Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Howling for blood and having the desire for blood are 2 different things. How can they succumb to the red thirst if the desire is never there to begin with? The red thirst is a curse inherent in ALL blood angels, not just a fraction or only the ones that wind up at the top of a tower. Being blatantly vampiric and having the craving tugging at your will constantly are different, but still a part of the same thing. a better comparison is : some drug users are addicts, does that make all of them addicts? no, but they are still drug users. Ah, but craving for blood and actually drinking it are not the same. And vampires do both. They crave it, and they drink it. To reverse the whole thing, someone who quits smoking still has cravings, but can you still call them smokers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattman Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 the definition here is whats the problem. A smoker is generally seen as someone who smokes daily and is addicted to nicotene, adding words like casual expands the definition. Drug user is an intentionally broad definition, which in this instance refers people that use drugs on a daily basis, weekly, monthly, annualy, bi annually etc.. Its literally someone who uses drugs. Your intensional definition of vampire is someone that both craves and drinks blood, while the fluff that we are talking about with the vampiric influence deals mostly with the craving of blood. The whole chapter might not drink blood but they still have a craving, and therefore a vampiric influence. Whether they act on that influence or not is not the issue, having vampiric influences doesnt make them Konrad Von Karstein or something, it just means that they have those traits. Possessing those traits, and the fact that everyone who has those traits can fall to them, is what gives the vampire element to the BA. Calling them all blood drinking undead romanians isnt the same as calling them all blood craving warriors with occasional bouts of rage. I dont really see a point to continuing this discussion in this thread, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 the definition here is whats the problem. A smoker is generally seen as someone who smokes daily and is addicted to nicotene, adding words like casual expands the definition. Drug user is an intentionally broad definition, which in this instance refers people that use drugs on a daily basis, weekly, monthly, annualy, bi annually etc.. Its literally someone who uses drugs. Your intensional definition of vampire is someone that both craves and drinks blood, while the fluff that we are talking about with the vampiric influence deals mostly with the craving of blood. The whole chapter might not drink blood but they still have a craving, and therefore a vampiric influence. Whether they act on that influence or not is not the issue, having vampiric influences doesnt make them Konrad Von Karstein or something, it just means that they have those traits. Possessing those traits, and the fact that everyone who has those traits can fall to them, is what gives the vampire element to the BA. Calling them all blood drinking undead romanians isnt the same as calling them all blood craving warriors with occasional bouts of rage. I dont really see a point to continuing this discussion in this thread, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Indeed! They have vampiric tendencies, and they have hints of it(well, perhaps hints is not strong enough a word) of it in their fluff. However, that does not make them vampires. And indeed, we'll have to agree to disagree. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdfest10 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Archetypes guys, thats all it is. Space wolves are Space Vikings, Ultras are Roman/Greek soldiers, Dark Angels are Gregorian Monks, Black Templars are Knights Templar and so on. All the original authors did (i suppose) is look at our wonderful and rich histories and mythologies and develop from there. Thats not to say that the Blood Angels ARE vampires but it's safe to say that they are broadly based on the modern vampire stereotype. Also consider Sanguinius himself, losely based on the Archangel theme. Golden halo, handsome beautiful features, sympathy with humanity and massive white wings. All in all, about as far removed from a "vampire" as you get. I think it makes it far more accessible because you see these guy's and you can automatically relate, you know a little bit, even if it's just a fraction, and like most of us you want to know more. It got me:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboarder Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 see the thing is most spacemarine chapters are based on 2 archetypes. IE: space wolves are vikings/warewolves. which do you think is the strongest? its clearly the cultural one of vikings. in the BA case its renaisance/vampires, and many of us feal that the renaisance arechetype is preferable to the vampirical one as a dominant theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skambankt Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Ok, so I just read this thread from beginning to end, and most of you on either side raise some good points, which has been repeated by several posters quite a few times. I wasn't going to, but I'll post this anyway. Personally, I love vampires, and always have. I think I have seen every piece of crap series, every brilliant movie, and read every book I've come across about them. I tend to ignore whats rubbish and savour whats good. I have no problem seeing the resembelance between some BA aspects and old vampiree stories, and I think it is good spice for an already great chapter. That being said, the mere thought of BA as vampires makes me upset, angry and sad (big emotions conserning little plastic men over here). Not because they're NOT vampires, but because I really, really don't WANT them to be. The 40k universe is an awfull, terrible place, where even the good guys (I mean humans, not Tau) are evil bastards. To me, the sons of Sanguinius are the last proper good guys (exept for the Space Wolves, which are also nice). Sanguinius was an Angel (kind of), he was pure. When he met the Emperor, the wept crystal tears into the dust, and alabaster flowers grew there afterwards (this is on Baal Secudus guys), he wanted a better life for all of mankind and an end to strife amongst man, an outlook which is shared with the entire Chapter today. They share some of the angelic purity of their Primarch, and in spite of their terrible curse, they strive for perfection in everything they do. That sounded less mushy in my head, but you get the point. The Blood Angels are as good as you can get it in 40k, and thats why I like them (that and the red power armour). Vampires however, no matter how much Twilight, Angel or the Vampire Diaries you see, are evil. They are for the most part undead egosentric gits, feeding off the blood of innocent victims, bursting into flame in sunlight, cursed by God in one fashion or another. I like that sort of thing, but if I wanted evil for my Space Marines, I would play Chaos. Thats why I don't like that Flesh Tearers army someone posted here either. It's cool and all, but they don't look loyalist to me. If they were mine, I'd play them like World Eaters and get done with it. I like the BA as they are now, with just the right amount of gothic seasoning. If GW decides to embrace this vampire-thing to a greater degree than what it currently is, I'll start playing Wolves or something. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynnean Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 werewolves are evil too; so; no Space wolves for you, mister ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Thats not to say that the Blood Angels ARE vampires but it's safe to say that they are broadly based on the modern vampire stereotype. Please God, NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Please God, NO! He isn`t a benign God, is he? Snorri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrvat Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I can't really remember where I read it. It is about one of the BA successors or possibly about BA themselves then when they fall to the black rage unless they die in combat they physically wither away unless they drink blood. I repeat it is all very vague and I have spent a better part of the afternoon looking for the exact quote but to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher505 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Before anyone gets really mad at me for saying the follow, please know that I am only saying it for debate reasons. I am not trying to insult anyone's personal philosophical belief system, just making a point. Catholics believe that in the sacriment of the eucharist, which is held in every mass every day of the week, especially on Sundays, that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, following a scripture reference in particular that says "whoever does not drink my blood and eat my flesh has no life in them." This is further perpetuated at the last supper where he says the bread and wine are his body and blood. In other words, to be fully in union with the Church you must drink the blood of Christ. This to me has always struck a parallel with the Blood Angels. Jesus came to this world and knew that he was going to die, and knew how, and decided to face that death anyway because of our salvation. Sanguinius faced his own certain death knowing that it was right. Also in parallel is the obvious comparision of the drinking of the blood of the savior/primarch. So my question that I pose is this. If drinking blood makes you a vampire, and Blood Angels drink blood, and Catholics drink blood, are Blood Angels and Catholics vampires? It would be silly to call a Catholic a vampire just as it would be silly to call a Blood Angel a vampire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Sounds a bit like fan-fic there... Cant say I've seen anything in an official source suggesting anything like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher505 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Sounds a bit like fan-fic there... Cant say I've seen anything in an official source suggesting anything like that Huh? At which post is yours directed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Ulkesh Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I don't think it was aimed at you, Scorcher... Like you, I've equated the drinking of the blood with a catholic-style ritual, rather than a vampiric theme. I agree that the Sanguinius fluff does bear a slight resemblance to Christianity. An angelic, self-sacrificing son of a God (Emperor)? Where have I heard that before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skambankt Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Like you, I've equated the drinking of the blood with a catholic-style ritual, rather than a vampiric theme. I agree that the Sanguinius fluff does bear a slight resemblance to Christianity. An angelic, self-sacrificing son of a God (Emperor)? Where have I heard that before? Yes, thank you, that is presicely what I meant. Lets just hope GW don't muck it up when they release the new dex. I really don't want my marines to fly around sitting astride giant bats or something, like the new sons of Russ do with their mega-wolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Lets not get into religion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboarder Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 its not getting into religion it's merely pointing out that there are alternate explanations to drinking blood other than vampirism. when you take into account the renassaince culture and how it relates to blood angels the christian argument is just as valid and the vampirical one. personally im far from offended by it and found it to be an insightful argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher505 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I am the one who brought it up, and I am Catholic, so I am obviously not trying to insult anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor_Lensoven Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 there is a difference between drinking metaphorical blood, and drinking real literal blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seva Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Can't this thread just die already? Here is it is brothers; some of you think they are vampires, some of you think they are not----never the twain shall meet. So here's the answer-- They are and they aren't vampires fair enough? Maybe we should all wait until the new codex comes out and see what GW says. I am one that doesn't find the vampire aspect appealing at all, BUT if you vampire fans want to think of them as such then go right ahead. You are just as wrong in my opinion as I am 100% certain that I am wrong in your opinion. I'll still paint my marines red. Obey the Emperor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arschbombe Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 there is a difference between drinking metaphorical blood, and drinking real literal blood. The Catholics believe that the sacramental wine becomes the blood of Christ the moment they drink it. It's called Transubstantiation. To them they are drinking literal blood. That's the point he was making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Brother Sargent Tiberius- Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The live longer perk of the curse can be seen as part of the Sanguinius power thing. They get some of their primarchs strength when they have the black rage, maybe thats where they get their long life from. The whole drink blood thing is pretty understandable. Because they had some of the great primarchs blood left alive in the sanguinary priests, it can be seen as a last living connection to the long gone primarch. Isnt the black rage more of the marines having flashbacks and thinking they were Sanguinius, not a vampire rage? Are the blood angels getting redone in may? im curious about what theyll do fluff and rule-wise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guerra Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Like it or not, it's always been strongly implied that the BA have a vampirical side. That is undeniable. Sarcophagi, long lives, Imperial citizens vanishing without explanation, the rage... it's all there! Read "Angels of Death"! They practicaly shout it from a rooftop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Like it or not, it's always been strongly implied that the BA have a vampirical side. That is undeniable. Sarcophagi, long lives, Imperial citizens vanishing without explanation, the rage... it's all there! Read "Angels of Death"! They practicaly shout it from a rooftop! Not a real vampirical side, I´d rather say a small trait. Many Space Marine Chapters drink blood, that is nothing special at all. While you´re right on long lives and even sarcophagi, I have to disagree on trivalising the whole issue. Blood Angels are not undead, they are alive and can die wihtout being summoned back by dark magic, and they can walk in sunlight and survive without drinking blood from imperial citizens. Mephiston is the only character who actually slays his foes and sometimes drinks their blood(at least he did in 3rd). You see, it is far more than a vampirical side, it is a flaw every Blood Angels has to withstand. And, by the way, by saying that they were Vampires, you could just as well create giant bats ridden by BA Captains - nobody can be that ridiculous, not even GW. Snorri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasoroth Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 My two cents worth: A man's struggle against adversity has always been an indicator of his true worth, his nobility. Having a grievous flaw in a hero is a key element of Greek tragedies and serves to add depth to otherwise perfect beings, to enhance their virtues by giving a contrast via said flaw. The saying there is no light without dark applies here. How you choose to adapt the theme of vampirism into the Blood Angels is up to you. Do you portray the Blood Angels as horrified by blood letting, constantly striving to keep the Black Rage and the Red Thirst in check and struggling to keep their baser instincts at bay (and in so doing taking their place as one of the most valorous chapters through keeping their flaws in check) or do you portray them as a slightly corrupt, less morally upright Chapter, content to turn a blind eye to those who fall temporarily (or permanently) to the Red Thirst (and in doing so tarnishing their reputation as one of the nobler Chapters with the theme of unrestrained vampirism)? Either choice (and the degrees in between) are valid representations of the Blood Angels Chapter and are more or less equally interesting and engaging. It's everyone's personal choice as to how far the theme of vampirism is taken with their Blood Angels but I think it's beyond argument that vampirism is a theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.