Vampires: Pure Evil or not

[Black Soul]

I'm going to add a few short statements throughout this post. First, alot of animals have good brains with intelligence. Maybe not as complex as ours and not the need to use what they have. I always thought horses were dumb creatures made to serve man. Then I went to work on my cousins ranch for two summers, boy was I wrong. Horses are smart, intelligent, have what we call personnalities, and will resist what they don't like. That resistance, if not what we as humans want, beat them into submission to obey or they go to a glue factory!!! That is cruel, sadistic (maybe), personallity crushing (yes) are we evil, lets stretch it, (slavery)? We as a race is far from being a good example.

 

[Trevy the Great]

We can transfer this argument to the other forum of Warhammer debate. In this case, evil=working for the gain of Chaos and good=working against Chaos (i.e this would make Daemons of Chaos the most evilest army and Lizardmen the least). In this case, it is often that Vampires are not either, but somewhere in between. However, due to the individual nature of each Vampire Count, this can be very variable (e.i There are many Vampires that serve Chaos religiously or to increase their own power) however most Vampires work only for themselves and do not consciously help or hinder Chaos in any way. At least not on purpose.

 

[chris_havoc]

I think it very much depends on the person who has been given the Blood Kiss... every Vampire was human before having received it so saying all Vampires are evil is like saying all humans are evil. Obviously the increased potential for power from the Blood Kiss can easily influence a good person to become evil the same can be said for wealthy people and not every wealthy person is evil. As for the reference to the Spanish Inquisition it is very true that a huge amount of the people involved were evil men but a lot of the people were honestly fearful of heretics because they didn't understand them and from what they knew the heretics would harm them and their families so they would hunt heretics to protect themselves. Which means there were good people doing evil things as I'm sure many an evil businessman has preserved a community park to give himself more social standing.

So what I'm trying to say is that I agree that the difference between good and evil is a purely subjective idea it's impossible to argue either way because both are true of any being with free thought. However, this real-life argument has no real weight in your fantasy world. If you want your Vampires to be pure evil then ignore what everyone else has said and make them so. It's your world you do what you want. No point in asking other peoples opinions on something as subjective as that because, most likely, everyone will disagree with everyone else at some level.

 

[Vasiel]

Personally I would say that Nagash was evil.... through personal choice.

However Abhorash (Being the Honourable One) was good. Abhorash was betrayed by Neferata, who I consider naive more than evil.... spoilt.... anyway. Abhorash did everything in his power to keep the Secrets of Lahmia from the Tomb Kings.

Imagine his anger and his disappointment at the betrayal of the other Vamps.... who through pure vanity and over-confidence, took people of other cities of Nehekhara. He warned them, they didn't listen. Then he had no choice but to fight a war, that should never have happened in the first place.

Abhorash, and all his kin thereafter, are like Dwarf Slayers... they want the biggest, meanest challenge they can find, in a hope of ending the Blood Hunger! I am also pretty positive that Neferata will never succeed in subjugating Abhorash to her will ever again and I wouldn't be surprised if every Blood Dragon present, wouldn't like to taste Lahmian Flesh on their blades

Nagash was pure evil.... Neferata was Lust/Selfishness.... W'soran was greedy... Ushoran was a glutton... Vlad was Pride... Konrad was Rage...

Go the Deadly Sins.

In the end, it is up to the Vampire to determine the fruits of their actions.

Amorte!

Vas

 

[Crimson]

Show me someone who is pure evil first, then I'll decide. Vampires as with humans are what you make of them and your interpretation of one of their actions will be judged by your moral standings and not by theirs.

 

[Tancred le Mal]

I belive that vampires are part the beast and part the person they were before, some of them are more beast and others are more the man they used to be, it is a struggle within them.
The beast and the man.
Like Jerek von Carstein who keeps some of his humanity, not surrendering to the beast but struggeling within, and on the otherside the man Jerek sires, Mehlinger who completely gives in to the beast and becomes a monster.. Both were knights of the white wolf before their birth into death.. Its from the von carstein trilogy by steven savile.

 

[Master Vampire]

Although the previous edition proved for speculation, as there were 5 bloodlines to discuss. Not all were equally evil, and some even appear somewhat neutral.

Are Varghulfs not vampires who embraced their inner strength? You might call it pure evil, but it looks more like the vamp becomes a beast. Is it evil to be a beast and prey on humans?

If that means a yes, then I guess every carnivorous and omnivorous being is pure evil, even in the real world (including us). But I think you'd answer no.

Then I guess you'll have to look at the fact: do we want to utterly destroy some race, or are we just at war with some race (Empire?).

I believe the Necrarchs always wanted to rule the world... seems pure evil to me, considering most warhammer beings would 'resist'.

 

[Nialag]

Whatever the Vampire's intentions, personality, and set of moral guidelines may have been when they are turned, the act of turning and long years after invariably see a Vampire slip into Evil. They may fight it, or instill rigid codes of discipline into their lives that outlive their moral compass by millennia, but it doesn't change the inevitable. They are creatures sustained by Dark magic. In every Vampire, at the core of their being, is a Varghulf waiting to be unleashed. And that's all they are: undead beasts that have habits leftover from when they were human.

You might call it pure evil, but it looks more like the vamp becomes a beast. Is it evil to be a beast and prey on humans?

It's not evil to prey on anything to keep yourself alive, it's a part of the natural order of things. However, part of that natural order is balance. A wolf eats only what it needs to survive, but a Varghulf is never sated. It's desire for blood goes far beyond natural, and far, far beyond what it needs to sustain itself. They "luxuriate in bloody carnage", to quote the army book. They are greedy unnatural abominations of Dark magic, which is pretty much pure concentrated evil. There might be some who resist the inevitable, but it's like trying to keep your hair from going grey as you get older. It's a natural process, and the best you can do is hide it.

Really, the question of good and evil as vague concepts created by man sort of goes out the window when you have an entire lore of magic that is essentially defined as concentrated evil in a can.

Essentially, every vampire eventually falls prey to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AGodAmI

 

[chris_havoc]

You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain.

There's no doubt that every vampire would have a tendancy towards evil but to say everyone is doesn't fit my perception of my VC army at least. The whole point is that this is fantasy. As I said before if you want your army to be pure evil then do it if you don't then don't. Your perception of the army doesn't have to mirror those of everyone else's.

 

[Nialag]

Well, if you want to say that your vampire is actually Hello Kitty having a bad hair day, I'm not going to argue. :-D People are free to make up whatever fluff they want for their army. I assumed we were talking from an "official" viewpoint.

 

[Pyromaniac]

I just read an old white dwarf and thought that it would deem mentioning:

In the invasion of chaos campaign both Orcs and Goblins, and Vampire Counts can opt to pick either the chaos side or act as "unlikely allies" to the empire and elves.

Which in my mind means they are not wholey evil as they may care to not have the world demolished by chaos either so some form of good must be apparant....

Just a thought.

 

[Ghouly]

Thread-omancy

well Vampires see themselves as gods (Yay for Delusions) and humans as their property, and To the Chaos gods humans are food, creatures in the warp feed on mortal emotions so the Vampires helping humans fight chaos isn't an act of Good its more like wolves defending their territory from another pack.

Greenskins don't give a damn who their fighting as long as their fighting their happy.

 

[Onikaigo]

Oh boy, how in Nagash' name did I miss this thread?

((EDIT: That's why I didn't see this topic before. It's been resurrected! Hehe. Forgive me for not checking post dates, but my response stands. Until removed of course.))

Alright, Take this with a bit of salt since I've only read the first page-ish of replies, but here is my two cents on the topic.


Vampires are Self serving creatures. Evil is of course an observation made from a biased source. Do we call animals evil? Do we call plants evil? What about Carnivores? What about Vines or Ivy that strangle a tree that's been standing for hundreds of years? This statement is made only to reinforce the point that Evil is subjective. I use the term Self Serving in its' place. In my mind a Vampires only true desire, its' only purpose is to live.

A Vampire kills to live. It drinks to live. It hides in the night to live. It covers its' weaknesses in folklore, myth, and fairy tales to live. It defends itself to Live. (Granted, using this term 'Live' in combination with an undead being is a little strange, but the concept continues. simply substitute the words 'Continue breathing/moving/being animated' into its place if you prefer)

Now, from our human perspective, we have emotions, compassion, anger, hate, and rage. Simply put, we're an emotional train wreck waiting to happen. I believe this, NOT our intelligence, makes us Human. Other animals have been classified as intelligent beings, or quite nearly so. Dolphins, for example. But the competition born from our inherent emotions is what makes us Human, what makes us different than the animals and is what forwards us (Or devolution us) as a species. I've never seen a dolphin, or heard, or read of such a creature building a weapon of mass destruction because the pod next door wanted their fish. Humans do, born out of Fear, anger, or blind Hatred or even Greed.

Why is this even brought up?

I believe, in my humble opinion, that when a Vampire is born these things that make him inherently human are torn away. They melt. They no longer exist, and they become something less than human. Bram Stoker was a brilliant writer, and I disagree with him on no point during his books. I disagree -wholly- with Anne Rice, from the little I've read.

Vampires -lose- some of what makes them human. Some, not all. They are not inhuman, they are less than human, which deserves to be demarcated. They lose all emotional capability other than instinct. Self defense, Anger, feeding, eventual procreation....That's all a Vampire is capable of. In my mind at least.

Vampires, let me state this loud and clear, Vampires in my mind have no redeeming qualities that humans, as a general society would consider such. To my eyes a Vampire lacks compassion, empathy, a conscience of any sort, and lives only to pursue its' own goals and aspirations that are clearly defined by its existence.

To Live.


/end rant

Also, don't even get me started on the Emopire books called Twilight. Vampires+ Love= impossible. Same thing as Matter and Antimatter meeting. Boom. Gone. Impossible, doesn't exist.

Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

 

[Pyromaniac]

I wouldnt go so far as to say that vampires think humans as their property. if that were the case youd be dead right but as vampires know from nagash that they have weaknesses they wouldnt think themselves like that. Tho they may think themselves superior unless they are mindless strigoi or necrachs too busy with their experiments to notice humans.

But realistically if the world would be doomed to a single warlike way of life a vampire must want too keep his way of life, even a murdurous one. So in having self preservation and in some vampires a noble self i would think they a re good.

 

[One-FISH-]

This is a several-shades-of-grey type answer.

There's no way I'd consider any truly dead vampire good, (as opposed to being a living vampire- read some fluff books there's a difference), but then again they don't necessarily have to be pure evil.

In D&D terms I'd probably group most vampires with neutral evil alignment. Yeah they're bad asses who wouldn't necessarily mind killing you, but they aren't always going to do it without hesitation. (keep in mind many vampires run mortal towns for servants etc.) Also, they don't feel compelled to go out of their way to kill you. Eh...Pure Evil is a stretch. Good is a further stretch.

 

[Ghouly]

in warhammer pretty much all sentient races are divided into three camps


Children of the Old Ones
Elves, Dwarves, Ogers, Halflings, and Humans and Lizardmen

The Children of Chaos
Deamons, Beastmen, Skaven, Undead


The One no ones sure about
Greenskins, Dragons, And the Forest of Anthel Loren


Chaos twists and corrupts thing sure a few vampires may start out wanting to do good but the Dark Magic that animates them slowy corrupts them into evil creatures.

 

[Order of the Blood Dragon]

One word to counter the 'all vampires are pure evil' idea, Abhorash, when he changed he wanted to feed only on the dregs of society, those who had already wasted their chance to live e.g. prisoners. Honourable Blood Dragons still do so to 'present day' (in Warhammer) as such vampires are not pure evil, but can be manipulated into becoming so.

 

[Baslakor]

There is no unity in the vampires, as there is no unity in their motivations. They are not bounded by the values of human societies and they think fare more rationally. Therefore, they are more 'evil' then an average human, but it still depends on the vampire himself.

 

[Ghouly]

After the fall of lahmia Aborosh swore to be humanity s greatest foe

 

[Edward VanRandstein]

If anyone here has read the Vampire Wars trilogy, Jerek Kruger manages to keep away from evil. He does everything in his power to stop the Von Carsteins after Vlad, and even tries to destroy the Von Cartein Ring. At the battle of Hel Fenn, he attacks Mannfred, weakening him so that the Elector Count can finish him off. If he's evil, then so are the dwarfs and humans.
There's also the case being pointed here about Abhorash. In the 7th edition book he "refused to drink from those he deemed weak, and contented himself with the blood of tribal chiefs and other great fighters (p63)." This tendency to feed only on those he bested through single combat is no different than other fighters taking land and family as prizes after a duel. So unless every Brettonian who ever jousted for a prize was evil, Abhorash most certainly was not.

It's my personal opinion that dealing in extremes such as good and evil only leads to headaches and ignorance. If you can't see the gray-areas, then you are not much better than those you label as "evil"

 

[Order of the Blood Dragon]

It's important to note that warhammer takes it all from the perspective of the 'good guys', so would a man of the Empire consider the invading vampires evil? Of course he would, it's the same reason why alot of wars have been 'justified' by the enemy being evil.

 

[One-FISH-]

After the fall of lahmia Aborosh swore to be humanity s greatest foe

True, but you might be overlooking the possibility that humanity is inherently evil- as much of the fluff would indicate. (I allude to Valten's assassination- not likely being Skaven, oh and thousands of years of infighting over land and titles- general human greed).

 

[Saint of Steel]

The need that vampires have in the Warhammer World to feed on blood is indeed subjective. Vampires need blood in the same manner than humans need water, and I believe that if an essential, life-sustaining element of the human diet was found in an animal then we would indeed hunt this sorry creature for this substance (and no, meat isn't essential in this modern era we live in). Therefore I don't consider this aspect of vampirism evil. However, it is when the vampire displays sadistic tendencies when killing that I would consider it evil.

Another factor that some people seem to be overlooking is the fact that vampires raise huge hordes of the deceased as their armies. It's a no-brainer as to why this would be considered evil, in the same way that necrophilia is considered evil by many people in reality - disturbing a corpse is just not a part of 'normal' human nature. And before anybody says vampires aren't human - they were. Many are still shown to display very human emotions, ideals and mannerisms.

The ability that vampires have to control the dead may not be their doing (blame that on Nagash, the scoundrel) but the fact that many choose to control corpses with the specific desire to conquer seems to me to be evil from whatever viewpoint... if you're human. Even the followers of Chaos have been shown to fear the armies of the dead (see the Storm of Chaos fiction detailing bands of Chaos in Sylvania). They may well be used to seeing daemons and the like, but seeing an animated human corpse would be something else entirely, as shown in that particular fiction. Vampires have been shown to be able to rule harmoniously over humans, so if they still chose to raise the dead to fight for them then I can't see how that would not in some way be evil. Vlad von Carstein wished to rule a human Empire defended by an army of the dead, which may have made sense to a vampire, but I can't see any human being happy with such an arrangement.

All in all; it's subjective. An interesting topic this one for sure!

 

[Ghouly]

If anyone here has read the Vampire Wars trilogy, Jerek Kruger manages to keep away from evil. He does everything in his power to stop the Von Carsteins after Vlad, and even tries to destroy the Von Cartein Ring. At the battle of Hel Fenn, he attacks Mannfred, weakening him so that the Elector Count can finish him off. If he's evil, then so are the dwarfs and humans.
There's also the case being pointed here about Abhorash. In the 7th edition book he "refused to drink from those he deemed weak, and contented himself with the blood of tribal chiefs and other great fighters (p63)." This tendency to feed only on those he bested through single combat is no different than other fighters taking land and family as prizes after a duel. So unless every Brettonian who ever jousted for a prize was evil, Abhorash most certainly was not.

Jerek may have fought the thirst but he still drank peoples blood.
And Abhorash's actions were evil he had a huge advantage over any mortal, he was faster, stronger, and could react faster then any one of his opponents, and If I recall correctly Abhorash drained entire villages on his trip north (Liber Necris I believe, could someone clarify this?).

 

[Sweeney Todd]

Jerek may have fought the thirst but he still drank peoples blood.
And Abhorash's actions were evil he had a huge advantage over any mortal, he was faster, stronger, and could react faster then any one of his opponents, and If I recall correctly Abhorash drained entire villages on his trip north (Liber Necris I believe, could someone clarify this?).

Seems like you're trying to say that for a vampire to drink blood is evil(since Jerek is a textbook example of a 'good vampire'), therefore by definition all vampires are evil. I don't agree.

And I know I'm quite late but I really have to disagree with Onikaigo. It seems he has an 'evil monster that must be put down' caricature stuck in his head. If that's all there is they would be damn boring and I probably won't be playing VC now or taking part in TVC. Besides, it's absurd to say they have none of the qualities that defines a human. Isabella Loves Vlad, Vlad's Ambition is to forge his own empire, Konrad has his insane Rage, Necrarchs hoard their own magical knowledge and Lust for more, and so on. And it's equally absurd to rationalise these as extensions of a vampire's desire to live.

I think Onikaigo's confused 'human' for 'good guy', you can be 'human' without being 'good' so it's a fallacy to say one necessitates the other as he is indirectly saying in his rant.