# Can vampires go swimming in lakes and oceans unharmed?



## Arravis (Mar 24, 2008)

My question is simply this: Can vampires cross and be unharmed by immersion in lakes and oceans? I'm not referring to vampires from literature, but vampires simply as written by the RAW for D&D.

Under the vampire it states the following:
_"Vampires are also unable to cross running water, although they can be carried over it while resting in their coffins or aboard a ship."
"Similarly, immersing a vampire in running water robs it of one-third of its hit points each round until it is destroyed at the end of the third round of immersion."_

In the Aquatic Terrain section of the SRD it states the following:
_"Accordingly, these rules simply divide aquatic terrain into two categories: flowing water (such as streams and rivers) and nonflowing water (such as lakes and oceans)."_

So does flowing water=running water or are they two different definitions that sometimes overlap? Thanks guys!

-Arravis


----------



## Folly (Mar 24, 2008)

I see no reason that a vampire would have issue with bodies of water that are not defined as running water.


----------



## Cyberia (Mar 24, 2008)

I think it's perfectly logical to interpret both phrases as meaning the same thing.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 24, 2008)

Considering that AD&D 1e & 2e had a paragraph about aquatic vampires, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that 3E vampires can dwell in lakes and oceans.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 24, 2008)

Depends on the size of the lake I say. If a lake is big enough to have significant waves as a regular feature {Like Chicago's lake Michigan], then i will call it running water


----------



## Arravis (Mar 24, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Depends on the size of the lake I say. If a lake is big enough to have significant waves as a regular feature {Like Chicago's lake Michigan], then i will call it running water



The problem with that logic is that oceans are constantly moving with substantial and incredibly powerful waves and currents... and by the rules they are clearly defined as "non-flowing". Having been born on an island and grown up along the ocean, I'll vouch for its dynamic nature. But yet, the rules still define it as "non-flowing", so I don't see how a lake, regardless of how powerful the currents, could be defined otherwise since the rules make that statement so clearly.


----------



## Shin Okada (Mar 25, 2008)

As the rule does not define what kind of watery terrains are "running water" clearly, it is up to DM.

I say, most natural lakes and oceans are "running". Most lakes have some source of water (rivers running into them, spring water, etc.) and where their waters go (rivers running out from them, etc.)

And ocean of course has currents and streams.

And, some says vampires cannot cross running water as they were originally a metaphor of pest or the original folklore is based on the memory of pest which European people suffered several times. It often happed in the Europe that the pest stops at one side of the river and such. So, from that concept, I say big lakes and (of course) ocean works.


----------



## Arravis (Mar 25, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> As the rule does not define what kind of watery terrains are "running water" clearly, it is up to DM.



Actually, what I am arguing is essentially that the rules DO define what "running water" is, it is "flowing water", and flowing water has a clear and specific definition within the rules.


----------



## Shin Okada (Mar 25, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Actually, what I am arguing is essentially that the rules DO define what "running water" is, it is "flowing water", and flowing water has a clear and specific definition within the rules.




But the word "running water" is only used in the description of the vampire entry and the word "flowing water" is only used in the Terrain section.

Whether if running water = flowing water is not defined.


----------



## Folly (Mar 25, 2008)

Shin is correct that it is up to the DM. The DM should realize that it has become a DM decision and that the consequences have to be dealt with as well. If you rule that lakes count against vampires one could logically extend it to any body of water. This would be done by stating A lake is a nonflowing body of water. A pond is a nonflowing body of water. Thus if A=C and B=C then A=B. 

What I am saying is that when a DM makes a decision on this, (s)he is not making a clarification but revising the rule and should take into account the affect of it so as to not cause silly situations as stated above.


----------



## Shayuri (Mar 25, 2008)

To avoid overcomplicating the issue I think the salient question to define running water should be, "Where is it running to?"

Running doesn't mean just any kind of motion, I'd argue. Tides don't count. Waves and wind don't count. Running says that the water starts over -here- and flows over to -there- in a fairly direct manner. It may pause along the way here and there, say, behind a dam or something...but it has a course and a current, and it's hellbent to get where it's going.

A river fed lake is not running. The river that leads up to it is running. The river leading away from it is running. The lake isn't. It's a magical vulnerability of a magical creature! It's not based on physical law. The lake water clearly isn't moving...therefore it's not running. The river water clearly is moving, therefore it's running.


----------



## werk (Mar 25, 2008)

I think it's a DM's call too...

Vamps can still cross running water, they just need to be carried or transported in their coffin.  This is the usual method I am used to seeing in vampire movies.

Then I need to go back to the mythology to find out why the vampire is afeared of water in the first place, maybe that'll explain the flavor of the rule and I can better decide how to run them IMC.  A couple of references suggested that they are not able to cross large bodies as well.  ONe of the better excerpts is below:


			
				vampires.monstrous.com said:
			
		

> Inability to Cross Water
> The vampire may not cross running water, except at the ebb and flow of the tide. He may be carried over or at certain times he may change shape and fly or jump over. This is not to say that they cannot swim, but running or flowing water such as rivers, streams, or waterfalls mystically impede the creature’s ability to swim and stay afloat, causing it to drown and perish. This is but a temporal "death", however. Once a vampire’s body is removed from running water, it will return to "life".
> 
> "It is said, too, that he can only pass running water at the slack or the flood of tide."  - Professor Van Helsing in Mina Harker's Journal, Chapter XVIII of Dracula by Bram Stoker
> ...




Given all the information I've been able to find, oceans and lakes would also be considered 'running water' for the purposes of vampire determent.  IMC, of course


----------



## Arravis (Mar 25, 2008)

Well, in my opinion and as stated in my original post, D&D vampires don't follow the rules of myth and literature, so there's no reason to refer to things outside the RAW. According to the RAW, they don't even need to drink blood. I do agree that it does, of course, come down to a DM's decision. The decision though simply needs to be is flowing water the same as running water, as per defined in the rules. Issues of myths and legends say are inconsequential.


----------



## Arravis (Mar 25, 2008)

Sorry... doublepost.


----------



## moritheil (Mar 25, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Issues of myths and legends say are inconsequential.




Except when they strongly influence the DM and/or the majority of the players.      RAW, I think it is unclear and thus it would be up to the DM.  It is not absolutely proven that "flowing water" and "running water" are intended to be equivalent _specifically_ for the purposes of vampire weaknesses.

On a tangentially related note, I once had a vampire killed by Plane Shifting him to an ocean of holy water by Mt. Celestia.


----------



## Shin Okada (Mar 25, 2008)

Shayuri said:
			
		

> cRunning doesn't mean just any kind of motion, I'd argue. Tides don't count. Waves and wind don't count. Running says that the water starts over -here- and flows over to -there- in a fairly direct manner. It may pause along the way here and there, say, behind a dam or something...but it has a course and a current, and it's hellbent to get where it's going.





By that definition, most natural lakes and all the oceans are actually running, indeed. Most lakes are, actually just "midpoint" of a long stream which start from mountain to the ocean. And Ocean has strong streams, especially around lands. For example, around my county Japan, streams from north and streams from south crash at some points near our lands and making good fishing points. Ocean is flowing and running, actually.


----------



## Goolpsy (Mar 27, 2008)

Flowing Water is not Equal to Running Water...

By the definition they merely mean that a Vampire doesn't Drown if he sticks his finger into a Glass of Water... or the glass of Water is poured over him (Temporarily running or not)

Hence It is, should be and my interpretation that any Aquatic Enviroment is considered 'Running Water' for this purpose, however Windy it might be on the Given Day.


----------



## Arravis (Mar 27, 2008)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> By the definition they merely mean that a Vampire doesn't Drown if he sticks his finger into a Glass of Water... or the glass of Water is poured over him (Temporarily running or not).



Actually, the RAW already cover this issue by mentioning the vampire must be immersed, so that does not help towards defining running water.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 28, 2008)

Shayuri said:
			
		

> A river fed lake is not running. The river that leads up to it is running. The river leading away from it is running. The lake isn't. It's a magical vulnerability of a magical creature! It's not based on physical law. The lake water clearly isn't moving...therefore it's not running. The river water clearly is moving, therefore it's running.




The hydrology of oceans is too complicated so I'll stick to lakes

our local lake is the largest in the southern hemisphere (cookie for anyone who can name it) it has a number of inlets (rivers, streams, swamps) and a single (surface) outlet, it has been calculated that water entering the lake takes approximately 12 years to flow through to the outlet (accounting for alternative use, condensation etc) 

so lakes IS moving (flowing) and the various currents and ripples confirm this,  it is just moving very slowly be human terms

does this mean it is running? does moving = flowing = running? who knows...

Now a built swimming pool, a stagnant pond or a tidal lagoon aren't running so could be used by a vampire without worry, but not a Lake


----------



## Goolpsy (Mar 28, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Actually, the RAW already cover this issue by mentioning the vampire must be immersed, so that does not help towards defining running water.




What if the Glass is big, like a Water Tank? 'Bathtub?', Swimming pool?
All these are artificial unlike the Usual Water enviroment defines ones.

Again, I wouldn't consider a Vampire immersed in the water coming from an aquaduct for Deadly, however Running it might be.

I don't think "Running" as written in the text defines the 'action' of the Water, but rather the 'Natural' element of Water. => Natural Water is always 'running' in some way (System wise).


With your Interpretation, you could Put a Vampire into a Barrel full of Water, and pour more water into the barrel till it spills of the edge --> "Moving Water" and the Vampire suddenly Dies?
If this doesn't seem Rediculous to you, then i guess i have nothing left to do in this thread :S


----------



## Arravis (Mar 28, 2008)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> With your Interpretation, you could Put a Vampire into a Barrel full of Water, and pour more water into the barrel till it spills of the edge --> "Moving Water" and the Vampire suddenly Dies? If this doesn't seem Rediculous to you, then i guess i have nothing left to do in this thread :S



Umm, that's not my interpretation, as stated in the original post:


			
				Arravis said:
			
		

> In the Aquatic Terrain section of the SRD it states the following: _"Accordingly, these rules simply divide aquatic terrain into two categories: flowing water (such as streams and rivers) and nonflowing water (such as lakes and oceans)."_



So it would seem to me that the RAW does define exactly what "running water" is: it is "flowing" water, ie rivers and streams.


----------



## Drowbane (Mar 28, 2008)

Sometimes ya gotta say "to hell with RAW" and go with "RAI" (I know, blasphemy on the Rules Forum ).

I go with Bram Stoker's approach.  If Dracula couldn't leave an ocean-going ship... niether can Strahd.


----------



## Arravis (Mar 28, 2008)

Well, as you stated so wisely it is the Rules forum, not the House Rules forum .
The RAW may not always make sense and it rarely follows actual myth. The point of this forum is to find out what the exactly the RAW convey, so we as DM's can then make our own decision to overrule them or follow them. That decision is implicit in the very nature of the forum I always assumed.


----------



## calighis (Mar 29, 2008)

I would have to site standard Halchikk (kosher) procedures for defining water for purposes of making it holy. It must be Maim Chaim (running water) from a running stream or river. Now if neither are available the rabbi's allow that lake or even ocean water is accpetable for Mikvah but I doubt it would stop a vampire. Incidentally the sages don't have much to say about vampires, but lucky for us garlic is kosher.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 29, 2008)

I would say that since the RAW is not explicit in defining 'running water', it is up to the GM to interpret how to apply that rule.

For me, I go with running water is not stagnant water.... so any body of water that is not bog or swamp {fetid, stagnant, diseased... epitomies of death} will not impede a vampires movement. On the other hand, water that is moving like rivers, streams, lake, or oceans {clean, healthy... epitomies of life} will impede the vampire.

YMMV...


----------



## mvincent (Mar 31, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Issues of myths and legends say are inconsequential.



I disagree. The description for _this particular_ weakness appears to be based solely on those myths, without any particular deviation or elaboration. As such, it can provide useful background information for those that desire it, especially if the matter is subject to some interpretation.


----------



## Arravis (Mar 31, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> especially if the matter is subject to some interpretation.



 That is the reason why we have to go with the rules as written, not with myth, because your opinion of which vampire myth D&D is based on will likely be completely different from my interpretation. That's exactly why it's irrelevant in a Rules forum. The subject of myth IS so open to interpretation, opinion, source, etc that it would be impossible to deny anyone's opinion on any myth. How can you prove a myth wrong or right? It's the very nature of myth to be nebulous and inconclusive.

Do we follow Bram Stoker's novel? Do we follow Anne Rice? Do we follow the myths of Romania, do we use the one based on Greek myth? Do we follow Hollywood, then which movie? Are any of these wrong? Which did the writers of Dungeons and Dragons intend? Most of the stuff in D&D is based on Myth, but because it is so, doesn't mean it matters to the RAW. Look up the Golem of myth, or any other creature, and compare it to D&D. 

Unfortunately this could be argued forever, but that doesn't help at a Rules forum. Since it is so, let us stick to the RAW.


----------



## mvincent (Mar 31, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Do we follow Bram Stoker's novel?



Yes. That appears to be the "traditional" reference for vampirisms, including this particular weakness (it's similar to how we would typically reference Tolkien when debating beards on female dwarves in 3e, even though there are many different accounts of dwarves).



> let us stick to the RAW.



Feel free to yourself, but many of us like to gather information about RAI and such. If it pleases you, simply view such conversions as applying only to us.


----------



## Arravis (Apr 1, 2008)

I suspect the water issues with vampires predates Bram, but like with all else listed above, this could be argued endlessly. I have nothing against using mythical sources for house rules, etc... in the end, every DM chooses for themselves what they want to do. The issue is that this is the Rules forum and its purpose is to stick to the RAW.


----------



## Doug Sundseth (Apr 1, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> I have nothing against using mythical sources for house rules, etc... in the end, every DM chooses for themselves what they want to do. The issue is that this is the Rules forum and its purpose is to stick to the RAW.




When interpreting terms in rules, you begin by looking for a definition of the term proximal to its use.  Failing that (as here) you look for a definition in a glossary; there is none for "running water".  Absent both of those, you can look for guidance elsewhere in the full rules set; nobody has offered any such definition.

"Running water" is undefined in the rules.

From your posts, it seems you have a strong attachment to having "running water" be the same as "flowing water" (elsewhere defined).  In order for this to work, you must depend on particular definitions of "running" and "flowing".  That is, you are relying on context and general usage.

Context and general usage are precisely what other posters in this thread are relying upon to put forward the case that rivers and lakes are properly "running water" as used in the vampire definition.

In any case, from the information brought forward so far, there is no single RAW definition of "running water".  IOW, by the RAW, the definition of "running water" is a DM call.


----------



## milo (Apr 1, 2008)

I would say that unless the water has a speed listed it can't run.  It also has to run in a straight line.  But, if I was to go by the way the rules were written I would say that flowing water = running water.  Streams and rivers = bad for a vampire, while oceans and lakes should be ok.


----------



## Arravis (Apr 1, 2008)

Doug Sundseth said:
			
		

> by the RAW, the definition of "running water" is a DM call.



Point well made.

I was hoping for something more substantial than going back to the myth... just seems like folly  since D&D already diverges so much from myth (if you ever figure out exactly which myth they are pulling from to begin with).


----------



## mvincent (Apr 1, 2008)

Arravis said:
			
		

> this is the Rules forum and its purpose is to stick to the RAW.



I disagree. I can (and have before) listed absurdities that can result if one chose strict RAW over RAI. This is because rules are unlikely to always be written with perfect wording (nor do we expect them to). 

Regardless, *R*AI is applicable for discussion in a *r*ules forum (despite your own personal interests).

The findings about flowing water elsewhere in the rules are certainly useful. I would back any DM that chose to adjudicate based on those terms, even though they don't align perfectly (i.e. it's not unreasonable to believe that the writer(s) intended to indicate the same thing with those two different terms, and it's probably the closest match that will be found in the core rules). However, it seems more likely to me that writers did not actually have this in mind, and that one was simply alluding to the commonly known (i.e. Bram Stoker's) vampire weakness. Going with the perceived higher percentage of probable intent is preferable to many than relying on strict literalism. Why would you begrudge them that? I don't think they would begrudge you of your preference (but if they did, I would likely instead be defending your view here).

Even in legal matters, spirit/intent of a law is very relevant.


----------



## Legildur (Apr 1, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Even in legal matters, spirit/intent of a law is very relevant.



Interesting topic this one.

You are correct that spirit/intent is useful for ruling on a matter of law where there is ambiguity in the legislation.  We certainly have ambiguity here.  But do we have a statement of spirit/intent available to us?  I certainly haven't seen one yet.


----------



## mvincent (Apr 1, 2008)

Legildur said:
			
		

> But do we have a statement of spirit/intent available to us?



If it were, that would technically make it the letter of the law. A statement of spirit/intent is normally not present in legal matters either. Instead, the judge uses the 'everyday man' interpretation of the intent (which may or may not be ambiguous).

In this case, we have:
_"Vampires are also unable to cross running water, although they can be carried over it while resting in their coffins or aboard a ship."_

An everyday man would probably view the intent as trying to capture 'traditional' vampire weaknesses (and the most commonly understood ones are from Bram Stoker). In fact, the vampire weakness section contains some other standard vampire weaknesses that seem to be described more in a traditional (Stoker) sense than a mechanical sense. 

Curiously, the passage mentions being carried over running water in a ship (i.e. not a boat). 'Ships' are normally thought of in the context of seagoing (as opposed to traversing rivers and streams). Using a ship to traverse the ocean was a fairly notable scene in Dracula (one which well established the weakness), which is another reason I reckon the writer had Bram Stoker-type weaknesses in mind when he wrote the above passage.


----------

