Too many vampires

[Ruthia]

anyone here understand maybe why vampires might be evil? Heres one thought of logic, because they slaughter mercilessly to feed...

Um Point of intrest though James. Thats how they "live". That can be said about any race. Humans mercilessly slaughter animals to live, Animals slaughter each other to live. Dragons slaughter anything that gets to close when their hungrey......Honestly the list can go on and on. Everything slaughters something to feed, even your meak little rabbits slaughter grass to live!

So the next thing that should be asked. What makes them MORE evil then any other race?

 

[Willow_Calypso]

Tomatoes even kill other fruits and vegetables to live. ;D

Ruthia has a point, I think it's kinda impossible to say which race is the most evil. Or you could, but it'd be debated forever.

 

[Infernal Scribe]

from the PoV of the D&D setting, the generic vampire is evil due to their ties to the negative energy plane (the dimension where everything negative comes from )

Examples: Jander Sunstar of Faerun, a character from the Vampires of the Mist novel is a gold Elf vampire helped stop the vampiric plague of Daggerdale but was infected with the curse of undeath. Jander abhorred his condition and constantly fought against it but performed many evil deeds despite making an effort to feed off only animals. He also featured in many stories in various Realms of Etc, by Christie Golden.

from World of Darkness setting, the cainite vampire is evil due to the fact they are damned by God. Many the vampires in the setting go about different methods of code of conduct by their belief paths (humanity, etc) and not all choose to hunt humans. Cainite Vampires need blood (which they call vitae) in order to sustain their undead bodies. It can be human, animal or vampiric blood (but animal blood is not as good, and vampiric blood has potentially troublesome supernatural properties — such as the ability to create a blood bond). The WoD setting itself is never white or black in situations, but a heaping landscape of gray.

from the Vampire Chronciles, Anne Rice's vampires are different in several ways from classic vampires like Dracula. They need blood, but in some cases not every night. Human blood is preferred as it is more nutritious, but animal blood can also be drunk. The main characteristic of Rice's vampires is that they are all excessively emotional, sensitive, and sensual, being easy prey to intense suffering and aesthetic passions. They are usually quite attractive, even beautiful, as vampires tend to make fledglings from humans they have grown to love. According to the novel, Queen of the Damned, the origin of vampires came about due to a bloodthirsty spirit called Amel, when Akasha dies, the evil spirit sees her soul starting to leave the body, but before it does, the evil spirit wraps itself around her soul and pulls it back into her body.

and finally, from the Anita Blake novels, the vampires there don't need to kill their victims to enjoy their blood. If they choose to kill, it usually very difficult to stop. People are like potato chips to vampires. Once you've tasted them, its hard to stop at just one! Vampires are not necessarily evil in the series, but they're generally protrayed as predators and the more elder you are, the more inhuman and disconnected with society you seem to be.

These are just a few examples of the common vampires that has graced the website. I personally view it that a PC (you the player) will be whatever sort of personality, may it be the redeeming vampire, the predatory vampire, or the common joe vampire (i just came in to pick up some chicks and want some O-negative to go). Since its freeform, play what you like and have fun. When people pulls out a reference from a game mechanic (world of darkness's aura sight or D&D's detect evil) make the judgement call and inform them what you believe will show up.

 

[Elf_Ariel]

So...can I ask (since I believe I kinda started throwing ideas around)...for the 'ideas' posts to be transferred to a different thread? Or should I just do it myself when I have time...? I'm kinda not wanting to ruin the topic presented in the first post. A little more respecting than that. Sorry guys/gals.

 

[James V]

well with mine I couldn't really think of the words to finish the topic, you know, brain fart butttttttt...check this out, canablism (sp), drinking blood to feed, feeding off another, you know, not only taboo to the extreme, but very evil, thats how some view it, I suppose we all view Canablism as an evil thing, or perhaps a very just, taboo subject to talk about, really anything anyone fears is considered evil, and I'm not taking DnD into terms, I'm saying just our nature, because I am through with any dnd with my characters for the simple reason, that I don't have anyone around to game with, so I kinda sit there and do nothing with gaming, ontop of that, James is pretty damn strong, but he's been around for a loooong time aswell, not as long as some characters, but he's been there a long time, and before that he was table top for shanigans, but I pretty much am going to throw DnD out, People fear vampires for being turned into one, almost like a loss of freedom, and perhaps their ability to attack their peers around them, and the canablism, its almost said that a paladin dead set on destroying the vampire is evil in the eyes of a vampire, and they are doing nothing more then trying to live in their own means. So really out of all the confusion, they are only evil in free form in the eyes of those who make them out to be, and perhaps good in the eyes of those who think they are doing what they need to do, to survive, but just really boils down to the general point of view, can they be classified as evil yes, are they evil, definately, to another vampire with a goal to feed, are they good perhaps, perhaps their viewed as a threat, but really what this is all getting at is, the fact they are canablistic, and they do feast on blood of humans, elves, ect...which I'm sorry but I don't understand how anyone here could see canablism in the time frame we have as seen as good because really the characters on most of these settings are civilized, get an uncivilized character, and they eat flesh of a fresh kill that is a race other then an animal, and pretty much I can see how it would be good. Vampires can act delightful, but at the end of the day, the stigma of canablism and fear shrouds over them.

 

[Bari]

I just think that vampires are evil because frankly, they've been always portrayed as evil. It's like demons and so. It's... tradition. You want to play a good vampire? That's fine, there are always exceptions. But saying that the entire race can be classified as good is, well... it's alright, but it just breaks up with a concept that I see no real need to break up with.

 

[Tharivious]

So the next thing that should be asked. What makes them MORE evil then any other race?

Parasitism. More specifically, sapient parasitism. It's a human concept to place higher moral value on sapient life, causing pain (or death) to other intelligent lifeforms is seen as being more inherently "wrong" than inflicting it on non-sapients, which is also more inherently "wrong" than doing so regarding plant matter. Vampires only get the virtual pass that they get because of media representation of the feeding process being pleasurable and their portrayal as seductive, noble creatures in romanticized media that chooses to downplay their monstrous nature. They aren't human, shouldn't be played as simply "humans with fangs", and certainly shouldn't be underestimated as being anything other than something that thrives by harming others that are what they were.

Seriously, I doubt if anyone would suggest that illithids weren't inherently evil for surviving by eating the brains of intelligent creatures. Vampires really aren't all that different (hell, you can even compare the vampiric spawning to illithid ceremorphosis - both inflict a fundamental change on the body, one is just more obvious). They know that they inflict trauma by 'surviving' (and if you don't agree, see how you feel after losing a lot of blood, even the nicest vampire might not stop at a sip), but they continue to do so, even on willing participants.

Moral relativism may be an easy and fun tactic, comparing what vampires do to what rabbits do and all that, and it's cute, but ultimately, the rabbit isn't sucking the life out of another sapient creature that reasons in a similar manner.

 

[Ruthia]

So because a bunny or grass isn't consider "inteligent" as far as humans can tell that makes it all good. Nice to know. And if Parasitism is what makes them evil does this mean Tape Worms and Vampires are in the same classification? Both are living, sort of, beings that feed off of other "inteligent" beings. Both cause pain and cause death, as yes it is possible to die because of a tape worm infestation...maybe not in first world countries but it is. Ohohoh Wait I get it now. It's because Vampires can think.......Um, has anyone here ever been really, really hungry? I'm willing to be in that sort of situation it wouldn't matter WHAT you had to eat, you would eat to survive.

I'm not saying that I consider Vampires more evil or more good then the next race. I'm just saying, ever race CAN be both. Every race has the potential to do all sides.

 

[Sienna_Rose]

So because a bunny or grass isn't consider "inteligent" as far as humans can tell that makes it all good. Nice to know. And if Parasitism is what makes them evil does this mean Tape Worms and Vampires are in the same classification? Both are living, sort of, beings that feed off of other "inteligent" beings. Both cause pain and cause death, as yes it is possible to die because of a tape worm infestation...maybe not in first world countries but it is. Ohohoh Wait I get it now. It's because Vampires can think.......Um, has anyone here ever been really, really hungry? I'm willing to be in that sort of situation it wouldn't matter WHAT you had to eat, you would eat to survive.

I'm not saying that I consider Vampires more evil or more good then the next race. I'm just saying, ever race CAN be both. Every race has the potential to do all sides.

Yes, there is potential for both, for any race, imo. Exceptions with the whole Oerthian drow and other races.
Humans have been known to turn to canibalism in extreme situations - and there are some myths and legends about what happens to them because of it.
Yes, we tend to have a problem with those who feed on other intelligent beings - and who have the intelligence to know they are doing so (unlike tapeworms).
I do think a vampire can manage to fight the urges and be relatively good. Vampires who only feed from animals are such an example. Vampires with willing herds whom they will not kill - a little more hazy on just where that would fall in the alignment scale.
There's the view that some vampires have that humans (and other races) are so far beneath them that they *are* no better than animals. Thus negating the canibalism angle - at least as far as they're concerned.

There are as many different takes on the sides of good/evil as there are vampire characters waiting to be played, or presently being played, or written about. . .
Me? I'll stick with my annoying chaotic insane vampire.

 

[Tharivious]

So because a bunny or grass isn't consider "inteligent" as far as humans can tell that makes it all good. Nice to know.

According to the overwhelming majority of real-world society? Yes. Admittedly, there are those that think eating meat at all is wrong, as well, so it's not a unanimous opinion, but in general, a higher value is placed on the life of something that thinks, can logically reason, and can communicate what it is thinking in a discernible manner.

Majority real-world opinion has always gone: Human > Animal > Plant > [non-living matter].

Fantasy world opinion would then logically be: [Sapient (humanoids, dragons, fey, outsiders, etc)] > [Non-Sapient Life (animals and the like)] > [Non-Sentient Life (non-sentient plants)] > [succession of non-living things in the same order (undead complicate the chain)] > [Never-living matter (such as rocks and soil)].

I'm sure a minority would disagree about humans and animals being of unequal value, but those same individuals would then lead vampires further into condemnation by making feeding on animals just as evil as feeding on people.

Hmm, a chlorophyll vampire sounds like fun, though...

And if Parasitism is what makes them evil does this mean Tape Worms and Vampires are in the same classification? Both are living, sort of, beings that feed off of other "inteligent" beings.

This was addressed by the descriptor of Sapient. Sapient, not sentient. Very noteworthy difference there, and very, very relevant to my point.

Both cause pain and cause death, as yes it is possible to die because of a tape worm infestation...maybe not in first world countries but it is.

And the tapeworm is not a sapient being. Find one that is, and see if it knows what it's doing, then it becomes relevant in comparison to the vampires.

Ohohoh Wait I get it now. It's because Vampires can think.......Um, has anyone here ever been really, really hungry? I'm willing to be in that sort of situation it wouldn't matter WHAT you had to eat, you would eat to survive.

Really? Even if that meant eating, say, your next door neighbour? While they were still alive, blood-flowing, heart-beating, still-breathing alive? Knowing that with each quantity taken, death was coming closer and they were slipping farther away? Let's say you do only take a small quantity. You're still talking about robbing another sapient (there's that all important word again) being of life-giving nutrients that they had already obtained, impacting their circulatory system in a negative way, and putting them at risk for the effects of blood loss and anemia (among others). Still not evil on the basis of self-preservation? Really?

Or at the all-too-common animal angle, where the animal in question would likely be panicking and struggling, terrified by the experience (cruelty, no matter the purpose, is still cruelty, and therefore evil - and I'd say forcibly restraining an animal and draining its blood is cruelty at its finest)? Still not evil on the basis of self-preservation? Really?

Sorry, not buying it. I doubt if you'll find many who will agree with the assertion that if you were starving, you would chow down on something that was still alive. And if the vampire kills to feed before drinking (slowing the blood flow and making feeding more difficult), especially with humanoid victims, then it becomes murder for personal gain, and is therefore... that's right, evil. It might, might mitigate the animal option

Hell, for the sake of argument, I'll even throw in the blood bank option. They're still taking blood that could save the life of another sapient being. The "best" moral option that a vampire has is still, at best, a morally neutral option. Nebulous arguments could be made that it is adding a variable for putting emergency victims at risk if the vampire snacks on a rare blood type by mistake.

I'm not saying that I consider Vampires more evil or more good then the next race. I'm just saying, ever race CAN be both. Every race has the potential to do all sides.

And I believe that every anti-stereotype can and should be questioned in the realm of logic to see whether it is a legitimate possibility, or an impossibility by nature of the creature in question. That's one of my problems with modern fantasy literature - no quality control, because no one wants to question the how and why of things to avoid hurting someone's feelings. We can question things, we can determine the logical validity of things, and we can say that something just doesn't make sense. They can still do it anyway, they still have that option, but those who disagree are no less correct because of that option to go against consensus.

Vampires exist as a sapient parasite that has to take life-blood from living beings to survive and are fully aware of what they are doing (this is fact) - that's evil, by it's very definition, regardless of motivation, and certainly never be good. Can a vampire have heroic tendencies? Sure they can. They make fine anti-hero characters in that regard: Flawed, morally ambiguous heroes with a strong tendency to not always do what's morally right in order to survive and succeed.

But to claim that they can become truly and honestly good at heart? That's either selectively leaving behind aspects of what a vampire is (and if one wants to, go ahead - but that's breaking from vampires in general, and therefore irrelevant to discussing the standard conception), willful delusions that altruism can counterweight the inherent evil in being a sapient parasite (which cuts back to a previously mentioned aspect - these vampires are dangerously close to acting as sociopaths by devaluing the life of those they feed from), or a vampire that leads a very difficult and tedious life of self-denial and near-starvation (which you rarely see, if ever, outside of World of Darkness games with themes of Golconda involved).