The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Vampires and Evil, a philosophical rabbit hole.
kazimmoinuddin:
There are likely many creatures that feed on humans, so why are the vampire courts so distinctive and prevalent. The seven courts each have a seat at the accords, that has to be unique. The only other such examples are the faerie holding places on the accords. I always wondered since the vampire courts called each other cousin, could they have kind of common origin or source? My money is on the result of magical rituals or outsider influence, possibly even both.
kazimmoinuddin:
To get a clearer answer we need to see all the vampire courts to be able to make a clear argument concerning their true nature.
jonas:
--- Quote from: kazimmoinuddin on September 23, 2017, 12:29:47 AM ---To get a clearer answer we need to see all the vampire courts to be able to make a clear argument concerning their true nature.
--- End quote ---
Possibly, but allow me to make a few thematic Wags, utilizing a bit of what I know from Woj's.
The jade court are probably the closest to neutrally divine 'ancestor spirits' the valley they live in they inhabit because of the ghost thing, or possibly closer to the Naagloshi's domain. So they likely feed directly on the ancestor worship and act benevolently in return, Making them rent payers like Kringle perhaps?
He mentioned one with reverse legs that can jump, I can't recall if that's the African mythos or not, but that would be another one.
Being that there are 7 courts specifically but he did not flesh out the details of every court at the inception of the idea, I think it's a safe bet he based them loosely upon the 7 deadly sins(Which if you know/understand my theory on TWC making Sin a balanced force were it was previously unbalance, those seven forces birthing something into this world to different degree's seems likely enough when that was the path the Accuser took)
I can't remember offhand which court I'd labeled for which, Iirc I DO have that written down somewhere still if I can't suss it out again. Something like Jade=Pride Whites=Lust, which is highlighted when Harry goes to club Zero Reds=gluttony(the bellies lol) Blacks=Envy or Greed, for life(an undead sorcerous wants to eat a bunch of living magic via Hallow...) ect.
If we look to the Reds as an example various, starborn/generational period godlings went through a 'fall' from outside forces being born through them (just like warlocks now...) to various degree's.
Snark Knight:
re: Jonas
I believe it's reds who have the backwards knees. At one point in a fight Harry bashes something in the knee and comments that it wouldn't have worked on a Rampire because their actual knees are backwards (though I'm not sure how the actual mechanics of passing for human work ... possibly they can flex either way?), and it would have just pissed off a Blampire.
As for the vampire courts corresponding to the seven deadly sins, I'm not sure I buy that one. Whampire = lust only works for the Raiths. Though two of the White Court noble houses do seem to feed on two of the three cardinal virtues. The Raiths feed on lust and are harmed by love (Amoracchius?) and the Skavis feed on despair (presumably weak against hope, embodied by Esperacchius). I wonder if a case might also be made that faith is the opposite of fear, thereby putting Malvora in opposition to faith / Fidelacchius?
DonBugen:
Jonas – excellent WOJ grab; you saved me the trouble.
Shift8 – I like your hierarchy of morality between supernatural races. I often use Demosthenes’ Hierarchy of Foreignness when considering other species, but Utlänning, Främling, Raman, Varelse, and Djur doesn’t exactly fit 1:1 in the Dresdenverse, in which creatures can be sentient and sapient, but also lack the freedom of choice. Besides, Card’s entire theory was that if you think that the alien just wants to eat your face, maybe you’re just not communicating well enough and haven't tried hard enough for peace. In The Dresden Files, sometimes the monster just wants to eat your face.
I’d agree with Jonas’ WOJ posting – it seems pretty clear that the Black Court doesn’t have free choice anymore; at least, not enough in order to choose not to live the lifestyle that they do. The Reds, I feel, are debatable. Susan certainly chose to still sacrifice her life after taking the life of another. It’s arguable that she was in the process of changing while the decision was made, but I would disagree with this. The fact that she worked as the catalyst for the bloodline curse and offered no resistance to Dresden seems like sufficient proof that she was Red Court and still had the ability to make a free choice. Furthermore, I think also that Ortega’s somewhat reasonable negotiation with Dresden before the duel and Bianca’s protective attitude towards her girls as demonstrated in Storm Front also act as evidence that the Reds had the capacity to try to be something else… They certainly seem to have more humanity than the Black Court, in any case.
When it boils down to “evilness”, your definition really depends on how you define “evil”. Is evil a matter of perspective, or is there an actual measure? After all, what might be “evil” for some could be just survival for others. A White Court vampire who doesn’t kill anyone, but steals about a year of life from everyone they encounter in order to survive and mentally influences other people into betraying their spouse, breaking apart families, might be considered a great evil… or just a lost person, like Thomas in Dead Beat, who’s just trying to figure out how to survive. There’s a WOJ somewhere (which I also don’t have access to) in which Jim states that in the Dresden Files, the good guys are the ones who are trying to give people choice and preserve that choice, and the evil ones are those attempting to take it away.
Shift8, your question was to whether the "moral monster" really existed. In the Dresdenverse, I think that it all really boils down to whether the individual has choice or not. If the individual does not have choice, then the next question would be: does this creature serve some sort of function?
If the creature has free choice, then it could not fall into the "moral monster" category; it has the capacity to choose good. It might be a really, really hard choice, but they can. A warlock, especially one who hasn't lost their sanity yet, is an example of this. The Council hunts them down and kills them because of the great evil they could do, but they are not inherently evil and irredeemable.
If the creature does not have free choice, then it must still be considered whether or not it serves a function. Consider this: right now, in our world, scientists are debating whether it is a good or bad idea to wipe the mosquito population off of the world - in essence, to make mosquitoes extinct. They are, in a sense, Djur - a monster which cannot be reasoned with, cannot change, and will continue to prey on mankind. However, they very well may have a role in our ecosystem which is critical, and their sudden absence could drastically throw off or destroy other species - be it from lack of a once-abundant food supply, or from a sudden lost pollinator (and yes, there are insect pollinators other than honeybees) or from even something so wild as a hidden symbiote that we might not even be aware of; a beneficial parasite that is passed. For us to assume that wiping out the mosquito population simply because from our perspective it is nothing but trouble is arrogance, as we don't know all that it does.
Mab and the Winter Court are a perfect example of this. Prior to Cold Days, I would have agreed with your statement - the Winter Fae are nothing but bloodthirsty monsters, incapable of free will, harmful to humanity; kill and exterminate on sight. However, we've since learned that they play an EXTREMELY vital role in the defense of reality; they're tough and monstrous because their job requires it. I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Winter Fae is the only baddie type that Jim Butcher ever created that has more than one side to it and isn't a whole-black hat. In fact, I would put money on the assumption that no enemy in the Dresden Files could be ultimately viewed as fully evil, once all is actually known about them. Therefore, I also don't believe that you could just say flatly, "Kill on sight" to any creature scott-free.
EDIT: Snark Knight's post just reminded me that there are creatures in the Dresden Files that likely don't serve some sort of purpose and are actively being exterminated - hence the Oblivion War and Ivy's true purpose. I've added one last category.
Therefore, I would suggest an alternate hierarchy, instead of "Human with desire to feed," "Beast vampire," and "Moral Monster." It would go:
Mortal (Free will, no influences)
Supernatural Entity (Free will, some influences)
Benign Immortal (No free will, not immediately dangerous to mortals)
Dangerous Immortal (No free will, dangerous if encountered)
Hostile Monster (No free will, actively trying to kill, destroy, and enthrall)
Abomination (Creature actively threatening reality as we know it)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version