Darla and Question of the Soul

[thrasherpix]

One of the reasons our shows needed a series bible is that there's a lot of contradictory information on souls, especially in regard to vampires. I personally like the idea that vampires are demons that possess corpses as the Watchers claim but given everything shown I have to ultimately dismiss that as Watcher propaganda (useful as it is for those who have to fight vampires).

The main reason is Darla. I just can't get pass her experience and thus concluded that the vampire is their old self, just without conscience. They're transformed (as Spike, and I think Jesse, said), but not as the Watchers say it. At least occasionally they even try to change other loved ones (I can think of two canon examples offhand).

Darla was returned to life as a human with the memories of her former human life and as a vampire. Despite this, she sought to save her own life by finding a vampire to turn her. This means the one who knew the truth more than anyone (having both human and vampire memories) would say becoming a vampire prolongs one's existence. And I just can't look past that in the debate on souls and vampires.

This makes sense of other scenes that I might include later.

I plan to comment on the strongest counterexample in the next post which will probably get merged with this one.

While I focus this on Darla, I mainly intend it as another thread on what a soul is and if vampires are their old selves (transformed as they are, but still not a demon that possesses their undead corpse).

Post automatically merged: Aug 19, 2025

The strongest counterexample is the dream state where Angel and Angelus fight (along with Faith).

I personally don't count that as I've had plenty of dreams when I was younger and conflicted of fighting myself, even with changing dream persona perspectives. Sometimes it was as if I had a twin, and we could be violent against each other in the dream.

So it doesn't strike me as odd that Angelus would have a dream of Angel while under a mystical drug. I'd actually be surprised if someone like Angel/Angelus didn't have dreams/nightmares of the other.

Granted, it was probably another contradiction (and interested in immediate story over continuity) but it's why I discount that arc while including Darla's. And for that reason, I see vampires as being their former selves, however changed (for the worse) the experience might make them.

And I say that wishing I could believe Watcher propaganda.

 

[Stake fodder]

I just can't get pass her experience and thus concluded that the vampire is their old self, just without conscience.

I have always found this question of souls and vampires fascinating. I think you're right, that the series uses "soul" and "conscience" interchangeably. And yet, unsouled vampires are sometimes shown to have a bit of conscience. Spike's protection of Dawn is an example, though I am aware of arguments that he was being just self-serving in that.

 

[thetopher]

The question is would a vampiric spirit necessarily have a separate sense of self/identity from its human host even when it is clearly shaped by and shares the human's host memories. or would it always consider itself a continuation of that human. Angelus, Spike, et all consider themselves Liam+ or William+, the same basic person as before just better
So if the vampiric spirit doesn't have a sense of self then it wouldn't matter if Darla got another vampire to bite and turn her, the process would be the same as before.

The other, less persuasive theory, is that, much like the soul, the vampiric spirit - once bound to the memories- would return to the host human if they underwent the same mystical change that resulted in their vampirism. Just like we assume it is Liam's soul returning to him every time the gypsy curse is cast/broke/recast, which is three times so far, people still agree that its his soul, metaphysically bound to him.

But, to me, the soul comparison doesn't convince; the soul was there first and is bound up with host memories and body and blood, every soul is unique and seems even to have metaphysical value/is currency (people' soul's are sold, bartered and consumed, etc), vampires don't have that value, looked down upon on by other demons.

 

[NotASlayer]

The main reason is Darla. I just can't get pass her experience and thus concluded that the vampire is their old self, just without conscience.

And Angel in Doppelgangland did start to confirm that what a vampire is is based strongly on what the human was. So, the vampire losing the conscience does fit that. Either that, or somehow the possessing demon manages to inherit all the aspects of the dead human, only twist them in some way. Which does seem less plausible.

The strongest counterexample is the dream state where Angel and Angelus fight (along with Faith).

I personally don't count that as I've had plenty of dreams when I was younger and conflicted of fighting myself, even with changing dream persona perspectives. Sometimes it was as if I had a twin, and we could be violent against each other in the dream.

Despite Angelus sometimes behaving as if he was a separate to Angel, I never found that ultimately convincing. Part of Angel, yes, but a part of the whole not separate to it. I found the fight scene to be more metaphorical than anything; the "good" and "bad" sides of the personality fighting each other for dominance. Everyone can end up in situations where they are fighting their urges to do the wrong thing; this was just a visual interpretation of this.

I think you're right, that the series uses "soul" and "conscience" interchangeably. And yet, unsouled vampires are sometimes shown to have a bit of conscience. Spike's protection of Dawn is an example, though I am aware of arguments that he was being just self-serving in that.

A better example would be Spike's behaviour in Family. There, he helps prove that Tara isn't a demon, and that didn't realistically benefit him at all.

But, to me, the soul comparison doesn't convince; the soul was there first and is bound up with host memories and body and blood, every soul is unique and seems even to have metaphysical value/is currency (people' soul's are sold, bartered and consumed, etc), vampires don't have that value, looked down upon on by other demons.

Isn't that looking down on due to their stronger human taint than other demons? It is established that even "pure" demons are tainted, but with vampires, they are still very much human in many ways. It might be that also taints any value a soul might have.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

The problem with citing Orpheus is that it was one episode, and the majority of it took place in a drug addled nightmare. It also is part of an arc that seems to treat Angel and Angelus as multiple personalities, as opposed to sober Angelus with Moral restraints. It's not consistent with Buffy S2, IMHO.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

As far as Darla herself goes, the easy answer is that the memories of the Vampire Darla were implanted in the Soul of Virginia Darla, and Virginia was then incarnated. The magicks of the Senior Partners and the Lower Beings should be enough to do this.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I don't think Darla needed to be turned into a vampire to save her from the syphilis she had as a human. This would have been the earliest strain of syphilis that could be cured easily with penicillin in a matter of a few weeks. The modern strains eat penicillin for breakfast and are virtually incurable, but this would not have been one of those strains. She did not need to be sired to save her life.

 

[maggiie]

The Watchers idea of a complete vampire possession over ones body and soul obviously doesn't hold up very well when you take into account all of the memories and personalities that the vamps all have from their time as a human - especially Darla.

The whole soul debate is very fascinating though, especially as they made it very clear that the difference between an "evil" vampire and a "good" vampire is purely based on the presence of a soul - of which the specific traits were never mentioned ..

My personal idea of it is that the "soul" of a human is their moral compass, values, empathy and connections that the vampires lack. With Darla however, being both human and vampire - with her vampire state lasting the longest, her memories as a vampire would have merged with the ones she had made as a human changing her soul and core values, obscuring her perception of her own fate, which is pretty sad if you think about it ..

But at the same time, Angel was in a very similar situation and still managed to (somewhat) return back to some normalcy after getting back his soul ..

 

[thrasherpix]

Another thing I think about is how easy Willow managed to put a soul in Angelus. That a novice teen with head injuries was able to do that would be terrifying (as what could more experienced and powerful sorcerers do, all without you signing away your soul in blood?), unless the soul/spirit hovers (I presume sleeping or "unconscious") nearby, and that's why even Willow can put a soul back in (as opposed to just grabbing any soul in the hereafter).

This would also explain to me why there was never a ghost trying to warn loved ones that their former body is now a monster and/or seeking someone to end the body thief's existence. I'd think if one could be a ghost (the one dead) as well as a vampire that it would've happened at least once in one or both shows, unless the soul/spirit lingers around the vampire so that it can't also be a ghost (in this case, dusting a vampire may bring the sleeping soul peace once freed of the demonic chains).

And that matches more than one vampire who says they're not sorry for having been changed and how they never felt better (I can think of examples from seasons 1 to 7 of Buffy). Because they've been changed into something demonic, not taken over by something demonic. (Vaguely like how Cordelia didn't lose her identity, and I presume her soul in her case, when she became part demon.)

 

[NotASlayer]

The whole soul debate is very fascinating though, especially as they made it very clear that the difference between an "evil" vampire and a "good" vampire is purely based on the presence of a soul - of which the specific traits were never mentioned ..

And this is a strange argument for the show to make at the best of times. Buffy went up against lots of evil people with souls; the Zookeeper, Gwendolyn Post, Warren to name just a few. And these are normal people with souls; they don't have the fundamental urge to go around eating people. The idea that a soul will magically make a vampire into a good person just doesn't work.

I think it's also been pointed out that if all it took to make a vampire good was a soul, then that should have been looked for as a solution, rather than killing them all. Especially if...

Another thing I think about is how easy Willow managed to put a soul in Angelus. That a novice teen with head injuries was able to do that

This would also explain to me why there was never a ghost trying to warn loved ones that their former body is now a monster and/or seeking someone to end the body thief's existence. I'd think if one could be a ghost (the one dead) as well as a vampire that it would've happened at least once in one or both shows, unless the soul/spirit lingers around the vampire so that it can't also be a ghost (in this case, dusting a vampire may bring the sleeping soul peace once freed of the demonic chains).

Good point. There absolutely should have been cases of lingering dead around warning people. Yes, most would have passed on, but not all of them.

And that matches more than one vampire who says they're not sorry for having been changed and how they never felt better (I can think of examples from seasons 1 to 7 of Buffy). Because they've been changed into something demonic, not taken over by something demonic. (Vaguely like how Cordelia didn't lose her identity, and I presume her soul in her case, when she became part demon.)

The vampire is perhaps less demonic than the soul being freed from all bounds (the moral compass as @maggiie puts it) without having to worry about how they will feel in the morning. Pure sociopathy I think.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

My head canon is that the Demon Blood "preserves" the human memories during the last moments of life. The less blood the vampire takes, and the more it contributes, the more sane the newly risen vampire will be. The comics also had an intelligent demon from hell posesses the body afterwards, it was weird.

Eh, as long as the Demon gets your memories, it's going to be very difficult to tell where you end and the demon begins, philosophically speaking. However, the Watchers are primarily concerned with you understanding the the vampire isn't your dead friend or relative, and helping you to kill them.

 

[Stake fodder]

The Watchers idea of a complete vampire possession over ones body and soul obviously doesn't hold up very well when you take into account all of the memories and personalities that the vamps all have from their time as a human - especially Darla.

My take on it was that the demon was possessing and using the human's brain, so therefore remembered all the human's memories and personality traits. However, why does the demon have no memory of its previous existence, before inhabiting a human? This is getting away from the discussion of the soul, though, sorry!

 

[thetopher]

It's also helpful to consider how we perceive the mechanics of vampirism in BtVS; we can look at is as possession of a definitive entity or a type of demonic infection that kills and then reanimates you with superpowers and a thirst for blood.
The loss of soul- due to death- is a nasty side effect that leads to many bad moral decisions.

The thing is vampires are more than just 'moral compass-less' people who view humans as meals, they are more often than not often inventively sadistic and cruel, which leads itself to the idea of possessed by evil rather than just 'the absence of morality'.

 

[NotASlayer]

The thing is vampires are more than just 'moral compass-less' people who view humans as meals, they are more often than not often inventively sadistic and cruel, which leads itself to the idea of possessed by evil rather than just 'the absence of morality'.

I know it isn't the best idea to talk about psychological terms without any training 😀 but absence of morality might be considered sociopathy. Taking pleasure in sadism and cruelty is, I think, psychopathy on top of that. Though being possessed by evil is certainly possible - as in in-universe answer - humans are perfectly capable of such all by themselves without needing to be possessed by a demon.

Which total lack of clarity says that both being possessed by a demon or losing all of the things that stop humans from being monsters daily are both possible reasons.

 

[Plasma]

And Angel in Doppelgangland did start to confirm that what a vampire is is based strongly on what the human was. So, the vampire losing the conscience does fit that. Either that, or somehow the possessing demon manages to inherit all the aspects of the dead human, only twist them in some way. Which does seem less plausible.

I think it’s more that the vampiric essence can’t really change the form of a thing, just inhabit it.

Like Sunday is a good example. We meet her, she’s a total hoe and a stereotypical mean girl. The vampire-self doesn’t really have the capacity to take her and turn her into some huge literary mastermind who quotes Shakespeare. It just removes the inhibitions and grants great power.

I never got the sense that someone who was vamped was going to become something new entirely. It was more that they just embodied their worst possible selves whilst still retaining the bones of their personality.