I have an interesting question

[Goliathe Dark]

[snip]

I find it amusing that you find issue with "realism" over the ability to turn into a bat but not with the vampire being undead. A state which - beyond being impossible by anything resembling normal biology - is not sustainable with blood. Your muscles need far more than to be "moist" work. They need various chemicals to trigger them to relax and contract.

Also antibodies don't eat dead things. That's various strains of microbes.

My apologies. I was meaning to use the zombies reference as a metaphor so I suppose I should have clarified better.
As for the other faults in the previous statement, I'll try not to jump the gun next time to get all my facts straight.

But I digress. Would you mind shedding some light on the biological impossibilities of the undead?

[Wingman]

My apologies. I was meaning to use the zombies reference as a metaphor so I suppose I should have clarified better.
As for the other faults in the previous statement, I'll try not to jump the gun next time to get all my facts straight.

But I digress. Would you mind shedding some light on the biological impossibilities of the undead?

Well, to me, the main points of their "impossibility" is that they are not breathing, and their heart does not pump, ergo they have no circulation. So, clear those two up and they become a lot more possible.

My solution, at least for my "biological" vampires, is that their blood is capable of continuing circulation even if their heart is stopped, via muscular action, and is capable of absorbing much more oxygen than normal, among other things. Admittedly it's all psuedo-science babble and hand-waving, but I didn't want to give the whole "Animated by the powers of darkness." bit.
Plus, having my vampires still technically "alive", but being able to appear "dead" (no heartbeat, no breathing) for prolonged periods of time was a necessary plot point.

But yeah, transforming into a bat, even a human-sized one, and back again is a bit of a stretch even for a hardcore hand-waver.

Though the rest of the points of "undeath" are a little easier to explain.

[Aki]

[snip]

I find it amusing that you find issue with "realism" over the ability to turn into a bat but not with the vampire being undead. A state which - beyond being impossible by anything resembling normal biology - is not sustainable with blood. Your muscles need far more than to be "moist" work. They need various chemicals to trigger them to relax and contract.

Also antibodies don't eat dead things. That's various strains of microbes.

My apologies. I was meaning to use the zombies reference as a metaphor so I suppose I should have clarified better.
As for the other faults in the previous statement, I'll try not to jump the gun next time to get all my facts straight.

But I digress. Would you mind shedding some light on the biological impossibilities of the undead?

Like I said, there's more to movement than muscles being moist.

You know how your arms or legs don't respond after you've been on them too long? Fell asleep on a limb and accidentally cut off most of the blood flow? That's why you need blood to move, because blood carries various chemicals necessary for movement (not the least of which is oxygen).

Zombies do not have bloodflow and breathing and thus should not be able to move due a lack of both blood to carry the oxygen and necessary chemical signals to the muscles, likewise for vampires.

Hell, if you think about it, aside from not being able to move they'd pretty much also suffer brain-death pretty within a few minutes, if that. Probably only manage consciousness for a few moments, then lie there helplessly as the brain suffocated and died.

All this is why zombies and vampires typically either run heavily off handwavium and pseduo-science or outright using supernatural and occult stuff to explain how they able about despite lacking a pulse and not breathing. Or just ignoring trying to explain how they work and focusing on either the threat posed by them (if the protagonists are human) or their lives (if the undead are the protagonists).

[Gevaudan]

Like I said, there's more to movement than muscles being moist.

You know how your arms or legs don't respond after you've been on them too long? Fell asleep on a limb and accidentally cut off most of the blood flow? That's why you need blood to move, because blood carries various chemicals necessary for movement (not the least of which is oxygen).

Zombies do not have bloodflow and breathing and thus should not be able to move due a lack of both blood to carry the oxygen and necessary chemical signals to the muscles, likewise for vampires.

Hell, if you think about it, aside from not being able to move they'd pretty much also suffer brain-death pretty within a few minutes, if that. Probably only manage consciousness for a few moments, then lie there helplessly as the brain suffocated and died.

All this is why zombies and vampires typically either run heavily off handwavium and pseduo-science or outright using supernatural and occult stuff to explain how they able about despite lacking a pulse and not breathing. Or just ignoring trying to explain how they work and focusing on either the threat posed by them (if the protagonists are human) or their lives (if the undead are the protagonists).

The Zombie Survival Guide created a somewhat plausible solution to this problem. The zombie virus apparently turns the brain into a self-sufficient organism that uses the decaying body as a puppet. There's no need for the digestive, circulatory, or respiratory systems anymore (even though the zombie still eats human flesh for some reason). Only the nervous, muscular, and skeletal systems are revived and reused to a limited extent.

[Aki]

The Zombie Survival Guide created a somewhat plausible solution to this problem. The zombie virus apparently turns the brain into a self-sufficient organism that uses the decaying body as a puppet. There's no need for the digestive, circulatory, or respiratory systems anymore (even though the zombie still eats human flesh for some reason). Only the nervous, muscular, and skeletal systems are revived and reused to a limited extent.

That's actually what I take up issue with - it didn't really do that. Even with the brain as a self-suffcient organism or something it can't use the body without fuel, oxygen and chemical neurotransmitters. The muscles won't respond.

[Terastas]

Like I said, there's more to movement than muscles being moist.

You know how your arms or legs don't respond after you've been on them too long? Fell asleep on a limb and accidentally cut off most of the blood flow? That's why you need blood to move, because blood carries various chemicals necessary for movement (not the least of which is oxygen).

Zombies do not have bloodflow and breathing and thus should not be able to move due a lack of both blood to carry the oxygen and necessary chemical signals to the muscles, likewise for vampires.

Hell, if you think about it, aside from not being able to move they'd pretty much also suffer brain-death pretty within a few minutes, if that. Probably only manage consciousness for a few moments, then lie there helplessly as the brain suffocated and died.

All this is why zombies and vampires typically either run heavily off handwavium and pseduo-science or outright using supernatural and occult stuff to explain how they able about despite lacking a pulse and not breathing. Or just ignoring trying to explain how they work and focusing on either the threat posed by them (if the protagonists are human) or their lives (if the undead are the protagonists).

I hope this doesn't look like I'm fueling the fire, and I mean no offense, but this is all under the assumption that vampires, zombies, etc. don't have any circulation.

For all we know, that may not be the case. Maybe they do have some form of circulation to an equal or lesser degree. How would we know if a zombie has a pulse or not -- if you try to check a zombie's pulse, you risk getting your hand bitten off.

This is why, when discussing vampirism vs. lycanthropy, I specified that I thought vampirism would be dominant in host that is dead or near-dead; why I posed the question as to whether undead creatures can be considered dead. After all, a synonym for "undead" would be "living dead," and that, of course, is an oxymoron.

So to explain how zombies can move even though they're dead, the answer would simply be that they aren't dead. They look like they're dead, they smell like they're dead, and there's a chance that they used to be dead, but they're not literally dead. Whether the brain itself is still functioning or the virus has overridden the body, there's still something alive in there.

[Goliathe Dark]

Wouldn't someone who had been declared dead from a car crash or something and brought back to life by those electric things or something be considered undead?


Also, I find it rather funny that we have skewed so far off topic with what I've said.

[RedEye]

If you mean a portable Defibrillator, used to restart hearts; then the people involved were never dead; they were dying, yes--but since their brain was still living, they weren't dead.

If you mean Dr. Frankenstein's lightning zapper, then yes; the Monster would qualify as a sort of "not-Dead" person. He was dead, but he got over it...

[blackwolfhell]

In all retrospect. The biting by a werwolf depends on the type of transfer. If it was where blood needed to be inserted into the victim, in this case a vampire, he or her wouldn't contract the disease because their dead already. If the werewolf is virus ridden, they would have no bloodstream to adminster the disease to.

[Aki]

[snip]

Yeah, but two things:
1) They are typically portrayed as undead and that's what I was getting at.
2) The term "undead" is used entirely because they're not literally dead. It's a nice short term that says it's dead, but not quite because it's still moving and wants to eat you. It is, however, not alive simply because it is not dead. If a creature shambles about with it's entails hanging out, it's arm missing and it's body rotting, it's clearly no longer maintaining homeostasis. They also do not grow, do not adapt, nor are they typically depicted as metabolizing anything. That's like, four of the seven requires to be declared "life" that got thrown out the window.

My whole piont is that they can call it "Alive" all the want. It's wrong, however to do so because the creature doesn't mean the minimum requirements for life.

[Terastas]

It is, however, not alive simply because it is not dead. If a creature shambles about with it's entails hanging out, it's arm missing and it's body rotting, it's clearly no longer maintaining homeostasis. They also do not grow, do not adapt, nor are they typically depicted as metabolizing anything. That's like, four of the seven requires to be declared "life" that got thrown out the window.

Okay, fair enough. Still, if that's your definition, could somebody inflicted with leprosy or the Ebola virus also be considered undead? Maybe better off dead in the case of the latter, but the line between death and life doesn't allow for that many gray areas.

[Wingman]

It is, however, not alive simply because it is not dead. If a creature shambles about with it's entails hanging out, it's arm missing and it's body rotting, it's clearly no longer maintaining homeostasis. They also do not grow, do not adapt, nor are they typically depicted as metabolizing anything. That's like, four of the seven requires to be declared "life" that got thrown out the window.

Okay, fair enough. Still, if that's your definition, could somebody inflicted with leprosy or the Ebola virus also be considered undead? Maybe better off dead in the case of the latter, but the line between death and life doesn't allow for that many gray areas.

The only one of those a leper would fit is the rotting bit, and only if they've got an infection. Last I checked the leprosy itself does not cause people to fall apart, it's infections caused from breaks in the skin that they can't feel due to the nerve damage. That still leaves, what? Six of the seven traits of a living being?

Also, there's a different between being Undead and being Dying. Undeath would be a prolonged state in which an absence of lifesigns is the new normal.

Of course, the problem here is the different types of undeath. Zombies are clearly different from vampires, even though they're both undead. The vast majority of vampires would be True Undead, I'm thinking, while zombies would still be classified as Undead due to there being no real need to create an individual classification for them. Or the other way around, depending if if you're simply ranking them according to how many signs of life they lack.

[Terastas]

Of course, the problem here is the different types of undeath. Zombies are clearly different from vampires, even though they're both undead. The vast majority of vampires would be True Undead, I'm thinking, while zombies would still be classified as Undead due to there being no real need to create an individual classification for them. Or the other way around, depending if if you're simply ranking them according to how many signs of life they lack.

How vampires and zombies relate to each other actually depends on what you're using as a reference. In the movie Blade, Quinn describes Karen's former colleague as being a zombie because, despite having been bitten by a vampire, he is mentally deficient and thirst-cursed to the point of being cannibalistic.

Also, the movie Reign in Darkness (which sucked, so I don't recommend looking for it) described how vampires succumb to the thirst as a gradual mental deterioration by which they become more and more savage as it progresses.

It's a definition I borrowed off of for my own writing: in the post-apocalyptic setting, the "zombies" are actually vampires that were starved of untainted blood, resulting in permanent brain damage.

Of course, at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, there are the voodoo zombies, which were never dead to begin with and can, in fact, be "cured" and reintroduced into society. The basic formula for the voodoo zombie story involves the shaman/witchdoctor poisoning their victims with a mixture (puffer fish, among other ingredients) that leaves them paralyzed to the point of appearing dead. Then after the victims have been buried, he digs them back up and (I'm assuming) routinely administers to them a second mixture which acts sort of like a truth serum (IE, intoxicates them and limits their capacity for independent thought) so they can be put to work as slave labor. In the case of voodoo zombies, the zombies overcome their "undead" state as soon as the witchdoctor stops drugging them, after which they eventually "wake up" and may find their way back home.

So a zombie's predominant trait would be an apparent complete lack of coherency as opposed to a state of undeath, much less how they relate to vampires. No offense Wingman; just a little devil's advocacy is all.

[Wingman]

Well, there are still some fundamental differences between zombies and feral vampires. Feral vampires typically possess only a single trait different from normal vampires, higher brain functions.

Though, there is a large amount of overlap between vampires and zombies, same with just about every other supernatural creature.

The primary difference is that zombies rot, or are at least dessicated or with a sickly appearance, while vampires are typically depicted as being "frozen in time, like a photograph.". Likewise, zombies rarely heal wounds, while vampires are usually depicted as quickly healing and returning to the state they were in when vampirized.

Really, in most cases it's just a philosophical wall between two supernatural beings, such as a vampire who possesses werewolf traits as the sole result of his condition.

In all, they're not much more incoherent then anything else. In the same theme as voodoo zombies there are werewolves who are just humans who use a magic garment or salve or potion in order to transform.

[ahzkhal]

Hmmm...

Science in our time is still limited and incapable of giving a solid explanation about these things...
As a theory though
Vampires and werewolves are etheric (half spiritual/half physical) beings which grants them supernatural abilities...
on my research I found that...
Werewolves and vampires are vulnerable to anything, very much affected by sulfur and anything which was traditionally used to combat spirits(since they are part spiritual) and really don't need the pacing of the moon... they are photo phobic but not killed by sunlight... there are also energy vampires(common) and blood sucking ones(rare)... they both eat normal people food also...
Zombies are reanimated corpse using the energies from an external(entities with strong energies) or an internal sources (the remaining energy of the bodies owner who used some heavy magic while his still alive)
His physiological functions are not essential since his body moves through psychokinetic like powers controlled by his master or the dead's powerful soul(trapped by the curse)

In terms of a vampire drinking blood from a werewolf, I think It doesn't really matter... Werewolves and vampires are not contagious...
You need to inherit it, receive a curse or practice some heavy magic to become one. as most reliable sources tells...

No one can really tell and explain about this anyway since we don't really have a werewolf and vampire participants for a research lol...
Hollywood, novels and games are all exaggerated...

[Sheekaka]

I honestly have a hard time buying into vampires. Most of the historical accounts of them have either been simple cannibalism or have actually been connected to cases of werewolves.Also, their tranformation into bats is simply rediculus. It is impossible for a anything to compress it's entire body and still have the abiliy to fly. But, for the sake of argument, lets just say vampires are probable. For a vampire to suck someones blood for sustanance makes enough sense because it is technichly dead and it need to keep the muscles moist enough to function; but for it to be able to drink the blood of some sort of special being and gain that beings strength is simply a sweet dream, especially for werewolves. Think about it, vampires are essentially the reanimated dead............zombies. Vampires don't obtain the abilities of werewolves just as zombies don't become intelligent by eating humans. Not to mention the antibodies in regular wolves, which are probably in werewolves, would eat away at the vampire because it is dead.

Sorry everyone for the pessimism.

Hey dude check out Anne Rice's Vampire chronicles. Those books rock and her version of vampires are about the most believable you can find.

[Berserker]

Hey dude check out Anne Rice's Vampire chronicles. Those books rock and her version of vampires are about the most believable you can find.

Aside from flying, walking on walls, setting people on fire by thought alone, reading minds, etc?

[Terastas]

The primary difference is that zombies rot, or are at least dessicated or with a sickly appearance, while vampires are typically depicted as being "frozen in time, like a photograph.". Likewise, zombies rarely heal wounds, while vampires are usually depicted as quickly healing and returning to the state they were in when vampirized.

Actually, the difference would be that, as I said earlier, zombies are mentally deficient whereas vampires are perfectly coherent. The zombies in voodoo lore, the infected in 28 Days Later and the zombies in Doom 3 were neither rotting nor sickly in appearance. Meanwhile, while I cannot recall any example of a vampire visibly decomposing, not all of them look all that healthy. Most of the vampires I've seen were either pale-skinned and baggy-eyed or covered in several layers of makeup (which I assume vampires use to hide the fact that they're pale-skinned and baggy-eyed).

The word "vampire" also presumes a parasitic and/or bloodsucking nature before undead (vampire bats, for example). It's only with the assumption of undeath upon both of them that they become related.

[blackwolfhell]

Vampires are non-natural. They are created by who knows what. Werewolves exist from a union of human-wolf. Zombies are mentally retarded corpses that the doctors thought were dead but really were alive.

[Bloodyredbaron]

Vampires are non-natural. They are created by who knows what. Werewolves exist from a union of human-wolf. Zombies are mentally retarded corpses that the doctors thought were dead but really were alive.

Biting my tongue...

[blackwolfhell]

bloodyredbaron wrote:
Biting my tongue...

What's that mean?

[heartlessfang]

blackwolfhell-san..... you might wanna fix your post a little bit. your stating thing about creatures that might not really exist as facts....Especially since like werewolves, there are countless interpretations of vampires and zombies. Though I think you did that by accident......

It sounded like you thought you were using the "common knowledge" reasoning when you posted. Just be careful next time, that sort of thing causes arguments here......

[blackwolfhell]

nope. I was actually using my own research. I wrote a book about werewolves. I should have some good arguments to enforce what I know.

[Berserker]

nope. I was actually using my own research. I wrote a book about werewolves. I should have some good arguments to enforce what I know.

Oh really? At only 16, you wrote a book about werewolves? Can we have a link to where we might be able to purchase this book? Methinks you might be fibbing a little bit.

Honestly. No one on this forum, heck no one period, has the authority to say "this is what werewolves are, and it is a fact." (That's not what you did, but heartlessfang was claiming it sounded that way.)

[heartlessfang]

nope. I was actually using my own research. I wrote a book about werewolves. I should have some good arguments to enforce what I know.

The problem is that instead of stating that your creatures were that way, you said that ALL creatures of that type are that way. We all have different ideas and versions of those creatures, so it wouldn't be right to make an assumption that all are of that type and only that type that you have suggested.

Your rules and research only apply to your own creatures.

In short, I completely agree with Berserker-san.

*******

Back on topic: I think that the BIOHAZARD game (better known as Resident Evil) Zombies can be a good basis for this discussion. For example, they are victims of a manufactured virus called the T virus. Um.....I'll need to came back with more data on them later....I think the Victims become mostly brain dead, but are clinically still alive.