Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Faustus
There is more of a chance of incidentally encountering an item vampires are vulnerable to then encountering one werewolves are vulnerable to. Running water could be anywhere, the scent of garlic could hang in the air near a restaurant dumpster, churchbells ring quite frequently. It's also not altogether unlikely depending upon the identity of the werewolf that they might have a cross on them at the time of transformation. If the werewolf is the sort that maintains some degree of intelligence during the change World of Darkness werewolves being an example, uprooting a fence post and impaling a vampire on it is not altogether impossible. Also, vampires sometimes take time to heal from being thoroughly mauled and dismembered.
|
Agreed.
But its more unlikely that werewolves have some sort of memories left in them of their "human" form after fully transformed. So that is a real shot in the dark.
I havent read World of Darkness yet so I cannot comment on it (or exemplify by it). All of my arguments are based solely on - A) Stoker's portrayal of Dracula, B) Vampire and werewolf folklore and stories in literary fiction, and C) Media influences.
Although I must admit the media, specially movies, have watered down Dracula (and even other vampires, for that matter) considerably. Stoker's Dracula was a much, MUCH more powerful creature of the night. The lines with which Stoker has drawn his most popular character, draw a very powerful and monstrous creature than the one we have seen in movies, specially in the later modern versions.
His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.
– Jonathan Harker's Journal, Dracula, Chapter 2
There lay the Count, but looking as if his youth had been half restored. For the white hair and moustache were changed to dark iron-grey. The cheeks were fuller, and the white skin seemed ruby-red underneath. The mouth was redder than ever, for on the lips were gouts of fresh blood, which trickled from the corners of the mouth and ran down over the chin and neck. Even the deep, burning eyes seemed set amongst swollen flesh, for the lids and pouches underneath were bloated. It seemed as if the whole awful creature were simply gorged with blood. He lay like a filthy leech, exhausted with his repletion.
– Jonathan Harker's Journal, Dracula, Chapter 4
Just reading those descriptions send a shiver down my spine. Too bad the movies havent been as faithful to Stoker's images as they should have, except in a selected few outings of Chris Lee. And Shreck and Lugosi, but of course.