Vampires---can they ever be "good"

[Kalbear]

et's keep in mind she is the same nutjob who rewrote children's fairy tales as BDSM erotic stories

Yeah, but those were hawt.

On vampires: I think largely they have to be antagonistic, if not outright evil. Simply because regardless of whether it's a demon inside a human, a soulless human, or just something that preys on humanity - it is intrinsically hard to relate as a 'human' to something you view as food. Once you start empathizing with your food as something that may be on the same level as you, it takes a fair degree of sociopathy to consume it willingly.

That all being said, there are plenty of humans who don't eat cow, and downright worship the suckers, so to me it's possible and reasonable for a vampire to not be evil. But it's not easy, and it requires significant empathy.

While we're at it, on evil: in this case, I'm talking about evil as doing deliberately cruel or violent things to humans for purposes other than feeding. If a vamp is just feeding on humans, that's not evil by itself. If they're toying with 'em, that's something else. Evil requires not only actions that are harmful; it requires a distinct lack of empathy, and that lack of empathy in your food is why vampires tend to be evil.

[Lord Qyburn]

Well....this touches upon the definition of evil. It appears yours(and my own) defination differs from Noontidal's and Lyanna.

Hey, try not having a definition of evil. I'm having to make everything in this thread up as I go along.

[oba]

I've always found it interesting the way different authors deal with this concept.

I agree with most of the Anne Rice bashing here, but I actually think she did a good job of this in Interview with the Vampire (and to a lesser extent in Lestat and QoD. We see how it becomes harder and harder, as the years go by and their distance from the human race of which they were once a part grows, for the vamps to relate to humanity. We also see how the type of person a vampire was before he/she is turned into a vampire has an impact.

Also, let's face it, a vampire struggling against his/her own dark urges yet still trying to do the right thing is a walking, talking, blood-sucking cliche.

FTR, whether they're souled or soulless, I much prefer my vampires eeevvvillll.

[Xray the Enforcer]

You might want to reconsider that, as it makes you a potential cannibal. Whenever a human gets cooked, say in a house fire, it is usually described as "smelling like bacon."

Don't go Soylent Green on us, XRay.

Heh. We're all one step away from cannibalism. Your calves are looking deliciously meaty today...

[Kalbear]

Mmm...spicy brains.

[Nathanael]

I think it really depends on how they're formulated - do they have to kill the human? are they possessed? are they normal joe schmoes who just happened to get turned and now have to deal with a bloodthirst that appalls and scares them? or does the turning automatically make them embrace that thirst? how often do they need to feed?

Think about if you were turned - would you really start devouring random innocents? I'd probably either find some way to get involved with bloodbanks, or find some friends I could confide in for nonvictim feeding. Unless, of course, my vampirism wouldn't allow such.

Fevre Dream does a good job exploring these ideas, IMO, even though those "vampires" had differences from most traditional formulations. Vampires can be good or evil, depending on how they react to their curse.

[Wolf Girl]

From tv shows (Buffy, Angel) to popular fiction, there seems to be a movement to make it seem like some vampires can be good.

Actually, the Whedonverse (Buffy/Angel) makes it very clear that vampires are NOT good and unable to be so. The vampire is a demon inhabiting a human body without a soul, and can not make the choice to be good. There are several shows over the course of the series that address the good/evil idea, and also address the "vampires are cool" problem too. It's the presence of the soul in Angel that makes him good in the times he is good,

SPOILER: in case someone hasn't seen the series

and the chip in Spike's head that forces him to be good in the times he is good: or at least forces him not to kill. Other than that, they are both unable to make morally "good" decisions. I'm not saying they're evil, because they are rather like animals in that they can't help what they are. But if the choice is to kill or not to kill, they're going to kill. The only question is how.

Except that with Spike, Whedon blurs the line a little as time goes on. Even without a soul, Spike does begin to be good: he makes choices to refrain from killing, to help the gang, etc. This is while he has the chip in his head, and so he can't actually commit violent acts against humans, but he could thwart them in other ways and refuse to help. Instead he falls in love with Buffy: love, from a creature with no soul who supposedly can't connect with any other being. It's an interesting idea, but one that does go against the 'rules' Whedon previously set up. It causes a bit of a problem, and also led to probably the worst scene written for the show: when the writers decided that Spike needed to reassert his 'evilness' and attempted to rape Buffy. It was a poor way of dealing with the issue, and one that most Whedon fans would prefer was forgotten.

Aside from the issues with Spike described above, Whedon does make it very clear that vampires are not to be admired when they're normal, unhindered vampires. Yes, they can be 'good' but essentially if they are, they're no longer real vampires. It's the Spike thing that complicates it though...I wish they'd actually dealt with this a bit more than they did.

[Altherion]

Then, does the same apply to Galactus? Is *he* evil?

Yes, he's evil. If he's somehow necessary to the existence of the Universe (I don't see why this would be, but let's pretend), then he becomes a necessary evil. That is, he's the kind of evil we will tolerate and even go out of our way to sustain... until we've found a way to make do without him, after which he will be obliterated without any mercy whatsoever.

Regarding vampires, I think it depends on how they're defined. If they're undead without a soul (whatever that means) then they pretty much have to be evil. If they're a mutation or a different species then they could be good, but it isn't bloody likely unless they can live off of animals (i.e. don't need human blood to survive) in which case we can divide them up into the ones who attack humans and the ones who don't.

[AutumnEvenings]

Good in bed? Yes.

Good as in going to heaven and stuff? Nope. Killing people is bad.

[Xanrn]

Good in bed? Yes.

Good as in going to heaven and stuff? Nope. Killing people is bad.

Which is why Angel makes such a spiel out of earning his redemption.

Certain Vampires don't need to drink Human, Whedonverse vampires can survive on any type of blood.

[Noontidal]

Good in bed? Yes.

Actually, that is outright incorrect. Full vampire's equipment is non-functional. The only way you get vampire young is during the transition period particularly if they were already pregnant.

[DJ Dawn]

Good in bed? Yes.

Good as in going to heaven and stuff? Nope. Killing people is bad.

Hmm

I was reading Neiman's Evil in Modern Thought today and it reminded me of this thread. The definition of evil is something that has to be brought into a discussion such as this.

The Lisbon earthquake in 1755 was an example, in its time, of pure, undiluted evil. However, it was a natural disaster, it lacked intent. Alfonso X, a 13th century king was seen as pure evil. Why? Because he(using Ptolemeic astronomy...which didn't work) studied astronomy and when asked of what he saw said, "If I were on God's Consul, the universe would be a lot better ordered." He ended up killed in a revolt led by his own son. And it was that statement that set off the final chain of events. Because it was evil.

So evil's definition evolves, perhaps in 200 years things we see as evil, may not be considered anything but victims of the masses moral irresponsibilty. Or maybe not. Either way, to me, evil is an action of moral reprehensibility that lacks account or explanation. To kill to survive, isn't necessarily evil...it can be accounted for. So is a vampire that MUST feed off humans evil? Why? Are we evil for eating cows, and pigs, and plants? That assigns a higher value to some life than to others. That leads me to the question, again. Why? What makes killing a human for survival worse than killing a cow for another specie. Is the shark evil for eating a person? Or natural?

I understand the natural reaction to something killing humans to survive. It makes the vampire a great villian(when portrayed properly.) Something that can, and will destroy us, more powerful....but sympathetic. Its' motives can be understood.

This also leads to the question of whether or not motives are enough to totally free someone from responsibility. It does not, and cannot for a functioning society. However, finding and understanding the motives can prevent one from committing evils as a response to evils. Which opens up a whole social angle that, since the thread was moved out of Gen Chatt, I'm going to ignore

--Deej

[Walpurgisborn]

Actually, that is outright incorrect. Full vampire's equipment is non-functional. The only way you get vampire young is during the transition period particularly if they were already pregnant.

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

[oba]

So is a vampire that MUST feed off humans evil? Why? Are we evil for eating cows, and pigs, and plants? That assigns a higher value to some life than to others. That leads me to the question, again. Why? What makes killing a human for survival worse than killing a cow for another specie. Is the shark evil for eating a person? Or natural?

Very interesting.

(1) Is it possible that in condemning vampires who did not have access to alternative blood sources or the other benefits of technological advances, we are actually discriminating against them for being born/made in the wrong time period? If blood banks had been around in the Victorian era, would ol' Vlad have acted differently?

(2) In terms of our assigning higher value to some life than others, the fact that these vampires were once human themselves, complicates matters a bit. Personally, if I had once been a pig and then found myself forced to consume pork products to survive, I don't know how I'd deal with it.

[DJ Dawn]

(2) In terms of our assigning higher value to some life than others, the fact that these vampires were once human themselves, complicates matters a bit. Personally, if I had once been a pig and then found myself forced to consume pork products to survive, I don't know how I'd deal with it.

You first point was great. This one is too, really. but the first one stands without me feeling the need to get into it. I agree...this would be terribly mentally taxing, and probably LEAD to evil. However, it also means that the curse isn't inherently evil. It's...at odds with society. And a negative trait, but can't be put alongside true evils.

[Wolf Girl]

So evil's definition evolves, perhaps in 200 years things we see as evil, may not be considered anything but victims of the masses moral irresponsibilty.

Example? I'm not sure what you're envisioning here, since I'm assuming you're leaving out things of personal interpretation (such as homosexuality) that some might see as evil but others don't, and talking about things like murder, which a very few people don't see as evil and most people do. I'm not sure how the latter would not be viewed as evil as time went on: I'm guessing I'm not understanding what you're saying.

To kill to survive, isn't necessarily evil...it can be accounted for. So is a vampire that MUST feed off humans evil? Why? Are we evil for eating cows, and pigs, and plants? That assigns a higher value to some life than to others. That leads me to the question, again. Why? What makes killing a human for survival worse than killing a cow for another specie. Is the shark evil for eating a person? Or natural?

As far as the vampires go, I think it's not that they have to feed off humans, but that they choose to. Meaning, they can live off animals but prefer humans because of the high the blood gives them. Animals sustain them, humans please them. Therefore, if a vampire could make a moral choice, the choice would be not to kill the human. However, depending on what lore you're reading, the vampire doesn't have the moral ability to make that choice, and therefore can't be blamed or deemed evil for killing humans.

And yes, that does assign a higher value to some life than others. So if you reject that idea and say that all taking of a life to sustain another is bad, you've opened up another thread, I think.

(2) In terms of our assigning higher value to some life than others, the fact that these vampires were once human themselves, complicates matters a bit. Personally, if I had once been a pig and then found myself forced to consume pork products to survive, I don't know how I'd deal with it.

Except for the fact that the now-vampire bears little personal resemblance to the human it once was. The vampire doesn't retain any connection: you wouldn't have any affinity for the pig. The human body is merely a shell for the demon. There would be no 'dealing with it': you wouldn't have any empathy for what you once were.

[DJ Dawn]

Example? I'm not sure what you're envisioning here, since I'm assuming you're leaving out things of personal interpretation (such as homosexuality) that some might see as evil but others don't, and talking about things like murder, which a very few people don't see as evil and most people do. I'm not sure how the latter would not be viewed as evil as time went on: I'm guessing I'm not understanding what you're saying.

The point is, morality evolves. Our morality is based in a variety of things. As thought becomes open in more parts of the world and society allows more expression, values will change. I can't give an example. My values are in most cases social perogatives. They work for now, and the reasoning behind it is without the added influence of 2 centuries of higher thought. What was evil then isn't now, what is now, MAY not be then. That's all.

As far as the vampires go, I think it's not that they have to feed off humans, but that they choose to. Meaning, they can live off animals but prefer humans because of the high the blood gives them. Animals sustain them, humans please them. Therefore, if a vampire could make a moral choice, the choice would be not to kill the human. However, depending on what lore you're reading, the vampire doesn't have the moral ability to make that choice, and therefore can't be blamed or deemed evil for killing humans.

Mmm, but people have stated that killing humans is absolute evil previously in the thread. I was replying to that thought. Why would killing the human, in a society where vampires are feared and hunted be an evil? He's killing two birds with one stone, someone hunting him and feeding. But that's attacking the premise. I apologize. Let me step back.

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. Vampires cannot live in society, they are a force of it's decay...which just made me need to research something...but is it the inability to exist in a human society evil?

And yes, that does assign a higher value to some life than others. So if you reject that idea and say that all taking of a life to sustain another is bad, you've opened up another thread, I think.

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying it's amoral.

[oba]

As far as the vampires go, I think it's not that they have to feed off humans, but that they choose to. Meaning, they can live off animals but prefer humans because of the high the blood gives them. Animals sustain them, humans please them. Therefore, if a vampire could make a moral choice, the choice would be not to kill the human. However, depending on what lore you're reading, the vampire doesn't have the moral ability to make that choice, and therefore can't be blamed or deemed evil for killing humans.

Hmm. The only "moral" component I see is that these vampires were once humans.

Otherwise, a decision to feed off a human as opposed to a rat is no less immoral than my choosing chicken over fish.

Hmm. Actually, it's far less "immoral". I'm an omnivore, I can survive on a vegetarian diet. The vampire doesn't have that option. It's blood or bust.

[Faceless Dude]

This is an example from John Carpenter's Vampires. Pretty much sums up what I think about vampires:

Jack Crow: You ever seen a vampire?

Father Adam Guiteau: No I haven't.

Jack Crow: No... Well first of all, they're not romatic. Its not like they're a bunch of fuckin' fags hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right? Forget whatever you've seen in the movies: they don't turn into bats, crosses don't work. Garlic? You wanna try garlic? You could stand there with garlic around your neck and one of these buggers will bend you fucking over and take a walk up your strada-chocolata WHILE he's suckin' the blood outta your neck, all right? And they don't sleep in coffins lined in taffata. You wanna kill one, you drive a wooden stake right through his fuckin' heart. Sunlight turns 'em into crispy critters.

[oba]

Except for the fact that the now-vampire bears little personal resemblance to the human it once was. The vampire doesn't retain any connection: you wouldn't have any affinity for the pig. The human body is merely a shell for the demon. There would be no 'dealing with it': you wouldn't have any empathy for what you once were.

In the Whedon-world "demon example", yes.

In other vampire versions, that's not necessarily the case. Rice's Vampire Chronicles are all about that connection and what it does and doesn't mean. The Vampires in the two Underworld movies retain their human memories and emotions.

In the Buffyverse and in Blade the element of moral choice seems to be removed.