starkerealm wrote: »

Of course this is also the game with a male "Daughter of Cold Harbour" so the player vampires are hardly the weirdest thing out there.

Just because Verandis is "possibily" sired by Molly does not equal him being a daughter of coldharbour. Currently only women has been confirmed to ever been that through defilement and then be granted vampirism. Which is how we know that Daughters of Coldharbour are made.

Just like Harkon, Verandis might just have impressed our dearest Mapist B one way or another to be granted his vampirism. Neither of them are daughters of coldharbour though.

I miss the passive aggressive comments from the NPC's about me looking like I'm trouble, or not feeling so well. I wouldn't expect to be attacked unless I was obviously picking pockets, stealing, feeding on people while they are asleep, or killing out in the open.... I miss Oblivion now.....

I've got the impression on this forum over the last 9 months that vampires and werewolves have had enough attention already. Some people will never be satisfied until the game is renamed "Vampires and Werewolves Unlimited" !

They may have their place in the Justice System, but I'd hate to see the starting cities over-run with them. The game shouldn't be based around them, rather they should meet the challenge of taking the game on!

ShadowHvo wrote: »

I can confirm from the PTS that vampires do not become KoS immediately in stage four. However feeding on an innocent immediately gives you full heat, aka making you KoS.

In addition to this, there isn't a way to feed without getting caught.

starkerealm wrote: »

(If each of the daughters are unique, and that's where the bloodlines in Elder Scrolls come from. It's actually possible Velerica can't transform, meaning Serena was the one to turn Harkon).

But, Molag Bal didn't do anything to him directly.

That is complete assumption and theorycrafting however, as with the Daedric Princes its very unlikely Molly would -not- be able to grant another the same strain of vampirism.

Also, if Serana where to grant Harkon Vampirism, then Harkon would not be able to grant the Dragonborn the Vampire Lord transformation (If the theory about first and sec' generation vampires being vampire lords is true, even though that is still theorycrafting, as nothing about that is truely confirmed)

I agree something weird is going on. But we know that the defilement of the person is not required to turn the person into a vampire. The vampirism is granted by the blood Molly gives them. For all we know, Molly could've just given Harkon and Verandis this blood as well to make them Progenitor Vampires. But we know thus far that he has only defiled women, and those women are the daughters of coldharbour. That does not equal Harkon, nor Verandis being that too, as neither has ever been called such through the games.

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

But, Molag Bal didn't do anything to him directly.

That is complete assumption and theorycrafting however...

No, the thing about Harkon actually comes from dialog in Skyrim. There's an evidenced hypothesis or two in the original post, but if you think that's theory crafting, you're clearly not up to the task of following this train of thought.

Please prove that Harkon mentioned he was sired by Serana.

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

But, Molag Bal didn't do anything to him directly.

That is complete assumption and theorycrafting however...

No, the thing about Harkon actually comes from dialog in Skyrim. There's an evidenced hypothesis or two in the original post, but if you think that's theory crafting, you're clearly not up to the task of following this train of thought.

Please prove that Harkon mentioned he was sired by Serana.

Harkon never tells you. Serana does (and so does Valerica, I think). You just have to talk to them about Harkon. They don't say which one of them turned him, though.

Again, please prove that, because I'm scouring through their dialog trees atm, and I can certainly not find it.

Also, if that is the case, then that completely destoryes the theory about all first and second generation vampires being vampire lords, as that would make the Dragonborn third generation. Even though from all we know, the vampire lord might be exclusive to the Volkihar, or might even be given with age to.

The lore is so vague that we can simply only theorycraft, but I would really like if you could snap me a screenie of where it's mentioned that Harkon is sired by either Valerica or Serana, as I certainly can not find it.

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

But, Molag Bal didn't do anything to him directly.

That is complete assumption and theorycrafting however...

No, the thing about Harkon actually comes from dialog in Skyrim. There's an evidenced hypothesis or two in the original post, but if you think that's theory crafting, you're clearly not up to the task of following this train of thought.

Please prove that Harkon mentioned he was sired by Serana.

Harkon never tells you. Serana does (and so does Valerica, I think). You just have to talk to them about Harkon. They don't say which one of them turned him, though.

Again, please prove that, because I'm scouring through their dialog trees atm, and I can certainly not find it.

It's actually a plot point. If you played Dawnguard you should have a vague recollection that Harkon can't fulfill the pure blooded vampire requirement for the bow. It needs to be either Valerica or Serana. Remember that? Also, remember that the prophesy gets translated indiscriminately as "Daughter of Cold Harbour" and as "pure blooded vampire." If these aren't synonymous, and just being a vampire lord is enough, then Harkon or a Vampire Lord like the player should satisfy it, and be able to make blood cursed arrows... and Harkon wouldn't need Serana... but, no it actually needs to be either Serena or Valerica. Confirmed Daughters of Cold Harbour.

Presumably another Daughter like Lamae might be able to satisfy it, assuming she's still around in the 4th Era, but, I know how extrapolating general rules from specific examples gives you trouble, so I'll leave that one there.

Again man, be real here for a moment. We both know that Harkon is not a daughter of Coldharbour, yet the prophecy for the scroll requires the blood of a Daughter of Coldharbour. Thats what is specificly said!

Harkon is still a pure-blooded vampire, and he claims himself that Molly made him and his family into vampires. That does not state, nor prove anywhere that Harkon was sired by his wife or child. It merely is as it is, the blood from a Daughter of Coldharbour is needed, and neither Harkon nor the Dragonborn is that.

Sorry man, but that does not prove anywhere that Harkon was sired by those, all it proves is that Harkon can not fufill the prophecy because he is only a pure-blooded vampire, but not a daughter of coldharbour.

EDIT:

Also, it is not pure-blooded vampires AND daughters of coldharbour, this is what said about the prophecy.

<Valerica> When I fled Castle Volkihar, I fled with two Elder Scrolls. The scroll I presume you found with Serana speaks of Auriel and his arcane weapon, Auriel's Bow. The second scroll declares that "The Blood of Coldharbour's Daughter will blind the eye of the Dragon."
<Dragonborn> How does Serana fit in?
<Valerica> Like myself, Serana was a human once. We were devout followers of Lord Molag Bal. Tradition dictates the females be offered to Molag Bal on his summoning day. Few survive the ordeal. Those that do emerge as a pure-blooded vampire. We call such confluences the "Daughters of Coldharbour."

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

But, Molag Bal didn't do anything to him directly.

That is complete assumption and theorycrafting however...

No, the thing about Harkon actually comes from dialog in Skyrim. There's an evidenced hypothesis or two in the original post, but if you think that's theory crafting, you're clearly not up to the task of following this train of thought.

Please prove that Harkon mentioned he was sired by Serana.

Harkon never tells you. Serana does (and so does Valerica, I think). You just have to talk to them about Harkon. They don't say which one of them turned him, though.

Again, please prove that, because I'm scouring through their dialog trees atm, and I can certainly not find it.

It's actually a plot point. If you played Dawnguard you should have a vague recollection that Harkon can't fulfill the pure blooded vampire requirement for the bow. It needs to be either Valerica or Serana. Remember that? Also, remember that the prophesy gets translated indiscriminately as "Daughter of Cold Harbour" and as "pure blooded vampire." If these aren't synonymous, and just being a vampire lord is enough, then Harkon or a Vampire Lord like the player should satisfy it, and be able to make blood cursed arrows... and Harkon wouldn't need Serana... but, no it actually needs to be either Serena or Valerica. Confirmed Daughters of Cold Harbour.

Presumably another Daughter like Lamae might be able to satisfy it, assuming she's still around in the 4th Era, but, I know how extrapolating general rules from specific examples gives you trouble, so I'll leave that one there.

Again man, be real here for a moment. We both know that Harkon is not a daughter of Coldharbour, yet the prophecy for the scroll requires the blood of a Daughter of Coldharbour. Thats what is specificly said!

Harkon is still a pure-blooded vampire, and he claims himself that Molly made him and his family into vampires. That does not state, nor prove anywhere that Harkon was sired by his wife or child. It merely is as it is, the blood from a Daughter of Coldharbour is needed, and neither Harkon nor the Dragonborn is that.

Sorry man, but that does not prove anywhere that Harkon was sired by those, all it proves is that Harkon can not fufill the prophecy because he is only a pure-blooded vampire, but not a daughter of coldharbour.

Then what the hell is Vyrthur talking about when he says:

"A prophecy that lacked a single, final ingredient... the blood of a pure vampire. The blood of a Daughter of Coldharbour."

If they're not the same, which is it? Daughters of Cold Harbour must be pure vampires... So why specify both? If they are synonymous, then Harkon doesn't qualify, and Vyrthur is just repeating himself for rhetorical emphasis. If they're non-synonymous, then that raises all kinds of questions. Like, how do you end up with an impure Daughter of Cold Harbour... or where do pure non-daughters... presumably like Verandis and Harkon come from? Because they're not part of the established ritual from Elder Scrolls Lore.

EDIT: Also, I checked, Valerica is the one who specifically mentioned that she and Serana were offered up to Molag Bal. From lore books on the subject, they were the ones that came out vampires. Since, that's how the sacrifice works.

ShadowHvo wrote: »

Harkon outright says he is a pure-blooded vampire. And we know being a Daughter of Coldharbour means that you're in fact a pure-blooded vampire, so it most certainly must be "both"

Vyrthur also says it in such a method.. Which to me, at least in my ears is a direct continuation on the same sentence, to clarify what he specificly is meaning, as not all pure vampires are daughters of coldharbour.

From the dialog files, it's actually a separate sentence, which is... grammatically iffy. It should probably be delineated by a semi-colon, but those scare people... so.

If English isn't your native language, this could be tripping you up, because this is a somewhat uncommon, rhetorical construction that's way too prevalent in fantasy writing.

You want to use a specialized, loaded, or obscure term, but you also need to define it for the audience. Granted, the Vyrthur dialog is using one loaded term to describe another, and that's just sloppy writing, but it does start tying terms together.

For example: if I were to say, "it's a poorly made copy of the original; a simulacrum." It's the same construction. I'm defining what the thing is, and then telling you the specialized term. Or, "this is pure schadenfreude; to take joy in another's misfortune." Using the specialized term first, then defining it.

As a continuation of the same sentence, Vyrthur is actually marrying the two terms together. Daughters are pure blooded vampires.

If they're supposed to be separate logical arguments in the same statement, then what Vyrthur says doesn't make sense. It'd be like saying, "I need a frog, that is also an amphibian." Because you're never going to find... say, a mammalian frog (I dearly hope), and because the amphibian part doesn't matter.

If he just needs a Daughter, then the part about a pure blood vampire doesn't matter. Because, again, you can't have a Daughter of Cold Harbour who isn't also a pure blood vampire. It would be like like him belting out, "I WROTE THIS PROPHESY TO SUMMON A FROG THAT IS ALSO AN AMPHIBIAN! CAN YOU FIND ME SUCH A CREATURE?

ShadowHvo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

Harkon outright says he is a pure-blooded vampire. And we know being a Daughter of Coldharbour means that you're in fact a pure-blooded vampire, so it most certainly must be "both"

Vyrthur also says it in such a method.. Which to me, at least in my ears is a direct continuation on the same sentence, to clarify what he specificly is meaning, as not all pure vampires are daughters of coldharbour.

From the dialog files, it's actually a separate sentence, which is... grammatically iffy. It should probably be delineated by a semi-colon, but those scare people... so.

If English isn't your native language, this could be tripping you up, because this is a somewhat uncommon, rhetorical construction that's way too prevalent in fantasy writing.

You want to use a specialized, loaded, or obscure term, but you also need to define it for the audience. Granted, the Vyrthur dialog is using one loaded term to describe another, and that's just sloppy writing, but it does start tying terms together.

For example: if I were to say, "it's a poorly made copy of the original; a simulacrum." It's the same construction. I'm defining what the thing is, and then telling you the specialized term. Or, "this is pure schadenfreude; to take joy in another's misfortune." Using the specialized term first, then defining it.

As a continuation of the same sentence, Vyrthur is actually marrying the two terms together. Daughters are pure blooded vampires.

If they're supposed to be separate logical arguments in the same statement, then what Vyrthur says doesn't make sense. It'd be like saying, "I need a frog, that is also an amphibian." Because you're never going to find... say, a mammalian frog (I dearly hope), and because the amphibian part doesn't matter.

If he just needs a Daughter, then the part about a pure blood vampire doesn't matter. Because, again, you can't have a Daughter of Cold Harbour who isn't also a pure blood vampire. It would be like like him belting out, "I WROTE THIS PROPHESY TO SUMMON A FROG THAT IS ALSO AN AMPHIBIAN! CAN YOU FIND ME SUCH A CREATURE?

I think you misunderstood me, I never said Daughters were not pure-blooded.

No, you have that backwards. If he is not marrying the terms, both arguments have to be independently possible. Which we know isn't possible. Therefore, either he's really terrible at prioritizing in his head, he's confused, or they are synonymous.

Vyrthur is using a rhetorical trick that's fairly popular in fantasy and science fiction to define what pure vampires are. That's just from how the sentence is put together.

ShadowHvo wrote: »

What I meant by "both", is that the Daughters are immediately pure-blooded by creation, as the defilement makes them the daughter, and the drop of blood gives them their vampiric strain, or throughout whatever method Molly decides to use.

That however, does not mean that Molly can not make others pure-blooded, but without the daughter aspect ontop of it. Harkon claims he is a pure-blooded vampire, and we know he sacrificed a whole lot of people to become it.

The issue isn't that Molag Bal... is it really that hard for you to spell Molag Bal?

The issue isn't that Molag Bal cannot choose to make vampires any other way, it's that he never has.

This gets into a consistency argument. It's possible he made Harkon and Verandis vampires personally... but, that's not how things normally work. So, either he broke the rules because these two guys were super special and deserved unique treatment... or... something's up.

ShadowHvo wrote: »

The argument however still stands, that Harkon were not bitten by his wife nor child, but was made a pure-blooded vampire by Molly himself after his huge sacrifice of both a thousand men and his wife and daughter.

What Verandis did, neither of us have any clue about, but Molly can still make others pure-blooded vampires, while them not being Daughters of Coldharbour, which is a rather unique title per say.

So, for reference, the ritual that Serana and Valerica are talking about is fairly similar to the transformation for Lamae. You can dig this up in lore books going at least back to Daggerfall. Though, I know it popped up in Morrowind and Oblivion's libraries, and I think it was in Skyrim.

Cultists take a woman, or in Harkon's case two women. Tie them up, on a certain day, the 20th of Evening Star, I think. And then summon Molag Bal. If he shows up he rapes the woman to death, and if she somehow survives, she will rise as a pure blood vampire.

Yeah... so, I don't see Harkon wanting to go through that personally. He's just not the type. Also, that's how Molag Bal makes vampires. It's possible Molag Bal could make them through other means, but, as you might have noticed, he's not exactly the most congenial of fellows.

Also, it's worth pointing out, only the woman becomes a vampire. Not everyone in attendance.

Most of the time, the woman dies, because, well, it's a Daedric Prince of ohgodwhatheactual----. But this is where Elder Scrolls gets it's first vampires. If you want to source this, just go through the books on vampires in The Imperial Library.

Though, it's suggested in Opusculus Lamae Bal that Molag Bal doesn't intentionally make vampires. And the process is basically an accidental byproduct of him defiling a mortal.

Lokryn wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

I can confirm from the PTS that vampires do not become KoS immediately in stage four. However feeding on an innocent immediately gives you full heat, aka making you KoS.

Well, at least that's something. I guess you could argue that vampires can hide their nature with a hood or armor. But I think we all agree that a transformed werewolf should definitely be KoS.

I'm actually a little surprised. Normally with werewolfs, transforming is the offense. Everything you do after that is just, "OH GODS THERE'S A NINE FOOT TALL SNARLING DEATH BEAST RUNNING AT ME I DON'T WANT TO DIE!"

Not, "OH GODS THERE'S A NINE FOOT TALL SNARLING DEATH BEAST RUNNING AT ME I DON'T WANT TO DIE! Oh, hey steve, you want to not murder all those people? Mmm... kay, well, I guess I'm going to have to tell the guard that you murdered all these people, but being a werewolf isn't important, right?"

I suspect this is because you can actually loot corpses in wolf form, and the justice system would be hilariously broken if you could just kill people, sneak off, and revert out at will.

starkerealm wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

Harkon outright says he is a pure-blooded vampire. And we know being a Daughter of Coldharbour means that you're in fact a pure-blooded vampire, so it most certainly must be "both"

Vyrthur also says it in such a method.. Which to me, at least in my ears is a direct continuation on the same sentence, to clarify what he specificly is meaning, as not all pure vampires are daughters of coldharbour.

From the dialog files, it's actually a separate sentence, which is... grammatically iffy. It should probably be delineated by a semi-colon, but those scare people... so.

If English isn't your native language, this could be tripping you up, because this is a somewhat uncommon, rhetorical construction that's way too prevalent in fantasy writing.

You want to use a specialized, loaded, or obscure term, but you also need to define it for the audience. Granted, the Vyrthur dialog is using one loaded term to describe another, and that's just sloppy writing, but it does start tying terms together.

For example: if I were to say, "it's a poorly made copy of the original; a simulacrum." It's the same construction. I'm defining what the thing is, and then telling you the specialized term. Or, "this is pure schadenfreude; to take joy in another's misfortune." Using the specialized term first, then defining it.

As a continuation of the same sentence, Vyrthur is actually marrying the two terms together. Daughters are pure blooded vampires.

If they're supposed to be separate logical arguments in the same statement, then what Vyrthur says doesn't make sense. It'd be like saying, "I need a frog, that is also an amphibian." Because you're never going to find... say, a mammalian frog (I dearly hope), and because the amphibian part doesn't matter.

If he just needs a Daughter, then the part about a pure blood vampire doesn't matter. Because, again, you can't have a Daughter of Cold Harbour who isn't also a pure blood vampire. It would be like like him belting out, "I WROTE THIS PROPHESY TO SUMMON A FROG THAT IS ALSO AN AMPHIBIAN! CAN YOU FIND ME SUCH A CREATURE?

I tend to agree with your conclusion about Harkon while understanding that there are inevitably going to be those who doubt. As an aside, I also find it a little amusing that many (not all) men seem to be fine with the idea that Molag Bal rapes women to death and a few "lucky" survivors come out vampires but get all squeemish and insist that there MUST be "some other" mechanism for making men vampires when it's done directly by Molag Bal. LOL But, most importantly, I just wanted to tell you that, after reading this post, if you are not mobbed with fan mail and date offers by English Majors, I will be very surprised. Were I not already very cheerfully married to a man with an equally astonishing command of the language, I'd be one of them.

starkerealm wrote: »

So, for reference, the ritual that Serana and Valerica are talking about is fairly similar to the transformation for Lamae. You can dig this up in lore books going at least back to Daggerfall. Though, I know it popped up in Morrowind and Oblivion's libraries, and I think it was in Skyrim.

Cultists take a woman, or in Harkon's case two women. Tie them up, on a certain day, the 20th of Evening Star, I think. And then summon Molag Bal. If he shows up he rapes the woman to death, and if she somehow survives, she will rise as a pure blood vampire.

Yeah... so, I don't see Harkon wanting to go through that personally. He's just not the type. Also, that's how Molag Bal makes vampires. It's possible Molag Bal could make them through other means, but, as you might have noticed, he's not exactly the most congenial of fellows.

Also, it's worth pointing out, only the woman becomes a vampire. Not everyone in attendance.

Most of the time, the woman dies, because, well, it's a Daedric Prince of ohgodwhatheactual----. But this is where Elder Scrolls gets it's first vampires. If you want to source this, just go through the books on vampires in The Imperial Library.

Though, it's suggested in Opusculus Lamae Bal that Molag Bal doesn't intentionally make vampires. And the process is basically an accidental byproduct of him defiling a mortal.

I know all of that man, but the argument still stands however, that Molly, or as you prefer it, Molag Bal HAS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER made HARKON and VERANDIS vampires.

THESE FOLK, Harkon at the very least is a PURE-BLOODED vampire, like it or not.

IF your theory about his daughter or wife turning him is correct, then that completely annihilates what you said previously with first and second generation vampires being vampire lords, as that would NOT grant the Dragonborn the vampire lord form after being turned by Harkon, yet we know that is not the case.

Hey, I get it, you would like to believe the pure-blooded vampires are only made throughout defilement and the drop of blood or whatnow Molag decides to use instead. But we know from a mere fact, and that being Harkon, that a person can become a pure-blooded vampire without being defiled, but through tons sacrifices and devotion.

Aka

Daughter of Coldharbour = Pure-Blooded Vampires
Pure-Blooded Vampires = Pure-Blooded Vampires.

The difference in Dawnguard and its prophecy, is the mere fact that THE BLOOD OF A DAUGHTER OF COLDHARBOUR IS NEEDED. Not a normal pure-blooded vampire otherwise created by Molag can do this, but specificly it MUST be one which has survived being physically DEFILED by the daedric prince himself, as that is what it takes to become a Daughter of Coldharbour.

Lokryn wrote: »

ShadowHvo wrote: »

I can confirm from the PTS that vampires do not become KoS immediately in stage four. However feeding on an innocent immediately gives you full heat, aka making you KoS.

Well, at least that's something. I guess you could argue that vampires can hide their nature with a hood or armor. But I think we all agree that a transformed werewolf should definitely be KoS.

Just tested it out, and I'm afraid turning into a werewolf does not do anything in the towns. Transformed in front of two guards just 3 minutes ago, and neither reacted at all.

Though, as soon as I slashed out for an innocent I got max heat immedately, just like vampires with their feeding.