I admit that I’m not an expert when it comes to either species (?), but I have enough knowledge to be dangerous. It is my understanding that vampires absolutely must have blood to live. I don’t think it has to be human blood, but that is what they prefer. In Interview With The Vampire, Tom Cruise was hanging out in that cemetary and eating rats or something, which I thought contributed to his deteriorating appearance. If vampires have the choice then they will take human blood I’m pretty sure. I suppose the “good” vampires that you hear about get their food supply from a blood bank. This is supposed to allow them to be a vampire and not have to kill people. However, I would still say that it’s a drain on resources, because by drinking the blood donations, they’re keeping people that might need a transfusion or something from actually getting it. Their appearance can be especially deceptive because the boss usually gets some hot vampires to do his bidding (see Salma Hayek in From Dusk Till Dawn). Also, perhaps the most important thing, they’re always vampires. Every night, not just full moons.
Werewolves don’t have to eat people. I think they can just run around in the forest and eat livestock or rodents and be OK. As far as I know, they’re only werewolves when it’s a full moon, so that’s only like once a month. That isn’t too bad, since who can’t just stay inside once a month on a full moon? When it is a full moon though, they are really monsters. Not like vampires, where they might be able to fool someone into thinking they’re not at first, and then bite them. If someone is a werewolf, you know it.
If I had to choose, I would say that werewolves are more evil. I think a werewolf would be harder to kill too, which is another strike against them.
I’m not as up to date on supernatural lore as I used to be but my understanding was that when a lycanthrope becomes a wolf, it is a wolf and not a human in lupine form. If that’s the case, it can’t be evil as that is a function of human sentience.
I agree - in wolf form it’s an animal, or at least possessed of animal instincts and intelligence. Therefore its actions, while regrettable and unfortunate, cannot be described as evil.
However, supposing (as I would think you would have to) that eventually the lycanthrope, when in human form, realizes what it is, then its inaction to restrain itself prior to the change could be construed as evil.
Nonetheless, I would tend to argue that a werewolf would be more dangerous, but a vampire would be more evil.
Of course it can. If you know that you turn into a dangerous monster when there’s a full moon (as opposed to just having blackouts and not understanding what causes them), and you still refuse to restrain yourself for the safety of others, that’s selfishness and reckless endangerment, which are both evil. It’s like driving under the influence, or leaving a handgun loaded and unprotected.
Now, if you’ve got an American Werewolf in London situation, where your victims can’t rest in peace unless you kill yourself, and you don’t kill yourself, that’s more of a moral gray area.
As for the OP: in wolf form, werewolves act without malice or forethought; they’re pure monsters. Therefore, they’re not evil. Vampires are aware of what they’re doing, so they’re evil.
Werewolves are cursed–not their fault. They behave like the animals they become–natural, voracious, bloodthirsty, cunning, but not evil.
Vampires are supernatural evil spirits who typically make a conscious decision to become blood-sucking creatures of the night and feeed upon the blood of the innocent.
I disagree completely. Not locking yourself up can have immoral or evil overtones to it but can just as easily be due to amoral apathy which is no more evil than an agnostic is atheist. It’s not that black or white.
I won’t comment at all on your other two examples.
Vampires are undead zombies that are forced to feed off the living or die trying because they themselves were infected by another vampire. Except for the real life vampiric subculture and the vampires you see in Hollywood, I’m not familiar with any legends of people *choosing *to be vampires.
I would say that by origination vampires are the more evil creature. Invariably, vampire mythology originates from the unspeakable evil of a mortal with vampirism and eternal life being their “curse”. I think the sin is pride with bloodlust, as is the case of the classical Dracula (Vlad the Impaler).
A lycanthrope is just animalistic and primal with no true evil intention.
I admit, my OP was biased. Vampires probably are more evil. However, if I had to choose to have one of them kill me, it would probably be a vampire, because of the prospect of the vampire being a hot lady vampire, rather than a monster, like a werewolf. Kind of a werewolf prejudice on my part, I guess.
That’s absurd, even for a discussion about the morality of fictional monsters. Apathy isn’t a valid excuse for evil behavior. And lack of behavior, in this case, is behavior. The werewolf lost the privilege of being an innocent bystander in the whole business when he was bitten and became aware of his condition. He’s now burdened with the responsibility to protect the lives of others.
Say a scientist inherits Dr. Frankenstein’s castle and everything contained within. He goes down to the lab and finds the monster all charged up and ready to go. He sees that the monster isn’t bolted down, but figures, eh, not my problem, and heads back upstairs to catch up on some reading. He didn’t do any graverobbing (evil act), he didn’t tamper in God’s domain to create life (evil act), he didn’t unleash the monsters on the townspeople (evil act). But he did shirk his responsibility. So he is now an Evil Scientist, not an Amorally Apathetic Scientist. Ergo, he deserves to be attacked by villagers and have his castle burned down.
Nuts to you. Zombies eat brains, and they’re not at all cunning. Vampires knowingly propagate minions out of the flock of the natural living the way Amway marketeers gain multilevel supporters–and I don’t think there’s too many people who’d disagree that Amway Marketeers are anything but blood-sucking minions of Lilith Herself!
Duh! That’s just because nobody’s ever lived through a real life interview with a vampire to report to the rest of us that, “Yep, So and So, a major Vampire who resides in Timbuktu, Ohio said that he voluntarily drank the blood of a human vampire in hopes of getting his foot in the door in the American Association of Undead Persons.”
And in any event, that’s a lot meaner than not locking yourself in your room during “that time of the month,” or taking inaction to prevent real death by say, not wearing a condom when you know you’re an HIV donor. Not that inaction isn’t evil, but it’s ChaoticEvil–total disregard for right and wrong in the pursuit of self; as opposed to LawfulEvil which organizes the fates of others to maximize one’s own potential. At least the Woofman kills & eats as a beast and it’s over for the victims. Vampires knowingly and strategically build their ranks without regard to the lives they are usurping. Damn I hate vampires. Jerks.
Again, I disagree and think you have a very odd definition of evilness. By your assertations, anyone that doesn’t involve themself in an immoral situation to right wrongs is automatically evil.
Inaction can make you an accessory but that is not the same thing by any means.
I was using zombie as a synonym for undead, not saying that vampires were Caribbean automotons.
Your conception of vampires isn’t very accurate according to actual legends and sounds more like something you’d find in an Anne Rice novel, a AD&D manual, or episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
So, perhaps, the Werewolf in wolf form isn’t especially evil—they’re little more than feral animals—but the werewolf in human form could at least be somewhat immoral if they don’t take the proper precautions to protect others from the danger they present. (Assuming, of course, that they actually know they’re a werewolf, and that the condition hasn’t effected their ability to reason or seperate right and wrong.)
[hijack]
Keyword there being “legends.” There’s really no such thing as an “accurate” or “inaccurate” vampire, because they’re – y’know, not real.
[hijackhijack]
Reminds me of the time I went to see Prisoner of Azkaban and the woman coming out of the theater in front of me griped about how the werewolf didn’t look “like a real werewolf.”
[/hijackhijack]
[/hijack]
I would have to disagree with you here. I can sort of see where you’re coming from, but to my mind, it seems that the key is that once you are aware of your condition as a werewolf, you assume responsibility for the actions you perform while in wolf form.
It’s not a direct responsibility, as you have no actual control of what you do while under the influence. However, the awareness of your condition and the foreknowledge that people will most likely die as a direct result of your inaction is a supremely selfish and sociopathic act, in my opinion.
I would argue that the concept of morality creates an obligation to society on the part of the individual to knowingly avoid doing things that will harm others. The converse of that, which in my book is morally equivalent, is that the individual must at times take action to prevent harm to others when they have specific knowledge that their inaction will cause injury. YM, of course, MV.
Of course, none of this matters if you’re the kind of werewolf who doesn’t kill people but instead roots through the trash and digs in the garden.
I am not arguing that vampires are real but their being fictitious doesn’t mean they cannot be misrepresented or otherwise viewed inaccurately. If, for instance, you were to tell me that YHWH, someone I believe to be a myth and legend, were a member of the Aesir, the pantheon of Norse mythology, I would laugh in your face because of its absurdity.
While not on that level, the Anne Rice vampire still has only superficial similarity to Eastern European myths and isn’t true-to-story.
Or, in other words, accurate.
Oh, I agree… refusing to do something so simple as penning up a dangerous animal so that it won’t hurt or kill someone is an extremely selfish act but where you (and SolGrundy) and I disagree is if that sociopathy is inherently evil since, in my opinion, evilness is based in intent of maliciousness and malevolence, not just its allowance.
I think it’s debatable whether or not werewolves in wolf form qualify as animals. If you take a look at two case studies, the Jack Nicholson movie, Wolf (I think that was the name), and The Silver Bullet, then there are different intents. In Wolf I’m pretty sure that he just turned into a regular wolf, not a monster, like in The Silver Bullet. In The Silver Bullet the monster, even in wolf form, knew enough to cut the power to the house at the end of the movie. When the reverend was all monster. The werewolf in human form also made attempts to kill the kid. Do you pro-werewolf folks mean to tell me that somehow it would have been wrong if he would have offed the kid when in human form, but if he waited until later that night, it would have been OK since he was in wolf form? I don’t think so.
I don’t think The Silver Bullet was all that true to the legend, since the guy turned at least part werewolf every night. Or what about the black-and-white wolfman movies? That guy was a monster. Maybe we should split the werewolves into separate categories: monster werewolves and werewolves that are people that just turn into wild dogs. In that case, the monster werewolves are significantly more evil of the two, and will give vampires a run for their money.
