Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buffy killing the Knights of Byzantium (or did she?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    I'm not unsympathetic to the expectation that Ben could have killed himself rather than turn on Dawn. That should be a "thank you, but I'd rather die behind the chemical sheds" kind of moment.
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by flow View Post
      Nothing13

      I am not sure Patrice is human (just like the ice rink guy I always assumed she was a demon) but apart from that, there is an inconsistency that's difficult to explain in a plausible or convincing way. I usually go with "The lore of the show tells us it's okay to kill or slay (evil) demons." However, I am not too happy with that explanation myself.



      We often see Buffy slay newly risen vampires. it is my understanding that vampires - unless they have a soul - don't actually have a choice between good and evil. They are drawn to evil or maybe you could say they are inherently evil. However, I don't think we ever see her slay a demon who hasn't attacked her first, meaning unlike with vampires she usually kills demons in self-defense. That means Clem - and every other demon who does not attack her or other humans - is save.

      I also think humans who are possessed by a demon have to be treated as if they were demons, not humans. After all, vampires are humans who are possessed by a demon too. That means the zookeeper counts as a demon and so does Caleb. But compared to Gwendolyn Post or the German brothers my answer would in fact be yes, their life is more valuable than that of an evil demon.

      flow
      But we are not just weighing their lives compared to demons - - we are weighing Buffy and her choices and if they are righteous. Buffy never kills humans involved in purely human fights, only those who are part of demonic fights - tje Germans, the knights, Gwendolyn - all were a) a major threat b) part of the supernatural fight c) potentially or directly trying to hurt her and those under her protection. Therefore righteous kills. Ben IMO was in this category and had she killed him it would have been just. I dont consider Ben fully human innocent or no - if only b/c he would still contain (be possessed by) a failed, greivng Glory, who would have gone after Buffy and co. Even if they had no chance of succeeding in her quest. Think Willow sized grief with god strength.

      Do i feel sympathy for Ben? Little bit. He did not have a good choice. He did have a choice. The same one BUFFY made and DAWN was willing to make - and Dawn was a teenager. But, teenage Dawn WEIGHED THE WORLD and decided her life was worth sacrificing. So, yeah, Ben had a choice. He did not look for a solution. Did not take a flight to the African bush or the wilds of Alaska where there would be fewer people to brainsuck - he did NOTHING. He had years to fight this. This showed his 'quality'. Buffy was a hero and Dawn was a kid. And a hero.

      Comment


      • flow
        flow commented
        Editing a comment
        Not everyone of us can be a hero though ...

    • #23
      Originally posted by flow View Post
      Nothing13

      I am not sure Patrice is human (just like the ice rink guy I always assumed she was a demon) but apart from that, there is an inconsistency that's difficult to explain in a plausible or convincing way. I usually go with "The lore of the show tells us it's okay to kill or slay (evil) demons." However, I am not too happy with that explanation myself.



      We often see Buffy slay newly risen vampires. it is my understanding that vampires - unless they have a soul - don't actually have a choice between good and evil. They are drawn to evil or maybe you could say they are inherently evil. However, I don't think we ever see her slay a demon who hasn't attacked her first, meaning unlike with vampires she usually kills demons in self-defense. That means Clem - and every other demon who does not attack her or other humans - is save.

      I also think humans who are possessed by a demon have to be treated as if they were demons, not humans. After all, vampires are humans who are possessed by a demon too. That means the zookeeper counts as a demon and so does Caleb. But compared to Gwendolyn Post or the German brothers my answer would in fact be yes, their life is more valuable than that of an evil demon.

      flow
      For the most part the only demons shown to be inherently evil are vampires. It's never really explained why, but we know it's the case from Holden.

      I think there's a fundamental difference in each case. There's willfully possessed or altered like Gwen Post or Pete(?) or the Zookeeper and then there are rare cases of someone having no say in the matter like when one of the Scoobs is possessed or example. I can't think of any non-Scoob possessions aside from Joyce's numerous altered-state adventures, but you get the idea. When you put on the black hat of your own free will, you're signing on to be dealt with by demon-world rules.

      The notion that the Scoobs are anti-demon is one of those things just isn't supported by the show. It's usually tossed out to show that Angel was deeper, but that show tends to be more kill first/ask questions later than BTVS. There's an entire demon underworld in SD that Buffy and the gang leave alone until they make themselves a problem. I'm not sure I'd say Buffy and the gang value human life more than demonic, it's just that they separate when their responsibilities are. Makes sense for many reasons, not least of which not ending up in jail.

      Comment


      • Stoney
        Stoney commented
        Editing a comment
        Agreed, although I think we see it in AtS as well. Again not huge amounts as seeing the demons they don't fight a lot doesn't make much sense. But it's seen at Caritas, with Lorne and through the contrasting behaviour in That Old Gang of Mine.

      • HardlyThere
        HardlyThere commented
        Editing a comment
        Agree; I would not say it's prevalent on AtS, but you have TOGoM and Angel killing the champion and having to stand in for it. In both cases the behaviors are shown to be wrong, much like Riley and the Initiative.

    • #24
      I agree that in the shows (principally Angel) the problem of a demon's life is analyzed:
      However, for example in season 5 Ben chose his side helping Glory at the end, and writers decided to show Giles to kill him in order to avoid the emotional impact to show Buffy to kill him, implicitly valuing human life (not killable by Buffy) more important than demon life (killable). The entire speech of Giles was: "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". So Buffy can't kill evil humans because otherwise, she ceased to be a heroine?
      C'mon, there wasn't a single direct kill of Buffy of humans serial killers because of this reason:
      -if a demon is evil and kill, Buffy go to search for him and kill him also in cold-blood
      -if a human is evil and serial killer, Buffy doesn't kill him. Writers at the best show her to kill him only in the case of possessed, self-defense or by accident. Why?
      (obviously, if we enter in a psychiatric and neuroscientific argument we have to deal with mental illness and responsibility for example of Psychopaths: are they mentally ill or evil? The discussion is too long)

      Like you said Angel was deeper in this aspect and dealt with this thematics in a better way, however, I think that Buffy matured a lot in the course of 7 seasons, and in season 7 she was at her best in terms of experience, understanding, and maturity in relation to this aspect.
      As a matter of fact, she said:
      -She was ready to let Dawn die in order to save the world (Big Picture), something she wouldn't have done in season 5
      -She was ready to let Spike kills Wood, something she wouldn't have done in previous seasons

      As a matter of fact, the point of the show was also the journey of Buffy through seasons and her maturation seasons 2-5-7 are specular in different ways; there is always a most important/loved character for Buffy that is always the "key" in the final battle of the season finale:
      1. Season 2: Angel was the most loved person by Buffy at that time, and his blood was "the key" to open the Hell (Mouth) of Achatla. Buffy kills Angel saving the world
      2. Season 5: Dawn was the most loved person by Buffy at that time, and her blood was "the key" to open the Hell of Glory. Buffy sacrifice herself to save Dawn and the world
      3. Season 7: Spike was the most loved/cared person by Buffy at that time (for this reason she always defended and sided with him against everyone in that season: Giles, her friends, Angel) and He (his soul) was"the key" to activate the amulet and have direct contact with Heaven and Divine Power and destroy the Hellmouth. Spike sacrifices himself to save Buffy and the world

      Comment


      • #25
        Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
        I agree that in the shows (principally Angel) the problem of a demon's life is analyzed:
        However, for example in season 5 Ben chose his side helping Glory at the end, and writers decided to show Giles to kill him in order to avoid the emotional impact to show Buffy to kill him, implicitly valuing human life (not killable by Buffy) more important than demon life (killable). The entire speech of Giles was: "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". So Buffy can't kill evil humans because otherwise, she ceased to be a heroine?
        Giles in that scene does not know the full story. You can't say Buffy doesn't kill humans when the topic of discussion is her doing just that. It's established that 10 men died in the chase. It was self-defense, but they're still dead. She does, in fact, kill humans. What she doesn't do is kill innocent beings which she views Ben as (whether he is or not is irrelevant, since she likely doesn't know Ben isn't totally innocent).

        It then progresses into a discussion of what makes a hero.

        Comment


        • flow
          flow commented
          Editing a comment
          Dante says ten of his men are dead. We saw only eight men attack Buffy and she only fought four.

      • #26
        Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

        Giles in that scene does not know the full story. You can't say Buffy doesn't kill humans when the topic of discussion is her doing just that. It's established that 10 men died in the chase. It was self-defense, but they're still dead. She does, in fact, kill humans. What she doesn't do is kill innocent beings which she views Ben as (whether he is or not is irrelevant, since she likely doesn't know Ben isn't totally innocent).

        It then progresses into a discussion of what makes a hero.
        I know that Buffy kills humans for self-defense the point is that writers are carefully attended to show these deaths only for self-defense, indirectly. The entire situation of Giles-Buffy-Ben was set up in this way by writers in order to avoid the emotional impact of seeing Buffy to kills Ben in a direct and cold-blooded/but necessary way. They also made Giles (Ben isn't innocent and Giles know it, he heard him talk to glory) do the speech "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". These aren't my words but the words of Giles/Writers. I know that that doesn't make sense but writers did this in order to create a false image in order to avoid the emotional impact
        Last edited by Nothing13; 21-07-21, 11:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #27
          Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post

          I know that Buffy kills humans for self-defense the point is that writers are carefully attended to show these deaths only for self-defense, indirectly. The entire situation of Giles-Buffy-Ben was set up in this way by writers in order to avoid the emotional impact of seeing Buffy to kills Ben in a direct and cold-blooded/but necessary way. They also made Giles (Ben isn't innocent and Giles know it, he heard him talk to glory) do the speech "She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans". These aren't my words but the words of Giles/Writers. I know that that doesn't make sense but writers did this in order to create a false image in order to avoid the emotional impact
          It only doesn't make sense because you insist your logic onto the writing instead of letting it speak for itself. We know from Gregor Exposition that Glory will fade. Killing Ben is not necessary. Giles (or Buffy) saying something doesn't make it a fact. Giles' statement is factually wrong. Because she does kill humans.

          Comment


          • #28
            It only doesn't make sense because you insist your logic onto the writing instead of letting it speak for itself. We know from Gregor Exposition that Glory will fade. Killing Ben is not necessary. Giles (or Buffy) saying something doesn't make it a fact. Giles' statement is factually wrong. Because she does kill humans.
            So what was the point of the entire speech between Buffy and Xander and Dawn in season 6 in relation to killing Warren after he killed Tara?
            Buffy said: Being a Slayer doesn't give me a license to kill. Warren's human.
            Why she can't kill Warren like she killed demons?
            Why writers don't show a situation where Buffy must kill a human in cold-blood for a necessity as she does with demons?

            Comment


            • #29
              Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
              So what was the point of the entire speech between Buffy and Xander and Dawn in season 6 in relation to killing Warren after he killed Tara?
              Buffy said: Being a Slayer doesn't give me a license to kill. Warren's human.
              Why she can't kill Warren like she killed demons?
              Why writers don't show a situation where Buffy must kill a human in cold-blood for a necessity as she does with demons?
              So the human world has it's own rules for dealing with people like him-


              If the writers didn't want Buffy killing humans, they'd have conveniently had the Knights live or wouldn't have the tally said on camera. What exactly is the insistence that the gang should kill humans for things that *might* do when they don't even do that for demons aside from vamps? Buffy doesn't kill Clem or close down Willy's.

              Comment


              • #30

                So the human world has it's own rules for dealing with people like him-
                Yes, sometimes there is a situation where you can capture the criminal and put him in jail, sometimes don't and he gets killed. Both these cases must be showed for coherence like it is/was in reality
                Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
                If the writers didn't want Buffy killing humans, they'd have conveniently had the Knights live or wouldn't have the tally said on camera. What exactly is the insistence that the gang should kill humans for things that *might* do when they don't even do that for demons aside from vamps? Buffy doesn't kill Clem or close down Willy's. [/FONT]
                It would be too absurd and irrealistic in a war battle, they already didn't show almost anything
                The insistence is that for me writers since Buffy was a teen show avoided showing scenes too crude/harsh reality (and it is comprehensible for the target). Like showing, Buffy kills in cold-blood a human for a necessity like she has done with demons. Buffy is like in a situation of war, these situations can happen and must be shown (i know that in a teen show). In reality, these kinds of things happen and have always happened. There aren't only indirect death or half showed self-defense probable death like in the show of Buffy. This is what soldiers do in war has always done in past times during war times.
                Simply I don't think that the comparison demon's life and human's life is coherent in the show, also the vampire thing isn't explained

                Comment


                • flow
                  flow commented
                  Editing a comment
                  It is explained by Holden who says vampires feel a pull towards evil. However, it is not the same for demons.

              • #31
                Giles' statement is simply wrong and therefore *bad writing* that sounds like romantic twaddle. Buffy has killed humans, including some not too long before the final fight with Glory.

                What she does not do is exact human justice for human crimes. She doesnt kill Warren bc Warren is a human primarily using human means, and she is not appointing herself police over the human world.

                She does kill humans in self defense. She might have been shortsighted about Ben as a threat in the heat of the rush to save Dawn (since canon did happen, we must account for it) but not because she cannot kill a human.

                Buffy is very self-controlled. She also does not kill demons who are not a threat. I think she is aware of her power and just how easy it would be to misuse.

                Over time we see her come to see herself as a protector, not an exterminator of all beings demon. The Buffy of season 7 views Clem as a friend/associate, but even early in the series she goes to the demon bar and does not try to kill everyone inside. It is a process, but one that got started with Angel and then the truce with Spike.

                Comment


                • #32
                  Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post

                  Yes, sometimes there is a situation where you can capture the criminal and put him in jail, sometimes don't and he gets killed. Both these cases must be showed for coherence like it is/was in reality
                  The times they don't and get killed are what you call justified.

                  It would be too absurd and irrealistic in a war battle, they already didn't show almost anything
                  The insistence is that for me writers since Buffy was a teen show avoided showing scenes too crude/harsh reality (and it is comprehensible for the target). Like showing, Buffy kills in cold-blood a human for a necessity like she has done with demons. Buffy is like in a situation of war, these situations can happen and must be shown (i know that in a teen show). In reality, these kinds of things happen and have always happened. There aren't only indirect death or half showed self-defense probable death like in the show of Buffy. This is what soldiers do in war has always done in past times during war times.
                  Simply I don't think that the comparison demon's life and human's life is coherent in the show, also the vampire thing isn't explained
                  Doesn't matter what was shown. It's what happened. Buffy killed humans.

                  Ben wasn't killed out of necessity. I don't know why you keep repeating it.

                  This is what soldiers do in war has always done in past times during war times.
                  Yeah, they're called war crimes.

                  Comment


                  • #33
                    Giles' statement is simply wrong and therefore *bad writing* that sounds like romantic twaddle.
                    This is the point for me, writers since Buffy was a teen show tried to and romanticize with speeches things and avoided showing completely the harsh reality.
                    Like when Wesley shoots his father in order to save Fred, however after writers tried to reduce the impact with the story of the robot's father.
                    Writers sometimes try to reduce the emotional impact of harsh events.
                    Yeah, they're called war crimes.
                    Sometimes the death of civilians happens and isn't consider necessary war crimes. There is the process and after if the situation was unavoidable, these aren't defined war crimes. But these things can happen in reality and even worse things.

                    Comment


                    • #34
                      Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
                      This is the point for me, writers since Buffy was a teen show tried to and romanticize with speeches things and avoided showing completely the harsh reality.
                      Like when Wesley shoots his father in order to save Fred, however after writers tried to reduce the impact with the story of the robot's father.
                      Writers sometimes try to reduce the emotional impact of harsh events.
                      You confuse what you want to happen with what did. Just a few eps later Wes kills Knox and attempts to kill Gunn.

                      Sometimes the death of civilians happens and isn't consider necessary war crimes. There is the process and after if the situation was unavoidable, these aren't defined war crimes. But these things can happen in reality and even worse things.
                      Moving goalposts. You weren't referring to collateral damage. You were referring to the deliberate, cold blooded killing that you deem necessary. Executing POWs, which would be the closest analogy here, is definitely a war crime.

                      Comment


                      • #35
                        You confuse what you want to happen with what did. Just a few eps later Wes kills Knox and attempts to kill Gunn.
                        Wesley's attempt to kill Gunn and killing Knox was not a necessity and it was shown also to show that Wesley wanted revenge because of the loss of Fred, in order to put him in an "anti-hero" light.
                        -Stabbing Gunn was wrong
                        -Killing Knox was questionable
                        Killing his father to save Fred was a necessity (also killing your own father is more emotionally impactful and writers wanted to avoid it) he would remain a "hero" killing for necessity also his own father, and writers avoided showing it.
                        Also, it is easier to show Wesley do these things. Writers would have never show Buffy (the heroine of the show) do these things explicitly on screen

                        You weren't referring to collateral damage. You were referring to the deliberate, cold blooded killing that you deem necessary. Executing POWs, which would be the closest analogy here, is definitely a war crime.
                        I was referring to this:
                        Like showing, Buffy kills in cold-blood a human for a necessity like she has done with demons.
                        Like, create a situation where Buffy must kill Ben or anyone human for a necessity like she killed demons, or as Giles did to Ben, but with the necessity of it (i know that you don't consider killing Ben a necessity because of Gregor speech, but I am considering the hypothetical scenario). In short: Buffy suffocates Ben on-screen because there isn't another solution to stop Glory and save the world. Would writers really show this on-screen explicitly?
                        I was talking also in general in relation to soldiers referring to everything that is realistic and happens in war times even in past Buffy as a tv show couldn't show because it was a teen show
                        Last edited by Nothing13; 22-07-21, 09:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #36
                          There's an interesting moral dilemma in Spiral that mirrors Buffy's determination to save Dawn despite placing the entire world in danger. It's happening up on the roof as Buffy is attacked by two knights with an axe and a morning star. Buffy’s physical dexterity as she tries to dispatch them is at the “Wow” level of heroism – but as she continues to fight, she spins out of control, grabbing an axe from one of the Knights and almost decapitating him. And as he falls off the RV, another Knight reaches the roof – and Buffy swings around and embeds the axe in his chest – surely killing him.

                          This scene has been discussed ad nauseum – with many put out regarding Buffy’s cavalier death of a human being – supposedly the first one she’s ever killed. But going through the Seasons, Buffy's actually killed or directly caused the death of more humans on-screen than Faith. In Season One’s The Pack, she tosses the zookeeper into the hyena pit. In Season Two’s Lie to Me, she locks Ford in with Spike and Drusilla, ensuring his death; in Season Three’s Homecoming, she tricks the German bounty hunters into targeting each other.

                          Now it could be said that all of these deaths are not directly attributable to Buffy – she merely hoists them with their own petard. But the death of Gwendolyn Post in Season Three’s Revelations is a direct hit at a human being – severing her hand – only justified by the adoption of the demon glove – which perhaps makes her only partially human in the moment – and thus more justifiable to kill. Same goes for the monstrous Caleb of Season Seven.

                          And watching the battle scene in Spiral, it’s obvious that Buffy is somewhat justified in an accidental kill – it’s the Knights who are attacking her and she’s only acting in self-defense. The attackers just keep coming – and once one is dispatched, another appears. So it’s an ethically ambiguous kill – but one must take note of the rage and ferocity with which Buffy does it – like Willow and Spike, her dark Slayer side and desire to protect her sister has taken over a bit and driven her to attack the Knights with such fury that many die.

                          All heroes inevitably kill human beings in the fog of war and most Slayers seem to have no problem killing humans if it comes to it. But Buffy is a different kind of hero who helps instead of harms whenever humanly possible. When she begins to lose faith in herself with every passing moment – when her moral system begins to chip away in Spiral, the center cannot hold. From this point on, Buffy’s circle of peace within the storm begins to collapse as the weight of the shattering of her world takes its toll.

                          I think this is only possible in a place that is divorced from any reality we’ve known – we're not in Sunnydale anymore. The empty vessel of the desert is representative of transformation and change as we see in the saga of the First Slayer in her visions – Buffy traverses the world to protect Glory from Dawn. And Buffy’s lost her way after years of pursuit of an ideal – and she finds out that she barely cares where’s she’s going anymore – the glimpse of a final destination has faded in the distance and constant movement without an ending has become her world. So I think that the moral decline is a pointed one that's somewhat intentional - like her irrational pursuit of Faith when Angel's life is at stake, she really doesn't care about the human Knights of Byzantium when it comes to protecting her sister and her friends.

                          Comment


                          • flow
                            flow commented
                            Editing a comment
                            And here I tried so hard to convince everybody that the Knight survived the ax in his chest - lol

                        • #37
                          There is nothing ethically ambiguous about any of it. Kill or be killed. I find the level at which scrutiny that is placed on it far more interesting.

                          Comment


                          • #38
                            In my opinion, Buffy was lucky in relation to Dawn because:
                            1) that also her blood could close the portal of Hell-dimension so Buffy was able to sacrifice herself in order to save Dawn and the world otherwise, Dawn would have sacrifice herself, or Buffy would have killed Dawn. There wasn't another solution (like Giles said in the episode)
                            2) Dawn (the Key) was a teen and not an infant that couldn't sacrifice herself and someone had to take the responsibility to kill her in order to save the world (1 life compared to 7 billion lives of the world and more lives of beings of other dimensions). I am not saying that killing an innocent infant in cold-blood in order to save the world is "absolutely morally right", and I would do it; I am saying that in a hypothetical scenario where there isn't another solution to save the world someone has to take responsibility to do it or otherwise let the world be destroyed

                            Comment


                            • #39
                              Dawn was going to jump. She had agency and courage. If Buffy had not succeeded in closing the portal, she would have jumped. That made me respect her.

                              Comment


                              • Stoney
                                Stoney commented
                                Editing a comment
                                Dawn was amazingly brave at that moment.

                              • flow
                                flow commented
                                Editing a comment
                                I agree. It was never necessary to kill Dawn because she was ready and willing to sacrifice herself.

                            • #40
                              Originally posted by American Aurora View Post
                              There's an interesting moral dilemma in Spiral that mirrors Buffy's determination to save Dawn despite placing the entire world in danger. It's happening up on the roof as Buffy is attacked by two knights with an axe and a morning star. Buffy’s physical dexterity as she tries to dispatch them is at the “Wow” level of heroism – but as she continues to fight, she spins out of control, grabbing an axe from one of the Knights and almost decapitating him. And as he falls off the RV, another Knight reaches the roof – and Buffy swings around and embeds the axe in his chest – surely killing him.

                              This scene has been discussed ad nauseum – with many put out regarding Buffy’s cavalier death of a human being – supposedly the first one she’s ever killed. But going through the Seasons, Buffy's actually killed or directly caused the death of more humans on-screen than Faith. In Season One’s The Pack, she tosses the zookeeper into the hyena pit. In Season Two’s Lie to Me, she locks Ford in with Spike and Drusilla, ensuring his death; in Season Three’s Homecoming, she tricks the German bounty hunters into targeting each other.

                              Now it could be said that all of these deaths are not directly attributable to Buffy – she merely hoists them with their own petard. But the death of Gwendolyn Post in Season Three’s Revelations is a direct hit at a human being – severing her hand – only justified by the adoption of the demon glove – which perhaps makes her only partially human in the moment – and thus more justifiable to kill. Same goes for the monstrous Caleb of Season Seven.

                              And watching the battle scene in Spiral, it’s obvious that Buffy is somewhat justified in an accidental kill – it’s the Knights who are attacking her and she’s only acting in self-defense. The attackers just keep coming – and once one is dispatched, another appears. So it’s an ethically ambiguous kill – but one must take note of the rage and ferocity with which Buffy does it – like Willow and Spike, her dark Slayer side and desire to protect her sister has taken over a bit and driven her to attack the Knights with such fury that many die.

                              All heroes inevitably kill human beings in the fog of war and most Slayers seem to have no problem killing humans if it comes to it. But Buffy is a different kind of hero who helps instead of harms whenever humanly possible. When she begins to lose faith in herself with every passing moment – when her moral system begins to chip away in Spiral, the center cannot hold. From this point on, Buffy’s circle of peace within the storm begins to collapse as the weight of the shattering of her world takes its toll.

                              I think this is only possible in a place that is divorced from any reality we’ve known – we're not in Sunnydale anymore. The empty vessel of the desert is representative of transformation and change as we see in the saga of the First Slayer in her visions – Buffy traverses the world to protect Glory from Dawn. And Buffy’s lost her way after years of pursuit of an ideal – and she finds out that she barely cares where’s she’s going anymore – the glimpse of a final destination has faded in the distance and constant movement without an ending has become her world. So I think that the moral decline is a pointed one that's somewhat intentional - like her irrational pursuit of Faith when Angel's life is at stake, she really doesn't care about the human Knights of Byzantium when it comes to protecting her sister and her friends.
                              I struggle to grasp what exactly is dark about any of it. It is simple life. Would you not kill to save your loved ones or yourself? Very few animals on this planet, human or otherwise, would not. There is no divorce from Sunnydale. There are plenty of situations that are pretty similar, whether it be the Order or Gwen Post. In all cases Buffy and the rest are reacting to scenarios created by the foes themselves. There is no moral decline.

                              The only thing I see is confusion that the show didn't fit an interpretation of it, largely because many choose a fragment here or there, ignore the context and think it was a mission statement.
                              Last edited by HardlyThere; 23-07-21, 11:35 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X