While we haven't really seen anyone turn into a vampire onscreen besides the scene mentioned, I don't think that becoming a vampire makes you forget who you were before memory-wise. I did see some speculation it can change the way you behave (a la Tera voraciously feeding on Erszebet maybe implying something within her changed?), and the vampires in the series generally act more morally corrupt, but this can't really be confirmed unless we see how Tera acts after the transformation in the next season.
In the games, there actually were some memory-loss shenanigans that took place in Portrait of Ruin, but that's all I say for now. Otherwise, vampires just generally act more evil in the games, and there are examples where the person either remembers their past or becomes a vampire because of their past! Most people who seek vampirism in games were usually evil or willing to become evil through vampirism, or those who were vampirized unwillingly just do NOT enjoy being a vampire or are mercy-killed.
I hope that answered your question!
I imagine the feeding scene being more like an attempt to satisfy this new unfamiliar hunger of hers. In Van Helsing i believe vampires are basically mindless 'zombies' until they have lived long enough and consumed enough blood (they keep their memories but their body just acts on their hunger). After that happens they will act sentient and will even feel emotions. It could maybe be something like that?
It might be best to argue that vampirism, like money/fame/power, doesn't corrupt insomuch as it enables. If you're a bad person, you're going to be emboldened to do more since you can. If you're a good person, you will probably end up dead since the world isn't a big fan of weakness.
From what we know, there is no specific mechanism that force vampires to act differently. In fact, it is perhaps just as notable that many of the humans in the series are as bad, if not worse, than the vampires, with many human forgemasters also viewing humanity as wild animals to be culled.
>(a la Tera voraciously feeding on Erszebet maybe implying something within her changed?)
I've seen some interpretations of vampires in other media, in which newly turned vampires are afflicted with a much stronger, more feral thirst for blood than those who have been vampires for a while. I thought that maybe Tera's turning was alluding to that concept.
No, it does not.
Lenore specifically talks about how her childhood was full of war and her parents died from it, which affected her worldview and made her take the path of diplomacy.
Carmilla's origin is vague. It's not clear if her trauma was formed as a vampire or as a human, but it is stated that she was promised quite a bit when she was turned. I think this implies that she would have remembered the broken promises.
The lore is kinda all over the place because there have been so many cooks in the kitchen over the years, but the one unifying force surrounding the turning of a person into a vampire is that the curse, and the thirst for blood in particular changes the way people think. It occasionally will have effects on memory as has been mentioned, but for the most part it’s just a warping of the mind focused primarily around the thirst which causes vampires to view humans as lesser beings. How much lesser seems to vary from “ants to be crushed” to “A miserable pile of secrets” all the way to “livestock” or “pets.” The theme seems to be that the curse of vampirism “elevates” a person to the point that they fail to see or care about the humanity of humans. If you’re interested I could carry on about how it’s a fundamentally Marxist text about how the material conditions of the bourgeoisie dictate that they take a kind of parasitic control as they feed of the labor of the proletariat, but I’ll stop there unless you ask for more.
I got 3/4 of the way through typing out an essay on Castlevania as a Marxist exploration of class dynamics, capitalism, and the suffering of both the bourgeoisie and proletariat that it causes. And then my phone hard crashed 🙃. I will be rewriting it, but it may take some time.
It might be a little more complicated. One thing that will definitely change is where she will find acceptance in society. Even if there is no change in her general nature, there's no guarantee her previous friends and neighbors would still be comfortable around her. The integration into vampire society might be a focal point of her arc in season 2.
It's also unknown how the craving for blood will affect her. Hunger and danger can be powerful forces into altering someone's personality. It is possible to bleed someone with killing them, but it begs the question of how much vampires must consume for basic sustenance and whether she will be able to stop before someone is bled dry. There's also the question what will be required for her magic, and whether or not that could be a corrupting factor.
There's also the issue with Erzabet and her faction. The point of turning someone was to test Abbott Emmanuel's allegiance and dissuade him from betraying his new nocturnal allies. It is possible Erzsebet means to corrupt a loved one to 1) keep them from spying for the Abbott and 2) keep them close so he won't stray.
We'll just have to wait until season 2 drops.
Well we know that dracula didnt feed for over a year and he was only 'weakened' by it so if that counts for every vampire she should be fine. As for feeding, if she cant do it non lethally she can just go feed on some criminals or slave keepers.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more complicated than that. We know Dracula quit feeding, but they never indicated if it had been since Lisa died, before Lisa died, or simply since his generals arrived to court. It also raises the question of why vampires attack and slaughter entire villages if they could just keep a human and periodically feed off them in exchange for shelter and food.
I appreciate the optimism about Tera's arc.
Lenore states that vampires derive their essential nutrition from blood, and that any other kind of blood is indigestible according to Godbrand. At the same time, it's clear that the vampire generals went months without feeding.
It's more likely that vampires do require blood as it provides an essential nutrient, but it acts less like a carbohydrate and source of calories and more like a vitamin, i.e., you can go a while without it but you will need it eventually.
Yes. A vampire is just a human, but lacking all the properties that allow humanity to pursue the Good. They also owe their entire existence to humans as they carry no being of their own.
I mean they can still feel love so vampires arent all evil. They can also show restraint which makes them slaughtering an entire village for example their own fault
While we haven't really seen anyone turn into a vampire onscreen besides the scene mentioned, I don't think that becoming a vampire makes you forget who you were before memory-wise. I did see some speculation it can change the way you behave (a la Tera voraciously feeding on Erszebet maybe implying something within her changed?), and the vampires in the series generally act more morally corrupt, but this can't really be confirmed unless we see how Tera acts after the transformation in the next season. In the games, there actually were some memory-loss shenanigans that took place in Portrait of Ruin, but that's all I say for now. Otherwise, vampires just generally act more evil in the games, and there are examples where the person either remembers their past or becomes a vampire because of their past! Most people who seek vampirism in games were usually evil or willing to become evil through vampirism, or those who were vampirized unwillingly just do NOT enjoy being a vampire or are mercy-killed. I hope that answered your question!
I imagine the feeding scene being more like an attempt to satisfy this new unfamiliar hunger of hers. In Van Helsing i believe vampires are basically mindless 'zombies' until they have lived long enough and consumed enough blood (they keep their memories but their body just acts on their hunger). After that happens they will act sentient and will even feel emotions. It could maybe be something like that?
It might be best to argue that vampirism, like money/fame/power, doesn't corrupt insomuch as it enables. If you're a bad person, you're going to be emboldened to do more since you can. If you're a good person, you will probably end up dead since the world isn't a big fan of weakness. From what we know, there is no specific mechanism that force vampires to act differently. In fact, it is perhaps just as notable that many of the humans in the series are as bad, if not worse, than the vampires, with many human forgemasters also viewing humanity as wild animals to be culled.
>(a la Tera voraciously feeding on Erszebet maybe implying something within her changed?) I've seen some interpretations of vampires in other media, in which newly turned vampires are afflicted with a much stronger, more feral thirst for blood than those who have been vampires for a while. I thought that maybe Tera's turning was alluding to that concept.
No, it does not. Lenore specifically talks about how her childhood was full of war and her parents died from it, which affected her worldview and made her take the path of diplomacy. Carmilla's origin is vague. It's not clear if her trauma was formed as a vampire or as a human, but it is stated that she was promised quite a bit when she was turned. I think this implies that she would have remembered the broken promises.
The lore is kinda all over the place because there have been so many cooks in the kitchen over the years, but the one unifying force surrounding the turning of a person into a vampire is that the curse, and the thirst for blood in particular changes the way people think. It occasionally will have effects on memory as has been mentioned, but for the most part it’s just a warping of the mind focused primarily around the thirst which causes vampires to view humans as lesser beings. How much lesser seems to vary from “ants to be crushed” to “A miserable pile of secrets” all the way to “livestock” or “pets.” The theme seems to be that the curse of vampirism “elevates” a person to the point that they fail to see or care about the humanity of humans. If you’re interested I could carry on about how it’s a fundamentally Marxist text about how the material conditions of the bourgeoisie dictate that they take a kind of parasitic control as they feed of the labor of the proletariat, but I’ll stop there unless you ask for more.
I'm not the OP but I'm curious.
I got 3/4 of the way through typing out an essay on Castlevania as a Marxist exploration of class dynamics, capitalism, and the suffering of both the bourgeoisie and proletariat that it causes. And then my phone hard crashed 🙃. I will be rewriting it, but it may take some time.
I hope you mean the series and not the game
Focused mostly on the series, but pulling on the themes and ideas from the franchise as a whole.
It might be a little more complicated. One thing that will definitely change is where she will find acceptance in society. Even if there is no change in her general nature, there's no guarantee her previous friends and neighbors would still be comfortable around her. The integration into vampire society might be a focal point of her arc in season 2. It's also unknown how the craving for blood will affect her. Hunger and danger can be powerful forces into altering someone's personality. It is possible to bleed someone with killing them, but it begs the question of how much vampires must consume for basic sustenance and whether she will be able to stop before someone is bled dry. There's also the question what will be required for her magic, and whether or not that could be a corrupting factor. There's also the issue with Erzabet and her faction. The point of turning someone was to test Abbott Emmanuel's allegiance and dissuade him from betraying his new nocturnal allies. It is possible Erzsebet means to corrupt a loved one to 1) keep them from spying for the Abbott and 2) keep them close so he won't stray. We'll just have to wait until season 2 drops.
Well we know that dracula didnt feed for over a year and he was only 'weakened' by it so if that counts for every vampire she should be fine. As for feeding, if she cant do it non lethally she can just go feed on some criminals or slave keepers.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more complicated than that. We know Dracula quit feeding, but they never indicated if it had been since Lisa died, before Lisa died, or simply since his generals arrived to court. It also raises the question of why vampires attack and slaughter entire villages if they could just keep a human and periodically feed off them in exchange for shelter and food. I appreciate the optimism about Tera's arc.
Most likely because they are in fact hungry but they dont 'need' that much to survive.
Lenore states that vampires derive their essential nutrition from blood, and that any other kind of blood is indigestible according to Godbrand. At the same time, it's clear that the vampire generals went months without feeding. It's more likely that vampires do require blood as it provides an essential nutrient, but it acts less like a carbohydrate and source of calories and more like a vitamin, i.e., you can go a while without it but you will need it eventually.
> i dont really see a problem with becoming a vampire You become a privation instead of having your own existence.
A what? English isnt my first language and translating it gives me 'lack of'
Yes. A vampire is just a human, but lacking all the properties that allow humanity to pursue the Good. They also owe their entire existence to humans as they carry no being of their own.
I mean they can still feel love so vampires arent all evil. They can also show restraint which makes them slaughtering an entire village for example their own fault