[Spoilers] Confused about vampires in Blood and Wine and the Witcherverse

[Maerd]

Not mention however about immortality... for me, it is clearly that after incineration, atomizing or antimatter annihilation they cannot recover. Maybe "immortality" actually means that each higher vampire is able to resurrect another one?

We should add to these methods also melting in some acids, which essentially would turn tissues into the heap of inorganic compounds, which is has the same type of damage as incineration (turn tissues into oxides) or separation into single atoms and smaller particles (like in nuclear explosion).
If we talk about resurrection then we still need to define what the higher vampire is. If the idea of some vampire is enough then it's equal to being a deity. If we, say, compare this to being a human then human is not just DNA, because even now you can rather easily "resurrect" (clone) a human being from DNA sample but it will be a different human with the same DNA code, because what constitutes a particular person is defined by the brain neural connections, which are trained to recognize certain patterns that happen during lifetime of the particular individual. Reconstructing/resurrecting something from atoms would require absolute knowledge of all that individual's experience including self-processed experiences, which also makes the reconstructor a deity because it's possible only if the reconstructor possesses intraspecies omniscience (aka every higher vampire would know everything what all other higher vampires are doing, feeling, thinking, etc.). So, no matter how you turn it, TW3 describe vampires essentially as gods.

But I think it's best to view them as being biologically immortal, which does not exclude death by some other mechanism.

That would be great but that's not how the game describes vampires. It's explained in the game that vampires don't afraid death because they cannot be killed and cannot die. It's pretty clear that they suggest full scale immortality as immortality of, say, antique gods. Speaking of biological immortality, witchers are probably close to be biologically immortal since none of them died of old age.

On the one hand, there is already at least one One-Gender Race – dryads (presumably thanks to mutagens composing Water of Brokilon).

Technically dryads are not separate species they are just mild mutants like witchers, which contrary to the latter remained fertile. Or you can call them subspecies or a breed if you want. You know, like dogs or cats, which can come in various forms and shapes but can breed with each other no problem.

If any of vampire species is single-gender, I assume it would simply breed with other vampire species (like dryads do with humanoids).

By definition of species, different species cannot breed with each other leaving viable offsprings who are able to reproduce, otherwise they are not different species. Single gender won't cut it, because in this case they wouldn't have sexual reproductive organs, which they definitely have.

Hermaphrodite, nah... I believe, on the other hand, that at least higher vampires would be able to clonal fragmentation - you now, if half of their body is too far from the other half

Hermaphrodite by definition should have both male and female reproductive organs... so, no. Cloning also doesn't make sense because then they would need for reproductive organs at all, like bacteria.

A very scholarly hypothesis, I must say ... Dettlaff regenerating his cut off hand, while at the same time Dettlaff's cut off hand regenerating the rest of Dettlaff?

Yeah, good question. If we chop Dettlaff into 20 equal (by mass) pieces and put them into 20 separate boxes, which part will regenerate into Dettlaff? All of them?

 

[Alexius321]

@Maerd The problem here is, I think, that if we take this kind of ‘scientific’ approach and try to explain everything, we can arrive at an infinite number of conclusions and not one of them will be definite due to the lack of evidence. I am not against such discussion just for the fun of it, but I personally prefer the fantasy-like approach where not everything is explained; the examples are there simply to serve the story. Sapkowski had this kind of approach in the novels, while the games tried to do more.

Technically dryads are not separate species they are just mild mutants like witchers, which contrary to the latter remained fertile.

Not sure about this, but I don’t think dryads are mutants. Pure-blood dryads are a single-sex species (female-only) and they mate with other humanoids, e.g. humans or elves. We may consider ‘mutants’ only those which were subject to drinking the Water of Brokilon (abducted girls), but that’s because they as a species are dying out so they try to compensate. Those like Braenn/Mona are not ‘pure-blood’ dryads, but others that are pure-blood should not be regarded as mutants I suppose.

Single gender won't cut it, because in this case they wouldn't have sexual reproductive organs, which they definitely have.

Not necessarily. There are a few examples of female only species in our world, for example New Mexico whiptail lizards. This is just one example of Parthenogenesis as a form of asexual reproduction. So it might be possible for some subspecies of vampires to be single-sex, though this is again simply a wild speculation. New topic: which vampire sub-species lay eggs?

Yeah, good question. If we chop Dettlaff into 20 equal (by mass) pieces and put them into 20 separate boxes, which part will regenerate into Dettlaff? All of them?

All of them, of course. Moreover, Dettlaff doesn’t even need to be chopped up, he is in an infinite loop, that's why he's so jumpy

Spoiler

 

[Sephira]

At this point it's safe to draw a line between book lore and game lore. While BaW tries to compensate discrepancies. It's also safe to assume that maybe male counterparts of Alps and Bruxae didn't make to Witcherverse. Or! We don't never ever meet one, and we just fight females because it's like that.

Is that an official translation? Thumb down for translator then

In original Polish version Regis clearly states that it never happens in case of higher vampires and bruxas, nosferats etc. The problem is, even Polish people tend to misread this "and".

Yes, and it seems that it’s the same in other translations, though I can’t vouch for every single one.

I was so scared about this that I checked the italian one and now I am sure that I can least vouch for it... thank Melitele it's correct, Regis does explain the difference, though I can't read the original text, I'm just basing my statement from what I've read here.

That's how it's translated (bold text for that key word)

Spoiler

"Non prendermi in giro. Avrai visto più di una volta delle tracce di morso di vampiro. Ti sei mai imbattuto nel caso di un vampiro che aveva fatto a pezzi la propria vittima?"
"No. Non succede mai."
"Mai nel caso dei vampiri superiori", disse Emiel Regis in tono amabile. "E da quanto mi risulta neppure alp, katakan, mule, bruxe e nosferat straziano così le vittime. Mentre fleder ed ekimme riservano un trattamento piuttosto brutale ai loro cadaveri."

Which can be translated in english as

Spoiler

"Don't mock me. You must have seen more than once the traces of vampire bite. Have you ever came across the case of a vampire who had dismembered his victim? "
"No. It never happens. "
"Never in the case of higher vampires," said Emiel Regis amiably. "And to my knowledge not even alp, katakan, mules, bruxae and nosferat mangle the victims to such this point. While fleder and ekimmae reserve a pretty brutal treatment to their bodies."

 

[Maerd]

The problem here is, I think, that if we take this kind of ‘scientific’ approach and try to explain everything, we can arrive at an infinite number of conclusions and not one of them will be definite due to the lack of evidence. I am not against such discussion just for the fun of it, but I personally prefer the fantasy-like approach where not everything is explained; the examples are there simply to serve the story. Sapkowski had this kind of approach in the novels, while the games tried to do more.

Indeed, the biggest mistake CDPR made with vampires: they unsuccessfully tried to turn fantasy into science fiction by explaining everything, which was absolutely unnecessary. Here we have full agreement.

Not sure about this, but I don’t think dryads are mutants. Pure-blood dryads are a single-sex species (female-only) and they mate with other humanoids, e.g. humans or elves. We may consider ‘mutants’ only those which were subject to drinking the Water of Brokilon (abducted girls), but that’s because they as a species are dying out so they try to compensate. Those like Braenn/Mona are not ‘pure-blood’ dryads, but others that are pure-blood should not be regarded as mutants I suppose.

Well, if original dryads were created by mutating humans then they are still mutants even if they later can breed with humans and give birth to dryads. Mutation in general sense is just a change that was achieved by using conscious manipulations with organism. So, dryads fit here. If we'll take genetics then any change is a mutation therefore even different human beings differ from each other by mutations. But to call somebody a mutant we need some critical mass of mutations to make a distinctive feature that would unambiguously and significantly differ this individual (such feature cannot appear by itself in the general population) from the rest of the pack. As I said, you can call dryads subspecies if you don't like the word 'mutant'.

Not necessarily. There are a few examples of female only species in our world, for example New Mexico whiptail lizards. This is just one example of Parthenogenesis as a form of asexual reproduction. So it might be possible for some subspecies of vampires to be single-sex, though this is again simply a wild speculation. New topic: which vampire sub-species lay eggs?

Awesome. So, bruxas and alps are parthanogenetic vampires then.

 

[SMiki55]

Reconstructing/resurrecting something from atoms would require absolute knowledge of all that individual's experience including self-processed experiences, which also makes the reconstructor a deity because it's possible only if the reconstructor possesses intraspecies omniscience (aka every higher vampire would know everything what all other higher vampires are doing, feeling, thinking, etc.). So, no matter how you turn it, TW3 describe vampires essentially as gods.

Remember that, at least in the games, Geralt encountered a couple of intelligeng ghosts of died people. Assuming that other species, including vampires, also have those "souls", there wouldn't be necessity to have any "omniscience" during resurrecting it - a copy of psyche (soul) already exists. A vampire could be able to kill another vampire permanently by destroying his "soul" - copy of psyche.

Technically dryads are not separate species they are just mild mutants like witchers, which contrary to the latter remained fertile. Or you can call them subspecies or a breed if you want.

By definition of species, different species cannot breed with each other leaving viable offsprings who are able to reproduce, otherwise they are not different species.

I am aware of this, just English is not my native language. "Subspecies" or "race" would be the right words

Cloning also doesn't make sense because then they would need for reproductive organs at all, like bacteria.

Assuming that higher vampires appeared due to the natural evolution... nor, for example, genetic manipulations of the "lesser" ones. (There is already an interesting theory about elves and dryads being just "improved" version of humans, with modified telomerase gene.)

 

[Alexius321]

@Sephira , @SMiki55 that seems to be correct. I have also checked the Serbian translation and it reads:

In the case of higher vampires it never happens…. As far as I know, they do not mutilate their victims as much as alps, katakans, moolas, bruxae and nosferats do. On the other hand, fleders and ekimas are pretty brutal with their victims’ remains.

So there seems to be a distinction, thanks for bringing it up.

P. S. The line between the book lore and game lore has been drawn much, much earlier in my opinion

Well, if original dryads were created by mutating humans then they are still mutants even if they later can breed with humans and give birth to dryads.

The thing is, I don’t think that the original, pure-blood dryads were created by mutating humans. At least it is not stated in the books, as far as I remember. We can assume that dryads, naiads, nereids, rusalkas, vilas, etc, etc. are simply different types of a nymph. It is analogous with our mythology where we have water nymphs, forest nymphs etc, etc. Those ‘mutated’ do not count, of course.

Therefore, maybe we can assume that nymphs are a separate 'species' in the Witcher world and these different types of nymphs are simply cousins. Though, it is still unclear whether nymphs are a species, but I suppose we can regard them as such in this case.

 

[SMiki55]

Even simplier theory - nymphs could be also just post-Conjunction guests from an alternative universe, where the evolution followed slightly different paths, but not so different to rule out the possibility of interbreeding with other humanoids

 

[Alexius321]

Possible, but maybe they are one of the elder 'races' (or whatever we may call them) and are native to the Witcher world. Who knows.

Another problem with different universes and different evolution paths is also the possible difference in the laws of physics in those worlds. Again, strictly scientific approach does not work here in my opinion

---------- Updated at 03:24 PM ----------

Also, them being the elder 'race', 'beings', 'things'... seems more likely since they seem to use Elder Speech dialects. Vampires are newcomers, in any case

 

[Sephira]

Assuming that higher vampires appeared due to the natural evolution... nor, for example, genetic manipulations of the "lesser" ones. (There is already an interesting theory about elves and dryads being just "improved" version of humans, with modified telomerase gene.)

Honestly, telomerase gene theory is not just a theory but the real explanation for that matter. Bingo.

The thing is, I don’t think that the original, pure-blood dryads were created by mutating humans. At least it is not stated in the books, as far as I remember. We can assume that dryads, naiads, nereids, rusalkas, vilas, etc, etc. are simply different types of a nymph. It is analogous with our mythology where we have water nymphs, forest nymphs etc, etc. Those ‘mutated’ do not count, of course.

Therefore, maybe we can assume that nymphs are a separate 'species' in the Witcher world and these different types of nymphs are simply cousins. Though, it is still unclear whether nymphs are a species, but I suppose we can regard them as such in this case.

I agree.

---------- Updated at 04:42 PM ----------

P. S. The line between the book lore and game lore has been drawn much, much earlier in my opinion

Heh I did that long ago, I meant it's safe to draw another line for the vampires as well.

 

[SMiki55]

One more thing about vampires' singularity - they (at least the higher ones) cast no shadow and are not reflected in mirrors - that could be the evidence they came from the universe of different laws of physics.

 

[Alexius321]

One more thing about vampires' singularity - they (at least the higher ones) cast no shadow and are not reflected in mirrors - that could be the evidence they came from the universe of different laws of physics.

Not exactly what I had in mind regarding the laws of physics, but it may be something connected with their body structure, i.e. they probably aren’t a carbon-based life form. There are various theories about possible types of biochemistry and conditions for life, though none have been proven so far. Don’t tell me there are no original Star Trek fans here, don’t you remember the silicon-based devil in the dark

Now forget all this nonsense that I wrote. The mirror-reflection thing is almost certainly simply a Dracula rip-off

P. S. They made another mistake, Regis and Dettlaff do cast a shadow in BaW