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).

 

[James V]

This is how I look at it, lets say, Ariel decides that I'm one her best friends, but, in order to survive she has to kill me...its almost a battle of truth and logic, True she has to kill me to stay alive, Logically she needs th stay alive, and has other targets she could choose from, but she decides to kill me, because she's starvin...well Ariel goes about, and then kills me. A mind's nature is of two things, Truth or Logic, Truthfully your either thinking Ariel is a hero and she should be awarded, or your thinking she's evil for murder, because of the extreme situation, there isn't any middle ground, and caring less in this topic would mean you are quite dumb because there is some one killing their own friends on the loose, so you should choose there, now...logically speaking, she has to do this...doesn't want to, but HAS TO, in order to survive, how can we find common ground here between evil, well its a point of view, is the act they do evil, or is it in their nature to do the evil act...like Than for instances goes to an AA meeting with a pitcher of ale, and sits next to Bhryn who is trying to sober up on the wagon, Than could be so addicted, that he NEEDS the ale. Bhryn then well..Bhryn would throw a mug at his face, but...Bhryn is trying so hard to get sober, when she sees that ale, she suddenly craves alcohol, so now your left with two choices, Did Than intentionally commit the act in an evil manner, or is it simply an act of nature that is considered Evil...I would like to note, Than is not a drunk to the best of my know how...and Ariel, well, Ariel will probably kill me when she reads this

 

[Neo_CorpseReliver]

Actually. *steps in, holding up a finger* I believe the oldest played vampire around was Lady Vampire, who had been playing her character for over 10 years, predating even me in the tavern.

 

[Merto]

Actually. *steps in, holding up a finger* I believe the oldest played vampire around was Lady Vampire, who had been playing her character for over 10 years, predating even me in the tavern.

I said we are SOME OF the oldest... not THE oldest

 

[Lonanae]

Merto - Calm down, dude. I don't even know who Vincent was. I remember Lady Vampire, though.

 

[Ruthia]

So all I'm really getting out of this is a very strong feeling that anything I say is way wrong and way off course because I think differntly then people older and wiser then me........Well alright I'm cool with being wrong I suppose. Not the first time and won't be the last.*shrugs*

Back to the orginal point of this thread. Yeah there have been a lot of vampires lately. THough I'm now left to wonder how many are just because they were told "No you can't do that" and how many are part of the "groups" that spring up and ultimately fail due to the nature of this chat site and how many are "Well I saw it on TV and this looked cool".

hmmm, should start a poll then. Least then you'd know what factor effected what.

 

[James V]

So all I'm really getting out of this is a very strong feeling that anything I say is way wrong and way off course because I think differntly then people older and wiser then me........Well alright I'm cool with being wrong I suppose. Not the first time and won't be the last.*shrugs*

Nay your right, I'm right, everyone is right, tecnhiqually Vampires ARE EVIL, now enworld is based semi dnd, semi free form, but in all honesty, to be quite frank its mostly free form rp with us palyers control, using DnD as a loose base of rules and regulations, The question really is, does your character consider a vampire evil, Not do you, I think this arguements answer may ly very well in the twisted brain of what ever characters anyone here plays, do they consider them evil, To me, they serve a purpose, to James, aslong as he isn't bothered by 'em they're no problem with him.

 

[Warbridge]

Actually. *steps in, holding up a finger* I believe the oldest played vampire around was Lady Vampire, who had been playing her character for over 10 years, predating even me in the tavern.

You sir are correct, that is a long run.

Now if we can find someone that predates me I wouldn't feel so damn old.



The problem with looking at the morality of vampires as the litmus for good or evil is that there are plenty of apologist arguments for what they do to live. We don't walk in their shoes, so we can't understand their circumstances we can only weigh them based on our own moral compass. The analogy of being truly hungry and needing to do something deplorable to survive is a good one. Thankfully I have not had to do that myself, but we could look at different groups which have been forced into similar predicaments: the soccer team that crashed in the mountains forced to eat the bodies of their friends who died, or the Donner party are good examples. Are they evil? No, they just did what they needed to to survive. They did not eat the living though. That's where the litmus paper turns a bright vivid color. Take another semi-real world example, if a person commits murder and theft then claims they were starving in front of the jury, they will still go to prison. Imagine what happens if they killed the victim and ate them instead of stealing food.

It's true there are some vampires that will avoid taking life, and that's commendable given their circumstances. They are the exception though, not the rule. To the less conscientious vampires, people are simply food. They look at us like we look at a cow when we're hungry. Oh look, steak on the hoof! There's your lesson on nature: they are the top predator of the food chain in that dynamic instead of us. Whoever is at the top of the foodchain generally get carte blanche on the moral issues; it's exactly what we do to justify how we treat animals raied for foodstock or killed for fur or other commercial reasons.

No worries, Ruthia. No one's out to get you. We're just having a friendly debate about good and evil in a fantasy game. Have your opinion and stick to your crossbows or whatever you favor. Personally, I remain steadfastly against the dead killing the living. It sets a bad precendent: there are more of them than there are of us and being outnumbered is trouble we don't want. Mostly I just despise the undead...and boy bands...stupid people...work...

Think of me as an equal opportunity despiser.

 

[Ruthia]

.

No worries, Ruthia. No one's out to get you. We're just having a friendly debate about good and evil in a fantasy game. Have your opinion and stick to your crossbows or whatever you favor.

*chuckles* Never thought anyone was out to "get me". Just saying I was cool with being wrong. Honestly I have a reputation for being wrong. Hells When I first started RPing you should have see how many "You can't play a dragon That way" PM's I got when I introduced Ruthia and gang. Pern Dragons have NO D&D status once so ever And a lot of people couldn't grasp that it the whole race IS considered nuetral. Lot of fun arguements both IC and OOC about that....Specially when people tried recruiting her for the "freedom" of other dragons. Ru just never saw any point in that one. *chuckles* good times really.

Thats probaly why I have the view point I do on vampires honestly. To me, their is no "evil" people. Only evil deeds. And besides, whats so evil about a vampire, or a group of vampires or whatever that give the public "Notice" that their around? TO me to be Evil you have to have the right amount of sneaky involved too....and I don't see that at all lately. Everyone wants to play the "In your face" Villians.....which ultimately get ignored or laughed at.

 

[Drindin]

I.... can't.... must... not... *gargle, choke*


I hate vampires. There, i said it. I hate vampires.

Not for the reasons many of you are bringing up though. Do vampires have to be evil? Like has been mentioned, if you're doing it DND-style, short answer is: yes.

But, as many alleged 'classics' of literature have shown in recent years, they don't -have- to be Culturally.

Fact is, though, good vampires make me angry. They're so.... mopey and morally troubled and "oh woe is me! I must fight these urges!" and -ugh-. I can't -stand- it.

Even the evil vampires are just all "Nyah nyah! I vant to suck your blood!"

maybe it's just my being inundated by stereotypical 1000 year old vampires named "Morpheus", or maybe it's because one can only handle so many "Angel" clones or clones of those Anne Rice folks.

that said, I also hate zombies, but I won't go there.

That's why I enjoyed 30 days of night so much. There were some vampires! Ruthless animalistic killing machines that didn't even want to create spawn, because in doing so they would threaten their already lacking food source, namely a small arctic community in Alaska. That's a vampire I could handle. More like ghouls than vampires, really. Wasn't even a clean double-pinprick bite, it was more like a "I'm going to tear out your throat and lap at the sweet, sticky juices within whilst reveling in the horrified screams of your nearby family"

-Thats- a vampire.

Anyways, I digress. I think the one thing we can learn from this is: No one is right, no one is wrong. But what we can say is this: The imagination is a great thing. Sure, this site was originally based loosely on DND, but it has since then deviated greatly. You can never completely divorce it from DND, no. But that's only because so much of the worlds created within were created for settings that were made for DND, and the bulk of fantasy conisseurs have at one time indulged in that most famous of Past-times that has been around since the 70s. Even if the site was not expressley based on the game, it would still have to deal with people who say "dragons can't do that" or "vampires are EEEVILLL!"

In order to discuss the morality of a vampire, one has to assume Absolute Morality. As a Christian, i obviously believe in Absolute Morality, and am of the camp that "vampires are expressley evil". But western culture has largely been growing to the theory of Relative Morality. To us, vampires are evil. Using logic, If Vampires are not always evil if Morality is Relative, and to Vampires their actions are necessary, if grim. Assuming absolute morality, torturing and killing a creature is an expressley evil act, and Vampires must torture and kill for it is their nature, and they are therefore evil.

Culturaly speaking, vampires started out representing evil. They represented the souls of damned individuals (often murderers or suicide victims {who were considered evil, yes}) who were buried in hallowed ground.

But in modern culture, Vampires have come to serve as a representation for a whole host of things. For our own unexplored lust, to the dark and mysterious, to the blood-thirsty and free side of human experience. To go around saying that "Vampires must be this way" or "Vampires must be that way" is like saying "People must be this way" or "people must be that way" or "this line of symbolic composition can only mean this, it will not change with the times, it will not mean something different to a different individual". Lots of people think that way, that doesn't mean they're -right-.

Role Playing is a form of literature. Crude and unpolished, but it is a form of literature. It is way for us to explore our own psyches, to explore the fantastical worlds we wish we could live in, and to act as a creative outlet for people who may not have another outlet. Its a way for us to be something that we could never be in real life, and if that means you want to play a Vampiric Paladin with a vendetta against his own kind and carries a jar of pigs-blood around to feast on when his urges over take him, go for it. But don't expect everyone to agree with it, and in fact expect a lot of opposition from people like me, the Old Guard of the Absolute Moralists.

... Okay, I'm done now.

 

[Akea]

Fact is, though, good vampires make me angry. They're so.... mopey and morally troubled and "oh woe is me! I must fight these urges!" and -ugh-. I can't -stand- it.

Even the evil vampires are just all "Nyah nyah! I vant to suck your blood!"

O.O

... You obviously haven't met Jazzmyn yet then. Maybe she's then classified as a really badly played vampire, but uh, that will never make me change her into a mopey cry-baby (to which she has deliberately quoted those that fall into that category as pathetic) or stuck on the mortal plain for one purpose, to feed and live endlessly. Unlive, what have you. Just had to raise my hand, that's all.

*goes back to being quiet*