It isn't speculation so much as we simply don't know how long it would take to figure out, if it all possible. I mean, maybe they do and maybe they don't. We don't know either way, but it is something to account for. And yet even before I quoted Hassildor, people were speaking as if they were suggesting not eating didn't do anything to the bother that much. Or that's the impression I got. Of course they noted some would go mad but... The longest non-feeding time frame for a vampire from what I can tell is more than 50 years, which goes to the Count's wife. The next is an unstated time for the Prince's father, who suggested he was "fine." Some on here have stated ~20 years, which wouldn't be bad considering the time between Lord Lov told the truth and the time we'd meet him later/the possible age of the Prince/time we (if doing the vampire curse) cure the Count's wife. And even if it was slightly more than 20 years, I would verily doubt it was more than 20 years. So, and to reply to Werewolves&Vampires mention of it, too, with that in mind, his time compared to Rona's is quite substantial in the difference. We also don't know how Rona acted pre-coma. Perhaps she went a little wild. And yes, it would also be determined by age. Lord Lov was over two hundred years old, while Rona would be maybe around 90 or 100, so he may be able to hold it off longer. But I would assume if forcefully kept from feeding (because he wanted to), then he would end up in a coma, too.

At this point, I think it'd be better to say we don't know how long it'd take them to die versus they don't die from not feeding. It may not seem to be logical, but in fact it is nothing more than logical when you have enhanced abilities like a vampire to survive 50 years and then some by not eating. And then to add in a coma, which would lengthen it. Yes, it is true we don't know whether or not they would do, but I'd prefer to say we don't know how long it would take because there has to be a point at which their body simply stops. We already know the stages they go through if they don't feed, with minimal outliers. And reiterating, age is a factor. And if they can grow weak to the point their own body cannot sustain itself, then... what is next? And sure, I won't be the last to say this is mostly speculation and conjecturing. But I feel I have enough evidence to at least come this far to support my hypotheses.

As for the disease part... No other undead can spread the disease. Zombies aren't even like the modern mythological creature we make them out to be, the whole zombie-disease spreading. But no other undead starts off as a disease, behaves, and they certainly cannot spread it. This lends itself to the idea it's a disease/curse/virus. And vampires are in no manner like other undead in any capacity aside from the either literal or metaphorical death they encounter after 3 days. Their behaviour simply doesn't fit the profile. Yes, this is TES. Their rules. They want them undead, sure, lol. But meh...

Vampires feed, unlike other undead. They also spread the disease, unlike other undead, whom of which don't have anything to spread. Other undead also are not typically seen in a civil environment with high cognitive functions, aside from Lich, which are an exception. There's really a lot of differences I could list but sadly I am too tired. =(

It doesn't have to contradict they're undead, the fact they can have children. You're right. But given all the other examples of undead, and the precedent they set? It kinda does contract, along with all the other differences. The only similarity between the rest of the undead and vampires is that vampires are believed by some to actually die. But given tons of other evidence, and the possibility it could be metaphorical, then that means there are no similarities. Well, I take that back - Lich and vampires have extended lives. Idk about Zombies and skeletons, how long they could perform their actions without requiring routine attention.

I suspect feral vampires are more interested in drinking blood than mating. The more intelligent Cyrodiilic vampires have their own reasons to avoid having lovers: it can risk breaking their cover, especially if, like Springheel Jak, they plan on passing off as their own descendents.

The more intelligent clan vampires in Morrowind, on the other hand, seemingly lacked these excuses as they were not posing as mortals and were not feral half-starved predators. Perhaps vampires simply lose the urge to mate.

And no other undead are NPC...


There are a lot of differences between regular undead and vampires, but just because whale doesn't look like a mammal doesn't mean it isn't mammal.
Everything you said here is possible but all the evidence is circumstantial, that's why I base my opinion about vampires on the literature in TES. Yes, most of it are just fairy tales, but some of it is written by experts.

If that were true, Lord Lovidus wouldn't of got into that orc maiden's skirts. And Jakben did mention he avoids attachments and grew out of having friends. But it depends on the vampire. If they have any mortal passion or at least a reason to spread the disease without biting someone, then they can procreate. While we have not seen it in lore, it's entirely possible.

Except whales do look like mammals? And to keep to the anology, Vampires do not resemble other undead in any manner. Meanwhile, there's countless differences. Whales, on the other hand, are mammals because they resemble other mammals biologically and anatomically. They share little in common with fish. The only identical trait vampires share with any undead, of which is the Lich, is an extended lifespan. Vampires have a lot in common with the living races. And as stated, I cannot say that other undead have an extended life. Maybe they can if the magic persists or have routine check ups. I mean, obviously we counter them, but at what extent they stop functioning, if at all, I don't know. Maybe they have extended life, too. I simply don't know. It's one way or the other and something we have no indication of, or way to speculate, much like how long it'd take a vampire to die if unfed, if at all possible. Same principle. Of course I prefer to think a vampire could die after a certain point if unfed, that the body cannot sustain itself any longer. The rate at which the body deteriorates, however, is determined by the age of the vampire, I propose.

I'd say in-game evidence trumps literature that doesn't bother to go into depth every time.

From the outside whale doesn't look like a typical mammal, only if you study them closely you will find out that they are mammals and that's the point of my anology. From the outside there are differences between regular undead and vampires, but if you had the chance to study them closely, you might find that they are pretty similar (or not...). But you can't study them close enough, you can't proof that they would eventually die from starvation, you can't proof that they don't die during the transition to vampire and so on.

Is there any other in-game evidence besides the really controversial fact that turn undead doesn't work on them (witch if it were true doesn't proof anything by itself as you pointed out previously) and similarly controversial fact that the PC can drown as a vampire?

Oh, no, I wouldn't dare say I can prove anything. I believe in science and science doesn't prove anything, only supports or rejects. But I can give examples to support my hypothesis based on observations.

Sorry, bad choice of words I should say that there is no evidence for it.

I happen to disagree and say there is a lot of observational evidence, as well as that in literature and elsewhere, which lends itself, IMO, to support my hypothesis, lol.

Evidence would be if you had an example of some vampire who actually died from starvation, but you have only assumption that if they are getting weaker, that they would eventually die. As a scientist you should know that if you wanted to get published paper based on the evidence you presented here, that you would stand no chance, the paper wouldn't even make it to the reviewers.

Turn undead does matter. If they had died, sustained magicks would be needed to bind the soul back to their body. Turn undead affects those magicks. If turn undead isn't affecting them, those magicks aren't present.

Agronak.

Bodily systems working like a living creature.



Making the claim that vampires are undead would also never pass peer review with what we know. Currently there's no clear answer on the subject.

Except I wouldn't publish a paper on it, lol. Well, I still could, because what I actually said was that we don't know how long it would take for them to die, but we do know that after a unspecified time, dependent upon age of the vampire, their body starts to shut down, starting firstly by degeneration of the brain/mind causing dementia or other irrational behaviour, and eventually a coma. If this progresses any further, it could potentially lead to death.

But we do know they get weaker after a certain point, but more than that, they more than likely all enter a coma. At this point, they cannot feed themselves. And if they cannot feed, there is no reason to believe their body would regress from that state or reach a controllable state.

I do have observations and evidence which support me. But remember, this is a fictional world, I won't ever get the evidence to fully support to form a theory. Yes, I am speculating about dying due to not feeding, but that is my hypothesis. I simply cannot test it, however.

Exactly and that's the point, claim that vampires are undead or alive wouldn't pass with what we know, however if let's say Mannimarco wanted to publish a work on vampires then I think that with the wast amount of experiments he performed during his life (or should I say unlife) he might have a chance.

u know what would be cool? if you could kill somebody in tes but then they're ghost comes back to attack you! B)

Quick, go cheat your way through the Dark Brotherhood in Oblivion until just after the point where you're to meet your boss in the Draconis house. Now, before you go into the house, look left, at the tombstones. Read them, specifically the curse placed upon that of the Mamma Draconis.





You're welcome.
:celebration:


(I know, probably not quite what you meant, but a nice touch nonetheless)

This is too complicated for me, me needs to rest head

Me only know one thing about undead.
They stop moving when I smash with hammer

Blood does not sustain them. Daedra magic does. Blood is just a craving they have. It keeps them healthy and sane.

It's similiar to the Lycans. They don't need the flesh of people but killing keeps them sane and healthy.

Skyrim's release shed new light on vampirism, but then again I believe there are more of you little skeptic folks insisting on how death cannot be cured.

"When you have a gem and have it filled return to me so I can perform the ritual. I will bring life to your dead body vampire."-Falion.

Or let me guess, the man is incorrect because he's wrong about the subject? After all, he did walk the planes of Oblivion and spoke to Daedra, but yet he is wrong.

The 'zombies' under Umbriel were different from normal undead, they had complete souls where as most just have simple animating magics (the second part is an assumption but it is clearly said that the ones under umbriel were smarter and different.)

The ones under Umbriel were all inhabited by those weird creatures that fly down from Umbriel's rock crevices. Their more like possessed bodies then anything.