Once again my hat off to the Aged One.

Nathan

David L. Milner wrote:
> 
> Dear Folks:
> 
>         Methinks you missed the point of my letter.  I was not saying
> we should not have vampires, nor that we should avoid sexual and
> commitment issues.  I was saying that a creature such as a vampire
> should be carefully deliniated and very clear parameters set.
>  Originally, I was thinking of vampires in a classical sense, the
> undead who have, as has been noted, traded their souls for a form
> of immortality, limited though it may be.  I don't believe the
> sexual issue is on point with the vampires.  Their enchantment,
> in my opinion, should be more in the vein (Pun intended) of selling
> out for temporal gain to the eternal loss of your very self.  
> Suggested WR:  "What does it profit a man to gain the
> whole world but lose his soul?"  Again, I think a DC whose sin
> enchantment is lust and promiscuity could be a good idea, IF PROPERLY
> HANDLED by the AM.  I just don't think vampires are on point here.
> 
>         Incubus and succubus might be more on line, because
> classically, their enchantment was powerfully sexual, but they, in
> fact, robbed their victims of the power to enjoy a healthy sexual
> relationship.  They basically "sucked them dry" of natural and
> healthy sexual desire, by giving them an experience outside the
> healthy and proper sexual sphere. If I am not mistaken, Incubus is
> a male demon who preys upon women, and Succubus is a female demon
> who preys upon men.  These are classic occultic figures, and as such
> are more in keeping with the mythos of DR than modern interpretations
> of Vampires.  There are other creatures that could be used, but I
> really don't think vampires are the proper ones for this particular
> enchantment.  I do, however, think that the AM that used them did it
> very well.  There simply are other creatures that would seem
> to do it as well, without other overtones.
> 
> For the Kingdom and the Overlord,
> Dariel the Aged