. Maybe that was another sick reason why Molag did what he did, he's known to spread seeds of discord towards and on the people on Tamriel after all, and also harvesting souls...

[smr1957]

For full information on Vampirism, see: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Vampirism

[Valden21]

Originally posted by no1schmo:

Originally posted by Valden21:

OP, the method you use for curing Vampirism depends on how far you've allowed it to progress. Up to and including Stage 3, eating a Hawk's Feather, drinking a Cure Disease potion, or visiting a shrine to any of the Divines will cure you. But once it hits Stage 4, you need to go to Morthal and talk to Malion, who'll give you a quest that results in you getting the cure.

Uh, no. Sanguinare Vampiris can be cured within 3 days before progressing to vampirism. All forms of vampirism, stage one through four, cannot be so cured.

No, you got it wrong. According to UESP, the disease has two names; vampirism, and Sanguinare Vampiris. It has four stages, and stage four is full vampire. The other three are tranforming INTO a vampire.

[no1schmo]

Originally posted by Valden21:

Originally posted by no1schmo:

Uh, no. Sanguinare Vampiris can be cured within 3 days before progressing to vampirism. All forms of vampirism, stage one through four, cannot be so cured.

No, you got it wrong. According to UESP, the disease has two names; vampirism, and Sanguinare Vampiris. It has four stages, and stage four is full vampire. The other three are tranforming INTO a vampire.

I'm sorry, I don't know the most polite way to say this, but you've read it wrong. UESP is very clear;

"Full vampirism is made up of four distinct stages, starting at stage one and progressing to stage four. You advance one stage for every 24 hours you go without feeding on a sleeping NPC. Feeding always returns you to stage one."

See, the stages of vampirism are all AFTER you have spent three days with the disease--you can return to stage 1 from stage 2/3/4 by feeding, but all 4 stages are incurable without the ritual. Simply having Sanguinare Vampiris is not yet vampirism, just like having HIV is not having AIDS (sorry for the unhappy metaphor, it's the only illness I could think of that operates like that off the top of my head). It's like stage 0.5, if you want. Or you could call it stage 1 and the other stages 2-5, with stage 1 being the only curable stage, if you wish, but I assert this would be confusing because when you only have the disease, you cannot drink blood and gain no vampiric bonuses and are not undead.

[Valden21]

Originally posted by no1schmo:

Originally posted by Valden21:

No, you got it wrong. According to UESP, the disease has two names; vampirism, and Sanguinare Vampiris. It has four stages, and stage four is full vampire. The other three are tranforming INTO a vampire.

I'm sorry, I don't know the most polite way to say this, but you've read it wrong. UESP is very clear;

"Full vampirism is made up of four distinct stages, starting at stage one and progressing to stage four. You advance one stage for every 24 hours you go without feeding on a sleeping NPC. Feeding always returns you to stage one."

See, the stages of vampirism are all AFTER you have spent three days with the disease--you can return to stage 1 from stage 2/3/4 by feeding, but all 4 stages are incurable without the ritual. Simply having Sanguinare Vampiris is not yet vampirism, just like having HIV is not having AIDS (sorry for the unhappy metaphor, it's the only illness I could think of that operates like that off the top of my head). It's like stage 0.5, if you want. Or you could call it stage 1 and the other stages 2-5, with stage 1 being the only curable stage, if you wish, but I assert this would be confusing because when you only have the disease, you cannot drink blood and gain no vampiric bonuses and are not undead.

Okay, something's off here. Both of us are drawing our evidence from the same article, but we're getting two different answers here. The intro to that article is using "Vampirism" and "Sanguinare Vampiris" as if they're interchangeable with each other. Here's the first sentence to illustrate: "Vampirism in Skyrim is a disease that transforms players infected with Sanguinare Vampiris into vampires: feared, blood-drinking creatures of the night." The section entitled "Curing Vampirism" also uses the two phrases in the same way. Given that, I'm starting to think the article is either incorrect, or just plain obfuscating on this issue. I doubt that either of us is wrong, due to the both of us using the same source for our argument.

[no1schmo]

The sentence that basically says "Vampirism is a disease that turns people with another disease into a vampire" is clearly a confusing sentence, I agree. My only point is that the "stages" of vampirism all occur AFTER 3 days have passed with Sanguinare Vampiris. If SV is all you have, there are no "stages" to it, it's pretty much exactly the same from the minute you get it until the minute before you transform into a full-blown vampire. When you are actually a vampire, though, every day you fail to feed gives you increasing strengths and weaknesses, hence "stages". The section actually labeled "stages of vampirism" spells out the details, but none of them apply to SV.

[Valden21]

Originally posted by no1schmo:

The sentence that basically says "Vampirism is a disease that turns people with another disease into a vampire" is clearly a confusing sentence, I agree. My only point is that the "stages" of vampirism all occur AFTER 3 days have passed with Sanguinare Vampiris. If SV is all you have, there are no "stages" to it, it's pretty much exactly the same from the minute you get it until the minute before you transform into a full-blown vampire. When you are actually a vampire, though, every day you fail to feed gives you increasing strengths and weaknesses, hence "stages". The section actually labeled "stages of vampirism" spells out the details, but none of them apply to SV.

AH, I see now. So three days after catching Sanguinare Vampiris, you're a vampire, and THEN the "Stages" thing kicks in? Is that how it works?

[no1schmo]

Originally posted by Valden21:

Originally posted by no1schmo:

The sentence that basically says "Vampirism is a disease that turns people with another disease into a vampire" is clearly a confusing sentence, I agree. My only point is that the "stages" of vampirism all occur AFTER 3 days have passed with Sanguinare Vampiris. If SV is all you have, there are no "stages" to it, it's pretty much exactly the same from the minute you get it until the minute before you transform into a full-blown vampire. When you are actually a vampire, though, every day you fail to feed gives you increasing strengths and weaknesses, hence "stages". The section actually labeled "stages of vampirism" spells out the details, but none of them apply to SV.

AH, I see now. So three days after catching Sanguinare Vampiris, you're a vampire, and THEN the "Stages" thing kicks in? Is that how it works?

Yes, that's right. Catching SV only gives you a minor penalty to sunlight for 3 days, and is mostly just annoying, and people will respond to you just like they would if you have any other disease. It's only after 3 days that you become undead, a true vampire, who sucks blood and is weak to fire and has special abilities and cannot be restored by normal means, and the symptoms get more and more severe the longer you go without feeding.

[ZeldAlice]

Originally posted by no1schmo:

Originally posted by Valden21:

AH, I see now. So three days after catching Sanguinare Vampiris, you're a vampire, and THEN the "Stages" thing kicks in? Is that how it works?

Yes, that's right. Catching SV only gives you a minor penalty to sunlight for 3 days, and is mostly just annoying, and people will respond to you just like they would if you have any other disease. It's only after 3 days that you become undead, a true vampire, who sucks blood and is weak to fire and has special abilities and cannot be restored by normal means, and the symptoms get more and more severe the longer you go without feeding.

Is this how it works in all games (I have only tried out being a vampire in Skyrim, then my evilo character got the Vampire Lord thing from Harkon). Does the worse symptoms the longer you go without feeding apply to the Vampire Lord thing? How does the stages work (I know this thing I should read up on also).

[alexander_dougherty]

Originally posted by ZeldAlice:

Originally posted by no1schmo:

Yes, that's right. Catching SV only gives you a minor penalty to sunlight for 3 days, and is mostly just annoying, and people will respond to you just like they would if you have any other disease. It's only after 3 days that you become undead, a true vampire, who sucks blood and is weak to fire and has special abilities and cannot be restored by normal means, and the symptoms get more and more severe the longer you go without feeding.

Is this how it works in all games (I have only tried out being a vampire in Skyrim, then my evilo character got the Vampire Lord thing from Harkon). Does the worse symptoms the longer you go without feeding apply to the Vampire Lord thing? How does the stages work (I know this thing I should read up on also).

It worked that way in Oblivion, can't say for sure about Morrowind.

[no1schmo]

The Vampire Lord form is, I believe, affected by you not feeding only in that you get the weakness to sunlight and fire, and strength to frost, that you had before transforming. I think. I'm actually doing a vampire run right now, my first in a while, but I just started and haven't reached that point. I'm also 95% sure it was the same in Morrowind, only far more debilitating. In fact, I don't think it's possible to even play Morrowind as a vampire, in terms of actually doing questlines or beating the main storyline. I know being a vampire and a were-something existed in Daggerfall even, but again, I think it was overwhelmingly a negative back in the day. Every title has been trying to make these things more attractive as a playstyle instead of being a novelty you mess around with for an hour and then never touch again.

[ZeldAlice]

Originally posted by alexander_dougherty:

Originally posted by ZeldAlice:

Is this how it works in all games (I have only tried out being a vampire in Skyrim, then my evilo character got the Vampire Lord thing from Harkon). Does the worse symptoms the longer you go without feeding apply to the Vampire Lord thing? How does the stages work (I know this thing I should read up on also).

It worked that way in Oblivion, can't say for sure about Morrowind.

I'm gonna try a Vampire-run with my evil character on Oblivion (I only have Oblivion and Skyrim) also. But I have heard that once you become a vampire in Oblivion, there's a glitch which makes your characters looks go back to default, it happened once to my Nord character when I became a Vampire by accident, I wonder how one goes about to un-glitch this glitch.

Originally posted by no1schmo:

The Vampire Lord form is, I believe, affected by you not feeding only in that you get the weakness to sunlight and fire, and strength to frost, that you had before transforming. I think. I'm actually doing a vampire run right now, my first in a while, but I just started and haven't reached that point. I'm also 95% sure it was the same in Morrowind, only far more debilitating. In fact, I don't think it's possible to even play Morrowind as a vampire, in terms of actually doing questlines or beating the main storyline. I know being a vampire and a were-something existed in Daggerfall even, but again, I think it was overwhelmingly a negative back in the day. Every title has been trying to make these things more attractive as a playstyle instead of being a novelty you mess around with for an hour and then never touch again.

How is Vampire Lord affected by me also (or is it the Vampire perks in the Perk-tree?) I only tried a little Vampire-run with my evil character on Skyrim, then I got bored and created a good character, but I also want to go back and forth between those characters, there's so much in these ES-games (especially in Skyrim) I wanna try out. Are you running a Vampire-run on Oblivion or Skyrim? If Morrowind seems impossible to play as Vampire, I wonder how Oblivion is? They say it's hard being a vampire in Oblivion, but Morrowind seems even harder from your description. I also never really tried being a regular Vampire in Skyrim (I wonder how that is), because the Vampire Lord thing seems to come with more perks and pros.
Again, I am very curious about the playstyles in the Vampirism, but what throws me of (at least whenever I am not playing as an evil or disturbed character), is its lore and origin which does indeed seem more and more like a curse.
It's also pretty sad actually, for when looking into Serana and Valerica, and the whole family-Vohlikar story, you learn more and more that many vampires, especially when looking back to the very first vampire, can be considered victims.

[alexander_dougherty]

Originally posted by ZeldAlice:

Originally posted by alexander_dougherty:

It worked that way in Oblivion, can't say for sure about Morrowind.

I'm gonna try a Vampire-run with my evil character on Oblivion (I only have Oblivion and Skyrim) also. But I have heard that once you become a vampire in Oblivion, there's a glitch which makes your characters looks go back to default, it happened once to my Nord character when I became a Vampire by accident, I wonder how one goes about to un-glitch this glitch.

I have played a Vampire in Oblivion, I don't recall that glitch happening, but it was a glitchy game, even worse than Skyrim, so it's entirely possible.

Easiest fix is to load an earlier save, from before the looks changed.

There should be fixes on the wikis as well.

[no1schmo]

It actually bothers me that Serana and Valerica are presented like good guys. Because it's confusing. They were Daedra cultists, worshipers of Molag Bol, one of the worst of the princes, the guy who has you beat someone to death multiple times. And now they are vampires, and Valerica talks about how they have to hunt from the shadows, and Serana doesn't seem the slightest bit disturbed by preying on the innocent. But they made her super likable either because they suspected no one would even want to play the Dawnguard storyline otherwise, or to make her a waifu, or both. I'm not saying vampires shouldn't have any kind of free will, but the way they are characterized is that they are driven to hunt and prey because of the curse, because of the bloodlust and the pain of the sun. But Serana never seems the slightest bit interested in feeding, and her only reaction to the sun is to complain about it like a goth kid. Oblivion also had some vampires who were very in control, I know, but I just don't understand why the writers are doing this. Is it the influence of True Blood and Twilight and all the other properties making vampires cool and just "different" instead of evil? But then why force us to kill 2000 vampires over an average playthrough because they mindlessly and ruthlessly attack everyone, over and over again?

And honestly, unless I'm missing something, there is no advantage to being a vampire lord over a regular vampire except when you transform into the lord form. When in your normal form, everything is the same. And the lord form, like the werewolf form, kinda sucks.

[alexander_dougherty]

Serena was raised to worship Molag Bal, it's entirely possible that before the Rite of Cold Harbour she was an innocent herself, it's the type of detail that would appeal to Molag Bal.

But yes, Valerica would have been a full worshipper, and participated in the rituals willingly.