are vampires really evil?

[TundraStalax]

only the ones who wish to create a bad world filled with evil...

 

[DarkRyter]

You can't ascertain the moral standing of an entire class of being based on its fictional incarnation as they do not exist.

In shorter words. They can't be "really evil" because they aren't real.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

In Twilight vampires aren't evil at all.

The main cast isn't, but there are plenty of evil ones.

In Buffy some of them have souls, and others are a lot more annoying than really evil,

In the Buffy universe, vampires quite literally have no souls, and souls are 100% equitable to consciences. Imagine anyone you know, anyone at all, and then take away their ability to feel remorse, sadness, or anything negative as a consequence of their own actions.

Actually, it's more than that: a conscience tells you what's right/wrong before you actually do it, in addition to afterward.

Now imagine yourself. Have you ever wanted to hurt someone? Congratulations: if you're a vampire, you'll have done it, and you'll have had the means to do it. You'll kill on a whim, only stopping when you think that logic dictates it would be more beneficial for you to leave the person alive than it would be to kill them.

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.

What? No, not in the slightest. They were almost universally portrayed as either punchclock villains (doing evil because they're ordered to and paid to do it), or as complete monsters who breed their own slave race and kill people as often as they draw breath.

Hell, the lycans were better in almost every regard. They were created against their will, bred as slaves, and had no control over their transformations, or their actions after transforming. Hell, the only likable or sympathetic characters in the movies were lycans. All of them were killers, all of the ones that weren't outright evil were dead by the series' end, and Beckinsdale was a pair of tits that was gifted with the ability to advanced the plot.

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.

It wasn't even that Dracula was a mindless beast: that would have been great. The problem was that he was an utterly remorseless killer who knew when to play that close to his chest. A killer who knows how to work a masquerade is far more dangerous than the same killer who has no grasp of subtlety.

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.

Somehow I doubt that Joss Whedon was responsible for Twilight. I'm too tired to point out all the holes in that set of logic, unfortunately.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

snip

The main cast isn't, but there are plenty of evil ones.

I only read the first book, so I never really got to meet all the evil ones, just the dicks.

snip.

In the Buffy universe, vampires quite literally have no souls, and souls are 100% equitable to consciences. Imagine anyone you know, anyone at all, and then take away their ability to feel remorse, sadness, or anything negative as a consequence of their own actions.

Actually, it's more than that: a conscience tells you what's right/wrong before you actually do it, in addition to afterward.

Now imagine yourself. Have you ever wanted to hurt someone? Congratulations: if you're a vampire, you'll have done it, and you'll have had the means to do it. You'll kill on a whim, only stopping when you think that logic dictates it would be more beneficial for you to leave the person alive than it would be to kill them.

Except that vampires like Harmony don't always kill, except that Angel and Spike both had souls, and it was shown that it was possible for a vampire to have a soul, except that Holden in the final season was shown to be able to restrain himself to have a civilised chat with Bufffy despite admitting wanting to kill her. Except that in the expanded universe there are several examples of vampires who just want to get by, without causing trouble. They get blood from blood banks because it's easier than going out and stalking. The problem with the Buffyverse is that it was deliberately written to have several vamps who didn't fit the entirely soulless mould.

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.

What? No, not in the slightest. They were almost universally portrayed as either punchclock villains (doing evil because they're ordered to and paid to do it), or as complete monsters who breed their own slave race and kill people as often as they draw breath.

Hell, the lycans were better in almost every regard. They were created against their will, bred as slaves, and had no control over their transformations, or their actions after transforming. Hell, the only likable or sympathetic characters in the movies were lycans. All of them were killers, all of the ones that weren't outright evil were dead by the series' end, and Beckinsdale was a pair of tits that was gifted with the ability to advanced the plot.

Selene at one point directly says to Michael 'if you don't address your urges you will hunt and kill humans, believe me you don't want that on your conscience.' The implication being that with a few exceptions, vampires have consciences and souls and don't like killing humans. Even Kraven's speech at the end of UND one says that Victor was an exception to the rule of vampires killing humans.

And the opening monologue from UND 1 says that older lycans can now control the transformation, and the scene at the end where Raze abandons eating to attack Victor would imply he has a measure of control over himself in that phase.

snip

It wasn't even that Dracula was a mindless beast: that would have been great. The problem was that he was an utterly remorseless killer who knew when to play that close to his chest. A killer who knows how to work a masquerade is far more dangerous than the same killer who has no grasp of subtlety.

I didn't say that Dracula was mindless, I said he was soulles, really you've just reiterated my point. He was soulles, merciless and a killer. He wasn't mindless, far from it.

snip

Somehow I doubt that Joss Whedon was responsible for Twilight. I'm too tired to point out all the holes in that set of logic, unfortunately.

Sorry, that was just a joke. Deliberately overstating Whedon's involvement. I find it funny because fans of Whedon automatically leap to his defence, when it is true that Buffy was the most popular show on television for quite a while, and it featured vampires who weren't just mindless killing machines. It's not supposed to be logical, it was just a little lighthearted jest to end my post.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I only read the first book, so I never really got to meet all the evil ones, just the dicks.

I had the fortune of not reading any of them, and even then I know that even the first one had evil vamps.

Except that vampires like Harmony don't always kill,

Because killing will get her killed. It's direct cause and effect. Vampires don't have consciences. That doesn't mean that they're retards. Working under Angel meant if she killed anyone, she would be killed.

except that Angel and Spike both had souls, and it was shown that it was possible for a vampire to have a soul,

Uh-huh. They also had to jump through more than a few hoops to get souls. Because, you know, becoming a vampire removes it. That's kind of the point.

except that Holden in the final season was shown to be able to restrain himself to have a civilised chat with Bufffy despite admitting wanting to kill her.

I'm thirsty right now. I will not shed a tear or even hesitate for a moment when I drink a glass of water, but because not drinking anything at the moment is more convenient, I can wait to get said drink.

That, and Holden was nearly killed several times during that conversation. Talking to Buffy had a directly proportional relationship to the time spent where she wasn't trying to stake him. Logic and survival instinct =/= conscience.

Except that in the expanded universe there are several examples of vampires who just want to get by, without causing trouble. They get blood from blood banks because it's easier than going out and stalking. The problem with the Buffyverse is that it was deliberately written to have several vamps who didn't fit the entirely soulless mould.

That. Is. Not. Relevant. You make it sound like those guys are repentant beings, tortured by their state and living in harmony with humans despite it. They're not. At all. Every example you gave either had an obvious reason (Spike/Angel having souls) or was just a product of being lazy or self interested. Ergo, they go to a blood bank rather than killing humans not because they think killing humans is bad, but because doing so would attract unwanted attention and get them killed.

Selene at one point directly says to Michael 'if you don't address your urges you will hunt and kill humans, believe me you don't want that on your conscience.' The implication being that with a few exceptions, vampires have consciences and souls and don't like killing humans. Even Kraven's speech at the end of UND one says that Victor was an exception to the rule of vampires killing humans.

And again, you're confusing benevolence with self-interest. If you don't want your world-spanning organization of immortals to be noticed, you don't murder people when you could just run a blood bank.

As for Selene's comments...okay? She killed because she was a vengeance-fueled racist. Not because she thought killing was fun.

And the opening monologue from UND 1 says that older lycans can now control the transformation, and the scene at the end where Raze abandons eating to attack Victor would imply he has a measure of control over himself in that phase.

Okay...in that case, do you have examples of the older, consistently sentient lycans attacking humans?

I didn't say that Dracula was mindless, I said he was soulles, really you've just reiterated my point. He was soulles, merciless and a killer. He wasn't mindless, far from it.

You said bloodsucking fiend, which equates fairly well to just being a mindless killer. And in that context, "mindless" just refers to killing on whims without regard for subtlety, not to being stupid.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

There have been so many variations on the vampire mythos that it is impossible to lump all of them into one group. it has to be a case by case basis. That being said, any creature that feeds on the blood of humans is going to have to work very hard to shake the evil image.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

it seems that these days all vampires are considered blood sucking psychopaths. who only exist to be the bad guy in games and movies. even when you play as a vampire it normally consists of murdering several hundred people and draining the blood from maybe 1 or 2. but even though vampires drink blood so? ive seen people eat raw beef, and the main argument is vampires drink the blood of humans, but to vampires humans are an inferior species like say cows to humans (don't quote me on that i don't want a animal ethics rant). so does that make them evil?

Medievel folk thought blood was your soul. In other words vampires were stealing souls or the currency of the soul. That is why they are always considered evil. They also turned into bats and if you ever look at pictures of demons from a long time ago and even today they are usually shown as having a bats wings. "They are unholy creatures that walk the earth."

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Vampires were evil, today it's completely light-weight.

They used to be disgusting, reanimated corpses that would spread diseases by night and retreat back to the grave before dawn. Now, well, we've got Twilight and other idiotic movies that turn vampires into mundane, boring people that go to parties and drink blood as some substitute for alcohol. They are lucky to have any aversion to sunlight but just don't go out because they refuse to work. The farther away they are from Orlok and the closer to Edward, the worse they become.

It was fun the first couple of times someone made a movie exploring the world of vampires, but it's been so overdone that I find vampires boring now. I wish they would stop the bullshit and just go back to having vampires being monsters that kill people. "Priest" seems to be kinda-sorta doing that, at least, only their doesn't seem to be anything different between them and acrobatic zombies.

So, no, I don't find vampires "evil." It's more like a Dick Dastardly sort of evil rather than a Bram Stoker's Dracula type. A cheap parody that uses cartoonish actions to display evil.

 

[Drakmeire]

Good and evil do not exist, those traits are assigned by people with a made-up morality system. if people never said killing was wrong then it would never be looked down upon, in fact some people will even try to prioritize behaviors (Killing, lieing, cheating) which have been dubbed "evil" and make of situations in which they are "good"... and after that tangent. vampires as well as anything else EVER are not good or evil, they just are.
good example.
this character is Alucard.
http://media.animegalleries.net/albums/media/196/hs_alucard183.jpg?=123
he is the main Vampire in Hellsing and tends to murder the innocent as well as anyone with good intentions who gets in his way but since he also kills villains, he is considered the "good guy"

 

[VeryOblivious]

In my mind, they are as bad as unicorns, winged cyclopes, talking lizards, man-sized mosquitoes...

 

[Balaxe]

Vampires are just a representation of a human that is inhuman. The stories of vampires began roughly during the 15th century as a way of people to rationalize how someone could do evil acts such as murder, I could go in to far more detail but I'm lazy.

 

[manythings]

Is it evil to suck someones blood for nurishment or just hunger? In the same vein (no pun intended) you could argue that people are evil for drinking milk and eating beef.

Cows aren't people. Vampires are little more than parasites. A human can live without a cow, a vampire can't live without a host.

cows are people to cows. if they could think in enough depth they would think we're not people, but the smarter and/or more naive ones would say what I just said.

I'll dispute it on the the basis that cows aren't self-aware. That's why I'll eat beef but not Dolphin, Raven or higher primates. I'd like to try gazelle though.

 

[Coppernerves]

As far as I'm concerned (I have my own vampire lore to use if I ever make something featuring them), most vampires would start out evil, as becoming a vampire requires the performance of a demonological ritual of extreme cruelty to the human sacrifice.

However some people might really want vampire powers for a good cause, good enough to justify the ritual, and also somehow have a solid grounding in demonology without being evil or seriously against demonology.

Such vampires may feel obliged to devote free time (which they do have, not needing sleep and being able to switch into human form in order to resist the suns' rays at the cost of many superpowers) to help enough that they compensate for all the killing, or alternatively go vigilante/murderous-vampire-bat-man and try to find villains to suck the blood from.

However most vampires would've been psychos to do the ritual, and become even worse as the ritual demon constantly whispers in their heads like a cross between Robin Williams, Alan Carr, an annoying landlord, a dominatrix and a Spanish inquisitor, who can read the vampires mind, including senses, memories, thoughts and feelings, especially since after death the demon torments them in its' own world for the duration the vampire lived for in the living world.