Spoiler warning

Ok so last week I read the Vampire Wars dealing with all the Von Carsteins. Very grim, very dark. People are terrified of the vampires. Jerek who turns out to be a good guy vampire is hated, despised, and mistrusted throughout the series. As a general rule every human faced with a vampire in the books either whips out a weapon to end the evil's existance or begs for their life because they can't possibly win. Everyone hates vampires, and the few humans that are seduced by lahmians in the books are keeping their trysts secret, and those vampires are living in secert from within the city.

Now fast forward 300-400 years later in the setting and I start reading the Vampire Geneieve, And everyone seems to be on friendly terms with vampires. There's several young humans that have traveled to her tavern to ask her to drink all their blood, a few have asked for the blood kiss, she seems to stay at a convent that's well known and not hunted down by witch hunters. Everyone in the book (I'm 150 pages in) loves her and everyone has ZERO fears and mistrusts about vampires.

What the heck happened to the world in those 400 years I don't know about? It's like a complete 180 in terms of attitude of the general populace.

Manfred mentions the old folklore wive's tale about vampire not being able to cross running water, but he mentions how much of a lie that is, while he himself travels upriver returning to the empire. Meanwhile Genevieve explains the reason that there aren't many vampires in Altdork is because it's surrounded by running water and vampires can't cross it.

I realize their are types of vampires( Von Carstiens, Lahmains, Striogi, Necrhachs) but reading these books are totally contridicting the setting. So I'm kind of hoping someone has a reasonable explanation for the changes.

I'm not an expert on the setting, but I have played the table top game for a number of years.

The Genevieve novels were written during the era of WFRP 1st edition, while the Vampire Wars novels were written after many setting changes and a dozen+ years later. Warhammer doesn't have any official or consistent canon; it changes too often, and even within a given time period, may contradict. It's best viewed as one views real world history; different perspectives and missing details give a hint of the "truth" but it's all just theory and speculation, ultimately.

Personally, I'd say both are "right" - look at America's view of various former enemies since WWII; there's quite a bit of change in less than a hundred years. So while Genevieve may still be hated by the devout of Sigmar, vampires could be a bit of an "open secret", tolerated by most, especially bored nobles and the lowlifes of Altdorf's docks.

morskittar said:

The timeline seems pretty cannon to me, but I can see where's there's many inconstistancies with the novels. Still with an actual loremaster position at GW I'm a little shocked that in just 3 novels I've read so far, so much is inconsistant compared to other RPG settings.

I'm sure a justification can be created to allow both to exist and I'm thankful for the input. That said, this Genevieve novel seems WAY too light and bouncy to fit what should be a gritty world. I think I'll finish reading the series and I'll know what NOT to use in my campaign if it doesn' change in tone.

In the Genevieve novels, people temporarily like Genevieve. Not vampires in general - in fact, in several encounters with them, common people are distrustful and/or downright murderous.

Remember that Genevieve was part of the heroic band that killed the sorceror Drachenfels, so that earned her a kind of uneasy respect. That doesn't stop a mob for hunting her down in some of the later books.

So Genevieve is more of an exception than an actual completely different generic attitude to vampires

phobiandarkmoon said:

Thanks. That makes me want to read the rest of it. I suspect alot of the attitude was directed at her and it just seemed like everyone attitude about all vampires was relaxed.

Wait... Hold the phone.

This is a story about a hot sexy vampire babe who has a heart of gold and lives in a convent?

That sounds pretty sleazy. Like a trashy Hammer film or a Nunsploitation flick from the 70s.

Are there any lesbian scenes? I'll bet that there are!

Sinister said:

Below is a bit more insight on GW's view of "consistency" or "canon". In their mind, there is no real explanation for what you're encountering; they're quite happy to allow different authors at different times have wildly different takes on the setting. The intent is that readers draw their own conclusions and create their own connections and explanations.

++

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you."

-Marc Gascoigne

++

"The Background exists as a context for the games that people play. Despite the occasional event, the background was never intended as an ongoing narrative that would be constantly updated. The back story presents questions, enigmas, problems, and conflicts. Gamers explore and solve these issues by playing games and developing armies. In short, the background provides the beginning, but the players provide the end.

What is Cypher up to? Well, he's up to whatever you need him to be up to for your games and campaigns. What does the cult mechanicus have to do with the dragon? Whatever you want that relationship to be.

The background should be like Schrödinger's Cat - Nothing is defined until the players look into the box by playing games and determining the outcome for themselves. Backgrounds should be full of possibilities to be exploited and expanded by players, not answers that limit the potential of the game and its setting."

-WD320

++

Props to someone on Warseer, I think, whom I don't remember for compiling these!

GW staffers could easily run for political office.

It's brilliant in their ability to sidestep answering the huge gaps in the continuity of their settings.

It's infuriating, but darn it I love the stuff!!! Why am I such a crack addict to this hobby called Warhammer and Warhammer 40k?

LeBlanc13 said:

I don't think it's a sidestep at all; they don't enforce continuity because they don't care or want to. That's the whole point (and for me, why I enjoy it so much); it's a framework that's as contradictory as real-world history, and allows fans to "own" it a little by by drawing our own conclusions. It's not like Star Trek or Star Wars (with Lucas' official lists of what is and isn't canon) - it's presented so that fans can act as historians and try to dig for the "truth" by creating theories and playing with the contradictions and gaps.

Much more fun than knowing all the answers are in a book or online. For me, at least. It's a very different philosophy and intent than other RPG or fantasy IPs. When it comes to GW there is no canon ; exactly how they intend it to be.

I've also seen what you are talking about, but I basically just leave out what doesn't fit my vision of the Old World. The Witch Hunter , the Brunner Series and the Vampire Wars are very close to how I picture the Old World, Genevieve is not. I just ignore that story myself. With so many writers we are bound to encounter variances in the feel of the world.

That's insane considering how much time and effort they spend on protecting their intellectiual property, only to just say "we don't care" Obviously they do care, but only when there's dollar signs flashing. If they didn't care about cannon, prove it, let fans contribute to the world! Ha. That won't happen. So they DO care, they just are lazy. You don't "own" anything about this setting, because as soon as you make something, cease and desist orders start flying.

Any GM wants to know how the setting works. Them being lazy isn't going to be pawned off on me as some sort of fun treasure hunt where my world view won't jive with another GM. Who really wants to go to one warhammer game and have the world hate vampires, and then go play in a convention game where some GM says "My world is like Geneieve's, vampires in my setting are awesome celebrities." I respect morskittar approach to make it work, but I don't think it should have come to that.

GW hires an actual LOREMASTER to deal with their setting, DnD doesn't even use a LOREMASTER, and they manage to protect continunity, even if they later change the setting and tick off people by moving the setting forward, the continunity is protected.

Shadowspawn said:

yeah, I'll have to do that. It's just sad though. I was hoping to develop a world view from the novels. Now I have to dig through and figure out which novels are gritty enough for me. Are there any other novels besides these you would recommend? I picked up the witch hunter triology.

Sinister said:

While I think it's entirely fair to dislike the method, I think it's unfair to say that there is something objectively wrong with it, or that it's GW being "lazy". It's not to your taste, but GW puts a lot of effort into creating details (that may or may not match previous details) and recording them.

Personally, the reason I prefer Warhammer as an IP above and beyond *anything* else out there (except maybe Dark Sun and Planescape, both similarly contradictory) is because I enjoy that hunt. I don't need answers; I'd rather have a toolbox that's linked in theme and atmosphere, rather than details and hardline canon. Everyone has a different view of Warhammer as a setting; just as historians have constant debates and are constantly revising what we know to be "true" about real history. That uncertainty and the fact that no one (not even GW) really knows the "real" answer

So, perhaps it's untrue that GW doesn't have canon for their games. It's that the canon is inclusive of *everything* ever published for the setting, and doesn't distinguish between absolute "word of God" and subjective propaganda and "in character" perspectives. The true canon is the atmosphere and feel of the game(s) involved, which is far more difficult to quantify and flexible enough that it makes for few things that are "wrong". Considering we have at least three or four distinct and separate timelines for the setting, the only real way to consume the novels and published materials is in an open sense; a number of the novels now talk about a time period (After the Storm of Chaos) that doesn't exist in WFRP 3rd/WFB 7th. Others are "historical" and the themes of the setting have changed since written (see: Genevieve, Konrad, the earlier Bill King stories). A few are a completely alternate timeline (Warhammer Online).

Whatever the case is, I don't think you can objectively say it's lazy; skewed toward a very British focus on themes over detail? Sure. Not to your taste? It seems very much so. Diffucult to get ramped up in and understand? Yep. But not lazy or accidental.

As for other novels, take a look at the link in my sig; in the mini-reviews I've tried to give some guidance as to the tone and era they come from, skewed by my own tastes, of course. Might help a little. The Mathias Thulmann series is a good call ; they're gritty with a fairly downplayed and subtle tone. The climax was a bit weak though.

I have little problem reconciling the concept of certain Vampires being accepted, or at least tolerated in the Empire. Keep in mind, the Vampire Wars were a time of hysteria when Altdorf itself was under threat. Since then, the Von Carsteins have learned to curb their ambition for the sake of preserving Sylvania as a viable political entity. In the post-SoC period (which admittedly is no longer canon) Mannfred von Carstein was even heralded as a saviour by some folk. Yes, most Vampires are evil, but so are many human lords. If humans understood the true scope of the Lahmians' ambition, they probably wouldn't suffer Genevieve to live, but the vampires' agenda is unknown to most. With the number of Lahmians who've infiltrated human courts, it's likely that many of them would've been exposed over the centuries, but does that mean they were immediately put to the stake? I could imagine that over time, the erstwhile Lahmian infiltrators would become critical cogs in their noble house's political apparatus, and not so easily replaced or discarded. Some of them might be instructed to remain undercover, but others (especially renegades who cut ties with Neferata) might be accepted. Of course, the Order of Morr wouldn't likely be as charitable, but on a societal acceptance level it's already known that Vampires walk among the living.

Herr Arnulfe said:

See my take is much different. Everyone knows about vampires, yes. And they have weaseled their way into society yes. But it seems to me the constant xenophobic nature of the world where mutants are killed on site, means that the same must be said for witch hunters and even civilizans dealing with vampires. It's not so much, thou will not suffer a witch for religious reasons, it's all sociological and political, allowing vampires to live is like allowing a chaos cult to operate, it's a risk to safety and security of the human race.

Think how much hatred their would be for vampires if they organized a terrorist attack in our society. Then think about how much hatred there would be if they sacked half your country, like the carsteins did. If we were paranoid enough to lock away american citizens of japanese decent during WWII, I have to believe that the the humans of the warhammer world are paranoid x100 to that, and after a real true threat, would have all sorts of laws, and homeland defence plans aimed squarely at vampires.

Then there's the question of how a witch hunter would react. If a witch hunter was faced with a chaos cult leader who defeated an evil necromancer, would he shake his hand and have a drink with the man? I think most of us would say he'd still kill him.

Would he act differently with a vampire? I say no, but some of you think he might.

Sinister said:

Well for one thing, individual mutants and witches are easy targets while vampires aren't. It's sort of like the US going after Al Quaeda while leaving North Korea alone. Taking them out is just too dangerous. If Mannfred ever mounts a major offensive, that could change of course, but right now people are content with the status quo.

Also, Chaos is contagious; vampirism is only passed on to select individuals. So aside from saving victims from being blood-sucked, there's no compelling reason to risk life and limb taking out vampires. Most Old Worlders probably aren't too concerned about someone else being blood-sucked, so long as it's not them. The best way to avoid being blood-sucked is to steer clear of vampires and avoid going out alone at night.

Finally, Chaos is the biggest threat to the Empire, according to the Church of Sigmar. Waging a campaign against the Vampires could weaken the Empire to the point where Chaos would prevail. Vampires use the humans' fear of Chaos to their advantage, always holding back from becoming the greater threat themselves, but steadily advancing their own goals in the meantime.

P.S. I also believe the Von Carstein lords know things about Sigmar and previous Theogonists that the cult would prefer to just leave buried.

Sinister said:

I suspect that a Witch Hunter would leave the vampire-hunting up to Morrian Vampire Hunters, but given the opportunity he'd probably stake a blood-sucker too. Most witch hunters are just too busy burning mutants and witches to worry about vampires.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Fair enough, a witch hunters job is never done......

It also depends on whether that vampire made the Witch Hunter angry...ala .Mathias Thulmann

Also keep in mind that one of the key themes of WFRP 1st was that the people of the Empire were becoming passive, decadent, and indolent. Though the Church, the Templars, and other parties might be keeping good ol' Chaos and Undead-hating zealotry alive, the people of the Empire might not follow suit, especially as open warfare (war *in* the Empire, cities under siege, as opposed to the fringes or deep in the Drakwald and the like) hasn't been seen (in 2521) for generations.

"Who cares about rumors of an assault in Kislev, or ancient legends about the Sylvanians trying to conquer the Empire? Magnus defeated Chaos hundreds of years ago - the Empire is safe. The Sylvanian nobles (some say they're undead, but I don't really believe it) are off in their province and part of the Empire, and that girl is nice, even if they say she's a vampire. Quite the looker too if you catch my drift. *wink-wink-nudge-nudge*"

- Johann Schmidt, noble of Altdorf

morskittar said:

There's another important factor. Strigoi and Necrarchs are probably hunted more fervently because they're ugly. Carsteins, Lahmians and Blood Dragons are sexy, so they're tolerated by folk who don't know any better.

morskittar said:

i don't know if it's 'lazy', in that they're not doing their research because they jus' don' wanna' - but the fact remains that GW does very poor research on their previous publications. Also, when they actually do know about an inconsistency, they deliberately ignore it. Their products have been dumbing down for decades. I hope FFG does better, but let's not wax poetic about GW.

GW can't even keep their ISBN numbers straight. Doomstones: Fire in the Mountains has the same ISBN-10 as Codex: Sisters of Battle . I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to happen.

Mikael Hasselstein said:

I wouldn't say inconsistency is "dumbing down" necessarily (though I wouldn't disagree that there's been a lot of dumbing down in some areas). I really think deliberately ignoring disagreements is an advantage. Rigid and iron-clad canon leads the route of Star Trek, and I'd really hate to see GW's background go that direction.

But then again, I enjoy real world history as well, which is even more fluid and contradictory. It's unusual to see that in a game setting.

morskittar said:

I think there's a balance to be struck between keeping the canon flexible, and also providing cool, meaty details that people can sink their teeth into. Sometimes GW errs on the side of the former, producing vague background material that isn't very inspiring. Sometimes they err on the side of the latter and paint themselves into corners that require entire books to be retconned (e.g. SoC).

Personally I think the best approach is to leave the objective truth open-ended (e.g. "is all magic actually Chaos?") and then zoom in on one theory (e.g. the relationship between Ulrican magic and Chaos) in loving detail to keep the material focused and inspiring. Leave the sandbox flexible, but pick a region of the sandbox and build an awesome sandcastle to show the fans how it can be done. Don't give us a sandbox full of half-finished castles.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Well put. Some of GW's greatest; Realms of Chaos, the 4th edition Undead and Skaven army books, Marienburg - were very much what you're describing. These also highlight some of the worst (in my opinion, at least) changes; things like Nurgle being focused on solely as a plague god, or Warhammer Online dropping the description of approaching the Inevitable City.