As I posted in a similar thread.
If you listen to Serana she has been a vampire since sometime in the first era so it is plausible for the pure bloods in the castle to be the first of their kind. It isn't impossible for the thin bloods to have developed differently over the hundreds of years living in the wilds as exiles just as any other creature would eventually adapt to survive best in its environment. For all we know Volkihar could be Harkons surname and the exiles just kept and used the name Volkihar being it is where the disease originated. Also as Werewolf&Vampire stated vampires are quite territorial even Count Hassildor states this in Oblivion where he wants you to kill the vampires encroaching on his territory stating that he doesn't care if they are his kin or not he doesn't want them anywhere near his turf.

The word 'evil' is probably the most inappropriate word that has ever been used on the internet, and I would never use it in any serious way.
I do think that in the context of The Elder Scrolls there is some basis for making distinctions between moral choices, though. There are characters who can be judged to have knowingly made negative moral choices, and others who have avoided what they considered to be poor choices. Most of the characters in the game would think that they're 'right', but if you took the opinions of all the characters in the game there would probably be a consensus of 'right' and 'wrong' that would be similar to modern RL society. Most NPCs would probably think that it would be 'wrong' if they were attacked for no reason, for example.

When it comes to Vampires the game makes it easy to play a 'good' character who can exist without harming others, just as you can choose to go around killing innocents (except children ) if you wish. I doubt the average NPC in Skyrim would consider killing innocents to be something they felt neutrally about.

I think Betheseda should add more backround to the Skyrim vampires. Afterall, they've based a DLC on them. I am the lord of the most powerful vampire clan and it would be nice to know if me and my homeboys are Volkihar or not. It just feels like they left out alot of vampire lore.

You and Harkon and his goons are not the strongest vampire clan.

They are in SKyrim, apparently. He himself says this.

"We are among the most powerful vampires in Skyrim."

I know that, but that does not mean they are the strongest vampire clan, like how Lorzan said. Plus, I doubt him and his group are the only purebloods, so there are probably some in Tamriel stronger than him and his posse.

[censored] please you get my point. It doesn't matter, because that was not what my statement was based on.

Oh of course there are other purebloods. Rare, albeit, still present. I just think people assume Harkon is the ONLY badass vampire out there, along with his family, because they are pureblooded. But to some vampires outside of Harkon's group, it is public knowledge that their kind began with Bal and Lamae, and thus the tradition goes beyond Skyrim.

Calm down sir, that sort of attitude will get you in trouble.

^This. However, I think that Harkon's court are Volkihar vampires but just another or a new generation. My theory is that those powers described in the lore are long lost forgotten and the new volkihars became more civilized. Just my theory.

I wouldn't go as far to say all vampires are evil. Its like saying all Lions and wolves are evil because they eat other living creatures, I mean would a deer consider a pack of wolves evil? Would it have any concept of what evil is ?

Serana is not evil nor is her mother, Lord Harkon is though because of what he wishes to acomplish. Movarth (the vampire in the swamps near Morthal city. ) He is evil as he is out to control the settlement for his own entertainment and food source.

Yeah well I disagree. Wolves don't become wolves by choise, but Vampires do.

Not all vampires choose to become a vampire, look at Count Hassildor and his wife in Oblivion.

True

I think "evil" is something that progresses in degrees. Hitler was evil but was not always so - he became evil. I certainly would not call Serana evil, unnatural maybe (the whole daedric magic versus Aedric world thing). Harkon was evil, as was Vyrthur (sp?).

On the other hand it does appear the vampires of Castle Volkihar engage in not only blood-drinking but some form of cannibalism - some of the vamps chew on the thralls on the table. I kind of feel like eating a living thing is pretty [NUMINIT] evil.

We don't know if he wanted to become a vampire or not. He just embraced the changes that came along with him. His wife, however, didn't. That's all we know.

haha people do it all the time!

People eat beating frogs heart for example

Just because something is common doesn't mean it isn't evil.

But then... everything is evil almost.

Animals eat animals, some only will eat it if it is still alive. Other kills it, then begin to eat it.

People who don't follow those just have the meat saved for later for them.

Okay, you got me there.

No wait! It's evil because as a sentient being you would understand the suffering you're inflicting while an animal (presumably) wouldn't. Ha!

Okay that's pretty lame too.

Still, the point I was trying to make is that maybe a vampire isn't evil because they feed on the living, but a vampire who enslaves thralls for feeding could be considered evil (slavery etc).

Good and Evil depends on the persons perception. What I may see as good some of you may see as evil, its all down to how we as individuals see the world around us.
Ghengis Khan was he an evil warmonger or was he a devoted father and leader of his people ? In this instance I would say he was a honourable man with good intentions. Its just that the era he lived in the things we read about may seem extreme but back then it was a different world where life was cheap and fast.

A Vampire who never kills its food source or only kills those who are not innocent evil or good ?

How can one thing be evil just because of what it is ?
Being evil is dependant on its actions not its nature, if it enslaves thralls and kidnaps people to feed on then its safe to say its evil. But if it lived a peacful life and only took blood from those who gave it willing or from Bandits out in the wild would it still be evil ?

We could say that all humans are evil because we eat other living things whether they are animals or plants, thats if your saying " because they drink the blood of humans they must be evil." Doesn't matter if its a sentiant being the upshot of it is in Skyrim and other fictional media Vampires are the top of the food chain reguardless if they was born or turned. Humans say they are evil creatures because its born out of a fear to survive and live past the encounter.

This is the truth of it.

Honestly I don't think it's necessarily evil. It's an act forced for survival If you do it and act as a glutton or view everything with little respect then it can become evil, such as just viewing people as food and toys.

Animals typically kill and eat when hungry, and they just get it over with. They don't sit their beating something for fun normally.

People for example, do have some who would willingly beat animals for entertainment which would be considered a negative act.
But most people will willingly eat an animal, but also respect it when they find a live one in nature when survival is not important.

Maybe Bethesda was lazy and cut a bunch of Volkihar lore out of DG to save time and money. Also maybe people who believe the Volkihar vampires are not actually volkihar are just contrarians with a superiority complex that feel the need to be different, because when they go against the norm thy believe they are of a higher level of thinking and transcend everyone else. But when someone gives factual evidence against them, they get upset and start spamming and yelling a lot to hide their obvious poor debating skills and stupidity.

As opposed to the people who do not bother to bring foundations, or even any reasoning at all, to their argument and instead just try to show their side is best by calling the other side names?
Indeed, going so far as to claim 'factual evidence' without providing any?

Im sorry, but by the fundamental rules of debating anyone not on your side has just scored points.