Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 1236805" data-attributes="member: 710">I think in Buffy mythology (or at least buffyverse), the lack of a soul does not neccessary mean that a character is evil, but the chances are high.Vampires tend to have most old character aspects they had (remember harmony? Where`s the difference between harmony with soul and harmony without soul?) with a soul. The soul is not the entire character. I see it as a kind of ... moral restraint. A person with a soul has certain desires, and he wants to fulfill them. But there are some ways you can´t take to fulfill them. Some, because it is to difficult. Your ratio, your mind could say it won`t be a good idea. (Maybe it is because it is illegal, maybe they way would cost to much or it takes to long).Your soul, your conscience could also say it won`t be a good idea - it is morally wrong, so you don`t do it, even if it is an easy way. A vampire has no soul. If he can do a thing and his ratio doesn`t prohibite it, he will do it if he can come through with it, because there is no "thing" that speaks against it. Their ratio might still say that some things would be considered wrong by others, but they don`t care if the ratio also tells them that these guys don`t count. (Maybe Because you have superstrength and sharp teeth, and they don`t.)Some humans (like the guy that killed Tara) have a soul, but their soul doesn`t tell them their plans and/or motives are wrong. Both are evil. It is difficult to decide which one is more evil. In Buffy, the concensus seems to be that being without a soul is at least reason enough to kill him. Which makes sense, since it is extremely difficult to give a vampire his soul back. The second type has at least a soul to work with.Mustrum Ridcully</blockquote>

Verification