[Spoilers Throughout]

Castlevania (the show) isn't subtle about its themes and major conflicts. There are two primary warring and powerful factions, the church and the vampires. There are some parallels to our largest political constituencies, but the metaphor doesn't hold perfectly. Both factions are explicitly interested in wiping out the other. At worst, our factions might believe that the other is broadly responsible in damning our world, either through climate change or various kinds of sin (even if to some, bringing on the "end times" is still, a perverse teleological desire).

But if we strip the nuance of our reality and the overt brutality in Castlevania, we're left with two worlds that each incorporate two fundamentally incompatible visions for society, in terms of values as well as what it would mean to flourish.

Another stark difference between Castlevania and our reality is that in Castlevania, neither the church nor the vampires need any help from the commoners. There is no need for popular support amongst these powerful, magical groups. The vampires draw their power from raising armies of converted humans (either by vampire conversion or by forging corpses into demons) and drawing strength directly from drinking blood. The church rules a bit more clearly from a rhetoric of fear, and a few demonstrations of magic. Any proximity to science, in their view, diminishes the church's role and is handled violently as in the witch trials.

By season two, we're beyond any hope for common ground. Presumably, a time could have existed for well-meaning intermediaries to broker a deal, once you burn Dracula's wife, he apparently loses all sense of moderation and just wants to kill all the humans.

Beyond "Both Sides"

We're not past the point where all of our leaders are unmoved by suffering or polling numbers, but calls for "civility" and an "end to divisiveness" can only ring hollow if we don't have proper representation. This would mean not only all citizens having the right, but also the information to vote. At the very least, it would mean that all votes, even if cast imperfectly or for leaders who can't address every majority or minority concern, are counted.

Silently hoping that your side makes progress in either securing the borders or staving off the world being uninhabitable in 12 years can both be felt sincerely, even if the former relies on appealing to the worst aspects of our national identity and the latter relies on listening to 97% of scientists regarding climate change.

But why would either group, in feeling a ludicrous (even if sincerely felt) or justified existential threat, be quiet and polite to the other? Who, if not the leaders, would be responsible for setting the tone as well as the actions, that demonstrate empathy for all the citizenry?

Calls for passivity and erosion of voting rights are not only morally wrong but strategically wrong because they reveal that the "consent of the governed" is no longer valued (or even necessary) by the government. We're in a mostly-cold civil war now, with pockets of stochastic terrorism.

It's convenient to think things would be better if "our side" would just win, and while this is extremely true for certain issues, it would not fix everything (See SF's homelessness crisis or California's wildfires that are not helped by . At every level (from local to federal), we've had governments controlled by either party. All of the problems don't disappear when either has been in power.

The Moderates of Dracula's Court

They act in self-interest. The first concern is that a full elimination of humans should be done tactically to avoid stretching forces too thin. The second concern raised by viking-vampire Godbrand is more personal, a worry that after all the humans are dead, he'll be stuck with pig's blood, which causes him gastrointestinal issues.

We have these "moderates" now, from war profiteers to literal blood-drinking capitalists who are happy to see the world burn if they can sell the matches/escape to Mars (or Hawaii or New Zealand)/figure out how to cure death for themselves and possibly a few other rich people along the way.

These moderates might be compelled by their own condition, but as a populace, let alone a citizenry, we do not prosper through them.

The moderates in Castlevania turn inward, and stage a coup against Dracula. The oped made flesh. This internal resistance is useful as it culls a majority of Dracula's forces, leaving him vulnerable to...

The Heroes in Castlevania

The average villagers are far from equipped to take on either the church or the vampires. They may sit around the pub complaining about either, but since they have no power to affect anything, it will stop at complaining.

The "Speakers" spend their lives hearing and telling stories. These ethnographers preserve thoughts, villages, and whole societies, which is convenient when whole towns are wiped out by vampires every night. The Speaker Sypha knows magic as well, so she can play an offensive role as well as a defensive one.

Belmont is a bit more complicated. His family has a history of a genocidal approach to vampires, and while he personally has a strong drive to fight them, he'd probably be just as happy if they existed but left everyone (especially him) alone. In the end, he gives the entire Belmont keep to Alucard, the half-vampire, who also inherits/takes, Dracula's castle.

With both libraries, and not only with empathy to, but being physically constructed as half-human and half-vampire, Alucard has the potential to lay the ground-work for a new society. And he can turn into a wolf and telepathically control his sword, so he should be able to defend the world's knowledge effectively. But I guess we'll find out in Season 3.

Positive Values

What's striking about the heroes is that they join together to stop a genocide, but through positive interpretations of their roles.

At the core of their motivations, while fighting Dracula's fascism, they do so in service to human flourishing. This is reflected not only in their saving lives, but in careful preservation of the science, medicine, history, and magic contained within the libraries.

Part of what enables this is they aren't stuck in hierarchies that issue orders to them. They could attach themselves as such, and be vulnerable to entering what Milgram describes as the "agentic state," peforming their roles semi-robotically, if the following conditions were present:

1. The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to  direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate.
2. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

Undoubtedly, all three heroes could find themselves fighting not only the vampires, but also against the church (or even a rogue Speaker faction or Belmont family reunion that got out of hand) if it was on a similar rampage. They happen to be against vampires because they're the ones doing all the genocide, and that's the problem.

The call of the Speaker is to preserve cultures, which doesn't work if all the humans die. There are chances for Sypha to be antagonistic towards the books that she finds, as they are secondary sources (which is not in her job description, but neither is magic), but she embraces them. She could be overly excited or extractive with her duties to preserve culture when it is under threat, but she doesn't, because even if there was a leader Speaker telling her to act like a war profiteer, she'd probably avoid it.  

The easiest path for Alucard would be to join Dracula, but his humanity itself (which he gets from his mom) as well as her values, make him reject that brand of extremism.

Belmont could take a hard-line against anything vampire related, and only be satisfied if he can kill Alucard. He could join with the church and rage against anything that looks like a machine, demon, or vampire, but he doesn't do this. Mostly, he wants things to be calm enough for him to adventure, drink, or ride in a carriage with Sypha to live out a peaceful life together... but will they? Again, I guess we'll have to wait till Season 3.

In our world, we can apply all of the same positive values as found in Castlevania:

• Protect life
• Protect knowledge
• Protect cultures
• Have values beyond your job or upbringing
• Seek common cause with affinity groups
• Learn how to turn into a wolf and use ice magic if you can

And fighting and resisting fascism can be seen as a positive itself. "It's not enough to be against something, you have to be for something" is fine idea if it inspires additional positive values, but as a call for civility, it is nonsense. It is a positive value to reject genocide at home or abroad. If either "side" wants to water down that instinct, it needs to be resisted, perhaps differently, and proportionally in a way that makes tactical sense, but resisted nonetheless.