Vampires and Evil, a philosophical rabbit hole.

[jonas]

That is a way, way loose translation of lust, and I don't think it applies in this situation.  By boiling it down to "a desire that cannot be filled" then essentially everyone in The Dresden Files is a creaure of lust.

Not even sure what book it's in off the top of my head let alone which book ks where to pull the quote from, go reread it. Harry applies famine directly to the Whites perspective on how they would define reality in charge, zero satisfaction

This is the human condition.

Indeed

Otherwise then, Molly lusts for freedom and independence, Butters lusts for respect in his job, Karrin lusts to play the hero and help people, Harry lusts for quiet alone time on his couch with a good paperback.  Sure, Marcone wants power and influence, and gets them.  Doesn't make him a creature of lust.

By a narrow definition, if your not going to look at the thematics and how it's actually described. Why does Marcone do what he does? what does he WANT?

And it doesn't make the White Court's acts of emotional draining more "lusty" than, say, the Red court, whose feeding practices were VERY sexualized. 

Not really what i'm saying at all...

Besides, the foil of Marcone is certainly not love.  As far as we can see, love has nothing to do with the reason why he protects children.  The evidence portrayed in Death Masks and Small Favor lean more in favor of immense guilt and shame, rather than any sort of feeling of love on his behalf.  I doubt he even knew Helen's child before he put her in a coma.

Ahem, you don't feel guilt if you don't genuinely care. See his criminal Empire. Guilt stems from empathy, from Caring. An i'd bet just about anything if we don't see Marcone with the sword of love in MM, we'll see it in our timeline.

I think that you're loosening the translation in order to fit your theory, and in doing so you're losing the significance of the sin of lust.  After all, defining it as a desire that cannot be quenched is pretty much identical to gluttony, which would also be pretty identical to greed.

And I think you just don't see what I see in the same pic bro. And yes I've already brainstormed into the fact multiple facets of the 7 sins are actually different versions of the negative aspects of the 3 primary maleficent powers. The facts and supposition came before the theory Watson, and i'm deeply insulted here. I know theory better then to make such an elementary mistake boy.

Besides, if we're matching up sins to courts, it seems like Wrath would fit the black court better in any case.

no idea, that was my on the spot guess but I've gone through it enough to HAVE notes fyi...

I think that your attempt to define the vampire courts as being similar to the seven deadly sins is far too Catholic to really fit the pan-theological world of the Dresden Files.  Jim's stated that we see a lot of Christianity simply because TDF takes place in the USA and Europe mostly, where Christianity has its greatest foothold, but that the same powers would be very different in other regions.  Trying to make the Jade Court, for example, fit into the Seven Deadly Sins would mean taking a group which resides in China and doesn't leave the Yangtze River Valley area, and subjecting them to a paradigm that at most has a small number of persecuted followers in their area.  Beings in the Dresden Files look very different from different perspectives.

I'm being TWC/TWG centric, don't know about Catholicism but considering that's the Christianity Jim has experience with i'd imagine that's about right. And you seem to be forgetting perspective changes and the fact most sins are found in euro-Asian lore, just not so organized. We're dealing with renditions and generational activities in which we KNOW TWC was a thing in. It's actually an idea based off of the jewish Seraphim and us living on 'gaia' with Nemesis(where the sin was inbalanced towards) acting in our inbalances against us so... not so Christian centric as you think. I can also show various other ways, Buddism, Taoism, ect were incorporated into the set up. If you keep to my starborn generation theory as it was originally posted it actually deals with coexisting event's from generational theory fyi.
Not sure I like the cut of your reply here don, you make some high assumptions about how much forethought I put into this.. An let's try to keep off of religious angles like that, 'it's too catholic'. Na man, It just is.

*My original points were towards the fact Woj states outright he had 7 courts in his original idea but he he'd only fleshed out 3-4 really well, And towards a reasoning behind this fact.

[DonBugen]

Not sure I like the cut of your reply here don, you make some high assumptions about how much forethought I put into this.. An let's try to keep off of religious angles like that, 'it's too catholic'. Na man, It just is.

Honestly, I really do apologize if my response stepped over the line at all.  I was speaking of "seven deadly sins" in the context in which they were created in the Catholic church, as cardinal sins (vs. venial sins) which is something only held as religiously important within the Catholic faith.  If you're speaking of it in the popular, historical, or secular sense, then my apologies.  And also, I apologize if I came off as just blandly dismissing a theory you've been working on for a while.

Not even sure what book it's in off the top of my head let alone which book ks where to pull the quote from, go reread it. Harry applies famine directly to the Whites perspective on how they would define reality in charge, zero satisfaction

I know the passage you're talking about, but I don't think Dresden refers to famine at all.  It's in chapter seven of Turn Coat.

"Thanks," I said, and followed my brother into a scene that split the difference between a Dionysian bacchanal and a Fellini flick.

There was no white light inside Zero. Most of it was red, punctuated in places with pools of blue and plenty of black lights scattered everywhere so that even where shadows were thickest, some colors jumped out in disquieting luminescence. Cigarette smoke hung in a pall over the large room, a distance-distorting haze under the black lights.

We had entered on a kind of balcony that overlooked the dance floor below. Music pounded, the bass beat so loud that I could feel it in my lower stomach. Lights flashed and swayed in synchronicity. The floor was crowded with sweating, moving bodies dressed in a broad spectrum of clothing, from full leather coverings including a whole-head hood, at one extreme, to one girl clad in a few strips of electrical tape on the other. There was a bar down by the dance floor, and tables scattered around its outskirts under a thirty-foot-high ceiling. A few cages hung about eight feet over the dance floor, each containing a young man or woman in provocative clothing.

Stairways and catwalks led up to about a dozen platforms that thrust out from the walls, where patrons could sit and overlook the scene below while gaining a measure of privacy for themselves. Most of the platforms were furnished with couches and chaise longues rather than tables and chairs. There were more exotic bits of furniture up on the platforms, as well: the giant X shape of a St. Andrew's cross, which was currently supporting the bound form of a young man, his wrists and ankles secured to the cross, his face to the wood, his hair falling down over his naked back. Another platform had a shiny brass pole in its center, and a pair of girls danced around it, in the middle of a circle of men and women sprawled over the couches and lounges.

Everywhere I looked, people were doing things that would have gotten them arrested anywhere else. Couples, threesomes, foursomes, and nineteensomes were fully engaged in sexual activity on some of the private platforms. From where I stood, I could see two different tables where lines of white powder waited to be inhaled. A syringe disposal was on the wall next to every trash can, marked with a bright biohazard symbol. People were being beaten with whips and riding crops. People were bound up with elaborate arrangements of ropes, as well as with more prosaic handcuffs. Piercings and tattoos were everywhere. Screams and cries occasionally found their way through the music, agony, ecstasy, joy, or rage all indistinguishable from one another.

The lights flashed constantly, changing and shifting, and every beat of the music created a dozen new frozen montages of sybaritic abandon.

The music, the light, the sweat, the smoke, the booze, the drugs-it all combined into a wet, desperate miasma that was full of needs that could never be sated.

That's why the place was called Zero, I realized. Zero limits. Zero inhibitions. Zero restraint. It was a place of perfect, focused abandon, of indulgence, and it was intriguing and hideous, nauseating and viscerally hungry.

Zero fulfillment.

I felt a shudder run through me. This was the world as created by the White Court. This is what they would make of it, if they were given the chance. Planet Zero.

Lust, yes.  Debauchery, yes.  But famine?  Not so much.  Though if you were thinking of a different passage, my apologies.

By a narrow definition, if your not going to look at the thematics and how it's actually described. Why does Marcone do what he does? what does he WANT?

The thing is, I don't remember Marcone as ever having demonstrated an emotional lust for power.  He's like a mountain lion, quiet, stalking, calculating, and striking when necessary.  He shows emotion at other times, certainly, but he always maintains a professional attitude toward his business.  This is not the emotional driven aspect of lust; the thirst and hunger to take and devour and consume what is out of your reach.

Ahem, you don't feel guilt if you don't genuinely care. See his criminal Empire. Guilt stems from empathy, from Caring. An i'd bet just about anything if we don't see Marcone with the sword of love in MM, we'll see it in our timeline.

Caring and love are completely different.  Also, a person doesn't need to care in the actual person in order to express guilt.  For example - pure hypothesis and speculation - if Marcone was orphaned as a child because his parents were gunned down by mobsters, and he rose to the position that he's in all in order to wrench control of Chicago's underground out from the last regime, his actions could be interpreted as guilt because despite his efforts to turn the criminal underground into a controlled, less violent place, he became exactly the monster that he despised.  Which would completely explain why he has one secret sin, something that he would give anything to undo.

Though I do like your theory of Marcone with Amoracchius.  I've noticed that in every single Denarian novel, Marcone is also a major player.  Marcone, also, seems to run in multiples of five.  I feel that before all is said and done, he might be either holding a coin or a sword.

Not really what i'm saying at all...

And I think you just don't see what I see in the same pic bro. And yes I've already brainstormed into the fact multiple facets of the 7 sins are actually different versions of the negative aspects of the 3 primary maleficent powers. The facts and supposition came before the theory Watson, and i'm deeply insulted here. I know theory better then to make such an elementary mistake boy.

So explain it!     Help me understand.  I know I must not be seeing the big picture the way you are.  If you're explaining non-sexual, non-emotional actions as "lusty" and I reply that the interpretation of the word loses its meaning, reply back and tell me why your meaning makes more sense.  You mention that your understanding of this is grounded a lot more in the older historical imbalances as described in Buddhism and Taoism.  That would be a perfect way to counter me and help me understand.

This is clearly a large, fleshed out running theory that you have for the origins and theme of vampires, also dealing with the eventual direction of the series.  I love theories.  If I just don't get it and am debating something that you've said, don't get offended; counter me!  Show me where I'm wrong.   If I'm missing the point, it should be easy.

*My original points were towards the fact Woj states outright he had 7 courts in his original idea but he he'd only fleshed out 3-4 really well, And towards a reasoning behind this fact.

I like this.  I haven't encountered this particular WOJ myself (or I did a long time ago and forgot about it) but a "seven deadly sins" theme does make sense when broadly creating the vampires, especially because the initial concept of the Whites certainly was tied to lust.  It's only when Harry starts diving into the intricacies between the houses that he encounters those who feed on fear or despair, which might have been a further development after the initial concept was created.

Makes me wonder what the Jade Court would be tied to.  Hard to tell from the very little WOJ that we get.  There's no sin for being a recluse.  Possibly pride, considering how Jim's referred to their dismissal of the nation of "China" as possibly some sort of trend that might not pan out.

[Shift8]

Really great posts by everyone. So much stuff I cant even respond to it all. I will try to hit on a few things though.

First I must state that I do not think the Reds have sufficient free will, or good nature, to justify their existence. I had no moral issues at all with Dresden wiping out every single last one of of them.

And I want to point out that is what my question is really about. Not specifically Itza, but in general what moral approach ought to taken with Vampires.

It would seem that most everyone here agrees that the black vampires are essentially trash that needs taken out. Behavior and WOJ appear to back that up.

Whites, as evinced by Thomas, can choose not to feed. However difficult, their affliction can be overcome even if that means death. White Vampires who feed to excess or in excessive manners (such as rape or killing) can therefore be described as evil, and by that I mean individuals whose moral actions are detestable. However, I would challenge the notion white Vampires steal years of lives from people. It is my impression from the books that the life force of the individual fed on regenerates back to normal so long as they are not killed.

Reds are the most interesting as I see it. They possess some capacity for concern for another individual, but it never appears to be manifested outside of a selfish sort. IE: Suzan and her child or Ortegas wife wanting revenge. Essentially they seem only capable of caring about those who have some kind of special relationship to them, or serve their purposes. ALL Red vampires however manifest a evil nature as a matter of course. All of them kill. All of them are "vampires" by nature. Aside from this being the case without any exceptions in the book as my evidence for this, the nature of the transformation indicates this as well. One of the key elements of a half Vamp Red is that they can still choose not to feed. After they feed, they "become" a Red Vampire. This would seem to imply that their moral capacity afterwords is limited and altered. Additionally their true natures I think are somewhat implied by what is under the flesh mask.

To reiterate my original question however, how exactly is this type of creature possible from a logical standpoint? If a creature has sentience and/or sapience, how could it not also have free will? If its "responses" to life are limited, then its sentience must be as well. If it is not capable of understanding the moral nature of its actions, then what do we call it? Is it evil? Or is it simply an abomination?

Essentially, how can something NOT have free will if it is sentient? And if it is not fully sentient, how then should we think about it? If a creature cannot choose good sufficiently to justify its existence, then what exactly is it?

On one hand the Red Vampires lack of moral capacity means I can take them out like I might squash a fly or shoot a dog. But their dog-like lack of value would seemingly make their sentience near impossible. They seem to simultaneously express themselves with human like personas but inhuman moral capacity.

[jonas]

Honestly, I really do apologize if my response stepped over the line at all.  I was speaking of "seven deadly sins" in the context in which they were created in the Catholic church, as cardinal sins (vs. venial sins) which is something only held as religiously important within the Catholic faith.  If you're speaking of it in the popular, historical, or secular sense, then my apologies.  And also, I apologize if I came off as just blandly dismissing a theory you've been working on for a while.

It's alright, I ight be being too defensive, side effect of reading into everything too much lol.

I know the passage you're talking about, but I don't think Dresden refers to famine at all.  It's in chapter seven of Turn Coat.Lust, yes.  Debauchery, yes.  But famine?  Not so much.  Though if you were thinking of a different passage, my apologies.

No that's the one... I'd have to look back into famine as a horseman to put together my perspective really, though maybe if I can utilize a different theology for your pleasure

Desire. The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is craving or thirst (tanha). This doesn't mean cravings should be repressed or denied. Instead, in Buddhist practice, we acknowledge our passions and learn to see they are empty, so they no longer control us. This is true for hate, greed and other emotions. Sexual desire is no different.
"For all its ecstatic nature, for all its power, sex is just another human drive. If we avoid it just because it is more difficult to integrate than anger or fear, then we are simply saying that when the chips are down we cannot follow our own practice. This is dishonest and unhealthy."

Not the quote I was looking for, it was more specific towards the fact no matter how much you actually have sex it's never a desire that's satisfied vs love. emboldened the first bit though cause it's implications toward that empty nature vs the satisfied nature of love and it's attached contentment. the second bit because right their they put it in with the 3 negative powers of the universe(which is from Asiatic religion originally) with the slight differentiation of fear/terror and fear/wrath. which, in the DF the overlap is fear becomes anger(heh, star wars fan).

The thing is, I don't remember Marcone as ever having demonstrated an emotional lust for power.  He's like a mountain lion, quiet, stalking, calculating, and striking when necessary.  He shows emotion at other times, certainly, but he always maintains a professional attitude toward his business.  This is not the emotional driven aspect of lust; the thirst and hunger to take and devour and consume what is out of your reach.

Can you not say Mab lusts for power despite her logic? Marcone kinda stopped using his outward emotions but the base stimulus drives are the same. young Marcone vs Now is like Summer vs Winter, even uses the word summer in his description.

Caring and love are completely different.  Also, a person doesn't need to care in the actual person in order to express guilt.  For example - pure hypothesis and speculation - if Marcone was orphaned as a child because his parents were gunned down by mobsters, and he rose to the position that he's in all in order to wrench control of Chicago's underground out from the last regime, his actions could be interpreted as guilt because despite his efforts to turn the criminal underground into a controlled, less violent place, he became exactly the monster that he despised.  Which would completely explain why he has one secret sin, something that he would give anything to undo.

Dude, if your going to compare him to batman, remember batman gave up everything multiple times for his city, did horrendous things to those whom he perceived as well deserved, and even died for Gotham in some timelines. The guy had loved his city, and now matter how twisted he became it was always that original spark that drove him in who he was... far as i'm concerned you proved that point better than I would have lol.

Though I do like your theory of Marcone with Amoracchius.  I've noticed that in every single Denarian novel, Marcone is also a major player.  Marcone, also, seems to run in multiples of five.  I feel that before all is said and done, he might be either holding a coin or a sword.
So explain it!     Help me understand.  I know I must not be seeing the big picture the way you are.  If you're explaining non-sexual, non-emotional actions as "lusty" and I reply that the interpretation of the word loses its meaning, reply back and tell me why your meaning makes more sense.  You mention that your understanding of this is grounded a lot more in the older historical imbalances as described in Buddhism and Taoism.  That would be a perfect way to counter me and help me understand.

One might say I tried to do as John Henry thought in Terminator, if I have the same data can I come to the same conclusions. Buddhism has this awesome myth about an ice giantess locked down on an island that fits MW's bill, the Yin-Yang to Pakua theory describes inside/existence vs outside/nonexistence and what the outsiders want and why, and why the same 'people' keep happening.

This is clearly a large, fleshed out running theory that you have for the origins and theme of vampires, also dealing with the eventual direction of the series.  I love theories.  If I just don't get it and am debating something that you've said, don't get offended; counter me!  Show me where I'm wrong.   If I'm missing the point, it should be easy.

I just get frustrated with negativity sometimes. Communication isn't my first language lol. It's a big Nebulous conspiracy theory that does lead toward were the series is going, But I keep that part close to the chest.

I like this.  I haven't encountered this particular WOJ myself (or I did a long time ago and forgot about it) but a "seven deadly sins" theme does make sense when broadly creating the vampires, especially because the initial concept of the Whites certainly was tied to lust.  It's only when Harry starts diving into the intricacies between the houses that he encounters those who feed on fear or despair, which might have been a further development after the initial concept was created.

Makes me wonder what the Jade Court would be tied to.  Hard to tell from the very little WOJ that we get.  There's no sin for being a recluse.  Possibly pride, considering how Jim's referred to their dismissal of the nation of "China" as possibly some sort of trend that might not pan out.

lol, I pegged them as pride too fyi. I think it's in a vid saved in the woj section... where though... if any are linked directly in the compilation vampires reply i'd start there. The questions should be all in same vid, but i'm not positive on that. That was the premise I based this part around when I started into vampires though. iirc i'd already been looking into them after the loop struck me as a Wrath possibility.

[DonBugen]

Hey, Shift8!  Good point on the “taking off years of a person’s life” thing; I didn’t think, but I’m sure a person would be able to recover in much the way that Harry recovers after using Soulfire a lot – time, soul-fulfilling activities, life.  Otherwise, there’d be no way that Justine could have recovered the way she did.

Your question really is a good philosophical one – the moral approach that is to be taken with vampires, and whether extermination of them is something which can be considered.  I find this discussion works best if I think less of this being a moral issue, and more of it being an issue between finding neutrality between two different sapient races.  The moral road being that it is immoral to wipe out a species that is both sentient (self aware) and sapient (capable of reason and logical thinking) unless there is no other option.

(To your question about how something can be lacking free will but be sentient, I think that Jim addresses that in Cold Case.  I spoilered’ it because not everyone might have read it.)

(click to show/hide)

We know from Cold Days that the Winter Lady does not have free will and choice; she must act within her nature.  Cold Case, told from Molly’s perspective as the Winter Lady, shows Molly thinking, reasoning, and planning.  She chooses, for example, to dress frumpy and warmly in the beginning, even though she doesn’t need to, in order to slightly defy Mab.  But we see throughout the story that whenever she tries doing something that does not fit within the Winter Lady’s jurisdiction, that her body overrides her will and reacts in a different way.  She doesn’t initially mean to be super mysterious and flirt constantly with Ramirez, but that’s exactly what happens when she tries to be straightforward and plain in speech with him.

The question is, can a peace treaty be really, honestly, lastingly held between two separate species of being, when one species is the only food that the other species can eat?  And can it be held in such a way that the one species is not abusing the other?

Total war to eradicate the species would only be justified if such a peace could not be kept.  If this was, say, Humans vs. Klingons, then it would be immoral to completely wipe out the Klingon race simply because of their extreme violence; they have a different society and structure, but it should be possible to coexist.  They’ve coexisted for millions of years separate; no reason why they can’t continue.
 to live.

But the Vampire cannot separate himself from mankind; he must be a predator to survive, and he only has one food:  us.  Furthermore, they MUST kill.  Reds and Whites start their life WITH a fatal feeding; black court MUST kill a mortal to create a new blampire.  It’s sort of difficult to maintain a peace with a race if “Oh yeah, we have to kill one of you guys every time we reproduce” happens.  And as we clearly see in First Lord’s Fury, an existence without reproduction is nothing but a slow death.

So, is it morally superior to say that the Whites can stay, but the Reds should go?  I don’t know.  Other than Thomas, we really haven’t seen any “good” white court vampires.  They’ve been just as vicious, bloodthirsty, and dangerous as the Reds, but in a subtler way.  I personally don’t think that the serial rapist is morally better than the serial killer.

If Jim Butcher wrote the Dresden Files with a sympathetic red court vampire – say, Thomas stayed a minor character and never grew from where he was portrayed in Grave Peril – and Susan was turned but fought against her nature – would we still say that the Reds are monsters and need to be put down?  Because in the Dresden Files, the white court is portrayed as the villain just as much as the red court is.

Honestly, if we’re just looking at the numbers, they ALL should go.  There’s no capable way of having a lasting peace treaty between them all; the only thing that’s worked so far is keeping ‘the cattle’ ignorant of their presence while wizards look the other way.  Every single White and Red Court vampire is a murderer, and will murder again.  I agree with Eb – no matter how nice they seem now, their hunger takes control again.  And they can’t live separate from humanity.  There is no way for this species to coexist with humanity, and if given the opportunity, they will grow and spread and dominate and completely force the world to submit.

--

Jonas – I understand some of what you were saying now – if I understand, you were drawing parallels to the sins of lust, gluttony, sloth, pride, wrath, greed, and envy with the four horsemen – famine, pestilence, war, and death, and drawing further parallels between lust, famine, and others to the Buddhist interpretation of desire.  That does make a lot of sense, and is pretty deep.  Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.

Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence.  That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.

Though I will argue against the view of Marcone.  Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power.  She wants balance.  She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more.  Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.

I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman.  At all.  Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.  With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone.  Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft.  He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.

In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker.  He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit.  Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes.  There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.

[jonas]

Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.
Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence.  That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.

That would be like writing a small book... i'm not that good at making a linear organization of an idea... the work, and from scratch... uhh. I'll have to take a rain check until motivation moves in.
it's Not a perfect translation but

Taiji (simplified Chinese: 太极; traditional Chinese: 太極; pinyin: tàijí; literally: "great pole") is a Chinese cosmological term for the "Supreme Ultimate" state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential, the oneness before duality, from which Yin and Yang originate, can be compared with the old Wuji

That's the essence of the idea behind the balance, Wuji, one state broke into yin-yang, the first tier being existence nonexistence but, then light and dark, ect, but always the same two poles balance. Like taiji by both sides taking some of the other in balance. Afterlives prevent true death back to yang/nonexistence but also make necromancy type 'nonexistent' places exist, things like Mordite and Outsiders. Need a quote I can't find here, can't narrow down the specific mythos yet, about the endless dividing shadow from which all life then takes shape and divides(thought it was Maori but...maybe south America some where) and returns to shadow on death to divide out again, Using Pakua which explains divisions in life from yin-yang down to the five elements themselves. All of which can be partially applied to starborn/archetype characters in generations and supported by the curse in BR, she talks of the Hunter of shadows. This can be seen as the amalgamation of Ouranos, Chronos, The Darkness, ect. Also supported by Lucifer being termed the 'darkest' shadow and MW the Tallest, both exist as part of inside despite being of the Outside. the Little dot in  the Yin-yang symbol, which non existence therefore 'exists' out there too. Including the highest tier Who want wuji, the old ones who want in to dictate their own version of life,realities that never were, ect. Then we have

For a non-point or "extended" source of light, the shadow is divided into the umbra, penumbra and antumbra. The wider the light source, the more blurred the shadow becomes. If two penumbras overlap, the shadows appear to attract and merge. This is known as the Shadow Blister Effect.

This appears to be the effect Outsiders/shadows use to manifest in reality.. fearbringer bears a striking functionality to the scarecrow who ate parts of Molly's soul and the Cloth Molly left from Harry's murder. His amalgamation, like hwwbh's is the result of the Blister effect in Mirroring reality. (Blamps blister a living human precisely then move through them into reality fyi, also Summer vs Winter Queens, connects here to my theory Winter 'came' inside' from previously being the power of ice giant outsiders, Lucifer to TWC, and towards why Blampires gain strength so fast, they are true immortals that feed directly on taking life, one small darkhallow at a time, ect) anyway...

Though I will argue against the view of Marcone.  Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power.  She wants balance.  She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more.  Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.

Then why do we need Titania's failsafe?

I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman.  At all.  Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.  With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone.  Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft.  He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.

He's maimed and even killed criminal's though. everybody has a line to 'othering' someone outside their monkey sphere after all. Marcone see's the practicality of having the control the same way the Punisher see's the practicality of killing them off entirely. Doesn't change the initial spark, just how they choose to deal with it. Like fear becoming anger OR terror.

In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker.

Actually his Hooker is Ms Beckett.. and the Jury is gonna be out on that one for now.

  He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit.  Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes.  There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.

Not fair when I don't know any of Moriarty's backstory ;p I'll continue the Punisher/batman comparison though, because both had their families murdered before them, same motive. Bruce, a kid, drew in high minded ideals and became a vigilante that's known for being tough as shit, having the biggest gadgets, and striking fear into the hearts criminals. The punisher can replace gadget's with guns and all stay accurate their, same starborn lol. fyi... you know Harry IS batman right? PG was a joke on batman and sleepy hallow, Harry was the detective without fear archetype there vs the master of fear scarecrow/fearbringer. Had Darby Crane to parallel Jonathan Crane, the scarecrow and Ichabod Crane who fought off a pumpkin headed horsemen, paralleling the scarecrow acting as the beast of burden/horse to the walker fearbringer, as a 'horseman'... Jim enjoy's his hidden jokes... just wonder what I've still missed lol.

*theories so big and expansive I wouldn't know where to start and would talk myself into so many circles i'd start a category 2 twister lol.

[Shift8]

Hey, Shift8!  Good point on the “taking off years of a person’s life” thing; I didn’t think, but I’m sure a person would be able to recover in much the way that Harry recovers after using Soulfire a lot – time, soul-fulfilling activities, life.  Otherwise, there’d be no way that Justine could have recovered the way she did.

Your question really is a good philosophical one – the moral approach that is to be taken with vampires, and whether extermination of them is something which can be considered.  I find this discussion works best if I think less of this being a moral issue, and more of it being an issue between finding neutrality between two different sapient races.  The moral road being that it is immoral to wipe out a species that is both sentient (self aware) and sapient (capable of reason and logical thinking) unless there is no other option.

(To your question about how something can be lacking free will but be sentient, I think that Jim addresses that in Cold Case.  I spoilered’ it because not everyone might have read it.)

(click to show/hide)

We know from Cold Days that the Winter Lady does not have free will and choice; she must act within her nature.  Cold Case, told from Molly’s perspective as the Winter Lady, shows Molly thinking, reasoning, and planning.  She chooses, for example, to dress frumpy and warmly in the beginning, even though she doesn’t need to, in order to slightly defy Mab.  But we see throughout the story that whenever she tries doing something that does not fit within the Winter Lady’s jurisdiction, that her body overrides her will and reacts in a different way.  She doesn’t initially mean to be super mysterious and flirt constantly with Ramirez, but that’s exactly what happens when she tries to be straightforward and plain in speech with him.

The question is, can a peace treaty be really, honestly, lastingly held between two separate species of being, when one species is the only food that the other species can eat?  And can it be held in such a way that the one species is not abusing the other?

Total war to eradicate the species would only be justified if such a peace could not be kept.  If this was, say, Humans vs. Klingons, then it would be immoral to completely wipe out the Klingon race simply because of their extreme violence; they have a different society and structure, but it should be possible to coexist.  They’ve coexisted for millions of years separate; no reason why they can’t continue.
 to live.

But the Vampire cannot separate himself from mankind; he must be a predator to survive, and he only has one food:  us.  Furthermore, they MUST kill.  Reds and Whites start their life WITH a fatal feeding; black court MUST kill a mortal to create a new blampire.  It’s sort of difficult to maintain a peace with a race if “Oh yeah, we have to kill one of you guys every time we reproduce” happens.  And as we clearly see in First Lord’s Fury, an existence without reproduction is nothing but a slow death.

So, is it morally superior to say that the Whites can stay, but the Reds should go?  I don’t know.  Other than Thomas, we really haven’t seen any “good” white court vampires.  They’ve been just as vicious, bloodthirsty, and dangerous as the Reds, but in a subtler way.  I personally don’t think that the serial rapist is morally better than the serial killer.

If Jim Butcher wrote the Dresden Files with a sympathetic red court vampire – say, Thomas stayed a minor character and never grew from where he was portrayed in Grave Peril – and Susan was turned but fought against her nature – would we still say that the Reds are monsters and need to be put down?  Because in the Dresden Files, the white court is portrayed as the villain just as much as the red court is.

Honestly, if we’re just looking at the numbers, they ALL should go.  There’s no capable way of having a lasting peace treaty between them all; the only thing that’s worked so far is keeping ‘the cattle’ ignorant of their presence while wizards look the other way.  Every single White and Red Court vampire is a murderer, and will murder again.  I agree with Eb – no matter how nice they seem now, their hunger takes control again.  And they can’t live separate from humanity.  There is no way for this species to coexist with humanity, and if given the opportunity, they will grow and spread and dominate and completely force the world to submit.

--

Jonas – I understand some of what you were saying now – if I understand, you were drawing parallels to the sins of lust, gluttony, sloth, pride, wrath, greed, and envy with the four horsemen – famine, pestilence, war, and death, and drawing further parallels between lust, famine, and others to the Buddhist interpretation of desire.  That does make a lot of sense, and is pretty deep.  Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.

Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence.  That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.

Though I will argue against the view of Marcone.  Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power.  She wants balance.  She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more.  Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.

I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman.  At all.  Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.  With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone.  Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft.  He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.

In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker.  He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit.  Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes.  There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.

I agree with alot of this, but Im gonna hit on the bit where we diverge...but thats more interesting

I disagree about wiping out a race not being justified simply due to its nature. Im not a star treck expert but from what I have seen of the klingon they are morally capable, if necessarily inclined.

Vampires of the type we are discussing, are like Orcs. Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.

Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.

It is incorrect to attach the same sort of genocide ethic we attach to humans to a species that is incapable of moral decision making in the same way as humans do. You cannot change the equation and expect the same answer, so to speak.

When I human commits murder, most people would considering justified to kill that person under most circumstances. And all Orcs or Red/Black Vampires are murders by nature. They are incapable of treating other moral creatures with the necessary respect, and therefore must be annihilated.

[forumghost]

I agree with alot of this, but Im gonna hit on the bit where we diverge...but thats more interesting

I disagree about wiping out a race not being justified simply due to its nature. Im not a star treck expert but from what I have seen of the klingon they are morally capable, if necessarily inclined.

Vampires of the type we are discussing, are like Orcs. Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.

Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.

It is incorrect to attach the same sort of genocide ethic we attach to humans to a species that is incapable of moral decision making in the same way as humans do. You cannot change the equation and expect the same answer, so to speak.

When I human commits murder, most people would considering justified to kill that person under most circumstances. And all Orcs or Red/Black Vampires are murders by nature. They are incapable of treating other moral creatures with the necessary respect, and therefore must be annihilated.

Pretty much. Ramps and Blamps are species that can only propagate via murder, and only thrive through slavery and addiction.

Or to put it another way "This is not war. This is pest control"

[DonBugen]

Pretty much. Ramps and Blamps are species that can only propagate via murder, and only thrive through slavery and addiction.

And Whamps, too.  Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding.  Every one.

Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.

Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.

In a world of many, many different species of intelligent beings, that's a very human-centric morality.  There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind?  So, flipside - if one day we learned that plants are sentient and sapient, but humankind must consume either plant matter or animals which consume plant matter in order to survive, does that mean that it's only just for humankind to be wiped out?

I'm not arguing that the vampires aren't extremely dangerous and should not be wiped out.  I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed.  All thinking beings have value and worth - call it a soul, call it intelligence - and it is a great tragedy to end that line.

Remember Waldo Butters with Dresden at the library in Dead Beat.  Dresden says that Liverspots was a complete monster.  Butters says yeah... but he was still a person.

I'm going to steal whole-cloth an argument made by some guy on Reddit a year ago, because I know little of Tolkein's orcs.

Tolkien included scenes in The Lord of the Rings where Orcs displayed not-so-evil qualities such as loyalty, friendship, and even a rebellious attitude toward Sauron. They were soldiers enslaved to evil but not because they were born to evil. Tolkien went to great lengths to rationalize how the Orcs could be the foot-soldiers of dark lords and would-be dark lords, essentially deciding that their free wills had been constrained by the more powerful wills of their masters.
When left to themselves the Orcs were still capable of organizing themselves into societies in Tolkien's fiction, but though they didn't get along with Dwarves, Elves, or Men there were many instances where the latter did not get along with each other, either, especially among Men.
So did Tolkien really depict the Orcs as being more evil than Men or did he merely depict how the major characters in the story viewed the Orcs? One of the most notable scenes in the story is that where Aragorn shows mercy to the Orcs besieging the Hornburg, warning them to flee before they are destroyed. Should he really have done that if he felt the Orcs were utterly evil and unredeemable?

You call the orcs completely evil, and that killing them is no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream.  Welll, the Whites believe that the kine are nothing but dumb beasts, incapable of real intelligence and being, and that killing them is also no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream.  Who's right?  You, for painting them as nothing but monsters?  Them, for painting us as nothing but cattle?  In the Dresden Files, mankind is just one of many thinking beings, and you can't just base your morality on "what hurts homo sapiens the most?" 

That's why I say that it's immoral to end a species unless there's no other choice.

[jonas]

And Whamps, too.  Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding.  Every one.

Actually the bigfoot trilogy refutes this fact, he survived because he had a larger gas tank for her to syphon... makes me wonder if her nature is on some level different, because her demon wasn't born through taking away anothers choice of life. Which is the main factor for changing both Reds and Whamps, the Blamps idk when the change happens or why, but they always kill... that's actually a thematically accurate thing. Whamps and Ramps are 'born' through death, which supplies the creation energy. Blamps take the creation energy with every life though, they aren't 'set' in stone... perhaps Walking conjunctions themselves even.

There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind?

From the Trumpet voice I take it was because they were every one of them murderers who continued to hurt and willfully commit acts towards others, as a whole species.
*course if they really did come from the 7 sins TWG would have a bone to pick here wouldn't he?

[Con]

White Court Vampires are Etruscans. This implies a lot of things, but particularly that Roman society was based off of Estrucan society as much as Greek. Early Romans were a mix of Greek colonies and the tribes Latin hills. They frequently traded and were at war with the at the time much more powerful Etruscans. Who frequently traded and fought with the Gauls of northern Italy.

Anyway Romans named many of their early gods after Roman gods. Minerva, Jupiter, Mars all original Etruscan jobs. Mars for instance never reall had much in common with the Greek god Ares.

My point is Etruscans had a major influence on early Rome, including huge influx on sexual peversity and kink. Presumably in the Dresdenverse this was where the White Court had their peak controlling the Roman Empire.

Seven Deadly Sins were formed by Catholocism in part as a response to what they believed to be the ultimate flaws of the Roman Empire and decadence, combined with a growing for chivalry to instill honour in early dark age knights and warriors.

It's possible in the Dresdenverse the White Court are the epitome of the Seven Deadly Sins which is back up by the three major houses, but also in Paranet Papers the RP, where theirs another minor house that feeds on Wrath and fight clubs.

It should be noted that I think it was Quantus who theorises the White Court have more to do with Greek spirit personifications. Eros, Phobos and so on and so forth. It's possible. but the Greeks personified everything into spirits.

.......
RED COURT
Again if you take Paranet Papers as canon which I think it is as Jim reads through it offers advice and approves of it before publication.

The Red Court became powerful because they captured and imprisoned ancient Inca gods. I think it implies they did similar to the Ancient Mayan and Aztec gods. They imprisoned they ancient Inca gods and physical fed on them. You are what you eat.

I believe they did similar things to the Ancient Mayan and Aztec gods which is implied by the Red King taking on Kulkulan name and position, as well as Dresdens theorising he wasn't the original Kulkulan in one line where the Red King wasn't sure who Susan as a KOTC was under the invisibility cloak.

Red COurt feed on blood to the point that it's an addiction and several have shown they find sexual pleasure from feeding. It is a physical addiction to them but I don't believe it has any direct impact on their Morality. Keep in mind the real world Cartels in the same region do everything the Red Court does and are all perfectly human. I would still have major problems if any federal government launched a genocide against all cartel members and gangs. Which has been done before.

What makes the Red Court different is the fact that they have become dark gods. (Mostly retired according to Vadderung). In all ancient cultures gods provided a service, of good fortune in exchange for worship and sacrifice. Some Pantheons were said to abuse this relationship, and according to Thomas as well as a lot of mythos the Dark Gods were defeated by other Gods. Those Dark Gods were put Outside of reality, but are still powerful enough to launch invasions and incursions into reality every so often.

..........

Black Court okay I'm keeping this one short because internets about to run out.

The most common and prevelent theory is as people have mentioned.

Dracula tried to impress big daddy Drakul who might be an Outsider himself trapped in human form.

Dracula tapped into the Outside in an Acnsion ritual gone wrong and became Black Court. Still tainted with the Outside. The Outside in its nature is outside reality, evil and wrong.

We also know Black Court power up from mass killing. That is by any definition Evil.

More later

[DonBugen]

Actually the bigfoot trilogy refutes this fact, he survived because he had a larger gas tank for her to syphon...

Oops, OK. Let me rephrase. Every White got that way from a fatal feeding except one lucky chick who shacked up with a Forest Person scion.

Curious question... can a Red or White or Black get by with consuming animals, rather than people? I mean, Thomas doesn't eat the soul of a person; he eats the life energy. Reds drink blood. Blampires...  I don't recall, exactly. Blood, too, if Stoker was on the money on that one, too.

Don't look at me that way when I mention Whampires eating animals. It's icky, sure, but no more morally wrong than foie gras. Which is ALSO morally wrong, sure, but we don't arrest and kill folks coming out of French restaurants.

If these phages can consume a food other than man, and are thinking and rational beings, there should be a way to peacefully coexist. If they have to eat man, then I think there's ultimately not much hope.

[jonas]

I believe they did similar things to the Ancient Mayan and Aztec gods which is implied by the Red King taking on Kulkulan name and position, as well as Dresdens theorising he wasn't the original Kulkulan in one line where the Red King wasn't sure who Susan as a KOTC was under the invisibility cloak.

I have a slightly different view Kulkan is actually identified as Quetzalcoatl in Aztec Myth,

Quetzalcoatl (English: /ˌkɛtsɑːlˈkoʊɑːtəl/; Spanish pronunciation: [ketsalˈkoatɬ] (About this sound listen)) (Classical Nahuatl: Quetzalcohuātl [ket͡saɬˈkowaːt͡ɬ], About this sound modern Nahuatl pronunciation (help·info)) forms part of Mesoamerican literature and is a deity whose name comes from the Nahuatl language and means "feathered serpent".[2] The worship of a feathered serpent is first documented in Teotihuacan in the first century BC or first century AD.[3] That period lies within the Late Preclassic to Early Classic period (400 BC – 600 AD) of Mesoamerican chronology, and veneration of the figure appears to have spread throughout Mesoamerica by the Late Classic period (600–900 AD)

Which then, as I think has repeated through reality/history a 'fall' happened based on the N paradigm, With the Help of Mayan Blood sacrifice He changed persona and the identity they named him as changed to Kukulkan too

In the Postclassic period (900–1519 AD), the worship of the feathered serpent deity was based in the primary Mexican religious center of Cholula. In the Maya area, he was approximately equivalent to Kukulkan and Gukumatz, names that also roughly translate as "feathered serpent" in different Mayan languages

This fall/change I think happened repeatedly through history and can be seen in the Greek Gods becoming decadent Roman ones,  Sumarian into Etrusican, ect.

[Shift8]

And Whamps, too.  Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding.  Every one.
In a world of many, many different species of intelligent beings, that's a very human-centric morality.  There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind?  So, flipside - if one day we learned that plants are sentient and sapient, but humankind must consume either plant matter or animals which consume plant matter in order to survive, does that mean that it's only just for humankind to be wiped out?

I'm not arguing that the vampires aren't extremely dangerous and should not be wiped out.  I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed.  All thinking beings have value and worth - call it a soul, call it intelligence - and it is a great tragedy to end that line.

Remember Waldo Butters with Dresden at the library in Dead Beat.  Dresden says that Liverspots was a complete monster.  Butters says yeah... but he was still a person.

I'm going to steal whole-cloth an argument made by some guy on Reddit a year ago, because I know little of Tolkein's orcs.
You call the orcs completely evil, and that killing them is no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream.  Welll, the Whites believe that the kine are nothing but dumb beasts, incapable of real intelligence and being, and that killing them is also no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream.  Who's right?  You, for painting them as nothing but monsters?  Them, for painting us as nothing but cattle?  In the Dresden Files, mankind is just one of many thinking beings, and you can't just base your morality on "what hurts homo sapiens the most?" 

That's why I say that it's immoral to end a species unless there's no other choice.

To you question about plants: If plants had Human-level intelligence, and human moral capacity, then yes we could not eat them. If your only food source is a person, your only valid choices are to die or find some alternative. Anything else makes you a monster. But plants dont have human-level intellect or persona, so it is not relevant really.

Life does not have inherent value in the purely biological sense. A Vampire or Orc no more incurs human moral concerns than a single cell organism. You seem to be operating under a false equivalency where you assume that morality as we apply it to humans should be applied to any other species of similar intellect.

And yet we do not apply this logic even to humans. We do not apply the same morality to a known murderer than we do to any random person. When we have sufficient evidence that a person has committed a crime, we treat them differently. With humans, the distinction is necessary because humans can choose.

Vampires, of the kind we are discussing, do not choose. They are by nature murderers. All of them do it. All of them will do it. This is literally a species where the ONLY type of person it contains is the sort of person who if they were human, we would generally agree should be killed.

Also I dont know who wrote that bit on Orcs, but its wrong. Orcs were evil by nature, they had to be bent to Saurons will because it was the only way to get them to do anything useful. And Aragorn's decision to ask the orcs to flee is not mercy. Its just good battlefield pragmatism. Why fight more enemies and lose more of your own men if you can scare the enemy into running? Orcs were literally the corruption of men/elves. Different in the sense that unlike men or elves, Orc's had no capacity for good except through happenstance.


As for Liverspots: Who cares if he was a person? I have never understood why anyone finds this significant. Hitler was a person. What of it? Your life no longer has ANY value if you commit acts that nullify its value. It is an absurd notion to assume that a person's value or right to life is not unaffected by the crimes they commit. In actual fact, the fact that a person who commits this level of crime is a "person" makes the crime WORSE, because they would have known by their own significance how abhorrent their crime was, but did it anyhow. This strikes me as being similar to nonsensical sympathy some people have when they say stupid things like "but the terrorist had a family!" Whoop-De-Doo. I have zero empathy for these people.

Being a person gives you your initial right to life. Be it can absolutely be revoked. To say otherwise makes a mockery and contradiction of the value of life in the first place.

[Con]

I have a slightly different view Kulkan is actually identified as Quetzalcoatl in Aztec Myth, Which then, as I think has repeated through reality/history a 'fall' happened based on the N paradigm, With the Help of Mayan Blood sacrifice He changed persona and the identity they named him as changed to Kukulkan too This fall/change I think happened repeatedly through history and can be seen in the Greek Gods becoming decadent Roman ones,  Sumarian into Etrusican, ect.

Thank you jonas for giving said ancient cultures proper respect

Of course thats my entire argument. It seems your just disagreeing on the order.

Seriously guys klingons and orcs what board are we on. They're different genres with different focuses. Besides tolkien was just a little racist. Star trek has more anthropology but still it's focus is intellectual. Dresden files is about heroism superheroism in fact. A closer fandom analogy would be marvel. But an even closer one is the actual aztec mayan and inca cultures for Red Court. Etruscan roman greek for white
 Slavic russian and lower germanic cultures for black court.