Vampires---can they ever be "good"

[Wolf Girl]

Evil does not necessitate destruction. Morals are not something you can tell me are 100% empirically proven. Just their effects on human society, it's subjective. Even if vampires are evil, would they necessitate humans killing them? If they were a plague, sure, but if they were organized? Reads a lot like violence begets violence, and eventually you'll reach a point where vampires kill humans exclusively out of fear, anger, and hunger.

That IS why vampires kill humans. At least in what I've read.

but is it the inability to exist in a human society evil?

Well, some would argue that murderers/rapists are evil because they can not exist in a human society as defined by the majority of human morality. So by that reasoning, vampires are also evil: they prey on humans; they have no respect for human life. The fact that they are in essence animals hunting prey makes them, to humans who are their prey, evil, while a shark hunting another fish to live is not. As you said, it's subjective.

[Noontidal]

But... but...what about this (NSFW) documentaryon the subject.

Those are not vampires, those are people playing dress-up, if they were real vampires their sexual parts would still be useless. That might be a partial cause for their bad attitudes, and ultimate recourse to evil, not to mention frequently a desire for a cure. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

[DJ Dawn]

That IS why vampires kill humans. At least in what I've read.

Point, to me, is moot. Don't care about vampires, etc. I'm trying to open a discussion on the accountability of 'necessary' evil. I don't think it can be classified with murdering a child for fun.

Well, some would argue that murderers/rapists are evil because they can not exist in a human society as defined by the majority of human morality. So by that reasoning, vampires are also evil: they prey on humans; they have no respect for human life. The fact that they are in essence animals hunting prey makes them, to humans who are their prey, evil, while a shark hunting another fish to live is not. As you said, it's subjective.

But, you see, human life and society isn't what makes murder evil. What makes it evil is the systematic and unecessary reduction of a thinking, rational being into nothing. Destruction for purely personal reasons is evil. By nature. Maybe understandable, but far closer to evil than when there is a rational reason behind it. 'Necessary' evil is a oft-overused phrase, I don't like it, not much warrants the taking of life or freedom of will. However, the need to eat is one of them. It assigns value on life too, mine if more important than that's.

[aergern]

Ann Rice is an idiot and a fool.

I would have to say that she cares not what you think as she sits in her uber huge mansion and checks out her bank account. heh.

[Wolf Girl]

But, you see, human life and society isn't what makes murder evil. What makes it evil is the systematic and unecessary reduction of a thinking, rational being into nothing. Destruction for purely personal reasons is evil. By nature. Maybe understandable, but far closer to evil than when there is a rational reason behind it. 'Necessary' evil is a oft-overused phrase, I don't like it, not much warrants the taking of life or freedom of will. However, the need to eat is one of them. It assigns value on life too, mine if more important than that's.

I agree with this: I've been saying all along that vampires can't be labeled evil because they don't have a choice in killing. It only gets more complicated depending on the lore you're reading: do vampires have the ability to live on other animals, not humans, and can they make the choice to do so, and is their choice moral or amoral. And even in one source of myth it becomes more complicated, as I described earlier with Spike: Whedon contradicts himself to some degree, and the ramifications were never explored as much as they could be.

However, you say that "destruction for purely personal reasons is evil" and also refer to the need to eat being a "necessary evil," meaning, perhaps not able to be labeled evil at all. Yet what could be more personal than the desire to live? If the vampire is a sentient being, could it not be called evil for making the choice to survive at the expense of another life?

[Walpurgisborn]

I think part of the reason why we could imagine good vampires is because we envision them as intelligent creatures, reasoning creatures. And that implies the ability to make choices, including the choice to do good.

[oba]

'Necessary' evil is a oft-overused phrase, I don't like it, not much warrants the taking of life or freedom of will. However, the need to eat is one of them. It assigns value on life too, mine if more important than that's.

That's interesting. I'd never quite thought of it that way. The way in which a lot of criminal codes deal with the notion of "justifiable" homicide is an attempt at providing some sort of clarity to this.

Oversimplification, but it's justifiable for me to take another human life if I deem it the necessary way to save either my own life or someone else's.

If it proves I was incorrect in this judgment (e.g. my life and/or someone else's wasn't really threatened b/c the assailant's gun wasn't loaded, etc.), it's up to a jury to decide if my actions were reasonable based upon the information available to me at that time.

It's not justified for me to do so to save anything else, no matter how valuable. This is in spite of the fact that insurance companies and civil juries set monetary values on people all the time. I can kill Bill Gates to save the life of a man who's only got the shirt on his back.

Then there are those instances in which a person might be called upon to make a choice to sacrifice a few lives to save a greater number of lives.

[DJ Dawn]

However, you say that "destruction for purely personal reasons is evil" and also refer to the need to eat being a "necessary evil," meaning, perhaps not able to be labeled evil at all.

Bingo. exactly. The NEED to eat, taint a choice.

Yet what could be more personal than the desire to live? If the vampire is a sentient being, could it not be called evil for making the choice to survive at the expense of another life?

It could. And I could be called evil for eating beef.

And the caller may be right. But to call something evil without understanding the motive is to fear it. If a motive can be found, it should be understood, it's better to understand the man doing the evil, for the sole purpose of avoiding a counter-evil.

Evil begets evil. The use of the concept of 'evil' needs to be revised, only in time where no understanding or account is it evil. To invoke Godwin's law, Auschwitz was fucking evil. But that's because there was....no point. What's worse the man that kills you because he believes you're evil? The man that kills you accidently? Or that man that kills you, to kill you. Evil is over-politicized. Evil is...grand...but limited. I don't think the vampire is evil for deciding to live, no more than I'm evil for deciding to live.

[Wolf Girl]

Bingo. exactly. The NEED to eat, taint a choice.

I agree. Yet you still called it an evil: that's why I mentioned it. Are there gradations? Or is it just a word?

I don't think the vampire is evil for deciding to live, no more than I'm evil for deciding to live.

If you're talking about a vampire who can't choose not to kill a human, and you, who chooses to live by eating animals, I agree, even though I don't personally eat animals to survive. If you're talking about a vampire who CAN survive without killing humans, and a human who survives by killing other humans, that's a lot more complicated. That's where your idea of understanding comes in: we need to know the motive in order to know the morality.

[Noontidal]

On that note, it is never wrong for a human to return the favor and hunt down acursed vampires to kill them in their sleep.

[Knight of the Wineskin]

First zombies, now vampires. When will the anti-undead prejudice end? WHEN?

[Devil Hanzo]

Vampires can easily feast on a dog probably.

Or Galactus could feed on dead planets(but he's too lazy to find them)

[PhoenixFlame]

Hmmm...

Well, I have conflicting views. I think if written plausibly, a vampire can be, not good exactly, but not evil. Because there is just so much leeway, they being fictional and all.

I dislike Anne Rice, but not only because of her portrayal of vampires (which I'm not very fond of)

But I've come across some really good vampire stories where the vampire lead was not "evil." For example, Christopher Pike's The Last Vampire series. Alisa/Sita is a vampire but not particularly good or evil. She does quite a few mean things such as heartlessly killing this detective for spying on her, but at the same time, she rarely kills the victims she feeds on. She's not supposed to really be good or evi-- she survives in a changing world and adapts, while changing gradually in character. She winds up doing many things that ultimately help the world, but more because she has an acute desire to survive in said world. Such as putting the smackdown on this insane vampire that pops up...though she gets mighty thrashed a few times first.

The anime Vampire Princess Miyu is a good example too. Miyu is not so much evil or good as just cold. She can't really relate with humans even though her actions probably save a lot of them.

As for some well done rather mean vampires, I'd go with the Legacy of Kain series. Kain is a brilliant character. He'd pwn Lestat any day of the week with one slash from the Soul Reaver. He's vicious, merciless, a megalomaniac, and pretty damn arrogant to boot, and can back it all up with badassery and power. But when one rules the world for a 1000 years, I guess you'd develop said traits. And very often he winds up being the "lesser of two evils," such as eventually wanting to restore a corrupted land, if only to rule it (but as opposed to a race that would wipe out all life but themselves if they had the chance). But then there is also Raziel who often does the wrong thing for the right reasons. Not a universal good guy, but definitly noble.

[Devil Hanzo]

So why dont you like anne rice?

I used to like her, but she just started to annoy the hell out of me.

I originally liked how louis would fight the temptation to kill but then he just did it to eat, i liked how they lived disconnected from the world.

However, the thing is, after that it was all just bitching and complaining again and again or how ''badass'' lestat is, how ''unique'' he is.

What the hell is so special about him?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Well the fact they have to prey on humans, which if we assume do have souls and are different from other creatures, would make them inherently "bad" I suppose, but I think it is entirely possible for a dead human, a vampire specifically, to keep their soul. I know the idea with a soul is once you die you yield your physical self away, but a vampire already doesn't play by conventional "once you die" rules, so it is not a huge leap of faith for me to believe they could keep their souls, since they also maintain their physical selves.

I am in agreement with Vampire Hunter D on this account. All vampires will eventually give in to their cravings, and in correlation count as evil deserving extermination.

Excellent point. But...does this statement cover vampires or does it include dunpeal/dhampir hunters as well? It seems fitting that D would include himself in this damning statement.

[Devil Hanzo]

Wait...are you talking vampire hunder D the comic?

I never heard of this in the anime?

I would have to say that she cares not what you think as she sits in her uber huge mansion and checks out her bank account. heh.

Yeah but she cares enough that when people write fan fiction, she actually mailed the website and got pissed off and they had to remove all Anne Rice fan-fiction.

Why does she care?

Isn't imitation the sincerist form of flattery?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Wait...are you talking vampire hunder D the comic?

I never heard of this in the anime?

Yeah but she cares enough that when people write fan fiction, she actually mailed the website and got pissed off and they had to remove all Anne Rice fan-fiction.

Why does she care?

Isn't imitation the sincerist form of flattery?

There are two animes of Vampire Hunter D. The better one is the more recent one, Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust. If you aren't familiar with this title then get it RIGHT NOW!! It is fantastic. And readily available at most retailers.

...I personally own all the english translated version of the novels (four of them right now, though they keep on translating more) but you have to be a real geek to enjoy those. The translations are horrible. Still I just put in my Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust imported soundtrack (god damned amazing music too) and read the night away!

(Don't tell Jake Plummer...I don't think he'd understand)

[Devil Hanzo]

I saw pieces of the second but could not see it properly.

He seems like a badass hero.

I like him ALOT more then Alucard.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I saw pieces of the second but could not see it properly.

He seems like a badass hero.

I like him ALOT more then Alucard.

That's exactly right--a bad ass hero. He has all the answers, never says much, the typical "western" hero in the sense of the "old west" if you know what I mean. Spaghetti westerns they are called sometimes (though I don't know why). Tough dude who says little comes to town, saves the day by handing out serious ass kickings, and then strolls off into the sunset.

[Spectralist]

I think it all depends on what defines a vampire. They are portrayed very differently in different sources, for example I’d never even heard of the trait that when a person becomes a vampire they lose their ‘soul’ until I read this thread. In a whole I think there is virtually no reasonable way to define vampires as inherently evil unless you first pick a ‘correct’ definition for them, which is impossible really. Are they harmed by garlic and crosses? Can they enter your house with out permission? Does sunlight kill them instantly? Are they soulless killing machines? All these things are true in some stories and false in others, which is true of basically all traits of a vampire, hell I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could even find a story where the vampires can survive without drinking blood. It all depends on the author, on the lore of the world the story takes place in for whether or not a vampire is invariably evil.

Say for example that I am writing a book, this book’s protagonist is a vampire named… oh lets say Mike. In this story Mike opens up a blood bank, and skims a little off the top to survive but gives the rest to nearby hospitals and emergency response units. Is he evil? Does not his blood bank in fact help save lives? Perhaps he even distributes some blood to other vampires who then, with Mike’s assistance never have to harm humans either. Can even they be considered evil then? With all the blood they drink being donated to them willingly I would have to say, no. They harm no one, and they even provide a benefit to their community.