An Argument for Barnabas...

Just watched Angel, it's an ep where Darla turns him then he kills his father.
I know (in theory) about 'fathers & sons', but I don't understand why Angel would kills his mother and his kid sister too.

We know Barnabas did not kill Sarah nor Naomi. Yes, they did die, hmm, due to him/his condition, but no way would I picture Barn hurting Sarah or Naomi.

What age did we (a while back) 'suppose' Barn to be during the 1795 storyline?

Barnabas was self-absorbed (but, one could argue nurture/nature; he was the 'landed gentry') but again, not hurt his Mom or sister. (Was there a hint that if Joshua didn't chain Barn, Barn 'might' bite Joshua?)

Patti

Barnabas and Jeremiah, in the 1795 storyline, were about the same age, even though Jeremiah was Joshua's brother. I'm guessing they were both supposed to be in their 30s, and pushing it, late 20s.

As for any inference that Barnabas might "bite" Joshua if Joshua didn't chain him up, I can only say no. Joshua was supposed to actually kill Barnabas. However, at the last minute, he couldn't do it. Instead, he instructed Ben to chain up the coffin while Barnabas slept and place it in that secret room in the mausoleum.

The vamps on Angel and Buffy are different from Barnabas.
On Angel and Buffy when a person is killed and turned into a
vampire their souls leave their body and a demon takes over
their bodies. And being demons they do the most evil things
they can.
But Barnabas is still himself as a vampire. He still loves those
people he loved in life.

On Angel and Buffy when a person is killed and turned into a
vampire their souls leave their body and a demon takes over
their bodies. And being demons they do the most evil things
they can.

Really?   That's not very interesting is it?   I knew there were good reasons that I prefer DS.

That's not very interesting is it?   I knew there were good reasons that I prefer DS.

Actually, it's very interesting when the soul is reintroduced and has to coexist with the demon. But that's a discussion more suited for a Buffy/Angel board. 

The vamps on Angel and Buffy are different from Barnabas.
On Angel and Buffy when a person is killed and turned into a
vampire their souls leave their body and a demon takes over
their bodies. And being demons they do the most evil things
they can.
But Barnabas is still himself as a vampire. He still loves those
people he loved in life.

There is something we all forgot. Barnabas had no problem killing his Aunt Abigail

There is something we all forgot. Barnabas had no problem killing his Aunt Abigail

SPOILER ALERT:

Abigail died of heart failure before Barnabas laid a hand on her, but I guess he was somewhat responsible for that.  I figured he never was very close to Abigail anyway. Naomi and Sarah, on the other hand, he loved very deeply and would never have laid a finger on either of them.

SPOILER ALERT:

Abigail died of heart failure before Barnabas laid a hand on her, but I guess he was somewhat responsible for that.  I figured he never was very close to Abigail anyway. Naomi and Sarah, on the other hand, he loved very deeply and would never have laid a finger on either of them.

I forgot about that. I guess I was thinking about the 1991 revival series.

But I think Barnabas pretty much admitted to Joshua that he would have killed Abigail if she hadn't so conveniently died first.  So, Barnabas is forgiven for murderous intentions towards Abigail but held accountable for a certain much-discussed and mucher-deplored event in 1897?

I don't think that Barnabas would have ever considered biting Joshua and turning him into a vampire, much less anyone else in his family. The nature of his curse and Angel's curse are completely and utterly different. As someone already pointed out, vamps on B&A go soulless, as demons who are just evil things who do bad stuff because they want to have some giggles. Barnabas, on the other hand, while being "evil", was not evil per se. He had his moments, of course, but if we compare him to Angel, I think its fairly safe to say that Barnabas was in possession of his "soul" or "conscience" during his vampirism. Angel did very naughty things while having his soul, and Barnabas did equally, if not worse, things while supposedly being on the side of "good".

One of the things that makes the vampire lore so interesting are the varying degrees of interpretation that can be attached to it. I don't watch Moonlight, but from what I've been reading about it, while it shares similar things to previous vampire shows, like Angel, it is, in fact, quite different, and has a different set of rules by which Mick St. John can exist. If I recall, before the show went into reruns because of the strike, Mick was human because of some potion or spell, at least that's what I read. That happened in DS, when Lang cured Barnabas, but never happened in Angel or Buffy as far as I can remember.