I Am The Law: Ethics And Morality In The Buffyverse

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Per Mya Stone's instructions in the UO thread, I'm resurrecting this topic from TWOP because of reasons.

 

The debate about The Lie has raged since May 19th, 1998, which makes me feel old because I've carried the 'Xander Wasn't Wrong' battle flag without shame since then. But this topic won't be focused just on The Lie, I hope, but rather all aspects of morality as it relates to the show.

 

I don't think it can be disputed that Buffy was initially a very good Slayer. We saw her patrolling and slaying vampires as soon as they crawled out of their graves, and the scene where she's fighting Mr, Sanderson from the bank while Joyce cheers her on remains one of my favorite mother-daughter bonding moments, no matter how much the daughter in question didn't want her mother there. The point was, vampires were dangerous, it was Buffy's job to make sure they didn't harm anyone, and she tended to her business efficiently.

 

But because she was also human, which at first was one of her greatest assets because it led her to form friendships and want a life outside of Slaying, she made mistakes, and those mistakes had consequences. Her emotional attachment to Angel led her to forbid Kendra to stake him, which indirectly led to Kendra's death, and directly to Jenny Calendar's. Granted, she was a young girl who was in love, but I don't think that should have been the first consideration, either then or now. Isn't she the one who went off alone to face The Master, knowing that she'd probably die? That's being The Law.

 

By the end of the show, however, she isn't so much The Law as she is an arbitrary judge, usually siding with whoever she's having whatever kind of relationship with. So what happened? I know it was bad writing, but it's all a matter of writing, even The Lie, which happened back when the show was awesome. Xander's been pilloried for sixteen years for making the kind of decision that Buffy made all the time, and he did it because she'd proven IMO that she lacked the resolve to follow through. And that turns into an avalanche that takes the entire show down with it. So is she The Law or not?

[Jack Shaftoe]

I still wonder why the narrative and (it seems) most of the fandom is so much in favour of Buffy deciding Angel's fate. It is grossly unfair to Buffy and even more unfair to the people of Sunnydale in general. I mean, Buffy was not only very much biased in the situation, but she was the only human being in town who could match Angel's strength. So, basically she was more or less safe. Everybody else was prey. So maybe Xander was tired of waiting for Angel to try to finish what he started in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (namely, murdering Xander). Frankly, Buffy's track record when having to play judge, jury and executioner to people she cares about is appalling. The only reason Angel, Spike, Anya, Willow, Vamp Willow, etc. didn't do a lot more damage thanks to Buffy's leniency is writer fiat. And don't get me started on her mind-blowingly stupid attitude in The Gift - "few minutes of "my sister's" are worth the lives of everyone in the world". Can anyone honestly say that if they lived in the Buffyverse they would want Buffy to be making the tough decisions when it comes to people close to her? Talk about playing with fire.

 

Not that I think many would have done better if having to take decisions of this kind - which is exactly why the characters' willingness of allowing Buffy to make them without much in the way of protest comes as very contrived. For instance, I would have loved it if in The Gift, Giles and the rest had told Buffy "We are not dying for Dawn, sorry" and allowed Dawn to jump from that tower. It would have not only avoided the logic fallacy of "Summers blood" and the resurrection nonsense but Buffy's resentment towards them in the next season would have felt much more organic.

[SparedTurkey]

 

I still wonder why the narrative and (it seems) most of the fandom is so much in favour of Buffy deciding Angel's fate. It is grossly unfair to Buffy and even more unfair to the people of Sunnydale in general.

For me, I think the difference is that Buffy was the leader. It was her responsibility to dispatch the vamps and the forces of darkness. (And CoStar, I agree that she was better at it earlier, brief moments of immaturity notwithstanding). While I know one of the main themes of the show was that Buffy was stronger with her friends, at the end of the day it was up to her to fight. None of the scoobies (with the exception of Willow, later on) could have done what she did. Buffy, imo, was the general.

 

Put it this way (this is the last thing I'll say about The Lie): What if, following the plot, Buffy wasn't told about Willow's spell. Angelus opens Acathla. Gets his soul back. Does no one think that maybe, maybe, it was particularly dangerous in letting Buffy be blindsided like that? What if it took her a few minutes to get her equilibrium back, and in the meantime Sunnydale is Hoovered into Hell (tm CoStar!). She wasn't previously ready to kill Angelus before, perhaps when push comes to shove, she wouldn't have been ready to kill Angel either. If the main argument is that knowing about the potential spell would be dangerous, I can't see why Buffy not knowing about the spell is not equally dangerous.

 

But I agree that in later seasons Buffy went with the flow, and didn't seem to be much of The Law. Had she maintained her seasons 1-3 'code' I can't imagine she would have accepted Willow back, or Anya come to think of it. Perhaps her flip-flopy nature was due to her depression issues. Maybe the show just didn't care by that point. But I agree there was a distinct lack of standards.

 

 

, I would have loved it if in The Gift, Giles and the rest had told Buffy "We are not dying for Dawn, sorry" and allowed Dawn to jump from that tower. It would have not only avoided the logic fallacy of "Summers blood" and the resurrection nonsense but Buffy's resentment towards them in the next season would have felt much more organic.

Jack Shaftoe - I don't really understand what you mean by this? They were all about the stopping of Glory weren't they?

[Fat Elvis 007]

Meh, I've never been convinced that Buffy would have actually let the world be destroyed trying to spare Dawn for a few seconds. Before she has her epiphany (which, to be fair, was not well set up) she looks like she is about to accept that Dawn has to jump. Buffy was not in the best mental state at that point, her mother had just died and she was exhausted. I don't blame her for being reluctant to kill her own sister. The fact that Dawn is not her real sister is irrelevant, since Buffy still remembers and feels that she is her sister. And ultimately, Buffy was right; she didn't have to kill Dawn, and found another way.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

For me, I think the difference is that Buffy was the leader. It was her responsibility to dispatch the vamps and the forces of darkness. (And CoStar, I agree that she was better at it earlier, brief moments of immaturity notwithstanding). While I know one of the main themes of the show was that Buffy was stronger with her friends, at the end of the day it was up to her to fight. None of the scoobies (with the exception of Willow, later on) could have done what she did. Buffy, imo, was the general.

 

I agree about the Scoobies not being able to take on Angelus individually, but that doesn't explain away Kendra not being allowed to do anything before Angelus became a problem. Buffy's death in Prophecy Girl meant that the Slayer line no longer went through her, even though it was never acknowledged in canon. And then Kendra's death caused Faith to be called. So Buffy was really only THE Slayer for a little while. What's ironic is that she considered it a burden, yet she was also pretty territorial about it. Perhaps if she had been a little less 'Mine, mine, mine" about it, Faith would have felt less excluded, and its a character flaw the show never explores. If she hated the responsibility so much, why didn't she let someone else take over? In a way that didn't involve forcing the powers on however many unknown girls without their consent, I mean? Which is another unethical thing the writers never bother to consider the implications of.

[SparedTurkey]

 

And then Kendra's death caused Faith to be called. So Buffy was really only THE Slayer for a little while.

I get that but what I mean was out of the scooby gang, she was the only one who really could lay down the law as it were. Changing topics though, I thought it was a good character trait that she was so possessive about being The One and The Best One (until season 7 where it just got irritating). I don't mind heroes that have some kind of bite to them. The show never really explored it in depth, though it got a bit of a show everytime Faith showed up. I didn't mind that she wanted to be special and she was good at it for awhile. Even tempered and with her own moral code. She was (at first anyway) less impulsive than Faith. I think the two of them could have been a pretty good and balanced version of the law and if there was a little less of a pissing contest between the two, it could have worked really well. Sort of like 'The Heat" but with vampires.

 

I agree about the Scoobies not being able to take on Angelus individually, but that doesn't explain away Kendra not being allowed to do anything before Angelus became a problem.

Do you mean when Kendra first rocked up in What's My Line? I'm not gonna lie, I am drawing a blank (I should find my DVDs sometime).

 

In a way that didn't involve forcing the powers on however many unknown girls without their consent, I mean? Which is another unethical thing the writers never bother to consider the implications of.

I will go on record as saying that I don't agree with the view that giving out the slayer power was at all metaphorical for rape. At the end of the day, those girls had the slayer powers but they weren't being forced to do anything with them. No agency was taken away from them, their lives need not have been any different (unless that happens in the comics, which I haven't read). I don't really think it was unethical - more like the idea of putting flouride in water.

 

An open question - what does everyone think the most unethical moment was on the show?

[Loandbehold]

 

An open question - what does everyone think the most unethical moment was on the show?

For me, the most unethical thing was Super!Jonathan commmiting date rape and having no adverse action taken against him. All that happened was that they left the mansion (which wasn't even his) and he's upset about that. Buffy just says, "can you blame them." He's lucky he's not in jail and is all "poor me." The date rape concept was handled much better in Dead Things.

 

If we're talking about unethical acts by the Core 4, then I would put Xander's attempted love spell on Cordelia, which, in itself isn't only unethical, but he adds to it because the reason is so that he could break up with her and she would feel that much worse.

Willow has two off the top of my head. The delusting spell that she was going to use without Xander's knowledge or consent, and the spell she was going to use against Veruca when Veruca was in human form. The show had made a big point that the wereworlf is a human being the other 27 nights (and all 30 - 31 days of the month), so her spell was highly unethical. I'm not including Willow telling Cordelia to "del"iver her computer assignment.

 

Buffy had a few, but making the social worker's boss believe that she was going crazy was pretty bad. The woman was just doing her job, yet that doesn't stop Invisi-Buffy. Hiding Angel was another big one, although that's already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.

 

For Giles, I think it was threatening Snyder to get Buffy back into school. Yes, I cheered Ripper coming out, but it was an ends justify the means behavior.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

For me, I think the difference is that Buffy was the leader. It was her responsibility to dispatch the vamps and the forces of darkness. (And CoStar, I agree that she was better at it earlier, brief moments of immaturity notwithstanding). While I know one of the main themes of the show was that Buffy was stronger with her friends, at the end of the day it was up to her to fight. None of the scoobies (with the exception of Willow, later on) could have done what she did. Buffy, imo, was the general.

 

 

But real life generals do not preside over the court-martial if the defendant happens to be their significant other or a relative, for obvious reasons. Being extremely talented, even indispensable, doesn't make a person any less biased.

 

 

 

Jack Shaftoe - I don't really understand what you mean by this? They were all about the stopping of Glory weren't they?

 

Sadly, no. Buffy even uttered gems like "Remember, the ritual starts, we all die. And I'll kill anyone who comes near Dawn".

 

 

The fact that Dawn is not her real sister is irrelevant, since Buffy still remembers and feels that she is her sister.

 

So then if during Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered somebody had managed to convince all the women that this was a spell and Xander wasn't really the most desirable human being of all time they should have continued fighting amongst themselves anyway since in their minds he was that desirable? Or Buffy should have continued to worship Jonathan anyway?

 

 

 

Buffy was not in the best mental state at that point,

 

 

Which is exactly why she should have been overruled. Well, that and her being wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

 

Loandbehold, I am surprised you didn't pick the Scoobies not giving up Andrew to the police as their most unethical moment. :)

 

To me it's all about their appallingly easy forgiveness of serial killers. This wasn't redemption or forgiveness, this was mostly (plot-induced) horrible insensitivity. One episode Xander threatens Buffy (Buffy!) that he would kill her if something happened to Willow, fast forward two seasons and he hooks up with the serial killer, who among other things almost had Willow killed. Just doesn't compute.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Jack Shaftoe

[Loandbehold]

 

Loandbehold, I am surprised you didn't pick the Scoobies not giving up Andrew to the police as their most unethical moment. :)

Ooh, ooh! I'd like to change my answer.

[Fat Elvis 007]

So then if during Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered somebody had managed to convince all the women that this was a spell and Xander wasn't really the most desirable human being of all time they should have continued fighting amongst themselves anyway since in their minds he was that desirable? Or Buffy should have continued to worship Jonathan anyway?

 

No, that's not at all the same. Buffy being willing to do anything to protect Dawn, and being against the notion of murdering her, is only similar to your examples in that the level of dedication is caused by a spell in all three cases. And even then, the Dawn spell is more indirect than your two examples--the monks didn't use a love spell, they changed Buffy's memories so that Buffy believes Dawn is her sister. Buffy's feelings are exactly what Buffy would feel if those memories were true. Those feelings include love and protectiveness, but they also include a lot of bratty sisterly annoyance as well.

 

And while Dawn's past may be unreal, she is real now, a flesh and blood innocent. And Buffy has spent several months with her, creating new memories, growing to love her in a very real way. By the time Buffy chooses to jump for Dawn, I buy it as a real choice that Buffy is consciously making with her own agency. (And isn't that really what the show is about? Using what was done to you, and overcoming it and making the power your own?)

 

There's also the fact that wanting to protect Dawn is a noble sentiment, and wanting to worship Xander and/or Jonathan is not.

 

Which is exactly why she should have been overruled. Well, that and her being wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

 Except that she wasn't. She was right that killing Dawn wasn't necessary to save the world. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Which is exactly why she should have been overruled. Well, that and her being wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

 

 Except that she wasn't. She was right that killing Dawn wasn't necessary to save the world. 

 

Butt the only reason Buffy was right about not having to kill Dawn was the same reason she was right about a fuckton of things in season seven - because the writers let her be right. By everything that's logical, the last minute solutions of "She's made out of me" and the Amulet of Assitude shouldn't have worked, IMO. Further, the narrative punishes the Scoobies, Faith, and the Potentials for refusing to blindly follow Lady Hacks--Away into battle after Buffy had already gotten some of the girls killed and indirectly got Xander mutilated. So I don't know how I was supposed to take anything away from that except "Even when Buffy is wrong, she's really right, so you'd better just shut up and fall into line."

 

Also, you're kinda-sorta glossing over the part where Buffy said she'd kill anyone who got near Dawn, and I can only presume she meant Giles and the others and not Glory's minions, since it was in Glory's best interest to have Dawn bleed out so the walls of reality would collapse and she could go home. If you notice, there's no blood when Buffy takes that header off the tower, so that would have kept the world intact if Dawn had been the one to jump. I could go on about the dubious wisdom of committing suicide when by everything that makes sense according to Earth logic it shouldn't have worked, but that might not be an actual issue about morality. Common sense, maybe, but not morality.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

There's also the fact that wanting to protect Dawn is a noble sentiment, and wanting to worship Xander and/or Jonathan is not.

 

Love is a noble sentiment too, the way it was expressed in B, B and B was not. Same with wanting to protect Dawn by dooming billions and Dawn (albeit a few minutes later) in The Gift.

 

 

Except that she wasn't. She was right that killing Dawn wasn't necessary to save the world.

 

But this wasn't Buffy's argument at the time - she didn't say "we will find another way", she said "we all die". So even if we accept the Summers blood asspull she still wasn't right when she said that and threatened to kill her friends.

 

 

Buffy's feelings are exactly what Buffy would feel if those memories were true. Those feelings include love and protectiveness, but they also include a lot of bratty sisterly annoyance as well.

 

The love spell wasn't all hugs and puppies for Xander or the women chasing him either. I don't see why Buffy couldn't gave grown to love Dawn after removing the fake memories. But no, this was never even raised as a possibility.

 

 

And isn't that really what the show is about? Using what was done to you, and overcoming it and making the power your own?

 

This would have been achieved by removing the fake memories as well. I like Dawn for the most part. But inflicting more than a decade worth of fake memories on the people close to her is a horrible violation - and completely unnecessary to boot since the last monk spilled the beans about Dawn anyway.

[SilverShadow]

Changing topic slightly, discussion of whether Angel punching Xander unconcious in the Sunnydale streets should be considered "Angel leaving Xander to die" made me think of situations where the writers probably didn't think through the implications of what they were having the characters say and do. In those instances I don't necessarily hold "the characters" accountable, if that makes sense.

 

1. The Angel-pretending-to-be-Angelus Xander punch as ploy to leave Xander to die: For me there are three big reasons I can't buy it. 1) Angel never expresses a desire for his death, even as Fauxgelus. 2) Xander himself, who hates Angel and isn't about to give him the benefit of a doubt for anything doesn't bring it up as a potential outcome. 3) He had a great opportunity to let Faith kill Xander in "Consequences" and he stopped her.

 

2. The length of time Angelus is loose in Sunnydale: I can kind of buy everything up to "Passion", but at the end of the episode Buffy states she's willing to kill him. She's sidelined in "Killed By Death" and "I Only Have Eyes For You" by the illness and the posession respectively, but the narrative seems to be that she just can't find where Angelus is when he's not specifically looking for her, but that stretches disbelief. IOHEFY takes place end of February, there's the last filler epsiode, and suddenly it's May. Honestly I think the arc was very hurt by the show wanting to stay in the ballpark of "real time," and the insistance of having fillerish epsiodes where Angelus just pops his head in all "Yep, still killing people." If the curse was undone at the end of January and "Becoming" took place, say, early March, that's a much tighter and more acceptable timeline.

 

3. Xander being indirectly responsible for people's deaths in "Once More With Feeling" and after finding out being more worried about being Sweet's Queen. Out of character, horrific, and no one brings it up after. 'Nuff said.

Edited October 3, 2014 by SilverShadow

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2. The length of time Angelus is loose in Sunnydale: I can kind of buy everything up to "Passion", but at the end of the episode Buffy states she's willing to kill him. She's sidelined in "Killed By Death" and "I Only Have Eyes For You" by the illness and the posession respectively, but the narrative seems to be that she just can't find where Angelus is when he's not specifically looking for her, but that stretches disbelief. IOHEFY takes place end of February, there's the last filler epsiode, and suddenly it's May. Honestly I think the arc was very hurt by the show wanting to stay in the ballpark of "real time," and the insistance of having fillerish epsiodes where Angelus just pops his head in all "Yep, still killing people." If the curse was undone at the end of January and "Becoming" took place, say, early March, that's a much tighter and more acceptable timeline.

 

They do the wonky timeline thing in season three as well, and both times it makes Buffy look either like a slacker or like not such a wonderful person. The first time is when Angel falls out of  that hole in reality in Faith, Hope & Trick and his presence isn't discovered by a non-Buffy person until Revelations. Now, in real time, only a little over a month elapses, but I don't think it was ever made clear how much time goes by in the show while Buffy lies her face off to everyone, and during that time Oz is suspected of escaping from his cage while changed and killing a couple of people, and she keeps silent about the potential for it to  have been Rabid!Angel that actually did the deed. I suppose I have to be charitable and say that Angel saved her life, but I don't think that balances out the dishonesty, especially when Oz was innocent of what they thought he did.

 

They do it again when the cheese finally slides off of Faith's cracker and she goes to work for the Mayor. Buffy seems to be utterly flummoxed as to how to put a stop to her heel turn until after she poisons Angel, and then it takes Willow all of two minutes to locate her apartment so that the big fight can take place. I think it was Giles who brings up the dead volcano guy, but Buffy doesn't make a move until after her boyfriend gets hurt. Dramatic device or a sign that the Buffster's priorities were a bit out of whack?

 

And having brought up the poisoning, I can't not make mention of the fact that Buffy basically offers her life in exchange for Angel's when she insists that he drink her blood. After she fails in bringing him Faith's corpse to snack on. She was willing to kill herself to save him, knowing that it would leave Sunnydale without a Slayer, because what were the odds that yet another girl would find her way their in the wake of Buffy's death? Dramatic device or proof that when it came to Angel, Buffy couldn't see straight? If Buffy really was "the general", she had no business being willing to die to save him when she knew there wouldn't be anyone to take her place for a while, if someone ever would. And then it happens again in The Gift when she takes that header, and I don't think I have to point out that Spuffy was a direct consequence of it. For someone who was supposed to be "the leader", Buffy makes plenty of unwise decisions, and few people ever directly call her on them save for Xander, who then gets thoroughly excoriated for his "temerity". Because apparently friendship with Buffy means mindlessly agreeing with everything she says and does.

[ladyrott]

She was willing to kill herself to save him, knowing that it would leave Sunnydale without a Slayer, because what were the odds that yet another girl would find her way their in the wake of Buffy's death? Dramatic device or proof that when it came to Angel, Buffy couldn't see straight?

 

Gotta agree with that entire posts and this especially.  Kendra's death called Faith.  Buffy's death no longer mattered when it came to the Slayer line so....even thought Buffy KNEW her death was going to leave the world without a Slayer (since Faith had gone so far off the rails), she was still willing to sacrifice her life for Angels.  Not the actions of someone who is looking out for the "greater good" in any way, shape or form.

[SilverShadow]

It's been a while since I watched Graduation Day, but A) Didn't Buffy believe Faith had died in the fall? And B) didn't she say she thought Angel would stop before he killed her? I don't think she was thinking rationally at the time anyway, but I recall having those impressions. It was still very risky, however.

[ladyrott]

I was never sure if Buffy thought Faith was dead when she fell onto that truck.  Although, I always wondered, if she DID think Faith was dead, why not jump down, chase down the truck, grab the dying body and drag it to Angel?  I never could figure that one out, unless she thought Faith was dead the instant she hit the truck and a dead slayer wouldn't work? 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

It's been a while since I watched Graduation Day, but A) Didn't Buffy believe Faith had died in the fall? And B) didn't she say she thought Angel would stop before he killed her? I don't think she was thinking rationally at the time anyway, but I recall having those impressions. It was still very risky, however.

 

A) If she thought Faith was dead, then it makes it even worse that she'd offer up her own throat to save Angel. How long would it have been before another Slayer could get to Sunnydale, if one ever did? Faith only showed up there because of a particular set of circumstances, as did Kendra before her. If there had been no Buffy to lead the students in the battle against the Mayor, wouldn't the giant snake have killed everyone at the graduation ceremony?

 

B) Relying on a vampire, especially one who will die if he doesn't get the blood he needs, to stop feeding seems like an exercise in insanity. He nearly killed her as it was, so what if she'd been wrong and he hadn't stopped?

 

C) Everything I said above proves what you said, that she wasn't thinking rationally. Being that that's the case, how ethical/moral is it that, once again, it's up to her whether Angel lives or dies?

[SilverShadow]

Oh I wasn't trying to argue it was ethical, just wanted clarification on her mindset at the time.

 

For my own take: If she was in a state of shock or something similar, her judgement was compromised, and I wouldn't judge her the same way I would if she was functioning at the top of her game.

 

Interestingly enough though, this is once case where Buffy didn't have to necessarily be involved with taking out the Big Bad for the good side. Someone just had to lead the Mayor into the school so the charges could be exploded. If Buffy died and Angel was healed he could have perhaps taken her place. Though if he did, I'd lay decent odds he wouldn't have bothered running out of the school afterwards, and just let the flames take him. Which isn't to say Buffy was functioning mentally on a high enough level to deliberately plan for that, more that it's an interesting "What If."

 

Do I think Buffy had the right to choose to risk Angel killing her? Yes. It's her life, therefore her decision. Do I think it was the "correct" moral choice at the time she made it? I don't know. In retrospect it certainly worked out: Her falling unconscious allowed her to have the dream about Faith that gave her the information she needed to taunt the Mayor. Angel also drank from her in the shared dream back in "Amends." The First was messing with them at the time, but I wonder if it co-opted a "Slayer Dream". Maybe it was something that was meant to happen? I think the shock of it also cemented Angel's decision to leave, thus putting him in the position to what he needed to do on his own series. So in terms of the narrative to me it has the feel of a destined moment, like the fight against the Master, the Acathla battle, and the end of "The Gift." If she had some kind of subconscious awareness it was the right call, does that change the "rightness" of her decision?

 

Personally it's not a choice I find out of character either way and I don't judge her particularly harshly for it. I have a high tolerance for people taking acts to save people they love, but I respect that my viewpoint is not everyone's.

[Fat Elvis 007]

But this wasn't Buffy's argument at the time - she didn't say "we will find another way", she said "we all die". So even if we accept the Summers blood asspull she still wasn't right when she said that and threatened to kill her friends.

 

 

Right, but as I said the first time: I don't buy that Buffy would have ever let things get to that point. She was in a state of denial, and she was putting off the inevitable. I don't believe for a moment she would have killed Xander or Willow or Giles to keep them from killing Dawn if she really knew it was the only way to save the world. She killed Angel to save the world in Season 2; she's willing to do what it takes when it comes down to it. But she's not going to cave easily.

 

I actually think her stubborn refusal to openly consider killing Dawn reflects an admirable trait of Buffy's: yes, her refusal to accept harsh realities sometimes seems like a major fault at first, but ultimately her choice to delay the inevitable usually reveals that it's actually, er, evitable. She finds another way when it seems like one doesn't exist.

 

And yes, sometimes this "other way" is a total ass-pull. On a plot level, Dawn being "made out of Buffy" fits that description (as do many of the other plot points in the episode: troll god? Dagonsphere, which Buffy's had since before she even met Glory?). But it works on a thematic level, so I can let it pass, and there's enough foreshadowing to make it somewhat plausible. The amulet of assitude is different, because it doesn't work on any level; it's a literal deux ex machina where no one has to do anything other than stand around wearing gaudy jewelry. Buffy making a conscious choice to sacrifice her life in place of her sister's is so much better writing than having her not-boyfriend passively save the world by putting on a necklace given to her by another not-boyfriend earlier that episode, which he was in turn given by an evil law firm that had never once been mentioned on this show before, that I find it hard to even compare the two.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Do I think Buffy had the right to choose to risk Angel killing her? Yes. It's her life, therefore her decision.

 

Oh, well yes, its Buffy's life, and sure she can play Russian roulette via Angel, taking the chance that he'll end up killing her. What she doesn't have the right to do is leave an entire town unguarded if something goes wrong. Even if the Mayor had been defeated without her, there was still an active Hellmouth to deal with, and since Faith didn't die in that fall a new Slayer wouldn't have been called. Without another annoying ass-pull a la Summers blood or an amulet from a law firm that was never mentioned on the show, there would have been no one strong enough to fight the vampires. It's morally wrong IMO to risk the lives of others, and isn't that one of the complaints about the spell that Xander* supposedly did when Sweet showed up?

 

Beyond that, as much as I was never really invested in how Angel felt about anything, Buffy also had no right to possibly put the guilt for her death on his already overburdened conscience. Given the dream he had about her where she crumbled into ashes, it would have seemed like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Especially in light of the Miracle Snow. In Angel's mind, it would have been as if the snow had spared him precisely so he could kill Buffy, I can almost guarantee it. If her death spared his (un)life, what does that do to him?

 

And speaking of Xander, because its such a contradiction that I can't not mention it, I find it very odd that so much of the fandom sees his errors in judgment (the love spell in B, B, & B, supposedly summoning Sweet, being intimate with Anya, etc) as character flaws that he should always be called out on., and yet somehow Buffy always gets the escape hatch of 'But'. With Angel, it's "But she was in love for the first time." With Dawn, it's "But in Buffy's mind she was still her sister." With Spike, it's "But she was depressed." Hell, Xander can't even say, "Yeah, Spike's great when he's not trying to rape your sister" in response to idiot Dawn's slobbery hero-worship of Captain Peroxide without backlash. He always seems to be the one people want to see pulled up short, and years after the show has ended I still don't understand why. None of this is a slap against anyone here, but I do wonder why none of the other equally serious things Buffy, Angel, and Spike do seem to be as much cause for outrage.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

I don't believe for a moment she would have killed Xander or Willow or Giles to keep them from killing Dawn if she really knew it was the only way to save the world. She killed Angel to save the world in Season 2;

 

Yes, she did... and was character assassinated after that, IMO. I never argued her character was always consistently written. Season 2 Buffy would have killed Season 5 Spike in episode 5.01. Also, in season 2 Buffy had intended to kill Angel for months, in season 5 she never really contemplated letting Dawn die as a last resort option. 

 

 

I actually think her stubborn refusal to openly consider killing Dawn reflects an admirable trait of Buffy's: yes, her refusal to accept harsh realities sometimes seems like a major fault at first, but ultimately her choice to delay the inevitable usually reveals that it's actually, er, evitable. She finds another way when it seems like one doesn't exist.

 

Yes, that works great... mostly in fiction, alas. Personally, I much prefer characters like Wesley who are willing to make the tough choices and do not always go looking for the magical third option. Like Buffy did in the finales of season one and two. Sure, things worked out okay for her thanks to some very convenient plot developments but she didn't base her whole plan of action on the magical third option (say, casting that ensouling spell herself instead of Willow somehow) and to me that really makes a difference.

 

 

And yes, sometimes this "other way" is a total ass-pull. On a plot level, Dawn being "made out of Buffy" fits that description (as do many of the other plot points in the episode: troll god? Dagonsphere, which Buffy's had since before she even met Glory?). But it works on a thematic level, so I can let it pass, and there's enough foreshadowing to make it somewhat plausible.

 

I think it's just as much of a disaster on thematic level, too. After a whole season of adoption metaphor anvils, we are suddenly told the only way for Buffy to save Dawn is through their blood connection, i.e. the exact opposite of adoption connection. And let's not forget that even if Dawn were indeed made of Buffy, this should have had no impact whatsoever of Buffy's death's ability to close the portal. A very basic logical fallacy at work. As stupid as the amulet of assitude is, at least it was not a logical fallacy. 

 

 

Changing topic slightly, discussion of whether Angel punching Xander unconcious in the Sunnydale streets should be considered "Angel leaving Xander to die" made me think of situations where the writers probably didn't think through the implications of what they were having the characters say and do.

 

Situations? More like entire seasons. 

 

 

None of this is a slap against anyone here, but I do wonder why none of the other equally serious things Buffy, Angel, and Spike do seem to be as much cause for outrage.

 

There seems to be the perception that "Xander always got away with it" because the other characters supposedly never bothered criticize him much. Sure, they could have being a little less forgiving to him especially after the Sweet fiasco but come on, you can say that about all the main characters, many of whom literally got away with murder. So of course, if you like a certain character are are likely to think he/she didn't deserve harsh treatment and if you don't, it is very likely to annoy you that "that bastard" didn't get his comeuppance. Nothing surprising, really.

[SilverShadow]

And speaking of Xander, because its such a contradiction that I can't not mention it, I find it very odd that so much of the fandom sees his errors in judgment (the love spell in B, B, & B, supposedly summoning Sweet, being intimate with Anya, etc) as character flaws that he should always be called out on., and yet somehow Buffy always gets the escape hatch of 'But'. With Angel, it's "But she was in love for the first time." With Dawn, it's "But in Buffy's mind she was still her sister." With Spike, it's "But she was depressed." Hell, Xander can't even say, "Yeah, Spike's great when he's not trying to rape your sister" in response to idiot Dawn's slobbery hero-worship of Captain Peroxide without backlash.

 

I can only give my personal take, I can't speak for anybody else. Sweet I don't hold against him at all because of "writers not thinking things through." I don't hold being with Anya against him in isolation. My problem is after season 2 he claims the moral high-ground because Angelus killed so many people, and that Angel with a soul wouldn't do those things doesn't matter, but he turns around and dates Anya, who is totally unrepentant of the things she's done. B,B,&B, he plans to rewrite Cordelia's emotions so he can hurt her the way they hurt him. With Xander telling Dawn, it was two things: Being sexually assaulted is a very traumatic personal thing that can be difficult to talk about. Xander telling Buffy's little sister about it before she was ready was a shitty thing to do. And he didn't do it warn Dawn. He was pissed and lashed, And all of these things reflect a pattern of holding his feelings as more important than those of the women in his life and sometimes acting out with malice.

 

 

and yet somehow Buffy always gets the escape hatch of 'But'. With Angel, it's "But she was in love for the first time." With Dawn, it's "But in Buffy's mind she was still her sister." With Spike, it's "But she was depressed."

 

Angel is plethora of topics by himself, but in general it's about Buffy trusting him and caring about his welfare. With Dawn, she wanted to save the little girl she had fourteen years of memories growing up with. Both those situations are about Buffy caring about others. So I am much more sympathetic to those reasons. 

 

Getting involved with Spike was self-destructive and very difficult to watch. But it wasn't like she down because she was having a bad week, she was suffering from depression. If you or no one in your life has been in the situation, you are very lucky. But it's not a joke or something to take likely. From the Mayo Clinic's Website:

 

 

Depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest. Also called major depression, major depressive disorder or clinical depression, it affects how you feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems. You may have trouble doing normal day-to-day activities, and depression may make you feel as if life isn't worth living.

More than just a bout of the blues, depression isn't a weakness, nor is it something that you can simply "snap out" of.

 

So most of the the examples you gave, to me, are in no way comparable. Two that are: Willow erasing Tara's memory-approximately a thousand times worse than what Xander did with the love spell. Oz getting with Veruca, an unrepentant murderer, and cheating on Willow to do it-also worse than Xander's moral flip-flop with Anya and him never acknowledging said flip-flop.

 

Speaking only for myself, characters making questionable decisions because they care about someone or want to protect them or because they're in a distressed mental state is much more forgivable to me than characters lashing out in anger or taking actions they know will hurt someone else.

[SparedTurkey]

I agree with SilverShadow. Xander's actions are fundamentally unethical because not only are wrong, but he knows they are wrong and does them for purely selfish reasons. In BB&B he has the spell cast just to hurt someone - and yet he is supposed to be a paradigm of virtue because he doesn't shag Buffy during that time? I don't think so. Casting spells resulting in the death of random people? Willingly shagging an ex-demon who tortured and killed people for hundreds and hundreds of years? And yet when he criticises Buffy for the similar things, he is supposedly right? How does that work? 

 

Yes Buffy is somewhat of a procrastinator. Yes she claims she will kill anyone who goes near Dawn in that final Season 5 battle. Would she have done it? No. Was it hyperbole? Absolutely. Did she want to kill Angel in Season 2? No. Did she? Yes. Buffy doesn't cause pain or problems from a selfish place. She fundamentally wants to help, and obviously she cares more about her family and friends than a stranger. But when push comes to shove she would have and did do anything she needed to. That really is the difference between Buffy and Xander's ethically grey choices.

[Spartan Girl]

I agree with SilverShadow. Xander's actions are fundamentally unethical because not only are wrong, but he knows they are wrong and does them for purely selfish reasons. In BB&B he has the spell cast just to hurt someone - and yet he is supposed to be a paradigm of virtue because he doesn't shag Buffy during that time? I don't think so. Casting spells resulting in the death of random people? Willingly shagging an ex-demon who tortured and killed people for hundreds and hundreds of years? And yet when he criticises Buffy for the similar things, he is supposedly right? How does that work?

 

 

This, this, this, this, a thousand times THIS.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I agree with SilverShadow. Xander's actions are fundamentally unethical because not only are wrong, but he knows they are wrong and does them for purely selfish reasons. In BB&B he has the spell cast just to hurt someone - and yet he is supposed to be a paradigm of virtue because he doesn't shag Buffy during that time? I don't think so. Casting spells resulting in the death of random people? Willingly shagging an ex-demon who tortured and killed people for hundreds and hundreds of years? And yet when he criticises Buffy for the similar things, he is supposedly right? How does that work? 

 

Yes Buffy is somewhat of a procrastinator. Yes she claims she will kill anyone who goes near Dawn in that final Season 5 battle. Would she have done it? No. Was it hyperbole? Absolutely. Did she want to kill Angel in Season 2? No. Did she? Yes. Buffy doesn't cause pain or problems from a selfish place. She fundamentally wants to help, and obviously she cares more about her family and friends than a stranger. But when push comes to shove she would have and did do anything she needed to. That really is the difference between Buffy and Xander's ethically grey choices.

 

FWIW, I never said I thought Xander was a paragon of anything, much less virtue. He could be angry and immature and rude, and he said the wrong things more often than he should have. But....so what? I don't hold it against him that he'd get furious with Buffy when she was doing something that was, let's be honest, not that bright.

 

Also, the fact is, Xander was never The Law. And yes, he did stupid things himself, and he did them because he was angry and because his feelings were hurt and because, like Buffy, he was human. If he had really been so awful, wouldn't he have taken advantage of the fact that thanks to the spell Buffy thought she was in love with him? Jonathan did it when he altered the entire world so that everyone would worship him, and he gets away with it. It's the implication that doing bad stuff means Xander should be exiled from the company of "decent people", since I know people have said that Buffy should have found out about The Lie and immediately cut all ties with him for disrespecting her by withholding the truth. Why is he supposed to respect her when she's being, well, stupid? God knows she never does him the same favor. She was the one who called the love spell "a magical roofie". I guess it would have been preferred if she had continued to harp at him about it, since that's a trait you just love in Xander.

 

Further, if you want to get tin hat oriented, Buffy pays Xander back for his temerity in season seven when she goes to check on the bump on Spike's head before paying attention to the fact that he got gut-stabbed by a demon. Or when Caleb jams a thumb in his eye due to her stupid plan to attack the vineyard, especially since she insists that they go right back, and then gets pissy when everyone doesn't immediately fall in line. Because if she can't be in charge, she's going to take her toys and leave, thank you very much. The only thing that separates it from being a retread of Dead Man's Party is that they were dealing with Ubervamps instead of zombies, but otherwise it's pretty much the same tune, that if Buffy isn't the axis around which everyone's universe revolves, then she's just gonna go out in the garden and eat worms. Real mature, Buffy, except, y'know, not so much.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

Angel is plethora of topics by himself, but in general it's about Buffy trusting him and caring about his welfare. With Dawn, she wanted to save the little girl she had fourteen years of memories growing up with. Both those situations are about Buffy caring about others. So I am much more sympathetic to those reasons.

 

On the flip side, both of these situations (and in quite a few others over the course of the series) are about Buffy not caring much about the high likelihood of other people paying the ultimate price for her choices. I have very little respect for people playing with other people's lives, even if those other people are for the most part nameless extras in this case. Sure, Buffy didn't ask to become judge, jury and executioner but she took upon that role and expect other people to fall in line with her decisions. A little less personal bias would have been nice. 

 

 

Speaking only for myself, characters making questionable decisions because they care about someone or want to protect them or because they're in a distressed mental state is much more forgivable to me than characters lashing out in anger or taking actions they know will hurt someone else.

 

Speaking only for myself, characters who at their worst hurt other people's feelings are much easy to forgive than "repentant" murderers or their enablers. Which is why I have always been a little baffled that say Xander gets more criticism for Dead Man's Party than for OMWF. But to each his own.

 

More than just a bout of the blues, depression isn't a weakness, nor is it something that you can simply "snap out" of.

 

Isn't that exactly what happened at the end of S6, though?

 

 

Yes Buffy is somewhat of a procrastinator. Yes she claims she will kill anyone who goes near Dawn in that final Season 5 battle. Would she have done it? No.

 

Why say it then? To keep the viewers in suspense? Actually that sounds pretty convincing...

 

 

Yes. Buffy doesn't cause pain or problems from a selfish place.

 

In my book five minutes more life for someone you love at the cost billions of death is the epitome of selfishness. Okay, maybe not the epitome, that would be five more minutes of life for you, but pretty damned close. Her blind refusal to see the danger that is Spike's trigger is again selfishness because that strongest fighter talk is pure hogwash, considering her utter neglect of the potentially vastly more powerful Willow.

 

 

Willingly shagging an ex-demon who tortured and killed people for hundreds and hundreds of years? And yet when he criticises Buffy for the similar things, he is supposedly right? How does that work?

 

Has any character in the show, or poster here said Xander's flip-flopping on the subject is right? Because I don't recall it happening. He was wrong, obviously and very, very hypocritical. However, everyone treated Anya as a nuisance at worst. It's not like Xander loved her while Buffy considered her a monster. It's bad writing, pure and simple, that made all characters look like fools, Anya included.

 

I don't think this comparison of "but character X did worse!" really makes for a good discussion but since we have started, I can't help but mention that one character lashed out in anger so much that she ended up killing a man. A man, who luckily for her turned out to be a robot, sure but at the time Buffy didn't know that. Give me cutting words any day, thank you very much.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Jack Shaftoe

[SparedTurkey]

 

I don't hold it against him that he'd get furious with Buffy when she was doing something that was, let's be honest, not that bright.

Xander can be furious. He can be critical. But for god sake's make it constructive otherwise what is the point?

 

 

Also, the fact is, Xander was never The Law.

So he isn't The Law when it comes to himself, but when it comes to Buffy, he is? And if Buffy is the law, shouldn't she have cut ties with Xander (and yes, later Willow) when Xander was summoning demons? Causing the death of random people?

 

Why is he supposed to respect her when she's being, well, stupid?

I don't know, I'd personally like my friends to continue to respect me even in my stupid moments. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

She was the one who called the love spell "a magical roofie".

Yeah, she excused his stupid behaviour. As she later excused others. But that doesn't matter because Xander is human and his crimes are much less heinous so really, she was doing the right thing. The other times were an abuse of her power though.

 

Why say it then? To keep the viewers in suspense? Actually that sounds pretty convincing...

Have you never ever said anything to your friends that was a complete exaggeration?

 

I don't think this comparison of "but character X did worse!" really makes for a good discussion but since we have started

I'm not saying Buffy is good because Xander did worse. But I'm baffled why Buffy gets so much judgement for things she may have done wrong while Xander seems to be awarded a pass for similar behaviour because he is either human or too young.

[SilverShadow]

 

And let's face it, spitting in Giles's face is a much more apt description for Buffy hiding Angel's return but I guess he isn't allowed to get angry about that either because he might hurt Buffy's precious feelings.

I disagree on both points.

 

Buffy was scared and racked with guilt. When she saw Angel in "Becoming" he had his soul again and she sent him to Hell for centuries (at the time she thought forever). Then he returned. Killing him the first time almost destroyed her. She didn't want to kill him again or turn him over to others that would. She should have told Giles, and she hurt him by not doing so, but she wasn't actively trying to cause him pain a la "Well Jenny's dead!" She was trying to keep Angel safe and spare Giles' from having to know he was back. It was absolutely the wrong call, but it wasn't a decision made out of malice.

 

Angelus killed Jenny, beat Giles, and then tortured him. That Giles would be more than a little conflicted at the news that Angel's back is a given. But when the "intervention" starts to go off the rails and everyone piles on Buffy, he breaks it up. And when he speaks to her alone he's angry and disappointed, and he damn sure doesn't hide it (nor should he), but he doesn't yell, or try and rub her failures in her face, or make a catty off-hand remark to try and score points. That's the difference. His hurt is his hurt, and he owns up to it, and makes Buffy aware of what she's done, but he's not trying to cause Buffy more pain when he does.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Angelus killed Jenny, beat Giles, and then tortured him. That Giles would be more than a little conflicted at the news that Angel's back is a given. But when the "intervention" starts to go off the rails and everyone piles on Buffy, he breaks it up. And when he speaks to her alone he's angry and disappointed, and he damn sure doesn't hide it (nor should he), but he doesn't yell, or try and rub her failures in her face, or make a catty off-hand remark to try and score points. That's the difference. His hurt is his hurt, and he owns up to it, and makes Buffy aware of what she's done, but he's not trying to cause Buffy more pain when he does.

 

I said this in Buffy's thread, but it always bears repeating - it was a failure on Buffy's part to not tell someone, anyone, about Angel being back. And she knew she was wrong, or else she wouldn't have been lying her face off about it. Also, if you notice, Buffy quietly slinks out of the library in  the wake of Giles' "You don't respect me" speech, because she knows he's right, she didn't respect him. And just the fact that she goes for Xander's jugular to take the attention away from what she did is proof that she didn't want anyone taking her to task for being deceptive and sneaky. You say she was scared? Fine, she was scared. But she was also lying, and when she got caught lying, she did everything she could to avoid taking responsibility for it. If she had been sorry, would she have fought back as hard as she did?

Edited October 7, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

[SilverShadow]

We don't disagree that Buffy was wrong to hide Angel, which you can see if you read the top of the post you quoted. And I never said she wasn't affected by Giles' speech or that it was unjustified. "[H]e's angry and disappointed, and he damn sure doesn't hide it (nor should he)" was meant to imply the opposite.

 

My point was that Buffy didn't set out to cause Giles pain when she hid Angel (though of course it ended up doing just that) and Giles didn't say what he said to get even with her for it or make her hurt in kind, but because that's how he felt at the time. In my opinion, morally, that is very different from deliberately trying to cause someone pain.

 

So no, I don't fault Giles for being upset because he had the right to be upset and to make sure Buffy knew that. But even when he felt hurt and betrayed, he still managed to show concern for the person he cared about by breaking up the failed "intervention." He could have easily publicly shamed Buffy in front of the others and he chose not to, instead saying what needed to be said in private. That was, to borrow a phrase from the man himself, "an act of compassion."

Edited October 7, 2014 by SilverShadow

[Cobalt Stargazer]

My point was that Buffy didn't set out to cause Giles pain when she hid Angel (though of course it ended up doing just that) and Giles didn't say what he said to get even with her for it or make her hurt in kind, but because that's how he felt at the time. In my opinion, morally, that is very different from deliberately trying to cause someone pain.

 

 So let me try and grasp this, because I'm really trying to make it parse. Buffy not setting out to cause Giles pain when she sheltered Angel means that the fact that she did cause him pain counts less? And not only that, but when she does set out to cause pain in WSWB, that counts less because she never does it again? What I'm asking you is, when do intentions matter and when do they not matter? And this is not snark or sarcasm, I'm genuinely looking for an answer. I don't think you can argue that whatever Buffy's intentions were, she did hurt the people who cared about her, some of them more than once, so when does it not count and when does it?

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

She should have told Giles, and she hurt him by not doing so, but she wasn't actively trying to cause him pain a la "Well Jenny's dead!"

 

In other words harbouring a murderer is less disrespectful to the people who loved the murderer's victim than merely mentioning the victim's name? Words can't express how much I disagree. Not to mention that what Buffy did would have been way disrespectful to Giles even if Angel had never hurt him on a personal level since he was Buffy's Watcher and as such entitled to the courtesy of at least being informed about the guy who almost ended the world miraculously coming back.

 

And I disagree that Xander's objective in Becoming was to hurt Giles. Not mentioning Jenny was not going to make her any less dead and from Xander's point of view he needed Giles' support to prevent many further deaths. Rude? Sure. Actively malicious? No, IMO.

 

 

And when he speaks to her alone he's angry and disappointed, and he damn sure doesn't hide it (nor should he), but he doesn't yell, or try and rub her failures in her face, or make a catty off-hand remark to try and score points.

 

The way I have always interpreted that scene is that Giles is so disgusted with Buffy that he doesn't think she is even worthy of being yelled at. He doesn't elaborate because there is nothing more that needed to be said and he wants Buffy to get the hell out of his sight as soon as possible. Which is, no doubt, a better approach than Xander's but to me it says Giles was more angry at Buffy than Xander was. He merely showed in a less feisty manner,

[SilverShadow]

 

 So let me try and grasp this, because I'm really trying to make it parse. Buffy not setting out to cause Giles pain when she sheltered Angel means that the fact that she did cause him pain counts less? And not only that, but when she does set out to cause pain in WSWB, that counts less because she never does it again? What I'm asking you is, when do intentions matter and when do they not matter? And this is not snark or sarcasm, I'm genuinely looking for an answer. I don't think you can argue that whatever Buffy's intentions were, she did hurt the people who cared about her, some of them more than once, so when does it not count and when does it?

 

It doesn't make Giles' hurt less real or valid, but it makes me view her actions differently than if she was actively trying to hurt Giles by doing so.

 

As for WSWB, yes, the fact that Buffy doesn't do it again matters in my view of her. If she'd apologized but then continued acting the way she had been, not showing that she'd realized her behavior was unacceptable, would make me think less of the character. There's a difference between a one-off incident of shitty behavior and a pattern.

 

I don't know what you mean by "counts." If you mean do I agree she was wrong, yeah, of course.

 

But even if I don't like the actions of a character, I can still understand and sympathize with the reasons they did what they did, or respect them if they realized what they did was wrong. I don't see the contradiction. And if I don't like a character's reasoning or tactics on top of the act itself, or if I see a pattern of behavior I don't like, then yes, that will add to my negative impression of them as well. 

 

In other words harbouring a murderer is less disrespectful to the people who loved the murderer's victim than merely mentioning the victim's name? Words can't express how much I disagree. Not to mention that what Buffy did would have been way disrespectful to Giles even if Angel had never hurt him on a personal level since he was Buffy's Watcher and as such entitled to the courtesy of at least being informed about the guy who almost ended the world miraculously coming back.

 

And I disagree that Xander's objective in Becoming was to hurt Giles. Not mentioning Jenny was not going to make her any less dead and from Xander's point of view he needed Giles' support to prevent many further deaths. Rude? Sure. Actively malicious? No, IMO.

 

 

The way I have always interpreted that scene is that Giles is so disgusted with Buffy that he doesn't think she is even worthy of being yelled at. He doesn't elaborate because there is nothing more that needed to be said and he wants Buffy to get the hell out of his sight as soon as possible. Which is, no doubt, a better approach than Xander's but to me it says Giles was more angry at Buffy than Xander was. He merely showed in a less feisty manner,

 

I don't agree that Angel is repsonsible for the murders Angelus commits. Giles himself held that opinion prior to Jenny's death. So yeah, Buffy not wanting to sentence Angel to death a second time after she already killed him once and the guilt nearly broke her, I find that sympathetic. I agree she should have told Giles, but given that she also felt horribly guilty about what happened to Jenny. there was a lot of emotional baggage that needed unraveling.

 

And Xander didn't mention Jenny's name. He practically snarled it in such a way that Giles (rightfully) flips out at him. And it was absolutely to get an emotional reaction out of Giles. And I don't find stabbing at an open emotional wound noble. If he truly felt the curse was too dangerous or whatever, fine. But that's not what he says or does. He throws Jenny's name around like it's going out of style and tries to guilt trip to get his way. 

 

Giles:  Curing Angel seems to have been Jenny's last wish.

Xander:  Yeah? Well, Jenny's dead.

Giles:  (approaches Xander angrily) Don't you *ever* speak of her in

that tone again!

 

And I don't agree that his goal was to stop more deaths. If so, then why get so violently upset at even the idea of trying the curse? it's something they can do from a distance that will make Angelus stop killing. I think he wanted to see Angel/us dead and got pissed when that was potentially forestalled.

 

I feel like I've said what I've wanted to say, so I'm gonna leave it with this post. If anyone wants further clarification, you can PM me. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

And I don't agree that his goal was to stop more deaths. If so, then why get so violently upset at even the idea of trying the curse? it's something they can do from a distance that will make Angelus stop killing.

 

Because it's a stop-gag solution, I guess. And, of course, there is an element of vengeance in Xander's reasoning, his best (albeit, very easily forgotten) friend was killed by vampires.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Jack Shaftoe

[Delphi]

On 8/7/2018 at 6:22 PM, Joe Hellandback said:

Well remember Faith tries to frame Buffy and strangle Xander, it wasn't what Faith did but how she handled it, contrast this to Buffy when she thinks she has killed Katrina?

I'm more considering season 7 after Faith comes back and there still feels like judgement.   Like Anya, Spike, Andrew,  Willow are all killers. Yet,  Faith,  is somehow still in the dog house.   At least Faith,  who if we were frank had a complete mental collapse upon realizing she killed, Willow gets an English vacation. 

[illdoc]

On 8/7/2018 at 7:22 PM, Delphi said:

Willow gets an English vacation. 

And in the comics, her murders get ... removed (Rack is not dead and Warren was "whisked away" by Amy at the last second so he wasn't dead either (although skinless)).

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎01‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 6:55 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Per Mya Stone's instructions in the UO thread, I'm resurrecting this topic from TWOP because of reasons.

 

The debate about The Lie has raged since May 19th, 1998, which makes me feel old because I've carried the 'Xander Wasn't Wrong' battle flag without shame since then. But this topic won't be focused just on The Lie, I hope, but rather all aspects of morality as it relates to the show.

 

I don't think it can be disputed that Buffy was initially a very good Slayer. We saw her patrolling and slaying vampires as soon as they crawled out of their graves, and the scene where she's fighting Mr, Sanderson from the bank while Joyce cheers her on remains one of my favorite mother-daughter bonding moments, no matter how much the daughter in question didn't want her mother there. The point was, vampires were dangerous, it was Buffy's job to make sure they didn't harm anyone, and she tended to her business efficiently.

 

But because she was also human, which at first was one of her greatest assets because it led her to form friendships and want a life outside of Slaying, she made mistakes, and those mistakes had consequences. Her emotional attachment to Angel led her to forbid Kendra to stake him, which indirectly led to Kendra's death, and directly to Jenny Calendar's. Granted, she was a young girl who was in love, but I don't think that should have been the first consideration, either then or now. Isn't she the one who went off alone to face The Master, knowing that she'd probably die? That's being The Law.

 

By the end of the show, however, she isn't so much The Law as she is an arbitrary judge, usually siding with whoever she's having whatever kind of relationship with. So what happened? I know it was bad writing, but it's all a matter of writing, even The Lie, which happened back when the show was awesome. Xander's been pilloried for sixteen years for making the kind of decision that Buffy made all the time, and he did it because she'd proven IMO that she lacked the resolve to follow through. And that turns into an avalanche that takes the entire show down with it. So is she The Law or not?

I agree to an extent, she is arbitrary but she is human and there is no one else who can really make these decisions, you can argue that by not killing every vamp every chance she gets she's then responsible for all the lives she takes but I equate it to soldiers in WW1 having unofficial truces with one another because they simply couldn't keep the tempo of conflict up all the time. You can only ask so much of her.  

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎01‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 7:48 PM, Jack Shaftoe said:

I still wonder why the narrative and (it seems) most of the fandom is so much in favour of Buffy deciding Angel's fate. It is grossly unfair to Buffy and even more unfair to the people of Sunnydale in general. I mean, Buffy was not only very much biased in the situation, but she was the only human being in town who could match Angel's strength. So, basically she was more or less safe. Everybody else was prey. So maybe Xander was tired of waiting for Angel to try to finish what he started in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (namely, murdering Xander). Frankly, Buffy's track record when having to play judge, jury and executioner to people she cares about is appalling. The only reason Angel, Spike, Anya, Willow, Vamp Willow, etc. didn't do a lot more damage thanks to Buffy's leniency is writer fiat. And don't get me started on her mind-blowingly stupid attitude in The Gift - "few minutes of "my sister's" are worth the lives of everyone in the world". Can anyone honestly say that if they lived in the Buffyverse they would want Buffy to be making the tough decisions when it comes to people close to her? Talk about playing with fire.

 

Not that I think many would have done better if having to take decisions of this kind - which is exactly why the characters' willingness of allowing Buffy to make them without much in the way of protest comes as very contrived. For instance, I would have loved it if in The Gift, Giles and the rest had told Buffy "We are not dying for Dawn, sorry" and allowed Dawn to jump from that tower. It would have not only avoided the logic fallacy of "Summers blood" and the resurrection nonsense but Buffy's resentment towards them in the next season would have felt much more organic.

You're right in terms of Buffy and Angelus but we can only expect so much from Buffy, she's only human and she goes out and fights the good fight every night, she deserves a break. Xander takes a more logical view but also based on his rivalry with Angel for Buffy's affections, even Giles the figure of authority backs Buffy (and he lets Harmony go, remember?). We see with Faith what happens if you don't embrace these human failings and just live for killing. 

 Buffy's attitude in The Gift is different (an interesting comparison to 'Cabin in the Woods') she'll fight to defend Dawnie to the last but she knows they'll both die and the portal will close anyway. Just as Giles says, he loves Dawn too, we all do, they made her the little sister because that's the precious thing to everyone and they're all happy to die to protect her. 

 I always say that Buffy's decision is a no lose scenario, if it works she saves Dawn, if it doesn't Dawn follows her off the tower and the Summers girls are all together in heaven. 

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 12:43 AM, SparedTurkey said:

But I agree that in later seasons Buffy went with the flow, and didn't seem to be much of The Law. Had she maintained her seasons 1-3 'code' I can't imagine she would have accepted Willow back, or Anya come to think of it. Perhaps her flip-flopy nature was due to her depression issues. Maybe the show just didn't care by that point. But I agree there was a distinct lack of standards.

When we are teenagers we seem to have more moral absolutes, as we grow and become adults we see more of a world of grey as we experience more and more of life. Buffy knows her actions towards Angelus cost lives so she's more forgiving towards, Willow, Anya etc and towards Faith as she too feels the pull of the Slayer darkness.  

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 5:17 AM, Fat Elvis 007 said:

Meh, I've never been convinced that Buffy would have actually let the world be destroyed trying to spare Dawn for a few seconds. Before she has her epiphany (which, to be fair, was not well set up) she looks like she is about to accept that Dawn has to jump. Buffy was not in the best mental state at that point, her mother had just died and she was exhausted. I don't blame her for being reluctant to kill her own sister. The fact that Dawn is not her real sister is irrelevant, since Buffy still remembers and feels that she is her sister. And ultimately, Buffy was right; she didn't have to kill Dawn, and found another way.

Remember Buffy actually says to Giles that Dawn is more than a sister to her, that she feels like a 'part of me' and their relationship is physical. But you're quite right, we see Buffy here at the end of her tether. 

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 5:40 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

 

I agree about the Scoobies not being able to take on Angelus individually, but that doesn't explain away Kendra not being allowed to do anything before Angelus became a problem. Buffy's death in Prophecy Girl meant that the Slayer line no longer went through her, even though it was never acknowledged in canon. And then Kendra's death caused Faith to be called. So Buffy was really only THE Slayer for a little while. What's ironic is that she considered it a burden, yet she was also pretty territorial about it. Perhaps if she had been a little less 'Mine, mine, mine" about it, Faith would have felt less excluded, and its a character flaw the show never explores. If she hated the responsibility so much, why didn't she let someone else take over? In a way that didn't involve forcing the powers on however many unknown girls without their consent, I mean? Which is another unethical thing the writers never bother to consider the implications of.

I always figured Buffy embraced Slaying as her calling but she didn't want it to define herself. Also she feels for Kendra and Faith as this is a burden to be shared?

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 7:21 AM, SparedTurkey said:

I will go on record as saying that I don't agree with the view that giving out the slayer power was at all metaphorical for rape. At the end of the day, those girls had the slayer powers but they weren't being forced to do anything with them. No agency was taken away from them, their lives need not have been any different (unless that happens in the comics, which I haven't read). I don't really think it was unethical - more like the idea of putting flouride in water.

 

An open question - what does everyone think the most unethical moment was on the show?

I disagree with that, I think once their powers kicked in they'd have experienced the 'Jessica Fletcher effect' and trouble would have inevitably have come calling. They can choose to walk away, they're not conscripted but I doubt many would. 

Most unethical moment in the show? Hard to narrow it down but I would suggest;

1. 'The Lie', I guess it would all fall down to Xander's motivation, to save the world or out of his resentment towards Angel?

2. Willow lets VampWillow go? Even when she knows what life is like in The Wishverse? 

3. Buffy and Angel let Spike go at the end of Lover's Walk knowing he's going to keep killing?

4. Faith rapes Riley after having sex with him in Buffy's body. 

5. Willow rapes Tara, having sex with her after putting the whammy on her mind.  

6.  DarkWillow's rampage, one thing to go for the geeks but she imperils everyone else too?

7.  Letting Anya become a vengeance demon again although that would depend if they know she's 'Miss Soft Serve'?

8.  Giles killing Ben, remember the Scoobs don't know about Ben's killing of the mental patients or his drift to the darkside (which arguably is only because of Glory's magical influence, just as she becomes more human towards the end). 

9. Xander doesn't finish off Harmony when he has the chance (although arguably he's in a hurry to warn Buffy).

10. Equally Buffy doesn't kill Harmony and Dru when she has the chance in Crush? And also lets the 2 vamps in the warehouse escape?

11. Buffy tortures the vamp with the cross down its' throat in 'When she was Bad'

12.  Giles does the same to one of Glory's minions in Tough Love? As well as beating up Ethan in Halloween. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, Joe Hellandback said:

I agree to an extent, she is arbitrary but she is human and there is no one else who can really make these decisions, you can argue that by not killing every vamp every chance she gets she's then responsible for all the lives she takes but I equate it to soldiers in WW1 having unofficial truces with one another because they simply couldn't keep the tempo of conflict up all the time. You can only ask so much of her.  

I ask for what's reasonable. Not more, but not less. Spike decides that he's in love with her in Out Of My Mind because he woke up with a boner, and he almost had me feeling bad for him when Giles was so cold to him in saying "There is no way to Buffy." Then he got Warren to make a sex doll that looked just like her and that went out the window. Bad enough he was calling her 'bitch' one second and then swooning with delight at the sight of her the next, and I'm usually the last person who cares about that stuff, but it seemed like the writers wanted him to come off like he was having a crackup because of the chip, and then.....she decided that it was flattering or something. Why on earth would she not immediately distance herself from him given her history with Angel? Once is an accident. Once could even be called a tragedy given that I don't think she was ever fully whole again after Angel left. Twice, considering both Spike's connection with Angel and his decision to hump a robot who was her mirror image, is beyond what's reasonable.

 

Just now, Joe Hellandback said:

I always figured Buffy embraced Slaying as her calling but she didn't want it to define herself. Also she feels for Kendra and Faith as this is a burden to be shared?

Except the latter isn't really the case. Buffy did eventually warm up to Kendra, but that was after Kendra attacked her (due to seeing her kissing Angel) and then she put Angel in a room with exposure to the sun. If Dru hadn't murdered her, they might have eventually become real friends, but they had a chilly beginning. I don't think she ever really trusted Faith, though. Initially they hit it off, but given the timeline, that Buffy had just almost exchanged her life in Sunnydale for one in Los Angeles, she was on shaky ground with her mom and the Scoobies, and having Faith seem to easily fit in with her wild stories about naked slaying didn't help. Faith would have been quite happy to be the only 'active' Slayer, for Buffy to step aside and let her take over, but she'd have been ill-suited to work alone for other reasons. I don't think Buffy would have been willing to let go even if she hadn't been, though.

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 6:11 PM, Loandbehold said:

Willow has two off the top of my head. The delusting spell that she was going to use without Xander's knowledge or consent, and the spell she was going to use against Veruca when Veruca was in human form. The show had made a big point that the wereworlf is a human being the other 27 nights (and all 30 - 31 days of the month), so her spell was highly unethical. I'm not including Willow telling Cordelia to "del"iver her computer assignment.

 

Buffy had a few, but making the social worker's boss believe that she was going crazy was pretty bad. The woman was just doing her job, yet that doesn't stop Invisi-Buffy. Hiding Angel was another big one, although that's already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.

 

For Giles, I think it was threatening Snyder to get Buffy back into school. Yes, I cheered Ripper coming out, but it was an ends justify the means behavior.

I grant you on the delusting spell but remember she doesn't go through with her Veruca spell? And CC is so mean to WIllow and co she deserves it. The social worker is forgivable, without Slaying Buffy would be a great mother to Dawn so she deserves a break, it all balances out, Again, with Snyder it's a question of Buffy deserving special consideration, without Slaying getting in the way she'd be a model student and Snyder wouldn't have it in for her.  

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 6:46 PM, Jack Shaftoe said:

 

 

But real life generals do not preside over the court-martial if the defendant happens to be their significant other or a relative, for obvious reasons. Being extremely talented, even indispensable, doesn't make a person any less biased.

 

 

 

Sadly, no. Buffy even uttered gems like "Remember, the ritual starts, we all die. And I'll kill anyone who comes near Dawn".

 

 

So then if during Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered somebody had managed to convince all the women that this was a spell and Xander wasn't really the most desirable human being of all time they should have continued fighting amongst themselves anyway since in their minds he was that desirable? Or Buffy should have continued to worship Jonathan anyway?

 

 

 

 

Which is exactly why she should have been overruled. Well, that and her being wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

 

Loandbehold, I am surprised you didn't pick the Scoobies not giving up Andrew to the police as their most unethical moment. :)

 

To me it's all about their appallingly easy forgiveness of serial killers. This wasn't redemption or forgiveness, this was mostly (plot-induced) horrible insensitivity. One episode Xander threatens Buffy (Buffy!) that he would kill her if something happened to Willow, fast forward two seasons and he hooks up with the serial killer, who among other things almost had Willow killed. Just doesn't compute.

1, Again, who else is there?

2. Yes, she wanted to stop Glory without harming Dawn. Personally I always thought if Dawn died she would have walked away but eventually found she couldn't turn her back on all the millions of other Dawns in the world. 

3. They needed Andrew as Storyteller proved and then he started actively helping them, he has knowledge of magic. 

4. Firstly that was when she was a demon, she's human now, Secondly Anya is pretty hot and he is a teenage boy. 

[Loandbehold]

9 hours ago, Joe Hellandback said:

They needed Andrew as Storyteller proved and then he started actively helping them, he has knowledge of magic. 

Andrew wasn't needed. Willow, even before becoming the most powerful Wicca, was excellent at research, even arcane and magical research. Giles was a Watcher w/ a whole lot of book learnin' and experience conducting and researching magic. Dawn had become good at researching magic by Season 7. Anya knew a lot about demons and magic. As for the abomination that is Storyteller, let us speak of it no more. *ptui* 

[Joe Hellandback]

1 hour ago, Loandbehold said:

Andrew wasn't needed. Willow, even before becoming the most powerful Wicca, was excellent at research, even arcane and magical research. Giles was a Watcher w/ a whole lot of book learnin' and experience conducting and researching magic. Dawn had become good at researching magic by Season 7. Anya knew a lot about demons and magic. As for the abomination that is Storyteller, let us speak of it no more. *ptui* 

I almost think it was more a case of not knowing what to do with him, he does come in useful with the seal and everything. You don't LIKE storyteller? Oh well, we'll talk then,  

[Halting Hex]

On 8/14/2018 at 3:19 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

pike decides that he's in love with her in Out Of My Mind because he woke up with a boner

I still don't understand this.  Has Spike literally gone a hundred years without finding a non-Drusilla woman attractive?  Hard (pardon the pun) to believe, IMO.

1 hour ago, Joe Hellandback said:

You don't LIKE storyteller?

You're surprised that someone who reviles Superstar doesn't care for Sitcom Jane's other piece of Trio-fluffage?  I mean, consider the source.  (How Jane managed to let Craft & Fain beat her to the Harm's Way script assignment, I'll never know.)

Edited August 16, 2018 by Halting Hex

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

1, Again, who else is there?

Literally every other main character. There is a reason why judges can't judge cases involving their close relatives or friends. It's unfair both to Buffy and all the (potential) victims of Angel. It's a recipe for disaster and only blind luck saved the world in Becoming with Spike switching sides at just the right moment, Whistler the plot device supplying crucial information, etc.

Quote

Secondly Anya is pretty hot and he is a teenage boy. 

So was Ampata and he rejected her without much in the way of hesitation once he realized what she had done. You don't have to be particularly heroic to decide that somebody being a mass murderer is a deal breaker for any potential romance, after all, the vast majority of people would make that choice, yet in BtVS there are supposedly heroic characters who are fine with dating serial killers. And not because this makes for a particularly good story, mind you, but because the producers liked the respective actors and decided consistent characterization didn't matter if enough viewers liked the respective ships. It's one thing to write such romance as the descent into darkness of a flawed person (like the Wesley/Lilah relationship on Angel) and another to write it as perfectly normal because you now consider the serial killer to be comic relief.

Quote

I almost think it was more a case of not knowing what to do with him, he does come in useful with the seal and everything. You don't LIKE storyteller? Oh well, we'll talk then,  

More like a case of Joss (inexplicably, if you ask me) thinking Tom Lenk was such a great actor that they had to shoehorn Andrew into season seven. Meta considerations aside, in-story there is no reason whatsoever not to call the cops and give them Andrew, the useless and extremely annoying fugitive from justice.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Jack Shaftoe

[Halting Hex]

On 8/7/2018 at 7:22 PM, Delphi said:

Willow gets an English vacation.

Spoiler

Of course, when she went with Giles, she thought he was taking her to be executed.  So not perhaps the kind of thing the Westbury Tourist Board puts in the brochure.

Contrast with Faith who, not believing Giles's glib promise of "rehabilitation" here (which he doesn't even make to her face), chooses to break jail, assault Wesley, and go on to commit countless other crimes.  Including torturing Wes, not too far down the road.  

So if Willow received the kinder treatment, she earned it, IMO.

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎17‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 5:49 AM, Halting Hex said:

  Hide contents

Of course, when she went with Giles, she thought he was taking her to be executed.  So not perhaps the kind of thing the Westbury Tourist Board puts in the brochure.

Contrast with Faith who, not believing Giles's glib promise of "rehabilitation" here (which he doesn't even make to her face), chooses to break jail, assault Wesley, and go on to commit countless other crimes.  Including torturing Wes, not too far down the road.  

So if Willow received the kinder treatment, she earned it, IMO.

I think she expected to be chained up in dungeon and from what we know she might actually dig that from 'daddy'. Both Will and Faith were in different places and handled things differently. 

On ‎16‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 7:30 PM, Jack Shaftoe said:

Literally every other main character. There is a reason why judges can't judge cases involving their close relatives or friends. It's unfair both to Buffy and all the (potential) victims of Angel. It's a recipe for disaster and only blind luck saved the world in Becoming with Spike switching sides at just the right moment, Whistler the plot device supplying crucial information, etc.

So was Ampata and he rejected her without much in the way of hesitation once he realized what she had done. You don't have to be particularly heroic to decide that somebody being a mass murderer is a deal breaker for any potential romance, after all, the vast majority of people would make that choice, yet in BtVS there are supposedly heroic characters who are fine with dating serial killers. And not because this makes for a particularly good story, mind you, but because the producers liked the respective actors and decided consistent characterization didn't matter if enough viewers liked the respective ships. It's one thing to write such romance as the descent into darkness of a flawed person (like the Wesley/Lilah relationship on Angel) and another to write it as perfectly normal because you now consider the serial killer to be comic relief.

More like a case of Joss (inexplicably, if you ask me) thinking Tom Lenk was such a great actor that they had to shoehorn Andrew into season seven. Meta considerations aside, in-story there is no reason whatsoever not to call the cops and give them Andrew, the useless and extremely annoying fugitive from justice.

I always thought it added to the Scoobs humanity and he gave them comic relief after the 2 dark season 6?