Do we even need to justify vampires? They kill people to live off their blood to survive. Predator' shouldn't be judged. Harkon on the other hand wants to blot out the sun. I don't believe its evil, I just think it is unethical.

Yup my opinion as well a human have every right to kill vampires, vampires hunt humans for food humans and humans fight to survive and if the human survives good for them. Its simple survival nothing good or evil about it.

However vampires don't need to kill to feed, after all the vampires in the castle have human "cattle", which they can feed upon, without killing/infecting them.

Not the same as the lions, so PLEASE don't compare creatures like lions who just kill on instinct (they can't think in there heads, "do i have to kill this animal, or can i just nible on it and keep it alive") with vampires who are intelligent self-aware creatures.

That's like comparing a lion killing a deer, to a man murdering a Man. Does the man have to murder a man (not referring to war situations or self-defense)? No, but a lion HAS to kill animals to survive.

Vampires are not human they are undead/half daedra.

There you go. Humans are prey. Vampires are humanoid predators. Western society has muddied "morality"

Still sapient and were human and still have human minds, they don't lose their brains once they turn.

But they lose their original genes. They no longer need to regular food. They have to feed off of people. Its what they do.

"Evil is a word used on those who would threaten us."

I won't debate this, since it is not the topic.

I have no problem with evil, hell I would indulge it more if I could, I'm just saying that vampires have choices, feeding is survival and like a leech, they do not need to kill, they can live off someone for ages if they take proper care. Problem is that when some people become vampires, they hate what they become and refuse to feed, ironically they end up becoming more vicious and feral due to the insanity that lack of feeding causes. Feeding is not evil, it is not even unethical but the choice to let their prey live or die is just that, choice and does fall to morality of the vampire.

Feeding = natural part of vampirism.
killing or sparing the prey = personal choice.

Evil does exist.....just because you don't think it does, doesn't mean it isn't there.

And im not saying feeding off people is evil, im saying feeding on a person until they are dry of blood and die is, because it is a CHOICE, if that happens. Im not saying vampires are evil if they feed, they are evil if they feed but choose to kill there victims as well (for various reasons, perhaps they don't want witness, want to keep a low profile, or perhaps just take pleasure in killing, they get there "kicks" out of it). Most vampires are not evil because they drink human blood, they are evil because most of them kill the victim to feed, and most of them have some sadistic pleasure in drinking and killing there victims, heck in vampire lairs (including the castle) they have pieces of the human body, which means they have chopped people up, which is something they don't need to do for survival, but seem to do it anyways.

I believe that Harkon and his family aren't of the Volkihar strand but when they started spreading their Vamprism it caused the Volkihar strand to come about, an example would be if Harkon infects a traveler not everything will be "passed down" so to speak and if the traveler infects someone not everything will be passed down and eventually it came down to the basic Volkihar Strand that we know to look like monsters. So with that in mind I believe Sybille to be personally infected by a Pure Blood and that is why she isn't automatically outed as a vampire. Just my opinion might be terribly wrong but whatever lol, it'd also explain why when your character becomes a vampire they take on some bat like changes as the water has been "muddied". This is how I think it works1st generation(pure bloods) could look normal in human form and have vl form 2nd generation(infected by 1st gen) vamps could keep the vl form with some facial change in human form while 3rd generation(infected by 2nd gen) loses vl form but keeps normal human form to 4th generation(infected by 3rd gen) that loses human form and takes on bat like facial changes which would be where the widely known description for the Volkihar come from with not being able to blend in and being monsters etc. Sorry this post is all over the place I came up with these ideas as I wrote them lol, no I might not be a lore buff but I think this makes sense

The PC doesn't get the bat face no matter what stage your in.

I know the PC doesn't get the bat face but that's probably an oversight or something on Beth's part as they probably assumed everyone would want to be a vampire lord if they planned to be a vampire at all so they made the PC only look like a 2nd generation vampire(going of my idea here) even if infected by a 4 gen vamp, I'm sure my idea is all types of flawed but its the best I could come up with, to explain everything lol

The PC is a second gen vampire though and is bitten by harkon who is a pure blood.

They are all volkihar, harkon and his family are just the progenitors. Strains of vampirism don't just happen through random siring, it happens when molag bal himself creates a vampire, said vampire would be different to other bloodlines and he or she will be the first of its kind, a progenitor and a pure-blood, when it sires a progeny, it starts a bloodline which becomes less purer with each generation. The first two or perhaps even three generations would have more gifts and than later generations.

Well (takes out crossbow), looks like I'm goin vamp hunting. Thank you guys for revealing this. I barely ever go to the Solitude palace after I'm Thane, and hadnt had the chance to see her after Dawnguard as of late, but NOW I have a reason.

Post limit.