are vampires really evil?
- Thread starter ctrl
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wouldn't say they're evil mainly because of how slick that slope is. Vampires killing humans may seem evil to someone who will then turn around and say humans eating beef, lamb, chicken, etc...is just as evil, if not worse.
Vampires aren't real though. There are some people who claim to be, but when they engage in a blood letting (I think that's what they call it) they don't kill for their blood. When you play Soul Reaver...well, when you used to play Soul Reaver, most of the blood you got came from humans trying to kill you.
...
I miss the Soul Reaver games...When are we getting another of those? Or an HD Re-release?
Vampires aren't real though. There are some people who claim to be, but when they engage in a blood letting (I think that's what they call it) they don't kill for their blood. When you play Soul Reaver...well, when you used to play Soul Reaver, most of the blood you got came from humans trying to kill you.
...
I miss the Soul Reaver games...When are we getting another of those? Or an HD Re-release?
You mean the unholy abominations that literally get their power from faining God and turning to Evil practices to make themselves demonic unholy undying forces cast out by even the light of day and forced to drink the mortal fluid of humans to sustain their wrenched existence? If you think Satan is evil, then yes vampires are evil since there derive power from similar unholy sources.
The original mythos surrounding vampires. I'm not talking about Anne Rice, or Twilight or Age of Darkness but the original myths. Implies that vampirism is synonimous with evil acts and diabolism and the undead (nothing that could be considered good).ctrl said:
The myth of Vampirism is one that spans the entire world. Every single culture has their own very different example of an evil spirit, demon or witch that as part of their existence feasts upon the blood of the living. Please remember blood has an importance place in ancient cultures. There was a magic to it. A creature that would come in the night and drink the essence and life of the body would have been a sickening and nightmarish thought to comprehend.
The main argument of vampirism isn't that a are a step down from someone eating a beef carpaccio. The main argument is they are an abomination of the human form.
They were made in myth and lore with pure evil, drinking the blood of innocents, undead terrors of the earth.
So yes, they are evil. Reguardless of what the middle aged house wives want glittering in their knickers going on about "What a monster I am." when it just seems to be references to how they will take said middle aged woman in between the sheets.
So yes, they are evil. Reguardless of what the middle aged house wives want glittering in their knickers going on about "What a monster I am." when it just seems to be references to how they will take said middle aged woman in between the sheets.
In Twilight vampires aren't evil at all. In Buffy some of them have souls, and others are a lot more annoying than really evil, and in the Underworld series the vampires are only morally grey at worst. They even specifically talk about not wanting to kill and eat humans, which separates them from the lycans.
To be more traditional about it. In folklore and myth vampires are deceased bodies which have arisen from the grave for any number of reasons. Common reasons include pacts with the devil, witchcraft and sorcery, or the sheer power of their hatred brought them back. So yes, traditionally vampires are all evil all the time, they have no souls and are merely a ghoul-like vestige of the person they once were.
When Bram Stoker wrote 'Dracula' this was the portrayal he chose, the Count was a vile blooduskcing fiend, evil before he even became a vampire, and one of the only characters we directly saw turned went and started murdering children afterwards. Again, soulless, bloodsucking fiends.
Mainly it's the fact that traditionally they are soulless, and without a soul one cannot have good and evil. In the olden olden days this was considered evil because only people of God had souls (hence why animals etc don't have souls either) and in the merely olden days this was because they were abominations of nature which shouldn't exist.
Vampires only really started becoming sympathetic after Hammer Horror got their hands on the idea, and started to inject first the class and sophistication, then the tortured soul routine. The traditional view of vampires is that they simply wear the clothes they were buried in, no matter how blood and dirt stained they got.
To be even more blunt about it, the modern interpretation of vampires only really took hold after Angel on Buffy was revealed to be a vampire with a soul. So Joss Whedon is directly responsible for Twilight, because without him vampires would still becloset lurking bogey-men.
To be more traditional about it. In folklore and myth vampires are deceased bodies which have arisen from the grave for any number of reasons. Common reasons include pacts with the devil, witchcraft and sorcery, or the sheer power of their hatred brought them back. So yes, traditionally vampires are all evil all the time, they have no souls and are merely a ghoul-like vestige of the person they once were.
When Bram Stoker wrote 'Dracula' this was the portrayal he chose, the Count was a vile blooduskcing fiend, evil before he even became a vampire, and one of the only characters we directly saw turned went and started murdering children afterwards. Again, soulless, bloodsucking fiends.
Mainly it's the fact that traditionally they are soulless, and without a soul one cannot have good and evil. In the olden olden days this was considered evil because only people of God had souls (hence why animals etc don't have souls either) and in the merely olden days this was because they were abominations of nature which shouldn't exist.
Vampires only really started becoming sympathetic after Hammer Horror got their hands on the idea, and started to inject first the class and sophistication, then the tortured soul routine. The traditional view of vampires is that they simply wear the clothes they were buried in, no matter how blood and dirt stained they got.
To be even more blunt about it, the modern interpretation of vampires only really took hold after Angel on Buffy was revealed to be a vampire with a soul. So Joss Whedon is directly responsible for Twilight, because without him vampires would still becloset lurking bogey-men.
Your information is screwed up, what you refer to as "these days" was a time long ago when vampires were actually badass, now-a days, vampires are harmless, sparkling transvestites.
....and, yeah, drinking human blood, thus turning another into a vampire which would fuck up their lives is evil, and no matter what you say, is totally different than eating the meat of a wild animal (ya dont see me running up to a live cow and just biting the shit out of it like a insane, rabid wolf). Yes, we eat meat to stay alive, they drink blood to stay alive, but I dont eat the meat of another human being
....and, yeah, drinking human blood, thus turning another into a vampire which would fuck up their lives is evil, and no matter what you say, is totally different than eating the meat of a wild animal (ya dont see me running up to a live cow and just biting the shit out of it like a insane, rabid wolf). Yes, we eat meat to stay alive, they drink blood to stay alive, but I dont eat the meat of another human being
No, vampires are really fictional.ctrl said:
But if you're just going on about the "drinking human blood" bit, it's flawed by a few things, using Bram Stoker as the "canon" for vamps:
1) Vampirism is about murder and enslavement, one going hand in hand with the other.
2) To be a vampire is to be evil to a level that is normally unattainable by humans. It's not even doing evil, it's being the very stuff that comprises evil itself.
3) It's also to be an eternal parasite. To be clear: vampires don't have the option of being "vegan." Again, I'm considering Stoker to be the canon source for this, and it's simple in how straightforward it is: fish to not live out of water, humans do not live without air, and vampires do not live without blood.
Now, imagine for a moment a creature that can only live if it kills other living things. And if it doesn't kill them, it transforms them into other creatures like it. Does that, in any way, shape, or form, sound like something inclined toward good?
Someone who consciously does evil is one thing. Someone who does evil because it is naturally compelled to not just by its nature, but by its survival instinct? That's a whole different story. That's not mere evil. That's a force that good people and evil people put aside their differences to rid the world of.
By their very nature they are unnatural and they use their ways to subvert the very heart of civilisation. I don't know if "evil" is ever a really applicable term, but if it is I'd imagine that they would fit the bill from our point of view, through their inherent nature. They wouldn't necessarily think of themselves as strictly "evil", merely as an opposing force and predators of humans, which is made all the more scary by the shadow of their lost humanity. There's also the whole "enslaving, killing, and turning humans" thing too.
Real vampires, that is.
Real vampires, that is.
Simply? Yes. From a purely utilitarian point of view, yes. If there's one member of a population who will reliably murder someone every few days and doesn't actually do anything but chill in a castle and murder people...Nouw said:
...yeah. It's the morally right thing. Except that you can't count on a vamp to do the right thing, so you have people like Professor Van Hellsing to do the right thing.
I did read somwere that vampires were made to represent the sin thet is lust, witch may accout for why musings of them seems to be so popular.
