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

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

If bruxae are indeed 'higher vampires' in the games, then why are they 'mortal'? It seems that further classification is needed.

The confusion comes from the overloading of the term "higher vampire". It has two meanings. First, a group of vampires who are above lower / more animalistic types. These higher vampires are sentient beings. Then there are "higher vampires" who are unique even amongst the first group. I'd prefer to call them "high vampire" to distinguish. These are like Regis. Bruxae are higher vampires in the first sense, but not higher vampires in the second sense. Confusion is apparently built into the world itself. I.e. even people in the world mix things up

---------- Updated at 05:48 PM ----------

Read passage above.

Yes, I saw that. But CDPR have some inconsistencies, which for me have less weight in comparison with the books. I.e. if the books say strictly otherwise, for me they win when it comes to lore. And they say that vampires are normal species and not turned from people. The rest is up to deduction.

The only known exception I think is a striga, which is a special curse case.

 

[Eredin_Breacc_Glas]

The confusion comes from the overloading of the term "higher vampire". It has two meanings. First, a group of vampires who are above lower / more animalistic types. These higher vampires are sentient beings. Then there are "higher vampires" who are unique even amongst the first group. I'd prefer to call them "high vampire" to distinguish. These are like Regis. Bruxae are higher vampires in the first sense, but not higher vampires in the second sense. Confusion is apparently built into the world itself. I.e. even people in the world mix things up

---------- Updated at 05:48 PM ----------


Yes, I saw that. But CDPR have some inconsistencies, which for me have less weight in comparison with the books. I.e. if the books say strictly otherwise, for me they win when it comes to lore. And they say that vampires are normal species and not turned from people. The rest is up to deduction.

The only known exception I think is a striga, which is a special curse case.

I totally agree. But, that passage I brought to your attention doesn't say that people are turned in-to vampires. It says that bruxae use vampires as sex slaves, essentially. The bruxa becomes pregnant, then gives birth to another vampire.

Also, about half of land-based monsters were formerly humans. Necrophages, wights, strigas, etc..

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@Eredin_Breacc_Glas: I think that passage you brought above refers to those on whom they prey, not to their vampiric partners. I.e. that passage doesn't mean necessarily that bruxae are always all female. It can mean that female bruxae are luring their prey through sexual means (so it says that they usually appear so), which can imply that male bruxae aren't using such methods.

---------- Updated at 06:16 PM ----------

Also, about half of land-based monsters were formerly humans. Necrophages, wights, strigas, etc..

Yes, but about vampires it's explicitly said so in the books (that they aren't turned form humans). So inconsistencies in TW1 (and as some point out in TW3) are a problem when you try to reconcile it all.

 

[Eredin_Breacc_Glas]

@Eredin_Breacc_Glas: I think that passage you brought above refers to those on whom they prey, not to their vampiric partners. I.e. that passage doesn't mean necessary that bruxae are always all female. It can mean that female bruxae are luring their prey through sexual means (so it says that they usually appear so), which can imply that male bruxae aren't using such methods.

---------- Updated at 06:16 PM ----------



Yes, but about vampires it's explicitly said so in the books (that they aren't turned form humans). So inconsistencies in TW1 (and as some point out in TW3) are a problem when you try to reconcile it all.

It says "She", and only "She". All of the other writings, notes, books, and bestiary entries do, too. This, coupled with the fact that all bruxae we have seen are females, makes it pretty obvious, I.M.O., that they are all women. There's just so much evidence supporting that, and none supporting that there are male bruxae.

---------- Updated at 10:26 PM ----------

@Eredin_Breacc_Glas: I think that passage you brought above refers to those on whom they prey, not to their vampiric partners. I.e. that passage doesn't mean necessary that bruxae are always all female. It can mean that female bruxae are luring their prey through sexual means (so it says that they usually appear so), which can imply that male bruxae aren't using such methods.

---------- Updated at 06:16 PM ----------



Yes, but about vampires it's explicitly said so in the books (that they aren't turned form humans). So inconsistencies in TW1 (and as some point out in TW3) are a problem when you try to reconcile it all.

You're right.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

It says "She", and only "She". All of the other writings, notes, books, and bestiary entries do, too. This, coupled with the fact that all bruxae we have seen are females, makes it pretty obvious, I.M.O., that they are all women. There's just so much evidence supporting that, and none supporting that there are male bruxae.

It's only based on the fact that the only bruxa from the books is Vereena. But CDPR have a few such problems I already brought you before. Like portraying all dwarves in the games as males. I.e. it's one of the inconsistencies mentioned above, so I'm not convinced it's lore friendly. CDPR don't always do a thorough job on this. In one of the interviews, Sapkowski said that he didn't explain too many details about vampires. But what he did explain at least CDPR could use thoroughly, yet they didn't, that's why we have this confusion here.

 

[Eredin_Breacc_Glas]

It's only based on the fact that the only bruxa from the book is Vereena. But CDPR have a few such problems I already brought you before. Like portraying all dwarves in the games as males. I.e. it's one of the inconsistencies mentioned above, so I'm not convinced it's lore friendly. CDPR don't always do thorough job on this. In one of the interviews, Sapkowski said that he didn't explain too many details about vampires. But what he did explain at least CDPR could use thoroughly, yet they didn't, that's why we have this confusion here.

Perhaps you're right.

Does Sapkowski ever host online Q&As of any sort?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Perhaps you're right.

Does Sapkowski ever host online Q&As of any sort?

He had a lot of different interviews. @SMiki55 can probably point the best way where he discussed vampires.

 

[Alexius321]

The confusion comes from the overloading of the term "higher vampire". It has two meanings. First, a group of vampires who are above lower / more animalistic types. These higher vampires are sentient beings. Then there are "higher vampires" who are unique even amongst the first group. I'd prefer to call them "high vampire" to distinguish. These are like Regis. Bruxae are higher vampires in the first sense, but not higher vampires in the second sense. Confusion is apparently built into the world itself. I.e. even people in the world mix things up

Yeah, I understand your premise, but I think this confusion has been mainly created by CDPR and their attempt to explain everything, which is in my opinion unnecessary. That was more of a rhetorical question referring to the inconsistency in naming all of them them ‘higher’ vampires. There are plenty of such inconsistencies in the games. But now they went even further than that introducing this notion that 'only a higher vampire can kill another higher vampire'. This was completely unnecessary the way I see it, they could have just made Regis kill Dettlaff and problem solved without further explanation.

Plus, if we take a look at the books, it is debatable whether Vereena is 'less unique' than this newly introduced 'higher vampires' (well, except that she did die). I don't remember all the details but Vereena seems to fit quite well into their classification. She also transforms into a black bat just like Regis and Dettlaff do, and not like what we see in the games. Even Sapkowski has inconsistencies, that's normal, but he didn't try to provide detailed classification since it was not important.

They are mentioned in the books. For example Regis tells that he was meeting one, but she grew distant when he became addicted to blood. Actually TW1 hints that it's the Queen Of the Night (and she is supposed to be a higher vampire).

I wanted to mention that as well, but this is still unclear in my opinion, since it is not stated that the female vampire in question is a ‘higher’ one (whatever the hell that actually means). She doesn't have to be a Regis-like type of vampire, she could have been 'simply' a bruxa. I think that The Witcher journal entry classifies her as a bruxa also (not that it is important to the book lore).

Btw, you are wrong about the most important thing in all of this - Regis started drinking excessively after she dumped him

Men will be men, whatever their type

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

it is debatable whether Vereena is 'less unique' than this newly introduced 'higher vampires' (well, except that she did die).

I think that's the main distinction, since Regis says that for his type, even worse case wouldn't be lethal.

Btw, you are wrong about the most important thing in all of this - Regis started drinking excessively after she dumped him

Men will be men, whatever their type

If I remember correctly she dumped him because he started drinking again (he stopped when he met her first, but I guess couldn't resist the habit). After that it just got even worse

---------- Updated at 01:54 AM ----------

I checked - you can actually read it both ways. I.e. like you said, she could leave him for other reasons, and then he reverted back to drinking. For some reason I first understood it like above - i.e. Regis first stopped, then started again, then she left him (because of that), and he started drinking even more.

---------- Updated at 01:57 AM ----------

By the way, I don't remember if Queen of the Night is listed as bruxa in TW1.

---------- Updated at 02:02 AM ----------

Just checked my backed up save from TW1 - journal entry doesn't mention anything there, she is just called "vampiress".

 

[Alexius321]

I think that's the main distinction, since Regis says that for his type, even worse case wouldn't be lethal.

It's a possibility, but it might be just an example of an inconsistency in the books (and there are a few).

By the way, I don't remember if Queen of the Night is listed as bruxa in TW1.
...
Just checked my backed up save from TW1 - journal entry doesn't mention anything there, she is just called "vampiress".

I don't remember the details, but Geralt can still kill her. She is listed as a bruxa here (not that it is a definite proof)

If I remember correctly she dumped him because he was already drinking too much. After that it just got even worse

Spoiler

‘Then I met a special vampire girl. It might have been–I think it was–serious. I settled down. But not for long. She left me. So I began to double my intake. Despair and grief, as you know, are perfect excuses. Everyone thinks they understand. Even I thought I understood. But I was merely applying theory to practice. Am I boring you? I’ll try to make it short. I finally began to do absolutely unacceptable things, the kind of things no vampire does. I flew under the influence. One night the boys sent me to the village to fetch some blood, and I missed my target: a girl who was walking to the well. I smashed straight into the well at top speed… The villagers almost beat me to death, but fortunately they didn’t know how to go about it… They punctured me with stakes, chopped my head off, poured holy water all over me and buried me. Can you imagine how I felt when I woke up?’

He was drinking a lot during that time, but after she completely sucked the life out of him, he became even more bloody desperate

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Spoiler

I settled down. But not for long. She left me. So I began to double my intake

For some reason I first understood "not for long" as referring to before she left (i.e. he started his excessive drinking and improper behavior again before that, so that caused her to leave, which could imply that she also saw such blood drinking as an improper indulgence, so she was a similar higher vampire). But I agree, it can as well be referring to after, then it reads your way.

---------- Updated at 02:14 AM ----------

I don't remember the details, but Geralt can still kill her. She is listed as a bruxa here (not that it is a definite proof)

Yes, but it's not clear. I don't think Wiki has a source for calling her bruxa there.

 

[Alexius321]

Yes, but it's not clear. I don't think Wiki has a source for calling her bruxa there.

You're right, it is not clear at all. But it's been a while since I played it so I don't remember the details. Also, the games are not exactly the most credible source since they have changed and adapted a lot of things so they could fit the story of the games.

For some reason I first understood "not for long" as referring to before she left (i.e. he started his excessive drinking and improper behavior again before that, so that caused her to leave, which could imply that she also saw such blood drinking as an improper indulgence, so she was a similar higher vampire). But I agree, it can as well be referring to after, then it reads your way.

I think 'settle down' refers to him becoming more controlled while he was with her, and 'not for long....' refers to her leaving him and that's why he began to drink again and in the process he doubled his intake. Our vampire friends are not that different from other species at all it seems

 

[SMiki55]

In the books Regis says:

....‘In the case of higher vampires–never, I agree,’ Emiel Regis said softly. ‘From what I know alpors, katakans, moolas, bruxas and nosferats don’t mutilate their victims. On the other hand, fleders and ekimmas are pretty brutal with their victims’ remains.’.....

He obviously lists bruxae as higher vampires

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". The whole problem began with "A Game of Imagination", an old Witcher RPG, where vampires were divided simply into higher and lesser - REDs copied this uncritically into their games and later tried to explain discrepancies in BaW and the Compendium.

Sapkowski's view on vampires is clear. Their species are:

• Higher vampire

Regis&Dettlaff species. Those are immune to fire, silver, daylight, crucifixes, holy water, daylight and garlic as well as dismemberment. 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?

• "Humanitarian" vampires

Contrary to the above, vulnerable at least to silver, presumably also to fire and daylight (in some cases). Definitely killable. Consist of:
- alp (alpor), immune to daylight
- bruxa (bruxae), immune to daylight
- katakan
- mula (moola), immune to daylight
- nosferat
No idea about sexes. On the one hand, there is already at least one One-Gender Race – dryads (presumably thanks to mutagens composing Water of Brokilon). On the other, it was never, ever stated that there are only female bruxas or alps; nowise - there is actually male alp in non-Witcher Sapkowski novel, Narrenturm, where he is described as "tall, skinny, dark-skinned with pointed ears and hair as white as snow" (and, verbatim, intelligent).

• "Monstous" vampires

Vulnerable to most of vampire repellents, comprise:
- fleder
- ekimma (ekimmara)
Both these kinds are not native to the Four Kingdoms climate.

@Rantsir could say more, he was one of cruscaders against RPG-version of vampires.

 

[OptoNick]

Is that an official translation? Thumb down for translator then

Damn, rechecked Russian translation, it also missed "też" in Regis' words. This forum convinced me that I have to learn Polish

 

[Alexius321]

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. Are you sure it wasn't you who misread it? :harhar:

Just kidding. I have no problem with bruxae being ‘lower vampires’ when compared to Regis and Dettlaff, but I think CDPR should have perhaps then provided further classification to distinguish between these ‘higher vampires’ and ‘higher higher vampires’. Well, actually, I don’t have that much of a problem with that as well, but since it’s the topic under discussion…

The topic of immortality can lead to indefinite arguments and conclusions. But I think it's best to view them as being biologically immortal, which does not exclude death by some other mechanism. For example, as far as I remember, starfish are said to be biologically immortal and they can regenerate their limbs, etc, etc. But that’s all in vain if they are swallowed and digested by some other creature It's the same with some types of jellyfish, and many other species.

They are simply genetically different, but I think that introducing this new rule stating that only a higher vampire can kill another higher vampire was avoidable. In my opinion, they are not ‘undead’, they are simply more advanced when it comes to regeneration than humans and some other species.

Regarding sexes, as far as I remember, nothing was specifically stated in the books. Them being a single-gender species is plausible, although this does not have to apply to every vampire subspecies. So, mating with other humanoids, either willingly or forcefully? On the other hand, Regis mocked the notion of vampires 'raping' humans in the books and said it was merely a myth and an example of a human phobia. It is also possible they are the same as us in this regard, we can only speculate.

Or maybe...

Spoiler

 

[SMiki55]

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

 

[Alexius321]

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?

That's even crazier than the hermaphrodite theory

 

[SMiki55]

Dettlaff regenerating his cut off hand, while at the same time Dettlaff's cut off hand regenerating the rest of Dettlaff?

Dettlaff never dies!

 

[Eredin_Breacc_Glas]

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". The whole problem began with "A Game of Imagination", an old Witcher RPG, where vampires were divided simply into higher and lesser - REDs copied this uncritically into their games and later tried to explain discrepancies in BaW and the Compendium.

Sapkowski's view on vampires is clear. Their species are:

• Higher vampire

Regis&Dettlaff species. Those are immune to fire, silver, daylight, crucifixes, holy water, daylight and garlic as well as dismemberment. 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?

• "Humanitarian" vampires

Contrary to the above, vulnerable at least to silver, presumably also to fire and daylight (in some cases). Definitely killable. Consist of:
- alp (alpor), immune to daylight
- bruxa (bruxae), immune to daylight
- katakan
- mula (moola), immune to daylight
- nosferat
No idea about sexes. On the one hand, there is already at least one One-Gender Race – dryads (presumably thanks to mutagens composing Water of Brokilon). On the other, it was never, ever stated that there are only female bruxas or alps; nowise - there is actually male alp in non-Witcher Sapkowski novel, Narrenturm, where he is described as "tall, skinny, dark-skinned with pointed ears and hair as white as snow" (and, verbatim, intelligent).

• "Monstous" vampires

Vulnerable to most of vampire repellents, comprise:
- fleder
- ekimma (ekimmara)
Both these kinds are not native to the Four Kingdoms climate.

@Rantsir could say more, he was one of cruscaders against RPG-version of vampires.

What is this? A Witcher using the Internet?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@SMiki55: Great write up, thanks. I'd say there is no need to speculate about missing genders if there is no clear indication for that. I.e. since Regis said in general about vampires being born from parents, unless there is a specific reason to say otherwise, we can assume vampires have normal genders. Problem is that Sapkowski didn't give enough info, and in some cases there is just a single example of some vampire in the books (like Vereena who is a bruxa). But I wouldn't use that as any indication that they have gender specifics unlike other vampires.