Vampires are blood-sucking creatures from mythology and folklore from all over the place, though I don’t (yet) know where the first vampires showed up…the modern iteration started sometime in the…17th century? I’ll have to check.
Oh, right, half-vampires half-humans are called dhampirs.

I’ll add their origin notes a bit later. Coincidentally, just like with succubi, I can rely on Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite.

I’ll write this out at some point, don’t worry.

I personally think that Vampire: the Masquerade has the best vampire lore in terms of a cohesive story.
Buuut…I think that, maybe, Vampire: the Requiem actually does a better lore-job overall, though there are parts of Masquerade that are better. Requiem is at least better for mixing and matching.

There are a bunch of different vampire-like creatures across mythology, but I’ll mostly be limiting myself to those I’m going to write include on the wiki.

The Jubokko is a yōkai that drinks blood. The twist? It’s a tree.

I would have never thought that a blood-sucking tree would be an interesting monster idea.
Though that’s mostly where the similarities end. I’m mentioning it particularly because I personally think it’s pretty cool.

It’s described on yokai.com.

I stated this on the Succubus article, but I think vampires and succubi overlap quite a bit. There was even a point where, apparently, vampires didn’t necessarily have to drink blood…but any fluid that comes out of humans. Which, yes, includes semen.
At this point, any depiction of a ‘sexy vampire’ is basically a kind of succubus as well.

The relationship between zombies and vampires is interesting in that, as far as I’m concerned, they’re basically the same…except zombies are the lamer version of the vampire.
Think about it: both are undead monsters that need to feed on the living. Just that zombies are, at least nowadays, tied to disease more than vampires…and vampires are also much stronger than zombies.

I had to include one of the greats. Though this is specifically concerned with the film and not the book.

Vampires in this film are in de-facto control of the Southern US through their positions as aristocrats and plantation owners. They happily feed off of the slaves there and, honestly, I get it.
They are almost exactly the same as the ‘standard’ vampire - hurt by silver, no reflections, superhuman strength, feed off of blood - except that…well, first of all, they can turn invisible. I don’t think that’s considered a standard vampire trait. And, second of all, they can go out in the sunlight…but they’re presumably weaker. It wasn’t really explained what the deal was though. They just prefer to wear sunglasses. The last important fact is that vampires can’t kill each-other for whatever reason. Some supernatural barrier prevents it.
Their position as the rulers of the South falls apart during the Civil War, where the majority of them are slaughtered by the Union army.

Oh, yeah, their feeding is also lethal about 99% of the time. Even if they don’t drain you dry, they can leave you with a disease that, y’know, will end you.

Daybreakers is an interesting example for two reasons. The first is that vampirism is explicitly depicted as a (supernatural) disease. As far as I know, the only other thing that depicts vampirism like this is Plague Inc.
The second reason is a bit more interesting: this is so far the only example I know of where vampires rule and do so openly. In fact, vampires make up a majority of the population.

The premise is that sometime in 2008…I think…a disease started spreading from a bat. I-I know how that sounds, but let’s continue.

The disease turned people into immortal vampires. They could eat and drink like normal (apparently), though they still needed to feed on human blood. Not feeding on human blood makes them degenerate into more bat-like monsters. So…there’s some overlap with Yakusoku no Neverland.
Most of humanity chose to become these inhuman monsters, while the rest didn’t. The vampires now rule the world as if little has changed. At this point I realized I’m basically writing a review, so let’s not get too into it.^A) The point is that vampires are in charge and actively hunting down the rest of humanity.

Vampire lore here is mostly the same. They feed off of humans, they can turn humans, they burn in the sunlight…but nothing related to silver or garlic. They’re also pale and all have yellow/orange eyes.

The film does end with a cure for vampirism…but it goes a bit further too, as the vampires also create synthetic blood. For most of the film, they continually fail to synthesize blood but end up succeeding by the end. Underworld also features synthetic blood, but it’s not a plot point.

Yes, seriously.

I realized recently that the main bad guys in this film are basically vampires. For some unknown reason, some of the survivors of the comet which wiped out humanity need to receive the blood of the remaining survivors. Though it’s never really made clear why and what the difference is.
If they don’t, they start looking super pale, kinda gross and their skin sticks to their bones, as if their fat disappears.

Definitely one of the more unusual entries here.

Vampires apparently exist in the Legendarium though they are never seen directly. The only ‘canon’ mention (that I remember) is in the Silmarillion, where Sauron takes the form of a vampire when he runs away one time.

More will be added later.

I first heard of Underworld in reference to a lawsuit filed by White Wolf against it. This is because White Wolf felt their copyright was being infringed in regards to the World of Darkness. It was settled out of court, though.
Underworld and Masquerade have very surface-level similarities, but are quite different. First, vampires aren’t dead…vampires are living creatures and, specifically, an immortal sub-race of humanity.
They’re immortal, drink blood and can turn others via a bite…and, well, the sun hurts them. They’re also directly related to werewolves and exist in a vampire faction, similar to the Camarilla…I guess.
Though there is only one faction in this world…though, keep in mind that I only watched the first two films.
The origin story for the vampires is that there was a guy named Alexander Corvinus who got infected with the Plague but, instead of killing him, it made him immortal. He had three sons. One of them was bitten by a wolf, which is where all the werewo- I mean…Lycans came from. One was bitten by a bat and that one was responsible for all vampires. Then the last one was just a normal guy.
However, there’s a worldbuilding issue here. Vampires cannot be descended from bats because vampire bats don’t live in Europe. This is actually an interesting quirk of vampire lore…since, well, as far as I can tell…the connection between vampires and bats is retroactive. Though all that matters is the fact it’s a mistake.

This also includes the Chronicles of Darkness.
I consider the World of Darkness (Vampire: the Masquerade) to have the most definitive portrayal of the vampire. Not only does it account for multiple kinds of vampires, but it also has detailed lore on the history of vampires…as well as a lot of really good worldbuilding, like the Masquerade, which just makes logical sense.
However, after thinking about it for a while…I came to the conclusion that Masquerade doesn’t really have the definitive vampire…with Requiem having that instead. The reason for this is that Requiem’s clans are more broad archetypes, while the Masquerade clans are very specific and detailed. Of the Masquerade clans, I think only the Ventrue can be ripped out of Masquerade and plopped into another setting without it being obvious that they came from Masquerade.
For an example of the other side of the coin: the Toreador. They’re generally viewed as the ‘sexy’ ones…but they’re also obsessive artists who can freeze in place to appreciate a sunrise. The Nosferatu are another example. Sure, they’re ugly and whatnot…but they’re also very good at gathering information, are extremely tight-nit and build sewer fortresses.
Masquerade’s bigger contributions (which can be pilfered for other story ideas) are the Masquerade itself and the vague structure of the Camarilla. Though for more broad vampire tropes, Requiem is likely better suited.

With how long and complicated this is getting, it’s very likely I’m just going to spin it off into its own article at some point.

This is specifically concerned with the most reasonable fictional geographical/chronological origin points for vampires.

A different origin point will change

Vampires originated among the first humans to have existed. So, basically, the oldest vampire might be around 100,000 years old.

In this case, vampires would probably be following humans around the globe and most of the other worldbuilding notes I make are not very useful.

I think this is the most reasonable origin for vampires as far as civilization goes. With them starting sometime before the Bronze Age started or just after it starts.

The thing is that vampires as a ‘predator’ doesn’t make a lot of sense without a high concentration of humans in one location that they can predate on. And since the norm prior to civilization was a bunch of semi-nomadic communities, it seems unlikely that vampires could have survived.

Anyway, the ‘best’ geographic location for the origin of vampires would probably be Mesopotamia or Egypt. These are the oldest civilizations and Egypt specifically has a high population density for most of its history.
I don’t think (or, more accurately, I’m not sure if) it matters whether they start in Mesopotamia or Egypt, though my guess is that vampires would then ‘split’ into two distinct ‘lines’.
The ‘Egyptian Line’ would spread to Greece, from which it would spread into Europe (and eventually the Americas) while the ‘Mesopotamian Line’ would spread East into India and East Asia. The Mesopotamian Line would split into an Indian Line and a Chinese Line.

The Egyptian Line is also likely to spread into Africa.

Requiem also seems to favor the Bronze Age as the starting point of vampires.

This is similar to the above, though I’d mark the following locations as likely origin points:

• Egypt (again)
• Rome
• Greece
• Carthage
• Persia
• China

Egypt is likely for the same reasons it’s likely in the Bronze Age. Egypt was highly centralized and had a high population density as compared to the rest of the world. Thus it could have sustained a population of vampires.

Egypt’s influence could have also helped kick-start the spread of vampires outward.

I’m mentioning Rome because Vampire: the Requiem places a lot of emphasis on Rome as one of the times in history where vampires were unified.

I think that you could tie the gladiatorial games and sacrifice to vampiric influence, but that’s about it. The geographic size of Rome also means that vampires could start somewhere in the Empire and then spread quickly.

If we’re mentioning Rome, then Greece is also a natural choice. Plus the Greeks had the Macedonian Empire first.

Carthage is a likely candidate if you consider the religious practices they allegedly had involving child sacrifice and human sacrifice. These could be re-characterized as vampiric.

Persia is another “big empire that could have produced vampires”.

China would be an unusual choice due to the fact it’s relatively isolated from the entire rest of the world, but you could go for it just for the lulz.

If we’re talking about medieval origins for vampires, the obvious choice would be the Carolingian Empire…and then…well, it’s more questionable.

More to be added later (maybe).

Yes, I’m going there. I’ll be speculating about the political/economic/societal views of vampires. “What is their tax policy?” and all that.^B)

I’ll start out by saying that I think vampires would be politically conservative to an extreme and I’m not just saying that because that aligns with my political views…but because it just makes sense.
They would also probably be very racist, homophobic, transphobic and who knows what else. Sexist and classist though? That’s a lot more conditional.
I also don’t think that vampire society would be filled with constant bickering, backstabbing and pain…though those would be present to a certain degree.

Note that I am assuming a situation similar to Masquerade or Requiem…so an urban fantasy setting with vampires present. Also that vampires are immortal. Obviously the situation would be different with different conditions.

Anyhow, let’s move on.

I think that, most realistically, vampires would fall into one of two ‘configurations’.
The first is the lone wandering vampire. Basically groups of up to 3 vampires, maybe. But most likely just one or two people.
The second would be much larger groups of vampires organized into cities, possibly up to the hundreds or thousands all working together. These would be more static and probably tied to big cities.
I also don’t think there’d be an in-between.^C) You’re either wandering around alone (or with girlfriend/boyfriend/thrall) or you’re in a big city.

Starting with the first group…the why? The simple reason is secrecy. It’s easier to keep vampires secret if they’re individual wanderers. Well, I’m not fully convinced by my own reasoning. It’s easiest from the point of view of an individual, but not a city. Because the city can’t control the individuals.
My guess would actually be that these wanderers would still be under the ‘jurisdiction’ of a city.
Speculating about the politics of these vampires is pretty much pointless because besides “wandering alone” there isn’t anything that ties them all together. They don’t even necessarily have to be wandering for the same reasons. Though political disagreements with cities could be a reason. Meaning we can assume that at least some of these wanderers are politically incompatible with the cities.

Now for the cities. These I’m more confident about, thus I’ll be focusing on them.
Although the rate of vampire:person is not easy to tell, it can be assumed there are significantly more people than there are vampires.
These cities are likely to be concentrated in or around real human cities (or former cities, which might be interesting worldbuilding-wise).
The simple reason why these would exist is for the sake of convenience. As a wanderer you’d have to exist in a constant state of paranoia and secrecy, which most people (dead or not) just can’t deal with. In a city though…well, you may be able to just exist without having to worry about being caught and killed.
Think Diagon Alley from Harry Potter or Hogsmeade. Places that are isolated from the outside world where you can walk around just being yourself – a bloodthirsty corpse that walks.
This would also result in some kind of specialization in society. You need people to protect the city and people to help organize it. Meanwhile, you’d also have the vamps inside being bored, so they’d probably take up jobs.
Suddenly you’ve got a vampire civilization.
Also, these cities would probably have huge population density. This is down to the necessity to keep the city secret while also housing a lot of vampires. A smaller area is preferred. How dense really depends, but I don’t think most cities would reach the density of Macau or the Kowloon Walled City. Maybe density equivalent to parts of China or Japan. So, unfortunately, no huge sprawling manors.
And, for reasons, I think that these vampire cities would lean very hard right politically-speaking. It’s just a matter of how much and whether that means racist vampire waifu exists.

Age is definitively a deciding factor in why vampires would be politically conservative. It doesn’t matter if they were a progressive or liberal or whatever when they became vampires, because they became a vampire in the 1860s.
Seeing just how radically different life has gotten would have them amend their views to want to go back.
IE, think about “today’s liberal is tomorrow’s conservative” but applied to the extreme.

Life experience would also guarantee supremacy in positions of power. Those organizers and protectors will be the oldest vampires simply because they’re likely to be the best at those things. The youngest vampires would probably just stay inside and never come out.

Of course, you may argue, that while this guarantees the oldest vampires are uber-conservative…well, there are still the younger vampires, right?

Well…

Since all the positions of power are occupied by old people who look young, that means they have a lot of influence over society as a whole…so most people would probably just be swept up in the situation.

If you suddenly become a vampire, I feel it’s less likely that you’ll be worried about how racist the vampires on top are as long as they take care of you (unless you’re the target of the racism).

Over time, as you age and interact with other vampires, you’ll simply adopt their views. They don’t even need to punish you for it.

Another aspect I thought about was explicit education. I don’t see why vampire cities wouldn’t have dedicated teachers for new vampires who teach them how to be a vampire…and simultaneously drill conservative political views into them. This could be intentional (the boss demands it) or unintentional (the most qualified person is old and conservative already).

This is the big reason that I think vampires would be politically conservative. It’s one thing to look back at history to see whether old ideas worked and it’s another to actively experience the consequences of all of your bad decisions.

To give a fun example, let’s imagine this vampire became one during the Athenian democracy. They started pro-democracy.
Would they remain pro-democracy into the modern day? I don’t think they would.
Why?
Because they witnessed the downfall of the Athenian democracy, then they witnessed the rise of the Roman Republic…the descent into political instability and violence…then the rise of the Roman Empire (which immediately brought stability and prosperity).
Thruout history they’d probably see this repeated a few times.
So when they see modern-day democracies, they’d probably just be sitting back and waiting until they fall as well.

Now apply that kind of thinking to almost any position you can think of, and you’ll quickly find that they’d overwhelmingly support stability over revolution. Thus they’d become uber-conservatives.

The final point I’ll bring out (for now) is the idea that particularly ‘jittery’ vampires would simply not survive for long.

Basically, if you’re a religious zealot who wants to bring about a glorious revolution and thinks that now that you’re a vampire, you’ll be able to…you’ll probably be killed. Not even covertly, but you’ll be arrested and executed.
In this case it’s because you’re trying to violate the concept of secrecy. Though other examples can come up too.

If you’re trying to promote democracy and whatnot in a vampire society, you’re likely to just be ignored or thrown out.

If you try to frame another vampire for something to gain power, you’re likely to lose all your influence at once.

Since stability is favored among vampires for the sake of safety (and has been proven most practical by history), they would simply not like any attempt at radically changing the game.
Plus, if some vampire cities were destroyed as a result of something like that, it would make all the other cities significantly more wary.

Even if we assume a vampire city starts out as cutthroat and violent, there are really only two options here:

• Everyone dies.
• A state of equilibrium is reached.

Consider that the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution didn’t last forever. Eventually they ran out of people to execute until the ones doing the executing got executed.

Now for the fun part. Considering the above conditions, what would their society look like?

I think it would actually look kinda boring in comparison to the court politics we see in Masquerade and Requiem. There would be court politics, but less actual murder and more just insults (with plausible deniability).

They’d also, maybe, exist as monarchies or aristocracies, since those are the most resilient across history. Obviously, in reality, they’d be dictatorships and oligarchies, but same difference.

I was thinking at some point that there would be a gender division as well, where the political positions within the city are dominated by women, while the outward-facing military positions would be dominated by men. I’m not 100% sure on that, but I think it’s likely just because women are better at navigating social situations, so the division would make sense.
This would apply even if the head vampire is male, though assuming female vampires really are better at navigating the internal landscape…it’s likely a female vampire would replace him at some point. If he dies for some reason, for example.

Political assassinations and political violence in general would be frowned upon and punished severely.

Now for the fun stuff…how racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/classist are the vampires likely to be?

I think they’re likely to be very racist, unlikely to be sexist (unless you use a strict definition of sexism), very likely to be homophobic/transphobic and unlikely to be classist.

Assuming vampires started in Europe (or the Middle-East) and then spread to the rest of the world, I think there’s a high chance they’d be very racist. Though not in the way you’d expect.

Obviously, they wouldn’t like blacks, but other groups are more ambiguous. They probably wouldn’t be racist towards hispanics. But they’d probably be racist towards Indians. East Asians are ambiguous.
The reason they wouldn’t be racist towards hispanics (and other European groups) is simply because this kinda only became a thing starting in the 19th century and very specifically among Americans. Though keep in mind that I’m assuming ‘hispanics’ includes New and Old worlders.
Actually, now I’m not so sure because it’s possible they’d justify it by saying New World hispanics are not European but instead descended from Native Americans.
I think I’ll avoid my reasoning for the other groups.

Of course, this depends on how homogenous vampires as a group are. If they’re all majority European, it’s easier to predict. But if there are, for example, other groups of vampires who aren’t ethnically European, it’s harder to predict.
Though a constant would be racism among the different groups. If there’s a city of black vampires, for example, I find it likely that they’ll be racist towards all the white vampires surrounding them. And the same would apply in reverse.

Considering historical context as well, it’s probable that vampires will simply become more racist over time rather than less. Assuming that there are vampires who witness decolonization, they would point at all the civil wars, ethnic cleansing and such as proof that they’re correct in their views. And it’s much harder to argue with someone who not only witnessed this, but also witnessed the Haitian Revolution.

The wanderers are actually the biggest question mark here, because they could be the ones responsible for establishing groups of ethnic minority vampires.

I don’t think vampires would want to actively take part in ethnic cleansing, but might have a habit of killing-on-sight of any vampire in their territory who doesn’t fit their views.

If we strictly define sexism as any view that men and women are not equal…the majority of vampires would be sexist. But if we define it as seeing the other gender as subhuman, it’s likely that the majority of vampires wouldn’t be sexist.
These are two extremes, but they demonstrate the point I’m making. I think vampires would be a bit nicer towards women than other groups.

Using the above reasoning for why vampires are conservative, female vampires might end up being the majority of the population anyway. This is because men tend to be more rebellious and thus end up facing resistance most often. Though this is a guess and not one I’m confident in.

Considering all of history and (assuming vampires are European), it’s probable that vampires would think that men and women specialize in different things. And since there are so few of them as compared to humans, it makes sense that they’d ignore concepts like “women should only be a trophy” or “only in the kitchen and nowhere else”. Though I think it’s also very likely women would not be allowed to leave cities for their own protection.^D)

It’s usually brushed aside, but I think that female vampires would still be physically less capable than male vampires. Though that really depends on how vampirism affects the human body.

So by very strict modern standards they’d be sexist, but otherwise they wouldn’t be.

This is an unambiguous case and vampires would probably be supremely homophobic and transphobic. This is because the majority of societies across the globe (particularly those of Europe and the Middle-East, assuming that’s where vampires started) have been very anti-gay.

As far as they’d be concerned, the modern idea that they should be left alone would be a strange recent trend.

Would they kill them on-sight? Probably not unless they’re a vampire.

Would vampires be classist and elitist? I’m leaning towards “probably not”.
Though that’s because there aren’t a lot of vampires (presumably) so you can’t afford to sneer at the peasants because…there are only 500 people here total and 400 of them are former peasants. You kinda need them to do stuff for you.

Of course, that also depends on whether vampires would turn anyone who isn’t exactly like them or not. But I don’t think they’d be concerned about whether you’re a peasant or not (and, I mean, some male vampires would definitely turn a girl they think is super pretty, not caring about her social status).

It’s also inherently destabilizing in a way that other views aren’t. So it would not be favored by vampire elites who prioritize stability above all else.

I find it unlikely that vampires would be decadent or that they’d favor debauchery/indulging in pleasures. This is because, again, they’ve witnessed the literal ends of civilizations. They also prioritize stability.

Orgies/promiscuity are inherently destabilizing as they can flare up feelings of jealousy/possessiveness and more. The one thing that you don’t want is people in your small city getting jealous of each-other, because that could lead to violence.

This could lead to the extremely hilarious situation where a sexy vampire waifu actually doesn’t like the idea of pre-marital sex because if the relationship breaks off, it could lead to jealousy down the line.

Slavery is ambiguous though the reasons why might be surprising.
First of all, they would 100% not support slavery of fellow vampires for the simple reason that they know it’s economic suicide in the long-run. Thus it’s inherently destabilizing.
Slavery of humans though? That’s a bit more ambiguous, though I’d lean towards them generally supporting it. They would 93% support the South in the American Civil War (assuming they aren’t so racist that they wouldn’t drink the blood of blacks, but that’s incredibly unlikely because food is food). But in all other cases there would be some ambiguity involved.
This is mostly down to the fact that views on slavery vary a lot across history…and, well, the observable negative effects of slavery for the economy and societal stability.

An argument that could be used against all this is The Beast present in Masquerade and Requiem. I think that the Beast would actually cement vampiric societies as inherently stable for the simple fact that someone who can’t control their own impulses will be a candle that burns bright. In other words, they’re likely to burn out at some point or another. So discipline would be a virtue among vampires.

I noticed that this vaguely resembles the Kuei-Jin from Kindred of the East which is kinda interesting I guess.

This is a more ambiguous point as it’s very dependent on what traits vampires have, though I think there are a few possibilities:

• Some form of Christianity, possibly derived from (or just) Catholicism.
• Pre-Christian paganism, or a pagan-derived religions (cult of Isis?).
• Satanism (so a Christian derivative that is explicitly ‘evil’).

I used to lean towards Christianity, but no think it’s likely different cities have different religions.

Notably, Requiem solves this by having a few different religious groups as covenants and bloodlines. The Lancea et Sanctum is Christianity – albeit one where they see themselves as explicitly bad guys – and the Circle of the Crone is a pagan faith.^E) There are also the Septemi, who are a different group of Christian vampires.

I think this is the most reasonable approach…having multiple religions all running around at the same time.

Regardless, they’re probably gonna place a lot of emphasis on blood.

Also…I think they’d be anti-Islam. Assuming a Mesopotamian/Egyptian origin, it’s likely that most of the vampires located in the Middle-East and North Africa would pre-date Islam and Christianity. Islam is a uniquely anti-syncretist faith, so they’re unlikely to like it at all. I don’t think it would be strange to assume that, all the way to the modern day, most Middle-Eastern vampires are still not Muslims.
I’d even go a step further to suggest that vampires would be violently opposed to Islam, though this is the same kind of “violent opposition” that you see with the other prejudices: they probably wouldn’t go out of their way to kill mortals who don’t align with their beliefs (to maintain their own secrecy), but would do so for vampires and possibly any such mortal who wandered into their cities.
Even assuming that Muslim vampires aren’t killed-on-sight, I don’t think there would be any significant settlements of Islamic vampires for the simple fact that Muslims are a bit more pious than most people realize, so being vampires would not sit well with them.

Once vampires get to the New World, I think that most of them would end up being Christians (following along the groups of people that settled the area). I also think that vampires wouldn’t have existed in the Americas prior to colonial settlement (assuming vampirism began during the Bronze Age in the Middle-East).
That does lead to the unfortunate implication that Europeans settling the Americas also brought literal bloodsucking monsters with them, but I digress.

Unlike Europe, which would be split around 50/50 between Christian vampires and pagan vampires, I don’t see pagan vampires being a thing at all in the Americas.

What confuses this is the Aztec Religion

When it comes to the Aztecs, I think that you can actually come up with multiple plausible ideas related to vampires.

The first idea is that some vampires adopt Aztec practices after encountering them. I find this to be the least likely and least realistic assuming that vampires value stability and secrecy. Believing in a religion that demands constant blood sacrifices would go against both of those.
A possibility is that the vampires might install themselves as the deities needing the blood sacrifices, but that’s highly dubious due to the assumption being that they adopted the Aztec practices after the Spanish conquered them.

The second idea is the more exciting one, the one that’s kinda unlikely…but a lot more likely, which is that the Aztec religion was explicitly created by Vampires.
This possibility is based on the idea of European vampires ending up in the New World around 400 years earlier than Columbus. The likely route is that they ended up there either via the vikings in the North or some Muslim travelers ending up way off course.
There’s some evidence to suggest that a Muslim trade boat ended up accidentally reaching Central America in the same general time period as the vikings reached America. If so, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that some vampires consciously traveled to the New World. The question is why they would do so because they couldn’t have known about any civilization there. Though I’ll ignore that and assume they did.
Assuming that vampires then ended up in Central America in the 11th Century, they could have easily started to influence the local population until…well, they created their own ‘empire’.

The third idea is that there were no vampires in America, but some vampires think there may have been due to how bloody Aztec culture was. Basically a whole “we can’t believe that regular humans would have done this”.

I think East Asian vampires are most likely to adopt Daoism, Confucianism and the other pagan-adjacent faiths (like Shintoism in Japan). Confucianism would probably be the strongest of them all, seeing as it prioritizes harmony and stability. Buddhism would probably not be very popular.

I suddenly remembered that this is also an important aspect of vampire societies. Assuming all the above in politics is true…how would vampire economies actually look?
Kinda weird.

First of all, the dominant economic system would undoubtedly be patronage. This is basically a system where a patron (a Lord for example) financially support several artisans/businesses.

The Patron is effectively the ‘boss’ and the artisans/workers are his ‘employees’ though this is only for the sake of comparison.
The ‘contract’ between them looks like this:

• The artisan is paid by the Patron to produce a certain amount of x for the Patron. The Patron pays them, but gets a discount.
  • For example: a baker has to bake bread for the Patron regularly.
• The artisan, however, is basically independent and can also produce x for people who aren’t the Patron. They just have to pay more. And a portion of the profits goes to the Patron.
• If the artisan fails to sell anything extra (in recessions for example), the Patron will financially support them to prevent complete failure.

Vampires would favor the patronage system for a few reasons.
The big one is that it is very stable as compared to other economic systems. And vampires, as has been established, would overwhelmingly support stability in almost any situation.
Capitalism is unstable because it literally relies on businesses failing every now and again, as well as economic crashes to get rid of bad businesses.
Socialism is unstable because everything is centralized, meaning there’s one fault point.
Patronage basically combines the best of both worlds in their eyes.
The other reason they’d favor patronage is that it was the dominant economic system across history, only really getting upended after the Industrial Revolution.

After some thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that vampires would probably mint their own coins and then stick to metal currency over switching to paper money. My reasoning is:

• Paper money is possibly more prone to inflation.
• Paper money is easier to counterfeit.
• Aesthetic sensibilities.
• Inertia.

However, they’d also maybe rely on regular ‘mortal’ currency as well, but not in any significant number and only as a means of taking part in the greater economic world. Something I imagined is that, within cities, you could buy goods/services using either internal or external currency. This also means that, if you were changed nowadays, you would be able to convert your existing wealth into vampire wealth quite easily. Though that wouldn’t be universal.

Due to the factors of favoring stability, there being very few of them as compared to people, being immortal and other things I currently forget…I think that most vampires in most cities would have an occupation of some kind.

Though how they define occupation might be different and how they approach them would be different as well.

For example, I imagine that “being a socialite” or “housewife” would be considered a normal, reasonable and respectable profession (for women, men might be expected to work in the military). This is because socialites who arrange parties and the like are doing a few things in one: networking and entertainment. Both of those would be valuable to vampires. However, and this is just something neat I thought of…they might actually expect you to pay for being invited. That might also mean that ‘inviting yourself’ is not seen as wrong, because you’d also be paying to go there. That might be quite valuable for new vampires as well.

Since vampires live forever unless killed, they’d likely get bored real fast…so sitting around not doing anything would actually be unappealing to vampires, who might take a profession just as a hobby.

I think there would be a high degree of professionalism and a high work ethic as a result of their conservatism, their community ethos and the desire to survive.

This is one aspect that depends heavily on how the vampires drink blood. In Masquerade and Requiem, getting bit actually feels really good to both the vampire and the person getting slurped up. In Abraham Lincoln, feeding is always fatal. Those are two separate extremes meant to demonstrate the point.

But, in general, I think vampires would prefer to acquire blood thru blood banks (which they might own). Obviously, you can’t just never use that blood in a hospital, so they’d also have to run a legitimate business…but it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to suggest that they take blood that “goes bad” or “gets contaminated”. This is assuming, of course, that they can drink blood outside of biting someone.
Outside of that, the possibilities are that vampires have mortals who they drink from. Who those mortals are can vary (slaves, servants, friends, ‘pets’, etc.) though I think that, for the sake of secrecy, vampires wouldn’t actually do anything too morally dubious. One possibility is that they find undesirables in society (such as criminals) and simply abduct them to feed from them. The issue here is that vampires might be morally opposed to this…on the grounds that they can’t drink the ‘filthy’ blood of criminals.

I think that vampire cities would have rations in place, which would be mostly fair – in the sense that every vampire gets the same-ish share of blood. People higher up in the hierarchy would probably get more, though that’s to be expected. And how much is given really depends on how much they can get, plus how much vampires need to eat (whether they can only eat blood or not) and so on.

I also realized just now that blood would be treated like a Universal Basic Income. Though it’s different in the simple fact that blood is something that vampires require otherwise they die. So, like, you’re guaranteed to receive a specific portion of blood regularly, but if you want more you have to pay for it. This system would probably be the most popular because it’s pretty fair (and doesn’t get into issues like nobility getting a higher portion than the lower classes).

It’s generally assumed that vampires would be like old grandparents complaining about how the steam engine was the best invention and that they can’t understand modern technology like the computer…but I think something else.

Taking my speculation about politics/economics into account, I actually think that vampires would be very interested in new technology…seeing as they will have witnessed the development of technology over time and how it changed the world.

Their interest would be partially out of survival (can humans figure out that they exist? Can this thing help us exist more comfortably?) and just genuine curiosity and enthusiasm.

For example, I think that old vampires would look at the computer and, instead of responding with “that’s a weird box nobody will ever use” would instead respond with “this thing looks so cool, maybe it can seriously change our lives for the better!”…basically, like Venture Capital investors.
Though they’re also likely to find themselves disappointed andor burned if things go poorly. But I think they would seriously try to find some use for new tech.

Now, this is me injecting my own beliefs here. But I think that they might prioritize technology that doesn’t “lower the skill floor”. I’ll maybe elaborate on this in a dedicated article at some point, but a good way of evaluating whether a technology (for creative work) is a net good, ambiguous or net bad is on whether it lowers the skill floor. Basically, the minimum amount of skill you need in order to produce something passable/good.
Painting has a very high skill floor, for example, while photography has a very low skill floor. But photography also has a very high skill ceiling and can provide benefits for painting. In contrast, AI generated images are a net negative because they only lower the skill floor and provide no benefit to those who are skilled. Layers in digital painting are a net positive because they don’t lower the skill floor at all and only benefit artists.
Something similar might be adopted by vampires to help them determine what technology is good or bad.

So they might not have 3D printers because that’s bad for sculptors, but they might have computers and printers for producing paintings.

Assuming the above (that most vampires live in small dense cities), what would those cities actually look like?

Well let’s consider that vampires would have to be close to a food supply (humans) while also avoiding the sun.
The obvious conclusion is that vampire settlements would be located underground.

However, I’m actually not sure if they’d build those settlements underground. I have two reasons for thinking this:

1. Technological limitations. It would be difficult to dig down and then dig out a city.^F)
2. Aesthetic issues. I imagine many vampires wouldn’t be happy to live underground without any plantlife.

So I think it’s actually a bit more likely that vampire settlements would be partially underground, but mostly above-ground.
Obviously, they’d have to block out the Sun anyway, so the settlements would look strange on the outside. Like one big irregularly-shaped building rather than a city or town.

Since the Moon reflects the Sun, it’s possible that vampires might feel some kind of warmth (or get a tan) from the Moon. In that case, Moonbathing is totally a thing that could happen.

Vampires have an interest in using unequal (temporal) hours. Why?
Because temporal hours are defined as 12 day hours and 12 night hours. Normally, the times when night ends vary by day because the positions of the Sun and Moon vary day-to-day and depending on the Season. On the other hand, temporal hours are always based around when the day/night ends. This makes them extremely useful for vampires. Though the only real issue is that the length of an hour varies, at least you can keep track of exactly when the sun comes up.