THE PACK Message Boards

We've had plenty of threads comparring werewolves and vampires, and the big thing against vampires is the fact that they are undead. Werewolves may or may not murder and maim depending on how you regard the issue of control, but vampires are defined primarily by the consumption of blood. That said, being a werewolf would be much better for one's karma.

Oh yeah, and then there's the whole garlic and sunlight issue. Sure, if we can use garlic and sunlight against vampires, they can use silver against werewolves, but that only hurts if it gets in their system, right?

Terastas wrote:We've had plenty of threads comparring werewolves and vampires, and the big thing against vampires is the fact that they are undead. Werewolves may or may not murder and maim depending on how you regard the issue of control, but vampires are defined primarily by the consumption of blood. That said, being a werewolf would be much better for one's karma.

Oh yeah, and then there's the whole garlic and sunlight issue. Sure, if we can use garlic and sunlight against vampires, they can use silver against werewolves, but that only hurts if it gets in their system, right?

According to folklore Vampires were also vulnerable to silver, not as commonly mentioned as Iron weaknesses due to silver being hard for commoners to get ahold of. As I recall it, mirros had silver backings, as opposed to aluminum today, and as Silver represented Christ, and glass the holy ghost (God the father is represented via Gold) a vampire had no reflection, and could even be harmed with silver.
Maybe why some modern vampire fiction has added silver as a vampire weakness.

But if all Christian holy symbols hurt vampires this means they are also vulnerable to gold and glass. I broken bottle makes an effective weapon then.

and salt, they can't cross salt. A vampire was just full of weaknesses.

Yeah nor sand. If you throw sand or a net at them they are forced to count every grain or net notch.....weird....

deruty wrote:Yeah nor sand. If you throw sand or a net at them they are forced to count every grain or net notch.....weird....

I NEVER understood the origin of that, and Must find out why that is Classified with Vamps so Much.

And I'm probably one of the few that Likes both Vamps and weres. However, i do think Weres have a bit of an advantage over vamps, but vamps also have some advantages over Weres. it all depends on how you look at it.

Many Mainstream Meadia has shown that Were's are forced to Change to some degree during the Moonlight of a Full moon, yet Vamps are still the same, whether full moon or not.

On a Similiar note is the Whole "Sun kills Vamps". now, here's a little thing for all fo you to ponder. You hate mainstream media, yet isn't Vampires being killed by Sunlight Mainstream Media? I can understand weakened a little, but as long as they were a little SPF 5000 I'm sure they'd be fine

Also, Vampires can be cool and Unique if portrayed in the right light ((*badump Tsh*)) It all depends on how they are portrayed.

personally though, I think Were's Win. If only because of the Shifting ability

Like in teh X-Files episode... Mulder likens it to a Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which he then exploits.

Very few vampires in folklore were actaully killed by sunlight, some new world types were, but most old world vampires were either stunned by sunlight (couldn't move it caught in it) or vanished and went back to their graves, Noteing that most vampires were actaully ghosts not corpses and the body was the housing (like a haunted object) destroy the host and the ghost vanishes.

The counting thing is fairly common world wide for blood suckers. Rice, grains of salt, sand, broom twigs, sticks, feathers, even beads. Vampires in folklore were pretty easy to avoid if you knew how.


If you took a vampire with (all its weaknesses) and a werewolf with (all its weaknesses) I would think the werewolf would win. But I wouldn't even see those two fight, more like crawl into a corner and start shakeing from some Gaiaphobia (fear of the world as so many things could hurt them or distract them)

Rhuen wrote:The counting thing is fairly common world wide for blood suckers. Rice, grains of salt, sand, broom twigs, sticks, feathers, even beads. Vampires in folklore were pretty easy to avoid if you knew how.

The counting thing is pretty common in legends for a wide variety of magical beings: ogres, fairy creatures, poltergeists. I've even seen it applied, on rare occasions, to actual werewolves. Sometimes it could be a large collection of any small object (pins, sticks, grains of sand), but in many cases it had to be seeds (grains of wheat, beans). Sometimes the magical being had to attempt to cross the objects in order to be forced into counting them, other times they had to be thrown at the creature before it was forced to count them. On rare occasions, the creature could be forced away by throwing the objects at it instead of being forced to count them.

Border Walker wrote: On a Similiar note is the Whole "Sun kills Vamps". now, here's a little thing for all fo you to ponder. You hate mainstream media, yet isn't Vampires being killed by Sunlight Mainstream Media? I can understand weakened a little, but as long as they were a little SPF 5000 I'm sure they'd be fine

yes. actually, the whole "die in sunlight" thing was invented for F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent film Nosferatu.

Werewolves get a 10.0 out of 10.0 in style points.

And about the counting small objects thing... If I'm being tracked down by a vampire, I'll throw some air at it and it'll have to count all of the particles I've thrown. That'll give me 800 or so years before the vamp is finished counting.

Werewolves of course!
I was reading a thread like this on myspace somewhere today...half of em thought vamps would win. Saying stuff like Werewolves can not think when changed, only mind-less killing machines Blah.
And I guess it depends on what powers the vamps have. Turning into fog, flying, shapeshifting, super strong, super fast, whatever.
Though all a ww would have to do is chomp down on them like the neck and its over.

If there is one thing I am tired of its werewolves playing second fiddle to vampires and either being their servants or their slaves. Seems someone has confused werewolves with hell hounds
(which served sorcerers not vampires anyway)

Even Trinity Blood had a werewolf playing as a pet to vampires, granted I get the feeling both are not their mythical versions but some artificial lifeforms.

the vampire has got to be the most overly exagerated monster ever in modern folklore. Nothing else has gone so far from its originals. from bloodsucking ghosts and zombies to god like lords of the night.

Remarkable? If you look at various mythological creatures and how they're portrayed in movies and books, you'll find it's downright common. Even the werewolf went through such an evolution.

Set wrote:Remarkable? If you look at various mythological creatures and how they're portrayed in movies and books, you'll find it's downright common. Even the werewolf went through such an evolution.

It is indeed, quite common.

Try reading fairy folklore. It ain't a bunch of 3-inch-tall women with insect wings, and it ain't like Tolkien's elves either.

Try reading the bible. Angel's aren't described as people with big white wings dressed in robes, with halos over their heads.

Nearly every stereotypical creature in modern fiction has deviated widely from the original non-fiction sources on said creature.

Best exagerated creature has got to be the European Dragon. a six foot lizard with wings that spits poison. compared to Dragon Heart or D&D. Then again the modern dragon is an amalgom of all the dragon like creatures found around the world that were much more impressive than the european version.

Yeah have you seen Reign of Fire? Its like those dragons are unstoppable.

It depends on the type of Vampire/werewolf fighting, and their strengths and weaknesses

true, like in underworld. the werewolves are stronger and faster but the vampires are more agile and can jump higher.

Not to mention they were over all more cunning. The werewolves seemed stupid and unorgainized in Underworld

Depends on what folklore, or universe's lore is used really.

But speaking generally, on Vampires:

They're dead. This isn't so much a bad thing as it seems.

You know how strong guys can lift like 800 pound weights a few times before being totally exhausted? That's because of being alive - because of lactic acid produced by the body. This means a living being can only act at its' peak for short periods of times, and if they push themselves they'll wear out their reserves.

This gives the vampire an advantage. He is dead. His body produces nothing. He can operate at his peak at all times. He will never tire out, thus a werewolf is forced to take him out quickly, or try to last till dawn. Risky propositions.

Additionally. He does not breathe. He cannot be drowned, cannot suffocate, cannot die of smoke inhalation.

He lives forever. He has forever to plan. This is really bad if he's smart. Since he can plot out and execute a plot over a long period of time with no worry of growing old before it reaches fruition.

Aside from extreme cold or heat (like fire) he's got nothing to worry from temperature. So long as he's not freezing solid chances of him freezing to "death" are kinda non-existant.

So you've got an untiring blood sucking corpse that's smart and can use his strength to its' full extent every second of his conscious existance. Adding age to this makes him more deadly. Furthermore some manners of killing him are ruled out by his undead existance.

He mght even have powers usually attributed to a vampire, etc.

But personally, I prefer Werewolves, for the following reasons:

- I like the sun. Vampires are relegated to darkness for the rest of eternity.
- Turning in a wolf or wolf-like creature = instant cool points.
- While not possessing the limitless endurance of a non-living body, lycanthropes borrow the wolf's high endurance and usually are much stronger than a human.
- You can keep your old lifestyle for the most part. With a vampire you go nocturnal and run around biting necks.
- Claws and Fangs. Vampires do have fangs - but only two. Werewolves have many more, and a more powerful jaw.
- Speed. As fast as a vampire must be (being able to run at full sprint without tiring) you can't beat four legs.

etc.

But battles can go either way. I once played a game in Whitewolf's "World of Darkness" as a Vampire. I, with on other vampire (who was used as bait) managed to drop three werewolves.

Might've lost if one hadn't been so braindead as to swing at me when I had his friend hostage. He hit the friend (which is OW, the guy had an axe) and well, the friend failed his "resist raging and killing s***" roll, so he shifted into the gigantic Crinos form and tore apart his buddy, meanwhile the third wolf flees and I killed the shifted one with a single stroke (My guy was made geared toward combat...and had a silver sword. ) the third wolf attacked my buddy, beat on him, I struck him too. Deader than a doornail.

I got such awesome rolls with that character. Luckiest vampire ever. I thought I was SOL when the guy managed to transform.

the vampire has got to be the most overly exagerated monster ever in modern folklore. Nothing else has gone so far from its originals. from bloodsucking ghosts and zombies to god like lords of the night.

Actually,

The Zombie's changed more: Originally were people put under a voodoo spell to serve a zombie-master. They were however, quite alive and free of desire to munch on brains.

Now?

Undead brain-eater. Now with the hollywood addition of being a transferable via-bite condition.

If there is one thing I am tired of its werewolves playing second fiddle to vampires and either being their servants or their slaves.

Yeah. I'd like to see the reverse sometime.

you know, shadow wulf, i never really liked underworld. man, those weres are ugly! i mean, they are basically just strong, necked people with weird shaped heads. way too little fur for a were.

whatever. you can like 'em if you want. we're differnt people.

On the zombie, name wise yes they changed brain washed people into brain eating bodies. But I see a heavy borrowing from the Algul and its descendent the Ghoul in modern zombies.

combining monsters of old to make new ones and borrowing terms and such from other cultures seems to work for horror movie makers, and the zombie has to be the biggest success of that lot.

On underworld, it felt off. The werewolves were all bums living in the sewers while their rivals were rich snobs living in mansions. Plus anyone else notice a lack of female werewolves?

Rhuen wrote: On underworld, it felt off. The werewolves were all bums living in the sewers while their rivals were rich snobs living in mansions. Plus anyone else notice a lack of female werewolves?

That's probably so they could use the same suits over and over.

Budgets and all. Female suits cost money.

Well there were was only one female werewolf that I saw in the first one and its onlt for about 2 seconds. Anyway you figure that a male and a female werewolf would look similar. Just look at a regular wolf or dog, can you really tell the difference between a male and female right off the back? Same thing goes for werewolves.

Well I was also refering to the human actors/extras in the underground scenes that are supposed to be the whole clan of werewolves. You see almost no women there at all.