Battle for London: Moriarty vs Dracula vs Fu Manchu

[Derek Metaltron]

Note that these are the traditional fiction versions of these characters I'm suggesting.

In late 19th Century London, the 'Napoleon of Crime' Professor James Moriarty finds his position threatened by two emerging rivals, the Devil Doctor of Limehouse and his associates, and the worrying reports of Romanian Count Vlad Dracula, who has also positioned himself in London with the aim to use it as a vampric power base. Moriarity and Manchu's goals are both threatened by this, but each opposes the other too much to join forces. A power play for dominance on the British Capital commences, with Moriarty having access to Colonel Sebastian Moran and an army of criminal enterprisers, as well as his incredible genius and planning. The Devil Doctor has his own criminal empire based in Limehouse and his powerful Si-Fan forces, as well as his elaborate animal and poison based traps. Dracula has managed to bring with him a small group of his Wrenches via the Dexter and also has those under his thrall in London, and has the natural strengths and weaknesses of a Traditional Vampire. Moriarty and Manchu have no means of determining at this time where Vlad is based so as to assault him in his day slumbers, but both has the means to construct anti-vampire materials as needed. Each of them wish to come to dominate 19th Century London in order to gain a foothold within the wider British Empire.

Who will emerge as the dominant party over London? What might also happen if Sherlock Holmes, Doctor John Watson, Professor Van Helsing, Jonathan Harker, Nayland Smith and a crack squad of Police led by Inspector Lastrade come in a a fourth force to battle the other three groups?

[big_adventure]

Take the horrifying PIS of the end of Dracula out of play - when Stoker was dying for a drink and just wanted to finish, so he turned the last 53 pages (including the climax and conclusion) into a flash-sideways memoir complete with a SMvFL win for a dude with a knife against the unkillable, vastly superhuman antagonist - and I think you have to give it to the dude who is stronger, faster, can track by scent and who has a thousand years of history avoiding/killing off his enemies.

[T51R]

Moriarty was a criminal genius. Dracula was a wealthy romantic. I don't think either of them are going to be effective against the sheer evil that is Fu Manchu.

[Sharpandpointies]

- complete with a SMvFL win for a dude with a metal knife against the unkillable, vastly superhuman antagonist -.

Fixed it for you. For great justice.

[Siriel]

Don't forget that he was put unconscious by the sun that he previously walked in just fine!

[Powerboy]

I'm not sure who wins here but I don't think its Dracula. He's powerful and he didn't have the weakness to sunlight until he suddenly had it at the end. Though I suppose a wooden knife should have finished him, just not a metal one. But he's driven by things that don't put him on a par with criminal empires.
If we instead say he is driven to create a criminal empire, that might be different.

I haven't read more than a chapter or two of a Fu Manchu book. I've read all of Doyle's Holmes books but the problem is there is no description at all of how Moriarty does his ingenius stuff. It just says he's a genius and *poof* he does it.

Moriarty has the home ground here. Does Fu Manchu have more in the way of actual, described feats? Does he go against things that are clearly outside the real world? If so, that gives him an edge with Dracula that Moriarty does not have. The Holmes stories often hinge on it being the "real" world with Holmes able to dismiss certain impossibilities.

If this were purely Moriarty versus Dracula, I'd still find it hard to choose. Dracula is not some deductive genius who is going to figure out that a humble professor is really the London Mastermind. But he has ways of making men talk. Meanwhile, Moriarty is not going to jump to the conclusion that he's up against something that does not exist in his reality, at least probably not soon enough.

[Eternal Torment]

Take the horrifying PIS of the end of Dracula out of play - when Stoker was dying for a drink and just wanted to finish, so he turned the last 53 pages (including the climax and conclusion) into a flash-sideways memoir complete with a SMvFL win for a dude with a knife against the unkillable, vastly superhuman antagonist - and I think you have to give it to the dude who is stronger, faster, can track by scent and who has a thousand years of history avoiding/killing off his enemies.

It was kind of amusing how it was handled, though.

"Oh, turns out Dracula actually went kind of stupid when he became a vampire. Boy, we're sure lucky that he's in the middle of recovering his intelligence, or we'd be pretty screwed."

[Captain Smith]

IIRC, Dracula was killed by a tough Texan - so of course it is not Firelord/Spidey. Haha.

[Ptrvc]

IIRC, Dracula was killed by a tough Texan - so of course it is not Firelord/Spidey. Haha.

More specifically a Cowboy with a Bowie Knife.

Do you guys realize how many bonuses cowboys get with bowie knives?

Besides, I think Billy the Kid vs. Dracula established that cowboys are apparently vampire's biggest weaknesses.

Seriously though, the OP mentioned that this version of Dracula is actually Vlad, so yeah, I expect Moriarty and Fu Manchu to be impaled with extreme prejudice.

[Siriel]

Besides, I think Billy the Kid vs. Dracula established that cowboys are apparently vampire's biggest weaknesses.

On the other hand, the second Bloodrayne movie features a vampire Billy the Kid, so that encounter may not have ended as well for Billy as you think.

[Shellhead]

It was kind of amusing how it was handled, though.

"Oh, turns out Dracula actually went kind of stupid when he became a vampire. Boy, we're sure lucky that he's in the middle of recovering his intelligence, or we'd be pretty screwed."

The ending of The Historian was very nearly as stupid. Let's just say that somebody got vampire lore mixed up with werewolf lore.

[Eternal Torment]

The ending of The Historian was very nearly as stupid. Let's just say that somebody got vampire lore mixed up with werewolf lore.

Having just wiki'd that, I can safely say that unless the bullet was a blessed one, that was a huge cop-out.

But seriously though, that reveal that Dracula was actually mentally deficient makes some sense. For one, his overwhelming arrogance was actually the result of a limited viewpoint ruining his plans. Plus it makes pre-death Dracula more badass, as he wouldn't have made the same mistakes his undead version did.

[heretic]

Take the horrifying PIS of the end of Dracula out of play - when Stoker was dying for a drink and just wanted to finish, so he turned the last 53 pages (including the climax and conclusion) into a flash-sideways memoir complete with a SMvFL win for a dude with a knife against the unkillable, vastly superhuman antagonist

Don't forget that he was put unconscious by the sun that he previously walked in just fine!

It was kind of amusing how it was handled, though.

"Oh, turns out Dracula actually went kind of stupid when he became a vampire. Boy, we're sure lucky that he's in the middle of recovering his intelligence, or we'd be pretty screwed."

I strongly reccomend The Dracula Tape by Fred Saberhagen, which touches on these points and many others.