UESP Forums

There is so many conflicting observations about the effect of vampire bites. Most of times, it seems to have no effect at all. Vampires commonly feed on people and it does not seem to affect them in any way. In some cases, however, it was shown to turn the victim into a vampire. Lastly, in at least one case, it was used to turn a person into a thrall.
Is there any consistency about what being bitten by a vampire results in? Can the vampire somehow choose what they want the bite to do?

Bite + Suck = Feed

Bite - Suck = Infect

The large, swift flow of blood coming out of the wound during the feeding process essentially washes the vampire's saliva out of the punctures. But, if a vampire simply bites and runs, the residue lingers insie the wound and makes its way into the victim's body.

Either that, or the reason someone gets infected during a fight with a vampire (and usually not while sleeping in bed) is because you're spilling the vampire's blood while they're spilling yours, and the two mingle in your system.

There's no actual answer for this inconsistency. Vicente Valtieri bites to infect, but he's also a bit of an oddball in the TES world as far as vampires go, considering the garlic thing. I imagine the enthralling and infectious bites we see in Dawnguard are just to look cool, since the entire storyline of that DLC is based on an attempt to justify adding cool-looking vamp lords to the game. The new strain of vampirism featured in ESO requires that the victim's entire blood supply be replaced by the vampire's before the disease sets in, as opposed to a simple scratch.

In common fantasy a vampire bite usually always transforms the victim, but I guess the feeding mechanic would kind of break the game(s) if that was the case in TES.

It may result in armadillos, but not sparkling.

When vampires turn somebody else into a vampire via biting, I tend to see them draining some of the victim's blood and replacing it with their own. Not all of it like with the ESO vampires. Just some of it. Enough to transfer the disease, I suppose. Whether or not that's actually the case, I'm not certain. Are vampires capable of controlling that? Maybe. Maybe not. I swear Vingalmo had something to say on the subject, but I can't remember his dialogue.

What Dark Spark said for combat seems plausible. Whether or not the vampire blood is entering the mortal through wounds sustained or simply being absorbed into the flesh ("Shedding a lone droplet of blood on her brow, Bal left Nirn, having sown his wrath." Assuming the single drop of blood is what eventually changed her.) I don't know.


I was actually wondering about the enthralling bite myself. Perhaps the vampire can control the thrall by their blood. If feeding somehow gives the vampire the "signature" of the thrall, allowing them to latch on with their magic. Or it's all just powerful illusion magic and the bite has nothing to do with it (aside from looking cool, as legoless put it). It's probably just magic.

One thing someone brought up to me a long time ago is that when you feed from someone, they may visit a temple to rid themselves of the disease, but you never see this. I like Dark Spark's idea, that or perhaps a vampire has a venom that they can inject with their fangs which turns their target instantly rather than inflict a disease.

Another way to look at it is to not look at Porphyric Hemophilia, Sanguinare Vampiris, and Vampirism itself as diseases and consider them curses; something paranormal and similar to but not a biological illness. If you do that you can explain infection as something a vampire "wills" onto their victim.

...if that makes any sense.

AnnaMolly wrote:One thing someone brought up to me a long time ago is that when you feed from someone, they may visit a temple to rid themselves of the disease, but you never see this.

Another way to look at it is to not look at Porphyric Hemophilia, Sanguinare Vampiris, and Vampirism itself as diseases and consider them curses; something paranormal and similar to but not a biological illness. If you do that you can explain infection as something a vampire "wills" onto their victim.

...if that makes any sense.

That's assuming they ever realize that they've been bitten. I feel as though any self-respecting vampire should clean up after themselves (by healing the wounds on their victim or whatever), thus leaving no trace. I suppose it's the ones who aren't quite in their right mind that might leave a mark and, in that case, the victims would most likely seek out help. After panicking.

I actually had a similar thought to the curse idea. I just don't think it's something a vampire can 'will' onto another. Some might be able to (the strongest, perhaps), but I think most generic vampires wouldn't be able to control it. It would probably be something that happens randomly in combat. Perhaps tied to an unintentional surge in power.

Mauin wrote:I was actually wondering about the enthralling bite myself. Perhaps the vampire can control the thrall by their blood. If feeding somehow gives the vampire the "signature" of the thrall, allowing them to latch on with their magic. Or it's all just powerful illusion magic and the bite has nothing to do with it (aside from looking cool, as legoless put it). It's probably just magic.

Interesting explanation. Now thinking about it, I realize that vampires are somehow "connected" to each other in many fictions, maybe a certain bite could establish similar connection without necessarily passing vampirism itself?

Simply by trying to make sense of people's reactions to vampire bites, I would assume the vampire's heightened Illusion Skill weighs heavily on these outcomes; Their bite makes their prey docile and compliant, allowing them to either feed or let them go, depending on their needs. However, an infection may not be a certain thing. Perhaps the body is just capable of fighting it off in it's early stages and it never becomes a big deal, like a cold.

I think a lot of factors play a part. A lot of contradicting factors. In oblivion and skyrim YOU caught the disease from the blood drain spell or had a particular vampire (Vicente and harkon/serana respectively) turn you directly. Meanwhile in ESO it takes both the disease AND a specific vampire to turn you, but at the same time there is a whole zone (rivenspire) about people easily and frequently being infected, even from just a scratch.

So I think it may help to distinguish between different breeds of vampires, even beyond the strains of disease. Bloodfiends seem to be the most common and feral class, little more than virulent animals. It is from them that you can rapidly become infected and turned, but the process seems to result in more bloodfiends. However, with deliberate intervention or intention from a "true" vampire, it seems you can fast track or skip entirely the disease aspect and be turned, generally retaining your intellect.

The specifics for the process seem to vary from bloodline to bloodline, but it seems a deliberate attempt behaves more like a magical transformation,while an incidental one behaves like a curse or disease, that can progress at variable rates and result in different "qualities" of vampire.

Vampiric lore has been inconsistent between games - of course, the lore that vastly different clans and forms of vampirism are a thing in Tamriel explains most of this. In Daggerfall, a person actually was perceived to have died before turning. The person was laid to rest in a tomb and rose in undeath a few days later. (Of course, certain poisons or diseases can mimic effects of death in a human body, but that wouldn't explain why vampires are considered Undead, and harmed by spells that harm Undead in most of these games.)

I'd say the best way to approach the topic of vampirism is by not using the blanket term "vampire" at all. We should always discuss specific subtypes and what we absolutely know about them, and what we don't. The one thing they all seem to have in common is that a bite is involved in the transformation (or sometimes just a scratch during combat) and that they all siphon blood or energy from their prey and opponents. Everything else is just wild variables that differ greatly from region to region, person to person.

Pilaf The Defiler wrote:We should always discuss specific subtypes and what we absolutely know about them, and what we don't. The one thing they all seem to have in common is that a bite is involved in the transformation (or sometimes just a scratch during combat)

In Skyrim, contracting Sanguinare Vampiris happens when a vampire uses Vampiric Drain on the player (10% chance). Physical wounds aren't what transfers the disease -- it's the vampire draining health from their victim magically that does the trick. That's just in-game mechanics, of course, but it is interesting to note that Lord Harkon looks down on this strain of vampirism (and specifically, sneeringly, calls it a disease). He confers his own pure-blooded strain of vampirism through a bite and it is impossible to contract it from him during combat.

If the in-game mechanics are in any way indicative of the lore truth, a mere scratch puts you at risk of infection.

Serana seems to indicate that converting a person into a vampire is often treated as a deeply personal, momentous occasion (presumably, this is especially the case when that person is being willingly converted). Anyways, I see the vampire bite as a sort of ritualistic version of infection. The preferred method, one in which the vampire can control whether the target is infected or merely feasted upon.

Given that Harkon "offers you his blood", it can be implied that turning someone requires an exchange of fluids rather than just a 1-directional sucking. And yes, in battle, blood from both sides is flying everywhere.