Vampire reflections: can you see their clothes?

[Zath, the Spider God of Zamora]

Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

jh

[Damador @wp.pl.pl>]

When: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 07:49:27 -0700

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

in most books they are all invisible (with cloths and items in hands etc)

[Chris Basken]

"Zath, the Spider God of Zamora" wrote...

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

IMHO, it's not the physics of bending light, it's messing with your mind, so
they're "not there," clothes and all.

[Ian R. Malcomson]

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

That depends whether you want the comedy vampire, or the scary one.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?
jh

Be pretty odd if you could. I assume not, at least in all my games
and in my own writing.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes no
sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes
no sense.

No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible too.

Just think of a Vampire as being invisible in the mirror - in the sense
of the invisibility spell.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped 127.0.0.1 and said

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Kevin Lowe
Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes no
sense.

No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible too.

You don't understand the D&D magic system?

[127.0.0.1]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Kevin Lowe
Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it

makes no >> sense.

Post by 127.0.0.1
No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible too.

You don't understand the D&D magic system?

Having never personally cast any of the spells within the system I'd
say no-one here understands it.

Many have opinions, and I consider my opinions reasonable even if they
differ from yours.

[Tymophil]

Post by Robert Singers

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Kevin Lowe
Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes
no sense.

No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible too.

You don't understand the D&D magic system?

What does that mean ? Can you EXPLAIN this system ? What is so special about
it ? What explanation can make it obvious that cothes are invisible too ?

[Rob Singers]

Tymophil startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

Post by Tymophil

Post by Robert Singers
You don't understand the D&D magic system?

What does that mean ? Can you EXPLAIN this system ? What is so special
about it ? What explanation can make it obvious that cothes are
invisible too ?

Read the Invisibility spell and you'll be able to tell why the spell
recipiants clothes are also invisible. If you don't understand then I very
much doubt anything can be explained to you.

[Tymophil]

Post by Rob Singers

Post by Tymophil

Post by Robert Singers
You don't understand the D&D magic system?

What does that mean ? Can you EXPLAIN this system ? What is so
special about it ? What explanation can make it obvious that cothes
are invisible too ?

Read the Invisibility spell and you'll be able to tell why the spell
recipiants clothes are also invisible. If you don't understand then
I very much doubt anything can be explained to you.

Tell me more about the Magic *system*, not just the effect/description of a
certain spell. You seem to *know* what D&D magic is all about. Anyone (even
me, with english not being my native language) can read the
description/effect of a spell, but you seem to know what the whole thing is
all about. This is what I am eager to learn from you...

From the reading of the spell effects, I know the clothes are invisible. But
then, why are they ? Just because it says so ? There is no reason given for
the gear being invisible in the Player's Handbook (p.245). So what about the
"D&D magic system" ?

Personnally, I prefer a spell with no explanation, just a description... Is
that *your* so-called "D&D magic system" ?

Anyway, does the no-reflection feature of a Vampire reflect the effects of
an invisibility spell ? Where is it written ? The Monster Manual 3.5 is not
transtated in French yet (my native language) and I only have the Player's
Handbook in English (and Dungeon Master Guide in French). Enlight me and
point me to the rule you seem to refer to.

On the other hand, does all kind of invisibility have to duplicate the
effect of the spell ? Where is it written ?

[Rob Singers]

Tymophil startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom
[snip]

Post by Tymophil
On the other hand, does all kind of invisibility have to duplicate the
effect of the spell ? Where is it written ?

You are aware I was replying to a post? Go back read it and then read the
Invisibility spell description. Being French isn't an excuse for being
lazy or stupid - well not all the time anyway.

[Tymophil]

Post by Rob Singers
[snip]

Post by Tymophil
On the other hand, does all kind of invisibility have to duplicate
the effect of the spell ? Where is it written ?

You are aware I was replying to a post? Go back read it and then
read the Invisibility spell description. Being French isn't an
excuse for being lazy or stupid - well not all the time anyway.

The point is that you DID NOT answer the post...

Somebody told :
" No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible too."
You replied :
" You don't understand the D&D magic system? "

This raised my curiosity, as I was not aware that there was a *D&D magic
system* that could explain *why* clothes are invisible too, beyond the spell
description anyway... I mean, it says it is invisible if worn, and doesn't
extend more than 30 feet from the object or character, that's all. It
doesn't say *why* it is this way... Can you ?

Therefore I asked :
" What does that mean ? Can you *explain* this system ? What is so special
about
it ? What explanation can make it obvious that clothes are invisible too ?"

Your answer was :
"Read the Invisibility spell and you'll be able to tell why the spell
recipiants clothes are also invisible. If you don't understand then I very
much doubt anything can be explained to you."

I asked you to elaborate on your so-called *system*. You did not... I guess
you *cannot* elaborate on a so-called D&D Magic System. There is no
explanation for the invisible spell being able to hide cothes, just a
description.

By the way, spare me your rudeness please... You did not answer, and being
rude does a poor job at hiding the lack of answer.

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Tymophil
This raised my curiosity, as I was not aware that there was a *D&D magic
system* that could explain *why* clothes are invisible too, beyond the spell
description anyway...

D&D has a long standing tradition of considering your equipment in many
ways a part of you; your defenses protect your gear against attack, for
instance, a touch spell can nail you through your shield, enlarge grows you
and your equipment, polymporph melds it ... Consequently, it is consistent
with the system's conventions that something which makes "you" invisible
will certainly make "you and your belongings" invisible. That said, there's
an exception to almost everything somewhere.

-Michael

[Tymophil]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Tymophil
This raised my curiosity, as I was not aware that there was a *D&D
magic system* that could explain *why* clothes are invisible too,
beyond the spell description anyway...

D&D has a long standing tradition of considering your equipment
in many ways a part of you; your defenses protect your gear against
attack, for instance, a touch spell can nail you through your shield,
enlarge grows you and your equipment, polymporph melds it ...
Consequently, it is consistent with the system's conventions that
something which makes "you" invisible will certainly make "you and
your belongings" invisible. That said, there's an exception to
almost everything somewhere.

Okay, this I would have understood... But the "professor" did not talk about
a "long tradition", he talked about a *system*, that I was too dumb to find
in the spell description...

Now, I want him to tell me where his system is...

[Stephenls]

Post by Tymophil
Okay, this I would have understood... But the "professor" did not talk about
a "long tradition", he talked about a *system*, that I was too dumb to find
in the spell description...
Now, I want him to tell me where his system is...

I believe Mr. Singers is a proponent of the "It's a mystic blind spot,
not transparency" opinion. Which is wrong. GO INVISIBLE DOORS!

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Stephenls and said

Post by Stephenls
I believe Mr. Singers is a proponent of the "It's a mystic blind spot,
not transparency" opinion. Which is wrong. GO INVISIBLE DOORS!

Well that's one way of discribing my position. But it's irrelevant to the
discussion at hand. If we're talking about using the mechanics of a role
playing game system, and whether you use the transparency or mystical blind
spot model, you don't just choose to ignore half a spell or magical effects
description if you're *actually* playing the game you say you are.

Burke obviously chooses to ignore a lot of what is contained in the rules
or simply fails to understand it to any real extent - hence my comment.

This Tymophil also appears to suffer from Burke's delusions of adequecy and
if he doesn't want to end up another group prision bitch should probably
learn not to contradict himself in a thread or generally make a pratt of
himself.

I mean to say how long does a position like

"By the way, spare me your rudeness please... You did not answer, and being
rude does a poor job at hiding the lack of answer."

last around here?

If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

[Werebat]

Post by Robert Singers
If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

Fuck off.

- Ron ^*^

[Werebat]

Post by Werebat

Post by Robert Singers
If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

Fuck off.

Pardonez-moi, s'il-vous plait... Actualemente, je suis seulement
demi-francais. Alors, si je voudrais jeter le mot mal a vous, if faut
necessaire pour moi jeter les deux mots mals.

Bonhomme desagreable.

Tete de pamplemousse.

- Ron ^*^

[Sir Bob]

Post by Werebat

Post by Werebat

Post by Robert Singers
If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

Fuck off.

Pardonez-moi, s'il-vous plait... Actualemente, je suis seulement
demi-francais. Alors, si je voudrais jeter le mot mal a vous, if faut
necessaire pour moi jeter les deux mots mals.
Bonhomme desagreable.
Tete de pamplemousse.

My French is rusty, but did you just call him a grapefruit-head?

- Sir Bob.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Werebat and said

Post by Werebat

Post by Robert Singers
If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

Fuck off.

No if you don't like it you go. Go on. Go I dare ya.

[Tymophil]

Post by Robert Singers

Post by Stephenls
I believe Mr. Singers is a proponent of the "It's a mystic blind
spot, not transparency" opinion. Which is wrong. GO INVISIBLE
DOORS!

Well that's one way of discribing my position. But it's irrelevant
to the discussion at hand. If we're talking about using the
mechanics of a role playing game system, and whether you use the
transparency or mystical blind spot model, you don't just choose to
ignore half a spell or magical effects description if you're
*actually* playing the game you say you are.
Burke obviously chooses to ignore a lot of what is contained in the
rules or simply fails to understand it to any real extent - hence my
comment.
This Tymophil also appears to suffer from Burke's delusions of
adequecy and if he doesn't want to end up another group prision bitch
should probably learn not to contradict himself in a thread or
generally make a pratt of himself.
I mean to say how long does a position like
"By the way, spare me your rudeness please... You did not answer, and
being rude does a poor job at hiding the lack of answer."
last around here?
If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

Mon très cher ami,

Votre inculture crasse est déjà affligeante. Il se trouve que vous avez, par
un curieux tour que semble vous avoir joué facétieuse Dame Nature,
l'indécence de la doubler d'un manque d'urbanité parfaitement sidérant. Si
les échanges électroniquement épistolaires de cette réunion de beaux esprits
est à l'aune de votre cuistrerie, il ne me sied point d'y participer plus
avant. Ne dit-on pas dis-moi qui tu hantes, je te dirais qui tu es ?.. A
Dieu ne plaise que je vous ressemble.

I have an edge over you... I can understand what you try to say (or hide),
and see where your education (in the broader sense of the word) is faulty...
But I won't resort to insult nor so-called irony because I have been taught
some manners.

Anyway, you never answered my question, what is the *magic system* you
talked about when you replied : " You don't understand the D&D magic system?
" to " No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible
too."

Especially, when it comes to invisibility. All I see in the spell
description is a way to have a spell that will make invisibility work the
way most fantasy fans would want it to work, without making it too powerful.
Is this what you call a "system" ?..

Regards...

[James Quick]

In article <3fa6d860$0$15257$***@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>,
"Tymophil" <***@noos.fr> wrote:

Tymophil did not attribute, but i think this was said by robert

Post by Tymophil

Post by Robert Singers
I mean to say how long does a position like
"By the way, spare me your rudeness please... You did not answer, and
being rude does a poor job at hiding the lack of answer."
last around here?
If nothing the irony of being called rude by a French person is amusing.

Mon très cher ami,
Votre inculture crasse est déjà affligeante. Il se trouve que vous avez, par
un curieux tour que semble vous avoir joué facétieuse Dame Nature,
l'indécence de la doubler d'un manque d'urbanité parfaitement sidérant. Si
les échanges électroniquement épistolaires de cette réunion de beaux esprits
est à l'aune de votre cuistrerie, il ne me sied point d'y participer plus
avant. Ne dit-on pas dis-moi qui tu hantes, je te dirais qui tu es ?.. A
Dieu ne plaise que je vous ressemble.
I have an edge over you... I can understand what you try to say (or hide),
and see where your education (in the broader sense of the word) is faulty...
But I won't resort to insult nor so-called irony because I have been taught
some manners.

Liar. You have been insulting, and are as poorly bred as Burke is to
try to claim otherwise in a post with insults in it. Do you think no
one here speaks your language? You have no edge over anyone else who
is multilingual.

Post by Tymophil
Anyway, you never answered my question, what is the *magic system* you
talked about when you replied : " You don't understand the D&D magic system?
" to " No more sense than invisibility causing clothes to become invisible
too."
Especially, when it comes to invisibility. All I see in the spell
description is a way to have a spell that will make invisibility work the
way most fantasy fans would want it to work, without making it too powerful.
Is this what you call a "system" ?..

Magic typically treats the possession the same as the possessor. If it
makes you invisible, it makes the itmes you possess invisible. That
general rule is part of the system.

[Tymophil]

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
Mon très cher ami,
Votre inculture crasse est déjà affligeante. Il se trouve que vous
avez, par un curieux tour que semble vous avoir joué facétieuse Dame
Nature, l'indécence de la doubler d'un manque d'urbanité
parfaitement sidérant. Si les échanges électroniquement épistolaires
de cette réunion de beaux esprits est à l'aune de votre cuistrerie,
il ne me sied point d'y participer plus avant. Ne dit-on pas dis-moi
qui tu hantes, je te dirais qui tu es ?.. A Dieu ne plaise que je
vous ressemble.
I have an edge over you... I can understand what you try to say (or
hide), and see where your education (in the broader sense of the
word) is faulty... But I won't resort to insult nor so-called irony
because I have been taught some manners.

Liar. You have been insulting, and are as poorly bred as Burke is to
try to claim otherwise in a post with insults in it. Do you think no
one here speaks your language? You have no edge over anyone else who
is multilingual.

So ??? Can you translate what I wrote please ? I am sure I shall find it
enlighting, because I would be at loss to do it myself.

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
Anyway, you never answered my question, what is the *magic system*
you talked about when you replied : " You don't understand the D&D
magic system? " to " No more sense than invisibility causing clothes
to become invisible too."
Especially, when it comes to invisibility. All I see in the spell
description is a way to have a spell that will make invisibility
work the way most fantasy fans would want it to work, without making
it too powerful. Is this what you call a "system" ?..

Magic typically treats the possession the same as the possessor. If it
makes you invisible, it makes the itmes you possess invisible. That
general rule is part of the system.

If so, why is the size of the object important ? If the object is too big,
extending too far from the wearer, it is seen. Anyway the problem lies
elsewhere. Where is D&D magic _system_ described ? Where the rule you
produce is written ?

I would agree with somebody saying "From the reading of several spells I
drew the conclusion that the idea behind it all is that one..." This is not
what my "freiend" does...

[James Quick]

Post by Tymophil

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
Mon très cher ami,
Votre inculture crasse est déjà affligeante. Il se trouve que vous
avez, par un curieux tour que semble vous avoir joué facétieuse Dame
Nature, l'indécence de la doubler d'un manque d'urbanité
parfaitement sidérant. Si les échanges électroniquement épistolaires
de cette réunion de beaux esprits est à l'aune de votre cuistrerie,
il ne me sied point d'y participer plus avant. Ne dit-on pas dis-moi
qui tu hantes, je te dirais qui tu es ?.. A Dieu ne plaise que je
vous ressemble.
I have an edge over you... I can understand what you try to say (or
hide), and see where your education (in the broader sense of the
word) is faulty... But I won't resort to insult nor so-called irony
because I have been taught some manners.

Liar. You have been insulting, and are as poorly bred as Burke is to
try to claim otherwise in a post with insults in it. Do you think no
one here speaks your language? You have no edge over anyone else who
is multilingual.

So ??? Can you translate what I wrote please ? I am sure I shall find it
enlighting, because I would be at loss to do it myself.

It is extremely difficult to do so (and my French is ages out of use,
so I am not sure of all the terms, though some seem to be missplet and
the word order choices do not seem natural for French, but i digress),
and I won't risk ridicule here to do so, but I did get the gist of it,
and recognized insulting terms within it. Do you deny that?

Post by Tymophil

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
Anyway, you never answered my question, what is the *magic system*
you talked about when you replied : " You don't understand the D&D
magic system? " to " No more sense than invisibility causing clothes
to become invisible too."
Especially, when it comes to invisibility. All I see in the spell
description is a way to have a spell that will make invisibility
work the way most fantasy fans would want it to work, without making
it too powerful. Is this what you call a "system" ?..

Magic typically treats the possession the same as the possessor. If it
makes you invisible, it makes the itmes you possess invisible. That
general rule is part of the system.

If so, why is the size of the object important ? If the object is too big,
extending too far from the wearer, it is seen. Anyway the problem lies
elsewhere. Where is D&D magic _system_ described ? Where the rule you
produce is written ?

The rules are not explicit, they are implicit from a critical reading
of the rules that are explicit. One can employ logic and deduction to
determine what the overall magic system's rules are by reading and
understanding the written parts of it.

Post by Tymophil
I would agree with somebody saying "From the reading of several spells I
drew the conclusion that the idea behind it all is that one..." This is not
what my "freiend" does...

Actually, it is. He just expected you to do the same.

[Tymophil]

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
Mon très cher ami,
Votre inculture crasse est déjà affligeante. Il se trouve que vous
avez, par un curieux tour que semble vous avoir joué facétieuse
Dame Nature, l'indécence de la doubler d'un manque d'urbanité
parfaitement sidérant. Si les échanges électroniquement
épistolaires de cette réunion de beaux esprits est à l'aune de
votre cuistrerie, il ne me sied point d'y participer plus avant.
Ne dit-on pas dis-moi qui tu hantes, je te dirais qui tu es ?.. A
Dieu ne plaise que je vous ressemble.
I have an edge over you... I can understand what you try to say (or
hide), and see where your education (in the broader sense of the
word) is faulty... But I won't resort to insult nor so-called irony
because I have been taught some manners.

Liar. You have been insulting, and are as poorly bred as Burke is to
try to claim otherwise in a post with insults in it. Do you think no
one here speaks your language? You have no edge over anyone else who
is multilingual.

So ??? Can you translate what I wrote please ? I am sure I shall
find it enlighting, because I would be at loss to do it myself.

It is extremely difficult to do so (and my French is ages out of use,
so I am not sure of all the terms, though some seem to be missplet and
the word order choices do not seem natural for French, but i digress),
and I won't risk ridicule here to do so, but I did get the gist of it,
and recognized insulting terms within it. Do you deny that?

I do...

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
Anyway, you never answered my question, what is the *magic system*
you talked about when you replied : " You don't understand the D&D
magic system? " to " No more sense than invisibility causing
clothes to become invisible too."
Especially, when it comes to invisibility. All I see in the spell
description is a way to have a spell that will make invisibility
work the way most fantasy fans would want it to work, without
making it too powerful. Is this what you call a "system" ?..

Magic typically treats the possession the same as the possessor. If
it makes you invisible, it makes the itmes you possess invisible.
That general rule is part of the system.

If so, why is the size of the object important ? If the object is
too big, extending too far from the wearer, it is seen. Anyway the
problem lies elsewhere. Where is D&D magic _system_ described ?
Where the rule you produce is written ?

The rules are not explicit, they are implicit from a critical reading
of the rules that are explicit. One can employ logic and deduction to
determine what the overall magic system's rules are by reading and
understanding the written parts of it.

So the reading of the sole description of the invisibility spell would not
suffice...

Post by James Quick

Post by Tymophil
I would agree with somebody saying "From the reading of several
spells I drew the conclusion that the idea behind it all is that
one..." This is not what my "freiend" does...

Actually, it is. He just expected you to do the same.

Where ?

[Michael Scott Brown]

At the risk of interjecting some maturity into the matter - cut the
French bashing already.

-Michael

[Rob Singers]

Michael Scott Brown startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words of wisdom

Post by Michael Scott Brown
At the risk of interjecting some maturity into the matter - cut the
French bashing already.

We're following your lead. If it's stupid and it sticks it's head out it's
a target. So the question is why are you putting on your bullseye t-shirt
today?

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Tymophil

Post by James Quick
It is extremely difficult to do so (and my French is ages out of use,
so I am not sure of all the terms, though some seem to be missplet and
the word order choices do not seem natural for French, but i digress),
and I won't risk ridicule here to do so, but I did get the gist of it,
and recognized insulting terms within it. Do you deny that?

I do...

Then you are a liar.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped James Quick and said

Post by James Quick
Liar. You have been insulting, and are as poorly bred as Burke is to
try to claim otherwise in a post with insults in it. Do you think no
one here speaks your language? You have no edge over anyone else who
is multilingual.

Actually I think he fancies me.

[Sir Bob]

Post by Tymophil

Post by Rob Singers

Post by Tymophil

Post by Robert Singers
You don't understand the D&D magic system?

What does that mean ? Can you EXPLAIN this system ? What is so
special about it ? What explanation can make it obvious that cothes
are invisible too ?

Read the Invisibility spell and you'll be able to tell why the spell
recipiants clothes are also invisible. If you don't understand then
I very much doubt anything can be explained to you.

Tell me more about the Magic *system*, not just the effect/description of a
certain spell. You seem to *know* what D&D magic is all about. Anyone (even
me, with english not being my native language) can read the
description/effect of a spell, but you seem to know what the whole thing is
all about. This is what I am eager to learn from you...
From the reading of the spell effects, I know the clothes are invisible. But
then, why are they ? Just because it says so ? There is no reason given for
the gear being invisible in the Player's Handbook (p.245). So what about the
"D&D magic system" ?
Personnally, I prefer a spell with no explanation, just a description... Is
that *your* so-called "D&D magic system" ?

<snip>

False dichotomy, my friend - lack of a (pseudo)scientific "explanation" does
not imply lack of internal consistency.

- Sir Bob.

[Coby]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes no
sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

Has it got to do with silver backing somehow? Still doesn't make a ton of
sense but at least then you could explain the not-seeing-their-clothes feature
(their cloud of evil obscures more than just their immediate person).

Could one see a vampire's reflection in a strip of shiny metal? In a puddle
of water? How 'bout mercury?

[Tymophil]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes
no sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

What do you mean by "make sense" ? Does one need an explanation for
everything ? When will an explanation make sense ?

[Coby]

Post by Tymophil

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes
no sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

What do you mean by "make sense" ? Does one need an explanation for
everything ? When will an explanation make sense ?

Perhaps the poster was referring to internal consistency. While one may not
need an explanation for everything, one would probably be more satisfied with
a reasonable explanation than "it just is."

[Tymophil]

Post by Coby

Post by Tymophil

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes
no sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

What do you mean by "make sense" ? Does one need an explanation for
everything ? When will an explanation make sense ?

Perhaps the poster was referring to internal consistency. While one
may not need an explanation for everything, one would probably be
more satisfied with a reasonable explanation than "it just is."

Isn't it D&D about mystery ? I believe that there are way too much
"explanations" in D&D right now...

[Sir Bob]

Post by Tymophil

Post by Coby

Post by Tymophil

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about
their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes
no sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

What do you mean by "make sense" ? Does one need an explanation for
everything ? When will an explanation make sense ?

Perhaps the poster was referring to internal consistency. While one
may not need an explanation for everything, one would probably be
more satisfied with a reasonable explanation than "it just is."

Isn't it D&D about mystery ? I believe that there are way too much
"explanations" in D&D right now...

Heh - when folks say this, they usually mean "too few openings for the DM to
arbitrarity screw the players by changing the basic nature of the gameworld
*after* they've generated their characters". ;)

- Sir Bob.

[Tymophil]

Post by Sir Bob

Post by Tymophil
Isn't it D&D about mystery ? I believe that there are way too much
"explanations" in D&D right now...

Heh - when folks say this, they usually mean "too few openings for
the DM to arbitrarity screw the players by changing the basic nature
of the gameworld *after* they've generated their characters". ;)

Blood and guts ! I am discovered ! ;)

Anyway, being told about the shape of the Planes is rather boring for me as
a player and as a DM... Even having stats for some entities is simply
killing and magic for me. There are too many figures and not enough faces...

[Werebat]

Post by Coby

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes no
sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

Has it got to do with silver backing somehow? Still doesn't make a ton of
sense but at least then you could explain the not-seeing-their-clothes feature
(their cloud of evil obscures more than just their immediate person).
Could one see a vampire's reflection in a strip of shiny metal? In a puddle
of water? How 'bout mercury?

Or your own retina?

- Ron ^*^

[Stephenls]

Post by Coby
Has it got to do with silver backing somehow?

I believe that was the original explanation for that.

Personally, I don't worry about it. Vampires don't have reflections
because, well, it's cool. Their clothes also don't have reflections
because if they did, it wouldn't be cool -- it'd look silly.

Of course, I'm probably going to run with Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust
style vampires if I ever use one in a D&D game in the future -- in the
presence of a vampire, lights extinguish, plants die, animals cower,
water freezes, mirrors crack, and holy symbols tarnish or warp.
Basically they're big "Hi, I'm evil!" beacons.

[Sir Bob]

Post by Stephenls

Post by Coby
Has it got to do with silver backing somehow?

I believe that was the original explanation for that.
Personally, I don't worry about it. Vampires don't have reflections
because, well, it's cool. Their clothes also don't have reflections
because if they did, it wouldn't be cool -- it'd look silly.
Of course, I'm probably going to run with Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust
style vampires if I ever use one in a D&D game in the future -- in the
presence of a vampire, lights extinguish, plants die, animals cower,
water freezes, mirrors crack, and holy symbols tarnish or warp.
Basically they're big "Hi, I'm evil!" beacons.

If I recall correctly, vampires in the Vampire Hunter D universe also vary
in physical form depending upon the dramatic needs of the current scene (up
to and including inexplicably becoming ten feet tall when intimidating the
rabble) and have the capacity to lose metric tonnes of blood (artfully
splattered all over the landscape, of course) without dying. ;)

- Sir Bob.

[Stephenls]

Post by Sir Bob
If I recall correctly, vampires in the Vampire Hunter D universe also vary
in physical form depending upon the dramatic needs of the current scene (up
to and including inexplicably becoming ten feet tall when intimidating the
rabble) and have the capacity to lose metric tonnes of blood (artfully
splattered all over the landscape, of course) without dying. ;)

In the first VHD, maybe. The second one is much better about that sort
of thing, possibly because upon a second viewing, the first VHD sucks.
VHD: Bloodlust doesn't.

[Nikolas Landauer]

Post by Stephenls

Post by Sir Bob
If I recall correctly, vampires in the Vampire Hunter D universe also vary
in physical form depending upon the dramatic needs of the current scene (up
to and including inexplicably becoming ten feet tall when intimidating the
rabble) and have the capacity to lose metric tonnes of blood (artfully
splattered all over the landscape, of course) without dying. ;)

In the first VHD, maybe. The second one is much better about that sort
of thing, possibly because upon a second viewing, the first VHD sucks.
VHD: Bloodlust doesn't.

Aa-HAH! I *knew* I wasn't the only one! I watched the first VHD
several years ago, and enjoyed it... When I rented it to show my
fiancee, she almost stopped believing any of my opinions on anime or
movies, ever again, that's how much she hated it... And I was stunned,
since the second viewing years later showed me that I was completely
mistaken, and it was complete crap.

So, Bloodlust is much better, hm? I may convince her to watch that
one, then. Her opinion of my taste has *almost* recovered.

[Sir Bob]

Post by Nikolas Landauer

Post by Stephenls

Post by Sir Bob
If I recall correctly, vampires in the Vampire Hunter D universe also vary
in physical form depending upon the dramatic needs of the current scene (up
to and including inexplicably becoming ten feet tall when intimidating the
rabble) and have the capacity to lose metric tonnes of blood (artfully
splattered all over the landscape, of course) without dying. ;)

In the first VHD, maybe. The second one is much better about that sort
of thing, possibly because upon a second viewing, the first VHD sucks.
VHD: Bloodlust doesn't.

Aa-HAH! I *knew* I wasn't the only one! I watched the first VHD
several years ago, and enjoyed it... When I rented it to show my
fiancee, she almost stopped believing any of my opinions on anime or
movies, ever again, that's how much she hated it... And I was stunned,
since the second viewing years later showed me that I was completely
mistaken, and it was complete crap.

<snip>

Are you sure she wasn't just cheesed at the infamous Gratuitous Shower Scene
(tm)? ;)

(Which is why I prefer to watch anime in the company of women who can
appreciate fanservice boobs just as much as I do. >=) )

- Sir Bob.

[Nikolas Landauer]

Post by Sir Bob

Post by Nikolas Landauer
Aa-HAH! I *knew* I wasn't the only one! I watched the first VHD
several years ago, and enjoyed it... When I rented it to show my
fiancee, she almost stopped believing any of my opinions on anime or
movies, ever again, that's how much she hated it... And I was stunned,
since the second viewing years later showed me that I was completely
mistaken, and it was complete crap.

<snip>
Are you sure she wasn't just cheesed at the infamous Gratuitous Shower Scene
(tm)? ;)
(Which is why I prefer to watch anime in the company of women who can
appreciate fanservice boobs just as much as I do. >=) )

Positive. That was the only part of the anime she even slightly
appreciated. :D She *does* enjoy fanservice boobs as much as I do, if
not more so.

Hell, that scene was pretty much the only thing that kept her from
*breaking up with me* over the movie. :D

[Stephenls]

Post by Nikolas Landauer
So, Bloodlust is much better, hm? I may convince her to watch that
one, then. Her opinion of my taste has *almost* recovered.

Bloodlust is much better except in one respect -- despite not having a
Japanese language track (even in the theaters it was english, albeit
with Japanese subtitles), it's still animated with Japanese-style
lots-of-mouth-movements dialogue. Thus, the dialogue is stilted because
the voice actors can never really use one word when five will fit the
animation better. Except for D, who speaks in proper monosyllabic.

I'd recommend seeing it yourself once to judge if she'd like it. It's
very, very good (and creepy as all hell in a few places), but some
people wouldn't like it. This contrasts well with the original, which
is very, very bad, except that some people inexplicably do like it.

[CARRIER LOST]

Post by Stephenls
Of course, I'm probably going to run with Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust
style vampires if I ever use one in a D&D game in the future -- in the
presence of a vampire, lights extinguish, plants die, animals cower,
water freezes, mirrors crack, and holy symbols tarnish or warp.
Basically they're big "Hi, I'm evil!" beacons.

kick ass.

[Keith Davies]

Post by CARRIER LOST

Post by Stephenls
Of course, I'm probably going to run with Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust
style vampires if I ever use one in a D&D game in the future -- in the
presence of a vampire, lights extinguish, plants die, animals cower,
water freezes, mirrors crack, and holy symbols tarnish or warp.
Basically they're big "Hi, I'm evil!" beacons.

kick ass.

Watch the trailer, if not the entire thing (watch the entire thing.
It's more than worth it). At one point (in the trailer, no spoiler)
there's a wind that sweeps across the town... the crosses on the
buildings twist and deform, a fountain freezes over, you *know* Bad Shit
Is Going To Happen.

Add in that dryad-type creature (is that what they called it?) that can
literally blend with the trees, and the werewolf-type guy... Amano's
character designs pale in comparison.


Keith

[CARRIER LOST]

Post by Keith Davies

Post by CARRIER LOST
kick ass.

Watch the trailer, if not the entire thing (watch the entire thing.
It's more than worth it).

oh yeah, i've seen it, multiple times, once on the big screen. :)
bloodlust is an awesome movie.

"you're not so bad after all. you just dress bad."

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Coby
Has it got to do with silver backing somehow? Still doesn't make a ton of
sense but at least then you could explain the not-seeing-their-clothes feature
(their cloud of evil obscures more than just their immediate person).
Could one see a vampire's reflection in a strip of shiny metal? In a puddle
of water? How 'bout mercury?

I'm fairly sure that the tradition of vampires not reflecting in mirrors was
specifically with silver-backed mirrors. There was some connection with the
30 pieces of silver Judas was paid, but I don't remember that part very well.

[Sir Bob]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by Coby
Has it got to do with silver backing somehow? Still doesn't make a ton of
sense but at least then you could explain the not-seeing-their-clothes feature
(their cloud of evil obscures more than just their immediate person).
Could one see a vampire's reflection in a strip of shiny metal? In a puddle
of water? How 'bout mercury?

I'm fairly sure that the tradition of vampires not reflecting in mirrors was
specifically with silver-backed mirrors. There was some connection with the
30 pieces of silver Judas was paid, but I don't remember that part very well.

I think you're remembering the premise of "Dracula 2000". ;)

(Not that "Dracula 2000" originated the "Judas = first vampire" concept, of
course, but it's the most recent pop-culture reference I can come up with;
most other trendy vampire myths have Cain as the first vampire.)

- Sir Bob.

[John W. Mangrum]

Post by Kevin Lowe
Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes no
sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

It makes quite a bit of sense when viewed within the context of the
original belief system.

John W. Mangrum

[marc17]

Post by John W. Mangrum

Post by Kevin Lowe
Traditionally, they are totally invisible in mirrors. No, it makes no
sense. Don't think about it too hard, I say.

It makes quite a bit of sense when viewed within the context of the
original belief system.

IIRC*, this comes around for many reasons, not the least being a
culture without much in the way of understanding how light works
trying to reason how we can see as well as rationalize other things
like the soul and love. The general belief system founded by Aristotle
held that man has a body and a soul and they can only communicate
between each other through his astral self as the material cannot
affect the spiritual and vice versus. The sences are spiritual in
nature and what we see of each other are spiritual figments called
phantasies. Thus, when you see a beautiful woman and feel love or
lust, this is because her phantasy has entered your soul via the eyes
and is causing these feelings. It only gets more complicated from
there.

If you say that people normally see the physical form but mirrors only
reflect the phantasies, then you only see a representation of the
person's soul. As most people's soul looks the same as their physical
form, this is not an issue. The vampire, having no soul, has no
phantasy to to see in a reflection. Clothing, having no soul of it's
own is also not seen. The clothing we see on people in a mirror's
reflection is only there because their soul creates the phantasy of
the clothes along with itself.

* This information comes from a single source, _Eros and Magic in the
Renaisance_ by Couliano so take it as you will. there is an entire
chapter on the history of phantasies and the rest of the book
describing how this affected their beliefs in love and magic, thus
this short blurb is by no means a complete explanation.

[joe khol]

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Clothes are the least of your problems with justifying the whole 'no
reflection' thing. What about 'Where does the light for the reflection
of whatever is behind the vampire come from?'?

At least in D&D you can say 'it's magic' and leave it at that.

[Furvert]

Dont forget Darkvision
Seeing without light!
Yet invisable is still invisable ;)
And can you see yourself in a mirror in the dark ;)

Post by joe khol

Post by Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Vampires supposedly don't reflect in the mirror right? What about their clothes?

Clothes are the least of your problems with justifying the whole 'no
reflection' thing. What about 'Where does the light for the reflection
of whatever is behind the vampire come from?'?
At least in D&D you can say 'it's magic' and leave it at that.