Using dark powers to do good things?
- Thread starter Comenius
- Start date
dusara217
New Member
They aren't parasites. They're predators. Parasites engage in a symbiotic relationship with a host [of another species], and, in so doing, harm the host. For instance: a bacterium. Certain bacteria need animal hosts to act as their habitats and sustenance, however, many end up harming the host in acquiring said sustenance/habitat. Of course, others benefit the host in mutualism, but that's not the point.
Vampires, on the other hand, simply feed on the prey and get done with it, much as a wolf or a lion feeds on the prey and is done with it.
On the right and wrong of Vampirism:
First of all, I have played vampires in both Oblivion and Skyrim, and I never killed anyone through feeding (not that I didn't feed, I just didn't bleed people dry). I don't know what you people are talking about in saying that, by satisfying a need without truly harming the prey, it automagically makes the Vampire evil. Also, if you consider them to have a symbiotic relationship with the prey, then, if anything, they would be commensalists, simply because they don't necessarily have to actually harm the prey when feeding.
Second of all, on evil: The concepts of "good" and "evil" are highly relative. For some, it might just be the difference between StS and StO. For others, such as myself, it might the difference between what their God says is good and says is evil (of course, Christian opinions regarding evil aren't really that unique), while, for still others, it might just be what "feels" wrong, or "feels" right. Right and Wrong are not set concepts.
What I'm getting at here is that necromancy, conjuration, etc. are not inherently wrong. It's the way people use them that is wrong. Here's a parallel: necromancy is a tool; another weapon in your arsenal of magic. However, necromancers and conjurers are generally regarded as evil because of the way they practice the art of its use. Is a knife inherently evil, then, as it is often used in murder and torture? Does it make me evil to defend myself with a knife? Does it make me evil to wield a knife to whittle wood?
LotusEater
I brake for blue butterflies
There are many instances of vampires keeping their victims alive by draining little bits at a time. How is this different? Victims die when vampires drain too much and then they aren't even allowed to die properly, they are denied an afterlife. Same goes for leeches on small animals... is a leech not a parasite? Main difference of course is that anything killed by a leech actually dies. Not so with a vampire, the victim gets cheated into having their souls journey interrupted by undeath. Comparing vampires to bacteria is shaky at best. Bacteria aren't undead that create more undead.
This discussion has gone well beyond video game interpretations, dontcha think? Besides, symbiotic implies that both parties benefit somehow from the relationship. What does the person getting drained receive besides weakness and most likely a pounding headache?
I really don't have a strong opinion on Necromancy. I don't agree with it and wouldn't want to have to answer for it in the afterlife, but I wouldn't judge someone that did. The rest of what you wrote, about the knife and stuff, is just silly gibberish.
Last edited:
dusara217
New Member
Getting offed by a vampire does not automagically make you a vampire.
I'm fairly certain that I've explained symbiosis in this post (albeit indirectly), but I'll explain it fully here:
Symbiosis is when two organisms of different species rely upon one another for something (it doesn't have to be a two-way street, though). There is mutualism, wherein both species benefit, as seen in the African elephant and the Oxpecker bird. The Oxpecker eats lice, ticks, and other insects and parasites off of the elephant, while the elephant provides the Oxpecker with an easy meal; thereby providing both with a benefit from the relationship. This kind of relationship could actually be the relationship between a vampire and someone who consents to being fed upon in exchange for protection or another commodity. There is commensalism, which I have already explained, being akin to the relationship between a benign intestinal bacterium and its host (bacterium gets food and home, animal is none the worse for wear for it). There is parasatism, as I have already explained, being akin the relationship between the deadly bubonic plague (a species of bacterium), and its host; the plague gets food, breeding grounds, and a habitat from its host, while the host suffers immensely and dies.
LotusEater
I brake for blue butterflies
Forget Anne Rice...
You've yet to illustrate what the victim is getting out of deal besides less blood.
So which is it? Is the vampire a predator or does it engage in symbiotic relationships? Are you purposely talking in circles?
dusara217
New Member
I would appreciate it if you would stop intentionally ignoring things that I write, and then picking up on other things like they're the only things that I typed in. I'm just going to quote myself on this...
I spoke in very plain english, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't argue about something that you don't understand, and don't seem to be willing to make yourself understand.
You might be the densest person that I've ever argued with. It's really getting frustrating. *sigh* When something is a "stretch" to be something else, it means that it is only that other thing if you put yourself into another frame of mind, completely, and evade standard logic. This is why I said that even commensalism (one of the parties receives something while the other is virtually unaffected) is a stretch, as Vampires prey upon people, they do not parasitize them, or otherwise engage in any meaningful symbiosis.
LotusEater
I brake for blue butterflies
dusara217
New Member
Dabiene Caristiana
Your friendly neighborhood weirdo
He's blocked you dusara. Meaning he will not see your comments or messages. Nor can you PM (private message) him I think. As much as I would love to state my views on THAT, I doubt they would be warmly welcomed. So I'll just leave it at that.
I think this convo should be locked. Better safe than sorry. We already reached the point of 'Afterlife' and 'Higher Power'. Which as forum people on here know from experience, is a VERY sensitive topic.
It's a stalemate. Enough said. If you're religious, more than likely you believe that vampires or anything 'unnatural' is an abomination. Which... means... computers are abominations... right? I'm confused. I confuse myself. BAH!
And if you're NOT religious, more than likely you will tend to take a step back and look at things differently.
That's not to say it could be the opposite, Religious not automatically against vampires, nonreligious very against vampires... It's just how one is raised to view the world by ones parents and religious views. As well as pre-created views. In other words... already set views and a person's nature.
So... I believe this thread should be halted. Before it gets any worse. Sorry if I offended anyone but someone had to come on down here and say something. When Philosophy and Religion collide... it's a mighty dosey. And NOBODY, wins.
EDIT: Also, welcome to the forums @dusara217 . People don't normally argue like this or be unfriendly at all. We are like a little family here. So please, stay as long as you like.
But... um... I think this goes without saying, it's safe to say that it is wise to avoid topics like these. They quickly get out of hand. Even though people don't remember the lesson and create another topic like this and the cycle repeats...
I think this convo should be locked. Better safe than sorry. We already reached the point of 'Afterlife' and 'Higher Power'. Which as forum people on here know from experience, is a VERY sensitive topic.
It's a stalemate. Enough said. If you're religious, more than likely you believe that vampires or anything 'unnatural' is an abomination. Which... means... computers are abominations... right? I'm confused. I confuse myself. BAH!
And if you're NOT religious, more than likely you will tend to take a step back and look at things differently.
That's not to say it could be the opposite, Religious not automatically against vampires, nonreligious very against vampires... It's just how one is raised to view the world by ones parents and religious views. As well as pre-created views. In other words... already set views and a person's nature.
So... I believe this thread should be halted. Before it gets any worse. Sorry if I offended anyone but someone had to come on down here and say something. When Philosophy and Religion collide... it's a mighty dosey. And NOBODY, wins.
EDIT: Also, welcome to the forums @dusara217 . People don't normally argue like this or be unfriendly at all. We are like a little family here. So please, stay as long as you like.
But... um... I think this goes without saying, it's safe to say that it is wise to avoid topics like these. They quickly get out of hand. Even though people don't remember the lesson and create another topic like this and the cycle repeats...
Last edited:
Mr Forz
I'm helping. Mostly.
Alright, let's take this on a TES perspective. Conjuration covers both Atromancy and Necromancy and Vampires, despite being close to it, remain different from their traditional counterparts.
If you're hell bent on being the good guy, consider only using the Atromancy part of Conjuration. Necromancy is inherently evil, foul. The only reason the College allows it is because of the sake of knowledge beyond any form of moral as long as it doesn't cause cataclysmic issues, and the amount of crimes your usual Bandit did won't even come close to match the one crime you did by raising his tormented corpse. However, through Atromancy alone, you're simply summoning creatures from Oblivion and binding them to your will. Instead of requiring a dead body, you simply require charisma.
Concerning Vampirism, it's sort of tricky. A simple vampire contracting the disease could possibly overcome his nature through effort, use strict feeding, bottled blood on slain victims, and so on. But I'm not sure that a Vampire Lord can endure the same treatment, being a pure product of Molag Bal, the influence might be too big to ignore.
So yeah, Conjuration only through Atromancy shouldn't get you into morale issues. And Vampire Lord isn't recommended, simple Vampire might be considered.
If you're hell bent on being the good guy, consider only using the Atromancy part of Conjuration. Necromancy is inherently evil, foul. The only reason the College allows it is because of the sake of knowledge beyond any form of moral as long as it doesn't cause cataclysmic issues, and the amount of crimes your usual Bandit did won't even come close to match the one crime you did by raising his tormented corpse. However, through Atromancy alone, you're simply summoning creatures from Oblivion and binding them to your will. Instead of requiring a dead body, you simply require charisma.
Concerning Vampirism, it's sort of tricky. A simple vampire contracting the disease could possibly overcome his nature through effort, use strict feeding, bottled blood on slain victims, and so on. But I'm not sure that a Vampire Lord can endure the same treatment, being a pure product of Molag Bal, the influence might be too big to ignore.
So yeah, Conjuration only through Atromancy shouldn't get you into morale issues. And Vampire Lord isn't recommended, simple Vampire might be considered.
hershangames
Well-Known Member
I agree. I love this kind of debates, but Internet keeps proving again and again that it is not the place for moral debates.He's blocked you dusara. Meaning he will not see your comments or messages. Nor can you PM (private message) him I think. As much as I would love to state my views on THAT, I doubt they would be warmly welcomed. So I'll just leave it at that.
I think this convo should be locked. Better safe than sorry. We already reached the point of 'Afterlife' and 'Higher Power'. Which as forum people on here know from experience, is a VERY sensitive topic.
It's a stalemate. Enough said. If you're religious, more than likely you believe that vampires or anything 'unnatural' is an abomination. Which... means... computers are abominations... right? I'm confused. I confuse myself. BAH!
And if you're NOT religious, more than likely you will tend to take a step back and look at things differently.
That's not to say it could be the opposite, Religious not automatically against vampires, nonreligious very against vampires... It's just how one is raised to view the world by ones parents and religious views. As well as pre-created views. In other words... already set views and a person's nature.
So... I believe this thread should be halted. Before it gets any worse. Sorry if I offended anyone but someone had to come on down here and say something. When Philosophy and Religion collide... it's a mighty dosey. And NOBODY, wins.
EDIT: Also, welcome to the forums @dusara217 . People don't normally argue like this or be unfriendly at all. We are like a little family here. So please, stay as long as you like.
sent by the almighty Hershan from tapatalk
Daelon DuLac
How do you backstab a Dragon?
I know y'all hate this, but I still maintain that Vampires are simply another form of predator. No different from a bear or a chaurus or a mosquito for that matter. Sure they tend to be more intelligent on the whole, but, who am I to judge.
I also do not believe that necromancy is inherently evil. That would assume that the human/mer/beast race remains after death are important. As far as I am concerned, they are just fertilizer and, to get some additional use out of them is not a bad thing.
As in real life, to me, dead is dead. Who cares.
I don't hold it against a mosquito because it sucks my blood or a wolf for stalking me for food, so why would I hold it against a Vampire?
It's their nature. Admittedly, the Molag Bol connection can be somewhat dicey, but, then again, if we accept in real life that "God" or whatever creator you accept, created all creatures from mosquitos, leaches and rats to bears, wolves and people, to fulfill their purpose, no matter how we, in our narrow little "human centric" point of view, want it to be.
To me, vampires (or werewolves) are not inherently evil. They exist for their purpose. Necromancy is not inherently evil if you get past the usage of bodies, it is just another form of reanimation, just using magic rather than technology. You wouldn't argue about turning an old car or a dwemer automaton back on until it dropped if you needed it, why a body?
JMHO.
I also do not believe that necromancy is inherently evil. That would assume that the human/mer/beast race remains after death are important. As far as I am concerned, they are just fertilizer and, to get some additional use out of them is not a bad thing.
As in real life, to me, dead is dead. Who cares.
I don't hold it against a mosquito because it sucks my blood or a wolf for stalking me for food, so why would I hold it against a Vampire?
It's their nature. Admittedly, the Molag Bol connection can be somewhat dicey, but, then again, if we accept in real life that "God" or whatever creator you accept, created all creatures from mosquitos, leaches and rats to bears, wolves and people, to fulfill their purpose, no matter how we, in our narrow little "human centric" point of view, want it to be.
To me, vampires (or werewolves) are not inherently evil. They exist for their purpose. Necromancy is not inherently evil if you get past the usage of bodies, it is just another form of reanimation, just using magic rather than technology. You wouldn't argue about turning an old car or a dwemer automaton back on until it dropped if you needed it, why a body?
JMHO.
