Welcome to Gaia! ::

Wow, well Satien is not a hero really. And God's not evil. Where did you here this?

@8Koala_Princess8 I haven't heard it I've observed it.

@ Dr 42 I see your point but still have to disagree. A monster is a monster. Dracula and the vampires are evil creatures driven by lust and their desire for blood. Like I said they are saved by people killing the vampire not the human. When the vampire is killed the human soul is saved. It's kind of like with demon possession the person doesn't choose that and when the demon is in possession of that persons body they are monsters but the demon is evil not the person. Monsters stay monsters and heroes stay heroes.

this is true, and we are.
i mean, as humans we are fallen, we are innately sinners, so in a way we are these bad creatures who are fighting to do good.

But there are so many, Spawn just came to mind, what about the hero being tempted. It all is part of what guides us, stories can further our knowledge of what is good and evil. But also what makes us human.

I think it goes a lot further back than that. In terms of books about the supernatural, you might be right, but just looking at "bad" or "evil" people being made into admirable characters, that specific literary device lies in the role of anti-heros.

Look at the character Faust, for example. The guy bargains away his soul for immortality, but in the end, is granted salvation when he changes his ways.

It's not necessarily that we always admire these characters, but rather, we sympathize with them.



I think the important thing to remember about these people is their actions, as it is our actions that define us, is it not? Aren't we to be judged by whether or not we produce good fruit?

In a lot of the new vampire stories, it's not that the authors think it's unfair for a person who isn't evil to turn evil, but rather they think the story is more interesting if the creature is seen as evil, but really isn't. In these cases, they're not twisting morals to make us see bad things as good. After all, what makes a person bad? Is it who they are or what they do?

I don't think it's an attempt to twist morals at all. I think it's an attempt to write an interesting story.



I disagree with this. I mean, the line of good and evil is always blurry when talking about the whole person. When we talk about a specific action, there's generally a pretty solid line between right and wrong, with maybe a few blurry patches here and there. However, when talking about whether a person is good or evil, it's all blurry. Each and every one of us is a mixture of good and bad actions, thoughts, tendencies, and desires. Nobody we know is 100% good, and nobody we know is 100% bad. I mean, even if you were to look at some of the most terrible people in history (Stalin, Hitler, etc), I'm sure you could find a few good actions or desires in their lives.

So when we take a look at fictional creatures, we can say that they are either 100% good or 100% bad if that fits our purpose. However, a lot of the times, especially when trying to make one of those creatures a lead character, that doesn't work very well. The reason is that we can't really relate very well to characters like that. We have no basis of comparison.

Fantasy stories have a long history of trying to show human faults and human virtues through the use of non-human elements. Books that take evil creatures and make them good are simply doing the same thing.

For example, let's take a look at any vampire story that has good vampires. In those stories, the vampires have a constant temptation: blood. This can be seen as a metaphor for pretty much any temptation you or I would have. Even though the vampires have these dark desires, they resist. They don't kill the pretty female protagonist and drink the blood of every human around. They resist the temptation to do evil. And isn't that exactly what God calls us to do every day of our lives?



Now this is something I have seen in literature, but I don't think it's an attempt to make the lines blurry. I think it's an attempt to show how the author already thinks that line is blurry. I hang out in the M&R subforums a lot, and from time to time, you do get a lot of people trying to put a spin on things to make God out to be a bad guy and Satan out as to being our ally. It's kind of silly really. They accept our myths about Satan trying to make mankind fall from Grace (and then spin the fall into being a good thing in whichever way they choose), but completely ignore the myths about Satan hating all humans. It's the finest example of cherry picking I've ever come across.

Of course, there is a middle ground: Making the devil both evil and a bit sympathetic. As far as story telling goes, it's a great idea. I mean, nobody likes to just say, So-and-so is evil, and that's that. There's no reason for it. They just are. We can't relate to that, and it's just not interesting. We want to know WHY someone would be evil, WHY they would turn their backs on everything good, and HOW they could possibly do the things they do without remorse.

However, if you look at a lot of those characters, the books aren't necessarily saying that they are justified in their evil. Rather, they are saying that their actions are justified because they're not really evil.

Take Wicked for example. In the end of the story, when the Wicked Witch supposedly sends bees, crows, and a dog to attack Dorothy and friends, we find out that she was really sending the animals to help bring Dorothy and friends to the castle. It wasn't meant to be an evil action at all. Furthermore, the reason she has been labeled as wicked isn't because of her actions, but rather because of her political outspokenness regarding granting civil liberties to talking animals.

Or look at Twilight. The characters are seen as evil vampires, but they don't drink human blood or kill people. They're misunderstood because everyone thinks they're doing evil things, but they really aren't. (well, that is until you get into the subtext and abusive relationship stuff, but let's not go into that here...)