Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • PuckRobin
    replied
    Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

    Why would she turn herself into the Council? She does not work for them. They have no reason to protect her, nor any authority. How do you explain any accidental death? "I was being attacked, I was confused, I hurt the wrong person."
    Perhaps I’m just inferring it, but I believe the point was made that the Watchers have experience dealing with such matters. Hopefully they’d have done psychological assessments and offered counselling rather than a kill-squad. And they’d be better equipped to assess it than cops.


    So you're frustrated because you cooked up the scenario in your head.
    Your comment seems like it might be crossing into the territory of personal attack.

    You're not even making sense anymore.
    And this seems like a full-scale invasion into personal attack.
    .
    No, Spike didn't undermine anything. Did Angelus undermine anything when he killed the Beast? No. Spike went to get a soul so he could get Buffy. That's all.
    I believe in a show like Buffy a character could have multiple motivations. I’m sure part of the many things was feeling was maybe he’d have a shot with Buffy if he had a soul. But it doesn’t feel like that’s the primary reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by American Aurora View Post
    HardlyThere:



    Well, to start with, I’m not sure, to be honest, if the Knights of Byzantium were even truly human to begin with - or the Order. it’s fairly vague to me.
    So you bring that up now 3 pages in?

    I understand what you’re saying about Buffy having the right to kill in self-defense. I don’t disagree with it. But I think the show was extremely wobbly on this point and I disagree that it’s just taking small moments out of context. The show often makes a big issue that Buffy kills demons, not people. She burns down the vamp whorehouse despite the fact that she has no proof that anyone’s been hurt. She certainly wouldn’t burn down a human whorehouse - or a house full of human witches. Demons are there to slaughter - humans are left to the police to deal with. That’s her basic rule book.
    Vampires are there to slaughter. Demons if they are causing trouble.

    As for turning herself in, its not the fact that she’s taking responsibility, but it’s how she does it that is frustrating. She doesn’t turn herself into the Watchers’ Council and let them deal with the proper authorities. She goes to the police station as if they’d even remotely understand what had happened. Both Buffy and Faith are unlicensed cops - they don’t have any protection or immunity from prosecution the way real cops do. How would Faith exactly explain her ‘accidental’ murder of the Mayor’s henchmen? “Oh, I thought he was a demon, your honor.” What good would Buffy turning herself in do in Dead Things? Leave Dawn without a guardian? Leave Sunnydale unprotected? For what, exactly? For a ‘maybe’ accident of death that seems improbable in the first place?
    Why would she turn herself into the Council? She does not work for them. They have no reason to protect her, nor any authority. How do you explain any accidental death? "I was being attacked, I was confused, I hurt the wrong person."

    What good comes from anything? Dawn would have a guardian. Her father, which is were she should have been anyway. Faith could have been sprung to protect Sunnydale, which also should have happened.

    It’s frustrating to me because Buffy’s determination to turn herself in at a local station feels more like trying to convince herself that she’s still human than an honest attempt to atone and pay for her sins. If feels more like a gambit that she hasn’t come back wrong, that she’s not morally bankrupt like Spike the soulless vampire. It doesn’t feel like a reasoned decision but a desperately unstable and emotional one - hence the beating of Spike that reveals what’s really going on inside. Why not call Giles instead? Or the Council? At least they would understand what had happened. The cops most likely would find it hard to believe that Buffy or Faith ‘accidentally’ shoved a stake in someone - or pushed them with such force down a hill that they died - especially since there’s no sign of struggle on the meadow above that would lead the cops to believe they were attacked by others. No DNA under Katrina’s fingernails, no other marks on the body (If one assumes that the Trio cleaned her up). That’s hard to swallow.
    So you're frustrated because you cooked up the scenario in your head. The point of the scene and the whole episode IS that she's still human, same as Ted and Finch.

    Also, if Buffy has no qualms about offing humans, then why doesn’t she just have Willow blast Ben to smithereens in The Gift after the spell is broken and they know Ben is Glory? Or crack Ben's head open? If Buffy could kill humans willy-nilly, a lot of their problems would be fixed pretty quickly in the show. Instead, Giles says that he has to kill Ben because Buffy won’t do it.
    You're not even making sense anymore. Buffy never kills humans all willy-nilly and no one has suggested that is the case. She kills them if they are actively trying to kill people, usually her. With the exclusion of vampires, she does the same with demons. A room of vamps is getting taken out. A room of demons? Have a wedding with.

    Why doesn't Buffy kill Ben? Because he's innocent in her eyes, a byproduct of Glory much like Dawn. Moreover, she doesn't need to.

    I disagree that the talk about Willow is just about her - it’s about the supposed impossibility of Willow coming back from killing a human. The show makes a huge deal of it - it’s meant to be one of those transgressive acts that you can’t come back from, like Faith. It supposedly changes you forever.
    Er, it does. They are worried that the guilt would weight on her. And it does after she comes down.

    So much of the show is based on the premise that Buffy has the right to kill all the vamps and demons she sees because they’re essentially irredeemable without a soul or certain human qualities - they’re evil. Underlining her reluctance to kill humans - even very bad humans like Warren - is simply a corollary to that audience reassurance that Buffy is only killing things that don’t matter - beings that are incapable of rehabilitation or reformation. Otherwise, she’s little more than a vigilante mass murderer.
    The difference is pretty clearly stated in S6. The only thing not congruent is the lines of the argument that get moved around in topics like this one. Buffy and the gang enforce the "law" so to speak where human rules fail to apply. Vampires--inherently evil beings. Demons--if they do evil things like try to end the world. Human--even they are actively attempting to take a life.

    Humans doing human things to humans doesn't fall into that scope. They stated that pretty clearly. Not that humans are good and demons are bad.

    Of course, people complain about that all the time, too, because Spike kinda undermines that when he makes a conscious decision to get a soul. David Fury goes from an adamant position that vampires can’t be redeemed to ‘Well, maybe Spike kept a part of his soul” crap after season 7 for this very reason.
    No, Spike didn't undermine anything. Did Angelus undermine anything when he killed the Beast? No. Spike went to get a soul so he could get Buffy. That's all.
    Last edited by HardlyThere; 24-07-21, 11:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    Originally posted by flow View Post
    Nothing13

    I guess for the same reason you and I don't walk around killing evil humans and serial killers. We have established rules for how to deal with evil humans and serial killers. One of the rules is that there are people responsible to examine a crime and pursue a criminal and there are other people responsible to pass judgment. Every serial killer no matter how many people they have killed needs to be tried and they have the right to defend themselves in court. Cops usually don't walk around looking for serial killers or evil humans to kill in cold blood and if they do they might find themselves in a courtroom but not as a witness for the prosecution.

    flow
    I am not talking about the reality of our world, I consider psychopaths and serial killers "mentally ill" with personality disorders and I want psychiatry and neuroscience to examine them in reality. I am also against people that have an excessive moral judgment against them.
    For me, a "mentally ill serial killer" or a psychopath can be less responsible than a common criminal. I let psychiatrists or neuroscientists value their state of mind and responsibility
    For normal criminals, the law and cops deal with them

    I am talking to the show in relation to the value of human life that is exasperated and writers indirectly do not show the harsh reality, in relation to showing, Buffy kills evil humans that deal with the supernatural like she killed demons (like in the case of Ben)
    In this tv show, for me, if a human operate in the supernatural world or situation must deal with it, not only with the law of society. A warlock or a witch, even if they are humans aren't necessarily linked to the law of society for me. Buffy can deal with them. In supernatural situation can happen a situation where she must kill them in cold-blood (as Giles did to Ben, but for me instead Buffy should do it)

    Like AmericanAurora said the show makes a huge deal of killing humans in terms of morality. Not in terms of the law of society
    If Willow would have killed a demon she wouldn't have to be sorry about it like she would have been about Warren in terms of morality not in terms of the law

    I disagree that the talk about Willow is just about her - it’s about the supposed impossibility of Willow coming back from killing a human. The show makes a huge deal of it - it’s meant to be one of those transgressive acts that you can’t come back from, like Faith. It supposedly changes you forever.
    In short, this is what I would want on screen by the show (despite I understand that a teen show couldn't completely show these things). For example:

    1) In the case of Ben (with the romantic twaddle said by Giles: She is a heroine, she doesn't kill humans)
    I only would have wanted that the writer would have created 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 am considering the hypothetical scenario of necessity). In short: Buffy suffocates Ben on-screen because there isn't another solution to stop Glory and save the world.

    2) Create this kind of situation:
    Dawn (the Key) is an infant that can't sacrifice herself and someone has 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).
    In a hypothetical scenario where there isn't another solution to save the world. Buffy must take the responsibility to decide to kill her (an innocent infant) in cold blood in order to save the world or otherwise let the world be destroyed


    The problem for me is that I don't think that any writers would really show something like this on-screen explicitly

    Leave a comment:


  • flow
    replied
    Nothing13
    -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?
    I guess for the same reason you and I don't walk around killing evil humans and serial killers. We have established rules for how to deal with evil humans and serial killers. One of the rules is that there are people responsible to examine a crime and pursue a criminal and there are other people responsible to pass judgment. Every serial killer no matter how many people they have killed needs to be tried and they have the right to defend themselves in court. Cops usually don't walk around looking for serial killers or evil humans to kill in cold blood and if they do they might find themselves in a courtroom but not as a witness for the prosecution.

    flow

    Leave a comment:


  • flow
    commented on 's reply
    I agree. It was never necessary to kill Dawn because she was ready and willing to sacrifice herself.

  • flow
    commented on 's reply
    And here I tried so hard to convince everybody that the Knight survived the ax in his chest - lol

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

  • flow
    commented on 's reply
    Dante says ten of his men are dead. We saw only eight men attack Buffy and she only fought four.

  • American Aurora
    replied
    HardlyThere:

    The Mayor's henchmen was accidentally staked. He wasn't fighting back. He wasn't even evil. Willow's pursuit of Warren was about Willow, not any strong opinions on Warren's worth. The point of that talk is not Humans > Demons, but that humans have their own rules for people like Warren. If she'd have offed Orlando after she'd beaten and subdued him, that might be an example, but it's not the case.

    The point is she doesn't have impossibly high standards. If the Knights were coming at her, her mom or her friends in S2, she'd have offed them, too. It's not even speculation, we have the Order, some of which were human to support it. The Knights were an army that knew what they were doing and who they were fighting.

    I really don't see how taking responsibility for accidentally killing someone is frustrating. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why these things are even being correlated. Cop shoots someone who's trying to murder someone, justified. Cop shoots someone because they grabbed the wrong weapon, not so much. I would like to think that person would own up to it.
    Well, to start with, I’m not sure, to be honest, if the Knights of Byzantium were even truly human to begin with - or the Order. it’s fairly vague to me.

    I understand what you’re saying about Buffy having the right to kill in self-defense. I don’t disagree with it. But I think the show was extremely wobbly on this point and I disagree that it’s just taking small moments out of context. The show often makes a big issue that Buffy kills demons, not people. She burns down the vamp whorehouse despite the fact that she has no proof that anyone’s been hurt. She certainly wouldn’t burn down a human whorehouse - or a house full of human witches. Demons are there to slaughter - humans are left to the police to deal with. That’s her basic rule book.

    As for turning herself in, its not the fact that she’s taking responsibility, but it’s how she does it that is frustrating. She doesn’t turn herself into the Watchers’ Council and let them deal with the proper authorities. She goes to the police station as if they’d even remotely understand what had happened. Both Buffy and Faith are unlicensed cops - they don’t have any protection or immunity from prosecution the way real cops do. How would Faith exactly explain her ‘accidental’ murder of the Mayor’s henchmen? “Oh, I thought he was a demon, your honor.” What good would Buffy turning herself in do in Dead Things? Leave Dawn without a guardian? Leave Sunnydale unprotected? For what, exactly? For a ‘maybe’ accident of death that seems improbable in the first place?

    It’s frustrating to me because Buffy’s determination to turn herself in at a local station feels more like trying to convince herself that she’s still human than an honest attempt to atone and pay for her sins. If feels more like a gambit that she hasn’t come back wrong, that she’s not morally bankrupt like Spike the soulless vampire. It doesn’t feel like a reasoned decision but a desperately unstable and emotional one - hence the beating of Spike that reveals what’s really going on inside. Why not call Giles instead? Or the Council? At least they would understand what had happened. The cops most likely would find it hard to believe that Buffy or Faith ‘accidentally’ shoved a stake in someone - or pushed them with such force down a hill that they died - especially since there’s no sign of struggle on the meadow above that would lead the cops to believe they were attacked by others. No DNA under Katrina’s fingernails, no other marks on the body (If one assumes that the Trio cleaned her up). That’s hard to swallow.

    Also, if Buffy has no qualms about offing humans, then why doesn’t she just have Willow blast Ben to smithereens in The Gift after the spell is broken and they know Ben is Glory? Or crack Ben's head open? If Buffy could kill humans willy-nilly, a lot of their problems would be fixed pretty quickly in the show. Instead, Giles says that he has to kill Ben because Buffy won’t do it.

    I disagree that the talk about Willow is just about her - it’s about the supposed impossibility of Willow coming back from killing a human. The show makes a huge deal of it - it’s meant to be one of those transgressive acts that you can’t come back from, like Faith. It supposedly changes you forever.

    So much of the show is based on the premise that Buffy has the right to kill all the vamps and demons she sees because they’re essentially irredeemable without a soul or certain human qualities - they’re evil. Underlining her reluctance to kill humans - even very bad humans like Warren - is simply a corollary to that audience reassurance that Buffy is only killing things that don’t matter - beings that are incapable of rehabilitation or reformation. Otherwise, she’s little more than a vigilante mass murderer.

    Of course, people complain about that all the time, too, because Spike kinda undermines that when he makes a conscious decision to get a soul. David Fury goes from an adamant position that vampires can’t be redeemed to ‘Well, maybe Spike kept a part of his soul” crap after season 7 for this very reason.
    Last edited by American Aurora; 24-07-21, 05:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    For me, these superheroes' moralities are antiscientific (Superman is the apotheosis of antiscientific aliens), uneducative, and irrealistic in relation to reality. It is ok for a young child but with teens and young adults a little more realism and scientific representation of life, nature, and reality would be better for me

    The Joker is a very loved character and with him, there are more stories for comics. So one of the reasons Batman doesn't kill the Joker definitely in comics is money because they want to sell continuously new comics with this loved character. Not much a moral reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    Originally posted by American Aurora View Post

    It’s only ‘dark’ in terms of Buffy’s personal morality regarding humans. I think it is a mission statement for her. Look at how she reacts to Faith’s murder of the Mayor’s henchman or Willow’s pursuit of Warren. To be honest, my standards are probably much lower than hers - if someone came at me or mine with an axe and I had a lethal way to stop them, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t hesitate. But then I’m not a Slayer who holds life and death in their hands - Buffy’s a hero on a different level. Like Superman and Batman, she has an intense moral drive to avoid killing human beings. So it’s only a moral decline when shoved up against her impossibly high standards. Sometimes frustratingly so - as when she tries to turn herself in at the police station in Dead Things as if she had strangled Katrina with her bare hands. The thought that Dawn might be left without a guardian doesn’t even seem to move her.
    The Mayor's henchmen was accidentally staked. He wasn't fighting back. He wasn't even evil. Willow's pursuit of Warren was about Willow, not any strong opinions on Warren's worth. The point of that talk is not Humans > Demons, but that humans have their own rules for people like Warren. If she'd have offed Orlando after she'd beaten and subdued him, that might be an example, but it's not the case.

    The point is she doesn't have impossibly high standards. If the Knights were coming at her, her mom or her friends in S2, she'd have offed them, too. It's not even speculation, we have the Order, some of which were human to support it. The Knights were an army that knew what they were doing and who they were fighting.

    I really don't see how taking responsibility for accidentally killing someone is frustrating. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why these things are even being correlated. Cop shoots someone who's trying to murder someone, justified. Cop shoots someone because they grabbed the wrong weapon, not so much. I would like to think that person would own up to it.

    It bothers me that the films have made characters like Superman and Batman into killers.
    I used to like the idea of comic book and action movies finally dealing with some of the collateral damage, but it quickly turned bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    commented on 's reply
    Dawn was amazingly brave at that moment.

  • PuckRobin
    replied
    I think Buffy has the same moral responsibility as many superheroes. It’s one thing for ordinary people to use lethal force in self-defence, but when you’re super-powered like Buffy is then there are other options. As she’s said many times, killing humans is a line they shouldn’t cross. She might have been granted superpowers to police the supernatural world, but she doesn’t have a licence to slaughter humans. And she clearly believes that.

    Yes, I know Batman killed in his first couple years, but for the next 80 years he has had a no-kill policy in the comics. (I know some fans would like him to kill the Joker.) It bothers me that the films have made characters like Superman and Batman into killers.

    Leave a comment:


  • American Aurora
    replied
    Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

    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.
    It’s only ‘dark’ in terms of Buffy’s personal morality regarding humans. I think it is a mission statement for her. Look at how she reacts to Faith’s murder of the Mayor’s henchman or Willow’s pursuit of Warren. To be honest, my standards are probably much lower than hers - if someone came at me or mine with an axe and I had a lethal way to stop them, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t hesitate. But then I’m not a Slayer who holds life and death in their hands - Buffy’s a hero on a different level. Like Superman and Batman, she has an intense moral drive to avoid killing human beings. So it’s only a moral decline when shoved up against her impossibly high standards. Sometimes frustratingly so - as when she tries to turn herself in at the police station in Dead Things as if she had strangled Katrina with her bare hands. The thought that Dawn might be left without a guardian doesn’t even seem to move her.
    Last edited by American Aurora; 24-07-21, 02:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardlyThere
    replied
    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; 24-07-21, 12:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeepBlueJoy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • iwhale
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • American Aurora
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing13
    replied
    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, 10:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X